If some society had religion that didn't believe in eternal damnation with a maximum sentence in hell being 15 billion years and then all people, even the worst people go to heaven, could this religion discourage sin even though there's no eternal punishment? Also What beliefs can be there to discourage misconduct in life besides eternal suffering and torment? The purpose is so i can have order in my hypothetical society without eternal torture.
3 Answers
Most atheists don't 'sin'
Looking from a different view we can see sin can always be discouraged. But it is done by people. Hell doesn't need to be real for people wanting to belong and not break the law/sin. And the ones that do, can then be further discouraged by their fellow humans. Stone them, torture them, put them in prison or give them tasks to do. This can be done in a religious context as well. From saying certain prayers to all of the above.
Religion doesn't need hell
There's plenty things that can still motivate people not to sin besides punishment of them. Consequences that aren't punishment can be good as well. If you sin, the sun might fall from the sky. Or the god might lose a fight against a dark power. Or your kin might not be so bountiful as you hope. Things that can happen because you sinned and you didn't support your god. The afterlife can be rainbows and unicorns after, but you still want to leave Earth in a good way.

- 36,395
- 2
- 36
- 128
-
Atheists cannot sin, because sin is a concept of some religions, and atheists are not religious people. And of course religion in general doesn't need hell, given that only a small subset of religions have of concept of hell as punishment for doing some things which are considered worthy of punishment. (Not necessarily sins, because there are religions where souls can be punished in the afterlife and yet have no concept of sin.) – AlexP Sep 19 '21 at 23:20
-
@AlexP Atheists cannot sin in they eyes of atheists? correct. Atheists cannot sin in the opinion of those who follow the religion that sin is associated with? not true // in short, yes they can mate they just don't call it sin or accept that some of the religiously mandated sins are doing anything wrong but in the eye's of the religious that sin is still a sin regardless of if the person doing it is religious or not ;) – Pelinore Sep 20 '21 at 11:07
-
@Pelinore: Sin is by definition something internal to a religion; of course, the religion must have a concept of sin in the first place. If you accept that sin is something which transcends religious boundaries you run into insurmontable problems; because, for example, every follower of a non-Abrahamic religion is violating the commandment to not worship any other god but Yahweh. This would make Hindus sinners, and there are billions of them. Not good. And of course every follower of an Abrahamic religion is a sinner from the point of view of Hindus because we eat beef. – AlexP Sep 20 '21 at 11:45
-
@AlexP "because, for example" Yes that's correct, & that's how it works, the idea that that isn't how it works is a very recent one & very far from universally accepted by everyone religious, in the bible sin was defined as disobeying the 10 commandments & it didn't matter if you were religious or not, there were not any special dispensations for those of another or no religion, as far as I'm aware there still aren't. – Pelinore Sep 20 '21 at 11:51
-
@Pelinore: Of course it mattered. I don't remember any Hebrew High Priest assembling an army and trying to do something about all those sinful Greeks and Romans. Even when the Hebrews began living in mixed-up Hellenistic cities. It was tacitly accepted by everyone that each people had its own gods and its own rules and by and large nobody tried to impose their rules upon foreigners. The Romans didn't try to impose Roman gods upon the Egyptians, the Egyptian didn't try to impose their world view upon Greeks, the Greeks didn't try to make the Persians worship Diana the Huntress and so on. – AlexP Sep 20 '21 at 11:57
-
@AlexP "I don't remember any Hebrew High Priest assembling an army and trying to do something about all those sinful Greeks and Roman" the fact of sin & what you do (or even if you do anything) about it are not the same thing at all // there can even be differences in how you are supposed to deal with sin (or if you're supposed to deal with it at all) among the religious, those of other religions & non-religious but that does not change the fact of sin, the sin still exists, doing something or not about it is another thing entirely, don't make the mistake of confusing the two things. – Pelinore Sep 20 '21 at 12:04
-
1@AlexP & Pelinore the point was that regardless of the definition (sin or breaking a law), punishment in this world can be used. Positive real world or spiritual reinforcement is also an option. So AlexP's comment first is an echo of my answer. The discussion of sin or no sin for atheists isn't relevant. It was merely to show that behaviour can be managed without hell. Atheists generally abide the law and moral codes without believing in hell. – Trioxidane Sep 20 '21 at 12:10
Short answer "yes Obviously." Infact certain branch of christianity have similar beliefs in the form of purgatory.
15 billion is a long time to be in hell. From the perspective of a 70 year life time it might as well be enternety so I don't se people view on hell changing very much.

- 20,141
- 10
- 68
- 130
-
1+1 for pointing out that 15 billion years when compared to an average lifespan of 70 years is forever for all intents and purposes. – JBH Sep 20 '21 at 06:53
It depends on what you mean by sin.
Most humans have a basic prosocial philosophy, and some evolutionary backing
Humans generally will avoid killing family members or members of their tribe, eating their children, and will show some empathy for other's pain.
Also, most humans, atheists included, adopt some of the philosophy of the civilization they are in enough to stop them doing other minor crimes.
Atheists tend to be less concerned with ritual purity, and so care less for social prohibitions on drugs and sex. If you want a taboo on that, it's harder to sell.
Most religions don't use hell as a major motivator.
Christianity included, rants about hell are unpopular. There are several other reasons people don't break religious taboos.
It makes your god unhappy, and you like or value what your god thinks, or believe they are watching and judging you.
You're concerned with fitting in with the morals of your religious community.
You get divine rewards and benefits in life and heaven for following religious rules.
You spend a lot of time memorizing these rules, and follow them obsessively.
You have religious relavations from holy books.
Any of these may be enough to make you follow the rules.

- 38,494
- 42
- 138
-
Minor note: atheists don't necessarily care less about social prohibitions, it's the reason why they might care about them that's different. You can, for instance, look askance at drug use because of its effects on users and on society without once bringing a deity into it. And I think you'll find that the vast majority of atheists draw a very firm line at sex acts that Are Not Okay (assault, pederasty, and so on) for reasons other than Because God Said So. – Keith Morrison Sep 20 '21 at 02:51
I'll also point out that the user is new... so maybe give them a little bit of slack.
– WasatchWind Sep 19 '21 at 21:06