• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hell: The Mad Torturer and Me

MrFrankZito

Thinker
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
226
As an atheist who debates theists frequently, I often am warned that my immortal soul is in grave jeopardy. A range of religious individuals—not just Christians—have told me that disbelief in God will result in severe punishment after death. When Christians, in particular, are involved, it is never long before Hell comes up. For anybody who does not know, the Christian conception of Hell is the place in which those isolated from God will spend eternity—being tortured, abused, burned and brutalized forever. Oftentimes, Christians ignore my actual arguments and simply try to frighten me by invoking Hell—crafting example after agonizing example of what is in store for atheists such as me.

Although such a strategy might give less secure atheists pause, I never could be converted back to being a believer simply by way of blind fear. There also, of course, are several problems with the whole Hell doctrine. In this essay, I shall lay out four of the main ones: What immaterial soul? Which God must one worship? How could God invent Hell? Why worship a wrathful God?

Whenever anybody warns about the grim fate of my immaterial, eternal soul, I generally respond as such: “I cannot waste a single moment worrying about an immortal soul which, as of yet, hasn’t been substantiated through evidence.” Obviously, the doctrine of Hell depends upon an essence surviving corporeal death, but what that essence is never has been fully elucidated. Some previous essays have attempted to lay the “soul” notion to rest, citing scientific research that reveals the brain is the place in which one’s personality, character and memory are stored. Perhaps the other insurmountable problem for the soul—particularly in relation to Hell—is its questionable ability to feel pain. How, exactly, can a soul be tortured and brutalized? Pain is a decidedly bodily phenomenon, involving nerves, tissue and the brain. If a wispy essence, divorced from the body, can feel pain, I want to know exactly how it works.

Perhaps the biggest problem for every religion is the following: There are 10,000 more vying for adherents, and each one is equally likely as every other. Unless an enterprising Christian presents to me some heretofore undiscovered evidence that Yahweh is real, I must classify that deity alongside Zeus, Mithras, Enlil, Anu, Nintu, etc. Given the egocentrism of most gods, I doubt generalized piety would suffice. So, if Anu actually is the One and True God, Christians are pretty much screwed. If it is really Mithras after all, the world’s population does not have a whole lot to which to look forward. Then again, the legitimate deity might be Hargozinu, whose existence shall not be discovered for 2500 years.

Quoting Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World” would be instructive here:


Here, for example, is what is written in a cuneiform inscription on a Babylonian cylinder seal from the second millennium B.C.:

“Oh, Ninlil, Lady of the Lands, in your marriage bed, in the abode of your delight, intercede for me with Enlil, your beloved.
[Signed] Mili-Shipak, Shatammu of Ninmah.”

It’s been a long time since there’s been a Shatammu in Ninmah, or even a Ninmah. Despite the fact that Enlil and Ninlil were major gods—people all over the civilized Western world had prayed to them for two thousand years—was poor Mili-Shipak in fact praying to a phantom, to a societally condoned product of his imagination? And if so, what about us? Or is this blasphemy, a forbidden question—as doubtless it was among the worshipers of Enlil?


Our third problem with Hell is a definitional one relating to God’s alleged properties. For most Christians, God is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent; that is, Yahweh is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. The question here is so obvious as to be frequently overlooked: What kind of all-good entity would invent a place such as Hell? Remember that Hell is a place in which humans are tortured and brutalized until the end of time; indeed, Yahweh’s fire pit is far worse than the torture chambers that were Jeffrey Dahmer’s apartment and John Wayne Gacy’s suburban dwelling. Speaking personally, I know that I am not omnibenevolent. And yet, even so, I never would want to expose anybody to limitless agony—or any agony at all. Yahweh’s overt sadism seems to preclude simple benevolence (let alone omnibenevolence!) and thus call into question the very definition of God.

Bearing the previous discussion in mind, the time finally has come to tackle the question of whether one should worship a wrathful God. Considering my Dahmer and Gacy analogies, it really does seem rather strange. Those two serial killers are rightly reviled by the public at large (indeed, our tax money went toward murdering Gacy in order to prove the point that murder should not be committed), yet mad torturer Yahweh ought to be worshipped? To continue with our serial killer theme, I will quote a previous post of mine, in which I argue that God, if existent, booby-trapped Theodore Robert Bundy:


If God were omniscient, he knew Ted Bundy would become a serial killer. If God were omnipotent, he could have created Ted Bundy any way he wanted. If God were omnibenevolent, he would have created Ted Bundy as a decent human, since no omnibenevolent entity would damn his own creation to Hell. For, such would be analogous to a toymaker knowingly making a faulty toy and then blaming the toy for being faulty.


So, we have two possible conclusions (assuming God exists): 1. The omni-everything God definition is faulty. [In this case, we know nothing about God and have no insight on how to please it.] 2. Hell does not exist, and never has. [Thus, even atheists’ infidelic souls are safe.]

Perhaps you have been moved by my arguments, and perhaps not. But, bear this in mind: Whether there is an afterlife or not, the earthly life is the only one that is manifestly in evidence. Enjoy it, and live it to the full. I suspect no second chance awaits us.

________________________

My Case Against God
 
When Christians bring up hell, ask them where jesus preached the doctrine of hell and eternal damnation. Ask them for specific instances in the NT where Jesus preched the doctrine.

It is kind of interesting.
 
Of all the interesting things related to the Hell doctrine, the most interesting, in my mind, is this:

How can a wispy soul feel pain, given that souls lack tissue, nerves and a brain?
 
Of all the interesting things related to the Hell doctrine, the most interesting, in my mind, is this:

How can a wispy soul feel pain, given that souls lack tissue, nerves and a brain?

Why you silly person - if you are consigned to hell, your soul is placed in a body already flayed and pain-racked so more pain can be applied!! After all, "Dog loves you"!! And, besides he/she/it is only doing it for your own good!! Now get along and burn you pagan you!!:D :jaw-dropp :jaw-dropp :D
 
When a loved one dies or leaves you, do you feel physical pain?

I'm not sure what I feel... would you accept the term 'mental anguish?'

If so, will I suffer an eternity of mental anguish? Will we all be listing around Hell like depressed Goth teenagers?

:D
 
I'm not sure what I feel... would you accept the term 'mental anguish?'

If so, will I suffer an eternity of mental anguish? Will we all be listing around Hell like depressed Goth teenagers?

:D

Well if that's your personal Hell, then perhaps so... :)

Seriously, the OP insists on viewing hell through a physical/physiological lens, while that's probably a straw man in terms of what the major religions maintain. The soul, after all is not supposed to be physical, so any suffering it endures couldn't be based on nerve endings, could it?
 
Well if that's your personal Hell, then perhaps so... :)

Seriously, the OP insists on viewing hell through a physical/physiological lens, while that's probably a straw man in terms of what the major religions maintain. The soul, after all is not supposed to be physical, so any suffering it endures couldn't be based on nerve endings, could it?

Then how could my soul feel pain?
 
And, even if you do have a soul, how would you know if it is in pain?

Then how could my soul feel pain?

The soul's pain would be emotional, don't you think? Remember, those who believe in any reasonable sort of Hell (or any afterlife) are not, shall we say, staunch materialists. Emotions don't require nerves, though the body might react to emotions nervously. The "soul" would be a person's consciousness, devoid of the trappings of body and physical environment. Since we (well, I can't speak for everyone) lack any recognizable experience of pure consciousness without the physical, you'd be hard pressed to find a vocabulary that really describes such a thing.
 
The soul's pain would be emotional, don't you think? Remember, those who believe in any reasonable sort of Hell (or any afterlife) are not, shall we say, staunch materialists. Emotions don't require nerves, though the body might react to emotions nervously. The "soul" would be a person's consciousness, devoid of the trappings of body and physical environment. Since we (well, I can't speak for everyone) lack any recognizable experience of pure consciousness without the physical, you'd be hard pressed to find a vocabulary that really describes such a thing.

How do you tell the reasonable types of Hell from the unreasonable ones? They all seem fairly kooky to me. I never really believed in Hell, even when I used to be a Christian, because no all-good being would create such a thing (heck, practically nobody would, except perhaps the occasional serial-killer/sociopath).
 
The soul's pain would be emotional, don't you think? Remember, those who believe in any reasonable sort of Hell (or any afterlife) are not, shall we say, staunch materialists. Emotions don't require nerves, though the body might react to emotions nervously. The "soul" would be a person's consciousness, devoid of the trappings of body and physical environment. Since we (well, I can't speak for everyone) lack any recognizable experience of pure consciousness without the physical, you'd be hard pressed to find a vocabulary that really describes such a thing.


Aren't emotions physical as well? They do usualy require nerves.

But that is not something that would limit a soul.
 
How do you tell the reasonable types of Hell from the unreasonable ones? They all seem fairly kooky to me. I never really believed in Hell, even when I used to be a Christian, because no all-good being would create such a thing (heck, practically nobody would, except perhaps the occasional serial-killer/sociopath).

I think the precense of Pat Boone singing would be an indication of unreasonable hell.
 
How do you tell the reasonable types of Hell from the unreasonable ones? They all seem fairly kooky to me. I never really believed in Hell, even when I used to be a Christian, because no all-good being would create such a thing (heck, practically nobody would, except perhaps the occasional serial-killer/sociopath).

"Reasonable" in the sense that it's merely the set of consequences that would follow from one's moral choices during life. An unreasonable Hell would be a bizarre or completely unrelated one.

Aren't emotions physical as well? They do usualy require nerves.

But that is not something that would limit a soul.

The believer can just claim that the nerves are reacting to the emotion, not generating it.
 
The believer can just claim that the nerves are reacting to the emotion, not generating it.

They can claim it, but it doesn't make it correct.

I can... sort of... imagine a situation where something non-physical is occurring, but it's a world and circumstance which does not make sense to me.
 
Is there a different hell for masochists? Would heaven be their hell?
 
The soul's pain would be emotional, don't you think? Remember, those who believe in any reasonable sort of Hell (or any afterlife) are not, shall we say, staunch materialists. Emotions don't require nerves, though the body might react to emotions nervously. The "soul" would be a person's consciousness, devoid of the trappings of body and physical environment. Since we (well, I can't speak for everyone) lack any recognizable experience of pure consciousness without the physical, you'd be hard pressed to find a vocabulary that really describes such a thing.

Emotions do require neurons. Are you suggesting that human emotions take place in anything other than a physical realm? Dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and other hormones are responsible for emotions as far as we know. What evidence do you have that emotions are somehow immune from physical limitations?
 

Back
Top Bottom