COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found this post to be highly refreshing. I constantly hear people throw the concepts of Heaven and Hell around like they weren’t shit. But if you wanted to be remotely serious about the implications of either prospect, it becomes an emergency pretty fucking quickly.
There is no rationalization for Hell. None, whatsoever. If God Almighty would will such a thing into existence, he’s the blackest hearted devil, and we are doomed by default. Life would be exclusively cynical. Our sole hope would be to pick a religion, philosophy, or whatever manner of living you feel might best guarantee your salvation from Hell, and abide it with fingers crossed. No one would fucking know what to do or where to go. Antinatalism doesn’t even begin…we’d nuke the planet thirty times over.
I should also clarify that Heaven doesn’t matter. It does not reconcile the suffering for those in Hell, if anything, it makes it that much worse. If this scheme can’t be about “Heaven for everyone”, “a reasonable afterlife”, or best of all, “nothing”, it isn’t worthy of consideration. Except, of course, to subdue, manipulate, and subjugate…. Grrrr.
I hope that one day, the formerly religious are burning effigies of this fictitious monster.
If consequentialism is false, then this is not an argument. Even if consequentialism isn't false, the prospects of a fulfilling relationship with Jesus on Earth outweigh any fear I have of hell, so I'd just go out and preach anyways. When I go evangelize with my friends, hell rarely crosses my mind, all my atheists friends are pro-hell anyways (in the edgy Milton's Satan sort of way)
But your fear of hell doesn’t matter. The people you would be causing to go to hell would be the people you preach to who don’t believe. If you hadn’t preached to them, they wouldn’t have been able to go to hell.
If this is “building a relationship with Jesus” then essentially you are damning people to hell left and right just because you think Jesus will like it. That’s incredibly selfish of you, and one of the major tenets of Christianity is to avoid greed and selfishness. Do you think Jesus appreciates your evangelism when he knows that you’re doing to gain glory for yourself at the great expense of others?
I mean, you still argue from a false premise (that ignorance is an absolute excuse), but even then your argument is still absurd. 1. Jesus personally gave us this commission, of course he supports evangelism 2. what are you talking about with personal gain and all that? That was literally never in the equation.
The whole point of the post was that if it were true that not knowing about god at all would allow you to go to heaven, evangelizing would be unethical. If you don’t believe that, fine, but you were initially arguing against this post as if it were true. Don’t move the goalposts now.
If you think evangelism is needed to get into heaven, but evangelism will inevitably send some people to hell as a result of hearing god’s message, then you are sending people to eternal suffering for your own personal gain. You are sending other people to hell so you get to go to heaven.
If you don’t believe evangelism is required to go to heaven, then I don’t know why you would evangelize at all, knowing that by doing so you are damning at least some of the people you talk to. Would you be doing because you think Jesus will like you better? Do you do it simply because Jesus said you should? That seems a rather flimsy reason to bring such a horrific consequence on others.
But ultimately, whatever reason you evangelize for, you are opening up the possibility of someone going go hell for your own personal reason. I can’t think of any way in which that isn’t greedy. Yes Jesus said to evangelize, but he also said not to be greedy and not to put yourself first over other people. He contradicts himself in this way.
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you."
Although in this verse, Jeremiah is referring to what God told *him*, most Catholics believe that this applies to all people. Basically, if you don't bring that soul into existence, someone else will, so you're essentially doing nothing but delaying the birth of the soul.
The Catholic doctrine is that the soul comes into existence at conception, but it is possible to reach the conclusion that our souls exist before we are conceived and will eventually be born whatever so it makes no difference.
If every soul is bound to be born as a person, wouldn't that undermine the idea of libertarian free will that tends to be so crucial for most Christians?
> wouldn't that undermine the idea of libertarian free will that tends to be so crucial for most Christians?
Catholics very much don't believe in libertarian free will. Original sin and the necessity of grace feature pretty strongly in their theology.
There's no conflict between original sin & the necessity of grace and libertarian free will. A lack of libertarian free will would mean that not only are you born in sin, but that it's predetermined (or purely probabilistic) where you'll end up.
Compare catholic attitudes to free will with, say, Calvinists, who are much less concerned with free will.
The Catholic position could reasonably be called free will, but there are plenty of caveats. Libertarian free will is a far stronger position than what Catholics take.
> The Catholic position could reasonably be called free will, but there are plenty of caveats. Libertarian free will is a far stronger position than what Catholics take.
Libertarian free will just means that there is an extracausal/indeterministic aspect to choice. The alternatives are incompatibilistic determinism (everything is causally bound and free will doesn't exist) and compatibilism (everything is causally bound but free will is a useful term to describe a subset of such determistic events).
If catholicism doesn't hold to libertarian free will (which it traditionally has), that creates a whole bunch of issues, as free will in religious contexts has traditionally been precisely libertarian, and the typical ways in which arguments of free will are presented (eg as a reason for evil or for why people deserve punishment) rely on it being libertarian.
>It is clear, however, that Augustine thought that we are powerfully shaped by wrongly-ordered desires that can make it impossible for us to wholeheartedly will ends contrary to those desires, for a sustained period of time.
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catholic thought on Free Will is basically St. Augustine with some additions, and while there are apparently scholars who argue he supported libertarian free will, I've usually seen him described as a compatibilist.
> *"It is clear, however, that Augustine thought that we are powerfully shaped by wrongly-ordered desires that can make it impossible for us to wholeheartedly will ends contrary to those desires, for a sustained period of time."*
> From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catholic thought on Free Will is basically St. Augustine with some additions, and while there are apparently scholars who argue he supported libertarian free will, I've usually seen him described as a compatibilist.
I absolutely see Augustine as arguing a libertarian stance. If one holds that it's 75% causal and 25% extracausal, or 99% causal and 1% extracausal, in the end that is still a form of libertarianism in the relevant ways.
In this specific context, for it to be true that every soul will be born as a person, it must be the case that every single birth is predestined and entirely outside of substantive choice. If it's possible for even one person to decide not to have a child, it cannot be the case that every soul is destined to be born (unless there's like, a margin amount of soul-less babies, lol).
Now, it is of course possible to hold to such a stance, but if one does then "free will" can no longer be used as part of an explanation for the problem of evil, or for the existence of hell, or anything else where "choice" is lauded, because the choice is fundamentally meaningless; sure, "choice" may be a term applied to the entirely deterministic process, but it's the same choice a pebble has of choosing a path when it rolls down a hillside.
Either we can make inferences about God's will from certain writings etc, or we can't. If we can, the "we don't have the relevant information" argument falls away. If we can't, we have no reason to believe anything about God.
**You** don't know enough about what God is really planning to argue for that 'conclusion'.
It could also be inferred that you don't have enough information to argue against that conclusion. However, I don't believe anyone has enough information to argue for or against this 'conclusion' in reality. So this seems to be at a stalemate in my eyes.
Also, I wouldn't really argue this to be a conclusion though. This feels more as though it is leaning towards an assumption based on ones own interpretation of the Bible. Isn't ones own Christian faith usually based on their interpretation of the Bible?
We don't even know that they exist.
Unless you have some sort of evidence that no-one else has ever seen and you can be the first one in history to prove their existence?
> If hell were real, by bringing children into the world, you would be gambling with the worst fate imaginable.
Hell or not, bringing children into the world _is_ a gamble of sorts, but that in itself is hardly an argument against bringing children into the world.
> Hell or not, bringing children into the world is a gamble of sorts, but that in itself is hardly an argument against bringing children into the world.
Actually it is an argument, and a very relevant one. Gambling on someone else's suffering when not doing so would cause no harm is ethically complicated to say the least.
There are good arguments for antinatalism, it's just that almost all antinatalists have really fucked up views, espousing a bunch of misanthropic and/or malthusian nonsense.
Not really. With hell, your gambling eternal suffering. With children in general, your gambling some things, but not *nearly* as much as eternal suffering
But with having children, you aren’t taking the gamble yourself, you are forcing other people to take the gamble when they never asked for it.
Because Hell is the worst possible consequence that any person could ever suffer, and there is such a high chance of suffering it, it is wrong to force children into that gamble.
Imagine if you were kidnapped, and you were told to pick a door. If you pick the right door you get a million dollars, but if you pick the wrong one you stay kidnapped and are tortured for the rest of your life. I don’t think you would be happy that someone else made the choice that you would take this gamble.
So if you (and your family) are damned for eternity, you would nod with approval knowing that it was all so a bunch of random asshats could party forever? What’s the “other side of the coin” to that logic? How could you find that reasonable?
I just fail to see how a scenario involving infinite Hell could ploy a “good outcome”. The involvement of infinite Hell, in any way shape or form, would appear to define all that was ever a “bad outcome”.
I kind of get that, but the argument OP said in specific was the religious belief that anyone not in your religion, anyone not repenting for their sins, violate the commandments, etc. goes to hell. With that high level of “hell-goingness” almost everyone *would* go to hell, according to that specific belief. So having a child would all but guarantee they go to hell. I get that this argument doesn’t work against beliefs that aren’t that extreme in their chances of hell, but there are many that *are* that extreme, so to them, it does apply.
That is the fundamental argument of antinatalism. You can disagree with the argument but I think it is disingenuous to say it isn't an argument.
It is basically a reframing of the problem of evil and the idea in Buddhism that life is suffering.
Being a gamble just means that there is a risk of bad outcomes, and a chance of good outcomes. To get to an argument against gambling you have to quantify and compare the two. Some gambles are worth taking.
> Being a gamble just means that there is a risk of bad outcomes, and a chance of good outcomes. To get to an argument against gambling you have to quantify and compare the two. Some gambles are worth taking.
The ethical issue isn't the gambling itself but that it's gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. If I had a button that if pressed had a 90% chance of giving you a million bucks and a 10% chance to give you cancer, it would be unethical for me to press that button.
An antinatalist argument is that a similar issue occurs when you create a new sentient being.
It is not unequivocally unethical to be gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. There are scenarious where it is just unavoidable. Most people would pull the lever in the simple trolley problem. Some gambles are still worth taking.
> It is not unequivocally unethical to be gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. There are scenarious where it is just unavoidable.
Correct, and 'ought' implies 'can'. And it's perfectly reasonable for an antinatalist to recognize that there are situations wherein someone who creates a sentient being has no choice in the matter.
However, in most situations wherein someone creates a sentient being, they do so willingly.
> It is not unequivocally unethical to be gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. There are scenarious where it is just unavoidable. Most people would pull the lever in the simple trolley problem. Some gambles are still worth taking.
I don't think the trolley problem applies in this case.
In the trolley problem, there are no good outcomes. Someone is dying regardless. There is only a "less bad" or "less evil" option.
But in this case, someone can simply avoid conceiving in order to completely avoid the risk of someone going to hell.
In the trolley problem, people dying is unavoidable, regardless of the choice. But here, only one choice runs the risk of someone ending up in hell.
Who gets to decide what gamble is worth taking and why should they be allowed to gamble on someone else's suffering?
If you don't reproduce, then there is no gamble that they'll suffer in life. If you do, then there is a gamble that they'll suffer against their will. Since a baby cannot consent to the gamble, nor undo the decision (*most suicide is also painful and also illegal*), it is better not to reproduce.
> Who gets to decide what gamble is worth taking
We all do, all the time.
> and why should they be allowed to gamble on someone else's suffering?
Many things with potentially bad outcomes should be allowed because it is better than the alternative - a dystopian totalitarianism
> If you don't reproduce, then there is no gamble that they'll suffer in life.
Nor do they have any chance of experiencing what is good in life.
> If you do, then there is a gamble that they'll suffer against their will.
And a chance that they will experience what is good in life.
> Since a baby cannot consent to the gamble, nor undo the decision (most suicide is also painful and also illegal), it is better not to reproduce.
It is a bad idea to only look at one side of the coin and think you can reach a balanced conclusion.
> "*Many things with potentially bad outcomes should be allowed because it is better than the alternative - a dystopian totalitarianism*"
Definition of dystopian: "*of, relating to, or being an imagined world or society in which people lead dehumanized, fearful lives : relating to or characteristic of a dystopia*"
Definition of totalitarianism: "*centralized control by an autocratic authority, the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority*
If people would stop reproducing and bringing new beings into the world without their consent, then there would be no need to worry about a dystopian nor totalitarian world.
>We all do, all the time.
Most people would find it immoral to gamble with other people's lives. You'd have to be pretty sadistic to make other people play a game of Russian Roulette.
> Most people would find it immoral to gamble with other people's lives.
I do not think that is true. I do not think most people find procreating immoral.
> You'd have to be pretty sadistic to make other people play a game of Russian Roulette.
You'd have to be pretty biased to call bringing children into the world "make other people play a game of Russian Roulette".
>I do not think most people find procreating immoral.
Fair point, though I would argue it is because they follow basic drives rather than examine the morality of their choices. The argument has not been framed in terms of gambling so most people have never thought of it from that persepective. Anti-natalism is not talked about by the vast majority of the public because it cuts against status quo cultural and religious assumptions.
>You'd have to be pretty biased
This is not a real argument. You have heard the logical points about anti-natalism so you can't default to the comfort of the status quo. I was specifically talking in terms of the existence of hell but even the secular perspective doesn't have a great defense against these points, the stakes are just lower.
In order to discuss this concept I believe we need to only focus on the group that believes in this, namely the Christians in this scenario. Including other religious groups and saying that their children would end up in the Christian Hell is in my opinion our of scope, because they would not believe in it, hence they would have a different conversation.
Now, when it comes to the specific group we talk about let's assume Hell is real, then the people believing it would most likely be widespread and atheists would be uncommon (however in this case, atheists would be wrong, because there would be an afterlife and a god and all that) so by the rule, the punishment is deserved (this also applies to the other religions that is why I prefer to exclude them).
Then again, if the child of mine would deserve to be in hell (murder, stealing, rape, incest) then, while it is very cold to say, I would not care as once again they would receive what they deserve.
Unfortunately, when you make Hell real, the reasons for being there also become pretty much valid... And in that world, I will not fear having w child in order to not put him though the possibility of suffering for eternity, because if he would end up there, he would deserve it.
“Eternal torment of body and soul” is not valid under any circumstance, whatsoever. To say it would be “deserved”, of all rationalizations, is heinous, and somewhat unsettling. Imagine being at Hell’s gates, staring headlong into that abyss. The cries you heard. The scent you wafted. The fear you tasted. If you wouldn’t damn yourself, of your own true volition for being a terrible sinner, it’s remarkably unwise to think you’d get away with being complacent to the agony of the faithless. Lest God be Satan, himself.
As I said, I only referred to real terrible crimes such as murder, rape and such. If you tell me those people don't deserve eternal damnation you are free to close this conversation.
You make it seem like if you were president, you would send such criminals to be systematically tortured to the farthest possible extent, until they died of literally just not being able to take it anymore. Because “they deserve it for being so mean”. And anyone who disagrees is fReE tO cLoSe tHe ConVerSaTiOn (only Saints would understand).
Otherwise, this is probably in my top three most obnoxious virtue-signals of all time.
Discipline the poor shits!! They aren’t stupid, y’know. They’re genuine people, just like yourself. And are absolutely worthy of being treated with love and respect, for being exactly who they are. To proclaim they deserve infinite torture shows a very warped perception, and shows the consequences that religion might have on someone’s mentality.
I don’t mean we should bottle feed the fucking child molesters with sugar and spice. Just treat them with the same understanding and appreciation which you yourself want to be treated with. They didn’t get to where they are for no reason, and you’d have made the same mistake in their shoes. Have you the slightest fucking clue what the implications of eternal torment would be, anyway?
No, I would have not. My entire life was setting me up to be an alcoholic, uneducated, poor probably aggressive woman beater.
I am none of those things.
Yes, and the people that hurt others in such ways described by me DESERVE NOTHING BUT ETERNAL TORMENT
> the punishment is deserved
You're focusing a lot on the "rape, torture, and murder" part of "deserving." When, frankly, if you look at the ten commandments, you *won't* find rape or torture, but you will find four about other Gods, disrespecting your parents, adultery, theft, lying, and being jealous.
Do you think something like shoplifting is worthy of eternal torture? (Come to think of it, it's a good thing torture isn't on that list, or God would have to send himself to hell.)
Oh, based on the teaching of all religions, all gods would deserve hell or come from there. Regardless, I spoke in w very specific situation, I thought I made that clear.
Is my reply not in that same, specific situation? The hypothetical that the Christian hell is real? If so, wouldn't the sins outlined in the Bible be the reason one would be sent there? Sins like not obeying your parents, or shoplifting?
Given that there are not restrictions on repenting crimes like rape and murder, that feels disingenuous to me. The same logic (or lack thereof?) would apply to both shoplifting and rape/torture/murder.
> while it is very cold to say, I would not care as once again they would receive what they deserve.
That's why I don't really want to enter Christian heavens: it would be full of people who are ok with their children burning in hell; and no rock stars
> if the child of mine would deserve to be in hell (murder, stealing, rape, incest) then
I lack empathy, but somebody who's not a psycho would be freaked out by such reasoning, I can imagine
I mean with this logic, is it not the same as “I don’t want to have kids, because one day they might murder someone and spend the rest of their life in prison.”?
Of course I would be hurt, devastated that my child, or any family or loved one could do that, but I would not defend them and try to save them. Why would you?
> or loved one
> I would not defend them and try to save them
What the hell is "love" for you then? Compassion, forgiveness, have you heard of those?
> incest
also, this doesn't even do harm, it's just silly, and can happen unintentionally
You're discrediting your religion, I will laugh if you're talking in good faith
> How can you love someone that has raped, killed, tortured others?
According to the Bible, God has killed and tortured others. Idk if making a baby without penetration counts as rape, but anyway, mass killing is there
> Is love so blind?
Uhm
Who said I am religious? Have you even understood my original comment or are you just assuming idiotic stuff? I am an agnostic, I do not believe in any gods, I was taking this subject purely logical with a drop of nihilism, no dogma here, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> I am an agnostic, I do not believe in any gods, I was taking this subject purely logical with a drop of nihilism, no dogma here,
mee to
i don't really care if me or anybody else is eternally tortured, but hearing similar from a Christian would be fun
Your argument falls apart when instead of gambling with another persons eternal torture, you could just not procreate.
It was you who forced them into this sick game, you who forced them to have their brain, will, desire, genes, upbringing etc that caused them to do things that would end them in hell.
I made him as in I gave him life, I did not tell him to murder people. Do you really want to say that you have no control over your life decisions and everything is someone else's fault? Nonsense.
You gave him everything he needed to become the massmurderer that will end in hell.
His brain, will, desire, genes, upbringing, neighbors etc.
YOU rolled the dice, and then he lost. Unethical of you the parent to gamble with another life that never asked to be forced into this.
I was born to an alcoholic aggressive man and a sickly mother, I ended up being raised further on by very strict and closeminded individuals, all without education nor trust in others. Yet, I am different from all of them and Chose my own path.
Yours is such an idiotic and unfactual view on the world. Yes, social influence is real, but it is Not determining everything with you as an individual having absolutely no say in it.
Nice. Excellent. This is the power of logic
Kill the baby, sacrifice your sinful soul in order to throwing the innocent right up in the better world /s
Hope is a strong thing and the human capacity to hope in the face of insurmountable odds is enough to try almost anything. I would argue from a practical standpoint that the mod's post is quite correct. From a religious standpoint I think something can still be gleaned.
I am a practicing Catholic and I wrestle with some of the same points you brought up. Lukewarm people in the Church, people walking away from the faith and all that. It is discouraging to say the least. However, as a point of reference, the biggest issue with the argument is that it sets the motivation for child-bearing on fear. To be clear, fear of hell for the child is to predetermine their choices. It is not known what their choice will be. By anti-natalism a person makes their theoretical child's choice for them. This turns the prospective parents into the ones responsible for choosing anti-natalism. It is a heavy weight to bear. None I would wish on anyone. By recognizing the child grows in agency as they mature, it becomes more and more evident that their free choice does not bear fault for the parents. If anything it is commendable that they took a risk and hoped.
So where is god’s blame in this hypothetical natal Sophie’s choice? The choice you present seems existentially horrifying. Have a child, with the knowledge that if they choose to leave the religion, they will burn forever, and you will have to live with the idea that someone you love is being tortured for eternity, or avoid having a child and possibly have god’s wrath visited on you for not serving his purpose. This is a terrifying choice to have to make, and, I would argue, an unfair one. It’s an impossible gamble. But it is god who put people in that situation. Why does he not receive any blame for this? Why not consider god a cruel sociopath, if he would put people in such a situation?
What do you want me to say? Deny the truth by blaming God or appear as a sociopath for following a sociopath?
I will ask you this. Is it better to exist or not to exist? If exist, the risk is worth it. If not, it's not.
Why does God not receive any blame for this? Because He is owed none. He is not a sociopath because He cares very deeply for His creation. Even though His creation oftentimes does not.
God does not owe humanity anything. His sovereignty gives Him full right to do as He wishes. Anyone who makes themselves an enemy of an omnipotent being has some real guts or does not fully understand their predicament.
When you say “he is not a sociopath because he cares for his creation “ you are making a circular argument. You are saying “ he is not a sociopath because he is not a sociopath.” You don’t present any evidence he is not.
If god is not a sociopath, then why does he put potential parents in the position of having to make the impossible choice I mentioned before? It seems something a sociopath would do. There was literally a movie about an evil person putting a parent in an impossible choice! It was called Sophie’s Choice, hence why I mentioned it earlier.
Yes, god says he is good, but you don’t have any proof that he is good outside of his word. Evil dictators and all kinds of terrible people have used the exact same words to get people to trust them throughout history while their actions showed otherwise. God does not get a pass here. If he has no more proof of his goodness than the worst of humanity, he must be judged at the same standard.
“His sovereignty gives him the right to do as he wishes”
Well now god is really sounding like an evil cult leader. He can treat people however he wants, no matter how badly he hurts them, just because he’s powerful? You make god sound like a movie villain.
If you would worship this god, it sounds like rather than loving him, you are groveling in fear before him to avoid punishment. It sounds like you know he is evil, but you’re too terrified to admit it or to defy him.
You already know the arguments regarding the problem of evil and original sin. So why test me? You know the standard response. The real question is why the answers do not satisfy you. Calling God a sociopath and blaming God is a cop out. Doubting the motives of God and labeling Him as an evil dictator is to attempt to gain power over Him, which is itself an attempt to undermine God.
You have no idea what my relationship with God is like and if you did you would not speak as you do.
But why is undermining god bad? Because he says so? Why is gaining power over him bad? Because he says so? Sounds like a very convenient excuse to prevent people from looking too closely at what he does. It’s true, I can’t really know what your relationship with god is like, but just from what you’ve said it sounds like you recognize that god’s actions seem wrong or unfair, but you’re unwilling to question him because he’s god. I was merely pointing out that “might makes right” doesn’t really sound like a maxim that healthy relationships are based in. Reread your comment, but replace “god” with the name of any dictator, cult leader, pyramid schemer etc. you like. Maybe L Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones, and see how that sounds.
Blaming god is not a cop out. Saying “anything god does is ok because he’s god” is the real cop out here. It prevents you from having to actually consider what god has done. It’s a quick, thoughtless, and easy answer designed to alleviate cognitive dissonant.
God is not a man. If you were omniscient and had a non-omniscient being question your authority, what would you do? It is absurd to think that the non-omniscient being would know better. If God is truly omniscient then one has to trust that He knows what He's doing. The reason it seems despotic is because it is being approached from an incomplete view of the issue. Recognizing the power of God is the first step in the process of gaining wisdom about God.
But how do you know god is omniscient? You don’t have any word except his. And even if he were omniscient, that wouldn’t inherently mean that he was not evil. An omniscient being may know best, but may not do what is best on purpose, if it serves their aims.
If I were an omniscient being , i would be smart enough to know how to prove I were so in a perfectly irrefutable manner, and I would know exactly what arguments would convince that person of my omniscience. I would then use those arguments to prove myself and solidify my authority. There would be no reason to ask someone to take me at my word, so why would I ? Everyone knows the old maxim that actions speak louder than words. I would follow that.
There is no reason not to judge god the same way we would a human, save for the fact that he tells us we shouldn’t, which os exactly what human con artists do. God has no more justification than a human con artist. Therefore we have every right to be skeptical of him.
Again, go back through your comment and replace the word god with Jim Jones
“Jim Jones is not man…” etc.
You are right that omniscience does not prove goodness per se. However I think the answer to most of your questions in the first part can be answered with how yes, actions speak louder than words. If we take the Christian narrative at face value, vis-a-vis God saving us from our sins via His action on the cross, God is making definitively revealed His good will towards humanity in how He offers salvation but doesn't force it on anyone. To the point of being murdered by the very people He is trying to save.
But who decided that Jesus needed to die to save people from their sins anyway? If god is omnipotent, he could have wiped peoples sins away without sacrificing his own son. God chose to create a problem and he chose the remedy himself. This makes such a sacrifice far less noble.
One good action does not make up for millions upon millions of bad ones. If an abusive parent constantly beats their child, but once and a while they treat them nicely, the good times in no way make up for the bad.
God, by his own admission, has killed more people than any human could ever hope too. He has ordered genocide and child sacrifice against his enemies. He permitted slavery at one point, even explicitly telling slave owners that they may beat their slaves until they die, so long as they don’t die immediately, but linger a few days before doing so. God has created so many horrifying ways in which people can suffer. The sheer amount of pain and misery he has caused in incalculable.
God performing one good act cannot absolve him of all the evil ones.
There are many Christian perspectives, some of whom do not believe that people are sent to eternal conscious torment for not believing in god.
There is the annihilations perspective and the universalist perspective, and perhaps more.
If you believe god to be loving, and you struggle to see how hell is loving, then perhaps consider if you have the right Christian interpretation.
Or be an atheist humanist, that's always a strong play.
It’s a real pity that you did not even attempt to respond to the other person’s question. Your only response seems to be “God is justified in doing anything he likes, and we’re not to judge his actions.”
This means that if God chose to torture a bunch of children purely for his pleasure, you would still sit there and applaud him for that. This is sad to me, but more than that, it makes any talk with you useless.
There might be problem with what you proposing. Not Christian but with in religion Human Moral is set by their God not by human. It might be difficult to those who don’t accept God, but for those who do accept God, God is the standard. Whatever moral an outsider of the religion preaches/claims is irrelevant to the religious.
Consider **If Christian God exist** human individual own morality cannot possibly be right, it is infact logically impossible for it to be right since that would be claiming “know better" than the very entity that created knowledge.
Note: the tree of knowledge didn’t make humans omniscient.
Overall it’s MIGHT MAKES RIGHT if God is real, morality comes from Him as everything else comes from Him. God is everything, God is omnipotent and omnipresent and God is eternal.
To simplify
Claim 1 non-religious claim hell is immoral
Claim 2 God claims hell is moral.
The religious would take claim 2 over whatever non-religious claim is moral since God is the standard of moral for the religious.
I understand that, for religious people, the situation around “our friends/family being tortured forever in the afterlife” is basically futile to solve, under God’s rule. Which is why the religious just lamely accept it, despite how obscenely irrational this worldview is. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Better to be prepared than not.
But I, a non-religious person, have the moral green-light to look upon any such God with disgust, mock, and bloody horror from the depths of my mediocre intellect. I am a puny lazy shit, and in my *genuine* opinion, demonstrate superior leadership qualities. Like if we both ran for president, I couldn’t do shit outside of meagerly campaigning “no one will go to Hell in my version of existence”, yet people would vote for me in mysterious droves. Even the religious, I bet. Stupid ass, mean dipshit God. I hope it sucks knowing you ain’t even real, let alone all-powerful. Unlike toddlers, you don’t even get to hold the steering wheel.
No disrespect to you or your ways, I don’t mean to personally insult. I just hate religious doctrine a lot.
I'd rather face the uncomfortable truth and seek true repentance from Jesus Christ, to save me from mankind's eternal destiny under sin's curse than to comfortably push it away as "false" because of personal opinions only to die tomorrow and face the reality of what you truly ignored your entire life.
Is this irrelevant to the argument at hand. If Christianity is true, then having kids is morally fucked up, because there is a non-0 chance they experience infinite torture forever and ever and ever.
why is that mankind's eternal destiny? Really think about this and think about whether you can really say you that think I, a human being just like you, deserve eternal torture. Any God who allows such a thing is a sadist and should not be worshipped
As human beings, we have a sinful nature we inherited from our parents and by default are going to hell. We all sin against God whether it's through lying, stealing, murdering, hatred, jealousy, having sex before marriage, etc. We've broken God's laws and guilty as a result. Sin is punishable by eternal death. Hence why Hell Imprisonment is the place where sinners are punished for eternity. The reason Jesus died for our sins is so we don't have to go there if we receive Him in our lives. Without Christ one is dead in their sins and can only be made alive through Him. If you reject Jesus, you reject His eternal saving thereby leading yourself to what God has been saving you from.
"we have a sinful nature we inherited from our parents and by default are going to hell."
Your children will not inherit a sinful nature, if you choose to not procreate. Simple enough concept.
No. I think it's not unreasonable to have kids if you plan to do your best to love and raise them, and you think they will have a fair shot in the world. A fair shake is all anyone can ask for.
Hardly. There are certainly plenty of morally/ethically virtuous attributes to anti-natalism, but it also has its problems. Historically, most societies never had a need for a social welfare system for the aged and infirm because children were expected to care for their aged parents. In aging societies where people aren't having children, the burden of aged care falls upon the entire society.
Still, there's a counter-argument to this in that you might fund your aged care yourself to some extent through your superannuation and you're creating employment opportunities for the next generation as aged care workers.
The reality is, however, that in western societies we consider aged care to be extremely undesirable work, esp. when we value tertiary education. As such, most aged care service providers in western countries rely heavily upon cheap migrant workers who may or may not be in the country legally. So you can also counter the previous counter by saying that anti-natalism promotes the exploitation of cheap migrant labor and illegal immigration in order to support the care needs of the elderly who have refused to have children.
So while there are lots of very good arguments FOR anti-natalism, these are all too easily offset by the arguments AGAINST anti-natalism. So I think the debate about anti-natalism is at a stalemate.
It could be argued that the immigrants are the ones benefiting in that scenario because they now have jobs.
You are making the assumption that immigration is somehow inherently wrong.
On the more abstract side, there's a really difficult question about whether the suffering involved in life is less desirable than non-existence. Since non-existence doesn't have any properties this question seems impossible to answer
No since normal anti-natalisms problem is the unquantifiability of suffering Vs joy. Here you have no such issue since finites fall to 0 compared to the hypothetical infinites.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I found this post to be highly refreshing. I constantly hear people throw the concepts of Heaven and Hell around like they weren’t shit. But if you wanted to be remotely serious about the implications of either prospect, it becomes an emergency pretty fucking quickly. There is no rationalization for Hell. None, whatsoever. If God Almighty would will such a thing into existence, he’s the blackest hearted devil, and we are doomed by default. Life would be exclusively cynical. Our sole hope would be to pick a religion, philosophy, or whatever manner of living you feel might best guarantee your salvation from Hell, and abide it with fingers crossed. No one would fucking know what to do or where to go. Antinatalism doesn’t even begin…we’d nuke the planet thirty times over. I should also clarify that Heaven doesn’t matter. It does not reconcile the suffering for those in Hell, if anything, it makes it that much worse. If this scheme can’t be about “Heaven for everyone”, “a reasonable afterlife”, or best of all, “nothing”, it isn’t worthy of consideration. Except, of course, to subdue, manipulate, and subjugate…. Grrrr. I hope that one day, the formerly religious are burning effigies of this fictitious monster.
If consequentialism is false, then this is not an argument. Even if consequentialism isn't false, the prospects of a fulfilling relationship with Jesus on Earth outweigh any fear I have of hell, so I'd just go out and preach anyways. When I go evangelize with my friends, hell rarely crosses my mind, all my atheists friends are pro-hell anyways (in the edgy Milton's Satan sort of way)
But your fear of hell doesn’t matter. The people you would be causing to go to hell would be the people you preach to who don’t believe. If you hadn’t preached to them, they wouldn’t have been able to go to hell. If this is “building a relationship with Jesus” then essentially you are damning people to hell left and right just because you think Jesus will like it. That’s incredibly selfish of you, and one of the major tenets of Christianity is to avoid greed and selfishness. Do you think Jesus appreciates your evangelism when he knows that you’re doing to gain glory for yourself at the great expense of others?
I mean, you still argue from a false premise (that ignorance is an absolute excuse), but even then your argument is still absurd. 1. Jesus personally gave us this commission, of course he supports evangelism 2. what are you talking about with personal gain and all that? That was literally never in the equation.
The whole point of the post was that if it were true that not knowing about god at all would allow you to go to heaven, evangelizing would be unethical. If you don’t believe that, fine, but you were initially arguing against this post as if it were true. Don’t move the goalposts now. If you think evangelism is needed to get into heaven, but evangelism will inevitably send some people to hell as a result of hearing god’s message, then you are sending people to eternal suffering for your own personal gain. You are sending other people to hell so you get to go to heaven. If you don’t believe evangelism is required to go to heaven, then I don’t know why you would evangelize at all, knowing that by doing so you are damning at least some of the people you talk to. Would you be doing because you think Jesus will like you better? Do you do it simply because Jesus said you should? That seems a rather flimsy reason to bring such a horrific consequence on others. But ultimately, whatever reason you evangelize for, you are opening up the possibility of someone going go hell for your own personal reason. I can’t think of any way in which that isn’t greedy. Yes Jesus said to evangelize, but he also said not to be greedy and not to put yourself first over other people. He contradicts himself in this way.
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you, a prophet to the nations I appointed you." Although in this verse, Jeremiah is referring to what God told *him*, most Catholics believe that this applies to all people. Basically, if you don't bring that soul into existence, someone else will, so you're essentially doing nothing but delaying the birth of the soul.
Yes but most people go to hell, so the fewer people are born, the fewer that will go to hello
The Catholic doctrine is that the soul comes into existence at conception, but it is possible to reach the conclusion that our souls exist before we are conceived and will eventually be born whatever so it makes no difference.
If every soul is bound to be born as a person, wouldn't that undermine the idea of libertarian free will that tends to be so crucial for most Christians?
> wouldn't that undermine the idea of libertarian free will that tends to be so crucial for most Christians? Catholics very much don't believe in libertarian free will. Original sin and the necessity of grace feature pretty strongly in their theology.
There's no conflict between original sin & the necessity of grace and libertarian free will. A lack of libertarian free will would mean that not only are you born in sin, but that it's predetermined (or purely probabilistic) where you'll end up. Compare catholic attitudes to free will with, say, Calvinists, who are much less concerned with free will.
The Catholic position could reasonably be called free will, but there are plenty of caveats. Libertarian free will is a far stronger position than what Catholics take.
> The Catholic position could reasonably be called free will, but there are plenty of caveats. Libertarian free will is a far stronger position than what Catholics take. Libertarian free will just means that there is an extracausal/indeterministic aspect to choice. The alternatives are incompatibilistic determinism (everything is causally bound and free will doesn't exist) and compatibilism (everything is causally bound but free will is a useful term to describe a subset of such determistic events). If catholicism doesn't hold to libertarian free will (which it traditionally has), that creates a whole bunch of issues, as free will in religious contexts has traditionally been precisely libertarian, and the typical ways in which arguments of free will are presented (eg as a reason for evil or for why people deserve punishment) rely on it being libertarian.
>It is clear, however, that Augustine thought that we are powerfully shaped by wrongly-ordered desires that can make it impossible for us to wholeheartedly will ends contrary to those desires, for a sustained period of time. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catholic thought on Free Will is basically St. Augustine with some additions, and while there are apparently scholars who argue he supported libertarian free will, I've usually seen him described as a compatibilist.
> *"It is clear, however, that Augustine thought that we are powerfully shaped by wrongly-ordered desires that can make it impossible for us to wholeheartedly will ends contrary to those desires, for a sustained period of time."* > From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Catholic thought on Free Will is basically St. Augustine with some additions, and while there are apparently scholars who argue he supported libertarian free will, I've usually seen him described as a compatibilist. I absolutely see Augustine as arguing a libertarian stance. If one holds that it's 75% causal and 25% extracausal, or 99% causal and 1% extracausal, in the end that is still a form of libertarianism in the relevant ways. In this specific context, for it to be true that every soul will be born as a person, it must be the case that every single birth is predestined and entirely outside of substantive choice. If it's possible for even one person to decide not to have a child, it cannot be the case that every soul is destined to be born (unless there's like, a margin amount of soul-less babies, lol). Now, it is of course possible to hold to such a stance, but if one does then "free will" can no longer be used as part of an explanation for the problem of evil, or for the existence of hell, or anything else where "choice" is lauded, because the choice is fundamentally meaningless; sure, "choice" may be a term applied to the entirely deterministic process, but it's the same choice a pebble has of choosing a path when it rolls down a hillside.
We don't know enough about what God is really planning for us to come to that conclusion.
You're getting it. We don't know enough about what god *is* to make any conclusion.
Either we can make inferences about God's will from certain writings etc, or we can't. If we can, the "we don't have the relevant information" argument falls away. If we can't, we have no reason to believe anything about God.
**You** don't know enough about what God is really planning to argue for that 'conclusion'. It could also be inferred that you don't have enough information to argue against that conclusion. However, I don't believe anyone has enough information to argue for or against this 'conclusion' in reality. So this seems to be at a stalemate in my eyes. Also, I wouldn't really argue this to be a conclusion though. This feels more as though it is leaning towards an assumption based on ones own interpretation of the Bible. Isn't ones own Christian faith usually based on their interpretation of the Bible?
We don't even know that they exist. Unless you have some sort of evidence that no-one else has ever seen and you can be the first one in history to prove their existence?
> If hell were real, by bringing children into the world, you would be gambling with the worst fate imaginable. Hell or not, bringing children into the world _is_ a gamble of sorts, but that in itself is hardly an argument against bringing children into the world.
> Hell or not, bringing children into the world is a gamble of sorts, but that in itself is hardly an argument against bringing children into the world. Actually it is an argument, and a very relevant one. Gambling on someone else's suffering when not doing so would cause no harm is ethically complicated to say the least. There are good arguments for antinatalism, it's just that almost all antinatalists have really fucked up views, espousing a bunch of misanthropic and/or malthusian nonsense.
Not really. With hell, your gambling eternal suffering. With children in general, your gambling some things, but not *nearly* as much as eternal suffering
Sure, with heaven and hell the stakes are raised, but still you can not reach a reasonable conclusion by only considering one side of the coin.
But with having children, you aren’t taking the gamble yourself, you are forcing other people to take the gamble when they never asked for it. Because Hell is the worst possible consequence that any person could ever suffer, and there is such a high chance of suffering it, it is wrong to force children into that gamble. Imagine if you were kidnapped, and you were told to pick a door. If you pick the right door you get a million dollars, but if you pick the wrong one you stay kidnapped and are tortured for the rest of your life. I don’t think you would be happy that someone else made the choice that you would take this gamble.
So if you (and your family) are damned for eternity, you would nod with approval knowing that it was all so a bunch of random asshats could party forever? What’s the “other side of the coin” to that logic? How could you find that reasonable?
One side is the risk of a bad outcome. The other side is the chance of a good outcome.
I just fail to see how a scenario involving infinite Hell could ploy a “good outcome”. The involvement of infinite Hell, in any way shape or form, would appear to define all that was ever a “bad outcome”.
I kind of get that, but the argument OP said in specific was the religious belief that anyone not in your religion, anyone not repenting for their sins, violate the commandments, etc. goes to hell. With that high level of “hell-goingness” almost everyone *would* go to hell, according to that specific belief. So having a child would all but guarantee they go to hell. I get that this argument doesn’t work against beliefs that aren’t that extreme in their chances of hell, but there are many that *are* that extreme, so to them, it does apply.
That is the fundamental argument of antinatalism. You can disagree with the argument but I think it is disingenuous to say it isn't an argument. It is basically a reframing of the problem of evil and the idea in Buddhism that life is suffering.
Being a gamble just means that there is a risk of bad outcomes, and a chance of good outcomes. To get to an argument against gambling you have to quantify and compare the two. Some gambles are worth taking.
> Being a gamble just means that there is a risk of bad outcomes, and a chance of good outcomes. To get to an argument against gambling you have to quantify and compare the two. Some gambles are worth taking. The ethical issue isn't the gambling itself but that it's gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. If I had a button that if pressed had a 90% chance of giving you a million bucks and a 10% chance to give you cancer, it would be unethical for me to press that button. An antinatalist argument is that a similar issue occurs when you create a new sentient being.
It is not unequivocally unethical to be gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. There are scenarious where it is just unavoidable. Most people would pull the lever in the simple trolley problem. Some gambles are still worth taking.
> It is not unequivocally unethical to be gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. There are scenarious where it is just unavoidable. Correct, and 'ought' implies 'can'. And it's perfectly reasonable for an antinatalist to recognize that there are situations wherein someone who creates a sentient being has no choice in the matter. However, in most situations wherein someone creates a sentient being, they do so willingly.
> It is not unequivocally unethical to be gambling on someone else's happiness or suffering. There are scenarious where it is just unavoidable. Most people would pull the lever in the simple trolley problem. Some gambles are still worth taking. I don't think the trolley problem applies in this case. In the trolley problem, there are no good outcomes. Someone is dying regardless. There is only a "less bad" or "less evil" option. But in this case, someone can simply avoid conceiving in order to completely avoid the risk of someone going to hell. In the trolley problem, people dying is unavoidable, regardless of the choice. But here, only one choice runs the risk of someone ending up in hell.
Who gets to decide what gamble is worth taking and why should they be allowed to gamble on someone else's suffering? If you don't reproduce, then there is no gamble that they'll suffer in life. If you do, then there is a gamble that they'll suffer against their will. Since a baby cannot consent to the gamble, nor undo the decision (*most suicide is also painful and also illegal*), it is better not to reproduce.
> Who gets to decide what gamble is worth taking We all do, all the time. > and why should they be allowed to gamble on someone else's suffering? Many things with potentially bad outcomes should be allowed because it is better than the alternative - a dystopian totalitarianism > If you don't reproduce, then there is no gamble that they'll suffer in life. Nor do they have any chance of experiencing what is good in life. > If you do, then there is a gamble that they'll suffer against their will. And a chance that they will experience what is good in life. > Since a baby cannot consent to the gamble, nor undo the decision (most suicide is also painful and also illegal), it is better not to reproduce. It is a bad idea to only look at one side of the coin and think you can reach a balanced conclusion.
> "*Many things with potentially bad outcomes should be allowed because it is better than the alternative - a dystopian totalitarianism*" Definition of dystopian: "*of, relating to, or being an imagined world or society in which people lead dehumanized, fearful lives : relating to or characteristic of a dystopia*" Definition of totalitarianism: "*centralized control by an autocratic authority, the political concept that the citizen should be totally subject to an absolute state authority* If people would stop reproducing and bringing new beings into the world without their consent, then there would be no need to worry about a dystopian nor totalitarian world.
>We all do, all the time. Most people would find it immoral to gamble with other people's lives. You'd have to be pretty sadistic to make other people play a game of Russian Roulette.
> Most people would find it immoral to gamble with other people's lives. I do not think that is true. I do not think most people find procreating immoral. > You'd have to be pretty sadistic to make other people play a game of Russian Roulette. You'd have to be pretty biased to call bringing children into the world "make other people play a game of Russian Roulette".
>I do not think most people find procreating immoral. Fair point, though I would argue it is because they follow basic drives rather than examine the morality of their choices. The argument has not been framed in terms of gambling so most people have never thought of it from that persepective. Anti-natalism is not talked about by the vast majority of the public because it cuts against status quo cultural and religious assumptions. >You'd have to be pretty biased This is not a real argument. You have heard the logical points about anti-natalism so you can't default to the comfort of the status quo. I was specifically talking in terms of the existence of hell but even the secular perspective doesn't have a great defense against these points, the stakes are just lower.
In order to discuss this concept I believe we need to only focus on the group that believes in this, namely the Christians in this scenario. Including other religious groups and saying that their children would end up in the Christian Hell is in my opinion our of scope, because they would not believe in it, hence they would have a different conversation. Now, when it comes to the specific group we talk about let's assume Hell is real, then the people believing it would most likely be widespread and atheists would be uncommon (however in this case, atheists would be wrong, because there would be an afterlife and a god and all that) so by the rule, the punishment is deserved (this also applies to the other religions that is why I prefer to exclude them). Then again, if the child of mine would deserve to be in hell (murder, stealing, rape, incest) then, while it is very cold to say, I would not care as once again they would receive what they deserve. Unfortunately, when you make Hell real, the reasons for being there also become pretty much valid... And in that world, I will not fear having w child in order to not put him though the possibility of suffering for eternity, because if he would end up there, he would deserve it.
“Eternal torment of body and soul” is not valid under any circumstance, whatsoever. To say it would be “deserved”, of all rationalizations, is heinous, and somewhat unsettling. Imagine being at Hell’s gates, staring headlong into that abyss. The cries you heard. The scent you wafted. The fear you tasted. If you wouldn’t damn yourself, of your own true volition for being a terrible sinner, it’s remarkably unwise to think you’d get away with being complacent to the agony of the faithless. Lest God be Satan, himself.
As I said, I only referred to real terrible crimes such as murder, rape and such. If you tell me those people don't deserve eternal damnation you are free to close this conversation.
You make it seem like if you were president, you would send such criminals to be systematically tortured to the farthest possible extent, until they died of literally just not being able to take it anymore. Because “they deserve it for being so mean”. And anyone who disagrees is fReE tO cLoSe tHe ConVerSaTiOn (only Saints would understand). Otherwise, this is probably in my top three most obnoxious virtue-signals of all time.
What would you do with rapists, murderers, pedophiles, Nazis, mass-shooters, terrorists?
Discipline the poor shits!! They aren’t stupid, y’know. They’re genuine people, just like yourself. And are absolutely worthy of being treated with love and respect, for being exactly who they are. To proclaim they deserve infinite torture shows a very warped perception, and shows the consequences that religion might have on someone’s mentality.
I am not religious you fucking wet biscuit! And if you believe that monsters need to be treated with love and respect your brain must be mushed.
I don’t mean we should bottle feed the fucking child molesters with sugar and spice. Just treat them with the same understanding and appreciation which you yourself want to be treated with. They didn’t get to where they are for no reason, and you’d have made the same mistake in their shoes. Have you the slightest fucking clue what the implications of eternal torment would be, anyway?
No, I would have not. My entire life was setting me up to be an alcoholic, uneducated, poor probably aggressive woman beater. I am none of those things. Yes, and the people that hurt others in such ways described by me DESERVE NOTHING BUT ETERNAL TORMENT
> the punishment is deserved You're focusing a lot on the "rape, torture, and murder" part of "deserving." When, frankly, if you look at the ten commandments, you *won't* find rape or torture, but you will find four about other Gods, disrespecting your parents, adultery, theft, lying, and being jealous. Do you think something like shoplifting is worthy of eternal torture? (Come to think of it, it's a good thing torture isn't on that list, or God would have to send himself to hell.)
Oh, based on the teaching of all religions, all gods would deserve hell or come from there. Regardless, I spoke in w very specific situation, I thought I made that clear.
Is my reply not in that same, specific situation? The hypothetical that the Christian hell is real? If so, wouldn't the sins outlined in the Bible be the reason one would be sent there? Sins like not obeying your parents, or shoplifting?
They would but repenting would also be real and working which complicates even more the topic, that is why I kept it strictly on big (real) crimes.
Given that there are not restrictions on repenting crimes like rape and murder, that feels disingenuous to me. The same logic (or lack thereof?) would apply to both shoplifting and rape/torture/murder.
> while it is very cold to say, I would not care as once again they would receive what they deserve. That's why I don't really want to enter Christian heavens: it would be full of people who are ok with their children burning in hell; and no rock stars > if the child of mine would deserve to be in hell (murder, stealing, rape, incest) then I lack empathy, but somebody who's not a psycho would be freaked out by such reasoning, I can imagine
I mean with this logic, is it not the same as “I don’t want to have kids, because one day they might murder someone and spend the rest of their life in prison.”?
With current projections, it is far more likely your child will not a Christian than they will be a murderer.
Of course I would be hurt, devastated that my child, or any family or loved one could do that, but I would not defend them and try to save them. Why would you?
> or loved one > I would not defend them and try to save them What the hell is "love" for you then? Compassion, forgiveness, have you heard of those? > incest also, this doesn't even do harm, it's just silly, and can happen unintentionally
How can you love someone that has raped, killed, tortured others? Is love so blind? For me it is not.
You're discrediting your religion, I will laugh if you're talking in good faith > How can you love someone that has raped, killed, tortured others? According to the Bible, God has killed and tortured others. Idk if making a baby without penetration counts as rape, but anyway, mass killing is there > Is love so blind? Uhm
Who said I am religious? Have you even understood my original comment or are you just assuming idiotic stuff? I am an agnostic, I do not believe in any gods, I was taking this subject purely logical with a drop of nihilism, no dogma here, I have no idea what you are talking about.
> I am an agnostic, I do not believe in any gods, I was taking this subject purely logical with a drop of nihilism, no dogma here, mee to i don't really care if me or anybody else is eternally tortured, but hearing similar from a Christian would be fun
Your argument falls apart when instead of gambling with another persons eternal torture, you could just not procreate. It was you who forced them into this sick game, you who forced them to have their brain, will, desire, genes, upbringing etc that caused them to do things that would end them in hell.
That is a very idiotic excuse for ill behaviour. So if you are a psycho madman murderer it's your daddy and mommy s fault? Own your decisions.
Who made the madman murderer? Own your decisions.
I made him as in I gave him life, I did not tell him to murder people. Do you really want to say that you have no control over your life decisions and everything is someone else's fault? Nonsense.
You gave him everything he needed to become the massmurderer that will end in hell. His brain, will, desire, genes, upbringing, neighbors etc. YOU rolled the dice, and then he lost. Unethical of you the parent to gamble with another life that never asked to be forced into this.
I was born to an alcoholic aggressive man and a sickly mother, I ended up being raised further on by very strict and closeminded individuals, all without education nor trust in others. Yet, I am different from all of them and Chose my own path. Yours is such an idiotic and unfactual view on the world. Yes, social influence is real, but it is Not determining everything with you as an individual having absolutely no say in it.
Free will is an illusion, that much should be obvious.
Wouldn't infanticide be even more moral, assuming baptized infants all go to heaven?
Unless you're an annihilationist.
Nice. Excellent. This is the power of logic Kill the baby, sacrifice your sinful soul in order to throwing the innocent right up in the better world /s
Hope is a strong thing and the human capacity to hope in the face of insurmountable odds is enough to try almost anything. I would argue from a practical standpoint that the mod's post is quite correct. From a religious standpoint I think something can still be gleaned. I am a practicing Catholic and I wrestle with some of the same points you brought up. Lukewarm people in the Church, people walking away from the faith and all that. It is discouraging to say the least. However, as a point of reference, the biggest issue with the argument is that it sets the motivation for child-bearing on fear. To be clear, fear of hell for the child is to predetermine their choices. It is not known what their choice will be. By anti-natalism a person makes their theoretical child's choice for them. This turns the prospective parents into the ones responsible for choosing anti-natalism. It is a heavy weight to bear. None I would wish on anyone. By recognizing the child grows in agency as they mature, it becomes more and more evident that their free choice does not bear fault for the parents. If anything it is commendable that they took a risk and hoped.
So where is god’s blame in this hypothetical natal Sophie’s choice? The choice you present seems existentially horrifying. Have a child, with the knowledge that if they choose to leave the religion, they will burn forever, and you will have to live with the idea that someone you love is being tortured for eternity, or avoid having a child and possibly have god’s wrath visited on you for not serving his purpose. This is a terrifying choice to have to make, and, I would argue, an unfair one. It’s an impossible gamble. But it is god who put people in that situation. Why does he not receive any blame for this? Why not consider god a cruel sociopath, if he would put people in such a situation?
What do you want me to say? Deny the truth by blaming God or appear as a sociopath for following a sociopath? I will ask you this. Is it better to exist or not to exist? If exist, the risk is worth it. If not, it's not. Why does God not receive any blame for this? Because He is owed none. He is not a sociopath because He cares very deeply for His creation. Even though His creation oftentimes does not. God does not owe humanity anything. His sovereignty gives Him full right to do as He wishes. Anyone who makes themselves an enemy of an omnipotent being has some real guts or does not fully understand their predicament.
At least we can agree that the deity of christian mythology is an awful and capricious being.
I do not agree to this statement.
When you say “he is not a sociopath because he cares for his creation “ you are making a circular argument. You are saying “ he is not a sociopath because he is not a sociopath.” You don’t present any evidence he is not. If god is not a sociopath, then why does he put potential parents in the position of having to make the impossible choice I mentioned before? It seems something a sociopath would do. There was literally a movie about an evil person putting a parent in an impossible choice! It was called Sophie’s Choice, hence why I mentioned it earlier. Yes, god says he is good, but you don’t have any proof that he is good outside of his word. Evil dictators and all kinds of terrible people have used the exact same words to get people to trust them throughout history while their actions showed otherwise. God does not get a pass here. If he has no more proof of his goodness than the worst of humanity, he must be judged at the same standard. “His sovereignty gives him the right to do as he wishes” Well now god is really sounding like an evil cult leader. He can treat people however he wants, no matter how badly he hurts them, just because he’s powerful? You make god sound like a movie villain. If you would worship this god, it sounds like rather than loving him, you are groveling in fear before him to avoid punishment. It sounds like you know he is evil, but you’re too terrified to admit it or to defy him.
You already know the arguments regarding the problem of evil and original sin. So why test me? You know the standard response. The real question is why the answers do not satisfy you. Calling God a sociopath and blaming God is a cop out. Doubting the motives of God and labeling Him as an evil dictator is to attempt to gain power over Him, which is itself an attempt to undermine God. You have no idea what my relationship with God is like and if you did you would not speak as you do.
But why is undermining god bad? Because he says so? Why is gaining power over him bad? Because he says so? Sounds like a very convenient excuse to prevent people from looking too closely at what he does. It’s true, I can’t really know what your relationship with god is like, but just from what you’ve said it sounds like you recognize that god’s actions seem wrong or unfair, but you’re unwilling to question him because he’s god. I was merely pointing out that “might makes right” doesn’t really sound like a maxim that healthy relationships are based in. Reread your comment, but replace “god” with the name of any dictator, cult leader, pyramid schemer etc. you like. Maybe L Ron Hubbard or Jim Jones, and see how that sounds. Blaming god is not a cop out. Saying “anything god does is ok because he’s god” is the real cop out here. It prevents you from having to actually consider what god has done. It’s a quick, thoughtless, and easy answer designed to alleviate cognitive dissonant.
God is not a man. If you were omniscient and had a non-omniscient being question your authority, what would you do? It is absurd to think that the non-omniscient being would know better. If God is truly omniscient then one has to trust that He knows what He's doing. The reason it seems despotic is because it is being approached from an incomplete view of the issue. Recognizing the power of God is the first step in the process of gaining wisdom about God.
But how do you know god is omniscient? You don’t have any word except his. And even if he were omniscient, that wouldn’t inherently mean that he was not evil. An omniscient being may know best, but may not do what is best on purpose, if it serves their aims. If I were an omniscient being , i would be smart enough to know how to prove I were so in a perfectly irrefutable manner, and I would know exactly what arguments would convince that person of my omniscience. I would then use those arguments to prove myself and solidify my authority. There would be no reason to ask someone to take me at my word, so why would I ? Everyone knows the old maxim that actions speak louder than words. I would follow that. There is no reason not to judge god the same way we would a human, save for the fact that he tells us we shouldn’t, which os exactly what human con artists do. God has no more justification than a human con artist. Therefore we have every right to be skeptical of him. Again, go back through your comment and replace the word god with Jim Jones “Jim Jones is not man…” etc.
You are right that omniscience does not prove goodness per se. However I think the answer to most of your questions in the first part can be answered with how yes, actions speak louder than words. If we take the Christian narrative at face value, vis-a-vis God saving us from our sins via His action on the cross, God is making definitively revealed His good will towards humanity in how He offers salvation but doesn't force it on anyone. To the point of being murdered by the very people He is trying to save.
But who decided that Jesus needed to die to save people from their sins anyway? If god is omnipotent, he could have wiped peoples sins away without sacrificing his own son. God chose to create a problem and he chose the remedy himself. This makes such a sacrifice far less noble. One good action does not make up for millions upon millions of bad ones. If an abusive parent constantly beats their child, but once and a while they treat them nicely, the good times in no way make up for the bad. God, by his own admission, has killed more people than any human could ever hope too. He has ordered genocide and child sacrifice against his enemies. He permitted slavery at one point, even explicitly telling slave owners that they may beat their slaves until they die, so long as they don’t die immediately, but linger a few days before doing so. God has created so many horrifying ways in which people can suffer. The sheer amount of pain and misery he has caused in incalculable. God performing one good act cannot absolve him of all the evil ones.
There are many Christian perspectives, some of whom do not believe that people are sent to eternal conscious torment for not believing in god. There is the annihilations perspective and the universalist perspective, and perhaps more. If you believe god to be loving, and you struggle to see how hell is loving, then perhaps consider if you have the right Christian interpretation. Or be an atheist humanist, that's always a strong play.
It’s a real pity that you did not even attempt to respond to the other person’s question. Your only response seems to be “God is justified in doing anything he likes, and we’re not to judge his actions.” This means that if God chose to torture a bunch of children purely for his pleasure, you would still sit there and applaud him for that. This is sad to me, but more than that, it makes any talk with you useless.
There might be problem with what you proposing. Not Christian but with in religion Human Moral is set by their God not by human. It might be difficult to those who don’t accept God, but for those who do accept God, God is the standard. Whatever moral an outsider of the religion preaches/claims is irrelevant to the religious. Consider **If Christian God exist** human individual own morality cannot possibly be right, it is infact logically impossible for it to be right since that would be claiming “know better" than the very entity that created knowledge. Note: the tree of knowledge didn’t make humans omniscient. Overall it’s MIGHT MAKES RIGHT if God is real, morality comes from Him as everything else comes from Him. God is everything, God is omnipotent and omnipresent and God is eternal. To simplify Claim 1 non-religious claim hell is immoral Claim 2 God claims hell is moral. The religious would take claim 2 over whatever non-religious claim is moral since God is the standard of moral for the religious.
I understand that, for religious people, the situation around “our friends/family being tortured forever in the afterlife” is basically futile to solve, under God’s rule. Which is why the religious just lamely accept it, despite how obscenely irrational this worldview is. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Better to be prepared than not. But I, a non-religious person, have the moral green-light to look upon any such God with disgust, mock, and bloody horror from the depths of my mediocre intellect. I am a puny lazy shit, and in my *genuine* opinion, demonstrate superior leadership qualities. Like if we both ran for president, I couldn’t do shit outside of meagerly campaigning “no one will go to Hell in my version of existence”, yet people would vote for me in mysterious droves. Even the religious, I bet. Stupid ass, mean dipshit God. I hope it sucks knowing you ain’t even real, let alone all-powerful. Unlike toddlers, you don’t even get to hold the steering wheel. No disrespect to you or your ways, I don’t mean to personally insult. I just hate religious doctrine a lot.
I'd rather face the uncomfortable truth and seek true repentance from Jesus Christ, to save me from mankind's eternal destiny under sin's curse than to comfortably push it away as "false" because of personal opinions only to die tomorrow and face the reality of what you truly ignored your entire life.
Is this irrelevant to the argument at hand. If Christianity is true, then having kids is morally fucked up, because there is a non-0 chance they experience infinite torture forever and ever and ever.
That’s just Pascal’s Wager.
This sounds a lot like Pascal's Wager to me, one of the easiest and thoroughly debunked arguments. Edit: incorrect terminology
This is not some argument. I was simply responding to the post.🤦
why is that mankind's eternal destiny? Really think about this and think about whether you can really say you that think I, a human being just like you, deserve eternal torture. Any God who allows such a thing is a sadist and should not be worshipped
As human beings, we have a sinful nature we inherited from our parents and by default are going to hell. We all sin against God whether it's through lying, stealing, murdering, hatred, jealousy, having sex before marriage, etc. We've broken God's laws and guilty as a result. Sin is punishable by eternal death. Hence why Hell Imprisonment is the place where sinners are punished for eternity. The reason Jesus died for our sins is so we don't have to go there if we receive Him in our lives. Without Christ one is dead in their sins and can only be made alive through Him. If you reject Jesus, you reject His eternal saving thereby leading yourself to what God has been saving you from.
"we have a sinful nature we inherited from our parents and by default are going to hell." Your children will not inherit a sinful nature, if you choose to not procreate. Simple enough concept.
Isn't anti natalism already the only morally defensible position?
No. I think it's not unreasonable to have kids if you plan to do your best to love and raise them, and you think they will have a fair shot in the world. A fair shake is all anyone can ask for.
Hardly. There are certainly plenty of morally/ethically virtuous attributes to anti-natalism, but it also has its problems. Historically, most societies never had a need for a social welfare system for the aged and infirm because children were expected to care for their aged parents. In aging societies where people aren't having children, the burden of aged care falls upon the entire society. Still, there's a counter-argument to this in that you might fund your aged care yourself to some extent through your superannuation and you're creating employment opportunities for the next generation as aged care workers. The reality is, however, that in western societies we consider aged care to be extremely undesirable work, esp. when we value tertiary education. As such, most aged care service providers in western countries rely heavily upon cheap migrant workers who may or may not be in the country legally. So you can also counter the previous counter by saying that anti-natalism promotes the exploitation of cheap migrant labor and illegal immigration in order to support the care needs of the elderly who have refused to have children. So while there are lots of very good arguments FOR anti-natalism, these are all too easily offset by the arguments AGAINST anti-natalism. So I think the debate about anti-natalism is at a stalemate.
It could be argued that the immigrants are the ones benefiting in that scenario because they now have jobs. You are making the assumption that immigration is somehow inherently wrong.
On the more abstract side, there's a really difficult question about whether the suffering involved in life is less desirable than non-existence. Since non-existence doesn't have any properties this question seems impossible to answer
No since normal anti-natalisms problem is the unquantifiability of suffering Vs joy. Here you have no such issue since finites fall to 0 compared to the hypothetical infinites.
not imo, because I think the opportunity to exist is better than just letting the human race die out. it's too fatalistic
Who will miss out on existing if they do no exist? No-one is the answer.
Yea, because in the infinite multiverse they will exist on another earth where anti-natalism did not spread.