How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Alpine4life89 10+ year member]

After you apologize for being rude I would love to answer your question.

there is no legit theory or any proof that explain gods existence, so until you can give me a decent reason to believe in god, i will take the evolution theory over religion any day.

i'm not saying i don't think he exists, i'm just saying that chances are, he is not real.

 

[Mike465 10+ year member]

4. If you are willing to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior please get on your knees for before God savor his warm load on your face:

 

"Dear LORD JESUS, I believe that YOU are a big bowl of flying spaghetti that runs around the world shiting on everything. I ask you to *** into my mount and **** my face, take me to a wood shed and have your way with me when I die. I now receive You as my Lord and Savior. Thank You for saving me. In Jesus holy name, Amen."

 

If you prayed that prayer to God, and meant it with all of your heart, you are now a ****ing dumb *** and when you die nothing will happen to you.

Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing church and follow in baptism.

 

[tyler_fitz 10+ year member]

human beings cannot fathom eternity, therefore, eternal life in heaven does not exist. Same goes with hell.

if for any reason you believe that once you're granted entry into heaven you're capable of understanding and fathoming eternity, then you are not actually getting into heaven, but an altered "you", a different you, not the same person, not you. you won't be in heaven as you know yourself now. so what's the point?

 

[anoiel 10+ year member]

ok first off the dumbass who said tigers and lions are the same species is ****ing retarded. They belong in the same genus(and its Panthera not feline, Felidae is there family name) not species. Basic rule of naming plants and animal is each individual has its own species name that is derived of the genus name and its specific eptiahat. like the lion is Panthera leo and the tiger is Panthera tigris

Next there is alot of scientific proof for evolution if you guys would actually pick up a real biology textbook. If you don't believe in a common ancestor look at a human embryo and a fish embryo or just about any vertebrate embryo they look alike, from the gills to the post anal tail. DNA proofs that we evolved from primates. IF you look at our second chromosome it is 2 primate chromosomes that fused together in a mutation.

I hate when people bring up the bible to disprove a scientific theory. And the if you are gonna say its just a theroy, open any science textbook and read what a science theory is. Also i think religion is worthless and causes nothing but problems.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Evolutionists cannot prove that:

 

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

6. How did an a ****** reproducing organism evolve into 2 sexes?

7. How did a 3 chamber heart evolve into a 4 chamber heart?

8.

Someone wrote:

The next question I would pose to an evolutionist/naturalist is whether he considers himself moral. If you uphold yourself to any moral purpose whatsoever, you fail to live up to your worldview. As an evolutionist, you should act purely out of utility. Survival is your main goal. Of course none of this makes human experience intelligible given the fact that no one acts this way.

 

If you disagree with this theory, I ask you, do you steal from the blind? Survival of the fittest right? Would you steal from the blind if it were legal? Many atheists, evolutionists, naturalists, etc wouldn't. Because they are good moral people. They, however, don't live up to the obligation of the way they see the world. You aren't living up to your duty of primal survival. You are actually capable of things totally independent of natural selection, like love...even for those who have no impact on your life. Every dollar you give to the homeless, and every hour you volunteer, you do not out of utility, but out of love. Your goodness causes you to fail to live up to your worldview.

 

 

[cobra65427289 10+ year member]

The next question I would pose to an evolutionist/naturalist is whether he considers himself moral. If you uphold yourself to any moral purpose whatsoever, you fail to live up to your worldview. As an evolutionist, you should act purely out of utility. Survival is your main goal. Of course none of this makes human experience intelligible given the fact that no one acts this way.

 

If you disagree with this theory, I ask you, do you steal from the blind? Survival of the fittest right? Would you steal from the blind if it were legal? Many atheists, evolutionists, naturalists, etc wouldn't. Because they are good moral people. They, however, don't live up to the obligation of the way they see the world. You aren't living up to your duty of primal survival. You are actually capable of things totally independent of natural selection, like love...even for those who have no impact on your life. Every dollar you give to the homeless, and every hour you volunteer, you do not out of utility, but out of love. Your goodness causes you to fail to live up to your worldview.

 

It's called empathy.

I wonder why a mother bear cares for her young for so long. Is it instinct or is she a jesus freak? Why would a male bear try to kill bear cubs? Is it instinct or is he a satanist non-believer?

Killing and caring are both natural things.

We have murderers in our society that are bible bangers and feel they are ridding the earth of the wicked.

"It's your god. They're your rules. You, go to Hell."

 

[Alpine4life89 10+ year member]

Evolutionists cannot prove that: 

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

6. How did an a ****** reproducing organism evolve into 2 sexes?

7. How did a 3 chamber heart evolve into a 4 chamber heart?

8.

Someone wrote:

The next question I would pose to an evolutionist/naturalist is whether he considers himself moral. If you uphold yourself to any moral purpose whatsoever, you fail to live up to your worldview. As an evolutionist, you should act purely out of utility. Survival is your main goal. Of course none of this makes human experience intelligible given the fact that no one acts this way.

 

If you disagree with this theory, I ask you, do you steal from the blind? Survival of the fittest right? Would you steal from the blind if it were legal? Many atheists, evolutionists, naturalists, etc wouldn't. Because they are good moral people. They, however, don't live up to the obligation of the way they see the world. You aren't living up to your duty of primal survival. You are actually capable of things totally independent of natural selection, like love...even for those who have no impact on your life. Every dollar you give to the homeless, and every hour you volunteer, you do not out of utility, but out of love. Your goodness causes you to fail to live up to your worldview.

 

#'s 5,6 and 7 i wonder myself. Anybody else have an explanation on those?

 

[cobra65427289 10+ year member]

#'s 5,6 and 7 i wonder myself. Anybody else have an explanation on those?

Trying to prove those is like, well... Trying to prove that God exists.

 

[Alpine4life89 10+ year member]

well, it seems to me like ****** reproducing organisms can just evolve into two sexes without a creator. Seems like it was meant to be.

 

[shellfish 10+ year member]

tis troll thead

 

[cobra65427289 10+ year member]

obviously, OP doesn't post anywhere but here.

 

[Alpine4life89 10+ year member]

haha, he's an awesome troll. This thread is funny as hell.

 

[anoiel 10+ year member]

For number 5 they are all in the same phylum so they are more closely related then you think. and they didn't evolve from each other but from a common ancestor if you are gonna say evolution is false at least understand what it is. The scientific def. of evolution is the change in allele frequencies. I forgot the explanation for 6, but ill look it up for an answer and the same with number 7. But for the guy that said evolutionist cant prove that i would like to see you prove that god created all of this, with out referencing the bible. And dont just say he did cause thats bullshit in the world of science, i need proof and ive seen my fair share of it for evolution.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

Evolutionists cannot prove that: 

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.

2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.

3. Matter created life by itself.

4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.

5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

6. How did an a ****** reproducing organism evolve into 2 sexes?

7. How did a 3 chamber heart evolve into a 4 chamber heart?

8.

Without going in and trying to reason or provide facts on every point (as it will end up being a huge waste of time), I'll simply point out that the beauty of science is that we can continue to investigate that which we may not have a definitive answer to.

There is a lot we can't "prove".....and really, science's goal isn't solely to definitively "prove" anything. It's to continually increase our understanding of the world around us by evaluating the evidence to improve our theories and models. Evolution, Relativity, Gravity, the "Big Bang".....they are not laws, they are scientific theories. They combine and explain all of the observed data as best as presently possible. As Stephen J. Gould said;

"Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

So you can pick apart and try to find gaps in our understanding if that's what suits your goals. But keep in mind that those gaps may not always exist as our knowledge continues to expand and our technological abilities increase. If you spend your efforts trying to find gaps in knowledge and fill the void with god.....what happens to your god as those gaps disappear ?

Someone wrote:
The next question I would pose to an evolutionist/naturalist is whether he considers himself moral. If you uphold yourself to any moral purpose whatsoever, you fail to live up to your worldview. As an evolutionist, you should act purely out of utility. Survival is your main goal. Of course none of this makes human experience intelligible given the fact that no one acts this way.

 

If you disagree with this theory, I ask you, do you steal from the blind? Survival of the fittest right? Would you steal from the blind if it were legal? Many atheists, evolutionists, naturalists, etc wouldn't. Because they are good moral people. They, however, don't live up to the obligation of the way they see the world. You aren't living up to your duty of primal survival. You are actually capable of things totally independent of natural selection, like love...even for those who have no impact on your life. Every dollar you give to the homeless, and every hour you volunteer, you do not out of utility, but out of love. Your goodness causes you to fail to live up to your worldview.

 

Whoever wrote that hasn't taken the time to understand evolution/natural selection. Those paragraphs are a load of hogwash, basically.

Other species, for example, display acts of altruism. Humans the world over appear to have the same basic set of moral principles. There have been many proposals of how altruism could fit into the chain of natural selection and why it would be beneficial to a species or an individual and it's naturalistic origins.

 

[squeak9798 5,000+ posts]

well, it seems to me like ****** reproducing organisms can just evolve into two sexes without a creator. Seems like it was meant to be.

Thankfully we have dedicated scientists who spend their lives investigating that which they presently do not have an answer for. Rather than throwing their hands in the air a la Michael Behe and saying "Well, I can't think of how it could have happened, so it must have been by a creator," they research and investigate and gather data and information and organize all of that to form a scientific theory which brings us ever closer to understanding that which we presently can not fully answer.