The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

That sign read something about reason being an enemy of faith, didn't it? I think the sign is too general. God says "Come let us reason together." And the we read of "your most reasonable service" of allowing your mind to be renewed by the Spirit of Christ so that you may present yourself to serve Him.But these kinds of reasonings are not so funny. I think the sign may have been speaking about the kind of reasoning which often assaults biblical faith for reason like the above.Jesus talked about the sinner's evil reasonings proceeding out of the heart of man. Sagan should talk.Anyway, it is a genetic fallacy. Deep seated reasons to believe something do not necessarily make that which is believed untrue.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ok, thats nice. You lifted three quotes from a book ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" itself derived from "Why I Believe" by Dr. James Kennedy) and act like it is true.Actually these are quote-mined lies. You are spreading lies.Here is a link that exposes this lie: THE JULIAN HUXLEY LIEAnd we trust every religious person who says they were once atheists why?In fact every person on this planet who has ever lived was an atheist at one point in there lives. Why? Because babies do not believe in god. One has to be indoctrinated into belief in the God of the Bible otherwise why have Sunday School and Church when you could just instinctively learn about God. And Mike the preacher down the streat says God is freaking loser and a moron and we should burn our Bibles. See how much credibility this takes.Even if these are actually quotes what does this prove? That a few people made stupid remarks. Who cares if a few non-believers (and two 'supposed' atheist who converted to Christianity) give some off the wall remarks. Should I take some quotes from religious people out of context and try to make it show that they do not believe in God or the Bible? It really would not be that hard to do. Subjective ramblings from a few people does not an argument for God make.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

ONI writes:I never said audiblyDo you mean to tell me you cant hear in some fashion, your thoughts. Oh that right you said it was an illusion. Hold on a minute, lets examine that thought (No pun intended) I already have explained, and not explained what is not explainable I cant explain something that has no substance or obvious properties, yet is something that exists because I can hear it and react to itTake this in the spirit it is intended in the spirit of deeeeebate and funYouve heard the expression, "When you cant dazzel them with brillance, baffle them with B...S..."I think that is what is taking place here.It is flat irrelevant where the thought takes place, before during or after, the PROCESS produces an abstract idea or concept that is notible and verifiable by my mind, heard in my head and acted upon as if it had actual substance and yet it appears to have no substance of its own, even as a part of the process.To drive this point home, you have now admitted that what you hear in your mind is an illusion. To avoid the obvious conclusion that you are hearing something in your mind, in some manner, first you laugh at this OBVIOUS occurance, then you classify it as an illusionNow since you are the man that always requires OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for things, I would ask you to provide evidence that what you KNOW you are hearing, is actually an illusion and not a product of the thought process. If on the other hand it is a part of the physical process, exacally how does this illusion work? Where excally in the PROCESS does this happen, identify it for us with OBJECTIVE evidence and identify this self-proclaimed illusionWouldnt an illusion in this instance be something that is obvious yet with no apparent substanceIllusion or not, you have now demonstrated my point that an idea (thought) is without any substance as we know substance and it certainly appears to beHow can what you are hearing (and I never said audibly) in your mind be an illusion and still apart of the very complicated chemical process. So is it an illusion or not and how specifically does this illusion occur?I think you have your work cut in trying to explain HOW, rhis ILLUSION takes place. Now remember it wont be enough to repeat the chemical process as you have,to which I pretty much agree, show me how, where, why when and what this illusion is or is not.Can you really show me the properties of an ABSTRACT IDEA, this should be interesting. I THOUGHT about it and , not at all, am I wrong, because you havent explained the properties of an abstract idea yet, youve just said they were an illusion, which i believe is an abstract idea, which by the way, I can hear in my mind.Didnt you learn anything from Bruce Almighty, just to many prayers (thoughts)to handle at once Thats the point ONI, I cant explain it or deduce it, or analyze it, but its there nonetheless. Now if you can just explain this "illusion", with no real substance, we can close the case on this mnystery Close the case and solve the mystery for us Yoda Your not being objective for me or your readers. hey everybody else, reading these posts, please raise your hand if you dont hear your thoughts in some fashion we dont understand I love discussing this one more than the thought one. Just keep in mind that God is all there is in existence, that is, everything is God material or God substance, except an absract thought or concept, which is a result of substance, with no substance, yet a reality of its own.Heavy dudeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Well yes. How exactly do you propose that I know what God deems to be right or wrong?The answer to this rather obvious question seems to be a glaring omission in your replies. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So God is also evil..........?

Debate evasive tactic #1: focus on anything else but what you were orginally debating and try to shift the focus to that. Please stop being evasive and answer specific questionsPlease answer this, which I asked in my last post: Please explain what you mean by "no substance." No I don't, at all. Furthermore, there is no "some other fashion of hearing." You hear audibly, and that's it, there is no other way to "hear".You can't use the word "hear" to mean something completely different. Definition of Hear: It is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations via an organ such as the ear. Please try to follow the debate and don't be evasive.This is how it went: If there is more to the process then please explain. If you agree with the stimuli-thought-reaction process then say you agree with it.But please don't evade the question. It is completely relevant and I'd like for you to answer it.You say it has no "substance," I can only assume that means it's not made of any fundamental properties (and I have to assume that because you didn't answer it). If it has no substance, but is the effect of stimuli and the cause of an action, then it is somewhere doing something. I'd like for you to tell me what that is.Or, as I suspect, you can tell me you have no clue what you're talking about and were talking out of your ass.I'll accept either one. No I didn't classify it as an illusion. If you're having trouble comprehending the subject we are discussing we can stop here.But I'll try once again. I don't hear an audible voice, I have the illusion of a voice in my head, we all do. Everyone thinks there's a voice in there head, but we know better.The ONLY way you can "hear" something is by an audibe sound (I refer you back to the definition of hear that I provide above). If you are using "hear" to mean something OTHER THAN an audible sound, then you are misusing the word. And I can't follow a debate like that. That wasn't the question or the point. You are again being evasive. Please try to follow the debate.The question I asked came from you saying that the scientific definition for a thought were NOT the definition but in fact were just describing the process. Which is weird because they were both definitions used in philosophy to describe thoughts, but that doesn't matter.I followed by explaining the process and showing you that in fact it WAS NOT just describing the process but was in fact describing a thought. But, since you disagreed, I asked you to point to the moment in the process where the thought happens. So lets try it again.If it happens after the stimuli BUT before the reaction, then when, where, how does the thought manifest?Or, as I suspect, you can tell me you have no clue what you're talking about and were talking out of your ass.I'll accept either one. No, it seems like complete nonsense.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I would like to go back to morality and how that relates to Heaven and Hell, specifically, moral relativism.In different cultures around the world, there are certain practices that may seem wrong to one culture but are acceptable and maybe even considered right in others. Take the issue of female genital mutilation. There are tribes in Africa that consider this an acceptable practice. Does what they do go against the moral judgment of God? Why are so many of these procedures performed (2 million a year) if it is considered wrong by people of the Abrahamic faiths. Wouldn't this God imposed morality prevent such a widespread immoral act? And would those people who allowed the procedure and did the procedure be able to go to Heaven since it's likely they wouldn't feel remores over what they did or allowed to happen?

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

I see this dictionary definition of HEAR: Notice "to gain information : learn b : to receive communication" In this case it did not say it had to be an audible communication or the information has to be in sound only.I think you can loosen up a little on the word "hear".

Thanks for the link. I do not want to misquote or attribute a quote to the wrong person. You've succeeded in suspicioning me about it. I don't think I wrote that we should trust every religious person who says t hey were once atheists. Are you claiming that we should trust none of them ? I think both extremes would be unwise. You don't know that. Besides it seems like an argument from popularity. But neither did they believe in the non-existence of God. Come now. That is ridiculous.1.) Indoctrination does not necessarily mean that the doctrine is not true.2.) Not all believers in God were brought up in Sunday School.3.) Seventh Day Adventist don't have Sunday School because their day for such spiritual gatherings is Saturday.Nitpicky, I admit.4.) Some people became skeptical about God in Sunday School and did not becomes believers until after they got out of that environment. Ie, left organized religious instruction and latter became believers in God in an independent way. Sounds like Mike. Jokes about trite religious signs on a lawn don't do a whole lot to address the issue either.

quote:

---

Lets assume that God is good. God is love. God is justice. We will go with this word, Zog. God is Zog. (We don't yet know if God is also Anti-Zog or not) If the concept of anti-zog exists, it had to be either allowed (or created) by God or part of God.

---

Good question.Personally, I believe that God created the potential for evil to exist and that evil was done through willfully actualizing or fulfilling the potential.

Sure.. Given the golden rules we'd have to conclude yes. Unless those carrying out the mutilation are willing to have done unto them what they do unto others.- People of Abrahamic faiths clearly don't see it as wrong. People of Abrahamic faiths are no different to atheists: they need saving too - both Jew (religious) and Gentile (irreligious) need saving. People of Abrahamic faiths are, in other words, sinners.- Not at all. I think you underestimate how sinful man actually is. This isn't a question of breaking a law here or there, this out and out godless living we're engaged in here. The broken, crippled world around us: at war, destroying itself, destroying the people in it, ever putting own interest above the interest of others testifies to that fact.These days it's even easier to see than before.- It's only sinners that get to heaven. It's only sinners who can be convicted that that's what they are. The only difference between the sinner in heaven and the sinner in hell is that the former became convicted of that fact. Not in some half-hearted intellectual way I might add - the conviction will have reached all they way down to their boots. Utter and total conviction.All sinners all the same.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No, sorry, Jaywill, I don't think I can. Not in the context that it's being used.-Oni

Not a problem. Notice I did not say you were lying just that you were spreading a lie. I was pretty sure you were not doing this intentionally.This happens all to often. I will agree that non-religious as well as religious people are guilty of spreading internet rumors and mine-quotes but its almost seems endemic in the Creationist/ID community to the point that some people doing it knowing that they are false, which to me removes all credibility for anything else they state. That is why I always try to investigate the actual sources to determine what is correct or not however I am sure that I have even unknowingly spread false internet rumors at one time or another. It is easy to do when you pull stuff off of the internet. No. I agree. But realistically, usually the people who claim to have been hard-core atheists and now are "born-again" Christians were just people who really didn't give a flip whether God exists or not (which probably describes close to 30-40% of the population of the US and even more in Europe) as opposed to atheists who actually have definitive reasons for not believing in God and can logically and rationally back up their worldview. It depends on how you define atheist. The word atheist in Greek (atheos) means "without gods". If you define an atheist using the original greek definition as someone that does not believe in a supernatural deity than yes everyone at one point (a baby/toddler/young child) did not believe in God and therefore technically was an atheist.However, the word atheist has been more narrowed down through to imply someone who actively does not believe in supernatural entities called God or gods because of logical and emperical evidence that they believe supports their worldview. If this is the term than no babies, toddlers, children were neither theists or atheists but they are non-believers since do not have the rational to believe in anything except that substinance, love, and security come (or should come) from their parents/caretakers.So I guess it really depends on how you are defining the word "atheist". I don't think I was using this to prove that the non-existance of God is true, just that people are not born believing in God. Or would you disagree? See above.Either way, just because someone says they were an active atheist in their past means nothing, I see it as just a ploy some born-again Christians sometimes use to try to convince their audience that they should be credible in saying bad things about being an atheist. The same thing can be done with someone (i.e. myself) about being a Christian and then becoming a deist, agnostic or atheist.Either way there one has to have implicit trust that what one is saying is true. Personal testimonies are known to be biased and hold little weight as empirical evidence for or against the existence of God.Notice, I am not saying it is wrong to give your personal testimony both for or against Christianity; just that it should not be used to determine the validity for or against the existence of God. Or true.But what it does show is that people do not implicity know all the doctrine incorporated in the Bible. It has to be taught to them or they have to learn it through reading the Bible on their own.
BTW I never said that indoctrination means that the doctrine is not true only that it puts into suspicion whether the belief in the existence of God is inherent behavior in humans. Based on evidence I believe this not to be so. Of course not. My point was why have Sunday School at all if the nature of God and the ethical code of the Bible are inherent to human beings. Yes I know that. Neither do many Churches of Christ. You missed my point. See my above comment. Few people become Christians this way. Even so, nearly all do so from some type of exposure to the Christian faith i.e. early experience from childhood, reading a Bible, watching a preacher on TV/street corner/etc, personal witness, etc, etc. Touche. It was an attempt at levity to lighten up an otherwise serious topic. I guess it failed Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Jaywill writesOni writes:Working on a response to your last post, but Im having a hard time HEARING what you are saying,since its not audible, its only in written, computerized words. Stop it EAMEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

If you're using the word metaphorically, or as a slang, or something else, then be specific. But if you say everyone knows that you can "hear" your thoughts, and then follow that by saying that you can "hear it in some way," then you are either being puposely vague, not using the word properly, or trying to evade from dealing with the actual science behind thoughts.Now you want to jump on Jaywill's position to seek any kind of support you can get.Be clear and specific when you describe what you mean by "hear my thoughts." It's all about CONTEXT.If you use it like "I hear what you're saying," or "hear! hear!" or if you write "I hear you, bro," then I get the context that it is being used in.But you said "I can hear my thoughts," I asked "audibly?" to which you replied "No, but I hear them in some way," fine OK, what way is that?- Oni