Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Socialist Nordia]

Not really.

Nope - it's bullshit. The idea that because you can't measure something it therefore can't exist is LUDICROUS. I can not, objectively, measure the love my girlfriend has for me, nor I the love I have for my girlfriend. Does that mean neither of us actually love each other? That our love does not exist? Of course it doesn't.

I would hazard a guess that people can not accurately measure the size of the universe or the exact age - they can say "it's billions of years old" and "we think it's around 20 trillion light years wide" but if they can not measure the exact age or exact width, does that mean the universe does not exist? Well - I hope that is not the case or where the bloody hell are we living?

There are things in this world we can't measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. So - conversely - you can't claim that because you can't measure something, it can't exist.

You can measure your love in the concentration of hormones and chemicals that have been released through your brain and body that cause the experience of love.

It's about whether something can be measured, not about having the exact figures for it at all times. No one has ever measured the distance from every 2 given points on Earth, but that doesn't mean they can't be measured. Likewise, we have rough measurements for the universe that have been gathered through observation. Our measurements will over time get more exact, but regardless the universe can be measured.

[Cisairse]

Nope - it's bullshit. The idea that because you can't measure something it therefore can't exist is LUDICROUS. I can not, objectively, measure the love my girlfriend has for me, nor I the love I have for my girlfriend. Does that mean neither of us actually love each other? That our love does not exist? Of course it doesn't.

Theoretically, you could. Human emotions are, generally, just hormonal responses to stimuli, and can usually be measured.
Perhaps not quantified, but certainly measured.

I would hazard a guess that people can not accurately measure the size of the universe or the exact age - they can say "it's billions of years old" and "we think it's around 20 trillion light years wide" but if they can not measure the exact age or exact width, does that mean the universe does not exist? Well - I hope that is not the case or where the bloody hell are we living?

I don't know why you would think that. As of right now we have the age of the universe down to a twenty-one million year margin of error, which is really damn small when you consider that the universe is around 13.8 billion years old. That is something easily measured, and will certainly be determined for absolute within the next century or so.



The width is interesting, however. Right now science isn't 100% sure whether or not the universe is actually finite, or, if it is, what shape it is. We have not yet figured out how to measure end-to-end, so we cannot assume that it exists. This is actually supports what Alvercia was saying.

Before you attempt to argue that I just claimed the universe has no width, this is not what I am saying. The fact that rulers exist in a three-dimensional space is proof enough that there is some width.

There are things in this world we can't measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. So - conversely - you can't claim that because you can't measure something, it can't exist.

If you have no proof that something exists, it is an intellectual failure to assume that it exists. This is simple logic.
Likewise, if you have proof that something exists, it is an intellectual failure to discard that proof outright without further investigation. This is, also, simple logic.

The only "proof" we have that God or hell or anything like that exists is the Bible and scattered "evidence" that can't really be called evidence. And considering the Bible is full of contradictions, conflicts with basic science that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and really doesn't have any legitimacy other than itself, there's no real reason to take it seriously beyond token value.

Thus, to bring this back to the topic at hand, to worry about eternal damnation when there is absolutely no reliable evidence that such damnation exists would be absurd when there are far more important things to worry about, such as what color socks I'm going to wear today.

[Neutraligon]

Simple enough because there are an infinite number of possible gods out there. There is no reason to believe your particular god is the real one. All those gods might have their own form of hell, so how do we pick when all of them have the same amount of evidence for them (none)? For all we know the real god hates those who worship any god, and likes those who worship none, so in fact you are the one who is actually putting yourself in infinite danger from that particular god. Of course, any god who puts people in hell simply because they do not worship them is a shit god not worthy of any sort of respect. That and, the very idea of worshiping anything at all is disgusting.

Well that and...since I don't believe in your god, as far as I am concerned it is as fictional as Darth Vader and Voldemort. Why would a fear a place that is pure fiction?

HEY!!

Don't worry I am also a fictional character, a figment of the imagination, a bogeyman for criminals to fear.

[Calladan]

While I get that love might create a chemical reaction in the brain, that doesn't refute my point. A 2ml spike of Chemical A in the brain of Person Alpha might mean something entirely different to a 2ml spike of Chemical A in the brain of Person Beta.

Love is not a matter of chemicals and reactions and millilitres or parts per thousand - it is entirely intangible and measurable and ineffable. And yet - aside from the cynical, the bitter and the people who've been burned by it - I defy ANYONE to say that love doesn't exist.

And - from what I understand (because I really don't care enough to go into it too deeply) the universe has either always existed or it came into being at some point. However if it came into being, no one is entirely clear on what was there before the universe was. But if the universe wasn't there, something (even if it was "nothing") must have been there - even if we don't know what it was.

I am, or like to think I am, a person of science. I tend to demand proof something before I accept that exists. However there are certain things I can accept without being able to see, touch, feel or measure them. God is NOT one of these things incidentally (before you start to get worried). But I am willing to believe in the possibility of magic, of witches and wizard and unicorns and dragons and so forth. Just because no one has ever seen them doesn't mean they don't exist - it just means no one has ever seen them.

And I swear I had a point when I started this, but I have forgotten what it was. Maybe that I do have some respect for people of faith - people who believe in an afterlife, in their version of God - just so long as they don't try to a) make me believe it and b) don't try to force me to live by the rules that govern their faith

(Yeah - that kind of went off track at the end....)

[United Muscovite Nations]

And do we religious people worry about oblivion? The answer is yes, we humans are worriers.

[Ifreann]

HEY!!

Don't worry I am also a fictional character, a figment of the imagination, a bogeyman for criminals to fear.

The terror that flaps in the night.

[Alvecia]

While I get that love might create a chemical reaction in the brain, that doesn't refute my point. A 2ml spike of Chemical A in the brain of Person Alpha might mean something entirely different to a 2ml spike of Chemical A in the brain of Person Beta.

Love is not a matter of chemicals and reactions and millilitres or parts per thousand - it is entirely intangible and measurable and ineffable. And yet - aside from the cynical, the bitter and the people who've been burned by it - I defy ANYONE to say that love doesn't exist.

And - from what I understand (because I really don't care enough to go into it too deeply) the universe has either always existed or it came into being at some point. However if it came into being, no one is entirely clear on what was there before the universe was. But if the universe wasn't there, something (even if it was "nothing") must have been there - even if we don't know what it was.

I am, or like to think I am, a person of science. I tend to demand proof something before I accept that exists. However there are certain things I can accept without being able to see, touch, feel or measure them. God is NOT one of these things incidentally (before you start to get worried). But I am willing to believe in the possibility of magic, of witches and wizard and unicorns and dragons and so forth. Just because no one has ever seen them doesn't mean they don't exist - it just means no one has ever seen them.

And I swear I had a point when I started this, but I have forgotten what it was. Maybe that I do have some respect for people of faith - people who believe in an afterlife, in their version of God - just so long as they don't try to a) make me believe it and b) don't try to force me to live by the rules that govern their faith

(Yeah - that kind of went off track at the end....)

People like to think that we are more than biological processes running rampant in a sack of meat, but the fact of the matter is, we are not.
As far as love and the universe goes, you're kind of missing the point. They are both observable and measureable.
Heaven and Hell, for example, are not. They are beyond the realm of existence because they cannot be observed or measured within existence.

Also a person of science would know that in the absence of evidence one must default to the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis for the claim "X exists" is that X does not exist.

It is possible that due to some completely unknown genetic, biological quirk, I will grow wings. I don't, however, live my life as if I will one day be able to fly.
Some people might, and I accept that so long as they don't impact other's right with their belief, they can go their entire life believing they will one day fly.
I will, however, absolutely argue that such a belief is irrational and illogical.

[Salandriagado]

No. I find Pascal's wager to be flawed, though this may be only because of the lower state of scientific progress during his life.

No, it's more to do with how he came up with it after he fell off his horse. Pascal should have stuck to maths. He was good at maths.

Not really.

Nope - it's bullshit. The idea that because you can't measure something it therefore can't exist is LUDICROUS. I can not, objectively, measure the love my girlfriend has for me, nor I the love I have for my girlfriend. Does that mean neither of us actually love each other? That our love does not exist? Of course it doesn't.

Yes we can: it's pretty complicated and requires a whole bunch of expensive machines, but we can measure it. Love is an electrochemical process, and we're pretty good at measuring electrochemical processes.

I would hazard a guess that people can not accurately measure the size of the universe or the exact age - they can say "it's billions of years old" and "we think it's around 20 trillion light years wide" but if they can not measure the exact age or exact width, does that mean the universe does not exist? Well - I hope that is not the case or where the bloody hell are we living?

You are wrong on both points.

There are things in this world we can't measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. So - conversely - you can't claim that because you can't measure something, it can't exist.

And yet you can't name one. If something exists, then it interacts with the universe in some way, and we can measure interactions.

After reading about Pascal's wager, do atheist worry about eternal damnation, or the possibility of it occurring (according to the bible)?

Personally, fear of eternal damnation is not my reason for belief in the bible however how can people be so dismissive of infinite loss compared to finite gains? Even though you may not accept the bible, does it not worry you slightly?

Anyone who worries about eternal damnation is at best agnostic and not an atheist. Also, Pascal's Wager is flawed and should concern nobody.

"Agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive.

[Lady Scylla]

No they don't.

Think about it, If religion is wrong:

Then, when an atheist passes away, they don't exist anymore. Like everyone else does when they pass away if religion is wrong.

If religion is right:

Then hey, they exist. That's better than non existence.

Granted, I DO fear death.
But that's a rather understandable fear I think.

Biologically wired.

[Lady Scylla]

Not really.

Nope - it's bullshit. The idea that because you can't measure something it therefore can't exist is LUDICROUS. I can not, objectively, measure the love my girlfriend has for me, nor I the love I have for my girlfriend. Does that mean neither of us actually love each other? That our love does not exist? Of course it doesn't.

I would hazard a guess that people can not accurately measure the size of the universe or the exact age - they can say "it's billions of years old" and "we think it's around 20 trillion light years wide" but if they can not measure the exact age or exact width, does that mean the universe does not exist? Well - I hope that is not the case or where the bloody hell are we living?

There are things in this world we can't measure. That doesn't mean they don't exist. So - conversely - you can't claim that because you can't measure something, it can't exist.

Russell's Teapot. Universe is 13.772 billion years years old, btw. The observable universe is 46 billion LY wide, but this changes as it's still expanding and that can be measured as well, and has been well documented.

[Collatis]

Then would you accept that maybe the reason we can't observe and apply the scientific method to the concept of an afterlife within the universe is because we lack the necessary means to do so at this current time? So, until we attain the means to observe and apply the scientific method to it, we can neither declare conclusively that it exists or doesn't exist, and must deal with possibilities until we can test it.

If we cannot measure it then it can't "exist".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Alvecia]

If we cannot measure it then it can't "exist".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absense if existence would leave a measureable impact.

[Lamerika]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absense if existence would leave a measureable impact.

No. Again, all you can definitively say, if you lack evidence is that you don't have evidence. You cannot jump to conclusions based off of a lack of information, so the best you can say is "I don't know". Just because you have yet to find evidence, does not mean evidence cannot be found, and it would be incredibly arrogant to assume that you will never be able to find evidence. It may be that there truly is no evidence, and you are right, but you cannot claim to know that based on lack of evidence alone.

[Alvecia]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absense if existence would leave a measureable impact.

No. Again, all you can definitively say, if you lack evidence is that you don't have evidence. You cannot jump to conclusions based off of a lack of information, so the best you can say is "I don't know". Just because you have yet to find evidence, does not mean evidence cannot be found, and it would be incredibly arrogant to assume that you will never be able to find evidence. It may be that there truly is no evidence, and you are right, but you cannot claim to know that based on lack of evidence alone.

Suppose I run a test of a water tap.
Hypothesis: "Tap does not work"
Test: "Run tap"
Result: "No water comes out"
Conclusion: "Tap does not work"

Anything that exists must by definition have an effect on the physical world. If there is absolutely no evidence that said thing has an effect on the physical world, then that is evidence that it does not exist, specifically because there is no evidence.

[Lamerika]

Suppose I run a test of a water tap.
Hypothesis: "Tap does not work"
Test: "Run tap"
Result: "No water comes out"
Conclusion: "Tap does not work"

Anything that exists must by definition have an effect on the physical world. If there is absolutely no evidence that said thing has an effect on the physical world, then that is evidence that it does not exist, specifically because there is no evidence.

In that case you would have run a test and concluded from evidence that the tap did not work. You know from past experience that water comes out of taps that work, you know how taps work. You could look further and examine the pipes and plumbing of the building you are in, you could call in expert plumbers to test the pipes further. All evidence that the tap doesn't work. In that case you would not lack information, quite the contrary. You would have heaps of evidence to prove that the tap didn't work, and determine exactly what was wrong.

[Conscentia]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absense if existence would leave a measureable impact.

No. Again, all you can definitively say, if you lack evidence is that you don't have evidence. You cannot jump to conclusions based off of a lack of information, so the best you can say is "I don't know". Just because you have yet to find evidence, does not mean evidence cannot be found, and it would be incredibly arrogant to assume that you will never be able to find evidence. It may be that there truly is no evidence, and you are right, but you cannot claim to know that based on lack of evidence alone.

Actually, it depends. If one had a neutrino detector but only observed it for a short amount of time it's entirely possible one wouldn't detect anything. Doesn't mean neutrinos don't exist. However, if one were to suggest that there's a continent the size of Australia in the middle of the South Atlantic one could reasonable conclude that there isn't by surveying the South Atlantic and finding no such continent. The lack of evidence for that continent would indeed be evidence for the continent's nonexistence.

[Lamerika]

Depends on the claim. If one had a neutrino detector but only observed it for a short amount of time it's entirely possible one wouldn't detect anything. Doesn't mean neutrinos don't exist. However, if one were to suggest that there's a continent the size of Australia in the middle of the South Atlantic one could reasonable conclude that there isn't by surveying the South Atlantic and finding no such continent. The lack of evidence for that continent would indeed be evidence for the continent's nonexistence.

Again, in the case of there being a continent the size of Australia, you could conduct research to prove that there wasn't one. You could prove that there was no continent there

[Alvecia]

Suppose I run a test of a water tap.
Hypothesis: "Tap does not work"
Test: "Run tap"
Result: "No water comes out"
Conclusion: "Tap does not work"

Anything that exists must by definition have an effect on the physical world. If there is absolutely no evidence that said thing has an effect on the physical world, then that is evidence that it does not exist, specifically because there is no evidence.

In that case you would have run a test and concluded from evidence that the tap did not work. You know from past experience that water comes out of taps that work, you know how taps work. You could look further and examine the pipes and plumbing of the building you are in, you could call in expert plumbers to test the pipes further. All evidence that the tap doesn't work. In that case you would not lack information, quite the contrary. You would have heaps of evidence to prove that the tap didn't work, and determine exactly what was wrong.

It was clearly not a example meant to be read into such detail. My point still stands.
If something should have a measureable effect, failure to observe said effect increases the probability of it not being.

[Conscentia]

Depends on the claim. If one had a neutrino detector but only observed it for a short amount of time it's entirely possible one wouldn't detect anything. Doesn't mean neutrinos don't exist. However, if one were to suggest that there's a continent the size of Australia in the middle of the South Atlantic one could reasonable conclude that there isn't by surveying the South Atlantic and finding no such continent. The lack of evidence for that continent would indeed be evidence for the continent's nonexistence.

Again, in the case of there being a continent the size of Australia, you could conduct research to prove that there wasn't one. You could prove that there was no continent there

Only by observing the obvious lack of evidence for such a continent.

[Bressen]

Again, in the case of there being a continent the size of Australia, you could conduct research to prove that there wasn't one. You could prove that there was no continent there

Only by observing the obvious lack of evidence for such a continent.

That's because you're looking for something that has to exist within the finite area of the Earth. If it does not exist within this finite area, then it does not exist.

You're drawing boundaries, and determining if something does not exist within these boundaries, then it does not exist.

[Alvecia]

Only by observing the obvious lack of evidence for such a continent.

That's because you're looking for something that has to exist within the finite area of the Earth. If it does not exist within this finite area, then it does not exist.

You're drawing boundaries, and determining if something does not exist within these boundaries, then it does not exist.

I don't think that's a rebuttal. You're still working off absense of evidence.

[Bressen]

That's because you're looking for something that has to exist within the finite area of the Earth. If it does not exist within this finite area, then it does not exist.

You're drawing boundaries, and determining if something does not exist within these boundaries, then it does not exist.

I don't think that's a rebuttal. You're still working off absense of evidence.

The absence of evidence within a measurable boundary. You're confining what you're looking for into an area in which you can measure, and you are then stating "because it does not exist within this boundary, then it does not exist at all." That statement can be applied to the vast majority of things, but not everything (particularly when dealing with abstract metaphysical concepts).

[Alvecia]

I don't think that's a rebuttal. You're still working off absense of evidence.

The absence of evidence within a measurable boundary. You're confining what you're looking for into an area with you can measure, and you are then stating "because it does not exist within this boundary, then it does not exist at all." That statement can be applied to the vast majority of things, but not everything (particularly when dealing with abstract metaphysical concepts).

I can actually. To exist, something must have a measureable effect on existence. If it does not, it does not exist, definitionally. Here we're drawing the boundary around existence, and God and other such concepts still cannot be found. We must therefore consider this absense of evidence to be evidence of absense.

[Conscentia]

Only by observing the obvious lack of evidence for such a continent.

That's because you're looking for something that has to exist within the finite area of the Earth. If it does not exist within this finite area, then it does not exist.
You're drawing boundaries, and determining if something does not exist within these boundaries, then it does not exist.

So what? Any measurements taken of anything would be taken at some location. The example is sufficient for demonstrating that an absence of evidence can indeed be evidence (or indeed proof) of absence.

[Bressen]

The absence of evidence within a measurable boundary. You're confining what you're looking for into an area with you can measure, and you are then stating "because it does not exist within this boundary, then it does not exist at all." That statement can be applied to the vast majority of things, but not everything (particularly when dealing with abstract metaphysical concepts).

I can actually. To exist, something must have a measureable effect on existence. If it does not, it does not exist, definitionally. Here we're drawing the boundary around existence, and God and other such concepts still cannot be found. We must therefore consider this absense of evidence to be evidence of absense.

Why does the effect have to be measurable? Moreover, our ability to measure has increased as science has become more sophisticated.

2,000 years ago we didn't have the technology to measure (or rather, observe) the microscopic cells in the universe. Does that mean, 2,000 years ago, the microscopic cells within the universe didn't exist because we couldn't measure their effect?