The Problem of Hell v.2

[Elioenai26]

I can´t find anything about eternal torment in those quotes.

Ok.

 

[quatona]

Ok.

So you concede that the quotes don´t substantiate your assertion that C.S.Lewis had something relevant to say on the topic we were discussing? Fair enough.

 

[Elioenai26]

So you concede that the quotes don´t substantiate your assertion that C.S.Lewis had something relevant to say on the topic we were discussing? Fair enough.

I'm not interested in discussing this in this tit for tat unstructured manner. My invitation to debate is still extended to you. I will not be responding to you unless it is to engage in debate.

If you would like to make a case for C.S. Lewis and his views on hell, then I would be glad to engage in a debate with you.

Other than that, I simply do not have the time to devote to your questions.

Thank you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So anyone else here got any defense for why most of humanity deserves to be tormented/tortured forever?

Easy! It's because some chick ate an apple before she knew the difference between good and evil!

Duh!

 

[quatona]

I'm not interested in discussing this in this tit for tat unstructured manner. My invitation to debate is still extended to you. I will not be responding to you unless it is to engage in debate.

That´s your prerogative, however it doesn´t change the fact that some of your posts towards me remained unsubstantiated and not even addressing what they were supposed to address. IOW that you wasted my and the time of everyone who is interested in discussing the topic.

As for debating with you - you already had my answer. Seeing how your debate with Skavau went - you drove him around with leading and irrelevant questions for pages and never even made an attempt at a justification, the finally withdrew and left the room preaching - I´m not exactly tempted to reconsider my answer.

If you would like to make a case for C.S. Lewis and his views on hell, then I would be glad to engage in a debate with you.

Are you joking?
You were bringing up C.S.Lewis and telling me that he had something relevant to contribute to the topic at hand - the justification of "eternal torment" - (while so far you haven´t even established that he believes in eternal torment). Please don´t make it look like I am the one who wants to discuss C.S.Lewis (or even make a case for any of his views).

Other than that, I simply do not have the time to devote to your questions.

Thank you.

Well, you had the time to make irrelant remarks, and I took the time to point that out.

 

[Skavau]

As for debating with you - you already had my answer. Seeing how your debate with Skavau went - you drove him around with leading and irrelevant questions for pages and never even made an attempt at a justification, the finally withdrew and left the room preaching - I´m not exactly tempted to reconsider my answer.

Well, not quite, after his irrelevant questions and after my repeated requests for one he did eventually attempt a justification. I replied and then he withdrew.

 

[quatona]

Well, not quite, after his irrelevant questions and after my repeated requests for one he did eventually attempt a justification. I replied and then he withdrew.

Uh, I stand corrected.
Out of interest: Would that attempt be his posts #247 and #249?

 

[Skavau]

Uh, I stand corrected.
Out of interest: Would that attempt be his posts #247 and #249?

Yes

 

[Elioenai26]

All of you seem to be under the impression that hell is a concept that I came up with and therefore I have to justify it.

But since it is not something I made up, I do not feel the need to justify it.

But since so many of you are crying foul, tell me, if objective moral values do not exist, then how can you be so indignant about the concept of hell?

I offer the challenge to anyone willing to accept it, and that is to present a coherent, and substantiated argument that explains how we as humans possess the awareness of a realm of objective morality apart from a transcendent moral law giver.

 

[Skavau]

All of you seem to be under the impression that hell is a concept that I came up with and therefore I have to justify it.

If you want to claim moral superiority then I think you do. Indeed, if anyone on here openly defended the holocaust then I think they'd rightly receive contempt and repeated requests for justification for their defense of it.

Why is this any different?

If you're okay with being seen as a monster for defending torture then no, you don't need to justify it but I think such baggage would effectively stultify any attempts at communication and outreach you might attempt with non-believers.

But since it is not something I made up, I do not feel the need to justify it.

Then you'll be seen as an apologist for fascism, totalitarianism and torture.

But since so many of you are crying foul, tell me, if objective moral values do not exist, then how can you be so indignant about the concept of hell?

Morality is about what we ought and ought not do within the context of considering others. It is a necessary consideration for the survival of society and the advancement of us as individuals (boosted by a healthy society). The idea of needless torture of people for what they think is repellant. None of us would like to be tortured. None of us would like to be sentenced and punished for our convictions. The idea that we should and the idea that the punishment should take on the form of torture is repellant.

Since you yourself are such a penitent, such a keen observer of objective morality and yet can't bring yourself to actually say that torture is wrong this should trouble you far more than it does me. After all I'm arguing against a hypothetical, I'm arguing against what other people believe. You actually believe this stuff.

 

[Elioenai26]

If you want to claim moral superiority then I think you do. Indeed, if anyone on here openly defended the holocaust then I think they'd rightly receive contempt and repeated requests for justification for their defense of it.

Why is this any different?

If you're okay with being seen as a monster for defending torture then no, you don't need to justify it but I think such baggage would effectively stultify any attempts at communication and outreach you might attempt with non-believers.

Then you'll be seen as an apologist for fascism, totalitarianism and torture.

Morality is about what we ought and ought not do within the context of considering others. It is a necessary consideration for the survival of society and the advancement of us as individuals (boosted by a healthy society). The idea of needless torture of people for what they think is repellant. None of us would like to be tortured. None of us would like to be sentenced and punished for our convictions. The idea that we should and the idea that the punishment should take on the form of torture is repellant.

Since you yourself are such a penitent, such a keen observer of objective morality and yet can't bring yourself to actually say that torture is wrong this should trouble you far more than it does me. After all I'm arguing against a hypothetical, I'm arguing against what other people believe. You actually believe this stuff.

Care to debate me? If you're so confident that your position is justified, then build a case and defend it.

 

[Skavau]

Care to debate me? If you're so confident that your position is justified, then build a case and defend it.

I think I'm having déjà vu here.

Didn't we just attempt a debate? Which you bailed from almost immediately.

 

[Elioenai26]

I think I'm having déjà vu here.

Didn't we just attempt a debate? Which you bailed from almost immediately.

I attempted a "tit for tat" unstructured dialogue utilizing a Socratic methodology of questioning. It was far from a formal debate.

Now if you don't want to debate me then that's fine Skavau, the refusal will be noted. I honestly don't think you have an argument at all, but rely more on emotional tirades and short unsubstantiated quips and strawmen arguments which you know would not be of any benefit to you in a debate.

In fact, im beginning to wonder if you even believe what you're saying. You seem to be repeating it over and over again as if you are trying to convince yourself.

Step up to the plate, agree to a debate, state your case, and defend it for all of us to see.

 

[Skavau]

I attempted a "tit for tat" unstructured dialogue utilizing a Socratic methodology of questioning. It was far from a formal debate.

By that methodology you appear to mean a series of unrelated questions about "What is love" and "What makes us unique?" You also ignored any questions I had for you with a near 100% record, actually. You seemed to outright dismiss them.

Now if you don't want to debate me then that's fine Skavau, the refusal will be noted.

I never said I did not want to debate you. Make your argument.

I honestly don't think you have an argument at all,

You've seen my argument. You've seen my opening post. I have, when requested by you each and every time given you arguments for why I think permanent torture in hell for not believing in God is wrong.

but rely more on emotional tirades and short unsubstantiated quips and strawmen arguments which you know would not be of any benefit to you in a debate.

Can you tell me what strawmen arguments I have concocted please?

In fact, im beginning to wonder if you even believe what you're saying. You seem to be repeating it over and over again as you are trying to convince yourself.

You have my assurances regarding my conviction.

By the way you still haven't answered my question. Do you think I am lying about my atheism?

Step up to the plate, agree to a debate, state your case, and defend it for all of us to see.

I did, in the OP. You're welcome to address it. You're also welcome to address any of my posts regarding hell on this topic in this thread.

 

[quatona]

All of you seem to be under the impression that hell is a concept that I came up with and therefore I have to justify it.

No, I was just under the impression that you offered Skavau a debate in which you´d take the position that eternal torment is justified.

But since it is not something I made up, I do not feel the need to justify it.

Of course, you are free to announce what you are going to justify and then change your mind about it.

But since so many of you are crying foul, tell me, if objective moral values do not exist, then how can you be so indignant about the concept of hell?

I think you are missing the point: The weird thing is when those who do believe in objective morality believe that objective morality considers eternal torture a good thing.

In the absence of objective morality: It´s enough for me to disapprove of it because I don´t like the idea. It would be sufficient to not worship your god even if such were to exist.

The somewhat ironic thing is: You are thriving on the point that it takes the belief in objective morality to justify horrendous atrocities like eternal torment (and that subjective morality isn´t a sufficient criteria to disapprove of it) whereas usually the argument goes "Without objective morality everything is permissible (even [insert horrifying atrocity of choice]".

 

[Davian]

...

Can you tell me what strawmen arguments I have concocted please?

...

When Elioenai26 said "emotional tirades and short unsubstantiated quips and strawmen arguments which you know would not be of any benefit to you in a debate" I think he was referring to his own posts.

 

[Elioenai26]

By that methodology you appear to mean a series of unrelated questions about "What is love" and "What makes us unique?" You also ignored any questions I had for you with a near 100% record, actually. You seemed to outright dismiss them.


I never said I did not want to debate you. Make your argument.


You've seen my argument. You've seen my opening post. I have, when requested by you each and every time given you arguments for why I think permanent torture in hell for not believing in God is wrong.


Can you tell me what strawmen arguments I have concocted please?


You have my assurances regarding my conviction.

By the way you still haven't answered my question. Do you think I am lying about my atheism?


I did, in the OP. You're welcome to address it. You're also welcome to address any of my posts regarding hell on this topic in this thread.

No, I was just under the impression that you offered Skavau a debate in which you´d take the position that eternal torment is justified.

Of course, you are free to announce what you are going to justify and then change your mind about it.

I think you are missing the point: The weird thing is when those who do believe in objective morality believe that objective morality considers eternal torture a good thing.

In the absence of objective morality: It´s enough for me to disapprove of it because I don´t like the idea. It would be sufficient to not worship your god even if such were to exist.

The somewhat ironic thing is: You are thriving on the point that it takes the belief in objective morality to justify horrendous atrocities like eternal torment (and that subjective morality isn´t a sufficient criteria to disapprove of it) whereas usually the argument goes "Without objective morality everything is permissible (even [insert horrifying atrocity of choice]".

When Elioenai26 said "emotional tirades and short unsubstantiated quips and strawmen arguments which you know would not be of any benefit to you in a debate" I think he was referring to his own posts.

Would the three of you like to put your heads together and debate me in a brand new thread? I am sure that you all could build a case for your position, whatever that position might be....

Private message each other, compile an Opening Remark that is no more than 15,000 words and in the opening remark, state your argument and anything else you wish to defend with whatever evidence, proof, expert testimony, syllogisms, etc. etc. you wish to make use of. Build the case from whatever view you wish to argue from and then I will submit my opening remarks.

If the three of you are not willing or unable to do this, then fine. The refusal will be noted. But it seems to me the three of you would be anxious to show how fallacious my arguments have been and prove yourself to be justified in your views. Maybe you all don't really care. Maybe it is a game to you?

Formal debate is going to be the grounds in which my position is defended. Not tit for tat, back and forth, unstructured arguing which is far too prevalent in internet forums.

If you agree to debate, know that I am not going to help you do your research for you. I am not going to answer questions that you should already know. This is a philosophy forum. If you have'nt even the most basic understanding of its most rudimentary concepts, then you should not be pretending that you do.

I look forward to hearing from the three of you.

By the way, you can choose whatever topic your heart's desire. Just title the Opening Remark with a working thesis statement. You have 24 hours to reply with a yes or no, after that, I will pursue the matter no further.

Thank you.

 

[quatona]

Would the three of you like to put your heads together and debate me in a brand new thread? I am sure that you all could build a case for your position, whatever that position might be....

That would be "positions", to begin with.
As far as I am concerned - no.
I would like my position and my arguments to be considered on their own merits.
The fact that three persons disagree with you doesn´t mean they agree, hold the same positions, or argue from identical pov´s. What makes you assume "the three of us" have any any affiliation? Is that just laziness on your part?

And why should there be a new thread?
Am I to assume that your tactics and your attitude will change out of a sudden just because there´s a new thread? If you have a groundbreaking new argument in store - why not present it here and right now?

Private message each other, compile an Opening Remark that is no more than 15,000 words and in the opening remark, state your argument and anything else you wish to defend with whatever evidence, proof, expert testimony, syllogisms, etc. etc. you wish to make use of. Build the case from whatever view you wish to argue from and then I will submit my opening remarks.

Why all that fuzz?
The challenge - as per this thread - is clear: Justify the benevolence that´s reflected by eternal torment.
Just go ahead and do it (and you will get individual responses from each individual who responds to you).
You said you were going to do this, and you withdrew.
Why would that be any different in a new thread or with a new topic?

Formal debate is going to be the grounds in which my position is defended.

You are free to present and argue for your position any way you wish. Don´t make that dependent on me.

 

[dlamberth]

So anyone else here got any defense for why most of humanity deserves to be tormented/tortured forever?

I can't think of any. Which is why I've totally rejected and have been freed from any of that stuff dealing with Hell, Sin and of a Judgmental God who sends his own Creation there.

.

 

[Elioenai26]

I can't think of any. Which is why I've totally rejected and have been freed from any of that stuff dealing with Hell, Sin and of a Judgmental God who sends his own Creation there.

.

And in place of this "stuff" which you have totally rejected, what have you accepted as being the truth regarding:

1. The final state of humans once they die
2. The inherent depravity of humans
3. Ultimate Justice

Since you reject the biblical teachings of Hell, sin, and final judgement, what do you maintain is the truth regarding the preceding three concepts?