If there were no Hell...

[Gene Parmesan]

But Darwin says we alllll came from the same beginning, so who do ALL those KINDS have the same ancestral root?

http://entocourses.tamu.edu/ento601/images/20090206234025!Tree_of_life_by_Haeckel.jpg

Cats and rhinos have a common ancestor. That's quite a bit different than a cat turning into a rhino.

 

[DarthNeo]

Cats and rhinos have a common ancestor. That's quite a bit different than a cat turning into a rhino.

What this boils down to is, evolution is nothing more than a THEORY that takes FAITH to believe in. So does Christianity. So would you rather believe that you were "wonderfully made" or that you evolved after BILLIONS of years (which even scientifically can be supported) from some primordial ooze?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

That's my take on it, yes.


-

How can one differentiate something as "designed" when literally everything is designed? Okay, so the pyramid is intelligently designed and we know it by contrasting it with, say, a mountain that is not intelligently designed...but also the mountain is intelligently designed? If the conclusion is that everything is designed, then the premise that we can tell the difference becomes nonsense to me.

 

[Rajni]

How can one differentiate something as "designed" when literally everything is designed? Okay, so the pyramid is intelligently designed and we know it by contrasting it with, say, a mountain that is not intelligently designed...but also the mountain is intelligently designed? If the conclusion is that everything is designed, then the premise that we can tell the difference becomes nonsense to me.

In other words, the system we've come to know which encompasses
such things as mountains and those who build pyramids is intelligently
designed.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

What this boils down to is, evolution is nothing more than a THEORY that takes FAITH to believe in. So does Christianity. So would you rather believe that you were "wonderfully made" or that you evolved after BILLIONS of years (which even scientifically can be supported) from some primordial ooze?

We clearly have different definitions of what "theory" means in a scientific context.

Believing something because I would "rather believe" it is a poor reason to believe anything, in my opinion. And I have no idea if "ooze" was the origin. I doubt we'll ever know that. What's more, I still think I am wonderful. And so are you!

I'd still like to know, are gorillas and chimps within the same "kind," under your understanding of the word?

 

[DarthNeo]

We clearly have different definitions of what "theory" means in a scientific context.

Believing something because I would "rather believe" it is a poor reason to believe anything, in my opinion. And I have no idea if "ooze" was the origin. I doubt we'll ever know that. What's more, I still think I am wonderful. And so are you!

I'd still like to know, are gorillas and chimps within the same "kind," under your understanding of the word?

I am going to say NO...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

In other words, the system we've come to know which encompasses
such things as mountains and those who build pyramids is intelligently
designed.

Thanks for helping me understand your perspective. I, personally, can't follow that logic but I appreciate your honesty.

I like your profile quote thing about anti-gravity books.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

I am going to say NO...

Then I most assuredly do not understand what a kind is. I'm okay with leaving it there. We've probably spent more than enough time being off-topic anyway. Haha

 

[Dave-W]

Cats and rhinos have a common ancestor.

That would be God.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That would be God.

Or not...

 

[Skavau]

If there were no Hell, if you chose not to accept Christ as Savior and the only punishment was living your 80 some odd years, dying, and losing all consciousness, basically you just took a "dirt nap" for eternity when you died, would you STILL become a Christian?

I'm not a Christian, but I could never be a Christian if 'hell' was to be considered a reasonable conclusion for anyone.

That is to say that the removal of hell as a place that people go to is a prerequisite for me ever converting.

 

[TruthSeekerNSF]

I view no existence as worse than an existence of eternal torment, just a personal comment. My lack of belief has nothing to do with what any proposed afterlife would be like.

So what's your recognition of Atheists' whereabouts after death? In my knowledge, no existence is the only result an Atheist will receive according to mainstream science. If so, why would you rather like to believe in this worse way?

 

[Dave RP]

I don't know if I can totally agree with you here because I would judge the morality of a person's behavior by their actions rather than their motivations for acting. IMO the bulk of humanity does not consistently act morally out of a sense of benevolence but out of either fear of retribution or hope of gain. I would prefer everyone acted morally because they believed it was the right thing to do and because, if they have a religious belief system like Christianity, they want to please God out of love , or if they had a different basis for their moral code out of some benevolent feeling toward whatever they considered the source of that code rather than fear or greed but, as a rule, we humans have been reduced to motivating each other by fear and greed( envy being a subset of greed).This is because it is the most effective way to motivate people that are not basically benevolent but rather basically self centered. Religions, though they are guilty of it, are not the sole or even the major source of using fear and greed as a means of control. Governments do it consistently with the added ability to enforce the fear and greed through physical force or grants of favor that are in the present and not feared or hoped for at some future time. A large proportion of the human population is not known for patience and responds best to immediate reward or punishment rather than deferred. Political philosophies and political activist for specific causes work much the same as religion using fear of some future catastrophe and hope of some future utopia to motivate people to support them but government is able to deliver its feared consequences and its rewards right here and right now which makes it the most effective at controlling people's behavior.

Interesting thoughts. I was having a similar conversation with a friend the other night, she is a committed Christian and we were debating why I, as an atheist do "good" things. Take a fairly simple example, if you're sitting in traffic and an ambulance with it's siren on comes along, the vast majority - almost 100% of the population would move out of the way to let the ambulance through but there is no direct benefit to the individual to do so, I have missed my turning in similar circumstances and made myself late but I (and nearly everyone else) would do the same. Why? We don't do it because God told us, or because we are concerned that God is judging us, we do it because it is the right thing to do, the most beneficial thing to do for society. If we were operating selfishly and through greed we would ignore the ambulance and go about OUR OWN business - but we don't. In that case there is no fear factor, it is purely the best way to act. I therefore am not sure your interpretation of human behaviour is correct.

 

[Dave RP]

So what's your recognition of Atheists' whereabouts after death? In my knowledge, no existence is the only result an Atheist will receive according to mainstream science. If so, why would you rather like to believe in this worse way?

I am not speaking for the other poster, but as an atheist I would say that of course I would like to believe that I will carry on after death, that this life is only a precursor to the glory to follow, that there is something more - but just because I like the idea of something doesn't mean I can believe in it. There are, for me, simply too many holes in the religious story for me to have faith, I could list some but it would be disrespectful on a christian forum. Suffice to say, I truly believe that you live, you die, that's it - nothing more. Of course if I'm wrong, according to Christian beliefs I get eternal damnation in a lake of fire, which is annoying, but I still do not believe in God.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Interesting thoughts. I was having a similar conversation with a friend the other night, she is a committed Christian and we were debating why I, as an atheist do "good" things. Take a fairly simple example, if you're sitting in traffic and an ambulance with it's siren on comes along, the vast majority - almost 100% of the population would move out of the way to let the ambulance through but there is no direct benefit to the individual to do so, I have missed my turning in similar circumstances and made myself late but I (and nearly everyone else) would do the same. Why? We don't do it because God told us, or because we are concerned that God is judging us, we do it because it is the right thing to do, the most beneficial thing to do for society. If we were operating selfishly and through greed we would ignore the ambulance and go about OUR OWN business - but we don't. In that case there is no fear factor, it is purely the best way to act. I therefore am not sure your interpretation of human behaviour is correct.

Self centeredness and selfishness are two different things. We move over for an ambulance because that is what we are told we ought to do. Even though many times we do it when doing it has no actual beneficial effect for the ambulance driver, it is simply a way of conforming to what is expected of us by society. Conforming to societal mores is of benefit to us personally not only in a practical way i.e. being a part of a group with predictable behaviors is good for our own security, but also for our mental state. As humans. we are genetically programmed to tend to want to be seen by others as good. This may be because our self image is based in part on how others see us but it also may be that , as social creatures, the group is seen as belonging to the individual( self centeredness) as much as the individual belongs to the group. . One sees oneself as the most important person in the universe to oneself and as such what effects one is the most important matter in the universe to one. We do not do this in a conscious manner . As a matter of fact we do a very good job of attempting to hide this from ourselves.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So what's your recognition of Atheists' whereabouts after death? In my knowledge, no existence is the only result an Atheist will receive according to mainstream science. If so, why would you rather like to believe in this worse way?

Believing something simply because you want it to be true is delusional. That's not something you really recommend, is it?

 

[Dave RP]

Self centeredness and selfishness are two different things. We move over for an ambulance because that is what we are told we ought to do. Even though many times we do it when doing it has no actual beneficial effect for the ambulance driver, it is simply a way of conforming to what is expected of us by society. Conforming to societal mores is of benefit to us personally not only in a practical way i.e. being a part of a group with predictable behaviors is good for our own security, but also for our mental state. As humans. we are genetically programmed to tend to want to be seen by others as good. This may be because our self image is based in part on how others see us but it also may be that , as social creatures, the group is seen as belonging to the individual( self centeredness) as much as the individual belongs to the group. . One sees oneself as the most important person in the universe to oneself and as such what effects one is the most important matter in the universe to one. We do not do this in a conscious manner . As a matter of fact we do a very good job of attempting to hide this from ourselves.

Agreed, the point I was making was that I do not believe that humans are inherently greedy, I think by and large we are fundamentally good and will look after each other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So what's your recognition of Atheists' whereabouts after death? In my knowledge, no existence is the only result an Atheist will receive according to mainstream science. If so, why would you rather like to believe in this worse way?

I view commentary on what happens after death as mostly pointless; we won't know until we die if there is anything or nothing. However, being an atheist doesn't mean that you don't believe in an afterlife. I believed in ghosts for a while. Being an atheist just means that you lack a belief in deities, no more, no less. As it stands, I don't have any perspective on what happens to us (all people, not just atheists) after we die. Maybe there's something, or maybe there's nothing. There isn't sufficient evidence for something, so I don't personally believe there is, but I nor anyone else will know with any certainty until we die.

Why I view a hellish afterlife as preferable to no afterlife at all is a matter of personal taste. I view experiences, even the horrible, as worth having over the absence of anything. Furthermore, I'd still have the memories I accumulated while I was alive, my personal imagination, etc. In all honesty, the afterlife I'd want the most wouldn't be all that different than being actually alive. Whether it be a lack of any strife, or constant punishment, afterlives like that would be boring. Balance is key to a fulfilling existence.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Agreed, the point I was making was that I do not believe that humans are inherently greedy, I think by and large we are fundamentally good and will look after each other.

I disagree. I think we are fundamentally self centered( not fundamentally selfish or fundamentally obsessively greedy though such greed and selfishness would be self centeredness taken to the extreme.). The body of evidence against humans being fundamentally good is just too large to ignore. I find Douglas Adams' description much more appropriate (Mostly Harmless). We are not fundamentally evil either there is a body of evidence to dismiss that as well. We are simply fundamentally self centered i.e. it is innate within us to care more about ourselves and what we consider belongs to us than about any other. I cannot see how one could logically come to any other conclusion about human beings by observing our behavior and the things we say to explain or even rationalize that behavior. Not that this behavioral model is in any way unique to humans. All living creatures are focused upon their own selves and those they consider to be extensions of themself above all others. Additionally, in saying we are all self centered I am not making a statement of moral condemnation. I do not see our being self centered as being any more immoral than the fact we eat, drink, breathe or have antibodies that routinely slaughter millions of bacteria. I do not think we decide to be self centered it is just one part of our nature that is beyond our control. It is all related to self preservation which is a biological imperative and not something we are consciously deciding to do.

 

[Sketcher]

If there were no Hell, if you chose not to accept Christ as Savior and the only punishment was living your 80 some odd years, dying, and losing all consciousness, basically you just took a "dirt nap" for eternity when you died, would you STILL become a Christian?

Yes, I believe so. I'd want to see what Heaven offers me.