Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Switzo-Polish Republic]

Damnnation! Ha, I laugh at that! As an Athiest, the worst thing I worry about is the Large Hadron Collider making a black hole or getting an exotic disease.

[Lady Scylla]

If you've ever had anaesthesia, like that.

To be fair, everytime i've gone under, I have experienced anxiety. Generally as evidenced by a skyrocketing heart rate. Our colleague points out that the end of consciousness is a fearsome prospect, and it certainly is.

The point is not that one is "wrong" to be afraid. The point is to use your consciousness now, while you can, to conquer fear. Atheists/humanists simply approach the same existential fear anyone else has in a way that doesn't require talking to the toaster.

When I got sick, surgery had to happen unless I wanted to die to begin with. I was scared as hell each time I went under. But you just sort of slip out without even knowing it, and I found that kind of comforting.

[Lady Scylla]

You're not going to necessarily go 'poof'. Death will be swift, as once you pass the boundary, you're no longer aware of it. If you've ever had anaesthesia, like that. What constitutes you will breakdown and become something else. Pantheists solve this anxiety by pointing out that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be transferred. With this line of reasoning, it could be comforting to someone with such concerns that past death, you could be in a tree, the air, or someone's dinner-plate if that's what you fancy.

I get really anxious when I can feel myself falling asleep. It's probably something close to that (although I won't know until it happens). I always have to have music playing in the background or the TV on for me to be able to fall asleep.

That's actually normal. Brain likes being stimulated, and secondly, transitioning into sleep can be a bit confusing for it.

[Kernen]

Pascal's Wager incentivizes conversion for self-serving reasons, and is ultimately inimical to the religious moral code it seeks to support. In that, it is wholly unconvincing.

Further, the logical extension of the wager is that either people can choose to believe, or people can fake their belief and the god in question is fooled by that sham. Since a number of religious individuals I have met have suggested that belief in god is not a choice but a natural state of being and that denial of god is a willful choice, I am, again, unconvinced.

So, no. This atheist does not.

[Ostroeuropa]

If I die and wake up in hell my reaction would be "Oh thank goodness."

Oblivion is scarier. Pain and all that is something you can come to terms with and steel yourself against and such, but the idea of "Dial tone" and that's it, it's more unnerving.

[Frank Zipper]

If I was a Christian, I might be worried about where all the energy would come from, to keep the hell fires burning for eternity.

[Ashmoria]

If I die and wake up in hell my reaction would be "Oh thank goodness."

Oblivion is scarier. Pain and all that is something you can come to terms with and steel yourself against and such, but the idea of "Dial tone" and that's it, it's more unnerving.

yeah but if you die and never wake up you don't even have to face torment.

[Big Jim P]

For me to worry about eternal damnation, there would have to be an afterlife, I would have to be mortal, and I would have to be capable of sin.

Sorry, three strikes and you're out.

[Big Jim P]

If I was a Christian, I might be worried about where all the energy would come from, to keep the hell fires burning for eternity.

Human stupidity fueling quantum moron reactors.

[Ifreann]

If I was a Christian, I might be worried about where all the energy would come from, to keep the hell fires burning for eternity.

Don't worry about that, it's all a simulation running on biological storage buried under some rich dickhead's landing strips.

[Lautrec-]

Not at all. I'm only afraid of having an unpleasant death. Death itself doesn't bother me because I believe there is no chance eternal punishment exists.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

If I die and wake up in hell my reaction would be "Oh thank goodness."

If I died and it turned out hell was real, I suppose I might be relieved to the extent that eternal prison is the ethically correct alternative to eternal sumbission to an unchosen dictator. Thoreau said it better.

[Twilight Imperium]

For me to worry about eternal damnation, there would have to be an afterlife, I would have to be mortal, and I would have to be capable of sin.

Sorry, three strikes and you're out.

Go back to the part where you're not mortal. Maybe noodle around a bit?

[Godular]

If I die and wake up in hell my reaction would be "Oh thank goodness."

Oblivion is scarier. Pain and all that is something you can come to terms with and steel yourself against and such, but the idea of "Dial tone" and that's it, it's more unnerving.

Used to scare the crap outta me, too. Then I just came to the realization that if there really is nothing when I die, then I'll be too dead to care.

[The V O I D]

I'm already in hell.

Luckily, I'll either die and escape or (if immortality of the biological kind becomes a thing) I'll live forever and live long enough to move out.

[Genivaria]

For me to worry about eternal damnation, there would have to be an afterlife, I would have to be mortal, and I would have to be capable of sin.

Sorry, three strikes and you're out.

Go back to the part where you're not mortal. Maybe noodle around a bit?

You must be new here. Big Jim P isn't mortal, he is an immortal entity made of both greed and malice who's sole desire is to make you question the point of your existence.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

When I got sick, surgery had to happen unless I wanted to die to begin with. I was scared as hell each time I went under. But you just sort of slip out without even knowing it, and I found that kind of comforting.

It gets weird when, like my last time, the doctor insists you had a conversation about the progress of the procedure that you're one hundred percent sure never happened. Heavy sedation means its possible to physically continue as normal, and yet, for all practical purposes, still not exist.

Or, at least, that consciousness is merely an array of data points stored in memory, and really has little to do with the physical machinations of the brain in and of itself.

I'm gunna go bend some spoons.

[Wallenburg]

If I die and wake up in hell my reaction would be "Oh thank goodness."

Oblivion is scarier. Pain and all that is something you can come to terms with and steel yourself against and such, but the idea of "Dial tone" and that's it, it's more unnerving.

This. I have never really worried all that much about hell. Even when I was a Christian, I sort of considered it mostly in a hypothetical sense.

On the other hand, I've gotten rather worked up several times in my life when I can't stop thinking about how when I die, there will be literally nothing after that. That my consciousness will just click off, forever. That's far more terrifying than the threat of a red man with horns and a lake of fire.

[Great Franconia and Verana]

I get to bed perfectly every night. Eternal damnation is such a ridiculous prospect that is really should not motivate anyone in any way. If your God really has to compel you to worship him by punishing you if you do not, then he is a pretty shitty, and vain God.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

Do Christians ever worry that they may not be following the correct religion, or the correct interpretation of Christianity, and that by so doing they may be setting themselves up for some level of uncomfortableness in the afterlife? Could the Hindus be correct? Or the Jews? The Muslims? If you are Catholic, do you worry that perhaps Protestants or Mormons have the real interpretation?

In short, Pascal's Wager makes less sense when you take into account other religions than Christianity. For the atheist pondering the wager it quickly becomes obvious that there are more than two choices, for what if the religion that you choose is actually the incorrect one? How can you tell, as an atheist, which religion is the "true" path to salvation and the avoidance of damnation? Each one presents equally valid (or non-valid, as the case may be) evidence for its monopoly on salvation. And so instead of the simple 50/50 chance that Pascal offers you now have hundreds of chances for damnation, and perhaps only one that is the correct path. In that case you may as well remain an atheist, because the odds of you choosing the "correct" religion are much, much lower.

[Bressen]

Do Christians ever worry that they may not be following the correct religion, or the correct interpretation of Christianity, and that by so doing they may be setting themselves up for some level of uncomfortableness in the afterlife? Could the Hindus be correct? Or the Jews? The Muslims? If you are Catholic, do you worry that perhaps Protestants or Mormons have the real interpretation?

In short, Pascal's Wager makes less sense when you take into account other religions than Christianity. For the atheist pondering the wager it quickly becomes obvious that there are more than two choices, for what if the religion that you choose is actually the incorrect one? How can you tell, as an atheist, which religion is the "true" path to salvation and the avoidance of damnation? Each one presents equally valid (or non-valid, as the case may be) evidence for its monopoly on salvation. And so instead of the simple 50/50 chance that Pascal offers you now have hundreds of chances for damnation, and perhaps only one that is the correct path. In that case you may as well remain an atheist, because the odds of you choosing the "correct" religion are much, much lower.

Assuming these religions all require that you be a member of their religion in order to get into their variation of eternal pleasure, and if you aren't then you go into a variation of eternal torment, then is there not a substantiated argument for choosing at least one of these religions as being an atheist automatically condemns you to the correct religion's eternal torment? Of course, this is operating under the thesis that one of them is correct, which I don't think we can either rule out entirely or accept entirely, and thus have to simply consider.

[Neutraligon]

Do Christians ever worry that they may not be following the correct religion, or the correct interpretation of Christianity, and that by so doing they may be setting themselves up for some level of uncomfortableness in the afterlife? Could the Hindus be correct? Or the Jews? The Muslims? If you are Catholic, do you worry that perhaps Protestants or Mormons have the real interpretation?

In short, Pascal's Wager makes less sense when you take into account other religions than Christianity. For the atheist pondering the wager it quickly becomes obvious that there are more than two choices, for what if the religion that you choose is actually the incorrect one? How can you tell, as an atheist, which religion is the "true" path to salvation and the avoidance of damnation? Each one presents equally valid (or non-valid, as the case may be) evidence for its monopoly on salvation. And so instead of the simple 50/50 chance that Pascal offers you now have hundreds of chances for damnation, and perhaps only one that is the correct path. In that case you may as well remain an atheist, because the odds of you choosing the "correct" religion are much, much lower.

Assuming these religions all require that you be a member of their religion in order to get into their variation of eternal pleasure, and if you aren't then you go into a variation of eternal torment, then is there not a substantiated argument for choosing at least one of these religions as being an atheist automatically condemns you to the correct religion's eternal torment? Of course, this is operating under the thesis that one of them is correct, which I don't think we can either rule out entirely or accept entirely, and thus have to simply consider.

Except that there are more possibilities then just what you described. The god may be the type of god to hate people worshiping any god including itself) and so send all who worship to a type of hell. The god may be an evil god, where heaven is actually hell.

[USS Monitor]

Do Christians ever worry that they may not be following the correct religion, or the correct interpretation of Christianity, and that by so doing they may be setting themselves up for some level of uncomfortableness in the afterlife? Could the Hindus be correct? Or the Jews? The Muslims? If you are Catholic, do you worry that perhaps Protestants or Mormons have the real interpretation?

In short, Pascal's Wager makes less sense when you take into account other religions than Christianity. For the atheist pondering the wager it quickly becomes obvious that there are more than two choices, for what if the religion that you choose is actually the incorrect one? How can you tell, as an atheist, which religion is the "true" path to salvation and the avoidance of damnation? Each one presents equally valid (or non-valid, as the case may be) evidence for its monopoly on salvation. And so instead of the simple 50/50 chance that Pascal offers you now have hundreds of chances for damnation, and perhaps only one that is the correct path. In that case you may as well remain an atheist, because the odds of you choosing the "correct" religion are much, much lower.

Assuming these religions all require that you be a member of their religion in order to get into their variation of eternal pleasure, and if you aren't then you go into a variation of eternal torment, then is there not a substantiated argument for choosing at least one of these religions as being an atheist automatically condemns you to the correct religion's eternal torment? Of course, this is operating under the thesis that one of them is correct, which I don't think we can either rule out entirely or accept entirely, and thus have to simply consider.

Maybe there is a God who finds religious people more annoying than atheists.

[Calladan]

Assuming these religions all require that you be a member of their religion in order to get into their variation of eternal pleasure, and if you aren't then you go into a variation of eternal torment, then is there not a substantiated argument for choosing at least one of these religions as being an atheist automatically condemns you to the correct religion's eternal torment? Of course, this is operating under the thesis that one of them is correct, which I don't think we can either rule out entirely or accept entirely, and thus have to simply consider.

Maybe there is a God who finds religious people more annoying than atheists.

I have wondered why Priests, Nuns, Popes, Curates and other religious types always live to such an old age, while those who "live fast" (and generally in violation of quite a few of God's laws) tend to "die young".

You'd think God would want those who love him the most to be with him as soon as possible.....

[Greece1917]

No, eternal damnation is a laughable concept just as god is. There is a far greater possibility to be hit by a meteorite but you don't live your entire life in a nuclear bunker do you?

Why is the existence of God laughable when, without Him, we cease to exist?