The Christian Hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

There are correction,alteration and improvements as science is never 100% certain and ever developing.

---

That's excellent - this is one of the points I've been trying to get through: science is constantly updated and refined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

When a law or theory of science is broken by a new discovery, the previous recordings of observation and replication are lost into the trash bin, replaced by the corrected alterations.

---

This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Science is such a broad field that cannot be confined as observation, as in modern day, it is more taken over by abstract thinking by manipulating the old and acceptance through debates and agreements through previous proofs and evidences. Bottom line, observations that agree with theories and ideas becomes proof and evidences, which are what science is backed up by.

---

You have this all completely wrong. Maybe you should discuss this with a science teacher or scientist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

I have to admit I do believe that it is very difficult for an atheist to believe in God after seeing a miracle as there are such things as you said: psychics telepaths hypnosis.

---

How can you know what an atheist will believe? You don't even really know what one is!

Note that there are no psychics or telepaths and that hypnotism is a trick. You obviously missed that point rather badly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

With all these happening around, how would atheists believe that miracles are visual signs that God sent? I think this is why God is not using miracles to make the non believer believe in God. It just seems sadly futile.

"As I pointed out to you earlier, if miracles exist, they will demonstrably miraculous and not some shabby, set-up charlatan tricks as used in manufacturing miracles for the credulous."

So what do you have in mind? Demonstrably miraculous, to what extent exactly?

How would a written statement by a random doctor or pastor improve your belief in miracles or God? It is same as hearing a "story" from someone else as you mentioned. I heavily doubt that even if a miracle happens to you, such as open wounds healing suddenly, it wont ever improve your belief in God as you have your explanations and excuses.

---

This is looking like a cop-out to me.

If I see wounds self-healing, I wouldn't even need a doctor's certificate.

As I keep saying, show me.

Statements from doctors would help me believe that a miracle isn't a fraud.

This is why I will bet any amount of money you like your pastor will decline the opportunity of sceptical investigation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

How can there be a discussion about such a narrow subject as Christian Hell, if nothing is established as being truth?

---

Goes with the territory.

If you note the OP, it's about christian perception of hell, so it has nothing to do with the existence of it, but all threads with atheists and christians in end up the same way. It's an immutable internet law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rush_of_Blood

Where would we derive morals, if not from God?

---

Re my post above, you might just as well ask whether God, the Christian god at any rate, is much use at instilling morality anyway. But to go back to the sermon on the mount, nice as it is, it's fairly platitudinous as morality. The things it says will be rewarded are things we already know are good.

I would say the same about all the morality propounded in the Bible. All it really does is reinforce virtues with the promise that they will be rewarded. That doesn't constitute acting as a source of morality. As I say, we already know those things are good. It seems quite obvious that they are (though one might debate some of them - meekness say, following Nietzsche).

How do we know? This has been a source of debate in philosophy for over two thousand years. While I wouldn't wish or, realistically, hope to diminish the complexity of those debates, is it really so hard to recognise a good deed when you see one? Kid drops ice-cream scoop from cone, other kid with two scoops gives one to first, now crying, kid. Better yet, first kid is starving and second kid gives it its dinner.
Do we really need a God to tell us this is a good deed? No and we don't need to be Christians, or Buddhists or adherents of any other belief system, to feel the compassion that drives such an act. The only problems we have with morality are in the realms of the empirical - ethical conflicts and practicability. Other than that, one might debate whether there is anything innately moral in human nature or whether we adopt moral practices in response to the promise of rewards and punishments. Whatever. None of this seems to require the existence of a God and it's not clear how it would be helped by it, except to reassure us that the evil really will be punished, even if they seem to get away with it.

EDIT
Of course, I forgot, the other thing religion does to instill morality is tell us that things we might otherwise deem harmless are immoral - working on the Sabbath, say, or having sex with people of our own gender. Bit of a can of worms really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAtheist

This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.

---

I basically agree, but, just to be pedantically precise, weren't notions such as the humours, phlogiston and, in fact, the idea that the sun went 'round the earth formerly accepted by science? The humours were certainly accepted by doctors until about the nineteenth century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

And, sorry, but shouldn't it also say, in accordance with the beliefs of believers expressed in this thread and others, blessed are those who aren't any of these things and are actually pretty rotten as long as they repent and accept Jesus into their hearts before they die, for they shall go to heaven anyway.

This is the fundamental contradiction in Christian morality. Good works are supposed to be important and, in fact, according to the sermon on the mount, they will actually, somehow, be repaid in kind. However, we're also told that the only way to get to heaven is to accept Christ as your saviour and that it will work for anyone who does it - which seems to render good works rather irrelevant.

---

Amen.

Christians who remove all the instructions about good works are removing most of what Jesus was about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

I basically agree, but, just to be pedantically precise, weren't notions such as the humours, phlogiston and, in fact, the idea that the sun went 'round the earth formerly accepted by science? The humours were certainly accepted by doctors until about the nineteenth century.

---

Partly depends on your definition of science.

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

The phlogiston is just flawed science, because the conclusion can only be achieved if certain observations are ignored.

I covered in a thread some time why rigour is so important to science - if we don't ensure that flaws are found through blinding and testing, the science isn't rigorous enough to be considered proper science.

This is where replication is so important to science - with actual science, anyone attempting the experiment/observation will get the same result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Partly depends on your definition of science.

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

The phlogiston is just flawed science, because the conclusion can only be achieved if certain observations are ignored.

I covered in a thread some time why rigour is so important to science - if we don't ensure that flaws are found through blinding and testing, the science isn't rigorous enough to be considered proper science.

This is where replication is so important to science - with actual science, anyone attempting the experiment/observation will get the same result.

---

You're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Looking at those three, humours and the sun orbit can't really be called science, as they were guesses based on flawed observation. Part of that is that we needed better instrumentation to tell the difference, but any proper observation would have rendered both ridiculous.

---

What's to say that some of the current methods of observation are not just as flawed? Humans make tools used to see things they don't understand. What if, due to the lack of understanding of the thing they want to see (or any reason), the tool used to see it can't see it properly? That observation would be considered correct for years until someone discovers the right way to observe. Then, scientists may be posting in an internet forum about something that is false, saying that it has been observed to be true, and they might think that anyone who opposes their views is wrong, when that is not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Re my post above, you might just as well ask whether God, the Christian god at any rate, is much use at instilling morality anyway. But to go back to the sermon on the mount, nice as it is, it's fairly platitudinous as morality. The things it says will be rewarded are things we already know are good.

I would say the same about all the morality propounded in the Bible. All it really does is reinforce virtues with the promise that they will be rewarded. That doesn't constitute acting as a source of morality. As I say, we already know those things are good. It seems quite obvious that they are (though one might debate some of them - meekness say, following Nietzsche).

How do we know? This has been a source of debate in philosophy for over two thousand years. While I wouldn't wish or, realistically, hope to diminish the complexity of those debates, is it really so hard to recognize a good deed when you see one? Kid drops ice-cream scoop from cone, other kid with two scoops gives one to first, now crying, kid. Better yet, first kid is starving and second kid gives it its dinner.
Do we really need a God to tell us this is a good deed? No and we don't need to be Christians, or Buddhists or adherents of any other belief system, to feel the compassion that drives such an act. The only problems we have with morality are in the realms of the empirical - ethical conflicts and practicability. Other than that, one might debate whether there is anything innately moral in human nature or whether we adopt moral practices in response to the promise of rewards and punishments. Whatever. None of this seems to require the existence of a God and it's not clear how it would be helped by it, except to reassure us that the evil really will be punished, even if they seem to get away with it.

EDIT
Of course, I forgot, the other thing religion does to instill morality is tell us that things we might otherwise deem harmless are immoral - working on the Sabbath, say, or having sex with people of our own gender. Bit of a can of worms really.

---

Before i answer your question, i have a two part question for you:

what is the benefit of religion?

what is the benefit of not having religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rush_of_Blood

Before i answer your question, i have a two part question for you:

what is the benefit of religion?

what is the benefit of not having religion?

---

:lol: Cheeky. Why do I have to answer a two-part question from you before I can get an answer? I asked you first. Um, oh, except, reading back, I realise I didn't. I didn't ask a question, did I? Perhaps the first thing to sort out is what question you thought I was asking. I know there are a few sentences in the form of questions in my post, but they're rhetorical.

Anyway, wouldn't you, as a religious person, be better placed to suggest what the benefit of religion is? I don't see any benefit in it. The other question is almost meaningless to me, like asking what the benefit of not having Santa Claus is. Atheism isn't something I chose for its greater benefits. It's just what seems to me to be the truth, ergo, I have no choice in the matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

What's to say that some of the current methods of observation are not just as flawed?

---

Replication.

When different people, using different equipment, get the same result, time after time after time, I'm pretty confident nobody's about to disprove Einstein or Newton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

Humans make tools used to see things they don't understand.

---

Completely false.

How can I make a tool if I don't understand what I'm looking for? We make tools to measure things we already have an understanding of, but are unable to observe with the naked eye/ear/etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

What if, due to the lack of understanding of the thing they want to see (or any reason), the tool used to see it can't see it properly?

---

Back to the old drawing board.

Plus, if a scientist knows a tool is flawed, he'll throw it away, not make up a new theory to fit the flawed observation. At least, that's what he'll do if he wishes to preserve his reputation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

That observation would be considered correct for years until someone discovers the right way to observe. Then, scientists may be posting in an internet forum about something that is false, saying that it has been observed to be true, and they might think that anyone who opposes their views is wrong, when that is not the case.

---

What you're describing might happen in Fantasyland, but not here.

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

---

That's because those aspersions against science are just an attempt by theists to throw atheistic arguments back at the atheists. They're not just saying 'You can't prove science is right'. They're saying 'You can't prove science is right either.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

How can I make a tool if I don't understand what I'm looking for? We make tools to measure things we already have an understanding of, but are unable to observe with the naked eye/ear/etc.

---

If you know everything about what you're looking for, why research it? I'm saying that a person knows a little bit about something, so he creates something that he thinks can observe properly so that he can learn more about it.

Bob the scientists thinks that a thing called tinyblocks exists. He makes a tool that measures the light refraction that he's pretty sure tinyblocks creates. He finds that his tool is good at catching that light refraction. All the scientists get a light refraction detector so they can study tinyblocks. They all run tests and they all get the same results. It is now declared to be scientifically true that tinyblocks refracts light.

Three years later, Tim the scientist makes a breakthrough discovery: tinyblocks only refracts light when viewed with specific tools. It turns out that all tinyblocks does is reflects light, and the tools that have been used to study tinyblocks were actually responsible for the refraction.

For the three years between Bob and Tim, scientists all over the world were telling people they were ridiculous if they thought tinyblocks didn't refract light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Plus, if a scientist knows a tool is flawed, he'll throw it away, not make up a new theory to fit the flawed observation. At least, that's what he'll do if he wishes to preserve his reputation.

---

None of the scientists knew their tools were flawed. Of course they would fix their tools if they knew they were not good. That's common sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What you're describing might happen in Fantasyland, but not here.

---

I guess the scientific community is just too good to make mistakes in real life, eh? Perhaps you are forgetting the examples used just a few posts ago about things like the Earth revolving around the sun. They thought their observation methods were good.

The scientific community is frequently changing things they they thought were true. When science books have to be updated yearly to keep up with what is currently deemed "true" by the scientific community, what's the use in believing it, since it's likely to be false again within your lifetime. I don't know what percentage of it is because of more accurate observation methods, but I know some is.

I know people say that because of the frequent updating of theories, science is more accurate than it has ever been. How many of those theories are in their final iteration? As people learn more, current "truths" will change to untruths. Scientists prove theories wrong frequently enough that anyone from the future could come to our time and laugh at us for all the lies we believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Your approach is another common one, and I always love it, because the aspersions against science are the same as those against theism, yet theists have no problem that their own system has the very flaws which science doesn't.

---

My point is: Even if someone rejects spiritual things, that person has to put faith in something. Nothing is known beyond all doubt. The only "flaw" (the term may not even apply here) that religion has is that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt (except maybe to extremists). That is also the case with science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

I guess the scientific community is just too good to make mistakes in real life, eh? Perhaps you are forgetting the examples used just a few posts ago about things like the Earth revolving around the sun. They thought their observation methods were good.

---

I like your earlier tinyblocks example, but I think you're off the mark here. The problem here wasn't with observation methods, it was with scientific knowledge being muddled up with religious belief. Plenty of scientific and philosophical practitioners at the time still started with the idea of God and His works as a priori belief with which others had to fall in line. When Galileo showed that the earth revolved around the sun, it was deemed a heresy because it was supposed that God wouldn't have put the earth anywhere but the centre of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

The scientific community is frequently changing things they they thought were true. When science books have to be updated yearly to keep up with what is currently deemed "true" by the scientific community, what's the use in believing it, since it's likely to be false again within your lifetime. I don't know what percentage of it is because of more accurate observation methods, but I know some is.

---

Whereas, fortunately, religious belief remains fixed and we can continue to believe it for all time. Except it doesn't, as TheAtheist has shown by referring to the changed view of Hell within Catholicism. Does this mean science and religion are equivalent? Nope. The whole point is that nothing at all is taken for granted by science, as your remark above shows. Religion takes something for which there is no testable evidence for granted - the existence of God. And as the example of Galileo shows, this assumption has been actively deleterious to the advance of human knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

I know people say that because of the frequent updating of theories, science is more accurate than it has ever been. How many of those theories are in their final iteration? As people learn more, current "truths" will change to untruths. Scientists prove theories wrong frequently enough that anyone from the future could come to our time and laugh at us for all the lies we believe.

---

Who's to say, eh? But science, in the last hundred or so years, has been more empirically and rationally rigorous than it's ever been precisely thanks to the waning of religion's influence upon it. Darwin held back his theory of evolution because it conflicted with his own religious belief. It's hard to imagine anything like that happening now. It's also hard to imagine a new scientific discovery being held back because it conflicted with an existing scientific belief, held as a matter of strong conviction by a scientist - precisely because science is not dogmatic. Everything you say about the uncertainties pervading science only serves to prove this point - and, in that, the marked difference of science from religion.

Quote:

---

My point is: Even if someone rejects spiritual things, that person has to put faith in something. Nothing is known beyond all doubt. The only "flaw" (the term may not even apply here) that religion has is that it cannot be proven beyond all doubt (except maybe to extremists). That is also the case with science.

---

Actually, the point you seem to have made in your prior remarks is precisely the opposite: it makes no sense to put your faith in anything precisely because of the difficulty of being sure of anything. That's why proof is so important to the scientific community. i.e. it takes nothing on faith.

I think what you mean to say is 'That is also the case with scientific knowledge.' To ask whether science itself can be proven is a nonsensical question. Science isn't a fact or a set of facts, it's a process of acquiring knowledge, one that, by definition, depends on the most rigorous possible testing.

Perhaps you would like to argue that science's faith is in this activity of testing. To do this, you might want to resort to some old philosophical arguments for the ideality of reality: everything is an illusion and so on. Then you can go read Kant and see him put that one to bed: yes, there may be a reality beyond the one we perceive; Kant even says that there must be; however, he also says that we have absolutely no point of access to it; our reality, for us, is reality; when a phenomenon such as as physical law is observed over and over again within that reality, we can say it's true.

Other than that, you seem, if I can say this without being insulting, to be arguing for the doubtfulness of a lot of today's scientific knowledge from a position of cheerful ignorance of science in general. Exactly how many real-world examples of your tinbyblocks syndrome can you point to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CeeJay

The Atheist: Speaking in tongues will be a joke to a linguist or to you simply because you do not understand it. Its easy for people to simply say, everything in Christianity is false...and worse still, they go to great lengths to prove it (thinking that they are being enlightened), but its funny how scientists try to prove that the Creation is a myth. A famous musician said :"The earth is a masterpiece; Somebody had to paint this"...Unless you believe that you evolved from monkeys and chimps, which I absolutely do not believe. First, I am more intelligent than any Chimp.Second, say I evolved. Of all the 6000 or so years that man has spent on earth, is he not supposed to evolve to something else? It has pretty much been the same since.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Evolution takes hundreds of thousands or millions of years - 6000 years is insufficient time frame for a mammal species to show evolutionary signs.

I won't bother mentioning glaciers, fossils, antarctica, trees, coal or any of the other millions of reasons why the idea that the earth is 6013 years old is just beyond laughable.

There are plants older than that, for goodness sake!

---

You're taking Genesis too seriously. Of course it didn't happen like that.

If Adam and Eve were only humans, and had no daughters; then we are all result of incest and incest is a serious sin. God made Sun on the 3rd day - how do we know it was 3rd day when there was no Sun to determine start or end of day? How long did even that day last? We could go on with this, but I think it's enough.

It's all metaphor, like Greek, Roman or German mythology. Of course evolution made it's work. I am Christian, but please be reasonable.

By the way, OT deals with Jewish history, not history of Earth. And it deals with last 6000 years, it doesn't say that Earth is only 6000 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That's excellent - this is one of the points I've been trying to get through: science is constantly updated and refined.



This is not quite right. Science is hardly ever proven wrong to the extent that prior knowledge is thrown out. As above, science is refined rather than changed. Galileo, Pythagoras, Newton, Einstein, Rutherford, Curie, Pasteur.... I'm working through all of the dead scientists trying to find something which has been disproven, but I can't find anything. Refinement, yes, contravention, no.



You have this all completely wrong. Maybe you should discuss this with a science teacher or scientist.



How can you know what an atheist will believe? You don't even really know what one is!

Note that there are no psychics or telepaths and that hypnotism is a trick. You obviously missed that point rather badly.



This is looking like a cop-out to me.

If I see wounds self-healing, I wouldn't even need a doctor's certificate.

As I keep saying, show me.

Statements from doctors would help me believe that a miracle isn't a fraud.

---

Disproven theories? In top of my head, I can think of a theory that was disproven. Quite old, but shows what science started off from : In the 1700s two people, Ptolemy and Nicolas Copernicus argued their theories on the positions of the planet and sun in the solarsystem, and Galileo supported Ptomley and wronged Copernicus's theory.

Are you are scientist yourself? I talked to a group of scientist before, and I am sure they explained mordern science in this definition. How creativity and abstract thinking is what sets a great scientist from the rest.

The dictionary sure knows what its talking about when describing an atheist.
Thanks to that I know what I am talking about.

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world. In my country there are old traditions with psychic people that do supernatural,calling evil spirits. Few years ago, an actor was playing a role around this, and she got possessed and had to be treated in a church. Yes many psychic etc are fake today but there were and are some true ones in the world.