Here’s a question for anyone who believes in the existence of HELL:

[Age]

No.

Okay. But what do "atheists" believe?

Atheism is not characterised by belief

Okay, so what is "atheism" actually characterised by, to you?

Atheists do not believe in God.

Okay. But I find this to be very obvious.

And yet you still have not got the message.

And what message is that EXACTLY, which I have, supposedly, still not got?

Many try to reject all belief.

Why would many "atheists" try to reject ALL belief?

"Belief" is a wide word. It can also refer to knowledge on the one hand, but things taken as true for no verifyable reason, on the other hand.
If you think about it you can completely reject the word in your life if you seek knowledge rather than simply accept things you think are true.
I can get on with my life without the need to use the word at all, by replacing it with something more precise.
What I know, I know. Knowledge is challengable if it has a basis. Some might use the word belief in place of knowledge but it makes more sense to me to reserve stuff I'm sure about to "knowledge" and to never accept any beliefs into my thinking.
What people beleive can be speculations, myths, desires, and aspirations.
Why use a clumsy word like belief when you can be more precise in your language.

What do "athiests" then 'know', instead of 'believe'?

Most atheists no longer think anything at all abot god or theists' beliefs.

Okay, so what do "most atheists" actually now 'think'?

[Sculptor]

Okay. But what do "atheists" believe?

Atheism is not characterised by belief

Okay, so what is "atheism" actually characterised by, to you?

Okay. But I find this to be very obvious.

And yet you still have not got the message.

And what message is that EXACTLY, which I have, supposedly, still not got?

Why would many "atheists" try to reject ALL belief?

"Belief" is a wide word. It can also refer to knowledge on the one hand, but things taken as true for no verifyable reason, on the other hand.
If you think about it you can completely reject the word in your life if you seek knowledge rather than simply accept things you think are true.
I can get on with my life without the need to use the word at all, by replacing it with something more precise.
What I know, I know. Knowledge is challengable if it has a basis. Some might use the word belief in place of knowledge but it makes more sense to me to reserve stuff I'm sure about to "knowledge" and to never accept any beliefs into my thinking.
What people beleive can be speculations, myths, desires, and aspirations.
Why use a clumsy word like belief when you can be more precise in your language.

What do "athiests" then 'know', instead of 'believe'?

Most atheists no longer think anything at all abot god or theists' beliefs.

Okay, so what do "most atheists" actually now 'think'?

You are thinking like a racist.
You might as well ask what do black people think.
There is nothing about being an atheist for which your question can be asked.
The only thing that characterises black people is the colour of their skin.
The only thing that characterises atheisists is that they have no belief in any gods.

[Dontaskme]

Hell exists in the same way a nightmare exists.

[Age]

Atheism is not characterised by belief

Okay, so what is "atheism" actually characterised by, to you?

And yet you still have not got the message.

And what message is that EXACTLY, which I have, supposedly, still not got?

"Belief" is a wide word. It can also refer to knowledge on the one hand, but things taken as true for no verifyable reason, on the other hand.
If you think about it you can completely reject the word in your life if you seek knowledge rather than simply accept things you think are true.
I can get on with my life without the need to use the word at all, by replacing it with something more precise.
What I know, I know. Knowledge is challengable if it has a basis. Some might use the word belief in place of knowledge but it makes more sense to me to reserve stuff I'm sure about to "knowledge" and to never accept any beliefs into my thinking.
What people beleive can be speculations, myths, desires, and aspirations.
Why use a clumsy word like belief when you can be more precise in your language.

What do "athiests" then 'know', instead of 'believe'?

Most atheists no longer think anything at all abot god or theists' beliefs.

Okay, so what do "most atheists" actually now 'think'?

You are thinking like a racist.

LOL

OR, I am pointing some thing out, by using words in a very specific way.

See, I am learning how to better communicate with human beings. I could be doing this by passing on 'messages' in a very subtle or very subliminal way.

We will just have to WAIT and SEE, correct?

You might as well ask what do black people think.

I use double quotation marks for VERY SPECIFIC REASONS.

Also, 'you' are the one 'trying to' inform 'us' of what these, so called, "atheists" think, say, and/or do.

'I' am just 'trying to' CLARIFY, with 'you', in regards to what 'you' think or believe is true.

There is nothing about being an atheist for which your question can be asked.

This does NOT make 'logical sense', to me, anyway.

The only thing that characterises black people is the colour of their skin.

LOL this is one of the most absurd and ridiculous things that I have heard for a while, especially considering the amount of EVIDENCE and PROOF for the contrary.

The only thing that characterises atheisists is that they have no belief in any gods.

Are you aware that having, supposedly, 'NO belief in any gods' would infer that 'they' are OPEN to there actually being A God or Gods?

Or, are you NOT YET AWARE of this FACT?

[gaffo]

Where would you like to start?

from the beginning,

use small words I'm thick.

A clue that a reduction on an emphasis of religion leads to progress can be shown historically from the time of the enlightenment. Compare if you will the decline of Rome from the moment Constantine adopted Christianity to its fall

Rome started its fall a good century prior to Constantine, for reason not related to Religion (Emperal Rome had 100's of Religions, and Roman Polytheism - adopted by them from the Greeks centuries earlier due to the foundation of the Roman Republic was via Greek Colonialist to Italy. Who shortly removed the Etruscans via conquest.

Why Rome fell?

THAT is a good question - and one i have no answer for (we know that it allowed its decay from a Republic to an Empire (but i do not think that Empire decay is linked to its self destruction of the Rule of Law as a Republic, for the high point of the Roman Empire was around 120 - a good century after her self removal of the Rule of Law as a Republic and full century before the decay of same said Empire).

Rome's decay began around 250 AD, 75 yrs before Constatine!

throughout the highly stagnant, and highly religious middle ages. No progress of any kind.

Lets not forget that while the Christian Europeans were decending into the Dark Ages - 450 AD - 1300 AD, the Arabs were assending!

it is they how saved many of the Greek works that were destroyed in the Alexandria fire of 350? ish? - they! who were Religious Muslims.

The begining of European progress began with the challenge to the Catholic Church in the Reformation, and with the reformation came skepticism.

agreed.

If you can challenge the curch, then why not the entire basis of its belief? Once god was put under the micrscope things started to change more quickly.

but you simplify!

First the corruption of the Catholic Churches allowed the new faction of Protestants to show up (and many of the them were as rabid or even more rabid than the Cathlics!!!!!!!!!!!!) - the Skepticism showed up a century latter, when the sensible folks saw the Puritans as the same rabid as the old traditional Catholics, and so moved away from former religion all together - and started to read the old Greek works (that the rabid Muslims had saved from historical oblivion).

But as thing began to improve with thinkers such as Galileo the reaction of the church was to crush learning and progress.
Part 2 later

yep.


but i do not see Religion as to why nations fail.

Rome did not fail over Religion

Ottoman Empire was top dog in the Dark Ages! nearly all lving there were Religious!

------------

no Religions are not linked to failed empire.

something else is to blame.

if anyone knows what that is - educate me, for i honestly do not know.

[Sculptor]

There is nothing about being an atheist for which your question can be asked.

This does NOT make 'logical sense', to me, anyway.

This is why you are a fucking moron.

The only thing that characterises black people is the colour of their skin.

LOL this is one of the most absurd and ridiculous things that I have heard for a while, especially considering the amount of EVIDENCE and PROOF for the contrary.

And this is why you are a fucking racist

The only thing that characterises atheisists is that they have no belief in any gods.

Are you aware that having, supposedly, 'NO belief in any gods' would infer that 'they' are OPEN to there actually being A God or Gods?

Or, are you NOT YET AWARE of this FACT?

Twat.
Fuck off you time wasting TROLL

[Sculptor]

from the beginning,

use small words I'm thick.

A clue that a reduction on an emphasis of religion leads to progress can be shown historically from the time of the enlightenment. Compare if you will the decline of Rome from the moment Constantine adopted Christianity to its fall

Rome started its fall a good century prior to Constantine, for reason not related to Religion (Emperal Rome had 100's of Religions, and Roman Polytheism - adopted by them from the Greeks centuries earlier due to the foundation of the Roman Republic was via Greek Colonialist to Italy. Who shortly removed the Etruscans via conquest.

Why Rome fell?

THAT is a good question - and one i have no answer for (we know that it allowed its decay from a Republic to an Empire (but i do not think that Empire decay is linked to its self destruction of the Rule of Law as a Republic, for the high point of the Roman Empire was around 120 - a good century after her self removal of the Rule of Law as a Republic and full century before the decay of same said Empire).

Rome's decay began around 250 AD, 75 yrs before Constatine!

Read Gibbon

throughout the highly stagnant, and highly religious middle ages. No progress of any kind.

Lets not forget that while the Christian Europeans were decending into the Dark Ages - 450 AD - 1300 AD, the Arabs were assending!

On borrowed Greek knoweldge.

it is they how saved many of the Greek works that were destroyed in the Alexandria fire of 350? ish? - they! who were Religious Muslims.

The begining of European progress began with the challenge to the Catholic Church in the Reformation, and with the reformation came skepticism.

agreed.

If you can challenge the church, then why not the entire basis of its belief? Once god was put under the micrscope things started to change more quickly.

but you simplify!

It's an internet forum not a thesis

First the corruption of the Catholic Churches allowed the new faction of Protestants to show up (and many of the them were as rabid or even more rabid than the Cathlics!!!!!!!!!!!!) - the Skepticism showed up a century latter, when the sensible folks saw the Puritans as the same rabid as the old traditional Catholics, and so moved away from former religion all together - and started to read the old Greek works (that the rabid Muslims had saved from historical oblivion).

But as thing began to improve with thinkers such as Galileo the reaction of the church was to crush learning and progress.
Part 2 later

yep.


but i do not see Religion as to why nations fail.

Rome did not fail over Religion

Christianity made it weak minded.
It halted progress and taught tolerance.
That's exactly the sort of ideology that the Germans loved to crush.

Ottoman Empire was top dog in the Dark Ages! nearly all lving there were Religious!

The upper eschelons of their heirarchy was Mongolian.
The rest were subjects.
Islam literally means submission.
One the Ottoman empire was established it quietly stagnated.

------------

no Religions are not linked to failed empire.

something else is to blame.

if anyone knows what that is - educate me, for i honestly do not know.

I told - it is religion

[Age]

There is nothing about being an atheist for which your question can be asked.

This does NOT make 'logical sense', to me, anyway.

This is why you are a fucking moron.

Because some thing does NOT make sense to me, then this makes me a "moron, who fucks", correct?

The only thing that characterises black people is the colour of their skin.

LOL this is one of the most absurd and ridiculous things that I have heard for a while, especially considering the amount of EVIDENCE and PROOF for the contrary.

And this is why you are a fucking racist

So, to you, the PROOF for the contrary MEANS that this is WHY I am a "fucking racist"?

So, now 'I' am a "racist", and a "moron", "who fucks".

The only thing that characterises atheisists is that they have no belief in any gods.

Are you aware that having, supposedly, 'NO belief in any gods' would infer that 'they' are OPEN to there actually being A God or Gods?

Or, are you NOT YET AWARE of this FACT?

Twat.
Fuck off you time wasting TROLL

Your complete and utter INABILITY to CLARIFY does NOT go UNNOTICED.

Also, WHY am 'I' NOT a TROLL, "who fucks"?

[Age]

no Religions are not linked to failed empire.

something else is to blame.

if anyone knows what that is - educate me, for i honestly do not know.

The reason WHY empires fail is because whenever any one or any group try to have control over any one or any group, then they are bound to fail. NO one can have real control over "another one"/"others".

When any one tries to take control over "another", then they are, unconsciously, asking to be brought or toppled down.

[odysseus]

seeds
Now I realize that there aren’t many Christians or Muslims participating in this forum, nevertheless, perhaps some lurkers might chime in.

The question I am going to pose by way of a thought experiment is primarily based on the Christian belief that many (indeed, most) humans are going to end up in a literal hell of torture and suffering after death.

With that in mind, the question is: would you, Christian or Muslim,...

(or anyone else who believes in the existence of the heaven/hell scenario)

...be willing to relinquish your eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

In other words,...

(at least in terms of this hypothetical situation)

...if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?

And to extend the question a little further: would you do it for a stranger?

I count myself a Christian but this notion you have of hell is purely fictional, so the premise of your question is empty.

You have to abandon the traditional notions of historical Christianity and ask what hell really is about. It is about suffering and time. Examples are as many as sentience itself. Hell is just another word for suffering and this is all too familiar to anyone who has suffered. The question then goes to duration. Put is this way: If you are trapped in a burning car and the leaking gasoline is trickling down your forehead and then you detect the smell of something burning, you are in hell. Or, say you been convicted of heresy and you know you'll be burned alive at the stake in the morning; again, you're in hell. Or some lunatic bury's you alive. I mean, we pretty much understand how this goes.

Now IN the situation, time stands still, so to speak. Horror can do this. It is not a clock's time (which is a mere pragmatic abstraction) but existential time, or, Real time. When time is entirely ignored there is only the eternal present. This is hell's eternity. Being in love can be analyzed in the same way. We call this heaven.

[seeds]

Now I realize that there aren’t many Christians or Muslims participating in this forum, nevertheless, perhaps some lurkers might chime in.

The question I am going to pose by way of a thought experiment is primarily based on the Christian belief that many (indeed, most) humans are going to end up in a literal hell of torture and suffering after death....

I count myself a Christian but this notion you have of hell is purely fictional, so the premise of your question is empty.

You have to abandon the traditional notions of historical Christianity and ask what hell really is about. It is about suffering and time. Examples are as many as sentience itself. Hell is just another word for suffering and this is all too familiar to anyone who has suffered....

I thought I had made it quite clear throughout this thread that all concepts of capital “H” Hell are fictional.

Nevertheless, the fact that some things are fictional (or mythological) in nature does not alter the reality that many humans still believe them to be true. And it is those particular humans that this thread is targeting.

In which case, in the OP, I am simply referring to the standard belief in Hell as was defined in my earlier quote from Wiki.

According to Wiki:

In religion and folklore, Hell is an afterlife location in which evil souls are subjected to punitive suffering, often torture as eternal punishment after death. Religions with a linear divine history often depict hells as eternal destinations, the biggest examples of which are Christianity and Islam...

(Note that according to religious dogma, a hell-bound “evil soul” is anyone who rejects Jesus as their personal savior, or rejects the teachings of Islam.)

The point is that your small letter “h” definition of hell is purely temporal in nature and has nothing to do with the moral dilemma that the OP lays-out for the capital “H” Hell believing Christian or Muslim.

However, with that being said (and just out of curiosity), if you count yourself as a Christian, then what do you think the punishment will be for rejecting Christ?
_______

[gaffo]

seeds
Now I realize that there aren’t many Christians or Muslims participating in this forum, nevertheless, perhaps some lurkers might chime in.

The question I am going to pose by way of a thought experiment is primarily based on the Christian belief that many (indeed, most) humans are going to end up in a literal hell of torture and suffering after death.

With that in mind, the question is: would you, Christian or Muslim,...

(or anyone else who believes in the existence of the heaven/hell scenario)

...be willing to relinquish your eternal life of bliss in heaven if - by reason of some kind of divine law - it would extricate a loved one from an eternity of torture in hell?

In other words,...

(at least in terms of this hypothetical situation)

...if you understood that your sacrifice would forever erase you and your loved one from the “Book Of Life,” would you be willing to do that if it would end the eternal suffering of someone dear to you?

And to extend the question a little further: would you do it for a stranger?

I count myself a Christian but this notion you have of hell is purely fictional, so the premise of your question is empty.

You have to abandon the traditional notions of historical Christianity and ask what hell really is about. It is about suffering and time. Examples are as many as sentience itself. Hell is just another word for suffering and this is all too familiar to anyone who has suffered. The question then goes to duration. Put is this way: If you are trapped in a burning car and the leaking gasoline is trickling down your forehead and then you detect the smell of something burning, you are in hell. Or, say you been convicted of heresy and you know you'll be burned alive at the stake in the morning; again, you're in hell. Or some lunatic bury's you alive. I mean, we pretty much understand how this goes.

Now IN the situation, time stands still, so to speak. Horror can do this. It is not a clock's time (which is a mere pragmatic abstraction) but existential time, or, Real time. When time is entirely ignored there is only the eternal present. This is hell's eternity. Being in love can be analyzed in the same way. We call this heaven.

Incident on Owl Creek Bridge.

[odysseus]

gaffo
Incident on Owl Creek Bridge.

A good metaphor for our actual lives, for we imagine life has no death in our day to day affairs; that is, we don't think about it at all, as if it applied to others we read about but not us. Then the hangman's noose starts to grip tighter as the years and age mount up, and one either wakes up to death or continues to the very end in denial---right up until the terminal breath, worrying about stocks and politics and all the mundane things that have been there so long. Now THAT is denial.

It is also a trivialization of living, an existentialist might say.