Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Problem with Hell

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 5:09:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's right, its everyone's favorite elephant in the room of christian love.........HELL !!!.

The hell I am talking about is some kind of place and/or state of eternal suffering. Now whether you want the more traditional flames of fire burning for ever hell or the more modest eternal separation from God in either case its a place/state of eternal suffering and thus its presumed you want to avoid it.

Point 1: First appreciate that this has nothing to do with "love" or any of the higher ethical ideal's. This is a direct appeal to your self interest, the self interest not be in torment for eternity. If you don't like been in suffering for a day your not going to like been in suffering for eternity are you.

Believe or do such and such or you going to suffer........FOREVER !!!

Ok so lets grant that such a place/state exist and as such we want to do what we can to stay out of there. So whats the problem here ? The problem here is that the stakes are so high and there is no real way to test the claims of how to avoid hell are right/wrong....(at least until its too late, according to some, how nice eh ?)

Any person can claim if you don't do this you are going to hell. So now not only do we have lack of test ability, we have the "fear" of hell be used to influence people against there better intellectual judgement had the fear of hell not been a factor.

I can't help observe the stakes are so high, yet God puts us in a very vulnerable position. Vulnerable to every charalten and zealot who sees the power in using the fear of hell to get what they want. You had better believe in Jesus ya know, the Jesus as I tell you he is, or you going to hell.

Going to have an abortion ? Hell
Support Gay marriage ? Hell
Not going to help us kill the witches ? Hell
Provide pain relief for women in childbirth ? Hell
Read NIV and not KJV ? Hell
Seek reforms against the rich and powerful ? Hell
Question the faith ? Hell
Don't believe the bible is perfect and without error ? Hell
Point out the lack of evidence for belief ? Hell
Point out the intellectual price that must be paid for having a certain belief ? Hell
Stop believing ? Hell
Don't believe in Hell ?...............Hell.

Anyone else see a problem here ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 5:46:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are saying that because the concept of Hell exists and is being abused it obviously should not be taught or worse yet you are asserting this makes it not true?

That simply is mindboggling irrational.

Police power of the state is true and a real threat. You saying it is not a credible threat because it is abused by countless dictatorial despots?

That clearly does not mean the threat is not real or that the concept becomes invalid because it is abused by certain people to extremes in either direction.

If you are pointing to blanket innaccuracies stemming from a dogmatic system we can use the American pursuit of Healthy living.

Death is a real and credible threat if you fail to pursue healthy living.
The fact that capitalist companies fraudulently put forward health studies that change every two years is irrelevant to the fact that your Health should be a main concern.

The fact that the very government has taught cholesterol was to be avoided entirely for 40 years and was crack wrong when they discovered there were two forms of Cholesterol. LDL is absolutely essential and eggs is the source of the good cholesterol and Wheat Bran is actually the source of the Bad cholesterol.

The fact the scientists were corrupt and the goverment was corrupt and every company profiteer played off the 'Threat of Death' does not invalidate that indeed death is a real threat if you live an unhealthy lifestyle.
That indeed you SHOULD pursue a healthy lifestyle or you will meet the reality of this threat called death.

- Every institution is beset by corruption, fraud and error. You do not invalidate the harshness of reality just because some people "may" utilize the concept fraudulently or erroneously.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 6:12:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 5:46:28 PM, Gileandos wrote:
You are saying that because the concept of Hell exists and is being abused it obviously should not be taught or worse yet you are asserting this makes it not true?

You know Gil, if your not certain what exactly I am claiming, sure ask, as you do here. But before I can respond you have already determined what my argument is and thus its "mindboggling irrational".

Seriously Gil, you seem to do alot, Are you actually reading what is been said, or just assuming what is been said ? This is a concern cause as I recall I have seen you mention about how "educated" you are.

So no Gil, my argument is NOT..........

Belief X is open to abuse
Therefore belief X is false and/or should be not taught

Okey Gilly Billy ?


That simply is mindboggling irrational.

Police power of the state is true and a real threat. You saying it is not a credible threat because it is abused by countless dictatorial despots?

That clearly does not mean the threat is not real or that the concept becomes invalid because it is abused by certain people to extremes in either direction.


If you are pointing to blanket innaccuracies stemming from a dogmatic system we can use the American pursuit of Healthy living.

Death is a real and credible threat if you fail to pursue healthy living.

The fact that capitalist companies fraudulently put forward health studies that change every two years is irrelevant to the fact that your Health should be a main concern.

The fact that the very government has taught cholesterol was to be avoided entirely for 40 years and was crack wrong when they discovered there were two forms of Cholesterol. LDL is absolutely essential and eggs is the source of the good cholesterol and Wheat Bran is actually the source of the Bad cholesterol.

The fact the scientists were corrupt and the goverment was corrupt and every company profiteer played off the 'Threat of Death' does not invalidate that indeed death is a real threat if you live an unhealthy lifestyle.
That indeed you SHOULD pursue a healthy lifestyle or you will meet the reality of this threat called death.


- Every institution is beset by corruption, fraud and error. You do not invalidate the harshness of reality just because some people "may" utilize the concept fraudulently or erroneously.

Because of your wrong assumption what my claims are, all this refutes an argument I never made. And we all know what that means, your a farmer because you just made a strawman. But thanks for playing.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 6:58:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you are pointing to blanket innaccuracies stemming from a dogmatic system we can use the American pursuit of Healthy living.

Death is a real and credible threat if you fail to pursue healthy living.
The fact that capitalist companies fraudulently put forward health studies that change every two years is irrelevant to the fact that your Health should be a main concern.

The fact that the very government has taught cholesterol was to be avoided entirely for 40 years and was crack wrong when they discovered there were two forms of Cholesterol. LDL is absolutely essential and eggs is the source of the good cholesterol and Wheat Bran is actually the source of the Bad cholesterol.

The fact the scientists were corrupt and the goverment was corrupt and every company profiteer played off the 'Threat of Death' does not invalidate that indeed death is a real threat if you live an unhealthy lifestyle.
That indeed you SHOULD pursue a healthy lifestyle or you will meet the reality of this threat called death.

I can't believe it; something on which we actually can agree.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:40:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@illegal
Ok... I am sorry.
Let me try to review to show how I am confused. Perhaps you can direct me properly.

Believe or do such and such or you going to suffer........FOREVER !!!

"Eat Wheat Bran and do not eat eggs or you going to suffer death.....FOREVER!!!

Hmmm... Let me try again.

Any person can claim if you don't do this you are going to hell.
"Any corporation can claim, via a study, if you don't eat their food you are going to die!"

I can't help observe the stakes are so high…
"These corporations and corrupt government are clearly using the highest stakes of all… death!"

Going to have an abortion ? Hell
Going to eat an egg? Death!

Support Gay marriage ? Hell
"Don't support Wheat Bran? Your killing your children! Death!"

Not going to help us kill the witches ? Hell
"Not going to stop the evil egg farmers? Death!"

Provide pain relief for women in childbirth ? Hell
"Are you unwilling to take the necessary step of legislating wheat Bran? Death!"

Read NIV and not KJV ? Hell
"Eating eggs at home but certainly not school! Death."

Seek reforms against the rich and powerful ? Hell
"Blame the poor Wheat Bran farmers? Death!"

Question the faith ? Hell
"Question the Wheat Bran study? Death!"

Don't believe the bible is perfect and without error ? Hell
"Do not believe Wheat Bran scientists and the government who diligently do everything are without error? Death!"

Point out the lack of evidence for belief ? Hell
Point out lack of evidence for the superiority of Wheat Bran? Death!

Point out the intellectual price that must be paid for having a certain belief ? Hell
Eh?

Stop believing ? Hell
Stop eating Wheat Bran? Death!

Don't believe in Hell ?...............Hell.
Don't believe in Healthy Living? Death!

***
Clearly because healthy living should be avoided as it can be abused.

How am I doing so far? Wanna help the intellectually deficient one here to understand your point better?

How is this not exactly as I called it. My analogy could be echoed to everyone of your statements.

If there is lack of clarity in your post perhaps you should be more clear?
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:55:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 5:46:28 PM, Gileandos wrote:
You are saying that because the concept of Hell exists and is being abused it obviously should not be taught or worse yet you are asserting this makes it not true?


That simply is mindboggling irrational.

Police power of the state is true and a real threat. You saying it is not a credible threat because it is abused by countless dictatorial despots?

That clearly does not mean the threat is not real or that the concept becomes invalid because it is abused by certain people to extremes in either direction.


If you are pointing to blanket innaccuracies stemming from a dogmatic system we can use the American pursuit of Healthy living.

Death is a real and credible threat if you fail to pursue healthy living.
The fact that capitalist companies fraudulently put forward health studies that change every two years is irrelevant to the fact that your Health should be a main concern.

The fact that the very government has taught cholesterol was to be avoided entirely for 40 years and was crack wrong when they discovered there were two forms of Cholesterol. LDL is absolutely essential and eggs is the source of the good cholesterol and Wheat Bran is actually the source of the Bad cholesterol.

The fact the scientists were corrupt and the goverment was corrupt and every company profiteer played off the 'Threat of Death' does not invalidate that indeed death is a real threat if you live an unhealthy lifestyle.
That indeed you SHOULD pursue a healthy lifestyle or you will meet the reality of this threat called death.


- Every institution is beset by corruption, fraud and error. You do not invalidate the harshness of reality just because some people "may" utilize the concept fraudulently or erroneously.

All he said was it's awfully convenient that something as total and brutal as hell is threatened to anyone that disagrees with your dogma. I'd agree with him.

There is however a difference between the threat of morbid obesity and the threat of eternal punishment in hell. To confirm the threat of morbid obesity one only has to look into the local McDonald's. To confirm the threat of hell...

Sciences views constantly change because we always move forward with the knowledge that our views could be falsified should something new be discovered. You've somehow translated this into "you don't know for sure, so the logical thing to do is ignore you".

I also don't like your constant use of the word 'reality'. How can you apply the word 'reality' to something that that is neither observable nor rationally comprehensible.

To quote what you concluded with:

Every institution is beset by corruption, fraud and error. You do not invalidate the harshness of reality just because some people "may" utilize the concept fraudulently or erroneously.

Every institution would presumably include Christianity. The issue here is that the concept your proposing is only validated by the institution you just said was corrupted, fraudulent or in error. And again with that word reality...
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 7:59:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:40:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@illegal
Ok... I am sorry.
Let me try to review to show how I am confused. Perhaps you can direct me properly.

Believe or do such and such or you going to suffer........FOREVER !!!

"Eat Wheat Bran and do not eat eggs or you going to suffer death.....FOREVER!!!

Hmmm... Let me try again.

Any person can claim if you don't do this you are going to hell.
"Any corporation can claim, via a study, if you don't eat their food you are going to die!"


I can't help observe the stakes are so high…
"These corporations and corrupt government are clearly using the highest stakes of all… death!"


Going to have an abortion ? Hell
Going to eat an egg? Death!

Support Gay marriage ? Hell
"Don't support Wheat Bran? Your killing your children! Death!"

Not going to help us kill the witches ? Hell
"Not going to stop the evil egg farmers? Death!"

Provide pain relief for women in childbirth ? Hell
"Are you unwilling to take the necessary step of legislating wheat Bran? Death!"

Read NIV and not KJV ? Hell
"Eating eggs at home but certainly not school! Death."

Seek reforms against the rich and powerful ? Hell
"Blame the poor Wheat Bran farmers? Death!"

Question the faith ? Hell
"Question the Wheat Bran study? Death!"

Don't believe the bible is perfect and without error ? Hell
"Do not believe Wheat Bran scientists and the government who diligently do everything are without error? Death!"

Point out the lack of evidence for belief ? Hell
Point out lack of evidence for the superiority of Wheat Bran? Death!

Point out the intellectual price that must be paid for having a certain belief ? Hell
Eh?

Stop believing ? Hell
Stop eating Wheat Bran? Death!

Don't believe in Hell ?...............Hell.
Don't believe in Healthy Living? Death!

***
Clearly because healthy living should be avoided as it can be abused.


How am I doing so far? Wanna help the intellectually deficient one here to understand your point better?

How is this not exactly as I called it. My analogy could be echoed to everyone of your statements.

If there is lack of clarity in your post perhaps you should be more clear?

That is not his argument; he is contending that, if what Christians say is true, then God is evil and not loving. You are misinterpreting his argument.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:40:16 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@illegal
Ok... I am sorry.
Let me try to review to show how I am confused. Perhaps you can direct me properly.

Believe or do such and such or you going to suffer........FOREVER !!!

"Eat Wheat Bran and do not eat eggs or you going to suffer death.....FOREVER!!!

Hmmm... Let me try again.

How am I doing so far? Wanna help the intellectually deficient one here to understand your point better?

No comment & no.


How is this not exactly as I called it. My analogy could be echoed to everyone of your statements.

Its not exactly as you called it because you missed an important FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, the testability or untestability of the claim. Those hell claims are untestable. In your analogy say the claim that..."Eating eggs at home but certainly not school! Death." That claim is testable that is to say vunerable to disproof. If people eat eggs at school and don't die the claim is proved false.

If we take one group who eat eggs at home, and take another that eat eggs at school we can test for any statistical significant difference. No difference = falsified ?

Analogy FAIL.

If there is lack of clarity in your post perhaps you should be more clear?

I think its clear enough, but I'll note your suggestion.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:07:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 8:04:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
How many times must we post this discussion?

It always deteriorates to the same arguments by the same people with the same outcome.

Because at the end of all the discussions, neither side ever acknowledges it.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:14:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:59:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

That is not his argument; he is contending that, if what Christians say is true, then God is evil and not loving. You are misinterpreting his argument.

I am not claiming that. I have no idea how you got from my observations, some problems I raised from these observations and therefore my conclusion must be If christianity is true God is evil.

My observations/claims here include.......

The high stakes of hell
The avoidance of hell
How anyone can claim anything about avoiding hell
Using the fear of hell to bypass usual scrutiny
The lack of testability of any of these claims how to avoid hell or what gets you into it
The vulnerable position we are in

Remember for the purpose of this thread I granted that hell exists as a place/state of eternal suffering.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:22:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 7:59:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

That is not his argument; he is contending that, if what Christians say is true, then God is evil and not loving. You are misinterpreting his argument.

To quote him:
"Point 1: First appreciate that this has nothing to do with "love" or any of the higher ethical ideal's. This is a direct appeal to your self interest, the self interest not be in torment for eternity. If you don't like been in suffering for a day your not going to like been in suffering for eternity are you."

He stated the argument has nothing to do with Love. Only self interest not be in hell. He is claiming that religious people directly appeal to your self interest not to be in Hell.

I analogized the same that it is in your self interest not to die so I analogized.

Do you see this Illegal? You need to be more clear.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:23:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 6:58:36 PM, s-anthony wrote:
If you are pointing to blanket innaccuracies stemming from a dogmatic system we can use the American pursuit of Healthy living.

Death is a real and credible threat if you fail to pursue healthy living.
The fact that capitalist companies fraudulently put forward health studies that change every two years is irrelevant to the fact that your Health should be a main concern.

The fact that the very government has taught cholesterol was to be avoided entirely for 40 years and was crack wrong when they discovered there were two forms of Cholesterol. LDL is absolutely essential and eggs is the source of the good cholesterol and Wheat Bran is actually the source of the Bad cholesterol.

The fact the scientists were corrupt and the goverment was corrupt and every company profiteer played off the 'Threat of Death' does not invalidate that indeed death is a real threat if you live an unhealthy lifestyle.
That indeed you SHOULD pursue a healthy lifestyle or you will meet the reality of this threat called death.

I can't believe it; something on which we actually can agree.

Praise God!
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:24:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 8:04:49 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
How many times must we post this discussion?

It always deteriorates to the same arguments by the same people with the same outcome.

To be fair this is the first I have heard such an argument against hell. It is new. Not wise but new.
If it was out there before I missed it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 8:41:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 8:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 7:59:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

That is not his argument; he is contending that, if what Christians say is true, then God is evil and not loving. You are misinterpreting his argument.

To quote him:
"Point 1: First appreciate that this has nothing to do with "love" or any of the higher ethical ideal's. This is a direct appeal to your self interest, the self interest not be in torment for eternity. If you don't like been in suffering for a day your not going to like been in suffering for eternity are you."

He stated the argument has nothing to do with Love. Only self interest not be in hell. He is claiming that religious people directly appeal to your self interest not to be in Hell.

I analogized the same that it is in your self interest not to die so I analogized.

Do you see this Illegal? You need to be more clear.

Yeah okey I will accept that. The obvious appeal to self interest not wanting to eternally suffering I doubt anyone is going to dis agree with, so that point stands.

So what did I have in mind in that love comment ? What I have in mind is the person (christian) who while appealing to your self interest to not suffer eternally tells you about how God loves you and thus you should want to be with God, and golly this love stuff has nothing to do with avoiding hell, nothing to do with fear..................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:09:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 8:03:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

How is this not exactly as I called it. My analogy could be echoed to everyone of your statements.

Its not exactly as you called it because you missed an important FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, the testability or untestability of the claim. Those hell claims are untestable. In your analogy say the claim that..."Eating eggs at home but certainly not school! Death." That claim is testable that is to say vunerable to disproof. If people eat eggs at school and don't die the claim is proved false.

If we take one group who eat eggs at home, and take another that eat eggs at school we can test for any statistical significant difference. No difference = falsified ?

Please respond to this as a whole. Bits and pieces is going to cause confusion and delay.

You seem to be unfamiliar of the debate on Wheat Bran and eggs.
This is not a made up scenario. I was analogizing with a real scenario.

Eggs for over 40 years were believed to give a heart attack to consume them At All or in anything but a rarity.

This death was to occurr in your distant future due to giving you high cholesterol.

The claim was adamant as the cause for Heart Disease was directly linked to cholesterol. This scientific link by scientists to be tenuous at best.

The capitalists and corruption within the government mandated it and allowed you to eat what you want at home but at school such items were off the menu for decades.

These advocates abused the "greatest consequence" of death.
This was unable to be validated by any of the individuals until some unknown future date.
Same concept of Hell. It is unfalsifiable until you actually do or do not experience Hell.
Analogized by the fact that death by heart attack was some distant unfalsifiable unknown. To disagree with them was certain death at some undetermined date.
Any advocate that disagreed with the scientific studies or the government mandates were marginalized in every way.

This corruption does not invalidate the idea you should eat healthy or live healthy or seek out healthy eating habits.
Death is real. Healthy living is a good concept. To be concerned about Death is a "warranted" thing.

It would not have been discovered as a dogmatic lie, if one scientist did not discover there is more than one form of Cholesterol.
Eggs are actually the best thing in the WORLD for you and wheat bran will now kill you.
If the government now takes wheat bran off the menu and advocates for some unfalsifiable future death claim they are again abusing it.

****
My overarching point is clear that you cannot invalidate the fact that death is a real and "greatest consequence". That healthy living and eating does affect the "greatest consequence" is a real possibility.

Just because abusers use it to their advantage and you do not like it does not invalidate death being real or the fact it is the greatest consequence of any natural action.

It is really possible that indeed your relationship with God and lifestyle could affect your afterlife. The reality of hell should not be determined by the fact you 'think' people are abusing it.

I agree with you that there is no way to naturally validate the existence of Hell while Alive. This does not mean that you will not be able to "test" or validate the concept of Hell after death.

If someone validly warns you about consequences why be mad at them? What if they are right? People right now believe that carbs will kill you. They do so because they warn you about something that will kill you. That does not make them "Wrong" or evil to do so.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:11:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 8:41:33 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/2/2012 8:22:19 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 7:59:11 PM, royalpaladin wrote:

That is not his argument; he is contending that, if what Christians say is true, then God is evil and not loving. You are misinterpreting his argument.

To quote him:
"Point 1: First appreciate that this has nothing to do with "love" or any of the higher ethical ideal's. This is a direct appeal to your self interest, the self interest not be in torment for eternity. If you don't like been in suffering for a day your not going to like been in suffering for eternity are you."

He stated the argument has nothing to do with Love. Only self interest not be in hell. He is claiming that religious people directly appeal to your self interest not to be in Hell.

I analogized the same that it is in your self interest not to die so I analogized.

Do you see this Illegal? You need to be more clear.

Yeah okey I will accept that. The obvious appeal to self interest not wanting to eternally suffering I doubt anyone is going to dis agree with, so that point stands.

So what did I have in mind in that love comment ? What I have in mind is the person (christian) who while appealing to your self interest to not suffer eternally tells you about how God loves you and thus you should want to be with God, and golly this love stuff has nothing to do with avoiding hell, nothing to do with fear..................

Thank you for that. I will also give kudos as this was a creative approach and I enjoyed it. Hopefully I have shown why it will not work.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:19:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@Illegal,
As C.S. Lewis argued with Flew back in the 1960's and rewrote in an updated version of Mere Christianity.

We as fathers use punishment to appeal to the self interest within our children. The punishment is for their greater good and self-interest is a motivation given to us by God.

We as Christians do not deny self-interest should be a motivating factor but that our self-worth we should set aside. Many times we put our self-interest above others because we value ourselves above others.

God showed us that self worth was inferior. It is one of the purposes of the Cross. Jesus, knowing he would be resurrected did not lay down His self-interest but laid down his self worth. He did not think being God was worth more than saving us from our original sin. God was not more valuable than our salvation from our personal sins.

When we say lay down self, it is not to intertwin the "greatest self-interest" as we know we will be in heaven, but we do not value our selves to the point of ignorance of others.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:33:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 9:09:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 8:03:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

How is this not exactly as I called it. My analogy could be echoed to everyone of your statements.

Its not exactly as you called it because you missed an important FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, the testability or untestability of the claim. Those hell claims are untestable. In your analogy say the claim that..."Eating eggs at home but certainly not school! Death." That claim is testable that is to say vunerable to disproof. If people eat eggs at school and don't die the claim is proved false.

If we take one group who eat eggs at home, and take another that eat eggs at school we can test for any statistical significant difference. No difference = falsified ?

Please respond to this as a whole. Bits and pieces is going to cause confusion and delay.

You seem to be unfamiliar of the debate on Wheat Bran and eggs.
This is not a made up scenario. I was analogizing with a real scenario.

Eggs for over 40 years were believed to give a heart attack to consume them At All or in anything but a rarity.

Why ? Sure I bet they said cholesterol. But what about the "tests" that could prove false that claim ? where were they ?


This death was to occurr in your distant future due to giving you high cholesterol.

The claim was adamant as the cause for Heart Disease was directly linked to cholesterol. This scientific link by scientists to be tenuous at best.

The capitalists and corruption within the government mandated it and allowed you to eat what you want at home but at school such items were off the menu for decades.

These advocates abused the "greatest consequence" of death.
This was unable to be validated by any of the individuals until some unknown future date.
Same concept of Hell. It is unfalsifiable until you actually do or do not experience Hell.

Its just not the unfalsifiability of the existence of hell, its the unfalisfiablity of any claim of what gets you in or out of hell to that is the problem.

Analogized by the fact that death by heart attack was some distant unfalsifiable unknown. To disagree with them was certain death at some undetermined date.

Any advocate that disagreed with the scientific studies or the government mandates were marginalized in every way.

Once again, what tests were done to make this claim vulnerable to disproof ?


This corruption does not invalidate the idea you should eat healthy or live healthy or seek out healthy eating habits.
Death is real. Healthy living is a good concept. To be concerned about Death is a "warranted" thing.

It would not have been discovered as a dogmatic lie, if one scientist did not discover there is more than one form of Cholesterol.

Wouldn't blind trials of two groups shown no statistical significance and thus falsified the claim long before the discovery of different types of cholesterol ?

Eggs are actually the best thing in the WORLD for you and wheat bran will now kill you.
If the government now takes wheat bran off the menu and advocates for some unfalsifiable future death claim they are again abusing it.

****
My overarching point is clear that you cannot invalidate the fact that death is a real and "greatest consequence". That healthy living and eating does affect the "greatest consequence" is a real possibility.


Just because abusers use it to their advantage and you do not like it does not invalidate death being real or the fact it is the greatest consequence of any natural action.

I already granted that my argument is not......

Belief X is open to abuse
Thus Belief X is false/should not be taught

It is really possible that indeed your relationship with God and lifestyle could affect your afterlife. The reality of hell should not be determined by the fact you 'think' people are abusing it.

You have gone from an actual (the eggs) to just the mere possibility. Huge difference.

Your not going to get away with equating claims based on evidence and testability with claims with no or little evidence to back it up and non testability.

Possibilities come cheap.

I agree with you that there is no way to naturally validate the existence of Hell while Alive. This does not mean that you will not be able to "test" or validate the concept of Hell after death.

My post already granted the existence of hell, the other problems remain. Oh we get the testable evidence after its too late, pretty messed up don't ya think ?


If someone validly warns you about consequences why be mad at them? What if they are right? People right now believe that carbs will kill you. They do so because they warn you about something that will kill you. That does not make them "Wrong" or evil to do so.

What if they are right ? cmon gil.

Your going to hell cause you don't help the poor enough, what if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

Your going to hell cause you turn a blind eye to Jesus/bible/God been used to serve the interests of the privileged. What if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

Your going to hell cause well, God just doesn't like you, what if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

Your going to hell cause your arguments fail, what if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

We need better than this.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 9:41:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 9:19:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@Illegal,
As C.S. Lewis argued with Flew back in the 1960's and rewrote in an updated version of Mere Christianity.

We as fathers use punishment to appeal to the self interest within our children. The punishment is for their greater good and self-interest is a motivation given to us by God.

We as Christians do not deny self-interest should be a motivating factor but that our self-worth we should set aside. Many times we put our self-interest above others because we value ourselves above others.

God showed us that self worth was inferior. It is one of the purposes of the Cross. Jesus, knowing he would be resurrected did not lay down His self-interest but laid down his self worth. He did not think being God was worth more than saving us from our original sin. God was not more valuable than our salvation from our personal sins.

When we say lay down self, it is not to intertwin the "greatest self-interest" as we know we will be in heaven, but we do not value our selves to the point of ignorance of others.

Nothing you wrote hear changes the fact that suffering in hell is an appeal to fear/self interest while (some) people also claim the love of God/Jesus has nothing to do with fear/avoiding hell.

Seems to me, either people like this are lying in the sense they know its false, or they are lying to the point of been delusional. Nothing you have posted here changes that.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:03:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Even though I explained why it is a false analogy in my last post, since you obviously must have read it, perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

I honestly don't know where to begin, your whole train of thought and supporting analogy is absurd. And for the record, because of how you jump from one thing to another, posting it in one big thing makes it nigh on impossible to read. I'm going to break it up for ease.

This death was to occurr in your distant future due to giving you high cholesterol.

The claim was adamant as the cause for Heart Disease was directly linked to :cholesterol. This scientific link by scientists to be tenuous at best.

The capitalists and corruption within the government mandated it and allowed you :to eat what you want at home but at school such items were off the menu for :decades.

These advocates abused the "greatest consequence" of death.
This was unable to be validated by any of the individuals until some unknown future :date.
Same concept of Hell. It is unfalsifiable until you actually do or do not experience :Hell.
Analogized by the fact that death by heart attack was some distant unfalsifiable :unknown. To disagree with them was certain death at some undetermined date.
Any advocate that disagreed with the scientific studies or the government mandates :were marginalized in every way.

Still a false analogy. You cannot compare a possible natural consequence in life with a possible supernatural consequence in death.

Also, to claim that the whole heart disease travesty is unfalsifiable is ridiculous. It was falsifiable, it's long term effects could be examined, links established, experimentation conducted, conclusions reached. It was obviously falsifiable, because it has been falsified today.

I'm also failing to see how you blithering out drivel about "corruption and capitalism" every few lines adds any weight to your argument.

This corruption does not invalidate the idea you should eat healthy or live healthy :or seek out healthy eating habits.

By constantly spurting out similar lines, and attempting to proceed with that silly analogy, your essentially admitting that Christianity is corrupt. Just saying that that doesn't exactly help considering your only validation for hell is your self-admitted corrupt institution.

Essentially what your trying to say, in short, is that regardless of how corrupt the institution, the concept of hell is still real. Aside from the fact that that is not what OP was talking about, how can you call the concept of hell a reality when the institution validating it is corrupt.

My overarching point is clear that you cannot invalidate the fact that death is a real and "greatest consequence". That healthy living and eating does affect the "greatest consequence" is a real possibility.

Just because abusers use it to their advantage and you do not like it does not invalidate death being real or the fact it is the greatest consequence of any natural action.

It is really possible that indeed your relationship with God and lifestyle could affect your afterlife. The reality of hell should not be determined by the fact you 'think' people are abusing it.

I agree with you that there is no way to naturally validate the existence of Hell while Alive. This does not mean that you will not be able to "test" or validate the concept of Hell after death.

But any tests after death are irrelevant, as you cannot change your own position, and you cannot advise anyone alive.

If someone validly warns you about consequences why be mad at them? What if they are right? People right now believe that carbs will kill you. They do so because they warn you about something that will kill you. That does not make them "Wrong" or evil to do so.

I'm mad because you don't validly warn me about hell, you use it as a threatening tool to try and scare me into conforming with your irrational and dated religious dogma. And who on earth thinks carbs will kill you?

And breaking it up makes it easier to read, not to the contrary that you so often advocate. If you really want people to respond with one whole thing, make your original post reasonably coherent and logical.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:05:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 9:41:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/2/2012 9:19:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@Illegal,
As C.S. Lewis argued with Flew back in the 1960's and rewrote in an updated version of Mere Christianity.

We as fathers use punishment to appeal to the self interest within our children. The punishment is for their greater good and self-interest is a motivation given to us by God.

We as Christians do not deny self-interest should be a motivating factor but that our self-worth we should set aside. Many times we put our self-interest above others because we value ourselves above others.

God showed us that self worth was inferior. It is one of the purposes of the Cross. Jesus, knowing he would be resurrected did not lay down His self-interest but laid down his self worth. He did not think being God was worth more than saving us from our original sin. God was not more valuable than our salvation from our personal sins.

When we say lay down self, it is not to intertwin the "greatest self-interest" as we know we will be in heaven, but we do not value our selves to the point of ignorance of others.

Nothing you wrote hear changes the fact that suffering in hell is an appeal to fear/self interest while (some) people also claim the love of God/Jesus has nothing to do with fear/avoiding hell.

Seems to me, either people like this are lying in the sense they know its false, or they are lying to the point of been delusional. Nothing you have posted here changes that.

I agreed with you that an appeal to self interest is being done and is valid. As the Love part was pointed out in the OP not to be relevant, I am unclear why you find this contradictory.

I will address your above as changes to your argument and address it anew.
Loving God is loving what God loves. God loves Holiness. He loves wholesomeness. He loves Goodness.
Not loving 'what' God loves is what gets you into Hell. You disagree with Him about what is good.

It is in your self interest to Love what God loves or you are possibly going to Hell. The more you hate goodness, wholesomeness, holiness the more you hate what God is.

As God IS holiness, wholesomeness and goodness. To not love these things is to not Love God.

Hopefully this clarifies.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:14:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 9:33:33 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/2/2012 9:09:38 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 8:03:31 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

How is this not exactly as I called it. My analogy could be echoed to everyone of your statements.

Its not exactly as you called it because you missed an important FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE, the testability or untestability of the claim. Those hell claims are untestable. In your analogy say the claim that..."Eating eggs at home but certainly not school! Death." That claim is testable that is to say vunerable to disproof. If people eat eggs at school and don't die the claim is proved false.

If we take one group who eat eggs at home, and take another that eat eggs at school we can test for any statistical significant difference. No difference = falsified ?

Please respond to this as a whole. Bits and pieces is going to cause confusion and delay.

You seem to be unfamiliar of the debate on Wheat Bran and eggs.
This is not a made up scenario. I was analogizing with a real scenario.

Eggs for over 40 years were believed to give a heart attack to consume them At All or in anything but a rarity.

Why ? Sure I bet they said cholesterol. But what about the "tests" that could prove false that claim ? where were they ?


This death was to occurr in your distant future due to giving you high cholesterol.

The claim was adamant as the cause for Heart Disease was directly linked to cholesterol. This scientific link by scientists to be tenuous at best.

The capitalists and corruption within the government mandated it and allowed you to eat what you want at home but at school such items were off the menu for decades.

These advocates abused the "greatest consequence" of death.
This was unable to be validated by any of the individuals until some unknown future date.
Same concept of Hell. It is unfalsifiable until you actually do or do not experience Hell.

Its just not the unfalsifiability of the existence of hell, its the unfalisfiablity of any claim of what gets you in or out of hell to that is the problem.

Analogized by the fact that death by heart attack was some distant unfalsifiable unknown. To disagree with them was certain death at some undetermined date.

Any advocate that disagreed with the scientific studies or the government mandates were marginalized in every way.

Once again, what tests were done to make this claim vulnerable to disproof ?


This corruption does not invalidate the idea you should eat healthy or live healthy or seek out healthy eating habits.
Death is real. Healthy living is a good concept. To be concerned about Death is a "warranted" thing.

It would not have been discovered as a dogmatic lie, if one scientist did not discover there is more than one form of Cholesterol.

Wouldn't blind trials of two groups shown no statistical significance and thus falsified the claim long before the discovery of different types of cholesterol ?

Eggs are actually the best thing in the WORLD for you and wheat bran will now kill you.
If the government now takes wheat bran off the menu and advocates for some unfalsifiable future death claim they are again abusing it.

****
My overarching point is clear that you cannot invalidate the fact that death is a real and "greatest consequence". That healthy living and eating does affect the "greatest consequence" is a real possibility.


Just because abusers use it to their advantage and you do not like it does not invalidate death being real or the fact it is the greatest consequence of any natural action.

I already granted that my argument is not......

Belief X is open to abuse
Thus Belief X is false/should not be taught

It is really possible that indeed your relationship with God and lifestyle could affect your afterlife. The reality of hell should not be determined by the fact you 'think' people are abusing it.

You have gone from an actual (the eggs) to just the mere possibility. Huge difference.

Your not going to get away with equating claims based on evidence and testability with claims with no or little evidence to back it up and non testability.

Possibilities come cheap.

I agree with you that there is no way to naturally validate the existence of Hell while Alive. This does not mean that you will not be able to "test" or validate the concept of Hell after death.

My post already granted the existence of hell, the other problems remain. Oh we get the testable evidence after its too late, pretty messed up don't ya think ?


If someone validly warns you about consequences why be mad at them? What if they are right? People right now believe that carbs will kill you. They do so because they warn you about something that will kill you. That does not make them "Wrong" or evil to do so.

What if they are right ? cmon gil.

Your going to hell cause you don't help the poor enough, what if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

Your going to hell cause you turn a blind eye to Jesus/bible/God been used to serve the interests of the privileged. What if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

Your going to hell cause well, God just doesn't like you, what if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

Your going to hell cause your arguments fail, what if I am right ? why be angry at me ?

We need better than this.

Please do not respond in bits and pieces. It is very incoherent.

To the wheat bran vs eggs people.
You cannot falsify one or the other. No double blind experiment will work.
There are FAR FAR too many variables to contaminate such an experiment.

Any test would immediately be known to be innaccurate. A thousand duplicated experiments would get widely divergent results.

The capitalists know this. It is why they will put out studies that claim to save you long term or kill you long term.

They can hide here as easily in the realm of unfalsifiable.

However,
We do not claim that Hell is unverifiable. Go to the supernatural God in the supernatural way. He will supernaturally verify for you the supernatural place. You will supernaturally agree with the supernatural verification process as you have a supernatural nature within you.

We agree that material verification is not an option for a non-material location. By asking for material evidence for non-material claims is being illegitmate to reality, do you not agree?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:21:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 10:05:31 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 9:41:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/2/2012 9:19:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
@Illegal,
As C.S. Lewis argued with Flew back in the 1960's and rewrote in an updated version of Mere Christianity.

We as fathers use punishment to appeal to the self interest within our children. The punishment is for their greater good and self-interest is a motivation given to us by God.

We as Christians do not deny self-interest should be a motivating factor but that our self-worth we should set aside. Many times we put our self-interest above others because we value ourselves above others.

God showed us that self worth was inferior. It is one of the purposes of the Cross. Jesus, knowing he would be resurrected did not lay down His self-interest but laid down his self worth. He did not think being God was worth more than saving us from our original sin. God was not more valuable than our salvation from our personal sins.

When we say lay down self, it is not to intertwin the "greatest self-interest" as we know we will be in heaven, but we do not value our selves to the point of ignorance of others.

Nothing you wrote hear changes the fact that suffering in hell is an appeal to fear/self interest while (some) people also claim the love of God/Jesus has nothing to do with fear/avoiding hell.

Seems to me, either people like this are lying in the sense they know its false, or they are lying to the point of been delusional. Nothing you have posted here changes that.

I agreed with you that an appeal to self interest is being done and is valid. As the Love part was pointed out in the OP not to be relevant, I am unclear why you find this contradictory.

The contradiction lies in the two claims, two claims uttered by the same person.

1) Believe in Jesus/God or go to hell (The appeal to self interest fear)
2) The claim that believing in God/Jesus is based on love and not fear of hell.


I will address your above as changes to your argument and address it anew.
Loving God is loving what God loves. God loves Holiness. He loves wholesomeness. He loves Goodness.
Not loving 'what' God loves is what gets you into Hell. You disagree with Him about what is good.

It is in your self interest to Love what God loves or you are possibly going to Hell. The more you hate goodness, wholesomeness, holiness the more you hate what God is.

And in a past post I mentioned the problem of how a love act needs to be done without fear to count as love. Consider this parody.......

God: Love X or go to hell
Person: I will love X because I don't want to go to hell
God: Did you love X because of the threat of hell ?
Person: Yes
God: Well you don't really love it then, cause your acting on fear/threat.
Person: Guess so
God: Take this person to hell, he doesn't love X.


As God IS holiness, wholesomeness and goodness. To not love these things is to not Love God.

Is love based on fear, based on threat, based on suffering eternally for failing to do otherwise REAL LOVE ? I don't think so.

Hopefully this clarifies.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:21:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
However,
We do not claim that Hell is unverifiable. Go to the supernatural God in the supernatural way. He will supernaturally verify for you the supernatural place. You will supernaturally agree with the supernatural verification process as you have a supernatural nature within you.

Oh come on.

We agree that material verification is not an option for a non-material location. By asking for material evidence for non-material claims is being illegitmate to reality, do you not agree?

Not when you're claiming that hell is a reality, and the verification of reality is observability or rational comprehension.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2012 10:50:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Then make your post shorter. If you give long posts covering different subjects I am going to break them down at the very least by subject.

To the wheat bran vs eggs people.
You cannot falsify one or the other. No double blind experiment will work.
There are FAR FAR too many variables to contaminate such an experiment.

I'll look into that.


Any test would immediately be known to be innaccurate. A thousand duplicated experiments would get widely divergent results.

The capitalists know this. It is why they will put out studies that claim to save you long term or kill you long term.

They can hide here as easily in the realm of unfalsifiable.



However,
We do not claim that Hell is unverifiable. Go to the supernatural God in the supernatural way. He will supernaturally verify for you the supernatural place. You will supernaturally agree with the supernatural verification process as you have a supernatural nature within you.

I can't agree or disagree with you if what you say is to be so vague as to mean nothing or anything.

Supernatural verification to me when you say it means, religious indoctrination + idea's in your head + repeated ad nausem = Yeah I think Jesus is talking to me.


We agree that material verification is not an option for a non-material location. By asking for material evidence for non-material claims is being illegitmate to reality, do you not agree?

You can have all the supernatural you want here, I don't think it will help you with the problems raised.

Fear of hell to get what you want, testable claims, lack of scrutiny etc etc
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 12:03:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/2/2012 10:50:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Then make your post shorter. If you give long posts covering different subjects I am going to break them down at the very least by subject.

I have no problem with most people responding line by line. But for many here, they will make a point to a sentence within a train of thought that was refuted just two sentences below.

They read sentence by sentence rather than following the authors train of thought and allow themselves full review of the argument.

If you can respond to the topic/subject that would be great.


To the wheat bran vs eggs people.
You cannot falsify one or the other. No double blind experiment will work.
There are FAR FAR too many variables to contaminate such an experiment.

I'll look into that.


Any test would immediately be known to be innaccurate. A thousand duplicated experiments would get widely divergent results.

The capitalists know this. It is why they will put out studies that claim to save you long term or kill you long term.

They can hide here as easily in the realm of unfalsifiable.




However,
We do not claim that Hell is unverifiable. Go to the supernatural God in the supernatural way. He will supernaturally verify for you the supernatural place. You will supernaturally agree with the supernatural verification process as you have a supernatural nature within you.

I can't agree or disagree with you if what you say is to be so vague as to mean nothing or anything.

Supernatural verification to me when you say it means, religious indoctrination + idea's in your head + repeated ad nausem = Yeah I think Jesus is talking to me.

Again, what you call doctrination is traditionally called information in the real world. Atheistic indoctrination attempts to redefine evidence, information, fallacies and logic. Atheistic indoctrination silences opposing viewpoints in schools and the marketplace.

Information =
Claim, Jesus can talk to me. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.
Claim, Jesus wants to talk to me. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.
Caim, Jesus has a process of Holiness he calls me to. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.

Source of claim? Quality. Studied brilliantly educated Theologians throughout History.

Check, do I have need or a care? Self Interest check.
The possibilty of divine guidance and prosperity
The possibilty of divine retribution as my conscious tells me, as an agnostic, I am probably not 'right with God'.

After that it is just a matter of evaluating information and its pertinence.

As to indoctrination you seem to toss around so much:

To be clear Christianity is not espousing NOT teaching evolution or restricting viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. We are saying "all comers" bring it.
Communistic indoctrination of the twentieth century used indoctrination to the point of fail.

Atheists are the ones that deny a positive ID argument should exist within schools and such. Who should be accused of indoctrination? The process of Indoctrination is silencing opposing viewpoints.

They appeal to ridicule and equivocate with a Pasta God, which is nothing like hundreds of millions of respected Theologians claims of Intelligent Design and supernatural interaction.



We agree that material verification is not an option for a non-material location. By asking for material evidence for non-material claims is being illegitmate to reality, do you not agree?

You can have all the supernatural you want here, I don't think it will help you with the problems raised.

Fear of hell to get what you want, testable claims, lack of scrutiny etc etc

Clearly all claims of the christians are testable.
Anthony Flew tested Intelligent Design and converted after 80 years of being one of the worlds leading proponents of atheism.
C.S. Lewis converted after being a devout atheist.
I converted after being a practical agnostic.

You are outright being misleading to state that proponents of the supernatural have "untestable" claims.
The world over has had conversions to Christianity.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 7:21:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 12:03:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 10:50:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Then make your post shorter. If you give long posts covering different subjects I am going to break them down at the very least by subject.

I have no problem with most people responding line by line. But for many here, they will make a point to a sentence within a train of thought that was refuted just two sentences below.

They read sentence by sentence rather than following the authors train of thought and allow themselves full review of the argument.

If you can respond to the topic/subject that would be great.


To the wheat bran vs eggs people.
You cannot falsify one or the other. No double blind experiment will work.
There are FAR FAR too many variables to contaminate such an experiment.

I'll look into that.


Any test would immediately be known to be innaccurate. A thousand duplicated experiments would get widely divergent results.

The capitalists know this. It is why they will put out studies that claim to save you long term or kill you long term.

They can hide here as easily in the realm of unfalsifiable.




However,
We do not claim that Hell is unverifiable. Go to the supernatural God in the supernatural way. He will supernaturally verify for you the supernatural place. You will supernaturally agree with the supernatural verification process as you have a supernatural nature within you.

I can't agree or disagree with you if what you say is to be so vague as to mean nothing or anything.

Supernatural verification to me when you say it means, religious indoctrination + idea's in your head + repeated ad nausem = Yeah I think Jesus is talking to me.

Again, what you call doctrination is traditionally called information in the real world. Atheistic indoctrination attempts to redefine evidence, information, fallacies and logic. Atheistic indoctrination silences opposing viewpoints in schools and the marketplace.

There are people all over the world encourage others, hey hey, feel that, thats God speaking to you. That's just the tip of the ice berg.


Information =
Claim, Jesus can talk to me. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.
Claim, Jesus wants to talk to me. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.
Caim, Jesus has a process of Holiness he calls me to. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.

Source of claim? Quality. Studied brilliantly educated Theologians throughout History.

Yet they don't make testable claims. Its possible to be smart enough to build a nuclear bomb and still think you got 72 virgins in paradise waiting for you.

Source of the CLAIM, brilliantly educated terrorists.................

Check, do I have need or a care? Self Interest check.
The possibilty of divine guidance and prosperity
The possibilty of divine retribution as my conscious tells me, as an agnostic, I am probably not 'right with God'.

After that it is just a matter of evaluating information and its pertinence.

As to indoctrination you seem to toss around so much:

Yeah we kinda know what goes on in some places in Christianity, don't try and deny the indoctrination process. Do you feel that ? that's God speaking to you............. PRAISE JESUS !!!!!!!!

Notice that God doesn't tell you anything you don't already know ?
Notice that God doesn't tell you anything that is vulnerable to disproof ?

Wanna know why ?..............One possibility cause it ain't God.

To be clear Christianity is not espousing NOT teaching evolution or restricting viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. We are saying "all comers" bring it.
Communistic indoctrination of the twentieth century used indoctrination to the point of fail.

Science says make testable predictions, make yourself vulnerable to disproof then we can talk. How is intelligent design vulnerable to disproof ? if any and every piece of possible evidence can be made compatible then evidence is irrelevant now isn't it.

Atheists are the ones that deny a positive ID argument should exist within schools and such. Who should be accused of indoctrination? The process of Indoctrination is silencing opposing viewpoints.

I know right, planets move because angels push them, can you prove me wrong ? NO, Will they teach this alternative ? no, why, cause they are atheists, evil evil atheists.

They appeal to ridicule and equivocate with a Pasta God, which is nothing like hundreds of millions of respected Theologians claims of Intelligent Design and supernatural interaction.

Being a theologian doesn't stop some one making testable claims, they are without excuse.



We agree that material verification is not an option for a non-material location. By asking for material evidence for non-material claims is being illegitmate to reality, do you not agree?

You can have all the supernatural you want here, I don't think it will help you with the problems raised.

Fear of hell to get what you want, testable claims, lack of scrutiny etc etc

Clearly all claims of the christians are testable.
Anthony Flew tested Intelligent Design and converted after 80 years of being one of the worlds leading proponents of atheism.
C.S. Lewis converted after being a devout atheist.
I converted after being a practical agnostic.

You are outright being misleading to state that proponents of the supernatural have "untestable" claims.
The world over has had conversions to Christianity.

If it can't be proven wrong, then its not testable. Explain to me one supernatural testable claim and explain how its testable ? We have been over this, still not getting it are you Gil ?

Name a supernatural claim, then tell us if that claim is false how it could be proved false ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2012 8:37:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/3/2012 7:21:56 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/3/2012 12:03:56 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/2/2012 10:50:17 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
Then make your post shorter. If you give long posts covering different subjects I am going to break them down at the very least by subject.

I have no problem with most people responding line by line. But for many here, they will make a point to a sentence within a train of thought that was refuted just two sentences below.

They read sentence by sentence rather than following the authors train of thought and allow themselves full review of the argument.

If you can respond to the topic/subject that would be great.


To the wheat bran vs eggs people.
You cannot falsify one or the other. No double blind experiment will work.
There are FAR FAR too many variables to contaminate such an experiment.

I'll look into that.


Any test would immediately be known to be innaccurate. A thousand duplicated experiments would get widely divergent results.

The capitalists know this. It is why they will put out studies that claim to save you long term or kill you long term.

They can hide here as easily in the realm of unfalsifiable.




However,
We do not claim that Hell is unverifiable. Go to the supernatural God in the supernatural way. He will supernaturally verify for you the supernatural place. You will supernaturally agree with the supernatural verification process as you have a supernatural nature within you.

I can't agree or disagree with you if what you say is to be so vague as to mean nothing or anything.

Supernatural verification to me when you say it means, religious indoctrination + idea's in your head + repeated ad nausem = Yeah I think Jesus is talking to me.

Again, what you call doctrination is traditionally called information in the real world. Atheistic indoctrination attempts to redefine evidence, information, fallacies and logic. Atheistic indoctrination silences opposing viewpoints in schools and the marketplace.

There are people all over the world encourage others, hey hey, feel that, thats God speaking to you. That's just the tip of the ice berg.

Wow direct anecdotal accusation. That is what we do, I sit around in some hippie love fest?
That is absurd.


Information =
Claim, Jesus can talk to me. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.
Claim, Jesus wants to talk to me. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.
Caim, Jesus has a process of Holiness he calls me to. Upon hearing I am, Agnostic.

Source of claim? Quality. Studied brilliantly educated Theologians throughout History.

Yet they don't make testable claims. Its possible to be smart enough to build a nuclear bomb and still think you got 72 virgins in paradise waiting for you.

Source of the CLAIM, brilliantly educated terrorists.................

REALLY TERRORISTS CAN BUILD A BOMB!?! With your direct intel you need to work with the U.N. You would fit in perfect.

Again anecdotal accusations.
Do you have any real evidence or just attacks?

I do not know any Imams running around claiming they met 'their' 72 virgins.

Its obvious you cannot distinguish one claim from another claim.


Check, do I have need or a care? Self Interest check.
The possibilty of divine guidance and prosperity
The possibilty of divine retribution as my conscious tells me, as an agnostic, I am probably not 'right with God'.

After that it is just a matter of evaluating information and its pertinence.

As to indoctrination you seem to toss around so much:

Yeah we kinda know what goes on in some places in Christianity, don't try and deny the indoctrination process. Do you feel that ? that's God speaking to you............. PRAISE JESUS !!!!!!!!

Notice that God doesn't tell you anything you don't already know ?
Notice that God doesn't tell you anything that is vulnerable to disproof ?

Wanna know why ?..............One possibility cause it ain't God.

So you make the same anecdotal accusation twice in one post? Fallaciously making a hasty generalization and then making an anecdotal accusation. Do you really have to keep repeating a fallacy?

Do you believe the number of times you say it, it will become less of a fallacy?


To be clear Christianity is not espousing NOT teaching evolution or restricting viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas. We are saying "all comers" bring it.
Communistic indoctrination of the twentieth century used indoctrination to the point of fail.

Science says make testable predictions, make yourself vulnerable to disproof then we can talk. How is intelligent design vulnerable to disproof ? if any and every piece of possible evidence can be made compatible then evidence is irrelevant now isn't it.

You can test all of the claims and evidence asserted by Christianity. It is what Bart Erhman erroneously attempts to do.
Again I have countless people that have tested evidence of the Christianity and converted.
If they had nothing to test they would not have converted.

Are you actually reading any of my posts or just ranting?


Atheists are the ones that deny a positive ID argument should exist within schools and such. Who should be accused of indoctrination? The process of Indoctrination is silencing opposing viewpoints.

I know right, planets move because angels push them, can you prove me wrong ? NO, Will they teach this alternative ? no, why, cause they are atheists, evil evil atheists.

Again equivocation is still a fallacy.
All claims are not merely claims.
Intelligent Design has much evidence. No one is saying some obscure or in your case non existent claim should be taught.
See below for people who have converted based on evidence.


They appeal to ridicule and equivocate with a Pasta God, which is nothing like hundreds of millions of respected Theologians claims of Intelligent Design and supernatural interaction.



We agree that material verification is not an option for a non-material location. By asking for material evidence for non-material claims is being illegitmate to reality, do you not agree?

You can have all the supernatural you want here, I don't think it will help you with the problems raised.

Fear of hell to get what you want, testable claims, lack of scrutiny etc etc

Clearly all claims of the christians are testable.
Anthony Flew tested Intelligent Design and converted after 80 years of being one of the worlds leading proponents of atheism.
C.S. Lewis converted after being a devout atheist.
I converted after being a practical agnostic.

You are outright being misleading to state that proponents of the supernatural have "untestable" claims.
The world over has had conversions to Christianity.

If it can't be proven wrong, then its not testable. Explain to me one supernatural testable claim and explain how its testable ? We have been over this, still not getting it are you Gil ?

Name a supernatural claim, then tell us if that claim is false how it could be proved false ?

*facepalm.
Good God man. How many times do I have to address this?
Please reread all of the evidence that has been posted previously.