an atheist viewpoint

thoughts from a non-theist

Why, That’s Delightful!

Some lovely words from Christians down the ages, penned when considering the eternal torment of sinners in hell…..

Peter Lombard, the Master of Sentences
“Therefore the elect shall go forth…to see the torments of the impious, seeing which they will not be grieved, but will be satiated with joy at the sight of the unutterable calamity of the impious .” Sent. Iv 50, ad fin
Gerhard
“…the Blessed will see their friends and relations among the damned as often as they like but without the least of compassion.”
Tertullian
“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause.”
“What a spectacle. . .when the world. . .and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see. . .illustrious monarchs. . . groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers. . .as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of. . .Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors. . .in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. . .What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.” [De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX]
John Calvin (Who had some of his theological enemies burned to death in green slow-burning wood.):
“Forever harrassed with a dreadful tempest, they shall feel themselves torn asunder by an angry God, and transfixed and penetrated by mortal stings, terrified by the thunderbolts of God, and broken by the weight of his hand, so that to sink into any gulf would be more tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors.
John Calvin:
“There are babies a span long in hell.” 
Signs in front of churches
“How will you spend eternity — Smoking or Nonsmoking?”
“Turn or Burn!” 
Read the full, charming, list here. (Thanks for posting the link to this, Reynold)

Single Post Navigation

47 thoughts on “Why, That’s Delightful!

  1. Alex,Maybe we can add to the list something Dan from "Debunking Atheists" responded with when I asked him, "Would you say that hell is a blessing?" He answered with:"Hmm, wow Good question. I would say it glorifies God. I guess I can say its a blessing to those that wish not to be with God for all of eternity. They detest God as it is. It would crawl their skin to see God daily. So for an Atheist, it might be a blessing. For me, Hell would be my deserved punishment for my transgressions. That is me though." (December 16, 2011 8:47 PM) On second thought, maybe Dan's quote wouldn't qualify, since he doesn't seem to take as much joy in the eternal suffering of others as do the people you quoted. That being said, given the "information" we have about this imaginary place called heaven and its inhabitants, it seems that Dan wouldn't be able to help himself from being downright giddy at the sights, sounds, and smells of eternal human agony, since it would glorify his god. And anything that glorifies his god is certainly something to be cheery about, right?Also, I asked Trinity a while back: If god is everywhere, does that mean he's in hell? Trinity indicated that god was in hell; Dan's response to above seems to indicate otherwise. Oh, well, maybe they can straighten that out when they get to this imaginary place called heaven, perhaps while chatting with each other in their front row seats, overlooking this imaginary place they call hell.Ydemoc

  2. What will a man give in exchange for his soul?

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. Trinity wrote: "What will a man give in exchange for his soul?"Evidently, Trinity has exchanged reason for imagination and has lost his mind.

  5. There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it's the way of death.- Proverb

  6. Trinity writes: "There is a way that seems right to a man but in the end it's the way of death.- Proverb"Since you are using the concept, please take us through the process of forming the concept "man." I'm not asking you where or how you *learned of* this concept, but how you, yourself, would proceed to validate this concept once you learned it, and how you know that the concept "man" is valid. And after you get done doing this for the concept "man," can you please take us through the exact same process for "unicorn"?Thanks.Ydemoc

  7. Charlatan Weezel,God told me.Alex thanks for the post. It will be a show for the ages. Don't forget your popcorn and candy.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Trinity had posted a Proverb that used the concept "man."I responded with: "Since you are using the concept, please take us through the process of forming the concept "man." I'm not asking you where or how you *learned of* this concept, but how you, yourself, would proceed to validate this concept once you learned it, and how you know that the concept "man" is valid. And after you get done doing this for the concept "man," can you please take us through the exact same process for "unicorn"?"Trinity responded: "God told me."God told you what, exactly? Can you tell us everything he told you as it pertains to the questions I asked above? And by what means did he tell you whatever it was he told you?While I await your answers, could you also please explain how you would form and validate the concepts "invisible," "told," "me" and "rocket ship" and "refrigerator"?Thanks.Ydemoc

  10. Charlatan,Intuition.

  11. Trinity had posted a Proverb that used the concept "man."I responded with: "Since you are using the concept, please take us through the process of forming the concept "man." I'm not asking you where or how you *learned of* this concept, but how you, yourself, would proceed to validate this concept once you learned it, and how you know that the concept "man" is valid. And after you get done doing this for the concept "man," can you please take us through the exact same process for "unicorn"?"Trinity responded: "God told me."I then asked: "God told you what, exactly? Can you tell us everything he told you as it pertains to the questions I asked above? And by what means did he tell you whatever it was he told you?"I also added: "While I await your answers, could you also please explain how you would form and validate the concepts 'invisible,' 'told,' 'me' and 'rocket ship' and 'refrigerator'?Trinity responded with the answer: "Intuition."It's not clear what question of mine this response of yours is supposed to answer, but I will attempt to make of it what I can. So… Could please describe this process of "intuition"? Describe it in detail. For example, did you know what a "rocket ship" was when you were, say, a day old? Do you think people in biblical days knew what a "rocket ship" and "refrigerator" were? If no, why not? If yes, please tell us why you think such people didn't make use of such a craft or appliance if they had the "intuitive knowledge" necessary to do so.Could you also describe for us how you form and validate the concept "intuition." In other words, once your "intuition" supplied you with knowledge (i.e., the concepts I asked about: "invisible," "told," "me," "rocket ship," and "refrigerator") can you tells us how you then came to refer to the process of gaining such knowledge as "intuition"?Meanwhile, here is a definition of "intuition," courtesy of Free Online Dictionary: intuition [ˌɪntjʊˈɪʃən]n1. knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception2. instinctive knowledge or belief3. a hunch or unjustified belief4. (Philosophy) Philosophy immediate knowledge of a proposition or object such as Kant's account of our knowledge of sensible objects5. the supposed faculty or process by which we obtain any of these[from Late Latin intuitiō a contemplation, from Latin intuērī to gaze upon, from tuērī to look at]Also, would you care to tell us, in your view, how a deaf, dumb, and blind person like "Helen Keller" was unable to "intuit" such concepts as "water" until Anne Sullivan guided her mind to make the connection, perceptually, via the sense of touch?Would you also mind squaring your current claim of "intuition" as a means to knowledge, with the following answer you gave on Dawson's blog (December 15, 2011 11:06 PM): Ydemoc's question: "Mind taking us through a process by which you would form the concept "invisible?"…Trinity's answer: "Yea you go to kindergarten, then, first grade and so forth. First You start with the alphabet then you learn how to read. There you go concepts accounted for. No "objectivism" needed." Thanks.Ydemoc

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Charlatan,you go to kindergarten, then, first grade and so forth. First You start with the alphabet then you learn how to read. There you go concepts accounted for. No "objectivism" needed."

  14. Trinity,You side-stepped the questions I asked. This is to be expected. But I see you let your guard down by allowing the "Nide" moniker to slip through. Based upon this little misstep of yours, can we then say, that people like you who claim that "intuition" is a reliable guide to thought and action, that they can be mistaken? Furthermore, what "intuition" do you think was required for me to detect (i.e., have knowledge) that you mistakenly used the moniker "Nide" instead of your usual moniker?But perhaps I'm being presumptuous; maybe you intended to use the "Nide" moniker, but it was what you had written that you weren't satisfied with. In that case, could it be said that your "intuition" wasn't quite up to standards, so you decided to modify your comment by being more "intuitive"? You then go on to copy and paste your original so-called method of accounting for the formation of concepts. You write: "you go to kindergarten, then, first grade and so forth. First You start with the alphabet then you learn how to read. There you go concepts accounted for. No "objectivism" needed."Again, how does this jibe with "intuition"? And would you mind answering those other questions for me?Oh, I also have some others for you too, once you answer the ones I've presented.Thanks.Ydemoc

  15. For one your delusional since my name is not nide. There just happens to be other people using the same computer for example, nide. Since you hold such a simple belief in error. Why should I continue?Will you accept that you are self-deceived over a name?

  16. Hezekiah:     The current evidence suggests that the person using the moniker "Nide" operates in the same skin as you do. That also explains why the "Nide" comment was deleted.

  17. Trinity wrote: "For one your delusional…"Right off the bat? I'm "delusional" right off the bat? That allegation didn't take long.Trinity wrote: "…since my name is not nide."I didn't think you're name was "Nide". I call you Trinity, and I'm sure that's not your name, either. Nor is r_c321 or Hezekiah Ahaz. I don't really care what you're name is, for I have settled on the name for you: Trinity. That serves my purposes. Trinity wrote: "There just happens to be other people using the same computer for example, nide."Well… okay. But we're almost venturing into "Abbott and Costello" territory: I'm Hezekiah, not Nide. But I call you Trinity. I know, but my name is Richard. Then who is r_c321? I don't know! I thought he was on first, etc., etc., etc. Trinity wrote: "Since you hold such a simple belief in error. Why should I continue?"How could I "hold a belief in error" when I didn't believe it in the first place? I don't know what you're name is; and I don't think it matters much. Like Dawson said, this is about "ideas." And you'll notice I used your deleted post to make a point about the very ideas we were discussing (or I was attempting to discuss). And as I've done over the months that we've had our exchanges, I was just inquiring into your worldview.Trinity wrote: "Will you accept that you are self-deceived over a name?"No. Because I don't believe any of your monikers are your real name. It doesn't matter to me. If they turn out to be your name, I wouldn't call this self-deception. Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming… Can you please address my questions above?Ydemoc

  18. Intuition and kindergarten.Pv,Weren't me and you having a chit chat over at another post where did you go?

  19. Where the hell did you go? Your posts don't even make any sense, much less stick to the topic!Well, anyway, for those who want to see something that makes HA look normal…get a load of this paranoid screed.

  20. Trinity wrote: "Intuition and kindergarten."This Trinity's response to a slew of questions I asked. My questions included: How does he square acquiring knowledge via "intuition" with his claim that learning the alphabet in first grade had something to do with concept formation? What the process of intuition? Is information based upon intuition ever wrong? If information is ever wrong, how would he know it? etc. He has failed miserably to address any of my questions with anything approaching coherency. I asked for an explanation, an insight into the *process* of his knowledge acquisition, and all he tells me is *where* he (allegedly) learned it. This brings up another question: Where did he get the concept "place"? Perhaps such incomplete answers are the result of the kind of knowledge he gains from his so-called "intuition." We'll never know until he explains it to us. He also failed to address a question concerning Hellen Keller. Let me submit it again — perhaps his "intuition" will kick in this time, and he will supply us with some answers:"…would you care to tell us, in your view, how a deaf, dumb, and blind person like "Helen Keller" was unable to "intuit" such concepts as "water" until Anne Sullivan guided her mind to make the connection, perceptually, via the sense of touch?"And let me also ask this, again:"Do you think people in biblical days knew what a "rocket ship" and "refrigerator" were? If no, why not? If yes, please tell us why you think such people didn't make use of such a craft or appliance if they had the "intuitive knowledge" necessary to do so."Moving on, since Trinity is a believer, I would also ask him: Does the god he believes in possess and operate by the same means of knowledge (i.e., intuition) that Trinity does? Is Trinity's god "intuitive?" Is Trinity's "intuition" a reflection of his god's "intuition?" If so, how does he square his god's "intuition" with the claim that logic and reasoning are a reflection of his god's character and actions?Also, how does Trinity know if his "intuition" is right or wrong? Where does he look to validate this knowledge he gets via "intuition"? Does he use "intuition" to validate "intuition"? Ydemoc

  21. Reynold. How are ya bud?By the way I really enjoyed that tertulian qoute it's kind of funny .

  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

  23. Reynold wrote: "Well, anyway, for those who want to see something that makes HA look normal…get a load of this paranoid screed."Wow. What a kook! No offense, Trinity.Ydemoc

  24. Charlatan,Concept formation is automatic you either get it or you don't. Rands "Theory of Concepts" is useless it's a bunch of rhetoric used to "explain" something that's self-evident or automatic. We crawl before we walk and Walk before we Run.Now quit asking useless questions. Youmust like pain because you been taking a real beating lately. Your worst than a fool at least they know when to raise the white flag.

  25. 'your worst than a fool….'*you're * worseReally, Trinity, if you're going to call others 'fool' first make sure you're not one yourself.

  26. Alex thanks you're adorable.

  27. Trinity wrote: "Concept formation is automatic…"You have said this before on Dawson's blog. So you should have no trouble telling us exactly how this process takes place. Just because you claim concept formation is "automatic," doesn't mean there's not a process involved. For example, digestion is non-volitional, but the process can still be explained, and so can man's need for such a process. So tell us about this process of "automatic concept formation" and man's need for it.And please tell us how automatic concept formation might work if there were no objects available to consciousness. Trinity continued: "…you either get it or you don't."Then, please, tell those of us who don't "get it," tell us what we're missing. Or are you just saying this because you want it to be true? For example, why are there many concepts that aren't valid? Was the concept "gremlin" formed "automatically" through "intuition?" Does this mean that those of us who do not think gremlins exist, don't "get it"? What does it mean to you to designate a concept as invalid? Or do you think there are no concepts that are invalid? Trinity wrote: "Rands "Theory of Concepts" is useless it's a bunch of rhetoric used to "explain" something that's self-evident or automatic." Yes, you said this above, that concept formation was automatic. Now you've added "self-evident" to the mix. Please tell us what you mean by saying that concept formation is "self-evident." Trinity wrote: "We crawl before we walk and Walk before we Run."How do you know this? Was the knowledge you are conveying to us in this sentence (concepts strung together to make sense) also acquired and validated "automatically." Trinity wrote: "Now quit asking useless questions."Useless to whom? What distinguishes "useless" from "useful" under your theory of automatic concept formation?Trinity wrote: "You must like pain because you been taking a real beating lately."Why would your false allegation of my taking a beating lead you to conclude that I like pain?Trinity wrote: "Your worst than a fool at least they know when to raise the white flag."Trinity, the proper word to use in this sentence is "worse", not "worst." This is the second time that you've made this particular error, and I tried to correct you the first time. Is your repeated error an example of kind of thinking that results from what you claim is "automatic" knowledge (concepts)?Ydemoc

  28. Charlatan,Wasted more time and said: "You have said this before on Dawson's blog. So you should have no trouble telling us exactly how this process takes place. Just because you claim concept formation is "automatic," doesn't mean there's not a process involved"Yea, I have. So, what?I could not care less about the process. Really who cares.Said: "For example, digestion is non-volitional, but the process can still be explained, and so can man's need for such a process. So tell us about this process of "automatic concept formation" and man's need for it."I don't need it. I have bigger worries in life then worrying about concept formation.Said: "And please tell us how automatic concept formation might work if there were no objects available to consciousness."Do I look like God to you?Said: "Then, please, tell those of us who don't "get it," tell us what we're missing. Or are you just saying this because you want it to be true?"Tough luck if you don't. Remember the promise land lies across the desert. You have to work at these things.Said: "For example, why are there many concepts that aren't valid? Was the concept "gremlin" formed "automatically" through "intuition?" Does this mean that those of us who do not think gremlins exist, don't "get it"? What does it mean to you to designate a concept as invalid? Or do you think there are no concepts that are invalid? "You got it all wrong, boy. Keep working. I remember reading about a gremlin and watching a movie about gremlins. It's not that gremlins don't exist I just have a lack of belief in them sound familiar?Said:"Yes, you said this above, that concept formation was automatic. Now you've added "self-evident" to the mix. Please tell us what you mean by saying that concept formation is "self-evident."It means it's automatic.Said: " How do you know this? Was the knowledge you are conveying to us in this sentence (concepts strung together to make sense) also acquired and validated "automatically." Yea. It's called comprehension. We come in, thanks to the Good Lord above, "pre-programed" to learn. It's fantastic.Said: "Useless to whom? What distinguishes "useless" from "useful" under your theory of automatic concept formation?"To me. The less distinguishes.said: "Trinity, the proper word to use in this sentence is "worse", not "worst." This is the second time that you've made this particular error, and I tried to correct you the first time. Is your repeated error an example of kind of thinking that results from what you claim is "automatic" knowledge (concepts)?"Typos. Sadly sin has made us suscestible to error.The process is automatic.

  29. This is hilarious:“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians;-Tertullian

  30. Some more reading about xian history, this time from someone outside the faith. Not all of his links may work though.

  31. Reynold,Have you ever told a lie?

  32. And the relevance of your question is…..?

  33. Well you could be lying to me.

  34. How? By asking you what the relevance of your question is? You could be lying to us about "existence" proving your god.

  35. Reynold,Is it ok if I lie to you?

  36. Hezekiah:     Your question then has no relevance. People (most people) learn not to lie, that it is ultimately disadvantageous. But, because christianity is a religion of deception, evangelicals like to pretend that all mistakes are forever and that one cannot better oneself.

  37. Pv,Is it ok if I lie to you ?

  38. Hezekiah Ahaz said… Reynold,Is it ok if I lie to you?You mean you haven't been so far??

  39. Not at all.Reynold let's be honest here. I believe that you want to live.God through Christ offers eternal life FREELY.What's your objection is there really a greater gift than life?

  40. My objection is that so far as I can tell, it's all bullshit. What's more, all the purveyors of that belief are proven to be eventually, bullshit artists. Historically, xianity has not been very pro-life, but rather used force to convert people. And some of them, like you, when asked to present evidence of their belief go off on some weird fuckin tangent, claiming that all that we see around us is "proof" of biblegod.. Or, in the case of Sye et al, go off on their circular reasoning spiel.I pointed out biblical errors that you people try to explain away, I noted sites where prophecies etc are shot down. You at first ignored them outright. Then, when you finally got around to acknowledging them, you dismissed by saying I should go to apologetics sites, which I then did. You then disregarded what I said with refuted what they said (in regards to the bible's errors about the ostrich)

  41. Let's see Reynold'sAppeal to emotion Ad Hominem Red herringQuestion beggingGenetic FallacygeneralizationsLoaded words Poisoning the well Reynold you spot anymore fallacies in your post?

  42. Care to back up your claims? How's about showing just how I commit each and every one of those fallacies, please.

  43. How's about I list your cock-ups? Argument from authority with your assertions that the "proof" of biblegod is "existence" or "everything" around us. Nice, generalizations that can be applied to any god.I give examples of biblical mistakes, and my reasons for why the apologetic dodges for those particular mistakes fail. Why is that a "fallacy" in your view? What "fallacy" would that be?

  44. Another example of your idiocy is your going off topic to ask if some of us would mind being lied to, and if we have ever lied.

  45. Reynold is this your argument:1. Christianity is BS 2. I don't like ChristianityC. Christianity is BS????????????

  46. Hezekiah:     I would love it if you would be honest. But I can see that you won't be. You see, I note well the false comparison between me (or Reynold) having lied before I learned not to and you continuing to do so now.

  47. Pv,What are you trying to convince of?Let's make this easier put your complain in the form of an argument so we can infer it's truth value.Thanks buddy. Happy Jesus Day

Write what you like, but don't cry if you act like a dick and get banned for it

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: