Eternal Torture - Never-Ending Torment

That's what I've been led to believe. You yourself don't seem to doubt that hell is torture/torment.

This boils down to what we perceive as are torture and what is not. Of course, me believing in Islamic ethics I do not believe it is torment, again, I cannot call Hell torment because my idea of torment may vary from the reality of what is Hell. I've kind of explained this before.

My questions, I think you'll notice, have been about moral feelings. Moral feelings are largely irrational (or a-rational I suppose). I don't have any 'proof' that eternal hell is immoral - there isn't really such a thing as 'immoral' except our feelings towards things. I suppose the amount of suffering involved in eternal torture is what makes it so repulsive an idea. Can you prove that hell is morally acceptable? No.

You have no proof that Hell is immoral yet, claim that "moral feelings" are irrational? You claim Hell is an "evil" place [I noticed the shocking symbolism of this remark]. what I'm trying to get you to understand is, you cannot make a claim about one thing and claim to not know another thing if these two things are related. If you say that moral feelings are irrational then provide the defense for such a claim and then tie this into what you are trying to say in regards to Hell as being repulsive. This gives me an understanding of where you are coming from ethically. Simply saying you find moral feelings irrational for the sake of simply being irrational [I assume this since you have no said otherwise] is not sufficient for me.

My point, as I think I've made clear, is that hell is a place where "wicked" individuals suffer forever and ever - for no apparent reason.

This made no absolute sense. If Hell is a place for wicked people then there is an obvious reason why they would "suffer." Unless you consider God to be some sort of Sadinist deity that let wicked souls suffer for the sake of suffering this makes no sense whatsoever. Since we are discussing the Islamic ethical view of Hell torment, then this discussion involves God's consciousness of right and wrong action, therefore, this in itself provides a reason [from the Islamic perspective] on why God condemns a soul. You're the first person I've discussed with online that considers Hell "too much" for a soul. I mean, hey, since you claim to be an atheist I don't see how this even ffactors into your mind since you deny God's existence in the first place.

My "classification" was a report of personal experience, since I've been old enough to examine my morals. I didn't say I got them all genetically. If mine was an "ignorant" comment then yours, being "ignorant" of what I clearly wrote, is what?

I want to see the evidence you have for those percentages as I am not aware of any clear results on the subject of where our morality comes from yet.

Your classification is a non-academic one and although you say  they are based on experience how you stated your position earlier, in claiming morals are innate are inaccurate. The percentages I provided are exaggerations [but not far from truth] but you are free to read articles on Moral Psychology and if you request I can provide some particular readings. My intention in those percentages was to show, from what I've studied myself that majority of our moral development comes from our environment and the rest we develop through social interaction. Along with social interaction we access [through cognitive intuition] past teachings and experiences where we make a determination whether something is good or bad. So if your mother taught you not to steal from others and have since that time til' present reinforced this value, you most likely will not steal.

But if a baby is not taught this til' adulthood if the adult  steals he/she may not be aware of the moral consequences of stealing. This was my point. I apologize for making this long drawn out example but I was shooting for clarity.

I don't think any of that made sense. Care to give it another go?

This is my fault as I'm speaking in Philosophy lingo so I apologize.  you asked "what is the purpose for the existence of eternal hell?" I was trying to say that there are dual aspects to this reality. In one aspect, the purpose of Hell is to punish the wicked. But the other aspect of this reality is since Hell  exists in a dimension where it is not subject to motion and space it is said to be eternal because of this. Therefore, by recognition of this "spiritual law" it is to serve the purpose of enduring punishment. Since God infinitely exist the dimension the dimension that extends from God [thus Divine emanation] reflects this quality. If this is unclear I apologize but this is the best example I can give.

You've missed the question there. I didn't ask if he 'can' do it, he's 'all-powerful' so that would be silly. I asked whether, in your opinion, he should zap them out of existence rather than allowing them to stay on in suffering.

The reason I didn't directly answer this because I know the response you will say which will be "then why doesn't he do that, rather than creating Hell for wicked people to suffer?" And, I try to avoid this because I cannot answer for God. I really do not know why.

So it was just speculation?

No. This is merely how I interpreted Quranic text. I mentioned earlier that other Muslims may interpret the text different than I and I asked you to not hold my views as universal with respect to other Muslims. This is my own personal philosophical view which, some Muslims may disagree with.

Methinks you are getting a little easily riled up, antagonistic and borderline malicious for a follower of the "religion of peace".

You're right and I apologize for my abrupt rudeness. I'm currently working on a very long dissertation and I'm pushed for time to complete it. I'm also working overtime and very tired so forgive me. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask but I'm really hoping I'm clear at least on my end.