CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do People Really Deserve To Go To Hell (Christian Version of Hell)
Think about it, the bible stated that hell is place that'll cause neverending damnation and punishment for those inside of it, but really now, the average years of human's life are 75 years, what can a human do in 75 years that'll cause a neverending damnation for him/her, forever is a long, LONG, time after all....
P.S : Sorry if my english is not good, or if there are any wrong spellings or words usage, English is not my native language ^^
As much as I dislike the very concept of Hell, judging from the world and the actions of most humanity I am inclined to agree that we do deserve every bit of misery that can be slung upon us, save perhaps for children or those disabled mentally from birth... but then I'm talking about adults here, so that really didn't need that much explaining I suppose. Oh and before anyone gets on their high horse, I'm an adult. Put two and two together, thanks.
As for those asking me 'why' I feel this way, I don't really need to explain it. You only need to open your eyes to the world around you to understand, assuming you even want to.
I did read the whole thing. The problem is that your belief is evil and fucked up. With that logic, the Holocaust victims deserved it, the people who died in the Twin Towers deserved it.
In fact, why don't you go blow up a building, since we deserve it!
You're using a fallacy. And honestly if you're Christian you should be auto-subscribing to the belief that humanity is evil by nature. I'm speaking from a misanthropist point of view of course. After a certain point in human development, innocence no longer exists and we bear the full mantle of evil. Some of us just take to it more than others.
As for my belief being 'evil'... tbh it's not. It's just being realistic. I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. We are not judged evil by what we have not done, but by what we have done. A victim is not guilty of a crime, yes? So your logic is fallacious. It would be more accurate to say that 'those who destroyed countless lives in the Holocaust' or 'those who blew up the Twin Towers' deserved to be punished for their guilt.
But I expect nothing less of someone who can't even separate themselves from emotion during a debate.
Okay, I apologize, I didn't understand your argument, and apparently took some things far too seriously. When I read your argument, the line: we do deserve every bit of misery that can be slung upon us, read in my mind as: we must suffer as much as possible
So as I said before, "You didn't read the entire thing". I'm allowed a bit of poetic license as well. It's not my job to read it objectively, at any rate.
That is, the adult who's intellect is not impaired in any way and can understand the difference between right and wrong. But that would have taken too long to put in there, so it's here.
Some people like mass murderers, rapeists, child molesters, serial killers, genocidists like Hitler, Mio, Che, ide amein, Stalin, ect. Defently deserve to.
A more accurate statement would be if you believe in god you get rewarded for eternity but if you don't believe in him but do good deeds all your life you still get punished for eternity.
If you have a difference in opinion, how in the world can you expect me, an atheist to take EITHER of you seriously?
Srom spouts his version of bullshit, then you spout your bullshit, then some random Muslim spouts THEIR bullshit, and then we get loads of others who spout THEIR bullshit.
Don't tell me you believe that. Yes, some goes to charity, but haven't you wondered why the vatican is super rich? Why nearly ALL preachers, especially those megachurch ones are super rich?
Don't say something stupid and "absolute", and I won't either, but you cannot deny that religion, when it comes to money, is not very honest.
Actually the Catholic Church (I can't Speke for the preachers at the mega churches) spends 3.5million dollars yearly on charity that's no small amount.
Because their crimes are so heinous that they are on par with murder for wickedness even if they don't do as much physical damage to the victim. Just my opinion.
Because sexual abuse is a horrible experience that fucks the victim up. My father molested me when I was 13 and some dude raped me when I was 22. I am still getting over it.
This assumes free will, does it not? All of the above individuals and categories of people are direct consequences of their genetic and biological predispositions as triggered by environmental stimuli. Is it truly justifiable to penalize/reward an individual based on factors they did not choose nor control?
Further, the penalizing/rewarding of the individual through hell/heaven ignores the role of the collective (society) in both individual action and collective behavior (e.g. genocide).
So you subscribe to the belief that all crime is attributed to genetic factors and we aren't responsible for our wrong doings? Well I suppose that should apply both ways then how dose it feel knowing you have never actually accomplished anything in your life?
I think that we remain accountable out of necessity, but no I do not believe in responsibility. This does not mean I have never accomplished anything in my life, merely that I attribute those accomplishments to my genetics and environment. For me, this perspective does not dampen the positive emotional response associated with success but it does keep me humbled in that experience.
*To clarify as well, I think that crime is a consequence not only of genetics but also of environmental conditions and experience.
There are people who grew up in poor conditions and became criminals. And there are people who grew up in poor conditions and became great people the difference is self control and decisions. You are ultimately responsible for your actions not your parents or grand parents you and only you. And if your crimes aren't your fault then your accomplishments aren't yours either you can't have it both ways.
There are people who grew up in poor conditions and became criminals. And there are people who grew up in poor conditions and became great people the difference is self control and decisions.
I never argued that poverty was a sole determinant of criminality, and your implication to that effect is a gross misrepresentation of my argument. Poverty is a single environmental stimuli that interacts with countless other environmental stimuli as well as individual, biological predispositions. No single variable acts in isolation, so naturally not all who grow up in poverty will become criminal. This falls entirely within the parameters of my analysis.
You are ultimately responsible for your actions not your parents or grand parents you and only you.
I was in no way displacing blame onto the aforementioned parties. The predecessors are no more responsible than the immediate individual in question, as none chose their genetics, environment, or resultant behavior.
And if your crimes aren't your fault then your accomplishments aren't yours either you can't have it both ways.
Already agreed upon. An accomplishment is something which either the individual or society considers to be a positive achievement. One may still accomplish things by that standard, but one cannot rightly claim credit for such accomplishment. Just as one might commit a crime still, but cannot rightly be blamed for that crime. This does not preclude feeling positive emotions as a consequence (just as failure does not preclude negative emotions), but it necessarily precludes vanity. So yes, you are correct: I do not claim my accomplishments as being a product of my will, but of random consequence. So what is your point?
My point is crimes are a result of individual choice if you steel a watch its because you chose to not because you come from a long line of theifs. It's bull shit ideas like the one you are currently espousing that prevent us form solving the root causes of crime. You can chose not to commit a crime your genetics don't predetermine your every move throughout your life. It's theory like this that piss me of the most because they allow these scum bags to deny responsibility for their actions (so they never get better) and even garner sympathy form people. Free will exists we all have it.
My point is crimes are a result of individual choice if you steel a watch its because you chose to not because you come from a long line of theifs.
Again, you misrepresent my argument. I do not claim that one is a thief because their predecessors were thieves, but rather that criminal behavior is engaged in by those are more predisposed to be anti-social. It is scientifically established that there is a genetic spectrum for sociability, dependent upon biological developments in the frontal cortex. These predispositions do not guarantee a person will become a criminal, but they make it more likely that under particular environmental stimulation an individual will engage in crime.
It's bull shit ideas like the one you are currently espousing that prevent us form solving the root causes of crime.
To the contrary, my perspective targets the root causes of crime by addressing the sources of human behavior and social deviance which are biological and sociological in nature. In what way does that prevent us from understanding crime? What would you suggest we look to instead? We have attempted to progress in our understanding of crime through your perspective for decades if not centuries and gotten nowhere (arguably, we’ve gone backwards).
You can chose not to commit a crime your genetics don't predetermine your every move throughout your life. Free will exists we all have it.
Give me one reason to think this is true beyond your flagrant assertion. The absolute fact that certain genetics and social factors are clearly and causally correlated with increased likelihood of criminality is a strike against an increasingly antiquated and unsubstantiated attachment to free will.
It's theory like this that piss me of the most because they allow these scum bags to deny responsibility for their actions (so they never get better) and even garner sympathy form people.
From the offset I have been quite explicit that while I do not believe in responsibility I do think accountability is both necessary and practical. Removing free will does not mean ignoring the problem at all, but rather refocusing our efforts away from retribution and towards individual rehabilitation and social reform. The retributive model has repeatedly been shown to be ineffective at deterrence and actually increases recidivism. Compassion for the criminal or anti-social is not just about being humane towards those individuals, but about pursuing responsible social policy that reduces crime.
these predispositions do not guarantee a person will become a criminal but they make it more likely that under particular environmental stimulation an individual will engage in crime your argument still implies that a choice needs to be made by that individual to give in to the temptation therefor it still indicates the existence of free will.
And I also believe in rehabilitation but if you tell these people "it's not you fault your genetics made you do it" or what ever they will never take responsibility for there actions and therefor never take steps toward correcting their own behavior. So yes you are moving us backwards. It's like when I was a kid and I broke a rule my parents sent me to my room with no TV, or video games and I was told to "think about what I did. I wasn't allowed to go back to doing what I wanted to do until I excepted responsibility for what I did and made an amends for it. And after a while I learned "you know what being grounded sucks.I better not fucking do that thing that got me grounded anymore" it's not rocket science dingus.
Your argument still implies that a choice needs to be made by that individual to give in to the temptation therefor it still indicates the existence of free will.
Not at all. An individual with a predisposition towards violent behavior exposed to a certain set of experiences will respond violently, whereas a person lacking such predisposition towards violence exposed to comparable experiences will not act violently. Two individuals with comparable predispositions for violent behavior exposed to different experiences may result in one individual's predisposition towards violence being triggered while that of the other remains latent. There is no choice involved, merely variability resultant from the interaction of genetics and stimulation.
And I also believe in rehabilitation but if you tell these people "it's not you fault your genetics made you do it" or what ever they will never take responsibility for there actions and therefor never take steps toward correcting their own behavior. So yes you are moving us backwards.
You falsely assume the course of action suggested by my view. Firstly, you assume that I would recommend telling individuals that free will doesn't exist. Given the wholly irrational attachment most people have to the notion of free will, that would be a waste of time. Secondly, you assume that should I suggest having that discussion that I would do it with such a crude explanation as "genetics made you do it". Behavior is not static, and there is no reason that acknowledging the socio-biological determinants of behaviors must be an excuse against growth. Expectations of responsibility are accompanied by strong moral judgements that stigmatize individuals and impede growth and limit opportunity, rather than recognizing criminality as a byproduct of human biology and society. The incentive is not "be responsible" but "be happy" - be happy by reintegrating with society and community and others, by being more fulfilled in ones life. This builds upon basic human desires and reorients them to align with social needs and interests.
Have you ever made an effort to understand these people? I don't think anyone deserves eternal punishment, there is nothing you can do that warrants that.
""Men are weak. The Blood of Numenor is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. It is because of Men the Ring survives. I was there, Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I was there the day the strength of Men failed.""
It's common sense. He is eternal he's been around since the beginning of time so he knows everything and is wise beyond any of us because with age come wisdom (usually) and he's older than any of us.
Heaven is the greatest place you could ever go to! Murders, rapists, cereal killers, atheists, etc don't deserve to be in gods kingdom. You have to work hard on earth to get into heaven so not everyone should just get the easily ride out and get to go in.
1. Wow. You really went there. Atheists really go on the same list as murderers, rapists, and serial killers? Reality check. There are atheists who work just as hard (or more so) and are far more christian in their conduct than actual Christians. But whatever, they're clearly terrible people who deserve an eternity of hellfire. Makes total sense.
2. Your stance rather assumes free will, without actually providing any reason to believe it exists. The groups of individuals whom you mentioned did not choose to be the way they are, but are products of their genetic/biological predispositions and environmental conditioning (same as you).
A lot of people that go to heaven are rapists, murders and corn killers. To God we are all sinners but if you kiss Jesus' arse one in a while you'll be saved. Its not about working hard at all.
According tl the bible both sins are weighed the same when judged. So neither would go to heaven unless they truly were sorry and repented. Also they would have ro remain in Christ to go to heaven. The sins are weighed equally in the end.
I see. So really heaven is just as likely to be filled with what we consider as evil people (e.g. rapists and murders) than what we consider to be good people (e.g. those that just make that occasional sinful decision).
No. Not at all. You see in heaven you wont know who did what. Also you will have a majority of minor sinners. In Heaven you wont know if your neighbor once raped somebody. The past will be forgotten and a life of eternal joy will take place.
Heaven is the greatest place you could ever go to!
True
Murders, rapists, cereal killers, atheists, etc don't deserve to be in gods kingdom
False, if they are forgiven by God through salvation they get in. Example the person that was on the cross alongside Jesus.
You have to work hard on earth to get into heaven so not everyone should just get the easily ride out and get to go in.
False, salvation is based on faith in Christ. This is faith is suppossed to be followed by works to prove it but entrance into heaven is not based upon works.
An I had was that for murderers they get eternally tortured for a number of years of life that they robbed their victims of and after that they just cease to exist.
How does that follow at all? Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but human consciousness (which is the seat of the "soul") can and does certainly cease to exist.
how the hell do you know it ceases to exist? our thoughts and emotions are produced by consciousness, animals are self conscious, that's consciousness, when we die, obviously our physical senses will die along too, but we will have an entire new set of senses after we die
No. It is a function of the brain, which is an organic matter that ceases to exist. If you are going to claim otherwise you need to do better than abstract, meaningless phrases like "higher vibrating energy"...
I am uncertain if I actually missed satire in this exchange, but I would not be surprised. At any rate, the actual point...
All energy is preserved, however this does not support the view that consciousness persists after the decomposition of the brain as the overall atomic structure - and the network of synapses it comprises - is not retained. Without that structure, without the exchange of neural impulse, there is no consciousness and thus no existence after death.
you do know right that all energy is vibrating at a certain frequency, which happens to be every single thing in the universe? this is one of the first things you learn in basic physics
Source please. Because I have studied physics and I think you are greatly misconstruing the science behind energy and frequencies. Even if you are right though, that shared vibrating frequency does not constitute a consciousness. By that logic, a rock has a soul and just as much sense of self as a person.
Thoughts and emotion are not energy which stems from consciousness. Consciousness is a form of thought and emotion, and all are a consequence of particular bio-neurological processes. Those processes cease with death.
God is against the laws of physics. You're proposing that Heaven and Hell exist, and for the sake of the argument, lets assume all these wacky religious things can actually happen. Walking on water, curing people magically, wine to water, e.t.c.
No, nothing could possibly deserve what christians make hell out to be. I mean sure people deserve to be punished like rapists and slave owners...well, actually not rapists as long as they marry the girl after right? and as long as the slaves come from the lands around them and are only beaten within an inch of their lives and not to death theyre okay too...hmm...murderers i suppose. Yeah but even then they only deserve hell for what? 50 years? I mean sure itd be jail for life but this isnt jail, this is a lake of fire with demons in it, i think we can lower the sentance length. Hell in itself is pointless. Jail is at least called "Corrections" as in, we correct criminal behavior and then put them back in society rehabilitated or at least try to. Hell is just an endless punishment for a finite crime. that makes no sense.
He is referencing the deuteronomy/levictus/exodus laws that follow:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
Assuming heaven and hell even exist, they constitute an inherently unjustifiable system of penalty and reward. Human behavior is a consequence of biological/genetic predispositions as they are affected by environmental stimuli and experience. Individual failing is a reflection upon the failure of society to recognize the fallibility of human nature and respond accordingly.
Yes I can be sure. There is no empirical proof of anything like that. Christian's hell was mentioned only in one very questionable book and that makes it equally real as Narnia.
The weakness of the bible? That isnt a weakness. If you can see hell that violates Gods beliefs. So how can you say one thing and not apply all of the logic behind religion?
The lack of empirical evidence to substantiate a claim is not proof against the claim, but rather a probabilistic grounds for disbelief and absolute reason for questioning the validity of the claim. That said, I think there is significant evidence to further substantiate the probability that religion (and hell and heaven) are mere social and individual constructions without basis in reality.
If you don't believe that God is a omnibenevolent being then you don't believe in God because God has to be omnibenevolent - every decision he makes MUST be good because he is God. If you don't think what he does is all good then you don't believe he is God.
I do struggle with my image of God for personal reasons due to being abused and stuff, but every so often, I am reminded of the things that are good and I thank God. I do talk to a therapist about this stuff, and I will see him on Tuesday, so that would be a good time to clear the air.
I think it's a shitty way to punish someone who doesn't believe in him. That's like me brutally torturing someone who doesn't believe I'm an astronaut, when I really am.