T

[Hippasus]

Suppose in the afterlife Hitler has been strapped to a device that will set him on fire for all of eternity. All that is needed to start this torture is the press of a button, and you have been given the task of pressing it. Would you press the button?

If you believe in hell do you believe it will consist of maximum torture for an infinite duration, or will it be something less severe than this?

What if the person strapped to the maximum torture device is a homosexual or an atheist? Would you press the button then?

As an atheist who faces this remote prospect I am curious how many people really believe I should burn forever.

[Jessica]

I would not press the button for Hitler or for anyone else. I don't think eternal torture is deserved by anyone, and I don't think God would do that either. I am a Christian that does not believe in hell. Hell is pointless; I think death is the worst punishment of all.

[Anthony]

I cannot believe in eternal torture for anyone - not even the devil. IMO eternal torture serves no valid purspose and cannot be justified except by a psychotic monster.

[Peter]

If you think Christians believe anybody "should burn forever", you're kind of missing the point of Christianity which is, in a word, forgiveness.

[Peter]

In answer to your questions:
No.
I refuse to speculate.
No.

[Eric]

The notion that Hell burns forever is inherently warped. The teaching is not based on a major religious text, certainly not that of the Bible: http://www.helltruth.com/

[Kerry]

I may or may not read this book but any pretensions the author may have of being scientific are clearly destroyed in the stupid questions and answers in the blurb. My year 10 science students could tell him immediately that proof of inexistence is impossible and no scientist would ask it. The other answers he provides to the other questions are either vague, wrong or don't appear to be relevant. It's not encouraging me to read it.

[Peter]

I realize one has to make some judgment about whether or not to read a book by checking out the blurb. I would point out a couple of things, though: 1) authors of books don't write the blurbs, and 2) it's probably not a great idea to post caustic opinions about an author and his book while at the same time announcing that you haven't read it.

[Kerry]

If I was an author, I would not allow a blurb that damaged my credibility, particularly in such detail, to be published. This is especially the case when there is a scientific basis claimed for the content. Are these questions not addressed in the book? Reading the reviews would lead me to suspect they are. I was actually posting caustic opinions about the blurb and if it is not an accurate representation of the direction of the book, why would he allow it? It is very detailed. Do you think he hasn't read it.

[Peter]

I just know that often authors are not consulted about the marketing materials that are used to promote their books, including things like book jackets. I really do recommend the book, even if only as a starting point for fruitful discussion. As for Berlinski's scientific credentials, they're well-established and fairly impressive, at least in my admittedly unscientific opinion. (They're also helpfully printed below the blurb!)

[et]

Peter wrote: "I just know that often authors are not consulted about the marketing materials that are used to promote their books, including things like book jackets. I really do recommend the book, even if only..."
Thank you, Peter, I've invested a great deal of time doing research into the issues Berlinski discusses....some folks just seem to think making smart-alek remarks makes them seem either smart or cool, y'know?... et carter