Is Hell Really a Bad Place?

[ITChick]

The great irony of this thread is this: In these forums many people rail against the God that condemns people to eternal damnation. But when these same people are offered a choice between their favorite depravity or God, they chose to continue sinning rather than repent. As such they are not sent to Hell, but go there by choice.

I have to admit that I sometimes harbor the same dislike for the Christian god as I do for Joffrey from Game of Thrones.

I think that Joffrey is an evil bastard and I actually look forward to watching him die at some point.

So - how can I look forward to watching someone die if I'm against the death penalty?

It's because I can differentiate between what is real and what is fiction.

Both the Christian god and Jeoffrey fall in "fiction", but that doesn't mean that I am not allowed to rail against the (fictional) evil they commit.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whatever proper compartmentalism is, it is something that matters. An absence of cognative dissonance within the brain is also something that matters.

[Godscreated]

There's more written about Christ than many leaders of His time and you accept them, why, because you haven't gained enough knowledge to see truth.

Listen to the logic behind this: You're saying Christ must have existed because there has been a lot written about him. Well, there's also been a lot written about The Toxic Avenger, Captain America, and Robocop, too. So does that mean they really lived?

Maybe Jesus only exists in our imaginations, just like the three gentlemen above.

Writings don't cut it, my friend. Fossil evidence is a good start for what you need.

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

GC

---

I choose not to believe your false dilemma.

A belief against truth does not change truth.

GC

[Minimalist]

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

Just because something is written down does not make it true. Caesar claimed to have defeated a relief force of 250,000 Gauls. The number is preposterous. So is 185,000 Assyrians attacking a two-bit little shithole like 8th century Jerusalem. But I bet you just swear that your fucking bible tale is true, right?

[Bad Writer]

Listen to the logic behind this: You're saying Christ must have existed because there has been a lot written about him. Well, there's also been a lot written about The Toxic Avenger, Captain America, and Robocop, too. So does that mean they really lived?

Maybe Jesus only exists in our imaginations, just like the three gentlemen above.

Writings don't cut it, my friend. Fossil evidence is a good start for what you need.

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

GC

---

I choose not to believe your false dilemma.

A belief against truth does not change truth.

GC

So you're saying someone fabricated those fossils? You really don't see the distinction, do you?

Also, what I stated was not a belief, but a disbelief. You really don't see any distinctions.

[Michael Schubert]

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

You've been listening to those bat-shit crazy creationists, haven't you? Thanks to carbon dating methods and other tools that paleontologists use, we know how old those fossils are, and we have a pretty good estimate of how old the earth is, as well.

You see, back when homo sapien post birth brain development was not so evolved, people didn't have any way of discerning reality. So they made up fantasy stories (just like those found in Genesis) about gods and devils and angels.

Have you ever even read a book about evolution? I suggest you do. You are oblivious and benighted. How do you think scientists develop medicines? Differential reproduction: a key element of evolutionary science.

[Esquilax]

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

Whereas you're saying that we should accept all of written history, so long as it agrees with what you say... while discounting all of written history that disagrees with your opinions, like, say, the written histories of every other, competing religion.

You fucking hypocrite.

[Bad Writer]

You guys, he's equivocating the subjectivity that is written history to objectivity that is paleontology. The only thing objective about written history is that someone must have written it in the first place...in a way the book would be your fossil, but that's really where this anolgy ends.

[Godscreated]

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

GC

---

A belief against truth does not change truth.

GC

So you're saying someone fabricated those fossils? You really don't see the distinction, do you?

Also, what I stated was not a belief, but a disbelief. You really don't see any distinctions.

Fossils are minerals not bone and disbelief is a type of belief, can't you see.

---

So you're saying we can eliminate all the written history and depend on bone images of rock that can't be dated, really.

You've been listening to those bat-shit crazy creationists, haven't you? Thanks to carbon dating methods and other tools that paleontologists use, we know how old those fossils are, and we have a pretty good estimate of how old the earth is, as well.

You see, back when homo sapien post birth brain development was not so evolved, people didn't have any way of discerning reality. So they made up fantasy stories (just like those found in Genesis) about gods and devils and angels.

Have you ever even read a book about evolution? I suggest you do. You are oblivious and benighted. How do you think scientists develop medicines? Differential reproduction: a key element of evolutionary science.

I know highly regarded scientists and nuclear engineers, and all agree that carbon dating falls apart after 50,000 years and other nonbelievers on here have agreed. These people are honest enough not to lie about the reality of the limits science has, unlike you.

[Psykhronic]

There are other kinds of dating besides carbon dating. All have different timespans where they are useful. Example - Uranium-lead dating has a range of 1 million to about 4.5 billion years ago.