Do atheist worry about eternal damnation?

[Alvecia]

Hallucinations are not evidence.

Don't know if they're hallucinating or you are. I'm just saying you could be. Not entirely sure whether you are.

It's still an argument ad populum. Just cause lots of people believe it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality

[Gim]

Don't know if they're hallucinating or you are. I'm just saying you could be. Not entirely sure whether you are.

It's still an argument ad populum. Just cause lots of people believe it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality

Yeah.

[The Alma Mater]

it makes sense that if they are absolutely sure there is no life after death, and there is no God, then there wouldn't be a heaven or hell, or any form of eternal reward or damnation.

There would be Hell, if the Devil exists.

Why ? The Devil is only in Hell because God wanted him to be there. If there is no God, why would the Devil hang out in his prison ?

[Ashmoria]

There would be Hell, if the Devil exists.

Why ? The Devil is only in Hell because God wanted him to be there. If there is no God, why would the Devil hang out in his prison ?

and without god to force you to go there, who would?

[Galloism]

There would be Hell, if the Devil exists.

Why ? The Devil is only in Hell because God wanted him to be there. If there is no God, why would the Devil hang out in his prison ?

It's also worth noting that, biblically, hell is very specifically temporary.

Hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire, which would seem to symbolize total destruction.

[Juvencus]

As a Christian I believe eternal damnation is only for those who deserve it (People that do bad stuff in their lives). However I believe that even religious people don't worry about this.

[The Alma Mater]

As a Christian I believe eternal damnation is only for those who deserve it (People that do bad stuff in their lives). However I believe that even religious people don't worry about this.

But what is bad stuff ? Is driving a bus with the slogan "There is probably no God. Relax and enjoy your life" bad ? If it is bad, is it better or worse than the Wiccan teenager practicing her witchcraft ?

[Juvencus]

As a Christian I believe eternal damnation is only for those who deserve it (People that do bad stuff in their lives). However I believe that even religious people don't worry about this.

But what is bad stuff ? Is driving a bus with the slogan "There is probably no God. Relax and enjoy your life" bad ? If it is bad, is it better or worse than the Wiccan teenager practicing her witchcraft ?

This may vary by religious and/or personal beliefs.

[Ashmoria]

Why ? The Devil is only in Hell because God wanted him to be there. If there is no God, why would the Devil hang out in his prison ?

It's also worth noting that, biblically, hell is very specifically temporary.

Hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire, which would seem to symbolize total destruction.

and the wages of sin are death. that seems to preclude an eternal afterlife of torment.

[Jolthig]

Well, atheists don't even believe in hell. So, how can they be worried about damnation?

[The Alma Mater]

Well, atheists don't even believe in hell. So, how can they be worried about damnation?

They can worry if they are wrong

But as mentioned, so can Christians. Will the halls of Valhalla welcome them and such

[Zottistan]

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?

The issue I take with Pascal's wager is that it assumes a dichotomy between the existence of a Christian god and the nonexistence of any god. Christians are just as likely to be damned to hell as atheists for their faith, or lack thereof, when you bear in mind that it's possible that Islam is the true faith, or Judaism, or the infinite array of other faiths we have dreamed up, and even the ones we haven't.

EDIT: It's also kind of disingenuous and I'd imagine god would be kind of pissy about you treating something as sacred as your faith like a wager.

[Spookane]

No, not really. Well, at least I don't.
If I was wrong my entire life, then I was wrong.

[Constantinopolis]

Don't know if they're hallucinating or you are. I'm just saying you could be. Not entirely sure whether you are.

It's still an argument ad populum. Just cause lots of people believe it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality

Yeah, but at some point, you have to admit that the majority of things we believe about the universe are believed because a bunch of experts told us they are true, and we trust that those experts hold each other accountable and don't have some kind of great conspiracy to lie to us.

I mean, I have never personally verified the scientific evidence for things like the Big Bang or the geological history of the Earth or the speed of light or the existence of atoms. I simply trust that the scientific establishment is telling the truth and is not engaged in some kind of massive plot to deceive the general public.

So yeah, sure, argumentum ad populum is technically a fallacy, but in reality we all have to rely on believing generally-accepted-opinion (or generally-accepted-expert-opinion) on many topics.

[Alvecia]

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?

The issue I take with Pascal's wager is that it assumes a dichotomy between the existence of a Christian god and the nonexistence of any god. Christians are just as likely to be damned to hell as atheists for their faith, or lack thereof, when you bear in mind that it's possible that Islam is the true faith, or Judaism, or the infinite array of other faiths we have dreamed up, and even the ones we haven't.

Reminds me of something Ricky Gervais brings up a fair bit

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in about 2,700 gods. Christians don't believe in 2,699. So they're nearly as atheistic as me.

[Alvecia]

It's still an argument ad populum. Just cause lots of people believe it doesn't mean it has any basis in reality

Yeah, but at some point, you have to admit that the majority of things we believe about the universe are believed because a bunch of experts told us they are true, and we trust that those experts hold each other accountable and don't have some kind of great conspiracy to lie to us.

I mean, I have never personally verified the scientific evidence for things like the Big Bang or the geological history of the Earth or the speed of light or the existence of atoms. I simply trust that the scientific establishment is telling the truth and is not engaged in some kind of massive plot to deceive the general public.

So yeah, sure, argumentum ad populum is technically a fallacy, but in reality we all have to rely on believing generally-accepted-opinion (or generally-accepted-expert-opinion) on many topics.

Issue being that there is no "expert" opinion on whether or not God exists. Just opinion.

[Jolthig]

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?

The issue I take with Pascal's wager is that it assumes a dichotomy between the existence of a Christian god and the nonexistence of any god. Christians are just as likely to be damned to hell as atheists for their faith, or lack thereof, when you bear in mind that it's possible that Islam is the true faith, or Judaism, or the infinite array of other faiths we have dreamed up, and even the ones we haven't.

EDIT: It's also kind of disingenuous and I'd imagine god would be kind of pissy about you treating something as sacred as your faith like a wager.

Well, in Ahmadiyya, hell isn't eternal so, atheists will eventually be saved.

[Constantinopolis]

Yeah, but at some point, you have to admit that the majority of things we believe about the universe are believed because a bunch of experts told us they are true, and we trust that those experts hold each other accountable and don't have some kind of great conspiracy to lie to us.

I mean, I have never personally verified the scientific evidence for things like the Big Bang or the geological history of the Earth or the speed of light or the existence of atoms. I simply trust that the scientific establishment is telling the truth and is not engaged in some kind of massive plot to deceive the general public.

So yeah, sure, argumentum ad populum is technically a fallacy, but in reality we all have to rely on believing generally-accepted-opinion (or generally-accepted-expert-opinion) on many topics.

Issue being that there is no "expert" opinion on whether or not God exists. Just opinion.

Actually there are entire organizations of dedicated experts on this issue who have spent their entire lives studying it. You simply refuse to believe them.

I have great news, then! Other sources about God do exist!

First of all, the Bible itself is not one source, but a collection of sources. There are between 66 and 73 books in the Bible (depending on the version), and these are separate texts written by separate authors over a period of about 1000 years. So that's a bunch of different sources right there.

All of which we have copies only of editions that were edited long after they were published. The number is also irrelevant, because they all contain such flaws, and thus are all worthless as evidence.

Wrong. We have copies of the Bible from the 4th century, which was the same century when the collection of books we call "the Bible" was actually put together for the first time. So we have copies of, if not the first edition of the Bible, then certainly an edition published only a few decades after the first.

And then there are countless other texts which affirm the basic fact of the existence of the Biblical God, but were not made part of the Bible itself. They sometimes say very different things about God, but all agree that He exists.

Again, which are either lost or edited much later, often by the same people that did the above editing. The number is also irrelevant, because they all contain such flaws, and thus are all worthless as evidence.

I take it you never heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls either, then?

Really, this urban legend that "the Bible was heavily edited" just demonstrates atheist ignorance. No, we actually have ancient copies of the Bible, thank you very much.

Then there are thousands (if not millions) of people who claim to have had personal experiences that proved to them that God exists. Again, they say different things, but one thing they agree on is that this God exists.

Hallucinations are not evidence.

You dismiss testimony of God's existence out of hand? Why? Doesn't that make your atheism just an exercise in circular logic? "I see no evidence that God exists because I refuse to believe anyone who claims that he has personally met God."

And if you're going to say "I actually don't take anyone's word as evidence for anything", you're lying. Have you personally verified every fact that you believe about the universe? Or do you trust various groups of experts to tell you the truth?

Okay, I was about to sign off, but I just saw your post and I need to respond to at least this one point, which is the core of your argument. Then I'm really going to sleep. I'm sorry, I really want to stay, but it is much too late over here.


No. I absolutely do not believe that increased knowledge necessarily brings with it increased responsibility.

If it did, then the most innocent person would be the most ignorant one, and we should all seek to be as ignorant as possible so as not to be guilty of various things.

Knowledge = guilt makes for a ridiculous view of ethics.

That doesn't follow in the slightest. That's only true if you think that the sole purpose of ethics is to avoid ever taking responsibility for anything, which is frankly fucking disgusting.

So you're okay with ethics that says knowledge is bad and ignorance is good?

Because if knowledge implies guilt, and ignorance implies lack of guilt, then knowledge makes people immoral, and ignorance makes people moral. The more ignorant people are, the more ethical they are. So knowledge is bad and ignorance is good.

If you're fine with that, then sure, I have nothing further to say. But somehow I don't think most people would be okay with that sort of ethical system.

[Galloism]

It's also worth noting that, biblically, hell is very specifically temporary.

Hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire, which would seem to symbolize total destruction.

and the wages of sin are death. that seems to preclude an eternal afterlife of torment.

Indeedy, and the gift God gives is everlasting life.

The contrast isn't heaven & hell; it's life and death.

[Ashmoria]

and the wages of sin are death. that seems to preclude an eternal afterlife of torment.

Indeedy, and the gift God gives is everlasting life.

The contrast isn't heaven & hell; it's life and death.

as lin yu tang said " All I know is that if God loves me only half as much as my mother does, he will not send me to Hell."

[Twilight Imperium]

Yeah, but at some point, you have to admit that the majority of things we believe about the universe are believed because a bunch of experts told us they are true, and we trust that those experts hold each other accountable and don't have some kind of great conspiracy to lie to us.

I mean, I have never personally verified the scientific evidence for things like the Big Bang or the geological history of the Earth or the speed of light or the existence of atoms. I simply trust that the scientific establishment is telling the truth and is not engaged in some kind of massive plot to deceive the general public.

So yeah, sure, argumentum ad populum is technically a fallacy, but in reality we all have to rely on believing generally-accepted-opinion (or generally-accepted-expert-opinion) on many topics.

Issue being that there is no "expert" opinion on whether or not God exists. Just opinion.

Not to mention that a lot of the things we know about science are things you can go out and check. You have reasonably easy access to basically any tool available to scientists prior to 1940. Planetary motion? Spectroscopy? Cell division? Genetics? Atomics? People figured most of this out before we had electricity. You don't have to take people's word for it!

[Constantinopolis]

But one, ironically, scripturally consistent with both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures.

It all kicked off with that Tree of Knowledge thing, right?

That was the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, not the Tree of Knowledge-in-general.

And certainly not the Tree of Knowledge-of-consequences-of-your-actions.

No. I absolutely do not believe that increased knowledge necessarily brings with it increased responsibility.

If it did, then the most innocent person would be the most ignorant one, and we should all seek to be as ignorant as possible so as not to be guilty of various things.

No, a person might simply be innocent (or just guilty of a lesser act/crime) because they could not reasonably anticipate the outcome of their actions. This is why, for example, legal systems frequently hold juveniles or the intellectually impared to lesser punishment (if any) than fully competent adults.

That's an allowance that we make due to lack of cognitive ability, not lack of knowledge. People don't get greater or lesser punishments depending on how many facts they know about the nature of the crimes they've committed and their likely consequences.

In the case of God, however, there is no outcome which it cannot reasonably anticipate. Again, by the very definition of omniscience.

So, if God created a universe where pestilence exists, and God must reasonably anticipate that doing so would result in a little girl slowly suffering and dying miserably, then God must have intended that suffering and dying as an intentional outcome of its creative action.

Ergo, God created the universe for the direct purpose of making a little girl suffer and die, and is thus directly responsible for the same. If my ethics are "ridiculous," then God's are expressly evil.

No. The existence of an omniscient Creator of the universe does not make that Creator responsible for the actions of sapient, free-willed creatures who inhabit that universe. I don't really know what else to say at this point except that I find your view of ethics utterly alien and insane.

Humans are responsible for the things that humans do. Period. Full stop. Regardless of whether any god exists or not.

What are we, spoiled brats who can't take responsibility for our own evils?

[Ashmoria]

Issue being that there is no "expert" opinion on whether or not God exists. Just opinion.

Actually there are entire organizations of dedicated experts on this issue who have spent their entire lives studying it. You simply refuse to believe them.
.

there are certainly experts in interpreting scripture and devising theology.

but what expert is there that works on proof of god existing and what do they use for a method that isn't scripture/theology based?

[Zottistan]

Actually there are entire organizations of dedicated experts on this issue who have spent their entire lives studying it. You simply refuse to believe them.
.

there are certainly experts in interpreting scripture and devising theology.

but what expert is there that works on proof of god existing and what do they use for a method that isn't scripture/theology based?

There are ontological "proofs" by philosophers, but I don't believe there is such a thing as an ontological proof.

[Ashmoria]

there are certainly experts in interpreting scripture and devising theology.

but what expert is there that works on proof of god existing and what do they use for a method that isn't scripture/theology based?

There are ontological "proofs" by philosophers, but I don't believe there is such a thing as an ontological proof.

I don't know what that means but its all conjecture and no science, right?