why heaven and hell can't exist

bodhi smith
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-07-05
User is offlineOffline
why heaven and hell can't exist

Wrap your head around this one.

Hell sucks for eternity, that can't be. If you were in hell in an eternal state, the fact that it is bad in comparison to say life on earth would be negated by the simple premise that you would get used to it. Therefore it would become normal just like your existence now.

Same goes for heaven, wow it would be great until you got used to it, the pleasures of heaven become negated.

Without heaven and hell religions have no purpose, because they sell the antidote to the fear they create.

Death without heaven or hell is just an ending, it neither sucks or is good, there's nothing to worry about. The people who make their living selling fear need this intangible. Without it they have nothing.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm not completely

Well, I'm not completely convinced that I'd ever consider having bamboo shoved under my fingernails "normal."  According to the loving Christians, hell is so horrible that I would long for the day when I could have bamboo lovingly shoved under my fingernails for twenty four straight hours.  It's kind of hard to imagine ever getting to a point of saying, "Wow... I think I'll have a Corona with a lime.  I'm feeling pretty spiffy today."

Having said that, you do raise an interesting point on eternity, which is... what's the point?  Theists accuse atheists of having no meaning in life, but how much meaning could you possibly have when there's nothing you could conceivably do to alter your state in any way -- for a sextillion years (That's 10^21, or a 1 with 21 zeros after it) years.  This goes for whether you're in hell or heaven.  If heaven is the perfection of being, then there is literally nothing to strive for.  Ever.  For a sextillion sextillion years after your first sextillion years, there will be no way to ever do anything to make yourself better.

If you're in hell, it's the same thing.  You can't possibly get any worse or any better, so it's just mindless.  Literally, mindless.  After probably twenty years, you'd have lost all will to think.  You would be nothing more than an involuntary reaction to pain.

Both heaven and hell defy all definitions of reward and punishment, and literally offer no meaning to the theist.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


bodhi smith
Posts: 63
Joined: 2008-07-05
User is offlineOffline
pain ?

no body.... no pain... remember you can't enter heaven or hell in the "flesh"


mrjonno
Posts: 726
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
More to the point given

More to the point given human nature to spend anywhere for all eternity would be hell out of sheer boredom. Sure human nature could be changed to fit in with god's heaven but that would surely make a person no longer themselves


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Yes, on all counts...  The

Yes, on all counts...  The very concepts of heaven and hell beg so many questions that it's hardly worth trying to list them all.

(Sounds like a challenge, eh?!)

 

1. Do we get physical bodies in heaven or spiritual bodies?  The bible seems unclear.

2. Do we likewise get physical bodies in hell?

3. If we get spiritual bodies in either, how do we experience physical sensations?

4. Since boredom drives people insane, will our nature have to be changed in heaven?

5. If so, why make us who we are now if we're not going to be ourselves later?

6. If boredom causes insanity, are we going to be changed in hell so that we won't go insane?

7. If not, is god ethical for punishing an insane person?

 

~Sigh.

 

Anyway, feel free to jump in with more reasons heaven and hell are nonsense.  I got bored after 7.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hell can't exist because in

Hell can't exist because in order for us to be completely tortured, we'd need to be surrounded by bible thumpers 24/7/365. Since the theist/fundies go to heaven instead of hell, hell just wouldn't be hell without them.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
There are 2 separate issues....

arguing why there is a heaven and a hell (which I think most people actually don't have as much of a problem with) or what will heaven and hell be like. That's the one most people have a problem with.

I think if there were justice for the bad things we do on earth after death, people don't have a problem with that.

I think hell isn't that bad a place for several reasons:

1) God is ultimately fair and does not punish beyond what is fair

2) Many people will choose not to serve God, so the punishments will fit each persons life choices. For those "good" people it might not seem as punishment at all as compared to being forced to serve God. How good God be that unfair to so many people?

3) Kind of like the Bodhi argument but a little different, there will be nothing "good" to compare the experiences in hell and therefore people will not wish they chose differently for all eternity

4) I think if God asked each person after they died where they want to go they would still choose the same place.

5) Why is hell eternal is a main issue. I think its not for the punishment part but for the restraint from evil part. People will require different levels of restraint to not "act up" in jail.

5) People in heaven would have to change and have a will that always agreed with God in character. Somehow God would have to arrange for things to do that arent boring. "Boring" has the concept of time passing which I dont think either heaven or hell will have

6) The next question is always "how do you know all this?" The answer is I don't "know" but I am striving for the closest approximate truth with everything I have ever learned.

7) And no I dont believe Pascals argument should be used for anything. And yes the church has misused the doctrine of hell to scare people into conformity and thats not helpful and doesnt produce faith in God ultimately.

 And life is still objectively meaningless even if you're a believer. Meaning will always be subjective. There is no reason that some choose heaven and some choose hell. There are no good or bad people. Nobody knows why we choose one way or the other. It is just a consequence of free will.

 

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Q: Can there be two people

Q: Can there be two people who are "perfect," yet substantively different?

...I would suppose it depends on what one means when using the word "perfect."  This is especially important if one assumes that people will be "perfect" in heaven.  If it were defined as merely (1) fully pursuing a "worthwhile" course of action.. then the problem, IMO, of heaven/boredom/better/perfection, doesn't seem like a problem at all.  Unless one assumes "worthwhile" activities to be limited.

...I'm just working off things that have been stated, not necessarily presenting my own concept of heaven--furthermore, I don't believe there is a hell, but in order to respond:

Quote:
Hell sucks for eternity, that can't be.

Hm.

Quote:
If you were in hell in an eternal state, the fact that it is bad in comparison to say life on earth would be negated by the simple premise that you would get used to it.

Assuming it remains the same?  Perhaps.

But, why couldn't said hell, once you "got use to it," merely escalate or change into "bad in comparison to say hell x1"?

This could just be carried on forever? Assuming, of course, that there are infinite variants of pain or no upper limit to escalation.

Quote:
Therefore it would become normal just like your existence now.

Unless of course it is possible to escalate. 

Quote:
Same goes for heaven, wow it would be great until you got used to it, the pleasures of heaven become negated.

Only if heaven is static and there is an upper limit to pleasure of the same kind or variants.

Quote:
Without heaven and hell religions have no purpose, because they sell the antidote to the fear they create.

Presume much.  I for one do not believe that "hell" is something to be feared--then again, I don't believe it's a place of eternal torment either.. or even a "place" for that matter.

Quote:
Death without heaven or hell is just an ending, it neither sucks or is good, there's nothing to worry about.

True.

Quote:
The people who make their living selling fear need this intangible.

Maybe.

Quote:
Without it they have nothing.

I would have to disagree that religion without "fear" has nothing.  To some (me), that would be like saying without the "fear of being alone," my significant other would have nothing to offer.

Religion (some) is as much a relationship with God (or nature) as anything else.  Take the "anything else" and you are still left with a supposed importance of "a relationship with God" in and of itself.

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:1) God is ultimately

Quote:
1) God is ultimately fair and does not punish beyond what is fair

By what definition of fair is a trillion, trillion years of any punishment whatsoever fair as a punishment for either believing in the wrong god, not believing in any god, or (to be a little snarky) following the dictates of reason?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JustAnotherBeliever
TheistBronze Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 2008-06-14
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Quote:1)

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
1) God is ultimately fair and does not punish beyond what is fair

By what definition of fair is a trillion, trillion years of any punishment whatsoever fair as a punishment for either believing in the wrong god, not believing in any god, or (to be a little snarky) following the dictates of reason?

Absolutely, it does not seem fair. Thats why I think heaven and hell is beyond good and evil at that point. Its mostly not about punishment. Any punishment would be finite.

Its just mostly about where do you want to live. They're just different. But the punishment isnt for not believing. Its for your actions on earth. And it could only be considered fair without the time element involved at all. There wouldnt be any sense of time, or waiting for it to end, or hoping it would be better. There wouldnt be any dread. It would be totally tolerable, if word "tolerable" even had meaning at that point which I dont think it will. The God I believe in is very fair. He would make it the best place possible for those who did not want to have their will changed to be in heaven. Everyones experience in either heaven or hell would be tailored specifically for them. I dont believe in the binary torture/bliss options. That does not make sense to me at all.

 

 


GW SKEPTIC
GW SKEPTIC's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-01-24
User is offlineOffline
 You can also go with the

 You can also go with the Islamic perspective of Hell in which it is not eternal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
When you point out to

When you point out to believers that throughout human history, from the first written polytheism, to even in modern Japan, the concept of hell exists, believers will hypocritically and self servingly say, "Ah ha, this is evidence that god exists", which is the fallacy of ad popularum(sp) argument from popularity.

The concept of god(s) or heaven and hell are nothing new, and when you see cultural depictions and holy books of all labels throughout history, you could litterally put those depictions and holy writings next to any Marvel Comic book, and see that the depictions are indistinguishable in that there is absolutly no emperical evidence that the magical claims of the holy book or comic book have any basis in reality, other than being made up. The only difference between the two is that one's own religion is bought as fact and the comic book is accepted as fiction.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


zack
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Shit, the concept of

Shit, the concept of "forever" is mind-bendlingly perplexing to me without a "all good" or "all bad" filled with it. "Just let me die already", ugh.

“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
last year, i read the book

last year, i read the book "23 Minutes In Hell" by Bill Wiese. the book is total bullshit obviously(here's a vid of him explaining it that i found http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=648563944666093503), but hell sounds AWESOME. it's like the coolest video game characters you can imagine beating you up, and you can't die so it doesn't matter!

EDIT: i'm just posting the video for the hell story. i'm watching the obnoxiously long intro now, and it's so retarted it doesn't even deserve refutations, so don't bother with that part. to save you some time, the story starts around the 19-20 minute mark


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Religion

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Religion (some) is as much a relationship with God (or nature) as anything else.  Take the "anything else" and you are still left with a supposed importance of "a relationship with God" in and of itself.

If God did exist, then there would be an involuntary relationship with God regardless. Or Allah. Y'know, whatever.

The problem is that relationships are how we view the world. The molecules that make up a plant are related, the plants of a type are related, and we see them as relationships. Our relationship with everything is just everything doing what it does.

Putting God into the picture, and then adding yet another intangible with "heaven" just looks like wishful thinking. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence that humans practice wishful thinking all the time, and that's precisely how we engage in it. Add the two together, and you have this expression of "relationship with God".

What's more likely?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
JustAnotherBeliever

JustAnotherBeliever wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
1) God is ultimately fair and does not punish beyond what is fair

By what definition of fair is a trillion, trillion years of any punishment whatsoever fair as a punishment for either believing in the wrong god, not believing in any god, or (to be a little snarky) following the dictates of reason?

Absolutely, it does not seem fair. Thats why I think heaven and hell is beyond good and evil at that point. Its mostly not about punishment. Any punishment would be finite.

Its just mostly about where do you want to live. They're just different. But the punishment isnt for not believing. Its for your actions on earth.

Are you saying that those who had never heard of Jesus are judged by their actions and not by the religion they practiced? This seems to be inconsistent with the major denominations of christian churches. As a southern baptist growing up we were taught that only knowing jesus was the way to salvation. However, as I look back on it this is just a big part of the marketing plan for christianity. If people could be judged on their own actions then the churches aren't really required. Everyone could practice their own beliefs and still possibly be allowed to go to heaven. If anything spreading the word is likely to send more people to hell because if god is fair then someone who "knows better" should be judged more harshly than someone in some backwater part of the world worshipping trees.

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


General_Pryce
General_Pryce's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2008-07-23
User is offlineOffline
I do have a bit of input I'd

I do have a bit of input I'd like to add.  it concerns the logic of a torturous hell.

 

Okay, lets start with Lucifer being thrown out of Heaven, the whole rebellion thing etc etc.  So, God casts him down into the firey pit.  Lucifer (Now using the stage name Satan) is against God, and there we hit our snag.

 

Bad people go to Hell.  They are punished eternally.  My question is... Why?  Why is Satan doing Gods busywork?  Why is Satan punishing people for being opposed to God or being bad?  It doesn't really follow or make sense.

 

Surely any support for Satan and opposition for God would put you on Satans Christmas Card list at least! 

 

The only reason Satan would punish us is if he was still in the employ of God, which makes Satan no danger or threat, but makes God a very deceptive and manipulative being. 

 

And of course the Bible will say The Firey Pit is a bad place, god wants you to buy his Girl Scout Cookies and not another troops!


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
General_Pryce wrote:I do

General_Pryce wrote:

I do have a bit of input I'd like to add.  it concerns the logic of a torturous hell.

 

Okay, lets start with Lucifer being thrown out of Heaven, the whole rebellion thing etc etc.  So, God casts him down into the firey pit.  Lucifer (Now using the stage name Satan) is against God, and there we hit our snag.

 

Bad people go to Hell.  They are punished eternally.  My question is... Why?  Why is Satan doing Gods busywork?  Why is Satan punishing people for being opposed to God or being bad?  It doesn't really follow or make sense.

 

Surely any support for Satan and opposition for God would put you on Satans Christmas Card list at least! 

 

The only reason Satan would punish us is if he was still in the employ of God, which makes Satan no danger or threat, but makes God a very deceptive and manipulative being. 

 

And of course the Bible will say The Firey Pit is a bad place, god wants you to buy his Girl Scout Cookies and not another troops!

Many will claim that satan operates within the rules established by god. How this is possible is never really explained. This would imply that satan is under the employ of god in some aspect. Some christians have told me that satan tempts people. I refuse to believe that satan tempts anyone rather it's just scape-goating for their own shortfalls.

You never did touch on the common conception of demonic possession many believe to be true. If a supernatural being is capable of taking over the body and mind of a lowly human being, doesn't that constitute taking one's freewill away? If god cannot mess with someone's freewill then how can demonic possession exist? Easy..... it doesn't!

 

"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS


Dan 2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Oh hell

Why does it seem, that the only people who deny the existense of hell are atheists.  I believe in the validity of the scriptures and I can prove that no such place is taught by them.  In fact, the scriptures clearly teach the ultimate salvation of all.  And yes, the hell belief is absolutely absurd.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Premise #1:Dan 2 wrote:Why

Premise #1:

Dan 2 wrote:
Why does it seem, that the only people who deny the existense of hell are atheists.

Premise #2:

Dan 2 wrote:
I believe in the validity of the scriptures and I can prove that no such place is taught by them. In fact, the scriptures clearly teach the ultimate salvation of all.

Premise #3:

Dan 2 wrote:
And yes, the hell belief is absolutely absurd.

Conclusion: Dan2 is an atheist.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


DudefromNorway
DudefromNorway's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-08-24
User is offlineOffline
Some characteristics of Hell

 People, people...taking cheap shots isn´t going to help the discussion here.

 

 So I´m going to take a completely new approach and post this little gem (I guess some of you have seen it as it is quite old).

 

Is Hell Exothermic or Endothermic?

As you study for exams, remember its not the quantity it's the quantity. And remember there is no substitute for pure unadulterated bull


Dr. Schambaugh, of the University of Oklahoma School of Chemical Engineering, Final Exam question for May of 1997. Dr. Schambaugh is known for asking questions such as, "why do airplanes fly?" on his final exams. His one and only final exam question in May 1997 for his Momentum, Heat and Mass Transfer II class was: "Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with proof."

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:

"First, We postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave.

Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for souls entering hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, then you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and souls go to hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant. Two options exist:

  1. If hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
  2. If hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over.

So which is it? If we accept the quote given to me by Theresa Manyan during Freshman year, "that it will be a cold night in hell before I sleep with you" and take into account the fact that I still have NOT succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then Option 2 cannot be true...Thus, hell is exothermic."

The student, Tim Graham, got the only A.

ake the life-lie away from the average man and straight away you take away his happiness.

- Henrik Ibsen


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If God did exist, then

Quote:
If God did exist, then there would be an involuntary relationship with God regardless. Or Allah. Y'know, whatever.

Depends on how you define God and relationship. I suppose if one assumes that a "creator/createe" is a relationship in and of itself, then of course you are correct, however, I was speaking of something a bit more substantive.

Quote:
The problem is that relationships are how we view the world. The molecules that make up a plant are related, the plants of a type are related, and we see them as relationships. Our relationship with everything is just everything doing what it does.

Once again, you argument, I feel, is highly dependent upon your definition of the word relationship.  Nevertheless, I would agree, that relationships are not how we view the world, but they may never well be highly influential.  My relationship with my brother, for instance, as greatly influenced my view of the world.

Quote:
Putting God into the picture, and then adding yet another intangible with "heaven" just looks like wishful thinking. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence that humans practice wishful thinking all the time, and that's precisely how we engage in it. Add the two together, and you have this expression of "relationship with God".

Now you've lost me.  If your point is to say that a belief in a "relationship with God" may be wishful thinking, to that I agree.  Yet, how is that responsive to the point I was making? I was merely, in the quote you gave, addressing someones point (I think, if I remember correctly) that religion without "hell" or "heaven" is completely pointless.

It appears to me that you are arguing something else entirely.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I could conceive a religion

I could conceive a religion that didn't involve an afterlife - just that things would go better for you in this (your only) life if you kept God happy with you.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


cjrlhwanj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
This is not a logical argument at all.

I really do not know what type of argumentation you are pressing here, but it is not a logical argument.

I had to read your writing several times to even understand what you are trying to say... Therefore, I can only hope that I got your conclusion correctly.

If your proposition is that 'heaven' and 'hell' are some sort of environments (similar to earth or our immediate known natural phenomena) that a person can feel and 'get used to', and therefore, you conclude that 'heaven' and 'hell' cannot exist as logically as there is no equalization of what believers consider to be true; or a simple way to put it, what believers believe is not possible and their vertical thinking will allow the existence of heaven and hell to crumble.

However, if you provide such proposition, you must provide a premise. Your premise of "you would get used to it" is not a premise, but more of a proposition without common agreement. Simple way to put it, you are saying that we all agree that people will get used to an environment if they live there long enough. If this is true, then you must allow people to believe that 'heaven' and 'hell' are in same state of phenomena that we currently face. Or, you must prove the true nature of 'heaven' and 'hell'. You are using an unsupported premise (which is not even a premise at all) to support your proposition and conclusion.

My point is that if you want to argue about something this complicated, please understand what you are writing. Please talk (in this case write) less and think more.

Marcus


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
cjrlhwanj wrote:I really do

cjrlhwanj wrote:
I really do not know what type of argumentation you are pressing here, but it is not a logical argument.

I had to read your writing several times to even understand what you are trying to say... Therefore, I can only hope that I got your conclusion correctly.

If your proposition is that 'heaven' and 'hell' are some sort of environments (similar to earth or our immediate known natural phenomena) that a person can feel and 'get used to', and therefore, you conclude that 'heaven' and 'hell' cannot exist as logically as there is no equalization of what believers consider to be true; or a simple way to put it, what believers believe is not possible and their vertical thinking will allow the existence of heaven and hell to crumble.

However, if you provide such proposition, you must provide a premise. Your premise of "you would get used to it" is not a premise, but more of a proposition without common agreement. Simple way to put it, you are saying that we all agree that people will get used to an environment if they live there long enough. If this is true, then you must allow people to believe that 'heaven' and 'hell' are in same state of phenomena that we currently face. Or, you must prove the true nature of 'heaven' and 'hell'. You are using an unsupported premise (which is not even a premise at all) to support your proposition and conclusion.

My point is that if you want to argue about something this complicated, please understand what you are writing. Please talk (in this case write) less and think more.

Marcus

Actually, Mr. drive-by-poster-who-will-likely-not-even-see-this, Our dear OP made two assumptions to examine:

  1. Heaven and hell exist
  2. They exist according to known physical law, or at least very similar laws.

Being that these assumptions are what are being examined, our dear OP had no need to prove them at all. Because they are assumptions. Assumptions being examined.

I have no reason to believe that our dear OP holds these assumptions to be true, and in fact have reason to believe otherwise. So your attempt to poke holes in his argument merely shows that you completely misunderstood it.

If you really want to demonstrate the "complexity" of the subject, how about proffering an argument of your own?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


cjrlhwanj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Just driving by...

"1. Heaven and hell exist"

No, the poster's main assumption is not Heaven and Hell, but the environment of them. Because the way of his explanation, existence of heaven and hell does not matter since we all know he is placing his idea upon them. Certainly, he cannot talk about nature of heaven and hell unless he/she assumes them to be true (or say "if" they are true). If he/she did not assume their existence, then he wouldn't have an argument, or would he/she? You can certainly try to explain to me about that.

"2. They exist according to known physical law, or at least very similar laws."

What existence are you talking about? Are you saying that, 1. A person's nature to get "used to" an environment is a known law? or 2. Heaven and hell are proven by law?

Please clarify on that issue!!

You cannot just call it a logical argument as long as you have an assumption about certain parts of the topic. There is no 'complexity' of this posting!! The starting idea, perhaps, but how the poster explains his/her point is almost unbearable.

"how about proffering an argument of your own?"

lol, I don't think I actually tried to show my theory regarding to 'heaven and hell'. As I said before, "talk or write less and think more!!"

O... one more...

"I have no reason to believe that our dear OP holds these assumptions to be true, and in fact have reason to believe otherwise. So your attempt to poke holes in his argument merely shows that you completely misunderstood it."

Can you clarify that as well?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
cjrlhwanj wrote:"1. Heaven

cjrlhwanj wrote:

"1. Heaven and hell exist"

No, the poster's main assumption is not Heaven and Hell, but the environment of them. Because the way of his explanation, existence of heaven and hell does not matter since we all know he is placing his idea upon them. Certainly, he cannot talk about nature of heaven and hell unless he/she assumes them to be true (or say "if" they are true). If he/she did not assume their existence, then he wouldn't have an argument, or would he/she? You can certainly try to explain to me about that.

Don't be such a bumpkin. This is a premise, and I mention it to be specific.

cjrlhwanj wrote:
"2. They exist according to known physical law, or at least very similar laws."

What existence are you talking about? Are you saying that, 1. A person's nature to get "used to" an environment is a known law? or 2. Heaven and hell are proven by law?

Please clarify on that issue!!

I'm saying that the nature of heaven and hell is the same as or similar to the real world. Simple stuff, hon. Do try harder.

cjrlhwanj wrote:
You cannot just call it a logical argument as long as you have an assumption about certain parts of the topic. There is no 'complexity' of this posting!! The starting idea, perhaps, but how the poster explains his/her point is almost unbearable.
Do you have the first clue as to how logic works? Because what you said here suggests you do not.

cjrlhwanj wrote:
"how about proffering an argument of your own?"

lol, I don't think I actually tried to show my theory regarding to 'heaven and hell'. As I said before, "talk or write less and think more!!"

What a cop-out.

cjrlhwanj wrote:
O... one more...

"I have no reason to believe that our dear OP holds these assumptions to be true, and in fact have reason to believe otherwise. So your attempt to poke holes in his argument merely shows that you completely misunderstood it."

Can you clarify that as well?

How can you not understand something so evident?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


cjrlhwanj (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ok, here goes again,

Ok, going back to the first one.

"1. heaven and hell exist" is not premise, but a proposition. However, the poster's proposition is not that heaven and hell exist, but opposite of it!! This is much more complicated since you are totally off!! If the poster believes that heaven and hell exist, then how could he have a conclusion that "heaven and hell" do not exist? Once again, the idea of heaven and hell is in trial for the poster's argument and his conclusion is that heaven and hell cannot exist!! Premise has to be something commonly agreed upon in this case. If poster believes that heaven and hell do exist, then that must be undoubted reason to listeners.

A simple way to look at it!!...

The poster argues that heaven and hell cannot exist, and this is the poster's conclusion or rather proposition. His premise is that we all get "used to it if in eteral state". So, existence of heaven and hell is the proposition that concluded with the premise from other proposition of "used to it if in eteral state".

Now, my critique is regarding to the nature of his proposition and use of premise. First, how does the poster know the state of heaven and hell? Yes, the poster can certainly say that from bible, we know what heaven and hell are unimaginably beautiful and unbearably hurtful. However, do we know the exact nature of them? But if the premise is from the "used to it", then the poster must also provide a premise from other proposition of the natural state of heaven and hell. Or else, we can only trust the poster's words as true without evidence.

Moving on...

"I'm saying that the nature of heaven and hell is the same as or similar to the real world. Simple stuff, hon. Do try harder."

Ok, this is not a logical argument!! Your conclusion is that heaven and hell is the same as or similar to the real world. If your premise to back this is "physical law", then I must need a complete backing of your premise before I can even think about your conclusion. If physical law is can be used to explain the nature of heaven and hell, then certainly, you must get an award for that!!

Moving on....

"Do you have the first clue as to how logic works? Because what you said here suggests you do not."

I don't think I need to say anything about this statement. I just gotta laugh...

"What a cop-out."

Wow, are you serious? Didn't you get my memo? Talk and write less and think more....

"How can you not understand something so evident?"

Please, explain the evidentness of your statement....


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
if you simply get used to

if you simply get used to life sucking on earth, then why is suicide on average the 11th leading cause of death in the US in 2004 there were 32.4k. thats alot, not saying it was all because of life sucking but im willing to bet it was a large amount


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote:if you

trubeliever wrote:
if you simply get used to life sucking on earth, then why is suicide on average the 11th leading cause of death in the US in 2004 there were 32.4k. thats alot, not saying it was all because of life sucking but im willing to bet it was a large amount
How much will you bet? Don't be a piker, now.

Because the leading cause of suicide is what's commonly referred to as "clinical depression". That's not a "life sucks" thing, son, that's a brain chemistry issue where no matter how "good" one's life might be, your emotional state tends heavily toward sadness, anxiety, and hopelessness.

A personality is an emergent property of a functioning body - the brain in particular but the rest has its effects. When something goes wrong with the machine, the mind goes wrong too.

 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


SpiritedWarrior (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Have you looked up every

Have you looked up every single religion? And shown that they're all just myths? You can't just pick Christianity, because theres way too many errors in there, with the Bible, thats like not fair, bullies loll. Pick Islam. Theres no errors. Because God doesnt make mistakes. Its his book, so it will reflect his knowledge and wisdom.


lepusfelix (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Heaven and hell cannot exist

Heaven and hell cannot exist separately. Technically they can't exist at all, but let's give the religious a little breathing room since we don't know everything.

 

Anyhow. I'm a pretty nice guy. I like to fix things and make stuff happen for people. I don't like to see suffering. Naturally, I'll try to fix as much suffering as I can before I die. If I was a Christian, I think these few things would probably put me on God's shortlist for Heaven entrants. But there's a major problem. If I went to Heaven, I'd live for eternity, in bliss, while people here on Earth would continue to suffer. Assuming I can watch from heaven while there's wars, famines, death, destruction, greed, hate etc... and not be able to do a thing about it? I think that would be pretty much my definition of hell... eternal torment. Oh but God wouldn't let me see all that, he'd instil in me a load of euphoria and bliss and keep me happy, ultimately stopping me from caring about my loved ones and the human race in general... Let's get this straight. Not only would he deny me an enlightened existence, but also he'd turn me selfish? That's Hell!

 

Now let's examine the alternative... An eternity of having my soul tortured and repeatedly flayed, killed and resurrected ad infinitum. I can't really find anything immensely good to say about that.... other than not only would I not give a crap about life here on Earth, I'd have a GOOD EXCUSE to not give a crap about life here on Earth.

 

It seems like a do-gooder pacifist like myself doesn't really meet any relevant criteria to be sorted into any of the above by God's sorting hat on arrival in the celestial kingdom of Hogwarts. Given the fact that Jesus was apparently of the same sort of ilk, I'd presume he had nowhere to go as well. I wonder what Purgatory is like. Maybe it's a place where I could continue trying to make a difference on Earth. If not, I think I'd rather just die and rot, if it's all the same. Reincarnation, however, sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Much like a video game, when you die you just keep on respawning until you get it right.

 

So to recap, the only Heaven I could possibly accept is Earth, with peace. love and prosperity for all people until the human race dies out. As for somewhere to go when I die, being buried wrapped in a blanket with a sapling planted on top of me will be the perfect option. That way I can provide sustenance and shelter for thousands of species over the next few hundred years no matter what happens to the world (save of course for the tree being bulldozed, or a nuclear apocalypse or whatever).


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 LepusFelix, Please create

 LepusFelix, Please create another account with the same screen name.  I apologize but your screen name was lost today when an attempt to remove spam accounts was made.  

Welcome aboard!

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4567
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
lepusfelix wrote:Anyhow. I'm

lepusfelix wrote:

Anyhow. I'm a pretty nice guy. I like to fix things and make stuff happen for people. I don't like to see suffering. Naturally, I'll try to fix as much suffering as I can before I die. If I was a Christian, I think these few things would probably put me on God's shortlist for Heaven entrants. But there's a major problem. If I went to Heaven, I'd live for eternity, in bliss, while people here on Earth would continue to suffer. Assuming I can watch from heaven while there's wars, famines, death, destruction, greed, hate etc... and not be able to do a thing about it? I think that would be pretty much my definition of hell... eternal torment. Oh but God wouldn't let me see all that, he'd instil in me a load of euphoria and bliss and keep me happy, ultimately stopping me from caring about my loved ones and the human race in general... Let's get this straight. Not only would he deny me an enlightened existence, but also he'd turn me selfish? That's Hell!

Exactly. We already have a name for that, it is called opiates, if you take enough of them you won't give a shit about anyone or anything. Like you, I couldn't possibly be happy in heaven knowing that so many people I care about are being tortured for eternity. The only way I could be happy in that situation is if god destroyed everything that I consider me, in which case what is the point of going to heaven?

Anyway, welcome to the forums.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X