# Atheists and Hell **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 4, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059 "2005-12-04T18:29:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/41 "2005-12-05T19:21:58Z")
I’m not an atheist, I’m agnostic. I truely don’t know whether God exists or, if he/she/it does, whether that god is the Christian God or some other god. I don’t know whether Jesus was a messiah or a con man… I just don’t know. I’ve seen no evidence of a god, but I surely am not idiot enough to feel that I know what is possible and what is not. For me, I’d prefer eternal life to perishing completely, but I also can’t reconcile a “perfect” God, with a jealous god nor a God being represented by some Christian groups who promote hatred or group who don’t conform with their version of the “Christian” way. ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/42 "2005-12-05T19:25:29Z")
> [@Who\_me?](#): > > …promote hatred or group who don’t conform with their version of the “Christian” way. Gah! Too many mistakes here! …promote hatred o**f[/] group**s\*\* who don’t conform with their version of the “Christian” way Maybe that will render my post understandable… ---
**Author:** ![Who\_me\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/958977/32.png) [@Who\_me\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Who_me_1)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/43 "2005-12-05T19:27:18Z")
…promote hatred o **f** group **s** who don’t conform with their version of the “Christian” way I will remember to preview… ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/44 "2005-12-05T19:56:09Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > No, that would be both rude and _inelegant_. I would merely beg Him to stop deceiving me and tell the truth about his technological mastery. If He exists, in what way has he deceived you? ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/45 "2005-12-05T21:31:09Z")
> [@Pazu](#): > > To me, it’s most important to know that you’ve made a mistake when you have the opportunity to do things correctly in the future. If you can only know you were wrong once it’s too late to ever do things right, I could see how someone would rather not know. Maybe, but I’d still rather know. Anyway, I don’t see where there’s a guarantee that it will be too late. What if we wake up dead and it turns out the Shintos were right? We’re kind of assuming here (most of the time) that it’s either the Christians or the atheists, or possibly the Jews, but I presume that atheists have rejected the Hindu and Islam belief systems equally, right? And some belief systems offer second chances, I’m pretty sure. (Also, my own theology has after-death second chances, so you do get to fix it once you figure it out. If my version is right, it’s not too late once you die.) ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/46 "2005-12-05T22:15:58Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > If He exists, in what way has he deceived you? He has provided a universe whose every element has a possible explanation which excludes Him, rendering Him unnecessary as an entity. To suddenly appear before me employing the simple sensory legerdemain now common in so much trashy science fiction expecting me to _believe_ Him would show disturbing naivete on His part. ---
**Author:** ![Pazu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pazu/32/15522_2.png) [@Pazu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pazu)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/47 "2005-12-06T00:27:29Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > Maybe, but I’d still rather know. Anyway, I don’t see where there’s a guarantee that it will be too late. What if we wake up dead and it turns out the Shintos were right? We’re kind of assuming here (most of the time) that it’s either the Christians or the atheists, or possibly the Jews, but I presume that atheists have rejected the Hindu and Islam belief systems equally, right? And some belief systems offer second chances, I’m pretty sure. > > (Also, my own theology has after-death second chances, so you do get to fix it once you figure it out. If my version is right, it’s not too late once you die.) Well, I sort of assumed we were taking the Judeo-Christian view here, since the OP talked about Hell and separation from God. Funny you should mention Shinto, incidentally, because traditional Shinto (which places very little emphasis on preparing for any kind of afterlife) would say that you become _kami_ (a spirit which inhabits the world) regardless of what you believed or did in life (although some might argue that you might become _yurei_ or _arakami_ [vengeful ghosts, basically] if you died with unresolved issues). Nowadays, of course, Shinto has become so entwined with Buddhism that it’s very difficult to disentangle the two. Does reincarnation count as an afterlife? That’s usually what I think of when I think of getting a “second chance” (or third chance, or whatever). ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/48 "2005-12-06T09:43:23Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > I find it humorous that you think you’ve gotten one over on him, when of course being right is more important than eternal bliss (you can get that chemically today, so why haven’t you?) or communion with some thing that deserves your contempt. (Or mine, anyway.) > > –Cliffy I find it humorous that you think you’ve gotten one over on me, when of course the distinction between eternal bliss through the administering of mind-altering substances is _slightly_ different from that gained through finally and unalterably attaining a proper relationship with God; the issue of contempt for whom, I decline to view in quite the same terms as you. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/49 "2005-12-06T16:00:09Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I think eternal _anything_ would have to become unbearable after a while. How many trillions of years can you hang around on a cloud, playing a harp and singinging gospel songs before you get bored out of your skull? For me it would take about ten seconds. Good Lord, Diogenes, you of all people know that such a cartoon view of Heaven is a total straw Paradise. If however, you think trillions of years exploring the ongoing reaches of space, subatomic particles, the inner workings of mind, the diversity of life forms and cultures throughout whatever other worlds there may be (or may become), and picking the very Mind of God will be boring- well, then- I’m sure you’l be welcome to have the occasional billion year siesta. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/50 "2005-12-06T20:48:09Z")
**SentientMeat said:** > [@](#): > > He has provided a universe whose every element has a possible explanation which excludes Him, rendering Him unnecessary as an entity. But _if_ he exists, in what way does that represent _deception_ on _his_ part? Unless…he provided not just the universe, but all those “possible explanation[s].” IOW, if he exists, (that we could objectively establish)we might concede that he created the universe. But if he is not the author or originator of [those alternate] explanations that exclude him, (which if he exists would be presumably untrue) in what way can _he_ seen as culpable for _deception?_ It seems to me that the stronger case against him would be one of _confusion_ rather than _deception_, right? It seems that perhaps he should have made himself made more plainly manifest, so as to distinguish himself from the other [false] gods. Or, maybe in addition to making himself more plainly evident, he should squelch alternative explanations as to existence (whether they involve other dieties or not) so as to make his position crystal clear. But isn’t that a case for breeding _confusion_ rather than _deception?_ I guess I also don’t understand that he would be unnecessary. The primary question, it seems to me, is _whether he exists_, not _whether he is necessary_. If he doesn’t exist, it’s a moot point. If he does, it’s equally moot. To that end, if the best we can say is there are other “possible explantion[s]” which may exclude him, than the best we may say is “he is possibly unneccessary.” I mean, until we can aswer for his existence, we can’t answer for his utility. Isn’t that right? > [@](#): > > To suddenly appear before me employing the simple sensory legerdemain now common in so much trashy science fiction expecting me to _believe_ Him would show disturbing naivete on His part. I’m trying to understand the purity of your position, so I’m not speaking as a theist. I don’t know if you’re speaking about a specific religious dogma that anticipates a “simple sensory legerdemain” of some sort or not. But that’s not important. If God exists—objectively exists----outside of our minds, perceptions and even delusions, and if he chose to appear to you, of what significance would it be that you disbelieved him? Of what significance would it be that you saw him as naive? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/51 "2005-12-06T22:02:27Z")
Enola Straight: The traditional Jewish teaching on the subject is that being encased in flesh mutes the senses of the spirit. Once freed from flesh by death, the spirit senses things much more acutely and accurately than during Earthly life, and one of those sensations is one’s closeness (or lack thereof) to G-d. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/52 "2005-12-07T15:12:00Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > in what way can _he_ seen as culpable for _deception_? Because he could have created a less convincingly atheistic universe. > [@](#): > > It seems to me that the stronger case against him would be one of confusion rather than deception, right? Given that he could clearly foresee the confusion it _would_ cause, I don’t think the distinction is worth making. If I _knew full well_ that your confusion from some construction of mine would result in some negative consequence for you, I have no problem in describing the situation as me _deceiving_ you. For example, let’s say I pass myself off as your online bank, but transfer the money I hold to your _real_ bank such that you can’t tell the difference. Then, on your death bed I inform you that, actually, since all your money and assets passed through my dodgy hands they have been seized forever. You could not be _blamed_ for your confusion, but I would most certainly have been _deceiving_ you throughout. > [@](#): > > I mean, until we can answer for his existence, we can’t answer for his utility. Isn’t that right? I can only answer for his existence on the basis that science provides no _need_ for it in an Ockham’s Razor sense, just as you saw no need to question what you thought was your genuine online bank. > [@](#): > > if he chose to appear to you, of what significance would it be that you disbelieved him? Of what significance would it be that you saw him as naive? None. I’m just telling you (and him, since he would be reading this) what I’d think of him, which is to say; a childish control freak who should question whether there are actually fundamental laws of physics governing whether or not Gods exist. But to ‘spit in his face’ would only be stooping to his spiteful, Hell-constructing level. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/53 "2005-12-07T15:16:14Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Because he could have created a less convincingly atheistic universe. I’m curious. Describe a less convincingly atheistic universe. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/54 "2005-12-07T15:24:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m curious. Describe a less convincingly atheistic universe. One in which questions like “What are we? Where did we come from? Why does the world behave as it does?” _etc._ have no cast-iron _natural_ answers, forcing us to posit a magical anthropomorphism. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/55 "2005-12-07T18:55:02Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I’m curious. Describe a less convincingly atheistic universe. A universe in which the clouds frequently part and a voice rings from the heavens, “YES, PRICEGUY, I DO IN FACT EXIST. NOW, ABOUT THOSE RATHER BASE AND SINFUL DEISRES THAT YOU HAVEN’T ACTED UPON BUT WHICH I KNOW THAT YOU STILL FEEL…” and so on and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/56 "2005-12-07T23:55:43Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > [a less convincingly atheistic universe would be] One in which questions like “What are we? Where did we come from? Why does the world behave as it does?” _etc._ have no cast-iron _natural_ answers, forcing us to posit a magical anthropomorphism. Wouldn’t you dismiss it as a simulation? ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/57 "2005-12-08T02:54:00Z")
I am an atheist. Hell does not exist, therefore considering its effects on me is moot. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/58 "2005-12-08T10:09:54Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Wouldn’t you dismiss it as a simulation? Yes, I’ve already [said so](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6865146&postcount=18). Literally _nothing_ could convince me of God’s existence. But **raindog** asked a specific “if” question: **if** God _really did_ exist, in what way would he have deceived you? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/59 "2005-12-08T14:02:56Z")
**SentientMeat said:** > [@](#): > > Because he could have created a less convincingly atheistic universe. Of course, he could have created a less convincingly theistic universe also. Isn’t that correct? > [@](#): > > Given that he could clearly foresee the confusion it _would_ cause, I don’t think the distinction is worth making. _But cause and effect are not the same._ The effects are well documented–church/state clashes of every sort, (many of which are violent) , the millions dead in wars ostensibly sanctioned by god, debates between atheists/theists etc etc. Mass confusion. If they are due to a malevolent god, it is reasonable to ask how this is so. If this theoritical god is practicing deception towards us, in what way is he doing this? You cannot simply merge cause and effect—call it the same thing----and attribute the qualities of observed, documented _effects_ (mass confusion) to the [presumed] unobserved, undocumented _cause._ (divine chicanery) In many ways, the world is a screwed up place, and it is reasonable to lay a lot of it at religion’s feet. (note: there is a distinction between _religion_ and _god_) But the effect cannot presuppose the cause, or validate it. I’ll concede the confusion, _show me the deception._ > [@](#): > > For example, let’s say I pass myself off as your online bank, but transfer the money I hold to your _real_ bank such that you can’t tell the difference. Then, on your death bed I inform you that, actually, since all your money and assets passed through my dodgy hands they have been seized forever. You could not be _blamed_ for your confusion, but I would most certainly have been _deceiving_ you throughout. (Please note that **SentientMeat** ’s post is quoted out of order for continuity of thought) This analogy is not sufficently relevent. Given that a theoretical god would have much to answer for in your presence, I wonder why you gave me, as an example, the handiwork of snot nosed hackers. It seems to me that the sheer volume of ‘god-centric’ strife in the world would be a fertile environment from which to lay out the crimes of a theoretical god. > [@](#): > > If I _knew full well_ that your confusion from some construction of mine would result in some negative consequence for you, I have no problem in describing the situation as me _deceiving_ you. _Not necessarily._ Once again, you cannot _presuppose **this** cause_ from this _effect_ unless this effect can only be caused by this cause. In reality, my confusion may be caused by your deception, or it may be caused by other factors, not the least of which is my own recalcitrance. Nor can it be said that your ability to anticipate my confusion (and subsequent failure perhaps) be proof of deception on your part. Perhaps you are not sufficently clear. Maybe you expect that I will figure it out, while recognizing that it will be very difficult for me. Neither your _foreknowledge_, or my _difficulty_ in following your construction are evidence (necessarily) of deception. If I were your professor and issued an exam of sufficent diffilculty that I was certain of a high failure rate in your class, it could not be said that I practiced deception towards _you._ As long as the whole class had equal access to me and the source material, you may say that I am _unreasonable_, but you may not make a valid claim for _deception._ That would still be the case if _everyone_ in the class failed. But what if significant numbers passed?-----while still a small[er] percentage of the total class population—enough where it can be said that no deception was practiced? What then? It seems to me that at least one flavor of God anticipted a high failure rate,(whether that be due to confusion, apathy,rebellion, etc etc) but noted that many would not be confused; something about “the road to destruction is broad and spacious and many find it while the road to everlasting life is narrow and cramped and few find it…” > [@](#): > > I can only answer for his existence on the basis that science provides no _need_ for it in an Ockham’s Razor sense, just as you saw no need to question what you thought was your genuine online bank. I am always puzzled when I see this cited in this context. If God exists—the high octane one that made the whole universe----it is absurd to ascribe to him human limitations in the first place-----and then use them to refute his existence! The cart is way out in front of the cosmic horse. If God exists, and he is the designer, creator and steward of the universe, and it’s physical laws, (as we know them) he is not constrained by them in the way humans are! If he wishes to get behind the wheel and take control of the weather (like making it rain for 40 days/nights…) should we conclude that it is impossible because **the raindog** can’t? If I was full blown atheist (and for the purpose of this comment I might as well be one), and accepted _possibility_ that God exists----now matter how remote, and if only because I cannot disprove his existence----than I cannot logically define him with human qualities. _Ockham_, and the like, are _human constructs_, centered around the _human experience._ They cannot be used to refute the existence of Og, let alone God, especially if this Og created humans and their environment! > [@](#): > > None. I’m just telling you (and him, since he would be reading this) what I’d think of him, which is to say; a childish control freak who should question whether there are actually fundamental laws of physics governing whether or not Gods exist. But to ‘spit in his face’ would only be stooping to his spiteful, Hell-constructing level. That’s cool. The point is simply this: Either God exists objectively or he doesn’t. Neither my piety, or your contempt, can will him into, or out of, objective existence. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/60 "2005-12-08T14:04:55Z")
please overlook that I didn’t proof for spelling… :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059.md?page=4)