Regarding Hell.

[snickers411]

To go to heaven, you must believe that Jesus died on the cross as our Savior, as we have all sinned. Every person is born a sinner. You have to confess your sins- You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, because you will still have sin in your life because you haven't been cleansed by God. If you don't, you go to hell.

[maelzo]

You're putting human requirements and restraints on God. You can't do that. God is above us this is simply true because he created us. You can't comprehend the depth of God's knowledge and plan. Yeah he does know the future. But not in the sense that he dictates it. He knows each and everyone of us better than we know ourselves. The Bible says he knows how many hairs are on your head. So taking that into consideration follow me here. Think of your best friend. Hopefully you know this person fairly well. If this person were faced with a decision such as Pepsi or Coke, Friends or The O'Reily Factor I'm sure you would know which he or she would choose. The same is said for God knowing the future. He knows how all of us will respond to certain situations. Because of that he knows what will happen.

[alainbryden]

maelzo the article you posted was meaningless. The 'athiest who changed his mind with scientific proof' you posted is religious propoganda, and represents one sellout that is contradicting what the majority of Science agrees on. And snickers, all these fire and brimstone threats you are preaching a bed time stories that are centuries outdated to try to make kids behave. People who still believe it at a mature age are embarassing their intelligence or at least their logic.

[maelzo]

Propaganda? The article is from the associated press. Last time I checked they weren't controlled by the Catholic Church. And Anthony Flew was always a leading atheist. If you want to simply roll your eyes and through up an excuse as to why you don't agree with it go ahead. That's your choice and there's nothing I can do to stop you. But you shouldn't make fun of someone's beliefs and call them an insult to intelligence. Science has been proven wrong before. At one time the greatest minds thought the earth was the center of the universe. They were proven wrong. Just because someone believes something different from you gives you no right to attack them. That's the same principle Hitler used against the Jews. To attack someone's beliefs make you no better than a common racist. If you want to disagree with my beliefs and the fact I have faith in a one true God then go ahead. But at least respect my right to do it. I respect your choice to be an atheist. I won't try to cram anything down your throat. Why do it to me?

[maelzo]

Also, I respect you being an atheist. It takes a lot more faith to be that than a Christian. You believe that this was all some cosmic accident. To me that's the equivalent of a tornado going through a junkyard and 'building' a ready to fly Boeing 747. Just please don't call me an insult to intelligence because of what I believe. I'm quite intelligent and know many people smarter than I or you that also believe in God.

[Charlotte21]

Re: RE: Regarding Hell.

Technically that's the premise in Christianity as well. The only sin great enogh to deny you entrance to heaven is the denial of Jesus in your life... But that does mean that all toer religions do go to hell... heh..... So basically, as long as you're Christian you''re going to heaven, and if you're not, you're going to hell.

I hate religion. People think, "Well, everyone that's not my religion will burn forever, b ut that doesn't mean I should exclude him, I will treat them as equals."

Religion sucks. It's the cause of almost every war. And the cause of people like blahblah18.

I have a completely neutral stance in arguements like these, but I want to instigate something here:

If you hate it does that mean it's wrong? I hate death, does that then justify the fact that the concept of death is wrong? No. It still exists.

Hating something is not enough reason to falsify its validity. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying try to justify your beliefs with evidence rather than hating them, because that is child-like mentality, and you sir, are not a child.

[maelzo]

RE: Re: RE: Regarding Hell.

good post Charlotte.

[alainbryden]

RE: Re: RE: Regarding Hell.

I've become quite good at recognising an argument not worth aguing, and maelzo specialises. You make many flashy statements rich with firmness and, yes, intellegence in the language, but your statements are entirely void of basis, logic, or even coherence. You make opinionated assumptions such as that "the associated press" is a respectable power, or that "Antony Flew was a leading athiest" and thus somehow ruled all us athiests [srcm]who clearly follow leaders of our own philosophies[/srcm], or perhaps your assumption that the extremely long term eventuality of the universe was an isntantaneous first hit success of low probablility and even acting like that's how 'the theory of how the universe came about' actually goes, which it doesn't. Still following me? Your arguments are further degenerated by your ignorance to basic alternatives, such as the fact that just because a free press internet newspaper is not Christian propoganda, this does not mean that that was not the goal of the author, who is the one preaching his bias, not the publisher. You also seem to make the assumption that Athiest means "beleives in science" and most everything else you say then falls apart just because of that. Just because I beleive in Logic, it does not mean I beleive in all scientific theories, because many make assumptions that stretch outside the foundation of logic. I don't need to say why your hyperbolic analogies envolving tornados and Hitler are emotional propoganda either. Anyone who I would respect would have the intelligence to see through them, as well as your attempt to disprove my thinking by claiming that it was an attempt to "cram things down your throught" or "not respect your right to think for yourself". Just because you are happy in your bubble of faith, it doesn't mean I'm personally attacking you and therefore wrong, just because I provide some convincing evidence in making my point.

"I won't try to cram anything down your throat" you say? You just tried, and I spat it back up.

[maelzo]

RE: Re: RE: Regarding Hell.

I didn't try to cram anything down your throat. it was simply me making the point that you're not gonna change my mind and I'm not gonna change yours. I respect your views and would simply ask that you respect mine. Merely an offering of agreeing to disagree. Take it or leave it.

[alainbryden]

RE: Re: RE: Regarding Hell.

Taken

[Charlotte21]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Regarding Hell.

I didn't try to cram anything down your throat. it was simply me making the point that you're not gonna change my mind and I'm not gonna change yours. I respect your views and would simply ask that you respect mine. Merely an offering of agreeing to disagree. Take it or leave it.

Maelzo, you seem desperate to evangelize in a place that is about critical thinking, in a thread about critical thinking, and I agree with alainbryden that you are using intellectual language with flashy statements, but you are using a reasoning fallacy called 'begging the question', where since you assume some things are truths, everyone must assume so.

I am not saying that about an entirety of what you state, but some things.

More or less: critically think, don't just post what you feel your religion would want you to post. I've seen thousands of arguements like yours and it doesn't really have any variety: you ask us to be honest with ourselves, be honest with yourselve. Just because a though might go against your belief doesn't mean you can't think it, in fact, if you don't you will always have a hole in your faith. Additionally, you may not know everything about your belief, and therefore may come up with childish thoughts as well. You are helping neither side by being cliche. (Though I will give you something, there is very cliche secular arguements in here as well, so you are not alone.)

I may be biased or wrong or absolutely right, either way, I expect some critical thought in your next reply,

<3 Charlotte

[mackan14]

There could be many reasons to the afterlife. Only real way to find out is die. I died 2000 times so i guess you just get anothetr life :P

[alainbryden]

you...died 2000 times... ?....

[maelzo]

Ok, this is for Charlotte.

I don't remember ever trying to evangelize. If that were the case I would have been talking about how Jesus can save and I'd quote a bunch of verses about love. I didn't do that.

I'm not posting that way simply because that's what a good Christian boy would post. I'm not even a good Christian boy. I just don't believe that there is no God. Something had to start life. It is illogical to think that life could come from non-life. And to suggest that there was just always some kind of life doesn't work for me either. 1) something had to start that life 2) the Big Bang caused emmense heat (estimated to be 1,000,000K). The exact moment of explosion was hotter than anything we have around to measure today. That heat would have killed any life that was there. Therefore...something had to start that life. That's logical basis for a higher power.

And alainbryden, thanks for the truce. You're alright.

[Charlotte21]

I'm not posting that way simply because that's what a good Christian boy would post. I'm not even a good Christian boy. I just don't believe that there is no God. Something had to start life. It is illogical to think that life could come from non-life. And to suggest that there was just always some kind of life doesn't work for me either. 1) something had to start that life 2) the Big Bang caused emmense heat (estimated to be 1,000,000K). The exact moment of explosion was hotter than anything we have around to measure today. That heat would have killed any life that was there. Therefore...something had to start that life. That's logical basis for a higher power.

I had higher expectations for your post, but this will do.

1.) You are begging the question again. To say a God just exists is the same to say a Universe just exists. It's easy to say there isn't if you just assume only chemicals exist.

2.) Secondly, that explosion produced sub-atomic partciles which produced hydrogen atoms, life did not come immediately, it had to first become helium, and etc. until there was spots in anti-matter that become planets, and the planets had covalent and ionic compounds mesh together and form life. It took a long time and a lot of cooling down.

(I suggest http://wikipedia.org to you to understand better)

You can rule out atheist evolution, but not for those reasons. Please educate yourself, I would tell you a few good reasons, but we are already straying far from topic, and it would turn this entire thread into "That doesn't disprove it Charlotte" and "Yes it does idiot", and nothing more. Both sides of the spectrum would make the same arguement in different words. But I suggest you read a little Darwin maybe: it was he who could not explain it.

(Every library has his works)

Nonetheless, I do not start arguing with everyone and everything here. They will ask me to validate myself and the only reasons I can give them they will not agree with no matter how solid. (And it is the same for me to them.) My point is not to argue here, or start and arguements, I see that you are wrong, and telling you how you could be right (in your opinions).. I think that is a clash of terminology: I see how you could support your beliefs. It takes 30 seconds with wikipedia, and if you are going deeper, a couple hours to weeks, but if you are going deeper into thought that wouldn't matter to you . Either way you are somewhat ignorant and I could be lying, the only way to prove things is to research them for yourself.

Contact me if you want any further thoughts of mine. I doubt you do, but my aim is in my profile and leaving the option open is the only thing I wisely do.

<3 Charlotte