vaxx:
but you have not been able to identify the problem

Take a break, call someone's attention to help show you your mistake and my correction.

DeSepiero:


No offense, your statements here reveal some deficiency in your comprehension skills.

DeSepiero:


Take a break, call someone's attention to help show you your mistake and my correction.

you should rather do that since you are the one looking for problems and do not also forget to tell the person i have made my point clear by backing it with scientific method

vaxx:
you are asking two question with different perspective. the general answer to your question is atheist are prone to lie ,cunning in character than a believer. so the best option is to keep atheist in check so they do not abuse a peaceful environment.

I don't agree with you, u need to understand that everything has it's advantage and disadvantage, I can lie so does others but that doesn't mean I can't be trusted, truth earns trust, in fact being honest has more positive gain than negative, believers can always ask for forgiveness and immediately be forgiven, so why are you saying atheists are more prone to lie
Is it more better trying to keep people in order by Lying and withdrawing informations from them, that what religion does

[quote author=obinna58 post=59888536]
I don't agree with you, u need to understand that everything has it's advantage and disadvantage, I can lie so does others but that doesn't mean I can't be trusted, truth earns trust, in fact being honest has more positive gain than negative, believers can always ask for forgiveness and immediately be forgiven, so why are you saying atheists are more prone to lie
Is it more better trying to keep people in order by Lying and withdrawing informations from them, that what religion does [ w/quote]I don't expect you to agree with it. you are entitled to your own opinion. my words are backed up by scientific evidence I provided earlier not just personal opinion like yours.

obinna58:

I don't agree with you, u need to understand that everything has it's advantage and disadvantage, I can lie so does others but that doesn't mean I can't be trusted, truth earns trust, in fact being honest has more positive gain than negative, believers can always ask for forgiveness and immediately be forgiven, so why are you saying atheists are more prone to lie
Is it more better trying to keep people in order by Lying and withdrawing informations from them, that what religion does

Can you give me 3 examples of how religion lies and withdraws information from people?

[quote author=vaxx post=59890522][/quote]
Seems u don't have anything more to say

butterflylion:



Can you give me 3 examples of how religion lies and withdraws information from people?

They are plenty
The absence of religion would have fast tracked human development and advancement, religion put people on hold, telling you what you should do and shouldn't do, I don't even need to tell that some religion comdems education,
Basic lies of religion
*telling people what God wants and what u must do else u burn
*Bible stories that is composed of lies and impossibilities
*Describing the characteristics of God, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolence, omniscient

Do you think the world would have reachen to this extent if people weren't able to think beyond religion

Vaxx

obinna58:

They are plenty
The absence of religion would have fast tracked human development and advancement, religion put people on hold, telling you what you should do and shouldn't do, I don't even need to tell that some religion comdems education,
Basic lies of religion
*telling people what God wants and what u must do else u burn
*Bible stories that is composed of lies and impossibilities
*Describing the characteristics of God, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolence, omniscient

Do you think the world would have reachen to this extent if people weren't able to think beyond religion

Vaxx

Wrong! Go and read on the history of science and you will see that religion actually birthed science and development as you know it.

Nobody tells you, you will burn for not doing what God wants. They give you the truth and the options and you choose whichever you feel you want. Your choices bring about your reward.

Afterall will the same person pick you up and toss you into some "imaginary fire"?

You also say the Bible stories are lies so if they are lies then the characters also did not exist. The locations did not exist. The events surrounding such stories did not also exist wouldn't you say so?

If you say the Bible stories are composed of impossibilities would you say it's an impossibility for the universe to spring up from nothing to something?

One who is God must have those characteristics otherwise he isn't God. You are human and your characteristics confirm you to be human and you cannot use your characteristics to equate those of a God.

In a nutshell all you just spoke about is simply your limitations talking.

butterflylion:



Wrong! Go and read on the history of science and you will see that religion actually birthed science and development as you know it.

Nobody tells you, you will burn for not doing what God wants. They give you the truth and the options and you choose whichever you feel you want. Your choices bring about your reward.

Afterall will the same person pick you up and toss you into some "imaginary fire"?

You also say the Bible stories are lies so if they are lies then the characters also did not exist. The locations did not exist. The events surrounding such stories did not also exist wouldn't you say so?

If you say the Bible stories are composed of impossibilities would you say it's an impossibility for the universe to spring up from nothing to something?

One who is God must have those characteristics otherwise he isn't God. You are human and your characteristics confirm you to be human and you cannot use your characteristics to equate those of a God.

In a nutshell all you just spoke about is simply your limitations talking.

I expected trash as reply but not to this level,
Can u prove to me that religion birthed science

obinna58:

I expected trash as reply but not to this level,
Can u prove to me that religion birthed science

If you do not understand something because it is above your scope of reasoning it is a bad trait to call it trash. Rather learn from it and better yourself. Proof that Religion birthed science will be found when you read the history of science and see how the Byzantine Empire as far back as AD 330 was key to science before it became the ottoman Empire.

If you need proof then stop saying words like, "trash " and do your own research.

butterflylion:


If you do not understand something because it is above your scope of reasoning it is a bad trait to call it trash. Rather learn from it and better yourself. Proof that Religion birthed science will be found when you read the history of science and see how the Byzantine Empire as far back as AD 330 was key to science before it became the ottoman Empire.

If you need proof then stop saying words like, "trash " and do your own research.

Guess u talking about conspiracy

obinna58:

Guess u talking about conspiracy

Oga the internet is a vast resource. Go and read about the history of science. The history is no conspiracy.

Give it a try alright?

butterflylion:



Wrong! Go and read on the history of science and you will see that religion actually birthed science and development as you know it.

Nobody tells you, you will burn for not doing what God wants. They give you the truth and the options and you choose whichever you feel you want. Your choices bring about your reward.

Afterall will the same person pick you up and toss you into some "imaginary fire"?

You also say the Bible stories are lies so if they are lies then the characters also did not exist. The locations did not exist. The events surrounding such stories did not also exist wouldn't you say so?

If you say the Bible stories are composed of impossibilities would you say it's an impossibility for the universe to spring up from nothing to something?

One who is God must have those characteristics otherwise he isn't God. You are human and your characteristics confirm you to be human and you cannot use your characteristics to equate those of a God.

In a nutshell all you just spoke about is simply your limitations talking.

What is this pile of hot thrash? But seriously did you truly believe you made any sense with this pile of hot thrash? Na wah ooo.

dalaman:


What is this pile of hot thrash? But seriously did you truly believe you made any sense with this pile of hot thrash? Na wah ooo.

Of course only you would call it trash o wise one.

Your atheism is eating you up. So much hot anger for whatever does not agree with your idea of atheism remains your kryptonite.

My words are objectively spoken so I do not expect it to make sense to a subjective being which you are as an atheist.

butterflylion:


Of course only you would call it trash o wise one.

Your atheism is eating you up. So much hot anger for whatever does not agree with your idea of atheism remains your kryptonite.

My words are objectively spoken so I do not expect it to make sense to a subjective being which you are as an atheist.

Why are you getting all emotional on me na? I've told you where to go if you want to vent out emotionally. Adding the word objective to your hot pile of thrash wouldn't stop it from being a hot pile of thrash. As the saying goes: You can put a lipstick on a pig but it still doesn't change it from being a pig.

dalaman:


Why are you getting all emotional on me na? I've told you where to go if you want to vent out emotionally. Adding the word objective to your hot pile of thrash wouldn't stop it from being a hot pile of thrash. As the saying goes: You can put a lipstick on a pig but it still doesn't change it from being a pig.

Of course o wise one you couldn't differentiate between an advise offered to you from emotional tantrums.

Is theism no longer objective? Is atheism no longer subjective?

I have no desire to roll in the mud with you today so since you are already doing so, enjoy!

vaxx:
I am a very powerful and influential criminal, i do robbing and kidnapping. but I wish to turn a new leaf if only I could be convinced that what am doing is wrong.

can any atheist put forward a single logical argument or scientific theory as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately.

it is a gift because you are about to change an ignorance criminal which will add to your achievement as a very intelligent person.


lawani you are invited

MAY THE IMAGINARY FIRE OF THE RELIGIOUS ONES BURN YOUR SOUL TO ASHES

vaxx:
I am a very powerful and influential criminal, i do robbing and kidnapping. but I wish to turn a new leaf if only I could be convinced that what am doing is wrong.

can any atheist put forward a single logical argument or scientific theory as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately.

it is a gift because you are about to change an ignorance criminal which will add to your achievement as a very intelligent person.
lawani you are invited

The OP has requested logical or scientific theories as to why robbing, kidnapping and their other criminal activities are wrong/evil. To address the OP's challenge, it is crucial to first interpret it correctly. To do so, we must first define the operative adjectives: "wrong" and "evil".

(1) Wrong: This word is a judgement of value, and as it turns out, it has many definitions, however, all these definitions may occupy only two contextual categories, namely (i) social wrong and (ii) functional wrong.

(i) Social wrong: We may roughly define it as behaviour that does not conform to a set of highly regarded standards that guide social transactions. This category includes moral, ethical, legal and customary wrongs. The set of standards are usually highly subjective, and change from community to community, and person to person. In the specific context of morality for instance, it is morally wrong to put on tight skirts in public in Saudi Arabia, but not so in UK or US.

(ii) Functional wrong: We may define this as an action or proclamation that is not in conformity with what is true. This category may sometimes intersect with social wrong, but it is independent of it. In fact, it is highly amoral and apathetic to any social construct. Clearly this type of wrong is more objective (or universal for those who, like me, are subjectivists). An example of this is that tight skirt is a wrong/incorrect attire to put on if one wants to run their fastest. A different example is: it is wrong/incorrect to say 1+1 = 11. You may notice that "incorrect" is a great, often even more appropriate synonym for "functional wrong", but it wouldn't work quite as well with "social wrong".

(2) Evil: Evil, just like "wrong", is also a judgement of value. It is defined as behaviour that is profoundly immoral and malevolent. This is a more straight forward definition, and is clearly just a potent synonym for moral wrong, which falls under the social category.

Given the above definitions, in order to be able to prove that anything is "evil", your selected criterion must satisfy two conditions: (a) It must be able to impose a value of judgement on its results and (b) It must be amenable to moral interpretations. To prove that something is "wrong", however, it needs only accommodate condition (a) vis functional wrong.

Criterion of Logic and Science in Judging Wrong and Evil:

It is here we start to appreciate the import of the above definitions. You see, both science and logic are amoral pursuits, so we immediately see that they fail condition (b). By this account alone, the OP's challenge that their immoral behaviour be logically/scientifically proven evil is entirely moot! It is simply not possible to prove that anything is evil using science or logic. The discussion should end here, right? Well, the OP also used the word "Wrong", so let's see if we fare any better.

Science is fundamentally an endeavour to understand cause and effect. What it does not do, however, is place a value on causes or effects. For instance, I may have scientific knowledge of the processes involved in creating a light bulb with poor efficiency just as well as I have scientific knowledge of the processes involved in creating light bulbs with high efficiency. But there is nothing in science to inform me that making poorly efficient light bulbs is bad. Basically, science is apathetic to the ways you use your knowledge. As such, science also fails condition (a). We can now completely rule out science as a means to address the OP's challenge.

But wait! Not so fast! We have not established that logic fails criteria (a). Well, yes, that's because it doesn't. Logic is able to impose value judgments, but only functional right/wrong not social right/wrong. As such, since stealing and kidnapping are moral acts, whose values rest in social rights/wrongs as opposed to functional, logic cannot be used to prove them wrong. The only way out is if we all agreed that such things as "will to survive", empathy, utilitarianism, and selfishness are universal human traits and valid operands in our logical construct, then I can see a logical pathway through which such a proof can be made. Judging, only, by the OP's ferocious admittance to being a psychopath however, it is clear that these traits are not universal.

In short, if the OP lacks empathy, and fails to acknowledge other people's feelings, then the logical/scientific proof that robbing and kidnapping is wrong/"evil" should be the least of their concern because such a proof is impossible! My only advise to the OP is that they should be prepared for the eventuality of revenge. Revenge is not exactly a logical persuasion, but it could still be a valid persuasion for a selfish idiot who still has the will to live.

obinna58:

They are plenty
The absence of religion would have fast tracked human development and advancement, religion put people on hold, telling you what you should do and shouldn't do, I don't even need to tell that some religion comdems education,
Basic lies of religion
*telling people what God wants and what u must do else u burn
*Bible stories that is composed of lies and impossibilities
*Describing the characteristics of God, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolence, omniscient

Do you think the world would have reachen to this extent if people weren't able to think beyond religion

Vaxx

i agree to some extent that a few people exploited the concept of God for personal benefits. But, based on the few exceptions

The basic values of religion is much important to the society development. for example will you cancel the use of car due to common road accidents. what I expect You to do is to concentrate to avoid the accidents. similarly, some students might have copied in the examinations. Try to catch, such students. But, do not remove the system of examination itself.

The system serves majority, doing lot of good. You forget the vast positive side of the system based on the minor negative side. The concept of god controls the sin in the society. If the concept of God is removed, lot of people will do lot of sins since already the ways to escape the punishment in courts are already available.

The society will be crushed into pieces in the absence of the fear for sin. If God disappears, fear dissapear subsequently

.The concept of sin will drown and destroy the society like a ebola. and hence back track development.


I agree there should be check and balance.

I like the way you address the issue . you acknowledged logic and scientific evidence can not proof that robbing is bad and you back it up with fact.

More Greece to your elbow.

you gave an advice base on revenge. do you believe in it? how can you logically proof it that the people I had robbed and kidnapped will do same to me?

vaxx:
I am a very powerful and influential criminal, i do robbing and kidnapping. but I wish to turn a new leaf if only I could be convinced that what am doing is wrong.

can any atheist put forward a single logical argument or scientific theory as to why it is evil for me, I will stop immediately.

it is a gift because you are about to change an ignorance criminal which will add to your achievement as a very intelligent person.


lawani you are invited

This guy eh.

vaxx:
I like the way you address the issue . you acknowledged logic and scientific evidence can not proof that robbing is bad and you back it up with fact.

More Greece to your elbow.

Hmmm I'm not sure how pleased the Greeks would feel about adding more of their country to my elbow, but thanks!

you gave an advice base on revenge. do you believe in it? how can you logically proof it that the people I had robbed and kidnapped will do same to me?

What do you mean do I believe in it? Do you think revenge is not real?
I cannot logically prove that anybody would revenge an act of evil meted on them, but there is plenty of phenominological evidence that people sometimes severely harm criminals in the name of revenge. I'm sure you've seen pictures of criminals being burnt or beaten to death by mob for instance. The fun isn't so much that everyone you cross can, or will revenge, it is in your knowledge that there's a non-trivial chance that you might make a mistake one day, get caught and severely dealt with by a mob, or you might cross the wrong person, one capable of inflicting more brutality than yourself. This non-trivial chance should hopefully serve as a deterrent. Like they say: "Everyday for the robber", no?

AgentOfAllah:
Hmmm I'm not sure how pleased the Greeks would feel about adding more of their country to my elbow, but thanks!


What do you mean do I believe in it? Do you think revenge is not real?
I cannot logically prove that anybody would revenge an act of evil meted on them, but there is plenty of phenominological evidence that people sometimes severely harm criminals in the name of revenge. I'm sure you've seen pictures of criminals being burnt or beaten to death by mob for instance. The fun isn't so much that everyone you cross can, or will revenge, it is in your knowledge that there's a non-trivial chance that you might make a mistake one day, get caught and severely dealt with by a mob, or you might cross the wrong person, one capable of inflicting more brutality than yourself. This non-trivial chance should hopefully serve as a deterrent. Like they say: "Everyday for the robber", no?

hilarious. I think you accept fact rather than arguing baseless when compare to some of the goons I meet here.

the two question I raised is to test your chance of error. but you do well only that you had some assumption which are base on a mere observation .

remember

1 many criminal had escape the law

2 many innocent men had become a victim of wrong justice

3 influential and powerful men will always balance the law in their favour.

even if you caught by the law, your punishment might not equal to your offence.

imaging if Adolf Hitler the man who killed over 5 million people or idi amin who live like the ancient king of rome were caught before their death. the world judicial system does not have a punishment that can equate their offence. take for example sadam Hussein was only hang to death upon all the thousands men he killed .

so revenge here do not serve Its cause.

I think believing in the wrath of God is real.

butterflylion:


Of course only you would call it trash o wise one.

Sharap its Trash

vaxx:
i agree to some extent that a few people exploited the concept of God for personal benefits. But, based on the few exceptions

The basic values of religion is much important to the society development. for example will you cancel the use of car due to common road accidents. what I expect You to do is to concentrate to avoid the accidents. similarly, some students might have copied in the examinations. Try to catch, such students. But, do not remove the system of examination itself.

The system serves majority, doing lot of good. You forget the vast positive side of the system based on the minor negative side. The concept of god controls the sin in the society. If the concept of God is removed, lot of people will do lot of sins since already the ways to escape the punishment in courts are already available.

The society will be crushed into pieces in the absence of the fear for sin. If God disappears, fear dissapear subsequently

.The concept of sin will drown and destroy the society like a ebola. and hence back track development.


I agree there should be check and balance.

That quite interesting and I'm glad you agreed with me in some points, I also understood that you have much concerned about welfare of the people but you forgot what freedom means,
U think it's wise to put fear in people controlling them like robots and limit their thinking ability telling them what to do and what not to do so that everything will be in order, that's exactly what religion is doing and yet it's isn't working out rather its turns people into hypocrites
You talked about experiencing few negative side for much greater good, that isn't what religion is all about,
religion damages human brains, imagine Lagos state alone having about 40000churches, now let's talk about little children being left alone to die cos of witchery, ritualists, suicide bombers, breeding of none existing enemies to ourselves, prophecies leading to disunity of families etc this is what we hear everyday in the news and beliefs triggered it all,
Remember you talked about not avoiding building cars cos few accidents, that's true and companies are doing their very best to reduce the risk of accidents which you and i are seeing the progress, In religion it only requires prayer and prayers doesn't do shit rather it seems to be the easy way cos it also means being lazy.

Imagine someone being nice not because he/she is afraid but because it's the right thing to do, helping people and expecting zero favor in return that is being free

butterflylion:


Oga the internet is a vast resource. Go and read about the history of science. The history is no conspiracy.

Give it a try alright?

You shouldn't have used the word "Birthed" it sound as if religion is the cause of science, religion came before science, that people believed the only available option provided to them(religion) doesn't mean they wouldn't do research to know more and that also doesn't mean religion triggered science, unfortunately it exposed their lies

obinna58:

You shouldn't have used the word "Birthed" it sound as if religion is the cause of science, religion came before science, that people believed the only available option provided to them(religion) doesn't mean they wouldn't do research to know more and that also doesn't mean religion triggered science, unfortunately it exposed their lies

Oga the funny part is that people like you feel religion is polar opposites to science

On the contrary, science validates religion so beautifully but they (the scientists are struggling hard not to accept this).

Anyway you wish to see it, the fact remains that religion birthed or gave birth to science. The origin of science was from the religious.

Like I said, rather than arguing with me over what you do not know, go and research the history of science. When you are done, you will thank religion for being able to think out of the box because of their already outside the box position regarding life and spirituality.

They were already poised to do the extraordinary even before it was required.

Do your research.

butterflylion:


Oga the funny part is that people like you feel religion is polar opposites to science

On the contrary, science validates religion so beautifully but they (the scientists are struggling hard not to accept this).

Anyway you wish to see it, the fact remains that religion birthed or gave birth to science. The origin of science was from the religious.

Like I said, rather than arguing with me over what you do not know, go and research the history of science. When you are done, you will thank religion for being able to think out of the box because of their already outside the box position regarding life and spirituality.

They were already poised to do the extraordinary even before it was required.

Do your research.

Sorry U are the one that should do research
Science doesn't connect with religion, religion is being exposed through science

obinna58:

Sorry U are the one that should do research
Science doesn't connect with religion, religion is being exposed through science

Have you done the research I asked you to?

(1) If science contradicts religion, how would you explain the fact that most of the great scientists of the past believed in God and took the Bible seriously? For example, here are 31 of such scientists together with the scientific disciplines they helped to establish. They include Kepler (astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus (systematic biology), Faraday (electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister (antiseptic surgery), Mendel (genetics), and many other equally famous names.

(2) If religion is an obstacle to science, how do you get round the fact that empirical science first arose in Christian Europe, three centuries before the rise of Darwinism? It did so precisely because of the almost universal belief in a Creator God. This gave the founders of modern science the confidence they needed that the natural world was orderly and therefore capable of systematic investigation. They expected to find ‘law’ in Nature because they believed in a Lawgiver. Or, to use another analogy, they assumed that the ‘Book of Nature’ had a readable ‘text’ because Nature had an Author.

(3) Why did the ‘founding fathers’ of modern science believe in God? For one very simple reason: the natural world bears all the hallmarks of intelligent design. To take only a few examples: hands seem designed for grasping objects and making tools; the human body is equipped with an immune system for combating disease; birds have an instinct to build nests for their young and escape winter through migration; eyes and ears have the precise structures required for seeing and hearing; living creatures have the digestive systems they need to process the particular foods their bodies depend on; sexual organs seem designed for reproduction.

That has certainly been the view of most of the great philosophers and thinkers of the past, like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Bacon, Newton, etc. Even famous sceptics like David Hume (18th century) and John Stuart Mill (19th century) recognised the credibility of the ‘design’ argument (or ‘teleological proof’) for God’s existence as did Immanuel Kant (18th century), despite his rejection of all the traditional arguments for God’s existence except the moral one.

(4) The advance of science over the last half-century has revealed powerful new evidence that life and the universe are the product of intelligent design, especially in the fields of astrophysics and microbiology. At the cosmological level, it has become increasingly apparent that the physical laws and parameters governing our universe (e.g. the force of gravity, the energy density of empty space, the difference in mass between neutrons and protons, etc.) are so exquisitely fine-tuned to permit the emergence of life, that even the tiniest alteration in any of these laws and parameters would have catastrophic consequences. Astrophysicist, Dr Hugh Ross, for instance, has identified 148 astrophysical parameters that must be ‘just so’ for a planet to exist that can support human life, yet the odds against this happening by chance are, he calculates, many times greater than the total number of stars in the entire universe! Given such facts, even so great an astronomer and former atheist as Fred Hoyle, has written: “I do not believe that any scientists who examined the evidence would fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce inside stars.” That and other such observations from Hoyle have prompted Harvard astronomy professor, Owen Gingerich, to comment: “Fred Hoyle and I differ on lots of questions, but on this we agree: a common sense and satisfying interpretation of our world suggests the designing hand of a super-intelligence.” Or to put it even more plainly, consider the verdict of Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: “The extraordinary fine tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short.”

So my dear Obinna58 science does not "expose" religion as you ignorantly implied. Science validates Religion!

Go and carry out the research I have been asking you to.


Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ - Albert Einstein, 1941

vaxx:
hilarious. I think you accept fact rather than arguing baseless when compare to some of the goons I meet here.

There's nothing special about accepting facts. Denying them is what astounds!

the two question I raised is to test your chance of error. but you do well only that you had some assumption which are base on a mere observation .

How can a deduction based on observation be an assumption? Scratch that! How can you refer to observation as mere? Observation is everything, is it not?

remember

1 many criminal had escape the law

2 many innocent men had become a victim of wrong justice

3 influential and powerful men will always balance the law in their favour.

These are all very accurate observations, not ones easily forgotten by me!

even if you caught by the law, your punishment might not equal to your offence.

I don't even think laws should be punitive. What's the point of punishment? Our actions are the inevitable consequences of our experiences, DNA and environment; none of which we have any sort of control over. Punishment presupposes choice, but choice is an illusion. As such, laws should be deterrent and corrective, not punitive!

imaging if Adolf Hitler the man who killed over 5 million people or idi amin who live like the ancient king of rome were caught before their death. the world judicial system does not have a punishment that can equate their offence. take for example sadam Hussein was only hang to death upon all the thousands men he killed .

Hitler's 5 million victims are already dead. The only thing that counts as justice is bringing them back to live their lives until natural expiry. Anything short of that is not justice! It's either revenge, deterrence or correction. What the law should be concerned with is preventing Hitler from adding one more victim to the statistics. If possible, correcting him psychologically, until he is changed.

so revenge here do not serve Its cause.

Revenge always serves its cause for the person who metes it out. Revenge is not justice or punishment, it's just closure for a psychologically tortured victim.

I think believing in the wrath of God is real.

Yes, believing in the wrath of god is definitely real. You are an exquisite example of one who really believes in the wrath of god...But simply believing something to be real doesn't make it real.

At any rate, if eternal damnation is the wrath of god, have you ever thought that maybe suffering for eternity is a far greater punishment than any crime that can ever be committed? Think about it! Supposing punishment is a legitimate way to seek justice, then you want the punishment to be equal to the crime. Let's say Mr. A murders 100 babies belonging to 200 parents, and all these parents suffer some psychological trauma for the rest of their lives. Now, assuming these parents live for 60 additional years, and the babies were all meant to live for say 100 years. Wouldn't the appropriate punishment for this person be the pain of 10,000 deaths and 12,000 years of the psychological trauma of losing a loved one? In the worst case scenario, let's assume each unit of punishment is spread out in years, then this person is merely supposed to suffer for 22,000 years maximally. Yet, god's wrath would condemn this person to an eternity of suffering. Isn't god's wrath an overkill..literally?

AgentofAllah, sorry to butt in but I am officially declaring myself a groupie.

As you were...

AgentOfAllah:
There's nothing special about accepting facts. Denying them is what astounds!

How can a deduction based on observation be an assumption? Scratch that! How can you refer to observation as mere? Observation is everything, is it not?

These are all very accurate observations, not ones easily forgotten by me!

I don't even think laws should be punitive. What's the point of punishment? Our actions are the inevitable consequences of our experiences, DNA and environment; none of which we have any sort of control over. Punishment presupposes choice, but choice is an illusion. As such, laws should be deterrent and corrective, not punitive!

Hitler's 5 million victims are already dead. The only thing that counts as justice is bringing them back to live their lives until natural expiry. Anything short of that is not justice! It's either revenge, deterrence or correction. What the law should be concerned with is preventing Hitler from adding one more victim to the statistics. If possible, correcting him psychologically, until he is changed.

Revenge always serves its cause for the person who metes it out. Revenge is not justice or punishment, it's just closure for a psychologically tortured victim.

Yes, believing in the wrath of god is definitely real. You are an exquisite example of one who really believes in the wrath of god...But simply believing something to be real doesn't make it real.

At any rate, if eternal damnation is the wrath of god, have you ever thought that maybe suffering for eternity is a far greater punishment than any crime that can ever be committed? Think about it! Supposing punishment is a legitimate way to seek justice, then you want the punishment to be equal to the crime. Let's say Mr. A murders 100 babies belonging to 200 parents, and all these parents suffer some psychological trauma for the rest of their lives. Now, assuming these parents live for 60 additional years, and the babies were all meant to live for say 100 years. Wouldn't the appropriate punishment for this person be the pain of 10,000 deaths and 12,000 years of the psychological trauma of losing a loved one? In the worst case scenario, let's assume each unit of punishment is spread out in years, then this person is merely supposed to suffer for 22,000 years maximally. Yet, god's wrath would condemn this person to an eternity of suffering. Isn't god's wrath an overkill..literally?

so why is fact been denied in the first first place?

I called it a mere observation because. you must always have proof beyond what your eyes can't deliver that, since your eyes can't do that alone without some degree of error.

at least you agree with me on the fact I noted. it is accurate indeed.

yes , that is why I put it forward that human by nature do not have a system that can neutralize or terminate evil. so the punishment of human is very limited since it can not equate its real cause.

human law has tried enough to bring fairness and orderliness to the society. prisons were built , rehabilitation home were built. despite all this progress. evil and wickedness act still persist .

with the revenge. I counter argue that it does not serve its cause even for some one who mete it out. it is anger and pain that birth revenge and the true fact is Anger and pain block out empathy

so trying to understand why the person did what they did might be bias in opinion because of empathy. if empathy is lost in the transaction, anger presents itself. and When anger happens human degradation occurs. When human degradation occurs with anger all sort of fuckery happens. It is the loss of emotional stability that comes with the pain. If someone knew how to not get hurt emotionally, then they would not lose empathy, human degradation, revenge, anger would not occur because it would not seem productive or logical to solve the problem on why the person attempted to hurt someone in the first place, because they were hurt and needed help with their emotions. what should be done here is to offer counselling and not revenge.



And finally for the world to see fairness and justice. Divine law is very important. and the wrath of God must be emphasized to deter human from their evil act.