Can atheists really go to hell?

[Hastein]

Death--there is no such thing. It's an illusion. It's a transition from physical existence to the spiritual dimension. If we cross over that dimension, we lose our physical life. Once in the spiritual state, the spirit has no limitations of being. Transiting the dimension is a time for happiness and laughter. It's the ultimate reward. Our physical existence is torture, because for x number of years our spirit must haul this heavy glob of flesh. When we discard the flesh, our spirit is free, and we are never alone. We have returned to God.

And this is known how?

 

[Dreamwalker]

Either you believe it or not. It is that simple Hastein.
After all, you cannot prove it. (Can you? no surely not)

 

[Medicine*Woman]

And this is known how?

*************
M*W: Through spiritual wisdom. It's no different than trying to prove the Bible or that Jesus existed. We won't know until we get there.

 

[Lemming3k]

Through spiritual wisdom. It's no different than trying to prove the Bible or that Jesus existed. We won't know until we get there.

Then it in fact is not 'known'.

 

[TheERK]

Then it in fact is not 'known'.

M*W doesn't really care about contradiction, though, so don't expect any sort of meaningful reply concerning this.

Funny how she lumps her belief into the same category as the Bible, something she vehemently denies as divinely inspired.

Also, M*W: you say that we "return to God", yet you simply define God as humanity. So we 'return to humanity.' This makes no sense at all unless you believe in a traditional-type afterlife.

 

[Neildo]

It's actually, "suffering is caused by desire". Even simpler! - me

But not all desires cause suffering.
The desire for you to poo actually brings you relief, when you comply with it.
Hehe.

Suffering is still caused by having to go poo. The same with that person who mentioned love.

We suffer to obtain that which we desire; we suffer when we're unable to obtain our desire; and if we obtain our desire, we suffer once it ends.

That's the whole point of when some say to not have any expectations. If you expect something, and it doesn't happen, you'll be let down. And if it happens without expecting it, you'll be surprised. So basically only good can come from not having any expectations in the same sense that suffering is caused by desire. Have no desires and you're on the road to the happy life. (and this isn't directed at you since I'm sure you already know all that)

- N

 

[Red Devil]

There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

 

[water]

Neildo,

We suffer to obtain that which we desire; we suffer when we're unable to obtain our desire; and if we obtain our desire, we suffer once it ends.

Am I from another world or what?!
I can understand the position you stated, but I couldn't say it goes for myself.

I understand suffering from the POV of wishing for the wrong things.

If my desire is to have the floor polished to high sheen: If it takes me several hours of backbreaking work to polish the floor in our house: So be it. It comes with the deal. I accept this, and I don't suffer at this work then. And later, when I'm done, I go back and look at my work, and admire it.

(It has happened that after I have sown a particularly nice PJ, I would get up, even though I was just about falling asleep, turn the lights on, and once more look at the thing I made. I must be one totally simplistic bastard. Yeah, I'll shut up.)

 

[water]

Jenyar,

We suffer because we sympathise with those who suffer. There's nothing wrong
with that, and nothing to flee from or to deny. It's the one faculty we have
that we cannot easily dismiss. It shows our sensitivity towards the system
that sustains us - and in contrast, our disappointment when it doesn't. When
nature fails us, we need to be able to count on each other, and how much can
we trust each other?

I think the feeling of being alone in our suffering is much worse than
anything else we fear.

And since we're all lemmings, whether we embrace our fate or not, we all
realize that in death we will be ultimately alone. In death, every
counterweight that permitted us to have significance in this universe comes
crashing down on what we used to call "life". At that stage, nothing we did,
believed, or thought we knew makes any difference whatsoever. Unless there's
a God.

Well, reading this, it must be that the way I was brought up is completely
different than yours. Maybe because I was left to myself so much, that I am
not afraid of being alone. And not afraid of being alone in my suffering.
Maybe I am mentally more resilient than you. Be this in a good or in a bad way.

This is probably another reason why Christianity has little or no effect on
me: in order for me to accept it, you'd first have to convince me that I am
helpless. My experience, however, is such that I don't feel helpless, at
least not mentally.

So far, I came to this conclusion, but I may be wrong about you:
You NEED God, while I don't need God.

 

[Jenyar]

So far, I came to this conclusion, but I may be wrong about you:
You NEED God, while I don't need God.

I do need God, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. My experience is that people are usually very certain about what they want, but they know little about what they need - especially if that need is already being fulfilled or being compensated for. If you are anything like me (I'm not saying you are) then your need for compansionship can be amply fulfilled by yourself. The danger is that we lose the need empathize with others, because if we can do it alone, theoretically so can they. Being mentally self-sufficient should make you more caring, because as long as you are willing to retain a sensivity to the hurt and loneliness of others, your resilience can be a great comfort to them.

I don't have to convince you that you're helpless. After all, I don't think God created us unable to help ourselves. But the areas where we need God covers even our abilities. Such as our inability to prevent death - we can treat the symptoms, and if you're content with that then yes, you might think you don't need much more. Or our inability to work our own salvation - to restore our relationship with our Creator when we have become convinced we can live without Him. But what if this life you take for granted really comes from God and will go back to Him? It's not just our needs that matter then, but our existence itself.

The problem is that we have narrowed our definition of "life" (and "love" as well) to accomodate an existence without God. People are simply being content with less. You have seen this yourself in people who categorize their experience of the mysteries of life into neat scientific formulas and convenient words.

The reason I feel such an affinity towards you is that you seem to realize life is more than we are able to describe, greater than our imagination or our science, and that the corpus of knowledge available is not limited by our ability to understand it. It's a lot like the affinity I experience with God - and, like you I presume, I "need" that mystery, and I resent it when people reduce it into little boxes they can stash away in the bottom drawer.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

My experience is that people are usually very certain about what they want, but they know little about what they need - especially if that need is already being fulfilled or being compensated for.

This I warmly agree with. It took me several years to realize that I *need* some time to myself, for example.

However, there are also *invented* needs: needs that we do feel that we have, and are fulfilling them. But these needs are actually cover-ups or escapes from real needs.

I still think that the need for a God as Christianity defines God is that kind of an invented need; a need that is there to cover up another need, or to rationalize a need that isn't rationally tangible.

If you are anything like me (I'm not saying you are) then your need for compansionship can be amply fulfilled by yourself.

I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean by that. My need for companionship is fulfilled thus that I go out and make some new friends, spend time with old ones. Or post here. Well, it is done by myself, since I am the one going out.

The danger is that we lose the need empathize with others, because if we can do it alone, theoretically so can they. Being mentally self-sufficient should make you more caring, because as long as you are willing to retain a sensivity to the hurt and loneliness of others, your resilience can be a great comfort to them.

Would you call me a cold bitch? Would you call me insensitive? -- That is, judging by my actions here, and the ones you know of from my posts.

Such as our inability to prevent death - we can treat the symptoms, and if you're content with that then yes, you might think you don't need much more.

Why would you prevent death by all means?!
My grandma died last December. She had been in a more or less unconscious state due to a stroke. As it was, her death came naturally.

But if anything, and this is my emphasis when it comes to "preventing death", what one should think about is preventing bad ways of living and thinking.

If someone stuffs himself with hamburgers, gets fat and dies of heart failure: would I want to prevent his death?
No, not really. It was his own doing. He knew that all that fast food was bad for him, yet he kept on eating. He signed his own death certificate.

On the other end, something else is a situation like a car accident, and people dying due to it. I think we should accept that such things do happen. And that things are always the maximum, and the only way they can be. There is no other way, no second try.
Yes, right now we may not have the means to completely cure a broken backbone, for example, and that person, if they do survive, are bound to live as a vegetable for the rest of their life.

If we look at the situation *from far*, yes, it may be depressing to see that happening.

But if we take a look *up close*, we see that science is working all the time, and it does what the overall social and scientific situation allow.

I can understand that someone, on seeing that their close relative died to insufficient medical treatment, while somebody else with a similar injury, but in a different hospital, treated by different means, survived and is well -- that relative of the deceased may feel that injustice happened.

But the thing is that if it could be otherwise, then it would be otherwise.

I was medically mistreated too, luckily not too badly, but it prolonged my pains for about a month: Yes, I could scream and shout "Injustice!". Yes, I could COMPLAIN about it. I could call upon God to make things right.
I could feel victimized.

But I didn't, and I don't.
I know now that I could sue the hospital, but back then I wasn't sure about it. If I should get mistreated again, and it will be possible to sue the hospital, I guess I will do it. (I just hope it won't happen though! )

It is all about learning, and realizing that we cannot change the past.

Also, what is more: IMO, when bad things happen and people say, "I wish it wouldn't happen", "It shouldn't happen", "God should intervene", "With such bad things happening, we have no choice but to believe in a God who will make it right and judge rightly" -- I think that something else is really the matter.

People are sometimes, often probably, afraid to admit how hurt they feel, afraid to admit how helpless they feel, afraid to admit that one just cannot do anything to prevent an earthquake.

Instead of facing our fears and emotions, and have them and live them -- we make up elaborate belief systems that allow us to rationalize those emotions; belief systems that take those emotions from us or distance us from them.

And this is why people practising a certain religion often differ so greatly from what their scriptures tell them to do: rationalizing simply isn't an honest way to have and to face one's emotions.

Or our inability to work our own salvation - to restore our relationship with our Creator when we have become convinced we can live without Him.

Why would I need salvation? You see, this is where you'd first have to convince me into the truth of the Christian characterization of God and humanity.

But what if this life you take for granted really comes from God and will go back to Him?

I try to keep this outlook (courtesy of Wes):

I am doing exactly what it is that I think I should be doing now.
Maybe I'm pretending that I'm not.
Maybe I should re-evaluate what it is I think I should be doing.
Maybe I should re-evaluate what it is that I am not doing and start doing it.
Regardless, I'm doing what I think I should be doing.

If I would seriously have to accept Christianity, I know that now, I would have to FORCE myself into it. Forced beliefs may be real, with real output, but they are never honest.

It's not just our needs that matter then, but our existence itself.

I think my outlook covers that well.

The problem is that we have narrowed our definition of "life" (and "love" as well) to accomodate an existence without God. People are simply being content with less.

I don't agree with that. If things could be otherwise, they would be otherwise. Content with "less" -- less than what?
If you judge reality by some idealistic "how it should be, but isn't" -- then you're bound to be unhappy.
With such an outlook, a change for the better is extremely hard, if not impossible -- as reality is being constantly questioned and undervalued.

The reason I feel such an affinity towards you is that you seem to realize life is more than we are able to describe, greater than our imagination or our science, and that the corpus of knowledge available is not limited by our ability to understand it.

Oh, sugar cakes, an affinity towards me? Aren't I one lucky bastard!
I will speak with candour: To me, you seem scared. Someting seems to be pressing you down.

Sorry for the long post, but the occasion called for it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

*************
M*W: Right-on!

 

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W doesn't really care about contradiction, though, so don't expect any sort of meaningful reply concerning this.

Funny how she lumps her belief into the same category as the Bible, something she vehemently denies as divinely inspired.

Also, M*W: you say that we "return to God", yet you simply define God as humanity. So we 'return to humanity.' This makes no sense at all unless you believe in a traditional-type afterlife.

*************
M*W: When I said "return to God," I was speaking about the spiritual realm. When we shed our physical body, our spirit returns to the One Spirit of God which dwells within the one body of humanity to continue its spiritual work. The One Spirit of God has been the same for all eternity. Only our physical bodies change, but not our spirit.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Then it in fact is not 'known'.

*************
M*W: It is known to the more spiritually advanced, and that would eliminate Christians, would it not?

 

[DoctorNO]

Originally Posted by Red Devil
There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

*************
M*W: Right-on!

I SAY DOWN WITH THE VATICAN!!!

 

[Lemming3k]

It is known to the more spiritually advanced, and that would eliminate Christians, would it not?

Yeh it would, but thats just like it is 'known' to christians that everyone else is going to hell, thats the point im making, the whole spiritually advanced thing holds as little water as the bible.

 

[TheERK]

*************
M*W: When I said "return to God," I was speaking about the spiritual realm. When we shed our physical body, our spirit returns to the One Spirit of God which dwells within the one body of humanity to continue its spiritual work. The One Spirit of God has been the same for all eternity. Only our physical bodies change, but not our spirit.

Yet you 'know' this, just like Christians 'know' that they are right about the Bible.

Oh, wait, you're more 'spiritually advanced.' I suppose you 'know' that, too, even though you don't back it up with any sort of evidence, or even logic--just dribbling rhetoric.

 

[Neildo]

Am I from another world or what?!

ROSAMAGIKA IS THE SISTER OF MARVIN THE MARTIAN!!!!

Psst, pass it on..

- N

 

[StarOfEight]

There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome.

Red, I'm assuming you're Anglican, which is the Church of Rome, hold the marinara. If you're from another sect, my apologies.

Though, I will say the idea of heaven is fundamentally full of shit. How is following God's to get into paradise moral? It's not. It's pragmatic, assuming you buy the heaven/hell concept. It's a contract, not any innate goodness.

 

[alain]

"There is no hell, just as there is no "heaven" either. They are both inventions of the church of Rome"

almost every religion believes in heaven and hell, even if the names are different, by saying that you basically said "all religion is wrong" risky...