Another question for atheists...

[ImperialJohn]

One of the reasons I am pleased to be a follower of Christ is that I believe I have an eternity in heaven to look forward to when I die. This provides me hope and purpose during this life and removes any fear of death. (BTW, I'm not suggesting the atheist has no hope and purpose during life and fears death...).

If it turns out my faith in unfounded and there is nothing, this is irrelevant as I will never find out...

My question to the atheist is:

What do you think will happen to you when you die?

Answering as a Christian, I believe we decompose. The bible makes it clear that death is beyond any shadow of a doubt death.

I believe it is very dangerous to believe that we already have inherant eternal life as this would be falling for the original lie of Satan that Adam & Eve fell for, that they would surely not die.

Scripture plainly reveals that when you die you are dead. According to the Bible, the dead don’t hear anything, see anything, think anything or know anything. The dead have absolutely no awareness of any kind:

‘For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished . . .’ ” (Eccl. 9:5-6).

The Bible’s message is clear on this point. Death is death beyond any shadow of doubt. The apostle Paul wrote that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). Death, by definition, is the absence of life not just separation from God.

 

[Skavau]

Next question on beliefs v choices.

If you cannot choose your beliefs (in god as we are discussing here) then why is there such a movement among certain atheistic groups versus religion (primarily Christianity and Islam)?

For example, why would people go on the offensive versus the historicity of Jesus? Why attempt to undermine the authenticity of the bible?

Because those atheists believe that Christianity and Islam are not only incorrect but harmful to society.

If you have no choice other than to be an atheist, then why don't you simply accept that lack of choice and leave it at that?

Because people can assert other things beyond just not believing in God. People believe other things can be important and worth talking about.

What doesn't tie in for me is that fact that I have to defend what I believe in as a Christian.

You don't if you don't want to.

If I also have no choice then I am in the same situation as you are.

If we had no choice over our beliefs then I don't see why I am answering so many questions on this forum explaining why I believe them

You have choice in how you act, what you expose yourself to and the decisions you make based on your conclusions. When people might ask you to justify your conclusions on theism and Christianity they are asking you to explain your reasoning and how you got there with no implication that you did so based on a choice. You are still assuming that choice is at least inferred in belief when it isn't.

Surely we should mutually accept our non-choice and agree to disagree?

A Christian started this thread, not me.

 

[Danny777]

Every time you ask us why we think what we do, you ignore us and insert your own [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-and-bull story instead. Why bother to have a thread asking us questions if you're just going to ignore the answers? Just lecture to us and have done with it.

I do not lecture you. You have been keen on this thread to point out that you've debated this issue over many years on "thousands" of occasions. YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED PRO - I am just a rookie. If I do not operate with rules of engagement that your happy with, just ignore my posts from now on. The other atheists who respond adopt a far more pleasant tone...I am learning more about the atheist viewpoint as a result of this thread - your responses on this and other threads are usually arrogant and condescending...you appear to have feel a strong disdain for Christians and in particular creationists...I have no idea why you bother wasting your time - it all seems beneath you...

I notice that out of my reply you've entirely ignored the actual response I made to what you posted as evidence for design (irreducible complexity and fine-tuning), and are again trying to nitpick at what I claim my stance is based on instead (after I specifically pointed out I was tired of that crap). Instead of dealing with the evidence, you just try and make out that evolution is equivalent to ID which is most certainly is not. Why is that, Danny? Is your stance not as justified by the evidence as you think it is?

No - I'm not convinced by the evidence you have presented...I'm no expert but not convinced that what presented instead was more believable that what I already believe...

Frankly, if you want to pretend that a theory with 150 years of evidence backing it stands up to some repackaged fallacy like irreducible complexity, you've got another thing coming.

If longevity is a test of the validity of a theory I'll happily stick with the "theory" that God created the world around us. This theory (and in particular that gospel of Jesus Christ) has survived and is going strong after more than 2000 years, despite relentless attack in various forms along the way.

Muslims and Catholics account for more than 60% of world's population and out of the remaining 40% I would guess that at least 30% account for remaining religions or worldviews (including born again Christians) that believe in existence of a God. This leaves approx a maximum of 10% who are atheists (and that's being generous) who do not believe a God at all. It MUST be reasonable to believe in God!!

I am the first to admit I do not know all the answers and that I cannot prove the existence of God in terms that you would accept as proof.

I started this thread to find out what atheists thought of the issue of death. It then moved onto other things - if the issue of irreducible complexity hits a raw nerve within you, there is no need for you to comment on it at all...

 

[tonybeer]

Muslims and Catholics account for more than 60% of world's population and out of the remaining 40% I would guess that at least 30% account for remaining religions or worldviews (including born again Christians) that believe in existence of a God. This leaves approx a maximum of 10% who are atheists (and that's being generous) who do not believe a God at all. It MUST be reasonable to believe in God!!

It might not be true though. Precentage of people believing has no effect on whether something is true or not.

Having said that, this is a UK forum and the stats for the UK from the latest census were 25% of the population had no religion. 59% said Christian, though many are "cultural Christians".

The figure for church going Christians is 6% and the average age 51 (for the general population this is 40yrs).

You said before you were unsure about the evolution of lungs, and I presented you with some science. I think you though gills turned into lungs, though this was incorrect. What did you think?

 

[Gadarene]

I do not lecture you. You have been keen on this thread to point out that you've debated this issue over many years on "thousands" of occasions. YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED PRO - I am just a rookie. If I do not operate with rules of engagement that your happy with, just ignore my posts from now on. The other atheists who respond adopt a far more pleasant tone...I am learning more about the atheist viewpoint as a result of this thread - your responses on this and other threads are usually arrogant and condescending...you appear to have feel a strong disdain for Christians and in particular creationists...I have no idea why you bother wasting your time - it all seems beneath you...

No disdain for all Christians here, just the ones who ask us questions and then ignore the answers. Those who repeat tired old antiscientific claims are just tedious, rather than worthy of disdain.

The remarks about how often I've heard this before were if nothing else to make you think about recycling arguments more than anything.

No - I'm not convinced by the evidence you have presented...I'm no expert but not convinced that what presented instead was more believable that what I already believe...

And your reasons are?

If longevity is a test of the validity of a theory I'll happily stick with the "theory" that God created the world around us. This theory (and in particular that gospel of Jesus Christ) has survived and is going strong after more than 2000 years, despite relentless attack in various forms along the way.

Abuse of the word "theory" noted - theories are based on facts, and your "theory" has far fewer than ToE, though it has lasted for longer.

(Although I wasn't referring to religions as such, I was referring to the irreducible complexity/half a wing fallacy which is as old as ToE and has been wrong for as long.

Muslims and Catholics account for more than 60% of world's population and out of the remaining 40% I would guess that at least 30% account for remaining religions or worldviews (including born again Christians) that believe in existence of a God. This leaves approx a maximum of 10% who are atheists (and that's being generous) who do not believe a God at all. It MUST be reasonable to believe in God!!

If you really want to play this argument, there are more people who are non-Christian than Christian, so why do you not accept one of their "theories"?

I am the first to admit I do not know all the answers and that I cannot prove the existence of God in terms that you would accept as proof.

I started this thread to find out what atheists thought of the issue of death. It then moved onto other things - if the issue of irreducible complexity hits a raw nerve within you, there is no need for you to comment on it at all...

Of course there is, because even though it's tedious to deal with, what you posted is still wrong, and I have explained why - and you have not posted any rebuttal to this at all.

Do not think you can just post falsehoods uncorrected.

 

[Danny777]

It might not be true though. Precentage of people believing has no effect on whether something is true or not.

Having said that, this is a UK forum and the stats for the UK from the latest census were 25% of the population had no religion. 59% said Christian, though many are "cultural Christians".

The figure for church going Christians is 6% and the average age 51 (for the general population this is 40yrs).

You said before you were unsure about the evolution of lungs, and I presented you with some science. I think you though gills turned into lungs, though this was incorrect. What did you think?

These are fair points re. the UK where I understand atheism is far more dominant relatively than in other countries. I was really trying to point out that if you take worlds population now or at any time in human history, the vast majority would believe in the existence of a God of some form. If it was patently obvious there was no God, this would not be the case at all. Of course, they may all be wrong - but it does seem very odd for such a high volume of the worlds population for so many thousands of years to have accepted the existence of some form of God if there is absolutely no reason for that belief...

RE. lung fish...

The problem with this is that I do internet searches for explanations from both the Darwinian evolution camp and the creationist camp. The science behind it goes a little over my head I'm afraid and its a little confusing. (I did post a link re. lung fish some posts ago - but sure there is a counter argument).

I obviously accept there is variation/mutation within species - this is observable, measurable and probably predictable. This is what I understand as natural selection or micro-evolution (these terms are probably no longer valid). To then make the leap and speculate on this big-bang and what caused the matter/space/time to be there is first place and also speculate on the paths of mutation that eventually fish to fly etc etc seems to be outside the parameters of what is observable and measurable and is really guesswork. Even if it is educated guesswork, to call it scientific fact seems to me to betray to so-called skeptical attitude scientists should have to all theories.

I accepted "molecules-to-man" evolution for many years as this is what I got taught at school. Re-examining this theory was one of the key steps in my journey to becoming a Christian. I've read lots of "evidence" of both sides re. origins - I am not scientist and out of my depth with lots of the science. For me, it comes down to using my own senses and a look at what I see as the amazing "fine-tuning" and complexity of the world around us and this leads me unable to believe it was an unguided, random, accidental process. Am I biased - yes!...but I was also bias the other way before...I think its impossible for anyone to be truly unbiased no matter how hard they try...

You are looking at the same world as me - you clearly see things very differently. If this leaves you an atheist, then good luck to you...I am not doubting your sincerity, but I am also being as sincere as I know how in also trying to explain the world around me.

Some of my comments have attracted ridicule, mocking and at times personal insult to my intelligence (I'm the first to admit I'm not the cleverest chap in the world!). What do you expect me to do...abandon my believe in God immediately and fly the white flag even though what has been described instead betrays my own observation of the world around me?

I do understand more about atheism and do not deny that I had misconceptions before (and probably still do...) so this was/is still an interesting exercise...

 

[tonybeer]

I'm not expecting you to not believe in God. Most Christians accept evolution though, certainly in the UK.

You are looking at theories from almost all of science with what you are saying. Slow down, one step at a time! Don't immediately look at a theory and try and fit it in with your view of how you think the world works. Just look at the theory.

1. Big Bang - We see that every object in the universe is moving away from us. Also we can pick up remnants of a massive explosion type event. You can't see this with your eyes as they don't pick up the correct wavelength of light, just as you can't see radiowaves yet a radio can pick them up, and in this case we use a similar type of technology to pick them up.

What happened before* this, no one knows. This is where a lot of Christians fit God in and say he started the big bang. There is no evidence for this, but at least it doesn't contradict the evidence we do have.

*before is a bad term as it is not certain time existed before the big bang.

2. Evolution. It is not a random process in the way you describe. Mutations are random, but the selective process is not.

3. Fine tuning - The problem is that you are expecting a certain solution based on what you know.

Lets say I get a supercomputer. I run literally millions of universe simulations with different variables.

Lets say 100 simulations result in intelligent life. Each of these intelligent life forms will say that the universe must be fine tuned for them to have existed. In all the other universes nothing exists to ponder the meaning of its existence and claim that universe is fine tuned.

The lifeforms are assuming the universe has some goal to produce exactly them.

The lifeforms have no idea how likely it was that they were the result of that set of variables.


The problem with Creationist type arguments is that to someone who knows a fair bit on that subject they are easily disproven. However to someone with little science background they are quite convincing and can sound "science-y".

As I've said before for Creationism to be a valid scientific theory it MUST make some useful predictions based on a hypothesis*.

*Irreducible complexity was an attempt at this but it has been disproven countless times by demonstrating that the organisms could function with parts of them missing.


You said "You are looking at the same world as me - you clearly see things very differently. If this leaves you an atheist, then good luck to you."

I don't look at the world and say - that squirrel is complex, which means Atheism must be true. If someone makes the claim a God exists then they must provide evidence for me to believe it. J

 

[Gadarene]

These are fair points re. the UK where I understand atheism is far more dominant relatively than in other countries. I was really trying to point out that if you take worlds population now or at any time in human history, the vast majority would believe in the existence of a God of some form. If it was patently obvious there was no God, this would not be the case at all. Of course, they may all be wrong - but it does seem very odd for such a high volume of the worlds population for so many thousands of years to have accepted the existence of some form of God if there is absolutely no reason for that belief...

Not really - wrong beliefs have persisted for some time - e.g. geocentrism, slavery. No reason to think religion is outside of that category on that basis.

I obviously accept there is variation/mutation within species - this is observable, measurable and probably predictable. This is what I understand as natural selection or micro-evolution (these terms are probably no longer valid). To then make the leap and speculate on this big-bang and what caused the matter/space/time to be there is first place and also speculate on the paths of mutation that eventually fish to fly etc etc seems to be outside the parameters of what is observable and measurable and is really guesswork. Even if it is educated guesswork, to call it scientific fact seems to me to betray to so-called skeptical attitude scientists should have to all theories.

Erm....you do know that evolution has nothing to do with the big bang theory, right?

The big bang theory was first formulated when it was observed that all nearby galaxies were moving away from us. It grew from there when further cosmological observations were made. It has little to do with observing life on the genetic level as is done in evolutionary biology.

I accepted "molecules-to-man" evolution for many years as this is what I got taught at school. Re-examining this theory was one of the key steps in my journey to becoming a Christian.

Which is odd, given that it is entirely possible to accept evolution and be a Christian. Most Christians do. In addition, evolution being does not imply that atheism is true or that any other religion is true.

I've read lots of "evidence" of both sides re. origins - I am not scientist and out of my depth with lots of the science. For me, it comes down to using my own senses and a look at what I see as the amazing "fine-tuning" and complexity of the world around us and this leads me unable to believe it was an unguided, random, accidental process. Am I biased - yes!...but I was also bias the other way before...I think its impossible for anyone to be truly unbiased no matter how hard they try...

You are looking at the same world as me - you clearly see things very differently. If this leaves you an atheist, then good luck to you...I am not doubting your sincerity, but I am also being as sincere as I know how in also trying to explain the world around me.

Some of my comments have attracted ridicule, mocking and at times personal insult to my intelligence (I'm the first to admit I'm not the cleverest chap in the world!). What do you expect me to do...abandon my believe in God immediately and fly the white flag even though what has been described instead betrays my own observation of the world around me?

Actually that's not a bad idea - or at least reeevaluate the idea. If you know you lack detailed knowledge on these topics (and common sense frequently....well....isn't sensible) then why race ahead to a conclusion?

 

[ianb321red]

Because those atheists believe that Christianity and Islam are not only incorrect but harmful to society.

How is Christianity harmful to society? What exactly am I doing as a Christian that is harming society?

Furthermore, what does Christianity being incorrect actually mean? Incorrect versus correct? But what is correct though? I don't understand what this means.

 

[ianb321red]

I do not lecture you. You have been keen on this thread to point out that you've debated this issue over many years on "thousands" of occasions. YOU ARE AN EXPERIENCED PRO - I am just a rookie. If I do not operate with rules of engagement that your happy with, just ignore my posts from now on. The other atheists who respond adopt a far more pleasant tone...I am learning more about the atheist viewpoint as a result of this thread - your responses on this and other threads are usually arrogant and condescending...you appear to have feel a strong disdain for Christians and in particular creationists...I have no idea why you bother wasting your time - it all seems beneath you...

Mate - I see you're experiencing the Alex Ferguson "hairdryer" treatment first hand from our friend from Luke 8:30....

You're trying to discuss something with someone who relies on straw men, kettle logic, special pleading, shotgun arguments, false analogies, association fallacies, mind projection fallacies, and a whole host of other formal and informal fallacies.

Don't waste your time; you won't get anywhere other than being on the end of personal attacks and other such diatribe.

 

[Gadarene]

Mate - I see you're experiencing the Alex Ferguson "hairdryer" treatment first hand from our friend from Luke 8:30....

Someone else had already taken "Legion"

You're trying to discuss something with someone who relies on straw men, kettle logic, special pleading, shotgun arguments, false analogies, association fallacies, mind projection fallacies, and a whole host of other formal and informal fallacies.

Rich coming from you given your general incompetence with logic. Funny how you never respond to my points to point out where these fallacies are - and the last time you were doing so you couldn't even get my argument straight in the first place - and you made the exact same blunder with tony, which I was sure to have clarified in the thread.

Danny might not have evolution etc down, but he strikes me as a lot more sincere and not prone to hypocrisy, unlike you. And I would hope he at least has the gumption to not just ignore posts because his mate told him he should.

If you want to criticise, Ian, and be taken seriously about it - respond to my posts - I do the same to yours, even though I know you're just going to chicken out of posting a response.

 

[Skavau]

How is Christianity harmful to society?

That commands a long answer. The normalisation and acceptanced of totalitarianism (in the form of thought-crime and hell) would be just one way that horrifies me the most.

What exactly am I doing as a Christian that is harming society?

I have no idea. At the very least you're spreading the idea that people deserve to be tormented for eternity. I realise that is not a necessary Christian belief but it is extremely pervasive.

Furthermore, what does Christianity being incorrect actually mean?

It means it is wrong.

Incorrect versus correct? But what is correct though? I don't understand what this means.

It means it is wrong.

 

[ianb321red]

It means it is wrong.


It means it is wrong.

In accordance to what though? Your opinion or anything vaguely meaningful that someone other than you might actually understand?

 

[ianb321red]

That commands a long answer. The normalisation and acceptanced of totalitarianism (in the form of thought-crime and hell) would be just one way that horrifies me the most.

Don't bother with a long answer - what you've written above is enough to show me that I wouldn't even bother reading it; I don't engage in straw man arguments.

There are elements of Islam where Sharia is applied at state level; here there is a valid comparison.

Can you in any vaguely serious way compare any element of Christianity anywhere in the world to the application of Sharia at state or even regional levels?

You appear to have not have a basic grounded in some of the fundamental differences between Islam and Christianity; hence the straw man...

 

[ianb321red]

I have no idea. At the very least you're spreading the idea that people deserve to be tormented for eternity. I realise that is not a necessary Christian belief but it is extremely pervasive.

Ok, but you're avoiding my original question.

What exactly am I doing right now as a Christian that is harming any aspect or element of society?

 

[Skavau]

In accordance to what though? Your opinion or anything vaguely meaningful that someone other than you might actually understand?

Your question is incoherent. Everyone accepts or rejects something based on their opinion be it reasoned or otherwise.

Recall you asked me why do atheists "go on the offensive" about Christianity. I answered saying they believe that not only is it untrue but also harmful. Each individual will likely have different reasons (though with much crossover) for rejecting Christianity.

Don't bother with a long answer

I wasn't going to.

- what you've written above is enough to show me that I wouldn't even bother reading it; I don't engage in straw man arguments.

I already know that you believe all non-Christians deserve eternal torment. You've said it often and argued for it repeatedly.

There are elements of Islam where Sharia is applied at state level; here there is a valid comparison.

Islam is just as bad if not worse when it comes to totalitarianism.

Can you in any vaguely serious way compare any element of Christianity anywhere in the world to the application of Sharia at state or even regional levels?

Uganda (and historically, Christianity has been quite the oppressor).

I wasn't talking about totalitarianism in a legal sense but in a spiritual sense. I was talking about the implementation of hell towards non-believers and the argument that God will punish us for what and how we think.

What exactly am I doing right now as a Christian that is harming any aspect or element of society?

How on earth should I know exactly? I don't know you. I think Christianity is broadly (like all religion) harmful to society but that does not mean that I think that all Christians are necessary perpetrators and antagonists in this harm. Many are mild mannered, calm or not even necessarily advocates of some of the viler beliefs maintained by Christianity. Others are more assertive.

I also did answer your question: You spreading the idea that people deserve to be tormented for eternity is harmful. It is disgusting that children might be told it and the acceptance of it normalises totalitarianism at the most basic level. It negates the spirit of breaking oppression and is the justification for nonsense ideas such as Pascal's Wager and faith (both of which encourage dishonesty, self-deception and anti-intellectualism).

 

[ianb321red]

Your question is incoherent.

Ok, we can go round and round in circles if you want, but at some point you need provide some actual substance for your assertions..

You've claimed Christianity is incorrect because it is wrong.
So I've simply asked you to explain what is wrong or why Christianity is incorrect. Is that really too much to ask, given that you've chosen to visit the forum and post on this thread?

So stop evading the question - it's perfectly coherent to anyone who can read/ understand English.

Everyone accepts or rejects something based on their opinion be it reasoned or otherwise.

But at the moment that is purely conjecture because you haven't actually provided any kind of reason and/ or explanation for anything you think, feel, believe or disbelieve about pretty much anything.

 

[ianb321red]

I already know that you believe all non-Christians deserve eternal torment. You've said it often and argued for it repeatedly

Straw man . Try again.

NB - do you actually have any arguments that aren't based on misrepresenting your opponents position?

 

[tonybeer]

He could argue by praising a God that hands out eternal torture you are endorsing this action and actually approving of it because you think your God is good.

That is of course if you believe that God sends people to hell, which you may not.

 

[ianb321red]

I also did answer your question: You spreading the idea that people deserve to be tormented for eternity is harmful.

What you're saying here is just so completely immoral and cruel to be honest.
You're suggesting that Christians, knowing what they believe about judgement, hell and eternal torment should keep QUIET about it!
That is unbelievable and fundamentally wrong and immoral.

It would be harmful if we DIDN'T tell anyone else about this and warn them!

Can you not understand the absurdity in what you're implying? It's like suggesting to someone who had the cure for cancer to not let anyone else know about it. That would be fundamentally wrong wouldn't it?
Or imagine if a certain country was in the middle of a civil war which presented huge danger to any outsiders attempting to visit it. Imagine if our government didn't warn anyone else about this - that would be unimaginable wouldn't it??

It is disgusting that children might be told it and the acceptance of it normalises totalitarianism at the most basic level. It negates the spirit of breaking oppression and is the justification for nonsense ideas such as Pascal's Wager and faith (both of which encourage dishonesty, self-deception and anti-intellectualism).

No - it is disgusting that people (albeit it minority) try to suppress and repress the ability for people to decide for themselves about religion and any other beliefs.

What you're describing here is ardent censorship aimed at inculcating people in to an extreme minority viewpoint such as you're own; in fact it's a form of extremism which is in fact more dangerous than anything remotely associated with Christianity.

You take the moral high ground by referring to children which is disgusting on your part; thinking you somehow know better than all other parents who are raising their children in a loving and caring way and in accordance to their beliefs religious or otherwise..