Why do I deserve Hell?

[JoshC]

Why, as an atheist, do I deserve burn and rot in hell for eternity?

I'm sixteen an find it disturbing that so many people in the world absolutely believe that when I die this is the eternal punishment I deserve.


Assuming a political party held these views also, I'm sure there would be outrage when they announced that anyone in their country who did not believe in "Yahweh, the one true God" would be thrown into a big fiery pit they had dug. However this is the jealous view the God in the Bible holds and no Christians seem bothered about its ethical implications.

Is this an equal punishment for looking at the evidence presented and making a fair assumption (in my opinion) based on it?

Can anyone justify Hell as a punishment for atheists?

[Goat]

Have you read Job?

Yes, are you saying the book of Job answers my question?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

And exactly how does it answer it? Please, be precise. I have read the book of Job, and I don't see how it answers 'Why does an atheist deserve Hell'.

It basically tries (unsuccessfully in my opinion), answer the question, Why do bad things happen to good people. It does not say 'Why does anybody deserve hell'.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Action

Have you read Job?

Yes, are you saying the book of Job answers my question?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Please review the Rules. It should be clear that JoshC has read Job and was not able to find the answer to the question in Job. So simply stating that Job answers such questions is a sure fire way of slowing the pace of debate to a glacial rate. Perhaps if you were to provide some quotes from Job or illustrate how Job addresses these questions, we would pick up the pace a little.


When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.

[T-mash]

... imagine how something like this gets derailed into someone "misusing" the name of a god, immediately people jumping on him like he just said the most terrible thing and has no respect for other people. Is it not ironic that a thread about how condemning people to the worst possible place you could ever imagine gets derailed into one about us having to respect and properly use a name of a god? This double-standard here is very fitting in a thread like this.

As is the example of hyperbole. I believe what was said was ...

• ..., you might choose to be senisitive to the fact that many Jews would appreciate that you not use the Name of G-d in the way that you did. It's nothing to fight about, but it's a point of respect if that is important to you.

This impresses me as somewhat less than "people jumping on him like he just said the most terrible thing and has no respect for other people." No?

The first response to the OP contains it...then post 4, 6, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 30 are about the subject
That's 15/33 posts *including this one*, which is nearly half. On the subject about hell, the worst possible insult you could ever imagine, half of the post are about worrying if some god's name was incorrectly used or not. That's just sad.

Who says that? I don't. Offhand, I would say that the only people who believe that that is "perfectly acceptable" are the fundamentalists who are doing it.

I know you don't, I just quoted yours because it was the last post on the subject and quoted all the ones before it in it. I even specifically left out Judaism
And only the fundamentalists believe in hell and that everyone who disagrees goes to hell? I doubt you mean that because hell is a common belief in Christianity and is believed in more than say evolution.

True; and that is a perfectly valid topic for debate, and we have been debating it; and you and I are rather clearly on the same side in that debate. I fail to see a problem here.

Again, the most part wasn't in response to what you said, sorry for quoting you for it

Excuse me, but that has not happened here. One (1) person, Jonah, made one (1) remark

Which was the first reply the OP got. Of which a short first sentence was in response to the OP, which did not at all address the opening post, and a much longer part consisting of two sentences was about his disrespect for wrongly using a name. Of course the length of a paragraph does not always state which is more important to the poster, but it does shine through like that. Also that (1) remark was not supposed to be there in the first place. My first response to Jay shows that it's not just one little sentence ignored by everyone, but on top of that it is besides the point. I just thought it was rather telling that a post of an atheist (I assume) asking why he deserves hell gets replies about respect towards the name of god. Not only is it completely off-topic, it also should not even begin to enter this discussion. Apparently the respect towards religion has accumulated to a point where saying a non-believe is going to hell is not even near as bad as the misuse of a name.

about the casual use of the Name of God, and that remark was rather polite and more of a suggestion than a matter of "jumping on" anyone.

You do not in any way deserve eternal hell. [short response]
But, you might choose to be senisitive to the fact that many Jews would appreciate that you not use the Name of G-d in the way that you did. It's nothing to fight about, but it's a point of respect if that is important to you. [long response]

It's a point of respect suggest that if Joshc would not apologise or refrain from using it again he would lack respect if you follow this logic. "If respect is important to you, you will be sensitive to..". I fail to see how one can make a statement about respect for the name of a god someone does not belief in. To me it's the same as responding with:

"You don't deserve hell

But you might choose to be sensitive to the fact that Christians would appreciate it if you type God with a capital and that you don't type God in the way you did. It's nothing to fight about, but it's a point of respect if that is important to you."

The OP was not about whether or not Christians believe in hell or whether or not the bible says X or Y. His point was that he finds it personally disturbing to think so many people out there have no problem with the thought that this perfectly harmless and nice 16 year old (I assume ) deserves to burn in hell for eternity. These thoughts about him are absolutely disgusting and the response to this absolutely disgusting view that close to a majority of the world holds and that he personally finds disturbing is: "Well I don't think you got to hell myself but hey you might want to have more respect by using the name of god correctly". The name of the very god that condemns him to hell. The name of the very god that the people who want to see this guy and every other atheist burn, worships.

We should have respect for that god's name? I think not.

Honestly, trying to find something hypocritical or whatever to protest about in the discussion of a perfectly legitimate side issue looks more like a "derailment" to me. Nobody's devaluing this topic, and it's hard to see why anyone would think that.

There is nothing hypocritical in suggesting that respect needs to be shown to a deity that (1) has not been shown to exist and (2) if he does exists would love watching the OP burn in hell? This is a perfectly legitimate side-issue? I think it is highly hypocritical.

[cnorman18]

... imagine how something like this gets derailed into someone "misusing" the name of a god, immediately people jumping on him like he just said the most terrible thing and has no respect for other people. Is it not ironic that a thread about how condemning people to the worst possible place you could ever imagine gets derailed into one about us having to respect and properly use a name of a god? This double-standard here is very fitting in a thread like this.

As is the example of hyperbole. I believe what was said was ...

• ..., you might choose to be senisitive to the fact that many Jews would appreciate that you not use the Name of G-d in the way that you did. It's nothing to fight about, but it's a point of respect if that is important to you.

This impresses me as somewhat less than "people jumping on him like he just said the most terrible thing and has no respect for other people." No?

The first response to the OP contains it...then post 4, 6, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 29 and 30 are about the subject
That's 15/33 posts *including this one*, which is nearly half. On the subject about hell, the worst possible insult you could ever imagine, half of the post are about worrying if some god's name was incorrectly used or not. That's just sad.

Who says that? I don't. Offhand, I would say that the only people who believe that that is "perfectly acceptable" are the fundamentalists who are doing it.

I know you don't, I just quoted yours because it was the last post on the subject and quoted all the ones before it in it. I even specifically left out Judaism
And only the fundamentalists believe in hell and that everyone who disagrees goes to hell? I doubt you mean that because hell is a common belief in Christianity and is believed in more than say evolution.

True; and that is a perfectly valid topic for debate, and we have been debating it; and you and I are rather clearly on the same side in that debate. I fail to see a problem here.

Again, the most part wasn't in response to what you said, sorry for quoting you for it

Excuse me, but that has not happened here. One (1) person, Jonah, made one (1) remark

Which was the first reply the OP got. Of which a short first sentence was in response to the OP, which did not at all address the opening post, and a much longer part consisting of two sentences was about his disrespect for wrongly using a name. Of course the length of a paragraph does not always state which is more important to the poster, but it does shine through like that. Also that (1) remark was not supposed to be there in the first place. My first response to Jay shows that it's not just one little sentence ignored by everyone, but on top of that it is besides the point. I just thought it was rather telling that a post of an atheist (I assume) asking why he deserves hell gets replies about respect towards the name of god. Not only is it completely off-topic, it also should not even begin to enter this discussion. Apparently the respect towards religion has accumulated to a point where saying a non-believe is going to hell is not even near as bad as the misuse of a name.

about the casual use of the Name of God, and that remark was rather polite and more of a suggestion than a matter of "jumping on" anyone.

You do not in any way deserve eternal hell. [short response]
But, you might choose to be senisitive to the fact that many Jews would appreciate that you not use the Name of G-d in the way that you did. It's nothing to fight about, but it's a point of respect if that is important to you. [long response]

It's a point of respect suggest that if Joshc would not apologise or refrain from using it again he would lack respect if you follow this logic. "If respect is important to you, you will be sensitive to..". I fail to see how one can make a statement about respect for the name of a god someone does not belief in. To me it's the same as responding with:

"You don't deserve hell

But you might choose to be sensitive to the fact that Christians would appreciate it if you type God with a capital and that you don't type God in the way you did. It's nothing to fight about, but it's a point of respect if that is important to you."

The OP was not about whether or not Christians believe in hell or whether or not the bible says X or Y. His point was that he finds it personally disturbing to think so many people out there have no problem with the thought that this perfectly harmless and nice 16 year old (I assume ) deserves to burn in hell for eternity. These thoughts about him are absolutely disgusting and the response to this absolutely disgusting view that close to a majority of the world holds and that he personally finds disturbing is: "Well I don't think you got to hell myself but hey you might want to have more respect by using the name of god correctly". The name of the very god that condemns him to hell. The name of the very god that the people who want to see this guy and every other atheist burn, worships.

We should have respect for that god's name? I think not.

Honestly, trying to find something hypocritical or whatever to protest about in the discussion of a perfectly legitimate side issue looks more like a "derailment" to me. Nobody's devaluing this topic, and it's hard to see why anyone would think that.

There is nothing hypocritical in suggesting that respect needs to be shown to a deity that (1) has not been shown to exist and (2) if he does exists would love watching the OP burn in hell? This is a perfectly legitimate side-issue? I think it is highly hypocritical.

It isn't about respect for God; it's about respect for your fellow members. Not hypocritical and worth considering, though some members apparently don't think so.

Once someone has said that he doesn't believe in Hell, doesn't believe anyone is worthy of Hell, and that he agrees that it's a contemptible belief, what more do you want him to say? That seems to cover it to me.

Anything else? Or do you want to continue the "derailment"?

[T-mash]

Once someone has said that he doesn't believe in Hell, doesn't believe anyone is worthy of Hell, and that he agrees that it's a contemptible belief, what more do you want him to say? That seems to cover it to me.
Anything else? Or do you want to continue the "derailment"?

It's not a derailment, you just misunderstood the OP. He wasn't asking if you believed in Hell, nor was he even referring to Judaism. His point was that: "I'm sixteen an find it disturbing that so many people in the world absolutely believe that when I die this is the eternal punishment I deserve........No Christians seem bothered about its ethical implications."

By talking about the misused name of a god his point has been proven.

You have stated you don't believe in a hell, so therefore this topic was not directly about you. Jonah I assume is Jewish too. Jayhawker is too.

Myth-one has stated that Christians who believe atheists will burn in hell are wrong because "Christians gain everlasting life! Nonbelievers perish." Maybe true, maybe not. Does this address the issue that Christianity wants to see the guy burn? Not at all. In fact myth-one only suggested that atheists die while the people who did belief in god are blessed with eternal life. This does not answer the OP because the question was: "Is this an equal punishment for looking at the evidence presented and making a fair assumption (in my opinion) based on it? ". Is it?

Tiberius47 is an atheist.

theophilus40: "Everyone deserves hell because we are all sinners and accepting Jesus makes you able to go to heaven" agrees on the notion that this boy does in fact have every right to go to hell for basing his religious standpoint on what is evidenced.

Paul2 is a Christian who doesn't believe in hell because it is a myth and suggests that heaven is for everyone. Of course this is (1) not widely believed in Christianity and (2) not correct based on his own quotes.

Romans 3:22,23: yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for ALL, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God.

He underlined the "there is no distinction" to show it's for all, while of course the words before that state: "through Jesus Christ's Faith for ALL, and on all who are believing".

This does not address the issue of the OP that it is a widespread believe that he will burn in hell and deserves it too. Stating that you personally believe even atheists go to heaven is nice but does not address the issue and only aims to rationalise the ridiculous concept of hell that no loving god could ever have.

None of these posts deal with the ethical problems that the largest part of the US for example believes that people who are atheists are worthy of eternal suffering and damnation.

The OP again said that: ""oing to hell doesn't bother me (as I believe it doesn't exist) however the thought that some people in the world believe that is the correct fate for me is horrifying. ".

Posts on if Hell exists do not address this issue. Posts on suggesting respect is needed for a god's name while completely skipping over the guy's problem with the lack of respect towards atheists en masse with regards to this issue only strengthens it. It's quite simply sickening for one human being to say another deserves eternal torture and punishment even if the person in question is the biggest criminal. How is it if half of our world's population holds that belief and not only for the biggest criminals but also just everyone who doesn't believe what they believe?

It isn't about respect for God; it's about respect for your fellow members. Not hypocritical and worth considering, though some members apparently don't think so.

Hopefully by having read what I typed above you will see what my point was with my post. Suggesting respect is deserved is one thing and you are always free to do so. Completely missing the ethical problem and immorality that half of the worlds population follows a religion that wants to see the other half burn in hell, regardless of how nice they are, while in the same topic suggesting respect for the god that wants to see us burn is needed.. is just mind-boggling.

[cnorman18]

Once someone has said that he doesn't believe in Hell, doesn't believe anyone is worthy of Hell, and that he agrees that it's a contemptible belief, what more do you want him to say? That seems to cover it to me.
Anything else? Or do you want to continue the "derailment"?

It's not a derailment, you just misunderstood the OP. He wasn't asking if you believed in Hell, nor was he even referring to Judaism. His point was that: "I'm sixteen an find it disturbing that so many people in the world absolutely believe that when I die this is the eternal punishment I deserve........No Christians seem bothered about its ethical implications."

By talking about the misused name of a god his point has been proven.

You have stated you don't believe in a hell, so therefore this topic was not directly about you. Jonah I assume is Jewish too. Jayhawker is too.

Myth-one has stated that Christians who believe atheists will burn in hell are wrong because "Christians gain everlasting life! Nonbelievers perish." Maybe true, maybe not. Does this address the issue that Christianity wants to see the guy burn? Not at all. In fact myth-one only suggested that atheists die while the people who did belief in god are blessed with eternal life. This does not answer the OP because the question was: "Is this an equal punishment for looking at the evidence presented and making a fair assumption (in my opinion) based on it? ". Is it?

Tiberius47 is an atheist.

theophilus40: "Everyone deserves hell because we are all sinners and accepting Jesus makes you able to go to heaven" agrees on the notion that this boy does in fact have every right to go to hell for basing his religious standpoint on what is evidenced.

Paul2 is a Christian who doesn't believe in hell because it is a myth and suggests that heaven is for everyone. Of course this is (1) not widely believed in Christianity and (2) not correct based on his own quotes.

Romans 3:22,23: yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for ALL, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God.

He underlined the "there is no distinction" to show it's for all, while of course the words before that state: "through Jesus Christ's Faith for ALL, and on all who are believing".

This does not address the issue of the OP that it is a widespread believe that he will burn in hell and deserves it too. Stating that you personally believe even atheists go to heaven is nice but does not address the issue and only aims to rationalise the ridiculous concept of hell that no loving god could ever have.

None of these posts deal with the ethical problems that the largest part of the US for example believes that people who are atheists are worthy of eternal suffering and damnation.

The OP again said that: ""oing to hell doesn't bother me (as I believe it doesn't exist) however the thought that some people in the world believe that is the correct fate for me is horrifying. ".

Posts on if Hell exists do not address this issue. Posts on suggesting respect is needed for a god's name while completely skipping over the guy's problem with the lack of respect towards atheists en masse with regards to this issue only strengthens it. It's quite simply sickening for one human being to say another deserves eternal torture and punishment even if the person in question is the biggest criminal. How is it if half of our world's population holds that belief and not only for the biggest criminals but also just everyone who doesn't believe what they believe?

It isn't about respect for God; it's about respect for your fellow members. Not hypocritical and worth considering, though some members apparently don't think so.

Hopefully by having read what I typed above you will see what my point was with my post. Suggesting respect is deserved is one thing and you are always free to do so. Completely missing the ethical problem and immorality that half of the worlds population follows a religion that wants to see the other half burn in hell, regardless of how nice they are, while in the same topic suggesting respect for the god that wants to see us burn is needed.. is just mind-boggling.

As if I "completely missed the ethical problem and immorality that half the worlds (sic) population follows a religion that wants to see the other half burn in Hell." How did you reach that conclusion? Because I'm not jumping up and down about it?

I have already condemned that belief as "contemptible," which is about as strong a condemnation as I can give; It's not my belief; I'm not responsible for it; and I don't see anything I can do about it. As far as I'm concerned, that's all I need to say. What more you want from me, in order not to feel compelled to condemn me personally as a "mind-boggling" example of gross hypocrisy, I don't know and could care less.

For the record: I never said that I personally thought that atheists go to Heaven. I don't make any claims at all about the afterlife, because I don't know that there is one. This whole subject is of very, very little interest to me, precisely because I think this belief is irrational, indefensible, and in a sense, deeply unChristian (and I felt that when I was a Christian clergyman, too).

I also never said anything about showing respect for a god, but, as I said and you totally ignored, about respect for other people and their sensitivities. You're continuing to put words in my mouth even after I've specifically corrected them, just as in our last exchange. That's a very bad habit, and I have eschewed attempting to debate people who insist on doing it.

Have a nice day.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read Job?

Yes, are you saying the book of Job answers my question?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

And exactly how does it answer it? Please, be precise. I have read the book of Job, and I don't see how it answers 'Why does an atheist deserve Hell'.

Pay better attention. Actually, the discussion began ...

• What is the need for Earth and all this suffering? Surely it's unnecessary.

  Great question! Have you read Job?

I never suggested that book addressed, much less answered, any question about an atheist deserving hell. But it does offer an intriguing discourse on the question quoted, i.e., the so-called Problem of Evil as I'm sure that you, having "read the book of Job," will appreciate.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read Job?

Yes, are you saying the book of Job answers my question?

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

And exactly how does it answer it? Please, be precise. I have read the book of Job, and I don't see how it answers 'Why does an atheist deserve Hell'.

Pay better attention. Actually, the discussion began ...

• What is the need for Earth and all this suffering? Surely it's unnecessary.

  Great question! Have you read Job?

I never suggested that the Book of Job addressed, much less answered, any question about an atheist deserving hell. But it does offer an intriguing discourse on the question quoted, i.e., the so-called Problem of Evil as I'm sure that you, having "read the book of Job," will appreciate.

[T-mash]

As if I "completely missed the ethical problem and immorality that half the worlds (sic) population follows a religion that wants to see the other half burn in Hell." How did you reach that conclusion? Because I'm not jumping up and down about it?

Your posts have been this (correct me if I am wrong): You don't deserve hell in my opinion, Hebrew Bible says nothing about hell and Jews don't believe in it by large, something about the name of your god, some posts about mutual respect.

Your posts did not address the issue I mentioned, did they? Not even your replies to me where I specifically have mentioned the issue contain anything about it. I wasn't suggesting that you don't care or such, I was merely pointing out that none of the posts, except those from Atheists, were about that issue. None of them addressed the ethical problems of society en masse having no problem with condemning non-believers to Hell. None of them addressed the fact that one might feel deeply disgusted, sad, terrified or disturbed that half of the people you meet (depending on where you live) think you deserve eternal torture. The posts here were either about them personally not believing in a hell or stating that "the bible actually says X". This is how I reached my conclusion.

I have already condemned that belief as "contemptible," which is about as strong a condemnation as I can give; It's not my belief; I'm not responsible for it; and I don't see anything I can do about it. As far as I'm concerned, that's all I need to say. What more you want from me, in order not to feel compelled to condemn me personally as a "mind-boggling" example of gross hypocrisy, I don't know and could care less.

And thereby you are proofing the point of the OP, in fact you support it even further. The OP's "issue" was that "No Christians seem bothered about its ethical implications.". Apparently it's not limited to Christians alone. The point of the OP is not that he demands a theist comes forward to explain why he deserves hell, the point is more to raise awareness, or as he said it:
"Going to hell doesn't bother me (as I believe it doesn't exist) however the thought that some people in the world believe that is the correct fate for me is horrifying. "

It's not about the rationality off hell, the actual existence of hell or about what the bible says about hell according to someone. It's about the fact that a large number of people in the world can say all non-believes go to hell without feeling even the least amount of disgust with this statement. Quite a number even finds it amusing that we do.

http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly for example. The first part of it is: In her latest book "Godless," Ann Coulter writes "I defy any of my coreligionists to tell me they do not laugh at the idea of Dawkins burning in hell."

For the record: I never said that I personally thought that atheists go to Heaven. I don't make any claims at all about the afterlife, because I don't know that there is one. This whole subject is of very, very little interest to me, precisely because I think this belief is irrational, indefensible, and in a sense, deeply unChristian (and I felt that when I was a Christian clergyman, too).

And I never said that you said that. I think I mentioned the exclusion of Judaism specifically about 5 times now and I already said that:

"You have stated you don't believe in a hell, so therefore this topic was not directly about you"

I only mentioned atheists going to heaven with regards to Paul2's post and my response was: "Paul2 is a Christian who doesn't believe in hell because it is a myth and suggests that heaven is for everyone. ". So I don't see why you think I attributed this to you?

I also never said anything about showing respect for a god, but, as I said and you totally ignored, about respect for other people and their sensitivities. You're continuing to put words in my mouth even after I've specifically corrected them, just as in our last exchange. That's a very bad habit, and I have eschewed attempting to debate people who insist on doing it.

And I never said you did this? If you have personal problems with me you are welcomed to bring them up to me in a PM but this entire response here was a defence like you've been victimised and you didn't actually respond to any of my points. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you but reading my post again I can't find any statement that would lead you to be offended. Could you point out to me why you think that I am putting words in your mouth? Could you point out to me why I am ignoring your point about respect?

[T-mash]

Hmm I think I found your issue with my post.
I placed the part where Paul2 quoted the bible in quote brackets like he did himself.

Romans 3:22,23: yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for ALL, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God.

You I assume didn't read this because you figured it was something you said and since you know what you said yourself it'd be pointless to read it again. Under that I said: This does not address the issue of the OP that it is a widespread believe that he will burn in hell and deserves it too. Stating that you personally believe even atheists go to heaven is nice but does not address the issue and only aims to rationalise the ridiculous concept of hell that no loving god could ever have.

I assume you saw this as a response to the quote which you assumed was yours?

It was meant to read in the following way:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul2 is a Christian who doesn't believe in hell because it is a myth and suggests that heaven is for everyone. Of course this is (1) not widely believed in Christianity and (2) not correct based on his own quotes: Romans 3:22,23: yet a righteousness of God through Jesus Christ's faith, for ALL, and on all who are believing, for there is no distinction, for all sinned and are wanting of the glory of God.

He underlined the "there is no distinction" to show it's for all, while of course the words before that state: "through Jesus Christ's Faith for ALL, and on all who are believing".

This does not address the issue of the OP that it is a widespread believe that he will burn in hell and deserves it too. Stating that you [with you I mean as in the person that does this, should be obvious in light of the quote now but just in case] personally believe even atheists go to heaven is nice but does not address the issue and only aims to rationalise the ridiculous concept of hell that no loving god could ever have.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Apologies for the misunderstanding in this case.

Have a nice day too