Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is purposeless torture moral?

GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 11:14:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is purposeless torture moral?

Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let's ignore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.

Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.

Please view the clips.

Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.

Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.

From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.

Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?

Regards
DL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 3:28:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 11:14:07 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is purposeless torture moral?

Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let's ignore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.

Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.

Please view the clips.




Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.

Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.

From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.

Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?

Regards
DL

Christians are slowly giving up their faith, everything that used to be taken literally is now just a "metaphor" or "parable". I wouldn't be surprised if you get an answer from a Theist in here trying to claim Hell actually isn't a place of eternal torture. It gives me a chuckle to see them slowly turn over, another example of this is how at first they didn't believe in evolution, now they do but God just "guided the process" Lol.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 3:28:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:14:07 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is purposeless torture moral?

Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let's ignore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.

Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.

Please view the clips.




Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.

Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.

From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.

Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?

Regards
DL

Christians are slowly giving up their faith, everything that used to be taken literally is now just a "metaphor" or "parable". I wouldn't be surprised if you get an answer from a Theist in here trying to claim Hell actually isn't a place of eternal torture. It gives me a chuckle to see them slowly turn over, another example of this is how at first they didn't believe in evolution, now they do but God just "guided the process" Lol.


You have no idea what you are talking about..

True Christians cannot give up there faith, because they never got it themselves any way! Faith is a gift, not an achievement.

Metaphors and parables are how Jesus spoke to us.. it's the only way we could understand what he is describing, or the lesson he is trying to teach.

Everything must be viewed through the lens of the Gospel, and always with context.

This should go without saying.. any time a theist talks about the evolution comedy tour we get hammered about not understanding it, and taking almost every word out of context. I have to call bullsh*t.

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 6:25:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 3:28:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Christians are slowly giving up their faith, everything that used to be taken literally is now just a "metaphor" or "parable". I wouldn't be surprised if you get an answer from a Theist in here trying to claim Hell actually isn't a place of eternal torture.

It gives me a chuckle how I offered to debate you on this and you ducked out. :)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 6:27:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.

Why? Just curious...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:00:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 6:27:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.

Why? Just curious...


I should correct that: stripped of its title as a scientific theory

Because there is only one type of evolution that has any evidence at all supporting it, and that's micro evolution AKA adaptation AKA variation within a species AKA lose something to gain something; not continuous progress without sacrifice.

Macro-evolution is an idea.

A scientific theory, is only considered as such, when there is at least some evidence of its possibility.

E.g. - Dirt is brown. this is actually true in most cases, but not all, because obviously some places in the world have red dirt. It would be provable, scientifically, that SOME dirt is brown. It would then be up to the person(s) asserting all dirt is brown, to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Macro evolution does not even have as much as the Brown Dirt Theory.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 7:05:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:00:28 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:27:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.

Why? Just curious...


I should correct that: stripped of its title as a scientific theory

Because there is only one type of evolution that has any evidence at all supporting it, and that's micro evolution AKA adaptation AKA variation within a species AKA lose something to gain something; not continuous progress without sacrifice.


What?

Macro-evolution is an idea.

A scientific theory, is only considered as such, when there is at least some evidence of its possibility.


Are you saying that "macro" evolution doesn't even have enough evidence to support it's possibility much less it's probability?

E.g. - Dirt is brown. this is actually true in most cases, but not all, because obviously some places in the world have red dirt. It would be provable, scientifically, that SOME dirt is brown. It would then be up to the person(s) asserting all dirt is brown, to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Macro evolution does not even have as much as the Brown Dirt Theory.

How much have you looked into the relevant scientific fields that relate to biological evolution?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:05:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

For what purpose? To teach him/her a lesson so he/she doesn't do it again?
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2012 10:42:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:05:28 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

For what purpose? To teach him/her a lesson so he/she doesn't do it again?

Hell is nothing but a consequence for man's sins
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:28:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

To what end?

We punish to change attitudes and actions. Once that change happens, then it is immoral to continue to punish.

Right?

Regards
DL
GreatestIam
Posts: 1,723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 10:32:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 10:42:26 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 10:05:28 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

For what purpose? To teach him/her a lesson so he/she doesn't do it again?

Hell is nothing but a consequence for man's sins

You did not answer the question. I hope you do better with mine.
Why is the consequence given if it does not accomplish anything but revenge?

Would you punish your child just for revenge if no other result will come from it?

Regards
DL
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 10:28:33 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

To what end?

We punish to change attitudes and actions. Once that change happens, then it is immoral to continue to punish.

Right?

Regards
DL

Since when has the only reason for punishment been to rehabilitate the offender? Punishment are also retributive. Punishments also exist to ensure that justice is served.

You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:19:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:28:33 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

To what end?

We punish to change attitudes and actions. Once that change happens, then it is immoral to continue to punish.

Right?

Regards
DL

Since when has the only reason for punishment been to rehabilitate the offender? Punishment are also retributive. Punishments also exist to ensure that justice is served.

You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.

It seems as if your definition of punishment is really revenge. e.g. we will punish to give him what he deserves; pain!

We should be punishing for a productive purpose, else it is a waste of my tax money.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:29:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.

I don't put much stock in Punishment as Rehabilitation...

I put stock in Punishment as a Deterrent.

It would seem you, and your God, put stock in Punishment for Punishment's sake...
That 'purposeless' punishment that the thread is questioning.

Perhaps you can explain why one would support Punishment for punishment's sake.. purely "retributive" punishment..
That is, Beyond explaining that it makes sense to support b/c you and your god are Sadistic Mf'ers.. b/c the rest of us are already leaning towards that explanation...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:39:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 5:19:47 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:28:33 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

To what end?

We punish to change attitudes and actions. Once that change happens, then it is immoral to continue to punish.

Right?

Regards
DL

Since when has the only reason for punishment been to rehabilitate the offender? Punishment are also retributive. Punishments also exist to ensure that justice is served.

You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.

It seems as if your definition of punishment is really revenge. e.g. we will punish to give him what he deserves; pain!

We should be punishing for a productive purpose, else it is a waste of my tax money.

If a criminal commits a crime and cannot be rehabilitated from his life of crime, should we continue to punish him for his crimes?

Crimes demand punishment so we can restore order and fairness to society. When someone commits a crime, it is a disservice to the citizens to let him go without punishment. There needs to be consequences for a person's wrong actions, regardless of whether or not the behavior can be corrected..
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 5:58:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 5:39:30 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
There needs to be consequences for a person's wrong actions, regardless of whether or not the behavior can be corrected (rehabilitated/deterred)..

Why?

Other than for the pleasure of Sadists who would be pleased by the pain inflicted upon wrongdoers...
and Other than for the reasons of Deterring actions.. or "rehabilitating" the actors..

Why is it so necessary that punishment be inflicted?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:09:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 5:58:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2012 5:39:30 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
There needs to be consequences for a person's wrong actions, regardless of whether or not the behavior can be corrected (rehabilitated/deterred)..

Why?

Other than for the pleasure of Sadists who would be pleased by the pain inflicted upon wrongdoers...
and Other than for the reasons of Deterring actions.. or "rehabilitating" the actors..

Why is it so necessary that punishment be inflicted?

Let me guess...

JUSTICE!

that silly, silly, word :o)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:12:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 7:05:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:00:28 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:27:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.

Why? Just curious...


I should correct that: stripped of its title as a scientific theory

Because there is only one type of evolution that has any evidence at all supporting it, and that's micro evolution AKA adaptation AKA variation within a species AKA lose something to gain something; not continuous progress without sacrifice.


What?
We don't improve, we rearrange, minimally.


Macro-evolution is an idea.

A scientific theory, is only considered as such, when there is at least some evidence of its possibility.


Are you saying that "macro" evolution doesn't even have enough evidence to support it's possibility much less it's probability?

Yes.

E.g. - Dirt is brown. this is actually true in most cases, but not all, because obviously some places in the world have red dirt. It would be provable, scientifically, that SOME dirt is brown. It would then be up to the person(s) asserting all dirt is brown, to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Macro evolution does not even have as much as the Brown Dirt Theory.

How much have you looked into the relevant scientific fields that relate to biological evolution?

I've never gone to school for it, if thats what you asking.

But i've looked into enough to recognize the speculation vs actual evidence(none).
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:15:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 5:29:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.

I don't put much stock in Punishment as Rehabilitation...

It is a situation basis.

I put stock in Punishment as a Deterrent.

It would seem you, and your God, put stock in Punishment for Punishment's sake...
That 'purposeless' punishment that the thread is questioning.


Perhaps you can explain why one would support Punishment for punishment's sake.. purely "retributive" punishment..
That is, Beyond explaining that it makes sense to support b/c you and your god are Sadistic Mf'ers.. b/c the rest of us are already leaning towards that explanation...

Not punishment for punishment's sake, but for the sake of justice. The wrongness of a action demands a response regardless of whether or not a person can be rehabilitated from his life of crime.

I also do not like what you are implying about God's punishment. There are indeed rehabilitative punishments that God uses. Purgatory is the best example
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:20:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:09:52 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2012 5:58:07 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2012 5:39:30 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
There needs to be consequences for a person's wrong actions, regardless of whether or not the behavior can be corrected (rehabilitated/deterred)..

Why?

Other than for the pleasure of Sadists who would be pleased by the pain inflicted upon wrongdoers...
and Other than for the reasons of Deterring actions.. or "rehabilitating" the actors..

Why is it so necessary that punishment be inflicted?

Let me guess...

JUSTICE!

that silly, silly, word :o)

Why is justice silly? Why is it silly to demand retribution if someone destroys my property or commits wrong against me?

Why is it silly to hold people accountable for their actions. Because that is what justice is! Indeed society could not exist if people were not held accountable. It would be chaos.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:22:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:15:30 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/13/2012 5:29:24 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.

I don't put much stock in Punishment as Rehabilitation...

It is a situation basis.

I put stock in Punishment as a Deterrent.

It would seem you, and your God, put stock in Punishment for Punishment's sake...
That 'purposeless' punishment that the thread is questioning.


Perhaps you can explain why one would support Punishment for punishment's sake.. purely "retributive" punishment..
That is, Beyond explaining that it makes sense to support b/c you and your god are Sadistic Mf'ers.. b/c the rest of us are already leaning towards that explanation...

Not punishment for punishment's sake, but for the sake of justice. The wrongness of a action demands a response regardless of whether or not a person can be rehabilitated from his life of crime.

Again, Why.

What do you mean by "justice" if not: How things ought to be/that which should be done.

And, if That's what you mean.. then when I say: why should you do x? you've simply responded B/c that's what should be done.

That's not an explanation.

so... If not for Sadism, Deterrence or Rehab... Why inflict punishment?

So far as I can tell "justice" means: that which should happen.. so you've not answered Why it should happen.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:26:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:20:10 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
It would be chaos.

If people weren't punished for such things.. People would keep doing such things all the time!.. and, indeed, it would be chaos.

I would punish them to deter such actions ;)
Preventing chaos.

This makes sense.

Your saying chaos would ensue is citing MY consequentialist reasoning.. It does not support any stand-alone "Retributive Justice".
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:35:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 5:39:30 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/13/2012 5:19:47 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 4/13/2012 12:23:17 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 4/13/2012 10:28:33 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
At 4/12/2012 8:44:12 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
What exactly makes hell purposeless? It seems like its purpose is to punish sinners.

To what end?

We punish to change attitudes and actions. Once that change happens, then it is immoral to continue to punish.

Right?

Regards
DL

Since when has the only reason for punishment been to rehabilitate the offender? Punishment are also retributive. Punishments also exist to ensure that justice is served.

You have a narrow definition of punishment, if you think the only reason to punish is to rehabilitate the offender.

It seems as if your definition of punishment is really revenge. e.g. we will punish to give him what he deserves; pain!

We should be punishing for a productive purpose, else it is a waste of my tax money.

If a criminal commits a crime and cannot be rehabilitated from his life of crime, should we continue to punish him for his crimes?

Crimes demand punishment so we can restore order and fairness to society. When someone commits a crime, it is a disservice to the citizens to let him go without punishment. There needs to be consequences for a person's wrong actions, regardless of whether or not the behavior can be corrected..

One thing that punishment can do is rehabilitate the criminal, however as we both know that almost never happens. However, there are other things punishment can do. It can remove criminals from the general population preventative crimes. It can also discourage criminals from committing crimes.

Also in some cases criminals can give retribution. For example, if they damaged property, they can be made to financially compensate the victims. This is nothing like your version of retribution which is just torturing the criminal, and does not really help the victims at all.
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:36:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:26:10 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 4/13/2012 6:20:10 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
It would be chaos.

If people weren't punished for such things.. People would keep doing such things all the time!.. and, indeed, it would be chaos.

I would punish them to deter such actions ;)
Preventing chaos.

This makes sense.

Your saying chaos would ensue is citing MY consequentialist reasoning.. It does not support any stand-alone "Retributive Justice".

Have I ever strayed from using conseqentialist reasoning in my posts? No, I simply changed to whom we are accountable to.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 6:54:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 3:28:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 11:14:07 AM, GreatestIam wrote:
Is purposeless torture moral?

Most governments seem to believe that torture is an immoral and evil thing and most do not have what we would call a torture chambers. Let's ignore Guantanamo Bay and other exceptions please.

Religions do not seem to agree with this because religions promise a place of torture for evil souls and some believers will even drop a church that preaches that there is no hell. It seems that some believers want badly that there be this place of purposeless torture.

Please view the clips.




Hell is a place of purposeless torture and pain. It is used purely for revenge retribution and cruelty.

Some say we choose hell and some think that God, as our judge, sentences us to it. Some think it is eternal while some think that it and its occupants are eventually dumped into a lake of fire and destroyed. A long period of torture to some and a short term of torture to others.

From a moral standpoint, to even create such a place would not be moral.

Is it moral for God to use or let others choose to use his torture chamber called hell or the lake of fire?

Regards
DL

Christians are slowly giving up their faith, everything that used to be taken literally is now just a "metaphor" or "parable". I wouldn't be surprised if you get an answer from a Theist in here trying to claim Hell actually isn't a place of eternal torture. It gives me a chuckle to see them slowly turn over, another example of this is how at first they didn't believe in evolution, now they do but God just "guided the process" Lol.


You have no idea what you are talking about..

True Christians cannot give up there faith, because they never got it themselves any way! Faith is a gift, not an achievement.

Metaphors and parables are how Jesus spoke to us.. it's the only way we could understand what he is describing, or the lesson he is trying to teach.

Everything must be viewed through the lens of the Gospel, and always with context.

This should go without saying.. any time a theist talks about the evolution comedy tour we get hammered about not understanding it, and taking almost every word out of context. I have to call bullsh*t.

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.

"True Christians cannot give up there faith, because they never got it themselves any way! Faith is a gift, not an achievement."

There is a fine line between faith and gullibility, I wouldn't call it a gift.

"Metaphors and parables are how Jesus spoke to us.. it's the only way we could understand what he is describing, or the lesson he is trying to teach"

I know this is what you believe, I already called it before any Theist entered the thread in case you didn't notice. It still doesn't change the fact that almost all theists believed in Hell and now interpret it different.

"Everything must be viewed through the lens of the Gospel, and always with context."

I hate to break it to you, but context can be very subjective when dealing with metaphors and parables.

"Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'."

Evolution is one of the most respected and established theories in science because the evidence for it is overwhelming. Can you provide better evidence for creationism than then evidence that exists for evolution?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:09:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/12/2012 6:25:30 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 3:28:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Christians are slowly giving up their faith, everything that used to be taken literally is now just a "metaphor" or "parable". I wouldn't be surprised if you get an answer from a Theist in here trying to claim Hell actually isn't a place of eternal torture.

It gives me a chuckle how I offered to debate you on this and you ducked out. :)

The implications of my comments in this thread were not what you offered to debate me about I'm afraid. The point I'm making now is that Theists are gradually switching over to the belief that hell is not actually a place of eternal torture, the validity of any said interpretation of the Bible passages are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Regardless, I'm not afraid to admit ignorance on certain subjects. In my opinion you use different parables and metaphors when describing something, but when you mention the same things over again (burning, flames ect.) you are most likely speaking about a literal concept.

The problem is, it may be likely that I haven't dug deep into the context like you have and I could be completely wrong. I don't like debating unless I'm confident in a specific area.
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2012 7:27:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/13/2012 6:12:35 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:05:56 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 7:00:28 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 4/12/2012 6:27:50 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/12/2012 5:50:34 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:

Like i always say - Evolution is a great sci-fi story, but ned to be kept in the sci-fi section and out of schools, and needs to be stripped of its title as a 'theory'.

Why? Just curious...


I should correct that: stripped of its title as a scientific theory

Because there is only one type of evolution that has any evidence at all supporting it, and that's micro evolution AKA adaptation AKA variation within a species AKA lose something to gain something; not continuous progress without sacrifice.


What?
We don't improve, we rearrange, minimally.

If you have the time, skip to "MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always getting better through evolution." One of the things it talks about is how using the word "better" doesn't make much sense, since "better" is such a situational thing in that biological context, given the variety of possible habitats, conditions, etc. Natural selection might lead to certain beneficial traits (for the set of conditions) being prevalent, but those beneficial traits might be extremely bad for another set of conditions.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...



Macro-evolution is an idea.

A scientific theory, is only considered as such, when there is at least some evidence of its possibility.


Are you saying that "macro" evolution doesn't even have enough evidence to support it's possibility much less it's probability?

Yes.

E.g. - Dirt is brown. this is actually true in most cases, but not all, because obviously some places in the world have red dirt. It would be provable, scientifically, that SOME dirt is brown. It would then be up to the person(s) asserting all dirt is brown, to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Macro evolution does not even have as much as the Brown Dirt Theory.

How much have you looked into the relevant scientific fields that relate to biological evolution?

I've never gone to school for it, if thats what you asking.

But i've looked into enough to recognize the speculation vs actual evidence(none).