Do atheists freely choose Hell?

[ReliStuPhD]

I've been loathe to post this here because it's a question that's fraught with the potential to get people's hackles up. On the other hand, I'm keenly interested in getting an answer to the question, obviously from atheists, but also from those who might hold that this is a logical consequence of disbelief in a free will setting. To be clear, I don't actually hold to the notion of Hell as any sort of ontology. I could see it as a metaphor for state of being separate from God, but not as any sort of fire-and-brimstone/eternal-torture place. So this is really just an academic question rather than any sort of adjudication of truth-claims. Now for the post...

Several times in the past few months, I've run across the claim by Christians (not all of them) that, because God respects free will, God respects the atheist's choice not to believe and so gives the atheist "what they want," so to speak. Underlying this idea is the notion that, regardless of the person, God ensures there is at least one point in everyone's life where they are presented with proof of God's existence, and that disbelief after that point is a choice. Granted, some atheists claim no such thing has happened, while some are more strident and say something like "If that's God, then I would choose Hell." Either way, the Christian claim that I've run into is that the atheist's choice not to believe is deliberate and, insofar as the consequences of disbelief should they prove incorrect are clear, they are choosing those consequences if they are wrong about God and God respects that free-will choice.

Now, as I've said, this is an academic question for me, but it does seem like this position has some merit, logically (metaphysically, I'm highly skeptical). It might be phrased in a (bad) syllogism as such:

1. God "clearly" reveals 'himself' to all humans, but does not compel belief
2. The consequences of disbelief are clear (Hell)
3. Atheists nevertheless freely choose not to believe.
4. Atheists freely choose Hell.

Now, it goes without saying that if God does not exist, the syllogism is meaningless, so debating whether God exists is a red herring. So...

If Christians are right, and their God does exist, do atheists choose Hell by disbelieving?

I'm happy to parse out some of the particulars here, especially insofar as there is more nuance to this Christian position than I've presented here (I'm trying to just sketch the broad outlines). If we can actually discuss this in a rational manner, that would be great, but I'll certainly understand if passions flare a bit here.

PS The position that atheism is a "lack of belief" is a non-starter here. That might make for a good post elsewhere, but here it won't work. A lack of belief would not be choosing, so this position would fail on that point alone.

[Greatest I am]

I just posted elsewhere that there is no hell.

That said, the notion of anyone choosing eternal torture instead of something else is ridiculous.

One would have to be insane to do so and if insane and God does not forgive the disbelief, then he wanted to send the atheist to hell in the first place and belief would not save you.

This notion of us choosing hell is a lie perpetuated by Christians who were ashamed of their God having a heaven for those who accept him and only a really terrible hell for those who rejected him.

Imagine how we would be all considered to be pricks if we answered rejection from people by torturing them instead of just bidding them a fond farewell.

That kind of prickly action is what put enough shame in Christians to have them develop the lie of people choosing hell.

Christianity has really hit the low moral ground.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

A P.S. on free will.

If God respects our free will, it is quite strange that he ignores it and claws it back from us every time he kills one of us and the bible is full of such instances.

So God respecting our free will is an outright lie.

Regards
DL

[Ned]

Now, as I've said, this is an academic question for me, but it does seem like this position has some merit, logically (metaphysically, I'm highly skeptical). It might be phrased in a (bad) syllogism as such:

1. God "clearly" reveals 'himself' to all humans, but does not compel belief
2. The consequences of disbelief are clear (Hell)
3. Atheists nevertheless freely choose not to believe.
4. Atheists freely choose Hell.

Question: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[henry quirk]

"If Christians are right, and their God does exist, do atheists choose Hell by disbelieving?"

Yep.

[Skip]

1. God "clearly" reveals 'himself' to all humans, but does not compel belief
2. The consequences of disbelief are clear (Hell)
3. Atheists nevertheless freely choose not to believe.
4. Atheists freely choose Hell.

5. God placed some of His experimental subjects on the 'control' group. He gave them minds with a low tolerance for contradiction and then showed them nothing but internally contradictory evidence of his presence. They are unable to believe, but unbelief results in Hell; they are constantly told that they have free will and yet are constantly compelled to act against their own inclination.

Now, it goes without saying that if God does not exist, the syllogism is meaningless, so debating whether God exists is a red herring. So...

In the circs, that looks like a preferable option.

[Greatest I am]

Now, as I've said, this is an academic question for me, but it does seem like this position has some merit, logically (metaphysically, I'm highly skeptical). It might be phrased in a (bad) syllogism as such:

1. God "clearly" reveals 'himself' to all humans, but does not compel belief
2. The consequences of disbelief are clear (Hell)
3. Atheists nevertheless freely choose not to believe.
4. Atheists freely choose Hell.

Question: how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

How big is the pin and how far up can I stack the angels?

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

5. God placed some of His experimental subjects on the 'control' group. He gave them minds with a low tolerance for contradiction and then showed them nothing but internally contradictory evidence of his presence. They are unable to believe, but unbelief results in Hell; they are constantly told that they have free will and yet are constantly compelled to act against their own inclination.

But since the whole questions predicates itself on Christians being right (i.e. if they're not, the question is moot), then it follows that Christians would be right that the tradition is not contradictory in any fashion. Of course, this raises the interesting point that if you honestly believe all of the evidence is contradictory, and then you're shown it's not, do you get a "second chance," so to speak? The other side of this, however, is that the Christians who would make this claim say that the atheist has never sat down and taken the strongest arguments to show they are contradictory. Instead, they've settled on taking the weakest arguments in a sort of confirmation bias move. That is to say, the atheist shuts his/her mind off even to the possibility that it's coherent, and in choosing not to investigate the strongest arguments, makes a deliberate choice.

At least on this final sentence, I think there's a lot of merit (regardless of whether it applies to Hell). I've yet to meet an atheist who took me up on the challenge of reading, for example, the Summa Theologica and then showing me where it fails on logical grounds. Of course, there are a lot of Christians who don't investigate atheism's strongest arguments, so it's definitely a two-way street.

[Melchior]

Which hell would that be, now?

[ReliStuPhD]

This notion of us choosing hell is a lie perpetuated by Christians who were ashamed of their God having a heaven for those who accept him and only a really terrible hell for those who rejected him.

It's a lie only if they're wrong, and insofar as the question is a hypothetical predicated on them being right, this doesn't serve as any sort of objection. If I were trying to get at the truth concerned the existence of Hell, eternal damnation, etc. it might.

[Melchior]

One day a guy dies and finds himself in hell. As he is wallowing in despair, he has his first meeting with the devil...

Satan: Why so glum?

Guy: What do you think? I'm in hell!

Satan: Hell's not so bad. We actually have a lot of fun down here. Are you a drinking man?

Guy: Sure, I love to drink.

Satan: Well you're gonna love Mondays then. On Mondays that's all we do is drink. Whiskey, tequila, Guinness, wine coolers, diet tab and colas. We drink till we throw up and then we drink some more! And we don't worry about getting a hangover because you're dead anyway.

Guy: Gee, that sounds great!

Satan: You a smoker?

Guy: You better believe it!

Satan: All right! You're gonna love Tuesdays. We get the finest cigars from all over the world and smoke our lungs out. If you get cancer no biggie, you're already dead, remember?

Guy: Wow... that's awesome!

Satan: I bet you like to gamble.

Guy: Why yes, as a matter of fact I do.

Satan: Cause Wednesdays you can gamble all you want. Craps, Blackjack, Roulette, Poker, Slots. If you go bankrupt... you're dead anyhow. Do you do drugs??

Guy: Are you kidding? Love drugs! You don't mean...

Satan: That's right! Thursday is drug day. Help yourself to a great big bowl of crack, or smack. Smoke a doobie the size of a submarine. You can do all the drugs you want, you're dead, who cares.

Guy: WOW! I never realized Hell was such a cool place!

Satan: You gay?

Guy: No...

Satan: Ooooh You're gonna hate Fridays.

[Ned]

But since the whole questions predicates itself on Christians being right (i.e. if they're not, the question is moot), then it follows that Christians would be right that the tradition is not contradictory in any fashion. Of course, this raises the interesting point that if you honestly believe all of the evidence is contradictory, and then you're shown it's not, do you get a "second chance," so to speak? The other side of this, however, is that the Christians who would make this claim say that the atheist has never sat down and taken the strongest arguments to show they are contradictory. Instead, they've settled on taking the weakest arguments in a sort of confirmation bias move. That is to say, the atheist shuts his/her mind off even to the possibility that it's coherent, and in choosing not to investigate the strongest arguments, makes a deliberate choice.

And they give out PhD-s for this?

[Melchior]

(Blather snipped) I've yet to meet an atheist who took me up on the challenge of reading, for example, the Summa Theologica and then showing me where it fails on logical grounds. Of course, there are a lot of Christians who don't investigate atheism's strongest arguments, so it's definitely a two-way street.

Uhmmmm...it would fail on empirical grounds, dumbass....

[ReliStuPhD]

But since the whole questions predicates itself on Christians being right (i.e. if they're not, the question is moot), then it follows that Christians would be right that the tradition is not contradictory in any fashion. Of course, this raises the interesting point that if you honestly believe all of the evidence is contradictory, and then you're shown it's not, do you get a "second chance," so to speak? The other side of this, however, is that the Christians who would make this claim say that the atheist has never sat down and taken the strongest arguments to show they are contradictory. Instead, they've settled on taking the weakest arguments in a sort of confirmation bias move. That is to say, the atheist shuts his/her mind off even to the possibility that it's coherent, and in choosing not to investigate the strongest arguments, makes a deliberate choice.

And they give out PhD-s for this?

Went over your head, eh?


Out of curiosity, what degree do you hold? I'm guessing a Ph.D.? I've never really given much thought to what a theoretical physicist has degree-wise.

[Skip]

At least on this final sentence, I think there's a lot of merit (regardless of whether it applies to Hell). I've yet to meet an atheist who took me up on the challenge of reading, for example, the Summa Theologica and then showing me where it fails on logical grounds.

This would be something written some 12 centuries after the stories of Christ were disseminated in Europe by agents whom the author had not met, about a seminal event the author had not witnessed, about gospels written in languages the author could not read, translated to Latin by long-dead scholars of whose character and competence the author could not learn, edited and transcribed in the interval a number of times and by hands and eyes of whose accuracy the author could not ascertain. Is this, then a primary source on Christianity?

Still, should a copy [English modern translation - twice more removed from primary source material] cross my path again, after all these decades of neglect, I may peruse it. I may even take a shot at refuting it.
starting with:

First, we observe that some things in the world are in motion. Whatever is in motion is put into motion by another object that is in motion1. This other object, in turn, was put into motion by still another object preceding it, and so forth. This series cannot go on backward to infinity,2 though, since there would otherwise be no first mover3 and thus no subsequent movement4. Therefore, we must conclude5 that there is a first unmoved mover6, which we understand to be God7.

1Some things are moving. We assume - for no reason given - that they were pushed by other objects.
2Even though we can't see the objects behind the objects behind the objects, we assume that they can't keep going back to infinity....
3.... because then there couldn't be a first object
4 and the absence of a first object would contradict the assumption we made - for no reason given - that all movement must be caused by objects pushing other objects, plus our further assumption - for no reason given - that this regression cannot be infinite, because that would contradict our assumption of a first mover, which would contradict our assumption of no infinite regression...
5 no questions, no observations, not even speculation, yet we're compelled to arrive at a conclusion
6that there is one object at the start of the process which doesn't move, despite our initial observation that only some of the objects are moving some of the time and without having asked why the unmoving ones are still
7and that presumed unseen, unknown, not-quite-infinitely distant unmoving object can be none other than the god of the Jews.