# 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:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**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, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/61 "2005-12-08T15:04:55Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Of course, he could have created a less convincingly theistic universe also. Isn’t that correct? I fail to see how it could be _less_ convincing in its theistic-ness, personally. > [@](#): > > But cause and effect are not the same. They are to an **atemporal** entity, who can see the future effect as clearly as the present cause. > [@](#): > > 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. Because I feel that this God of yours would be every bit as much of a catarrhal dilettante, actually. You asked me not for examples of the _strife_ he caused, but of the _deception_ I feel he is guilty of. > [@](#): > > Once again, you cannot presuppose this cause from this effect unless this effect can only be caused by this cause. God, being supposedly omniscient, never presupposes anything. If he exists, he knew all along what humans would be bound to think of his oh-so-natural-looking universe. > [@](#): > > 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. It could if I regurgitated what was clearly said in each lecture but you failed me for not _ignoring_ what was clearly said in favour of completely imaginary material of my own choosing. > [@](#): > > But what if significant numbers passed? Then I would be in a class of delusional fantasists who liked your imagination-based criteria for making them feel special. > [@](#): > > 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! If God exists, his existence can’t be refuted _at all_. But since his existence has _not_ been verified, seeking parsimonious explanations for the universe and everything in it including human thought is a thoroughly reasonable endeavour. > [@](#): > > 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 he exists, he can do whatever he pleases. But I would still call him a deceptive alien because I still wouldn’t _believe_ him when he said he _wasn’t_. > [@](#): > > If I was full blown atheist … then I cannot logically define him with human qualities. If you were a full-blown atheist, then the only quality you would assign him would be _non-existence_. > [@](#): > > 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! Your carts and horses are themselves sadly backwards. If X exists, then **nothing** can be used to refute that existence. But the whole point of this discussion is that there is much disagreement on this premise, and so we must each employ useful philosophical tools in order to arrive at our working conclusion. Supernatural entities were once proposed to explain planetary motion and the diversity of species: no longer. Ockham’s Razor cut those gaps too small for God to fit in any more. And it has now cut those gaps too small even in fields like cosmology, biomolecular chemistry cognitive science. > [@](#): > > 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. Agreed, but _you_ asked _me_ about what _I’d_ think of the nonexistent old imaginary friend for grownups **if** _he really did exist_. Ask a silly question… ---
**Author:** ![AvaB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/db5fbb/32.png) [@AvaB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AvaB)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2005, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/62 "2005-12-09T08:17:35Z")
As a radical atheist, I have no problem with the concept that I may, at some point, be proven wrong. However, should any god prove to exist, a god who would require hell for eternity for _anyone_ for _any_ reason is certifiably insane. An infinite punishment for a finite crime? Isn’t that a bit extreme, regardless of the crime or the punishment. I would be more than willing to banish my own damned self to hell, with or without this god decreeing it, in protest at such extremism. Besides, do I really want to be in heaven with only this god and the people he has found acceptable? The very idea is morally repugnant to me. I have no fear of oblivion, as this is what I expect. To live in fear of ending is to live in horror of the time before one’s birth. Is the concept that your conciousness did not exist before any less disturbing than the possibility that it may not exist at a later date? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/63 "2005-12-12T20:50:08Z")
**SentientMeat said:** > [@](#): > > They are to an **atemporal** entity, who can see the future effect as clearly as the present cause. How is this so, and how do you know it? If we can’t verify the existence of atemporal entities, how can we speak for them? From what I’ve read, not all atemporal beings have the same abilities. We are talking about The Main Dude here though, so I presume he would know it all. But it baffles me that somehow that means that cause and effect—as it relates to him—cannot be distinguished. Should I infer that to mean that whenever there is confusion, there must be deception? What about simple malice on his part? (that would cause confusion) Sport? Caprice? Some Other Purpose? How do I know it’s him _at all?_ The only reason I’ve belabored this deception/confusion thing is that there may be a distinction between God and religion, or between God and _some_ religions; essentially between the message and the messengers. > [@](#): > > Because I feel that this God of yours would be every bit as much of a catarrhal dilettante, actually. You asked me not for examples of the _strife_ he caused, but of the _deception_ I feel he is guilty of. I haven’t owned up to _any_ god in this discussion. And I did ask for examples of the deception you feel he is guilty of. But the only example you gave was one of a deceptive online bank/fraud. > [@](#): > > God, being supposedly omniscient, never presupposes anything. If he exists, he knew all along what humans would be bound to think of his oh-so-natural-looking universe. It wasn’t _God_ I was accusing of presupposing the cause, based on the effect. It was _you._ We can agree on the effects—the ‘strife.’ I’ve yet to see the deception; or, a convincing argument as to why we should both assume and accept **divine deception** _as a matter of fact_, simply because the world is in some confusion/chaos. > [@](#): > > It could if I regurgitated what was clearly said in each lecture but you failed me for not _ignoring_ what was clearly said in favour of completely imaginary material of my own choosing. There is a lot in this statement, so I’d like to leave analogy-land for a moment and translate for the audience at home. Please correct me if I get it wrong. Clearly our professor is God, and the ‘test’ is gaining knowledge of him, his purposes, personality and requirements _as a means of living in accord with those requirements._ (presumably for our benefit) Our “course of life”—the choices we make— is the real test ,and may be manifest in many different ways, all of which make up the basis of a “passing grade.” Depending on your flavor of god, this “passing grade” can be heaven, or some other ‘reward.’. The problem, of course, is God, if he exists, isn’t making house calls to humans. (Although reportedly he had in centuries past) And historically man has “found” God via some sort of religion, as essentially “proctors” for God. But you have not taken this test. If God does in fact exist, and if you were to fail [to reach a passing grade] as manifested by going to heaven etc, it’s because you _refused to take the test._ Nor did you hear in lecture what you claim to have heard. I don’t know of many religions—that presumably speak for God—that are _centered_ on the creat **ion** vs the creat **or**. If I [God] failed you it was because you presumptuously chose to reject his credentials and devised your own test. You were never asked to “regurgitated what was clearly said in each lecture”----_you weren’t asked to do that!_ Even if sincere, by choosing _willful ignorance_ and devising your own standard by which to understand God and his purposes and creation you guarantee failure. > [@](#): > > If God exists, his existence can’t be refuted _at all_. But since his existence has _not_ been verified, seeking parsimonious explanations for the universe and everything in it including human thought is a thoroughly reasonable endeavour. It sure is. It is a reasonable endeavor to seek understanding about us and our world, and to search for meaning or purpose in life. > [@](#): > > If you were a full-blown atheist, then the only quality you would assign him would be _non-existence_. Agreed. But I would be concious of the fragility of an argument that includes applying human constructs to a presunmably divine being, and I wouldn’t persist in insisting that God, if he exists, is somehow no more powerful or more knowledgeable than I am. That’s just silly. > [@](#): > > …Supernatural entities were once proposed to explain planetary motion and the diversity of species: no longer. Ockham’s Razor cut those gaps too small for God to fit in any more. And it has now cut those gaps too small even in fields like cosmology, biomolecular chemistry cognitive science. You make take comfort in Ockham’s Razor. But surely you are aware that Ockham, and other axioms are _human constructs_\*\*,\*\* _devised by humans_\*\*,\*\* centered on the _human experience_\*\*,\*\* and cannot be applied to a divine being that cannot, by definition, be constrained by human limitations. I haven’t appealed to theology, or to the existence of God. But it is absurd to spout things like Ockham, when, if God exists, he would not be bound to them. > [@](#): > > Agreed, but _you_ asked _me_ about what _I’d_ think of the nonexistent old imaginary friend for grownups **if** _he really did exist_. Ask a silly question… I am prone to silly questions, but I don’t remember asking what you’d think about our imaginary friend. I asked you what, if any, significance there was if you disbelieved. The only appropriate answer is “none”, which you offered. The ensuing editorial was bonus material I presume, was not the result of me asking what you thought of him. That’s not relevent. I was simply pointing out that, if God exists, it makes your point no more compelling to call him a “catarrhal dilettante.” :rolleyes: It appears that even if you don’t ask a silly question you may still get a silly answer… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/64 "2005-12-12T23:25:45Z")
> [@Enola Straight](#): > > …how bad can Hell be? [Captain Howdy] What? Hell is a ripping good time, my little friend. After all, it is where all the fun people go! So come join me and I’ll show you the time of your life, well, of your afterlife, anyway. [/Captain Howdy] ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2005, 10:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/65 "2005-12-13T10:34:32Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > How is this so, and how do you know it? If we can’t verify the existence of atemporal entities, how can we speak for them? Again, you asked **if** God exists, how is He deceptive? _Of course_ I don’t believe that God, with all his odd temporal properties such as the ability to create time, exists. > [@](#): > > But it baffles me that somehow that means that cause and effect—as it relates to him—cannot be distinguished. Should I infer that to mean that whenever there is confusion, there must be deception? If _he_ knew full well what _we_ would find confusing, yes. > [@](#): > > What about simple malice on his part? (that would cause confusion) Sport? Caprice? Some Other Purpose? I would class malice, caprice or simple sport under the heading “deception”, just as a con artist would still be “deceptive” even if he was doing it for laughs rather than money. > [@](#): > > How do I know it’s him _at all_? Again, **you** asked **me** what **I** think would constitute deception on his part. _You_ can think what you like of him, of course. > [@](#): > > The only reason I’ve belabored this deception/confusion thing is that there may be a distinction between God and religion, or between God and some religions; essentially between the message and the messengers. But in _all_ religions I know of (bar a handful of rather more atheistic philosophies which one can;t really call “religions”), the supernatural entity called g/God is _responsible for_ this oh-so-natural looking universe. I therefore see deception in _every_ religion. > [@](#): > > I haven’t owned up to _any_ god in this discussion. Good, neither have I … What were we talking about, again? > [@](#): > > And I did ask for examples of the deception you feel he is guilty of. But the only example you gave was one of a deceptive online bank/fraud. _ie._ wherein someone creates a perfectly plausible mechanism which works without any need to appeal to some highly unlikely deception _responsible for_ it. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t God I was accusing of presupposing the cause, based on the effect. It was you. God is _defined_ to be eternal and outside the physical bounds of entropy. That is not a ‘presupposition’ on my part, other than to presuppose we’re talking about the same dictionary entry. > [@](#): > > We can agree on the effects—the ‘strife.’ I haven’t agreed any such thing yet, actually. > [@](#): > > I’ve yet to see the deception; or, a convincing argument as to why we should both assume and accept divine deception as a matter of fact, simply because the world is in some confusion/chaos. Again, you asked me why I would feel deceived if God existed (which you could never, ever convince me of), my answer being that when he was thinking what kind of universe to create, he could see the future apemen scientifically explaining the universe _without_ him as clearly as anything else. I consider this deceptive, but you can consider it whatever you like. > [@](#): > > Clearly our professor is God, and the ‘test’ is gaining knowledge of him. Again, you can consider the test to be whatever you like - I’m not really interested in passing tests other people make up. I consider that the test is whether or not God is _necessary_ in order to **explain** every aspect of our lives and the universe we live in. Which He _isn’t_ - cosmology tells us that the universe he supposedly created has always existed: whither “creation”? > [@](#): > > If God does in fact exist, and if you were to fail [to reach a passing grade] as manifested by going to heaven etc, it’s because you refused to take the test. Nor did you hear in lecture what you claim to have heard. God’s lecture is the universe He set before us. It tells us about itself by scientific experiment. The scientific explanations for itself and everything in it including human thought and divine experience require no God. Thus, to pass _your_ test, I would have to _ignore_ the lecture. > [@](#): > > I don’t know of many religions—that presumably speak for God—that are centered on the creation vs the creator. Again, cosmology tells us that there is _no such thing_ as “creation”: the universe has _always_ existed, over all time. > [@](#): > > You were never asked to “regurgitated what was clearly said in each lecture”----you weren’t asked to do that! I am asked to do that every day in which I seek an explanation for my existence. If God does not ask us to be curious in this way, he ought not have given us curiosity. > [@](#): > > Even if sincere, by choosing willful ignorance and devising your own standard by which to understand God and his purposes and creation you guarantee failure. I characterise willful ignorance as that shown by anyone who does not understand, or seek to understand, the scientific explanations for everything God has supposedly created. > [@](#): > > It is a reasonable endeavor to seek understanding about us and our world, and to search for meaning or purpose in life. The second is a category error. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t persist in insisting that God, if he exists, is somehow no more powerful or more knowledgeable than I am. That’s just silly. Which is why I insist no such thing. God, if he exists, can be as clever as he likes compared to me: I still wouldn’t believe him. > [@](#): > > But surely you are aware that Ockham, and other axioms are human constructs, devised by humans As is God a human construct, of course. > [@](#): > > it is absurd to spout things like Ockham, when, if God exists, he would not be bound to them. And **if** God was a multiplicity of unnecessary bananas, or angels which pushed the sun around the Earth, they would not be bound by Ockham either. But I, of course, _reject_ your absurd “if” premise precisely on that basis. > [@](#): > > I am prone to silly questions, but I don’t remember asking what you’d think about our imaginary friend. Well, OK, given that I _reject_ your “if” as surely as if you’d have said “ **if** God was an invisible pink unicorn …”, and that we now apparently agree that he is _imaginary_, I see no need to respond to any more of your “if God exists …” absurdities. > [@](#): > > I asked you what, if any, significance there was if you disbelieved. The only appropriate answer is “none”, which you offered. The ouputs of my cognitive apparatus are all the “significance” I’ve got. There is no such thing as _objective_ “significance”. What was ‘significant’ in the 13.7 billion years before humans existed? > [@](#): > > I was simply pointing out that, if God exists, it makes your point no more compelling to call him a “catarrhal dilettante.” As far as laughing at the idea of God goes, call me a hobbyist. > [@](#): > > It appears that even if you don’t ask a silly question you may still get a silly answer … That is a beautiful summary of the history of religion. ---
**Author:** ![HubZilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ccd318/32.png) [@HubZilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HubZilla)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/66 "2005-12-14T01:52:58Z")
> [@Priceguy](#): > > I’m curious. Describe a less convincingly atheistic universe. How about one that had real “intelligent design”. Fewer tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, deserts, ice ages, asteroids colliding with planets, wasps laying eggs in live spiders, birth defects, and diseases and plagues for starters. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059/67 "2005-12-14T09:22:57Z")
Reading this through, I think I owe **raindog** an apology for not being clear on his initial question. In response to my point that I will _never_ believe that God exists no matter what stunt he pulls before my very eyes, he asked: > [@raindog](#): > > If He exists, in what way has he deceived you? Note that this question does not quite follow from my statement that I would consider God to be an alien deceiving my very eyes with advanced technology. It asks what deception there is if God _wasn’t_ merely deceiving my eyes technologically, but if God was _really really real._ At this point, **raindog** , I should simply have repeated what “deception” I referred to in my original statement (that of the mundane _Matrix_-style sensory input kind), and also repeated that your “ **if** God exists …” might as well be “ **if** angels push the sun around the Earth …” or “ **if** men co-existed with dinosaurs …”. However, it was an interesting enough question so I thought I’d go along with your “if” for the sake of argument and explore the logical consequences of God creating a universe which he knew full well would look perfectly natural to future scientific humans. You replied: > [@](#): > > if he exists, (that we could objectively establish) (which we can’t, _ever_, given my mistrust of advanced technology, incidentally) > [@](#): > > 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_? There’s a lot in this which I missed first time around. You are suggesting that if God exists, then human-created scientific explanations which don’t reference him are **untrue**. That is quite a statement! A scientific explanation of the Earth’s fossil record involving billions of years of evolution is _untrue_ compared to God’s 6-day creation? A scientific explanation of planetary motion involving an inverse square law of gravitation is _untrue_ compared to angels pushing them around? A scientific explanation of the Big Bang involving curved spacetime is _untrue_? A scientific explanation of divine experience involving temporal lobe epilepsy is _untrue_? Clearly, **if** God exists in the way you suggest, we are sadly _deluded_ in our scientific explanations. Surely, if God could see how the vast majority of educated people would be taken in by such untrue explanations, then expecting them to _reject_ scientific explanations even in the face of their demonstrable worth, predictive power and objective verifiability would be as deceptive as laying a pit trap which looked like a solid piece of ground? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-and-hell/334059.md?page=3)