What purpose does hell serve, exactly? It is supposedly a form of cosmic punishment, but the punishment lacks context. What do we hope to correct with the existence of hell?
Let me use a more familiar parallel: prison. We do not place people in prison because they commit a crime, although that is how we often tend to characterize it. We place people in prison to insure that they do not repeat the crime again. In most cases there is a certain amount of time spent in prison before the criminal's eventual release. In that case it is hoped that the punishment will ensure that they will refrain from law-breaking in the future, and they are given a second chance. Repeat offenders usually get longer sentences because this reformation is becoming increasingly less likely. Punishment that only serves as a means of getting revenge is unjust. Hammurabi's Code and other systems of law like it are no longer in use, mainly because they were based on vengeance rather than crime prevention.
So, bringing this back to hell, what purpose does hell serve other than revenge dealt out by an angry god? Eternal torment not only won't reform "sinners", it wouldn't matter if it did. Separation from the non-"sinners" is achieved through the existence of hell, but is there not a more humane way to do it? What's the point?
thegreekdog wrote:Hell is a deterrant much as heaven is something to strive for.
Kill someone? Sure, go ahead. Then get stuck up the @ss with red hot pokers for infinity years when you die.
There's a very good reason we don't use the death penalty (let alone torture) as a deterrent. Also, why is it OK for God to torture somebody for their religious beliefs and not OK for a government to do the same thing?
thegreekdog wrote:Hell is a deterrant much as heaven is something to strive for.
Kill someone? Sure, go ahead. Then get stuck up the @ss with red hot pokers for infinity years when you die.
There's a very good reason we don't use the death penalty (let alone torture) as a deterrent. Also, why is it OK for God to torture somebody for their religious beliefs and not OK for a government to do the same thing?
Someone else is going to have to tag in for me. I don't do religious debates. Too much angst, too much hatred, not enough critical thinking. Atheists hate religion, religious hate atheists... nothing good comes out of it except one person feels that he or she "won" the argument and can do some intellectual masturbation.
If you guys are going to talk about God, then you are assuming his omniscience. So if God decides that you should be tortured, and this is the God that makes no bad decisions, then it follows that you really should be tortured. Humans, well... we make mistakes.
You would be better off debating God's omniscience, because assuming that God always knows what to do, trying to debate his actions with our feeble human minds won't achieve anything.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
If you guys are going to talk about God, then you are assuming his omniscience. So if God decides that you should be tortured, and this is the God that makes no bad decisions, then it follows that you really should be tortured. Humans, well... we make mistakes.
You would be better off debating God's omniscience, because assuming that God always knows what to do, trying to debate his actions with our feeble human minds won't achieve anything.
I suppose that my critique of hell does raise issues with God and his supposed omnipotence. Interestingly enough, I think it's a lot easier to argue that God shouldn't be worshiped even assuming his existence than it is to disprove him (mainly because proving that God isn't necessary to explain our universe isn't enough for believers).
Frigidus wrote:(mainly because proving that God isn't necessary to explain our universe isn't enough for believers).
Correct. Which is why I don't understand why atheists feel that it is necessary or advisable to impose their views on the religious. As others have said before, if it was about proof, everyone would believe; however, it is about faith, thus one has to have that before one believes.
I'm not imposing my beliefs, I'm raising valid philosophical questions. I'm gonna quote what I said in the other thread.
Frigidus wrote:If you honestly see nothing wrong with your beliefs after examining them at some length, good. I'd prefer people to analyze their beliefs than to jump over to one side or another after reading a debate on the internet.
If you guys are going to talk about God, then you are assuming his omniscience. So if God decides that you should be tortured, and this is the God that makes no bad decisions, then it follows that you really should be tortured. Humans, well... we make mistakes.
AND WE SHOULD BE TORTURED FOR ETERNITY BECAUSE OF IT!
Surely God being superkind could forgive us for doubting his existence?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
I'm not imposing my beliefs, I'm raising valid philosophical questions. I'm gonna quote what I said in the other thread.
Frigidus wrote:If you honestly see nothing wrong with your beliefs after examining them at some length, good. I'd prefer people to analyze their beliefs than to jump over to one side or another after reading a debate on the internet.
Hmm... you are raising valid philosophical questions, yes. I would say it has more to do with this -
thegreekdog wrote:one person feels that he or she "won" the argument and can do some intellectual masturbation.
than with trying to have a philosophical debate, especially since you already knew the answer to the question you posed.
And... this is why I don't debate religion. I have nothing against you or any other atheists. As I've said before, atheists are definitely not cowards... the best thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's right and he's worm food; the worst thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's wrong and he goes to hell.
thegreekdog wrote:Hmm... you are raising valid philosophical questions, yes. I would say it has more to do with this -
thegreekdog wrote:one person feels that he or she "won" the argument and can do some intellectual masturbation.
than with trying to have a philosophical debate, especially since you already knew the answer to the question you posed.
And... this is why I don't debate religion. I have nothing against you or any other atheists. As I've said before, atheists are definitely not cowards... the best thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's right and he's worm food; the worst thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's wrong and he goes to hell.
I think this is a legit thread as long as it doesn't become reduced to "does God exist?". And Pascal's Wager is frowned upon because it doesn't concern itself with facts, only probabilities, so it's not useful in a debate.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
thegreekdog wrote: As I've said before, atheists are definitely not cowards... the best thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's right and he's worm food; the worst thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's wrong and he goes to hell.
Amazing how many times you hear religious people say something along the lines of; if we are right then our outcome is so much better than what happens if your right!
Do you honestly believe that you are right, or are you just scared of the alternative?
2009-08-12 03:35:31 - Squirrels Hat: MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! 2009-08-12 03:44:25 - Mr. Squirrel: Do you think my hat will attack me?
Analytically, I'm probably a practicing Catholic because my parents and the rest of my family are practicing Catholics. Analytically speaking, I also feel better after going to mass and/or praying.
I'm not sure I'm scared about what happens when I die because I do believe in God and the teachings of the Catholic Church. That being said, if I were an atheist, I would argue that religions that believe in an afterlife exist because someone got scared of dying.
thegreekdog wrote: As I've said before, atheists are definitely not cowards... the best thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's right and he's worm food; the worst thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's wrong and he goes to hell.
That's not the worst thing. The worst thing is hell being the devil giving you poorly reasoned arguments for God's existence.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war. Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
thegreekdog wrote: As I've said before, atheists are definitely not cowards... the best thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's right and he's worm food; the worst thing that can happen to an atheist is that he's wrong and he goes to hell.
That's not the worst thing. The worst thing is hell being the devil giving you poorly reasoned arguments for God's existence.
What I typed is not an argument for God's existence. As I said, I have no problem with atheists. They are entitled to their belief. Hell, they are entitled to their facts. I just don't feel the need to debate with an atheist so he can feel better about himself that he bested me in an argument about whether there is, in fact, a God and whether He or She is, in fact, a merciful God that also plays by logical and philosophical rules.
I'll leave you guys alone if you leave me alone. Live and let live. First Amendment. Etc.
If you see me start posting Catholic rhetoric on this website, you can feel free to belittle me to your heart's content.
