An argument for proof of hell

[FreethinkingSceptic]

Basically, if we believed that there is nothing after death, we wouldn't have any problem with raping and murdering people. The only thing we would have to worry about is punishment by society or the law, and people do get away with committing crimes. So the fact that we believe that we shouldn't do these things regardless of whether or not we would be caught for them is proof that we know that there are consequences in the afterlife for doing them.

Even when people say that there is no such thing as hell, they still seem to believe there is some inherent reason not to be evil, meaning that there would have to be some consequence for being evil. Otherwise, it wouldn't matter what a person does.

[Blackleaf]

Oh? We don't do rape because we believe in Hell? Explain all the clergy who do. Christianity doesn't mean consequences after death; it's an escape from consequences. Believe in the right religion, and none of your bad deeds matter. Believe in the wrong religion--or Heaven forbid, none at all--and none of your good deeds matter.

It's precisely because there is no afterlife that being a good person matters. There is no god to make things right. The only justice that exists in this world is that which we create.

[Sargon The Grape]

Historically speaking, the actions that would send one to Hell tend to be taken most often by those who believe it exists. Us non-believers trend toward the mild-mannered side of the moral compass.

[Mr.Obvious]

So. If i could prove to you there isn't a hell, you'd go out raping and murdering, galore?

Despite the pain you'd know you'd inflict on others?
Despite the chance it might get you thrown in jail or killed?
And you feel an urge to rape and kill now that you wish you can indulge?

Yeah, no dude. You're right. Hell is real. Please, you never stop believing that.

We don't need that crutch because we are not absolute mindless fiends. But you go right ahead and keep believing, please.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[FreethinkingSceptic]

So. If i could prove to you there isn't a hell, you'd go out raping and murdering, galore?

Despite the pain you'd know you'd inflict on others?
Despite the chance it might get you thrown in jail or killed?
And you feel an urge to rape and kill now that you wish you can indulge?

Yeah, no dude. You're right. Hell is real. Please, you never stop believing that.

We don't need that crutch because we are not absolute mindless fiends. But you go right ahead and keep believing, please.

You've failed to give a convincing argument why someone who wants to do those things shouldn't do those things. I don't, but how would you convince Jeffery Dahmer that he shouldn't do those things if he wants to? And there is evidence, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, that people under the right conditions are capable of doing barbaric things.

[Sargon The Grape]

You've failed to give a convincing argument why someone who wants to do those things shouldn't do those things. I don't, but how would you convince Jeffery Dahmer that he shouldn't do those things if he wants to? And there is evidence, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, that people under the right conditions are capable of doing barbaric things.

I've never found "why shouldn't you do this" to be an interesting question. A long time ago, in a long-buried post, I elaborated on what I call my ground-up morality, as contrasted with the top-down morality most religions use. That's an 11 year old post, and my thoughts have evolved since then, but the basic argument remains the same:

At the base, you have a number of starting statements, such as "how I want to be treated," or "what I want to do." You then connect these statements upward, like a pyramid, and you form a conclusion where the two meet. Conclusions can be used as a new tier of statements that can be connected with each other or with base statements.

I find this system to be the strongest form of moral argument, because selfish desire is now the root of morality instead of a sin against it. I can always argue why something is good for me, and by extension argue why it would be good for others as well. What makes it even stronger is that I can account for other people's moral sensibilities and how they affect me, without them having to make sense in my own framework.

[Mr.Obvious]

You've failed to give a convincing argument why someone who wants to do those things shouldn't do those things. I don't, but how would you convince Jeffery Dahmer that he shouldn't do those things if he wants to? And there is evidence, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment, that people under the right conditions are capable of doing barbaric things.

Sure. Under right conditions, people can be barbaric. The stanford prison experiment. That 'the wave' thing, nazi germany, israel-palestine, crucades, the belgians in the congo, the whole christian supported slave-trade in america, 9/11, north korea, ...
Some of these examples are plainly religious, some are arguably semi-religious, some are irreligious.
I'd argue all have a base in authoritarianism. Which, imho, at least all the abrahamic religions are too.
Looks to me like a lot of religious people were fine with murdering and pillaging and terrorizing and raping and enslaving with no fear of they themselves going to hell. Making hell a rather useless concept for most people not to do harm, because they can be convinced to do anything under the right conditions. And religious people tend to think god believes exactly as they do anyway. So they don't tend to see themselves in the wrong, because that would make god wrong.
But luckily you and i and most people don't feel those urges to do harm, by our nature. Right? So what is even the point? By your own words, you say it unecessary for the vast majority as a deterrent.

But hey, I might not be able to convince a Jefrey Dahhmer not to eat people. You know why? Because he was a fundamentally broken and warped person with serious psychological issues of such a degree that he isn't even representative of .01 percent of people.
That kind of person doesn't belong in society.

And i'd rather deal with those rare cases in such an apropriate way, by placing them in a jail or a mental institution for the remainder of their lives, rather than sending them to manditory bible school in hopes that we can delude them into thinking they might someday face consequences for their actions.

And if you'd want to teach them that in jail or in the mental institution, then i'd rather you focus time on making them understand the horribleness of their acts and empathize with their victims.

Also, quick edit, you now seem to be shifting from this being 'proof' for hell to arguing we should hope hell is real or pretend it is and try to convince people. Which i would also dissagree with and be happy to argue against.
Just reminding you of your original post.

[Unbeliever]

I know a particular tyrant who needs to be in a straight jacket and a padded cell. And, later on, a quick trip to hell.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://archive.org/details/theorypracticeof0000kogo

[Unbeliever]

"It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument against a stupid person."
Bill Murray

[FreethinkingSceptic]

Sure. Under right conditions, people can be barbaric. The stanford prison experiment. That 'the wave' thing, nazi germany, israel-palestine, crucades, the belgians in the congo, the whole christian supported slave-trade in america, 9/11, north korea, ...
Some of these examples are plainly religious, some are arguably semi-religious, some are irreligious.
I'd argue all have a base in authoritarianism. Which, imho, at least all the abrahamic religions are too.
Looks to me like a lot of religious people were fine with murdering and pillaging and terrorizing and raping and enslaving with no fear of they themselves going to hell. Making hell a rather useless concept for most people not to do harm, because they can be convinced to do anything under the right conditions. And religious people tend to think god believes exactly as they do anyway. So they don't tend to see themselves in the wrong, because that would make god wrong.
But luckily you and i and most people don't feel those urges to do harm, by our nature. Right? So what is even the point? By your own words, you say it unecessary for the vast majority as a deterrent.

But hey, I might not be able to convince a Jefrey Dahhmer not to eat people. You know why? Because he was a fundamentally broken and warped person with serious psychological issues of such a degree that he isn't even representative of .01 percent of people.
That kind of person doesn't belong in society.

And i'd rather deal with those rare cases in such an apropriate way, by placing them in a jail or a mental institution for the remainder of their lives, rather than sending them to manditory bible school in hopes that we can delude them into thinking they might someday face consequences for their actions.

And if you'd want to teach them that in jail or in the mental institution, then i'd rather you focus time on making them understand the horribleness of their acts and empathize with their victims.

Also, quick edit, you now seem to be shifting from this being 'proof' for hell to arguing we should hope hell is real or pretend it is and try to convince people. Which i would also dissagree with and be happy to argue against.
Just reminding you of your original post.

The point is fairly simple. You consider Jeffery Dahmer someone who doesn't belong in society. Jeffery Dahmer might not consider himself that, so it would just be your opinion versus his. You're asserting that there is some reason that no one should do the things that Jeffery Dahmer does, which implies that there is some consequence for doing so that goes beyond the mere possibility of legal consequences (since many murders do legally get away with it).

If there isn't a hell or some equivalent thereof, then your choice not to do such things is just a matter of personal preference, but you can't give any objective reason why people who want to do such things shouldn't.

[Blackleaf]

You mean aside from spending the rest of their lives in prison? That seems like a pretty big, objective reason not to do things, even if you completely lack human empathy.

People don't like being murdered, raped, robbed, etc. Even if you take empathy out of the equation, we have a system that discourages that kind of thing from happening to you, as well as discouraging you from doing it to others. It's called the social contract.

[Mr.Obvious]

The point is fairly simple. You consider Jeffery Dahmer someone who doesn't belong in society. Jeffery Dahmer might not consider himself that, so it would just be your opinion versus his. You're asserting that there is some reason that no one should do the things that Jeffery Dahmer does, which implies that there is some consequence for doing so that goes beyond the mere possibility of legal consequences (since many murders do legally get away with it).

If there isn't a hell or some equivalent thereof, then your choice not to do such things is just a matter of personal preference, but you can't give any objective reason why people who want to do such things shouldn't.

Apart from judicial consequences and and social consequences, which you seem to disregard for reasons beyond me...
Apart from me argueing societal welfare and living in a society in which people don't kill and eat people being 'objectively' good...
Apart from even if there were a hell people would still find ways to reason to themselves that they would not end up there despite their actions...
Apart from even if there were a hell it would still not be an 'objective' reason not to do heinous things...

Apart all those arguments, and more, onr could levy against your, apply named, 'simple' point... i wonder where this odd obsession with needing an objective reason to do or not do things comes from .

I mean, even going along with that, to me truly strange, reasoning, ...
Yes i have a preference not to live in a world where one may get eaten and killed. As do 99.9999% of the population. What the fuck would i care about the preference of 0.0001% of the population if they want to directly harm people and destroy society?

Also, as for the higlighted text.
In a cosmic balance karma eternal punishment kind of way? No. It does not imply that at all, you just assert it does without pointing out why it would.
But! I do think there are consequences beyond the mere possibility of legal consequences as to why people shouldn't do those things. And if you can't think of those yourself, outside of hell, you must lack empathy.
Let me make this clear. I don't want dahmer not to eat someone because of the consequence of him going to hell. But rather because of the consesuence of it ending a person's life and causing pain and harm to their loved ones.

[Unbeliever]

Religion doesn't teach morality, it teaches obedience.

"Do this or be punished."

True morality is about doing the right thing because it's right - not because you fear hell or want heaven.