Why do people believe in hell?

[DBT]

An omniscient/omnipotent creator can only be responsible for the state of the created.

Only in the ontological sense that there is an opposite to good. God creates or does a thing. It is good. Ontologically, we can therefore name other things not good.
Abstract things can be NOT good. Thoughts can be NOT good.

But if you insist on attributing everything and anything that might possibly exist back to a single source, then yes, technically, without God there would be nothing to call "not good".

There are verses that say that God is not only responsible for evil but actively creates it.

Nope. There are verses you interpret that way.

There is no need for me to interpret, the verses say what they say quite clearly.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is no need for me to interpret, the verses say what they say quite clearly.

Funny story, but true. A few years ago, I foolishly and in anger sent an email to someone in which I said that I was going to go around to their house and beat them up with a crowbar. Long story short, I ended up in court on a charge of threatening violent behaviour. Well, my luck was in, because my lawyer, the judge, and indeed the whole jury, were big fans of theology, and guess what, I got off, on the basis that 'threatening violence' was only the recipient's interpretation of the email. So maybe we shouldn't be so hard on these guys here.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is no need for me to interpret, the verses say what they say quite clearly.

Spoken like a true fundy.
I'm proud of you.
Here. Have a +rep

 

[Lion IRC]

God creates or does a thing. It is good.

"Good" compared to what?

Yes!
That's my point.
What name shall we give to a (philosophical) 'thing' that's NOT good?
Evil exists because good exists, not because God created evil.

 

[Politesse]

There is no need for me to interpret, the verses say what they say quite clearly.

You mean they say what you say they do quite clearly, even if someone else reads the same verses and comes away with something different. Typical fundamentalist arrogance.

 

[Lion IRC]

That atheists are able to so freely label God's actions 'evil' shows that the existence of evil is very much a matter of ontology and epistemology.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God creates or does a thing. It is good.

"Good" compared to what?

Evil exists because good exists, not because God created evil.

What type of Taoist smokescreen is that? Evil exists because of good? That isn't what the bible says. Joseph says to his brothers that God allows evil to exist so he can make good from it. Oddly enough, the story of Joseph seems to be the only one where good is made from evil.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That atheists are able to so freely label God's actions 'evil' shows that the existence of evil is very much a matter of ontology and epistemology.

Or ... just actions with negative results.

For instance, say I saw a guy raping a child and I just sat there and watched him do it without trying to step in and stop the child rape. That is an action I took which helped contribute towards a negative result (a child being raped is actually a negative thing), so you'd be correct in calling my actions evil in this situation.

 

[steve_bank]

Biblical evil as an external Satan is metaphor for humans.

Sure we are all subject to evil and corruption. For me sin is behavior and thinking that takes you out of what should be a natural human healthy state. Nothing supernatural, evil comes from the capacity of our brains.

Shakespeare, the fault is not in the stars it is in us.

 

[rousseau]

IMO, good, evil and sin is a simplistic way of looking at our behavior. Mostly it just gives us justification to 'other' people who aren't in our tribe, and punish those who break the rules. Like a heuristic which allows us to quickly label people and act accordingly - everyone thinks this is bad, you did the thing, therefore you are bad.

It's often lazy thinking which does a pretty good job of making sure people make babies, and that those babies have parents.

Some actions literally are quite bad, but usually they need more nuanced thought.

 

[DBT]

There is no need for me to interpret, the verses say what they say quite clearly.

Spoken like a true fundy.
I'm proud of you.
Here. Have a +rep

The verses say what they say according to the English language. Anyone with a basic understanding of the language can read what they say with no need of interpretation.

If it is written, for example, that God creates both good and evil, this needs no interpretation. It cannot be interpreted to mean 'God only creates what is good'

 

[DBT]

That atheists are able to so freely label God's actions 'evil' shows that the existence of evil is very much a matter of ontology and epistemology.

It is not atheists who define God as the creator of both good and evil, but the bible itself. The bible tells us this. Some people do not like this, apparently it's not convenient, so they play with semantics.

 

[Politesse]

There is no need for me to interpret, the verses say what they say quite clearly.

Spoken like a true fundy.
I'm proud of you.
Here. Have a +rep

The verses say what they say according to the English language. Anyone with a basic understanding of the language can read what they say with no need of interpretation.

If it is written, for example, that God creates both good and evil, this needs no interpretation. It cannot be interpreted to mean 'God only creates what is good'

Do you believe that this is true of all books, that they are all easily understandable and "in plain English" without any need for interpretation on the part of the reader, regardless of their original context or language? If so, why do you believe that the past five centuries of study have led scholars to pursue much more nuanced and meaningful approaches to literature? If not, then why are you making a special exception for the Bible that does not apply to any other book?

 

[ruby sparks]

Some actions literally are quite bad, but usually they need more nuanced thought.

Yes.

Now, It would probably help if you knew of someone who might be capable of that.

I’m available if you need me. Just sayin’.

 

[ruby sparks]

....why are you making a special exception for the Bible that does not apply to any other book?

He’s not. Well maybe he is, I don’t know, but you are, it seems to me.

The exceptions you’re making are, I think, heavily based on your personal preferences. That’s not a good basis for interpretation, even if it does help you through the difficulties of life. By your own admission you think it’s sensible to accept the good bits and eschew the others.

Wtf sort of epistemic methodology is that, basically.

My motivations, despite what you might think, aren’t prone to that to the same extent, because I’d be delighted not to have to come to some of the unpalatable conclusions about both the texts and the beliefs which I do feel I have to come to, precisely because I AM trying hard to apply the same standards and criteria to biblical texts and the beliefs as to any other. I reject the suggestion that of the two of us, I am seeing ‘what I want to see’ more than you. I am not doing special pleading for either bible texts or religious beliefs. I am more prepared to see things I don’t want to see. I’m not sure why, but I think it’s a basic difference between you and I. In a nutshell, I think you’re essentially hiding. I think you’re not willing or able to accept things you don’t like. Fucking hell, if you’ll pardon the expression, that a benevolent, loving god does not exist would hardly be good news, would it? It would be truly and profoundly awesome, wonderful and beautiful if it were otherwise. It is extremely sad that it appears not to be. Do you think atheists actually LIKE not having the comforting beliefs about certain existential and teleological things that some devout theists have?

I believe that when I die I’m gone and that my individual life means nothing, essentially. I’m prepared to suck that up. Please don’t project your own feelings regarding ‘seeing what I want to see’ onto me. IMO, you, Lion, excreationist and Learner, basically aren’t prepared, for whatever understandable reasons, to look down the barrel.

And it shows up when you interpret texts.

 

[steve_bank]

That atheists are able to so freely label God's actions 'evil' shows that the existence of evil is very much a matter of ontology and epistemology.

As we reject the existence of a god we attribute nothing to a non existent entity.

What we do is point out the bad that is done based on faith and interpretation of an old bit of writings.It is the real observable actions of people we observe. Not just Christians. Christians are at the fore front because we have to deal with their actions and interpretations doing what think is the will of (a non existent) god..

You talk ontology we talk about real actions.

Keep in mind when you say god this or god that we do not believe god exists. Imagine a kid talking to an adult about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

 

[ruby sparks]

Keep in mind when you say god this or god that we do not believe god exists. Imagine a kid talking to an adult about Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Yes.

Now it may be that some theists already realise that this is the perspective from where what they say is being heard, but for those that don’t, it would definitely be useful to communication and understanding if it was fully realised.

Santa, elves, faeries, tree spirits, gods. Essentially the same sorts of things, to a typical atheist.

 

[DBT]

The verses say what they say according to the English language. Anyone with a basic understanding of the language can read what they say with no need of interpretation.

If it is written, for example, that God creates both good and evil, this needs no interpretation. It cannot be interpreted to mean 'God only creates what is good'

Do you believe that this is true of all books, that they are all easily understandable and "in plain English" without any need for interpretation on the part of the reader, regardless of their original context or language? If so, why do you believe that the past five centuries of study have led scholars to pursue much more nuanced and meaningful approaches to literature? If not, then why are you making a special exception for the Bible that does not apply to any other book?

Depends on the nature of the book, satire, comedy, poetry, etc. What we have in the verses describing what God does is none of these things.....when it is stated that God creates both good and evil, it is not satire, poetry or metaphor for the opposite, intended to mean something else entirely.

The words and sentences describe what God does - create both good and evil.

Whatever evil is conceived to be, God creates it. God creates it because God is said to create all things.

 

[Politesse]

The verses say what they say according to the English language. Anyone with a basic understanding of the language can read what they say with no need of interpretation.

If it is written, for example, that God creates both good and evil, this needs no interpretation. It cannot be interpreted to mean 'God only creates what is good'

Do you believe that this is true of all books, that they are all easily understandable and "in plain English" without any need for interpretation on the part of the reader, regardless of their original context or language? If so, why do you believe that the past five centuries of study have led scholars to pursue much more nuanced and meaningful approaches to literature? If not, then why are you making a special exception for the Bible that does not apply to any other book?

Depends on the nature of the book, satire, comedy, poetry, etc. What we have in the verses describing what God does is none of these things.....when it is stated that God creates both good and evil, it is not satire, poetry or metaphor for the opposite, intended to mean something else entirely.

The words and sentences describe what God does - create both good and evil.

Whatever evil is conceived to be, God creates it. God creates it because God is said to create all things.

So how do you decide which books we should think critically about, and which we should take at whatever "face value" happens to mean to us, even in translation? Is it just genre?

I'm not actually disagreeing with your point about the meaning of that verse, I just think your method is atrocious. Of course we should analyze texts in context, regardless of their subject, genre, or author.

 

[Politesse]

....why are you making a special exception for the Bible that does not apply to any other book?

He’s not. Well maybe he is, I don’t know, but you are, it seems to me.

The exceptions you’re making are, I think, heavily based on your personal preferences. That’s not a good basis for interpretation, even if it does help you through the difficulties of life. By your own admission you think it’s sensible to accept the good bits and eschew the others.

Wtf sort of epistemic methodology is that, basically.

My motivations, despite what you might think, aren’t prone to that to the same extent, because I’d be delighted not to have to come to some of the unpalatable conclusions about both the texts and the beliefs which I do feel I have to come to, precisely because I AM trying hard to apply the same standards and criteria to biblical texts and the beliefs as to any other. I reject the suggestion that of the two of us, I am seeing ‘what I want to see’ more than you. I am not doing special pleading for either bible texts or religious beliefs. I am more prepared to see things I don’t want to see. I’m not sure why, but I think it’s a basic difference between you and I. In a nutshell, I think you’re essentially hiding. I think you’re not willing or able to accept things you don’t like. Fucking hell, if you’ll pardon the expression, that a benevolent, loving god does not exist would hardly be good news, would it? It would be truly and profoundly awesome, wonderful and beautiful if it were otherwise. It is extremely sad that it appears not to be. Do you think atheists actually LIKE not having the comforting beliefs about certain existential and teleological things that some devout theists have?

I believe that when I die I’m gone and that my individual life means nothing, essentially. I’m prepared to suck that up. Please don’t project your own feelings regarding ‘seeing what I want to see’ onto me. IMO, you, Lion, excreationist and Learner, basically aren’t prepared, for whatever understandable reasons, to look down the barrel.

And it shows up when you interpret texts.

You're fighting against an imaginary foe, that's all I can say to that. I can't defend a position I never held, and have no interest in doing so. You literally cannot read anything I write without ascribing some weird ulterior motive of your own invention. I'm really pretty non-committal in matters of faith; I post on this forum because I find the conversations here interesting, not because I'm trying to
prove this and that abstract metaphysical point. It baffles me that you've known me online for something going on half a decade now, and still harbor a seemingly complete misunderstanding as to my basic personality and motivations. I really am just an odd little religious scholar who likes to talk about things.

I do have strong opinions about some things, and one of them is people who get their morality uncritically from a book rather than thoughtfully defining their own positions. Which seems to be what you think I ought to be doing with the Bible. Or not, I suppose you want me to abandon the book with equal thoughtlessness, because I don't agree with some of it. Most of it, even, perhaps? It might be. In any case, doing either of those things is not something I am constitutionally likely to do. I have never been a black and white thinker, and that isn't going to change. The world is complicated, and anyone who thinks they have "the answer" and no longer needs to consider things afresh is a fool, whatever label they are wearing when the lights of their intellect go out.