Help me not fear heaven/hell

[Abaddon_ire]

Wrong. Words do not have meanings, they have usages. There is a difference.

I guess you will argue over anything. Words to have meaning and they have usages. Those 2 things are very different and one "usually" depends on the other. To spell it out for you, the usage you had was with an incorrectly defined word. But I digress, so on to your points above.

You are wrong. Take, for example, the word "nice". As in "He is a nice man". It used to refer to someone being an idiot. Hence words merely have usages, not intrinsic meanings.

-You don't need God to have morality. You can be subjectively or socially moral without any God. Your definition of perfectly well is what matters here.

Then what need of any "god"? You are now arguing that your god is utterly irrelevant. Suits me. I agree. Your god is utterly irrelevant to morality. Now what?

-You call salvation blackmail, bribery and extortion. Your definition of salvation is relevant here.

"Love and obey me or burn in hell for eternity". Does that not even slightly resemble a threat?

-If you don't have any evidence for something existing the default position would be that it's unlikely, not impossible.

Correct. How dumb are you really? That's why I am an atheist. No evidence has been forthcoming for any of the thousands of claimed gods. Got some? Of course you don't.

You and I don't know what's on the other side. Evidence is the definition in question there.

The "other side" of what? I have had one of those NDE things, so I bet I know a bit more than you about it. And I have spent years immersing myself in every alternative anything. They all have one attribute in common. No evidence.

- God is omnipotent. He/she/it/housecat has logical limitations. Thiessen defines omnipotent as: “God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections.” See definitions matter.

Do you not realise that you simply claimed that god is omnipotent because he isn't? That's fatuous. And Thiessen's excuses are risible. If god has limitations then he is by definition NOT omnipotent. Anything further is simply you making up any damn excuse for your god. At all costs.

Any moment now, you are going to backpeddle into the "it's a mystery" bucket of crap.

Well, if "it's a mystery", then it explains fuck all to anyone, doesn't it.

[tackattack]

1. Correct nice used to mean something different, just as "gay" and "unicorn". Definitions change. There's a whole field called semantics, you should check it out. Word definitions change over time with varied usages in societies over time. Get that? Defintions change, when people change the meanings of words and they're accepted societal over time. I clearly defined my definition of omnipotent and cited examples. You can take it or leave it, but it's a well established definition.

2. Just because something isn't needed, doesn't make it irrelevant or non-existent. I don't need a million dollars, but it would improve my financial portfolio.

3. Yes "Love and obey me or burn in hell for eternity" does sound like a threat

4. As I said it depends on your definition of evidence. And besides, why would I waste my time with evidence if we can't even settle on definitions of words.

[Catharsis]

I guess you will argue over anything. Words to have meaning and they have usages. Those 2 things are very different and one "usually" depends on the other. To spell it out for you, the usage you had was with an incorrectly defined word. But I digress, so on to your points above.

You are wrong. Take, for example, the word "nice". As in "He is a nice man". It used to refer to someone being an idiot. Hence words merely have usages, not intrinsic meanings.

That's called sarcasm, that's when a word isn't used in the proper sense of it.

[Abaddon_ire]

You are wrong. Take, for example, the word "nice". As in "He is a nice man". It used to refer to someone being an idiot. Hence words merely have usages, not intrinsic meanings.

That's called sarcasm, that's when a word isn't used in the proper sense of it.

More seagull antics.

[Catharsis]

That's called sarcasm, that's when a word isn't used in the proper sense of it.

More seagull antics.

You must have missed the point.

Perhaps you aren't that smart.

[SlowCalculations]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK1BJkBJdtY <)

[Rahn127]

Fearing heaven or hell.

First, let's create a fear of something real, but also extremely and I mean extremely unlikely.
I am going to pick two places on Earth that are quite harsh.

1. The south pole
2. El Azizia, Libya - A place with a record high temperature of 58 C (136 F)

In the middle of the night while you are asleep, masked men and women (don't want to be sexist), enter your home quietly and drug you. You are taken to either location (some place remote near El Azizia, Libya) and left there to die from the bitter cold or burning heat.

Now both of these situations involve real places, real people and real drugs that can knock you out and keep you that way until you reach the desired location.

Does this REAL (extremely unlikely) situation cause you any amount of FEAR ?

Do you fear each night you fall asleep that this might happen ?
Do you stay awake for as long as you possibly can because of the fear of this happening ?

My guess is that you answered NO.
You don't fear this.

Now let's contrast that with the imaginary places of heaven & hell.

The places themselves probably don't cause you any fear, in much the same way, the places of the South Pole and El Azizia, Libya don't cause you any fear.

The fear might come as a result of being taken to those places and not having any say about it.
In other words, something is being forced upon you.

In order to have this fear of heaven and hell, you must now believe the following.

1. That after you die, there is some kind of YOU that hasn't died.
2. This other you exists as something in some other place, some other space.
3. You are now powerless in this other space.
4. Something else exists in this other place.
5. That something other than you is more powerful than you.
6. That this other you can feel and sense this other place. (Not sure how)

In other words, you fear being powerless and unable to do anything about it.

You fear your torturer is more powerful than you.

Your religion has created this fear.
It has created the idea within you that you are powerless.
The only way someone has power over you is by making you think you are powerless.
Making you think you are worthless and not worthy.

The only way to battle fear is to create courage and realize that imaginary things are just imaginary.
There is no monster under the bed.

[snowtracks]

People are currently deciding if they want eternal separation or connection from or with God after physical death. Since it's a free-will choice, no one should be fearful about that decision. If one is currently fearful, they should change their mind to a non-fearful decision. 

Some don't want to be under God's moral authority,  and he will accommodate their wishes. For them, he will withdraw his involvement so that they will be untethered from his influence. If that appeals to you, then eternal separation would be your choice which shouldn't engender fear.

[SenseMaker007]

I was raised Christian but don’t believe in god anymore. I think it’s all nonsense. We’re on this pale blue dot alone. I believe in science and reason.

The problem is my atheism is only at 99%. There’s 1% of me that still thinks I could be wrong and that I’m going to hell for being a bad person. I’m also afraid of the idea of endless life, mostly because I struggle with anxiety and the idea of eternal anxiety in heaven is my idea of hell.

Look up as many atheist's responses to Pascal's Wager as you can.

My personal response is that if God exists it's just as likely that he prefers atheists and sends theists to hell instead.

Or God sents everybody to hell.

Or God sends everybody to heaven.

Ultimately, it's impossible to eliminate a mere logical possibility if it's logically possible.

But it's also pointless worrying about what you can't control. I accept the fact that there's a logical possibility that I could burn in hell for all eternity. But I also think that that possibility is a great deal less than 1%. It's effectively zero. It's so unlikely that it makes a lot more sense for me to be afraid of dying young of cancer or something like that.

Another thing that makes me not fear eternal hell is because I literally do not care how long pain or pleasure lasts. It's the peak of it that matters most and the second peak of it that matters second most, etc. One minute of the worst pain possible is just as bad as an eternity of it. So the eternal aspect holds no power for me. We're just left with the fact that after I die on this world it's logically possible that I could experience the worst possible pain. Okay, it's logically possible ... but that there's any reason whatsoever to believe that it will happen.

Also, it's just as likely that a supreme being will strike us with the worst possible pain one minute from now as it is that they'll do it after we die. Because there's zero evidence in both cases. And I'm obviously not going to worry about the fact that literally at any point it's logically possible that I could suddenly experience the worst pain possible.

Ultimately, anxiety only makes sense if the thing you're anxious about is something you have control over. If you don't have any control over it (and you certainly don't have control over whether God exists or not) ... then it's irrational to worry about it.

In that case, your emotion isn't a result of reason and you, therefore, can't reason your way out of it. Reason is the slave of the passions, as David Hume said, after all.

---

I’m also afraid of the idea of endless life, mostly because I struggle with anxiety and the idea of eternal anxiety in heaven is my idea of hell.

But surely the badness of anxiety is how intense it is, rather than how long it lasts?