Talk:Hell/Archive1

In hell
do bad devils get sent to Omyakon? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A question about the christian hell
I don't understand christians' horror of their fantasy about eternal punishment, given the even greater horror they often express towards the implications of a materialist world view. Don't people go to hell with the understanding that their lives have meaning and purpose as god's creatures? Advancedatheist (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Illogicality of hell
The punishment seems to be rather disporportionate to the cause (eternity in response to a few decades of life). Why no chance for redemption/trying to do it better next time? (Purgatory makes more sense even to a non-Catholic) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Grapes
The dogs/grapes analogy kind of falls apart when you realize that grapes are poisonous to dogs. Eating grapes for eternity would seem a punishment. Please discuss. If no one can give me a good reason not to, I'll change it. --User:ShorinBJ 14:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty weird & pointless analogy altogether. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose it.  15:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It scores high on the weirdly incomprehensible scale though. I think that not only this article but the world in general would be better off without it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, then. --User:ShorinBJ

Intentions
If the way to hell is paved with good intentions (not pursued) is the way to heaven paved with bad intentions (not pursued)?

'We are made in God's image'; we respect 'fairness' and in various countries support the concept of making the punishment propionate to the crime - so eternal damnation does not make sense. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we assume eternal damnation exists (which we don't, obviously), then it wouldn't be man-made or applicable to the mortal world, therefore it's meaningless to talk about how much sense it makes. And just because one thing is true, if we assume it's true (which we don't, obviously), it doesn't mean that vice versa. Nullahnung (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I say above, it seems more rational to argue the case for purgatory/'detention to improve your weaknesses and negative aspects'/'do better next time' etc than it is to be permanently damned for 'a few trivial misdemeanors' (occasional white lies and 'committing fornication in one's brain' (or whatever the correct phrase is). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

'Evil' is one thing (round up the usual suspects), 'ordinary naughtiness and going for convenience rather than right'/things done in the heat of the moment or out of necessity are another. (But the discussion is wandering into eschartology/escargotology) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure of the point being made. But it seems that we can agree that (1) Hell does not exist and (2) if it did exist it would be a very bad way of doing things. Are you trying to make some point beyond this?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes it "a bad way of doing things"? That's entirely subjective and not very meaningful on the scale of divine judgement. Do "bad" or "good" hold any meaning in the face of such ridiculousness, as the Christian proposed Hell exhibits? Nullahnung (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, while maybe not named Hell, in Revelations it does talk of a lake of fire and brimstone where the evil ones will be cast for all eternity. Researcher 17:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, and Jesus is reported to have said "It is better for you to enter into life maimed than to keep both hands and go to Hell and the unquenchable fire. And if your foot is your undoing, cut it off; it is better to enter into life a cripple than to keep both your feet and be thrown into Hell. And if it is your eye, tear it out; it is better to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye than to keep both eyes and be thrown into Hell, where the devouring worm never dies and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9). And the Old Testament imtermittently rambles about the pit of Sheol and the like. The bit about there being only one mention of hell in the Bible is obviously wrong.--ConservapediaRoolz 08:20, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Go ahead and add it then :p  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 09:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

In hell
do bad devils get sent to Omyakon? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A question about the christian hell
I don't understand christians' horror of their fantasy about eternal punishment, given the even greater horror they often express towards the implications of a materialist world view. Don't people go to hell with the understanding that their lives have meaning and purpose as god's creatures? Advancedatheist (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Illogicality of hell
The punishment seems to be rather disporportionate to the cause (eternity in response to a few decades of life). Why no chance for redemption/trying to do it better next time? (Purgatory makes more sense even to a non-Catholic) 171.33.222.26 (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Grapes
The dogs/grapes analogy kind of falls apart when you realize that grapes are poisonous to dogs. Eating grapes for eternity would seem a punishment. Please discuss. If no one can give me a good reason not to, I'll change it. --User:ShorinBJ 14:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty weird & pointless analogy altogether. As far as I'm concerned, we could lose it.  15:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It scores high on the weirdly incomprehensible scale though. I think that not only this article but the world in general would be better off without it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine, then. --User:ShorinBJ

Intentions
If the way to hell is paved with good intentions (not pursued) is the way to heaven paved with bad intentions (not pursued)?

'We are made in God's image'; we respect 'fairness' and in various countries support the concept of making the punishment propionate to the crime - so eternal damnation does not make sense. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we assume eternal damnation exists (which we don't, obviously), then it wouldn't be man-made or applicable to the mortal world, therefore it's meaningless to talk about how much sense it makes. And just because one thing is true, if we assume it's true (which we don't, obviously), it doesn't mean that vice versa. Nullahnung (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I say above, it seems more rational to argue the case for purgatory/'detention to improve your weaknesses and negative aspects'/'do better next time' etc than it is to be permanently damned for 'a few trivial misdemeanors' (occasional white lies and 'committing fornication in one's brain' (or whatever the correct phrase is). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

'Evil' is one thing (round up the usual suspects), 'ordinary naughtiness and going for convenience rather than right'/things done in the heat of the moment or out of necessity are another. (But the discussion is wandering into eschartology/escargotology) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure of the point being made. But it seems that we can agree that (1) Hell does not exist and (2) if it did exist it would be a very bad way of doing things. Are you trying to make some point beyond this?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes it "a bad way of doing things"? That's entirely subjective and not very meaningful on the scale of divine judgement. Do "bad" or "good" hold any meaning in the face of such ridiculousness, as the Christian proposed Hell exhibits? Nullahnung (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that torturing one person for any period of time would be a bad thing. Pretty obviously torturing the majority of humanity for eternity would be worse and consequently would be be "a bad way of doing things". We are fortunate that it is a myth.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Nullahnung (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

(Reset) The point I was making was that 'eternal damnation' seems to be a 'very large drop hammer' to use as a kneejerk response regardless of whether the person is 'merely naughty' or 'depraved and evil' (list the usual suspects here) ... and the Zoroastrian theory seems to be preferable.

Basically - what sort of perverse god would wish to send the great majority of (divinity pronoun possessive form)'s finest creation to the devil? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The saying is 'The way to hell is paved with good intentions': is the converse is the way to heaven.

Given the number of heavens and hells depending upon the religion chosen, could there be equivalents of the United Nations, ambassadors and suchlike? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Cruel?
Bullshit. Hell isn't cruel. God decides what is moral. Not you guys.

Yes, hell is forever. What is it like? Emotional, mental, and physical torment, forever and ever. A trillion years are not even a second. People are already there, begging for another chance, but they already had a chance. They're going to stay there, forever.

Many people had visions of hell. Demons came and told us about hell. One South Korean made a documentary of her experience In hell. One punishment for men for sexual sins are animals gnawing on your genitials. Bestiality will have demons twist your body until you drip blood. Blasphemy will have your tokngues nailed onto a table and lava poured onto them. Forever and ever... Masturbation will have your penis sliced... Over and over...

You guys ridicule and scoff at what I'm saying now, but you'll see. Satan has decided you.

A demon on the April and Wayne show described the worms in hell. Exorcized people on Emmanuel TV described hell. Many MANY revelations.

Cruel, unbearable torture.. For ever and ever. Never ending. You all are going to end up that way if you do t repent. You say a moral god wouldntmdo that? God makes the morals! You don't!GoodFight310 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion... It might be wise to visit a specialist about these sadistic masturbation phantasies of yours. --Irian (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like how you start by saying "Hell isn't cruel" and end at "Cruel, unbearable torture.. For ever and ever".--TiaC (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you OK GoodFight310? I mean, a fairly long post on a talkpage which actually sort of addresses the article's topic and no YouTube links seems so... out of character for you. Also, isn't it a bit tricky to pour lava onto a tongue, even if it's nailed to a table (rather superfluous I'd think, why not pour the lava directly into the blasphemer's mouth a la what Genghis Khan did to ?). And unless hell has the kind of "grow extra inches"-power that would put even spam mail to shame, I think that, even if slicing very thinly, penis slicing would hardly last that long... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the link of what I'm talking about:
 * https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=b-C8VOv5Eoi2yQSekoHoAg&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DdWXkBBIaiVc&ved=0CCEQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEqOGqv2hxZjNCKb1z4qy4EPYL1hQ
 * Hwa Hi Jung of South Korea saw these punishments in hell. She painted all of what she saw.
 * Here someone attempts to call her a false prophet:
 * https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=P-G8VOHBPJKmyASN34J4&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DnYMaTxt4yB8&ved=0CCQQtwIwAg&usg=AFQjCNGaPTSF4a9vEkoN7reYd8IqY_siag
 * However, they fail to do. You can we Hwa Hi Jung's reply in the coments.
 * For more info on her, do a Google search:
 * https://www.google.com/search?q=hwa+bi+jung&oq=hwa+bi+ju&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l2&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8
 * Watch the video she made. Its very intriguing. Her paintings from the video are found here:
 * https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=P-G8VOHBPJKmyASN34J4&url=http://junghwabi95.picsart.com/user/tags&ved=0CCcQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNG6dX5b8r0a45ra2jSZ6TS4XDdy8A
 * Time is short. Repent.GoodFight310 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's the GoodFight310 I know. Phew, you really had me worried there. Good to see you back in shape. I've copied this in Forum:Cult of Satorn: A Conspiracy Theory so it sits right alongside your other posts. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I don't remember any of this in the Bible. Oh that's right, you made it up. Even the Old Testament God, with all his hilarious pranks isn't that cruel. Leave the talking to people who know what they're on about, ok? ConCass (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

A message before it's too late?
[https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#tbm=vid&q=A+reach+out+to+all+in+the+music+industry+before+its+too+late! Here] here and here.

Look at all the evidence! Why don't you take it seriously? You claim there's no evidence, but there it is! 20:08, 25 January 2015‎


 * Why are you throwing clunky Google Search results at us?-- Forerunner (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you claim there is no evidence for conspiracies, but if you actually search then you'd find some!

You see, there is most likely some "skeptics" out there who are deeply worried they're wrong because you tell them not to bother with these videos. You know why? Because they watch a few, and the evidence looks stunning! they show you the site/video, and you say "oh that site/youtube isn't reliable!" But that doesn't get rid of the "what if you're wrong" feeling!

Sure there are plenty of videos that are blatantly stupid, but it's extremely easy to fool certain people, and some sites that aren't in the main stream, or less popular youtubers might be more believable... not true, but some people might worry they might be right. Not everyone is as dismissive as you (Or maybe they're more "gullible" as I've seen people call them). There are people who scour Youtube, and DON"T WANT TO BELIEVE THESE THEORIES BECAUSE OF THE IMPLICATIONS, but lifer their whole life in fear because they never find anywhere that explains why the evidence is bogus. Saying the site isn't "reliable" doesn't negate the fact they saw the "evidence" and looks eerily convincing!

For example, if you click my links look at the videos from those results alone. how many weak-minded skeptics do you think came across videos like that and worry they're true, but no one takes them seriously because it's "spam"?&mdash; Unsigned, by: 67.5.215.110 / talk / contribs 22:49, 25 January 2015‎
 * 1:
 * 2: Why don't you, instead of dropping links all over, actually give some decent arguments of your own? Scream!! (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I never said I believed this shit.

So no, I don't have any arguments, as I agree with a LOT of what this Wiki believes, along with its style. though if I see anything I disagree with, I'd try to bring it up without coming across as an ass (which I unintentionally do sometimes, but don't we all?), but I have yet to do so.

But I do have a problem with a seeming contradiction in not your logic, but logic in general. Not as bad as the cranks logic (If you can call it that), but I'm having trouble with it.

All I'm asking is this: To dismiss something just because it's on Youtube, or another crack's site... Isn't that called the Genetic fallacy? Galileo was seen as a crank and turned out to be right. Am I saying that mean s cracks are ALWAYS right solely because you guys call them that and never listen? no! That's even less logical! But Truth isn't a popularity contest either.. (You guys once had that on the front page).

But am I saying their ideas are equal, like Flat Earth is on the same grounds as a round earth? No! That would obviously waste a LOT of fucking time.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is: How the actual fuck are we supposed to decide whether someone is worth our time, without confirmation bias, Balance fallicies, the Genetic Fallacy, etc. I never understood that, and I've never met a fair amount of people the same way.--67.5.215.110 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I have gotten no reply. So, if you think I'm some paranoid crank, I'm not.

However, regarding my question above, why wasn't it answered? Was it not clear or something? because believe me, while I haven't watched them, I have seen a LOT of Youtube videos claiming to prove you guys wrong. Of course true... it's YOUTUBE... but Genetic Fallacy... however, wouldn't that mean we have to dismiss the rational, non-cranky info on Youtube?

Of course, they're is rubbish on Youtube, but you never know. If you say "if it was important it wouldn't be on Youtube", cranks argue by saying it is mor eobscure on Youtube. The MSM would NEVER report it (Their excuse on a certain Skull & bones video I watched)

Then there's the VERY obscure Conspiracy sites that are more convincing than people like Alex Jones. Sure, they're bullshitting You, but try to know that without taking forever to fact check...

So, again: How to we avoid these places without committing the genetic fallacy?
 * Increasing the number of arguments doesn't increase the quality of those arguments.  You can repeat the same thing an infinite number of times, and still be wrong. If there being so many means one must surely be valid, why don't you just present us the valid one, rather than us having to wade through the host of "HELL MUST BE REAL CAUSE AN OLD BOOK SAYS SO" videos?  Ikanreed (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said hell was real! I never said Increasing the number of arguments increases the quality either.

Remember how I said I saw many Youtube headlines that looked convincing, and "evidence" in videos that looked convincing on the surface? I'm not asking for you to debunk the Gish Gallop of videos I saw. I never even said I believe them. But I HAVE been anxious about it...

Again: You dismiss Youtube, correct? I never understood something: To dismiss something because of the source (Youtube for you guys, or Rationalwiki/anything but Youtube for cranks) is called the genetic fallacy, correct? So don't dismiss something just because of its source...

However, you've seen how many videos there are. NO ONE has that much time on their hands. And I believe it's called the balance fallacy to consider all sources equal right? (Correct me if I'm wrong)

So... I know it's hard to explain, but I feel like I'm either missing a crucial part of this, or it's an outright paradox: Dismiss youtube cause it's youtube is the genetic fallacy, but to consider every source equal is the Balance Fallacy?

So, how do I solve this? How do I not Commit the genetic fallacy my dismissing Youtube, yet not commit the Balance fallacy by treating it equal to a more reliable site?--67.5.215.110 (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So you don't believe it's real, yet are watching tons of videos on YouTube about it and are actively trying to convince others that it is real? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just asking questions. Questions that arbitrarily demand watching hours of youtube videos for the asker to consider them resolved.
 * I swear, what is it about youtube videos that accompanies this attitude? Ikanreed (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh... No. I'm not JAQing off. And no, I'm not trying to convince you hell is real... Because it isn't (In fact, don't watch the videos, because descriptions can get too... vivid). The only reason I watched videos of it is because I used to be a Christian. I'm not anymore though, and I don't watch the videos anymore. Besides, the videos I saw were all contradictory, so God wasn't doing a very good job of getting the message to us.

And actually, that's a good question. I have better things to do these days than watch Youtube.

And I wasn't asking you to watch the videos I posted.. I'll restate my question:

"So... I know it's hard to explain, but I feel like I'm either missing a crucial part of this, or it's an outright paradox: Dismiss youtube cause it's youtube is the genetic fallacy, but to consider every source equal is the Balance Fallacy?

So, how do I solve this? How do I not Commit the genetic fallacy my dismissing Youtube, yet not commit the Balance fallacy by treating it equal to a more reliable site?"--67.5.215.110 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's your resolution: you can't know everything. Simply impossible by any standard.  Getting overly absorbed by some small subset, whether any youtube videos about hell are relevant or meaningful, is a gigantic waste of time in a world where there's a lot of useful and interesting things to learn.  Unless your life plan is expertise about the subject.
 * To help put this in perspective, there's 24 hours of youtube videos uploaded every hour. You can't watch everything.  What you do watch should be subject to what you want to learn or do.  Ikanreed (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opening is why don't people believe when there is so much evidence, and now you say you don't believe. Now don't watch them.  What is the point you are trying to make?  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe I should have put this on the talk page for the Genetic fallacy...

Okay, forget about any specific subject on YouTube, as Ikanreed summed it up pretty well. You don't have a lot of time in the world. And You can't spend your life watching that shit.

I'm not asking about only YouTube. I'm asking about SOURCES IN GENERAL. Yes, YouTube is a source, but its just one of trillions of webpages!

Okay... I posted YouTube links (if it helps help think of another source you don't like) and outright dismissed them, correct? That's the genetic fallacy.

I said to give them the benefit of the doubt. I committed the balance fallacy. That's why I posted the links. To show a (perceived) contradiction in logic... Or at least... Of there's a fine line that removes the contradiction Id like to hear it.

Okay.. So, what's the fine line? Its not just YouTube. Its sources in general!

How do I not dismiss something SOLELY because of its source, but not give each source equal weight?

I REALLY should have asked this on the genetic fallacy page...--75.175.72.63 (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Working backwards
The various proponents of 'do what we say or you will be damned for eternity' brigades have different views as to what is sinful (eating bacon and shellfish is OK despite what the Bible says, rich people can go to heaven, despite the camel and needle comment etc) which is 'a tad confusing.'

When was hell established? During the time of the Garden of Eden? After God drowned everybody apart from Noah? Some other time?

'The usual argument' of someone who does much to improve the world but falls into 'a wrong category.'

If I find myself born or drafted into a universe wherein the laws of nature do not obey consistent principles, I will depart for an alternate universe created by a more reasonable author. (The Things I Will Do if I Am Ever the Hero)

God according to the Bible has killed many, many people; Satan only Job's family, and that by God's invitation: and yet which runs heaven and which hell?

There are people who can be described fairly objectively as evil/having evil intent (line up the usual suspects). Most people are 'good intentioned but are occasionally naughty/go for the easy option.' We are, the God-botherers say, created in God's image, and mostly consider the concept that both the groups in the previous sentence should end up in hell as #wrong#. Therefore the argument is inherently flawed, and should be sent to 'the place 10 miles beyond hell where the devil doesn't go because of the nettles.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sheol, hades, Gehenna, Abraham's Bosom etc.
First of all, I'm being serious about "abraham's Bosson (read the link)

Shouldn't we have a section on those? They're all translated to hell, and mean somethign different depending on the denomination/Christian/nutty website. For example, Sheol is portrayed as a place the the dead go before the Lake of Fire, while Abraham's Bosom (Yes, it's called that) is sometimes said to be where the saved go before Jesus comes back.

However, Sheol, depending on who you believe, is either just Nothingness, as places like Inplainsite.orgIn Plain Site believe, or it's a place where demons can torture everyone in... vivid ways (In the lake of fire AFTER Jesus comes back, that's when the demons are tortured too). I'm guessing that's where the disturbingly vivid descriptions of hell by people who claim to have a Near-Death Experience, or vision of it come from.

Sorry for digressing, btw. Anyways, should these have a seperate article, a new section here, or is it now worth considering?--Pokefrazer (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Visions of hell
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hell&qs=n&form=QBVR&pq=hell&sc=8-11&sp=-1&sk=

You guys never explain the sounds, visions, and testimonies of people in hell. Some testimonies are so vivid they can be downright frightening. Nor Demons coming back to talk about them.

Do you guys have an explanation for these visions?&mdash; Unsigned, by: Hell Believer42 / talk / contribs
 * Are there any specific visions that need an explanation beyond dreams, hallucinations and fabrications? Also, what demons would those be?
 * P.S. Sign your talk page posts with four '~' characters or the button that looks like a pen. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Search engine results for a query leave your actual supporting "evidence" purposefuly vague, and it doesn't help your argument.  Link the results you think matter.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If Hell is a singular place of a singular faith...why does everyone have a different experience seemingly based on their beliefs? If Hell is a real place the spirit can only experience why would the memories be recorded in a physical brain that didn't experience it?  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will give two examples:


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPxu5Q8vl5o


 * A south Korean pastor tells of her experiences in hell.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuer_zvPR0o


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD27lwRpIaY


 * And a demon talking aobut hell froma teenage girl and being exorcised, part one and two.


 * Are there any specific visions that need an explanation beyond dreams, hallucinations and fabrications?


 * I understand the fabrications bit, but why should dreams and hallucinations not be considered visions? Better yet, what about near-death experiences? People have reported seeing hell while brain dead, and even blind people are known to have visions during said experiences. Blind people dream with no sight, yet have sight during NDEs. This shows it's not a dream, but a vision.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Hell Believer42 / talk / contribs
 * Again, please sign your talk page posts. So, the largest study on NDEs ever found no evidence that NDEs involve actually leaving your body. Do you have any evidence to support a) anyone coming back from brain death ever or b) blind people having the experience you describe? Also, how do you know the alleged exorcism is actually an exorcism.
 * Note, videos of people describing their experience with no corroboration to the rest of their stories is hardly compelling evidence.--SpecialFFrog (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * An old skeptic standby: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, believer42. If something is intended to overturn the neurological model of the mind, it should have evidence beyond easily fabricated anecdotes.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Either way, how does one say if a dream or hallucination are real versus made up by the brain? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the linked videos is from here: The April and Wayne Show. --SpecialFFrog (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @ECW, my own argument is one from a scientism(sic) perspective: actual reality has a consistent, measurable, interrelated, and predictable quality that is hard for a human mind to duplicate. Thus hallucinations, dreams, and delusions are characteristically different that experienced reality.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am thinking of a more simplistic view. If dreams/hallucinations can be a vision, like the kid from Boy Who Came Back From Heaven, how can we tell real "visions" from made up ones like the kid's story? Singular dreams/hallucinations pretty much fail any test like that by default.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Last night I had a dream that I was in a video game. Therefore reality is a video game. Checkmate, atheists! --Ymir (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How long
I could be wrong, but isn't there a relatively similar idea in Rabbinic Judaism that predates the 2000 years ago figure? 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oi. Okay that is kind of a mess to sort out and compare. 23:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hel peninsula
There's also Hel peninsula in Poland en even 666 bus line to it. --Voidghost (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Norse had the right idea
Get rid of all the fighters and let those who lived 'mostly peacefully' start all over again. 86.146.99.68 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Digging down to hell
Doesn't this trope occur elsewhere?

There is a 'story about someone visiting the afterlife' - summarising: the people in Hell have long cutlery/chopsticks and are having trouble feeding themselves and those in heaven are feeding each other.

If the way to hell is paved with good intentions (not carried through), is the way to heaven paved with bad intentions (not carried through)?

Given that 'certain people' banish everybody who doesn't fit into a narrow definition of 'good behaviour' for every moment of their life to hell what happens when Hell gets too overcrowded (or those banished to hell start fighting with each other/badmouthing Satan/trying to convert the devils to some other way of thinking) etc?

Most people are 'mostly good/decide to enjoy desiring persons and things/do no more than idly wish something unpleasant happens to someone who is being a nuisance' - so why should they be sent to hell for such activities (purgatory in some form seems more logical for this category) (who here would not place themselves in this category?) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The deeper one goes inside the Earth, the hotter the temperatures get. Dig a well deep enough in some places, and one will release very hot water that boils at the Earth's surface. It keeps getting worse for anyone digging, until at the least the rocks become so hot that the soften any blades intended to dig. Pbrower2a (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Priceless… someone quite clueless (or idiot, who cares) in a Christian (read: Evangelical) radio station talking about Hell and mentioning it's in the inner Earth, plus presenting as proof of it the famous Soviet hole (of course skipping what about the nonsense of the Book of Revelation, where's the Omnibenevolence then, etc).&mdash; Unsigned, by: 195.235.239.102 / talk

To be fair
To be fair, while maybe not named Hell, in Revelations it does talk of a lake of fire and brimstone where the evil ones will be cast for all eternity. Researcher 17:27, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, and Jesus is reported to have said "It is better for you to enter into life maimed than to keep both hands and go to Hell and the unquenchable fire. And if your foot is your undoing, cut it off; it is better to enter into life a cripple than to keep both your feet and be thrown into Hell. And if it is your eye, tear it out; it is better to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye than to keep both eyes and be thrown into Hell, where the devouring worm never dies and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9). And the Old Testament imtermittently rambles about the pit of Sheol and the like. The bit about there being only one mention of hell in the Bible is obviously wrong.--ConservapediaRoolz 08:20, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Go ahead and add it then :p  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 09:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

Hell, California
This small community was basically a roadside business. It has a Wikipedia article from which I took most of the material, some of which I wrote. I would not pay any attention to it except that the place has a hellish climate, at least in the summer. (It isn't too bad in the winter, but that's not the point).Pbrower2a (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Exclave of Hell
There is a small exclave of hell in heaven where the inhabitants do nothing except 'sing the praises of the Lord' for the duration. Anna Livia (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect all heaven is so. Look also for "Silent world" in TVTropes. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Additional cross references/links
Should there be mention of Hollow Earth and the Arthur Conan Doyle story? Anna Livia (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I refuse
to use the word elbow, as it veers way too close to hell-below. However, limb joint cannot be used as a substitute, as that's an anagram of in't limbo with a spare j. --Scherben (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XIV Reference?
Hi, I just came across this page while researching, and I'm curious about the survey done about people who believed in hell and who didn't. If you could, could you provide a link to the article? Also, 62% + 42% = 104%. 108.55.119.252 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hell Doesn't Exist. Never Did. Non-Biblical, Non-Jewish Concept, Erroneously Translated / Conflated From Different Words.
Cite: "www.thehypertexts.com/No Hell in the Bible.htm"

Sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus, Hades, etc. All mean different things, none of which mean "Hell" as in the conception in Dante's "Inferno," et al.

The entire modern Christian notion of hell as some infernal oven with people being tortured by demons is complete nonsensical claptrap. Can we say that somewhere, rationally, with an analysis of what the ACTUAL, ORIGINAL words really meant, in context, and separate from one another? 67.138.177.30 (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And to many Vikings the Christian notion of a milk-and-honey heaven would be somewhat hellish - they want Valhalla with its feasting and carousing and fighting #and they want it now#. Anna Livia (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Milk and honey was the "promised land" i.e. Israel, not heaven. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Lake of fire" otoh is explicitly in the (new testament) bible, with enough contextual disambiguation to be clear about it being a punishment for the sinful. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They still wouldn't care for the Christian-God-Botherer's heaven. Unless of course they have been invited in to fight all 'the bad guys who said a few magic words to get them into heaven and then reverted to their usual practices. God #is not amused# and is being constantly pestered by God Botherers, pointing out how he is not living up to the standards they have set him (?Godsplainers?).
 * Given the number of reasonably decent people who fail to meet the Godsplainers's strict definitions Hell is now very overcrowded and people have to take their 15 minute turns in the lakes of 'fire' (there is insufficient gas to keep them running at anything more than pleasantly warm), and Satan is being pestered by Health and Safety experts as well as lesser devils who signed up to 'do things to baddies.' Anna Livia (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hell and energy
So what fuels the fiery pits etc in Hell - geothermal energy (which may well be incompatible with the concept of Hell)? The hot air generated by politicians? What else? Anna Livia (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand how magic works.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As some people believe in fiery hell the question has to be asked.
 * Given that said people tend to banish everybody not of their faith and those of their faith who commit even minor 'sins' to hell there will be excessive overcrowding (to which the Union of Working Devils objects), large numbers of unbaptised children (the UWD are #not nursemaids#) and unbaptised adults/those who had 'a few minor bad thoughts' so anybody sent to hell will have no more than 15 minutes in a lukewarm sauna every few thousand years. Anna Livia (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Does theology require scientific consistency such as the three laws of thermodynamics? Does it depend upon any cosmic justice?

My suspicion is that heat does not dissipate from Hell as it does fire or a star emitting energy from nuclear fusion. It keeps bouncing off the enclosure with perfect reflectivity, so the furnace-like heat has been recycled since Antiquity. The same heat that burned Attila the Hun could be tormenting Saddam Hussein today and will be there until the Earth is destroyed and along with it Hell... and its denizens,

Then again, anyone can do theological speculation.Pbrower2a (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Logically
God created humans in his image (given the diversity of people - physically, attitudes etc - how? Possibly - mumbo-jumbo involving a disco ball).

Humans sin and are sent to Hell.

Therefore, logically, Heaven and Hell are the same.

If you believe in such things - what is the flaw in the logic? Anna Livia (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hell for the Nazis could be eternal torment in a place that is eternal bliss for innocent Jews and other victims. The delights of the Blessed (who have no idea of how they get to enjoy such delights) necessitate the eternal agony of the Damned whose souls may be converted into Torah scrolls, musical instruments, and other such necessities. Considering that beloved pets are there, you might not want to contemplate the source of the heavenly dog food and cat food. But use of such things bring agony that dismembered Nazis can feel as extreme pain of which they are conscious -- and aware. That Heaven is open to the Just of all Nations irrespective of origins, and the main part of their reward is Judaism. But the egregious sinners are forever out of sight and out of mind -- even if there. Pbrower2a (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Babies and hell
It is rather unfair that babies get sent to hell (with the abolition of limbo).

The devils would get slightly annoyed at 'the screamers and ankle-biters' who are distracting them from what they wish to do (dealing with people who have been naughty, and skiving off to drink home-brew).

Scene: Satan's office, crowded with devils (and God, who is on a visit to coordinate tactics).

'Satan - you made us take on babies to punish them for being unbaptised - but they are cute and smile so we don't have the heart to do anything to them.'

'You think you have problems - I have all these bolshie teenagers (who have grown up in hell) who give me backchat claiming I am an ignorant old fogey...' Satan says.

'And I have to deal with a load of sanctimonious do-gooders, who refuse to believe in evolution, and 4.2 billion year old creation, despite my having put clear evidence in the universe. They even say they know what I mean better than I do...' God complains.

What happens next? Anna Livia (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

ADX Florence
Could someone put in an image of the federal Supermax, ADX Florence, the highest-security federal (USA) prison and the one that arguably does the most to dehumanize a prisoner through sensory deprivation? The image should be available from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and would thus be public domain. I'm not saying that people there don't deserve to be there, but Hell is real even if it has justification (let us say for Holocaust perpetrators).

Contrasted to the Nazi concentration camps, one's stay is almost certain to be even longer because the penal system works to keep someone alive. A term in the Gulag could end as the result of some mass clemency such as "the thirtieth anniversary of the Great October Revolution". The United States of America has shown extreme durability, so nobody can reasonably expect to be released as the result of a change of regime or the dissolution of the USA. Amnesties are rare at the federal penal system for any offenders, no matter who the President is.

An inmate at a Nazi concentration had at least the hope of being around when a foreign force came as a liberator. If any Allied army got to your place of confinement before the Nazis killed you, then you would be free. Gulag? The Soviet Union could soften at times. ADX Supermax? There is no such hope. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Pbrower2a / talk / contribs
 * Unit 731. Bongolian (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

A good one. Pbrower2a (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have another image depicting Pompeii and Herculaneum in AD 79.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum#/media/File:Destruction_of_Pompeii_and_Herculaneum.jpg

There were plenty of ways to die during the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, most of them heat and suffocation, but also being crushed by collapsing buildings or falling objects or being trampled.Pbrower2a (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The cemetery in Stull KS is a gateway to hell, as can clearly be seen in this photo: https://flic.kr/p/dc48Dr. This is probably why Stull appears to contain as many churches as it does houses. Mr Larrington (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia links deleted
It is highly unlikely that anyone could describe Supermax prisons as good places to go. In a mental explanation, what could more destroy a personality than a long stay in ADX Florence or or state prisons in America? Some prisons are more pleasant than others, and it is possible that prison in Denmark is better than being homeless in Phoenix, Arizona in mid-summer... or Chicago on its coldest winter days.

The world has plenty of hot deserts, but the Danakil Desert seems like one of the worst. I doubt that this choice would be controversial. A place like Death Valley has its good days.

Pyroclastic flow looks like one of the most horrific ways to die, and I mentioned three cities of antiquity destroyed in one of the most infamous of volcanic eruption.

There could be little question of reality of these cases. An image of the destruction of Pompeii is in the gallery, so the Wikipedia links to Herculaneum, Oplontis, and Pompeii (perhaps adding Stabiae) could be restored as they offer more detail.


 * The point is those were external links. That means they don't belong in See also. You can put them in an External links section, if you like. Spud (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)