Dig holes to hell change my mind.

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 94
Topic's author
#1
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
The bible says that most of us will burn in hell forever and that hell is extremely painful.  Look it up if you don't believe me because I'm too lazy to get links.

The soviets accidentally discovered hell when they were competing against America to see who could dig the deepest hole.  They discovered hell in the process(http://www.amightywind.com/hell/aboutsounds.htm).

Based off of this information, the US should dig many holes to hell with ladders and geothermal powered elevators in order to free those in hell.  Change my mind if you want to.



#2
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
So you are a conservative atheist/agnostic?
Bad combo.
What do you think of socialism?
What do you think of capitalism? 

Yeah God is bad and we would all be going to hell if the Bible was true. 
Topic's author
#3
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So you are a conservative atheist/agnostic?
Bad combo.
I used to be really conservative, but I think I'm independent now.  I'm basically an unaffiliated independent.  If I had to describe my political ideology in a term other then independent, it probably would be a libertarian as of right now.  I think I'm going through an ideological phase where I am extremely prone to change my positions.

What do you think of socialism?
What do you think of capitalism? 
I hate socialism and love capitalism.

Yeah God is bad and we would all be going to hell if the Bible was true. 
I'm not sure if the bible is true, but God definitely exists.  This can be explained because God is not always correct with the bible.  He claims he is all loving in it.  He exists, but he is not all loving, otherwise hell would not be a permanent punishment.  Otherwise, how would hell exist?

What do you think of digging holes to hell to free those that are in hell?
#4
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
, it probably would be a libertarian as of right now.  I think I'm going through an ideological phase where I am extremely prone to change my positions.
I would consider libertarian's part of the Republican party.
I hate socialism and love capitalism.
What are the flaws of both?
I'm not sure if the bible is true, but God definitely exists.
God does not exist.
He exists, but he is not all loving, otherwise hell would not be a permanent punishment. 
I don't know what kind of argument is this but still doesn't mean God exists. 
What do you think of digging holes to hell to free those that are in hell?
Too many people in hell. Too much money to get there. Fix the country before fixing other places. 
Topic's author
#5
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I would consider libertarian's part of the Republican party.
They are closer to the GOP then they are to the PDP but I think there are many major differences between libertarians and the GOP:

-Their stance on abortion.
-Their stance on weed.
-Their stance on homosexuality.
-Their stance on Free Speech.  Many on the right want to censor kneelers for the National Anthem.  I don't think censoring them is right.

Also, the libertarians haven't had a chance to fix the US debt.  Both other parties have caused the debt to grow to a lot of money.

What are the flaws of both?

Socialism destroys economies.  Minimally gov involved capitalism produces a high sustainable living standard for the average person in such a country.  It's why the US has a GDP per capita rise, whereas it is unstable in even places like Scandinavia.

If God doesn't exist, then why do people burn in hell?

Too many people in hell. Too much money to get there. Fix the country before fixing other places. 

I don't think it is expensive to dig a 12 mile hole to get to hell.  The soviets did it, and it didn't cost them a lot of money.  They did it for sport pretty much, to beat the Americans at something.  Digging a hole to hell would be very cheap for the US gov and I imagine multiple holes can be dug to save people faster.  I would want to dedicate $78.8 Billion towards this cause if I were POTUS.  Also, since the people fleeing hell would be very loyal to America since we saved them, they probably would assimilate quickly, get legalized quickly and would be productive citizens to the nation.  This nation is very fixed compared to hell and if we allow people from hell to come to the US, they would help solve some of our economic problems.
#6
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
They are closer to the GOP then they are to the PDP but I think there are many major differences between libertarians and the GOP:
The only thing that really matters is their stance on capitalism which libertarian's and Republican's like whereas DNC are more supportive of socialist policies. Socialism is more of an important issue to the DNC which will drive them away and into the Republican party. 
Socialism destroys economies. 
If the economy doesn't serve the interests of the people why shouldn't socialism "destroy" it?
Minimally gov involved capitalism produces a high sustainable living standard for the average person in such a country.  It's why the US has a GDP per capita rise, whereas it is unstable in even places like Scandinavia.
Why should people care about GDP when wage stagnation is a problem in the US?
If God doesn't exist, then why do people burn in hell?
People don't burn in hell because God would require to exist in order for there to be somewhere God sends people who it doesn't like.
This nation is very fixed compared to hell and if we allow people from hell to come to the US, they would help solve some of our economic problems.
Healthcare? 
Topic's author
#7
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If the economy doesn't serve the interests of the people why shouldn't socialism "destroy" it?
It does.  As the rich get richer, the poor get richer.  Your link confirmed this.  It's not a lot, but given that the captains of industry are the ones leading this, it makes sense that they benefit more.  Would it be better if the rich barely got better and the poor barely got better?  I don't think so.

There are flaws to completely open capitalism such as the potential for unregulated monopolies which lead to high prices on stuff and the workers might get treated badly(if they don't like their job, the gov can provide a better job), but other then that, what's wrong with Capitalism?

People don't burn in hell

Too many people in hell.
This is a contradiction.  Hell sadly exists and people burn there according to the link I provided.

Healthcare? 
A person's living expenses can be summarized in the FISTO acrinomn.  This is:

Food
Insurance or as you put it, Healthcare
Shelter
Taxes
Other

Those who came from hell won't need food, insurance/healthcare, or shelter because whatever conditions they endure here on Earth will not be as bad as that in hell.  If they get sick, they have experience dealing with worse.  They won't die from it.  Moreover if they want these things, they can pay for them on their own.  They would get taxed just like any other citizen.  This requires that they contribute to the economy.  Same thing with the "Other" category.
#8
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
If there is a fundamental flaw it is the "ism", the idea implicating capital as an operative principle, rather than a medium of utility.  Free Market Principle would likely be a better representation of the positive connotation sometimes attributed to capitalism.
  
#9
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
It does.  As the rich get richer, the poor get richer. 
But the poor are still poor and even your general statement is false. The rich are getting richer while the poor are getting paid the same. What have you got to say about wage stagnation? 
Your link confirmed this. 
This is actual delusion. Do you not see the graph that says "Wage increase in the U.S rise to the top earners"?
Would it be better if the rich barely got better and the poor barely got better?  I don't think so.
False conclusion made on a false premise.
what's wrong with Capitalism?
So you can't find problems with capitalism?
This is a contradiction.  Hell sadly exists and people burn there according to the link I provided.
I was assuming that in order to say that about hell since I figured you are trolling but since you are not I take back that statement.
A person's living expenses can be summarized in the FISTO acrinomn.  This is:
If my question wasn't clear tell me what you support. Public healthcare or private healthcare.
#10
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
The fundamental flaw is the "ism", the idea of capital as an operative principle, rather than a medium of utility.  Free Market Principle would be a better representation of the positive connotation sometimes attributed to capitalism.
So are you saying free is better than control in simpler terms? 

#11
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
No, positive is not intended to convey "better"
#12
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
No.
Do make it simple for me. I had a problem with all of it.
The fundamental flaw is the "ism", the idea implicating capital as an operative principle, rather than a medium of utility.  Free Market Principle would be a better representation of the positive connotation sometimes attributed to capitalism. 
Why are you talking about the ism?
Operative principle?
Medium of utility?
Free market principle what is it?
Better representation of the positive connotation?
Just type it simpler. 
#13
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
positive is not intended to convey "better"
Then what were you even saying with that comment? 

Topic's author
#14
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?  I'm not trolling.  I think people in hell should be saved.
#15
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?
Your question is st*pid and a waste of everyone's time. I made the conversation better. Thank me later. I see now you are incapable of actually defending your position so you simply stated this question. It really gauges how little you actually thought about your position.

If you are not trolling seek professional help.

#16
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Capital is a fine concept to the end of accountability, and a common currency is a fine concept to the end of market exchange,  but taken outside of that there is not much else it is good for.  Money is obviously not actually indicative of something that could be called real wealth.  Money changing as a goal, or a sign of success/failure, is why I mentioned ism.
#17
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
Which is why I mentioned capitalism not capital. Do you think there are flaws to capitalism? 
#18
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
This is getting off topic though.
Why did you even reply to what I said?
Why did you address me instead of addressing what the person who created the forum post said? 

#19
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist

If capital is not reliable as a measure of wealth, and capital is attributed as real wealth, than one might imagine a capitalist system is flawed.  This is getting off topic though.  You received a reply out of courtesy


OP: How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?  I'm not trolling.  I think people in hell should be saved.

#20
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
 You received a reply out of courtesy
No I didn't. I received a reply so that you can make a vacuous statement. I specifically stated ism which has a set of beliefs to it not capital but you decide to still think a vacuous statement was needed.  

#21
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheRealNihilist
OP: How are the majority of your claims related to the topic at hand?

Omar: [N/A] no viable explanation

Clarification in context:
Snoopy: This is getting off topic though

Omar: Why did you even reply to what I said?  Why did you address me instead of addressing what the person who created the forum post said? 

Snoopy : You received a reply out of courtesy

I'm not interested in jacking this thread, and since OP is still unanswered, its not appropriate for me to continue the chain with you.
#22
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Snoopy
I'm not interested in jacking this thread, and since OP is still unanswered, its not appropriate for me to continue the chain with you.
If you actually stood by that you wouldn't have even made this comment 
If there is a fundamental flaw it is the "ism", the idea implicating capital as an operative principle, rather than a medium of utility.  Free Market Principle would likely be a better representation of the positive connotation sometimes attributed to capitalism.
but you did
#23
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Alec
I'm not trolling.  I think people in hell should be saved.
Of course, you're trolling, you can't honestly tell us you actually believe the article is true, only a complete bonehead would believe such idiocy.

#24
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Alec
I think people in hell should be saved.
What do you mean by saved?

#25
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
-->
@Alec
What purpose would there be in God imprisoning damned human souls in the earth's core? Wouldn't anything that produced the sensation of extreme pain do the trick? Why put them in a place that'll eventually run out of heat? Can incorporeal entities be harmed or otherwise affected by physical heat?

Also, aren't you sort of begging the question? Why would God, whose intent is was to make the penalty of damned souls last forever, put them in such a prison that living humans would eventually be able to break them out?
Topic's author
#26
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Goldtop
Do you have any evidence to the contrary?  It's why they didn't dig any further, the Soviets were scared of hell.
Topic's author
#27
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Snoopy
I meant released from hell and to send to earth again.
Topic's author
#28
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@Swagnarok
God's plan isn't always 100 percent effective.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have destroyed humanity by a flood.  He probably sent people there out of convenience since it was pretty close to the surface.
#29
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
God's plan isn't always 100 percent effective.
Then how is it God then?
Are you saying there is a being more effective than God or are you saying God is ineffective when it came to drowning people to wipe out its mistakes? 
Topic's author
#30
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
God doesn't have to be perfect for him to be so powerful that he might as well be all powerful.

No one is perfect, not even God.