Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[Sky Dancer]

It isn't, and we didn't bring it up.

OK. I get it. This is no longer a thread about why Christians and atheists don't know what hell is, it's the boys arguing about creationism or evolution.

Gotcha.

No girls allowed, didn't you see the sign?

Yeah, I get it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No I keep asking why something that was supposed to be spontaneous just stopped never to be heard of again. From my understanding of this discussion you're saying non life created life. A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today.

According to most scientists the process took billions of years, how do you know it's still not going on? You're making the assessment that still isn't still forming from non-life, could I have scientific proof of this?

A few dust particals in space hit together and became what we have today

And just for the record, when you post childish things like this that no one has said anythign remotely similar to, it makes it really really hard to reply to you seriously.

You know why he keeps asking that right?

Because in his mind. Human life coming from nothing= Human life IS nothing, thus his moral framework (which is based on the superiority of humans) would be shattered forever.

You will NEVER convince him of ANYTHING even if you had absolute proof.

the theory of human evolution is this, nothing making something, but if you put a creator at the beginning you might have an argument.

Non life does not create life.

 

[Political Junky]

Hell is a tool of powerful religious leaders to scare the ignorant masses into being good, often while their leaders lead a debauched lifestyle.

 

[geauxtohell]

How do you know that the continents were not separated by God instead of plate tectonics ?

And 700 posts into this nonsense we come fully circle. YWC and BigReb either aren't listening to what people are saying or are simply ignoring it. The questions asked in this post are simply proof of that.

YWC:

I am hesitent to speak for everyone, but the point isn't whether "God did it" or not. The answer to your questions are beyond the scope and ability of mankind to answer. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once observed: "Any God that would allow his existence to be proven is an idol". You and BigReb believe what you believe as an article of faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. No one can tell you with absolute certainty that God did not creat all of this. People can point out some logical fallacies in that belief, but once you introduce an all powerful supernatural being into the equation all questions simply become moot.

What we are saying is that your religious beliefs don't adhere to the standards of the scientific method, therefore, your personal beliefs are not valid scientific theories. As you can not disprove the existence of God, you can not have a null hypothesis. If you have no null hypthosis, you can't have a valid hypothesis. In other words, when you ask a scientific question, you have to entertain the possibility that the answer could be "no". If the answer can't be "no", then it's not a real scientific question, it's a rhetorical question.

Pointing out the remaining questions about evolution and beyond (the origin of matter) is fine. People should be questioning science. However, the matter becomes problematic when you try and debate scientific theory with theological belief. It's apples and footballs. The fact that there are valid scientific questions certainly doesn't mean the answer is automatically "God did it". You can believe that if you want, but it's not going to convince anyone else.

That's really as complicated as the matter is. You two certainly know it (well, YWC at least knows it), however your religious zeal leads you to try and insist there is controversy in areas where there is no controversy at all and that you old the answers to this issue because you adhere to a "God in the gaps mentality".

 

[geauxtohell]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How do you know that the continents were not separated by God instead of plate tectonics ?

And 700 posts into this nonsense we come fully circle. YWC and BigReb either aren't listening to what people are saying or are simply ignoring it. The questions asked in this post are simply proof of that.

YWC:

I am hesitent to speak for everyone, but the point isn't whether "God did it" or not. The answer to your questions are beyond the scope and ability of mankind to answer. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once observed: "Any God that would allow his existence to be proven is an idol". You and BigReb believe what you believe as an article of faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. No one can tell you with absolute certainty that God did not creat all of this. People can point out some logical fallacies in that belief, but once you introduce an all powerful supernatural being into the equation all questions simply become moot.

What we are saying is that your religious beliefs don't adhere to the standards of the scientific method, therefore, your personal beliefs are not valid scientific theories. As you can not disprove the existence of God, you can not have a null hypothesis. If you have no null hypthosis, you can't have a valid hypothesis. In other words, when you ask a scientific question, you have to entertain the possibility that the answer could be "no". If the answer can't be "no", then it's not a real scientific question, it's a rhetorical question.

Pointing out the remaining questions about evolution and beyond (the origin of matter) is fine. People should be questioning science. However, the matter becomes problematic when you try and debate scientific theory with theological belief. It's apples and footballs. The fact that there are valid scientific questions certainly doesn't mean the answer is automatically "God did it". You can believe that if you want, but it's not going to convince anyone else.

That's really as complicated as the matter is. You two certainly know it (well, YWC at least knows it), however your religious zeal leads you to try and insist there is controversy in areas where there is no controversy at all and that you old the answers to this issue because you adhere to a "God in the gaps mentality".

Exactly what make you so sure I don't understand what you are talking about? If I didn't I would be able to ask you those questions that you stumble all over. My education as far as college goes is Botany. Which was years ago probably while you were in elementary school.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

Science is mute on a lot of it's theory, everytime one get's debunked it moves the goalpost and claims victory.

 

[Photonic]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

It MUST be falsifiable.

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly what make you so sure I don't understand what you are talking about? If I didn't I would be able to ask you those questions that you stumble all over. My education as far as college goes is Botany. Which was years ago probably while you were in elementary school.

Because your statements about the scientific process in general are so far off base that the only conclusion that I can reach is that you are completely ignoran to the natural sciences.

I could care less when and what you got your degree in. I only care about how you apply whatever knowledge you gained as it pertains to the issue at hand.

The posters on this thread that talk about the scientific method are making up their own criteria. Instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish. You obviously don't. For example, per your earlier statement, you obviously don't know that falsifiability is a criteria for a scientific theory.

 

[geauxtohell]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

Science is mute on a lot of it's theory, everytime one get's debunked it moves the goalpost and claims victory.

Again demonstrating you're complete misunderstanding of the scientific process.

Theories change. Darwin's mechanism for genetic inheritence was laughable. As someone who is obsessed with sperm and egg, you should look it up. It wasn't until Gregor Mendel's work was discovered that people started to consider genetics. Now genetics is it's own field of science and the work done in genetics supports, not refutes, Darwin's major contribution to evolution "natural selection".

You confuse changing theories with "moving goalposts". The two are not the same. As I noted, evolution could easily be falsified if a single fossil was found out of place in the strata.

In fact, some dishonest creatinists tried to fabricate evidence to this effect several years ago and were caught in it. So, just like "piltdown man" and Haeckle's embryology, both sides has it's share of bad actors.

A Topical Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy

 

[geauxtohell]

Since science cannot prove or disprove the existance of God why doesn't scincecall it the God Theory instead of just saying God does not exist?

Science is mute on the existence of God. No peer reviewed or academic article has ever claimed God does not exist. Furthermore, if science can not disprove something, it can't formally study it and it is a "futile" effort.

You really are clueless about scientific thought and methodology, aren't you?

It MUST be falsifiable.

Exactly. The wingnuts don't get that, to introduce God into science, would require that they admit that there is not only a possibility that God doesn't exist, but that this could be proven by experiementation.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Exactly what make you so sure I don't understand what you are talking about? If I didn't I would be able to ask you those questions that you stumble all over. My education as far as college goes is Botany. Which was years ago probably while you were in elementary school.

Because your statements about the scientific process in general are so far off base that the only conclusion that I can reach is that you are completely ignoran to the natural sciences.

I could care less when and what you got your degree in. I only care about how you apply whatever knowledge you gained as it pertains to the issue at hand.

The posters on this thread that talk about the scientific method are making up their own criteria. Instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish. You obviously don't. For example, per your earlier statement, you obviously don't know that falsifiability is a criteria for a scientific theory.

I see because you can't answer the question, I don't know what I am talking about. It's not my fault you can't answer the question maybe you should edumacate yourself.

Instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish.

Really? Why did the warmers in England destory there data before it could be reviewed by other scienctist?

I'll try again. Can you tell me how non human life become human life? The universe at one time was void with nothing, how did the nothing create human life without the help of a creator?

 

[InDoctriNation]

Exactly what make you so sure I don't understand what you are talking about? If I didn't I would be able to ask you those questions that you stumble all over. My education as far as college goes is Botany. Which was years ago probably while you were in elementary school.

Because your statements about the scientific process in general are so far off base that the only conclusion that I can reach is that you are completely ignoran to the natural sciences.

I could care less when and what you got your degree in. I only care about how you apply whatever knowledge you gained as it pertains to the issue at hand.

The posters on this thread that talk about the scientific method are making up their own criteria. Instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish. You obviously don't. For example, per your earlier statement, you obviously don't know that falsifiability is a criteria for a scientific theory.

I see because you can't answer the question, I don't know what I am talking about. It's not my fault you can't answer the question maybe you should edumacate yourself.

Instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish.

Really? Why did the warmers in England destory there data before it could be reviewed by other scienctist?

I'll try again. Can you tell me how non human life become human life? The universe at one time was void with nothing, how did the nothing create human life without the help of a creator?

Jesus Christ, your stupid infantile question has been answered over and over and over again, yet you just keep right on asking it. All life forms on this planet have evolved from earlier life forms over millions and millions of years, and every species is continuing to exist under the force of natural selection. Life exists on a continuum, it is not neatly separated into distinct groups in the way you would like to believe it is. If you refuse to accept this answer and the monumental amount of physical evidence that supports it, then so be it, it is a free country. Your very existence has me either doubting the theory of evolution in that I can't believe you are an evolved being, or confirming the theory beyond all doubt because you must be the fucking missing link.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

because your statements about the scientific process in general are so far off base that the only conclusion that i can reach is that you are completely ignoran to the natural sciences.

I could care less when and what you got your degree in. I only care about how you apply whatever knowledge you gained as it pertains to the issue at hand.

The posters on this thread that talk about the scientific method are making up their own criteria. Instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish. You obviously don't. For example, per your earlier statement, you obviously don't know that falsifiability is a criteria for a scientific theory.

i see because you can't answer the question, i don't know what i am talking about. It's not my fault you can't answer the question maybe you should edumacate yourself.

instead, we understand the standardized system that scientists are expected to adhere to when they want to publish.

really? Why did the warmers in england destory there data before it could be reviewed by other scienctist?

I'll try again. Can you tell me how non human life become human life? The universe at one time was void with nothing, how did the nothing create human life without the help of a creator?

jesus christ, your stupid infantile question has been answered over and over and over again, yet you just keep right on asking it. All life forms on this planet have evolved from earlier life forms over millions and millions of years, and every species is continuing to exist under the force of natural selection. Life exists on a continuum, it is not neatly separated into distinct groups in the way you would like to believe it is. If you refuse to accept this answer and the monumental amount of physical evidence that supports it, then so be it, it is a free country. Your very existence has me either doubting the theory of evolution in that i can't believe you are an evolved being, or confirming the theory beyond all doubt because you must be the fucking missing link.

which fucking means there was a fucking creator

 

[geauxtohell]

I see because you can't answer the question, I don't know what I am talking about. It's not my fault you can't answer the question maybe you should edumacate yourself.

I don't answer your questions because they are rarely worth the effort.

Really? Why did the warmers in England destory there data before it could be reviewed by other scienctist?

I have no idea what you are talking about and I am not terribly interested in finding out about it. Global warming isn't really an interest to me. I don't know much about it, and when I don't know much about something I tend to reserve commenting on it.

I'll try again. Can you tell me how non human life become human life? The universe at one time was void with nothing, how did the nothing create human life without the help of a creator?

I've answered this. To the question of where matter came from, I have no idea. I don't pretend to have an idea. The fact that I don't know, however, doesn't automatically default to the notion that a "creator" did it.

I certainly think there are some interesting ideas out there about this, but the idea is so abstract that I doubt there will ever be a sufficient scientific answer in my lifetime.

Could a supernatural force have done it? Sure. Must a supernatural force have done it? No.

For everything afterwards, when we talk of abiogenesis, there are more interesting theories but they are more controversial and less establised then evolution. There have definately been models constructed (Miller Urey) that show it is possible to generate amino acid when an electrical catalyst strikes the approrpriate medium in the correct setting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I see because you can't answer the question, I don't know what I am talking about. It's not my fault you can't answer the question maybe you should edumacate yourself.

I don't answer your questions because they are rarely worth the effort.

Really? Why did the warmers in England destory there data before it could be reviewed by other scienctist?

I have no idea what you are talking about and I am not terribly interested in finding out about it. Global warming isn't really an interest to me. I don't know much about it, and when I don't know much about something I tend to reserve commenting on it.

I'll try again. Can you tell me how non human life become human life? The universe at one time was void with nothing, how did the nothing create human life without the help of a creator?

I've answered this. To the question of where matter came from, I have no idea. I don't pretend to have an idea. The fact that I don't know, however, doesn't automatically default to the notion that a "creator" did it.

I certainly think there are some interesting ideas out there about this, but the idea is so abstract that I doubt there will ever be a sufficient scientific answer in my lifetime.

Could a supernatural force have done it? Sure. Must a supernatural force have done it? No.

For everything afterwards, when we talk of abiogenesis, there are more interesting theories but they are more controversial and less establised then evolution. There have definately been models constructed (Miller Urey) that show it is possible to generate amino acid when an electrical catalyst strikes the approrpriate medium in the correct setting.

I am getting a headach with this shit of I don't know but your wrong, stupid ignorant bull fucking shit. Either I am right or your right. I can without a doubt in my mind say their is a creator, You can only wonder if your belief is right using your idea of how life begain. Both views are on a faith in something. I admit it, but you do not. It's stupid to believe the way you do and deny that it's not based on faith in the information you have researched. Hell I don't even know what you believe in because you will not come out and say it. First I said life came from pond scum being sarcastic meaning the sea, according to your and your side that was wrong, then I said man is supposed to have evolved from ape and damn if that wasn't denied even when it is a Darwin theory. So which is it sport what is your view on how life began?

 

[geauxtohell]

I am getting a headach with this shit of I don't know but your wrong, stupid ignorant bull fucking shit. Either I am right or your right.

Wrong. This isn't a discrete question. Perhaps you keep asking the same question over and over, because you aren't satisfied with the answers people are giving you. However, they are valid answers nonetheless.

I can without a doubt in my mind say their is a creator,

This issue does not hang on the degree of doubt in your mind. This is your fallacy. Your strongly held beliefs and convictions are fine for your own belief system. They aren't convincing to the rest of us.

You can only wonder if your belief is right using your idea of how life begain.

I don't claim to know how "life began". I am not the one having a hissy fit over the issue.

Both views are on a faith in something. I admit it, but you do not. It's stupid to believe the way you do and deny that it's not based on faith in the information you have researched. Hell I don't even know what you believe in because you will not come out and say it.

Exactly. Why? Because what I "believe" is not relevant. The only thing that is relevant is the overwhelming collection of facts and data that support evolution as the driving force behind the rise of the diversity of life.

"Belief" has nothing to do with it. I agree with evolution, because I have seen the evidence and it is overwhelming.

First I said life came from pond scum being sarcastic meaning the sea, according to your and your side that was wrong, then I said man is supposed to have evolved from ape and damn if that wasn't denied even when it is a Darwin theory.

Because it is not in Darwin's theory. For the 50th time, Darwin never claimed "man evolved from an ape". He claimed we share a common ancestor. Again, your ignorance on what evolution does and does not say is amazing. Perhaps you should actually read the theory before stomping your feed and proclaiming you are right like a petulant little child.

So which is it sport what is your view on how life began?

I've answered this. I am not going to repeat it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hell, like Heaven, is relative to each person's understanding and experience.
Whatever causes spiritual suffering or brings spiritual peace.

Hell can be war, overcoming addiction or abuse. It can be problems that lead to suicide.
It can be someone stuck in a state of mental illness with no way to help themselves
but suffering until they can be helped to find help, relief or healing.

Collectively, whatever suffering humanity experiences in this world,
or which may be spiritually beyond, can be connected as different levels of hell.

Same as different levels of spiritual peace and heaven.
There is spiritual peace within, on earth, and beyond as well.

I see it all the time the threat of a loving and just God is literally gonna torment people in fire for the rest of eternity. Why can't people see that it is not literal torment. The torment is being cut off from God ,death cuts us off from God.

Hell is the world of the dead nothing is alive in Hell. I know you will post all your scriptures that make it look like that all people that go to Hell will be tormented but what about the scriptures that show otherwise ?

Do we need to keep the word of God free of contradiction ?

Warning if you post the scriptures that show torment i will post a key scripture that shows what Hell and the lake of fire truly are. So post if you must but what i am looking for is give me your reasons why you believe a loving and just God would torment his children for eternity ? show me how that view goes along with God being loving and just ?

I believe that hell in those terms of "purgatory" or "lake of fire" is a cleansing or purging process to "burn away" all that is impure or evil.

Like the anger stage in the grief process.

It has a purpose in spiritual growth and recovery for spiritual healing and peace.
It is not permanent for people.

But it exists collectively, where all human suffering and war and injustice
is cleansed away. I believe the spirit of Jesus descends into hell to connect with and save souls from destruction and suffering. The physical ills and damage may occur, but the spiritual love and soul live on, only the evil is destroyed and burned away, and any human attachment to those things of the past. So it is still painful, but not permanent.

The only thing permanent is the eternal love, good, spiritual truth and peace which remains.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hell is a tool of powerful religious leaders to scare the ignorant masses into being good, often while their leaders lead a debauched lifestyle.

Dear PJ: This doesn't explain the spiritual visions of hell some people have had (like near death experiences) BEFORE they studied or became believers in the Bible or Christianity.

Clearly hell represents something, whether depicted one way or another.

A friend sent me a website where some nonbelievers had these visions and they gained a sense of GRATITUDE for their lives instead of taking what they had for granted. It wasn't about "other people" scaring them for religious reasons, but a personal change and recognition their selfish blindness was causing spiritual suffering in one form or another.

Some of these people got this insight by very vivid visions of hell strikingly similar to how Christians teach using the Bible. But that isn't the only way to depict hell or to come to similar recognition that selfish ways of unforgiveness lead to hellish suffering in life.

Here is the link my friend sent me. I like these stories because they are shared with compassion and not with any hateful judgment or fear mongering:

Watch "To Hell and Back" Movie In Streaming Real Video Open in Real Player Embedded in New Page (loads faster) Listen To Streaming Real Audio From
Testimonies - To Hell and Back

I agree with you people should never abuse hell as a scare tactic for religious coercion, as that just spreads more rejection and hatred to be so negative and fear-based. In contrast, this way of sharing people's testimonies and visions of hell as saving them from self-destruction, if it helps people to be better and make the most of their lives, I'm all for that!

Whatever helps to reach people, inspire positive change, to save them from suffering, so be it. But you are right, this should never be abused to hurt people as that defeats the purpose and actually creates more hell if it stirs up more fear and conflict with people.

Perfect love casts out all fear, it does not exploit fear to scare people to death.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Let's review the two trends in this thread.

• Youwerecreated makes some dumb claim that evolution has to do with how life began on the planet, or where matter came from.
• Someone points out that evolution has nothing to do with either.
• Youwerecreated then asks a multitude of unrelated straw man questions demanding answers to them, lest the other person be deemed completely wrong on all counts.
• Regardless, such questions in no way remove the fact that youwerecreated was incorrect about what evolution involves.

The end result something like: "you won't answer for the 50th time how man evolved from apes therefore the origins or life IS part of evolution." There are so many logical fallacies and errors it's just laughable.

Bigred often takes a similar tactic, although his lack of understanding of the topic far exceeds mere ignorance. In this thread alone, he has erroneously insinuated the following:

• evolution is about where life came from
• man evolved from apes
• science is not only faith, but despite all its evidence, it is an EQUAL faith compared to religion
• science can't be real because he doesn't understand it
• people are just big sacks of water
• since science can't disprove God, science must be wrong
• not having all the answers therefore means you can't have any
• science believes humans came from nothing
• man is not a primate
• man came from the sea

every single one of them: amazing. and yet he thinks he's in a position to evaluation a topic which he has absolutely no understanding of. this really is the shining definition of ignorance.