Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Gim]

Descriptions vary. If you go to niflheim, it's just cold and boring. If you piss off God you're just kicked out of his fan club and we're told that that's bad or something.

Are there video games when you are eternally damned? Like LOL parties?

[The Alma Mater]

Descriptions vary. If you go to niflheim, it's just cold and boring. If you piss off God you're just kicked out of his fan club and we're told that that's bad or something.

Are there video games when you are eternally damned? Like LOL parties?

Does Dungeon Keeper count ? You are then doomed to smack minions, mutilate chickens and peek while a leatherclad lady is having fun with her whip in the torture chamber for all eternity.

[Gim]

Are there video games when you are eternally damned? Like LOL parties?

Does Dungeon Keeper count ? You are then doomed to smack minions, mutilate chickens and peek while a leatherclad lady is having fun with her whip in the torture chamber for all eternity.

Runescape for me. I need to get 5.4 billion XP.

[Constantinopolis]

What? Victory? I'm not interested in victory, to be honest I'm interested in proving to you that most Christians don't actually believe that God is a dick.

**sweeps up confetti**

You cannot prove this to me. I already tried at one point, like I said, to the point that for a few days I considered suicide. If you were taught something different that doesn't get you to such a point, well, you were more fortunate than me.

But the God I was taught to believe in was certainly a malevolent dick. Of that, I am irrevocably convinced. And once the whole wanting to smite myself thing passed, I discovered that even if a just god exists, it still runs into the whole problem of a coherent definition which we could meaningfully recognize and comprehend. I'm still happy to try to find another way.

Go in peace friend. Really.

*hugs*

This is why I can get really tough on those Christians who preach a Calvinist or Calvinist-inspired view of God, which paints God as a malevolent entity, and is therefore blasphemous and heretical and can sometimes ruin people's lives. That is NOT the God of the Gospel, the God who lowered Himself to become man, and died, and rose from the dead for the salvation of all. Painting our God as cruel or uncaring is the worst kind of blasphemy.

Likewise, but less strongly, I would say that it is a mistake to attempt to clearly define or comprehend God. We know some things about God, but we do not really know God. His nature is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, if we do not even fully understand the universe, how could we expect to fully understand He who created the universe? We only know a few things about Him, and those are enough for now. Perhaps in the afterlife, we will understand more. Or perhaps not. That's fine too.

In any case, I wish all the best for you, and I'm honestly sorry for the pain that some Christians have caused you. Forgive us.

[The Alma Mater]

Does Dungeon Keeper count ? You are then doomed to smack minions, mutilate chickens and peek while a leatherclad lady is having fun with her whip in the torture chamber for all eternity.

Runescape for me. I need to get 5.4 billion XP.

You can do that by killing chickens with a whip as well. And there even is leather armour

[Gim]

Runescape for me. I need to get 5.4 billion XP.

You can do that by killing chickens with a whip as well. And there even is leather armour

Thanks, although killing ducks are nice, too.

[Constantinopolis]

No. Some bullshit is too obvious to deserve the benefit of the doubt. "I'm not afraid of death" is an example of this.

Some people really don't act like they're afraid of it, though -- whether it's making suicidal sacrifices on the battlefield, being willing to die for a cause, or just knowing they're terminally ill and making peace with that. What about people who ask to be euthanized or who refuse medical treatment?

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is being afraid, but not letting this fear dictate your actions.

"Can a man be brave if he is afraid?"
"That is the only time when a man can be brave."

Well, good thing no one believes that infants go to hell, then.

As for those who believe that innocent people may go to hell simply for being non-believers, they are a minority of Christians (specifically, they are a subset of Protestants), and a very small minority of theists in general.

Wait. I'm Christian, so I don't disagree with you much, but I'm a Protestant, yet I pray for non-believers to go to Heaven.
(You can see on my signature.)

Well, different Protestants believe different things. Those Christians who say that non-believers automatically go to hell are Protestants, but they are a subset of Protestants, like I mentioned. Obviously you are not among them. That is very good! And it is very good that you pray for the souls of non-believers. Always keep doing that!

[New Cashistan]

Man, sometimes I don't even believe that I'm going to die. It hasn't happened before, so...

[USS Monitor]

If someone is trying to steal your stuff, you're going to try to stop them, even if it's an item you don't expect to last forever and you aren't worried about what'll happen when it wears out.

Same concept. Even if you know your life will not last forever, and you accept that without getting worked up about it, it doesn't mean you're OK with someone taking it from you.

Indeed. But I would never say "I'm not afraid of anyone trying to steal my stuff!" Of course I'm afraid of people trying to steal my stuff - well, I'm not afraid at this moment, but if I thought it were a real possibility that someone might try to steal something important from me soon, then I would be afraid of that, yes.

Are you afraid of your stuff naturally wearing out due to old age?

[The Weapons Board]

Nah. Hell(pun not intended), I look forward to it. Being IN Hell gives you the chance to get OUT of Hell, which is way more badass than bypassing Hell in the first place.

[USS Monitor]

Some people really don't act like they're afraid of it, though -- whether it's making suicidal sacrifices on the battlefield, being willing to die for a cause, or just knowing they're terminally ill and making peace with that. What about people who ask to be euthanized or who refuse medical treatment?

Courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is being afraid, but not letting this fear dictate your actions.

"Can a man be brave if he is afraid?"
"That is the only time when a man can be brave."

If they're calm, how do you know whether it's because they're hiding their fears or because they're honestly not scared?

[The Alma Mater]

You can do that by killing chickens with a whip as well. And there even is leather armour

Thanks, although killing ducks are nice, too.

I thought you were supposed to feed those breadcrumbs, so that they become all huge and can be driven all across the lands to find their giant mate ?

[Constantinopolis]

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.

Well that is a correct line of thinking yes. But of course we know that not all religions require that you be a member of the religion in order to achieve salvation/"good afterlife things," nor do they all condemn non-members to damnation/"bad afterlife things." So that actually further skews the odds of the wager, because for many religions the atheist, at least by virtue of atheism, isn't doomed to damnation anyway. In fact, some religions are more punitive to those who choose to follow a rival religion than they are to atheists.

I am not aware of any such religions. Many religions are indifferent between atheists and followers or rival religions, but I'm not aware of any that would say being an atheist is better. Face it: As far as wagers are concerned, atheism is without question the worst bet you could make. Choosing a religion at random would be better.

But more importantly, different religions say different things about the nature of the afterlife. I think it's important to clarify what these beliefs are. Helpfully, they basically fall into just 3 categories:

1. Religions who believe that, after death, people go to another world/universe where they continue to exist forever, with cosmic justice being served by the fact that some people get a good eternal life and others getting a bad eternal life. These include the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) as well as the small remnants of the dualist religions (Zoroastrianism etc).

2. Religions who believe in reincarnation: After death, your soul returns to this world again, in a new body, and doesn't remember its previous life. Cosmic justice is served by the fact that the type of new body you get depends on your actions in your previous life. Good deeds help you get a good reincarnation, bad deeds cause you to get a bad one. The religions who believe this are the Dharmic faiths: Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and their offshoots.

3. Religions who believe in a vague, not-really-defined afterlife that is held to be similar to this life in many ways, without any clear system of cosmic justice. These include most of the belief systems that are called "traditional" beliefs (Chinese, African, etc) or "pagan" religions.

It is important to note that religions in categories 2 and 3 generally don't hold that your beliefs make any difference to your afterlife. It's purely your actions that matter. The only religions that say you can get in trouble for wrong beliefs are those in category 1, and even then, in most cases your actions are still the primary deciding factor.

Most religions say that false beliefs are dangerous because they can cause you to choose the wrong actions and therefore end up with a bad afterlife, not so much because you'll get the bad afterlife due to the false beliefs themselves. For example: Most religions say that having sex outside of a certain kind of relationship (generally called "marriage") is a type of bad action that can contribute to you getting the bad afterlife. If you are an atheist, you will not believe this and you will not necessarily restrict your sexual intercourse to those specific relationships. But if you believe in any religion and follow its sexual rules, you will probably be fine according to most other religions too (the only major difference is that some allow limited polygamy while others only allow strict monogamy; but as long as you're in a monogamous marriage you're fine according to all of them).

Same goes for other things, like rules about charity for example. The various religions don't say the same things, but they are similar enough that if you follow one then you're probably okay according to most of the others too (if you donate at least 10% of your income to charity then you're fine according to all religions).

[The Alma Mater]

I am not aware of any such religions. Many religions are indifferent between atheists and followers or rival religions, but I'm not aware of any that would say being an atheist is better.

You have never heard of Christianity ? That's a surprise

[Gim]

Well, different Protestants believe different things. Those Christians who say that non-believers automatically go to hell are Protestants, but they are a subset of Protestants, like I mentioned. Obviously you are not among them. That is very good! And it is very good that you pray for the souls of non-believers. Always keep doing that!

Thank you so much. I'll see you often in this thread and the CDT.

[Constantinopolis]

TL;DR - It is possible to live in such a way that you'll get the good afterlife according to almost all religions. This would be very demanding, because it basically means following the strictest rules from each religion, but it can be done.

Only two major religions say that people who don't believe in their God may end up getting the bad afterlife because of their disbelief, and these religions are Christianity and Islam. So, from a purely Pascal's Wager point of view, if you pick either Christianity or Islam and also live your life in such a way as to satisfy the practical demands of the other religions (the ones that care about your actions and not your beliefs), you will have at least a 50% chance of getting the good afterlife.

[Constantinopolis]

I am not aware of any such religions. Many religions are indifferent between atheists and followers or rival religions, but I'm not aware of any that would say being an atheist is better.

You have never heard of Christianity ? That's a surprise

Christianity most definitely does not hold that being an atheist is better than being, for example, a Muslim. At least a Muslim is still trying to worship God.

Likewise, Islam explicitly holds that People of the Book (Christians, Jews, and some others) are in a better position than unbelievers.

As for those who believe that innocent people may go to hell simply for being non-believers, they are a minority of Christians (specifically, they are a subset of Protestants), and a very small minority of theists in general.

So if everything I currently believe about reality turns out to be false, there's a pretty good chance that I can get a free ticket to paradise by not being a dick? That's fantastic.

"Not being a dick"? No, no. That is almost certainly insufficient.

"Being an extremely good person", on the other hand? Yes, that might do it. But I don't know how good is good enough. Only God knows.

And that is why you'd be better off as a Christian. Not that all Christians go to Heaven either, of course, but it does make it much easier.

[Noraika]

Not really, as far as the atheists I know are aware, eternal damnation is an impossibility that they usually don't even consider that as a part of their irreligious worldview, because that sort of thinking largely requires an acceptance of the basic principles of the Abrahamic religions. When you don't have that foundation, eternal damnation isn't a variable that is relevant.

Me personally, I'm fine with my Paganism and Reincarnation. For a similar reason as atheists, I don't fear eternal damnation either.

[A Humanist Resurrection]

*hugs*

This is why I can get really tough on those Christians who preach a Calvinist or Calvinist-inspired view of God, which paints God as a malevolent entity, and is therefore blasphemous and heretical and can sometimes ruin people's lives. That is NOT the God of the Gospel, the God who lowered Himself to become man, and died, and rose from the dead for the salvation of all. Painting our God as cruel or uncaring is the worst kind of blasphemy.

Likewise, but less strongly, I would say that it is a mistake to attempt to clearly define or comprehend God. We know some things about God, but we do not really know God. His nature is, to a large extent, a mystery. After all, if we do not even fully understand the universe, how could we expect to fully understand He who created the universe? We only know a few things about Him, and those are enough for now. Perhaps in the afterlife, we will understand more. Or perhaps not. That's fine too.

In any case, I wish all the best for you, and I'm honestly sorry for the pain that some Christians have caused you. Forgive us.

There is one thing about God that I do need to be clearly defined in a comprehensible way, which I will under no circumstances allow to remain a mystery unchallenged. I need to know why an omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving entity of any sort would allow this to ever happen.

(I didn't just pull that particular example, by the way, because it happens to be sufficiently shocking. I've physically been to places like that, and held suffering of that nature in my actual arms. In fact, it was my experience doing so which informed the cognitive dissonance leading to my flirtation with suicide, as previously mentioned.)

If God is omnipotent, it could prevent suffering of this sort immediately and at no cost. If God is omniscient, it must be aware that such suffering exists; it cannot claim ignorance. And if God is all-loving, then, given knowledge of suffering, and the power to prevent it, it must do so immediately from the beginning to the end of Time forever; any definition of "love" allowing an out in this regard is vapid, empty, pointless, and probably malevolent.

But suffering of this sort persists. Even if a just God does not condemn infants to eternal hell fire in the thereafter, it seems perfectly content to condemn them to a hell of pestilence in the present.

The best explanation I've heard so far is that "God has a plan, even if it is beyond our comprehension." When I challenge this as a (and I'm only speaking my honest feelings here) rather pathetic dodge, I get "well, God is working through you to relieve their suffering." When I point out how tiny my individual contribution is compared to what an omnipotent being could do in less than no Time at all, I get "well, it's just a Mystery."

No. I will not accept that. Given the level of suffering that exists here in the Almighty's own creation, "just trust me" is not good enough.

I will, to be diplomatic, concede for the moment that such apologetics as I've described above are the flawed attempts of imperfect humans to comprehend the will of the Almighty. I will in that case, however, require the Almighty to poke its head out here into spacetime and explain itself directly to me. Until it does, the best that this particular frail and imperfect creation can do is proceed as if its all on me.

Cause apparently it is.

[Neanderthaland]

Congratulations. You've proven that I prefer being alive. Also, that I don't love syringes.

Preferring to be alive = being afraid of death (at least if death seems imminent).

Wanting to keep X = being afraid of something that threatens to make you lose X (at least if the threat is imminent).

Or maybe we're using different definitions of fear? When I say "being afraid", I don't mean screaming and shouting and crying in a corner, I mean the feeling you get that triggers your "fight or flight" instinct. The feeling of "I really don't want this to happen and I'm going to try my best to avoid it if I can". That is fear, by definition, as far as I'm concerned.

And that's what I'm referring to as well.

Dying is scary. Any activity that includes dying is going to be at least a little bit frightening. Your example with the syringe is an example that minimizes but does not remove the dying factor. And also includes a secondary "I don't like strangers sticking hypodermics in me randomly" factor, which I don't think helps matters either.

But the notion of being dead - death itself - doesn't trigger any "fight or flight" instinct. Does not produce anxiety. It's difficult to conceive of at all, but to the extent it is possible to do so, it is not frightening. At least to me.

[The Shrailleeni Empire]

TL;DR - It is possible to live in such a way that you'll get the good afterlife according to almost all religions. This would be very demanding, because it basically means following the strictest rules from each religion, but it can be done.

Only two major religions say that people who don't believe in their God may end up getting the bad afterlife because of their disbelief, and these religions are Christianity and Islam. So, from a purely Pascal's Wager point of view, if you pick either Christianity or Islam and also live your life in such a way as to satisfy the practical demands of the other religions (the ones that care about your actions and not your beliefs), you will have at least a 50% chance of getting the good afterlife.

I'll go ahead and respond to this, since I believe that was the spirit in which this specific post was intended. I have read the previous and the following as well.

Orthodox Islam holds that People of the Book are in a better position in terms of an afterlife than unbelievers, but there is some debate over whether it is worse to be a non-believer or a polytheist, as there are many unkind things said of polytheists and idolators. I agree that you are correct, that it would be more accurate to say that it does not particularly matter one way or the other, rather than to say that it would be better to be an atheist. But by that logic being atheist cannot be the worst wager to make, it would simply be equal to being a believer in a false religion.

I do enjoy the idea of finding a religious synthesis just to be on the safe side, although attempting to adhere to both Christianity and Islam would, as you say, be extremely difficult and likely land you a few centuries in purgatory, if you are of a sect that believes in such a thing. You would also have a difficult time achieving what would be needed for an improved reincarnation in Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism, so you'd probably be setting yourself back a bit. Still, I think that it is a noteworthy philosophic exercise.

Back to the wager though, which is the topic of the thread. Your conclusion was that Pascal's Wager still stands in light of world religions because it is possible, though difficult, to adhere enough to their principles that following Christianity or Islam will re-balance the scales to a 50/50 split. By this I assume you are excluding those varieties of Christianity and Islam that demand rigid adherence to their particular doctrines or face damnation.

Let's say that I accept your logic, now I am faced with a 50/50 choice. In one choice, I am now preparing to follow the tenants of either Christianity or Islam of a non-dogmatic sect. As someone who is atheist, I still do not believe in a God, but to be safe I go through the motions of conversion and live my life in accordance with these tenants. And, just to be safe, I do nothing that would be offensive to any other religion, to the best of my ability. When I die, I either post-live eternally, face an unfavorable reincarnation, or face nothing at all. Or, because a more dogmatic sect was correct after all, I suffer eternal damnation for my disbelief.

In the other choice, I continue to not follow any particular religion. When I die, I face either eternal damnation, an unfavorable reincarnation or nothing at all. Or, because religions that judge God to be more beneficent were correct, I am saved and live eternally anyway, perhaps after a stay in Purgatory.

That's how I'm currently reading this. It is not particularly convincing.

[Frank Zipper]

Well, good thing no one believes that infants go to hell, then.

As for those who believe that innocent people may go to hell simply for being non-believers, they are a minority of Christians (specifically, they are a subset of Protestants), and a very small minority of theists in general.

Citation needed.

[Gim]

Well, good thing no one believes that infants go to hell, then.

As for those who believe that innocent people may go to hell simply for being non-believers, they are a minority of Christians (specifically, they are a subset of Protestants), and a very small minority of theists in general.

Citation needed.

He's a CDT lecturer. He himself is credibility.

[Frank Zipper]

Citation needed.

He's a CDT lecturer. He himself is credibility.

He is a person on the internet.

[Gim]

He's a CDT lecturer. He himself is credibility.

He is a person on the internet.

And you, too?