Atheists.. they go to Hell

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood And since it's written in the Bible it must be...the words of human authors. I think passages like that are a convenient escape clause to excuse believers from having to even try to think clearly and logically about their gods. It's so blatantly obvious to everyone except those who have bought into that mindset and can't remove the blinders from their eyes. I demand nothing, and what good would it do me if I tried? No, what I see is a world full of natural processes that act consistently, while religion asks us to disregard the evidence we can observe and quantify and instead imagine a thing which goes against everything else we witness around us.

If its so blatantly obvious then why is religion especially the various evangelical faiths spreading daily.

Assumptions are based off the premise the bible is uninfluenced human writing. It's pretty clear not everyone subscribes to the view.

[Jack]

If its so blatantly obvious then why is religion especially the various evangelical faiths spreading daily.

As I said, "It's so blatantly obvious to everyone except those who have bought into that mindset and can't remove the blinders from their eyes."

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: HelioPrime Why is suggesting God is beyond our thinking an escape?

Don't you think there's something a bit contradictory when the Bible claims to be God's Word... His instructions to mankind ...while simultaneously declaring that God is beyond all understanding?

If He's beyond all understanding, why bother to instruct us. And if He feels compelled to instruct us, why not make himself understood?

Quote by: HelioPrime If its so blatantly obvious then why is religion especially the various evangelical faiths spreading daily.

Except that Islam is actually the world's fastest growing religion, so where does the Bible fit in to that equation?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's like I keep saying... human beings are hardwired for religious belief, and apparently Christianity offers a form many people like. It's what they can understand, and when they can't understand it, the religion simply declares, "Don't worry, no one can understand God, so don't worry about those troubling little things you can't understand".

That's something people can understand.

.

[Tycoon]

I want to bring up a major contradiction in the bible...

The point of bringing up this contradiction? It is just one example of how religion is only humanity looking for meaning and explanations.


In Genesis it is said that God created man in His image, gave man dominion over the Earth and all of its life, and also told man to be fruitful and multiply.

In the story of Adam and Eve (I do not know where in the Bible) it is said that God made Adam in his image from the dust, and Eve from one of Adam's ribs. In this story, Adam and Eve are not aware of their sexuality, not even of the fact that they are naked.


I can't understand how so many obvious contradictions can be ignored. I have a question for any Christian responding to this thread. Were you raised into Christianity? If so, is it that hard to consider that you only believe in Christianity because you were taught it at an impressionable age? Maybe you think if you stop believing you will go to Hell?

[HelioPrime]

It's never states Adam and Eve were unaware of sexuality, only that that had to awareness and shame of being naked. For all we know they had hot steamy sex several times a day in the story. But then again its just a story so trying to discredit the garden theory is a moot point.

[Morality Games]

If its so blatantly obvious then why is religion especially the various evangelical faiths spreading daily.

Everything is obvious after a being has made it seem comprehensible to themselves. A feeling of obviousness is the standard reaction to that change in cognition. This does not necessitate what has become obvious in the mind has sound logical form or stacks well against the facts, however.

[Tycoon]

It's never states Adam and Eve were unaware of sexuality, only that that had to awareness and shame of being naked. For all we know they had hot steamy sex several times a day in the story.

I think it can be assumed that they were unaware of their sexuality... they weren't embarassed by their nakedness because they were unaware.

But then again its just a story so trying to discredit the garden theory is a moot point.

I see, so now you are defending your religion by telling us anything flawed or contradictory is just a story?

[Muckraker]

Quote by: HelioPrime If its so blatantly obvious then why is religion especially the various evangelical faiths spreading daily.

Brainwashing. The propagation of a cult[ure] is guaranteed when kids are one of the prime targets. Get them when they are young and innocent and, the majority of the time, you have them for life. Especially when part of the religious schtick is to threaten eternal punishment on individuals that stray and quash free thinking minds.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Tycoon I think it can be assumed that they were unaware of their sexuality... they weren't embarassed by their nakedness because they were unaware.

Your assuming they were unaware? So your point is based on an assumption. The bible is false because of an assumption.

Why can't I then assume that the creation story timeline was really meant to cover billions of years? I'm also going to assume God implanted the idea of science into many people, just in order to keep the population of heaven down. Nobody likes those dirty atheists anyways

I see, so now you are defending your religion by telling us anything flawed or contradictory is just a story?

More like open to the flaws of the humans who wrote it. Even with divine inspiration or viewed accounts the personal views and limited knowledge of each writer will be contained in any story.

It's the same reason the bible would never contain complicated ideals of science because at the time nobody would have understood such concepts much less test any of them. People had to discover these on their own.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Muckraker Brainwashing. The propagation of a cult[ure] is guaranteed when kids are one of the prime targets. Get them when they are young and innocent and, the majority of the time, you have them for life. Especially when part of the religious schtick is to threaten eternal punishment on individuals that stray and quash free thinking minds.

I see. Any science doesn't do the same? Instead of teaching about eternal damnation it teaches children they can only be intelligent beings if they accept basic tenants of the belief system that is atheism and objective thought.

Science teaches the same dogma, acceptance of a way of thinking as the "right" way of thinking. And it is best when it catches people while their young.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: HelioPrime I see. Any science doesn't do the same? Instead of teaching about eternal damnation it teaches children they can only be intelligent beings if they accept basic tenants of the belief system that is atheism and objective thought. Science teaches the same dogma, acceptance of a way of thinking as the "right" way of thinking. And it is best when it catches people while their young.

Take a look at the curriculum if you want to know what science teaches.
National Science Education Standards

In no way does science teach acceptance of ways of thinking as being "right." Why do you think doing experiments is such a fundamental part of science in all grade levels? Why is it that people applying the concepts they learned in science classes are able to create new things based on those concepts?

Concept: Diamonds are the hardest mineral. Using Moh's Hardness Scale, we see that diamonds rank as a ten in hardness and talc ranks as a one. Through experiment we see that diamonds scratch talc but talc does not scratch diamonds. Applying that concept, we make saw blades coated with diamond dust that cut through all other stone since diamond is the hardest mineral. If we discover a mineral that scratches diamond but cannot be scratched by diamond then the scale is rewritten, our curriculum changes, and this new mineral brings life to new experiments, new concepts, and new applications of concept.

Religious cult[ure] does not encourage experiments or questioning. It damns them.

[Jack]

if they accept basic tenants of the belief system that is atheism

And those tenants are...? (Hint, there aren't any) If anything, atheism is a non-belief system, we are not members of the theistic belief system.

objective thought

Yup, don't you all be teaching those kiddies how to think for themselves. Jesus and America need citizens who obey without question, not a bunch of independent skeptics.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Muckraker Take a look at the curriculum if you want to know what science teaches. National Science Education Standards In no way does science teach acceptance of ways of thinking as being "right." Why do you think doing experiments is such a fundamental part of science in all grade levels? Why is it that people applying the concepts they learned in science classes are able to create new things based on those concepts? Concept: Diamonds are the hardest mineral. Using Moh's Hardness Scale, we see that diamonds rank as a ten in hardness and talc ranks as a one. Through experiment we see that diamonds scratch talc but talc does not scratch diamonds. Applying that concept, we make saw blades coated with diamond dust that cut through all other stone since diamond is the hardest mineral. If we discover a mineral that scratches diamond but cannot be scratched by diamond then the scale is rewritten, our curriculum changes, and this new mineral brings life to new experiments, new concepts, and new applications of concept. Religious cult[ure] does not encourage experiments or questioning. It damns them.

I'm referring to certain ideals of the scientific community, one being the promotion of the ideal to only accept what can be scientifically proven and verified. The outright denial by some that anything can exist beyond measure.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Isherwood And those tenants are...? (Hint, there aren't any) If anything, atheism is a non-belief system, we are not members of the theistic belief system.

Atheism is a belief system.

You believe that god either 100% does not exist or is of "low probability." As such you still have to use a certain amount of faith since you can't prove the god(s) do not 100% exist. So atheism requires belief in its tenants of no theistic gods or the slim possibility of them.

I suppose if you are an atheist who 100% denies any possibility of any god(s) then could could call yourself lacking any belief. Any amount of low probabilities of existence bring admission you don't know for sure so your required to use a slight amount of belief.

Yup, don't you all be teaching those kiddies how to think for themselves. Jesus and America need citizens who obey without question, not a bunch of independent skeptics.

Well for one so much grief could be avoided if people listened and followed authority. For one there would be no need for that authority to use subvert methods to seek control, since the population already respects and follows the control.

But thats for another thread.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: HelioPrime I see. Any science doesn't do the same? Instead of teaching about eternal damnation it teaches children they can only be intelligent beings if they accept basic tenants of the belief system that is atheism and objective thought.

That's a bit paranoid, don't you think? Science teaches what can be investigated using the scientific method.... observation, measurement, experimentation, etc.

Science makes no judgements about religion because it has no way of investigating it. Additionally, science constantly changes when it finds new and better information.

Alas, being based entirely on ancient dogma, Religion has neither the flexibility to change nor the capacity to accept new information that contradicts the inflexible dogma.

That is not, however, the fault of science, nor is it proof that science is out to "GET" religion.

A related example: Christian Moral Relativity.

Both the Old and New Testaments make quite clear that they have no serious problems with the institution of slavery. Which is fine when you understand that 2,000 years ago, slavery was an accepted and indespensible part of nearly all advanced economies.

Today, on the other hand, slavery is reviled as completely immoral. How does Christianity deal with this evolution? Not well, I'm afraid. Since religious dogma has to be both infallible and inflexible, Christians are left to a) ignore the issue when possible or b) claim poor translations have mis-represented what the ancients actually thought about slavery.

So it is with science... when science and dogma conflict, the choices are to a) claim the Bible was meant more as poetry than literal, factual narrative, and we should read it as such, or b) science is simply wrong because the Bible can't be.

Quote by: HelioPrime I suppose if you are an atheist who 100% denies any possibility of any god(s) then could could call yourself lacking any belief. Any amount of low probabilities of existence bring admission you don't know for sure so your required to use a slight amount of belief.

I'm one of those, I'm afraid. There's not a shred of doubt in my mind that god(s) do not exist. Their existance defies every sense of reality I have. It does not, however, mean that I have no beliefs. They simply don't involve the existance of god(s).

Quote by: HelioPrime Well for one so much grief could be avoided if people listened and followed authority. For one there would be no need for that authority to use subvert methods to seek control, since the population already respects and follows the control.

Human authority is fallable, since humans are. The authority of God(s) is unassailable, and their judgements final.

.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: HelioPrime I'm referring to certain ideals of the scientific community, one being the promotion of the ideal to only accept what can be scientifically proven and verified. The outright denial by some that anything can exist beyond measure.

So, per my Moh's Hardness Scale example, you are proposing that science is at fault if it ignores someone who claims to possess a mineral that is harder than diamond but that individual won't say what it is, where it can be found, or let any anyone else attempt to scratch a diamond with it?

I suspect you have this idea that scientists sit around over a few beers and laugh about all the things that really exist but that aren't "facts" because "science" doesn't recognize them. It doesn't work that way. Until the person with the mineral that is harder than diamond produces said mineral, and experiments are run on it, scientists do not spend a moment's thought on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Proposing that scientists are indoctrinated and brainwashed because they do not "believe" in that which cannot be measured or observed (the mineral harder than diamond) is illogical. Measurement and oberservation are fundamental to science. Requesting that scientists stray from these fundamentals is like asking a mathematician to keep in mind that there are secret, uncountable numbers in the universe that can never be known and that he needs to factor them into his equations. It's like asking a botanist why they aren't studying the reproduction habits of the GibGib Tree (a tree that, in the field of botany, doesn't exist and has never existed).

To science, talk is cheap. The guy with the super-hard mineral can talk all he wants. He can write a whole encyclopedia set about how cool the super-hard mineral is. But until he shows measureable and observable proof of the mineral's existence, science will not acknowledge its existence. We cannot make saw blades coated with super-hard mineral dust until the existence of super-hard mineral is scientifically confirmed.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Muckraker So, per my Moh's Hardness Scale example, you are proposing that science is at fault if it ignores someone who claims to possess a mineral that is harder than diamond but that individual won't say what it is, where it can be found, or let any anyone else attempt to scratch a diamond with it? I suspect you have this idea that scientists sit around over a few beers and laugh about all the things that really exist but that aren't "facts" because "science" doesn't recognize them. It doesn't work that way. Until the person with the mineral that is harder than diamond produces said mineral, and experiments are run on it, scientists do not spend a moment's thought on the matter. And there is nothing wrong with that. Proposing that scientists are indoctrinated and brainwashed because they do not "believe" in that which cannot be measured or observed (the mineral harder than diamond) is illogical. Measurement and oberservation are fundamental to science. Requesting that scientists stray from these fundamentals is like asking a mathematician to keep in mind that there are secret, uncountable numbers in the universe that can never be known and that he needs to factor them into his equations. It's like asking a botanist why they aren't studying the reproduction habits of the GibGib Tree (a tree that, in the field of botany, doesn't exist and has never existed). To science, talk is cheap. The guy with the super-hard mineral can talk all he wants. He can write a whole encyclopedia set about how cool the super-hard mineral is. But until he shows measureable and observable proof of the mineral's existence, science will not acknowledge its existence. We cannot make saw blades coated with super-hard mineral dust until the existence of super-hard mineral is scientifically confirmed.

So your suggesting religion is trying to suppose itself greater than some scientific thought?

Well that is true for some fundamentalist when dealing with creationism perhaps but most of what christianity is a belief system. Atheists like to claim they have no belief system so how can religion be offering a conflicting belief?

Faith offers a mother something to cling to when she loses a child, offers an old dying man a happiness that his death is only a beginning, and many other wonders in basic life.

Is this threatening to science somehow? And what does science offer than these thoughts are supplanting? Science has not brought anyone back from the dead and can only offer answers to specific questions related to events and happenings we can currently measure.

Belief is separate from science yet science continually tries to interject itself into belief. Science says it has no evidence for an afterlife so an afterlife must not exist. Thats not fact, thats willful manipulation of information, and molding people to accept information science can't even study as fact.

[Tycoon]

So your suggesting religion is trying to suppose itself greater than some scientific thought?

In what way doesn't religion try to suppose itself as greater than scientific thought? After all, religion is belief in something that completely defies all logic and reason. Logic and reason that science is based on.

Faith offers a mother something to cling to when she loses a child, offers an old dying man a happiness that his death is only a beginning, and many other wonders in basic life.

A few small examples of how religion brings small comfort. What about the crusades? Today's religious extremists? There are many examples of the conflict that follows religion... not to mention one I think you of all people should remember. Isn't homosexuality condemned by God? Or do you choose to ignore that as well?

Belief is separate from science yet science continually tries to interject itself into belief. Science says it has no evidence for an afterlife so an afterlife must not exist. Thats not fact, thats willful manipulation of information, and molding people to accept information science can't even study as fact.

Science is based only in carefully tested information. Religion is the true manipulation. Particularly Christianity.

Jesus died for you. God loves you. Jesus earned you eternal paradise.

[Tycoon]

Nobody likes those dirty atheists anyways.

Excuse me??

[Halofan48]

wait, what? who said that? I totally missed it