Is there any evidence that Hell really exists, or is it merely a fantasy?

If you read the new book “Love Wins” by Rob Bell, or “The Great Divorce” by CS Lewis, you might conclude that if you’re hell bound, it has already started. It’s not a destination, it’s more an attitude.

There’s no tangible evidence of the existence of heaven or hell. Some people believe it exists, some don’t.

Nope. Hell is a tool to control people’s behavior. You want someone to correct their bad behavior, but simply the knowledge that the opposite behavior is “good” is not enough motivation, then what’s a better motivator than threatening them with eternal torment? The concept of Hell is a major reason why I became more of an agnostic atheist. How can someone be punished infinitely for finite infractions? Do Christians only do good because they’re afraid of going to Hell? If not, then why is Hell needed in the first place?

Personally? No.
To me, it always felt like a man-made construct used to control followers through fear.
If you’re a bad boy or girl, Santa won’t bring you a present. My dutch father-in-law assured me that in Holland, Santa had a helper called “Black Pete” who would round up the bad kids and throw them into the coal cellar. I guess when your aim is to keep your kids in line, it’s tempting to add a threat to the incentive.
If it exists, it is a state of mind. People do love to make prisons for themselves, don’t they?

Either that, or it is as foretold in the scriptures: Elden, Iowa.

Well, it’s in the Bible, but if that book is truly the Word of God, He can kiss my balls and send me to Hell.

Heaven don’t sound so fun, if you gotta spend an eternity with that jealous, vicious, son-of-a-bitch!

If all that shit is true, God is nothing more than the school bully saying,
“gimme your lunch & kiss my shoe, or I’ll send you straight to Hell.”

Pathetic.

Hell is where you will lament the sins and damage you did without the ability to change or rectify the situation. It’s not a physical place.

Was it your Bishop that said that you are not temple worthy? Any member can’t come up to you and judge you. That’s your Bishop’s position.

@dubsrayboo No; it was the janitor. Another high school preacher.

What the crap!? I don’t think he has a say in your life’s situation, only you do.

Also it’s not being able to progress eternally. But I’m giving you Sunday school lessons now. Hope things get better.

Even if its is real, there won’t be evidence of it. Christianity has long since moved away form the idea that hell is physically below us. Just remember, lack of evidence doesn’t mean its not real.

Personally, I would imagine that if “hell” does exist, its not something we can really imagine right now. Can you really imagine what “eternal pain” even means? Heaven and hell, if they exist, are almost certainly beyond our comprehension. Hence, the need for faith.

“There are no gods, no devils,
no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition
that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”
– atheist slogan

There’s certainly no physical evidence of Hell. Or even of your “soul.” People believe because they want to believe.

@gasman “People believe because they want to believe.”

People believe for all sorts of reasons. Some of them are indoctrinated from childhood. Others believe that the existence of love is enough evidence of a creator. Some even believe that the existence of something (as opposed to nothing) is strong enough evidence. Etc…

@SofaKingWright

“this is absolute nonsense, and only devised as a means of controlling the ignorant followers”

This is true of almost all religious dogma, not just fantasies of Hell. Apply the logic that you are using in your analysis of the possibility of Hell a bit more globally and see what happens.

@roundsquare If heaven and hell are so far beyond our comprehension, then why is the prospect such a major component of evangelical dialogue (sic nonsense)?

@SofaKingWright Sorry, I should have been more specific. What I mean is that any level of detail is beyond our comprehension. The best we can do is come up with poor approximations. We can say “lots of pain for a really long time” but we can’t really understand what “infinite pain for all eternity” means (and similarly for heaven). Humans are bad at understanding things like infinity but we can understand very big. However, one needn’t understand the full extent of the pain hell brings or the pleasure heaven brings for the prospect of going to hell or heaven to influence our behavior. I mean, for some people telling them that “if you do such and such for the rest of your life and you’ll be rewarded with a steak everyday for eternity” is enough.

What we need is hard evidence for the sceptics amongst us. Any volunteers?

Best to take a video camera, but on second thoughts… He’d probably take the camera off you so no secrets could be leaked. There would be a universal media black out on the story. He’d spread confusion so that we’d all fight amongst ourselves. Hence division, separation, discontent, isolation etc. Thus urging us on a one way path to his door.

@ninjaapantz Hard evidence would be nice. My question is this: why does a lack of hard evidence means hell doesn’t exist? Do you have hard evidence (or any) that it doesn’t?

It seems to me that the best statement is: we don’t know if hell exists or not.

I’m not interested in hard evidence. I’m interested in any evidence. Clearly, there seems to be a lack of each.

Something that I always wondered was: what torments could they possibly inflict in hell that have not already been inflicted by humans upon each other? Every torture you could imagine has probably already been done, probably many times. I think hell and heaven are here, on Earth, in life, and we make them for one another.

Er… No, not as such. No evidence for fiery torture pits with demons. However there are places or states of mind that do seem Hellish.

I don’t understand how hell could be so bad, I mean you’d get used to it after a while. If you’re spending eternity there, that is. A few centuries in and it’d be a pretty nice place, I imagine you start getting fond of it.

@roundsquare What I actually meant is that people debate this question because they’re not open to the idea of it. I personally do believe in heaven and hell but not necessarily in the way they describe it in church. There’s tons of evidence, hard and soft. If you really went looking, you’d find it in different religions and their books, from personal accounts, from fables, history, visions etc. But if you’re not looking or you don’t really want to know, you wont go out of your way to actually see it. For every account, you’d find a way to discount it. Really there’s little point in talking about it. It’s the dogma and the rhetoric that gets in the way of religion getting their message across. Just because it’s a church, doesn’t mean there’s no descent in it. If I was the devil that would be the first place I would be spreading confusion.

I don’t believe in it. Although as far as I understand Hell and Heaven, these aren’t places that mortal humans can ever see or have access to. I don’t even think they’re different worlds, universes or anything like that. They’re like different states of being, or whatever exists for when humans transition to whatever state there may be after death, or something? So even if they exist, there will never be any proof of them, not in this world. But eh I don’t believe in any of that.

Does this question even matter? When you’re dead, you’ll get your answer. And probably what you believed would be right.

@ninjaapantz

“There’s tons of evidence, hard and soft. If you really went looking, you’d find it in different religions and their books, from personal accounts, from fables, history, visions etc.”

Given these criteria, there is just as much evidence for the existence of Middle Earth. Where can I pick up my tickets to the Shire? :>)

@crisw You’re already there :)

@ninjaapantz

“Really there’s little point in talking about it.”

I disagree. For most people this is probably true since, as you said, dogma and rhetoric get in the way. But if you are willing to talk things through slowly and carefully, I think the conversations can be enlightening.

“If you really went looking, you’d find it in different religions and their books, from personal accounts, from fables, history, visions etc”

Its true that the universality of these ideas (in broad strokes anyway) is probably evidence of something. I’m just not sure yet that is evidence that these places are real. There are other possibilities:
1) Human’s started in a centralized place and spread out. Maybe these ideas spread with them.
2) These ideas are a natural result of the way our brains evolved. We think in terms of strength and when we needed to control the strongest person in a society, we found a way to do so via a stronger concept.
3) There really is a god, but there is no heaven and hell. God just made these up so that we would act good.
etc….

I’m not sure how to decide between all these possibilities. You might think that at some point I should just go with my instinct, but I think thats a bad way to reach a conclusion here. Our instincts evolved for survival which means they are tuned to the every day world. This makes them poor guides for thinking about god.

@crisw

Not at all. @ninjaapantz isn’t just referring to there being a lot of copies of the bible out there. He/she is referring to the fact that so many different groups of disparate people have similar concepts in their faith/culture as well many people’s personal religious experiences.

@roundsquare

A common delusion is still a delusion. Most cultures used to believe that the Gods caused thunder, earthquakes and droughts. Most cultures used to believe that disease was caused by evil spirits. The number of people who believe something isn’t a good guide as to whether or not it is true.

It’s like science explaining of what a void is. Everyone agrees that it exists, but how do you prove it? 100 people would have a hundred different explanations. As for your instinct/gut, I would be more inclined to think that it is the best instrument to guide you when there is little ‘real’ evidence.

@Onlyone thanks for those videos of personal accounts, that type of account would be enough evidence for me.

@ninjaapantz

“As for your instinct/gut, I would be more inclined to think that it is the best instrument to guide you when there is little ‘real’ evidence.”

I don’t. I believe in science and the scientific method, and evidence-based decision making. At base, I think that’s the real difference between most theists and most nontheists.

@crisw Then we agree to differ and I respect you for it. **hand shake**
It’s just I use my gut allot and it works for me and I agree that everyone’s different, which is a good thing.

There’s no physical evidenceof it’s existence, no. But I still believe hell exists. Nobody shoot.

No, I don’t believe it exists. Though a man told me once he’d never be scared about hell anymore because he’d been to Hanna, Alberta.

@crisw Of course it doesn’t prove anything, but its certainly strange and requires some explanation. If you found out that 95% of cultures (whatever that means exactly) thought that god had 3 heads, you would wonder why that was true. Although its possible that its just a coincidence, you would expect the explanation to be based on some common thread between the cultures. It might be a constellation or something inherent in our biology/brain patterns. But its also possible that there is really a 3 headed god that visited these cultures. Of course, you would have a mystery to solve as why the other 5% weren’t visited. but my point is that its one of many sensible explanations.

The thunder example (and most of the similar ones I’ve heard) are slightly less convincing than they sound at first. God based explanations for natural phenomena are perhaps predictable because of (1) the human need to explain things and (2) the human tendency to analogize. I.e. in their search to explain things like thunder, its not surprising that early humans explained it in terms of things they saw in their daily lives. On the other hand, why come up with a concept of an afterlife and the existence of places with eternal pain/happiness?

@ninjaapantz “It’s just I use my gut allot and it works for me and I agree that everyone’s different, which is a good thing.”

This may make me sound like a jerk, but I think thats a cop out. Thats exactly the kind of response that makes most religious discussions worthless. In the end, we may have to stop at “everyone is different” but I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point yet. Why do you trust your gut? Is it because its worked for you in other situations (in which case there is still a question of why it would work in such a different area of thought?. Is it because you have nothing else to fall back on (in which case there is still a question of why you need to fall back on anything instead of just accepting that maybe we don’t have an answer)?

The worst thing that ever happened to this entire concept was Dante’s Inferno. Don’t get me wrong, he was a fabulous writer. So, it’s really great poetry lush with powerfully descriptive allegory. But it’s REALLY crappy theology.

Is it eternal? Certainly not. The Greek in which the New Testament was written had no word for eternal. The word or phrase most commonly translated into English as “eternal” revolves around the Greek word “aion” or “aionian”
The current English spelling is more familiar to us as “eon”.

Granted, an eon could be a pretty long period of time, and even tho a bit imprecise, it’s definitely not literally endless.

Also associated with the English word “eternal” in the Bible is the phrase “forever and ever”. And its most common interpretation is “endless”.

The phrase most commonly translated as eternal is, in reality, “unto the ages of the ages”. A little unweildy, but thats the closest accurate English transliteration Granted, that could be a long time, but it’s definitely not endless. The phrase “eternal hell” is a fabrication created by medieval theologians. Really really medieval (and all that that word entails).

The other question you asked was about why it is so prominent in evangelical preaching.

Because, unfortunately, some narrow-minded legalistic Christian groups have settled upon merely selling the gospel as a hell-insurance policy. That’s a very poor substitute for the gospel (which literally translates as “good news”) of Jesus Christ which was proclaimed in the early years of the Christian church before it was tainted by the power of it’s partnership with the Roman Army, one of the most brutal groups in history.

But not every Christian group wastes that much energy focusing upon the cruelty of an eternal hell (which is basically the creation of power-hungry medieval despots).

I’m still trying to figure out why the school janitor thinks he has the right to pass judgement on you.

And what the heck does temple-worthy mean anyhow? Which temple and where? And who is in charge of the determination?

@roundsquare

“On the other hand, why come up with a concept of an afterlife and the existence of places with eternal pain/happiness?”

Because we are afraid of death, and because we are moral animals that seek cause and effect in everything.

@Buttonstc Thats really interesting. I never knew about that set of translation problems. Although, if you believe in the bible, you might think that it was written in such a way that people at the time could understand it. I doubt most people back than could conceptualize infinity at all (people now really can’t either) so maybe they just uses a “big number” to “approximate infinity.” (See my post above about this). Pure speculation of course.

@crisw That might be the reason. It certainly makes sense. But I would pose two questions:
1) Why believe that is the reason over other possible reasons?
2) Would that explain the degree of similarity in the conceptions different civilizations came up with? (Not that I’m really clear on how similar these conceptions are but I’m given to understand they are quite similar in unexpected ways).

@roundsquare

You’re right and that was my point precisely. The word eon (or age) represents a “really big number” of years even now. And I think that it was purposely left imprecise.

If you really think about it realistically, time is a purely human construct necessary for our understanding of functioning in this current finite world.

But spiritual concepts (in most belief systems) and the essence of a creator exist outside of space/time.

Meaning, they cannot be constrained by the normal parameters with which we are used to understanding. The spiritual plane is quite different from the earthly plane.

And this is why there is no way to reconcile this with an approach which limits itself to what can be seen, touched, or perceived by purely scientific means.

I’m not saying that that’s not a valid approach for some people. It’s just a different approach from a more mystical or spiritual realm. And many feel uncomfortable with anything in that realm, understandably so.

It’s just two different worldviews. Looking at things from two different sets of lenses, for lack of a better description.

@Buttonstc “If you really think about it realistically, time is a purely human construct necessary for our understanding of our current finite world.”

Thats a huge leap of faith that I’m not willing to make yet. How do you know that time isn’t an inherent physical part of our universe (or something imposed from outside our universe, whatever that means)? I’ve this sentiment a lot, but I don’t think there is good reason to believe it (yet).

“It’s just two different worldviews.”

Again, I think this is a bit of a cop out. For the sake of not hurting people’s feelings, we tend to fall back on statements like this that allow people to go on believing whatever they want. However, it is possible to dig into the world views and see which one is better or more accurate. Maybe we’ll find out that neither one is, but thats not something we know until we try to dig deeper than just saying “people have different world views.”

Read Sartre’s play No Exit. Sartre was an atheist, but he used the play to illustrate his contention that “hell is other people.” There is no imaginable torment that is worse than what we are capable of inflicting on one another.

@roundsquare

It’s not a cop out at all. It’s a statement of fact.

If you spend even the least bit of time at the site I link to below, you’ll quickly realize that this would never ever pass muster with most scientists.

Even tho Carol Bowman has done extensive research (and written a book) about the spontaneous past life memories of young children, a typical scientist would simply state that it’s all subjective. There is no objective proof whatsoever of a shred of validity to any of these accounts.

Does that automatically make them invalid? Well it certainly doesn’t for their parents and other serious researchers. There have even been reputable news reporters (NOT the tabloid junk press) who have reported on a few of the most compelling cases where it was apparent that no one was perpetrating a hoax. And the details were such that it just isn’t possible for the child to have access to some of the details described in any other way.

The one that stands out the most in my mind is of a very young boy recounting details of a WW2 pilot being shot down over the Pacific. ABC did a fairly comprehensive report (on the program 20/20 I believe)

To a scientist this would be looked upon as pure bunk. But it’s not pure bunk to numerous other well educated and intelligent people.

Can this dichotomy be resolved? Since the same account is bring viewed through two different perspectives (the scientific vs. the mystical/spiritual, for lack of better terminology,) I don’t see how that can be reconciled in the here and now.

The best that can come is that folks on each side treat each other with the respect of acknowledging each other’s differing points of view and agree to disagree.

Absent a personal experience in that realm it’s pretty unlikely that anything will be proof enough for the scientist. Likewise, those who have personally had past life memories are not interested in someone trying to talk them out of it citing lack of objective scientific proof. Their experience is real to them and that’s all that’s necessary. They are well aware that there is no objective proof of their experience that would satisfy scientists.

Many of us come to a fork in the road at some point in life where a decision is made to either allow for the possible reality of unexplainable phenomona or reject them all for lack of concrete proof.

When we find what’s a comfortable fit for us, that’s our worldview. Some people are still in the deciding process. Perhaps that’s where you currently are?

I don’t see each group treating the other with a little bit of grace and civility instead of derision or hostility as being a cop out in the least.

I don’t quite understand why you view basic civility as a cop out. I find that a little confusing.

There has certainly been no lack of threads on Fluther which have degenerated into personal attacks and all sorts of hurt feelings because some people just can’t have a modicum of tolerance for beliefs different from their own.

The concept of Hell is such a highly emotionally charged concept, that I’m pleasantly surprised that this thread has gone on this long without devolving into rancorous chaos.

I don’t see how being civil about things is copping out. I thought it was called good manners and discussing ideas intelligently.

But if you’d be more comfortable with a religious diatribe, shoot me a PM and I’ll link you to some that would make your hair curl.

(Or just Google: Jonathan Edwards “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” for one of the classics of the genre). No cop out on his part. But is that really what you were looking for?

:)

Oh yeah, almost forgot

www.childpastlives.com

And this little site below is organized by a retired Presbyterian minister who came to realize that God was so much bigger than the limitations of his lifelong theology. So he chucked it and started over. I find people like that so refreshing ! Not everybody does tho.

www.beyondreligion.com

Hell exists?

Nope, I haven’t hear for anyone coming back and complaining how horrible is in hell, hence if I have no real proof hell exist this is a mere fantasy for me.

If you want eyewitness accounts, go to youtube and search “near death experiences-hell”. there are plenty there.

Mr. or Mrs. Moderator, why are the youtube links of people talking about their near death experiences Spam, especially when a number of participants in this thread are asking for evidence, such as georgina above saying there is no one that has gone and come back?????

@Onlyone It’s easy enough to google youtube and the internet for them.

@roundsquare “This may make me sound like a jerk, but I think thats a cop out. Thats exactly the kind of response that makes most religious discussions worthless. In the end, we may have to stop at “everyone is different” but I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point yet.

1. “Why do you trust your gut?” – That’s how I roll. Have you heard of street smarts? It’s like that, you either have it or you don’t.
2. “Is it because its worked for you in other situations (in which case there is still a question of why it would work in such a different area of thought?”. – Yes, and why is it a different area of thought, that’s your construct.
3. “Is it because you have nothing else to fall back on (in which case there is still a question of why you need to fall back on anything instead of just accepting that maybe we don’t have an answer)?” – No, and no I don’t need to fall back on anything, that’s your construct. I didn’t accept or deny that you or we have an answer.

Of course there is no evidence of heaven or hell. That is the “beauty” of religion – it can’t be proven or disproven. Personally, I think both heaven and hell was used as a manipulation tool that the powerful used to control the masses. I think that, if there is a God (an intelligent entity, or even an alien race) that created us, then he or they will accept us regardless of what we do. So, I sort-of accept that there may be a heaven, but I don’t believe in hell at all.

@Buttonstc I’ve done my best to ensure that what I’ve said so far is not religious diatribe. If I’ve failed above, please send me a PM with where I have. I’ve not yet perfected my language on this area to the point where people are not insulted by what I say.

“I don’t quite understand why you view basic civility as a cop out.”

I don’t. I’m not trying to encourage forcing your world-views on others, etc… What I think is a cop out is saying that everyone is different without even trying to look critically at different points of view (more details below). When a conversation gets heated, I agree that it does make sense to bow out since its unlikely to be productive.

To put it differently, its a cop out to say “everyone is different” this early in the process.

“Perhaps that’s where you currently are?”

Always. I try to stay in the state as much as possible.

“To a scientist this would be looked upon as pure bunk. But it’s not pure bunk to numerous other well educated and intelligent people.”

I think almost everyone would argue that hard evidence is the MOST convincing. The real question (or at least one of them) is how useful is “soft” evidence (for lack of a better term). I would argue that scientists (at least the ones you’ve described) are probably using the wrong standard for this question. If I were confronted by such a person, I would ask them to explain why so many people have these somewhat similar experiences. A (real) scientist would have to at least consider this. This is the first step in having them re-consider their world view.

This is my main point. Instead of accepting people’s world views, one can intelligently question world views throughout one’s life.

For the record, not all Christians believe in the concept of hell being eternal torment. There are some interesting lines in the Bible that I think are worth pointing out, particularly in the Book of Psalms, that seem to indicate that the wicked simply “vanish” or “perish” rather than go to a place of eternal torment:

Psalms 104:35
“Let sinners be consumed from the earth And let the wicked be no more. Bless the LORD, O my soul. Praise the LORD!”

Psalms 68:2
“As smoke is driven away, so drive them away; As wax melts before the fire, So let the wicked perish before God.”

Psalms 37:20
“But the wicked will perish; And the enemies of the LORD will be like the glory of the pastures, They vanish—like smoke they vanish away.”

Does Ezekiel 18:4 “Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die” seem to indicate that the souls of the wicked shall die, but the souls of the righteous shall have everlasting life?

Just something to think about :\

@DominicX but how do those Christians account for all the pretty explicit discussions and explanations of Hell, that are in the Bible?

I find it difficult reconcile Hell with a so-called loving god, to be honest with the whole god concept. I now find it ridiculous that subjecting a man to an instrument of Roman torture is going to save humanity. We are told God gave us free will, but if we exercise that free will we are punished. How ridiculous is that?

When people say stupid things like I dont believe in science and the scientific method, it just makes my skin crawl. What they should say I am ignorant to the things proven true by science and choose to remain ignorant of them. Modern Science is responsible for all the luxuries we take for granted today. People used to believe the earth was flat so does that mean you still do. The pope himself said evolution is no longer a hypothesis. But many refuse to believe it cause the bible says so. Religion holds us back from discover great new and wonderful things about our existence here on this planet. if we are to understand and improve the only life we have then people need to let go of these primitive beliefs.