Hell

[Ervin]

Ok DvF. Since you are not happy with the previous explanations of why I believe in God or maybe why I have faith is somehow different as to why I believe.

I have just simlpy always believed that there is someone like God. I have had different opinions of him but in the end I believed in him.

I supose the first times I was listening about God would have been at the mosk when I was litle. I can't remember much from back than but I believed.

As I was growing up I wasn't interested in religion at all and I didn't know about religion but I believed that there is One God for all of us. I didn't think or talk about him much at all but if someone would mention him I would be a believer.

So the theistic sources are the ones I got the idea from first.

I heard people mention God many times and when ever I would think about it I believed. Like I said emotions such as love, compassion. Things such as infinity makes me believe that there has always been someone around.

Now when I heard that people don't believe in Hell I thought this makes sense. Thats after thinking about it for a while.

Thanks

[OnlyNatural]

Why don't you just tell us what constitutes evidence for you.

Because we are critically thinking about your assumptions and definitions, and to give my view would be irrelevant.

Is that your strategy, then, to just deflect and turn questions around on the person asking them?

Your view is not irrelevant, I'm genuinely curious and it would help provide a fuller understand of what different people mean by 'evidence.'

I am giving an internal critique of OnlyNatural's assumption that evidence is necessary in order to demonstrate that it is self-refuting. I, personally, do not accept OnlyNatural's assumption that evidence is necessary - so even if there were no evidence of God as you claim, it would not be hypocritical of me to accept His existence. It would only be hypocritical if accepting God's existence violated some epistemological principle which I hold myself and others to.

How did this get turned around on me? Oh right, that seems to be your strategy. You also seem to ignore good arguments against your position, but that's not surprising, most theists do.

Atheists out there: are these 'assumptions' of mine really so unreasonable?
1) There is no evidence for God or the afterlife.
2) Hypotheses that are not supported by evidence should be modified or discarded.

Matthew, if you really don't think evidence is necessary to hold onto a hypothesis, then you won't call me crazy if I say I strongly believe that Narnia exists and that Aslan is my savior. It's written in a book after all! And I've received a personal revelation from the Great Lion Himself!

[Matthew]

Because we are critically thinking about your assumptions and definitions, and to give my view would be irrelevant.

Is that your strategy, then, to just deflect and turn questions around on the person asking them?

My aim is to critically think about the claims that people make, and to avoid going off on tangents as much as possible. We are currently talking about your argument that critical thinking should lead people to reject religious claims, and the assumptions involved. I am very willing to respond to questions about and arguments against any claims that I make, and I apologise if I give the appearance of trying to evade questions.

Your view is not irrelevant, I'm genuinely curious and it would help provide a fuller understand of what different people mean by 'evidence.'

My point in the previous post was that, strictly speaking, my opinions about evidence don't have much to do with our discussion thus far because we are examining your views on the matter (which is why I said my views were irrelevant). If you think that knowing my views will help to clarify your own then I am happy to give a brief definition:

Suppose that person S believes some proposition Q on the basis of some other set of propositions P={P1, P2, ...}. P is evidence for Q if S rationally believes P and P supports Q. P supports Q if an argument (be it deductive or inductive) with P as the premises and Q as the conclusion is good. (Of course then there is the question of what constitutes a good argument, and I can go into that if you like.)

You also seem to ignore good arguments against your position, but that's not surprising, most theists do.

I do my best to respond to people who quote me and respond with arguments. Obviously being an atheist forum it would be impossible to respond to every argument given against my position here. If there are particular ones you would like me to respond to I will be happy to oblige.

Matthew, if you really don't think evidence is necessary to hold onto a hypothesis, then you won't call me crazy if I say I strongly believe that Narnia exists and that Aslan is my savior. It's written in a book after all! And I've received a personal revelation from the Great Lion Himself!

I don't think evidence is always necessary in order to rationally believe something. That doesn't mean that it is not sometimes necessary or sufficient in some contexts (indeed, it is in many).

[bjhulk]

I personaly think Hell improbable. I do believe in God but I don't know wich one so I supose though improbable its talked about a lot in many religions.

When ever I try to emagine how it would be like to be doomed to eternity of the unberable suffering I end up feeling bad and look for explanations of God and the scriptures that can be interpreted as death as a punishment rather than eternal torment.

Teaching kids about eternal torment in fire would have to be a bad thing because I believe it would cause only mental anguish.

Even Budhists talk about horific Hell realms as a punishment( at least they are not eternal).

I want to ask all of you who believe, how do they reason that a loving God would torment someone for eternity and those who don't believe, have you ever as a kid atleast undergone any mental sufering because of the belief that could have been imposed on you?

Thanks

Don't worry about this hell belief because it's only a pagan idea that came out of Babylon. They used religion to build up their army to conquer other lands, wealth and enslave their people. Religion works great for getting people's minds unified and this creates strength. The use this stragedy in the U.S. military by hiring religious Chaplains who tell their soldiers it's okay to die for their country and to kill others for them, even though it's against the laws and commandments of God to kill. Only God kills and no one else.

It's best if you get yourself out of religion and spend the rest of your time with family and friends because the end of this age is soon here. We die in the flesh during this age but our created souls live on in God. We will get new immortal bodies in paradise but they won't have memories of this age. This is why I'm telling you to quit religion and spend time with the important people in your life. Unless you hear the truth in the words I'm writing you. If you do, then let me know so I can give you understanding of what's happening. Otherwise, just go enjoy those you love.

[Captain Scarlet]

When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

Wrong. Evidence: Electricity, penicilin, suspension bidges, radio, laser, nuclear power, genetically modified food, telecscopes, computers, television, the internal combustion engine, petrol...

all advances (whether welcommed or not) of modern society in general and are great evidence for the efficacy of the truth claims of science over....

....the effects of prayer, exorcism, miracles....which have led to no advances whatsoever and also have not been evidenced

You may have meant to say there is no proof (and not evidence) of this statement, which is true. I have only offered powerful inductive reasons to believe the statement I made, I concede that it isn't deductive. If you really believe that there is no reason to beleive such a statement, but there is reason to believe in a god then you could opt to walk the talk on this and eschew the advances of science and revert to the cures offered by a god. But when push comes to shove, when our loved ones are sick we take them to doctors and not normally to faith healers, right?

[OnlyNatural]

Suppose that person S believes some proposition Q on the basis of some other set of propositions P={P1, P2, ...}. P is evidence for Q if S rationally believes P and P supports Q. P supports Q if an argument (be it deductive or inductive) with P as the premises and Q as the conclusion is good. (Of course then there is the question of what constitutes a good argument, and I can go into that if you like.)

I wish I had taken some university courses in philosophy and logic, instead of exclusively life sciences and social sciences. Then I would be more equipped to have this kind of discussion. But I understand that each premise must be valid and preferably backed up by other observable evidence (ie. 'Men are mortal;' evidence: we all die).

I've seen examples on these forums of deductive reasoning for God's existence, such as:

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Don't bother discussing this argument, though, it's being dealt with here. I'm just wondering if this is similar to the kind of reasoning you'd use, for God or other such claims outside the realm of science.

I don't think evidence is always necessary in order to rationally believe something. That doesn't mean that it is not sometimes necessary or sufficient in some contexts (indeed, it is in many).

I agree that it's possible to believe something if you reason it out to yourself, despite a lack of evidence. But even if an argument appears valid or reasonable, and makes great intuitive sense, it does not necessarily say anything at all about whether something is true or actually exists in reality.

[Matthew]

When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

Wrong. Evidence: Electricity, penicilin, suspension bidges, radio, laser, nuclear power, genetically modified food, telecscopes, computers, television, the internal combustion engine, petrol...

This is evidence that the scientific method (generally conceived) is effective for evaluating scientific claims about the physical world, but it says nothing about the epistemological claim that the scientific method is the best and only reliable method for evaluating all truth claims (e.g. epistemological claims).

[bjhulk]

When evaluating a truth claim then the best and only reliable method we have is science which relies on evidence.

This is itself a truth claim, but I can conceive of no evidence that supports it. By its own lights, then, I must reject it.

Wrong. Evidence: Electricity, penicilin, suspension bidges, radio, laser, nuclear power, genetically modified food, telecscopes, computers, television, the internal combustion engine, petrol...

This is evidence that the scientific method (generally conceived) is effective for evaluating scientific claims about the physical world, but it says nothing about the epistemological claim that the scientific method is the best and only reliable method for evaluating all truth claims (e.g. epistemological claims).

Neither religion or science can give us the truth because they look at the physical things that will burn up soon. The thoughts that give us life is the truth but no one can see thoughts. The physical things on this earth deceives our thoughts so we can't understand the truth unless it's given to us. A few have received this truth and our eyes were opened to this deception in the world. It won't be long before it's all destroyed but the next bodies we use to experience our thoughts won't be a problem. In fact, we'll never see death again.

[Matthew]

I wish I had taken some university courses in philosophy and logic, instead of exclusively life sciences and social sciences. Then I would be more equipped to have this kind of discussion. But I understand that each premise must be valid and preferably backed up by other observable evidence (ie. 'Men are mortal;' evidence: we all die).

The word 'valid' is normally used of deductive arguments as a whole when the conclusion logically follows from the premises. I take the view that a deductive argument is 'good' if it is valid, and it is rational to believe the premises, and that an inductive argument is good if the premises make the conclusion more probable than not, and it is rational to believe the premises.

I've seen examples on these forums of deductive reasoning for God's existence, such as:

(1) If God does not exist, then morality does not exist.
(2) Morality exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

Don't bother discussing this argument, though, it's being dealt with here. I'm just wondering if this is similar to the kind of reasoning you'd use, for God or other such claims outside the realm of science.

While I think that this kind of argument is sound, I do not think that arguments with the conclusion that God exists are necessary in order to rationally believe that God exists. I take the existence of God to be what's known as a basic belief which supports all other beliefs, and that without that basic belief we are unable to rationally believe anything. I thus reason from God's existence, not to it. [This means that I take a particular epistemological view called foundationalism, which says that a belief is rational if it is basic or it is ultimately supported by at least one basic belief.]

[DeistPaladin]

I take the existence of God to be what's known as a basic belief which supports all other beliefs, and that without that basic belief we are unable to rationally believe anything. I thus reason from God's existence, not to it. [This means that I take a particular epistemological view called foundationalism, which says that a belief is rational if it is basic or it is ultimately supported by at least one basic belief.]

This attitude is very difficult for me to understand, and part of the reason I started the thread that OnlyNatural linked to. I also want to avoid having this thread drift into a rehashing of that one. I would like to ask a bit more broadly on how it is you conclude that your belief in your idea of a god is a foundation for anything else, be it logic, morality, meaning, human rights, or whatever.

For me, God is a sentiment that grows out of a sense of awe over what I perceive as a grand machine that I'm part of. It's the cherry on the sundae, the star on top the Christmas tree, or whatever decorative pinnacle analogy you like. Hence, I can come to the same conclusions about morality, reason, human rights, democracy, etc that an atheist might (including the aforementioned sense of awe of the natural universe) and my "worldview" would not be greatly shaken were I to ever be convinced that God isn't real.