Heaven/ hell

[Cheekyandfreaky]

I was listening to a ‘this American life’ podcast about a priest who was denounced as a heretic because of his ideas about Hell. He essentially came to a realisation that he didn’t believe the way hell was written in the bible and decided instead that humans create Hell and it exists here in the world we live in (the example he cited was the genocide in Rwanda).

I am not religious, I don’t believe in anything and have been very staunch in my non-religious beliefs, but, I found myself nodding. What if we are in both heaven and hell right now? I feel like I’m going mad just thinking about it because I’m not s Christian and the faith I was born into doesn’t acknowledge the existence of either but I feel like I believe something all of a sudden.

I guess I’m wondering a) could we be in heaven and hell right now and b) have you ever randomly felt like all of a sudden, out of nowhere that you believe something? C) does this belief even prove anything, I mean I don’t really know what to do with it?

Pickle

Every explanation is being ignored

In all seriousness, I haven't seen any explanations on this thread. Can you point me to them?

All I've seen is 'you aren't supposed to take the Bible literally' - missed my point entirely, even after I clarified it.

'You can find the answer inside yourself' - Meaningless nonsense and exactly what I described at the start of the thread when I said Christians usually become extremely vague about their beliefs when challenged in order to not be pinned down on anything.

Please Vitalogy for the umpteenth time if asking, can you explain what you mean by 'finding the answer inside' and 'using myself as a measure'? If you can't expand on these points, even a little bit, then anyone reading is going to be forced to conclude that you don't know and are just talking mysterious sounding drivel to try and sound clever.

I'm going to politely say, clearly we are speaking different languages and there is no point continuing. Every explanation is being ignored as irrelevant to the point atheists want to make.

I don't think we're speaking different languages. Perhaps you can clarify what it is that you are actually trying to explain? I'm not ignoring any points being made, I simply want to understand what your actual position is and why you believe it. Phrases like, the answer is inside yourself and use yourself as a measure don't make any sense if the question is unclear and what we are supposed to be measuring has not been defined. I tried to get these defined so we could have a meaningful discussion, but I got in response was a circle back to the original, meaningless phrase.

It's a pity that these posters have left.
It gives me the impression that atheists shouldn't be discussing faith.

That we don't get it. we never will, it's beyond our comprehension or understanding, and trying to even debate it is rude.

Flouncing as greenheart has done simply deepens divisions.

But she is happy in her cloistered world.

I have explained/answered.

Although my questions haven't been answered on: How much of your time is spent reading/discussing these matters. And what explanation/evidence would satisfy you?

I feel there is an important debate to be had between theists and atheists on the various depictions of heaven and hell and ‘rules of entrance’ in religious scripture. I, for one, would like to engage in a civil exchange of views on this matter and would very much welcome contributions from theists.

My particular interest – and perhaps this is where I differ from many other atheists - is not in the veracity or otherwise of the various afterlife claims made in holy books but the influence these descriptions have on the way those inside a particular religious tribe perceive those outside the tribe.

In Christianity, as depicted in the bible, the afterlife you can expect is dependent on your beliefs about it, with a happier fate reserved for those with the ‘right’ beliefs.

Not all religions are of this type. In Sikhism, for example, the post-death experience is dependent on your actions whist alive. Your beliefs about what is going to happen do not affect the outcome, the afterlife opportunities being the same for the Sikh and the non-Sikh.

Then there is Mormonism, which is another religion that discriminates on religious grounds. Mormons believe they’ll get the 'best rooms' in heaven after death, with orthodox Christians getting in but being further from God - unless they convert to Mormonism after death.

In the Quran, there are passages condemning those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, asserting that they’ll be going to hell for this belief.

Why should any of this matter to an atheist such as myself?

It matters because beliefs influence attitudes towards those with different world views.

That is why I see the Sikh religion as being a jewel amongst religions. The post-death narrative encourages a humane attitude towards religious outsiders.

Vitalogy

I have explained/answered

Where? Seriously, where have you explained exactly?

I'll help you out...

What am I supposed to be 'measuring'? How exactly will I find the answer inside? What form will the 'answer' take? Why can't you just tell me?

I can see you're well read PatriarchyPersonified Have you covered the Eastern religions too. Best wishes to you.

Once again Christians do not just take their images of God from the Bible. They have two thousand years of thinkers, artists, musicians, writers and their own experience.

All coming to different conclusions and many are contradictory. The message in the bible is quite important is it not, if it's a matter of eternal life and death.

If I needed to communicate something of paramount importance I would do so in an unambiguous manner. And I'm just a human so I would hope an eminently supreme being would come up with an even better idea to make sure the message wasn't misinterpreted.

It's a sorry state when a god is less intelligent than me. I can't get excited about that.

How much of your time is spent reading/discussing these matters.

Quite a bit.

And what explanation/evidence would satisfy you?

This really depends on what I need to be satisfied on.

If you told me you had a pet dog. I would be inclined to believe you without further question. I know dogs exist, I know some people keep dogs as pets and whether or not you have dog does not alter my understanding of the world.

If you tell me that god has spoken to you (an example, I'm not saying this is what you have claimed), I'm going to need substantially more evidence before I just simply believe what you say.

This really depends on what I need to be satisfied on.

Not sure who said it but there's a quote that says something like 'incredible claims require incredible evidence'.

Head

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

I also quite like "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

Debates like this are always difficult because religion and faith are different. When you question a religious persons religion your questioning their faith which of course is deeply personal. Religion is deeply rooted in most people families and cultures, but each person takes the own personal beliefs and faith from said religion. One single person can not justify an entire religion. They can express their faith from that religion but each persons will be different because they have different backgrounds and life experiences which lead them different paths. Each needs or turns to their faith for different things, some lose it altogether.
Faith is within, some won't understand that because they have yet to feel it.

I'm going to need substantially more evidence before I just simply believe what you say. You're right, I wouldn't believe on someone's word alone either.

*"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

I also quite like "what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"*

I believe these are both from Christopher Hitchens.

Faith is within, some won't understand that because they have yet to feel it.

I did feel it, but then went down a road where I effectively 'thought' my way out of it.

I like to talk to believers to help me understand how I came to believe.

Faith is simply the belief in something without evidence. Personally, I care about whether the things I believe are true or not. There's is no position which I could not take based on faith, therefore, faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

I guess in the same way people study history in order to learn to avoid mistakes.

Wendi I do understand why you might feel the way you do about faith.

However, I’d like to caution against any assumption that the religious person is accessing an inner experience that the non-religious person is 'blind' to. I think it’s more likely that both can have a similar inner experience but just interpret that experience differently. The religious person ascribes meaning to the experience using the language of their particular religion whilst the non-religious person will use more naturalistic terminology.

In short, I don’t think experiences that are often labelled transcendent or numinous are only available to those of a religious bent.

However, I’d like to caution against any assumption that the religious person is accessing an inner experience that the non-religious person is 'blind' to.

Yeah, I would agree. I don't think it's some spiritual experience which only religious people can feel. It's more of a feeling of faith, which would be hard to explain to someone who doesn't have it. Like the love a parent feels for their child or pride a nationalist feels for their country perhaps? But I need to emphasis I'm not saying it's the same as an emotion, or just in people's heads. It's personal and different to individual people.

Faith is simply the belief in something without evidence. Personally, I care about whether the things I believe are true or not. There's is no position which I could not take based on faith, therefore, faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.

No one is saying faith is a pathway to truth. Just because you care about the evidence in things doesn't make it not okay to have belief or faith in something without.
I can understand your need to answers but really there isn't any, but you already know that.

However, I’d like to caution against any assumption that the religious person is accessing an inner experience that the non-religious person is 'blind' to.

That is an important point.

I was watching a lovely sunset one evening with a close, very religious relative.
We commented on the spectacular display of lights and coloured clouds.
My relative and I started to discuss how such a sight was quite moving emotionally, and she told me that my experience was nothing compared to the way that she experienced the sunset, as she could see god's work, his majesty, his meaning behind it all.
That my experience was by comparison superficial.

That comment had me thinking for a long time.

And she was wrong. And shallow for thinking that way.
We were both moved emotionally, and mine no less than hers simply because she attached god to those emotions.

Although I did not analyse my feelings at the time as I was lost in the sensory display and my emotions were probably connected to my love of cosmology, my aesthetic sense, the majesty and power of our planet, our nearest star, my feelings for the Earth, my distand ancestors, and stirring up memories of a thousand other sunsets I have watched.

I would suggest that our experiences were as near identical as they could be, but for the fact that she hooked on this interpretive idea of god to her feelings- yet she attributed all her emotional stirrings to that idea, and assumed I felt none of that because I am atheist,

Out I agree. "The religious person ascribes meaning to the experience using the language of their particular religion whilst the non-religious person will use more naturalistic terminology.

In short, I don’t think experiences that are often labelled transcendent or numinous are only available to those of a religious bent."

I interpret my experience differently from atheists, partly because of culture. I believe that there is 'something else' beyond the concrete. That is my choice, just as it is other people's not to. It is an active choice, in my case. I am well aware that no concrete evidence supports it and that it is all speculative. I choose to speculate. I also feel better when I follow certain faith based practices and attitudes. I don't deny those benefits come from other practices such as yoga and meditation.

That was to outcrowd, by the way.

Yes, but there is an arrogance from those with faith that atheists are missing something.

This all reminds me of a story told by the physicist Richard Feynman.

I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ... I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.