The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Hell would be a better fate than Heaven

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,539 times Debate No: 54554
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)




This is my first debate, so I might suck. Just a warning.
So, I am an Atheist, and many times people have told me that "You'll regret it when God comes and leaves you for the Devil", or "Bet you'll wish you believed when you go to Hell.", and you probably get the gist. I want to say that In my opinion, Hell would be a much better fate than Heaven.

1st round: Acceptance
2nd round: Arguments
3rd round: Rebuttals
4th round: More potential rebuttals, and closing words.


Accepting a potential noobtrap... I'm feeling confident today!
Debate Round No. 1


NOTE: I just realised I lack the kind of Debate Etiquette that I should have. I seem to just say it like I would in real life, and I apologize for that. I also say "I, personally" a whole bunch.

Cool, a guy. Good luck to the con.
So, I'll just cut to the chase, I think that Heaven would give me psychological pains, and would probably make me insane. You see, many versions of the Bible describe Heaven as perfect, and everyone and everything there is perfect. I, personally, think that the reason people have an ingrown will to survive is so that we can get better at what we do. You can't get better than perfect, so I would have no reason to be "alive", but couldn't kill myself. Imagine trying to do anything competitive that you enjoy doing, whether it be a sport, or gaming, or your job of of involves that kind of thing, but all the competition is useless, because everyone is perfect at it, at your exact skill level, and you can't strive to be better. That would drive me, personally, insane, or at least depressed.

Hell, on the other hand, is physical pain. Nothing more, and nothing less. Yes, I'm aware that it's a whole bunch of pain, and it never ends, but neither would eternal depression / insanity.

So, yeah, that is why I think it. I await Con's argument.


To start off I would like to make a few things clear. I am an atheist and my interpretation of heaven is coming from any biblical references to it. Since heaven has not been in any current (nor has hell). All evidence will therefore be pulled from the Christian heaven and hell contained in the Holy Bible.

My two arguments
  1. Hell is designed to induce physical pain by burning. Therefore, since this hell is made to tell the brain that the individual is under much stress.
  2. Heaven is designed to be a personal paradise where everything and everyone there is to the individual's favor.

To begin, hell is depicted as a horrendous environment. It's sole purpose is to provide a punishment to those who sin. As such, it was intended to take advantage of our brain's natural fear of anything dangerous to our body. Since hell contains fire, demons, and lava in some interpretations, this would go to show that these painful things must be avoided and a person must follow the path of a Christian.
The point here is that hell was made to make us miserable. It does this my putting our brain in a state of intense pain by burning. As we know, pain is a system developed to protect our bodies. So a reaction by the brain is to try to escape the source of pain to escape the danger. However if the danger is everywhere, then we'd have nowhere to go. So our brain would constantly be trying to figure out ways to escape this danger in vain. That would mean that in hell, we would hardly be able to think, much less go insane. So it would just a an experience of physical pain that halts all operations in the brain that would be able to make it pleasurable at all. So, it's all bad all the time.

Now we move on to what heaven is. It's a place of perfection that is meant as a reward to those who remained faithful and holy. This also takes advantage of the brain's reward system, Dopamine. By getting doing desirable things, your brain makes you feel good by releasing dopamine into your system. Since heaven is intended to be a reward, it would make sense to assume that our we would constantly be experiencing pleasurable moments that would allow our brains to continuously release dopamine. How this is accomplished is determined by the individual's own likes and passions.

Since heaven is made to make us feel good and rewarded, and hell is intended to make us feel pain and punished, it would be logical to infer that heaven is the better of the two scenarios.

I await your rebuttal.

Debate Round No. 2


Hey, sorry about how long this has been taking, I've had family stuff going on.

My first point will be on the concept of Heaven, as described by the Bible.
"Heaven is designed to be a personal paradise where everything and everyone would be to the individual's favor."

But wouldn't it get boring of everything being good? Aren't those bad days the reason we appreciate the good days all the more? Succeeding at everything would become agonising after, say, an eternity. I'm not saying that Hell is just some grand place, it would certainly suck a lot.

My second point is the concept of Hell, using your definition once again.
"It's sole purpose is to provide a punishment to those who sin. As such, it takes advantage of out brain's natural fears of anything dangerous to our body."

So, Hell is a purely physical pain. Since Con cannot yet give a rebuttal to my claim of Psychological pain > physical pain, I won't bring that up. Instead, I will point to a simple fact of life as we know it. If you get punched, it's going to hurt. Get punched again, and it will hurt more. However, eventually you reach a peak, and stop feeling as much pain from it. I feel the same will come about in Hell. If you take of as the "most pain potentially imaginable" version, you would still eventually grow to accept it.

That is all I have, and I await Con once more.


My opponent has made some pretty weak points in his rebuttal. They can all be rebuted in multiple ways.

Pro point 1: In heaven, you would get bored of everything being good. It would be agonizing mentally to succeed at everything.

Pro fallacy: Pro does make a good point here. You can get bored of things that make you happy. There are also millionaires who have nowhere to succeed and can often become depressed. Though who ever said heaven would let that happen? If you honestly prefer a more cozy life with your family and a small house from your childhood then wouldn't heaven provide that? The bible states that heaven would be what makes you most happy, not necessarily what makes everyone else happy. Making money and succeeding in everything will not be what most people want.

For an example, think about life now. What things do you enjoy? Your family? Girlfriend? Sports? Those unconditional lovers and competitive activities would most certainly be a part of your personal heaven. If you get tired of any of these things in heaven, you could merely just move on to something more pleasurable right?

If you do indeed get bored of everything being so awesome then wouldn't that not be a good thing? So you would be experiencing a bad day of boredom. So according to your own statement, those bad times would make the better days better. As for hell, there would be no good days. So you would have nothing to appreciate. Therefore your own statement can be used to counter your argument.

Pro point 2: Psychological pain is worse than physical pain.

Con counter point: While there are varying degrees of both of the types of pains, let's use the two types already mentioned in this debate. Boredom and burning. Have you ever been bored? Most likely. Have you ever stuck your face in a fire? Hopefully not. While being bored because you have nothing to accomplish can be agonising, you most certainly would not prefer to go bathe in a burning house to pass the time. Being bored just means you want to do something stimulating, and hell would be the last place you'd want to go to do something. Heaven has everything you would ever want. Hell has fire.

So once again I can use my opponents statement against him. If what you say is true, boredom is worse than burning, then wouldn't both be even worse?
While heaven can undoubtedly get boring, hell would be much more so. You have nothing to do but burn and burn. So hell doesn't solve the problem. You'd still be psychologically depressed knowing you can never feel happy or love again.

So of the two evils, hell seems to be the worse of the two.

Debate Round No. 3


Con has made some great points in his rebuttals, I was tired and realised my debate arguments were due soon, so I apologise for my lackluster performance in that. I have a final rebuttal, and Con may answer it if he wishes to. How am I supposed to enjoy Heaven, knowing friends, family, and even strangers are burning, eternally, For sometimes stupid reasons, such as wearing cotton or being a homosexual? I'm opposed to the idea of Hell in general, but I still think it would be better. I thank Con for accepting this debate, I've enjoyed it very much.


Thanks pro, for such a fun debate.

So my opponent has been making the same mistake in his arguments over and over again. He provides a reason why heaven bad, but doesn't show how hell is worse. His points are to make heaven sound worse than most make it out to be, but he doesn't show how hell makes up for what heaven can't.
If the debate topic was " Heaven is not all it's cracked up to be" then your points would hold more ground, but comparing a sub-optimal heaven to a worse hell does not make hell the superior choice.

So, in his closing statement, my opponent threw in a last point to finish off his arguments. However, like most other points he has made, I can easily throw it back at him.

Pro point: Heaven would be worse because you would have to live with knowing others are burning in hell for reasons that are not justified.

Con counter point: There are two things wrong here. However one is debatable depending on how you would define heaven. That point being that if a person such as a loved one went to hell and you went to heaven, you would still be able to be with them. If heaven is in fact a personal paradise, Then it would make sense that your paradise would include that person. You wouldn't know that your loved one went to hell because you'd be spending time with him/her in heaven. Even if said person is only a "clone" of the one that actually is burning. This argument is up to interpretation as heaven could not actually let you be with some one in hell, but since no tests have been done, this is inconclusive.

A more sturdy argument is one that my opponent just made. How can you be happy in heaven knowing others are burning in hell? Allow me to answer this question with another. How can you deal with hell knowing you and other people are burning in hell? My opponent's statement doesn't make hell better, it just makes both worse. In one scenario you're depressed because your loved ones are suffering, in the other you're depressed because your loved ones are suffering, but now you are too.

I think I made a strong case here. Pro should have focused more on what makes hell better, not what makes heaven bad. Though, I doubt there were many actual arguments for that criteria. For the side he was on, he did a good job.

Good Debate.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Though the Bible was written to seduce people into belief in God, so naturally it would tell those that don't believe in God that they will experience a painful afterlife, just to scare them into believing in God.

The Bible is truly just a con.
It's aim is to scare people into belief in God.

Essentially the Bible is nothing but a book of lies to gain converts.
The Gospels are evidence of this.
They are all different on every vital point of Jesus's existence and they are all evidently written to con gentiles into following Jesus or else.

Yet, there is no evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected in reality, the resurrection story did not arise until over 20 years after the death of Jesus, as likely they couldn't convince people to believe in him without inventing something like a magical event, likely copied from the legend of Horus.
So they had to invent a miraculous ascension to get people to believe in Jesus, because he sucked without it.
Thus lies were invented to con people into belief.
Posted by AlexanderOc 7 years ago
Sagey points out that pain would not exist in the spiritual world. If that was so then why would hell a place of punishment if it gave none? Also the bible states it does cause pain, and since it is our only source, we must use it.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Pro could have pointed out that Pain is an illusion designed to protect our vital organs from damage.
Children that have no feeling of pain (they do exist) cause great damage to their own bodies, because of this lack of protective sensation.
There is no purpose for pain in a spiritual world, thus such senses as touch and pain would not exist.
Besides, the several structures required to produce the illusion of pain, stay with the rotting corpse and do not make it into fantasy land, err , I mean the spiritual world.
Thus there can be no pain in Hell.

Pain is an illusion and Hell is a Delusion.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Though it would be interesting to see if ThatOneCoolGuy can argue ThatOneCoolDebate.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
God made Adam and Eve Perfect, yet they disobeyed (thus disbelieved) God.
So even perfect people don't believe God.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
95% of everybody's friends and family will be in Hell, that 5% that make it to Heaven are not the type of idiots anybody would want to spend eternity with.
Posted by AlexanderOc 7 years ago
I made a mistake in my opening line.

"Since heaven has not been in any current (nor has hell)"

Sould be

"Since heaven has not been in any current studies (nor has hell)."
Posted by Foxes_Only 7 years ago
How would eternally burning in Hell be a better fate than Heaven? I do understand the fact about perfection, but having no pain, being perfect, and being able to see passed away relatives is a much better fate than burning in Hell for eternity.
Posted by ThatOneCoolGuy 7 years ago
Dinosaur hands, I am aware of that. I'm saying that's it's better than Heaven.
Posted by Carthage 7 years ago
Well, at least your not cold.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct seemed equal enough. S&G was equal enough, and nobody really sourced. As to arguments: All of Pro's complaints about heaven could, as Con noted, be applied to hell. As such, his psychological points fail. And the fact that hell is presumed to be physical torment was conceded, thus, the BoP of the resolution was not fulfilled. Arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.