Thread: I need help letting go of the idea of hell

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

UM, the thing to realize is that rational thought doesn't have that sort of power for a lot of people. Also, you're assuming that Satan is rational. Maybe he just hates God. Even people that do have rational thought can selectively turn it off.

WIth something like religion, it's best to merge with them and take the worst parts while pointing out the concrete damage that the bad parts do. Most people wont just toss this stuff out wholesale and nor should they.

I see what you mean; however, it's incredibly difficult for me to understand how one may accept a concept in its entirety that has no logical or rational grounding, in that it's not an extension of basic logic and rationality. But then reject further rationality and logic when it is clearly an extension of basic logic and rationality, the basics which that person DOES accept.

I forgot to address this part.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Also, you're assuming that Satan is rational. Maybe he just hates God. Even people that do have rational thought can selectively turn it off.

Even the most primitive and stupid animals on Earth have enough sense not to mess with something that will tear them up... when they know it exists. The fictitious character Satan, in the story, knows that God exists and once knew him very well, and he knows of his powers. That is not just about reason. It is about emotions and sense of danger. The dumbest of drunk rednecks know not to start fights with people they are aware can whip their asses. Squirrels run from squirrels who can kick their asses, and fish swim away from much bigger fish. Have you ever walked toward a roach? Was it rational thought that had it running from you?

So, Satan's reasoning alone and senses alone would tell him not to screw with an infinitely powerful being that will burn him forever for it, and Satan is supposed to have both reasoning ability and a warrior's sensibility. He has already seen Hell and knows what it is about because it is his home he has been in and out of for thousands of years, yet he has supposedly kept up the opposition to God the whole time? I call bullshit.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I see what you mean; however, it's incredibly difficult for me to understand how one may accept a concept in its entirety that has no logical or rational grounding, in that it's not an extension of basic logic and rationality. But then reject further rationality and logic when it is clearly an extension of basic logic and rationality, the basics which that person DOES accept.

But I can tell from your other posts that you're a rational person. Does it drive you up a wall as badly as it does me when people do what you're talking about? That's because it's totally irrational.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Even the most primitive and stupid animals on Earth have enough sense not to mess with something that will tear them up... when they know it exists.

Satan isn't an animal, he's an angel. Maybe Satan has principles and doesn't mind making a martyr out of himself.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

But I can tell from your other posts that you're a rational person. Does it drive you up a wall as badly as it does me when people do what you're talking about? That's because it's totally irrational.

Haha, relentlessly, I mistakenly think they'll understand if I explain it this way/that way.... I can't shift the thought that it's incredibly easy to grasp basic reasoning because we do it everyday......unless we're utterly insane. I need to stop....because such repetition isn't rational in itself. ;p

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Satan isn't an animal, he's an angel. Maybe Satan has principles and doesn't mind making a martyr out of himself.

Angels are supposed to be at a much higher level of consciousness than animals. Also, Satan's goal in his opposition is not supposed to be martyrdom. It is to overthrow God and become the ruler of existence. Despite his intelligence and senses, he thinks he can do that. It just doesn't add up.

I like how you are playing Devil's advocate (literally and figuratively) and arguing for the rationality of the Bible. Good stuff.

I was raised to be fundamentalist Christian and later, in my twenties, became an atheist.
A literal eternal Hell and Satan was one of the first things I stopped believing. I was taught that we go to hell because we deserve it for being sinners and disobeying God.

It seemed to me that it would be completely unfair to punish someone for eternity for something they did during their short, limited life. And what's the point of eternal punishment? You can't learn from it. If God really wants everyone to be saved like I was taught that he does, then he shouldn't arbitrarily stop trying to save our souls after our physical life ends.
But ultimately I realized that hell is just a concept to scare us into believing and behaving a certain way.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Angels are supposed to be at a much higher level of consciousness than animals. Also, Satan's goal in his opposition is not supposed to be martyrdom. It is to overthrow God and become the ruler of existence. Despite his intelligence and senses, he thinks he can do that. It just doesn't add up.

I like how you are playing Devil's advocate (literally and figuratively) and arguing for the rationality of the Bible. Good stuff.

I'm not arguing for the rationality of the Bible, I'm arguing for the irrationality of expecting rational arguments to overturn deep rooted beliefs unless they've done it already. Maybe it will work, maybe it wont.

The fact that angels are supposed to exist at a higher level is irrelevant.

Perhaps the Bible is wrong and there is a way for Satan to overthrow God. The Bible is the word of God after all, isn't it? Of course this wouldn't be conventional Christianity but I've never met a conventional Christian to begin with. Perhaps This is especially relevant for someone transitioning away from using Christianity as their primary metaphysical model of the universe. They often do it in bits and pieces.

Also, perhaps "higher level" doesn't mean more rational. Does the Bible say that angels are more rational or are you just assuming that they must be because of your own preferences.

You're not playing devil's advocate? I made an argument against the logical foundation of the Bible, and you sided with the Bible. Is that something you ordinarily do in this forum? All I usually see you doing is making rational arguments against Christian reasoning. Now you are arguing that maybe Satan did this and is that in defense against my ridiculings of the Bible. Yes, you are doing that. What happened?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm not arguing for the rationality of the Bible, I'm arguing for the irrationality of expecting rational arguments to overturn deep rooted beliefs unless they've done it already. Maybe it will work, maybe it wont.

If "Maybe it will work," how is it irrational? Besides, that is not even what I am expecting, as I said. This discussion raises interesting issues about a very illogical book. Also, read this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have been an atheist for almost 19 years, and I am still spooked out by the idea of Hell. From an intellectual standpoint, I see the idea of Hell as majorly illogical and clearly not real. However, the phobia is still with me on some level. I have never been able to completely shake it, and I don't know if I ever will. I was taught from a very early age that people who are not certain Jesus is the son of God and the savior are put into a fire to burn forever. That scared me out of my mind when I was a kid. I was brainwashed with something awful as a small child, and that sort of thing doesn't just go away, no matter how much logic you use.

Plus, it was a rational argument that got me out of Christianity and another rational argument that got me into atheism. It happens. I still have some Hell phobia left over, but nowhere near as much.

As for angel intelligence and insight, here's Daniel 9: 21-22.

while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, "Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding.

Angels can give people insight and understanding, but one of the main ones showed up for a nuclear missile fight against his creator with nothing but a sling shot and assumed he could win? Do you honestly not see the absurdity of that Christian concept? Of course you do, but this is fun. Carry on.

He's playing devil's advocate to determine your reasoning ability.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

He's playing devil's advocate to determine your reasoning ability.

I think he's already determined that, but I agree he's playing devil's advocate. The reasons go much deeper, though. It's fine with me if he keeps doing it. I love a good argument about the logic of the Bible. He's better than most Christians at taking their side. I won't question his sincerity any more. I just wanted to make it clear that I know what side he is really on.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You're not playing devil's advocate? I made an argument against the logical foundation of the Bible, and you sided with the Bible.

I'm certainly not arguing that the Bible is rational. I'm arguing that rationality is a poor mechanism to convince most people of anything.

If "Maybe it will work," how is it irrational? Besides, that is not even what I am expecting, as I said. This discussion raises interesting issues about a very illogical book. Also, read this.

I wrote that poorly. When I said, "maybe it will work, maybe it won't", I was referring to the first encounter with trying to use reasoning to uproot a belief. If the first argument is solid and fails then more will probably not help the situation. While I favor rational thought as a means of determining my expected outcome of some situation, it is not the only means of persuasion and is not even an especially good one. I believe that this is one reason why thirty second sound bytes can make or break a presidential campaign whereas a serious discussion between the candidates would probably be ignored and most media coverage of debates concerns how the person conducted themselves rather than what was actually said or not said.

Plus, it was a rational argument that got me out of Christianity and another rational argument that got me into atheism. It happens. I still have some Hell phobia left over, but nowhere near as much.

As for angel intelligence and insight, here's Daniel 9: 21-22.

while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, "Daniel, I have now come to give you insight and understanding.

But you favor rational thought as a means of persuasion which is why you assume that rational thought is the same as "insight and understanding". I just think that it's a form of insight and understanding. Some of my most deeply held beliefs cannot be rationally justified.

Angels can give people insight and understanding, but one of the main ones showed up for a nuclear missile fight against his creator with nothing but a sling shot and assumed he could win? Do you honestly not see the absurdity of that Christian concept? Of course you do, but this is fun. Carry on.

I'm not saying that it's not absurd, I'm saying that pointing out the absurdity of it is often a losing proposition. Also, since the level of insight and understanding of angels is greater than our own, who are we to judge their grasp of it? See what I'm saying? One can always come back with something like that.

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

He's playing devil's advocate to determine your reasoning ability.

Hmmm. Sounds like something I would do. But in this case, I'm trying to make a point, namely the futility of rationality as a means of persuasion in most cases, and especially those involving religion. So I wouldn't really say that I'm playing devils advocate because UM and I seem to fundamentally disagree here, though not about the status of the Bible as a rational document.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm not arguing for the rationality of the Bible, I'm arguing for the irrationality of expecting rational arguments to overturn deep rooted beliefs unless they've done it already.

I agree with this. Christianity, like most religions, is based on faith. If rational arguments could convert most people, there would be very little religion at all left in the world. How many people still argue for the creationist model, despite the overwhelming evidence of evolution? It's a scary thing to question your worldview and overturn your whole paradigm of existence - much easier to cling to whatever irrational beliefs you were taught as a child.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Plus, it was a rational argument that got me out of Christianity and another rational argument that got me into atheism.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would be willing to bet you rejected Christianity either as a child or teenager, and not just because of a rational argument, but because you are an intelligent person, began to think critically, and realized things didn't quite add up. Most people don't question what they are taught and subject it to skepticism. So, if someone is brought up in a Christian household and doesn't feel the need to scrutinize these beliefs for themselves, no rational argument thrown at them will convince them to reject their faith. It took me years of heated religious debates to realize I was fighting a loosing battle.

Universal Mind, you and Philosopher Stoned are actually on the same side of the debate. You both agree the Bible is irrational. Philosopher Stoned was just saying that discussing the irrationality of the Bible is pointless since those who don't believe it already see its irrationality, while those who believe in it won't be convinced otherwise by rationality.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I have been an atheist for almost 19 years, and I am still spooked out by the idea of Hell. From an intellectual standpoint, I see the idea of Hell as majorly illogical and clearly not real. However, the phobia is still with me on some level. I have never been able to completely shake it, and I don't know if I ever will. I was taught from a very early age that people who are not certain Jesus is the son of God and the savior are put into a fire to burn forever. That scared me out of my mind when I was a kid. I was brainwashed with something awful as a small child, and that sort of thing doesn't just go away, no matter how much logic you use.

My parents did not teach me that there is a Hell, though. My mother took me to church and Sunday school, but I went because I wanted to go. They did not force me. It was the Bible belt culture I grew up in that brainwashed me. They didn't even cram the idea of Hell down my throat. They crammed the idea of Jesus down my throat and had me believing the religion itself, and from time to time mentioned eternal torture for not believing it. Once I had been brainwashed with Jesus, the whole scenario that comes with him was in my head too. That was all it took.

I wonder if it is possible to get therapy and shake the remaining portion of my Hell phobia. I am pretty okay, but I want to take that extra step and remove the fear completely.

I find this really interesting. I was also raised Christian. My mom was really hardcore with the hell and demon stuff. I was taught that I would go to hell if I sinned . My mom would show us pictures of specific demons that would attach to us if we committed a particular sin. She even burned my Metallica CD! Despite all this, I have no hell phobia. I still strive to live a virtuous life, but because of my compassion for other sentient beings, not because I fear punishment from "God". I did have a few years in my late teens/ early twenties when I lived a pretty hedonistic and selfish lifestyle. Maybe committing all the sins I had been taught to fear helped my overcome any innate, leftover hell phobia.

What form does you hell phobia take? Do you feel guilt or fear? Why do you think you still have this lingering artifact of a religion you rejected?

I was brought up in a Catholic school, and yet everything religious I instantly rejected without much thought (in fact, I might've thought it was deliberate fiction-telling) - I know that I didn't have a developed rational faculty at such an age, and so what intrigues me is this seemingly unknown catalyst that divides those who believe their religion from those who have spontaneously rejected it. I can see then it wasn't due to any conscious rational thought process, nor appeals to strings of evidence for/against. I just wouldn't believe it.

lol I say that, and yet have subconscious leanings toward some subsets of Taoism, Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism. From what I can gather, Tibetan Buddhism changes what it believes based on scientific findings on consciousness. I like that.

PhilosopherStoned, I totally agree that reason does not change the minds of most people about their religious beliefs. This forum is evidence enough of that. I like discussing and debating the stuff any way, though. For me, it was rational thought that changed my mind. It took repeated debates with my friends and my father to get me there, but they got me there.

Grod, a member who used to post here a lot, became an atheist during his time coming here. He told me that my arguments convinced him God is not real. Nobody else here ever told me that, but that one case shows that it can happen. I don't know how I feel about the situation. I love to debate, but convincing somebody that God doesn't exist was never actually my goal. That might surprise some people, but I see this stuff as fun sparring that I don't want to result in a knockout. Somebody out there quit believing in an afterlife because of me. That kind of sucks in a way, but at least he doesn't believe in Hell any more. I have debated a zillion other Christians here, and I doubt I put even a dent in the beliefs of most of them. There was another guy who said he became an atheist in his time here, but he said it was not a result of debating me. I can't remember his screen name. He had a cartoon robot for his avatar and used to complain that atheists were bullying him just by coming here to debate. I kept telling him that he was in the wrong place to play that kind of victim and that I don't ever debate an unwilling participant about the existence of God. He eventually changed his mind about the reality of God, but his victim mentality was probably evidence that he had major doubts in the first place.

Asking who we are to judge an angel's grasp of reality is like asking who we are to judge God's grasp of it. That is a point a lot of Christians raise. My response is that true logic makes perfect sense and that if it does not make sense to a fictitious character who is a genius, it is because the fictitious genius is not real. If somebody claims that "2 + 2 = 5" is a Pastafarian argument and asks who I am to question the Flying Spaghetti Monster's brilliant understanding of existence, I am going to respond that the Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot possibly be on the pedestal on which he is put. Similarly, a nutty angel who turns on his infinitely powerful creator is in a losing battle, but some neutral theists might argue that I am not on a level to know one way or the other. I say that they are supporting an irrational belief and that it is up to them to prove their claim. As I have said before, the burden is not on me to disprove a far fetched belief. The idea that Satan has a way of defeating an infinitely powerful being is not rational. It is profoundly far fetched and so far unproven. It defies the very definition of "infinitely powerful." I am on a level to understand what infinite power would be. Anybody who makes a claim which counters that reasoning has the burden of proof.


hermine_hesse, I was 16 when I became an agnostic. Two of my best friends were atheists, and my dad called/calls himself an "agnostic" but is more or less an atheist. They started debating me on the existence of God a lot, and they never convinced me until I had an argument with my dad at a restaurant one night. He asked me how I know God exists. I said that there is no way all of this could have just happened by itself (the leading creationist argument). He asked how God just happened by himself, and I said he has always been. His response was that maybe the universe has always been. I thought that response put me and the creationist point of view in checkmate, and I became an agnostic at that very moment. Since then, I have come across the theory that the universe had a beginning, so I don't use the word "universe" in the argument. I use the term "laws of science." I think they, or at least some of them, would have to be timeless/eternal.

I became an atheist due to a change in rational perspective also, but there was a strong emotional element involved. My uncle died when I was 21. He was pretty much my assistant father, and his son (my cousin, more like a brother) has been my best friend since he was born, which was six months after I was. My uncle had a rare terminal disease called Schleroderma, and it decayed him over a few months. I watched his immediate family and mine go through something extremely terrible while he was dying. We were all frustrated over the fact that medicine was still in the dark ages concerning his disease and that there was no cure or even helpful treatment. We just watched him die. At the funeral, the priest said, "God was truly with Mike in that hospital." Those were his exact words, and I will always remember them. They echoed through my head for the next few weeks, and I finally came to the realization that there is no way an infinitely powerful being that is totally good could possibly exist. If there were one, my uncle would not have died. I have never seen a way around that. Christians talk about "plans" and good things that suffering leads to, but none of it has ever convinced me that my uncle had to die. If God were real, he could give us whatever benefit he wanted and make giving it to us not a problem. If he couldn't, he wouldn't be infinitely powerful. I think it's that simple.

I think the Hell phobia I have is just emotional residue from when I was a Christian. It's like a fear of heights people have when they are inside a building or clautrophobia people have when they are in a room with an unlocked door. It doesn't make sense. It's just a primitive part of the brain acting crazy. My wiring must have gotten screwed up when I was a Christian.

touche, Universal Mind.
You're right that rational arguments do win other people over occasionally, and other times debating can just be fun. I guess I generally stay away from theological debates, because for a while I felt so frustrated by other's irrational belief in Christianity, than I would seek out debates with Christians and make it my ultimate goal to obliterate their beliefs. I would rarely convert people, but often became quite vitriolic and certainly made a few people cry. Even recently, my girlfriend kept referring to her "granny in heaven". She's not religious, but was raised so. I started debating her on the logic of believing her granny was living an eternal happy life with Jesus. Eventually, she burst into tears and admitted that I was right. She didn't actually believe in heaven, but it was easier to continuing believing in it then imagining her grandmother gone forever. It's a pretty intense thing to shatter someone else's belief system.

I'm sorry you had to experience that with your Uncle. I know how frustrating it can be to watch people other people chalk up the bad things in their (or other's) life to "God's plan" instead of using science, medicine, or rational thought to change what's wrong.

I talked a girlfriend of mine out of belief in the Christian stuff one time. It was one of the proudest moments of my life.

I'm ashamed Philosopher, you just killed her. ^_^ Though I wouldn't want to be ignorant and easily satisfied, a part of me wishes I was a true believer in Christianity - every day you wake up would be filled with metaphysical instilled purpose. This division is analogically similar to the meaning of the red pill contrasted with the blue pill.

I'm a fan of the Buddhism/Taoism combo myself. Every day is filled with metaphysically instilled emptiness and formlessness. It's quite liberating.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

I'm a fan of the Buddhism/Taoism combo myself. Every day is filled with metaphysically instilled emptiness and formlessness. It's quite liberating.

I'm a big fan of that too. It also provides good material for screwing with uptight people.

If anybody ever bitches at you for not doing enough work around the home, like if the dishes pile up too much and stuff, just say, "When nothing is done, nothing is left undone." If they bitch about other stuff you have done or not done, ask, "Does the past exist? If it exists, how is it the past?"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If anybody ever bitches at you for not doing enough work around the home, like if the dishes pile up too much and stuff, just say, "When nothing is done, nothing is left undone." If they bitch about other stuff you have done or not done, ask, "Does the past exist? If it exists, how is it the past?"

Those are huge mis-applications of some very deep principles. Did you eat food and put the dirty dishes in the sink? Then you did something and something was left undone.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Those are huge mis-applications of some very deep principles. Did you eat food and put the dirty dishes in the sink? Then you did something and something was left undone.

But then I did nothing. Misapplications? Shhhhhhh.... If I show them quoted text, they won't know anything about that "misapplications" stuff. Be cool.

"Something" being left undone isn't the same as having done nothing though, now is it? You could have e.g. done something else. Don't shhhhh me when I'm getting up on my soap box.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

"Something" being left undone isn't the same as having done nothing though, now is it? You could have e.g. done something else. Don't shhhhh me when I'm getting up on my soap box.

Just keep quiet and act like you have never heard of Eastern philosophy when I am conning roommates, and all is fine. What matters is that I don't have to do the dishes or take out the garbage. That's what Lao Tzu said. *cough* I can show you where he said it.

Reprehensible.