Is the problem of Hell actually a problem?

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What gives you peace?

Avoiding threads with exchanges such as these

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

Avoiding threads with exchanges such as these

Indeed, not many places to go, but many ways to get there... 😉

[Night FM]

On 8/28/2024 at 8:36 AM, Eise said:

I think, especially in the way that @Night FM formulates it, it is even worse: obviously only the most terrible threat, burn eternally in hell, works to keep religious people on the right moral path.

Just contrast this with Zen-Buddhist ethics: there morality is a consequence of real insight in who we are. It leads to friendliness and compassion with other living beings. To say it very simple: we are all living in the same boat.

@Night FM: would you, personally, misbehave, when heaven and hell would not exist? If not, why? If yes, then I consider you as a morally bad person, because you only behave morally under the biggest threat possible. Do you really need that, just to be kind to others?

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

[Phi for All]

14 minutes ago, Night FM said:

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

Or, we can believe that behaving kindly to others brings inherent benefits. There's no need for consequences, other than not gaining the benefits of fair treatment. Reduce the friction and the whole system has less stress and functions more like it's supposed to.

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

That's a bit cynical and also a little bit insulting. I do nice things for people nearly every day and only rarely kick old ladies to the curb, and none of it is due to fear of retribution, now or in an afterlife. 

[OldChemE]

1 hour ago, Night FM said:

I think it's a moot point, because even if people say they don't believe in a God or afterlife, they still believe there is some inherent reason why they "should" behave kindly to others, as well as some inherant reason why they "shouldn't" behave wrongly to others, implying a consequence of sorts.

If they truly believed that there was no inherent reason to behave kindly to people. then I believe they would potentially do otherwise, or at least only avoid doing so out of fear of external consequences, such as retribution of the law.

This sounds rather like the moral distinctions from Kohlberg (6 stages of moral development).  he basically theorized that the 5th stage was that people behaved in order to comply with the rules of society, while the 6th stage was that people did what they did purely because it was right. Kohlberg, if I remember correctly, thought very few people made it to stage 6.  That 5th stage requires laws or some form of punishment ( in the extreme, hell?),while the 6th does not.

[Ken Fabian]

@Night FM Not sure you picked the best venue to have religious beliefs in rewards and punishments in an afterlife as foundational to ethical behavior affirmed. Atheists are the majority here and I've never noticed criminal or exploitative tendencies; you aren't going to find actual cause to believe atheists lack a moral compass.

My own view is that holding to belief in the moral inferiority of those who don't share your religious beliefs is the road to selective abandonment of a moral compass - the ills of the world can be blamed on them, their freedoms restricted and their right to hold positions of trust and responsibility denied. And it is human nature - in my view one of the worst failings of human nature - that when people think someone is innately bad for their religious beliefs or lack of them then doing things that harm them can appear justified and even be a cause for satisfaction and pleasure - I've encountered "good" Christians who think people like me should face legal restrictions, penalties and even vigilante violence for being atheist.

Religious beliefs like turning the other cheek, motes in eyes and beams can moderate that innate urge to hurt those we deem bad or just different. Or it can encourage them - guns and bibles, praise God and hand me ammunition.

I know that if I do bad things to people they will want to do them back. I want to be safe from people doing bad things to me, not perpetrate them. I support having laws and enforcement and courts that seek to determine the facts, without having my lack of religious beliefs counted against me as if it were a crime.