Why does God allow the existance of people who go to hell?

What Good? This one?



For me God does not exists in that form. He is energy, he is neutral.

Originally posted by sirnex

Uh. What?

If I've followed your posts your beef is religious people are too irrational.

Who said there is no rational reason to be moral? You don't need God or a reward system in place in order to be moral. The point I was making is that those who do need a God and a reward system for moral behavior are simply not as moral as they like to think they are, especially when they make statements such as the one I had replied to.

It's irrational to be "moral" a majority of times. If you can get away with reaping the advantages of being amoral what rational reason do you have to act moral?

I'm pretty sure I pointed out the selfishness aspect of religious "morality". When they make statements such as the one I had replied to in which they question the necessity to conduct moral behavior in the absence of reward for that moral behavior, then they are simply being moral only for the prospect of receiving a reward for doing so by their deity of choice/indoctrination/personal invention.

There is no such thing as being moral for the sake of being moral. Either it makes you feel good or satisfies some other thing to benefit you in some way. Ergo, it's hypocritical to blame religious people for reasons they are moral, when all humans are moral for some reason other than being moral. If there was no incentive to be moral, then people wouldn't be moral. Even non-religious folk who claim a higher morality for not seeking paradise do so for selfish reasons like feeling good about oneself.

In all honesty, the propagation of genes does not require morality.

Just covering my bases. Atheists usually say morality and altruism exists for evolutionary reasons.

Didn't I mention that as well? What exactly is your reply to me supposed to entail? Is there a point or is this mindless bitching without any intelligent substance?

Ho ho ho, no.

So, in your opinion it's perfectly acceptable on a psychological level to ONLY be moral IF you receive reward for doing so and without prospect of any reward we can simply drop all morality?

Why, then, are you moral? Because people say so and so is just and being moral is good? Because it feels right? (Rhetorical questions)

Everyone is moral because there is a benefit or reward in some way, whether it's just about feeling good with oneself, or seeking closure with God. There's no brownie points for being moral for non-religious reasons.

Originally posted by Dr Slim
reply to post by Seventytwo

 

if we are made in the image of god, is god a "bad" man.. sometimes? you know, like on weekends.

Yes, especially on the longest weekends

reply to post by 547000

If I've followed your posts your beef is religious people are too irrational.

I don't recall arguing that specific point in this thread or in others. But OK... You read what you read and not what is said, that's cool.

It's irrational to be "moral" a majority of times. If you can get away with reaping the advantages of being amoral what rational reason do you have to act moral?

Interesting and I'm not sure how to respond to someone who considers morality to be irrational. How is it irrational to conduct oneself in a beneficial manner when living alongside society? Now, if we lived individually rather than communally, then I might agree with you.

There is no such thing as being moral for the sake of being moral.

Really?

Either it makes you feel good or satisfies some other thing to benefit you in some way.

So, an emotional response to doing good is a tangible reward in your opinion? What about petting a dog or cat and getting a pleasurable response out of that? Is that also a tangible reward for such an act? Is an emotional response equatable to receiving reward of heaven rather than hell?

Ergo, it's hypocritical to blame religious people for reasons they are moral, when all humans are moral for some reason other than being moral.

All? Are you the sole representative for all seven billion persons on this planet?

If there was no incentive to be moral, then people wouldn't be moral.

I personally disagree based upon personal experience. I've done moral deeds without expectation of reward and in turn have had the person I helped screw me over in the end.

Maybe *you* can't be moral without incentive, in such case, tells me everything I need to know about you and how trustworthy you are.

Even non-religious folk who claim a higher morality for not seeking paradise do so for selfish reasons like feeling good about oneself.

Is it selfish to have an emotional response for doing good more so than receiving a tangible reward?

Just covering my bases. Atheists usually say morality and altruism exists for evolutionary reasons.

That's honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone mention anything about morality being an aspect of Evolutionary Theory or the propagation of genetic material during reproduction.

Ho ho ho, no.

No to what? No point or mindless bitching?

Why, then, are you moral?

Because it's better than being immoral. I see no point to steal from others, murder or any other immoral act.

Everyone is moral because there is a benefit or reward in some way, whether it's just about feeling good with oneself, or seeking closure with God. There's no brownie points for being moral for non-religious reasons.

No brownie points for non-religious? Are you trying to say that people conducting moral behavior need God in order to be viewed as being moral? Other people and society as a whole just simply doesn't matter? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Originally posted by sirnex

I don't recall arguing that specific point in this thread or in others. But OK... You read what you read and not what is said, that's cool.

Yeah, it's pretty cool.

Interesting and I'm not sure how to respond to someone who considers morality to be irrational. How is it irrational to conduct oneself in a beneficial manner when living alongside society? Now, if we lived individually rather than communally, then I might agree with you.

It's irrational most of the time I said. What rational reason do you have to not tell a lie if you won't get caught? What makes a moral act the most rational act?

Really?

Yep.

So, an emotional response to doing good is a tangible reward in your opinion? What about petting a dog or cat and getting a pleasurable response out of that? Is that also a tangible reward for such an act? Is an emotional response equatable to receiving reward of heaven rather than hell?

Yes. It's pleasurable in some way, which is why you do it in spite of less work needed to be immoral.

All? Are you the sole representative for all seven billion persons on this planet?

Sure, let's go with that for the sake of it. I don't think I am but it's easier to just say I am.

I personally disagree based upon personal experience. I've done moral deeds without expectation of reward and in turn have had the person I helped screw me over in the end.

Or you believed that being moral was good, and you wanted to consider yourself a good person to feel good.

Maybe *you* can't be moral without incentive, in such case, tells me everything I need to know about you and how trustworthy you are.

Nah man, I'm just honest. All morality is selfishness if you consider it without hypocrisy. If you didn't derive some value from it you wouldn't do it in a majority of cases.

Is it selfish to have an emotional response for doing good more so than receiving a tangible reward?

You're the one who implied that seeking reward for performing a moral deed makes you selfish. I'm just the one pointing out that in that case all moral actions can be considered selfish from an objective point of view.

That's honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone mention anything about morality being an aspect of Evolutionary Theory or the propagation of genetic material during reproduction.

They often say that altruism is because in some cases cooperation is better than competition, and we are such a species. I'm surprised you've never heard that before.

No to what? No point or mindless bitching?

No to starting a bash war.

Because it's better than being immoral. I see no point to steal from others,
murder or any other immoral act.

That was a rhetorical question.

No brownie points for non-religious? Are you trying to say that people conducting moral behavior need God in order to be viewed as being moral? Other people and society as a whole just simply doesn't matter? What exactly are you trying to say here?

I'm saying all moral actions can be considered selfish, objectively. Your quip about the religious being selfish is hypocritical. Everyone does moral actions because they derive some sort of value from it.

[edit on 2-8-2010 by 547000]

Double post

[edit on 2-8-2010 by 547000]

God does not allow any people to exist. When a person 'thinks' that they exist, this is the suffering. You are this moment. When you imagine that there is a you outside of this moment, this imagining creates hell.

The existence of people is hell. When you are absent this is heaven. When you are in deep sleep although you do not remember it, we all experience deep peace. Lose yourself in the moment.

Simple answer. The entire universe is God's SIMS game.

No pun intended. I have the same question since child.

reply to post by 547000

Yeah, it's pretty cool.

Sure, I suppose if you lack the ability to comprehend what you're reading.

It's irrational most of the time I said. What rational reason do you have to not tell a lie if you won't get caught? What makes a moral act the most rational act?

What 'rational' reason would one have to lie?

Yes. It's pleasurable in some way, which is why you do it in spite of less work needed to be immoral.

There is less energy expenditure in the act of petting a cat compared to kicking a cat. You don't like simple physics much do you?

Sure, let's go with that for the sake of it. I don't think I am but it's easier to just say I am.

Now that is simply the most retarded statement I've read yet on ATS.

Or you believed that being moral was good, and you wanted to consider yourself a good person to feel good.

Or more true to reality considering it's my own experience of the act, I simply didn't even think of any reward. I saw someone who needed help, the course of action was plainly obvious considering the situation the person was in. Never did it ever cross my mind that I would receive any reward or good feelings for helping.Perhaps not *all* people are selfish?

Nah man, I'm just honest. All morality is selfishness if you consider it without hypocrisy. If you didn't derive some value from it you wouldn't do it in a majority of cases.

The statement only rings true if one throws out simple logic and behavioral science.

You're the one who implied that seeking reward for performing a moral deed makes you selfish. I'm just the one pointing out that in that case all moral actions can be considered selfish from an objective point of view.

Care to answer the question or is it too hard?

They often say that altruism is because in some cases cooperation is better than competition, and we are such a species. I'm surprised you've never heard that before.

How does beneficial behaviors in a communal society contribute to reproductive success? Altruism is not necessary for reproduction or for finding a mate in which to reproduce, ask any rapist.

No to starting a bash war.

Nor was I when I asked. I was simply trying to figure out if your first response actually had a point or was mindless bitching.

That was a rhetorical question.

OK.

I'm saying all moral actions can be considered selfish, objectively. Your quip about the religious being selfish is hypocritical. Everyone does moral actions because they derive some sort of value from it.

If I were to do something for reward, I would value a tangible reward, not a good feeling. Is a good feeling a tangible reward of significant value that can be used for any useful purpose? Is a good feeling enough of an incentive?

Originally posted by sirnex

Sure, I suppose if you lack the ability to comprehend what you're reading.

Yeah, it's pretty cool.

What 'rational' reason would one have to lie?

If admitting a certain thing would put you in trouble.

There is less energy expenditure in the act of petting a cat compared to kicking a cat. You don't like simple physics much do you?

It also costs more energy then not petting a cat. You pet a cat because it's more rewarding than not.

I love physics.

Now that is simply the most retarded statement I've read yet on ATS.

Glad you enjoyed it. I'm really a riot.

Or more true to reality considering it's my own experience of the act, I simply didn't even think of any reward. I saw someone who needed help, the course of action was plainly obvious considering the situation the person was in. Never did it ever cross my mind that I would receive any reward or good feelings for helping.Perhaps not *all* people are selfish?

If doing something because it provides value to you/rewards you is selfish, then all people are selfish. If not, then they aren't.

The statement only rings true if one throws out simple logic and behavioral science.

Not true.

Care to answer the question or is it too hard?

I'm pretty sure the question isn't, but I'm too lazy to go back and look over it, so it is hard I suppose to answer the question at this juncture.

How does beneficial behaviors in a communal society contribute to reproductive success? Altruism is not necessary for reproduction or for finding a mate in which to reproduce, ask any rapist.

That's what they usually say. I suppose cooperation helps with survival.

Nor was I when I asked. I was simply trying to figure out if your first response actually had a point or was mindless bitching.

Good to hear. You're usually incisive.

If I were to do something for reward, I would value a tangible reward, not a good feeling. Is a good feeling a tangible reward of significant value that can be used for any useful purpose? Is a good feeling enough of an incentive?

It probably is or you wouldn't waste any energy on it rationally.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by 547000]

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion




lol.I love the sims. But i have thought of that idea aswell.

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


If you read - God gave each human being born into the world FREE WILL. That means you have the conscious choice to make whatever you want out of your life. God wants each of us to be intelligent thinkers, and doesn't want us to just be mindless slaves. We were created in his image, and created in his world. You get to choose your own place in life and in post life.

Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

 

If you read - God gave each human being born into the world FREE WILL. That means you have the conscious choice to make whatever you want out of your life. God wants each of us to be intelligent thinkers, and doesn't want us to just be mindless slaves. We were created in his image, and created in his world. You get to choose your own place in life and in post life.

I understand that we were given 'free will.' We make our own decisions, and according to the Bible, those decisions will eventually place us in either heaven or hell. But, according to the Bible, God has omni-presence and has knowledge of our choices well before we are even born. My question is, why would God allow us to be born if God has knowledge that some of our choices will place us in hell? Whats the point?

Could it be that some of our suffering helps the growth of others? I just can't imagine that an "all loving" God could let us even exist knowing our choices will place us in hell for eternity. I feel that the Bible, along with other organized religion, is missing something so profound yet so simple.

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO

Could it be that some of our suffering helps the growth of others?

I think you almost answered your own question here.

The Quran says, before mankind was created, the angels asked God similar questions:

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know."

(2:30) --------- quran.com...

I think we're too limited to see why God does anything that He does. He created us with free will, yet at the same time, nothing occurs except what He decides. The angels wondered why God wanted to create people that would be corrupt. You asked why God would allow someone to exist if he was meant for Hell.

The questions seem unrelated, but those who go to Hell are those who were corrupt, causing destruction in the world. The answer to your question is that only God sees the big picture. He creates people who, through their own free will, choose evil. They choose to harm others. So, God sends them to Hell. But, that's not all that happened. We're not seeing the side-effects. We need to look at the other effects of the evil that these people did, the ripples they cause. I'll give you an example.

Hitler was one of the worst people to ever walk the Earth. He caused the deaths of millions of innocent people, and launched a war that changed the world. He chose to be a horrible person, and let's say he went to Hell as punishment. He was not brought to justice in his lifetime, but he faces God in the afterlife.

Now, let's think about what might've happened if Hitler never existed. There might never have been World War II and there might never have been a holocaust. Sounds good, right? But, if none of these events happened, then humanity would never learn from these events. We would never know of these evils. We would not learn from mistakes of the past. Now, we value life so much more. We have holocaust survivors and diaries of people who were sent to gas chambers. We have heard the motto "never again." We learned, from that atrocity, the value of innocent life. We saw firsthand, how wretched humans could be, but we also made a choice to stop that evil. We now make choices to stop it from ever happening again. We have international law protecting human rights even in times of war. Without Hitler or World War II, the US might not be the superpower it is today. We don't know how the world would turn out. Some philosophers believed that this word we live in--with all the choices made in history--is the best of all possible outcomes. (See en.wikipedia.org...)

So, to come full circle. You asked, why does God allow people who go to Hell to exist? Those who go to Hell are those who are corrupt--the ones who will cause chaos and misery in the world. They exist for the greater good. They are here, and they choose evil out of free will. The rest of us, who choose good, are here to counter them, and learn from their wrongdoing. We are here to establish what is good. Without their necessary evil, we would not know the value of good. They are punished with Hell for their evil, while the rest are rewarded with Paradise for their good. That is justice. I'd like to add, God is Most Merciful. He forgives much, especially sinners who seek it.

You asked, "Could it be that some of our suffering helps the growth of others?" I say yes, the evil that others cause helps us grow, and rise above our suffering. In the end, only God knows the tapestry He weaved, and He does what He wants. But, it's always for some benefit.

It's kind of like this:



[edit on 6-8-2010 by muftanan]

Everything is supposedly connected and what you say makes no sense. If God created people who are corrupt, then God itself is corrupt, simply because how would a human being who comes from God know what corruption is, unless God itself knows & has experienced corruption. As above, so below. It's time to stop making excuses for a fictional God that is morally corrupt. Maybe that is the reason why angels rebelled, simply because they have more morals and ethics than the God that created them. If the old & new testaments are anything to go by, I personally would never bow down to a biblical God who is morally beneath me. His actions and the blood on his hands speaks for itself. If the biblical God is real, then it is at war with itself. The egotistical mental battle between good and evil and we are the byproduct.



[edit on 6-8-2010 by kindred]

reply to post by muftanan

So evil is fine as long as some good results from it?

That justifies the suffering and misery, does it?

The ends justify the means, do they?

What a heartless, brainless attitude.

I am still waiting for your response to the points I made in my earlier reply to you. I expect I shall wait for ever, because you have no sensible answer, just Koranic babble. The fact is, you know that what I say is incontestably true. Religious lies fall to dust when confronted with humanity and reason.

Yet again, faith has failed to justify itself. The moral vacuum at the heart of religion is, once again, exposed.

[edit on 8/8/10 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by 547000
And yet you complain religious people are irrational. Take your pick, are they irrational or are you? Can't have it both ways. If there's really no rational reason to be moral in a given situation, is it really irrational to not be moral?

One could argue people are simply selfish, only being moral to survive longer and spread their genes. They are not moral for the sake of being moral. How dare they! Selfish bastards!

There are rational reasons for being moral, even without the fear of an all-powerful supreme being. Most people realise they are happy when they are treated with respect, tolerance and patience; and are unhappy when hey are shown disrespect, bigotry and impatience. Most people realise that other people exist and all have their own goals or desires they wish to achieve. History has shown that when large groups of people take part in "moral" behaviour, the society is generally better off and happiness is more widespread. (I used the word moral to mean "what is right" or "what ought to be done" because most people see it as meaning these things.)

Happiness, prosperity and security usually breed happiness, prosperity and security. Misery, pain and suffering usually breed misery, pain and suffering. Only an irrational mind would justify achieving happiness through the mistreatment of others and those below them.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO


Hi, I am new to this site, but am enjoying it so much! I think that God won't find eternal beings who love him if he put boundries on us. God is everything good, but he doesn't want a bunch of robots. So...He not nescessarily create as much as gives life to us for us to create. Now...He made the angels and according to the bible a third of them ended up chosing to abandon holy ways. If he would of created robots none would. But he has two third of the angels who CHOOSE to love him and obey him. I say it is a simular situation with humas. He has to give life to all to choose or it would just be him making what he wants. And that is not love. He is all loving and all justive. As for hell, I strugle with that. I believe in heaven whole heartedly, but hell....hmmm, I hope it doesn't exitst.

There are many beings that exist naturally in the planes that are commonly refered to as "hell" - generally they enjoy being there, as opposed to humans, who are perpetually fearful.

Look, the universe was manifested as a unity, and genetic engineering has tampered with that unity, thus "free will" and thus "hell."

Why? Random chance.