What will you say to Satan when you burn in hell?

[ungod]

HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL

The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,

    Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.

Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50

where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).

The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.

[Brakeman]

Catbird,

Verse 6:7 says god's anger was kindled against Uzzah before he smote him.
If god just had to follow his own rules, why would he be angry? Wouldn't he have felt sorrow and compassion for Uzzah?

A mere mortal human has a better heart than god evidently.

[catbird]

Brakeman,

A mere mortal human has a better heart than god evidently.

All mortals, or are some mortals bettter than others.. I am thinking Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Hitler, Vlad III Dracul,Timur the Lame?

[Astreja]

To be born again is to be born of the Holy Spirit.

Do you have any empirical evidence for the existence of this "Holy Spirit" entity?

[jaimehlers]

Brakeman,

A mere mortal human has a better heart than god evidently.

All mortals, or are some mortals bettter than others.. I am thinking Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Hitler, Vlad III Dracul,Timur the Lame?

You do know that each of those men are known for more than just the bad things things attributed to them, right?  Stalin reorganized the Soviet Union from an agrarian nation to a major industrial power with the second largest economy in the world after WWII; Mao Zedong[1] broke the power of the feudal overlords of China and dramatically improved the lives of common Chinese peasants; Hitler brought Germany out of the Great Depression and restored the pride of the Germans.  I don't know about those other two, but I'll add one, Genghis Khan, who led the Mongols to conquer China and half of Europe, promoted religious tolerance that was practically unheard of till that point, dramatically enhanced trade between Asia, the Middle East, and the West, made sure his soldiers clearly understood his policies and didn't tolerate much of the brutality that was common in armies of that time.  Or another man, Oda Nobunaga, who was infamous for his brutality in battle, but who was the key mover in the reunification of Japan during the Sengoku peirod, revolutionized gunpowder tactics in Japan, modernized the economies and infrastructure of the provinces under his control, dramatically enhanced trade during a period of unmitigated, brutal warfare, and helped to shape and build Japanese culture.

I am certainly not suggesting that the brutality and viciousness of these men should be ignored[2], but neither should you or anyone pretend that their accomplishments mean nothing.  They may have built those accomplishments on a mountain of bodies, but the only atypical thing about it is that they actually tried to build something instead of just making a mountain of bodies.

1.	This is how his name is actually spelled, 'tse-tung' is a transliteration.
2.	They certainly should not be ignored, and nobody in their right mind should seek to emulate their methods.

[voodoo child]

All mortals, or are some mortals bettter than others.. I am thinking Stalin, Mao tse Tung, Hitler, Vlad III Dracul,Timur the Lame?

what do any those people have to do with being an atheist?

“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
? Adolf Hitler

    catholic.

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.”
? Joseph Stalin 

   a nutbag with delusions of grander. yet he loved his family dearly.

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”
? Mao Tse-tung

  sounds like a person with strong personal beliefs.

[screwtape]

All,

I'm calling a time out.  Please do not post until I get some answers out of catbird.


catbird,
You do not appear to be on the same page as anyone here.  The point of this site is for people to have conversations.  A conversation is a two-way communication.  You do not appear to be listening to anything anyone has to say to you.  You are making post after post where you appear to just be regurgitating what you learned from a bigoted minister or bible class.  As such, you are not having a conversation. You are preaching.  That is against the rules.

I would like to see two things from you.  First, I would like you to tell me why you are here.  Second, I would like you to reread this thread and try to understand why almost none of your posts answer anyone's questions or points.

I would like it if you could continue as a productive member on this site.  That is why I would like to see you move past emotional pleading and canned responses.  Otherwise we are going to continue to talk past each other.

regards,
Screwtape

[catbird]

Screwtape,

You are preaching.

No. I am not a preacher. Here is an example of a preacher.

Carl Sagan was an atheist and a renowned scientist who promoted science and atheism with a missionary zeal and became a de facto apologist and televangelist for the religion of naturalism. He promoted a world-view that was based on naturalistic assumptions. Sagan’s firm conviction is that everything in the universe has a natural cause and a natural explanation. That belief is not provable, thus it is not a truly scientific observation. Yet this unproven belief has governed and shaped every one of his theories about the universe.
Sagan has examined the vastness and complexity of the universe and concluded that there is nothing greater than the universe. So he borrowed divine attributes such as infinitude, eternality, and omnipotence, and he made them properties of the universe itself. Mr. Sagan professed belief that our universe has aseity, ( a term which is defined as, "existence originating from or having no other source than itself” or," having life in itself"). This statement is without doubt the apex of all possible oxymoronic locutions. There are several reasons by which Mr. Sagan’s arrogant and poorly reasoned statement qualifies for this ignoble distinction. The first reason is because he assigns the terms, (aseity) which by definition was originated from theistic belief and is an ascription which can only be applied to God. Secondly, contained in  the definition of the word "aseity" is the phrase "existence originating from or having no other source than itself” which logically can only be applied to animate, sentient, intelligent, beings..For these two reasons Mr. Sagan's statement is a faux pas of mythic proportion,and along with his applying the ascriptions of infinitude, eternality, and omnipotence to the universe, his reputation as an intellectual is forever sullied..

A statement which Carl Sagan  employed in an effort to debunk belief in God was  the statement," Extraordinary claiims require extraordinary proof"'


Is the ascription of aseity to the universe an extraordinary claim ? Of course.  Are the ascriptions of  omnipotence, eternality, and infinitude extraordinary claims? Yes they are.
 Carl Sagan never felt compelled to provide the extraordinary proof to substantiate his extraordinary claim. Therefore since Carl Sagn did not have any compunction about his failure to substantiate his extraordinary claim  that the universe has aseity, and compounded his error by ascribing the attributes of omnipotence, eternality, and infinitude to the universe, none of which is provable by scientific means,,,he failed the test of rational scientific inquiry. The test of rational scientific inquiry is, "Only believe the evidential truth (the reproducible truth), that is the repetitious result of carefully designed tests which must, by nature, be maximally objective in order to distinguish truth from falsehood.

Mr. Sagan’s failure to provide extraordinary proof to substantiate his extraordinary claim that the universe has aseity and other ascriptions which the majority of rational humans ascribe to God alone, thus relegates him to the trash bin of scientific mediocrity on the grounds of: 1) a lack of research integrity and 2) scientific hypocrisy ( failure to abide by the standards which he, as a supposedly reputable scientist, imposed on others). His failure in this endeavor also proves that Carl Sagan is no longer worthy to retain his lofty perch as apologist for Naturalism". By this very fact, Mr. Sagan must assume the denigration of being labeled a non-scientist as a result of his noncompliance with universally accepted methods of scientific procedure. Mr.Sagan is also exposed as a religionist because of his pantheistic beliefs Therefore,  I suggest that Mr. Sagan tender his resignation of his use of  the words “scientist" and “atheist” as descriptions of his worldviews and philosophy immediately, by proxy of course, (because he is now residing in another world from which he has no means of return)

[Ivellios]

Ordinary claim: I have a blue car in my driveway.

Regardless whether it's true or not, is it so far fetched that you cannot accept it as is? If a forum member made this claim, I'd be able to accept it, either way.

Extraordinary claim: I have a invisible, intangible blue dragon in my back yard grilling Hamburgers.

Should people have to prove that there's no dragon or should I have to prove there's a Dragon grilling Hamburgers? Someone who is based in reality would expect me to prove it. Someone who is not, would demand the opposite.

Yes, the intangible Dragon affecting something tangible is the same claim Theists make about God. God is Spirit, but he has an affect upon reality.

[curiousgirl]

Catbird, stop using Sagan as a red herring. If you want to claim that God exists, provide a logical argument and/or scientific proof. Criticizing my signature is clearly a pitiful attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you can't prove your own claims. Grow up and start listening to what Screwtape is saying, or else you'll probably end up being moderated.

[Brakeman]

Cat bird,

Did you give up trying to defend your god against his butt-hole treatment of Uzzah?

How about Lot's daughters? Was god pretty much a prick for not smiting Lot for offering up his daughters to be raped and killed?

We want to cover completely all the ways your god is an asshole.

[jetson]

Wow.  I have not seen so much arrogance and nonsense in a while!  Congrats catbird, you win the award for the most poorly thought out slander and misrepresentation of good science on the planet!

Anyway, whatever.

[Gnu Ordure]

Most of Catbird's last post is plagiarized from the introduction to this book.

[jaimehlers]

So, catbird couldn't even be bothered to come up with his own actual example of a 'preacher', instead rewriting and expanding on part of someone else's book in a half-baked effort to 'prove' that Carl Sagan is an atheist 'preacher'[1].  Which is asinine on its face, given that catbird apparently doesn't actually know anything about atheism[2] and is just repeating the extremely common mistake of believing that he can tell other people what they actually think more accurately than they can.

As long as people like catbird continue to assume that they can understand something like atheism solely through the context of their own beliefs, they will prove only that it is their own understanding that is deficient.

1.	Not only that, but as curiousgirl stated, this is another attempt by catbird to try to undercut someone's statements by trying to use their signature against them, which is contemptible.
2.	Except things like what he plagiarized, which don't count since they're not written by atheists.

[Historicity]

Carl Sagan was an atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

Despite his criticism of religion, Sagan denied that he was an atheist, saying "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid." In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, "I'm agnostic." Sagan's view have been interpreted as a form of pantheism comparable to Einstein's belief in Spinoza's God.

aseity, ( a term which is defined as, "existence originating from or having no other source than itself” or," having life in itself").

You used quote marks.  Whom are you quoting?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aseity?r=66

a·se·i·ty
noun Metaphysics .
existence originating from and having no source other than itself.
Origin:
1685–95;  < Medieval Latin as?it?s,  equivalent to Latin ? s?  from oneself + -it?s -ity

Aseity^Wiki

Aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) refers to the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself, or exists as so-and-such of and from itself.

I haven't found a definition that includes "life". 

I also googled "sagan aseity".  I haven't found a reference that quoted him as using the word.

The first reason is because he assigns the terms, (aseity) which by definition was originated from theistic belief and is an ascription which can only be applied to God.

Non sequitur.  The copyright has expired.  The word is now public domain.  And there's the good old empty cliché "by definition".  

Secondly, contained in  the definition of the word "aseity" is the phrase "existence originating from or having no other source than itself” which logically can only be applied to animate, sentient, intelligent, beings.

Non sequitur.  No, it's a bunch of non sequiturs.  (1) The rug in my room exists. It does not say "ouch" when I walk on it because it is not sentient. (2) The rug in my room exists. It does not move because it is not animate.  (3) The rug in my room exists.  Now, there I can't tell.  I just asked it if it was intelligent but it did not answer.  Maybe it is biding its time.  Maybe it doesn't speak or at least speak English.  Maybe it is offended that a person as inferior in intellect as me would not understand its thoughts.  But it's probably not intelligent.

But it exists.

It appears that after sneaking the word "life" into your definition of aseity you then used it as a straw man to disprove something.

For these two reasons Mr. Sagan's statement is a faux pas

You are having a bad day with words.  Maybe you couldn't think of what you really meant to say.  That happens to me often enough.
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/faux-pas

something embarrassing that you say or do in a social situation

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/faux-pas

a slip or blunder in etiquette, manners, or conduct; an embarrassing social blunder or indiscretion.

his applying the ascriptions of infinitude, eternality, and omnipotence to the universe,

You haven't shown he claimed that.

The test of rational scientific inquiry is, "Only believe the evidential truth (the reproducible truth), that is the repetitious result of carefully designed tests which must, by nature, be maximally objective in order to distinguish truth from falsehood.

You are claiming to know about science.  Let's see...

Mr. Sagan’s failure to provide extraordinary proof to substantiate his extraordinary claim that the universe has aseity and other ascriptions which the majority of rational humans ascribe to God alone, thus relegates him to the trash bin of scientific mediocrity on the grounds of: 1) a lack of research integrity and 2) scientific hypocrisy ( failure to abide by the standards which he, as a supposedly reputable scientist, imposed on others). ... Therefore,  I suggest that Mr. Sagan tender his resignation of his use of  the words “scientist"

You have no idea what scientists do.    Scientists with few exceptions are not accepted unless they get a bachelor's degree in science.  You have shown no ability to check your facts.  You just bluff.  So you have no idea what that is. Scientists submit formal research papers.  You have no idea what that is.

Please help us out. Show that Sagan presented a formal research paper to the AAAS or the Royal Society or any other national science society or any of the network of science societies or to a university's science faculty where he said what you allege he said.

[Willie]

Sagan’s firm conviction is that everything in the universe has a natural cause and a natural explanation.

That might be true, but I don't think it's been established incontrovertibly. His rather kind treatment of religion in "Contact" rather suggests that he was open to supernatural explanations as a possibility, though it was pretty clear from his whole body of work that he was unconvinced by the arguments for such.

That belief is not provable, thus it is not a truly scientific observation.

That contains an implicit accusation that he had claimed that it is a scientific observation. I challenge you to either prove that he did, or show some small bit of honor and either retract the accusation, or make clear that the implication was not intended.

Yet this unproven belief has governed and shaped every one of his theories about the universe.

That is just silly. Science is the study of nature. It deals only with what can be either directly observed or tested by natural means. The above is nothing less than a condemnation of science itself, and a criticism of Sagan for having participated in it.

[jetson]

Screwtape,

You are preaching.

No. I am not a preacher. Here is an example of a preacher.

Carl Sagan was an atheist and a renowned scientist ...

[snip]

... and philosophy immediately, by proxy of course, (because he is now residing in another world from which he has no means of return)

Catbird - I have looked into the report of plagiarism, and found that I agree.  This is an explicit rule that you have violated by posting words written by someone else without proper credit or attribution.  As you can see, the members on this forum are willing and able to consider what you write, including a search that reveals that it is not your original work.

Unless you can show that you are the author?  Can you do this?

This is a fair warning that plagiarism is not tolerated, and can result in being banned from the forum.

Here is the link to our rules - Rules Link

Jetson

[Anfauglir]

I see. (1) So your god creates creatures deliberately to be destroyed.
 (2)Can you explain by what token you consider that "good"?
(3)Can you explain why I should worship such a creature if I am one of the ones destined for destruction?

1) that is correct... The creator has liberty to create vessels of honor and vessels of dishonor
2) He created the vessels of dishonor for the purpose of perfecting the vessels of honor...
3) First God is not a "creature" because He  is not a "created "being.Second, You have no intention of worshiping Him anyway, so if I were You I wouldn't care.

Dear twitbird (hey, if YOU can't be bothered, why should I....?

To follow on with these:
2) I cannot see the connection between any normal understanding of "good" and your answer.  It seems that what you are saying is that Yarway created me to suffer eternal torment so that you would have a better chance of salvation?  If that is so, don't you think you should perhaps owe a debt of gratitude to me - to all of us - who are doomed by your god to eternal punishment in order that you might be saved?

3) "You have no intention of worshiping Him anyway".....True.  But then according to what you have just said, I have no choice in the matter anyway.  Yarway created me specifically to NOT be saved - and so he has created me specifically to be unable to worship him - or even to resolve to try.

I still fail to see how that can be regared as "good" in any normal usage of the word.  But what puzzles me more is YOUR intended purpose here. 

You have said that Yaray created us this way.
You have said there is nothing we can do about it.
You have said that he did so in order that you will be saved.

So is your only purpose here to say "ner-ner, I'll be saved and yooo won't?"  To taunt us with your good fortune?  A good fortune, BTW, that you have done nothing to earn, since - like us - your nature was predetermined by Yarway long before you were born?  So that leads me to only two conclusions....

1) Yarway created us to burn, and created you to be saved, and created you so you had no option but to come here and taunt us for something we have no control over.  To borrow from Emily - that means Yarway is a douchbag.
2) Or, Yarway created us to burn, and created you to be saved, and created you so you had the choice over whether to come here and taunt us for something we have no control over.  And you chose to do so anyway - and seem to take a lot of pleasure in it.  To borrow from Emily again - what a douchebag.

But maybe you have a way of explaining why coming here to taunt us for something we have no control over is a good thing?  I'd be interested to hear it....though I suspect it will bear the same relation to the normal usage of "good" as the rest of your spiteful words.

[screwtape]

Screwtape,

You are preaching.

No. I am not a preacher. Here is an example of a preacher.

I did not say you were a preacher.  I said you were preaching.  And I told you what preaching was in the context of this discussion.  You are preaching.  Since the rest of that post was someone else's sermon, I'm not going to even address it.  You are representing xianity poorly.   

I asked you two simple questions and you ignored them just like you have ignored everyone else. 

Please answer my questions:

First, I would like you to tell me why you are here.  Second, I would like you to reread this thread and try to understand why almost none of your posts answer anyone's questions or points.

[velkyn]

Screwtape, let us know when you are finished with catbird since I do want to address some of this person's additional claims.