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?

[cnorman18]

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.

You said to correct you, so I will.

You don't deserve hell in my opinion, Hebrew Bible says nothing about hell and Jews don't believe in it by large...

So far, so good. More or less.

...something about the name of your god, some posts about mutual respect.

That isn't a summary, it's an allusion, and a dismissive one.

To be fair and accurate: What happened was that JoshC misunderstood a post from Jonah and thought he was asking that people not use the word "God." I corrected that misunderstanding, which I thought necessary, and I added a remark by the way that using either "God" or "Yahweh" isn't really a problem, even Biblically. I added a remark that using "Yahweh" intentionally while knowing one's opponent is offended by it is another matter.

I don't think anything I've said is unreasonable, hypocritical, or dismissive of anything. I think that correcting a basic misunderstanding, and advocating courtesy toward other PEOPLE, as opposed to gods, are good things to do; but you apparently think that those are trivial compared to your own concerns.

Okay.

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.

First: that's false. I have repeatedly called belief in Hell "contemptible." If that's not sufficient for you, that's too bad, but nobody has appointed you the class monitor in charge of enforcing the correct level of outrage.

Second: Even if I hadn't addressed your concerns, if you'll examine the forum rules carefully, there are none which require members to respond to all topics at all, let alone respond in the manner desired by other members.

I wasn't suggesting that you don't care or such...

Of course you were; you were suggesting, and still are, that I and half the people posting to this thread don't care ENOUGH about the issues that YOU find compelling, and that any other issues ought to be barred from discussion till we all vent about how horrible it is that half of society believes in Hell.

Sorry. I think misunderstandings ought to be corrected and that people ought to avoid being intentionally offensive, and that those are worth talking about too. I certainly don't see why you, or anyone, would be so upset by it.

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.

Maybe you should reexamine it. Concern about one issue does not necessarily imply a lack of concern about others.

Given that most of the theists on this thread don't believe in Hell and agree with you, and since as you say the OP was not addressed to us, I fail to see why our addressing another issue which does concern us (and that would be respect for people, not gods) would be a big, huge problem deserving of these finger-wagging lectures.

Further: just how do you think this "ethical problem of society" should be "addressed"? What, precisely, are we all going to do about it? Just how high do you want us all to jump when we're all jumping up and down in an appropriate manner?

Personally, I'm more concerned with the things that Christians do that actually MATTER, like preventing gays from getting married and trying to force the schools to teach the Bible as science.

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.

Twisting again. I didn't say that I didn't care about the issues in I the OP; I said I don't care about what I have to do to satisfy YOU. That's not a fine distinction, and it's not an accident that you substituted the words you wanted to put in my mouth for what I actually said.

Again.

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."

That's all terrible.

What else do you want me to say? Did you think I approve of all that?

Tell me, when did JoshC delegate the authority to speak for him to you, anyway? It's his OP, and I don't see him complaining.

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.

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.

That post was apparently addressed to me. Your correction of that impression is noted with thanks.

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"

That's correct. Which is why I only came on the thread to correct a misunderstanding in the first place.

So I dropped a couple of remarks about courtesy and respect along with that. Big deal.

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?

See above.

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?

Excuse me?

Post 26:

"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?"

Post 33:

"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."

And:

"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."

And:

"I fail to see how one can make a statement about respect for the name of a god someone does not belief in."

And:

""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."

And:

"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."

Post 35:

"Posts on suggesting respect is needed for a god's name..."

And:

"...while in the same topic suggesting respect for the god that wants to see us burn is needed.. is just mind-boggling."

All of these are inarguably saying that the concern for RESPECT, on the part of myself and the other posters who mention it, is respect for a god and for the name of a god. You have never, not once, unequivocally mentioned respect for OTHER PEOPLE, which is the issue here.

Do you understand why I regard this as putting words in my mouth? Do you understand why I say that you have done this repeatedly, as I showed above?

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 don't feel victimized; I feel mystified. Once again, you are twisting my posts and putting words in my mouth in order to attack a position I don't hold - in this case, that disrespecting the name of a god is a more important issue than the irrationality and immorality of a belief in Hell. I understand why you would oppose that view, but I don't understand why you insist on attributing it to me.

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?

Done on all counts. You have not offended me in any "religious" sense, only in an ethical and intellectual one. I think it unethical to misrepresent the positions and statements of others in order to argue against strawmen for no coherent reason, and I think your defensiveness and passion both have more to do with your intense contempt and disdain for all things religious than with anything actually being discussed here.

It appears that for you, the evil of religion trumps any other topic and must be at the top of everyone's list of priorities; and you seem to regard anyone who doesn't entirely agree as a moral defective and/or an idiot.

Belief in Hell is contemptible, irrational, immoral, all that stuff; but I doubt that most mainstream Christians consider Hell a primary tenet of their beliefs or that they even think about it much, or that they secretly dance about in glee at the prospect of their nonChristian friends burning in agony for eternity. And I surely don't think many people walk around thinking, "Damn! Half the people I see want me to go to Hell!" No, I don't think this problem is as earthshakingly important as you do; if you think that makes me a moral cripple or a hypocrite, that's not something I'm concerned about.

We can disagree, but the tone of personal attack and the level of polemic distortion in your posts is not, to me, acceptable. I don't even see that we disagree to any significant extent, and your continuing to attack me in this series of posts is a bit mysterious.

I enjoy most debates; they are, or can be, cordial and respectful and still be assertive and uncompromising. It's unfortunate that that isn't happening here, but I find it hard to be cordial with your hand in my mouth.

I don't like your attitude, I don't like your tactics, and I don't like being lectured. That's all.

I find I have nothing more to say.

[T-mash]

That isn't a summary, it's an allusion, and a dismissive one.

How is it? You made some posts "about the name of your god, some posts about mutual respect". My intent wasn't to give you a summary of everything you said. My point was to briefly show you the subject of your posts. Sorry if this made it seem dismissive. Unfortunately this feels more like you are turning everything I say into something negative.

I don't think anything I've said is unreasonable, hypocritical, or dismissive of anything. I think that correcting a basic misunderstanding, and advocating courtesy toward other PEOPLE, as opposed to gods, are good things to do; but you apparently think that those are trivial compared to your own concerns.

This does not follow with what I am trying to say, sorry. "My own" concerns in this topic would be that it is disturbing/terrifying or whatever word one might want to choose to describe that a huge part of our population has no issues with the thought of people burning into hell even if they are completely "free of sin", just because they do not choose to worship their god. I am not doubting your act of courtesy towards other people with regards of the name of God. What I was getting at is that a misuse of a name of a god was pointed out and started a small debate about respect, whereas the statement from theophilus40: "Everyone deserves hell because we are all sinners and accepting Jesus makes you able to go to heaven"

Was not even responded to and was drowned out in the god's name debate. My point wasn't that suggesting that the correct use of a term is X is not good or that saying what a particular group of people considers as being respectful is not good, nor was it in relation to whether or not one should use a god's name with respect for the people who believe in him. My point was that the topic of debate states that: "no Christians seem bothered about its ethical implications". One might consider an incorrect usage of the name of a god as a direct attack and consider this to be a lack of respect towards those that belief in this particular god, but surely stating that other people who disagree with ones religious views will burn in hell is also a lack of respect towards those that do not hold that belief?

You pointed this out as correcting a basic misunderstanding, which I am sure is true. I was not complaining about that, I was talking about that this 'basic misunderstanding' which was not part of the topic was more controversial than the statements that were on topic and without a doubt showed a far worse infringement of respect. I only used it as a telling example of how the OP was absolutely right.

First: that's false. I have repeatedly called belief in Hell "contemptible." If that's not sufficient for you, that's too bad, but nobody has appointed you the class monitor in charge of enforcing the correct level of outrage.

While I won't doubt if you think it is contemptible, I did not find you making such a statement in any of your posts, except those to me. You have made the claim that such a believe is not considered to be correct by you, but I didn't see anything in line of "contemptible/disgusting" or the like? Why is it false?

Second: Even if I hadn't addressed your concerns, if you'll examine the forum rules carefully, there are none which require members to respond to all topics at all, let alone respond in the manner desired by other members.

I wasn't telling you to "only talk about what I want you to or go post in another topic". I was pointing out that no one mentioned a crucial point of the OP and no one responded to a post that exactly shows why his point was important (That of theophilus).

Of course you were; you were suggesting, and still are, that I and half the people posting to this thread don't care ENOUGH about the issues that YOU find compelling, and that any other issues ought to be barred from discussion till we all vent about how horrible it is that half of society believes in Hell.

I do like to point out that I know better what it is that I am trying to suggest than anyone else, but you are of course free to claim you know it better than me.

Sorry. I think misunderstandings ought to be corrected and that people ought to avoid being intentionally offensive, and that those are worth talking about too. I certainly don't see why you, or anyone, would be so upset by it.

And you are right to think so, nor will I claim otherwise. My issue wasn't about correcting someone. My issue was that the book of respect was dropped at the misuse of the name of a god. While, again, this might be offensive to the believers of said god, I don't think it compares to the lack of respect needed in order to condemn someone to hell.

Do you think that you [hypothetical you] misusing of the name of my god, either deliberately or accidentally, shows the same lack of respect for me as me saying you will burn in hell? If so, why? In my eyes these two things are not even comparable in terms of "respect". Josh apologised, which was a noble thing of him to do. What would happen if we'd ask the apology of a Christian for saying we are going to hell?

Maybe you should reexamine it. Concern about one issue does not necessarily imply a lack of concern about others.

Of course. But let me try to put it into perspective:
Let's say that a topic is made about racism in America where the OP states that he feels personally disgusted that he as a black person would get paid substantially less for his work as a teacher [hypothetical] than for example women and white men, gays and Muslims and Mexicans or people with a lower education than him.
Then the replies to this post are:
"I don't believe black people perform worse at their job, but you might want to not say 'gays' because some people might find that offensive. Homosexual is better."
"I don't believe teachers get paid as much as they should either"
"I don't mind him saying "gays" but the correct word would indeed be homosexual"
"You indeed deserve less money because you are black"
"What's wrong with him saying 'gays'?"
"I think teachers deserve more money in general too yes"
"It's just a sign of respect about saying 'homosexuals' instead of gays"
"Sorry, I apologise if I offended any homosexuals here, it wasn't my intention"
"Isn't it telling that this topic is about how he spelled homosexual while his point about him as a black person making less money than others is completely ignored?"

Further: just how do you think this "ethical problem of society" should be "addressed"? What, precisely, are we all going to do about it? Just how high do you want us all to jump when we're all jumping up and down in an appropriate manner? Personally, I'm more concerned with the things that Christians do that actually MATTER, like preventing gays from getting married and trying to force the schools to teach the Bible as science.

You're working on the assumption that I am somehow deeply hurt by people saying I will go to hell, I suppose. I'm not saying everyone should think about this right now, nor am I saying we should push forward now for political intervention. Again I was only pointing out how telling the development of this thread was in reference to his OP and later comment in the thread.

Twisting again. I didn't say that I didn't care about the issues in I the OP; I said I don't care about what I have to do to satisfy YOU. That's not a fine distinction, and it's not an accident that you substituted the words you wanted to put in my mouth for what I actually said.Again.

It's not word twisting. The "no[one] seems bothered by..". Fitted you too. You too did not seem to be bothered. This is not putting words in your mouth, nor is it twisting your words. I quite clearly said that I am sure you did care.

That's all terrible. What else do you want me to say? Did you think I approve of all that?

There you go ^^

All of these are inarguably saying that the concern for RESPECT, on the part of myself and the other posters who mention it, is respect for a god and for the name of a god. You have never, not once, unequivocally mentioned respect for OTHER PEOPLE, which is the issue here.

You are right in this. However I don't believe, like I presume you do, that the correct usage of the name of a non-existent being says anything about your respect for those that consider it to be an existent being. If he would have used a swear word/name to ridicule your god I would have agreed completely, because that is unnecessary in this context and will only lead to unneeded hatred towards both sides. I quite simply don't see him insulting you or any other follower of Judaism by misusing a name. Why should one consider it to be a lack of respect to do such? My idea is that those that feel offended do so based on the assumption that your god is sacred. If your god would not be the issue, then what's the problem with misusing his name? I don't see how the misuse of the name of any god has anything to do with respect of its believers, especially not if those believers then claim the issue has nothing to do with god. If this is not about respect towards your god.. then exactly what would he be insulting?

Do you understand why I regard this as putting words in my mouth? Do you understand why I say that you have done this repeatedly, as I showed above?

No, as I showed above.

You have not offended me in any "religious" sense, only in an ethical and intellectual one. I think it unethical to misrepresent the positions and statements of others in order to argue against strawmen for no coherent reason, and I think your defensiveness and passion both have more to do with your intense contempt and disdain for all things religious than with anything actually being discussed here.

Your idea of me misrepresenting you and putting words in your mouth are based on a misquote that I later corrected and you even accepted. I fail to see why you keep this train of thought up in light of me showing you I didn't "straw man" you.

t appears that for you, the evil of religion trumps any other topic and must be at the top of everyone's list of priorities; and you seem to regard anyone who doesn't entirely agree as a moral defective and/or an idiot.

Wowa. Speaking of putting words into someone's mouth.....
Please show where I called you an idiot or a moral defect or withdraw your statement.

No, I don't think this problem is as earthshakingly important as you do; if you think that makes me a moral cripple or a hypocrite, that's not something I'm concerned about.

Wowa. Speaking of putting words into someone's mouth.....

We can disagree, but the tone of personal attack and the level of polemic distortion in your posts is not, to me, acceptable. I don't even see that we disagree to any significant extent, and your continuing to attack me in this series of posts is a bit mysterious.

Again. Please show me where I did a personal attack on you or how I distorted your post. I can only still assume our last encounter has left you clouded since even to my very first post in this topic you took on an offensive position. Apparently I straw-manned you, placed a ton of words in your mouth, called you a hypocrite, called you an idiot and a moral defect.

Do you have as much as one example of these?

I enjoy most debates; they are, or can be, cordial and respectful and still be assertive and uncompromising. It's unfortunate that that isn't happening here, but I find it hard to be cordial with your hand in my mouth.

Like above you again work on this assumption that I wronged you. The real difference this time is that (1) I didn't at one point, feel free to point out if I did and (2) I am not pointing out your personal attacks against me.

[cnorman18]

As before, this is going nowhere but ugly. I'll stand by every word I've posted; anyone who cares to do so can review this thread and decide for themselves who is right; and I'm done.

[T-mash]

As before, this is going nowhere but ugly. I'll stand by every word I've posted; anyone who cares to do so can review this thread and decide for themselves who is right; and I'm done.

I fail to see how your reply to a neutral post would be "going nowhere but ugly"? Somewhat similar to saying you are not capable of replying without insults, since my posts were either neutral or apologetic (apologising to you if I placed words in your mouth). If it "is going nowhere but ugly" is that maybe not because you only accuse me of things I haven't done, i.e. having a grudge here against me because you misread my posts yourself? I even apologised for the fact that you misread it and that wasn't enough for you? Quite simply put it should have been you apologising for claiming I put words into your mouth. A conclusion you only based on your own inability or time-constraint to read a quote or on your assumption that it was your quote, which is virtually impossible if you actually read my post instead of say.. scouting it for things you can call insults in some weird and twisted way.

The other option would be that it is "going nowhere but ugly" because that is the only way that it can go if you are wrongfully accusing those you debate with for straw-manning you, placing a ton of words in your mouth, calling you a hypocrite, calling you an idiot, a moral cripple and a moral defect, without any argument to support your insults.

All of your posts combined are one big appeal to sympathy stating you were attacked while you weren't. You might not like my tactic and I can understand why you don't. It's harder for you to debate with me when I stay neutral, because then you'd have to work with the arguments. However I don't like your tactic of "if someone disagrees, I'll just pretend he is insulting me!". This tactic employed here sheds new light on our previous discussion where you too felt constantly insulted while insulting me to your hearts content and claiming you didn't. That time I gave you benefit of the doubt, because it might have been my fault. This time it is obviously not.

Feel free to stand by every word you post because after all you don't need to give any reason to insult anyone, do you? You shouldn't need to apologise for wrongfully accusing anyone, should you?


Have a nice day

[otseng]

Please use PM to resolve personal matters. Closing this thread.