Is the problem of Hell actually a problem?

[Night FM]

This argument is simple. If someone argues that Hell (or some non-Abrahamic equivalent) doesn't exist, or takes a purely materialist perspective (e.x. and argues that, upon death, everyone ceases to exist), this is essentially leads to an absurdism, and justifies any form of antisocial behavior (including acts such as rape and murder) that a person wishes to engage in.

The argument that I hear against this most frequently is that it is a non-issue, because "most people", whether they are atheist or otherwise, would not want to engage in such behaviors. But regardless, if someone was determined to do so, they could do so and there would be no ultimate reason not to other than to avoid possible earthly consequences for such behaviors. (And psychopaths do exist, so if a psychopath wanted to do such things, there would be no convincing reason for them not to, or only weakly convincing reasons, such as legal or other consequences which do not always immediately happen in the real world).

[swansont]

This is a version of the argument that people who don’t believe in a supreme being have no reason to be good, which is absurd. Not everyone is motivated by the same things. 

 

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, Night FM said:

he argument that I hear against this most frequently is that it is a non-issue, because "most people", whether they are atheist or otherwise, would not want to engage in such behaviors. But regardless, if someone was determined to do so, they could do so and there would be no ultimate reason not to other than to avoid possible earthly consequences for such behaviors.

And some who are determined to and do engage in the most extreme of antisocial behaviours wear archbishop's miters. They preach the fear of hellfire, yet are not themselves deterred by it. 

The consequences of antisocial behaviour are administered by the society. If the sociopath is persuasive enough, the antisocial behaviour is shared by the majority of his compatriots. Thus, they organize the society in a rigid hierarchy, with the few in command wielding power through fear of punishment, both on earth and beyond. 

A community that does not live in fear is better able to co-operate, share and prosper.

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Night FM said:

This argument is simple. If someone argues that Hell (or some non-Abrahamic equivalent) doesn't exist, or takes a purely materialist perspective (e.x. and argues that, upon death, everyone ceases to exist), this is essentially leads to an absurdism, and justifies any form of antisocial behavior (including acts such as rape and murder) that a person wishes to engage in.

It's a good thing morality isn't based on belief in gods, isn't it? Think of all the religious people who have great crises of faith, when that's all their morality is based on. When they question their gods, they can question all the behavior as well.

My morality is aimed at the people living side by side with me in this society. The religious people I know think they're better than me, they want to be considered above me when it comes to morality and who gets into their god's kingdom. These are the folks who only think morally when it comes to those who believe the way they do.

[Eise]

I think, especially in the way that @Night FM formulates it, it is even worse: obviously only the most terrible threat, burn eternally in hell, works to keep religious people on the right moral path.

Just contrast this with Zen-Buddhist ethics: there morality is a consequence of real insight in who we are. It leads to friendliness and compassion with other living beings. To say it very simple: we are all living in the same boat.

@Night FM: would you, personally, misbehave, when heaven and hell would not exist? If not, why? If yes, then I consider you as a morally bad person, because you only behave morally under the biggest threat possible. Do you really need that, just to be kind to others?

Edited August 28 by Eise

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Just contrast this with Zen-Buddhist ethics: there morality is a consequence of real insight in who we are. It leads to friendliness and compassion with other living beings. To say it very simple: we are all living in the same boat.

Golden rule comes from a fundamental awareness of understanding reciprocity. A mandate from heaven, I'm sure, is the poor-man's version of ethics.

[Peterkin]

Fear of post-mortem punishment (and hope of post-mortem reward) only control the gullible meek, who were never a danger to to social fabric. The dangerous ones who preach it know they've made that shit up, so it doesn't prevent them doing whatever they like, while they can use it to elicit violence from believers who would behave better if they feared the wrath of fellow man.   

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, Eise said:

I think, especially in the way that @Night FM formulates it, it is even worse: obviously only the most terrible threat, burn eternally in hell, works to keep religious people on the right moral path.

Just contrast this with Zen-Buddhist ethics: there morality is a consequence of real insight in who we are. It leads to friendliness and compassion with other living beings. To say it very simple: we are all living in the same boat.

Plus one.  As a Zen person, I've long been skeptical of the belief that a deity must be essentially a violent psychopath who will hurl me down into a lake of fire, a pit of torment, endless agony, for making some bad moral choices while existing as a very limited creature.  The notion that some vast universe-permeating being, the ultimate and highest consciousness, would operate in this manner is absurd.

 

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, TheVat said:

  As a Zen person, I've long been skeptical of the belief that a deity must be essentially a violent psychopath who will hurl me down into a lake of fire, a pit of torment, endless agony, for making some bad moral choices while existing as a very limited creature

But He loves you!!! He just takes tough love to the ultimate level.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

But He loves you!!! He just takes tough love to the ultimate level.

And being omnipotent, when he created me, he KNEW that in 100 years he was going to cast me into hell. What a dick. If god were moral he would not create me in the first place as he knew I would be damned to hell when I died.

[Night FM]

50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

And being omnipotent, when he created me, he KNEW that in 100 years he was going to cast me into hell. What a dick. If god were moral he would not create me in the first place as he knew I would be damned to hell when I died.

That will run into debates on the subject of free will. Why should people not be created with the ability to choose?

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

If god were moral

The thing about gods is: by definition, they are above morality. A lot of them are bastards or the female equivalent, but that's okay, because they have eternal sacred immunity. 

[Night FM]

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The thing about gods is: by definition, they are above morality. A lot of them are bastards or the female equivalent, but that's okay, because they have eternal sacred immunity. 

You're talking about polytheistic deities which were conceived in the likeness of "powerful mortals". To my understanding, a monotheistic deity is immaterial, and therefore would not have a physical sex or gender or physical offspring (e.x. despite being described as a "He", the Biblical God is said to have created male and female in His own image, so naturally God is beyond any physical sex or gender). Polytheistic deities were not viewed as completely moral or immoral, simply "powerful", while a monotheistic deity is viewed as perfect (e.x. Socrates, though he has been incorrectly described as an atheist for denouncing the Greek gods as immoral believed in a Supreme Being).

This is, to my understand, how the God in the Bible is described, and why crafting of Idols depicting God in some physical likeness was forbidden. This also drew accusations of idolatry against the Catholic Church during the reformation for its physical depictions of God (e.x. the depictions of God in the likeness of a human in works such as The Creation of Adam were derived from classical depictions of polytheistic gods such as Zeus or Jupiter).

So unless there is some consistent attempt to define what makes a God (or a specific god) are to begin with, then I don't find generalized claims about "gods" productive. Given that the attributes that make up one "god" could be completely different from those that make up another, with the only thing they have in common being that they are both referred to as a "god").

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[zapatos]

44 minutes ago, Night FM said:

That will run into debates on the subject of free will. Why should people not be created with the ability to choose?

Straw man. I did not claim people should not be created with the ability to choose. I said god is a dick for knowingly creating people he is going to later torment for eternity.

If I hate cats due to their nature and would torture any that were in my house, then I too would be a dick for purposely bringing a cat into my house knowing what was going to happen to it.

[Night FM]

8 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Straw man. I did not claim people should not be created with the ability to choose. I said god is a dick for knowingly creating people he is going to later torment for eternity.

If I hate cats due to their nature and would torture any that were in my house, then I too would be a dick for purposely bringing a cat into my house knowing what was going to happen to it.

This will probably run into debates about the problem of evil then, and what it means that "God created evil" and all that.

[Phi for All]

28 minutes ago, Night FM said:

This will probably run into debates about the problem of evil then, and what it means that "God created evil" and all that.

Are you going to be sidestepping all responses like this? I, for two, would like to hear your excuse for your god purposely creating an imperfect species he was always planning on tormenting for eternity. Is this the perfect father we're supposed to emulate?

[Night FM]

58 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Are you going to be sidestepping all responses like this? I, for two, would like to hear your excuse for your god purposely creating an imperfect species he was always planning on tormenting for eternity. Is this the perfect father we're supposed to emulate?

Well my understanding of the Biblical God is that, the torment, even if described in physical terms, would be eternal separation from God, and anything purely physical would pale in comparison. (e.x. I'm not an expert on theology, but heaven and hell aren't merely physical places). Such as the various martyrs historically who were willing to endure great physical torment in the name of God. So this would not simply be submission to God out of fear of enduring physical pain in the way that one might "submit" to a violent criminal. (e.x. The New Testament even distinguishes between "fearing" and "honoring" someone).

Edited August 29 by Night FM

[zapatos]

47 minutes ago, Night FM said:

Well my understanding of the Biblical God is that, the torment, even if described in physical terms, would be eternal separation from God, and anything purely physical would pale in comparison. (e.x. I'm not an expert on theology, but heaven and hell aren't merely physical places). Such as the various martyrs historically who were willing to endure great physical torment in the name of God. So this would not simply be submission to God out of fear of enduring physical pain in the way that one might "submit" to a violent criminal. (e.x. The New Testament even distinguishes between "fearing" and "honoring" someone).

That is three times in a row now that you've sidestepped a response. No one asked you to define 'torment' or for your convoluted thoughts on martyrs. 

Simply throwing out a lot of words that are peripherally related to the topic is not the same as reasoned debate.

[Night FM]

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you going to be sidestepping all responses like this? I, for two, would like to hear your excuse for your god purposely creating an imperfect species he was always planning on tormenting for eternity. Is this the perfect father we're supposed to emulate?

Well I don't know what to say on that one. 

If a parent had foreknowledge that their child would grow up to be a serial killer, would they be immoral for giving birth to them?

[dimreepr]

5 hours ago, Night FM said:

If a parent had foreknowledge that their child would grow up to be a serial killer, would they be immoral for giving birth to them?

That kinda tampers with the whole idea of 'free will', if you know what the future holds; what's the point of living that future?

[MigL]

21 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Fear of post-mortem punishment (and hope of post-mortem reward) only control the gullible meek, who were never a danger to to social fabric.

It is worse than that; it only controls the ignorant.

They are the only ones that can be controlled by an imaginary construct.
It is similar to telling little kids "Be good, or Santa Claus won't bring you any gifts at Christmas"

Religion needs to stop treating people like little kids !
 

11 hours ago, Night FM said:

That will run into debates on the subject of free will. Why should people not be created with the ability to choose?

You do realize that 'omnipotence' means knowing how you will choose ?

Edited August 29 by MigL

[dimreepr]

43 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That kinda tampers with the whole idea of 'free will', if you know what the future holds; what's the point of living that future?

 

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Night FM said:

Well I don't know what to say on that one. 

If a parent had foreknowledge that their child would grow up to be a serial killer, would they be immoral for giving birth to them?

You don't need any magical foreknowledge to answer this question. It's pretty simple. Your god claims to be infallible. It claims that it created people already flawed, and unless they worship this god they'll spend eternity being tormented by the fires of Hell because of those flaws. Your god knew how it would all work out, and is apparently still torturing sinners to this day. This is the deity you claim loves us all, yet it seems vengeful and petty, with all the fragile masculinity we've come to expect from men who don't know how to be a real father.

[TheVat]

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

Straw man. I did not claim people should not be created with the ability to choose. I said god is a dick for knowingly creating people he is going to later torment for eternity.

If I hate cats due to their nature and would torture any that were in my house, then I too would be a dick for purposely bringing a cat into my house knowing what was going to happen to it.

I like the expansion of my earlier comment on the absurdity of Hell.  It's funny how various sects find a loophole for God by essentially saying hey, that's Satan, a ruffian angel who fell.  Totally not Jehovah's fault!  Jehovah's all about the love and compassion and will do his best to get you into purgatory so you can scrub those peccadilloes and stay out of the firey pit.  The loophole, as I understand it from Christians, is that free will allows an angel to turn nasty which then allows a zone over which God's omnipotence has gaps.  It also sets up a moral dilemma God who, to love all beings must give them free will and then let that will play out, even if it means going down to the Hot Place.  So it's postulating that God didn't just whack Lucifer and bury him in a cornfield because he (meaningless pronoun, I know) would violate his own moral compass.  

I like Mark Twain's line on which Place to choose: Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.  

[Eise]

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

You do realize that 'omnipotence' means knowing how you will choose ?

<Ant fucking mode> nope, it is 'omniscient' </Ant fucking mode>

I am wondering when @Night FM will answer my question.

On 8/28/2024 at 3:36 PM, Eise said:

@Night FM: would you, personally, misbehave, when heaven and hell would not exist? If not, why? If yes, then I consider you as a morally bad person, because you only behave morally under the biggest threat possible. Do you really need that, just to be kind to others?