Ask an Atheist

[RogerTheAtheist]

Critical thinking? By what standard?
Atheists believe that there is no God and everything in the universe is the result of basic cause and effect in adherance to the laws of nature. The strangest thing about your belief is that you don't think any intelligence created those laws.

From what I understand the laws of physics appear to be inherent properties of matter. In order for gravity to exist (the force, not the law), matter must exist; anywhere there is matter, there will be gravity. Granted, there's also dark energy to think about, which "wins" unless there's enough gravity to overcome it in a given area.

Since everything seems to be explicable by natural causes, I don't see why the laws of nature didn't also have natural causes if they began to exist; it's possible that they've always existed. I admit that it's possible that they had supernatural causes, but in order to consider this as more than a mere possibility I'll need to be presented with convincing evidence first.

As for what constitutes as evidence, complexity and apparent design don't necessitate an intelligent creator. For clarity, I'm not one of those people that think that there is an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to be in the perfect universe with everything fine-tuned for life. Instead, I conclude that not enough is known about universes in general including whether or not those laws could have been any different (they may have caused and/or influenced each other). I also think that claims of how precise things are can be exaggerated and in the end aren't testable, although I could be wrong and would like to know if I am since I don't have a degree in physics.

If you were really saved and a devout Christian, then you must have experienced an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. If you didn't, you were never saved. You simply went through the motions because you wanted to think you were saved. Here's the question. If you've actually experienced the Holy Spirit, how could you later deny His existence? If not, how could you ever claim to have been saved?

This analogy isn't a very good one, but I'll follow it up with a second one. Children one day stop believing in Santa. Does this mean that they never believed in him to begin with? While some children fake it because of peer pressure and/or the reward for believing, some children do genuinely believe. I know from experience that a belief and personal relationship with god are stronger and more meaningful than belief in Santa.

A better example is with the other religions of the world. I find that some (not all) Christians tend to assume that people of other religions can't possibly be as passionate and fulfilled as Christians are. Yet, assuming they can be, there are people who convert to and from Christianity, while followers of their original religions might simply say that they were never true to begin with. Many might not have been, but certainly some were.

I'd like to clarify that my Christian years weren't taken lightly. It wasn't a phase, a show to make others favorable, or something I faked hoping god wouldn't notice. In contrast, I was disgusted at how self-proclaimed Christians lived and talked the way they did. I had a deep, personal relationship with god through Jesus; I knew that I was a sinner deserving of hell but was saved.

When I say this, I'm not saying that I had a relationship with a god that exists. I'm saying that I fully believed that I had a relationship with god but later came to believe that god doesn't exist and that therefore I only ever had a relationship with myself. This doesn't mean that the relationship wasn't genuine. How could I possibly come to not believe in a god that I once so strongly believed in? By learning about the bible and other religions, allowing myself to think, no longer keeping religion in a sacred place in my mind free from questioning, a desire to see things from other perspectives, and coming to a conclusion that the more I thought about a reality without god, the more it made sense and seemed to match the world I live in.

If you had to face death now, would you be as peaceful? Could you honestly stand before God after having publically denying him?

I wouldn't be peaceful unless I was at a point where I feel I'd lived life to the fullest and had no regrets. Even then, I'd rather not cease to exist. I can't say that I'd be peaceful because I like being alive. Eternal non-existence can be scary, even though I won't know what it's like.

If god does turn out to be real and I stand before him, I'll finally have enough evidence to believe. Too bad direct proof is only possible after death, when it's too late.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed.... EVER. All matter is in a state of increasing entropy. NOTHING physical is eternal. How about this one. If something doesn't exist it NEVER exists. Even one violation disproves a law. Makes sense?

This seems to support an eternal universe. If matter can't be created, then it didn't have a beginning. If it can't be destroyed, it won't have an end. There's also the total matter and energy of the universe being zero that I don't completely buy, but I acknowledge that it's the accepted hypothesis, although I'm not sure by what percentage of astrophysicists.

I think most NDE's are just wild dreams, but if even ONE instance of a person giving an accurate description of things they could not have otherwise seen is true, then the belief that the soul cannot leave the body is falsified. If, in the history of mankind, ONE miracle ever happened, then the laws of nature CANNOT be the final authority. If even ONE life was completely changed by the presence of the Holy Spirit after accepting the Lord then you cannot continue to deny His existence without lying to yourself.

I don't agree with you here because of chance. One might say it's impossible to shuffle a deck of cards and randomly pick out a specific sequence of five cards in a specific order. It would be very unlikely but possible.

When people change or do acts after being saved, if god doesn't exist (and maybe even if he does), it's not god himself that causes this change; it's belief in god. The same can be said of other religions. People's lives and attitudes can completely change after becoming serious with a religion, having a traumatic experience (including boot camp), and suffering brain damage. This isn't unique to any single variety of Christianity or of Christianity as a whole.

I do agree, however, that one demonstrable miracle is all it would take to make the supernatural plausible. The problem is in defining a miracle. I don't define a miracle as an unlikely event that could very well have happened with physical causes. I consider a miracle a suspension of physical laws, but what if the laws are simply misunderstood or if certain variables weren't accounted for? A good example of a miracle for me would be if all bibles on the planet levitated in a glowing light for an hour once a year on a specific day and absolutely refused to move due to outside forces, such as people trying to hang from them to pull them down. If this happened, I'd change my name to RogerTheChristian.

God is in the world but not OF the world. He created the world as a temporary habitat. It is not meant to be man's god that he should ascribe great power to it. There are over 300 miracles listed in the Bible. If even ONE is true then there can be no intelligent basis for the denial of the supernatural. It's against the law, and unlike man's laws, the laws of the physics cannot be violated; only superceded by a greater force.

I vaguely remember hearing about how certain laws break down under certain conditions including within the event horizon of a black hole. This is something I'd like to look more into since I don't know as much about it as I'd like. Nevertheless, could you list what you feel are the five most definitive and proven miracles from the bible? Preferably something that's backed with scientific and/or historical evidence that even secular and/or non-Abrahamic historians agree happened.

 

[98cwitr]

I wasn't sure where to post this, since many parts of these forums seem to be Christian-only. I have a few questions for Christians and welcome any questions whether or not they're related to mine. Feel free to ask about my views, how I became an atheist, or anything else you'd like to know.

1. What is your view of atheism and atheists?

2. Would you date a non-Christian? An atheist? Would you allow your children to?

3. Do you believe in an age of reason before which children who die automatically go to heaven and after which children become responsible and require salvation in order to enter heaven?

4. Do you believe that every person that has ever lived has been convinced that god is real and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life?

5. Do you believe in a literal hell as a place of torture where possibly trillions will spend eternity separated from god?

6. What about post-death salvation? Some Christians seem to believe that those who've never heard about Jesus (meaning #4 would be no) will be given a chance to accept Jesus, most notably JWs. If so, who do you think will be given a second chance?

As a former atheist of 20 years...I'll answer with Scripture

1. 2 Corinthians 4:4
2. 2 Corinthians 6:14
3. Matthew 9:13
4. Job 36:12
5. Matthew 25; Jude 1
6. Revelation 20

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

a. How do you get intelligent effects as we have, from non intelligent (natural) causes ?

By effects do you mean intelligent life? Evolution generally improves a life form's ability to survive and reproduce, and intelligence helped hominids survive when they lacked other features such as physical strength, speed, the ability to fly, horns, etc. This isn't a conscious force but rather a survival of a few among the corpses of many less genetically gifted.

b. How do you get personality from non personality , incl. logic, reason, rationale, love, discernment, and abstract thought for example ?

All of this is possible with an intelligent enough brain. Dogs have unique personalities, as do cats, although to a lesser extent.

c. How did our Laws of physics, math, biology, and chemistry come into being then proceed to work in unison with one another .. in conjunction with over 150 scientifically discovered Life Enabling Constants to which some occupy a 120th decimal point allowable tolerance otherwise we arent here ?

I question how those specific numbers were estimated and would be interested in further reading. As for how the laws of physics came about, from my understanding they're inherent properties of matter. I don't know whether or not it's possible for them to have other values, such as in other universes.

d. How did Darwinnian Evolution provide for only the 4th generation Monarch Butterfly living for a year while its first 3 generations die off after 4-6 weeks...further, how did the 4th generation Monarch know to leave Canada on the EXACT day of the Fall equinox for its long trek to the SAME place in Mexico ... then leave Mexico on the EXACT day of the spring equinox to make the journey back to Canada to its exact former location ?

I haven't looked into this before, but it's an interesting topic. My guess is that it could this could be socially passed on, with those that don't dying out and not passing on the knowledge. If it's demonstrably not social (such as if butterflies born without ever being in contact with other butterflies know to do this), then it's probably genetic instead of social.

e. How did blind random mutations provide for the 14 specific and independent chemical changes that occur in the human eye when seeing something for its first time .. before it finally gets registered in the brain ?

The mutations may be random, but the selection is not. Any enhancements in sight would've been beneficial to most life forms with the ability to detect light, although there are interesting examples of some that don't, such as cave-dwelling white salamanders with only the ability to detect light vs. darkness. These salamanders and other living life forms are good examples of different steps the eye might have evolved in over time, starting with perhaps a single light-sensitive cell that become more adept at gathering and focusing light over generations.

Of course the eye isn't perfect. It captures inverted images and requires quite a bit of mental Photoshop to make sense of the world. Our sense of sight is easily tricked, and there are many species that make our sight comparable in a way to those nearly blind salamanders, such as birds that can see tiny insects far below. Some people are born colorblind or completely blind. Vision fades quickly with age, resulting in many people requiring advances in technology to get by; even children need glasses or contacts.

As for the specific chemicals, this is another thing I haven't heard much about but am now interested. I look forward to further study of evolution and science in general.

f. How did blind random mutations make the human eye / molecular machines / the defense system of the Bombadier Beetle when if any one component is missing it renders the entire system completely inoperative ?

The thing with irreducible complexity is that, as you seem to know, the switch wasn't from a non-existent system to a fully formed one, or from a half-formed one with half of the parts missing to a complete model. I don't know enough about the beetle's defense system to respond to that, but I just read/watched/listened to something recently about the evolution of the eye. I'll try to find it and respond when I do, but it could be that more than one feature developed together. An example of this in different life forms is a bird with a long thin beak and a flower that only that specific bird can pollinate. This likely started with only a slight variation in length of each, with variations in this direction favored by more efficient pollination.

g. What Darwinnian Evolutionary process made the first DNA molecule which has enough specified complex information in it to fill an entire set of encylopedias ? And where does the information come from -- do you know of a Source whereby non intelligence brings forth new informational messages to build ANY object , unit, or system ? Please list.

The first life wouldn't have had anything like modern DNA, and from what I remember reading it didn't have DNA at all but instead something somewhat similar, perhaps RNA or mRNA. From what I understand, DNA itself also became more complex over time.

Genetic mutation is a non-intelligent process that is capable of bringing about new results. Multicellular life may have itself been a genetic mutation, even though it's estimated to have taken a billion years or so to happen.

h. If Darwinnian Evolution is such a proven 'fact' , then why would over 700 of THE worlds top PHD Scientists sign a petition at www.dissentfromdarwin.com saying they have very serious problems with the THEORIES credibility ? Further, why would the following Evolutionists tell us that Darwinnian Evolution has to be believed on BY FAITH ? as follows :

I've seen that before, but while 700 might seem like an impressive number, a user on answers.com cites the CIA world factbook as estimating 6.6 billion scientists in the world, although because of the source I'm skeptical of the number. Also, many people that signed the list are in unrelated fields such as math and astrophysics. If this was purely biology-related PhDs I'd be slightly more impressed, but I've heard from multiple sources that both US and worldwide (slightly less in the US) scientists of all fields overwhelmingly accept evolution, even though a good chunk believe that god used evolution to create humans.

The cool part is that even if the theory of evolution didn't exist, that still wouldn't mean that god is the answer by default. Just like every other hypothesis, it's only as valid as the strength of the evidence that supports it. "Science can't explain X, therefore god" is god of the gaps and would be just as silly as me saying "the bible doesn't say how god existed before the universe, therefore he didn't."

It is therefore a MATTER OF FAITH on the part of the biologist that
biogenesis (evolution) did occur and he can choose whatever method of
biogenesis happens to suit him personally ; the evidence for what did
happen is not available" --- Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut of the
University of Southampton. Source : Implications of Evolution. London.
Pergamon Press, 1960, page 150.

Is he referring to abiogenesis (the formation of life) or simply its development? I'm assuming evolution, but saying that the evidence for what happened (past tense) isn't available is making me think of abiogenesis, which is the only one of the two without this evidence. Evolution has been observed in the lab and is proven most strongly by DNA but also supported by breeding, the fossil record (most useful as a map), the development of new strains of bacteria, and to an extent by vestigial organs (wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tailbone, goosebumps, etc.).

" The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that
evolution is based on FAITH ALONE" -- Evolutionist Prof. T.L. Moor .
Origins ? The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988 page 22.

I imagine that studying paleontology without a knowledge of biology and genetics would require faith.

i . Finally, what personal benefits do you see for yourself (or for Atheists in general) if there is no personal theistic Creator/Designer/ultimate Moral Accountable entity ? Please list a few. If you prefer, i can list a few which i found for myself back when i was an ardent Atheist.

Thank you.

None besides being allowed to think anything without feeling guilty or that someone is listening. An atheistic worldview isn't the most desirable one; but what is true is more important to me than what I want to be true. Some say that one must seek god to find him; but instead of looking for god and picking out things I can label as god, I instead examine the evidence as objectively as possible and follow it where it leads, even if I don't like what I find. I'm skeptical of extraordinary claims including scientific ones; I don't instantly accept that the big bang started with a true singularity and that time itself started with it but instead want to know how scientists came to those conclusions. (I do accept that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy, and that this expansion happened from a central point with the cosmic microwave background as radiation from the big bang, but what I'm not fully convinced of is a microscopic singularity containing the mass of sextillions of solar systems, even if it and antimatter all add up to zero and could've been the result of quantum mechanics.)

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

By effects do you mean intelligent life? Evolution generally improves a life form's ability to survive and reproduce, and intelligence helped hominids survive when they lacked other features such as physical strength, speed, the ability to fly, horns, etc. This isn't a conscious force but rather a survival of a few among the corpses of many less genetically gifted.



All of this is possible with an intelligent enough brain. Dogs have unique personalities, as do cats, although to a lesser extent.



I question how those specific numbers were estimated and would be interested in further reading. As for how the laws of physics came about, from my understanding they're inherent properties of matter. I don't know whether or not it's possible for them to have other values, such as in other universes.



I haven't looked into this before, but it's an interesting topic. My guess is that it could this could be socially passed on, with those that don't dying out and not passing on the knowledge. If it's demonstrably not social (such as if butterflies born without ever being in contact with other butterflies know to do this), then it's probably genetic instead of social.



The mutations may be random, but the selection is not. Any enhancements in sight would've been beneficial to most life forms with the ability to detect light, although there are interesting examples of some that don't, such as cave-dwelling white salamanders with only the ability to detect light vs. darkness. These salamanders and other living life forms are good examples of different steps the eye might have evolved in over time, starting with perhaps a single light-sensitive cell that become more adept at gathering and focusing light over generations.

Of course the eye isn't perfect. It captures inverted images and requires quite a bit of mental Photoshop to make sense of the world. Our sense of sight is easily tricked, and there are many species that make our sight comparable in a way to those nearly blind salamanders, such as birds that can see tiny insects far below. Some people are born colorblind or completely blind. Vision fades quickly with age, resulting in many people requiring advances in technology to get by; even children need glasses or contacts.

As for the specific chemicals, this is another thing I haven't heard much about but am now interested. I look forward to further study of evolution and science in general.



The thing with irreducible complexity is that, as you seem to know, the switch wasn't from a non-existent system to a fully formed one, or from a half-formed one with half of the parts missing to a complete model. I don't know enough about the beetle's defense system to respond to that, but I just read/watched/listened to something recently about the evolution of the eye. I'll try to find it and respond when I do, but it could be that more than one feature developed together. An example of this in different life forms is a bird with a long thin beak and a flower that only that specific bird can pollinate. This likely started with only a slight variation in length of each, with variations in this direction favored by more efficient pollination.



The first life wouldn't have had anything like modern DNA, and from what I remember reading it didn't have DNA at all but instead something somewhat similar, perhaps RNA or mRNA. From what I understand, DNA itself also became more complex over time.

Genetic mutation is a non-intelligent process that is capable of bringing about new results. Multicellular life may have itself been a genetic mutation, even though it's estimated to have taken a billion years or so to happen.



I've seen that before, but while 700 might seem like an impressive number, a user on answers.com cites the CIA world factbook as estimating 6.6 billion scientists in the world, although because of the source I'm skeptical of the number. Also, many people that signed the list are in unrelated fields such as math and astrophysics. If this was purely biology-related PhDs I'd be slightly more impressed, but I've heard from multiple sources that both US and worldwide (slightly less in the US) scientists of all fields overwhelmingly accept evolution, even though a good chunk believe that god used evolution to create humans.

The cool part is that even if the theory of evolution didn't exist, that still wouldn't mean that god is the answer by default. Just like every other hypothesis, it's only as valid as the strength of the evidence that supports it. "Science can't explain X, therefore god" is god of the gaps and would be just as silly as me saying "the bible doesn't say how god existed before the universe, therefore he didn't."



Is he referring to abiogenesis (the formation of life) or simply its development? I'm assuming evolution, but saying that the evidence for what happened (past tense) isn't available is making me think of abiogenesis, which is the only one of the two without this evidence. Evolution has been observed in the lab and is proven most strongly by DNA but also supported by breeding, the fossil record (most useful as a map), the development of new strains of bacteria, and to an extent by vestigial organs (wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tailbone, goosebumps, etc.).



I imagine that studying paleontology without a knowledge of biology and genetics would require faith.



None besides being allowed to think anything without feeling guilty or that someone is listening. An atheistic worldview isn't the most desirable one; but what is true is more important to me than what I want to be true. Some say that one must seek god to find him; but instead of looking for god and picking out things I can label as god, I instead examine the evidence as objectively as possible and follow it where it leads, even if I don't like what I find. I'm skeptical of extraordinary claims including scientific ones; I don't instantly accept that the big bang started with a true singularity and that time itself started with it but instead want to know how scientists came to those conclusions. (I do accept that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate due to dark energy, and that this expansion happened from a central point with the cosmic microwave background as radiation from the big bang, but what I'm not fully convinced of is a microscopic singularity containing the mass of sextillions of solar systems, even if it and antimatter all add up to zero and could've been the result of quantum mechanics.)

I appreciate you taking the time to respond here. Unfortunately, a good amount of your responses were predicated on the unproven theories / pure speculations of Abiogenesis leading to Chemical Evolution , multiple Universes, matter bringing forth non material Laws of Science , personality arising from non-personality brain matter (atoms) , the human eye being 'deficient' even though it is touted as the worlds best form of optics and that the human brain was produced by compilations of unintelligent random mutations, ad infinitum, yet highly intelligent Scientists cant duplicate it given the vast technology that was purposely created via the collective intelligence of the highly educated .

You are correct in stating that atheism is not the best worldview ..especially when it comes to origins such as a DNA molecule which must be fully formed and fully functioning occupying such incredible complexity and busyness that scientists equate it to a modern cities infrastructure. It (atheism) is akin to believing that the faces on Mt. Rushmore could come about by the natural causes of wind , rain, sun, mudslides, long ages, and very timely earthquakes . Such are the failings of atheism from a logical point of view.

The amount of Faith required to truly believe that everything were the product of accidental flukes of nature having no ultimate meaning or purpose....is something that no 'Atheist' has enough of , nor could. But, like i said before, it IS a desirable philosophical appeal to which many find great comfort and personal benefit in. The only problem with that, is, logic and truth are trumped by 'no one is going to own me...not even the obvious Creator of the Universe' . And of course, this is whats fundamentally behind personal atheism --- God is such an affront that he MUST be jettisoned even before coming to the table ; prestigious Men in white Lab Coats included.

 

[bling]

That depends on how faith is defined. If it's defined as believing in something even if there's no evidence to support it, then atheism is the conclusion that the burden of proof has not been met. Atheists tend to see Christians as having faith without valid evidence, although I imagine that most Christians would disagree, insisting that the complexity of the universe, the bible, and Jesus' life and miracles are evidence for god.

The situation seems to be flipped around when evolution is considered instead of god. In this scenario, YECs dismiss the evidence for evolution, whereas people who accept it can list piece after piece of evidence (DNA, the fossil record, vestigial organs, new strains bacteria, breeding, etc.).

God could have used evolution to create different living things and evolution can be used to somewhat explain different living thing, the problem I see as a Chemist is having non-living chemicals produce life in the first place, without some even theoretical system for making that happen? The scientific evidence shows life as soon as there is liquid water remaining on earth (as soon as there could be DNA life). It then takes billions of years for single cell life to become multicellular while there is evolution to help that happen.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm reading this as using the relationship (which is perhaps not genuine) in order to lead the person to Jesus, likely resulting in a breakup if they don't convert.

Hopefully, your date someone to help them. If you cannot help the person and in turn if the person cannot help you grow spiritually, I would quit dating them.

Do you believe that people die when god decides that it's their time?

There death could serve others, so it may not be “their” time so much as the needed time.

What about those that do?

They are given the opportunity make the right choice, but still might make the wrong choice.

If I knew for certain that he existed, and if it turned out to be a truly loving god (as opposed to the god of the OT), I would be compelled to return that love and to follow him.

What would “compel” you to Love God, since you are hell bound and God has not done anything different “good” for you?

We are just talking about your “knowledge” of God changing the rest of this tragic world is still in the same boat, so how does this change you?

God is still allowing and/or causing lots of tragedies to happen, so why do you feel God is different today then He was in the OT?

I desire to know the truth, but I'm convinced that no god exists. I try to be intellectually honest about everything and change my views in light of convincing evidence; if I'm presented with strong evidence for god, I'll be forced to consider his existence.

You desire to “know the truth” but how does that really help you any more than increasing your knowledge so you can be can be “smarter”. God is not needing you academic recognition of His existence. God is wanting to help you (supply you with a charitable gift) so are you in need of charity? God is here to help you, but if you do not need any “help”, God will move on. I would suggest the knowledge of God’s existence would do you more harm than good, since I do not see how it would help you.

What is true is more important to me than what I want to be true. I don't want to stop existing after death; my greatest wish is to exist in some form after death (except torture; I'd rather not exist than to spend that existence having the flesh drip from my bones or something equally painful)
even if it's only wandering as a spirit or to resurrect as a newborn or even a different kind of life form. Yet, all evidence seems to lead to a purely natural reality with nothing after death.

Hell exist to help those that are willing to accept God’s help to seek His help and to know the huge debt sin creates so when they are forgiven of a unbelievable huge debt they will have an unbelievable huge Love (a Godly type Love).

The problem is; earth is the only place where being can exist “happily” that do not like or want Godly type Love and earth is not going to last and can only support so many people. Hell has to exist to help those that are willing to accept God’s charity. Those that want to be love for who they are or what they have done will not be happy in a place where you are Loved in spite of who you are and what you have done (heaven).

If the Christian god exists as Protestants believe (this is the version I know best), my problems with him are not revealing himself and his plan to each individual in a way convincing to them, instead letting trillions die without ever having been convinced of the truth; holding imperfect beings to standards of perfection they can't possibly reach; creating a reality where the only two possible fates are eternal paradise and eternal torture; assigning an eternal fate based on a finite period of time; allowing us to be born with a human nature that for reasons beyond our control make us guilty; and for making his "word" so ambiguous that even scholars who spend years studying it come to wildly different conclusions and whose followers have formed over 33,000 denominations with conflicting views.

“convinced of the truth” (knowledge) is not the deciding factor.

“standards of perfection” is not at all required, in fact there is no standard since God’s Love is totally “unconditional”!

“eternal torture” is not scriptural, but unquenchable fire is, so eventually and most likely very rapidly everything thrown into the fire is consumed.

“eternal fate based on a finite period of time” God would know when enough opportunity has been given to a mature adult to know if that person will ever humble himself enough to accept His charity.

“make us guilty” we are guilty, but that guilt only helps us to accept His forgiveness (Love/mercy/grace/charity) and that Love is what we are after. Sin is not the problem, but accepting God’s forgiveness is a huge problem.

“for making his "word" so ambiguous” the Bible is just one tool for believers and not what you are to be sold on. God is Love, so if you can be “sold” on this unconditional, unselfish type Love you are sold on God. Jesus defines this Love in all he says and does, but you might need to meet Jesus one on one over some period of time to decide if you would accept His help and want to become like He is. That should be done by being with a true Christian that is allow Christ to live through him.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond here. Unfortunately, a good amount of your responses were predicated on the unproven theories / pure speculations of Abiogenesis leading to Chemical Evolution , multiple Universes, matter bringing forth non material Laws of Science , personality arising from non-personality brain matter (atoms) , the human eye being 'deficient' even though it is touted as the worlds best form of optics and that the human brain was produced by compilations of unintelligent random mutations, ad infinitum, yet highly intelligent Scientists cant duplicate it given the vast technology that was purposely created via the collective intelligence of the highly educated .

I don't know how the first life formed or how it began to self-replicate and pass on its information. This is one of the big unknowns. I don't believe that other universes definitely exist, but if they do, I feel that they must be finite in number and total energy/matter. Matter wouldn't bring about laws necessarily; the law of gravity might exist even without matter, but it would only be "active" if matter also exists. The eye is amazing, but it's not perfect. Are you suggesting that the brain isn't responsible for personality? I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to create a brain; do you mean from nothing or from existing matter?

You are correct in stating that atheism is not the best worldview ..especially when it comes to origins such as a DNA molecule which must be fully formed and fully functioning occupying such incredible complexity and busyness that scientists equate it to a modern cities infrastructure. It (atheism) is akin to believing that the faces on Mt. Rushmore could come about by the natural causes of wind , rain, sun, mudslides, long ages, and very timely earthquakes . Such are the failings of atheism from a logical point of view.

I didn't say it wasn't the best but rather not the most desirable. I don't think many people would choose to stop existing instead of some kind of a positive afterlife. Even reincarnation as other life forms or wandering as a spirit would be more appealing to me (and probably others) than nothingness. To clarify, the atheist position is only "I don't believe that any god exists." Nothing more, nothing less. Someone can have no knowledge of science or still be an atheist; or one can lack belief in evolution, the big bang, and god at the same time. As for DNA, the earliest life most certainly didn't have DNA as is present in modern complex life forms but instead something much, much simpler than that. Keep in mind that most genes are considered junk and that there are numerous examples of horrible "design" even with human standards, unless this poor design was intentional and/or a result of the fall (in which case I didn't know that sin had the power to alter DNA).

The amount of Faith required to truly believe that everything were the product of accidental flukes of nature having no ultimate meaning or purpose....is something that no 'Atheist' has enough of , nor could. But, like i said before, it IS a desirable philosophical appeal to which many find great comfort and personal benefit in. The only problem with that, is, logic and truth are trumped by 'no one is going to own me...not even the obvious Creator of the Universe' . And of course, this is whats fundamentally behind personal atheism --- God is such an affront that he MUST be jettisoned even before coming to the table ; prestigious Men in white Lab Coats included.

...Huh? Remember that atheism doesn't require an acceptance of scientific theories. There are also some atheists that have never believed in a god, despite the claim that creation and the conscience prove god. I'm not one of them, since I did believe; although I'm glad I did believe because now I know how both sides think. I know what it's like to believe and what it's like to not believe while feeling justified in both positions.

I could say that theists know that god isn't real and that science is correct, and that they have to reject science in order to continue believing in god; but I won't, because I know it's not true. There are Christians that fully support most of science including evolution and modern astronomy, although they seem to be the minority, especially in the US.

I'll also point out that between Christianity and atheism, Christianity certainly provides more comfort. I still remember and almost miss the feeling of getting right with god after slightly slipping away, and the feeling of witnessing a friend come to truly know and accept Jesus as savior for the first time. When death draws near or when loved ones die, it's comforting to believe that you and they will go to heaven and see each other again one day as brothers and sisters in Christ. Atheism instead proposes that there's eternal nothingness, and that once people are dead, you'll never be able to see or talk to them again. There's also the comfort of feeling like your life is being guided by a loving, all-knowing god, with everything happening for a reason. In atheism, things simply happen; good and bad things happen to both good and bad people. Cause and effect can be traced back to physically explain why things happened, or at least they could if all variables could be analyzed. I'm not an atheist because it comforts me; I am because I care whether or not what I believe is true.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

God could have used evolution to create different living things and evolution can be used to somewhat explain different living thing, the problem I see as a Chemist is having non-living chemicals produce life in the first place, without some even theoretical system for making that happen? The scientific evidence shows life as soon as there is liquid water remaining on earth (as soon as there could be DNA life). It then takes billions of years for single cell life to become multicellular while there is evolution to help that happen.

If I understand correctly, the Miller-Urey experiment created organic molecules from non-organic molecules in the lab. I don't know what sparked the first life (and don't think anyone does), but I'm interested in why from a chemistry perspective this doesn't add up.

They are given the opportunity make the right choice, but still might make the wrong choice.[/quote]

But they haven't yet reached the age (or mental state) of reason.

What would “compel” you to Love God, since you are hell bound and God has not done anything different “good” for you?[/quote]

If I knew that he existed, I would be curious to know who he really is. If he is a loving god, I would likely love him back. Likewise, when people show me kindness, I don't tell them to go away and die somewhere but instead am kind to them as well.

We are just talking about your “knowledge” of God changing the rest of this tragic world is still in the same boat, so how does this change you?

I don't understand; can you rephrase this?

God is still allowing and/or causing lots of tragedies to happen, so why do you feel God is different today then He was in the OT?

The perception of god today seems to be in sharp contrast to his portrayal in the OT. "God loves you so much that he sent his only son to die for your sins! All you have to do is accept his gift of love and mercy." God is potrayed as a loving fatherly figure who opens his arms for mankind and gives them the free will to accept or reject that love. Sure, god is also perfect justice, hence hell (which was a new invention in the NT if I recall), but I don't remember Jesus drowning the planet, mauling children with bears, or commanding the death of many people.

You desire to “know the truth” but how does that really help you any more than increasing your knowledge so you can be can be “smarter”. God is not needing you academic recognition of His existence. God is wanting to help you (supply you with a charitable gift) so are you in need of charity? God is here to help you, but if you do not need any “help”, God will move on. I would suggest the knowledge of God’s existence would do you more harm than good, since I do not see how it would help you.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it that I need charity and help in order for god to reveal himself? While I dismiss Pascal's Wager as a false dichotomy, I will say that if god is real and belief in him is required, then I am hell-bound if I don't believe. A revelation would help me by greatly improving the likelihood of me fulfilling the requirements to get into heaven. The same can be said of any possible reality where multiple fates are possible. If the Mayans were correct and there's a tree of life, or if Islam is correct and the Qur'an is the ultimate truth, then people should know which is the truth so that they can choose to follow it, rather than letting everyone walk in circles and never knowing for sure what's true until it's too late (or never knowing if atheism is true).

Hell exist to help those that are willing to accept God’s help to seek His help and to know the huge debt sin creates so when they are forgiven of a unbelievable huge debt they will have an unbelievable huge Love (a Godly type Love).

You're saying that hell only exists so that people will be grateful not to go there? I'm glad that so many trillions of people will eternally suffer so that a select few can feel slightly better about the god that sent everyone there. (I know, technically people "send themselves" to be eternally tortured.)

The problem is; earth is the only place where being can exist “happily” that do not like or want Godly type Love and earth is not going to last and can only support so many people. Hell has to exist to help those that are willing to accept God’s charity. Those that want to be love for who they are or what they have done will not be happy in a place where you are Loved in spite of who you are and what you have done (heaven).

...What? Sorry, I'm confused.

“convinced of the truth” (knowledge) is not the deciding factor.

No, but not being convinced makes hell an unfair punishment for not believing what they were never convinced of. It's still an unfair given regardless because of it being eternal, but yeah.

“standards of perfection” is not at all required, in fact there is no standard since God’s Love is totally “unconditional”!

What I was saying was that only without sin would people be worthy of heaven, but it's impossible to not be guilty of sin without being either Jesus or possibly a child that died before reaching a certain mental state. As for unconditional, I feel that this is appropriate:

“eternal torture” is not scriptural, but unquenchable fire is, so eventually and most likely very rapidly everything thrown into the fire is consumed.

I guess that depends whether or not souls die. If an eternal soul is placed in eternal fire, it follows that it will eternally burn. This isn't the case if souls aren't eternal.

It's still beyond me why a loving father would create hell in the first place knowing that so many of his beloved children will go there before they're even created (why create them?), whether or not it's an eternal experience. It's like putting one's child over a fiery pit, and an unknown condition must be met in a very short time, or else the child will... "voluntarily choose to fall" (to take the blame away from the parent). It doesn't make any sense, especially if the parent who put the child there in the first place loves him/her. An infinite number of better, more loving circumstances should be imagined, such as not having a fiery pit as the default fate if those conditions aren't met that the child won't be guaranteed to be convinced of... by an all-knowing parent that would know what would convince the child and would have the potential to directly reveal this but choose not to.

“eternal fate based on a finite period of time” God would know when enough opportunity has been given to a mature adult to know if that person will ever humble himself enough to accept His charity.

This is something I can agree with. An omniscient god would know before a person is even created what the person will decide. Why, then, even create the child? Why not skip the whole life part and put everyone into heaven or hell since it's already known what they'll decide? Why not only create people that will eventually go to heaven? Why not create a peaceful afterlife separate from god or perhaps standards that god's creations could actually meet?

My main point, however, wasn't why life is temporary but rather why the punishment is infinitely greater and excessive.

“make us guilty” we are guilty, but that guilt only helps us to accept His forgiveness (Love/mercy/grace/charity) and that Love is what we are after. Sin is not the problem, but accepting God’s forgiveness is a huge problem.

Accepting god... is a huge problem? I'm guessing you meant to say an important task. I'm not sure you understood the point I was getting at. Here I was pointing out that people are guilty for reasons beyond their control. They're created sick and offered a cure that only some will even know about.

“for making his "word" so ambiguous” the Bible is just one tool for believers and not what you are to be sold on. God is Love, so if you can be “sold” on this unconditional, unselfish type Love you are sold on God. Jesus defines this Love in all he says and does, but you might need to meet Jesus one on one over some period of time to decide if you would accept His help and want to become like He is. That should be done by being with a true Christian that is allow Christ to live through him.

Great, I'd like an appointment for Jesus to talk to me one on one in person. I'll make room in my schedule. Maybe he can meet me at a restaurant; I wonder if he prefers a table or a booth. Unfortunately, I heard that he doesn't meet personally with people in any demonstrable way. It's a shame, because if I had a (heavenly) father, I'd love to at least hear the sound of his voice during my life.

By the way, and this is for everyone: I know that it can be hard to express emotions and tone of voice on the internet. It's never my intention to be bitter or arrogant, even though I sometimes use light sarcasm as above. I attack beliefs, not believers. When people's core beliefs are challenged, many are instantly offended even if no offense was intended. Please try to read my posts knowing that I respect everyone who replied and didn't once get angry.

 

[bling]

If I understand correctly, the Miller-Urey experiment created organic molecules from non-organic molecules in the lab. I don't know what sparked the first life (and don't think anyone does), but I'm interested in why from a chemistry perspective this doesn't add up.

It is shocking that the Miller-Urey experiment is still in some high school text books. Remember I have a Masters in Chemistry and am familiar with what is going on in Chemistry. Miller and Urey tried to make something from what was assumed to be (as is still thought to be with a few changes) the early earth atmosphere and got nothing, so they started with procures to the chemical that they wanted to produce and got the chemicals they wanted, but those procures have repeatedly been shown to not have existed in the early atmosphere.

Chemicals do not evolve, they move toward a lowest equilibrium state. All the hypotheses that have been put forward in the last 100 years have been shot down in peer review. There is not just one problem, but a multitude of problems that would all have to be solved virtually simultaneously and yet there is not even theories/hypotheses on how to solve some of them. Yet the estimated beginning of the first DNA life keeps getting pushed back to the first liquid water that would remain liquid on earth which is as early as it is even possible to have DNA life.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Is it that I need charity and help in order for god to reveal himself? While I dismiss Pascal's Wager as a false dichotomy, I will say that if god is real and belief in him is required, then I am hell-bound if I don't believe. A revelation would help me by greatly improving the likelihood of me fulfilling the requirements to get into heaven. The same can be said of any possible reality where multiple fates are possible. If the Mayans were correct and there's a tree of life, or if Islam is correct and the Qur'an is the ultimate truth, then people should know which is the truth so that they can choose to follow it, rather than letting everyone walk in circles and never knowing for sure what's true until it's too late (or never knowing if atheism is true).

Let us look at: “fulfilling the requirements to get into heaven”. What do you think those requirements are?

The real answer is there are no “requirements to be fulfilled”, you just have to want and trust God’s help.

So yes, to your question: “Is it that I need charity and help in order for god to reveal himself?”

Every tree reveals the existence of God, if you will allow the evidence.

How could God help you to reach the point where you would humble yourself enough to accept pure charity from Him?

Knowledge does not help those that have not yet yielded, since personal knowledge encourages you (pride) to be even more self-reliant, so what helps you to be humble?

You do not need some great measure of humility, but just enough humility to surrender (give up your fighting) and accept charity from your enemy (God). The humility it takes to just trust in the existence of a benevolent Creator (something the lowliest person on earth can do) is all you need, to accept God’s charity. Every mature adult has that measure of humility available to him.

You can prideful say: “I am not going to stoop so low as to be like those that trust in the existence of a benevolent Creator, since I rely on knowledge.”

How strong is your need to trust in the existence of a benevolent creator?

You're saying that hell only exists so that people will be grateful not to go there? I'm glad that so many trillions of people will eternally suffer so that a select few can feel slightly better about the god that sent everyone there. (I know, technically people "send themselves" to be eternally tortured.)

It does not make Christians “feel slightly better” that others go to hell and that is not the reason. The fact that others do go to hell shows the sacrifice God is willing to make to help us, but just as we do not like Christ going to the cross for our transgressions (Acts 2: 37 we feel a death blow to our hearts), we do not like our brothers going to hell. God cannot just say there is a hell for sinners and lie about it by not sending sinners there, so hell actually has to exist. The fact of hell is motivation for all people to not wait to accept God’s help, since if there was no “down side” people would put it off and but it off so long they might not care about accepting at all.

...What? Sorry, I'm confused.

You seem to be asking that those not going to heaven at death have some other place to go that would still be pleasant. But if the choice is between humbling one’s self to the point of accepting God’s charity which includes heaven and not having to humble one’s self to the point of accepting charity and go to some pleasant place, how many would become like God himself with Godly type Love in heaven? If this other place is full of people that do not like unselfish Love and no one likes a unselfish God, they do not want God to be there (they have shown that), so where God is not is hell.

But they haven't yet reached the age (or mental state) of reason.

I am only talking about mature adults, not those that have not reached the state of mental reasoning.

No, but not being convinced makes hell an unfair punishment for not believing what they were never convinced of. It's still an unfair given regardless because of it being eternal, but yeah.

The deciding factor is a simple little trust (not knowledge that would have only smart people in heaven).

You have a need (which this tragic world creates) to trust in a benevolent Creator, so why not make that the deciding factor for everyone, since that humility allows a person to accept God’s charity if they want it enough.

What I was saying was that only without sin would people be worthy of heaven, but it's impossible to not be guilty of sin without being either Jesus or possibly a child that died before reaching a certain mental state. As for unconditional, I feel that this is appropriate:

God does not want us to be prideful worthy of anything, since then we would not be humbly accepting of His charity.

Sin is not the problem.

It's still beyond me why a loving father would create hell in the first place knowing that so many of his beloved children will go there before they're even created (why create them?), whether or not it's an eternal experience. It's like putting one's child over a fiery pit, and an unknown condition must be met in a very short time, or else the child will... "voluntarily choose to fall" (to take the blame away from the parent). It doesn't make any sense, especially if the parent who put the child there in the first place loves him/her. An infinite number of better, more loving circumstances should be imagined, such as not having a fiery pit as the default fate if those conditions aren't met that the child won't be guaranteed to be convinced of... by an all-knowing parent that would know what would convince the child and would have the potential to directly reveal this but choose not to.

The problem is not; saving people for eternal life in heaven, the problem is; for them to obtain this Godly type Love, which is not instinctive (robotic) nor can it be forced on them.

This is something I can agree with. An omniscient god would know before a person is even created what the person will decide. Why, then, even create the child? Why not skip the whole life part and put everyone into heaven or hell since it's already known what they'll decide? Why not only create people that will eventually go to heaven? Why not create a peaceful afterlife separate from god or perhaps standards that god's creations could actually meet?

We are not here to pass or fail some test, if that was the case then God would know the answer ahead of time and we could avoid earth all together. We have an objective while here on earth that can only be fulfilled in an earth type situation. We have to go through the fulfillment of our objective to know/appreciate the fulfilling of our objective (we just cannot be told about it later and really never have fulfilled our objective). How can you feel: “I gave up the perceived pleasures of sin for a season, to hopefully accept God’s Love to relief the huge burden my hurting of others weighed on me”?

Accepting god... is a huge problem? I'm guessing you meant to say an important task. I'm not sure you understood the point I was getting at. Here I was pointing out that people are guilty for reasons beyond their control. They're created sick and offered a cure that only some will even know about.

I did not say “accept God”, but accept God’s forgiveness.

I do not think any mature adult sinful person cannot come to the realization of just wanting to accept help from his/her creator out of a strong need their conscience creates. That does not mean all will since they have to humbly accept that possibility. God is at everyone’s elbow just wanting to jump in and help them, but God is not going to go against the person’s will to help them, so they have to want His help.

Great, I'd like an appointment for Jesus to talk to me one on one in person. I'll make room in my schedule. Maybe he can meet me at a restaurant; I wonder if he prefers a table or a booth. Unfortunately, I heard that he doesn't meet personally with people in any demonstrable way. It's a shame, because if I had a (heavenly) father, I'd love to at least hear the sound of his voice during my life.

Would you recognize Christ, if he showed up for lunch, are you buying?

Jesus may already have tried to visit with you or has visited with you, but you did not like what you met. If he has not met with Jesus living in and through a true Christian, you might have to show some interest to meet him, which might include going to where needy people are and visiting with the true Christian helping others, if they are around.

 

[LostMarbels]

1. What is your view of atheism and atheists?

My view on atheism is probably the same they view me........ He believes what!!???!?

Atheist them selves are good people. I actually hang out with a couple, and have one Wiccan friend.

2. Would you date a non-Christian? An atheist? Would you allow your children to?

No. No. No.

3. Do you believe in an age of reason before which children who die automatically go to heaven and after which children become responsible and require salvation in order to enter heaven?

Yes

4. Do you believe that every person that has ever lived has been convinced that god is real and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life?

No, not convinced.

5. Do you believe in a literal hell as a place of torture where possibly trillions will spend eternity separated from god?

Yes, and I'm perfectly OK with it too.

6. What about post-death salvation? Some Christians seem to believe that those who've never heard about Jesus (meaning #4 would be no) will be given a chance to accept Jesus, most notably JWs. If so, who do you think will be given a second chance?

Nope, you dead sukah.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

It is shocking that the Miller-Urey experiment is still in some high school text books. Remember I have a Masters in Chemistry and am familiar with what is going on in Chemistry. Miller and Urey tried to make something from what was assumed to be (as is still thought to be with a few changes) the early earth atmosphere and got nothing, so they started with procures to the chemical that they wanted to produce and got the chemicals they wanted, but those procures have repeatedly been shown to not have existed in the early atmosphere.

Ah, I haven't heard that they didn't exist in the early atmosphere.

Let us look at: “fulfilling the requirements to get into heaven”. What do you think those requirements are?
The real answer is there are no “requirements to be fulfilled”, you just have to want and trust God’s help.

Those requirements vary among different kinds of Christians. I can't remember if you told me which branch you fall under, but to my knowledge Protestants claim that the requirement is to have one's sins forgiven by confessing sins and accepting Jesus as savior; Catholics put more emphasis on acts compared to the Protestant emphasis on faith; and so on. Some Christians believe that simply wanting to know the truth is enough, while others have a narrow window that few people fall under.

So yes, to your question: “Is it that I need charity and help in order for god to reveal himself?”

Every tree reveals the existence of God, if you will allow the evidence.

How could God help you to reach the point where you would humble yourself enough to accept pure charity from Him?

Knowledge does not help those that have not yet yielded, since personal knowledge encourages you (pride) to be even more self-reliant, so what helps you to be humble?

You do not need some great measure of humility, but just enough humility to surrender (give up your fighting) and accept charity from your enemy (God). The humility it takes to just trust in the existence of a benevolent Creator (something the lowliest person on earth can do) is all you need, to accept God’s charity. Every mature adult has that measure of humility available to him.

You can prideful say: “I am not going to stoop so low as to be like those that trust in the existence of a benevolent Creator, since I rely on knowledge.”

How strong is your need to trust in the existence of a benevolent creator?

I wonder how you can say that trees reveal the existence of god as a scientist. Do you think that god can be proven scientifically with evidence by methods that would survive peer review, or is it more about faith?

I'm not sure what you mean by how strong my need to trust in god's existence is. I don't have a need to trust in someone that I don't believe exists. I find no convincing evidence for his existence including trees.

It does not make Christians “feel slightly better” that others go to hell and that is not the reason. The fact that others do go to hell shows the sacrifice God is willing to make to help us, but just as we do not like Christ going to the cross for our transgressions (Acts 2: 37 we feel a death blow to our hearts), we do not like our brothers going to hell. God cannot just say there is a hell for sinners and lie about it by not sending sinners there, so hell actually has to exist. The fact of hell is motivation for all people to not wait to accept God’s help, since if there was no “down side” people would put it off and but it off so long they might not care about accepting at all.

How does hell show god's sacrifice?

The deciding factor is a simple little trust (not knowledge that would have only smart people in heaven).

You have a need (which this tragic world creates) to trust in a benevolent Creator, so why not make that the deciding factor for everyone, since that humility allows a person to accept God’s charity if they want it enough.[/quote]

The thing is, it doesn't make sense to trust in something or someone you don't believe in or know about. I don't feel a need to trust in a benevolent creator. It doesn't make sense to want god's charity if they don't believe in god or if they believe in a god but don't believe in what you refer to as his charity.

God does not want us to be prideful worthy of anything, since then we would not be humbly accepting of His charity.

Sin is not the problem.

What are your religious views? I'm guessing you're not Protestant.

We are not here to pass or fail some test, if that was the case then God would know the answer ahead of time and we could avoid earth all together. We have an objective while here on earth that can only be fulfilled in an earth type situation. We have to go through the fulfillment of our objective to know/appreciate the fulfilling of our objective (we just cannot be told about it later and really never have fulfilled our objective). How can you feel: “I gave up the perceived pleasures of sin for a season, to hopefully accept God’s Love to relief the huge burden my hurting of others weighed on me”?

To clarify, who do you think goes to heaven?

I did not say “accept God”, but accept God’s forgiveness.

I do not think any mature adult sinful person cannot come to the realization of just wanting to accept help from his/her creator out of a strong need their conscience creates. That does not mean all will since they have to humbly accept that possibility. God is at everyone’s elbow just wanting to jump in and help them, but God is not going to go against the person’s will to help them, so they have to want His help.[/quote]

Pardon me saying this, but wanting to accept help from one's creator is pretty ambiguous. Are people expected to say, "I wonder if there's anything out there... it must be a god... I wonder if it could help me... I accept its help?" In what way would god help people, unless you're talking about his charity, in which case I now better understand except for what you mean by charity.

Would you recognize Christ, if he showed up for lunch, are you buying?

If god is omniscient and omnipotent, he would know what would convince me and would have the power to do so. He would be able to reveal himself to me in such a way that I would know for sure it was him.

Jesus may already have tried to visit with you or has visited with you, but you did not like what you met. If he has not met with Jesus living in and through a true Christian, you might have to show some interest to meet him, which might include going to where needy people are and visiting with the true Christian helping others, if they are around.

I assume that you're referring to seeing the love of Jesus show in the acts of Christians; am I right?

 

[bling]

I wonder how you can say that trees reveal the existence of god as a scientist. Do you think that god can be proven scientifically with evidence by methods that would survive peer review, or is it more about faith?

We are talking about evidence for the existence of God and not “prove” of God’s existence. Like I have been saying it is in best interest of the nonbeliever for God to remain improvable, so he must humbly trust in a benevolent Creator. The life in a tree is scientifically unexplainable at this time and the more we learn about it the greater the complexity (it is supporting the theory that the more we know the more we realize we do not know which can be a philosophical “prove” for God’s existence).

I'm not sure what you mean by how strong my need to trust in god's existence is. I don't have a need to trust in someone that I don't believe exists. I find no convincing evidence for his existence including trees.

You might not feel the need to trust in a benevolent Creator right now, but people seem to cross that need at times in their life (they would really like to know they were Loved unconditionally).

How does hell show god's sacrifice?

It was a huge sacrifice on God’s part to allow Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so similarly God Loves everyone that goes to hell, but will allow them to go there to help others to go to heaven.

The thing is, it doesn't make sense to trust in something or someone you don't believe in or know about. I don't feel a need to trust in a benevolent creator. It doesn't make sense to want god's charity if they don't believe in god or if they believe in a god but don't believe in what you refer to as his charity.

If you are a soldier fighting a hard losing battle and your buddy gives up (surrenders to the enemy) how do you feel about your buddy wimping out?

That is where humility is needed and giving up on self-reliance.

They do not need to know or believe in God to want God’s charity (help).

What are your religious views? I'm guessing you're not Protestant.

I am a Christian.

To clarify, who do you think goes to heaven?

Those that continue to refuse God’s charity in the form of God’s forgiveness to the point of never accepting will go to hell, so the rest go to heaven, including those that did not have the opportunity to accept God’s help. Those that never had the chance to fulfill their earthly objective will go to heaven with only a wonderful strong child to Parent Love and not Godly type Love.

Pardon me saying this, but wanting to accept help from one's creator is pretty ambiguous. Are people expected to say, "I wonder if there's anything out there... it must be a god... I wonder if it could help me... I accept its help?" In what way would god help people, unless you're talking about his charity, in which case I now better understand except for what you mean by charity.

Even mature adult people that do not know anything about the Christian God can feel burdened in their conscience by the decisions/actions they have done that has hurt others. Trying to relieve that burden by other religions, drugs, money, fame, sex, etc. just does not work in the long run, but they can turn to what they hope is a benevolent Creator for relief of this burden and God will forgive them and help them to feel true relief.

If god is omniscient and omnipotent, he would know what would convince me and would have the power to do so. He would be able to reveal himself to me in such a way that I would know for sure it was him.

God is not trying to “convince” you He exists, so what is God trying to “convince you of”?

Do you like to be around or have you ever been around, people that are totally unselfishly helping others motivated only by a compelling Love and not to get anything?

Do you want to be convinced of how much heart ache you have caused, how much you need to be forgiven of, what changes you really need to make, and how humble you should be OR do you want to know that God exist?

I assume that you're referring to seeing the love of Jesus show in the acts of Christians; am I right?

yes

 

[FutureAndAHope]

1. What is your view of atheism and atheists?

I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to reason with athiests. I find that although they claim to live by reason alone when I can present facts for God they ignore them, and continue to say I have no proof. Examples of things that I share with athiests are sites that record proof of divine healing WCDN although not technically proof I also share my miraculous experiences at Know God Personally most would call me a lier rather than allow for the possibility of a God existing. I find most athiests are closed minded, a few a willing to discuss.

2. Would you date a non-Christian? An atheist? Would you allow your children to?

No God is real and I want people around my life who believe this.

3. Do you believe in an age of reason before which children who die automatically go to heaven and after which children become responsible and require salvation in order to enter heaven?

Yes I agree with this idea. I think children who die do go to heaven. But eventually even in that environment they would need to make a choice.

4. Do you believe that every person that has ever lived has been convinced that god is real and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life?

I believe that God gives every one a chance to believe in him. He can speak to people who don't have the gospel bought to them by us. This is a guy who had a NDE and God spoke to him Ian McCormack - Heaven Hell and the Box Jellyfish

5. Do you believe in a literal hell as a place of torture where possibly trillions will spend eternity separated from god?

The bible teaches a literal firey hell, I believe Jesus taught it, so I believe it.

6. What about post-death salvation? Some Christians seem to believe that those who've never heard about Jesus (meaning #4 would be no) will be given a chance to accept Jesus, most notably JWs. If so, who do you think will be given a second chance?

It is appointed for man to die once, then after that face judgment. There is no such thing as post-death salvation.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I wasn't sure where to post this, since many parts of these forums seem to be Christian-only. I have a few questions for Christians and welcome any questions whether or not they're related to mine. Feel free to ask about my views, how I became an atheist, or anything else you'd like to know.

1. What is your view of atheism and atheists?

That they are people who don't believe in the existence of deities.

2. Would you date a non-Christian? An atheist? Would you allow your children to?

As a matter of principle I'd have no problem with it (I don't have children, but I don't see myself telling them they can't date someone based on such criterion). At a practical level, once the topic of marriage comes up, it becomes much more complicated--it would be difficult to have my children baptized and raised in the Church unless both my wife and I shared the same basic views religiously. This isn't an atheist-specific problem, the same problem would arise if I was with (as an example) a Baptist.

3. Do you believe in an age of reason before which children who die automatically go to heaven and after which children become responsible and require salvation in order to enter heaven?

No. But I trust in God to be merciful and kind in all things. I'm confident that many un-baptized persons (regardless of age) will be found in God's bosom because of the grace and love that He has for everyone demonstrated through Jesus Christ.

4. Do you believe that every person that has ever lived has been convinced that god is real and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life?

You mean, those who are currently passed on? I would imagine that post mortum we will all be confronted with the truth.

5. Do you believe in a literal hell as a place of torture where possibly trillions will spend eternity separated from god?

No. I believe there is a hell, but I don't believe it is a "literal place" or "a place of torture" or that it is "separated from God". The duration of which I have no position dogmatically.

6. What about post-death salvation? Some Christians seem to believe that those who've never heard about Jesus (meaning #4 would be no) will be given a chance to accept Jesus, most notably JWs. If so, who do you think will be given a second chance?

I've never seen anything in Scripture that says repentance is impossible after death, and the Church has long held to the pious hope that all might, ultimately, be saved.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[christcentred]

I'm sorry I'm not going to read all 4 pages, so I hope the discussion hasn't moved on.

1. What is your view of atheism and atheists?
I respect you for seeking evidence for your beliefs. I think however you are misled. Even if we assume evolution is true, there is no evidence non-living beings can turn into living beings. That seems a big step of faith for me.

2. Would you date a non-Christian? An atheist? Would you allow your children to?
Being married, no! If I was single, I wouldn't either. Christianity is the most important thing in my life. It would be hard for us to relate if we disagreed on something so fundamental. My children (still future tense) would have to decide for themselves if Christianity was true, and whether they agreed with my view on dating non-Christians.

3. Do you believe in an age of reason before which children who die automatically go to heaven and after which children become responsible and require salvation in order to enter heaven?
God doesn't state that this happens explicitly, but seems to hint at it when David's unborn son dies. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's true for all people. I trust that God knows what he's doing. I don't like to pry into things he hasn't clearly revealed. If I had to come down on a side, I'd say yes I do.

4. Do you believe that every person that has ever lived has been convinced that god is real and that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life?
No. I think that all the evidence is there that they need, but I don't believe they believed it. I'm not sure who would.

5. Do you believe in a literal hell as a place of torture where possibly trillions will spend eternity separated from god?
Yes. I'm sure you want more than that, so I await follow-up questions.

6. What about post-death salvation? Some Christians seem to believe that those who've never heard about Jesus (meaning #4 would be no) will be given a chance to accept Jesus, most notably JWs. If so, who do you think will be given a second chance?
I don't believe in post-death salvation. I don't think anyone would actually change their minds.

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

...... Feel free to ask about my views, how I became an atheist, or anything else you'd like to know.

....

1. How come you dont want a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) to exist ?

2. As a committed and genuine Atheist who believes that there is no personal Creator existing (or required) , has this degree of certainty been confirmed thru You making a Cosmic trip covering all areas of the Universe to make sure that no Creator is present ?

3. What precise evidence(s) for God would be enough for you to willingly surrender your entire Life to his personal care, direction, standards for living if being the Biblical God, including giving up any and all worldly living including present destructive cultural philosophies ?

4. What kind of feelings and emotions are generated inside, when you consider Someone else being far greater than you in importance / you being literally Owned by such a Being / and you having ultimate moral accountability to such a Being ?



Thanks for your time .

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Via Cruces said : 'No. I believe there is a hell, but I don't believe it is a "literal place" or "a place of torture" or that it is "separated from God". The duration of which I have no position dogmatically'

REPLY: Are you willing to call Jesus Christ the worlds biggest Fraud and Liar then ? Further, what IS Hell to you, and what purpose does it serve if not Justice ?

 

[98cwitr]

I think we Christians have really just sullied the idea of God to most atheists.

Contemporary Christianity shoves "God loves everyone" and "God's love is unconditional" down everyone's throat and when we find verse after verse after verse of this being not true I don't blame them throwing their hands in the air and shouting "I'm done with this religion crap."

Get back to the Bible people...shut your ears to the carnal noise of this world and READ THE BIBLE.

 

[ViaCrucis]

REPLY: Are you willing to call Jesus Christ the worlds biggest Fraud and Liar then ?

Why would I call our Lord a liar or a fraud?

I don't recall our Lord saying Hell is a literal place where people are actively being tortured forever. That may be how some interpret what our Lord said, but it's certainly not the only interpretation, as Christian history clearly demonstrates.

Further, what IS Hell to you, and what purpose does it serve if not Justice ?

If the OP inquires, I'll explain what I think. However considering how you accused me calling our Lord a fraud and a liar, I don't see how it would be fruitful to have this exchange between us at present.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheyCallMeDave]

Why would I call our Lord a liar or a fraud?

I don't recall our Lord saying Hell is a literal place where people are actively being tortured forever. That may be how some interpret what our Lord said, but it's certainly not the only interpretation, as Christian history clearly demonstrates.



If the OP inquires, I'll explain what I think. However considering how you accused me calling our Lord a fraud and a liar, I don't see how it would be fruitful to have this exchange between us at present.

-CryptoLutheran

a. How else would you interpret Hell as :' a place where the worm dieth not' 'a place of never ending regret' 'a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth' 'sulphur / fire' and other horrific descriptions ? Does this sound like a being stuck in a Pool Hall for eternity then ?! Hell is a literal place according to Jesus and the Apostles designed for Satan and his Minions but shall include all the Unregenerate who must pay for thier own sins because they didnt want Christ to be the One who did.

b. Jesus clearly described Hell as a literal location , while you say it isnt. Therefore, one of you is a Fraud.

 

[RogerTheAtheist]

I finally have enough time to catch up on replies.

We are talking about evidence for the existence of God and not “prove” of God’s existence. Like I have been saying it is in best interest of the nonbeliever for God to remain improvable, so he must humbly trust in a benevolent Creator. The life in a tree is scientifically unexplainable at this time and the more we learn about it the greater the complexity (it is supporting the theory that the more we know the more we realize we do not know which can be a philosophical “prove” for God’s existence).

It doesn't make sense to trust what one doesn't believe in. Can you be more specific about the life in a tree being unexplainable? I agree that the more one knows the more one realizes isn't known, but gaps that were traditionally filled by god now have demonstrable natural causes. God of the gaps was a logical fallacy then, and it still is today; god has to be demonstrated as a cause rather than saying, "Aha, science doesn't know this, therefore god." I'm sure you know this as a chemist.

You might not feel the need to trust in a benevolent Creator right now, but people seem to cross that need at times in their life (they would really like to know they were Loved unconditionally).

I've been through some rough times since becoming an atheist, and not once did I kneel down and pray. Rather than asking a god for help in case it exists, I help myself with what I know to be real. Even if people would want me to pray for them in case a god exists, that would be like asking others to pray to the moon in case it might do something. While hope can be a good thing, I don't feel that most people "need" a belief in a god to get through life's challenges; although I know of Christians that have been brainwashed into believing that they're worthless, useless, and wouldn't even be able to breathe without god.

It was a huge sacrifice on God’s part to allow Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, so similarly God Loves everyone that goes to hell, but will allow them to go there to help others to go to heaven.[/quote]

I don't see how one person going to hell would help another to go to heaven, especially while requiring hell in the first place.

If you are a soldier fighting a hard losing battle and your buddy gives up (surrenders to the enemy) how do you feel about your buddy wimping out?

It would depend on the scenario, but I'd rather be shot and die quickly than be tortured for months in an unsanitary prison.

They do not need to know or believe in God to want God’s charity (help).

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense. I don't believe in Zeus, therefore it wouldn't make sense for me to want or consider Zeus' charity or help.

I am a Christian.

What kind? Protestant? Catholic? Jehova's Witness? Mormon? Orthodox?

Those that continue to refuse God’s charity in the form of God’s forgiveness to the point of never accepting will go to hell, so the rest go to heaven, including those that did not have the opportunity to accept God’s help. Those that never had the chance to fulfill their earthly objective will go to heaven with only a wonderful strong child to Parent Love and not Godly type Love.

How do you know this?

Even mature adult people that do not know anything about the Christian God can feel burdened in their conscience by the decisions/actions they have done that has hurt others.

Yes, because as human beings we're intelligent enough to realize that our actions have consequences that affect other people. We can sympathize and empathize, keeping in mind that other people have feelings, thoughts, memories, and dreams just like we do.

Trying to relieve that burden by other religions, drugs, money, fame, sex, etc. just does not work in the long run, but they can turn to what they hope is a benevolent Creator for relief of this burden and God will forgive them and help them to feel true relief.

Being told that everything you've done in life is forgiven can be comforting, but even pastors will say that people are still expected to make things up with people they've wronged. This doesn't require religion or god to be the case; the way to make up to someone is to apologize and fix any damage done, not to ask a god for forgiveness without addressing the actual people involved.

God is not trying to “convince” you He exists, so what is God trying to “convince you of”?

I'm saying that he could and would if he was omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. Belief in god allows people to make informed decisions rather than blindly falling off of a cliff that they didn't know was there.

Do you like to be around or have you ever been around, people that are totally unselfishly helping others motivated only by a compelling Love and not to get anything?[/quote]

I think that people in general occasionally help others without expecting anything in return. I do this myself. When I see people giving money, it's easy to wonder what motivation they really have, whether it be peace of mind, publicity, or spiritual brownie points, although I don't assume that every single act has a selfish motive.

Do you want to be convinced of how much heart ache you have caused, how much you need to be forgiven of, what changes you really need to make, and how humble you should be OR do you want to know that God exist?

I want to know that god exists. If people are heartbroken because I believe a certain way, they need to accept that people have different beliefs, such as I have to accept that people that I love worship and praise an imaginary being. I don't feel that I've knowingly wronged many people in my life, but I don't believe in sin against god.

yes

In that case, their acts are done not because of god but because of their belief in god. Similarly, children behave better near the end of December because they believe in Santa, not because Santa is real.