Atheist view of hell

[Charlemagne_III]

Sorry to disappoint you, Brad, but I know nothing about evolutionary psychology.

I doubt that anybody else does either.

Chesterton in *The Everlasting Man *makes mincemeat out of those who assume an evolutionary psychology can be documented. There is no evidence whatever, for example, of a creature who was just starting to have artistic abilities evolving into a creature fully endowed with them. The 30,000 year old cave drawings found in France are no more nor less sophisticated than drawings scrawled today on the subway walls in New York City or London.

Indeed, given the state of modern art, it is more likely that the human inclination to be creative has devolved rather than evolved.

Or as you might put it, “negative behavior has negative effects.”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I doubt that anybody else does either.

Chesterton in *The Everlasting Man *makes mincemeat out of those who assume an evolutionary psychology can be documented. There is no evidence whatever, for example, of a creature who was just starting to have artistic abilities evolving into a creature fully endowed with them. The 30,000 year old cave drawings found in France are no more nor less sophisticated than drawings scrawled today on the subway walls in New York City or London.

Indeed, given the state of modern art, it is more likely that the human inclination to be creative has devolved rather than evolved.

Or as you might put it, “negative behavior has negative effects.”

If anything, mankind is evolving back into apes.

 

[tonyrey]

If anything, mankind is evolving back into apes.

There are at least two fatal flaws in the survival value hypothesis:

1. The assumption that some organisms must survive (even though life has almost become extinct on this planet several times).
2. The assumption that in the long term change is more likely to be progressive than regressive is unfounded…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There are at least two fatal flaws in the survival value hypothesis:

1. The assumption that some organisms must survive (even though life has almost become extinct on this planet several times).
2. The assumption that in the long term change is more likely to be progressive than regressive is unfounded…

Yes. So true.

 

[reggieM]

There are at least two fatal flaws in the survival value hypothesis:

1. The assumption that some organisms must survive (even though life has almost become extinct on this planet several times).
2. The assumption that in the long term change is more likely to be progressive than regressive is unfounded…

Also, with the belief that life emerged from non-living chemicals, there is no explanation for where the survival instinct came from. Chemicals do not want or need to survive and living organisms would have no such need either since death for them would simply return them back to their original status of non-living chemicals.

 

[Bradski]

There are at least two fatal flaws in the survival value hypothesis:

1. The assumption that some organisms must survive (even though life has almost become extinct on this planet several times).
2. The assumption that in the long term change is more likely to be progressive than regressive is unfounded…

Change is both. Now think very carefully about this next question.

What generally happens to organisms which experience a regressive change? And I mean overall. In the grand scheme of things. Averaging things out. And a follow up:

How do you think those organisms compare to those who have, by the roll of the evolutionary dice, received a progressive change?

Hint: a change can only be described as regressive or progressive as it pertains to the survivability of the organism.

 

[Bradski]

Also, with the belief that life emerged from non-living chemicals, there is no explanation for where the survival instinct came from. Chemicals do not want or need to survive and living organisms would have no such need either since death for them would simply return them back to their original status of non-living chemicals.

Instinct is only applicable to organisms that exhibit conscious thought. As opposed to innate refelxes. There could be an interesting discussion as to whether the one developed from the other.

But those organisms that thought that avoiding pain was a good thing passed on that rather sensible gene to its offspring.

Ain’t nature wonderful. Full marks to God for setting it up in such a way.

 

[tonyrey]

Instinct is only applicable to organisms that exhibit conscious thought. As opposed to innate refelxes. There could be an interesting discussion as to whether the one developed from the other.

But those organisms that thought that avoiding pain was a good thing passed on that rather sensible gene to its offspring.

Ain’t nature wonderful. Full marks to God for setting it up in such a way.

:ehh:

Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of** innate biological factors.**

 

[reggieM]

Instinct is only applicable to organisms that exhibit conscious thought.

Don’t we normally think of birds, squirrels, beavers - animals in general - as doing things by instinct? But they don’t have conscious thought - right?

As opposed to innate refelxes. There could be an interesting discussion as to whether the one developed from the other.

It seems you’re starting with these features but I was questioning the origin of them.

But those organisms that thought that avoiding pain was a good thing passed on that rather sensible gene to its offspring.

Back to my analysis from non-living - chemicals don’t feel pain. Why did pain need to evolve then? Wouldn’t the most successful organisms be the ones that could endure and survive conflicts without suffering any pain? Like water molecules. They don’t suffer pain, they proliferate through the environment.

Ain’t nature wonderful. Full marks to God for setting it up in such a way.

I know you mean it sarcastically, but I’ll just accept it at face value and agree.

 

[tonyrey]

Instinct is only applicable to organisms that exhibit conscious thought. As opposed to innate refelxes. There could be an interesting discussion as to whether the one developed from the other.

But those organisms that thought that avoiding pain was a good thing passed on that rather sensible gene to its offspring.

Ain’t nature wonderful. Full marks to God for setting it up in such a way.

There are at least two fatal flaws in the survival value hypothesis:

The use of the term “scheme of things” is significant:

A large-scale systematic plan or arrangement for attaining some particular object or putting a particular idea into effect.

• wikipedia

To restrict “regressive” to survivability based on physical factors overlooks the threat posed by thought to the survival of **all life **on this planet. If the power of reason were due to “the roll of the evolutionary dice” it could hardly be “a progressive change” but a confirmation of the atheist’s view of hell.

There is also the formidable problem of the precise means by which insight and understanding were produced by mindless molecules. In the absence of a detailed explanation it remains a gratuitous hypothesis which doesn’t correspond to the astonishing achievements of philosophy and science which have transformed life on this planet in both positive and negative ways. It also confirms the failure of atheism to recognise the distinction between good and evil. In a Godless universe morality is merely a fantasy, i.e. a “superstructure” according to Karl Marx…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Change is both. Now think very carefully about this next question.

What generally happens to organisms which experience a regressive change? And I mean overall. In the grand scheme of things. Averaging things out. And a follow up:

How do you think those organisms compare to those who have, by the roll of the evolutionary dice, received a progressive change?

Hint: a change can only be described as regressive or progressive as it pertains to the survivability of the organism.

I think dinosaurs were much more advanced than the puny lizard.

 

[tonyrey]

Don’t we normally think of birds, squirrels, beavers - animals in general - as doing things by instinct? But they don’t have conscious thought - right?

It seems you’re starting with these features but I was questioning the origin of them.

Pertinent without being impertinent.

Back to my analysis from non-living - chemicals don’t feel pain. Why did pain need to evolve then? Wouldn’t the most successful organisms be the ones that could endure and survive conflicts without suffering any pain? Like water molecules. They don’t suffer pain, they proliferate through the environment.

An exquisite objection that would undoubtedly be supported by hedonists, Reggie.

I know you mean it sarcastically, but I’ll just accept it at face value and agree.

Many a true word is spoken (or written) in jest (even if contemptuous)…

 

[inocente]

Also, with the belief that life emerged from non-living chemicals, there is no explanation for where the survival instinct came from. Chemicals do not want or need to survive and living organisms would have no such need either since death for them would simply return them back to their original status of non-living chemicals.

Back to my analysis from non-living - chemicals don’t feel pain. Why did pain need to evolve then? Wouldn’t the most successful organisms be the ones that could endure and survive conflicts without suffering any pain? Like water molecules. They don’t suffer pain, they proliferate through the environment.

ReggieM, these are very basic things, did you really not learn about them at school? I think probably you did, unless Upstate NY has a unique education system. But if not, there are millions of Catholics and other Christians who can explain them to you.

 

[reggieM]

But if not, there are millions of Catholics and other Christians who can explain them to you.

If there is a Catholic here - not an atheist and not you - who would like to explain it I am very open to that.

 

[inocente]

If there is a Catholic here - not an atheist and not you - who would like to explain it I am very open to that.

Cool. If you draw a blank (the thread isn’t about evolution, so there might not be anyone reading who is willing), I recently found this Catholic University of America page on evolution - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The final question to ask is why the universe even exists. We know at one time it did not. What changed that? The atheist has no explanation that can be considered logical by his own standard of reasoning (for example, did the universe create itself?) The theist has an explanation that even the atheist can understand, and can admit the logical possibility of, while still refusing to accept it. He can admit the logical possibility of theism because he also admits, with atheism, the possible uncreated eternity of the universe. If he can admit that, he must also admit the logical possibility of an eternal creator of the universe.

The Christian view of hell as opposed to the atheist view is that there is a purpose the universe serves. The atheist view of hell is that we live in a purposeless universe.

On the gate at the entrance to this universe is inscribed, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter.”

 

[reggieM]

Cool. If you draw a blank (the thread isn’t about evolution, so there might not be anyone reading who is willing), I recently found this Catholic University of America page on evolution - trs.cua.edu/Science-for-Seminaries/biology-evolution.cfm

Ok, thanks - but yes, I’m looking for a Catholic here to post.

Of course, the issues I brought up are not evolution but actually what comes before evolution in the supposed emergence of life from non-living matter.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Ok, thanks - but yes, I’m looking for a Catholic here to post.

Of course, the issues I brought up are not evolution but actually what comes before evolution in the supposed emergence of life from non-living matter.

Then you should explicitly differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis - because they are not the same. And you need to realize that there is no clear dividing line between “living” and “inanimate” matter. Furthermore, that it is an unimportant question.

And finally, that only a horrible psychopath can invent a “place” of eternal suffering.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then you should explicitly differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis - because they are not the same. And you need to realize that there is no clear dividing line between “living” and “inanimate” matter. Furthermore, that it is an unimportant question.

And finally, that only a horrible psychopath can invent a “place” of eternal suffering.

Are you saying that Jesus was a “horrible psychopath”?

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Does a horrible psychopath invent heaven, a place of eternal happiness?

 

[ANV]

Are you saying that Jesus was a “horrible psychopath”?

Matthew 25:41

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Does a horrible psychopath invent heaven, a place of eternal happiness?

What about suffering on earth?