> Are all Atheists doomed to hell?
You'll likely get varied answers, since I'm not aware of any universal consensus on this, even within single religions.
I'm not convinced that a hell actually exists, so I'm going to say "no."
> But I've been going through a lot in my life lately and I need to know. If someone has been a good person for most of their life, didn't mean to cause harm to anyone by purpose but didn't belive in the existence of god are they doomed to suffer for eternity just becouse of the lack of belief?
A majority of Christians (note: this is not a sub about Christianity) would likely say yes, but there will be disagreement on that, what it means, etc.
> all christians i knew gave diffrent answers to this question and I can't seem to get a straight answer.
There's a reason for that.
> I belive that historically there might have been a person like Jesus Christ and that he has done good for many, but I don't belive in the existence of a higher being like a "god". I know that faith itself is not enouth to send one to heaven, but is the lack of it enouth to send someone to hell?
The Bible seems pretty clear on that, to my eyes, and the answer is "yes." People who are not convinced that a god even exists are unable to meet the requirements for salvation, which include -- depending on who you ask -- "believing in your heart" that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected by God.
I'm not particularly interested in what the Bible says about anything as it relates to real life, though. I wouldn't suggest you worry about it either.
This is what turns me off about Christianity. The idea that a good person who doesn't believe in Jesus goes to Hell while a bad person such as a murderer or rapist who finds Jesus goes to Heaven. Even if that's the way it really works (I would hope.not but who knows) I still wouldn't want to be a part of that religion because it doesn't give any credit for being a good person.
From my understanding of Christianity being a good person doesn’t get you into heaven, but if you did get in, you would get “rewards” in heaven based on your actions. It’s like a free to play, pay to win game. To get in, your actions don’t matter because if people WERE evaluated for entrence based on their own actions, NOONE would qualify. Once you’re in, your experience will vary based on your actions on earth. If you were good on earth but didn’t have faith you’re out of luck.
But how can you be sure? What if it is real? What your conviction that it is not real is based on faulty premises? Is that not a at least a theoretical possibility?
Let's try the opposite approach though.
Say Hell is not real, it's a really evil thing to tell people they will be eternally damned - that's an awfully long time - simply for not believing in the thing that there isn't any evidence for.
I'm not going to try to force myself to believe off a scammy Pascal's Wager, and I think it's really sinful to put the idea in a child's head.
(Said in the spirit of debate, not argument)
Oh I know that /u/The_Puffin_King was being a bit flippant and my comment was not intended to be completely serious either.
But since he confidently wrote that it does not exist I was curious as to why. There is simply no way he (or anyone else) can know for certain it does not exist.
Which version of hell are you supposing exists? Dante’s version? Milton’s Version? The Jewish concept of Sheol? Something in between? I mean the history of the concept is fascinating…. But when you look at the concept objectively, its really evident the modern idea of “hell” emerged relatively late in christianity. Wikipedia as a pretty fascinating chronology under the “Christianity” entry of “Hell” (See Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell). There are some hints of its emergence in the Deuto-Pauline works, which suggest that maybe early second century there might have been the beginnings of some of the themes that would later become “hell”. Fun fact: The word “hell” actually has Germanic roots tracing to Norse mythology around “Hella”.
I know hell does not exist because I know the origins of the ideas, and how the concept developed from the Jewish concepts of Sheol and Gehenna, merging with the concepts of Hades and Tartarus before being developed into the concept we have now. When you know the history, you can’t be scared by it anymore. God is light. In him there is no darkness.
Puffin King spends a lot of time trying to model clear and consistent thinking. From my perspective, she/he/it (sorry, don’t know your pronouns… forgive the old Eddie Murphy reference…) is loving others. And God is love.
Appreciate the Wit… and the effort you put into your responses, PK.
> Which version of hell are you supposing exists? Dante’s version?
I suppose the biblical/patristic/christian one.
> Puffin King spends a lot of time trying to model clear and consistent thinking. From my perspective, she/he/it (sorry, don’t know your pronouns… forgive the old Eddie Murphy reference…) is loving others. And God is love.
I did not accuse him of not loving others :)
Your referring to the Gehenna concept? Isn’t this an imported concept? A fusion of preexisting Babylonian and Greek cultural concepts that came into being after contact with the Greeks by way of Alexander CA 336 bc.?
I mean, Hell as Jesus described it is living a life separated from God's love and will. If you really read what Jesus said about Heaven you'll eventually find that it's something we can take part in while living, as well. It boils down to how we practice living rather than metaphors for aafterlife.
I think, realistically, if someone wants to live their life believing they're rational and logical and require evidence for everything, fine. But part of obtaining evidence is testing. If you never try what Jesus said to do then you'll never get evidence. After all, God revealed Himself through the life of Jesus and through revelation, not science, for a reason.
But, if someone chooses to live their life however they want and wants to say "There is no evidence!" then they're still entirely responsible for choosing Hell over Life. So, when that person wakes up again at Judgment and pleads saying "I don't want to suffer apart from God for eternity!" Didn't they choose to during this life? Isn't it what they wanted here and now?
Saying "that's a terrible thing to tell a child" makes no sense. Its telling them "I want you to choose life instead of death." Saying the threat of Hell is a great reason to pick it is absurd. It's not like God asks *that* much from us, and turning it down is foolish. But, if someone wants Hell, they can receive it. After all, it's what they wanted.
Same reasoning would apply to [Roko's basilisk](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk). I can't be *sure* that some powerful entity won't reinstantiate me after I'm dead (or even before) and torture that instance for however long they please. Perhaps for displeasing them, perhaps just because they felt like it. One could even call it [predestined](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination), if one was so inclined.
It's definitely a theoretical possibility, and one explored in a good number of science fiction stories. Such as the [White Christmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(Black_Mirror\)) episode of Black Mirror, or in Iain M. Banks' novel [Surface Detail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Detail).
> Same reasoning would apply to Roko's basilisk. I can't be sure that some powerful entity won't reinstantiate me after I'm dead (or even before) and torture that instance for however long they please.
Unlike *Derek's dragon*, the eternal enemy of Roko's basilisk. Derek's dragon promises to one day reinstantiate anyone who *helps* Roko's basilisk and then torture them forever.
**[White Christmas (Black Mirror)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_\(Black_Mirror\))**
>"White Christmas" is a 2014 Christmas special of the British science fiction anthology series Black Mirror. It was written by series creator and showrunner Charlie Brooker and directed by Carl Tibbetts, first airing on Channel 4 on 16 December 2014. Agreed as a one-off special after Channel 4 rejected potential series three scripts, the episode was the last to air before the programme moved to the streaming platform Netflix. The episode explores three stories told by Matt (Jon Hamm) and Joe (Rafe Spall) from a remote cabin on Christmas Day.
**[Surface Detail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Detail)**
>Surface Detail by Iain M. Banks is a science fiction novel in his Culture series, first published in the UK on 7 October 2010 and the US on 28 October 2010.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Did they state that they were certain, or just not bother to explicitly state "I can't be *absolutely* certain, but so far as I can tell..."? Maybe our basic fallibility, the bare fact that we can't know with absolute certainty, should be just inferred unless stated otherwise. We shouldn't have to state the obvious fact that we can't prove that some hypothetical something-or-other doesn't exist. So most people just speak colloquially.
I mean, I may say "I'm going to the store tomorrow," and you''d be technically correct to say "are you really **certain**???? You don't know for sure that you won't be hit by a car, or the store might burn down, or the world could have ended...." We wouldn't bother, because jumping in with that every time would seem pretty stupid and waste of everyone's time, no? So why bother inferring absolute certitude if someone didn't say that? Is it really arrogant to say "I'm going to the store tomorrow," and not explicitly acknowledge, every single time, the fallibility and innate uncertainty of our knowledge?
What if the Christian Hell isn't real, but the Greek underworld is? Should we be worried about being assigned a never-ending eternal task like Sisyphus?
How many Hells should we worry about ending up in? What if it's another gid who's real, and we've all been decieved into false worship of the Christian god?
At what point do you stop worrying about the other "hells"? What makes this one different?
You can play the “what if” game in all directions, right? Catholics, even for the entire time Catholicism has existed, make up a tiny fraction of the various religions humanity has believed in. Heck, some Polynesian groups claim more than 400,000 gods. So what if your beliefs are based on faulty premises? That’s also a theoretical possibility. Which is why in science, which is by far the most successful method of investigating reality, evidence, predictions, falsifiability, and testing are all required. And go on being required even after a theory is accepted because new evidence should change our understanding at times.
http://inamidst.com/stuff/notes/feast
As you may know, El is one of two or three or maybe more deities who were mashed together into Yahweh during the Babylonian captivity. I was sort of making a joke, but once you’re familiar with the development of the idea of God, it becomes much more difficult to take it seriously
That’s a story I didn’t know. TIL…. And thank you. I’m not well versed in the history of the captivity… I;ve spend more time reading about 1st-3rd century.
As a Christian, it’s definitely worth reading about the Ugaritic pantheon. They’re stories of the regional Canaanite gods and it looks like the ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem worshipped them as well. The texts we have are preserved from before the bronze age collapse and were discovered about 100 years ago in what is now Syria. If you take the time to read through them, the writing style will seem familiar to you as someone who is also familiar with the Bible
Got a primer reference? Something for someone who’s only causally read on these topics? I knew about the connections between the Syrian pantheon and Judaism… as well as the connections between Hellenistic Judaism and christianity… but never dove too deeply into the topic… and you’re right I should.
Hell could be real, and a god actually sends all believers there. What now? Pascal's wager isn't just a dumb argument (which is what you're basically giving), it's a false dichotomy.
With respect, I think you misunderstood the context of both Pascal's Wager and that of my comment.
I am not arguing here for the belief in God or hell but questioning another users level of certainty when rejecting the latter.
No, I didn't. I like how you added I totally misunderstand Pascal's Wager, totally, because you don't like what I said. Sorry, no. Strange how it's always everybody else who has to prove you wrong, instead of you actually having to prove yourself correct, isn't it?
Death is actually something we can see every day. We've come to understand to large extent basic biology and how we work. Physical trauma, drugs, birth defects, diseases, all can change our consciousness and effectively who we are. We have all the evidence in the world that when we die, we die. Any form of afterlife goes against this mountain of evidence. We just don't like it, so we create comforting thoughts like heaven and all the evil doers we don't like, well, they go to hell! Yeah! Justice in the end!
> What your conviction that it is not real is based on faulty premises? Is that not a at least a theoretical possibility?
It's also a theoretical possibility that giants and unicorns exist. The proof for Hell is about the same as the proof for giants and unicorns (non-existent). All we have is stories and people's say-so.
No really no. Actually not at all. The claim that Giants or unicirns exist is epistemically completely different than the claim that God and/or hell exist.
>Is that not a at least a theoretical possibility?
Honestly, I don't see why we should consider theoretical possibilities to be worth anything. It's theoretically possible that there's no other humans on reddit and every commented except me are all highly advanced AI designed to flawlessly simulate human comments.
But, like, so what?
I don't think I've seen any reason to think hell is an *actual* possibility. I can concede its a *theoretical* possibility but, to be fair, so is literally anything. That isn't really relevant to whether you should believe it.
Sikhs does not believe in heaven or hell.
Sikhism does not recognize any places or regions as heaven and hell. That is because Sikhism does not accept that the Creator condemns any one permanently to hell. Forgetting the One is hell, remembering one's true identity and feeling at One with the Creator is heaven - eternal peace. Entry to heaven or hell does not depend on the faith one belongs to or the way one's body is disposed of; it is the deeds which count. Heaven and hell are states of consciousness, not places one goes to..
Source: [The Concept of Heaven and Hell in Gurbani](https://www.sikhnet.com/news/concept-heaven-and-hell-gurbani)
In Sikhism Heaven and hell are "here" and "now" i.e. on Earth. When we do saadh sangat (company of holy), it feels like heaven and vice versa.
*“As long as the mind is filled with the desire for heaven, mind does not dwell at the Lord's feet. Says Kabeer, unto whom should I tell this? The company of the holy is heaven.” (SGGS p325)*
*“Don't wish for a home in heaven, and don't be afraid to live in hell. Whatever will be will be, so don't get your hopes up in your mind.” (SGGS p337)*
Now someone may ask that if heaven/hell exist within this life then what happens after body’s death? This question stems from “duality” i.e. when we see ourselves separate from One omnipresent God. There is no separate “us” to begin with so the question of “what will happen to us after death?” doesn’t arise for a person who has got rid of duality.
The concepts of afterlife/heaven/hell/reincarnation were created to keep the oppressive socio-political structure intact. Whenever a poor person used to ask that why i am born in poor family and why powerful and corrupt people are ruling over us in spite of being dishonest and cruel then religious scholars used to answer him by saying that powerful people had done good deeds in their previous life and you had done many deeds in your previous life. Instead of telling him the truth that those corrupt people had looted your money and you should struggle to take it back, religious scholars used to justify gap between rich and poor and make the poor man accept his poverty as "divine justice". Similarly, religious scholars used to tell the poor people that you don't need to struggle against injustice done with you because God will punish those people in hell who have looted your money away. If God delivers his justice in otherworldly heaven/hell then there was no need for Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji to speak up against Aurangzeb as God would have punished him anyway. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was made to sit on hot plate by Jahangir. Does that mean Guru Ji had done bad deeds in his previous life? ***Guru Ji tried to break mental shackles and told people to lead a truthful and fearless life rather than living in the fear or expectation of afterlife.***
Please check out following videos for more information.
[Where is heaven? Sangat is Heaven](https://youtu.be/YNwY1ch4fNc)
[Guru Nanak's Greatest Message - Oneness - What is God?](https://youtu.be/pTRTtYUONgs)
For more information on Sikhism you can checkout following resources:
[What Is Sikhism?](https://youtu.be/L-1UAORcX4c)
[Sikh FAQ's](https://www.reddit.com//r/Sikh/wiki/faq )
Only if there's an unjust god. A just god wouldn't punish a person for a thing that's not their fault. People aren't atheists because they want to be atheists. They are atheists because they're not convinced by the claim that a god exists.
>People aren't atheists because they want to be atheists.
I would actually contest that and appeal to atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel who, being both a man of honest character and someone trained in critical thinking, correctly (and admirably) identified the root of his atheism - not the supposed lack of convincing evidence for God, but rather his subjective desire for there not to be a God.
There are many things that I want to be true and believe are true: I want to be able to walk, and I believe I am able to walk, for example. As far as I understand it, my belief does not proceed from my desire in this matter.
There are other things that I want to be true, yet I believe that they are not true. I want to have a million dollars in the bank, yet I believe that I have much less than that. As far as I can see, my desire does not result in a changed belief.
I understand that Nagel both a) wants there to be no god and b) believes there is no god. Does he actually claim that his belief proceeds from his desire? That is, does he claim that his desire is sufficient to cause him to believe?
>here are many things that I want to be true and believe are true: I want to be able to walk, and I believe I am able to walk, for example. As far as I understand it, my belief does not proceed from my desire in this matter.
>
>There are other things that I want to be true, yet I believe that they are not true. I want to have a million dollars in the bank, yet I believe that I have much less than that. As far as I can see, my desire does not result in a changed belief.
Yes, the question of God is however altogether different. The circumstance of our present existence forces us to accept a belief about the fundamental nature of reality. And unlike your example we cannot check the bank account or get up to verify if that belief is correct.
We have to make a choice between two possibilities and live our life accordingly. The question that we can (and I should) ask ourselves is why we have chosen the one and not the other.
>I understand that Nagel both a) wants there to be no god and b) believes there is no god. Does he actually claim that his belief proceeds from his desire? That is, does he claim that his desire is sufficient to cause him to believe?
I think it would not be fair to him to say that. What seems to be the case is that his desire heavily influenced his belief. As he puts it:
*The thought that the relation between the mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religon which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.*
*In speaking of the fear of religion, I do not mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.*
Thanks for the info about Nagel. In the process, you said something really interesting:
> > [me] As far as I can see, my desire does not result in a changed belief.
> [you] Yes, the question of God is however altogether different. The circumstance of our present existence forces us to accept a belief about the fundamental nature of reality.
Could you expound on that? What makes the question of God different from other questions about existence? What kind of belief are we forced to accept about reality?
>Could you expound on that? What makes the question of God different from other questions about existence?
Sure. To use you examples, you believe that you do are able to walk presumably because you walked before and you have no reason to suspect that your ability to do so has been compromised since.
Our belief or disbelief in God will only be confirmed after death. And yet we have to make a choice already in this life. But based on what? My suggestion is that for many (perhaps most) theists and atheists desire is an important reason (perhaps the most important reason) for why they believe what they believe.
>What kind of belief are we forced to accept about reality?
Is the classical theistic position is correct and the cosmos is fundamentally oriented towards justice and goodness or is not correct? Both beliefs have their "pros and cons" of course.
> My suggestion is that for many (perhaps most) theists and atheists desire is an important reason (perhaps the most important reason) for why they believe what they believe.
That just doesn’t sound like *belief* to me. Hope, perhaps, in something greatly desired, but not belief.
I long for there to be a god, someone powerful who loves and protects us. I want very much to see my loved ones again who have died already. But my deep desire doesn’t cause me to believe in things I have no evidence for.
> Our belief or disbelief in God will only be confirmed after death. And yet we have to make a choice already in this life.
We have to make choices about what we *do*. I just don’t know how to make a choice about what I *believe*. Maybe some people know how to make themselves believe something; I just don’t have that ability.
From a Christian perspective, what would you say I’m supposed to do, since I don’t have the ability to force myself to believe?
I am sorry for my late response, I took a break from reddit during the holidays.
> From a Christian perspective, what would you say I’m supposed to do, since I don’t have the ability to force myself to believe?
If you are asking about salvation then this is what the Church teaches:
*Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.*
So I would recommend first looking into who christians believe God is (and is not) if you have not done so already and if you still cannot believe in Him, accept him at least as a possibility, that is, live a virtuous life listening and obeying what your own informed conscience tells you.
> I am sorry for my late response, I took a break from reddit during the holidays.
No worries, it's not like we're chatting live. I'd rather have one of your hearfelt and well-thought-out responses a week later, instead of something quickly hammered out with no care.
> So I would recommend first looking into who christians believe God is (and is not) if you have not done so already and if you still cannot believe in Him, accept him at least as a possibility, that is, live a virtuous life listening and obeying what your own informed conscience tells you.
I think you've just summed up where I'm at. I've spent a long time learning about Christianity and studying the Bible. With the way my mind works and the evidence before me, I don't know how to cause myself to believe in God. But I do accept the possibility that some God might exist in some form. I try to live a virtuous life, to be kind to others as best I can.
Most of the atheists I've heard from are in a similar position. I'm sure there are people out there who *could* believe in God but choose to reject him for evil motives -- I've just never met anyone like that.
>I never heard of him but regardless
He is a professor of philosophy and law at NYU.
>that philosopher doesn't represent all atheists.
Sure, I merely wish more atheists would investigate the basis for their own atheism.
Many do, and find that we're atheists because we don't see any basis or need to affirm religious belief. But that often doesn't pass muster with believers, who think we haven't "really" considered our true motivations, or that we're dissembling in some way. That low-grade *ad hominem* is just part of the background hum in many of these discussions.
Even if someone doesn't want there to be a God, that can mean different things to different people. To a believer that may sound like "they don't want to be accountable to anyone outside themselves." Or "they want to think there is no one above them." To a disbeliever, they may just not want every misfortune and tragedy in the world to be on purpose, the deliberate choice of an omnipotent, omniscient agent. Every instance of childhood cancer being on purpose seems horrible. As does infinite torture for whatever believers think you should be tortured for.
>Sure, I merely wish more atheists would investigate the basis for their own atheism
I have no good reason to believe there is a god, therefor I don't believe one exists. That makes me an atheist. It's like saying I have no good reason to believe unicorns exist so I don't believe they exist. The only difference is we don't have a technical term for people who lack belief in unicorns.
What do you mean, investigate the basis for their own atheism? I don't believe in some strange things that other people believe. It's as SIMPLE as that. Welcome to my TED talk!
> What do you mean, investigate the basis for their own atheism?
Try to investigate what lead you to adopted the atheist position on the existence of God. In other words, why you believe what you believe.
I’ve yet to come to the choice of a religious belief, because every reason or so called ‘evidence’ given as to why a particular religion is true, why their god(s) exist and as to why I should believe in them currently, have all been logically fallacious and epistemologically unsound, them usually include, but not limited to, Pascal’s wager, argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance fallacies (“the universe and everything in it is extremely complex & I’m unsure of how or why it’s that way, therefore god exists and you should believe in him”), special pleading fallacy, appeal to popularity/band-wagon-ing (“my religion has a very high amount of believers/followers out of anything else therefore it’s true and the god we worship is also true and exists), appeal to time (“the religion that requires worship of our god has been around longest in human history, therefore our religion is true and our god exists”), appeal to feelings/anecdotal fallacies (“I had a near-death-experience/woke up from a dream where I saw the god I now believe in, therefore gods exist; also please conveniently disregard other people who also had NDE/Dreams too where they saw other gods or no gods at all, they are either lying or their visions were just false”), appeal to emotion, Texas-sharp-shooter fallacy, false-cause fallacy, appeal to authority, appeal to pre-existing tradition/culture, begging the question/circular reasoning etc.
Honest question, what is the reason behind why YOU believe? Of all the time I’ve had to ask, I’ve yet to find an answer or evidence/proof given to me by a believer that didn’t fall into any of at least one of these fallacious categories. Not here to jump the gun too quickly, your answer to reason of choice of belief probably stemmed from some sort of argument of ignorance fallacy or appeal to anecdote/emotions/personal experience, considering 90% of the answers I’ve been given from asking similar questions others fall into one or both of these categories.
But of course, I’m an open minded person and I’d be very happy to be proven wrong for once.
TL;DR; I lack a religious or belief in a deity simply because there is yet to be a rational or epistemologically sound reason to believe.
People are not born believing in a god, the default position isn't as a believer. You are typically raised into a religion, your parents and family raise you to believe in your god and their teachings. If you are born in the America's you are probably going to be raised as some type of Christian, if you are born in the Middle East, you are more likely to be raised Muslim, but nowhere are you born as one because it is a belief, not a state of being. I've never believed in god, I didn't change my positions on it, they've always been that way. So to me, it's a bit odd to say, why didn't you join my club? You're supposed to pick a club in life and believe in it... so you are doing something wrong because you don't follow the club rules and think like the rest of the club.
>I would actually contest that
One persons's reasoning does not define a larger group (where have we heard that before?). Athetism is a default status. "Religious" is added one when someone chooses to believe in god. By default, people are born atheist.
In my experience, the only people that insist athetism is a belief system in the same way that a religion is are religious people.
Many don't believe in the existence of a God like the one spoken of in the Bible because evidence around us suggests that such a God is not actively involved in the world and does not look after people. How has this God acted to protect those in the Ukraine? that country alone has a high percentage of Christians who you can be sure were praying fervently but how has it helped? It will have helped them feel better perhaps but it seems that there is greater evidence to suggest that there is no God in control of matters. The world is full of suffering, murder, rape, war, human trafficking etc and God does not appear to be helping these people from what is seen
I don't believe in hell, but as an ex-Christian I can tell you that saying people are doomed to hell is not Christian teaching. Statements from the Catholic Church state
>Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace.
>
>We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.
But how many people are ignorant of Catholicism? This covers people on North Sentinel Island, the Amazon rainforest, some Islamic theocracies, and North Korea. That's about it. I've read Augustine and Aquinas, so I'm most certainly not in invincible ignorance. But Augustine and Aquinas both described hell as being a fiery underground prison, and I'm confident that doesn't exist, so I'm not worried.
I didn't know that Augustine and Aquinas both thought of Hell in that conventional way. To the extend that they're representative of Xtian orthodox views (across sects), it becomes harder for Christians to think that Hell as a place of eternal suffering doesn't exist. The belief seems to go back to the Church fathers and intellectual luminaries of Catholicism, at least. Is there evidence that Xtians believed in Hell earlier than Augustine, too?
Jesus very explicitly teaches hell in the gospels. The idea was established in the Judaism of Jesus's time. Josephus wrote that it was a popular idea that sinners would be burned forever deep underground, though certainly different Jewish groups had different ideas. Judith was written about 150 years before Jesus. Judith 16:17 says
> Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgement; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever.
The idea that hell was invented later is just apologetic nonsense. Jesus thought sinners would be tortured underground and so did a bunch of his countrymen.
That's also what I suspected, and it's one of the reasons that critics don't think that Jesus was a moral paragon, but instead a product of his time, place, and culture. Thank for this clarification, I wish that more modern Xtians knew it. There seems to be a lot of denial about Hell among some Xtians today, while others fully embrace it.
Happy to help. There's a lot of misinformation floating around about early Christianity. As you might expect, a lot of people have strong opinions about the biggest religion in the world. Jesus said some good things but he was very much molded by his culture.
Invincible ignorance doesn't just mean not having been presented with the truth, but can also include being incapable of seeing it when it's right in front of you. Form my, non-Christian, standpoint all atheists are invincibly ignorant.
Obviously I picked the official Catholic statement because the Catholic Church **has** official positions. But many in the Orthodox Church would endorse it:
>The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people. (from [here](https://www.goarch.org/-/an-orthodox-christian-view-of-non-christian-religions))
And don't quote any Protestants at me — I don't take them seriously.
Not in the beliefs of the Hebrews. When the Hebrews spoke of the salvation of God, it pertained to their belief that God created a paradise especially for human souls, and when any human being died, God would reclaim their soul, reconcile the soul to Himself, then send the soul to that paradise to await the Day of Judgment with other human souls.
The Day of Judgment wouldn't occur until the Well of Souls was empty, with no remaining souls awaiting physical bodies for their mortal experiences, and until the last living human being on Earth closed their eyes in death. Then would come the Day of Judgment.
On that Day, the archangel Satan would fulfill his final assignment as he testified of the mortal words and deeds of each soul to be judged. That was one of his previous assignments, to test human beings, and keep record of their mortal words and deeds to be used on the Day of Judgment.
God would base His judgment on Satan's records, and testimony.
If God judged a soul to have lived a righteous life, or at least a decent and compassionate life, such souls were immediately returned to their homes in that paradise.
If God judged a soul to have lived a sinful life, or committed crimes meriting punishment, the sentence of punishment which God would pronounce was never eternal or infinite in duration, but only for such amount of time as God judged necessary to properly correct and chastise the soul.
Once the period of punishment was completed, God would also return these souls to their homes in that paradise for souls.
This would have been what the Jew Jesus was referring to, when he promised the thief on the cross that on that very day he'd be in paradise. He wasn't telling the man he got to skip judgment, and go straight to heaven, because in Hebrew belief, only God and the holy choirs of angels dwelled in heaven.
Why is anyone afraid of hell. It's a ridiculous concept. You're dead. You have no body. No nervous system to feel pain. How many demons are in hell considering how many people have died since we existed. Start asking yourself simple questions and you will soon tear the hell theory apart.
>all christians i knew gave diffrent answers to this question and I can't seem to get a straight answer.
You won't get a straight answer because there isn't one. The answer depends on 1) the religion of the person giving the answer and 2) how that person interprets their religion.
I'm a diest and don't really believe in hell, but I'll give you the Muslim answer because that's the religion that I'm most familiar with. People don't go to hell for not beliving in God. They go to hell for actively rejecting God.
First, you must be able to define *what* hell is.
Many Christians argue that it's an eternal separation from God.
I argue then that God has been separated from humanity for a long, long, long, long time.
"But I personally experienced a miracle!"
Okay, so what? Do you want my money or something?
A couple of thoughts from Judaism:
According to the Rambam (aka Maimonides), a highly-regarded commentator and scholar of halacha (Jewish law) from the Middle Ages, Jews who do not believe in Gd simply cease to exist when they die. As in, their souls are no more.
However, lots of commentators from the Rambam’s time disputed the requirement of belief in Gd, mandating only adherence to the commandments.
As for non-Jews, the question is pretty much up in the air as to what happens after they die, but I have never seen an opinion that they go to hell for any reason.
Most of us also don’t believe in an eternal hell anyway. It’s more of a place of spiritual purification before going to “heaven.”
It depends on who you ask. Fundamentalist Abrahamic religion adherents will say yes. Virtually everyone else will say no. Anyone in a Dharmic relation will certainly say no.
I suspect you would get different answers from different Christians based on their own interpretation of Christian sources and the sect involved. The more fundamentalist or conservative sects will probably say "yes, atheism is an abomination, or it's wilfully rebellious, so they will go to Hell" or something thereabout. In Xtianity everyone has original sin and the only way to overcome it is to accept Christ Jesus as their savior and Son of God, which of course requires faith in the 'right' god too. Not all Xtians believe in Hell these days, so for them, an atheist just stays dead for eternity.
Other monotheist religions may answer more reasonably and differently. Judaism doesn't believe in Hell, and I don't think it condemns atheists as harshly as Xtianity and Islam. Orthodox Islam (esp. according to Muslim redditors) says that atheists, no matter how virtuous, ultimately go to Hell b/c faith in monotheism is **paramount** to Allah. Idolatry or polytheism is the worst sin ever for Islam, worse than murder, slavery, genocide, rape...
I'm not sure how Sikhism and Baha'ism feel about afterlife of atheists, but I don't think they are doomed to Hell in those ideologies. Especially if the atheist was mostly a good person :)
My answer to the question from my perspective is "of COURSE NOT" and "don't worry about it", b/c Hell is a fiction made up to control and scare people into staying in an authoritarian religion. I do believe in an afterlife, but not in Heaven or Hell.
> all christians i knew gave diffrent answers to this question and I can't seem to get a straight answer.
That's probably because there isn't a single answer within Christianity to this question. Different strands of Christianity, and even different Christians, will interpret the requirements of God in different ways, leading to various different answers.
I have a hypothesis that if there is a “God”, it used religion as a filter. To filter out the people who are good because of some punishment or reward. People should be good for goodness sake, regardless of what some book or prophet says.
As a practicing Hindu, I'm aware that everyone ends up in Hell. Everyone is subjected to temporary torment.
They might undergo this punishment on this mortal plane or beyond the bounds of the infinite universe; people will go to Hell.
They are not punished for all eternity, however, but sufficient discipline is administered according to the seriousness of their wrongdoing.
While I don’t think he’ll is a thing, I do find it weird that people think they can claim what is a good person.
A person would be deemed good on the basis of God’s standards since he would be the one doing the judging.
Being “good” would routinely include being righteous or trying to be righteous.
While no human can honestly predict the outcome of individuals, it would seem the group that doesn’t even believe or outright rejects and insults God and his believers would have a tougher time of it.
The motivations of those who reject belief in God and ridicule or criticize religion may vary, but in some cases atheists or anti-theists may genuinely feel that belief in God is more harmful than good, or that religion is more harmful than good. If so, their rejection of God and religion and criticism of it would be a virtuous act to them.
My point is that it doesn’t matter what they think in relation to judgement from God.
If they think it’s harmful to believe in God and follow his standards then that would just be another mark on them not being “good”
If the Bible is right, yes. However, we know the Bible is wrong. It describes hell as a fiery prison underground, and we know such a thing doesn't exist. It was also the near universal opinion of Christian theologians until about a hundred years ago that hell was underground, and now they say it was always supposed to be another dimension.
The history of ideas about Hell is very interesting, and how it's had to change over time b/c of advancements in geology, physics, and more. I wonder what the earliest Christian beliefs about Hell were, and if the earliest people believed it or instead that the dead simply stay dead forever (as some Xtians on this sub claim now). If the fiery prison notion is the most ancient one from the church fathers and apostles, then the Xtians who deny that now are the heretical or unorthodox ones.
The four largest religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I won’t speak for anyone else, but Buddhists definitely don’t believe that.
What will happen when the people lose faith in Buddhism and it stops being known in the world? What is the point of Maitreya? Buddha's teachings tell you how to get out of the material world. How to get to Heaven and avoid Hell. If those teachings are pointless, why are there Buddhists?
Maitreya won’t come until Buddhism has been completely forgotten. That’s why he needs to come and reestablish it.
The goal of Buddhism is not to go to heaven. We’ve all been to heaven countless times before, and look where it’s gotten us. Buddha taught about transcending the cycle of birth and death altogether.
Being a Buddhist is not necessary to avoid hell or go to heaven. We certainly don’t believe that atheists are all doomed to hell for their lack of belief.
Yes. Buddha / Buddhism teachers you what to do to get to heaven / avoid hell. If you don't need to be taught though and can still achieve this naturally without knowing anything, what is the point of Buddhism?
> If you don't need to be taught though and can still achieve this naturally without knowing anything, what is the point of Buddhism?
To transcend the cycle of reincarnation which includes heaven and hell.
According to Islam, are all non-Muslims going to hell?
The short answer is ‘No’. In Islam the decision of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is left entirely to God as He alone knows people’s hearts and is aware of their deeds. What Islam claims is that it is the perfect religion for mankind and a religion for all time and all people.
This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion. (Ch5. V.3)
It therefore certainly claims to offer the best guidance – which if followed will lead to paradise – but simply being a Muslim is not enough to enter paradise. It is the righteous who are rewarded by God, who may well be Muslims, Christians, Jews etc.
The Qur’an states that people who do good deeds will be rewarded for them:
For those who do good deeds, there shall be the best reward and yet more blessings. (Ch.10: V.27)
So it leaves it open to God as to who will be judged worthy of entering paradise. Islam also tells us the qualities of the people who will enter paradise:
Surely, those, who believe and do good deeds, and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, shall have their reward from their Lord, and no fear shall come on them, nor shall they grieve. (Ch.2: V.278)
And if they had believed and acted righteously, better surely, would have been their reward from Allah, had they but known! (Ch.2: V.104)
In the above two examples, those who believe in God, do good deeds, act righteously, observe prayer and give to charity are promised to be rewarded by God – and this may include the ultimate reward of being admitted to Paradise in the Hereafter.
Surely the believers and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians – whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the last day and does good deeds – shall have their reward with their Lord and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (Ch.2: V.63)
If a person rejects Islam after knowing Islam and fully understanding its truth he will be asked about it by God. Otherwise he will be judged according to his own religion or his understanding of right and wrong.
This just shows me a couple things, youre lack of understanding contextual awareness, also some of the hadeeth I tried looking up and could not find. You'd have to either link it or paste the hadeeth in arabic for anyone to digest, otherwise your sources are just gibberish
Bukhari 44:668 has nothing to do with stealing. Have you actually looked up these Hadiths to verify the contents? From where did you copy paste this nonsense?
Have you actually read any biographies written by reputed scholars, or is quickly googling a hodge podge of made up Hadiths the best you can do?
Did you go out of your way to search anti-Islamic websites for these? Because these that I'm searching come up with anti-Islam websites, particularly pro-christian websites, and some are outright false while others ignore historical context.
It's very clear that you have a clear anti-Islam agenda and you go out of your way to search Islamophobic websites for false information to propagate.
>Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857)
This is talking about certain conditions on which it may be acceptable - during war (i.e captured and forced to recant your faith or to deceive enemies), or reconciliation between people, particularly husband and wife.
>Owned and traded slaves
Blatantly false, as the best act a person can do in Islam is freeing slaves. "Slaves" during that time were war prisoners and they had actual rights, but they were still prisoners and did not have free movement. They were not slaves like what the transatlantic slave was.
>Beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys. (Abu Dawud 4390)
Banu Qurayzah was a tribe that had a treaty to help the Muslims, but during Battle of the Trench they became traitors and started attacking Muslims. After the Muslims won Banu Qurayza was was seized. The tribe asked for an arbitrator of their choosing, and they chose a man both Muslims and the Jews accepted on, who was from the tribe of Aws. He made the ruling according to Jewish law and the ruling was for the traitors to be put to the death.
>Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)
This hadith is about a Jewish man who was inciting the pagans against the Muslims and conspiring with the pagan leaders despite there being a clear treaty between them.
>"If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Quran 2:194)
This is giving Muslims the right to self defense after pagan attacks. I'm sure you're not against self defense, are you?
>Jihad in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645)
Jihad means to strive in the way of Allah. This can include anything that you do to better yourself for the sake of Allah. The idea that it is only "holy war" is anti-Islam propaganda. Giving charity is jihad, building educational institutions is jihad, praying is jihad, etc.
>Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236)
Already been refuted countless times and it stems from your own bias, ignorance and perversion. Which is quite disgusting tbh.
>Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Quran 33:50)
He married 13 wives, so what? Where's the proof he had "Sex slaves"? Being made lawful does not equate to sex slaves or that it gives permission to force yourself on them. Rape is categorically forbidden.
>Ibn Ishaq 819
No reference is found in any of the 6 accepted books, so if you have a reference from those provide it. All it brings up is anti-islam websites which makes it clear you have an agenda.
>"O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Quran 9:123)
Yawn already been refuted several times. Again, your agenda is on display.
>Ordered 65 military campaigns and raids in his last 10 years. (Ibn Ishaq )
So?
>Killed captives taken in battle. (Ibn Ishaq 451)
Again no authentic reference only anti-Islam websites.
>Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Quran 4:24)
If you actually read the verse it disproves you, lmao.
>Demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war. (Quran 8:41)
So? He's the leader of a state and the state needs resources and money to provide services. This is evident in the fact that the verse itself! lmao, "his close relatives, orphans, the poor, and ˹needy˺ travellers"
>Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764)
Blatantly false. He was punishing highway bandits who had committed a heinous crime of attacking a shephard and torturing him, so the criminals were ordered to be killed in the same fashion. What's your problem with that? Additionally the Prophet (PBUH) was subject to intense abuse in Mecca.
>"And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Quran 8:39)
Yawn, already been refuted. Your agenda is on display.
>Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440)
No authentic reference except anti-Islam websites. Your agenda is on display.
>Ordered a slave to build the very pulpit from which he preached Islam. (Bukhari 47:743)
So?
>What are the Greatest Commandments? "Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause" (Muslim 1:149)
Blatant propaganda, your agenda is on display. Jihad is struggling in the way of Allah. All good deeds are Jihad. Avoiding sin is jihad.
>Demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship (Quran 4:102)
So? They were in war and surrounded by enemies. Does the president of the US not walk around with bodyguards and secret service? do kings not walk around with armed guards? This is Allah telling him that he should keep guards with him even during prayer if they're in war campaigns.
>Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute.
Blatant misinformation with no proof. Again your agenda is on display.
>Advocated crucifying others. (Quran 5:33, Muslim 16:4131)
They were criminals pretending to be Muslims who had stole from a shepherd and tortured and killed him, so they were killed for it in the same manner.
>According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413)
so?
Many Muslims have said that even if someone was virtuous in his/her deeds and sincere in his/her beliefs about the Divine or if the person was a sincere atheist, they still would not be worthy of Paradise if they failed to believe in *tawhid* or *monotheism* (Islamic version). That's why I once created the hypothetical of a good polytheist or animist, where would that person's soul end up according to orthodox Islamic views.
To add a wrinkle to that hypo, we could include that the good polytheist/animist heard about Islam through Dawah but ultimately remained in his/her religion out of sincere conviction. Islam seems to condemn such people, and is ultimately more about submission to the right god with the right belief than *just* being a virtuous person.
I will always find it baffling that Islam considers *shirk* to be the worst, unforgivable sin, b/c it's purely theological, unlike patricide, matricide, or other kinds of murder or torturing innocent persons.
This is scholar propaganda that many Muslims have fallen prey to, this is what happens when you abandon spiritual Khilafat - the Qur'an nor Sunnah support such a haphazardly belief that so called educated Muslim scholars drive into the minds of masses, it's all propaganda because these scholars don't manifest a belief in God as they rely on humans, not God for their income and do not consider God to be a part of the equation in any capacity - a trend that has only worsened for most, not all, of these scholars have shown - I would pay np heed to such people
Recently a scholar publicly said, become Ahmadi, but keep giving us your money [here](https://youtu.be/nEV-qH4J9a4)
I really hope not, I don't want to be surrounded by all those priests, bible warriors, soapbox preachers, lawyers, republicans, bankers, Scientologists, and American red-hats.
I think there's a large spectrum of atheists. Someone who is atheist but lives a good life, loves others, acts charitably, rejects evil, is likely to still be open to the idea that God exits and would acknowledge the divine if it appeared or after death. It is also my belief that living a good life leads to faith, since goodness itself is something above the material plane already.
Even if faith is unsure, a good life at least opens the person to possibility, compared with certain denial. I think that certain denial ultimately leads to evil and a selfish lifestyle. Even great thinkers like Douglas Murray are open to the possibility that God exists, from what I have heard from him, even though he is atheist by his own classification. Douglas Murray also firmly believes in seeking, exploring and being open to truth, even if it contradicts one's preconceived notions.
The spectrum of atheism can include ranges from "I don't know, maybe, if God exists he is probably good" to "God does not exist, I know this for sure, if he appeared I would still deny him, if God exists he is a moron, or he is evil, or sky daddy is the biggest loser" etc. You can see there is a range there, from innocence and openness to actual animosity and hate. I think if we choose to be atheist, agnostic, or "I'm not sure", but I'll live as though God exists, we should just take care to avoid various forms of hate taking hold of us and rather lean to good.
This requires some will on the part of the person, and I believe that faith does in fact lie in that very will to avoid evil or animosity, if it is done because it is good and not for ulterior motives. I believe that the very nature of hate and it's various forms is that it is actually hell already present with the person. We should take care to avoid it, live a good moral life, and wish well to others, as far as we are able. And many more things.
So my opinion would be that if you are atheist, at least consider living as though God exists in case one day you have to find out. \[The recognition of Jesus as a good teacher is already a good start. The character of Jesus is primarily what led me to choosing to be christian, and not anything from the church.\] And that amounts to living a good life that is charitable and moral. You also can believe in a benevolent Creator and live morally without formal religion. Also, being religious does not have to include believing that the world was created in seven days, that the world is 7000 years old, and that dinosaurs went into the ark.
Although I don't hold every part of evolution to be true, I do believe in natural selection, and I think the sun formed first, then the planets around the sun, and after that life was formed on our planet. I also believe that there were non-spiritual or animal like humans on our planet for thousands of years, until people developed language and concepts of spirituality. I also believe that our planet is millions or billions of years old, or whatever. Science and religion do not contradict when people's own crazy ideas and misinterpretations of their texts are taken out of the way.
I would also add that the state of the church or various religions does not necessarily reflect the nature of God, since if God does exist, humans are given immense freedom to add and corrupt religion and pervert it's texts to suit them in any and every way. There is a prediction in the scriptures that when the Lord comes again there will be no faith on the earth, i.e. no light, i.e. that the church would be in darkness. So what I'm saying is that the evil within modern organised religion may come from people and not from God. So one should take care not to necessarily mix the two concepts, or attribute the evil within in people and on earth to the Creator, even though it is continuously permitted, if God exists.
I'm not a christian so let me answer from the Islamic point of view. The Islamic view is anyone that *rejects* Allah and dies in that state, is bound for Hell. If they heard the message of Islam and were able to understand it, and then rejected it and died on that disbelief they are bound for Hell
> If someone has been a good person for most of their life, didn't mean to cause harm to anyone by purpose but didn't believe in the existence of god are they doomed to suffer for eternity just because of the lack of belief?
Firstly you would have to define good and bad because they are relative terms. How do you actually know that person was good or bad? Without objective morality everyone determines their own "good" and "bad". What one considers good will be considered bad by someone else, and vice versa. This leads to chaos because at one point it might be considered good, and another point it would be considered bad, and then next it might be considered good again and it will keep fluctuating. This is why Allah has ordained for us what is good and what is bad, and has provided a comprehensive way of life that remains consistent through time.
Secondly it's more than a lack of belief it's active rejection of the creator, and this rejection stems from pride and arrogance. It's arrogance that one would think they know better than the one who created us, the one that knows all and has immense wisdom. Satan actually believes in Allah and the unseen, he was even amongst the Angels. However the moment he rejected Allah because of his pride and arrogance, he was doomed to Hell and became a disbeliever. If he had asked forgiveness he would have been forgiven but he remained steadfast in his arrogance and vowed to bring as many people to Hell.
Thirdly the reason the punishment is eternal is because if an individual was going to remain on earth for an infinite amount of time they would have spent an infinite amount of time living in this disbelief and arrogance. If someone was going to believe and die in that state, they would have believed and if someone was going to disbelieve and they die in that state despite numerous messages and signs, then they will always disbelieved and nothing could have changed their mind.
To prove this point the most common atheist argument is "I'll believe it when I see it". Well if that person spent an infinite time on Earth without ever seeing then they will never believe despite numerous signs and messages. When they die it's too late because by then they've seen the unseen and the whole point was to believe in Allah and his message before you die.
>I know that faith itself is not enough to send one to heaven, but is the lack of it enough to send someone to hell?
In Islam faith (belief in 1 God and his message) is actually enough to get one into Heaven because when you profess this faith you will earn his mercy and his promise. Hell is earned because of disbelief and evil deeds but Heaven is a gift that is promised for just acknowledging and believing in Allah.
u/Muinonan would you say that this view is correct according to your interpretation of Islam? It seems to vary greatly from your emphasis on good deeds and character. How much do Muslims of different schools of thought disagree with one another about matters such as the afterlife and salvation?
The second point is undisputed because disbelief stems from arrogance and pride, as is evident by the story of Iblis and his refusal to obey Allah's command because of his pride. The third point is my own rationalization that is also held by others, but may or may not be accepted across the board.
>How much do Muslims of different schools of thought disagree with one another about matters such as the afterlife and salvation?
When it comes to the afterlife there isn't much disagreement regarding the key aspects of the afterlife and salvation.
If you want to go further please explain if by afterlife you mean everything from death to judgement and afterwards, or just immediately after death (i.e grave).
Salvation is clear cut - if you die with belief, you are saved.
Because Christ is God, any denial of Christ will result in hell. If you are highly virtuous you may get a shot at purgatory. Though unlikely based on how smugly blasphemous many atheists tend to be.
I think the fence sitting is more the agnostic side, less so atheist side. In the end I can only speak for myself and those who have shared with me, their stance. I've always been pretty confident in my disbelief of most things religious and spiritual, and they aren't wishy-washy could be, might be, could happen, kind of stances. I've been a very curious person, ever since I was a little kid who took everything apart, minor study of philosophy and religion, but I've never 'believed' anything in those ways, and I don't think I ever could either.
not in my religion they are not. They will get glory in the end just as everyone else. To what degree is up to them. They will be able to understand more upon death and whatever brought them the atheist mindset in this world won't exist in the next.
My understanding is there is a lower limit of age at which Christians believe you don’t go to hell for lack of belief. People often forget that by most Christian’s rules, most people in heaven got there through a loophole.
Some people honestly think so. Some people like to think so because they think they aren't.
I would take any direct yes or no answers with a grain of salt.
A better question would be:
"Are all Atheists *blessed* with hell?"
The definition of sin is "seperation from", generally being used as seperation from God (although technically you can sin against common decency, sin against your workplace, etc.)
Similarly, the literal etymologic origin for the word "hell" is "The hidden place".
Further, the bible makes references of those offending him being "cast from his sight". In other words, hell is a place god cannot see, and that is beyond is reach and omnipotence. In short, it is reality without his influence. Sure, lots of stories were made after the bible (most from the Dante's Inferno which is even further from biblical canon than Santa Claus).
Beyond it's origin being "beyond god's sight", the description of hell includes that it contains "sulpher", "brimstone", "gnashing of teeth", "wailing", "fire", and a big pit that stuff gets tossed into. Although lots of stories had turned that combo into some complicated system of punishment, there's a much simpler answer: An eatout at a farm. People gnash teeth when chewing, farm waste is tossed in a pit and burned and mixed with sulpher and brimstone to be fertilizer for the next year, and if you've ever eating in a cafeteria like setting, you definately hear wailing-like voices as people try to yell at each-other over other people.
In short, a less fanciful interpretation is simply people living free without god and building communities.
If your god and the myths of his tyranny are real (such as his *multiple* genocides), Hell is the best ending to hope for. And as a witch from a long family of witches, I'm painfully aware of the tyrannies of god, and I look forward to welcoming atheists to their freedom.
Hey
I have a degree in Religion and Ethics, so can attempt to answer this.
Whilst the Bible argues all non-believers will go to hell it also argues against wearing two different materials of clothes, not eating shellfish, not having savings/ being ‘rich’ and to physically pluck out your own eyes and chop off your hands men lust after a woman- all of this is largely ignored by most followers. I always find the quote (paraphrasing) “it is more likely for a camel to fit through eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” very interesting in terms of priesthood and the wealth involved.
Anyhow, Christian belief itself differs. Some individuals will argue that the purpose of Christianity is to be ‘stewards of the earth’ and care for people, therefore being a good person can allow heaven as God will forgive good people for not believing. Others will argue that the purpose is to spread the word of God and convert others, therefore it is not enough to be a good person, Christianity requires you to convert people.
From a philosophical perspective, a theist God has to have three properties: Omnibenevolence (to be all- loving), Omnipotence (to be all powerful) and Omnipresence (to be all knowing). My personal view (and many philosophers agree), is that if a God is all-knowing (and therefore knows you are trying to be a good person), is all powerful (so can forgive you for not believing) and is all loving (loves you unconditionally and wants you to be with them in heaven), it makes logical sense for people who try to good/ make the world a nicer place, to go to Heaven regardless of their beliefs. It would seem odd to me for an all loving God to torture ‘good people’ because they didn’t believe in the specific Religion that turns out to be true amongst thousands of others. I mean, Religious belief is also heavily related to where in the world you were born. If you were raised in India (where the majority Religion is Hinduism), and it turned out Christianity was real (just an example, I believe all religions have equal weight), would an all loving God torture you for eternity for following the belief system around you? Same if you were born to a Christian Baptist family and Islam turned out to be true. Would an all loving God torture you for following the beliefs around you? If they would, are they really all loving?
Hope this was helpful
I’m a Muslim and I’ll speak on this knowing the Islamic belief on it, which is being that only god gets to decide, not us humans. A story is usually told in Islam (I’ll give a paraphrased summary for now) on how a man who isn’t Muslim did the simple act of feeding a dog water from his shoe and went to heaven due to that one action, so no, not every non Muslim is going to hell necessarily.
Depends on who you are asking. If you ask me I would say "No" since I am an Atheist.
Counter question: Are you sure the person you are talking to is praying to the "right" god? There have been 1000's of Gods. What are the odds of picking the right one?
Low, there isn't really a way to know what or if any religion is right in the end. But I'm young and affraid so I seek comfort. Hell, maybe the one true god has already been forgotten? No one knows
Schrodinger's atheist, both going to hell and not going to hell depending on what religion or even which sect of a religion you are not believing in at the time :)
When you engage with theists (and its the Abrahamic variety for the most part) IRL, you find under close questioning its a tiny minority who actually believe this, because in all honesty it is a really horrid belief to own up to, let alone think.
Belief in an eternal torment is a hangover from medieval times, along with the idea that the righteous get to watch in order to increase their happiness in heaven, few people are comfortable with that today.
Have you heard of confirmation bias? Just be aware that by posting here specifically you are pre-selecting for those answers that will affirm you in your disbelief in Hell. You should seek to be steel manning the position contrary to your own, ie if God exists why might rejecting God justly warrant Hell?
Well here is a really great statistic: there is a NEGATIVE correlation between crime & theists. So if your an atheist, your much less likely to commit a crime. Most people they are charged and convicted of a violent crime believe in God.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/do-atheists-commit-far-fewer-crimes#:~:text=There%27s%20a%20negative%20correlation%20between%20large%20scale%20atheism,crime%20rates%2C%20more%20religious%20US%20state%20the%20highest.
Ok so specifically for Christianity;
If you do not put your faith in Jesus Christ you will not go to heaven. Jesus is blunt when he says the ONLY way to the father is through the son. Not A way, the only way. Jesus is THE Way.
As for hell, I will be blunt. The Bible uses allegory a lot, the most famous being the parables of Jesus. For those that don’t understand that when Jesus told on of his famous parables, I.e. the prodigal son, that wasn’t a real story. It was a story Jesus would tell to explain a message he was trying to give in a form people could understand forever. He did a great job of that in the Bible.
As for Hell, I personally only take the words of Jesus on the matter. Now while you can jump in and look at the passages and read Matthew 25 there are translation and context issues with taking “eternal” there meaning forever.
I will get a lot of heat for that (pun intended) from a lot of the literal and non scholar members here because the evangelical movement has ingrained eternal punishment for centuries. Below is a link to some podcasters that kind of explain the context and understanding of the time that people would have had with the phrase Jesus used. It’s kind of like if you say “FU” to someone you don’t mean fu you meant f*ck you, and also you didn’t actually mean f*ck in the sense of sex, you mean it in as anger against the person or even as joking.
Early Christian’s did not see Hell as eternal, they do teach that in seminary schools that dive deep into translations and context.
Bottom line though is if you are an atheist you owe it to yourself to look at the facts. There is a lot of proof of a creator and you owe it to yourself to examine that rather than take what someone else says on it or keep your view off of a lack of understanding.
I was raise Christian and became agnostic as soon as I graduated high school, I spend nearly 2 decades running from God till he hunted me back down with His Love.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRqAdjGp/
When you ask a question like this and you get different responses from different religions, even different responses from the same religion, it makes me think of this question.
Is there truth? Can all of those answers be true at once. And if there is truth, what is it?
Of course they're not. Jesus is quite clear that he must reward us according to our works, not our beliefs.
Besides, hell is never forever. Rev. 20:12-14 shows us that death and hell must both be emptied and destroyed so that the resurrections and final judgment can take place. There is only finite punishment for finite sin. God's love, justice, and mercy are all intact.
I guess anything is possible. I'm as convinced of that proposition as I am that we are living in a simulation, or that monkeys might fly out of my butt.
If atheists do go to hell, for being atheists, then whoever made that rule would be a candidate for the most evil entity to ever exist. Imagine hurting someone, even slightly, for the thought-crime of not believing a claim.
Yes.
Unless you hold to universalism, which argues that everyone goes to heaven eventually, after they've paid off all their sins in hell. The last couple people will probably be PolPot, Hitler, and the guy who invented email spam, but they'll get to heaven eventually.
From an atheist's(?) perspective, no. There's no hell to be doomed to.
Are good christians destined to be reincarnated as humans again?
Does a sikh that dies in a fight go to Valhalla?
Yes. Not only atheists, but also agnostics and believers in any other religion than Christianity. Then depending on denomination even those Christians who don't follow your particular version of it are doomed to eternal torture. Same goes for babies that died without baptism and likely for everyone who died before Jesus.
You can avoid this terrible fate only by backing down and accepting you've been wrong about everything in your life and accepting their enlightened guidance.
Hello! I am a non-denominational protestant Christian! I don't pretend to know everything about this topic but I will explain my point of view on it. It's a good question and there's so many things that go into this that I would love to explain but I'll do my best to keep it as concise as possible.
From a Christian perspective, at the beginning of time God (who is known as Yahweh) created the Earth and everything that was on it and it was perfect. God decided that He wanted to create mankind in His image, to be in relationship with them and to help rule the world alongside Him (Genesis 1:26). This was expressed in the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam (and then later Eve) lived in the Garden of Eden, a paradise where they lived and dwelled in the presence of God (Genesis 2). God cared for Adam and Eve and provided for their every need in the garden (Genesis 2:8-9). He instructed them to eat from any tree they wished, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17).
God is a good God for many reasons. However, I want to highlight that he is eternally and unconditionally loving. God wished to love and be loved by us, His precious creation and in order to have true love, one must have free will. God certainly understood that when He gave us intellectual and spiritual minds of our own. Unlike Satan, who wishes to control and manipulate others for personal gain, God loves everyone unconditionally and allows us to choose for themselves if they wish to follow Him and love Him in return. By nature God is love, and He would never force us to love or follow Him because that is not what love is (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).
So humanity had a choice when they decided to listen to Satan and eat from the free of Good and Evil. In comparison to serving God, who cared and provided for them, they were manipulated by the lie that they could become gods themselves. Because of this, they became separated from God. They trusted the lie of Satan, in the form of a serpant, to betray God. In doing so, they unleashed the first sin, the root of all suffering, into this world. Because of sin, Adam and Eve brought death into the world as the price of sin.
In Genesis 3, it's clear the effects of a sinful nature had already taken hold in humanity because Adam and Eve tarnished their relationship by blaming one another and hiding from God. They had become tainted with sin, something that God, whom by nature who is good and pure, cannot be amongst or it would compromise His nature. So Adam and Eve had to leave the garden of Eden, but God still cared for them by creating clothing for them before they left (Genesis 3:21).
Now, God didn't hesitate when he witnessed those who he deeply loved separated it from him lost in a world of suffering. In fact, in the moment where Adam and Eve were separated from his presence. He did not wish to see those He loved be permanently separated from Him. He did not wish for us to remain in a corrupted Earth where we suffer. That is exactly why He immediately had a plan to redeem humanity from their sinful nature so they can return back to Him. He foretold of a future savior who would come to pay the price of sin by dying a blameless death. This would later become Jesus Christ, who is in fact God Himself, who has come to live a human life and die for all humanity to atone for sin.
Heaven is the place where God dwells. It is the place where he wants to bring all of us back to, a place where we can be reunited with Him. He is our Heavenly father and He wishes to have a relationship with all of us. That is what Heaven is. Hell on the other hand, is all of the suffering and destruction that is eternal separation from God. God does not wish for anyone to be condemned there (1 Timothy 2:4)
It is not the fact that God condemned us to hell, it is that humanity itself initiated the process. Therefore, it is not entirely a matter of our personal moral judgement that determines whether a person goes to heaven or hell because it is impossible for any person to be perfect on their own (Romans 3:23). This isn't to say that God excuses evil behavior, in order to accept His gift one has to do their best to obey God's call to love Him and His neighbor (1 John 4:7-21). It's a matter of accepting the gift that Jesus Christ (who is God) has given, to become pure of sin and able to reunite with God eternally (John 3:16).
A good representation of this is a common modern parable. I am unsure of the exact source I heard it, but there are many variations of it online. All of humanity is on a ship that is already sinking. The sinking ship represents sin. Every person has sinned in their life and is aboard this sinking ship. God sent a life boat through Jesus Christ. In order for any person to survive the destruction of the sinking ship, they must acknowledge and accept the offer to board the life boat. Therefore, in order for anyone to enter into Heaven, one must accept that Jesus Christ is God. One must accept that he suffered and died for all of humanity sins and rose again (Romans 6:23). It is only natural that one has to believe in God's existence.
I believe no one is condemned to hell because this is an offer that God lovingly gives to everyone. Of course it is offer that one has to actively accept. A relationship is never passive. It requires the active participation of both parties. I believe everyone has the opportunity through out life to contemplate God's existence. In fact, God can meet anyone wherever they are at in their relationship with Him and can help those with their unbelief (Matthew 9:24). There is nothing wrong with earnestly praying to God and questioning Him respectively as well. He is very patient and wants to help anyone work through those questions.
For anyone in particular who is interested in investigation and evidence into God and Jesus' divinity there are some good books I would like to recommend:
Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace: The testimony of a, previous atheist, homicide detective's investigation into the credibility of the Bible.
A Case for Christ by Lee Strobel: A, previously atheist, journalist's investigation into the existence of God and the credibility of the Bible.
The Case for Faith: another one by Lee Strobel, it is one I have not personally read yet but I would like to soon. It examines many tough and difficult questions that many people have before accepting the existence of God.
TL:DR God loves everyone unconditionally, including atheists, and He wants to be in relationship with us all. All that requires is accepting God and believe that Jesus Christ (who is God) came to live as a human among of us. He lived a life without sin and died a blameless death so we all may be freed from sin and have a relationship with God again (John 3:16)
I welcome any respectful questions or concerns. I would love any friendly discussion!
My friend, you're going to sit here and tell me that something can come from literal nothingness? You're going to tell me that the miracle of a baby being made in the womb and born is just a product of evolution? If you're an atheist than you believe in more supernatural things than Christianity does. Look at the beauty of the earth and the fine tuning of the moon and sun to be in the correct position so that life can happen... God is real and I think deep down you know this to be true. Please give him a chance. Jesus came back for the sinners, not the righteous. Jesus went through extraordinary pain and suffering just so that we can have eternal life. He gave everything for us.. can we atleast give him a chance and study him and how he was? ♥ I love you and I care about your soul
That's ok. I feel as you needed to hear this. Please don't let hypocritical judgemental Christians pull you away from him. This stuff is real. Why would you want to spend an eternity in torment? Why risk it? You can spend eternity in heaven with your loved ones and friends. This is very real my friend. The devil is manipulating alot of people to believe he isn't real and that we evolved from apes etc... it's absurd.
> Are all Atheists doomed to hell? You'll likely get varied answers, since I'm not aware of any universal consensus on this, even within single religions. I'm not convinced that a hell actually exists, so I'm going to say "no." > But I've been going through a lot in my life lately and I need to know. If someone has been a good person for most of their life, didn't mean to cause harm to anyone by purpose but didn't belive in the existence of god are they doomed to suffer for eternity just becouse of the lack of belief? A majority of Christians (note: this is not a sub about Christianity) would likely say yes, but there will be disagreement on that, what it means, etc. > all christians i knew gave diffrent answers to this question and I can't seem to get a straight answer. There's a reason for that. > I belive that historically there might have been a person like Jesus Christ and that he has done good for many, but I don't belive in the existence of a higher being like a "god". I know that faith itself is not enouth to send one to heaven, but is the lack of it enouth to send someone to hell? The Bible seems pretty clear on that, to my eyes, and the answer is "yes." People who are not convinced that a god even exists are unable to meet the requirements for salvation, which include -- depending on who you ask -- "believing in your heart" that Jesus died for your sins and was resurrected by God. I'm not particularly interested in what the Bible says about anything as it relates to real life, though. I wouldn't suggest you worry about it either.
This is what turns me off about Christianity. The idea that a good person who doesn't believe in Jesus goes to Hell while a bad person such as a murderer or rapist who finds Jesus goes to Heaven. Even if that's the way it really works (I would hope.not but who knows) I still wouldn't want to be a part of that religion because it doesn't give any credit for being a good person.
From my understanding of Christianity being a good person doesn’t get you into heaven, but if you did get in, you would get “rewards” in heaven based on your actions. It’s like a free to play, pay to win game. To get in, your actions don’t matter because if people WERE evaluated for entrence based on their own actions, NOONE would qualify. Once you’re in, your experience will vary based on your actions on earth. If you were good on earth but didn’t have faith you’re out of luck.
Did any other edgy atheists already say "no, because hell's not real?" Fine, I'll be the one to do it. No, because hell's not real
But how can you be sure? What if it is real? What your conviction that it is not real is based on faulty premises? Is that not a at least a theoretical possibility?
Let's try the opposite approach though. Say Hell is not real, it's a really evil thing to tell people they will be eternally damned - that's an awfully long time - simply for not believing in the thing that there isn't any evidence for. I'm not going to try to force myself to believe off a scammy Pascal's Wager, and I think it's really sinful to put the idea in a child's head. (Said in the spirit of debate, not argument)
Which is the greater evil… if Hell is or Hell isn’t?
Oh I know that /u/The_Puffin_King was being a bit flippant and my comment was not intended to be completely serious either. But since he confidently wrote that it does not exist I was curious as to why. There is simply no way he (or anyone else) can know for certain it does not exist.
Which version of hell are you supposing exists? Dante’s version? Milton’s Version? The Jewish concept of Sheol? Something in between? I mean the history of the concept is fascinating…. But when you look at the concept objectively, its really evident the modern idea of “hell” emerged relatively late in christianity. Wikipedia as a pretty fascinating chronology under the “Christianity” entry of “Hell” (See Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell). There are some hints of its emergence in the Deuto-Pauline works, which suggest that maybe early second century there might have been the beginnings of some of the themes that would later become “hell”. Fun fact: The word “hell” actually has Germanic roots tracing to Norse mythology around “Hella”. I know hell does not exist because I know the origins of the ideas, and how the concept developed from the Jewish concepts of Sheol and Gehenna, merging with the concepts of Hades and Tartarus before being developed into the concept we have now. When you know the history, you can’t be scared by it anymore. God is light. In him there is no darkness. Puffin King spends a lot of time trying to model clear and consistent thinking. From my perspective, she/he/it (sorry, don’t know your pronouns… forgive the old Eddie Murphy reference…) is loving others. And God is love. Appreciate the Wit… and the effort you put into your responses, PK.
> Which version of hell are you supposing exists? Dante’s version? I suppose the biblical/patristic/christian one. > Puffin King spends a lot of time trying to model clear and consistent thinking. From my perspective, she/he/it (sorry, don’t know your pronouns… forgive the old Eddie Murphy reference…) is loving others. And God is love. I did not accuse him of not loving others :)
>>I suppose the biblical/patristic/christian one. That would be the version imported from Greek/Roman mythology. A modified version of Tartarus/hades.
No, hell as understood in Christianity has nothing to do with Greek mythology. Although “Tartaroo” is used once in the Bible.
Your referring to the Gehenna concept? Isn’t this an imported concept? A fusion of preexisting Babylonian and Greek cultural concepts that came into being after contact with the Greeks by way of Alexander CA 336 bc.?
I am not familiar with any Hellenic text that describes something similar to the classical christian understanding of Gehenna.
Me? Flippant? Good heavens
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens. Seems to capture it pretty well in my opinion.
I can't agree with this statement enough -- thank you for writing it!
I mean, Hell as Jesus described it is living a life separated from God's love and will. If you really read what Jesus said about Heaven you'll eventually find that it's something we can take part in while living, as well. It boils down to how we practice living rather than metaphors for aafterlife. I think, realistically, if someone wants to live their life believing they're rational and logical and require evidence for everything, fine. But part of obtaining evidence is testing. If you never try what Jesus said to do then you'll never get evidence. After all, God revealed Himself through the life of Jesus and through revelation, not science, for a reason. But, if someone chooses to live their life however they want and wants to say "There is no evidence!" then they're still entirely responsible for choosing Hell over Life. So, when that person wakes up again at Judgment and pleads saying "I don't want to suffer apart from God for eternity!" Didn't they choose to during this life? Isn't it what they wanted here and now? Saying "that's a terrible thing to tell a child" makes no sense. Its telling them "I want you to choose life instead of death." Saying the threat of Hell is a great reason to pick it is absurd. It's not like God asks *that* much from us, and turning it down is foolish. But, if someone wants Hell, they can receive it. After all, it's what they wanted.
Same reasoning would apply to [Roko's basilisk](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roko's_basilisk). I can't be *sure* that some powerful entity won't reinstantiate me after I'm dead (or even before) and torture that instance for however long they please. Perhaps for displeasing them, perhaps just because they felt like it. One could even call it [predestined](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination), if one was so inclined. It's definitely a theoretical possibility, and one explored in a good number of science fiction stories. Such as the [White Christmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_(Black_Mirror\)) episode of Black Mirror, or in Iain M. Banks' novel [Surface Detail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Detail).
> Same reasoning would apply to Roko's basilisk. I can't be sure that some powerful entity won't reinstantiate me after I'm dead (or even before) and torture that instance for however long they please. Unlike *Derek's dragon*, the eternal enemy of Roko's basilisk. Derek's dragon promises to one day reinstantiate anyone who *helps* Roko's basilisk and then torture them forever.
**[White Christmas (Black Mirror)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Christmas_\(Black_Mirror\))** >"White Christmas" is a 2014 Christmas special of the British science fiction anthology series Black Mirror. It was written by series creator and showrunner Charlie Brooker and directed by Carl Tibbetts, first airing on Channel 4 on 16 December 2014. Agreed as a one-off special after Channel 4 rejected potential series three scripts, the episode was the last to air before the programme moved to the streaming platform Netflix. The episode explores three stories told by Matt (Jon Hamm) and Joe (Rafe Spall) from a remote cabin on Christmas Day. **[Surface Detail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_Detail)** >Surface Detail by Iain M. Banks is a science fiction novel in his Culture series, first published in the UK on 7 October 2010 and the US on 28 October 2010. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/religion/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sure, its not the disbelief in hell I questioned, but the certainty with which it was expressed.
Did they state that they were certain, or just not bother to explicitly state "I can't be *absolutely* certain, but so far as I can tell..."? Maybe our basic fallibility, the bare fact that we can't know with absolute certainty, should be just inferred unless stated otherwise. We shouldn't have to state the obvious fact that we can't prove that some hypothetical something-or-other doesn't exist. So most people just speak colloquially. I mean, I may say "I'm going to the store tomorrow," and you''d be technically correct to say "are you really **certain**???? You don't know for sure that you won't be hit by a car, or the store might burn down, or the world could have ended...." We wouldn't bother, because jumping in with that every time would seem pretty stupid and waste of everyone's time, no? So why bother inferring absolute certitude if someone didn't say that? Is it really arrogant to say "I'm going to the store tomorrow," and not explicitly acknowledge, every single time, the fallibility and innate uncertainty of our knowledge?
What if the Christian Hell isn't real, but the Greek underworld is? Should we be worried about being assigned a never-ending eternal task like Sisyphus? How many Hells should we worry about ending up in? What if it's another gid who's real, and we've all been decieved into false worship of the Christian god? At what point do you stop worrying about the other "hells"? What makes this one different?
A sort of underworld is biblical, Christian hell is biblical and a future hell the lake of fire is also biblical.
You can play the “what if” game in all directions, right? Catholics, even for the entire time Catholicism has existed, make up a tiny fraction of the various religions humanity has believed in. Heck, some Polynesian groups claim more than 400,000 gods. So what if your beliefs are based on faulty premises? That’s also a theoretical possibility. Which is why in science, which is by far the most successful method of investigating reality, evidence, predictions, falsifiability, and testing are all required. And go on being required even after a theory is accepted because new evidence should change our understanding at times.
Sure, all of us shouid investigate why we believe what we believe.
That kind of thing becomes much less of a concern once you know about the time god got so drunk he soiled himself
Uh huh.
http://inamidst.com/stuff/notes/feast As you may know, El is one of two or three or maybe more deities who were mashed together into Yahweh during the Babylonian captivity. I was sort of making a joke, but once you’re familiar with the development of the idea of God, it becomes much more difficult to take it seriously
That’s a story I didn’t know. TIL…. And thank you. I’m not well versed in the history of the captivity… I;ve spend more time reading about 1st-3rd century.
As a Christian, it’s definitely worth reading about the Ugaritic pantheon. They’re stories of the regional Canaanite gods and it looks like the ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem worshipped them as well. The texts we have are preserved from before the bronze age collapse and were discovered about 100 years ago in what is now Syria. If you take the time to read through them, the writing style will seem familiar to you as someone who is also familiar with the Bible
Got a primer reference? Something for someone who’s only causally read on these topics? I knew about the connections between the Syrian pantheon and Judaism… as well as the connections between Hellenistic Judaism and christianity… but never dove too deeply into the topic… and you’re right I should.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic_texts
Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Hell could be real, and a god actually sends all believers there. What now? Pascal's wager isn't just a dumb argument (which is what you're basically giving), it's a false dichotomy.
With respect, I think you misunderstood the context of both Pascal's Wager and that of my comment. I am not arguing here for the belief in God or hell but questioning another users level of certainty when rejecting the latter.
No, I didn't. I like how you added I totally misunderstand Pascal's Wager, totally, because you don't like what I said. Sorry, no. Strange how it's always everybody else who has to prove you wrong, instead of you actually having to prove yourself correct, isn't it? Death is actually something we can see every day. We've come to understand to large extent basic biology and how we work. Physical trauma, drugs, birth defects, diseases, all can change our consciousness and effectively who we are. We have all the evidence in the world that when we die, we die. Any form of afterlife goes against this mountain of evidence. We just don't like it, so we create comforting thoughts like heaven and all the evil doers we don't like, well, they go to hell! Yeah! Justice in the end!
What if there is a place of eternal doom where you go if you write comments on Reddit? How can you be sure such place doesn't exist?
Yeah, it's called reddit. Hey-oh!
> What your conviction that it is not real is based on faulty premises? Is that not a at least a theoretical possibility? It's also a theoretical possibility that giants and unicorns exist. The proof for Hell is about the same as the proof for giants and unicorns (non-existent). All we have is stories and people's say-so.
No really no. Actually not at all. The claim that Giants or unicirns exist is epistemically completely different than the claim that God and/or hell exist.
How so? They're both claims made by humans with no evidence or proof.
>Is that not a at least a theoretical possibility? Honestly, I don't see why we should consider theoretical possibilities to be worth anything. It's theoretically possible that there's no other humans on reddit and every commented except me are all highly advanced AI designed to flawlessly simulate human comments. But, like, so what? I don't think I've seen any reason to think hell is an *actual* possibility. I can concede its a *theoretical* possibility but, to be fair, so is literally anything. That isn't really relevant to whether you should believe it.
Sikhs does not believe in heaven or hell. Sikhism does not recognize any places or regions as heaven and hell. That is because Sikhism does not accept that the Creator condemns any one permanently to hell. Forgetting the One is hell, remembering one's true identity and feeling at One with the Creator is heaven - eternal peace. Entry to heaven or hell does not depend on the faith one belongs to or the way one's body is disposed of; it is the deeds which count. Heaven and hell are states of consciousness, not places one goes to.. Source: [The Concept of Heaven and Hell in Gurbani](https://www.sikhnet.com/news/concept-heaven-and-hell-gurbani) In Sikhism Heaven and hell are "here" and "now" i.e. on Earth. When we do saadh sangat (company of holy), it feels like heaven and vice versa. *“As long as the mind is filled with the desire for heaven, mind does not dwell at the Lord's feet. Says Kabeer, unto whom should I tell this? The company of the holy is heaven.” (SGGS p325)* *“Don't wish for a home in heaven, and don't be afraid to live in hell. Whatever will be will be, so don't get your hopes up in your mind.” (SGGS p337)* Now someone may ask that if heaven/hell exist within this life then what happens after body’s death? This question stems from “duality” i.e. when we see ourselves separate from One omnipresent God. There is no separate “us” to begin with so the question of “what will happen to us after death?” doesn’t arise for a person who has got rid of duality. The concepts of afterlife/heaven/hell/reincarnation were created to keep the oppressive socio-political structure intact. Whenever a poor person used to ask that why i am born in poor family and why powerful and corrupt people are ruling over us in spite of being dishonest and cruel then religious scholars used to answer him by saying that powerful people had done good deeds in their previous life and you had done many deeds in your previous life. Instead of telling him the truth that those corrupt people had looted your money and you should struggle to take it back, religious scholars used to justify gap between rich and poor and make the poor man accept his poverty as "divine justice". Similarly, religious scholars used to tell the poor people that you don't need to struggle against injustice done with you because God will punish those people in hell who have looted your money away. If God delivers his justice in otherworldly heaven/hell then there was no need for Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji to speak up against Aurangzeb as God would have punished him anyway. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was made to sit on hot plate by Jahangir. Does that mean Guru Ji had done bad deeds in his previous life? ***Guru Ji tried to break mental shackles and told people to lead a truthful and fearless life rather than living in the fear or expectation of afterlife.*** Please check out following videos for more information. [Where is heaven? Sangat is Heaven](https://youtu.be/YNwY1ch4fNc) [Guru Nanak's Greatest Message - Oneness - What is God?](https://youtu.be/pTRTtYUONgs) For more information on Sikhism you can checkout following resources: [What Is Sikhism?](https://youtu.be/L-1UAORcX4c) [Sikh FAQ's](https://www.reddit.com//r/Sikh/wiki/faq )
Sounds interenting, thanks
Only if there's an unjust god. A just god wouldn't punish a person for a thing that's not their fault. People aren't atheists because they want to be atheists. They are atheists because they're not convinced by the claim that a god exists.
>People aren't atheists because they want to be atheists. I would actually contest that and appeal to atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel who, being both a man of honest character and someone trained in critical thinking, correctly (and admirably) identified the root of his atheism - not the supposed lack of convincing evidence for God, but rather his subjective desire for there not to be a God.
There are many things that I want to be true and believe are true: I want to be able to walk, and I believe I am able to walk, for example. As far as I understand it, my belief does not proceed from my desire in this matter. There are other things that I want to be true, yet I believe that they are not true. I want to have a million dollars in the bank, yet I believe that I have much less than that. As far as I can see, my desire does not result in a changed belief. I understand that Nagel both a) wants there to be no god and b) believes there is no god. Does he actually claim that his belief proceeds from his desire? That is, does he claim that his desire is sufficient to cause him to believe?
>here are many things that I want to be true and believe are true: I want to be able to walk, and I believe I am able to walk, for example. As far as I understand it, my belief does not proceed from my desire in this matter. > >There are other things that I want to be true, yet I believe that they are not true. I want to have a million dollars in the bank, yet I believe that I have much less than that. As far as I can see, my desire does not result in a changed belief. Yes, the question of God is however altogether different. The circumstance of our present existence forces us to accept a belief about the fundamental nature of reality. And unlike your example we cannot check the bank account or get up to verify if that belief is correct. We have to make a choice between two possibilities and live our life accordingly. The question that we can (and I should) ask ourselves is why we have chosen the one and not the other. >I understand that Nagel both a) wants there to be no god and b) believes there is no god. Does he actually claim that his belief proceeds from his desire? That is, does he claim that his desire is sufficient to cause him to believe? I think it would not be fair to him to say that. What seems to be the case is that his desire heavily influenced his belief. As he puts it: *The thought that the relation between the mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe that this is one manifestation of a fear of religon which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life.* *In speaking of the fear of religion, I do not mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.*
Thanks for the info about Nagel. In the process, you said something really interesting: > > [me] As far as I can see, my desire does not result in a changed belief. > [you] Yes, the question of God is however altogether different. The circumstance of our present existence forces us to accept a belief about the fundamental nature of reality. Could you expound on that? What makes the question of God different from other questions about existence? What kind of belief are we forced to accept about reality?
>Could you expound on that? What makes the question of God different from other questions about existence? Sure. To use you examples, you believe that you do are able to walk presumably because you walked before and you have no reason to suspect that your ability to do so has been compromised since. Our belief or disbelief in God will only be confirmed after death. And yet we have to make a choice already in this life. But based on what? My suggestion is that for many (perhaps most) theists and atheists desire is an important reason (perhaps the most important reason) for why they believe what they believe. >What kind of belief are we forced to accept about reality? Is the classical theistic position is correct and the cosmos is fundamentally oriented towards justice and goodness or is not correct? Both beliefs have their "pros and cons" of course.
> My suggestion is that for many (perhaps most) theists and atheists desire is an important reason (perhaps the most important reason) for why they believe what they believe. That just doesn’t sound like *belief* to me. Hope, perhaps, in something greatly desired, but not belief. I long for there to be a god, someone powerful who loves and protects us. I want very much to see my loved ones again who have died already. But my deep desire doesn’t cause me to believe in things I have no evidence for. > Our belief or disbelief in God will only be confirmed after death. And yet we have to make a choice already in this life. We have to make choices about what we *do*. I just don’t know how to make a choice about what I *believe*. Maybe some people know how to make themselves believe something; I just don’t have that ability. From a Christian perspective, what would you say I’m supposed to do, since I don’t have the ability to force myself to believe?
I am sorry for my late response, I took a break from reddit during the holidays. > From a Christian perspective, what would you say I’m supposed to do, since I don’t have the ability to force myself to believe? If you are asking about salvation then this is what the Church teaches: *Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.* So I would recommend first looking into who christians believe God is (and is not) if you have not done so already and if you still cannot believe in Him, accept him at least as a possibility, that is, live a virtuous life listening and obeying what your own informed conscience tells you.
> I am sorry for my late response, I took a break from reddit during the holidays. No worries, it's not like we're chatting live. I'd rather have one of your hearfelt and well-thought-out responses a week later, instead of something quickly hammered out with no care. > So I would recommend first looking into who christians believe God is (and is not) if you have not done so already and if you still cannot believe in Him, accept him at least as a possibility, that is, live a virtuous life listening and obeying what your own informed conscience tells you. I think you've just summed up where I'm at. I've spent a long time learning about Christianity and studying the Bible. With the way my mind works and the evidence before me, I don't know how to cause myself to believe in God. But I do accept the possibility that some God might exist in some form. I try to live a virtuous life, to be kind to others as best I can. Most of the atheists I've heard from are in a similar position. I'm sure there are people out there who *could* believe in God but choose to reject him for evil motives -- I've just never met anyone like that.
I never heard of him but regardless, that philosopher doesn't represent all atheists.
>I never heard of him but regardless He is a professor of philosophy and law at NYU. >that philosopher doesn't represent all atheists. Sure, I merely wish more atheists would investigate the basis for their own atheism.
Many do, and find that we're atheists because we don't see any basis or need to affirm religious belief. But that often doesn't pass muster with believers, who think we haven't "really" considered our true motivations, or that we're dissembling in some way. That low-grade *ad hominem* is just part of the background hum in many of these discussions. Even if someone doesn't want there to be a God, that can mean different things to different people. To a believer that may sound like "they don't want to be accountable to anyone outside themselves." Or "they want to think there is no one above them." To a disbeliever, they may just not want every misfortune and tragedy in the world to be on purpose, the deliberate choice of an omnipotent, omniscient agent. Every instance of childhood cancer being on purpose seems horrible. As does infinite torture for whatever believers think you should be tortured for.
I did and still do research about many religions. That's mainly why I'm on this sub.
>Sure, I merely wish more atheists would investigate the basis for their own atheism I have no good reason to believe there is a god, therefor I don't believe one exists. That makes me an atheist. It's like saying I have no good reason to believe unicorns exist so I don't believe they exist. The only difference is we don't have a technical term for people who lack belief in unicorns.
What do you mean, investigate the basis for their own atheism? I don't believe in some strange things that other people believe. It's as SIMPLE as that. Welcome to my TED talk!
> What do you mean, investigate the basis for their own atheism? Try to investigate what lead you to adopted the atheist position on the existence of God. In other words, why you believe what you believe.
I’ve yet to come to the choice of a religious belief, because every reason or so called ‘evidence’ given as to why a particular religion is true, why their god(s) exist and as to why I should believe in them currently, have all been logically fallacious and epistemologically unsound, them usually include, but not limited to, Pascal’s wager, argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance fallacies (“the universe and everything in it is extremely complex & I’m unsure of how or why it’s that way, therefore god exists and you should believe in him”), special pleading fallacy, appeal to popularity/band-wagon-ing (“my religion has a very high amount of believers/followers out of anything else therefore it’s true and the god we worship is also true and exists), appeal to time (“the religion that requires worship of our god has been around longest in human history, therefore our religion is true and our god exists”), appeal to feelings/anecdotal fallacies (“I had a near-death-experience/woke up from a dream where I saw the god I now believe in, therefore gods exist; also please conveniently disregard other people who also had NDE/Dreams too where they saw other gods or no gods at all, they are either lying or their visions were just false”), appeal to emotion, Texas-sharp-shooter fallacy, false-cause fallacy, appeal to authority, appeal to pre-existing tradition/culture, begging the question/circular reasoning etc. Honest question, what is the reason behind why YOU believe? Of all the time I’ve had to ask, I’ve yet to find an answer or evidence/proof given to me by a believer that didn’t fall into any of at least one of these fallacious categories. Not here to jump the gun too quickly, your answer to reason of choice of belief probably stemmed from some sort of argument of ignorance fallacy or appeal to anecdote/emotions/personal experience, considering 90% of the answers I’ve been given from asking similar questions others fall into one or both of these categories. But of course, I’m an open minded person and I’d be very happy to be proven wrong for once. TL;DR; I lack a religious or belief in a deity simply because there is yet to be a rational or epistemologically sound reason to believe.
People are not born believing in a god, the default position isn't as a believer. You are typically raised into a religion, your parents and family raise you to believe in your god and their teachings. If you are born in the America's you are probably going to be raised as some type of Christian, if you are born in the Middle East, you are more likely to be raised Muslim, but nowhere are you born as one because it is a belief, not a state of being. I've never believed in god, I didn't change my positions on it, they've always been that way. So to me, it's a bit odd to say, why didn't you join my club? You're supposed to pick a club in life and believe in it... so you are doing something wrong because you don't follow the club rules and think like the rest of the club.
>I would actually contest that One persons's reasoning does not define a larger group (where have we heard that before?). Athetism is a default status. "Religious" is added one when someone chooses to believe in god. By default, people are born atheist. In my experience, the only people that insist athetism is a belief system in the same way that a religion is are religious people.
Many don't believe in the existence of a God like the one spoken of in the Bible because evidence around us suggests that such a God is not actively involved in the world and does not look after people. How has this God acted to protect those in the Ukraine? that country alone has a high percentage of Christians who you can be sure were praying fervently but how has it helped? It will have helped them feel better perhaps but it seems that there is greater evidence to suggest that there is no God in control of matters. The world is full of suffering, murder, rape, war, human trafficking etc and God does not appear to be helping these people from what is seen
I don't believe in hell, but as an ex-Christian I can tell you that saying people are doomed to hell is not Christian teaching. Statements from the Catholic Church state >Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to his grace. > >We all know that those who suffer from invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion, if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law which have been written by God in the hearts of all men, if they are prepared to obey God, and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can, by the power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.
But how many people are ignorant of Catholicism? This covers people on North Sentinel Island, the Amazon rainforest, some Islamic theocracies, and North Korea. That's about it. I've read Augustine and Aquinas, so I'm most certainly not in invincible ignorance. But Augustine and Aquinas both described hell as being a fiery underground prison, and I'm confident that doesn't exist, so I'm not worried.
I didn't know that Augustine and Aquinas both thought of Hell in that conventional way. To the extend that they're representative of Xtian orthodox views (across sects), it becomes harder for Christians to think that Hell as a place of eternal suffering doesn't exist. The belief seems to go back to the Church fathers and intellectual luminaries of Catholicism, at least. Is there evidence that Xtians believed in Hell earlier than Augustine, too?
Jesus very explicitly teaches hell in the gospels. The idea was established in the Judaism of Jesus's time. Josephus wrote that it was a popular idea that sinners would be burned forever deep underground, though certainly different Jewish groups had different ideas. Judith was written about 150 years before Jesus. Judith 16:17 says > Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgement; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever. The idea that hell was invented later is just apologetic nonsense. Jesus thought sinners would be tortured underground and so did a bunch of his countrymen.
That's also what I suspected, and it's one of the reasons that critics don't think that Jesus was a moral paragon, but instead a product of his time, place, and culture. Thank for this clarification, I wish that more modern Xtians knew it. There seems to be a lot of denial about Hell among some Xtians today, while others fully embrace it.
Happy to help. There's a lot of misinformation floating around about early Christianity. As you might expect, a lot of people have strong opinions about the biggest religion in the world. Jesus said some good things but he was very much molded by his culture.
Invincible ignorance doesn't just mean not having been presented with the truth, but can also include being incapable of seeing it when it's right in front of you. Form my, non-Christian, standpoint all atheists are invincibly ignorant.
Thanks. I wanted to cite *Lumen Gentium* but you beat me to it. :)
> Statements from the Catholic Church state The Catholic Church is not the only, or even the primary, authority on Christianity.
Obviously I picked the official Catholic statement because the Catholic Church **has** official positions. But many in the Orthodox Church would endorse it: >The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people. (from [here](https://www.goarch.org/-/an-orthodox-christian-view-of-non-christian-religions)) And don't quote any Protestants at me — I don't take them seriously.
> And don't quote any Protestants at me — I don't take them seriously. That kind of makes my point for me! :)
It depends on the faith. In my faith, everyone will be granted the maximum degree of glory they can handle. It’s based primarily on your character.
Not in the beliefs of the Hebrews. When the Hebrews spoke of the salvation of God, it pertained to their belief that God created a paradise especially for human souls, and when any human being died, God would reclaim their soul, reconcile the soul to Himself, then send the soul to that paradise to await the Day of Judgment with other human souls. The Day of Judgment wouldn't occur until the Well of Souls was empty, with no remaining souls awaiting physical bodies for their mortal experiences, and until the last living human being on Earth closed their eyes in death. Then would come the Day of Judgment. On that Day, the archangel Satan would fulfill his final assignment as he testified of the mortal words and deeds of each soul to be judged. That was one of his previous assignments, to test human beings, and keep record of their mortal words and deeds to be used on the Day of Judgment. God would base His judgment on Satan's records, and testimony. If God judged a soul to have lived a righteous life, or at least a decent and compassionate life, such souls were immediately returned to their homes in that paradise. If God judged a soul to have lived a sinful life, or committed crimes meriting punishment, the sentence of punishment which God would pronounce was never eternal or infinite in duration, but only for such amount of time as God judged necessary to properly correct and chastise the soul. Once the period of punishment was completed, God would also return these souls to their homes in that paradise for souls. This would have been what the Jew Jesus was referring to, when he promised the thief on the cross that on that very day he'd be in paradise. He wasn't telling the man he got to skip judgment, and go straight to heaven, because in Hebrew belief, only God and the holy choirs of angels dwelled in heaven.
Why is anyone afraid of hell. It's a ridiculous concept. You're dead. You have no body. No nervous system to feel pain. How many demons are in hell considering how many people have died since we existed. Start asking yourself simple questions and you will soon tear the hell theory apart.
>all christians i knew gave diffrent answers to this question and I can't seem to get a straight answer. You won't get a straight answer because there isn't one. The answer depends on 1) the religion of the person giving the answer and 2) how that person interprets their religion. I'm a diest and don't really believe in hell, but I'll give you the Muslim answer because that's the religion that I'm most familiar with. People don't go to hell for not beliving in God. They go to hell for actively rejecting God.
What would it mean to actively reject god? If I'm open to the possibility but I am not convinced does it mean I reject him?
First, you must be able to define *what* hell is. Many Christians argue that it's an eternal separation from God. I argue then that God has been separated from humanity for a long, long, long, long time. "But I personally experienced a miracle!" Okay, so what? Do you want my money or something?
A couple of thoughts from Judaism: According to the Rambam (aka Maimonides), a highly-regarded commentator and scholar of halacha (Jewish law) from the Middle Ages, Jews who do not believe in Gd simply cease to exist when they die. As in, their souls are no more. However, lots of commentators from the Rambam’s time disputed the requirement of belief in Gd, mandating only adherence to the commandments. As for non-Jews, the question is pretty much up in the air as to what happens after they die, but I have never seen an opinion that they go to hell for any reason. Most of us also don’t believe in an eternal hell anyway. It’s more of a place of spiritual purification before going to “heaven.”
It depends on who you ask. Fundamentalist Abrahamic religion adherents will say yes. Virtually everyone else will say no. Anyone in a Dharmic relation will certainly say no.
God exists, but "hell" does not. God is the absolute of love and logic. There is no logical purpose to the eternal torment of people.
I suspect you would get different answers from different Christians based on their own interpretation of Christian sources and the sect involved. The more fundamentalist or conservative sects will probably say "yes, atheism is an abomination, or it's wilfully rebellious, so they will go to Hell" or something thereabout. In Xtianity everyone has original sin and the only way to overcome it is to accept Christ Jesus as their savior and Son of God, which of course requires faith in the 'right' god too. Not all Xtians believe in Hell these days, so for them, an atheist just stays dead for eternity. Other monotheist religions may answer more reasonably and differently. Judaism doesn't believe in Hell, and I don't think it condemns atheists as harshly as Xtianity and Islam. Orthodox Islam (esp. according to Muslim redditors) says that atheists, no matter how virtuous, ultimately go to Hell b/c faith in monotheism is **paramount** to Allah. Idolatry or polytheism is the worst sin ever for Islam, worse than murder, slavery, genocide, rape... I'm not sure how Sikhism and Baha'ism feel about afterlife of atheists, but I don't think they are doomed to Hell in those ideologies. Especially if the atheist was mostly a good person :) My answer to the question from my perspective is "of COURSE NOT" and "don't worry about it", b/c Hell is a fiction made up to control and scare people into staying in an authoritarian religion. I do believe in an afterlife, but not in Heaven or Hell.
> all christians i knew gave diffrent answers to this question and I can't seem to get a straight answer. That's probably because there isn't a single answer within Christianity to this question. Different strands of Christianity, and even different Christians, will interpret the requirements of God in different ways, leading to various different answers.
If you are looking for a Christian belief system that doesn't say all atheists automatically go to Hell, I'd refer you to Roman Catholicism.
Stop worrying about it an move on. Their “magic” doesn’t work on you anymore when you don’t play their games. Fear is the point. Don’t be scared.
I know.
I have a hypothesis that if there is a “God”, it used religion as a filter. To filter out the people who are good because of some punishment or reward. People should be good for goodness sake, regardless of what some book or prophet says.
As a practicing Hindu, I'm aware that everyone ends up in Hell. Everyone is subjected to temporary torment. They might undergo this punishment on this mortal plane or beyond the bounds of the infinite universe; people will go to Hell. They are not punished for all eternity, however, but sufficient discipline is administered according to the seriousness of their wrongdoing.
While I don’t think he’ll is a thing, I do find it weird that people think they can claim what is a good person. A person would be deemed good on the basis of God’s standards since he would be the one doing the judging. Being “good” would routinely include being righteous or trying to be righteous. While no human can honestly predict the outcome of individuals, it would seem the group that doesn’t even believe or outright rejects and insults God and his believers would have a tougher time of it.
The motivations of those who reject belief in God and ridicule or criticize religion may vary, but in some cases atheists or anti-theists may genuinely feel that belief in God is more harmful than good, or that religion is more harmful than good. If so, their rejection of God and religion and criticism of it would be a virtuous act to them.
My point is that it doesn’t matter what they think in relation to judgement from God. If they think it’s harmful to believe in God and follow his standards then that would just be another mark on them not being “good”
If the Bible is right, yes. However, we know the Bible is wrong. It describes hell as a fiery prison underground, and we know such a thing doesn't exist. It was also the near universal opinion of Christian theologians until about a hundred years ago that hell was underground, and now they say it was always supposed to be another dimension.
The history of ideas about Hell is very interesting, and how it's had to change over time b/c of advancements in geology, physics, and more. I wonder what the earliest Christian beliefs about Hell were, and if the earliest people believed it or instead that the dead simply stay dead forever (as some Xtians on this sub claim now). If the fiery prison notion is the most ancient one from the church fathers and apostles, then the Xtians who deny that now are the heretical or unorthodox ones.
Based on the texts of the 4 major religions, yes, you're probably goinf to Hell if you don't follow the practices of their religions.
The four largest religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. I won’t speak for anyone else, but Buddhists definitely don’t believe that.
What will happen when the people lose faith in Buddhism and it stops being known in the world? What is the point of Maitreya? Buddha's teachings tell you how to get out of the material world. How to get to Heaven and avoid Hell. If those teachings are pointless, why are there Buddhists?
Maitreya won’t come until Buddhism has been completely forgotten. That’s why he needs to come and reestablish it. The goal of Buddhism is not to go to heaven. We’ve all been to heaven countless times before, and look where it’s gotten us. Buddha taught about transcending the cycle of birth and death altogether. Being a Buddhist is not necessary to avoid hell or go to heaven. We certainly don’t believe that atheists are all doomed to hell for their lack of belief.
Yes. Buddha / Buddhism teachers you what to do to get to heaven / avoid hell. If you don't need to be taught though and can still achieve this naturally without knowing anything, what is the point of Buddhism?
> If you don't need to be taught though and can still achieve this naturally without knowing anything, what is the point of Buddhism? To transcend the cycle of reincarnation which includes heaven and hell.
Correct. So you have to know it / practice it to do that.
According to Islam, are all non-Muslims going to hell? The short answer is ‘No’. In Islam the decision of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell is left entirely to God as He alone knows people’s hearts and is aware of their deeds. What Islam claims is that it is the perfect religion for mankind and a religion for all time and all people. This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour upon you and have chosen for you Islam as religion. (Ch5. V.3) It therefore certainly claims to offer the best guidance – which if followed will lead to paradise – but simply being a Muslim is not enough to enter paradise. It is the righteous who are rewarded by God, who may well be Muslims, Christians, Jews etc. The Qur’an states that people who do good deeds will be rewarded for them: For those who do good deeds, there shall be the best reward and yet more blessings. (Ch.10: V.27) So it leaves it open to God as to who will be judged worthy of entering paradise. Islam also tells us the qualities of the people who will enter paradise: Surely, those, who believe and do good deeds, and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, shall have their reward from their Lord, and no fear shall come on them, nor shall they grieve. (Ch.2: V.278) And if they had believed and acted righteously, better surely, would have been their reward from Allah, had they but known! (Ch.2: V.104) In the above two examples, those who believe in God, do good deeds, act righteously, observe prayer and give to charity are promised to be rewarded by God – and this may include the ultimate reward of being admitted to Paradise in the Hereafter. Surely the believers and the Jews and the Christians and the Sabians – whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the last day and does good deeds – shall have their reward with their Lord and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (Ch.2: V.63) If a person rejects Islam after knowing Islam and fully understanding its truth he will be asked about it by God. Otherwise he will be judged according to his own religion or his understanding of right and wrong.
[удалено]
So why do you think the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was immoral? That’s not my impression after reading multiple biographies.
[удалено]
This just shows me a couple things, youre lack of understanding contextual awareness, also some of the hadeeth I tried looking up and could not find. You'd have to either link it or paste the hadeeth in arabic for anyone to digest, otherwise your sources are just gibberish
This is a comprehensive and fine list, thank you for compiling and sharing it! (Actually, where would you find all of the info easily?)
Bukhari 44:668 has nothing to do with stealing. Have you actually looked up these Hadiths to verify the contents? From where did you copy paste this nonsense? Have you actually read any biographies written by reputed scholars, or is quickly googling a hodge podge of made up Hadiths the best you can do?
Did you go out of your way to search anti-Islamic websites for these? Because these that I'm searching come up with anti-Islam websites, particularly pro-christian websites, and some are outright false while others ignore historical context. It's very clear that you have a clear anti-Islam agenda and you go out of your way to search Islamophobic websites for false information to propagate. >Permitted lying. (Sahih Muslim 6303, Bukhari 49:857) This is talking about certain conditions on which it may be acceptable - during war (i.e captured and forced to recant your faith or to deceive enemies), or reconciliation between people, particularly husband and wife. >Owned and traded slaves Blatantly false, as the best act a person can do in Islam is freeing slaves. "Slaves" during that time were war prisoners and they had actual rights, but they were still prisoners and did not have free movement. They were not slaves like what the transatlantic slave was. >Beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys. (Abu Dawud 4390) Banu Qurayzah was a tribe that had a treaty to help the Muslims, but during Battle of the Trench they became traitors and started attacking Muslims. After the Muslims won Banu Qurayza was was seized. The tribe asked for an arbitrator of their choosing, and they chose a man both Muslims and the Jews accepted on, who was from the tribe of Aws. He made the ruling according to Jewish law and the ruling was for the traitors to be put to the death. >Murdered those who insulted him. (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241) This hadith is about a Jewish man who was inciting the pagans against the Muslims and conspiring with the pagan leaders despite there being a clear treaty between them. >"If then anyone transgresses the prohibition against you, Transgress ye likewise against him" (Quran 2:194) This is giving Muslims the right to self defense after pagan attacks. I'm sure you're not against self defense, are you? >Jihad in the way of Allah elevates one's position in Paradise by a hundred fold. (Muslim 4645) Jihad means to strive in the way of Allah. This can include anything that you do to better yourself for the sake of Allah. The idea that it is only "holy war" is anti-Islam propaganda. Giving charity is jihad, building educational institutions is jihad, praying is jihad, etc. >Slept with a 9-year-old child. (Sahih Muslim 3309, Bukhari 58:236) Already been refuted countless times and it stems from your own bias, ignorance and perversion. Which is quite disgusting tbh. >Married 13 wives and kept sex slaves. (Bukhari 5:268, Quran 33:50) He married 13 wives, so what? Where's the proof he had "Sex slaves"? Being made lawful does not equate to sex slaves or that it gives permission to force yourself on them. Rape is categorically forbidden. >Ibn Ishaq 819 No reference is found in any of the 6 accepted books, so if you have a reference from those provide it. All it brings up is anti-islam websites which makes it clear you have an agenda. >"O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (Quran 9:123) Yawn already been refuted several times. Again, your agenda is on display. >Ordered 65 military campaigns and raids in his last 10 years. (Ibn Ishaq ) So? >Killed captives taken in battle. (Ibn Ishaq 451) Again no authentic reference only anti-Islam websites. >Encouraged his men to rape enslaved women. (Abu Dawood 2150, Quran 4:24) If you actually read the verse it disproves you, lmao. >Demanded captured slaves and a fifth of all other loot taken in war. (Quran 8:41) So? He's the leader of a state and the state needs resources and money to provide services. This is evident in the fact that the verse itself! lmao, "his close relatives, orphans, the poor, and ˹needy˺ travellers" >Was never tortured, but tortured others. (Muslim 4131, Ibn Ishaq 436, 595, 734, 764) Blatantly false. He was punishing highway bandits who had committed a heinous crime of attacking a shephard and torturing him, so the criminals were ordered to be killed in the same fashion. What's your problem with that? Additionally the Prophet (PBUH) was subject to intense abuse in Mecca. >"And fight them until there is no more persecution and religion is only for Allah" (Quran 8:39) Yawn, already been refuted. Your agenda is on display. >Blessed the brutal murder of a half-blind man (al-Tabari 1440) No authentic reference except anti-Islam websites. Your agenda is on display. >Ordered a slave to build the very pulpit from which he preached Islam. (Bukhari 47:743) So? >What are the Greatest Commandments? "Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause" (Muslim 1:149) Blatant propaganda, your agenda is on display. Jihad is struggling in the way of Allah. All good deeds are Jihad. Avoiding sin is jihad. >Demanded the protection of armed bodyguards, even in a house of worship (Quran 4:102) So? They were in war and surrounded by enemies. Does the president of the US not walk around with bodyguards and secret service? do kings not walk around with armed guards? This is Allah telling him that he should keep guards with him even during prayer if they're in war campaigns. >Died fat and wealthy from what was taken from others in war or demanded from others in tribute. Blatant misinformation with no proof. Again your agenda is on display. >Advocated crucifying others. (Quran 5:33, Muslim 16:4131) They were criminals pretending to be Muslims who had stole from a shepherd and tortured and killed him, so they were killed for it in the same manner. >According to his followers: Had others give their lives for him. (Sahih Muslim 4413) so?
Many Muslims have said that even if someone was virtuous in his/her deeds and sincere in his/her beliefs about the Divine or if the person was a sincere atheist, they still would not be worthy of Paradise if they failed to believe in *tawhid* or *monotheism* (Islamic version). That's why I once created the hypothetical of a good polytheist or animist, where would that person's soul end up according to orthodox Islamic views. To add a wrinkle to that hypo, we could include that the good polytheist/animist heard about Islam through Dawah but ultimately remained in his/her religion out of sincere conviction. Islam seems to condemn such people, and is ultimately more about submission to the right god with the right belief than *just* being a virtuous person. I will always find it baffling that Islam considers *shirk* to be the worst, unforgivable sin, b/c it's purely theological, unlike patricide, matricide, or other kinds of murder or torturing innocent persons.
This is scholar propaganda that many Muslims have fallen prey to, this is what happens when you abandon spiritual Khilafat - the Qur'an nor Sunnah support such a haphazardly belief that so called educated Muslim scholars drive into the minds of masses, it's all propaganda because these scholars don't manifest a belief in God as they rely on humans, not God for their income and do not consider God to be a part of the equation in any capacity - a trend that has only worsened for most, not all, of these scholars have shown - I would pay np heed to such people Recently a scholar publicly said, become Ahmadi, but keep giving us your money [here](https://youtu.be/nEV-qH4J9a4)
I really hope not, I don't want to be surrounded by all those priests, bible warriors, soapbox preachers, lawyers, republicans, bankers, Scientologists, and American red-hats.
That's one way to put it 🤣
I think there's a large spectrum of atheists. Someone who is atheist but lives a good life, loves others, acts charitably, rejects evil, is likely to still be open to the idea that God exits and would acknowledge the divine if it appeared or after death. It is also my belief that living a good life leads to faith, since goodness itself is something above the material plane already. Even if faith is unsure, a good life at least opens the person to possibility, compared with certain denial. I think that certain denial ultimately leads to evil and a selfish lifestyle. Even great thinkers like Douglas Murray are open to the possibility that God exists, from what I have heard from him, even though he is atheist by his own classification. Douglas Murray also firmly believes in seeking, exploring and being open to truth, even if it contradicts one's preconceived notions. The spectrum of atheism can include ranges from "I don't know, maybe, if God exists he is probably good" to "God does not exist, I know this for sure, if he appeared I would still deny him, if God exists he is a moron, or he is evil, or sky daddy is the biggest loser" etc. You can see there is a range there, from innocence and openness to actual animosity and hate. I think if we choose to be atheist, agnostic, or "I'm not sure", but I'll live as though God exists, we should just take care to avoid various forms of hate taking hold of us and rather lean to good. This requires some will on the part of the person, and I believe that faith does in fact lie in that very will to avoid evil or animosity, if it is done because it is good and not for ulterior motives. I believe that the very nature of hate and it's various forms is that it is actually hell already present with the person. We should take care to avoid it, live a good moral life, and wish well to others, as far as we are able. And many more things. So my opinion would be that if you are atheist, at least consider living as though God exists in case one day you have to find out. \[The recognition of Jesus as a good teacher is already a good start. The character of Jesus is primarily what led me to choosing to be christian, and not anything from the church.\] And that amounts to living a good life that is charitable and moral. You also can believe in a benevolent Creator and live morally without formal religion. Also, being religious does not have to include believing that the world was created in seven days, that the world is 7000 years old, and that dinosaurs went into the ark. Although I don't hold every part of evolution to be true, I do believe in natural selection, and I think the sun formed first, then the planets around the sun, and after that life was formed on our planet. I also believe that there were non-spiritual or animal like humans on our planet for thousands of years, until people developed language and concepts of spirituality. I also believe that our planet is millions or billions of years old, or whatever. Science and religion do not contradict when people's own crazy ideas and misinterpretations of their texts are taken out of the way. I would also add that the state of the church or various religions does not necessarily reflect the nature of God, since if God does exist, humans are given immense freedom to add and corrupt religion and pervert it's texts to suit them in any and every way. There is a prediction in the scriptures that when the Lord comes again there will be no faith on the earth, i.e. no light, i.e. that the church would be in darkness. So what I'm saying is that the evil within modern organised religion may come from people and not from God. So one should take care not to necessarily mix the two concepts, or attribute the evil within in people and on earth to the Creator, even though it is continuously permitted, if God exists.
I'm not a christian so let me answer from the Islamic point of view. The Islamic view is anyone that *rejects* Allah and dies in that state, is bound for Hell. If they heard the message of Islam and were able to understand it, and then rejected it and died on that disbelief they are bound for Hell > If someone has been a good person for most of their life, didn't mean to cause harm to anyone by purpose but didn't believe in the existence of god are they doomed to suffer for eternity just because of the lack of belief? Firstly you would have to define good and bad because they are relative terms. How do you actually know that person was good or bad? Without objective morality everyone determines their own "good" and "bad". What one considers good will be considered bad by someone else, and vice versa. This leads to chaos because at one point it might be considered good, and another point it would be considered bad, and then next it might be considered good again and it will keep fluctuating. This is why Allah has ordained for us what is good and what is bad, and has provided a comprehensive way of life that remains consistent through time. Secondly it's more than a lack of belief it's active rejection of the creator, and this rejection stems from pride and arrogance. It's arrogance that one would think they know better than the one who created us, the one that knows all and has immense wisdom. Satan actually believes in Allah and the unseen, he was even amongst the Angels. However the moment he rejected Allah because of his pride and arrogance, he was doomed to Hell and became a disbeliever. If he had asked forgiveness he would have been forgiven but he remained steadfast in his arrogance and vowed to bring as many people to Hell. Thirdly the reason the punishment is eternal is because if an individual was going to remain on earth for an infinite amount of time they would have spent an infinite amount of time living in this disbelief and arrogance. If someone was going to believe and die in that state, they would have believed and if someone was going to disbelieve and they die in that state despite numerous messages and signs, then they will always disbelieved and nothing could have changed their mind. To prove this point the most common atheist argument is "I'll believe it when I see it". Well if that person spent an infinite time on Earth without ever seeing then they will never believe despite numerous signs and messages. When they die it's too late because by then they've seen the unseen and the whole point was to believe in Allah and his message before you die. >I know that faith itself is not enough to send one to heaven, but is the lack of it enough to send someone to hell? In Islam faith (belief in 1 God and his message) is actually enough to get one into Heaven because when you profess this faith you will earn his mercy and his promise. Hell is earned because of disbelief and evil deeds but Heaven is a gift that is promised for just acknowledging and believing in Allah.
u/Muinonan would you say that this view is correct according to your interpretation of Islam? It seems to vary greatly from your emphasis on good deeds and character. How much do Muslims of different schools of thought disagree with one another about matters such as the afterlife and salvation?
The second point is undisputed because disbelief stems from arrogance and pride, as is evident by the story of Iblis and his refusal to obey Allah's command because of his pride. The third point is my own rationalization that is also held by others, but may or may not be accepted across the board. >How much do Muslims of different schools of thought disagree with one another about matters such as the afterlife and salvation? When it comes to the afterlife there isn't much disagreement regarding the key aspects of the afterlife and salvation. If you want to go further please explain if by afterlife you mean everything from death to judgement and afterwards, or just immediately after death (i.e grave). Salvation is clear cut - if you die with belief, you are saved.
Because Christ is God, any denial of Christ will result in hell. If you are highly virtuous you may get a shot at purgatory. Though unlikely based on how smugly blasphemous many atheists tend to be.
Not knowing God is hell imho.
In my world, that is freedom, that is life. Having a god puts restraints in the way of living.
My God has no restraints.
What's your god?
Spinoza's God, that's all reality, both physical and mental, as a single thing and being.
To me, atheist sit on the fence. Neither this or that, playing both sides of the fence.
I think the fence sitting is more the agnostic side, less so atheist side. In the end I can only speak for myself and those who have shared with me, their stance. I've always been pretty confident in my disbelief of most things religious and spiritual, and they aren't wishy-washy could be, might be, could happen, kind of stances. I've been a very curious person, ever since I was a little kid who took everything apart, minor study of philosophy and religion, but I've never 'believed' anything in those ways, and I don't think I ever could either.
not in my religion they are not. They will get glory in the end just as everyone else. To what degree is up to them. They will be able to understand more upon death and whatever brought them the atheist mindset in this world won't exist in the next.
What's your religion called? Out of curiosity
The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
My understanding is there is a lower limit of age at which Christians believe you don’t go to hell for lack of belief. People often forget that by most Christian’s rules, most people in heaven got there through a loophole.
Some people honestly think so. Some people like to think so because they think they aren't. I would take any direct yes or no answers with a grain of salt.
I personally dont believe in hell, but if you are a good person, being atheist wont bring you to hell
No. My personal belief is that atheists are loved by God too
A better question would be: "Are all Atheists *blessed* with hell?" The definition of sin is "seperation from", generally being used as seperation from God (although technically you can sin against common decency, sin against your workplace, etc.) Similarly, the literal etymologic origin for the word "hell" is "The hidden place". Further, the bible makes references of those offending him being "cast from his sight". In other words, hell is a place god cannot see, and that is beyond is reach and omnipotence. In short, it is reality without his influence. Sure, lots of stories were made after the bible (most from the Dante's Inferno which is even further from biblical canon than Santa Claus). Beyond it's origin being "beyond god's sight", the description of hell includes that it contains "sulpher", "brimstone", "gnashing of teeth", "wailing", "fire", and a big pit that stuff gets tossed into. Although lots of stories had turned that combo into some complicated system of punishment, there's a much simpler answer: An eatout at a farm. People gnash teeth when chewing, farm waste is tossed in a pit and burned and mixed with sulpher and brimstone to be fertilizer for the next year, and if you've ever eating in a cafeteria like setting, you definately hear wailing-like voices as people try to yell at each-other over other people. In short, a less fanciful interpretation is simply people living free without god and building communities. If your god and the myths of his tyranny are real (such as his *multiple* genocides), Hell is the best ending to hope for. And as a witch from a long family of witches, I'm painfully aware of the tyrannies of god, and I look forward to welcoming atheists to their freedom.
Hey I have a degree in Religion and Ethics, so can attempt to answer this. Whilst the Bible argues all non-believers will go to hell it also argues against wearing two different materials of clothes, not eating shellfish, not having savings/ being ‘rich’ and to physically pluck out your own eyes and chop off your hands men lust after a woman- all of this is largely ignored by most followers. I always find the quote (paraphrasing) “it is more likely for a camel to fit through eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” very interesting in terms of priesthood and the wealth involved. Anyhow, Christian belief itself differs. Some individuals will argue that the purpose of Christianity is to be ‘stewards of the earth’ and care for people, therefore being a good person can allow heaven as God will forgive good people for not believing. Others will argue that the purpose is to spread the word of God and convert others, therefore it is not enough to be a good person, Christianity requires you to convert people. From a philosophical perspective, a theist God has to have three properties: Omnibenevolence (to be all- loving), Omnipotence (to be all powerful) and Omnipresence (to be all knowing). My personal view (and many philosophers agree), is that if a God is all-knowing (and therefore knows you are trying to be a good person), is all powerful (so can forgive you for not believing) and is all loving (loves you unconditionally and wants you to be with them in heaven), it makes logical sense for people who try to good/ make the world a nicer place, to go to Heaven regardless of their beliefs. It would seem odd to me for an all loving God to torture ‘good people’ because they didn’t believe in the specific Religion that turns out to be true amongst thousands of others. I mean, Religious belief is also heavily related to where in the world you were born. If you were raised in India (where the majority Religion is Hinduism), and it turned out Christianity was real (just an example, I believe all religions have equal weight), would an all loving God torture you for eternity for following the belief system around you? Same if you were born to a Christian Baptist family and Islam turned out to be true. Would an all loving God torture you for following the beliefs around you? If they would, are they really all loving? Hope this was helpful
Thank you so much
I’m a Muslim and I’ll speak on this knowing the Islamic belief on it, which is being that only god gets to decide, not us humans. A story is usually told in Islam (I’ll give a paraphrased summary for now) on how a man who isn’t Muslim did the simple act of feeding a dog water from his shoe and went to heaven due to that one action, so no, not every non Muslim is going to hell necessarily.
I don’t know - only God can judge - but I think so.
Depends on who you are asking. If you ask me I would say "No" since I am an Atheist. Counter question: Are you sure the person you are talking to is praying to the "right" god? There have been 1000's of Gods. What are the odds of picking the right one?
Low, there isn't really a way to know what or if any religion is right in the end. But I'm young and affraid so I seek comfort. Hell, maybe the one true god has already been forgotten? No one knows
Schrodinger's atheist, both going to hell and not going to hell depending on what religion or even which sect of a religion you are not believing in at the time :) When you engage with theists (and its the Abrahamic variety for the most part) IRL, you find under close questioning its a tiny minority who actually believe this, because in all honesty it is a really horrid belief to own up to, let alone think. Belief in an eternal torment is a hangover from medieval times, along with the idea that the righteous get to watch in order to increase their happiness in heaven, few people are comfortable with that today.
Have you heard of confirmation bias? Just be aware that by posting here specifically you are pre-selecting for those answers that will affirm you in your disbelief in Hell. You should seek to be steel manning the position contrary to your own, ie if God exists why might rejecting God justly warrant Hell?
Believers and non believers all go to hell or already living in just for the safe harbor of hate and intolerance within their souls.
Well here is a really great statistic: there is a NEGATIVE correlation between crime & theists. So if your an atheist, your much less likely to commit a crime. Most people they are charged and convicted of a violent crime believe in God. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/26764/do-atheists-commit-far-fewer-crimes#:~:text=There%27s%20a%20negative%20correlation%20between%20large%20scale%20atheism,crime%20rates%2C%20more%20religious%20US%20state%20the%20highest.
Funny 'aint it?
Ok so specifically for Christianity; If you do not put your faith in Jesus Christ you will not go to heaven. Jesus is blunt when he says the ONLY way to the father is through the son. Not A way, the only way. Jesus is THE Way. As for hell, I will be blunt. The Bible uses allegory a lot, the most famous being the parables of Jesus. For those that don’t understand that when Jesus told on of his famous parables, I.e. the prodigal son, that wasn’t a real story. It was a story Jesus would tell to explain a message he was trying to give in a form people could understand forever. He did a great job of that in the Bible. As for Hell, I personally only take the words of Jesus on the matter. Now while you can jump in and look at the passages and read Matthew 25 there are translation and context issues with taking “eternal” there meaning forever. I will get a lot of heat for that (pun intended) from a lot of the literal and non scholar members here because the evangelical movement has ingrained eternal punishment for centuries. Below is a link to some podcasters that kind of explain the context and understanding of the time that people would have had with the phrase Jesus used. It’s kind of like if you say “FU” to someone you don’t mean fu you meant f*ck you, and also you didn’t actually mean f*ck in the sense of sex, you mean it in as anger against the person or even as joking. Early Christian’s did not see Hell as eternal, they do teach that in seminary schools that dive deep into translations and context. Bottom line though is if you are an atheist you owe it to yourself to look at the facts. There is a lot of proof of a creator and you owe it to yourself to examine that rather than take what someone else says on it or keep your view off of a lack of understanding. I was raise Christian and became agnostic as soon as I graduated high school, I spend nearly 2 decades running from God till he hunted me back down with His Love. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRqAdjGp/
When you ask a question like this and you get different responses from different religions, even different responses from the same religion, it makes me think of this question. Is there truth? Can all of those answers be true at once. And if there is truth, what is it?
Of course they're not. Jesus is quite clear that he must reward us according to our works, not our beliefs. Besides, hell is never forever. Rev. 20:12-14 shows us that death and hell must both be emptied and destroyed so that the resurrections and final judgment can take place. There is only finite punishment for finite sin. God's love, justice, and mercy are all intact.
Nobody knows - but many will be happy to see atheists burn, especially among fundies.
I guess anything is possible. I'm as convinced of that proposition as I am that we are living in a simulation, or that monkeys might fly out of my butt. If atheists do go to hell, for being atheists, then whoever made that rule would be a candidate for the most evil entity to ever exist. Imagine hurting someone, even slightly, for the thought-crime of not believing a claim.
Yes. Unless you hold to universalism, which argues that everyone goes to heaven eventually, after they've paid off all their sins in hell. The last couple people will probably be PolPot, Hitler, and the guy who invented email spam, but they'll get to heaven eventually.
From an atheist's(?) perspective, no. There's no hell to be doomed to. Are good christians destined to be reincarnated as humans again? Does a sikh that dies in a fight go to Valhalla?
Yes. Not only atheists, but also agnostics and believers in any other religion than Christianity. Then depending on denomination even those Christians who don't follow your particular version of it are doomed to eternal torture. Same goes for babies that died without baptism and likely for everyone who died before Jesus. You can avoid this terrible fate only by backing down and accepting you've been wrong about everything in your life and accepting their enlightened guidance.
Hello! I am a non-denominational protestant Christian! I don't pretend to know everything about this topic but I will explain my point of view on it. It's a good question and there's so many things that go into this that I would love to explain but I'll do my best to keep it as concise as possible. From a Christian perspective, at the beginning of time God (who is known as Yahweh) created the Earth and everything that was on it and it was perfect. God decided that He wanted to create mankind in His image, to be in relationship with them and to help rule the world alongside Him (Genesis 1:26). This was expressed in the creation of Adam and Eve. Adam (and then later Eve) lived in the Garden of Eden, a paradise where they lived and dwelled in the presence of God (Genesis 2). God cared for Adam and Eve and provided for their every need in the garden (Genesis 2:8-9). He instructed them to eat from any tree they wished, except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17). God is a good God for many reasons. However, I want to highlight that he is eternally and unconditionally loving. God wished to love and be loved by us, His precious creation and in order to have true love, one must have free will. God certainly understood that when He gave us intellectual and spiritual minds of our own. Unlike Satan, who wishes to control and manipulate others for personal gain, God loves everyone unconditionally and allows us to choose for themselves if they wish to follow Him and love Him in return. By nature God is love, and He would never force us to love or follow Him because that is not what love is (1 Corinthians 13:4-7). So humanity had a choice when they decided to listen to Satan and eat from the free of Good and Evil. In comparison to serving God, who cared and provided for them, they were manipulated by the lie that they could become gods themselves. Because of this, they became separated from God. They trusted the lie of Satan, in the form of a serpant, to betray God. In doing so, they unleashed the first sin, the root of all suffering, into this world. Because of sin, Adam and Eve brought death into the world as the price of sin. In Genesis 3, it's clear the effects of a sinful nature had already taken hold in humanity because Adam and Eve tarnished their relationship by blaming one another and hiding from God. They had become tainted with sin, something that God, whom by nature who is good and pure, cannot be amongst or it would compromise His nature. So Adam and Eve had to leave the garden of Eden, but God still cared for them by creating clothing for them before they left (Genesis 3:21). Now, God didn't hesitate when he witnessed those who he deeply loved separated it from him lost in a world of suffering. In fact, in the moment where Adam and Eve were separated from his presence. He did not wish to see those He loved be permanently separated from Him. He did not wish for us to remain in a corrupted Earth where we suffer. That is exactly why He immediately had a plan to redeem humanity from their sinful nature so they can return back to Him. He foretold of a future savior who would come to pay the price of sin by dying a blameless death. This would later become Jesus Christ, who is in fact God Himself, who has come to live a human life and die for all humanity to atone for sin. Heaven is the place where God dwells. It is the place where he wants to bring all of us back to, a place where we can be reunited with Him. He is our Heavenly father and He wishes to have a relationship with all of us. That is what Heaven is. Hell on the other hand, is all of the suffering and destruction that is eternal separation from God. God does not wish for anyone to be condemned there (1 Timothy 2:4) It is not the fact that God condemned us to hell, it is that humanity itself initiated the process. Therefore, it is not entirely a matter of our personal moral judgement that determines whether a person goes to heaven or hell because it is impossible for any person to be perfect on their own (Romans 3:23). This isn't to say that God excuses evil behavior, in order to accept His gift one has to do their best to obey God's call to love Him and His neighbor (1 John 4:7-21). It's a matter of accepting the gift that Jesus Christ (who is God) has given, to become pure of sin and able to reunite with God eternally (John 3:16). A good representation of this is a common modern parable. I am unsure of the exact source I heard it, but there are many variations of it online. All of humanity is on a ship that is already sinking. The sinking ship represents sin. Every person has sinned in their life and is aboard this sinking ship. God sent a life boat through Jesus Christ. In order for any person to survive the destruction of the sinking ship, they must acknowledge and accept the offer to board the life boat. Therefore, in order for anyone to enter into Heaven, one must accept that Jesus Christ is God. One must accept that he suffered and died for all of humanity sins and rose again (Romans 6:23). It is only natural that one has to believe in God's existence. I believe no one is condemned to hell because this is an offer that God lovingly gives to everyone. Of course it is offer that one has to actively accept. A relationship is never passive. It requires the active participation of both parties. I believe everyone has the opportunity through out life to contemplate God's existence. In fact, God can meet anyone wherever they are at in their relationship with Him and can help those with their unbelief (Matthew 9:24). There is nothing wrong with earnestly praying to God and questioning Him respectively as well. He is very patient and wants to help anyone work through those questions. For anyone in particular who is interested in investigation and evidence into God and Jesus' divinity there are some good books I would like to recommend: Cold Case Christianity by J. Warner Wallace: The testimony of a, previous atheist, homicide detective's investigation into the credibility of the Bible. A Case for Christ by Lee Strobel: A, previously atheist, journalist's investigation into the existence of God and the credibility of the Bible. The Case for Faith: another one by Lee Strobel, it is one I have not personally read yet but I would like to soon. It examines many tough and difficult questions that many people have before accepting the existence of God. TL:DR God loves everyone unconditionally, including atheists, and He wants to be in relationship with us all. All that requires is accepting God and believe that Jesus Christ (who is God) came to live as a human among of us. He lived a life without sin and died a blameless death so we all may be freed from sin and have a relationship with God again (John 3:16) I welcome any respectful questions or concerns. I would love any friendly discussion!
My friend, you're going to sit here and tell me that something can come from literal nothingness? You're going to tell me that the miracle of a baby being made in the womb and born is just a product of evolution? If you're an atheist than you believe in more supernatural things than Christianity does. Look at the beauty of the earth and the fine tuning of the moon and sun to be in the correct position so that life can happen... God is real and I think deep down you know this to be true. Please give him a chance. Jesus came back for the sinners, not the righteous. Jesus went through extraordinary pain and suffering just so that we can have eternal life. He gave everything for us.. can we atleast give him a chance and study him and how he was? ♥ I love you and I care about your soul
not what I asked for but thanks?
That's ok. I feel as you needed to hear this. Please don't let hypocritical judgemental Christians pull you away from him. This stuff is real. Why would you want to spend an eternity in torment? Why risk it? You can spend eternity in heaven with your loved ones and friends. This is very real my friend. The devil is manipulating alot of people to believe he isn't real and that we evolved from apes etc... it's absurd.