The Christian Hell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

---

I take it then that you didn't see what I said about accurate measurements. Shows my point if that's the best you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Are you are scientist yourself?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

---

Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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

---

Well, I'm sure I won't be the last to tell you that dictionaries do not confer meanings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world.

---

Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

---

How convenient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

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.

---

Totally totally wrong!

Actually, Nicolaus Copernicus lived from 15th to 16th century, Galileo Galilei from 16th to 17th; and Galiliei proved Copernicus theory of heliocentrism.
They both disagreed with Ptolemy on geocentric system, which was in confrontation with RCC inqusition. If you want, I can find some links to prove my statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Telepathy and some psychics are rather true, even though they are very few in the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.

---

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

---

The Atheist didn't claim that. He/she said telepathy and the like had been proven countless times to be fake, i.e. individual instances had been shown to be false.

There's a department of Edinburgh University devoted solely to researching the possibilities of telepathy and related capabilities, however notional. Don't you think if they'd turned anything up, we'd have heard about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

There's a department of Edinburgh University devoted solely to researching the possibilities of telepathy and related capabilities, however notional. Don't you think if they'd turned anything up, we'd have heard about it?

---

There are actually a whole heap of universities studying the field, if I may dignify it with that term. But you're quite right that if there were any truth to the myth, we'd have heard about it, long and loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

There are actually a whole heap of universities studying the field, if I may dignify it with that term. But you're quite right that if there were any truth to the myth, we'd have heard about it, long and loud.

---

I hate to jump in on this totally ignoring theology (where are those hungry lions of Roman Empire fame when you need them, eh?) but there are studies that show consciousness seems to have subtle effects on our material environment. When I rebelled against my former employer over services, I was left to my own devices, and worried about my power chair failing--and fail it did, to the tune of thousands of dollars for a motor I am hoping I won't be forced to spend, so this study makes sense to me, since the brain/mind dynamic is still not fully understood.

Thinking is still a process, Atheist, and something interesting may happen that we don't fully understand with all those billions of neurons flashing orders continuously, even in minute insect brains.

I can't believe this discussion is turning into a debate about telepathy. Never seen that in a religious thread before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I hate to jump in on this totally ignoring theology (where are those hungry lions of Roman Empire fame when you need them, eh?) but there are studies that show consciousness seems to have subtle effects on our material environment. When I rebelled against my former employer over services, I was left to my own devices, and worried about my power chair failing--and fail it did, to the tune of thousands of dollars for a motor I am hoping I won't be forced to spend, so this study makes sense to me, since the brain/mind dynamic is still not fully understood.

---

Nope.

This is just mistaken cause and effect. Check out the Parapsychological Association. They are quite sure that minds do have power, but they think it's only an extremely small amount. They're still wrong, but even proponents of telekinesis wouldn't accept your thoughts breaking an electric wheelchair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Thinking is still a process, Atheist, and something interesting may happen that we don't fully understand with all those billions of neurons flashing orders continuously, even in minute insect brains.

---

I just can't see it. Millions of claims have been made and investigated - result: nada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

I can't believe this discussion is turning into a debate about telepathy. Never seen that in a religious thread before.

---

Makes a pleasant change!

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him. We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat

I never said I was in defense of telepathy, and the study I read did not claim to be either, but I can certainly see the process of thought being one day tied to the symmetry of anti-matter, because as far as I know, thought has no physical manifestation, and while we infer its activity through the cellular observation of the brain, thoughts themselves are not matter.

I heard a critique yesterday on the radio by a female author, which I think was fairly valid: Atheists are so busy showing up religions as nonsense that they forget about the wonder of life, and the joy of it just for itself--and I think you lose that here in these forums Atheist. In pushing back against prescriptive moral codes non-believers wind up as equally dogmatic.

In a bone to this topic: Christians co-opted hell from other pagan sources; it was not derived from messianic writings from the time that Jesus started his teaching. Theologians have a great deal of trouble with it, because punishment cannot be *eternal*.

You punish to correct behavior, not to simply change the conditions of existence. So when believers talk about choice, what they really mean is that the soul has two sets of conditions: One involving unification with the creator, and one involving separation and distinction of identity away from it, but the latter is not punishment, because it corrects nothing. Prisoners in a confined environment know that freedom is still a possibility, even if they are on death row, but if the soul cast out from heaven knows there is no possibility to correct the state of separation, then the state of separation is simply the condition the soul is in, and ceases to be in and of itself a corrective measure.

Some prisoners go too far and do get put to death. They have committed the crime that puts them to death. People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death. Sin is then gone through out eternity. Satan will be burned and consumed along with them. That is the punishment. Its called going too far as in our criminal system. And with God, the penalty of sin is death and that sin is NOT accepting him as Lord and Savior. We have choices just like someone who goes out and kill others.
Hugs, Cat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him.

---

Don't you think it's a bit odd? On one hand, Moses and Jesus both give commandments, but the only one which must not be broken is atheism?

You can lie, cheat, commit adultery, rape and even murder, and be forgiven, but failing to believe will bring an eternity of torture.

I do find it extremely odd that you'd accept that sort of god and call it loving.

If he created us, he created the sin, he created the ability for me not to see him, and he created the alternative chocies I can see clearly.

What kind of perverted, insane entity would act like that? Seriously, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of all lies, but it seems to me that the god is far, far worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat

---

Ah, so we only get tortured for however many millennia it takes for Jesus to come back?

That's ok then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I never said I was in defense of telepathy, and the study I read did not claim to be either, but I can certainly see the process of thought being one day tied to the symmetry of anti-matter, because as far as I know, thought has no physical manifestation, and while we infer its activity through the cellular observation of the brain, thoughts themselves are not matter.

---

Nor is energy.

I'm pretty comfortable with the notion that the brain is 100% material in the action of thought processes, emotion and delusion. MRI scanning consistently shows the same thoughts producing the same neuronic activity in different people. Give it another decade or two and we'll be able to give you a printout of what you're thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I heard a critique yesterday on the radio by a female author, which I think was fairly valid: Atheists are so busy showing up religions as nonsense that they forget about the wonder of life, and the joy of it just for itself--and I think you lose that here in these forums Atheist. In pushing back against prescriptive moral codes non-believers wind up as equally dogmatic.

---

I can only disagree. I don't ever forget the wonder of life, the universe and everything. I go outside most nights just to admire the universe, and walk around with both eyes open all the time.

As to the dogma argument, I really don't care. It seems to be a theist defence and it's certainly defensive as an attitude to suggest it. Christianity has had 2000 years of dominance, so some of us putting some curry into the odd theists' pockets is hardly dogmatic. Have you ever seen an atheist billboard? An atheist evangelical tv program? Atheists singing xmas carols and collecting for their church? Atheists fishing for recruits door-to-door?

Charges of dogma against atheists avoid the blatant fact that christianity - in western countries - is combative, very visible and in most cases, completely repugnant. Honestly, if there were no fundies, I'd take my wife's title and be a copro-agnostic*. I'm more than happy for Anglicans, Protestants and Left-footers to have their Communions and services and go about their charitable works, but when christians start demanding teaching creationism and claiming that kids will go to hell because they don't believe in a stupid, illogical and ultimately idiotic story about a dead Jew and a ghost, then I will go and kick bottoms.

If that's seen as dogmatic, it really doesn't worry me, because the charge can only come from ignorance or bigotry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

In a bone to this topic: Christians co-opted hell from other pagan sources; it was not derived from messianic writings from the time that Jesus started his teaching. Theologians have a great deal of trouble with it, because punishment cannot be *eternal*.

---

Luckily, most christians agree with that.

Unluckily, the ones who don't are great experts at being squeaky wheels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

You punish to correct behavior, not to simply change the conditions of existence. So when believers talk about choice, what they really mean is that the soul has two sets of conditions: One involving unification with the creator, and one involving separation and distinction of identity away from it, but the latter is not punishment, because it corrects nothing. Prisoners in a confined environment know that freedom is still a possibility, even if they are on death row, but if the soul cast out from heaven knows there is no possibility to correct the state of separation, then the state of separation is simply the condition the soul is in, and ceases to be in and of itself a corrective measure.

---

Yes, that's the logical position, if I can any position logical when discussing gods, but as you can see above, it's refuted simply in the minds of wanna-believers, because the bible says so.

*Doesn't know, doesn't give a ..... crap?

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

We have choices just like someone who goes out and kill others.

---

Again, a god who equates murder with unbelief wouldn't be much of a god. And that's for murderers who don't repent, because those who do, escape divine retribution.

Cute story, really; I bet it keeps the kids believing. The bogeyman in the closet is mild by comparison, he can only eat you once, but a god who can torture for thousands of years, now that's scary.

("Ah, so we only get tortured for however many millennia it takes for Jesus to come back?

That's ok then.")

I did not mention anything about a millennia now did I? I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed. That's how and why I call Him a loving God. They had their whole life to accept or not.

("If he created us, he created the sin, he created the ability for me not to see him, and he created the alternative chocies I can see clearly.

What kind of perverted, insane entity would act like that? Seriously, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of all lies, but it seems to me that the god is far, far worse.")

God created us to live a wonderful life..one free of sin. Man chose to sin and Satan was the creator. He knows he is going to die by fire and he is trying to get as many people taken down with him as he can. He is mad and angry and wants others to suffer so he decieves us if we let him. God is not the creator of sin. Why would a creator want his people to rebel against him? He would not. He loves us and wants our love and obedience.
Hugs, Cat

Someone seems to not be listening. I don't believe that disbelievers burn forever. I believe God is kind in that respect. The murderer that repents and believes in God will not be one that burns. I only meant that we have choices and we make them. We have a life time to make them. So, we really should make them wisely. You can make fun if you like but let's keep this at an adult level ok?
Hugs, Cat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Totally totally wrong!

Actually, Nicolaus Copernicus lived from 15th to 16th century, Galileo Galilei from 16th to 17th; and Galiliei proved Copernicus theory of heliocentrism.
They both disagreed with Ptolemy on geocentric system, which was in confrontation with RCC inqusition. If you want, I can find some links to prove my statements.

---

Did you get this straight from your head or can you admit that you did a little research to wrong me out?
You have to forgive me for my inaccurate information I learnt this from school about 3years ago and it seems my memory on that particular lesson is very flawed. Yes I can remember now, Galileo supported Copernicus's not Ptolemy. Thanks for refreshing my form 5 science lesson on astronomy.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dzebra

No. It has never been proven that there are absolutely no psychics or telepaths in the world.

---

How do we "prove" that the supernatural do exist? Accounts from eye witnesses seems to be random fake stories to people, documentaries dedicated to such subjects seem to entertain skeptics. Exactly what is needed to prove the supernatural?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Did you get this straight from your head or can you admit that you did a little research to wrong me out?
You have to forgive me for my inaccurate information I learnt this from school about 3years ago and it seems my memory on that particular lesson is very flawed. Yes I can remember now, Galileo supported Copernicus's not Ptolemy. Thanks for refreshing my form 5 science lesson on astronomy.:)

---

I have big head. :)
To realize that someone said something wrong, you have to be very familiar with what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death.

---

Statements like these do not even allow the possibility of reasoned discussion.

I am going to regret this, because literature is much loved in my life, but I quit, and leave the forum to such sentiments as these. Anyone who can write that and believe it simply leaves the realm of compassion, mercy, and doubt behind, and to me, beyond amazement. You condemn millions of people in your own mind because you feel so threatened by the possibility of this particular assertion not being so.

When or if this sub-forum is removed, then maybe I will return, but as a disabled woman who believes in the optimism of progressive thought, I can't handle that another human being so relishes the imposition of suffering over a doctrine.

You are on your own Alan. I simply cannot handle this anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I take it then that you didn't see what I said about accurate measurements. Shows my point if that's the best you have.



No.



Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe.



Well, I'm sure I won't be the last to tell you that dictionaries do not confer meanings.



Nope, sorry. Proven countless times to be fake.



How convenient.

---

As you told me "science is refined rather than changed", you are quite wrong regardless you mentioned accurate measurements in science. The back bone of science was formed by trial and error, and when a rough theory was made, that became the official theory of a particular branch of science until a new theory wronged it. My reference, astronomy, there had to be an idea to be the starting point of a theory. As Ptomely's idea was CORRECTED by Galileo, therefore a branch of science, astronomy was changed. It is true modern science is more about development however the backbone of science was more about corrections, alterations.

"Sure it does. Creativity is knowing what to look for and interpret results and abstract thinking is designing experiments to observe."

Creativity and abstract thinking in science is not all what you may think. It is more about using insight, thinking out the unthinkable. Seeing a blindspot the others have missed. Its discovering things right in front of you while the others are searching too far away. Observation is not a major thing in science, its more about twisting the brain in an uncanny way the next person wont be able to try. Mendel father of genetics didnt start observing pea plants until he commenced to consider an aspect or idea no one else thought of before. What is the point of observing if you do not understand what hypothesis is?

The definition of atheist? Let me explain my definition of it. Non religious person that does not believe in the existance of God or not a follower of God.
If my definition is inadequate, please feel free to add or alter.

I have thought about the method of proving an aspect that is hard to understand and believe. How do you prove such things and do you think such proof are adequate to give sense of belief to people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I have big head. :)
To realize that someone said something wrong, you have to be very familiar with what he said.

---

Beg your pardon, who is "he"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Beg your pardon, who is "he"?

---

Sorry, ''her''.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

Sorry, ''her''.

---

Ah dont apologise. Did I seem like a "he"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

Ah dont apologise. Did I seem like a "he"?

---

No, no, no!!! I know you're pretty 18 year old girl, 1,80m height and less then 50kg :lol:
I was just taking generally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

No, no, no!!! I know you're pretty 18 year old girl, 1,80m height and less then 50kg :lol:
I was just taking generally.

---

Ah~ Sorry for being misunderstanding!:blush:

Err,,actually Im pretty short, 1.67m in height, how did you think of 1.80?!?

Uffff, sorry! You're still tall for Korean; and a woman so be happy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

I am a devoted Christian, and I have been asked similar questions about hell by many atheists or people that are interested in becoming a Christian.
We believe that hell exists as a realm that is inexplicable in terms of eternal suffering, pain and agony and because there is no sense of time or space, there is no way out forever. Hell is governed by satan and devils and they inflict abhorrent terrors unimaginable.
Now many people have asked the question who goes to Hell and why do people go there when God does cherish each and every one of us, and how come good people in the world that dedicate their life for other people can also go to hell.
The answer is that they do not have belief and faith in God, Jesus.
No matter how many good deeds you do in life, if you do not confess Jesus as your God then you go to Hell. Harsh, but true.
In order to be saved from hell, theres only one way, and that is Jesus once again. Jesus is the bridge between our world and Heaven, and without Him, you may not enter Heaven.
I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally.
I have been thinking about the people in the world, the ones that it is not their fault that they do not know God. I wondered what will happen to them. I thought it was not fair for them to miss out the good news about Jesus and how He can be their salvation. But it is evident in the Bible that it is us, Christians' duty to spread the good news about Jesus to these people that never heard about Him. I am still not sure what will happen to those people who it isnt their fault that they do not know Him, but one thing I am sure is that we must spread the Word about God.
Then it is up to them to whether to have faith with him and begin to have the greatest relationship with Him which will change their lives forever. See the love of God. See the glory of God. See how we are priceless in the eyes of the Lord. From then on, they will begin to get closer to God, and get closer to the His Kingdom where they will serve and share the joy together with God.

---

"Harsh, but true." http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif
phillipe, tanto tempore vobiscum sum, et non congnovistis me?

"I know that God hates to see that His children have to suffer in Hell forever, but the ones that do not know him and love Him must be punished eternally."

its wonderful how christians think of god as a huge angry bearded guy that lives in the clouds...http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/78.gif
o luce qui mortalibus lates inacessa deus! in lumine tuo videbimus lumen!

l'enfer, c'est les autres...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I would like to add to this discussion simply because I believe that God is loving and he gives everyone the chance to accept him or not. It's not his fault if a person goes to hell for their sin of not accepting him. We are given a choice...freely. I do think that hell is a place that will be destroyed along with its followers after Christ comes back (for the people who have accepted him as Lord and Savoir.) The reason I don't believe in someone burning forever is because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. What does consume mean? I also think no more sin will be left so when it's consumed it will be gone forever. My take on it.
Cat

---

BINGO! Just what I stated before, and still ignored by people who wish to believe that hell is eternal. It is punishment for a time, then destruction for good, which is what consume means. Our God is a consuming fire!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I did not mention anything about a millennia now did I?

---

Yes you did; you clearly mentioned "when god returns" and you do it again in a second.

Given that even Paul [?] said it would be "soon" and that's 2000 years back, I think it's silly to presume he'll be here within millennia, even now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed. That's how and why I call Him a loving God. They had their whole life to accept or not.

---

Yes, that is indeed a loving god - one who loves his creation so much that they must bow down before him or he'll fry you.

I must try that with my kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

God created us to live a wonderful life..one free of sin.

---

This is simply absurd. If god created us to not sin, why create sin?

Is your god that dumb that he can't see a contradiction there? It would be like me giving my kids a loaded pistol and say "don't touch the trigger".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

Man chose to sin and Satan was the creator. He knows he is going to die by fire and he is trying to get as many people taken down with him as he can. He is mad and angry and wants others to suffer so he decieves us if we let him. God is not the creator of sin.

---

Nope, sorry. If the god created Satan, he surely created the ability for Satan to sin. You just cannot have this both ways - if the god created everything then, it certainly created the sin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

Why would a creator want his people to rebel against him? He would not. He loves us and wants our love and obedience.
Hugs, Cat

---

Love and obedience, eh? Yet people who disobey him but repent get to go to heaven.

As I keep saying, that's a strange sort of being and one which I wouldn't worship if it were real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

How do we "prove" that the supernatural do exist? Accounts from eye witnesses seems to be random fake stories to people, documentaries dedicated to such subjects seem to entertain skeptics. Exactly what is needed to prove the supernatural?

---

An example of it happening.

When millions of examples of claims exist, but not a single instance of actuality, I'm pretty ok with saying it's beyond reasonable doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

You are on your own Alan. I simply cannot handle this anymore.

---

Can you just not come to this section? Just stick to the literature part?

It'd be a shame to lose you because some people have distasteful beliefs.

But at least it shows what I've been trying to say - that telling someone they're going to fry because they failed to bow down to a god is pretty hateful and unpleasant.

(To say the least)

Go well, whatever you choose and remember that I've always got a virtual shoulder for ya. We don't see eye to eye on everything, which I think is probably a good thing - but when things do matter, I'd give you anything I could.

Au revoir, cherie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

My reference, astronomy, there had to be an idea to be the starting point of a theory. As Ptomely's idea was CORRECTED by Galileo, therefore a branch of science, astronomy was changed. It is true modern science is more about development however the backbone of science was more about corrections, alterations.

---

*sigh*

What you're saying actually proves my point, but you seem to have missed that. In fact, it's quite obvious that you haven't understood the subject of science in any meaningful way, so I'll just leave you with your misconceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

The definition of atheist? Let me explain my definition of it. Non religious person that does not believe in the existance of God or not a follower of God.
If my definition is inadequate, please feel free to add or alter.

---

That's fine, stick with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skasian

I have thought about the method of proving an aspect that is hard to understand and believe. How do you prove such things and do you think such proof are adequate to give sense of belief to people?

---

Proof is easy. When something works, has been peer-reviewed and can be replicated, then I'm happy with calling it proven.

My answered prayers have been proven over and over. That's proof for me!
Yes. I do mention when Christ comes back and He will some day. Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.
God did not create sin. Satan did and God is loving because he lets us make those choices. He does not want puppets on a string and make them love him or obey. We have that choice and satan clearly made his choice. And satan wants followers to his fatal end in hell.
Repent means to mean it. Not just do something and say I can do it again later. You have to be sincere and try with Gods help. God helps us when we pray and call on him.
I think it's a shame that someone would leave this forum just because someone believes what they do. That's sad. Does it mean if they don't believe as you do that you are angry and running? Please stay! No reason to leave. We all have beliefs of some sort and I am not leaving because you believe different.

Hugs, Cat

This looks like a good time for me to fold on this thread, myself. The subject keeps jumping around with telepathy and such being brought in, which I cannot see has one thing to do with The Christian Hell.

I will point out that every religion I know of speaks of punishment in one way or another, all the way back to the Old Gods and Goddesses of far gone time. Most believe in an underworld, where punishment is for misdeeds, and a heaven of some sort where right deeds are rewarded. Why people fuss so much about Christianity when even Pagans believe in such things beats me.

But I can see the way the cards are playing, and thus, I fold. I believe in hell, just not an eternal one. I also believe that many who feel they have already received white robes and a halo will be shocked on judgment day.

Living Christlike and having the right attitude towards others goes a long way in my book. I think many will make it that Christians would throw away, and many Christians are on somewhat shaky ground.

As a great man once said: "I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine, than right in my doctrine and wrong in my heart or spirit."

God bless you all

Pen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

My answered prayers have been proven over and over. That's proof for me!
Yes. I do mention when Christ comes back and He will some day. Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.

---

You don't see how that might look just a little spiteful to non-believers, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and many other people?

Hope you're ready to boil! Shouldn't there be a LOL or something after it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

God did not create sin. Satan did and God is loving because he lets us make those choices.

---

Didn't the god create everything? Including Satan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

He does not want puppets on a string and make them love him or obey.

---

And I bet you see no irony in using the free choice argument while spouting that those who don't believe will burn in hell!

How is that a free choice? Believe or die? I can certainly accept the Catholic version of free choice being with their god or not, and not meaning oblivion rather than torture, but offering thousands of years of torture for not believing is not a choice, it's the Spanish Inquisition on PCP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I think it's a shame that someone would leave this forum just because someone believes what they do. That's sad. Does it mean if they don't believe as you do that you are angry and running? Please stay! No reason to leave. We all have beliefs of some sort and I am not leaving because you believe different.

---

You've clearly missed what Jo said. She has no problem with you having different beliefs, and I bet you any amount of money you like she's never found a Pendragon post offensive.

What upsets Jo is someone repeatedly - and in the case of this thread, two someones repeatedly - telling her she's going to be tortured for an indeterminate period of time; solely for not believing in a god. Jo is a good person in any qualification of the word "good" and I agree with her that it makes no sense to tell her she's going to hell. The god which you believe creates everything clearly also created Jo's disability, yet you're telling her that she must love the god who did it to her, or be cast into a lake of fire.

Nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Living Christlike and having the right attitude towards others goes a long way in my book. I think many will make it that Christians would throw away, and many Christians are on somewhat shaky ground.

As a great man once said: "I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine, than right in my doctrine and wrong in my heart or spirit."

God bless you all

Pen

---

As usual, I can't fault that attitude too much.

Go well, mate.

Oh, I look forward to seeing some former clerics in Satan's lair.

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat Brenners

Repent means to mean it. Not just do something and say I can do it again later. You have to be sincere and try with Gods help. God helps us when we pray and call on him.

---

This is true, if we love, we obey, but if we don't obey then we are not loving correctly.

I keep getting quoted but misinterpreted. I would never laugh about someone burning in hell. I would pray for them to accept God. I have not pointed my finger at anyone on here and said YOU will burn in hell. That's between you and God. Only you and Him know if you have accepted Him or not. I am not your judge. God is the creater but once again he gave all of us a choice of sinning or not sinning....accepting or not accepting. I hope no one burns in hell...even though I believe it is a short time in order to consume all sin. I wish and pray for only the best for anyone. Why anyone wants to get angry or fuss and make fun of anyone here is beyond me. I will not be baited into being mean. That's not what this is for. Best to all.
Hugs, Cat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I keep getting quoted but misinterpreted. I would never laugh about someone burning in hell. I would pray for them to accept God. I have not pointed my finger at anyone on here and said YOU will burn in hell. That's between you and God. Only you and Him know if you have accepted Him or not. I am not your judge.

---

Again, I get a horrible disconnect with reading what you say and reading what you say you meant.

This covers every post you've made in this thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

....because in Revelation it says that the devil and his followers will be devoured and consumed. ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

...People who do not accept Christ did so at their own choosing and they are put to death. ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

I believe when God comes back the disbelievers and satan will be destroyed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

Someone seems to not be listening. I don't believe that disbelievers burn forever. I believe God is kind in that respect.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

Hope everyone is ready and does not have to face the punishment of not accepting him.

---

Every single post you made you managed to include a note that atheists are going to hell.

Now, you may see that as beseeching us to come over before we get burned, but for someone who disbelieves, and therefore is the exact person being referred to, it can look more like schadenfreude than advice.

Especially when it's repeated and repeated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cat_Brenners

God is the creater but once again he gave all of us a choice of sinning or not sinning....accepting or not accepting. I hope no one burns in hell...even though I believe it is a short time in order to consume all sin. I wish and pray for only the best for anyone. Why anyone wants to get angry or fuss and make fun of anyone here is beyond me. I will not be baited into being mean. That's not what this is for. Best to all.
Hugs, Cat

---

As above, I'll take you at your word and accept that you're not trying to be spiteful, but you must realise that in a written dialogue, it can look awfully much like it.