HELL IS ETERNAL, HELL IS ETERNAL, HELL IS ETERNAL!!!
HELL IS ETERNAL, HELL IS ETERNAL, HELL IS ETERNAL!!!
Don’t take my word for it. According to apostate atheist Hector Avalos, in “Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?” Free Inquiry 17 (1997):
Even if we saw an extraordinary healing occur (e.g., a severed leg grow back instantaneously), we would not be able to prove scientifically that it was a supernatural occurrence.
For most of my young and adolescent life, I was a faith healer in a Pentecostal tradition. I witnessed what I then thought were resurrections, spontaneous growth of short limbs, cures from cancer, and many other types of diseases.
So he’s conceding that he saw the instantaneous regeneration of amputated limbs. (Notice that he uses “spontaneous” as a synonym for “instantaneously”.) By his own admission, that’s from firsthand observation.
He doesn’t deny what he saw. “Who should I believe–me or my dying eyes!” Instead, he says that’s still not scientific proof that it was a supernatural occurrence.
Now, Avalos is such a fanatical atheist that he might backpedal on his original, damaging admission. Again, though, how could he be mistaken? How could he see an amputated limb merely appear to instantaneously grow right before his eyes?
Notice that he’s not talking about tricks by other faith-healers, but his own direct observation.
Comment: This man turning atheist is a miracle in itself! Hell is eternal, as is Heaven.
I’m going to say this and I’m going to leave it alone. Those who use European archeologists as a reference of historical documentation must be aware that Europeans are infamous for hiding and white washing history especially so called black history. To prove this all one has to do is go into the history books that are used in our public schooling system and you will see that they teach about so called blacks coming from Africa on a slave ship. But it is a known fact that so called black people were the first to exist on this earth. They were also the first to inhabit all of earth, not just Africa. If one wants to discredit Dr. Blair and his teachings then I can discredit anything that European archaeologists has to say about my history.
Comment: Interesting blog with an interesting combination of viewpoints.
Hi oogenhand, hope you’re doing well.
”You presuppose that a god does not exist, and therefore you read all data through that lens and arrive at satisfying results.”
This is false. The sequence of events are 1) I, like everyone, was born a-theist 2) theism was taught to me and accepted as truth 3) personal investigation revealed theism to be false.
No religion is true, and I know this because no religion has emerged independently twice on the planet. Peel away the colourful ritualistic outer layers, bypass the oral traditions and the always cryptic books, navigate around the creative hermeneutics, over the various strains of inventive apologetics, philosophies and elaborate theodicies, and press on through the charismatic mind-sets to the core within and the impartial observer finds that there are but two ostensible, universal truths pervading all faith-based religious beliefs:
1) They all claim to be true.
2) Not one has ever emerged twice on the planet.
That is all there is. There is nothing lurking any deeper than these two truisms, and as the second maxim annihilates the first claim the observer swiftly determines that there is no need to even litigate the petitions forwarded by any single religion as it is already perfectly clear that any allusion to authenticity is entirely groundless.
If this were not the case, if any single religion were in fact true, we would have—indeed should have—already seen that religion emerge naturally and entirely unassisted wherever human beings were found, regardless of their isolation or epoch. Its deity (or deities) would wear a single hat, carry a single name and speak a single language audible to the deaf, coherent to infants, understood by the demented, and intelligible to the senile. Its dramas and narratives would be recognised and repeated by cloistered populations in every corner of the planet, and its edicts would have penetrated all tribal, domestic and international legal code mindless of earthly or socioeconomic borders. If any single religion were true a single and unchangeable objective moral writ would underwrite all human populations, dietary conventions would be unchaste by oceans, and norms of etiquette, civility and protocol would not deviate with geography or era.
No religion has however emerged twice anywhere on the planet, no single deity has been envisaged by two populations separated by time and geography, and not a solitary person in history has arrived independently at Mithraism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, Scientology or Judaism without it first being taught to them. Captain Cook did not find Aborigines swallowing back Christian communion wafers at Botany Bay, Columbus was not confronted by a wall of Arawak backsides pointed away from Mecca at sunrise on the beaches of Santa María de la Concepción, and Pedro Álvares Cabral did not uncover tribes of Aimoré Indians auditing their Thetans with Mark Super VII Quantum Electropsychometers.
That is a fixed, unarguable truth, and it is a point worth repeating. If any given mythology were even remotely accurate (the claim made by all) then that cult, its gods, its rituals, behavioural codes and canons should have emerged unsupervised at least twice on the planet. Its truth would in fact be demonstrable in this supernatural event.
”My own conversion wasn’t one of superstition, paranoia, or any other fear-based thought system.”
I’m sure that’s the case, but that is missing the point of the general thesis. As a species we have (from an evolutionary perspective) favoured quick associations. This has been beneficial, something inherently good for survival, but the residue of this has been a bias to false associations. That is to say, it’s easier for us to accept the false association. “Theism” is not revealed here, rather many, many steps further up the ladder.
”I would question that every thread of paranoia is built into our genetic code. How much if this is taught behavior? For instance, some people do jump at the possibility of a mouse. Had you not grown up in a culture afraid of rodents, would you have the same reaction?”
I don’t argue that it is. Fear is the grandparent: that urge to survive. Paranoia is a word, and as a word it often has negative connotations. I get that. If you substitute “paranoia” with, perhaps, “weariness,” then we might find more common ground.
And it’s not jumping at the sight of the mouse, rather the sound… the unknown. Superstitions are cultural. They are learned. The root, however, is paranoia.
And your claim that theism is unnatural is more in agreement with mine. If a Creator did create, then that Creator would be outside of nature, existing before it, and be unnatural.
One is not related to the other, and here “theism” is called unnatural because no single belief system has ever arrived independently (naturally) in two populations. What I would most certainly argue is natural is our penchant to find agency in nature. Many studies point to this being fact, and once again, this can be explained from an evolutionary perspective. In fact, it is the very explanation I use in the post. The grass moving is assumed (immediately) to be an agent: a lion. We are hardwired to find agency in nature. Doing so enhances our chances of survival. That is natural for us. Dressing all that up in theistic notions is, however, purely cultural.
The 26-year-old gunman showed a disdain for organized religion online, then allegedly asked victims about their faith before shooting them.
Police have identified the gunman who killed 10 people at an Umpqua Community College in Oregon on Thursday as Chris Harper Mercer.
A MySpace account belonging to Christopher Harper Mercer is registered to Torrance, California. Mercer and his mother previously lived in Torrance before moving to an apartment in Winchester, Oregon, which police later searched.
Scenes From the Oregon College Shooting (PHOTOS)
Umpqua Community College alumnus Donice Smith (L) is embraced after she said one of her former teachers was shot dead, near the site of a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg,Oregon October 1, 2015. A gunman opened fire at a community college in southern Oregon on Thursday, killing 13 people and wounding some 20 others before he was shot to death by police, state and county officials said, in the latest mass killing to rock a U.S. school. There were conflicting reports on the number of dead and wounded in the shooting rampage in Roseburg, which began shortly after 10:30 a.m. local time (1730 GMT).
An online dating profile, linked to Mercer’s email address and featuring another photo of him, says the 26-year-old was living with his parents and searching for the “yin to my yang.” It identifies his views as “conservative, republican” and lists “organized religion” as one of his “dislikes.”
According to a student at Umpqua, Mercer demanded to know his victims’ religion before killing them.
Anastasia Boylan, who was shot multiple times, spoke to her father before entering spinal surgery. Boyland’s father, Stacy, told CNN that his daughter said Mercer asked students to get on the floor, then asked them to stand up if they were Christians.
“And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,’” Boylan’s father said, relaying his daughter’s account. “And then he shot and killed them.”
Lithium_Love was another online identity linked to Mercer’s email address. Under this username, he posted on torrent-upload sites, sometimes asking people to donate to his email address to support the file-sharing work.
In a blog linked to that identity, Mercer expressed admiration for Roanoke shooter Vester Flanagan.
People “like him have nothing left to live for,” Mercer wrote on August 31. “On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are… A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”
What We Know About The Oregon Shooter
CBS Dallas-Fort Worth
The MySpace page features a photo of Mercer holding a gun and smiling into the camera. The profile includes images of pro-Irish Republican Army propaganda.
“They were separated when I first met them, and I don’t believe they ever were married,” Evans said.
The father is Caucasian, Evans said, while Mercer’s mother, Laurel Harper, is black.
Laurel was the second-oldest of four sisters and was raised in Torrance in what Evans described as a “very upper-middle-class” household. When Evans married Laurel Harper’s sister Maribeth back in 1990, Mercer’s mom was just starting to become a nurse.
“I know she went from career to career and then settled on nursing,” he said. “She was working full-time and taking [nursing] classes part-time.”
The New York Times reports Mercer was described by neighbors as a reclusive young man who was “fiercely protected” by his mother.
Comment: This guy is a Nietzschean. His actions will have a lot of consequences, and set in a slippery slope…
A pneumatocentric view of life can logically result in the advocacy of abortion. The reason is that many creationists believe that fetuses and those who die in infancy go directly to heaven. For example, Louis T. Talbot (1889-1976), a former chancellor of Biola College, a creationist mecca, answers a question concerning the destiny of those who die in infancy as follows:
Yes, all infants, including stillborn babies, and young children who have not reached the age of accountability at death, go immediately into the presence of God. 
That would mean that abortion should result in a 100% salvation rate for fetuses who are aborted. Abortion would also eliminate completely the risk of sending aborted fetuses to an eternal torture in hell. So, by this logic, creationists should be for abortion, not against it.
In fact, Reuben A. Torrey (1856-1928), a famous creationist, nearly comes to this conclusion when explaining why killing Canaanite children was justified:
Even today I could almost wish that all the babies born into families of wicked influence might be slain in infancy, were it not for the hope that some concerned Christian will carry to them the saving gospel of the Son of God. 
Yet, even this wish is illogical if all dead infants go directly to heaven. Torrey substitutes a risky hope of salvation through the gospel for what is the certainty of salvation through abortion or infanticide.
If creationists object that it is murder to commit an abortion, then we need to understand that Exodus 21:22 does not seem to regard the value of a fetus as equal to that of an adult. If a fetus is lost by an accidental human action, only a fine is imposed, whereas adults killed accidentally may require life for life (Numbers 35:22-34).
Yet, let’s suppose that creationists do not support abortion to save souls because they deem it murder to perform abortions. But even if abortion be regarded as murder, the fact remains that one abortion doctor could send a thousand souls to heaven in his lifetime. One still would gain 1000 souls for every doctor lost because of performing abortions. Abortion would still be a better method of saving souls than what anti-abortionists favor now (let the children grow up and hope they convert). The economics of soul-saving favor abortion no matter how we calculate it.
By the same token, a materialist view of life may be somatocentric — a view in which the body is the only and most valuable part of a person. Such a view can lead logically to valuing human life. Evolutionist materialists may try to make the most of the life they have on earth rather than sacrifice their earthly life for an afterlife that cannot be verified to exist. Valuing genetic diversity can lead to valuing the preservation of life. Thus, it is religious pneumatocentrism, not evolutionary theory, that can lead to senseless sacrifices of human life.
Comment: And that is why I said about three years ago that totalitarian atheists like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and possibly Hitler were more opposed to abortion than some religious people.
Cornelius Van Til might have been a very intelligent man, but still a fool. His theology states that everybody has assumptions, or axioms, but some are true to their axioms, and others not. Well then, from the statement that everybody has axioms, it follows that Atheism has axioms as well. This means that Atheism and having axioms isn’t inherently incompatible. So if the fact that an Atheist denies having axioms isn’t enough to charge him or her with dishonesty and dismissing Atheism outright, then an Atheist can deflect any Christian attack with saying something is axiomatic.
Christian: “If God doesn’t exist, where does the very idea of Justice come from?”
Atheist: “Justice is axiomatic.”
Christian: “If God doesn’t exist, why can we trust our senses?”
Atheist: “Sensory information is axiomatic.”
However, dismissing Atheism because it falsely denies having axioms presupposes that dishonesty is morally wrong. This means morality logically precedes revelation, while presuppositionalism states that not just morality but epistemology itself presupposes revelation. In practice, it means that someone who admits having axioms is automatically superior, even if the axiom entails the idea that whatever I do, I am always right.
Presuppositionalism also runs into trouble because every time you charge someone with needing axioms, you’ll get it doubly back.
Christian: “If God doesn’t exist, how can we be sure our eyes are working?”
Atheist: “If God does exist, how can we be sure our eyes are working? If you want to read the Bible, you need two axioms where I need one. I need only to assume my eyes are working, you have to assume your eyes are working when you read your Bible AND assume God tells you the Truth in that Bible. You cannot find these axioms in the Bible, because you need them to read your Bible, but you cannot assume them outside the Bible, because then Christianity would have axioms (dogmas you call them) not found in the Bible (incompatible with both Sola Scriptura and presuppositionalism).”
Also, Cornelius Van Til as a Calvinist held that God is just and sovereign and can punish as He sees fit. If we take Creationism and Evolutionism as axiomatic, which scenario is more probable:
Creationism: I am a sinner. I deserve everything God punishes me with. Just as God is free to deny me grace and salvation, God is free to deny me any reliable information about the world around me. God is under no obligation to supply me with truth, either scientific or religious.
Evolutionism: Although it is possible that some mutation made my senses unreliable, it is highly unlikely. Millions of years of natural selection culled any organisms which didn’t have good vision, hearing, smell and so on. The blind, deaf, and anosmic have little chance of survival and little chance to propagate their genes.
Calvinism leading to Brain in a Vat?
Since Christianity claims that there is one God and after we die we face one eternal judgment (Hebrews 9:27) you should consider it first, at least over atheism and any religion with either a concept of reincarnation or with no concept of judgment. If atheism isn’t true, then nothing eternal matters. If “second chance” religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are true then the worst case scenario is that you lose a little ground going into your next life.
But if Christianity is true and you don’t trust in Jesus and accept God’s free gift of salvation, then you spend an eternity paying for your sins.
Consider matters of eternity very carefully, because eternity matters.
Comment: As I always say, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal, Hell is eternal…
Does the Dajjal control the oil in the Middle-East? God exists and hell is eternal. The Dajjal cannot be an atheist or spread atheism, as the Dajjal threatens his enemies with eternal damnation.