Question for the Non-Muslims

[Mr Spinkles]

Thank you so much for your patience, wisdom, and for being humble enough to hear what other people have to say without resorting to ridiculing their beliefs although you don't believe in them and might also think of them as a myth which societies came up with for generations.

"Patience, wisdom, and ... being humble"? Please Tashan, now you're flattering me and there's no need for that. There may be an appreciation, or a wish, or perhaps even an unquenchable desire for flattery, which intensifies every minute of every day until it becomes almost unbearable ... but there's no need for it.

And I was just about to thank you for your honesty and candor. Now I have to think of something else! I suppose while I'm trying in vain to come up with some good quality that you have that I can thank you for, I could briefly respond to your last post....

It depends on how you look at it. How people think of morality, right or wrong is different than the previous generations. In the past it was a crime to deny that earth is flat, it was a crime to be a witch, it was a crime to be black and do something which only the master "white man" should do, etc.

Nowadays, we have a different set of rules and morals but a day would come when a generation would think of our set of morals to be sick and backward.

For example, to me i think it's a thought crime when people condemn me when i speak about things which the West think of as a taboo which shouldn't be touched, but to Westerners, it's something obvious. You see, it's relative according to the set of morals one might hold.

I think I see what you're saying. Some good examples might be questioning the extent of the Holocaust, or believing that races of people are inherently different from each other. In Western culture, these are examples of taboos, and in some Western countries you can actually be fined or deported for expressing these opinions. It's illegal to display Nazi symbols or deny the Holocaust in a bunch of Western countries, for example. I do not support these policies, I agree with you that this is similar to thought crime (although this is criminalization of expression, not thought by itself).

I think criminalizing any expression (within reason) is bad policy for a few key reasons that I could explain, if you like. I think it is one of those situations where the policy will not actually have the intended consequences, and it risks many unintended and unforeseeable consequences. I think the policy is tempting for emotional or psychological reasons. These kinds of reasons often serve us well as a guide, but in this particular case I think they do not stand up to unemotional reason and the demonstrations of real experience.

Okay so in what follows, I got waaaaay off track somehow. Please skip it if you want to. However, if you are interested, I think the following will illustrate the method I try to use to arrive at conclusions about the world, even conclusions that are not strictly scientific, but more philosophical. I would make a similar case about why I think it is wrong to punish a person for their thoughts, even for expressing "dangerous" thoughts, like the thought that the accepted account of the Holocaust is inaccurate.

I am not "proving" anything in the following, but just providing an outline.

Consider the acts of telling a lie, or using violence. Most people would agree that these actions are generally wrong, except in very special circumstances. However, most people also admit to doing these things even when they shouldn't. This is interesting, because there are many actions we all think are wrong, which no one ever does. Most of us think it is wrong to set puppies on fire, and almost no one does this, or even feels tempted to do it. Yet most of us have lied or used violence, at some time in our lives, even though we think it is wrong.

The reason for this, I think, is partly due to a miscalculation. I say "partly" but I will focus on this one reason entirely. It is a special kind of miscalculation, in that it is very common to everyone -- much like an optical illusion. Usually we can see and identify objects without even thinking, and I think usually we do the right thing without even thinking. But in the case of an illusion, because of the way our brains are commonly wired, there are special situations where everyone's brain usually makes a mistake, and you can only correct this and perhaps see the optical illusion for what it really is, if you are warned about it and prepare for it beforehand, and think carefully instead of just reacting based on instinct.

Experience demonstrates that lying/violence are "solutions" to problems that easily come to us, but these solutions will very often not work at all, and we are unlikely to have the powers of reasoning and the knowledge to correctly identify the 1% of situations when it is an acceptable solution. We look at cost but forget to calculate risk, even if there is only a small chance you will get caught lying, it could ruin a great relationship of trust and mutual cooperation forever; so even the small risk is not actually worth it. It is very unlikely you will make an accurate cost/risk calculation in the heat of the moment. Also, we often lack the imagination to come up with alternative solutions, or the self-restraint to simply wait for more facts or more developments, before taking drastic action. We also lack the imagination to see all the possible ways we could get caught lying. Furthermore, we are creatures of habit, and every time we lie or use violence, we become habituated to their use. Situations also tend to develop where lying/violence solve an immediate problem but create even more unforeseen problems, requiring more lying/violence, in a downward spiral, including retaliatory lying/violence against us. We also have to consider the fact that our actions influence the people around us; by being peaceful and truthful, especially when it is occasionally to our short-term disadvantage to do so, we nurture an environment among the people in our community, where problems are solved by less destructive methods. If you are always truthful and peaceful you will sometimes not get your way; but you will also sometimes not get your way if everyone is fighting each other. The main difference is that in the latter case, when you lose your losses will be total, and when you win your victories will be more costly, and the risks more uncertain.

...continued ...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

...continued...

And, as if those reasons are not enough: we are social animals with brains that are wired to enjoy cooperation. It feels good to make love, care for children, and help a friend. This happens to be a result of evolution and many animals have not identical, but astonishingly similar characteristics. (There are actually neural pathways that have been studied, which release dopamine into peoples' brains when they cooperate with others under controlled conditions; cocaine and other addictive drugs are pleasurable partly because they cause large amounts of dopamine to be released.) But for my purposes here it doesn't matter how we got our nature, all that matters is that this is indeed a fact of our nature, however it got there. Humans also get pleasure from hating and vanquishing enemies, that's also a fact, but we have "wiggle room" to change these feelings through knowledge, experiences, actions, and social rewards. It is possible to see someone else succeed and to be jealous of them; this cannot be helped, feelings and thoughts often come unbidden into our minds. But if we are armed with foreknowledge of ourselves, it is also possible notice that you are having jealous feelings, to recognize them when they come, to correct your own behavior before you do something you will regret. Sometimes just recognizing the fact that you are feeling jealous, and engaging in reflection, can cause the feelings of jealousy to transform into genuine pleasure at the success of the other person. So it seems there is a route -- cooperation, nonviolence, etc. -- where we get pleasure from others which does not cause them to retaliate against us; in fact, the enjoyment we get from others causes them enjoyment which causes us enjoyment -- unlike competition and fighting, this form of enjoyment is mutually reinforcing. That's a much more appealing route than getting enjoyment from harming others.

So, armed with all these facts, which I take to be demonstrated by experience, I think it is very reasonable to conclude very generally, that as a matter of policy, and with very few special exceptions, we should be truthful and peaceful, in order to be truly happy in a deep way. And I think that if we examine societies or situations of the past where people have been truthful or peaceful, we will see that we prefer the outcomes of those societies -- so our hypothesis seems to be confirmed by tests of experience. We should be peaceful and truthful even in cases when it seems (or even when it actually is) to our disadvantage to do so.

(Incidentally, this is why I think belief in something like hell could be useful to societies. Because it is easier for the people to arrive at the right behavior (don't lie/use violence) without thinking carefully, simply by reacting to the threat of hell. The reason you have to think carefully about this issue in the first place is because all the consequences/risks are long-term, abstract, and complex, often difficult to appreciate, and they only amount to a strong case when they are all taken together. Whereas hell is one, simple, severe, concrete deterrent. The only disadvantage of the concept of hell is that it is not immediate, it has to occur after death; this cannot be helped, hell must occur after death where it is inaccessible to observation, because it isn't real.)

It takes some discipline to stick to this policy. Similarly, it takes some discipline for the intelligent traveler, armed with knowledge of mirages, to keep his course, and not chase after every oasis he sees.

As a final note: you might think I am contradicting what I said earlier about ritual and repetition, but I don't think I am. I never said there is no value in ritual or repetition; I only said that rituals and repetitions have a biasing effect.

 

[TashaN]

Thanks, I don't need you to tell me what I should do. The conclusion remains, and you have not responded to it, that the mythical deity you worship is cruel beyond human imagination. I'm glad He doesn't exist.

My point is not that I'm actually worried about it. That would be funny. The point is that this fictional character whom you claim to be infinitely merciful is actually infinitely cruel.

He is indeed beyond imagination, but your claim that he is cruel is baseless. Also, i don't know from where you got the idea that God doesn't exist. I would have understood if you showed your mere wish that God wouldn't exist.

God is not cruel, he is just. We can't say a judge is cruel for sending a murderer to prison for his life time.

The same can be said about God when sending someone to hell. One might say, oh, but murder is different than something silly like "the belief in God" and i would respond saying that, i would agree if the scale was this life, but the judgement will be on the hereafter and crimes at that time has a different definition than what we human define in this earthly life.

Not if you care about your own integrity you don´t. And not if you try to be a truly moral person.

Besides, saying hell exist does not make it so. Hell simply does not exist as I see it.

Are you saying i'm being immoral here? or that those who would believe in God would be immoral?

 

[Sahar]

Are you saying i'm being immoral here? or that those who would believe in God would be immoral?

Does it matter, Faisal?

 

[TashaN]

Does it matter, Faisal?

Maybe not, i guess. :cover:

 

[Mr Spinkles]

You know what, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a specific definition of a "thought crime" because i might have understood the concept of a thought crime in a different way than you did.

Sorry, my fault for not being clear. I never clearly defined what I meant by it. By "thought crime" I simply mean you can be punished for a particular thought you have inside your head. Perhaps I gave you the mistaken impression that a "thought crime" is something bad by definition. I happen to think it is bad, for reasons I haven't bothered to explain -- I just assumed it.

Not according to God. God said in the Quran that those who knew Islam and knew God in a proper manner then refused to believe in him will definitely know what they have done, because only those who knew Islam and God in a proper way will enter hell of course.

First of all I did say:

if God is all-powerful he could just snap his fingers and you would know why you are in hell, so actually carrying out the test is unnecessary unless God wants it to be necessary.​

Do you agree? Secondly, you seem to be saying that some people will die who did not know "Islam and God in a proper way", and therefore they will not enter hell. So some people are not tested after all?

At the end of the day this concept of hell is a very tangled structure of dogmas that almost seem duct-taped to each other.

Let's look at what we have on the Islamic version of hell so far, it is not supported by any actual facts about the world, and it just goes around in circles contradicting itself and making no sense at every step along the way:

• We can't see hell in this life because that would prove hell exists, which would spoil the test.
• We know hell is there, however, because it is proved in the Quran. This does not spoil the test.
• Actually, not everyone is tested because some people will never come to a "proper knowledge" of Islam.
• It's only if you come to understand Islam properly, but still refuse to believe, that you fail the test. But if you came to understand Islam properly by seeing hell in this lifetime, that would spoil the test.
• If you don't believe, you fail the test, and you go to hell.
• Why failure to believe something is comparable to murder, God only knows.
• Disbelievers actually "refuse" to believe.
• This is a choice which stems from their free will, but it is also part of their inherent nature and lasts forever.
• According to the Quran, incredible proofs are provided by the Quran. The truth of Islam is as obvious as the world around us.
• Also, the proofs in the Quran are not too incredible and they don't necessarily prove anything, because that would spoil the test.
• It also would not spoil the test, because the disbelievers would refuse to believe no matter how strong the evidence.
• God knows the outcome already; the real purpose of the test is to prove to the disbelievers that they failed the test.
• If there were no test, then there would be no need for a test to prove whether or not you fail the test. But there is, so there is.
• The gift of this life is a mercy shown to the disbelievers who are burning in hell; in this way, they understand exactly why they are in hell.
• However, their understanding of why they are in hell will provide no comfort to them. They will be shown no mercy.
• For some reason, the disbelievers will not refuse to believe they have failed the test; they will readily believe this. So they will eventually come to accept and know that they failed to believe in God, while continuing to refuse to believe in God.
• They will ask God (the one they still refuse to believe in) if he will have mercy on them, but they will be shown no mercy.
• Even if they changed their minds, it would be too late. But they will never change their minds, so this rule is just for emphasis.
• The disbelievers will change their minds when they die and see hell for themselves. But then it will be too late, because actually, "too late" is whenever the disbeliever happens to die.
• Even though the disbeliever will change her mind, she would fail a second test anyway, and there is no need to send her back to Earth in order to prove to her that she would fail the test a second time. As long as she understands why she failed the FIRST test, that's good enough.
• Anyway, if you sent her back she would start believing in the false doctrine of reincarnation and thus deviate from Islam right off the bat.
• So the only way a disbeliever will accept Islam is if they see hell. But it has to happen before they die. This will never happen (see first bullet).

So according to this theory, we should observe the following facts: everyone will die, some people will die young, some old, some will accept Islam, some not, the Quran says hell is real, and most importantly, we cannot see hell until (perhaps) we die. This is pretty much what I would expect if hell did not exist.

I have mentioned that the non-believers would never change no matter what although knowing and admitting "in hell" that what they have done in this life was wrong. When i say they will not change, i mean if they got a chance to go back to life, if they have been given another chance.

But common experience demonstrates people can change, sometimes dramatically, for all sorts of reasons. We have apostates from Islam on this forum. If they had been killed by a bus several years ago they would have died Muslim, so clearly time of death matters. You are making a very strong claim that contradicts basic observations of reality: that the state of a person's beliefs about Islam at the time they die wouldn't have been different if they had died at a different time. Furthermore, they would go back to not believing even after dying and seeing hell for themselves. This is actually directly contradicted by studies of near death experiences, which we know have very profound effects on peoples' lives.

Think of someone diagnosed of having cancer for being addicted to smoking. He might be frightened, and would admit how wrong it was to smoke heavily, but i think you would agree with me that many of those who *knew* how bad smoking is for their health will keep smoking after finishing their treatment and after being healed from that cancer. That's why God says in the Quran that people would knew their errors but if he allowed them to go back to their normal life, they would disbelieve in him all over and over and over again, because they have already made up their mind, and of course God mentioned other people who would change in this life from disbelief into belief in him. Don't confuse the two.

But doctors continue the treatment of the cancer patient even if they know he will just take up smoking again. That is merciful, as well as rational, since in fact some patients will quit smoking the second time.

We aren't addressing the issue of why disbelief is a crime at all, which is what I want to get to...

How your life end will determine your state. If someone knew when he/she will die, he would believe in God before dying, just in case .... but it doesn't work that way.

What do you mean by "it doesn't work that way"? Some people know when they will die and some people believe just in case. Ask anyone who has worked at a nursing home.

Then please answer this question, why does a healthy brain dies while there is absolutely nothing wrong with either the brain or any other part of our body, including heart which can be used by another human being when this person die?

I don't know, I'm not sure what you're referring to and I'm not a medical expert. Can you give an example? Before you interpret this as evidence for a soul, you may want to check that the same thing doesn't happen in other animal brains.

Another question, why a healthy normal young guy/girl get an unexplainable *scientifically* sudden heart attack?

Well you would have to cite a specific case. The most likely possibility right off the bat is that the "healthy young" person was not healthy. There was a problem and they didn't notice the symptoms. They had a narrow vessel in the leg, a clot formed and traveled up and blocked one of the vessels supplying oxygen to the heart. Another possibility is poison, I believe there are many that cause what looks like a heart attack and are virtually undetectable. Who knows? What do you think?

The Greek doctor Hippocrates, who lived 2,500 years ago and is considered the father of modern medicine, said:

"Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things."
​

Smart guy.

There have been no evidence at all in the past of things we have discovered recently. So i think it's not wise to claim that just because we didn't discover something until now, so that means it doesn't exist. I think it's an act of ignorance and arrogance to believe so, honestly, and i think you will agree with me on that, just like any sane person would do.

I totally agree with you. Does this mean you agree that there is no evidence for hell?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm asking you, what would you do if it was up to you, not what would you do if you were God. Suppose there is no God. One day you find a magic stick in the woods that let's you send people to hell, if you want.

Would you send atheists and polytheists to hell forever?

Or, another possibility, suppose there is a God but he announces that he has decided to change his policy on hell. He has decided it will be up to you to decide. So whatever you decide, God will support that as the right decision.

Do you decide to send atheists and polytheists to hell forever?

No.

Would you send them to hell for a short time?

 

[Kerr]

Are you saying i'm being immoral here? or that those who would believe in God would be immoral?

Of course not. Just saying if you have strong moral values fear of punishment is not why you believe, and if you have integrity you don´t believe because of fear since it would be selling your, metaphorically speaking, soul.

 

[Luminous]

If people think of the idea of hell to be cruel and scary, then they should try to avoid it by all possible means instead of ranting about how evil or unfair this concept is. Complaining about it won't make it to go away.

Yes, denounce your evil religion. if you do not become a confessing agnostic you will burn in the lake of fire forever! its not fair... but hey, no one asked you to denouce your agnosticism a little while after you were born. Its your choice if you want to burn in the lake of fire. im just trying to warn you, so i did my part. Although, even though complaining about it won't make it to go away, believing in it won't make it be real. But it is, so if you want to burn in the lake of torment forever than remain with your false idolistic and anti-agnostic relgion. btw: there is nothing wrong with your religion, exept for the fact that if you dont denounce its falseness and confess the truth of Agnosticism you will burn in the lake of unimaginable torment and torture for eternety. Its the truth, take it or leave it. God gave you free-will to chose, but its not Its fault if you choose wrong. :angel2:I better not hear you complain about this, instead you should do as i said.

Doesn't that seam completely the same? well its not, because Illumination is Truth while Qur'anism is false. you might deny the true faith (Agnosticism) but you cannot deny my illumination experience, no one can argue with personal experience.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Think of someone diagnosed of having cancer for being addicted to smoking. He might be frightened, and would admit how wrong it was to smoke heavily, but i think you would agree with me that many of those who *knew* how bad smoking is for their health will keep smoking after finishing their treatment and after being healed from that cancer. That's why God says in the Quran that people would knew their errors but if he allowed them to go back to their normal life, they would disbelieve in him all over and over and over again, because they have already made up their mind, and of course God mentioned other people who would change in this life from disbelief into belief in him. Don't confuse the two.

You can see another example--but very detailed--in post # 459.
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...9239-question-non-muslims-12.html#post1826290

I hope you will enjoy reading it.

I did read that Tashan, I guess I should have shared my thoughts with you on that (I assume true) story. It seems to me the author Lang freely wanders between two distinct things: (1) How we establish facts about the world, and (2) How we achieve a peaceful and contented state of mind (or grow, etc.). I.m.o. it is best to establish (1) first, using reason and evidence, followed by (2). The author Jeffrey Lang, OTOH, wants to go in the other direction, and use (2) as a way of arriving at certain conclusions (1).

You may be interested to know one thing I learned in a course I took called Biological Psychology. Experiments have been done which show that people who rate their own performance on a test most realistically, are more likely to suffer from depression, even if they are realistic about performing well on the test! Conversely, people who are less realistic, in this particular case, are a little bit happier, statistically.

The lesson of Lang's story, which probably no one disputes, is basically that religion can provide us with reasons for why bad things happen. Further, religious reasons can be more satisfying than "one of the near infinite sequence of causes and effects that have occurred since the big bang has led to her contracting cancer". I totally agree with that.

But this has nothing to do with "religion" being factually true, and moreover, has nothing to do with hell, or Islam, being true.

Notice by the way that Lang could have put death in more elegant terms without assuming there is a God. He could have said that death is part of life, each generation must make way for the next, that stars are also born and die, and without that we wouldn't be here, and it seems one day the universe will die, too. Or, he could have said:

Julius Caesar, Act II, Sc. II
[SIZE=-1]Cowards die many times before their deaths; [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] The valiant never taste death but once. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Of all the wonders that I have yet heard, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] It seems to me most strange that men should fear, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Seeing that death, a necessary end, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Will come when it come.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=-1]Moving on: i[/SIZE]t is very interesting to me that an author making a case for one particular religion, will often make a case for "religion" in general. This is clever device. Zen Buddhism or Mormonism or Orthodox Christianity or Unitarianism all could have helped Gerda cope with her condition. She could join reform Judaism, or Unitarianism, or Buddhism and remain an atheist. Or she could read what secular thinkers have written about death, Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Epicurus and others have said very profound things which I think hold up to (1) as well as provide comfort (2), above.

The author concludes: However, the Quran has a very different view of human eartly suffering. It claims that it is necessary and key element in the human growth process, and that all of us, good and bad, sinful and righteous, believer and unbeliever, will and must experience it.

I agree, humans need to experience some suffering in order to grow, accomplish, etc. This is a very limited claim that no one disputes. Let me make a few points about it:

Many philosophers have promoted this idea going back thousands of years ago. Many animals, not just humans, need some difficulty and pain, some horses for example will be miserable unless they are given a "job" to do (not too severe, of course) because that is what they were bred for. The reason it is necessary is because we live in an imperfect universe constrained by physical laws. And furthermore there is a strange relationship between suffering and enjoyment, did I "enjoy" the tragic movie that made me cry, or did I "suffer"? Did the child "enjoy" his game trying to hold his breath underwater, or was he "suffering"? It's complicated. And finally, if someone could tweak the laws of nature or rewire our brains a little, we could grow, achieve, etc. without suffering. I see no evidence that anyone can do that, so I see no point in worrying about it. But I notice that Islam claims someone can do that, but they choose not to, or at least choose not to drastically reduce all the unnecessary suffering. And I simply notice that this is a self-contradictory belief, if the being with this power is supposed to be benevolent.

Consider: is lung cancer really necessary for growth? The author simply makes the very mild claim that "suffering is necessary". But he doesn't show that lung cancer is necessary, though he would like us to believe this. Furthermore: if lung cancer is necessary for growth, then why are we trying to cure it?

Many people used to die during childbirth. The average lifespan used to be 20, in 1800 it was more like 40 and today it is around 76. We virtually eradicated smallpox, the plague, and reduced malaria and many other terrible diseases which inflicted tremendous suffering. Is this a bad thing? Do we need smallpox to grow? No. The only argument you could make is that smallpox was necessary for us to enjoy the achievement of eradicating it -- true enough, but clearly it wasn't worth the price all those victims paid.

It follows that there are many things today, like lung cancer, which are not necessary for growth. They will be cured by hard work and scientific study or they will never be cured at all.

Okay so sorry for rambling, but here's my point: the only point when "religion" might enter the picture (and unlike Lang, I don't actually mean Islam necessarily) is to provide us with comforting explanations. I think that's actually a very valuable thing, but it's certainly not what Lang intended. Lang is trying to imply that this means "religion" is actually true.

A final note: it's interesting to consider how much comfort we have derived from the scientific approach. No one on this forum will ever get smallpox. I wonder how that unheralded comfort from science compares to the comfort we would derive from religion, after contracting smallpox?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mr. Sprinkles-

Under the Mosaic law times they did not know about germs. However, the law's requirements about hand washing helped keep germs from spreading.

The gospel writer Luke was a physician so medical research in itself is not condemned in Scripture. Comfort from science is temporary. The long-range solution that Jesus demonstrated on a small scale while on earth is what Jesus will do as a permanent solution during his Millennial Rule over earth. Jesus teachings gives future or long-range hope to humble meek ones and in that one can find comfort.
Psalm 37:11,29; Isaiah 33:24

Remember Satan said at Job 2:4 that touch our bones (person themselves) loose health, and no one would remain faithful to God. Both Job and Jesus proved Satan a liar.
Both were rewarded, and so will be the people of Revelation 22:2.

 

[TashaN]

I really appreciate the effort and the quality of posts you are making. It's no less than any scholarly work i have gone across before. The thoughts you put forward are well written and well laid out in a very simple and coherent manner. So, i thank you for that.

I read all of what you have written in post # 661 & 662 and i gave myself sometimes to digest it, but i'm quoting the last part of your two-posts because i guess it's the part where you have reached to a conclusion which was perfectly explained and justified in both of your posts.

So, armed with all these facts, which I take to be demonstrated by experience, I think it is very reasonable to conclude very generally, that as a matter of policy, and with very few special exceptions, we should be truthful and peaceful, in order to be truly happy in a deep way. And I think that if we examine societies or situations of the past where people have been truthful or peaceful, we will see that we prefer the outcomes of those societies -- so our hypothesis seems to be confirmed by tests of experience. We should be peaceful and truthful even in cases when it seems (or even when it actually is) to our disadvantage to do so.

(Incidentally, this is why I think belief in something like hell could be useful to societies. Because it is easier for the people to arrive at the right behavior (don't lie/use violence) without thinking carefully, simply by reacting to the threat of hell. The reason you have to think carefully about this issue in the first place is because all the consequences/risks are long-term, abstract, and complex, often difficult to appreciate, and they only amount to a strong case when they are all taken together. Whereas hell is one, simple, severe, concrete deterrent. The only disadvantage of the concept of hell is that it is not immediate, it has to occur after death; this cannot be helped, hell must occur after death where it is inaccessible to observation, because it isn't real.)

It takes some discipline to stick to this policy. Similarly, it takes some discipline for the intelligent traveler, armed with knowledge of mirages, to keep his course, and not chase after every oasis he sees.

As a final note: you might think I am contradicting what I said earlier about ritual and repetition, but I don't think I am. I never said there is no value in ritual or repetition; I only said that rituals and repetitions have a biasing effect.

I understand where you are coming from. Your analysis can be said about any type of belief or even laws which helped to keep peace and order in society. The crux of the issue here is to differentiate between an invented concept, and a divine concept. Wait a second, don't feel frustrated now. I know you don't believe in something called "divinity" but just be patient. We will deal with divinity later on.

You might not be able to differentiate between a divine concept and an invented one because they both look the same to you, and they both appear to give the same outcome at the end to those who believe in it. Although i agree with your reasoning and sequence of analysis of this concept of hell, but i still find it to be too general to be applicable to the wisdom behind hell in Islam.

For example, when people speak of their government, many of them would point fingers and would assume many things which we might call "conspiracy theories". You would agree with me that there is some truth on these theories and some are plain lies or just, a misunderstanding.

I see many people deal with God and hell on the same manner. They say so many things of what appear to be true, but at the end, we find out it's nothing but an attempt to reach to a rational explanation for the behavior of those who would engage and believe in such concepts, and it might never be true although it might appear to be so.

I find so much truth in your observations, but i don't think you have reached to an accurate conclusion that hell doesn't exist. It's the same as a doctor trying to figure out what is wrong with a certain patient, and he would get it wrong for so many times because the symptoms are similar to many other diseases. That's how i can explain the arguments and conclusions you have offered so far. Though, i have to admit, you are still a fine doctor no matter what.

My main criticism of so many Westerners writers, through the tons of books i have read which was written by them, is that they often reach to an inaccurate conclusion. Their tools of research, their analysis, the sequence, the observations look fine to me, but for some reason, they fail to provide an accurate conclusion because i think it's the hardest thing to do. Only really good thinkers would reach to an accurate or semi-accurate conclusions. For some reasons, there is always a block in their mind which would prevent them from achieving that. I'll try to lay out some reasons below:

• The intent of the writer: His intent was to prove something, from the beginning, and his own personal bias, even if not being aware of it, would affect the outcome, and that's not necessary true about all writers.
• The expected result: those who would supervise the research would expect a certain result.
• Lack of first hand resources: usually researchers might face so much difficulty in finding first hand evidences and resources and would often rely on a view voiced by another previous researchers who claim to have had seen or analyzed these resources.
• Assumptions: at the beginning of any research, a writer would be forced in a way or another to adopt some assumptions and build his case on them.
• Scope of research: that would prevent the researcher from seeing the many other factors that might affect his chosen topic or case study. If one wasn't careful enough, his findings and analysis would be insufficient and even distorted for not being able to be comprehensive enough when dealing with a massive topic that have exhausted so many writers before through hundreds and maybe thousands of years ago.

There are so many reasons and these are just some of them. That what might happen to expert researchers and writers who would dedicate and spend so many years in writing and searching about a certain topic, imagine how hard it might be for someone who didn't spend so much time in gathering all the mandatory resources to make an informed decision, and a fine conclusion.

I hope i didn't go off-topic.

 

[Autodidact]

He is indeed beyond imagination, but your claim that he is cruel is baseless.

This thread has demonstrated the opposite.

Also, i don't know from where you got the idea that God doesn't exist

I figured it out. I can explain it to you if you want

. I would have understood if you showed your mere wish that God wouldn't exist.

Reality doesn't depend on my wishes.

God is not cruel, he is just.

sorry, I can't agree that sending people to eternal hellfire because they don't believe you exist is just.

We can't say a judge is cruel for sending a murderer to prison for his life time.

No, but we could say he was cruel for sending the a non-murderer to eternal torture. Completely different.

Good thing there is no such God. But as a fictional character, He's evil.

The same can be said about God when sending someone to hell. One might say, oh, but murder is different than something silly like "the belief in God" and i would respond saying that, i would agree if the scale was this life, but the judgement will be on the hereafter and crimes at that time has a different definition than what we human define in this earthly life.

Wow, that's some high-quality baloney you're selling! Murder is nothing like your belief or lack thereof, unless it is, in some other reality that we know nothing about, but I'm sure is there anyway. That is one of the least persuasive arguments I've ever seen. You might want to work on that one a bit.

Are you saying i'm being immoral here? or that those who would believe in God would be immoral?

I do think moral people should work harder to figure out the truth, and not just accept what they were brainwashed to believe as children, or are afraid to stop believing because of threats, either of eternal hellfire, or earthly execution.

 

[Moonstone]

Ok, I reviewed this article. Nothing new to add to my understanding of the Islamic Hellfire.


You have to understand my perspective, Eselam. First I don't believe there is an Allah that is going to "do" anything to me. Second, I do not believe in any form of Hell worlds but understand why religions have created them to entice followers to their imagined "right path". Third, I do not expect any kind of rewards for my current life, you see, my "reward" if you must look at it in those terms, IS THIS LIFE. Quite honestly, my perspective is its own reward and is the result of innumerable lifetimes struggling through the muck of spiritual inquiry.

So, to fully answer your question, in literal terms, I do not care what Islam has to say about the afterlife. It is simply of no concern to me personally. I do become concerned when Muslims trumpet this vision of the afterlife as being reality however. To my thinking, that is just plain weird. I know many Muslims seek to warn us about our alleged fate but it seems to me that they are already living in their own self-created hell and so, are in no position to offer anyone any advice, except perhaps, how not to live ones life.

I really couldn't have said this better myself.

 

[Satsangi]

firtsly, can you please read about the islamic concept of hell here before answering the question, that would be very much appreciated.

Q: why do you care if Allah was to send you to hell?

Concept and descriptions of various types of hells is not only Islamic, it exists in all religions before Islam came.

Regards,

 

[Aquitaine]

Allah ain't gonna send me to Hell, atleast I don't believe so.

Personally, I think the Abrahamic religions are mostly full of nonesense.

Do you care if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is gonna send you to Pasta Hell?

 

[McBell]

Do you care if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is gonna send you to Pasta Hell?

Describe this "Pasta Hell"
Until I get your description, I cannot answer your question.

 

[Autodidact]

Describe this "Pasta Hell"
Until I get your description, I cannot answer your question.

Nothing is al dente; it's all overcooked and mushy?