What of Hell? Why must there be one? Why must we suffer?

[Quiddity]

I have to completely disagree with your statement. In no way can you equate jail to hell...
the differences (if hell existed) are far too dire then that of a jail... Here’s why I assume this;

1.) jail is for life, hell, as many religions put it, is ETERNAL!!!
2.) hell is being associated with the dammed in the eyes of god a punishment far grater then any jail could label...
3.) as prescribed by the Christian faith, hell is for a condemned sole that has no chance to receive peace or another chance
4) jail on the other hand, can give a person another chance... (Sometimes)

CAPPA, my intent was not to compare them. The differences are obvious even to you. My intent was to show the innate need for the human species to seek justice. Taking the fact that in Roman Catholic theology (if understood properly) it is actually quite difficult to enter Hell, IMO. Hell is admittedly a disturbing concept. But then, Hell is a terrible thing. No one seems comfortable with it. But then, no one should be. Unease, self-doubt, anxiety about the painful and infinite consequences of my actions, fear, etc. are all very real in this world about several different things (Jail being one of them). I am not one to slip Hell under a rug because it's disturbing. No more disturbing (for some) then worms eating you and it's all over. It is what it is.

also, to answer the question by GeneCosta, I truly believe that hell was created by man, much like god and the religion. a way to control the masses.. When you were young did your mom promise to " tell dad when he comes home?" in like fashion, hell is to keep us on the proverbial straight path

As I said to Mdm:
No offense Mdm, but this is typical rhetoric from a scared little boy with a bad father.
See: Dr. Vitz

~Victor

 

[Popeyesays]

CAPPA, my intent was not to compare them. The differences are obvious even to you. My intent was to show the innate need for the human species to seek justice. Taking the fact that in Roman Catholic theology (if understood properly) it is actually quite difficult to enter Hell, IMO. Hell is admittedly a disturbing concept. But then, Hell is a terrible thing. No one seems comfortable with it. But then, no one should be. Unease, self-doubt, anxiety about the painful and infinite consequences of my actions, fear, etc. are all very real in this world about several different things (Jail being one of them). I am not one to slip Hell under a rug because it's disturbing. No more disturbing (for some) then worms eating you and it's all over. It is what it is.


As I said to Mdm:
No offense Mdm, but this is typical rhetoric from a scared little boy with a bad father.
See: Dr. Vitz

~Victor

I read the notes of Dr. Vitz's talk - very interesting. This also explains the compulsion for atheists to "evangelize" and thus become the authority figure for others.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Tannenisis]

How exactly are the opinions of Dr. Vitz any more ridiculous than the strawmen arguments that atheists level at theists? This is hardly about "leveling the playing field" of adhominum attacks. His arguments remind me of the previous era's assertion that men became gay because of the overly generous attention of their mothers instead of having a strong male presence dictating their lives.


He states:

He makes two assumptions about atheism:

1. major barriers to belief are non-rational, that is, psychological
2. all of us have a free choice to reject or accept God

These are hardly scientific in nature to begin with. For one thing, he is conducting this study with a foregone conclusion: God exists.

This is one of the greatests focal points of the debate between theists and atheists: the existence of God. One can hardly address the psychological aspects that make up atheism but claiming that God does exist and they are in a non-rational state of denial.

Secondly, his definition of "non-rational" as being "psychological" is fairly baffling to me.

There are a great deal of reasons why people choose a particular faith or none at all. Tying this towards the relationship with one's parent is inherently dishonest. In a country like the U.S. that is predominately Christian, what percentage of the population have bad relationships with their fathers but are still religious? I assure you that the percentage number will be far higher than any amount of the atheist population, rendering this argument moot.

I am also very suspicious of any person that characterizes the subjects of their study as "arrogant and smart." Certainly, there is no bias there, eh?

FYI, I am a theist married to an atheist. My husband comes from an Irish Catholic home where both parents are still happily married after 38 years. Both my parents gave me up before the age of two. Where do we fit into these theories?

My two cents,
Tannenisis

 

[Popeyesays]

How is exactly are the opinions of Dr. Vitz any more rediculous than the strawmen arguments that atheists level at theists? His arguments remind me of the previous era's assertion that men became gay because of the overly generous attention of their mothers instead of having a strong male presence dictating their lives.

He states:
These are hardly scientific in nature to begin with. For one thing, he is conducting this study with a foregone conclusion: God exists.

This is one of the greatests focal points of the debate between theists and atheists: the existence of God. One can hardly address the psychological aspects that make up atheism but claiming that God does exist and they are in a non-rational state of denial.

Secondly, his definition of "non-rational" as being "psychological" is fairly baffling to me.

There are a great deal of reasons why people choose a particular faith or none at all. Tying this towards the relationship with one's parent is inherently dishonest. In a country like the U.S. that is predominately Christian, what percentage of the population have bad relationships with their fathers but are still religious? I assure you that the percentage number will be far higher than any amount of the atheist population, rendering this argument moot.

I am also very suspicious of any person that characterizes the subjects of their study as "arrogant and smart." Certainly, there is no bias there, eh?

FYI, I am a theist married to an atheist. My husband comes from an Irish Catholic home where both parents are still happily married after 38 years. Both my parents gave me up before the age of two. Where do we fit into these theories?

My two cents,
Tannenisis

Wow! Touched a nerve?

 

[Tannenisis]

Wow! Touched a nerve?

No, it didn't. I am spirited in all my debates. It's what made me a good news editor.
I'm just pointing out what I think are flaws in the logic.

 

[Quiddity]

How is exactly are the opinions of Dr. Vitz any more rediculous than the strawmen arguments that atheists level at theists? His arguments remind me of the previous era's assertion that men became gay because of the overly generous attention of their mothers instead of having a strong male presence dictating their lives.

I would think it differs from homosexual to homosexual. Nonetheless, I think his intent was no different from those numerous authors who try to figure out why people are theist.

He states:
These are hardly scientific in nature to begin with. For one thing, he is conducting this study with a foregone conclusion: God exists.

v.s God doesn't exist. Give you a penny for every person you can find that doesn't have a bias.

This is one of the greatests focal points of the debate between theists and atheists: the existence of God. One can hardly address the psychological aspects that make up atheism but claiming that God does exist and they are in a non-rational state of denial.

Secondly, his definition of "non-rational" as being "psychological" is fairly baffling to me.

There are a great deal of reasons why people choose a particular faith or none at all. Tying this towards the relationship with one's parent is inherently dishonest.

I completely disagree. I think parents and nuero associations you experience throughout your life influences the way you may see and interpret things around you.

In a country like the U.S. that is predominately Christian, what percentage of the population have bad relationships with their fathers but are still religious? I assure you that the percentage number will be far higher than any amount of the atheist population, rendering this argument moot.

I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. Although I have a sneeking suspicion that you didn't read the whole thing and are stuck and focused on the whole father bit alone.

I am also very suspicious of any person that characterizes the subjects of their study as "arrogant and smart." Certainly, there is no bias there, eh?

Of course he is. But as I said above, who isn't? People with bias can make valid points.

FYI, I am a theist married to an atheist. My husband comes from an Irish Catholic home where both parents are still happily married after 38 years. Both my parents gave me up before the age of two. Where do we fit into these theories?
My two cents,
Tannenisis

It all depends on your up bringing I suppose. I think you painted Dr. Vitz observations with a very broad brush. Of course you will find people who will not fit his observations.

Tannenisis, I appreciate you showing interest in Dr. Vitz observations but let's try to stay on topic.

 

[CAPPA]

CAPPA, my intent was not to compare them. The differences are obvious even to you. My intent was to show the innate need for the human species to seek justice. Taking the fact that in Roman Catholic theology (if understood properly) it is actually quite difficult to enter Hell, IMO. Hell is admittedly a disturbing concept. But then, Hell is a terrible thing. No one seems comfortable with it. But then, no one should be. Unease, self-doubt, anxiety about the painful and infinite consequences of my actions, fear, etc. are all very real in this world about several different things (Jail being one of them). I am not one to slip Hell under a rug because it's disturbing. No more disturbing (for some) then worms eating you and it's all over. It is what it is.


As I said to Mdm:
No offense Mdm, but this is typical rhetoric from a scared little boy with a bad father.
See: Dr. Vitz

~Victor

Typical rhetoric? Well, by that assumption, soo many of the expressions about god that are stated can be labeled as a typical rhetoric to the qustions by atheists. and no, using that line did not mean you had a bad father. it was a tatic to to keep you obident. reguardless of what dr.vitz may say....!

WHERE ASSUMPTION IS GROWN, FACTS ARE DESTROYED

:sarcastic

 

[Popeyesays]

Typical rhetoric? Well, by that assumption, soo many of the expressions about god that are stated can be labeled as a typical rhetoric to the qustions by atheists. and no, using that line did not mean you had a bad father. it was a tatic to to keep you obident. reguardless of what dr.vitz may say....!

WHERE ASSUMPTION IS GROWN, FACTS ARE DESTROYED

:sarcastic

Gosh, Victor you made him stutter.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Quiddity]

Typical rhetoric? Well, by that assumption, soo many of the expressions about god that are stated can be labeled as a typical rhetoric to the qustions by atheists. and no, using that line did not mean you had a bad father. it was a tatic to to keep you obident. reguardless of what dr.vitz may say....!

Then how would you explain people who believe in hell but aren't scared one bit? I'm too busy focusing on justice and love to be scared.

WHERE ASSUMPTION IS GROWN, FACTS ARE DESTROYED

:sarcastic

I won't let this turn into a finger pointing match. I gave a source and my explanation.

 

[CAPPA]

Gosh, Victor you made him stutter.

Regards,
Scott

Yeah, I’m sorry I do that sometimes when I’m writing on forums or watching Popeye movies.

Then how would you explain people who believe in hell but aren't scared one bit? I'm too busy focusing on justice and love to be scared. - Victor

I wish I could explain why would they believe in it at all...
yes, justice and love are worth focusing on and fighting for. ( HOPE I DIDN'T STUTTER)