This topic itself is problematic because it assumes that terms such as "god" and "hell" are meaningful.

But suppose one accepts that these terms are meaningful within the frame of reference of religions such as Christianity and Islam.

Then, assuming that there is a god, and that he is all-just, all-good and basically, all-everything, then it doesn't make sense that this all-loving god would send anyone to hell.

It's an obvious contradiction -- benevolence vs the malevolence of hell.

Which could imply that we could simply square the circle by proclaiming therefore that the idea of an all-benevolent god sending people to hell is absurd and that therefore such beliefs are not very meaningful in the first place.

"I have free will" only makes sense when we imagine the existence of an autonomous "I". From all we know, our behaviour is governed by a combination of our genes and our environment. That is to say, if one possesses the genes of Bill Gates and goes through all experiences that Bill Gates did, we would behave exactly like the man himself. Where is the freedom to behave otherwise?

Is there something else other than genes and environment that determine behaviour? Most philosophers would agree that there is no ghost in this machine we call the self.

So, as someone said, free will is an illusion conjured up by our brains. It is a useful fiction to believe that we do have free will and we conduct our affairs as if we do. But in reality, we shouldn't be too quick to praise someone's positive actoins or condemn him for his mistakes. We may just be helpless sods who cannot behave otherwise than how we do behave.

Case in point? Just take a look at the life of Tiger Woods.

From the individual perspective, euthanasia sounds like a good idea. It represents the ultimate freedom - the freedom to call it quits when there's no point prolonging the suffering.

However from the societal perspective, legalizing euthanasia may lead to abuse by the state, by medical staff or relatives of the sick. Anxious to save costs or to reap the benefits upon the death of a rich relative, these other parties may directly or indirectly apply pressure and try to persuade those who are not ready to die to do so -- just because euthanasia is now legal. What starts as the right to die may be transformed into the pressure to die.

There should be thorough and proper safeguards against various abuses before we even start to consider the legalization of euthanasia. In the meanwhile, there is palliative care and those who really wish to opt to die would have to independently find some means to help them to do so.

Life after death? Not likely. All that we know tells us that death is the end of life. Only religion persists in this fantasy. This exploits our fear of death or the unknown.

Life after death assumes the persistence of an entity that remains alive after we are dead. That entity is commonly understood to be the soul or spirit. But this is yet another fantasy because all we know tells us that the brains of men, and indeed of most species, is what gives us the sensation of being alive. Upon death, the brain stops functioning and accordingly, we cease to exist. Full stop.

To believe that your favorite team will win a game next week is very different from believing that god does not exist.

Theoretically, one can never prove that god does not exist. Just as one can never prove that fairies or leprechauns do not exist.

Does this theoretical position force us to say that we can never know that fairies or leprechauns do not exist?

This is a significant epistemological claim to make for then, what we are really saying is that such knowledge is impossible.

Practically, we do go about our life KNOWING, although we can never prove for certain, that fairies and leprechauns do not exist.

To deny this is to deny the possibility of knowledge in the real, practical sense of the word.

The term "atheist" and "agnostic" are clearly mutually exclusive.

All atheists take the position that god does not exist. If they take any other position, they wouldn't be atheistic.

Agnostics just aren't sure either way and prefer to leave the question about god's existence open.

How can one be both?

Abortion is fine if a woman does not want to keep the baby. It's her body. She is the one experiencing the pregnancy.

Some say the life inside the woman is not hers. Life is sacred. Therefore she has no right to abort it.

But the life is inside her body. Besides, life is far from sacred. Everyday, about 25,000 humans die from hunger. Every day. But nobody really cares. A fetus is not even a fully formed human. In the early stages especially, it is just a bunch of cells.

Abortion is something that shouldn't be trivialized. But undoubtedly, for the right reasons, there is no moral issue here at all.