RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500

Talk:Hell/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 20 January 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

In hell[edit]

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

A question about the christian hell[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 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[edit]

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 ArmondikoVd hominem 09:18, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

In hell[edit]

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

A question about the christian hell[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 the governor of OtrarWikipedia?). 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?[edit]

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! — Unsigned, by: 67.5.215.110 / talk / contribs 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"?— Unsigned, by: 67.5.215.110 / talk / contribs 22:49, 25 January 2015‎

1: Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.
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[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

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?— 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.— 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[edit]

I could be wrong, but isn't there a relatively similar idea in Rabbinic Judaism that predates the 2000 years ago figure? WalkerWalkerWalker 23:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Oi. Okay that is kind of a mess to sort out and compare. WalkerWalkerWalker 23:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hel peninsula[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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).— Unsigned, by: 195.235.239.102 / talk