Which if more offensive? Events or Evidence?

Lately in the news there's an ongoing debate over whether President Obama has a moral prerogative to release photos of detainee torture or to purposely bury them. One side that says due to fairness and justice, America has an obligation to be honest about it's past and misdeeds so that it can move forward without the specter hanging over them. The other side is more practical and believes the the release of such photos would be inflammatory and inciting to enemies of America. It would quickly be snatched up as propaganda tools for Al Queda and the Taliban and any of the other bazillion demi-terrorist organizations and would motivate retribution. It's not hard to imagine an innocent journalist or aid worker or soldier or even vacationer being held hostage and executed in an 'eye for an eye' retribution for the detainee torture. I actually agree with the former in an idealist sense, but with the former in a practical sense. We should be honest about past mistakes, but we shouldn't also gamble with people's lives. My problem with the later though, and the right's argument, is that they still insist that torture was a morally justifiable act. To rephrase, they are arguing that torture has profoundly negative consequences and is a horrible bane against America...yet they still support it. They think Torture is fine...they just think we should hide all evidence of it so people don't get mad at us. it's a profoundly dishonest and cowardly position, but it's what Limbaugh, O'Riely and Beck The Smackable are arguing. They don't seem to realize that this consequence is EXACTLY why the godless liberals hate torture. They don't love terrorists...they know/believe/postulate that it'll cause an escalation. It mucks up the nebulous and wary "rules of war". Even in war there are some consented either explicitly or not rules. "I won't torture you if you don't torture me" or "I won't kill your civilians if you don't kill mine" is one of the major ones. mucking with it causes atrocity escalation, where each side feels new better justification to dick over the other. Additionally, the rules of war are a major PR tool...it affects how the rest of the world views the war. If the US kept it's hands clean and stuck to its guns while fighting the insane zealous fucks who decapitate, torture and rape it'd be a lot easier for nations such as France, Germany Poland, etc to grant us "the moral high ground" and grant us support, either moral or practical. Think about 9-11. Regardless of how they viewed our middle east policy, most nations saw Al Queda's attack as "Dude, not cool". Even other Islamic countries gave us support at the time, as one diplomat said "we are all American today". The World gave us their sympathy and support. Then we whizzed it. Now they're not willing to give us the same benefit of doubt. We lowered ourselves to that level and are not seen as victims or avengers...we're not just as big dicks. The cost is not worth the gain. There's even more of a practical element to torture that I'll get too on a later post.

The Question is now, why do I bring all this up? Well, because it reminded me of a conversation I had with a pastor on the Atheist Experience blog. I don't know if convo's I've had on other blogs is cheating but...MEH.

For the full convo and context. The discussion started with him doing a sort of Hitler ate Sugar. assertion. Eventually he claimed that "Atheists can be good hard working people" which led to me quite honestly asking the question.

If many atheists are good hard working people, why does Pator Swish believe that we deserve to be tortured forever by the just loving God.?

Frankly, I think it's a question every non-christian should demand of believers, "Why, exactly; do I deserve to be tortured forever? Why are you claiming my [dead relative or friend who believed the religion you do or were raised in] was damned to hell?" I really want to see if there is an answer that explains away the offensiveness of that.
For ease of read, I am regular text while Pastor is BOLD.

For the record, I do believe in hell. Is it a place where non-believers are tortured by God? I can't say I believe that. When Scripture speaks of eternal damnation and a "lake of fire" there are strong indications in the surrounding context that point to a figurative interpretation of such statement. What I do believe is that hell is eternal separation from God. What happens during that separation is up in the air as far as I'm concerned.

I would also argue that even if hell is a place of torture, God is not the one who is doing the torturing, rather it would be the demons and other rebellious beings that are also eternally separated from God.

How, how how how HOW is that better? I mean... he is saying that God doesn't do the torture himself...he just allows it KNOWING its going on, and lets demonic abominations violate his creations which he supposedly LOVES? WHAT GOD CAN DO THAT? God himself seems to ignore the parable of the good Samaritan.

So God doesn't have the balls to do the deed himself, he subcontracts so he can claim the moral high ground?

Alternatively. So God doesn't give a shit what happens to the creations he doesn't like, just turns them over to elementally evil, sadistic, and perverse abominations. That is so much better. No officer, I didn't rape her...I just tossed her in a giant prison I have in my basement filled with serial rapists and didn't care enough what happened after wards."


Either way God is a monster that exalts others for faith and arranges so others are tormented, destroyed, or banished. I find it amazing that something that it supposed to be so moral and so good beyond human measure...cannot get beyond simple favoritism, pettiness and sadism.

Well, thank you, ING and cipher. My previous comments about the quality of the discussion are now rescinded. I'm out, which is probably what you wanted in the first place.

This is why I brought up the torture debate. I expressed what I thought was the issue and am honestly shocked and confused by someone's stance by it and because I tried to summerize what God does, I am in the wrong. Now I did indeed use some inflammatory language, but this is because I think it is totally justified. Hell is supposed to be the worst thing ever, nothing else can compare. In order to get to CLOSE the moral equivalent of Hell I have to use the worst punishment I can imagine. Rape is not a bad metaphor for Hell. Rape is about power, taking away someone's power and making them helpless...having power over them, the power to voilate their body, the power to destroy them mentally. To a rape victim their rapist IS GOD, durring the act they are in between life and death...the rapist holds their fate in his hands. He decies if they live or die, are damned or saved. Those in Hell are supposidly in pain and powerless for all eternity, have their self worth nullified and know nothing but torment. This is rape.

Again I don't get the hypocrisy. I'm assuming your upset because I bashed your religion. But logically I am pointing out an implication I do not believe you have thought through, or could explain to me

1) God is good and just
2) Demons torture people and are horrific elemental forces of evil
3) God chooses not to save atheists or the like from being in hell with the demons
4) Since God is nothing but good it is just and those people deserve to be tortured by demons.

The fact that you find my metaphor offensive, shows exactly WHY hell is not a moral idea.

I'm not upset that you bashed my religion. I was just commenting in previous posts how this discussion had been a good one, and then you go off an derail a good discussion by intentionally trying to offend me.

Was I offensive? Yes. Did I intend to be offensive. Yes. Why? Because HIS BELIEF IS OFFENSIVE! That's what I'm trying to demonstrate...that this idea IS INHERENTLY OFFENSIVE. He says what Hell is...I parrot it back in a skeptical manner. I am offensive. I am only offensive because the original idea is offensive.

"God doesn't have the balls to do it himself, so he subcontracts..." and "God doesn't give a shit." That's inflammatory language that has no place in a quality discussion. If you had presented your argument in a similar fashion to the above comment, I would not be offended at all. Just because you don't believe in God, doesn't mean you can be intentionally offensive in your language.

I honestly don't understand language taboo. Harsh topics call for harsh language. It is not the language that is offensive, it's the idea behind it. Fuck itself has no meaning it is unoffensive. Mother itself has no meaning, it is unoffensive. Telling your lover you love how they fuck is a positive statement, an expression of romantic love: Good. Saying "Mother I love you" is an expression of familial love: Good. Calling someone a Mother Fucker, is offensive; an expression of hate: Bad. In my view my language served it's goal. To take something that is offensive and expressed in an insanely unoffensive way and put it in its proper context.

As far as your logical premises go, I think they are mistaken. First of all, I said that what happens in hell is up in the air in the first place. I conceited that it is a possibility that hell could be a place of torture, and laid out an argument regarding that possibility. If you can manage to have a discussion without being inflammatory and offensive, then we'll keep going.

Your premises:
1) God is good and just
2) Demons torture people and are horrific elemental forces of evil
3) God chooses not to save atheists or the like from being in hell with the demons
4) Since God is nothing but good it is just and those people deserve to be tortured by demons.

1) Agreed.

2) As I said, it is a possibility. I also said that exactly what happens is in the air. I don't know, nor will I claim to know.

Then how can he in good conscience preach about it? If you admit you don't know how can you believe it? How can you believe your God is good if you don't know what he does. Fuck! for all you know God purposely takes every baby that dies and smushes them up into a giant ball of souls and grinds it between his teeth for all eternity, drinking their tears of pain. If God does this does this still make him good? If you don't know that he does this or not how can you claim he is good or bad?

3) Doesn't logically follow from 1 and 2. God doesn't choose to NOT save atheists. Atheists live their lives absent from God, so why would they want to spend eternity in His presence? God doesn't decide to torture people who don't believe, He simply allows them to continue to live eternal life in the same way they lived their life on earth - without Him.

If a 12 year old runs away from home and lives out on the streets, does it follow that the parents, who had done all they could to protect the child and find the child, are responsible for the bad things that happen to the child? No, absolutely not. It doesn't mean that the parents don't care about the child, or that the parents are the ones who are doing bad things to the child. If you spend your life running away from God; it's your choice, but don't blame it on God when bad things happen as a result of your poor decision making.
4) The issues with #3 make this premise a moot point.

No...4 is still valid. God is still letting evil, not just earthly evil but unspeakable eternal evil to occure to people for finite or petty crimes. Either the people who burn in hell deserve it or God is commiting sin by ommision by not stopping the torture when he easily can; HE IS GOD AFTER ALL.

Atheists do not disbelieve in God because they don't like the idea. They don't believe because there's no evidence. If you could show me "hey there's this guy offering eternal bliss" I'd be all down for it. I wouldn't thumb my nose at any ACTUALLY good eternal creator just out of illogical spite. NO one would choose an eternity of torture willingly. God in your model is a passive agressive child "WELL YOU CHOSE IT"

Let me present you an example WHY hell is not acceptable for any moral being.

I have a dog named Monty. He is a mischief maker, gets into all sorts of scraps. He on occasion even gets me in trouble with neighbors, animal control etc which costs me and hurts me in many ways. He at times makes life difficult, and chooses to disobey and ignore me despite having me around and knowing I love him and take care of him.

I have never even hit Monty. I would never physically hurt him. Even when I am so angry I could punch a wall at him, all he gets is a time out in his kennel with his sister. Even then, I quickly loose my anger and feel bad for him locked up and let him out. Because I love my Dog I cannot stand to punish him, even when it is earned, for too long.

God, by what you say. Doesn't love. he is willing to let the creatures he claims to love so much be punished forever. He is allowing them to hurt themselves when he can stop it, and is not moved at all by mercy of an ETERNITY of torment (or in best case scenario not-bliss...where if heaven is infinite bliss than not-heaven is infinitely worse so STILL he should be moved by compassion at the proportionately horrible fate of his unsaved creations). Jesus's sacrifice is exactly DICK because it still allows by the christian theology, most of his creation to suffer forever. It's favoritism. An atheist who is a moral good just person and helps others in a saintly way or strives to better the world is treated worse than a mediocre christian.

As bad as humans may be...on the whole we are moral enough to NOT treat our loved ones with a "hell".

As to your analogy - if your dog runs off and doesn't want anything to do with you, it doesn't matter how much you love it. It will always be separated from you. I don't necessarily believe that hell is a place of torture, so much as a place of separation - and that's a different type of torture. Knowing that there is an all-loving God who desired nothing more than living in fellowship with you and knowing that you will never be in that fellowship is torture enough.

Can you be absolutely sure that there is no God? No, you can't. Can I be absolutely sure that there is a God? No, not in a way that will undoubtedly prove it to you. Clearly, I believe in God because of what I have studied and believe to be the truth and what I have experienced in my life. But that's me. My experiences will never be met with anything more than skepticism by someone who has already made up his/her mind not to believe.

To flat out say, "There's no God because I haven't seen any evidence of Him" is to make an absolute decision based on uncertain evidence. I can understand agnosticism because at least judgment is being withheld entirely. Saying "there is no God" is making an absolute judgment call on something that is not absolutely certain. But, hey, it's your call. If you want to run, then run. It's your choice.

The bottom line in all of this discussion is this. Are there systemic problems with the ways that Christianity has been expressed over the centuries? Absolutely, but there are systemic problems with all sorts of things. There are systemic problems with the government. There are systemic problems with the educational system. There are systemic problems with financial institutions. But Christianity is not about buying into a system. It's about a daily journey on an uncertain road. It's about relationship. It's a choice that you have to make with your life and it's a choice that can potentially have consequences for the rest of your existence, however long or short that may be.

My dog runs off into the unknown with challenges he is not mentally equipped to deal with..I FUCKING GO AFTER HIM. Likewise, my dog does not go away forever, because he has a loving presence that is constantly looking out for him. If i beat him or neglected him, made him get his own food; it would be sane for him to wander off. he has no reason to stay. If i then track him down a beat the shit out of him I'm a monster. Your own bible even talks about Jesus going after the lost members of the flock. Which is it? Does God care about the least of us or is he fine with us walking into a dark room he knows is filled with murderous raping demons? Again the unfairness of this just god. A mediocre christian gets him while an exceptional atheist is screwed. One of those "faith over works" lazy fucks is better than a social worker. There's no enlightenment in the rewards of heaven and hell; it's a petty "we're better than you" system. If you want hateful, teach for 2000 years that human kind is a disgusting horrific species that deserves to be tortured forever and that only magical knowledge and telepathic connections can let you cheat justice and be saved from celestial prison rape.

I'm done speaking with you because you insist on using disrespectful language that you wouldn't be using if we were just sitting down having this discussion face to face. Grow up.

I have used no slurs, profanity, or derogatory statements. I have said nothing I wouldn't say face to face. What do you find so offensive? Again please tell me what I said that could be more offensive than a proposed reality that ends with most people on earth suffering?

So this is the crux of the issue.

At the risk of invoking a Godwin's law and Strawman (Godwin's strawman?) imagine if this exchange had occurred

Jerk: "I think it is a valid solution to the immigrant problem and prison over crowding problem alike if we consider just sending the useless parasites of society to some place where they can be put out of their misery. Makes sense for the greater good of the nation

Ing: "So...you think the Nazi's had a valid idea?"

Jerk: "Why do you have to be so offensive"

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't get the difference. on a side note, if I did actually offend anyone personally, I apologize that you were offended. However, I'm not offended that I said it. Sometimes people do need to be shocked out of complacency. If you think I've made a mistake, leave a post explaining... I honestly do want to understand this better.

Whether or not what God does is right, it is disrespectful of me to talk about it. Torture is fine, the picture are wrong. The act is fine, yet somehow the evidence and consequences are wrong.

Like with the torture pictures the ultimate truth is clear: If we can't handle the consquences of our actions, we should not preform such actions.