Why would God need a hell?

[mickiel]

As I consider God, its hard for me to consider him needing a place like hell? The Christian concept of eternal hell punishing is a barbaric thing to consider. Why would God need to punish a human for all of eternity. Lets just say a human does not believe in God, and they live that way for 80 years; they die and according to many interpretations of hell , they will be brought back to life; judged, then banished to an eternity of living suffering in this hell.

I mean that punishment does not even fit the crime; 80 years of living, now they must live forever in suffering? Why?

Why would a God even need to do that?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1099 by hoghead1]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
I have preconceptions, so everyone has preconceptions, Part 5[/center]

Yu said that you weren't sure if there were or were not gods. That means you are in a state of doubt on the topic.

Those weren't my words.
I try to be precise. It would be nice if you were too.

Your paraphrasing of my actual words is imprecise, and leads you to error.
It seems that you are insisting on telling ME what I am thinking... instead of trying to listen to what I'm actually saying.

That's pretending at pedantic mind reading... No thanks, really.

It seems important to you that I use YOUR words to describe MY ideas.
Sorry about that.

I usually want to use the words that I want to use.
But.. thanks for the suggestions.

Yu don't have a blank mind, you have an unsure mind.

I prefer "agnostic".
It's WAY more precise.

have "Preconceived-of" means something you had ahead of time, before you came into the discussion.

Oh, I see.. it's not a preconception anymore.. I missed it when you changed the term.
Sorry.

Yeah, if I have conceived of something before, I conceived it before.. but that's not the same as a preconception.. at least, not by the standard definition.

I suggest that you define your terms, and not switch them mid-discussion.

"Bias" means your have a favored position. "Bias," as I find in my "American College Dictionary," means a "strong inclination of the mind." Sometimes, it means an unreasoning inclination, but it doesn't have to. Also, you can't rely completely on dictionaries.

Good, because nobody's perfect, not even dictionary editors.
But when we are talking about technical terms.. sometimes dictionaries are quite inadequate.. a little MORE research might be necessary.

Now, if you are coming into this discussion, with doubts, with a lack of surety, then yes, you do have strong inclination of the mind.

I tried to explain to you that I don't DOUBT my agnosticism. I KNOW that I am an agnostic.

You are not saying you have a truly blank mind on the topic; you are claiming that what people have told I you in the past, the arguments and proofs presented, all have failed to convince you, live up to your standards.

And that's not the same as having a "preconception" by the common understanding of the term.

That's not being fooled by a cognitive bias.

I think.
Other people think.

I notice that a lot of people, and especially apologists often use what is known as "confirmation bias". Cognitive biases get in the WAY of clear thinking.

5th time trying to explain this to you..
How about you do a little GOOGLING "cognitive bias" or "confirmation bias" before we try again?

You don't seem to understand what I'm talking about.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Alright, you are coming into the discussion from an agnostic perspective. That's my point. You are coming into the discussion, with a definite perspective already in mind. You are not coming in with a totally blank mind, empty of any assumptions. You are coming in with the basic agnostic assumption that, for example, the traditional arguments for God ha all failed to convince, don't work, etc. That's quite a bit of cognitive content and material on the subject.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1103 by hoghead1]



[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
I have preconceptions, so everyone has preconceptions, Part 7[/center]

Alright, you are coming into the discussion from an agnostic perspective.

Yes, I am an agnostic.
I've stated that numerous times in this discussion.

That's my point.

Your point is that I'm an agnostic?
Well.. we agree then.
I'm an agnostic, alright.

Thanks for noticing.

You are coming into the discussion, with a definite perspective already in mind.

Yes, I come into this discussion as an agnostic.
That's why I call myself an agnostic.

That's because I am one of those.
And you know because I go through the trouble of telling you that.
Over and over again, by the way.

Because I have the opinion that since I don't know anything about gods, that I should be honest about that lack of knowledge. So I declare that lack of knowledge, and there is a word for that kind of a lack of knowledge. Lucky me that there is a word for that.. I didn't have to invent a label for myself, someone clever already did that for me.

Cool, eh?

You are not coming in with a totally blank mind, empty of any assumptions.

I never said that my mind was a BLANK.
What a crazy idea !!

Yeah, my mind is not a blank.
I'd say the same thing about EVERY HUMAN BEING.. we all have THOUGHTS in our HEADS.

Or at least the conscious people do... no idea about coma victims or .. sleeping people. Does it surprise you that humans THINK?

But you don't seem to know what the word "bias" means. It doesn't mean "some thought"... not EVERY thought is a biased thought.

You are coming in with the basic agnostic assumption that, for example, the traditional arguments for God ha all failed to convince, don't work, etc.

BASIC AGNOSTIC ASSUMPTION?

No. I don't have ANY assumptions about ANY god of ANY sort.

COULD you notice my words? NONE.. no assumptions.. ZERO.. ZILCH.
SORRY.

Coulda.. mighta ... but actually, dont.

You are wrong. Dead wrong.
You could not be more wrong.

My agnosticism isn't an "ASSUMPTION" at all.
Sorry, but it's an "admission".

I "admit" to myself that I don't know anything about gods.
I don't ASSUME that I don't know.. I just DON'T KNOW.. is that clear enough?
"
That parrot is a dead parrot !!"

That's quite a bit of cognitive content and material on the subject.

Here's a few questions concerning.. my so called "cognitive content" :

1. How is not knowing something "cognitive content"?
2. Are you saying that all thinking is BIASED thinking?
3. Are you saying that all cognitive content is BIASED cognitive content?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Most agnostic thinkers I know are agnostic for a reason: They will tell you that the have explored, say, various proofs for God and found them wanting. So, right there, they are saying, in effect, "I have such-and-such standards of proof. if you want to convince me, you have to live up to these standards." They may com0plain that the behavior of those who claim strong faith has offended them. "How can you trust what so-and-says. He or she is a real jerk." They will say, "I just don't know what to believe, because I feel overwhelmed, confronted as I am with such a bewildering array of conflicting religions and belief systems about God." On and on it goes. OK, fine. All of this goes to prove you, as an agnostic, are coming into the discussion with any one of a number of preconceived-of assumptions in mind. And that's OK, as I have said several times already. Also, I don't know about you but this particular discussion I getting very tiring. Why don't we move on to something else?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 1105 by hoghead1]

[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
I have preconceptions, so everyone has preconceptions, Part 8[/center]

Most agnostic thinkers I know are agnostic for a reason: They will tell you that the have explored, say, various proofs for God and found them wanting. So, right there, they are saying, in effect, "I have such-and-such standards of proof.

Yeah, I admitted that my mind wasn't blank.

But try to imagine that MOST does not mean ALL.. not ALL thinkers use cognitive biases. When I do.. and find out that I have.. I say that I have made a significant ERROR in my thinking.

if you want to convince me, you have to live up to these standards."

Well, more specifically, if you want to convince me, your PROOF has to live up to my standards of proof. I just don't accept BAD proof... do you?

But you want to prove that I have a bias towards a god.. or some knowledge of a god.. you want to prove something, about me, right?

Could you PLEASE tell us how you KNOW that I have a bias when I am specifically TELLING you that I don't have one? I don't have a biased position concerning the existence of a god. I DO, however, have a bias towards SOUND reasoning. You don't?

They may com0plain that the behavior of those who claim strong faith has offended them. "How can you trust what so-and-says. He or she is a real jerk." They will say, "I just don't know what to believe, because I feel overwhelmed, confronted as I am with such a bewildering array of conflicting religions and belief systems about God." On and on it goes. OK, fine.

Yep, there is NO requirement to be a great thinker in order to admit ignorance about gods. I admire intellectual honesty, but I just HATE fallacious reasoning, don't you?

Grrrrr

Tell me who to write a

"Fallacious Agnostic Reasoning" post to...
Help a Blastcat out, will ya?

All of this goes to prove you, as an agnostic, are coming into the discussion with any one of a number of preconceived-of assumptions in mind.

I admitted to not having a blank mind.
I have IDEAS. Not all ideas are preconceptions.

Could you at least define your terms?
What do you MEAN by "preconception"... you don't seem to use it in the standard way.

I don't have a bias concerning any god because I don't have any DATA to form a bias of some sort. And I certainly don't try to USE cognitive biases in my thinking, I'd rather try real hard to get RID of those.. I call cognitive biases ERRORS, you see.

And that's OK, as I have said several times already. Also, I don't know about you but this particular discussion I getting very tiring. Why don't we move on to something else?

I do NOT agree that preconceptions are "OK". I would say that preconceptions get in the WAY of clear thinking. But I use the standard meaning for the word.

You are right about one thing.. you DON'T know anything about me. All you can know in here is what I WRITE.. and I have consistently written to you that I do NOT have any preconception about any gods. NONE.

But, apparently, you can't seem to accept that. You have preconceptions, so everyone else has preconceptions. You have a bias, so everyone else has a bias. You have X.. so ..EVERYONE has the same darn X... Isn't that a LITTLE bit of an over-generalization?

Have you convinced yourself that I have a bias concerning gods?
Because if you wanted to convince yourself.. I think we ARE done, aren't we?

But your right again.. it's hard WORK to prove a claim... better make sure before making it that you CAN back it up.. because, after 8 tries, you haven't proved to me that I have preconceptions about any gods.

Not even YOUR GOD.
8 times a failure at making a case.. would get tiring to me, too.

I sure wouldn't look forward to the 9th.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Blastcat]

Let's move on.

[mickiel]

God does not need a hell, Christianity does , that's why they market it. They are keenly interested in punishing humanity.

They " Want" to hurt unbelievers forever.