Avoidance of hell

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Expanded the article, and reformatted it.)
(Category change)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
* With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's wager treats this as an unknown.
 
* With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's wager treats this as an unknown.
  
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
+
[[Category: Criticisms of atheism]]

Revision as of 11:58, 29 December 2006


Explanation of argument

"If you don't believe in God, you'll go to hell after you die."

The threat of eternal damnation and torment is an ever-popular argument of fundamentalists and presuppositionalists. It is simply an argumentum ad baculum, even though the person making the argument does not claim to be the one to carry it out.

It is most effective against those that already believe in heaven and hell, such as theists that are angry with god. It's common use against nonbelievers is puzzling - because to threaten someone with something that they don't believe in, is utterly ineffective.

Counter apologetics

An effective counter apologetic would be to ask for proof of hell, or to threaten them with another religion's hell, and point out the similarity. The threat of hell differs from Pascal's wager in several key respects:

  • Pascal's wager is an intellectual argument. The threat of hell is purely emotional.
  • With the threat of hell, hell is assumed to exist. Pascal's wager treats this as an unknown.
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox