If the concept of hell was not eternal and sinners were temporarily punished as opposed to being eternally punished, would you feel less incentivised to get saved from hell, since annihilation would be something very similar to what your concept of death is?
shareThe thing about being atheists is we don't believe in hell - so no matter how you define hell, the incentive is the same as far as we are concerned.
Let's say you're invited to go on a boat trip. Are you less incentivised to go knowing the kraken will not attack, or are you less incentivised knowing the Loch Ness monster won't attack?
But my point is that death by Loch Ness or shark attack will result in the same outcome. You would cease to exist. Its not essential that you believe in the Loch Ness to perhaps avoid it because the outcome is the same as dying by shark attack. That is kind of my point about annihilationism. Annihilationists do not believe in an eternal hell so despite believing in an eternal and personal God, they hold that the outcome for atheists at death is the same as what atheists already believe, the cessation of their existence.
So my follow up is that, assuming there is a possibility that one or the other exists, would the existence of a temporary hell as opposed to an eternal one make you less fearful about the afterlife/death since it would be a very similar outcome to what you already believe?
What if all Nessy wants to do is to keep me prisoner for ever and ever as her personal sex slave?
Or what if the choice is between the Kraken and a sarlacc pit? Very different fates, indeed. But both equally implausible.
So my follow up is that, assuming there is a possibility that one or the other exists, would the existence of a temporary hell as opposed to an eternal one make you less fearful about the afterlife/death since it would be a very similar outcome to what you already believe?
"Consequences only deter if you think there's a chance you might suffer them."
Yes I am aware of that and what you believe but lets say an annihilationist told you what he believes is the actual truth. Would you be less inclined to actually care about the truth and following all that, that would entail to be saved from this potential punishment or would you not care since the outcome is very close to what you would expect would happen to you at death?
I would fully expect an annihilationist to think that what he believes is the truth, just as I expect you to think what you believe is the truth. That, however, doesn't affect me, because I naturally think that what I believe is the truth. I don't give a hoot about what I would hypothetically need to do to avoid a hell I don't believe in, nor would it make the least bit of difference to me what the severity of that hell was.
There is an infinite number of potential hells, an infinite number of potential punishments in these hells, and an equally infinite number of rules to follow in order to avoid going to these hells. You are only concerned with the one version you believe in, and do not worry in the slightest about all the potential hells you risk simply for having your current beliefs. Why should the playing field be any different from me? I, likewise, only consider what I believe - and do not for a second worry about things I don't believe in.
"I don't give a hoot about what I would hypothetically need to do to avoid a hell I don't believe in, nor would it make the least bit of difference to me what the severity of that hell was."
Thanks. I believe there can only be one truth though. The difference between what I believe to be the truth and what you believe is that mine has dire consequences for those who do not believe. Yours does not.
That is why atheists rejoice in less angst and worry over someone always concerned over burning in hell forever
shareI am not concerned about where I am going next though. I am not trying to earn my salvation. Scripture says you are saved once you truly believe. The concern is for others who are not saved, that said, there is only so much you can do and say to an unbeliever.
share>I am not concerned about where I am going next though. I am not trying to earn my salvation.
Quite right; the Bible states that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned by human effort. In which case there is no point in making that effort.
>Scripture says you are saved once you truly believe.
You are entitled to your opinion. But according to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, there is no consensus on whether belief in God or being Christian is required to go to heaven. Some Bible passages, such as John 3:16, Romans 10:9, and 1 Corinthians 1:21, do suggest that a person must believe in order to have eternal life in heaven. Yet according to some other early Christian texts eg The Secret Revelation of John —a Christian text written in the 100s and well before the Council of Nicea), heaven is open to any soul that wants it, and neither death nor religious affiliation can prevent a soul from going there: "What about those who understood and yet turned away? Where will their souls go? (23:37) The Lord answers: "If the spirit descends upon them, by all means they will be saved in any case, and they will migrate [or, be transformed]. For the power will descend upon every human being—for without it no one is able to stand upright" (23:14-15).
As a soft atheist however, like you, ultimately I am not concerned where I am going next and such consideration is just an intellectual exercise. Which is ironic.
> there is only so much you can do and say to an unbeliever.
Just as there is only so much the sceptical can say in the face of credulity - since where there is faith typically no one speaks of evidence.
"You are entitled to your opinion. But according to a 2021 Pew Research Center survey, there is no consensus on whether belief in God or being Christian is required to go to heaven. "
Yes but I don't base my soteriology on a survey, I base it on what's written in scripture. There is no consensus in surveys because many Christians who claim to be Christian are not.
I also don't know about "early Christian texts" that are not part of the Bible. I would consider them apocrypha.
> many Christians who claim to be Christian are not.
This a Scotsman.
>I also don't know about "early Christian texts" that are not part of the Bible. I would consider them apocrypha.
Never the less they exist and show a different shade of opinion from yours. You might find broadening your knowledge useful. I always do. BTW Prior to 1629, all English-language Protestant Bibles included the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament. The Apocrypha is still included in some Bibles, including the King James Version the Luther Bible and Anglican Bibles. Perhaps you meant 'not included in the Bible I choose to accept'?
https://earlychristiantexts.com/
Real life consequences don't deter sin, and neither does the myth of hell. What it does is frighten people just enough to go through the motions and not think too hard about it.
shareOf course real life consequences don´t deter them. Because sin and the temptation of it is so powerful that the pleasure derived from them blinds people from thinking about any potential consequences.
shareBilly..I'm not an atheist and I don't believe in hell either.
shareEveryone is an atheist unless you believe in every god, even the one I just made up.
shareI believe in one God...perceptions may vary ...and I would never say my perception is the only correct one.
The only thing I feel strongely about is that there is something greater than ourselves and it does not exist to punish us for not thinking one way.
Well you folks down there are making really tough for me not to.
shareOr deep down they know it's BS. Most of the sins defined by Yahweh/Moses are unknowable except to Yahweh who some believe was overthrown by Jesus and a new god so do they even count?
shareOnly ceremonial laws were "overthrown". The moral law was never "overthrown".
shareI didn't say anything about laws being overthrown. Some believe the god of the OT, Yahweh, was overthrown by Jesus and his Father. It was a popular belief in early Christian days to explain the radical differences between Jesus' father, and Yahweh.
shareOh I misread. Had never heard of that one. Seems very at odds with scripture though, since Jesus always quoted scripture and I thought you were referencing Matthew 5:17, which would also debunk any notion of Jesus trying to "overthrow Yahweh".
shareThe belief formed before the NT had been written and long before our version of the NT was written.
shareThen I definitely have not heard of that one! Curious to know who these "Christians" are though that predate NT scripture and how they were aware of the "differences" if they hadn´t been written yet.
shareThey were Christians following the teachings of Christ. The belief is attributed to Marconius, a follower of Paul. Who wrote some of the earliest religious books. He believed Yahweh was the Creator, but that Jesus was the son of a different god who basically overthrew Yahweh.
The Father of Jesus was loving and forgiving, nothing like Yahweh who was cruel, jealous, spiteful, and murderous. Yahweh was like, take your only son and kill him to prove you love me more than anything. Or makes a bet with the devil to torture you. His #1 commandment was having no other gods. Jesus Dad was, suffer the little children to come to me and willing to sacrifice his own son to save gentiles. In the early days there were many sects, just like today, but one version became more "official." It's kind of interesting.
There is less wrath on display in the synoptic gospels because Jesus´ purpose was to atone for the sins of his sheep but Jesus still preached eternal hell and forgiveness was never unconditional either, it required repentance. Those who don´t repent, do not get saved and go to hell, Jesus preached this. The idea that Jesus or the Father differs from Yahweh, requires quite a bit of cherry-picking to come to that conclusion.
shareYahweh was an asshole that wouldn't give up 2 cents to save humanity let alone give up his son. Maybe when he flooded Earth and killed almost every living thing to kill off some giants. Or when he was tormenting Jonah. Turning Lot's wife to stone. Forcing Abraham to murder his son. Making Israelites murder children. Killing people for building a fire on the sabbath. Killing first born children. Turning daughters in whores. Slavery. Is it really a stretch to say Yahweh and Jesus are different?
shareNo it isn´t considering Jesus said he would be the eternal judge at the end time and will cast the goats into everlasting fire. Matthew 25:31-46.
shareWhy does Jesus hate goats? And figs?
I believe the idea of everlasting torment came later and was retconned into the gospels. Jews at the time believed that death was just death, the end of you unless you were physically resurrected like Jesus. The soul was a Greek idea that wormed its way into translations, much like the Trinity. Yahweh originally had a body and walked with Adam. Jacob wrestled with God. Angels had sex with humans. We were made in his image. He was like Zeus or Odin, a god but a man. Go even further back and Yahweh was also in a pantheon of gods.
Well you are moving the goalposts now. First you said, its not a stretch to say they are different, now you are saying the gospels are retconned and translations are inaccurate. If the Bible is unreliable source, why argue with what it says in the first place?
shareTwo different subjects, first was whether Yahweh is Jesus' father. Second was whether the final judgement and everlasting torment are Jewish or something added later. And then I tossed in that bit about Yahweh having a body for fun. What goalpost moved?
shareYahweh isn´t exclusively the father. Yahweh is God which would include Jesus, The Father and the HS.
shareThe trinity was retconned into the story about 3 hundred years after Jesus. One of the problems with Christianity as we know it is that so many ideas were added over the years that weren't original. The original Christians were Jews and kept Jewish laws. Paul told the Gentiles not to worry about it because he believed Jesus was coming back any day.
Jesus called God his father but it's not clear what god he meant. Jesus called the Father of the Pharisees, the Devil, meaning Yahweh.
Don´t know where you get your info but the trinity was not "retconned". Matthew is dated to 80s-90s and the Biblical concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit exists within Matthew.
shareI get my ideas from biblical scholars who not only study the Bible as we know it, but earlier versions of gospels that weren't known when the KJV was written. People who study the history surrounding the early church and what other people wrote about it. Some are Christians, some aren't. Matthew mentions 3 characters, father, son, and holy ghost but does not claim they are the same personality. Why would it be that way? Jews at the time Christ were monotheistic but earlier Jews [should say, early Hebrews] were polytheistic. It could just as easily mean 3 gods. It also echoes the Roman concept of a triumvirate, and Hindu mythology which had groups of 3 male gods, each balanced and a group of 3 female gods, each balanced. In any case, the trinity as it exists in modern Christianity is a human invention.
shareName your Biblical scholars. The concept of the trinity is notable in Matthew 3 where all 3 members of the Godhead were participating in this scenario of Jesus´ baptism simultaneously. Matthew 28:19 tells us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and HS.
You are moving the goalposts again. You said, "it could be 3 Gods" but initially you said the idea of the trinity was "retconned" 300 years after Jesus´existence. Depends what you mean by "Jews". Some Jews rejected the Bible and became pagans thus becoming polytheists. Bible believing Jews were not polytheists and there were almost certainly pagans when Jesus existed, so I am not sure how you can make such a simplistic generalisation about newer Jews vs earlier Jews.
Again? You never answered me about where I supposedly moved it the first time. Moving the goal post would be making a statement about one thing and if that statement is shown to be wrong, adding additional criteria. I haven't done that. Your failure to read carefully and comprehend there were 2 subjects, is not me moving the goal post.
re: Matthew. You assume the Trinity is the correct interpretation of what is described in Matthew because that's what you've been taught. The Trinity was invented in the 3rd century to explain why 3 gods isn't polytheism. Your disagreement is not me moving the goal post.
What I mean by earlier Jews: I should have said early Hebrews were polytheistic, my mistake.
> The concept of the trinity
Can you explain this concept in terms a child can understand?
Atheism has nothing to do with what happens when you die - it's simply a non-belief in Gods. As far as what really happens when you die, no one really knows for sure. Personally I tend to lean toward scientific views. Science says it's all over (for you) when you pass. If you believe that, no need to worry about a Hell.
share"Science says it's all over (for you) when you pass."
Science doesnt say that. lol. Nor can it. Science is based on what is observable and experimentation. Science also means knowledge. We have no knowledge of what happens next (apart from divine revelation) so that is a paradoxical statement.
Well, maybe I should have said "Science predicts it's all over for you when you pass". In fact I could get into the science of it but I'll keep it brief. Everything you are is because of your brain. Once that dies, and I mean, actually your brain stem - that's it, it's over. When I say it's over, I mean you are no longer a conscious, breathing, living organism. And you never will be again. This is what science thinks will happen when you pass.
shareSince atheists don't believe in God, the concept of heaven or hell are irrelevant
share"Annihilationism" is a feature of atheism because we don't believe in the supernatural and an afterlife.
But if there was another option besides annihilation of the self, yeah, I'd go for it.
I just want someone to explain to me how consciousness is meant to continue after one's neural network inevitably disintegrates...?
shareA adult Christian telling an Atheist that they are going to Hell is just as effective as an Atheist telling adult Christians that they won't be receiving anything from Santa next December.
shareIf sinners were temporarily punished, it would still be immoral. Punishment is only useful to correct someone's behavior. If you're just gonna kill them anyway, then you would be punishing them arbitrarily. Someone who hurt me also getting hurt in no way erases what they did to me.
Would I be less incentivized to avoid it? Yeah, probably, but I would also have an easier time respecting it. An individual who intends on torturing me is certain to not get my respect.
If hell is eternal, it's completely arbitrary. My crimes are finite. If I experience every bit of the pain I caused, then any further punishment is unjust.
"If sinners were temporarily punished, it would still be immoral. Punishment is only useful to correct someone's behavior."
Punishment isn't exclusively rehabilitative. The criminial justice system punishes also as a form of retribution. We execute people, and lock them up for life, that has nothing to do with rehabilitation.
"If hell is eternal, it's completely arbitrary. My crimes are finite. If I experience every bit of the pain I caused, then any further punishment is unjust."
Your crimes/sins are finite against an infinite God requiring infinite punishment not to mention your morality is also corrupted so you have no idea on what punishment is just or unjust.
I don't call cops, so it doesn't matter. If someone is harming me, I will try to do the exact minimum required to fix the issue. If I have to kill them, so be it, but I'm not gonna burn all their teeth out beforehand.
An infinite god makes no sense. Any implication of a god requires a mind. Every mind is comprised of energy, and energy is in motion. Motion can't go backwards infinitely. Even if I were to grant that an infinite being exists, nothing I could ever do would harm them in any way. And I think my morality is substantially less corrupted than yours.
"And I think my morality is substantially less corrupted than yours."
That could well be true, but you have nothing to base that on since you don't know me, so that strikes me as a strange comment.
I agree in a sense though as we are both sinners, our moralities have been corrupted and its in our nature to love sin, the difference is that I realized as a flawed and sinful being, my need for repentance of my sins against a Holy, perfect and just infinite God.
I ask for forgiveness from the people I actually harmed. If I can't reconcile with them, or can't find them in the first place, then I just don't get forgiven. My punishment is for that to always be on my conscience, to reflect on those mistakes and never repeat them.
The reason I think your morality is corrupted is because you outsource it. You have to make excuses for all the immorality that happens in the bible, I have to actually assess situations and understand WHY it's bad to do certain actions. A dog has no idea why it's bad to pee on the floor, they are not exercising morality at that point, they are just trained.
Animals are not relevant to the argument, since animals do not have the same capacity for moral decisions as humans do. I don't make excuses for "immorality in the Bible". I just don't consider God's actions as immoral. Being that he is the source of truth and righteousness, as the Creator of the universe, it is literally impossible for him to be immoral.
"I have to actually assess situations and understand WHY it's bad to do certain actions."
Your concept of bad is corrupted though, since you have your own corrupted standards of good and bad compared to a sinless, perfect, holy and just God.
No, animals don't have the same capacity for making moral decisions, but that doesn't mean they are incapable of making any moral decisions at all. Just means there's an information gap. I don't know what it is about you religious people that you can't give animals the benefit of the doubt that they are conscious.
"I just don't consider God's actions as immoral. Being that he is the source of truth and righteousness, as the Creator of the universe, it is literally impossible for him to be immoral."
Considering you think he's the source of everything, that would also mean he's the source of falsehood and unrighteousness. Being the creator of the universe in no way exempts you from morality, that would just mean you are a brutal tyrant, and unfit for authority. Your hypothetical god should be begging his victims for forgiveness, not the other way around.
"Your concept of bad is corrupted though, since you have your own corrupted standards of good and bad compared to a sinless, perfect, holy and just God."
These attributes mean absolutely nothing, since they are defined subjectively, supposedly by the entity in question. You already admitted that you think anything he does is moral by definition, even if he's a complete hypocrite about breaking his own principles.
Thanks for making my point. You tossed your moral compass out the window a long time ago.
For that matter, I'm not convinced my standards of morality are corrupted. My standard of evil is any unnecessary harm to an individual without their consent. My standard of good is the functional arrangement of life to promote health, wellbeing, harmony and sustainability. I think those standards, essentially what is harmful or beneficial, is a pretty concrete standard for what we should or shouldn't do.
I just don't consider God's actions as immoral. Being that he is the source of truth and righteousness, as the Creator of the universe, it is literally impossible for him to be immoral.
our own corrupted standards of good and bad compared to a sinless, perfect, holy and just God
These attributes mean absolutely nothing, since they are defined subjectively, supposedly by the entity in question.