Should Christianity/Islam be classed as hate speech?

RikuoAmero

Hey guys, just a thought I had today. As the title goes, should these two religions be classed as hate speech?
Here's my take on the matter. In real life, there are various things we classify as hate speech (for the moment, I don't want to talk about legal punishments for those who espouse hate speech, I just want to discuss whether these things reach the level of hate speech). Among those things would be for example discrimination due to sex or race. e.g. I will be called a horrible person if I say Person X doesn't deserve to be treated nicely or to get that job because Person X is a woman or is black or Asian.
Now, I got into a discussion on the christian section of these forums and the person I was talking to said that as a non-believer, I choose hell or deserve hell. In other words, by rejecting God (or as I put, by not being convinced) I have earned it. Stop and think for a second. I, a fairly good and decent person, have earned eternal conscious torment because I didn't believe in something that I could not see, hear, feel, smell, or in any other way detect and for which there was no evidence at all. How is this fair?
Just like how it wouldn't be fair if I denigrated another person because of their sex or race.
If I in public say "You're a woman, get back in the kitchen", I would face all sorts of social consequences at the very least. I could lose my job, be kicked out of my home (my landlady is a woman)
However, if I'm told "You're a nonbeliever, you're going to hell to suffer eternal torment (in some fashion or another)", somehow that's okay?

In my view, THAT is the worst and vilest hate speech imaginable. Infinitely times worse than calling someone of middle-eastern descent a "rag-head, go back to Iraq!"

So who else here is sick of being told that? If someone does go the "You deserve hell for not believing" route, do you shame them? I will from now on.

wretcheddomain

Religions can't speak, so no.

The people who stand for the religion, however, may be subject to such an indictment depending on what they say. Given the a la carte way in which laypersons stick to their faith means you can't generalise over an entire religious community - as many would agree with you that those views are abhorrent.

Nor is it hate speech to tell an atheist he will be going to hell because, by definition, the atheist shouldn't be offended as he doesn't believe in hell. For those that do conform to the strictures of Christianity, they will determine themselves (or through their preachers) whether or not they're likely to go to hell. In other words, it's an entirely insular matter for the religion. If, on the other hand, religious folk publicly called on others to enact the deeds of Leviticus or Deuteronomy and slaughter thousands of people, you might have earned a point there.

RikuoAmero

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Religions can't speak, so no.

The people who stand for the religion, however, may be subject to such an indictment depending on what they say. Given the a la carte way in which laypersons stick to their faith means you can't generalise over an entire religious community - as many would agree with you that those views are abhorrent.

Nor is it hate speech to tell an atheist he will be going to hell because, by definition, the atheist shouldn't be offended as he doesn't believe in hell. For those that do conform to the strictures of Christianity, they will determine themselves (or through their preachers) whether or not they're likely to go to hell. In other words, it's an insular matter for the religion. If, on the other hand, religious folk publicly called on others to enact the deeds of Leviticus or Deuteronomy and slaughter thousands of people, you might have earned a point there.

I don't believe in hell, but that doesn't mean, in my opinion, that telling me I deserve it somehow means it's not hate speech. For example, if I tell a woman "You're a woman, thus you don't deserve this job", does that mean I've not committed hate speech if the woman says "I don't believe you, I am deserving"?

I will admit that what I wrote could be seen to be generalising, and if I offended anyone, I apologize. However, this applies to those who subscribe to such a belief system - if one is a willing member of a religion that teaches that those who don't believe in their god deserve an eternal punishment of one form or another (and espouse such a belief out loud), then that person had better apologize to me.
If one is a willing member of that religion but disagrees with the concept of eternal punishment...why is that one a member? Why stay part of it?

magicbastarder

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For example, if I tell a woman "You're a woman, thus you don't deserve this job"

if you are in a position of influence over said job, there are already laws to tackle what you said.

Brown Bomber

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In my view, THAT is the worst and vilest hate speech imaginable. Infinitely times worse than calling someone of middle-eastern descent a "rag-head, go back to Iraq!"

Really? Have you thought this through?

PopePalpatine

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Have you thought this through?

I get what RA is saying - the poster he was debating with seemed to relish in the thought of RA suffering eternal torture for not becoming a fundamentalist Catholic, like that poster. There was also another pompous über-Catholic openly sneering (said über-Catholic seems to have few other ways of communicating) at the idea of atheists having a sense of morality/ethics.

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really? Have you thought this through?

Yes I have. If you disagree, please tell me your thoughts. Given the part you quoted, I assume that's the part you disagree on? If so, how is Person A telling Person B that they deserve eternal torment (of one kind or another) merely for not being convinced of A's god claim NOT worse than saying to someone of Middle-Eastern descent "Raghead, go back to Iraq!"?

Basically, what I'm talking about are the social punishments (not necessarily legal) that one suffers if they utter racial/sexual/whatever discrimination or say other nasty things (unless said in the company of those who share said views) and am wondering what are people's thoughts on extending social punishments to include those who utter a belief in eternal torment.

Brown Bomber

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I get what RA is saying - the poster he was debating with seemed to relish in the thought of RA suffering eternal torture for not becoming a fundamentalist Catholic, like that poster. There was also another pompous über-Catholic openly sneering (said über-Catholic seems to have few other ways of communicating) at the idea of atheists having a sense of morality/ethics.

A Christian saying to an atheist that they are going to hell is no different than a young kid saying to an older sibling that if they don't believe in Santa Claus they won't get anything for Christmas. The idea that this even registers on the same chart as racist abuse is as ridiculous as it is abhorrent.

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A Christian saying to an atheist that they are going to hell is no different than a young kid saying to an older sibling that if they don't believe in Santa Claus they won't get anything for Christmas. The idea that this even registers on the same chart as racist abuse is as ridiculous as it is abhorrent.

Santa Claus is not a comparable analogy. Okay, so if I don't believe in him, I don't get presents? Big deal, whether or not it is true.
However, if I don't believe in Person X's god claim, I am deserving of eternal torment? That is far worse. Imagine if I was talking to a female relative of yours and said that, as a female, they deserve only to work in the kitchen?
There would be uproar from you and yours, no doubt.
Also, the belief of the person the comment is being targeted towards doesn't matter. It's the belief and the fact of the person making the comment. It is them expressing their belief that the person they are talking to is so abhorrent, evil, horrible, worthless etc that they are deserving of the vilest torment imaginable for an infinite length of time.
Your female relative will disagree with me if I call her deserving only to work in the kitchen. She will say she is right, that what I'm saying is not true, but that what I'm saying is still impolite, hurtful and socially unacceptable.
Why isn't espousing the hell belief considered far worse?

Brown Bomber

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Santa Claus is not a comparable analogy. Okay, so if I don't believe in him, I don't get presents? Big deal, whether or not it is true.
However, if I don't believe in Person X's god claim, I am deserving of eternal torment? That is far worse. Imagine if I was talking to a female relative of yours and said that, as a female, they deserve only to work in the kitchen?
There would be uproar from you and yours, no doubt.
Also, the belief of the person the comment is being targeted towards doesn't matter. It's the belief and the fact of the person making the comment. It is them expressing their belief that the person they are talking to is so abhorrent, evil, horrible, worthless etc that they are deserving of the vilest torment imaginable for an infinite length of time.
Your female relative will disagree with me if I call her deserving only to work in the kitchen. She will say she is right, that what I'm saying is not true, but that what I'm saying is still impolite, hurtful and socially unacceptable.
Why isn't espousing the hell belief considered far worse?

I've honestly never seen an atheist get so upset about spiritual punishments in the afterlife.

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've honestly never seen an atheist get so upset about spiritual punishments in the afterlife.

Not really upset myself, but rather curious about why one set of things (e.g. as a female, you deserve only to work in the kitchen) are considered socially unacceptable to say, but another thing (as an unbeliever, you deserve eternal torment in hell) is socially acceptable.

Brown Bomber

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Not really upset myself,

Not what you said earlier:

In my view, THAT is the worst and vilest hate speech imaginable. Infinitely times worse than calling someone of middle-eastern descent a "rag-head, go back to Iraq!

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not what you said earlier:

I meant that as of right now, I'm not feeling the emotion of being upset (I've calmed down since I started the discussion with the christian who espoused this view). I would probably still be ticked off if tomorrow, I was talking to a christian and they said it to me.

Brown Bomber

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I meant that as of right now, I'm not feeling the emotion of being upset (I've calmed down since I started the discussion with the christian who espoused this view). I would probably still be ticked off if tomorrow, I was talking to a christian and they said it to me.

Fair enough, but how do you think an ethnic minority would react to your claim that something you don't believe exists is going to punish you is "infinitely worse" than racism?

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough, but how do you think an ethnic minority would react to your claim that something you don't believe exists is going to punish you is "infinitely worse" than racism?

Just so you understand, it's the saying out loud of this thing, that unbelievers deserve hell that I am talking about. Whether it's true or not is beside the point, just like we as a society don't let whether the females-should-work-in-kitchen-only claim is true or not factor in to whether or not it's socially acceptable to say it.
If I were so boor as to say to a woman she deserves to work in a kitchen, that would be me saying to her that I think so little of her, her talents, abilities, skills, experiences and general worth as a human being, that the only thing that I use to measure her worth is her sex, then that would be an incredibly rude thing for me to say.
Just like if someone says to me that at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is whether or not I believed in their god. I don't believe the claim of course, but if someone is shamed for uttering anti-woman remarks, why shouldn't they be shamed for uttering anti-atheist remarks?

Brown Bomber

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Just so you understand, it's the saying out loud of this thing, that unbelievers deserve hell that I am talking about. Whether it's true or not is beside the point, just like we as a society don't let whether the females-should-work-in-kitchen-only claim is true or not factor in to whether or not it's socially acceptable to say it.
If I were so boor as to say to a woman she deserves to work in a kitchen, that would be me saying to her that I think so little of her, her talents, abilities, skills, experiences and general worth as a human being, that the only thing that I use to measure her worth is her sex, then that would be an incredibly rude thing for me to say.
Just like if someone says to me that at the end of the day, the only thing that really matters is whether or not I believed in their god. I don't believe the claim of course, but if someone is shamed for uttering anti-woman remarks, why shouldn't they be shamed for uttering anti-atheist remarks?

You are conflating the supernatural with reality. Racism is real and of this world no matter who does or doesn't believe in it. Threatening an atheist with hell is no more offensive than than you telling me that bigfoot is tracking me down.

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are conflating the supernatural with reality. Racism is real and of this world no matter who does or doesn't believe in it. Threatening an atheist with hell is no more offensive than than you telling me that bigfoot is tracking me down.

No I'm not. How many times do I have to say I am an atheist, I don't believe in this, I'm not a believer in the supernatural?
I haven't dismissed racism, although I recognise that it may seem like I did when I said that threatening hell is infinitely worse. Perhaps I should change my wording there.
If someone disparages my race to my face, I would call them out on it and shame them socially for it. I don't believe the negative comment about my race to be true, you don't believe (I hope) the comment about my race to be true, yet both of us would say it's wrong and socially unacceptable to make such comments.
However, when a religious person tells me I am deserving of hell simply for unbelieving, they are basically reducing all the variables of myself as a human being down to one thing: whether I believed in their god. Nothing else matters, that is the only criteria they are looking at.
As for your analogy about Bigfoot - let's pretend I say that about you. Here's the difference between me and the christian. The christian follows and worships the being whom they say will judge me and sentence me to infinite torture. They are okay with it and actively preach it and say it's a good thing that this is what happens to those who don't believe.
However, if I say Bigfoot is hunting you, I am not necessarily in league with Bigfoot. It may be I believe he exists, but I am against him and don't want him to hurt you, thus I am warning you.

Brown Bomber

RikuoAmero wrote: »

No I'm not. How many times do I have to say I am an atheist, I don't believe in this, I'm not a believer in the supernatural?
I haven't dismissed racism, although I recognise that it may seem like I did when I said that threatening hell is infinitely worse. Perhaps I should change my wording there.
If someone disparages my race to my face, I would call them out on it and shame them socially for it. I don't believe the negative comment about my race to be true, you don't believe (I hope) the comment about my race to be true, yet both of us would say it's wrong and socially unacceptable to make such comments.
However, when a religious person tells me I am deserving of hell simply for unbelieving, they are basically reducing all the variables of myself as a human being down to one thing: whether I believed in their god. Nothing else matters, that is the only criteria they are looking at.
As for your analogy about Bigfoot - let's pretend I say that about you. Here's the difference between me and the christian. The christian follows and worships the being whom they say will judge me and sentence me to infinite torture. They are okay with it and actively preach it and say it's a good thing that this is what happens to those who don't believe.
However, if I say Bigfoot is hunting you, I am not necessarily in league with Bigfoot. It may be I believe he exists, but I am against him and don't want him to hurt you, thus I am warning you.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a nice thing to say or think and it's your call if you want to be offended by it. Though it's obnoxious and superior thing to say, I wouldn't, not anymore than someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens who hopes that I will be too to punish me for my disbelief.

Are you really all that surprised that a follower of the Nazarene would expect to have the fast track to Heaven over someone who has rejected the owner of the guest list?

I only take issue with you saying that it is worse than racism, and I am assuming you are saying this as a white person in a white majority society and have never been a victim of racism yourself, which would make it worse.

RikuoAmero

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a nice to say or think and it's your call if you want to be offended by it. Though it's obnoxious and superior thing to say, I wouldn't, not anymore than someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens who hopes that I will be too to punish me for my disbelief.

I only take issue with you saying that it is worse than racism, and I am assuming you are saying this as a white person in a white majority society and have never been a victim of racism yourself, which would make it worse.

Yes I am white in a white majority society and have not experienced racism.
Perhaps I should elaborate on what I meant when I said infinitely worse.
Let's say someone disparages my race and says I deserve only to get out of the country or to die. Once those things happen, it's done, they don't think about it anymore. They won't typically wish further harm upon me.
However, when the christian says I deserve hell, that is them wishing an on-going infinite torture on me. No matter how much I suffer, according to them, it is not enough.
Is racism real? Of course, I'm not going to deny it. Have there been people who have suffered tremendous harm due to racism? Of course, easiest example would be the Jews at the hands of the Nazis during World War II.
Is disparaging against unbelievers real? (Is there a word for that similar to racism or sexism?) Yes. Have there been people who have suffered tremendous harm due to this? Yes, history is replete with examples of wars and massacres committed by followers of one religion against those who don't follow it (this includes both atheists and those of other religions).

The difference between what this thread is about and your alien example is that as far as I know, there are very few people who believe in aliens (in terms of percentage of the global population) and in turn, fewer who believe that other people should suffer at the hands of those aliens.
However, when it comes to religion, there is a place in society set aside for them and afforded a certain status. We're told not to discriminate against followers of these beliefs, even if those beliefs include that I, as a non-believer, deserve to suffer. For some reason, it's socially acceptable to allow them to say that about me, but not socially acceptable for a racist to disparage against [Insert race here].

Thanks for the conversation, but I'm going to bed now, got work early in the morning. If you want to continue this, I'll be available tomorrow evening.

Peregrinus

Couple of thoughts:

First:

RikuoAmero wrote: »

. . . I got into a discussion on the christian section of these forums and the person I was talking to said that as a non-believer, I choose hell or deserve hell.

You could possibly argue that being told that you have chosen hell is a form of hate speech - more on that later. But arguing that, because a Christian told you that you had chosen hell, then Christianity in general - and, hell, why not? Islam as well - is an example of hate speech is scarcely rational. Ironically that kind of wild generalisation is itself a common characteristic of the kind of speech that gets labelled as “hate speech”.

Second:

RikuoAmero wrote: »

. . . I don't want to talk about legal punishments for those who espouse hate speech, I just want to discuss whether these things reach the level of hate speech.

I’m not sure that it’s meaningful to take about “hate speech” outside the legal context; the concept exists only for legal purposes, as far as I can see. Something gets labelled as “hate speech” precisely because it’s seen as an aggravating factor which increases the penalty some particular behaviour would normally attract. Independent of that context, you could label my expression of distaste for coffee cake a form of hate speech - that stuff is disgusting - and you’d be quite justified. But what would be the point?

Third:

RikuoAmero wrote: »

However, if I'm told "You're a nonbeliever, you're going to hell to suffer eternal torment (in some fashion or another)", somehow that's okay?

In my view, THAT is the worst and vilest hate speech imaginable. Infinitely times worse than calling someone of middle-eastern descent a "rag-head, go back to Iraq!"

I have to disagree. I can see that you are rightly pissed off at being told that you will burn in hell, but the standard for any meaningful concept of hate speech has to higher than “it pisses me off”, “it’s unfair”, “it’s irrational”, etc.

An aspect of the racial abuse of foreigners and ethnic minorities is that they are vulnerable. They do suffer discrimination, violence, exclusion and alienation because of their ethnicity. “Go back to Iraq” is not, for them, the empty threat that “burn in hell!” is for you. I’m not saying that atheists in our society suffer no disadvantage, but from the evidence of this board their biggest preoccupations in terms of discrimination are school choice and having to take theistic oaths should be the be appointed High Court judges or members of the Council of State. These are serious issues, but they are not exile and pogrom.

No offence, but atheists trying to characteris the whole monotheist tradition as a form of hate speech because some fringe Christian tells them they deserve to burn in hell are just a teeny bit reminiscent of Catholics complaining of persecution because the students union won’t accredit a pro-life group. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, the reaction seems massively over-dramatic, a chasing after victim status. It’s not a good look.

Absolam

In short... no.

Delirium

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now, I got into a discussion on the christian section of these forums and the person I was talking to said that as a non-believer, I choose hell or deserve hell. In other words, by rejecting God (or as I put, by not being convinced) I have earned it. Stop and think for a second. I, a fairly good and decent person, have earned eternal conscious torment because I didn't believe in something that I could not see, hear, feel, smell, or in any other way detect and for which there was no evidence at all. How is this fair?

I wouldn't see it as hate speech. hell is punishment for going against Gods law from a belivers POV. In their mind, they're just stating the obvious. You broke the law, so you'll be punished for it.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

Couple of thoughts:

First:


You could possibly argue that being told that you have chosen hell is a form of hate speech - more on that later. But arguing that, because a Christian told you that you had chosen hell, then Christianity in general - and, hell, why not? Islam as well - is an example of hate speech is scarcely rational. Ironically that kind of wild generalisation is itself a common characteristic of the kind of speech that gets labelled as “hate speech”.

Thanks for the reply. Now this is the kind of reply I was looking for. You raise some very good points. Okay, so I'll take this as a lesson. The initial reason I generalised is because christianity and islam, when you read their source books (bible and quran respectively), you'll read about the hell claim. To my knowledge, there are very few christian denominations that don't have hell as a component of their belief system, and no islamic denominations (if there are, please tell me of them).
So I'll retract what I said there and change it somewhat. Not all of what is said in both religions is horrible. How about I change what I said to "Should the hell claim in christianity/islam be classed as socially unacceptable to say?"

Second:


I’m not sure that it’s meaningful to take about “hate speech” outside the legal context; the concept exists only for legal purposes, as far as I can see. Something gets labelled as “hate speech” precisely because it’s seen as an aggravating factor which increases the penalty some particular behaviour would normally attract. Independent of that context, you could label my expression of distaste for coffee cake a form of hate speech - that stuff is disgusting - and you’d be quite justified. But what would be the point?

Fair enough, I stand corrected. I am obviously not a practitioner of law. How about "socially unacceptable speech"?

Third:


I have to disagree. I can see that you are rightly pissed off at being told that you will burn in hell, but the standard for any meaningful concept of hate speech has to higher than “it pisses me off”, “it’s unfair”, “it’s irrational”, etc.

An aspect of the racial abuse of foreigners and ethnic minorities is that they are vulnerable. They do suffer discrimination, violence, exclusion and alienation because of their ethnicity. “Go back to Iraq” is not, for them, the empty threat that “burn in hell!” is for you. I’m not saying that atheists in our society suffer no disadvantage, but from the evidence of this board their biggest preoccupations in terms of discrimination are school choice and having to take theistic oaths should be the be appointed High Court judges or members of the Council of State. These are serious issues, but they are not exile and pogrom.

No offence, but atheists trying to characteris the whole monotheist tradition as a form of hate speech because some fringe Christian tells them they deserve to burn in hell are just a teeny bit reminiscent of Catholics complaining of persecution because the students union won’t accredit a pro-life group. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, the reaction seems massively over-dramatic, a chasing after victim status. It’s not a good look.

After reading this, I will change my stance somewhat on the matter. I will not try to characterize the whole monotheist tradition. For the sake of this discussion (and any future discussions on the same topic), I will try to stress exactly what part of the belief system I am talking about.

In fact, now that I have taken a step back and examined what I've been doing over the past couple of days, it looks like I've become somewhat like the feminazi social justice warriors I despise, who find one thing that offends them and then blow it all out of proportion.
Thanks for the reply.

lazygal

Absolam wrote: »

In short... no.

Nice to see you can be short....sometimes.

RikuoAmero

Hi mods, would it be possible for you to change the title of this thread to "Should expressing a belief in hell be deemed socially unacceptable to say?" please?

Delirium

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Hi mods, would it be possible for you to change the title of this thread to "Should expressing a belief in hell be deemed socially unacceptable to say?" please?

I think you're able to edit the title yourself if you edit the first post.

RikuoAmero

SW wrote: »

I think you're able to edit the title yourself if you edit the first post.

Changed it, but in the list of topics it's still the old title. Hopefully it'll change later on.

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

Nice to see you can be short....sometimes.

Thanks for your insight! I shall take it to heart and bear it in mind in all my future posts.

Peregrinus

"Should expressing a belief in hell be deemed socially unacceptable to say?"

What, any belief in Hell?

So if I express the fear that I will go to Hell, should that be unacceptable? If I express the hope or belief that (say) Adolf Hitler burns in Hell, should that be unacceptable? Are we not supposed ever to express any belief in an afterlife in which wrongdoers are held to any kind of account?

No, I don’t think that should be “deemed socially unacceptable”. I entirely accept that many people don’t share these beliefs, and they are perfectly free not to, and to express their rejection of them. But I don’t see how they can possibly create a social expectation that those who do have such beliefs will never express them. I can’t even begin to see an argument in favour of it.

On the other hand, it’s obviously already the case that there are particular beliefs about hell which, in particular contexts, it is socially unacceptable to express. The Fred Phelps crowd picketing funerals with their slogans of hate and fear may enjoy legal protection, but they certainly do not enjoy social approbation.

So, there are beliefs about Hell which is it socially unacceptable to express, but that depends on the nature of the belief and the context in which you express it.

Absolam

Maybe it should be more like 'Should wishing torment on another person be socially unacceptable?'?
Not that I think it should be socially unacceptable, but in terms of absenting the monotheist/religious element from the question maybe it's more apt.

But I think there's a distinction to be made between wishing in your heart of hearts for the eternal damnation of that so and so two doors down who's trained his rat like excuse for a miniature dog to crap in your front lawn every evening, and screaming red faced imprecations of torment in the face of a young woman on her way to seek pregnancy advice. From the point of view of the effect it has on another person, rather than from the effect it might have on their immortal soul, which could lead you to a different perspective.

Peregrinus

Oh, and since you ask . . .

RikuoAmero wrote: »

The initial reason I generalised is because christianity and islam, when you read their source books (bible and quran respectively), you'll read about the hell claim. To my knowledge, there are very few christian denominations that don't have hell as a component of their belief system, and no islamic denominations (if there are, please tell me of them).

Most Christian traditions do find room for a concept of hell, though there are exceptions. (The JWs, from memory, see extinction, not hell, as the destiny of those who don’t make the grade, and there would be others.) But it’s certainly not the case that most Christian traditions teach that non-Christians or atheists will all go to hell. The Catholic church, in particular, which is the dominant Christian tradition in Ireland, explicitly does not teach this, and neither do the Anglicans. That’s not to say that there might not be individual Catholics, Anglicans etc who would assert this, but it’s not mainstream.

Islam, too, involves a belief in hell. If there are Islamic traditions which do not, I am not aware of them. But, equally, Islam does not believe that non-Muslims or unbelievers are destined for hell. All humanity, muslims and non-muslims alike, will be judged on the balance of their good deeds and their bad deeds, “good” and “bad” being determined by reference to such values as justice, charity and mercy. Even those who preponderantly do evil may hope for God’s grace and mercy. The only people who get a ticket straight through are “enemies of Islam” - and then only in some traditions of Islam.

obplayer

Personally I would allow the "you're all going to hell" brigade to threaten adults with their crazy views, where I get upset is when they inflict children with them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7GsjNzrw2Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=4844

So believers, would that little girl go to hell?

And if not why not?

Peregrinus

No offence, but I'm not going to watch an hour and 35 minutes of youtube in order to understand your question. Can you give us the gist?

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

No offence, but I'm not going to watch an hour and 35 minutes of youtube in order to understand your question. Can you give us the gist?

Apologies, the link starts at the appropriate part of the film. You can start there and watch for three or four minutes.

Peregrinus

I’m no wiser. All I get is an obviously upset boy asking “Is she going to hell?”, with no mention of who “she” is, or why anyone might think she’s going to hell. And, when reassured that she isn’t, he then concludes that he must be going to hell, because “it’s all my fault” - no clue as to what “it” is. Couple of references in there to “like the bible says”, but no hint as to what it is that the bible is supposed to say, and therefore no idea as to whether the bible actually says it.

So, I’m no help to you, I’m afraid.

I do note, though, that what seems to be upsetting the boy is not the prospect of his going to hell, but his sense of responsibility for whatever it is that has happened. (If anything, he almost wants to believe that he’s going to hell, since it will represent some king of justice or atonement for whatever it is that he thinks he’s done.) And, for kids at a particular stage of development, this sense of guilt is pretty common. Kids are basically self-centred - I don’t mean this in a judgmental way, just an observation of a child’s world-view - and believe that the world revolves around them. Therefore, if something bad happens, they tend to think that they are responsible. We have this issue in my own family at the moment - my nephew recently had a serious motorcycle accident. By bad luck his six-year-old son happened to witness the accident and its aftermath - blood, pain, police, ambulance, airlift to hospital, family and neighbours rallying round. The boy (who I’m confident has never heard of hell) was traumatised and now thinks it was his fault. There is no shadow of justification for this belief, but the boy has come up with a rationalisation. ("I told Daddy I'd be home before him, so he was racing, so that's why he crashed.") He worries about this, and apologises constantly to his parents. (My nephew will be fine, and with time and reassurance the kid will be fine too.)

A kid in this situation will often bring up the prospect of hell, if he has been introduced to it. Ironically, it may conceivably help him in the short term, by giving him a sense that some kind of atonement for his “fault” is possible, which buys him space and time within which to process his feelings. (Not that that’s a reason to be telling him he’ll go to hell!) The real issue here is not his belief in hell, but his sense of personal responsibility for the world, and that’s going to arise regardless of his religious or moral views; it's just a developmental issue. As I say, I have no clue as to what is going on in the film clip, but at this point I have no reason to think that the boy would feel any less upset or any less guilty if he had never heard of hell.

EganTheMan

Any religion that preaches intolerance and incites mobs to attack other sectors should be classified as hate speech

Peregrinus

EganTheMan wrote: »

Any religion that preaches intolerance and incites mobs to attack other sectors should be classified as hate speech

Inciting mobs to attack others is already classified as hate speech. I don't think it makes any difference whether the motivation is religious or not. (Unless you were looking to limit it so that unbelievers could incite mobs to attack without being accused of hate speech?)

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m no wiser. All I get is an obviously upset boy asking “Is she going to hell?”, with no mention of who “she” is, or why anyone might think she’s going to hell. And, when reassured that she isn’t, he then concludes that he must be going to hell, because “it’s all my fault” - no clue as to what “it” is. Couple of references in there to “like the bible says”, but no hint as to what it is that the bible is supposed to say, and therefore no idea as to whether the bible actually says it.

So, I’m no help to you, I’m afraid.

I do note, though, that what seems to be upsetting the boy is not the prospect of his going to hell, but his sense of responsibility for whatever it is that has happened. (If anything, he almost wants to believe that he’s going to hell, since it will represent some king of justice or atonement for whatever it is that he thinks he’s done.) And, for kids at a particular stage of development, this sense of guilt is pretty common. Kids are basically self-centred - I don’t mean this in a judgmental way, just an observation of a child’s world-view - and believe that the world revolves around them. Therefore, if something bad happens, they tend to think that they are responsible. We have this issue in my own family at the moment - my nephew recently had a serious motorcycle accident. By bad luck his six-year-old son happened to witness the accident and its aftermath - blood, pain, police, ambulance, airlift to hospital, family and neighbours rallying round. The boy (who I’m confident has never heard of hell) was traumatised and now thinks it was his fault. There is no shadow of justification for this belief, but the boy has come up with a rationalisation. ("I told Daddy I'd be home before him, so he was racing, so that's why he crashed.") He worries about this, and apologises constantly to his parents. (My nephew will be fine, and with time and reassurance the kid will be fine too.)

A kid in this situation will often bring up the prospect of hell, if he has been introduced to it. Ironically, it may conceivably help him in the short term, by giving him a sense that some kind of atonement for his “fault” is possible, which buys him space and time within which to process his feelings. (Not that that’s a reason to be telling him he’ll go to hell!) The real issue here is not his belief in hell, but his sense of personal responsibility for the world, and that’s going to arise regardless of his religious or moral views; it's just a developmental issue. As I say, I have no clue as to what is going on in the film clip, but at this point I have no reason to think that the boy would feel any less upset or any less guilty if he had never heard of hell.

Ok, I should not have used this film excerpt. However the point of it is that a thirteen year old girl and a thirteen year old boy become friends. The boy is from a religious family, the girl is from a non religious family. When the girl dies in an accident the boy asks his father if his friend is in hell because she was not a believer in Christianity. The question is 'is she'? And if not why not?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, I should not have used this film excerpt. However the point of it is that a thirteen year old girl and a thirteen year old boy become friends. The boy is from a religious family, the girl is from a non religious family. When the girl dies in an accident the boy asks his father if his friend is in hell because she was not a believer in Christianity. The question is 'is she'? And if not why not?

She's not. Why would she be?

This particular boy may come from a religious family which teaches him that all unbelievers to go hell (though, if the man in the clip is his father, he does not come from such a family) but I don't.

Neither do most of the Christians of your acquaintance, I'm willing to bet. The belief that all unbelievers go to hell is not a mainstream Christian position.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Ok, I should not have used this film excerpt. However the point of it is that a thirteen year old girl and a thirteen year old boy become friends. The boy is from a religious family, the girl is from a non religious family. When the girl dies in an accident the boy asks his father if his friend is in hell because she was not a believer in Christianity. The question is 'is she'? And if not why not?

Surely the answer is 'yes if you believe she is' and 'no if you don't believe she is'. There can hardly be an objective answer to a question about the occupancy of what may or may not be an imaginary plane of existence?

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

Surely the answer is 'yes if you believe she is' and 'no if you don't believe she is'. There can hardly be an objective answer to a question about the occupancy of what may or may not be an imaginary plane of existence?

The question as originally phrased by obplayer was addressed to "believers". Unbelievers, obviously, don't think that anybody goes to hell; obplayer was enquiring to what extent believers thought that an unbelieving child would go to hell. The answer, I think, is "not to any very great exent". That would be a minority position, certainly in our society.

Obplayer did go on to ask "if not, why not?", suggesting that there was at least some kind of default assumption that unbelievers were headed south. But there isn't. I don't feel any need to offer a religious justification as to why this girl wouldn't go to hell unless and until somebody offers an argument that says she will. Nobody, so far, has done that.

Absolam

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question as originally phrased by obplayer was addressed to "believers". Unbelievers, obviously, don't think that anybody goes to hell; obplayer was enquiring to what extent believers thought that an unbelieving child would go to hell. The answer, I think, is "not to any very great exent". That would be a minority position, certainly in our society.

Obplayer did go on to ask "if not, why not?", suggesting that there was at least some kind of default assumption that unbelievers were headed south. But there isn't. I don't feel any need to offer a religious justification as to why this girl wouldn't go to hell unless and until somebody offers an argument that says she will. Nobody, so far, has done that.

But even amongst believers, there are some who will say unbelievers go to hell, and some who say they won't. Without any objective measurement of who's in hell, it remains that the child is only in hell if you believe she is.

Peregrinus

Absolam wrote: »

But even amongst believers, there are some who will say unbelievers go to hell, and some who say they won't. Without any objective measurement of who's in hell, it remains that the child is only in hell if you believe she is.

Well, yes. And I think that what obplayer is doing is attempting to find out whether the belief that she is is prevalent among religious believers. Or to suggest that, logically, religious believers ought to believe this and may be embarrassed to have to justify not believing it. Or both.

Mellor

There's always been this underlying idea that atheists were a lot more rational and logical than overly religious types. Certainly, there’s always a condescending tone of more intelligence, on average. And tbh, I would have said it was probably true in the past.
But threads like this really inject a whole lot of balance to the swing of things.

Marion Morrison

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Now, I got into a discussion on the christian section of these forums and the person I was talking to said that as a non-believer, I choose hell or deserve hell. In other words, by rejecting God (or as I put, by not being convinced) I have earned it. Stop and think for a second. I, a fairly good and decent person, have earned eternal conscious torment because I didn't believe in something that I could not see, hear, feel, smell, or in any other way detect and for which there was no evidence at all. How is this fair?
Just like how it wouldn't be fair if I denigrated another person because of their sex or race.
If I in public say "You're a woman, get back in the kitchen", I would face all sorts of social consequences at the very least. I could lose my job, be kicked out of my home (my landlady is a woman)
However, if I'm told "You're a nonbeliever, you're going to hell to suffer eternal torment (in some fashion or another)", somehow that's okay?

In my view, THAT is the worst and vilest hate speech imaginable. Infinitely times worse than calling someone of middle-eastern descent a "rag-head, go back to Iraq!"

So who else here is sick of being told that? If someone does go the "You deserve hell for not believing" route, do you shame them? I will from now on.

That's quite shocking, what exactly did they post and how did they word it, have you a link to it ?

Brian Shanahan

Mellor wrote: »

Certainly, there’s always a condescending tone of more intelligence

I've never been conscended to by an atheist in my life, even during the period when I believed. But I've sure been conscended to quite a lot by religious people, especially after they find out I don't believe (there is a certain caste of religious mind which believes not believing in god makes a person of a lesser, impaired, intelligence).

What certain religious people don't get (and they are in a minority, albeit the most vocal) is that us atheists don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about their beliefs, as long as they are kept to themselves. What we worry about is religious people trying to force their beliefs on us, as if them having a religion give's them an inside track on morality, on the truth or anything else they can think of that we don't, simply because they can hold an unevidenced position and we can't.

Mellor

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I've never been conscended to by an atheist in my life, even during the period when I believed. But I've sure been conscended to quite a lot by religious people, especially after they find out I don't believe (there is a certain caste of religious mind which believes not believing in god makes a person of a lesser, impaired, intelligence).

Whee you every an extreme fanatical believer?
There prob 100s of examples on this forum. I'm sure you know the type I mean. Highlighting the ridiculous extremes out there.

What certain religious people don't get (and they are in a minority, albeit the most vocal) is that us atheists don't give two shakes of a lamb's tail about their beliefs, as long as they are kept to themselves. What we worry about is religious people trying to force their beliefs on us, as if them having a religion give's them an inside track on morality, on the truth or anything else they can think of that we don't, simply because they can hold an unevidenced position and we can't.

If course you don't any people forcing their beliefs on you. Or criticising your different belief. I don't either, but that's not related to my point.

I honestly find the idea utterly ridiculous. That the OP could be deeply offended, by a religious person believing he'll go to hell, hell: a place he believes to fundamentally not exist. To then compare it to racism, sexism and hate speech. Not only that, to "pretend" it was the vilest, most disgusting thing he can imagine. If Christian beliefs* offend somebody, why would they bother reading/engaging on the Christianity forum.
The whole thing strikes me as somebody simply looking for an arguement, then coming back here parading a statement out of context, purely to try and tarnish.


*do Christians even believe that non Christians go to hell? I wouldn't have thought so, but I don't know.

RikuoAmero

Absolam wrote: »

Maybe it should be more like 'Should wishing torment on another person be socially unacceptable?'?
Not that I think it should be socially unacceptable, but in terms of absenting the monotheist/religious element from the question maybe it's more apt.

But I think there's a distinction to be made between wishing in your heart of hearts for the eternal damnation of that so and so two doors down who's trained his rat like excuse for a miniature dog to crap in your front lawn every evening, and screaming red faced imprecations of torment in the face of a young woman on her way to seek pregnancy advice. From the point of view of the effect it has on another person, rather than from the effect it might have on their immortal soul, which could lead you to a different perspective.

Yes, that's a very good way of putting it. Wish I had thought of wording the question that way myself. Thanks.

Peregrinus wrote:

Ironically, it may conceivably help him in the short term, by giving him a sense that some kind of atonement for his “fault” is possible,

I would have to disagree with you there, since hell is talked about in forever terms. Telling a child who's done something bad that he'll suffer an eternal punishment introduces to the child the concept of a punishment that does not fit the crime.

EganTheMan wrote:

Any religion that preaches intolerance and incites mobs to attack other sectors should be classified as hate speech

One thing I should have thought about before I started this entire thread (especially with it's original title) is that there are members of C and I who cherry pick what to believe from their holy books. So, you could see a Westboro Baptist Church member expressing delight in their belief that so and so is going to hell and burn forever, but then you could get a member of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_universalism who doesn't believe that people suffer in hell...despite both people using the same source book. At that point, the latter person would say "Why are you calling my belief hate speech?"

Marion Morrison wrote:

That's quite shocking, what exactly did they post and how did they word it, have you a link to it ?

Go into the Christian section here, look in the list near the top for Debates about God and start at page 557 and continue on. I have a discussion going on there with a person named Festus who expresses the belief that there are no atheists, and that I am rejecting his god, and that logically, after death, the only place I can or ought to go is hell.
In his/her defense, s/he has not used the term "deserves" or outlined exactly what they believe hell to be like, but from how they talk, it's clear what they mean.

Mellor wrote:

*do Christians even believe that non Christians go to hell? I wouldn't have thought so, but I don't know.

Whenever I examine a given religion or given christian denomination's set of beliefs, right near the top is the teaching that there is an afterlife believed to be good and pleasant, and that to get in, one must subscribe to the belief of the existence and supremacy of that religion's god. Reading that logically, this then means that non-believers in that religion are thought to not go into that pleasant afterlife, merely for not believing (instead of doing any negative actions such as murder)
However, I will admit, there are branches that don't teach the latter, such as universalism (which then brings up a headscratcher as to why bother subscribing at all, if one can enter this afterlife anyway without it?).

I will admit, I didn't fully think things through before I started this thread, and I'm happy to have been corrected. I'm still of the opinion that publicly expressing "You deserve to go to hell to burn forever because you reject God!" (or words to that effect) is a vile thing to say, on par with racist or sexist statements (irregardless if the person the commented is targeted towards doesn't believe it, it's still vile).

Marion Morrison

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Go into the Christian section here, look in the list near the top for Debates about God and start at page 557 and continue on. I have a discussion going on there with a person named Festus who expresses the belief that there are no atheists, and that I am rejecting his god, and that logically, after death, the only place I can or ought to go is hell.
In his/her defense, s/he has not used the term "deserves" or outlined exactly what they believe hell to be like, but from how they talk, it's clear what they mean.

I've had look, but can't see what you refer to, can you post the actual quotes ?

I'm confused, so they've not used it, as you claimed ? People can easily claim someone else's post, or what some says 'means' something else 'from how they talk' ?, but that's termed as a classic thinking error under CBT.

Have you asked the poster what they mean if you don't understand it ?

Even more importantly than some indivuduals post what's the church he claims to follow official teaching on the matter ?

RikuoAmero

Marion Morrison wrote: »

I've had look, but can't see what you refer to, can you post the actual quotes ?

I'm confused, so they've not used it, as you claimed ? People can easily claim someone else's post, or what some says 'means' something else 'from how they talk' ?, but that's termed as a classic thinking error under CBT.

Have you asked the poster what they mean if you don't understand it ?

Even more importantly than some indivuduals post what's the church he claims to follow official teaching on the matter ?

This comment here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93070376&postcount=8376

which was on that thread's page 559
Festus has expressed this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93071563&postcount=8387
on page 560
"I believe atheists probably don't exist."
So in Festus's view, atheists have a belief in the supernatural (even while saying they don't), are actively rejecting his god, and therefore choose hell by default.

Marion Morrison

RikuoAmero wrote: »

This comment here

I'm not sure why you don't post it, but his quote is :

"That's not what I said. Where you go after your judgement is up to God. Unless you remain obstinate in your rejection of God and choose hell by default. "

I'm not seeing what you claimed here.

He seems to be refering to the fact that where you go is up to God at judgement, and if you choose to reject him face to face at judement, you choose hell where there is no God. Quite a few athiests always state that even if God does turn out to exist they will reject him.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

which was on that thread's page 559
Festus has expressed this

on page 560
"I believe atheists probably don't exist."
So in Festus's view, atheists have a belief in the supernatural (even while saying they don't), are actively rejecting his god, and therefore choose hell by default.

"Does your sister actually play Call of Duty? If so she not only believes it is fun she indulges in it.

In that case what about people who believe killing other people is fun and they indulge in it. Is it wrong and harmful to punish them for their beliefs?

As for non-belief. I don't believe in non-belief. If. I believe atheists probably don't exist. I believe there are people who call themselves atheists who claim to believe in nothing but nothing does not exist so they are claiming to believe in something that does not exist which is confusing. To remove the confusion some use the language of spin to redefine their belief system as non-belief. And they call us gullible. In actuality all humans believe in something because they are hard wired to and it is impossible to believe in nothing. "

All I'm seeing in that post is just something that does not make any sense.