| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lisa Horton" |
| Date: |
18 Apr 2004 09:46:49 PM |
| Object: |
A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 03:33:06 AM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
It seems to me that you think this is a wonderful thing given that you
give not only your allegiance but your worship to the entity who
imposes this suffering.
It seems to me that your explicit approval of the unending suffering
imposed on some people is summed up in the exchange made on June 14,
1940 between a member of the Totenkopfverbände SS and one who
expressed some disquiet at the construction of Auschwitz 1: "Join us,
or join those in the camp," said the SS man.
Can you explain, perhaps, how the offer the SS man represented
differs from the one you purport to represent from your God, and how
the Einäscherungsöfen, the cremation ovens of Hell are more moral than
those created by the Nazis and how your morality differs from those
Nazis who knew of the camps, took no personal hand in them, but
never-the-less continued to support Adolph Hitler.
And then of course there's the other problem: You suggest that being
apart from your God implicitly implies suffering. Yet I am an atheist
and do not hold any belief in your, or any, God. If being apart from
God naturally entails suffering, why do I not suffer now? That I don't
suffer during every moment that I don't accept your God seems to me to
imply that there's something terribly, literally, with your position.
Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 07:41:26 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:33:06 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com>
wrote:
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
It seems to me that you think this is a wonderful thing given that you
give not only your allegiance but your worship to the entity who
imposes this suffering.
It seems to me that your explicit approval of the unending suffering
imposed on some people is summed up in the exchange made on June 14,
1940 between a member of the Totenkopfverbände SS and one who
expressed some disquiet at the construction of Auschwitz 1: "Join us,
or join those in the camp," said the SS man.
Can you explain, perhaps, how the offer the SS man represented
differs from the one you purport to represent from your God, and how
the Einäscherungsöfen, the cremation ovens of Hell are more moral than
those created by the Nazis and how your morality differs from those
Nazis who knew of the camps, took no personal hand in them, but
never-the-less continued to support Adolph Hitler.
And then of course there's the other problem: You suggest that being
apart from your God implicitly implies suffering. Yet I am an atheist
and do not hold any belief in your, or any, God. If being apart from
God naturally entails suffering, why do I not suffer now? That I don't
suffer during every moment that I don't accept your God seems to me to
imply that there's something terribly, literally, with your position.
Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
An analogy that I've failed to see, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Christians never explain why their omnibenevolent god should allow all the
non-christians who have ever existed to suffer in this way. Come to that, an
omniscient god would know all this anyway so why does he create Moslems,
Buddhists, atheists and all other non-christains knowing that they will not
believe in him and therefore suffer eternal torment.
The mind-blowing stupidity of religion again, I suppose.
JPG
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ph˙ltęr" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 07:11:56 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> astounded us with:
news:nc2780llfkvjolou1auleqbkjkjdssovkr@4ax.com:
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
It seems to me that you think this is a wonderful thing given that you
give not only your allegiance but your worship to the entity who
imposes this suffering.
It seems to me that your explicit approval of the unending suffering
imposed on some people is summed up in the exchange made on June 14,
1940 between a member of the Totenkopfverbände SS and one who
expressed some disquiet at the construction of Auschwitz 1: "Join us,
or join those in the camp," said the SS man.
Can you explain, perhaps, how the offer the SS man represented
differs from the one you purport to represent from your God, and how
the Einäscherungsöfen, the cremation ovens of Hell are more moral than
those created by the Nazis and how your morality differs from those
Nazis who knew of the camps, took no personal hand in them, but
never-the-less continued to support Adolph Hitler.
And then of course there's the other problem: You suggest that being
apart from your God implicitly implies suffering. Yet I am an atheist
and do not hold any belief in your, or any, God. If being apart from
God naturally entails suffering, why do I not suffer now? That I don't
suffer during every moment that I don't accept your God seems to me to
imply that there's something terribly, literally, with your position.
Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
Steady on there Therion, them big German words will frighten her off....
Oh, I_see_your_point, you WANT to drive her off. I suggest a number 2
wood...
--
Ph˙ltęr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
21 Apr 2004 01:32:16 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in
news:nc2780llfkvjolou1auleqbkjkjdssovkr@4ax.com:
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
It seems to me that you think this is a wonderful thing given that you
give not only your allegiance but your worship to the entity who
imposes this suffering.
It seems to me that your explicit approval of the unending suffering
imposed on some people is summed up in the exchange made on June 14,
1940 between a member of the Totenkopfverbände SS and one who
expressed some disquiet at the construction of Auschwitz 1: "Join us,
or join those in the camp," said the SS man.
It's even worse than than that. The Christians believe they are saved due
to an unjust punishment imposed on Christ. If any of this stuff were
real, the true Christian should reject entry to heaven and say "No I
can't go in there on the back of the unjust suffering of another, I must
go to hell and take my just punishment".
LK.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 11:34:54 AM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<nc2780llfkvjolou1auleqbkjkjdssovkr@4ax.com>...
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
Why not? Mel is OK with believing his wife will burn. He was even OK
with telling Baba Wawa so on national TV.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 12:33:50 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2004 09:34:54 -0700 in alt.atheism, jwk
(jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<nc2780llfkvjolou1auleqbkjkjdssovkr@4ax.com>...
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
Why not? Mel is OK with believing his wife will burn. He was even OK
with telling Baba Wawa so on national TV.
Heh. Nice try.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
20 Apr 2004 08:36:48 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<c7388050542gkj21i095cc9u92oq9n3dr6@4ax.com>...
On 19 Apr 2004 09:34:54 -0700 in alt.atheism, jwk
(jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com (jwk)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<nc2780llfkvjolou1auleqbkjkjdssovkr@4ax.com>...
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700 in alt.atheism, Lisa Horton
(Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com (Lisa Horton)) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Well, I suppose this may be so. But even as mere assertion with
nothing to back it, it raises a couple of interesting questions:
The first relates your personal acceptance that it's just fine and
dandy that some people, perhaps some your loved ones,
wife/girlfriend/children/boyfriend etc. will spend the vast majority
of the rest of eternity screaming their lungs, or whatever passes for
their lungs, out in Hell.
Why not? Mel is OK with believing his wife will burn. He was even OK
with telling Baba Wawa so on national TV.
Heh. Nice try.
OK, it was the Herald Sun in Australia. I just like blaming things on
Baba "If you were a tree, what type would you be?" Wawa.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Beowulf" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 12:56:26 PM |
|
|
<rec.photo.digital - snipped because WTF?>
<alt.religion.christianity - snipped because it's not on my server>
On 18 Apr 2004 19:46:49 -0700, (Lisa Horton)
ejaculated:
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Read the Havimil. There is equivalently valid "proof" that
courageous fighters are taken to Valhalla when they die. Why is your
myth better than any other?
--
"Swaying to the rhythm of the new world order and
Count the bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums"
-- A Perfect Circle, "Pet"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivek" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 02:09:12 AM |
|
|
"Lisa Horton" <Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a3d5485.0404181846.46ef7195@posting.google.com...
<<<SNIP>>>
Try living next door to my mother-in-law for a few weeks. You'd swear you
were already in hell...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 07:40:08 AM |
|
|
"Lisa Horton" <Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a3d5485.0404181846.46ef7195@posting.google.com...
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him.
'Even near death experiences can't tell the whole story of what happens
after death.
The only dependable answer comes from the one person who died, and on the
third
day, rose from the dead to live forever. Jesus, who conquered death, is
clearly the
most reliable authority on what happens after death. '
You must be joking !
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 07:51:14 AM |
|
|
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083c899$0$624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
How do you know?
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
So? When a vehicle stops it is called "still." Doesn't imply that it
cannot become "moving" again.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 09:33:31 AM |
|
|
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94D05A110235jefscrrcom@24.25.9.42...
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083c899$0$624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
How do you know?
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
So? When a vehicle stops it is called "still." Doesn't imply that it
cannot become "moving" again.
Like a beer thats been drunk........you can't drink it again.......
Although you can re-fill the glass.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
20 Apr 2004 11:27:28 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:51:14 +0000, Tiger wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083c899$0$624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
How do you know?
Oh, just the usual "It has never been reliably documented to happen, and
if it DID happen, it would be a fundamental conflict with innumerable
laws of physics, biology, etc, that are all intimately inter-dependent,
and seem to work very reliably, such that altering them to accommodate the
possibility of returning from the dead would require a monumental change
in the entire repertoire of human knowledge, which would ONLY be justified
if strong evidence were found to justify such a change, and so far there
isn't, so why fix something that isn't broken."
That's how.
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
So? When a vehicle stops it is called "still." Doesn't imply that it
cannot become "moving" again.
The definition of "dead" DOES imply that it cannot become "living" again.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
20 Apr 2004 12:21:51 PM |
|
|
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.20.16.28.49.589720@stopspam.net:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:51:14 +0000, Tiger wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083c899$0$624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
How do you know?
Oh, just the usual "It has never been reliably documented to
happen, and if it DID happen, it would be a fundamental conflict
with innumerable laws of physics, biology, etc, that are all
intimately inter-dependent, and seem to work very reliably, such
that altering them to accommodate the possibility of returning
from the dead would require a monumental change in the entire
repertoire of human knowledge, which would ONLY be justified if
strong evidence were found to justify such a change, and so far
there isn't, so why fix something that isn't broken."
That's how.
IOW, it's simply a belief you have based on your pre-conceived ideas
about death...and life, ftm.
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
So? When a vehicle stops it is called "still." Doesn't imply
that it cannot become "moving" again.
The definition of "dead" DOES imply that it cannot become "living"
again.
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
20 Apr 2004 08:56:07 PM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle existence
without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and don't need our
hands held any more.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
20 Apr 2004 09:43:51 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle existence
without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and don't need our
hands held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite aware
of its limitations.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
21 Apr 2004 11:28:01 AM |
|
|
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
Read what I wrote. "Meat" is not the correct term. We're animals,
primates to be specific.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle existence
without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and don't need our
hands held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite aware
of its limitations.
As a scientist, so am I. However, evolution has mountains of evidence
to back it up. You have ideological blinders on that prevent you from
accepting good science.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tiger" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
21 Apr 2004 04:03:37 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:068d80tv3au56ak9na4ffi5l2ik8m4ogtg@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a
stranger called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're
all just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
Read what I wrote. "Meat" is not the correct term. We're
animals, primates to be specific.
Which makes us meat, basically.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle
existence without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and
don't need our hands held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite
aware of its limitations.
As a scientist, so am I. However, evolution has mountains of
evidence to back it up. You have ideological blinders on that
prevent you from accepting good science.
And as a scientist, you should know what a crock that statement is.
First you mention "evolution," which I've yet to dispute anywhere
because I believe it. Why did you mention it? Because even though
you're a scientist you clearly don't simply go by the evidence...you
make assumptions, like all scientists do. Then your assumption led
you to make an erroneous conclusion. Thank you for demonstrating bad
science.
If you are a scientist, you're not a good one.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
22 Apr 2004 07:45:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:03:37 +0000, Tiger wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:068d80tv3au56ak9na4ffi5l2ik8m4ogtg@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 GMT, a stranger called
by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
Read what I wrote. "Meat" is not the correct term. We're animals,
primates to be specific.
Which makes us meat, basically.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle existence
without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and don't need our
hands held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite aware
of its limitations.
As a scientist, so am I. However, evolution has mountains of evidence
to back it up. You have ideological blinders on that prevent you from
accepting good science.
And as a scientist, you should know what a crock that statement is. First
you mention "evolution," which I've yet to dispute anywhere because I
believe it. Why did you mention it? Because even though you're a
scientist you clearly don't simply go by the evidence...you make
assumptions, like all scientists do. Then your assumption led you to make
an erroneous conclusion. Thank you for demonstrating bad science.
If you are a scientist, you're not a good one.
That statement is most definitely NOT a crock. There is, in fact,
mountains of evidence in support of the theory of evolution. The
statement that you have ideological blinders on is somewhat speculative,
but reasonable. The majority of theists who post here deny the theory of
evolution. He was demonstrating pattern recognition, which is part of
good science. Bad science is when you cling to a theory despite valid
evidence that falsifies it, such as believing that the dead can come back
to life.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
21 Apr 2004 04:05:23 PM |
|
|
Please trim rec.photo.digital from future responses to this thread.
Thank you.
"Tiger" <Tiger@box.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns94D2AD8F1FA53jefscrrcom@24.25.9.41...
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:068d80tv3au56ak9na4ffi5l2ik8m4ogtg@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a
stranger called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth
and told this tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're
all just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
Read what I wrote. "Meat" is not the correct term. We're
animals, primates to be specific.
Which makes us meat, basically.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle
existence without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and
don't need our hands held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite
aware of its limitations.
As a scientist, so am I. However, evolution has mountains of
evidence to back it up. You have ideological blinders on that
prevent you from accepting good science.
And as a scientist, you should know what a crock that statement is.
First you mention "evolution," which I've yet to dispute anywhere
because I believe it. Why did you mention it? Because even though
you're a scientist you clearly don't simply go by the evidence...you
make assumptions, like all scientists do. Then your assumption led
you to make an erroneous conclusion. Thank you for demonstrating bad
science.
If you are a scientist, you're not a good one.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
21 Apr 2004 12:46:03 PM |
|
|
Please trim rec.photo.digital from future responses to this thread.
Thank you.
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:068d80tv3au56ak9na4ffi5l2ik8m4ogtg@4ax.com...
Lo, many moons past, on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a stranger
called by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this
tale in alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
Read what I wrote. "Meat" is not the correct term. We're animals,
primates to be specific.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle existence
without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and don't need our
hands held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite aware
of its limitations.
As a scientist, so am I. However, evolution has mountains of evidence
to back it up. You have ideological blinders on that prevent you from
accepting good science.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Ezekiel 13:20 "Wherefore thus saith the
Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
22 Apr 2004 06:28:16 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 +0000, Tiger wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:u3lb80dedecve5rsbfs3kmpe20u6iatm4e@4ax.com:
Lo, many moons past, on Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:21:51 GMT, a stranger called
by some Tiger <Tiger@box.invalid> came forth and told this tale in
alt.atheism
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all just
thinking meat. Excellent.
Not meat, but sapiant primates, and damn good tool makers.
Not meat? What else?
You, on the other hand, seem to feel that we can't handle existence
without Daddy's help. Some of us have grown up and don't need our hands
held any more.
While I have a healthy respect for authentic science, I am quite aware of
its limitations.
The problem is that you appear to have no respect for the power of
delusional thinking. Science is what allows us to separate objective
reality from wishful thinking. Ergo, anything outside of science is
likely to stem more from your own desires than from any objective reality.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul H." |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
22 Apr 2004 12:22:48 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.22.11.29.36.997048@stopspam.net...
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 +0000, Tiger wrote:
The problem is that you appear to have no respect for the power of
delusional thinking. Science is what allows us to separate objective
reality from wishful thinking. Ergo, anything outside of science is
likely to stem more from your own desires than from any objective reality.
Ha. The problem is that there is no discernible object reality, only
electrical impulses provided to the brain through our sensors and nervous
system which allow our minds to create an internal impression we like to
call reality. For all you know, you might be a disembodied brain in a jar
with your nervous system hooked up to the I/O ports of some twisted alien
lab tech's supercomputer.
This is, of course, an unprovable hypothesis, since the results of any test
one might come up with to ascertain the "truth" might simply be illusions
provided by our hypothetical alien's computer. But that's exactly my
point: since the mind does not *directly* experience the universe, the
concept of an objective reality is itself merely an article of faith, not a
well-defined and certain starting point for a rational philosophy.
Thus science, like religion, ultimately depends upon belief, not knowledge.
It's a hard pill to swallow, but there it is and whether it's Jehovah,
Darwin, or the Great Cosmic Hotdog, we'll never really be sure we know the
truth. Heck, our alien lab tech could even make us think we've "died and
gone to heaven", as the old phrase puts it, so first-person experiences of
own own deaths and resurrections wouldn't even answer the questions about
God vs. Materialism.
So there you go. Be happy with your faith-based arrogant delusions,
whatever they might be: self-sustaining, self-replicating biochemical
reactions or Godly meat-puppets. You'll never know for sure and that makes
this particular brain-in-a-jar quite giddy.
*************************************************************
The Rational Materialist's Prayer of Lament:
I am a soulless meat-machine.
There is no purpose or meaning to life-- such concepts are merely
evolution-developed delusions to relieve my conscious mind of existential
angst so that I may perform my sole function, which is to reproduce in order
to sustain the organic cycle of pointlessness.
If I pass my genetic material on to a future generation, I am a success;
otherwise, I am a failed organism.
And the cry of someone else's child dying in pain is of no more import than
the squeaking of a rusty hinge.
I am a Rational Materialist.
Amen.
Remember the Maine.
**************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
22 Apr 2004 04:24:37 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:22:48 -0700, Paul H. wrote:
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.22.11.29.36.997048@stopspam.net...
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:43:51 +0000, Tiger wrote:
The problem is that you appear to have no respect for the power of
delusional thinking. Science is what allows us to separate objective
reality from wishful thinking. Ergo, anything outside of science is
likely to stem more from your own desires than from any objective
reality.
Ha. The problem is that there is no discernible object reality, only
electrical impulses provided to the brain through our sensors and nervous
system which allow our minds to create an internal impression we like to
call reality. For all you know, you might be a disembodied brain in a jar
with your nervous system hooked up to the I/O ports of some twisted alien
lab tech's supercomputer.
True, but irrelevant. What we perceive as reality may not be so, but we
have nothing better to go by. Therefore, it makes sense to proceed on the
assumption that our perception of reality is reliable until such a time
that perception is shown to be false. In THAT case, of course, you won't
have any assurance that your perception of the falseness of the previous
perception is any more reliable than the first one was, so you'll still be
stuck.
This is, of course, an unprovable hypothesis, since the results
of any
test one might come up with to ascertain the "truth" might simply be
illusions provided by our hypothetical alien's computer. But that's
exactly my point: since the mind does not *directly* experience the
universe, the concept of an objective reality is itself merely an
article of faith, not a well-defined and certain starting point for a
rational philosophy.
There is ample evidence that the universe is very much different than the
way we perceive it to be. That is why quantum physics and relativity
impress us as being counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, we are stuck with
the tools that we have (our brains), and our imperfect ability to perceive
the universe. You either play the hand you are dealt, or you quit the
game.
Thus science, like religion, ultimately depends upon belief, not
knowledge. It's a hard pill to swallow, but there it is and whether it's
Jehovah, Darwin, or the Great Cosmic Hotdog, we'll never really be sure
we know the truth. Heck, our alien lab tech could even make us think
we've "died and gone to heaven", as the old phrase puts it, so
first-person experiences of own own deaths and resurrections wouldn't
even answer the questions about God vs. Materialism.
So there you go. Be happy with your faith-based arrogant delusions,
whatever they might be: self-sustaining, self-replicating biochemical
reactions or Godly meat-puppets. You'll never know for sure and that
makes this particular brain-in-a-jar quite giddy.
************************************************************* The
Rational Materialist's Prayer of Lament:
I am a soulless meat-machine.
There is no purpose or meaning to life-- such concepts are merely
evolution-developed delusions to relieve my conscious mind of
existential angst so that I may perform my sole function, which is to
reproduce in order to sustain the organic cycle of pointlessness.
If I pass my genetic material on to a future generation, I am a success;
otherwise, I am a failed organism.
And the cry of someone else's child dying in pain is of no more import
than the squeaking of a rusty hinge.
I am a Rational Materialist.
Amen.
Remember the Maine.
**************************************************************
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "galia" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
20 Apr 2004 06:35:00 PM |
|
|
Robibnikoff wrote:
<#$*(#*$(#(*#($*(#*(*$( <nospam@newsranger.com>> wrote in message
news:K4ehc.1744$H4.48@www.newsranger.com...
In article <Xns94D187F536A6Bjefscrrcom@24.25.9.41>, Tiger says...
MarkA <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in
news:pan.2004.04.20.16.28.49.589720@stopspam.net:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:51:14 +0000, Tiger wrote:
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083c899$0$624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
How do you know?
Oh, just the usual "It has never been reliably documented to
happen, and if it DID happen, it would be a fundamental conflict
with innumerable laws of physics, biology, etc, that are all
intimately inter-dependent, and seem to work very reliably, such
that altering them to accommodate the possibility of returning
from the dead would require a monumental change in the entire
repertoire of human knowledge, which would ONLY be justified if
strong evidence were found to justify such a change, and so far
there isn't, so why fix something that isn't broken."
That's how.
IOW, it's simply a belief you have based on your pre-conceived ideas
about death...and life, ftm.
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
So? When a vehicle stops it is called "still." Doesn't imply
that it cannot become "moving" again.
The definition of "dead" DOES imply that it cannot become "living"
again.
*Your* definition of death and life conflict. You think we're all
just thinking meat. Excellent.
--
Tiger
[Insert humorous, clever or profound quote here]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "walksalone" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 02:41:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:51:14 GMT, Tiger wrote in a jw style
follow up set
"Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
news:4083c899$0$624$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com:
NO-ONE has EVER come back after being dead.
How do you know?
Observation of what yeast doers to the human carcass once the cells are
deprived from oxygen, biology, organic chemistry. Take your pick.
Thats why it's called 'DEAD'.
So? When a vehicle stops it is called "still." Doesn't imply that it
cannot become "moving" again.
Grief that was shoddy. Mechanical versus organic, & you see a comparison?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
18 Apr 2004 11:06:41 PM |
|
|
"Lisa Horton" <Lisa1Horton@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a3d5485.0404181846.46ef7195@posting.google.com...
http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/wheredie.htm
Jesus clearly teaches that after believers die, they go to be with
him. He also is clear on what happens to non-believers. He said, "And
if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to
enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be
thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not
quenched'." (Mark 9:47-48). It is clear that sinners end up in a
horrible place, but there is more than one "hell". Hell is used to
translate three different Greek words: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartaros.
Really doesn't matter, as the bible says HELL, what ever place you say it
is, will end up in the Lake of Fire, the end of all punishments,
everlasting. Hell will only be a part of that end time lake of Fire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ph˙ltęr" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 06:58:08 AM |
|
|
"Raymond" <NOSPAM-rwknapp@hotmail.com> astounded us with: news:408350d9_1
@rain.i-cable.com:
Really doesn't matter, as the bible says HELL, what ever place you say it
is, will end up in the Lake of Fire, the end of all punishments,
everlasting. Hell will only be a part of that end time lake of Fire.
And the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre once said "Hell is other
people".
He was correct.
A "Lake Of Fire" doesn't cut it, other than the mention of it is a flag that
indicates that Raymond is a brain-dead fundie that parrots what some redneck
pastor with a very needy collection plate sprays at him on Sundays.
--
Ph˙ltęr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 10:03:37 AM |
|
|
"Ph˙ltęr" <Ph˙ltęr@freeway.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D0CC0122D6ASmeagolsbane@192.189.54.177...
"Raymond" <NOSPAM-rwknapp@hotmail.com> astounded us with: news:408350d9_1
@rain.i-cable.com:
Really doesn't matter, as the bible says HELL, what ever place you say
it
is, will end up in the Lake of Fire, the end of all punishments,
everlasting. Hell will only be a part of that end time lake of Fire.
And the French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre once said "Hell is other
people".
He was correct.
It would be if you are using the word for a location, or a metaphor. The
word "Hell" the dictionary says is: Noisy and unrestrained mischief, as well
as this, A cause of difficulty and suffering and of course, Any place of
pain and turmoil.
A "Lake Of Fire" doesn't cut it, other than the mention of it is a flag
that
indicates that Raymond is a brain-dead fundie that parrots what some
redneck
pastor with a very needy collection plate sprays at him on Sundays.
I sure the Lake of Fire would not cut it, to one that wants to do wrong,
only since I am posting from a religious NG it does cut it.
Then you would have to be what that "brain-dead" person, that just parrots
his atheist belief system. Then really I don't care what you call me, the
point is the bible says it, and that is it. Someday you will know if it is
or not, then it will be too late to turn from that path. Rev 20:14-15
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second
death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into
the lake of fire. NKJV
I will remove the link from here, and send this to you, so no need to reply,
unless you relink this. Sorry for any problems, I did not notice till now
this was linked to the atheism group.
Raymond
--
Ph˙ltęr
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://afjc.clickhalah.com/forum/index.php
Change "freeway" to "hotmail" to respond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: A proof that all non-believers probably will go to hell |
19 Apr 2004 03:57:10 PM |
|
|
One day in alt.atheism, Also Sprach Raymond:
Then really I don't care what you call me, the
point is the bible says it, and that is it.
The bible also says the earth is flat, and is the center of the universe,
and that the sun rotates around it.
Someday you will know if it is
or not, then it will be too late to turn from that path.
Unfortunately for everyone, this battle will never be resolved. For death
is the end of consciousness, and there is no path for the non-existent to
follow.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
______________
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day.
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.
--Timothy Jones
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
