If God sent your child to Hell.

[Aroura]

You completely avoided my point about how Jesus did not even approve of the suffering of those who "deserved" it; and generally, the more aware we become of why people behave the way they do and why the world works the way it does the LESS tolerant of others suffering we become.

Why would it make any sense at all that divine 'enlightenment" would cause us to think people DESERVE suffering?  Everything we know about reality point to that actually working the other way.

I know, you can't wrap your head around It because of Hell. This is a great example of how religion harms.  You are clearly a nice, understanding and generally non-judgmental person, and you are looking forward to how god will turn you into a judgmental asshole just like him.

I'm not even sure how to further respond to your line of reasoning, it's so disgusting to me, repulsive.  That you embrace it just baffles me.

Jesus did not approve of the suffering of those who deserved it?  I have to assume you are talking about the parts where the sinner in question repents or is forgiven.  I am sure if you look you will find sufficient references where Jesus stipulates those who choose to engage in wrongful conduct and do not repent shall receive what they deserve (which naturally is going to be awesomeness!!)

I am having a hard time understand the animosity.  I endeavored to answer this question in reasonable terms and even made the equation of hell to prison to try to avoid unwarranted hatred against religious comments.  The question asked was if God sent your child to hell (which I equated to the state putting your child in prison or executing them).  In either question the child chose to engage in action of sufficient wrongness or illegality as to warrant their condemnation or execution.

Am i supposed to say I refuse to believe in a god who allows one person in hell, no matter how horrible their chosen conduct?  That I will not live in a state that puts a single person in prison, no matter how many laws they break or people they hurt?  That I should suffer guilt for the punishment of one who chose to engage in vicious and illicit conduct of a nature so bad as to be imprisoned or executed?

I do not think any reasonable person, theist or atheist, would agree with that.  And if they do they have my utmost sympathies to be constantly wracked with guilt and bad feelings about the bad things that other people do (that is beyond your control) must be a never ending torment.  To quote Brian Griffin:

"Stewie, it's not your fault....Stewie; it's not your fault....NO!  Stewie... It's not your fault."

This is one reason I reject the notion of free-will (aside from evidence pointing to it's lack of existence!), it leads to this kind of barbaric blaming nonsense.  No, a person doesn't chose to be bad.  A person is born into bad circumstance, or born with genetic damage that causes their bad behavior, or both. 

If God will condemn a person to eternal damnation who is born with a mental illness not under their control, or condemn a person born into poverty who's only role models are gang member, and then rewards a person with eternal happiness for being born into privilege and good genetics, AND that god created all those conditions in the first place, that god is a monster.

Remember how many Christians started accepting homosexuality more once science proved it wasn't a choice?  "Choice" aka - freewill is the loophole Christians use for their twisted moral code. And there is...no...such..thing.  Not in the libertarian way you keep using the term, anyway.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, it just happened to me through a process of exposure to information and events I had no control over. 

Where are your monstrous beliefs going to hide when we find that is the case for pretty much everything?  Choice.  Ha!

 I CANNOT chose to force myself to believe in a god I find illogical and highly improbably to exist.  I know, I tried.  If a god exists and he condemns me to hell for that...he's a monster.  Period.  You don't know how many atheists suffered trying so hard to believe, but they couldn't.

[Anima]

This is one reason I reject the notion of free-will (aside from evidence pointing to it's lack of existence!), it leads to this kind of barbaric blaming nonsense.  No, a person doesn't chose to be bad.  A person is born into bad circumstance, or born with genetic damage that causes their bad behavior, or both. 

If God will condemn a person to eternal damnation who is born with a mental illness not under their control, or condemn a person born into poverty who's only role models are gang member, and then rewards a person with eternal happiness for being born into privilege and good genetics, AND that god created all those conditions in the first place, that god is a monster.

Remember how many Christians started accepting homosexuality more once science proved it wasn't a choice?  "Choice" aka - freewill is the loophole Christians use for their twisted moral code. And there is...no...such..thing.  Not in the libertarian way you keep using the term, anyway.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, it just happened to me through a process of exposure to information and events I had no control over. 

Where are your monstrous beliefs going to hide when we find that is the case for pretty much everything?  Choice.  Ha!

 I CANNOT chose to force myself to believe in a god I find illogical and highly improbably to exist.  I know, I tried.  If a god exists and he condemns me to hell for that...he's a monster.  Period.  You don't know how many atheists suffered trying so hard to believe, but they couldn't.

Okay. Before I rip this to pieces (and possibly further unbalance this gent) I am going to need to know if more of you contend you have no choice or freewill? If you do not then I will consider this one an outlier and move on. If you do I will respond despondently.

---

Prison is mainly used as a way of keeping people away from society who are a danger to it.

"Hell" is something that happens to you after you die supposedly. No one needs protecting from you anymore, you dead son. So in this analogy, it would be like re animating the corpse and making it live forever in a prison as vengeance. A prison made just for this purpose. Optionally torturing it as well, depending on which version people believe in.

So it's really not a very good comparison. Prison isn't primarily concerned with seeking vengeance. If a murderer dies before being convicted, we don't stomp on his corpse for all eternity as payback.

So Bernie Madoff is serving multiple life sentences because he is a danger to society? Hmm...?

What do you mean by no one. There are innocent people then to. They should not be subjected to the guilty.

[Iroscato]

Okay. Before I rip this to pieces (and possibly further unbalance this gent) I am going to need to know if more of you contend you have no choice or freewill? If you do not then I will consider this one an outlier and move on. If you do I will respond despondently.

All humans have free will...to a point. We cannot, however, choose to believe something which we feel to be false.
I could attend church every sunday.
I could pray every evening.
I could take part in singing hymns.
I could take communion along with everyone else in church.
I could give the outward appearance of a perfect Catholic faithful in every aspect - but if I don't believe in God, then I don't believe in God. No matter how hard I force myself to try, it simply does not work that way.

And please, don't try saying all the evidence I need is all around me, or contained within the pages of a poorly-written, historically dubious book. I have examined both, and nothing in my life has for one moment moved me to believe. If your God is real, and wants to burn me in Hell for the rest of time, then so be it.

Doesn't stop him being a cunt, and an imaginary cunt at that.

[Aroura]

This is one reason I reject the notion of free-will (aside from evidence pointing to it's lack of existence!), it leads to this kind of barbaric blaming nonsense.  No, a person doesn't chose to be bad.  A person is born into bad circumstance, or born with genetic damage that causes their bad behavior, or both. 

If God will condemn a person to eternal damnation who is born with a mental illness not under their control, or condemn a person born into poverty who's only role models are gang member, and then rewards a person with eternal happiness for being born into privilege and good genetics, AND that god created all those conditions in the first place, that god is a monster.

Remember how many Christians started accepting homosexuality more once science proved it wasn't a choice?  "Choice" aka - freewill is the loophole Christians use for their twisted moral code. And there is...no...such..thing.  Not in the libertarian way you keep using the term, anyway.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, it just happened to me through a process of exposure to information and events I had no control over. 

Where are your monstrous beliefs going to hide when we find that is the case for pretty much everything?  Choice.  Ha!

 I CANNOT chose to force myself to believe in a god I find illogical and highly improbably to exist.  I know, I tried.  If a god exists and he condemns me to hell for that...he's a monster.  Period.  You don't know how many atheists suffered trying so hard to believe, but they couldn't.

Okay.  Before I rip this to pieces (and possibly further unbalance this gent) I am going to need to know if more of you contend you have no choice or freewill?  If you do not then I will consider this one an outlier and move on.  If you do I will respond despondently.

---

Prison is mainly used as a way of keeping people away from society who are a danger to it.

"Hell" is something that happens to you after you die supposedly. No one needs protecting from you anymore, you dead son. So in this analogy, it would be like re animating the corpse and making it live forever in a prison as vengeance. A prison made just for this purpose. Optionally torturing it as well, depending on which version people believe in.

So it's really not a very good comparison. Prison isn't primarily concerned with seeking vengeance. If a murderer dies before being convicted, we don't stomp on his corpse for all eternity as payback.

So Bernie Madoff is serving multiple life sentences because he is a danger to society?  Hmm...?

What do you mean by no one.  There are innocent people then to.  They should not be subjected to the guilty.

First, I'm a lady, not a gent.
Second, before you consider me an outlier, why don't you create a poll here that asks who does believe in free-will?  There are generally 3 options, though people may believe some variation of the 3.
Libertarian Free will
Compatabilist Free-will
Determinist, no free will

My guess would be you would get every so slightly more compatabalists, but still about 40% or so will be determinists here, just like me.  Only the other Christians MIGHT believe in Libertarian free will, though most educated ones will still pick compatibilism, because the Libertarian kind isn't really possible, according to modern thought.

Actually I'm curios myself, so I'll do it (and shock the socks off of you!)  haha.

---

This is one reason I reject the notion of free-will (aside from evidence pointing to it's lack of existence!), it leads to this kind of barbaric blaming nonsense.  No, a person doesn't chose to be bad.  A person is born into bad circumstance, or born with genetic damage that causes their bad behavior, or both. 

If God will condemn a person to eternal damnation who is born with a mental illness not under their control, or condemn a person born into poverty who's only role models are gang member, and then rewards a person with eternal happiness for being born into privilege and good genetics, AND that god created all those conditions in the first place, that god is a monster.

Remember how many Christians started accepting homosexuality more once science proved it wasn't a choice?  "Choice" aka - freewill is the loophole Christians use for their twisted moral code. And there is...no...such..thing.  Not in the libertarian way you keep using the term, anyway.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, it just happened to me through a process of exposure to information and events I had no control over. 

Where are your monstrous beliefs going to hide when we find that is the case for pretty much everything?  Choice.  Ha!

 I CANNOT chose to force myself to believe in a god I find illogical and highly improbably to exist.  I know, I tried.  If a god exists and he condemns me to hell for that...he's a monster.  Period.  You don't know how many atheists suffered trying so hard to believe, but they couldn't.

Okay.  Before I rip this to pieces (and possibly further unbalance this gent) I am going to need to know if more of you contend you have no choice or freewill?  If you do not then I will consider this one an outlier and move on.  If you do I will respond despondently.

---

Prison is mainly used as a way of keeping people away from society who are a danger to it.

"Hell" is something that happens to you after you die supposedly. No one needs protecting from you anymore, you dead son. So in this analogy, it would be like re animating the corpse and making it live forever in a prison as vengeance. A prison made just for this purpose. Optionally torturing it as well, depending on which version people believe in.

So it's really not a very good comparison. Prison isn't primarily concerned with seeking vengeance. If a murderer dies before being convicted, we don't stomp on his corpse for all eternity as payback.

So Bernie Madoff is serving multiple life sentences because he is a danger to society?  Hmm...?

What do you mean by no one.  There are innocent people then to.  They should not be subjected to the guilty.

But in case my poll doesn't get off the ground (and please, feel free to "Rip me to shreds", I'm all ears), here is a thread where you can see members of this forum debate the existence of, and importance of the existence of, free-will.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-32710.ht...eterminism

My point here being, belief in determinism is not an outlier, it is quite common.  Belief in Libertarian Free-will is, however the outlier now-a-days.  Compatibilism is the most common belief, I think, and they do not believe in Free will as you seem to be using it.
In any case, there is nothing  unbalanced about it.

So yes, please, rip determinism to shreds.  I've read dozens of papers and watched lectures from neurobiologists, PhD philosophers and other experts, but I'm sure your argument will just bury everything they had to say.

I'm waiting....

[robvalue]

I just looked up that guy, and it looks like he's a swindler. So, yes. He was causing harm, swindling. We stop him doing that by locking him up. If we let him just carry on, he may keep doing it. Of course prison doubles as a deterrent and a kind of punishment, but my point is that is not its main purpose. And it only serves any purpose at all when the people in it are actually alive.

What's this got to do with reanimating people and then imprisoning them?

And I don't understand your point about the innocent not being subjected to the guilty? Are you talking about heaven? It's possible to just let someone die and not put them into heaven without also reanimating them and torturing them. Well, I assume it is, if you are a god.

[Anima]

I just looked up that guy, and it looks like he's a swindler. So, yes. He was causing harm, swindling. We stop him doing that by locking him up. If we let him just carry on, he may keep doing it. Of course prison doubles as a deterrent and a kind of punishment, but my point is that is not its main purpose. And it only serves any purpose at all when the people in it are actually alive.

What's this got to do with reanimating people and then imprisoning them?

And I don't understand your point about the innocent not being subjected to the guilty? Are you talking about heaven? It's possible to just let someone die and not put them into heaven without also reanimating them and torturing them. Well, I assume it is, if you are a god.

Sorry; I did not finish that post.  I started and then bailed to go to dinner

Did you check how long he was locked up for?  150 years.  So we are saying that society needs to be protected from this man for 150 years but society needs protection from a rapist for only 2 to 25 years.

In response to your statement about imprisoning people to protect society we will state the claim is not supported by the sentencing structure adopted for criminal conduct.  Furthermore I would state imprisonment as retributivist act is more reasonable as rehabilitative or dissuasive view due to our ability to effectuate the former while still being accepting of the median and latter.

---

This is one reason I reject the notion of free-will (aside from evidence pointing to it's lack of existence!), it leads to this kind of barbaric blaming nonsense.  No, a person doesn't chose to be bad.  A person is born into bad circumstance, or born with genetic damage that causes their bad behavior, or both. 

If God will condemn a person to eternal damnation who is born with a mental illness not under their control, or condemn a person born into poverty who's only role models are gang member, and then rewards a person with eternal happiness for being born into privilege and good genetics, AND that god created all those conditions in the first place, that god is a monster.

Remember how many Christians started accepting homosexuality more once science proved it wasn't a choice?  "Choice" aka - freewill is the loophole Christians use for their twisted moral code. And there is...no...such..thing.  Not in the libertarian way you keep using the term, anyway.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, it just happened to me through a process of exposure to information and events I had no control over. 

Where are your monstrous beliefs going to hide when we find that is the case for pretty much everything?  Choice.  Ha!

 I CANNOT chose to force myself to believe in a god I find illogical and highly improbably to exist.  I know, I tried.  If a god exists and he condemns me to hell for that...he's a monster.  Period.  You don't know how many atheists suffered trying so hard to believe, but they couldn't.

You know I had every intention of writing four different responses to the notion of free will and choice (I was even going to discuss the homosexuality is not a choice statement) under a philosophical, psychological (since psychology has not proved as you claim), legal, and evolutionary biology position. But then I realized there is no point.

In opposition to what I have already stated your response is to say that people are meat automatons that do not make choices nor are they free to make any choices (,which would seem odd as not all the meat puppets born into the same circumstance and even family reach the same outcome. Might we argue different quality of meat? Filet vs Rump?).

In conceding the battle I avoid the war, acceptance of your response renders the original question moot. Theist contend a person goes to hell based on their choices. If they are incapable of making choices (due to infancy, insanity, disability, or being a meat automation) then they do not go to hell. (Yes, if Hitler's acts were because he was crazy he should not go to hell.)

As a meat automaton you have as much likelihood of perdition as a rock or tree. There is no metaphysical person to speak of and even if there were it sounds as if their person is trapped in a hell of ineptness already. Forced to watch the world play out around them as their meat responds to stimuli and they are dragged along for the ride (reminds me of the ending to Being John Malcovich.)

However, I would think twice before opening the prisons and letting the serial killers and rapists out. While the contention is exposing their meat automaton to different stimuli will keep them from their prior conduct I would give consideration to the idea that their conduct was a choice which they may readily make again.

[Aroura]

I just looked up that guy, and it looks like he's a swindler. So, yes. He was causing harm, swindling. We stop him doing that by locking him up. If we let him just carry on, he may keep doing it. Of course prison doubles as a deterrent and a kind of punishment, but my point is that is not its main purpose. And it only serves any purpose at all when the people in it are actually alive.

What's this got to do with reanimating people and then imprisoning them?

And I don't understand your point about the innocent not being subjected to the guilty? Are you talking about heaven? It's possible to just let someone die and not put them into heaven without also reanimating them and torturing them. Well, I assume it is, if you are a god.

Sorry; I did not finish that post.  I started and then bailed to go to dinner

Did you check how long he was locked up for?  150 years.  So we are saying that society needs to be protected from this man for 150 years but society needs protection from a rapist for only 2 to 25 years.

In response to your statement about imprisoning people to protect society we will state the claim is not supported by the sentencing structure adopted for criminal conduct.  Furthermore I would state imprisonment as retributivist act is more reasonable as rehabilitative or dissuasive view due to our ability to effectuate the former while still being accepting of the median and latter.

---

This is one reason I reject the notion of free-will (aside from evidence pointing to it's lack of existence!), it leads to this kind of barbaric blaming nonsense.  No, a person doesn't chose to be bad.  A person is born into bad circumstance, or born with genetic damage that causes their bad behavior, or both. 

If God will condemn a person to eternal damnation who is born with a mental illness not under their control, or condemn a person born into poverty who's only role models are gang member, and then rewards a person with eternal happiness for being born into privilege and good genetics, AND that god created all those conditions in the first place, that god is a monster.

Remember how many Christians started accepting homosexuality more once science proved it wasn't a choice?  "Choice" aka - freewill is the loophole Christians use for their twisted moral code. And there is...no...such..thing.  Not in the libertarian way you keep using the term, anyway.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, it just happened to me through a process of exposure to information and events I had no control over. 

Where are your monstrous beliefs going to hide when we find that is the case for pretty much everything?  Choice.  Ha!

 I CANNOT chose to force myself to believe in a god I find illogical and highly improbably to exist.  I know, I tried.  If a god exists and he condemns me to hell for that...he's a monster.  Period.  You don't know how many atheists suffered trying so hard to believe, but they couldn't.

You know I had every intention of writing four different responses to the notion of free will and choice (I was even going to discuss the homosexuality is not a choice statement) under a philosophical, psychological (since psychology has not proved as you claim), legal, and evolutionary biology position.  But then I realized there is no point.

In opposition to what I have already stated your response is to say that people are meat automatons that do not make choices nor are they free to make any choices (,which would seem odd as not all the meat puppets born into the same circumstance and even family reach the same outcome.  Might we argue different quality of meat?  Filet vs Rump?).  

In conceding the battle I avoid the war, acceptance of your response renders the original question moot.  Theist contend a person goes to hell based on their choices.  If they are incapable of making choices (due to infancy, insanity, disability, or being a meat automation) then they do not go to hell.  (Yes, if Hitler's acts were because he was crazy he should not go to hell.)

As a meat automaton you have as much likelihood of perdition as a rock or tree.  There is no metaphysical person to speak of and even if there were it sounds as if their person is trapped in a hell of ineptness already.  Forced to watch the world play out around them as their meat responds to stimuli and they are dragged along for the ride (reminds me of the ending to Being John Malcovich.)

However, I would think twice before opening the prisons and letting the serial killers and rapists out.  While the contention is exposing their meat automaton to different stimuli will keep them from their prior conduct I would give consideration to the idea that their conduct was a choice which they may readily make again.

Yes, in response to the part I bolded, now you understand why clinging to the outdated notion of free-will only causes people to be asses to each other in the real world.

But no, the part I Italicized does not necessarily follow. We still retain the perception of making decisions, so that wouldn't change. Snd we would still need to protect society, so the serial killers and rapists would still need to be locked up if they could not be cured.  But we could put more effort into curing, and to safely locking up the uncurable, instead of the outdated notions of punishment for punishments sake. 

But yes, if determinism is true, or even compatibilism (free-will inside the constraints of determinism), then heaven and hell become completely nonsensical concepts, even if you believe in god. 

I suggest you read up on these things a bit, since these ideas seem to be new to you.  And also realize that my view of determinism (though you may find it unstable, that's an opinion and you have a right to it), is NOT an outlier.  Much like atheism, determinism, is on the rise.  Better get used to it.
And it has POSITIVE consequences on societies who's justice systems embrace it....look at crime rates dropping, the ideas of revenge and retaliation being less accepted, violence should no longer beget violence.  Overall, it creates a more peaceful and humane outlook on the world and those who live in it.

[robvalue]

Right, so you think someone's sentence was too harsh. That's fine, I never claimed the legal system is perfect. But this still has nothing to do with hell, so I assume you have realized it's a very bad comparison. Especially since infinite punishment for a finite crime is the very definition of an overly harsh sentence, and one that serves no purpose other than for God to enjoy the suffering of others.

It's sad how people have to employ these obviously broken equivocations to try and pretend an evil character in a book is actually good.

And didn't you say that your God is imaginary? So why would you think hell is real?

[Anima]

Sorry; I did not finish that post.  I started and then bailed to go to dinner

Did you check how long he was locked up for?  150 years.  So we are saying that society needs to be protected from this man for 150 years but society needs protection from a rapist for only 2 to 25 years.

In response to your statement about imprisoning people to protect society we will state the claim is not supported by the sentencing structure adopted for criminal conduct.  Furthermore I would state imprisonment as retributivist act is more reasonable as rehabilitative or dissuasive view due to our ability to effectuate the former while still being accepting of the median and latter.

---

You know I had every intention of writing four different responses to the notion of free will and choice (I was even going to discuss the homosexuality is not a choice statement) under a philosophical, psychological (since psychology has not proved as you claim), legal, and evolutionary biology position.  But then I realized there is no point.

In opposition to what I have already stated your response is to say that people are meat automatons that do not make choices nor are they free to make any choices (,which would seem odd as not all the meat puppets born into the same circumstance and even family reach the same outcome.  Might we argue different quality of meat?  Filet vs Rump?).  

In conceding the battle I avoid the war, acceptance of your response renders the original question moot.  Theist contend a person goes to hell based on their choices.  If they are incapable of making choices (due to infancy, insanity, disability, or being a meat automation) then they do not go to hell.  (Yes, if Hitler's acts were because he was crazy he should not go to hell.)

As a meat automaton you have as much likelihood of perdition as a rock or tree.  There is no metaphysical person to speak of and even if there were it sounds as if their person is trapped in a hell of ineptness already.  Forced to watch the world play out around them as their meat responds to stimuli and they are dragged along for the ride (reminds me of the ending to Being John Malcovich.)

However, I would think twice before opening the prisons and letting the serial killers and rapists out.  While the contention is exposing their meat automaton to different stimuli will keep them from their prior conduct I would give consideration to the idea that their conduct was a choice which they may readily make again.

Yes, in response to the part I bolded, now you understand why clinging to the outdated notion of free-will only causes people to be asses to each other in the real world.

But no, the part I Italicized does not necessarily follow. We still retain the perception of making decisions, so that wouldn't change. Snd we would still need to protect society, so the serial killers and rapists would still need to be locked up if they could not be cured.  But we could put more effort into curing, and to safely locking up the uncurable, instead of the outdated notions of punishment for punishments sake. 

But yes, if determinism is true, or even compatibilism (free-will inside the constraints of determinism), then heaven and hell become completely nonsensical concepts, even if you believe in god. 

I suggest you read up on these things a bit, since these ideas seem to be new to you.  And also realize that my view of determinism (though you may find it unstable, that's an opinion and you have a right to it), is NOT an outlier.  Much like atheism, determinism, is on the rise.  Better get used to it.
And it has POSITIVE consequences on societies who's justice systems embrace it....look at crime rates dropping, the ideas of revenge and retaliation being less accepted, violence should no longer beget violence.  Overall, it creates a more peaceful and humane outlook on the world and those who live in it.

Ha ha. Actually I cannot understand how you could possibly state anything about personhood or conduct devoid of a freewill. It does follow that without free will we would be effectual meat automatons devoid of person (or as often stated to me on this forum, "personhood that would not matter, which is not personhood at all") and thereby no conduct is good/bad or appropriate/inappropriate and thus to be subject to moral or ethical punishment (hell or even prison).

Furthermore, one may not posit all actions are automated and in no way volitional and thereby amoral or devoid of ethics; to then posit that certain automated actions are "detrimental" and to be guarded against. Whether each automaton acts independently or the automatons act in unison according to the stimuli (which you extend to include fictitious perceptions of choices that never occurred) or predestination already determined all of those actions are amoral or devoid of ethics and subsequent moral or ethical judgment followed by punishment.

To say that one retains the perceptions of decisions (while never actually making any decisions) is more fanciful and farcical than to say that one makes decisions and is subsequently bound by the repercussions that follow from those decisions. By that argument all that is one is a figment of imagination (merely perceptions of decisions without any actual decisions).

I would agree that freewill allows people to be asses to one another just as free speech allows people to state asinine things. (In my case hearing guilt and punishment are to be assigned over the perception of decisions one never actually made; in yours hearing guilt and punishment is to be assigned for decisions actually made). Guilt and punishment for perception of a decision made is far more disgusting than any system which would punish someone for a decision they freely made (the former involving punishment for something never done or punishing the innocent; the latter punishment for something done or punishing the guilty.)

I am well versed in both the theistic and atheistic arguments to predestination and determinism, as well as argumentum ad novitatem. I find all of them equally foolish as arguments to predestination and determinism (theistic or atheistic) all negate the very existence of the being or person (or render the being as a prisoner of existence with no way to effect it, thereby effectually nonexistent). If there was anything I thought we could agree on it is the existence of our own person. Alas it appears I shall be compelled to stick to my old antiquated ideas of person while the rest render their person nonexistence. I would ask you to send a post card, but you will not be around to do so.

---

Right, so you think someone's sentence was too harsh. That's fine, I never claimed the legal system is perfect. But this still has nothing to do with hell, so I assume you have realized it's a very bad comparison. Especially since infinite punishment for a finite crime is the very definition of an overly harsh sentence, and one that serves no purpose other than for God to enjoy the suffering of others.

It's sad how people have to employ these obviously broken equivocations to try and pretend an evil character in a book is actually good.

And didn't you say that your God is imaginary? So why would you think hell is real?

So what do you think a 150 year prison sentence or the death penalty is? To an atheist would it not be infinite punishment for a finite crime?
After all the punished shall be separated from society indefinitely, that is to say infinitely, for their finite crime. (Coincidentally life imprisonment and the death penalty is not considered an infinite punishment to a finite crime for the theist.)

So you would say that there is no conduct a person can engage in which would warrant their everlasting separation from society. So you think Mr. Madoff will get to join society again when he is 200 years old or those who were executed will come back into the fold upon the resurrection at the second coming

I think the equalization is functioning as intended. Since we are discussing indefinite imprisonment for bad or improper conduct by an authority. I think it is shown well that we do such for similar reasons without god as with god. The theory is sound in principle and now we are just haggling over location and authority.

[robvalue]

Unless your version of hell just means "not existing anymore" you're continuing a false equivocation. Yes, death is a terminal punishment. But the person doesn't suffer forever after they are given the death penalty.

Let me ask you then: would you rather cease to exist or be tortured forever? Do you have a preference?

There is another point to prison as well, which is to try and give the person time to rehabilitate. Obviously this is not always possible, but with shorter sentences the person gets "time out" and can come back stronger, should they wish to do so. Not so when you're just endlessly punishing someone without ever having the chance of redemption.

[Edited, I was being overly arrogant and pompous!]