Well, I'm not completely convinced that I'd ever consider having bamboo shoved under my fingernails "normal."  According to the loving Christians, hell is so horrible that I would long for the day when I could have bamboo lovingly shoved under my fingernails for twenty four straight hours.  It's kind of hard to imagine ever getting to a point of saying, "Wow... I think I'll have a Corona with a lime.  I'm feeling pretty spiffy today."

Having said that, you do raise an interesting point on eternity, which is... what's the point?  Theists accuse atheists of having no meaning in life, but how much meaning could you possibly have when there's nothing you could conceivably do to alter your state in any way -- for a sextillion years (That's 10^21, or a 1 with 21 zeros after it) years.  This goes for whether you're in hell or heaven.  If heaven is the perfection of being, then there is literally nothing to strive for.  Ever.  For a sextillion sextillion years after your first sextillion years, there will be no way to ever do anything to make yourself better.

If you're in hell, it's the same thing.  You can't possibly get any worse or any better, so it's just mindless.  Literally, mindless.  After probably twenty years, you'd have lost all will to think.  You would be nothing more than an involuntary reaction to pain.

Both heaven and hell defy all definitions of reward and punishment, and literally offer no meaning to the theist.

More to the point given human nature to spend anywhere for all eternity would be hell out of sheer boredom. Sure human nature could be changed to fit in with god's heaven but that would surely make a person no longer themselves

Hell can't exist because in order for us to be completely tortured, we'd need to be surrounded by bible thumpers 24/7/365. Since the theist/fundies go to heaven instead of hell, hell just wouldn't be hell without them.

Q: Can there be two people who are "perfect," yet substantively different?

...I would suppose it depends on what one means when using the word "perfect."  This is especially important if one assumes that people will be "perfect" in heaven.  If it were defined as merely (1) fully pursuing a "worthwhile" course of action.. then the problem, IMO, of heaven/boredom/better/perfection, doesn't seem like a problem at all.  Unless one assumes "worthwhile" activities to be limited.

...I'm just working off things that have been stated, not necessarily presenting my own concept of heaven--furthermore, I don't believe there is a hell, but in order to respond:

Hm.

Assuming it remains the same?  Perhaps.

But, why couldn't said hell, once you "got use to it," merely escalate or change into "bad in comparison to say hell x1"?

This could just be carried on forever? Assuming, of course, that there are infinite variants of pain or no upper limit to escalation.

Unless of course it is possible to escalate. 

Only if heaven is static and there is an upper limit to pleasure of the same kind or variants.

Presume much.  I for one do not believe that "hell" is something to be feared--then again, I don't believe it's a place of eternal torment either.. or even a "place" for that matter.

True.

Maybe.

I would have to disagree that religion without "fear" has nothing.  To some (me), that would be like saying without the "fear of being alone," my significant other would have nothing to offer.

Religion (some) is as much a relationship with God (or nature) as anything else.  Take the "anything else" and you are still left with a supposed importance of "a relationship with God" in and of itself.

Absolutely, it does not seem fair. Thats why I think heaven and hell is beyond good and evil at that point. Its mostly not about punishment. Any punishment would be finite.

Its just mostly about where do you want to live. They're just different. But the punishment isnt for not believing. Its for your actions on earth. And it could only be considered fair without the time element involved at all. There wouldnt be any sense of time, or waiting for it to end, or hoping it would be better. There wouldnt be any dread. It would be totally tolerable, if word "tolerable" even had meaning at that point which I dont think it will. The God I believe in is very fair. He would make it the best place possible for those who did not want to have their will changed to be in heaven. Everyones experience in either heaven or hell would be tailored specifically for them. I dont believe in the binary torture/bliss options. That does not make sense to me at all.

When you point out to believers that throughout human history, from the first written polytheism, to even in modern Japan, the concept of hell exists, believers will hypocritically and self servingly say, "Ah ha, this is evidence that god exists", which is the fallacy of ad popularum(sp) argument from popularity.

The concept of god(s) or heaven and hell are nothing new, and when you see cultural depictions and holy books of all labels throughout history, you could litterally put those depictions and holy writings next to any Marvel Comic book, and see that the depictions are indistinguishable in that there is absolutly no emperical evidence that the magical claims of the holy book or comic book have any basis in reality, other than being made up. The only difference between the two is that one's own religion is bought as fact and the comic book is accepted as fiction.

last year, i read the book "23 Minutes In Hell" by Bill Wiese. the book is total bullshit obviously(here's a vid of him explaining it that i found http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=648563944666093503), but hell sounds AWESOME. it's like the coolest video game characters you can imagine beating you up, and you can't die so it doesn't matter!

EDIT: i'm just posting the video for the hell story. i'm watching the obnoxiously long intro now, and it's so retarted it doesn't even deserve refutations, so don't bother with that part. to save you some time, the story starts around the 19-20 minute mark

Are you saying that those who had never heard of Jesus are judged by their actions and not by the religion they practiced? This seems to be inconsistent with the major denominations of christian churches. As a southern baptist growing up we were taught that only knowing jesus was the way to salvation. However, as I look back on it this is just a big part of the marketing plan for christianity. If people could be judged on their own actions then the churches aren't really required. Everyone could practice their own beliefs and still possibly be allowed to go to heaven. If anything spreading the word is likely to send more people to hell because if god is fair then someone who "knows better" should be judged more harshly than someone in some backwater part of the world worshipping trees.

Many will claim that satan operates within the rules established by god. How this is possible is never really explained. This would imply that satan is under the employ of god in some aspect. Some christians have told me that satan tempts people. I refuse to believe that satan tempts anyone rather it's just scape-goating for their own shortfalls.

You never did touch on the common conception of demonic possession many believe to be true. If a supernatural being is capable of taking over the body and mind of a lowly human being, doesn't that constitute taking one's freewill away? If god cannot mess with someone's freewill then how can demonic possession exist? Easy..... it doesn't!

Premise #1:

Premise #2:

Premise #3:

Conclusion: Dan2 is an atheist.

Depends on how you define God and relationship. I suppose if one assumes that a "creator/createe" is a relationship in and of itself, then of course you are correct, however, I was speaking of something a bit more substantive.

Once again, you argument, I feel, is highly dependent upon your definition of the word relationship.  Nevertheless, I would agree, that relationships are not how we view the world, but they may never well be highly influential.  My relationship with my brother, for instance, as greatly influenced my view of the world.

Now you've lost me.  If your point is to say that a belief in a "relationship with God" may be wishful thinking, to that I agree.  Yet, how is that responsive to the point I was making? I was merely, in the quote you gave, addressing someones point (I think, if I remember correctly) that religion without "hell" or "heaven" is completely pointless.

It appears to me that you are arguing something else entirely.

I really do not know what type of argumentation you are pressing here, but it is not a logical argument.

I had to read your writing several times to even understand what you are trying to say... Therefore, I can only hope that I got your conclusion correctly.

If your proposition is that 'heaven' and 'hell' are some sort of environments (similar to earth or our immediate known natural phenomena) that a person can feel and 'get used to', and therefore, you conclude that 'heaven' and 'hell' cannot exist as logically as there is no equalization of what believers consider to be true; or a simple way to put it, what believers believe is not possible and their vertical thinking will allow the existence of heaven and hell to crumble.

However, if you provide such proposition, you must provide a premise. Your premise of "you would get used to it" is not a premise, but more of a proposition without common agreement. Simple way to put it, you are saying that we all agree that people will get used to an environment if they live there long enough. If this is true, then you must allow people to believe that 'heaven' and 'hell' are in same state of phenomena that we currently face. Or, you must prove the true nature of 'heaven' and 'hell'. You are using an unsupported premise (which is not even a premise at all) to support your proposition and conclusion.

My point is that if you want to argue about something this complicated, please understand what you are writing. Please talk (in this case write) less and think more.

Marcus

"1. Heaven and hell exist"

No, the poster's main assumption is not Heaven and Hell, but the environment of them. Because the way of his explanation, existence of heaven and hell does not matter since we all know he is placing his idea upon them. Certainly, he cannot talk about nature of heaven and hell unless he/she assumes them to be true (or say "if" they are true). If he/she did not assume their existence, then he wouldn't have an argument, or would he/she? You can certainly try to explain to me about that.

"2. They exist according to known physical law, or at least very similar laws."

What existence are you talking about? Are you saying that, 1. A person's nature to get "used to" an environment is a known law? or 2. Heaven and hell are proven by law?

Please clarify on that issue!!

You cannot just call it a logical argument as long as you have an assumption about certain parts of the topic. There is no 'complexity' of this posting!! The starting idea, perhaps, but how the poster explains his/her point is almost unbearable.

"how about proffering an argument of your own?"

lol, I don't think I actually tried to show my theory regarding to 'heaven and hell'. As I said before, "talk or write less and think more!!"

O... one more...

"I have no reason to believe that our dear OP holds these assumptions to be true, and in fact have reason to believe otherwise. So your attempt to poke holes in his argument merely shows that you completely misunderstood it."

Can you clarify that as well?

Ok, going back to the first one.

"1. heaven and hell exist" is not premise, but a proposition. However, the poster's proposition is not that heaven and hell exist, but opposite of it!! This is much more complicated since you are totally off!! If the poster believes that heaven and hell exist, then how could he have a conclusion that "heaven and hell" do not exist? Once again, the idea of heaven and hell is in trial for the poster's argument and his conclusion is that heaven and hell cannot exist!! Premise has to be something commonly agreed upon in this case. If poster believes that heaven and hell do exist, then that must be undoubted reason to listeners.

A simple way to look at it!!...

The poster argues that heaven and hell cannot exist, and this is the poster's conclusion or rather proposition. His premise is that we all get "used to it if in eteral state". So, existence of heaven and hell is the proposition that concluded with the premise from other proposition of "used to it if in eteral state".

Now, my critique is regarding to the nature of his proposition and use of premise. First, how does the poster know the state of heaven and hell? Yes, the poster can certainly say that from bible, we know what heaven and hell are unimaginably beautiful and unbearably hurtful. However, do we know the exact nature of them? But if the premise is from the "used to it", then the poster must also provide a premise from other proposition of the natural state of heaven and hell. Or else, we can only trust the poster's words as true without evidence.

Moving on...

"I'm saying that the nature of heaven and hell is the same as or similar to the real world. Simple stuff, hon. Do try harder."

Ok, this is not a logical argument!! Your conclusion is that heaven and hell is the same as or similar to the real world. If your premise to back this is "physical law", then I must need a complete backing of your premise before I can even think about your conclusion. If physical law is can be used to explain the nature of heaven and hell, then certainly, you must get an award for that!!

Moving on....

"Do you have the first clue as to how logic works? Because what you said here suggests you do not."

I don't think I need to say anything about this statement. I just gotta laugh...

"What a cop-out."

Wow, are you serious? Didn't you get my memo? Talk and write less and think more....

"How can you not understand something so evident?"

Please, explain the evidentness of your statement....

Because the leading cause of suicide is what's commonly referred to as "clinical depression". That's not a "life sucks" thing, son, that's a brain chemistry issue where no matter how "good" one's life might be, your emotional state tends heavily toward sadness, anxiety, and hopelessness.

A personality is an emergent property of a functioning body - the brain in particular but the rest has its effects. When something goes wrong with the machine, the mind goes wrong too.

Heaven and hell cannot exist separately. Technically they can't exist at all, but let's give the religious a little breathing room since we don't know everything.

Anyhow. I'm a pretty nice guy. I like to fix things and make stuff happen for people. I don't like to see suffering. Naturally, I'll try to fix as much suffering as I can before I die. If I was a Christian, I think these few things would probably put me on God's shortlist for Heaven entrants. But there's a major problem. If I went to Heaven, I'd live for eternity, in bliss, while people here on Earth would continue to suffer. Assuming I can watch from heaven while there's wars, famines, death, destruction, greed, hate etc... and not be able to do a thing about it? I think that would be pretty much my definition of hell... eternal torment. Oh but God wouldn't let me see all that, he'd instil in me a load of euphoria and bliss and keep me happy, ultimately stopping me from caring about my loved ones and the human race in general... Let's get this straight. Not only would he deny me an enlightened existence, but also he'd turn me selfish? That's Hell!

Now let's examine the alternative... An eternity of having my soul tortured and repeatedly flayed, killed and resurrected ad infinitum. I can't really find anything immensely good to say about that.... other than not only would I not give a crap about life here on Earth, I'd have a GOOD EXCUSE to not give a crap about life here on Earth.

It seems like a do-gooder pacifist like myself doesn't really meet any relevant criteria to be sorted into any of the above by God's sorting hat on arrival in the celestial kingdom of Hogwarts. Given the fact that Jesus was apparently of the same sort of ilk, I'd presume he had nowhere to go as well. I wonder what Purgatory is like. Maybe it's a place where I could continue trying to make a difference on Earth. If not, I think I'd rather just die and rot, if it's all the same. Reincarnation, however, sounds like a pretty sweet deal. Much like a video game, when you die you just keep on respawning until you get it right.

So to recap, the only Heaven I could possibly accept is Earth, with peace. love and prosperity for all people until the human race dies out. As for somewhere to go when I die, being buried wrapped in a blanket with a sapling planted on top of me will be the perfect option. That way I can provide sustenance and shelter for thousands of species over the next few hundred years no matter what happens to the world (save of course for the tree being bulldozed, or a nuclear apocalypse or whatever).

Exactly. We already have a name for that, it is called opiates, if you take enough of them you won't give a shit about anyone or anything. Like you, I couldn't possibly be happy in heaven knowing that so many people I care about are being tortured for eternity. The only way I could be happy in that situation is if god destroyed everything that I consider me, in which case what is the point of going to heaven?

Anyway, welcome to the forums.