Fear of hell or hope of heaven?

[nobspeople]

What do you think brings people to god more: the fear of an eternal hell or the hope of eternal heaven?

Cite examples for your opinion if you can.

[Jemima]

It seems that pretty much any topic is going to end the same way - Believers trying to make a case for God by appeal to faith - claims and science -denial.

What can I say...? "birds of a feather flock together"......what is stated above is the truth of the matter, and answers all those long posts. Denial is all that is demonstrated here. You deny my God, and I deny a lot (not all) of your science. Are we not all entitled to our beliefs? Please don't pretend that science doesn't have them.

God does not owe anyone an explanation. You either believe in him, or you don't......its that simple. Long explanations have all been said before, and I am not going to waste my time trying to defend my God when I believe that he will do that himself when the time is right.

It always makes me smile though when unbelievers try to shoot down belief in God as if their lives depended on it.....are you all really all that desperate for him to go away....?
Will you have to answer to him for your denial in the face of his creation, and claims that it was all the product of an infinite series of fortunate 'accidents'?
No intelligent design involved at all?

Is there just a little part of your collective consciousness that is not really sure.....but your confidence is bolstered by popular opinion? All those intelligent scientists can't be wrong, surely?

If you are all so sure of your beliefs, then why bother arguing so vehemently? I can't quite figure it out.....are you trying to convert me or something?
Please don't hold your breath, as I assure you that I won't hold mine.

You can all believe whatever you wish, because that is your right of choice.....but I have a right to my beliefs too, so why these long and confrontational arguments? Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourselves?

[Tcg]

You can all believe whatever you wish, because that is your right of choice.....but I have a right to my beliefs too, so why these long and confrontational arguments? Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourselves?

From what I have seen you are being asked to present verifiable evidence that supports your claims. Also from what I have seen, you have failed to do so.


Tcg

[Jemima]

You can all believe whatever you wish, because that is your right of choice.....but I have a right to my beliefs too, so why these long and confrontational arguments? Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourselves?

From what I have seen you are being asked to present verifiable evidence that supports your claims. Also from what I have seen, you have failed to do so.

It wouldn't matter what I presented, you would deny it anyway....your choice. Your mind is set and so is mine. What is the point?

We will all know sooner or later I think.

[Tcg]

You can all believe whatever you wish, because that is your right of choice.....but I have a right to my beliefs too, so why these long and confrontational arguments? Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourselves?

From what I have seen you are being asked to present verifiable evidence that supports your claims. Also from what I have seen, you have failed to do so.

It wouldn't matter what I presented, you would deny it anyway....your choice. Your mind is set and so is mine. What is the point?

We will all know sooner or later I think.

Ah yes, an Ad Hominem in place of verifiable evidence. And of course a scare tactic added to boot. No verifiable evidence, nothing but logical fallacies.


Tcg

[Jemima]

Ah yes, an Ad Hominem in place of verifiable evidence. And of course a scare tactic added to boot. No verifiable evidence, nothing but logical fallacies.

You just don’t get it do you? Science has no “verifiable evidence” that it’s first premise is correct, or even possible. It assumes that life began ‘accidentally’ because they just don’t know, and can’t really figure it out. But it totally accepts that life was originally a simple single celled organism that popped into existence one day, for no apparent reason, and came fully equipped to transform itself over millions of years to eventually become every kind of living thing on earth, including creatures the size of a three story building......you want a fairy story...? There it is.

What I see therefore, is an impressive edifice, built on matchsticks. Where are their solid foundations? If the foundations are weak, then everything they build on it, no matter how convincing it sounds, will eventually crumble.

Where is there “verifiable evidence” that this believed scenario ever took place? It’s an assumption, based on the idea that all “branches” in the evolutionary “tree” had to have some phantom creatures called ”common ancestors”....strangely though, as numerous as these “common ancestors” must have been.....(literally millions of them) no one has ever produced a single one, so not so “common” after all. They are all a product of suggestion, “believed” because there can be no ‘chain’ of evolution without these ‘links’.

Please produce “verifiable evidence” for science’s very first premise. IMO, the whole ‘single cells to dinosaurs’ scenario is the greatest fantasy ever perpetuated by science. This to me, is science fiction....yet look at all the “believers” who never question the “science”. I can see no actual science involved here.

Does that mean that I am a science denier? Not at all....science is a wonderful tool, and has shown us so many things about the complexity of the natural world that its purposeful design is undeniable to anyone who is not blinded by the “science” suggested by those who are determined to make an intelligent Creator go away.

So you see, we will never agree because the actual physical proof for both sides is missing. Our choices are therefore based on faith and belief. We are at an impasse. It will continue to divide us and separate the believers from the unbelievers....as I believe it is intended to do. As I said, you can “believe” whatever you wish......and I can do the same. Why does that bother you?

[brunumb]

So you see, we will never agree because the actual physical proof for both sides is missing. Our choices are therefore based on faith and belief.

Not at all. Despite the strawman version of science that you attempted to knock down, there is a huge imbalance in the evidence for both sides. Libraries and laboratories the world over are groaning under the weight of evidence supporting evolution and the science behind how life may have begun. On the other hand, Christianity has one book of stories and nothing to demonstrate that any of the supernatural events described in them ever happened. It should be obvious to all where faith is the essential requirement for acceptance.

[Jemima]

So you see, we will never agree because the actual physical proof for both sides is missing. Our choices are therefore based on faith and belief.

Not at all. Despite the strawman version of science that you attempted to knock down, there is a huge imbalance in the evidence for both sides. Libraries and laboratories the world over are groaning under the weight of evidence supporting evolution and the science behind how life may have begun. On the other hand, Christianity has one book of stories and nothing to demonstrate that any of the supernatural events described in them ever happened. It should be obvious to all where faith is the essential requirement for acceptance.

You still don't get it....."Libraries and laboratories the world over" are indeed "groaning under the weight" of copious assumptions about how life began and how it morphed into what we see now and in the distant past. There is not a single shred of actual proof for any of their "beliefs" about that.....you guys are in the same boat as we are.....to make our choice based on what appeals to us as individuals....and for reasons that only we and God know.

No amount of evidence that you provide for me will ever convince me of science's first premise, because all science can actually "prove" is adaptation. No scientific experiment ever conducted ever saw any creature morph into something other than a new variety within its own family. Adaptation is a fully programmed mechanism that is installed into the DNA of all living things. It is a survival mechanism that allows any species to adapt to a new environment or food source. Science has built its premise on..."if a little is good, a lot must be better".....yet there is nothing in their "evidence" to substantiate that claim. It can be suggested....but suggestions are not facts. I don't think you all have any idea how much conjecture and educated guessing forms the basis of your beloved scientific theory.

And no amount of evidence that I produce for the superior intelligence of an all powerful Creator will ever sway you. The 'high ground' that you base your own assumptions on, has nothing holding it up because science's first premise must be accepted on faith and belief. Now that is a fact....

[brunumb]

You still don't get it....."Libraries and laboratories the world over" are indeed "groaning under the weight" of copious assumptions about how life began and how it morphed into what we see now and in the distant past.

No, you don't get it. Science progresses on the back of evidence. Hypotheses are made and tested. Predictions are made and tested. Confirming evidence progresses a theory while failures lead to theories being discarded. Since Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution through natural selection, it has only grown stronger and stronger. Denial has not been successful in refuting it.

There is not a single shred of actual proof for any of their "beliefs" about that.....you guys are in the same boat as we are.....to make our choice based on what appeals to us as individuals....and for reasons that only we and God know.

Science does not deal with proofs. It provides the best theories that explain the facts and evidence we have. How ironic that you dismiss the reality of how science works by placing it in the same boat as yourselves where there is no evidence but only faith. Unlike religion, the scientific method does not allow for personal choices or what seems appealing.

No amount of evidence that you provide for me will ever convince me of science's first premise, because all science can actually "prove" is adaptation. No scientific experiment ever conducted ever saw any creature morph into something other than a new variety within its own family.

That is a classic example of the firmly closed mind, resistant to learning in case it damages the faith. And once again the strawman is created in order to knock down a false representation of the evolutionary process. Creatures do not simply morph into others. That is not evolution what evolution describes and saying such things suggests lack of understanding, lack of education or deliberate misdirection.

Adaptation is a fully programmed mechanism that is installed into the DNA of all living things. It is a survival mechanism that allows any species to adapt to a new environment or food source.

Evolution involves changes in DNA and morphology and involves populations of organisms changing over long periods of time, not just individuals adapting.

Science has built its premise on..."if a little is good, a lot must be better".....

I have no idea what that even means in this context.

....yet there is nothing in their "evidence" to substantiate that claim. It can be suggested....but suggestions are not facts. I don't think you all have any idea how much conjecture and educated guessing forms the basis of your beloved scientific theory.

There is a lot of conjecture and educated guessing at the beginning of the scientific process, but that is then followed up by thorough investigation, testing, predicting, and piecing together the accumulated evidence to form a coherent conclusion. In the long run, the theory of evolution has held up and gone from strength to strength. Those that deny that fact invariably have no understanding of the theory as a whole or deliberately dismiss it simply to preserve their precious faith.

And no amount of evidence that I produce for the superior intelligence of an all powerful Creator will ever sway you.

Your mind-reading skills have let you down. Of course I would be swayed by genuine, compelling evidence. I have asked believers to present it for decades and all I ever received was unsupported claims, opinions and a lot of hand waving. In the end, those people with the alleged evidence simply admitted that it is really all down to faith. I'm guessing that your claim was made as a preemptive excuse for not actually producing any such evidence yourself.

The 'high ground' that you base your own assumptions on, has nothing holding it up because science's first premise must be accepted on faith and belief. Now that is a fact....

And what exactly is science's first premise? You have desperately tried to reduce science to the level of faith and belief like your religion, but that in no way elevates your position to anything more than that. Is that what you wanted to achieve. The evidence for the success of the scientific method is not just there to 'see' but it is present in just about everything we use today. On the other hand, to 'see' God you have to use an awful lot of imagination.

[Tcg]

Ah yes, an Ad Hominem in place of verifiable evidence. And of course a scare tactic added to boot. No verifiable evidence, nothing but logical fallacies.

You just don’t get it do you?

Actually I get it quite well. Rather than a presentation of verifiable evidence we have yet another Ad Hominem and this time an attempt to change the subject to boot. Here is the tally so far:

2 - Ad Hominem arguments
1 - Scare tactic
1 - Attempt to change the subject
0 - Presentations of verifiable evidence


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

It seems that pretty much any topic is going to end the same way - Believers trying to make a case for God by appeal to faith - claims and science -denial.

What can I say...? "birds of a feather flock together"......what is stated above is the truth of the matter, and answers all those long posts. Denial is all that is demonstrated here. You deny my God, and I deny a lot (not all) of your science. Are we not all entitled to our beliefs? Please don't pretend that science doesn't have them.

God does not owe anyone an explanation. You either believe in him, or you don't......its that simple. Long explanations have all been said before, and I am not going to waste my time trying to defend my God when I believe that he will do that himself when the time is right.

It always makes me smile though when unbelievers try to shoot down belief in God as if their lives depended on it.....are you all really all that desperate for him to go away....?
Will you have to answer to him for your denial in the face of his creation, and claims that it was all the product of an infinite series of fortunate 'accidents'?
No intelligent design involved at all?

Is there just a little part of your collective consciousness that is not really sure.....but your confidence is bolstered by popular opinion? All those intelligent scientists can't be wrong, surely?

If you are all so sure of your beliefs, then why bother arguing so vehemently? I can't quite figure it out.....are you trying to convert me or something?
Please don't hold your breath, as I assure you that I won't hold mine.

You can all believe whatever you wish, because that is your right of choice.....but I have a right to my beliefs too, so why these long and confrontational arguments? Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourselves?

The difference is that there is no good reason to believe in any god, let alone the one of any particular Holy book. But there is verifiable evidence to believe in science. As I have said here before, no scientific theory has been overturned since the Ptolemaic solar system. And I haven't said it here but 'There are many religions; there is only one science'. You know that believers point to science as 'always changing its' mind'. Yes; that is its' strength. It is willing to change its' mind in the face of new evidence. Religious dogma fights admitting it was wrong, but then has to change its' view while pretending that it was saying that all along. Which is why we get Genesis presented as metaphor, or being fiddled to fit the science (with the 23 billion year 'days' and the 'cloud -cover' apologetic), or the total denial of science as in hardcore creationism. Though even the worst tries to at least adapt it to fit the geological science. I mentioned that they even accept evolution, (from supposed basic 'kinds', [like Pakicetus] true) but all evolution packed into 1,000 years.

You may try to wangle a 'believe or not' draw in the discussion, but we will simply persist in putting our case. Why? I won't touch on the dangers of relying on Faith rather than evidence and reason. Anyone who hasn't seen that by now is simply not looking.

I'll just say that the truth is important. Beliefs should follow verified facts, not lead them. It follows that having little credence for any kind of god - claim and virtually none in any man - made god -claim is the result of critical thinking. And threats of retribution when Jesus comes in Pow'r in the clouds with lightning and a winged bod tooting on a trumpet just make me laugh. What are you going to say when put up in front of an ayatollah - scowling Allah demanding to know why you didn't believe the Quran?

Not really sure? There are many doubts and questions, but one thing I'm sure of - there is no good reason to believe in Biblegod, Bible -Jesus, or in the Bible and particularly not in the nativities and the resurrection -accounts. And those underpin present day Christian dogma.

Popular opinion? If it has veered towards non -belief, it is because of our efforts. It wasn't always like that. In the early days, everyone seemed to credit a sorta -god, and thought that Church - going was a good thing. Atheism hardly had a voice, but the Internet changed all that. We have a voice and we won't be silenced. People must make up their own minds based (I hope) on the quality of the arguments.

Why we argue is because we feel the need to change this unquestioning acceptance of religious claims. Or, if they do have questions, some mighty clever apologetics can talk them into belief (1). It takes someone who can identify fuddled logic, fiddled evidence and downright lies to expose them and give the other side - which the great unprepared have never been able to hear.

The people in general are those that I (and we goddless) are trying to persuade. No point in pretending that isn't the aim. I accept that we are unlikely to persuade you but you are the opponent in a debate (until the Flounce) and it's the audience that counts in the end. The browsers and lurkers and 'guests' here (whom I invite to make themselves known ) are the ones I have in mind with every post.

Mind, if an opponent does change their mind (and a few have done so and been apologetic about how they acted when they were batting for the Jesus -team) then that's always a good reason to break out the champagne and party - poppers.

(1) just look at that recent effort to iron out to contradictions in the resurrection account. It reminds me a a book I read (pity I never bought it) which worked out an elaborate scenario with all kinds of people with the same name all racing about and somehow not crashing into each other. But even that simply left out contradictions that they couldn't deal with.