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]

No one is obligated to follow the religious beliefs of another; but anyone who simply dismisses the sensitivities of others as silly and not worthy of notice is either a bully or a boor.

Good post.

Thanks very much. I've always thought that honking off your opponents unnecessarily is mean-spirited and amounts to "dirty fighting" in debate when it's intentional, and a sign of self-absorbed tunnel vision when it's not.

I add that I don't think anyone has done this in this thread.

[JoshC]

I really didn't mean any offense by it, I was just trying to clarify which God I meant.

Sorry if I did cause offense, I didn't realise it was offensive.

[JoshC]

Back on topic...

If hell doesn't exist and everyone receives salvation -

What is the need for Earth and all this suffering? Surely it's unnecessary. We could just start in Heaven.


If some people receive separation from God -

Is this fair, if their beliefs and actions have caused no harm and seem the logical choice to them?


If these people go to Hell -

Same applies, but no one can justify this, surely?

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Briefly ...

• First: thank you for your intentions.
  
  Second: note that, while the Orthodox will typically refer to "G-d" or "Hashem," and while YHVH is commonly rendered as Adonai, it is far from uncommon to see "God" and/or "Yahveh" in Torah commentaries. Furthermore, the Orthodox (among others) would find disrespect offensive irrespective of what name is used.

As for hell, for those who think of the Bible as Torah, hell is a post-Biblical concept. A valuable book on this subject is Neil Gillman's The Death of Death.

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Great question! Have you read Job?

[T-mash]

It was silly to protest against Josh's objection to using the word "God," since that wasn't the issue; "Yahweh" is a different matter. I rather agree with you, especially in the present case, where there was clearly no intent to offend. But on the other hand, if one insists on using a term that others find offensive, even when one has been so informed and when it's easily avoidable, one is clearly exhibiting an intent to offend. That is a different matter as well.

I don't think the word is anything to be concerned about myself, but I don't fling it in the faces of those who do. Seems a matter of common courtesy to me, as well as not distracting from whatever the actual discussion is.

Personally, I DO expect common courtesy from other members here. The difference is that between "I disagree with you" and "You are a moron." The same thought may lie behind both, but one is acceptable and can lead to further productive debate; the other is a conversation-killer and a fight-starter.

No one is obligated to follow the religious beliefs of another; but anyone who simply dismisses the sensitivities of others as silly and not worthy of notice is either a bully or a boor.

While I can understand using the name wrongly of a being you hold in such high-regard can be offensive to the followers of that religion... think about this:

The topic is about Hell, and the damnation of non-believers to hell. If I tell you to go to hell you will consider it as an insult, and not a light one too. Yet it is perfectly acceptable for religious people to tell Atheists to go to hell. Now I don't believe in one, but I'm sure you don't believe I can win a fist-fight with you either. This doesn't mean I can just throw around sentences saying that I will punch you in the face if you disagree with me, just because you don't believe I could. You would still get offended. There are people this world is better of without... but people that deserve eternal punishment, reliving the most excruciating pains forever and ever without any chance of being released.. no I don't believe that. I wouldn't agree on this type of punishment for even my worst enemy. Christianity and Islam together makes up 54% of the world roughly. This means that more than half of the world population (and that is without counting Judaism or other religions that might contain people that condemn others to hell) are part of a religion where Hell is a worthy punishment for atheists. This means an enormous amount of our world population has no issues with someone like me or other atheists ending up in a place that I would never wish upon anyone! What could a non-believer have possibly done to deserve this? I am not aware on the numbers of how many of Islam and how many of Christianity believe in a Hell, but even if they don't they still propose that they as Christians/Muslims will have a better afterlife while atheists might not have one at all, just for being atheists.

Now 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.

While it's noble of JoshC to apologise when called upon, I must admit it leaves a sour taste in the mouth....

[JoshC]

While it's noble of JoshC to apologise when called upon

Definitely not haha, I just wanted to move the topic on.

Have you read Job?

Yes, are you saying the book of Job answers my question? At the end of Job God just rattles on about how great he is and how we can't question his actions.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Have you read Job?

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

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

[Jayhawker Soule]

... 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?

[cnorman18]

It was silly to protest against Josh's objection to using the word "God," since that wasn't the issue; "Yahweh" is a different matter. I rather agree with you, especially in the present case, where there was clearly no intent to offend. But on the other hand, if one insists on using a term that others find offensive, even when one has been so informed and when it's easily avoidable, one is clearly exhibiting an intent to offend. That is a different matter as well.

I don't think the word is anything to be concerned about myself, but I don't fling it in the faces of those who do. Seems a matter of common courtesy to me, as well as not distracting from whatever the actual discussion is.

Personally, I DO expect common courtesy from other members here. The difference is that between "I disagree with you" and "You are a moron." The same thought may lie behind both, but one is acceptable and can lead to further productive debate; the other is a conversation-killer and a fight-starter.

No one is obligated to follow the religious beliefs of another; but anyone who simply dismisses the sensitivities of others as silly and not worthy of notice is either a bully or a boor.

While I can understand using the name wrongly of a being you hold in such high-regard can be offensive to the followers of that religion... think about this:

The topic is about Hell, and the damnation of non-believers to hell. If I tell you to go to hell you will consider it as an insult, and not a light one too. Yet it is perfectly acceptable for religious people to tell Atheists to go to hell.

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.

Now I don't believe in one, but I'm sure you don't believe I can win a fist-fight with you either. This doesn't mean I can just throw around sentences saying that I will punch you in the face if you disagree with me, just because you don't believe I could. You would still get offended. There are people this world is better of without... but people that deserve eternal punishment, reliving the most excruciating pains forever and ever without any chance of being released.. no I don't believe that. I wouldn't agree on this type of punishment for even my worst enemy.

I quite agree, and have said so on this thread and elsewhere. That topic has NOT been neglected here.

Christianity and Islam together makes up 54% of the world roughly. This means that more than half of the world population (and that is without counting Judaism or other religions that might contain people that condemn others to hell) are part of a religion where Hell is a worthy punishment for atheists. This means an enormous amount of our world population has no issues with someone like me or other atheists ending up in a place that I would never wish upon anyone! What could a non-believer have possibly done to deserve this? I am not aware on the numbers of how many of Islam and how many of Christianity believe in a Hell, but even if they don't they still propose that they as Christians/Muslims will have a better afterlife while atheists might not have one at all, just for being atheists.

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.

Now 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.

Excuse me, but that has not happened here.

One (1) person, Jonah, made one (1) remark 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.

What followed was a misunderstanding of what Jonah said - HE was "jumped on," if you like - and the correction of that misunderstanding. The thread is hardly "derailed" - we have continued to discuss the OP even as that side issue was resolved - and it seems to me that the side issue was worth discussing for a post or three. No one gets bent about using the word "God," and it would have been silly to let that error stand without comment.

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?

Not particularly. First, discussion of the OP has not stopped, therefore the thread has not been "derailed"; second, I and everyone else in this "derailment" has posted their views on the OP and the matters about which you are concerned, and therefore, again, the thread has not been "derailed"; and third, side issues often come up in debate that are worth taking a short detour to resolve.

No one is saying that simple courtesy is a more important issue than Hell - though considering how few people actually believe in Hell here, maybe it actually is. Frankly, I think that intentional baiting and provocation are a bigger problem on this forum than who's going to Hell, but as I say, the latter topic has not been neglected here.

This double-standard here is very fitting in a thread like this.

What double standard? Where has anyone said, "you're going to Hell, but it's more important to talk about the Name of God"?

The belief in Hell is a topic worth discussing; but that doesn't mean it's the only topic worth discussing, or that it's not legitimate and proper to correct a misunderstanding.

While it's noble of JoshC to apologise when called upon, I must admit it leaves a sour taste in the mouth....

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.