The Perilous Earth

[Guest Geese Aplenty]

It’s such a freeing experience being able to consider scientific discovery without the YEC lens. The YEC lens makes you believe that Satan is behind all the sciences that confirm an old earth age.

 

I hated that! It’s indeed a huge irony that I now see what an amazingly beautiful, mysterious, and harsh universe this is since I realized some of you Christians have been lying to me.

 

Anyhoo, to the point…

 

It is an empirical fact that earth has been bombarded by catastrophic meteors and endured the incomprehensible devastation of supervolcanoes throughout its history. The evidence for both of these phenomena is plentiful.

 

So here’s the question: why would God build a planet in which major catastrophe was built into the system? Would large meteors have been deflected from their earth-bound trajectories if the Fall hadn’t occurred? Would huge magma chambers not have worked their way up to the surface in huge destructive explosions were it not for the Fall?

[Antlerman]

It is an empirical fact that earth has been bombarded by catastrophic meteors and endured the incomprehensible devastation of supervolcanoes throughout its history. The evidence for both of these phenomena is plentiful.

 

So here’s the question: why would God build a planet in which major catastrophe was built into the system? Would large meteors have been deflected from their earth-bound trajectories if the Fall hadn’t occurred? Would huge magma chambers not have worked their way up to the surface in huge destructive explosions were it not for the Fall?

These are great questions! I've never looked at it this way before, but you are right. If the world was perfect through miraculous creation, and then Adam and Even sinned and brought about the fall of nature, the level of bombardment the planet shows clear evidence of that would have had to follow AFTER the fall of man, NO life would have been able to survive on this planet through all of that, let alone following that for many millions of years! What would they eat for god's sake, lava?

 

God would not have created a perfect planet by natural forces, such as cosmic dust forming small rocks, forming bigger rocks, forming huge rocks, forming planetoids, forming planets, forming natural geology, etc until he then defied natural processes by making flesh and blood out of dirt and spit. If he made the earth through natural processes, then why the miracle when it came to man? If he made the planet through a miracle, then later beat the hell out of it with stellar debris and world-wide volcanic eruptions, how did life survive?

 

I'm waiting excitedly for some creationist to take the challenge to answer this, but I suspect that wait will be in vein.

[currentchristian]

It is an empirical fact that earth has been bombarded by catastrophic meteors and endured the incomprehensible devastation of supervolcanoes throughout its history. The evidence for both of these phenomena is plentiful.

 

So here’s the question: why would God build a planet in which major catastrophe was built into the system? Would large meteors have been deflected from their earth-bound trajectories if the Fall hadn’t occurred? Would huge magma chambers not have worked their way up to the surface in huge destructive explosions were it not for the Fall?

These are great questions! I've never looked at it this way before, but you are right. If the world was perfect through miraculous creation, and then Adam and Even sinned and brought about the fall of nature, the level of bombardment the planet shows clear evidence of that would have had to follow AFTER the fall of man, NO life would have been able to survive on this planet through all of that, let alone following that for many millions of years! What would they eat for god's sake, lava?

 

God would not have created a perfect planet by natural forces, such as cosmic dust forming small rocks, forming bigger rocks, forming huge rocks, forming planetoids, forming planets, forming natural geology, etc until he then defied natural processes by making flesh and blood out of dirt and spit. If he made the earth through natural processes, then why the miracle when it came to man? If he made the planet through a miracle, then later beat the hell out of it with stellar debris and world-wide volcanic eruptions, how did life survive?

 

I'm waiting excitedly for some creationist to take the challenge to answer this, but I suspect that wait will be in vein.

 

This tiny interview with Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, appeared in the evangelical publication Christianity Today . It might be of interest around this topic. Here's the link.

 

-CC in MA

[Guest Geese Aplenty]

He explains nothing. Plus, most OECists aren't evolutionists. It's those people, and YECists, that I would like to take this issue on. It fairly bludgeons their chronology to death, doesn't it?

 

On one hand we have all this enormous evidence of catastrophic asteroid bombardment and super-massive volcanism.

 

On the other hand we have no recorded history of such events, mainly because the biggest impacts and explosions occured before man was here or able to write about them. From the fundie perspective, this is befuddling. Why would God have created a world in which geological catastrophe (earthquakes, volcanism) is built into the system? These phenomena are natural processes of crustal shifting and enormous pressure from magma building up beneath earth's surface.

 

In this system, asteroid bombardment is inevitable as well--as Shoemaker-Levy proved. Shoemaker predicted the Jupiter impact and, falling prey to simple mathematical logic from Satan, posited that there should be huge impact craters on earth as well (which also proves an old earth age, but whatever).

 

Using satellite imagery, Shoemaker found these super-massive craters.

 

Like I said, a deathblow. The fundie timeline is silly. And the more liberal Christians have yet to explain why these phenomena would be woven into the system. Or why this universe is so ancient relative to man's existence.

 

Fundies make the universe look like a Tinker Toy with their twisted logic. I really despise them for this.

[currentchristian]

He explains nothing. Plus, most OECists aren't evolutionists. It's those people, and YECists, that I would like to take this issue on. It fairly bludgeons their chronology to death, doesn't it?

 

On one hand we have all this enormous evidence of catastrophic asteroid bombardment and super-massive volcanism.

 

On the other hand we have no recorded history of such events, mainly because the biggest impacts and explosions occured before man was here or able to write about them. From the fundie perspective, this is befuddling. Why would God have created a world in which geological catastrophe (earthquakes, volcanism) is built into the system? These phenomena are natural processes of crustal shifting and enormous pressure from magma building up beneath earth's surface.

 

In this system, asteroid bombardment is inevitable as well--as Shoemaker-Levy proved. Shoemaker predicted the Jupiter impact and, falling prey to simple mathematical logic from Satan, posited that there should be huge impact craters on earth as well (which also proves an old earth age, but whatever).

 

Using satellite imagery, Shoemaker found these super-massive craters.

 

Like I said, a deathblow. The fundie timeline is silly. And the more liberal Christians have yet to explain why these phenomena would be woven into the system. Or why this universe is so ancient relative to man's existence.

 

Fundies make the universe look like a Tinker Toy with their twisted logic. I really despise them for this.

 

Geese Aplenty, your points are excellent. It seems very certain that the universe and Earth existed well before Homo sapiens, those so-called "wise men" newcomers on the scene!

 

I'm not a fundamentalist in the 21-century meaning of that word ("fundie" seems pejorative to me, just by the way). But I think they might say that the universe was created only-God-knows-when and that the Earth was created after that time. Some embrace a "gap theory" in which there is an interminable time within Genesis 1.1 and between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2.

 

In the time prior to an inhabited Earth and certainly prior to humanity, a cosmic stuggle erupted. In other words, it is not the Fall (of our prototype parents) that resulted in all that is unhappy in the Universe, but a cosmic event prior to that. The Fall was a recapitulation, here on Earth, with implications only on this planet. Therefore, Earth was subjected to volcanic and meteoric activity from the beginning of its existence as a result of the cosmic Fall, not the Adam-Eve debacle. I'm speculating here as to what they might say or what might have been.

 

This link will take you to the website of Gerald Schroeder, Orthodox Jew, MIT-trained physicist with doctorates in biology and physics, way to smart for me to understand half the time. He reconciles "godless evolution" and "divine creation" in what seems to me an interesting synthesis, even if I don't understand half of what he writes.

 

Finally, if I may -- and you very well may see it otherwise -- despising "fundies" is not different from "fundies" despising atheists and communists and homosexuals. Seems to me we all need to stop despising each other if we are to make progress.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

This tiny interview with Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, appeared in the evangelical publication Christianity Today . It might be of interest around this topic. Here's the link.

I have no issue with someone who doesn't deny the overwhelming evidence science reveals in order to support their beliefs. Science is not about the "why" of things, simply the "how".

 

Where I have a problem is when someone takes a reading of Genesis as some sort of "accounting" of events and tries to make it fit what science reveals. That to me is really sad. It's like trying to ram a size 5 shoe on a size 13 foot. It's apples and oranges. If someone wants to find spiritual meaning out of the creation story, then read it as spiritual notions and not historical ones. Whenever I hear someone do that, I have to ask, "Why does your religious faith need scientific support?

 

This is why I have been asking to no avail in my other thread for any Christians to answer, in the light that scientific evidence of God is not possible, and then what value does the faith offer humanity that no other can? It is stunning how silent the Christian community is on that very simple question. I guess they need their "Truth" to have empirical support for it to be believed and have value? Oh well... I guess that's my answer.

[currentchristian]

This tiny interview with Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, appeared in the evangelical publication Christianity Today . It might be of interest around this topic. Here's the link.

I have no issue with someone who doesn't deny the overwhelming evidence science reveals in order to support their beliefs. Science is not about the "why" of things, simply the "how".

 

Where I have a problem is when someone takes a reading of Genesis as some sort of "accounting" of events and tries to make it fit what science reveals. That to me is really sad. It's like trying to ram a size 5 shoe on a size 13 foot. It's apples and oranges. If someone wants to find spiritual meaning out of the creation story, then read it as spiritual notions and not historical ones. Whenever I hear someone do that, I have to ask, "Why does your religious faith need scientific support?

 

This is why I have been asking to no avail in my other thread for any Christians to answer, in the light that scientific evidence of God is not possible, and then what value does the faith offer humanity that no other can? It is stunning how silent the Christian community is on that very simple question. I guess they need their "Truth" to have empirical support for it to be believed and have value? Oh well... I guess that's my answer.

 

Antlerman, Before I go where angels fear to tread, let me confirm with you that I understand the question:

 

What does the Christian faith offer than other faiths do not?

 

Is this the question?

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, Before I go where angels fear to tread, let me confirm with you that I understand the question:

 

What does the Christian faith offer than other faiths do not?

I think I clarified it best in this post over in the thread. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=246971

[Guest Geese Aplenty]

He explains nothing. Plus, most OECists aren't evolutionists. It's those people, and YECists, that I would like to take this issue on. It fairly bludgeons their chronology to death, doesn't it?

 

On one hand we have all this enormous evidence of catastrophic asteroid bombardment and super-massive volcanism.

 

On the other hand we have no recorded history of such events, mainly because the biggest impacts and explosions occured before man was here or able to write about them. From the fundie perspective, this is befuddling. Why would God have created a world in which geological catastrophe (earthquakes, volcanism) is built into the system? These phenomena are natural processes of crustal shifting and enormous pressure from magma building up beneath earth's surface.

 

In this system, asteroid bombardment is inevitable as well--as Shoemaker-Levy proved. Shoemaker predicted the Jupiter impact and, falling prey to simple mathematical logic from Satan, posited that there should be huge impact craters on earth as well (which also proves an old earth age, but whatever).

 

Using satellite imagery, Shoemaker found these super-massive craters.

 

Like I said, a deathblow. The fundie timeline is silly. And the more liberal Christians have yet to explain why these phenomena would be woven into the system. Or why this universe is so ancient relative to man's existence.

 

Fundies make the universe look like a Tinker Toy with their twisted logic. I really despise them for this.

 

Geese Aplenty, your points are excellent. It seems very certain that the universe and Earth existed well before Homo sapiens, those so-called "wise men" newcomers on the scene!

 

I'm not a fundamentalist in the 21-century meaning of that word ("fundie" seems pejorative to me, just by the way). But I think they might say that the universe was created only-God-knows-when and that the Earth was created after that time. Some embrace a "gap theory" in which there is an interminable time within Genesis 1.1 and between Genesis 1.1 and 1.2.

 

In the time prior to an inhabited Earth and certainly prior to humanity, a cosmic stuggle erupted. In other words, it is not the Fall (of our prototype parents) that resulted in all that is unhappy in the Universe, but a cosmic event prior to that. The Fall was a recapitulation, here on Earth, with implications only on this planet. Therefore, Earth was subjected to volcanic and meteoric activity from the beginning of its existence as a result of the cosmic Fall, not the Adam-Eve debacle. I'm speculating here as to what they might say or what might have been.

 

This link will take you to the website of Gerald Schroeder, Orthodox Jew, MIT-trained physicist with doctorates in biology and physics, way to smart for me to understand half the time. He reconciles "godless evolution" and "divine creation" in what seems to me an interesting synthesis, even if I don't understand half of what he writes.

 

Finally, if I may -- and you very well may see it otherwise -- despising "fundies" is not different from "fundies" despising atheists and communists and homosexuals. Seems to me we all need to stop despising each other if we are to make progress.

 

-CC in MA

 

Thanks for the resource.

 

Yes, there is entirely too much despising going around. But at least see it from my (new) perspective:

 

More than half of Americans believe in YECism. Some of these people shake hands with our president and other high-ranking elected officials. (Remember that Ted Haggard was Bush's "religious advisor" for a spell.) Their opinions and counsel influence policy. Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Robison, et al. exert enormous influence in America and are exactly why science-ignorant churches thrive in here. To them, election thievery is approved of by God while being honest about the great age of our universe is frowned upon by Him.

 

The scale of this madness is staggering.

 

Add to that my being lied to by such men for years. Then you begin to see the mindfuck in all its sickening glory.

 

You should despise them as well because they are creating apostates faster than funnel cakes at a county fair. See my rant below for some perspective on your brethren's role in the new apostasy. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=14277

 

It's a bigger problem than you realize.

[Guest Geese Aplenty]

This tiny interview with Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, appeared in the evangelical publication Christianity Today . It might be of interest around this topic. Here's the link.

I have no issue with someone who doesn't deny the overwhelming evidence science reveals in order to support their beliefs. Science is not about the "why" of things, simply the "how".

 

Where I have a problem is when someone takes a reading of Genesis as some sort of "accounting" of events and tries to make it fit what science reveals. That to me is really sad. It's like trying to ram a size 5 shoe on a size 13 foot. It's apples and oranges. If someone wants to find spiritual meaning out of the creation story, then read it as spiritual notions and not historical ones. Whenever I hear someone do that, I have to ask, "Why does your religious faith need scientific support?

 

This is why I have been asking to no avail in my other thread for any Christians to answer, in the light that scientific evidence of God is not possible, and then what value does the faith offer humanity that no other can? It is stunning how silent the Christian community is on that very simple question. I guess they need their "Truth" to have empirical support for it to be believed and have value? Oh well... I guess that's my answer.

 

Antlerman, Before I go where angels fear to tread, let me confirm with you that I understand the question:

 

What does the Christian faith offer than other faiths do not?

 

Is this the question?

 

-CC in MA

 

Wait a sec. What you say doesn't make a lick of sense!

 

Satan, an infinitely inferior being compared to God, has a fit of pride and thinks it possible to usurp Him (an infinitely superior being!). This decision somehow brings forth large random chucks of rock that periodically hit the earth in tremendously catastrophic explosions, killing everything within thousands of miles.

 

Not only that, but this "cosmic fall" also results in plate tectonics and the pooling of magma in chambers until the pressure causes super violent explosions, killing everything within thousands of miles.

 

And all of this was built into the system that Adam and Eve were told to populate. Oh, and if Eve hadn't been curious, we'd still be living in a system that threatens to destroy us (even though fundies say that Adam introduced us to death via the Fall).

 

You don't see a problem with this?

[mwc]

I can't explain the flying chunks of stuff or something like random gamma ray bursts that could take us out from space but I can explain the magma.

 

The way this was explained to me was that when the flood occured, and the underground springs broke up the ground, this was the start of the whole plate tectonic thing. Before this no plate movement (don't ask me). Now that the water was gone the magma could come into these chambers and all the usual things having to do with plates and volcanoes and the rest as we know it started at that point. So pre-flood = no volcanic activity/plate tectonics and post-flood = whatever we have today.

 

I imagine the space stuff are side-effects of Satan and his minions grabbing hold of things as they fell from heaven and they broke up and messed up in various ways and so now we have these strange objects in space. But this is all a guess. It's not all "scientific" like the flood answer I gave.

 

mwc

[currentchristian]

Thanks for the resource.

 

Yes, there is entirely too much despising going around. But at least see it from my (new) perspective:

 

More than half of Americans believe in YECism. Some of these people shake hands with our president and other high-ranking elected officials. (Remember that Ted Haggard was Bush's "religious advisor" for a spell.) Their opinions and counsel influence policy. Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Robison, et al. exert enormous influence in America and are exactly why science-ignorant churches thrive in here. To them, election thievery is approved of by God while being honest about the great age of our universe is frowned upon by Him.

 

The scale of this madness is staggering.

 

Add to that my being lied to by such men for years. Then you begin to see the mindfuck in all its sickening glory.

 

You should despise them as well because they are creating apostates faster than funnel cakes at a county fair. See my rant below for some perspective on your brethren's role in the new apostasy. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=14277

 

It's a bigger problem than you realize.

 

Hello Geese Aplenty!

 

There is so much I take exception to with those you mention. I don't like much of what they do, either. But I also don't like television commercials, sports mania, mud-slinging politicians, the sexualization of culture, violence, rap music, etc. There's much not to like. But we do have, happily, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the U.S. and that trumps my views. We must allow freedom for the thought we hate and freedom for views that are so far out in left field they don't deserve a blip on the radar.

 

We all need to grow wiser, grow smarter, grow kinder, grow sweeter, and try a collective heave-hoe to lift up our human race.

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

There's much not to like. But we do have, happily, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the U.S. and that trumps my views. We must allow freedom for the thought we hate and freedom for views that are so far out in left field they don't deserve a blip on the radar.

not intending to derail the thread, but CC, these folks aren't about freedom of speech. They have declared a culture war against everyone not them. They are manipulatures of politics to infringe on everyone else's freedom. This goes way beyond freedom of speech. They are against freedom. Period.

[currentchristian]

There's much not to like. But we do have, happily, freedom of speech and freedom of religion in the U.S. and that trumps my views. We must allow freedom for the thought we hate and freedom for views that are so far out in left field they don't deserve a blip on the radar.

not intending to derail the thread, but CC, these folks aren't about freedom of speech. They have declared a culture war against everyone not them. They are manipulatures of politics to infringe on everyone else's freedom. This goes way beyond freedom of speech. They are against freedom. Period.

 

You may be right. For one, I'm glad the Democrats took over the Congress and I'm happy with the work of the House their first 100 Hours! I'm not that worried about the right-wing extremists. I think they are on their way out! Now, someone please guard the door against the left-wing ones!

 

-CC in MA

[currentchristian]

Antlerman, Before I go where angels fear to tread, let me confirm with you that I understand the question:

 

What does the Christian faith offer than other faiths do not?

I think I clarified it best in this post over in the thread. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=246971

 

Hi Antlerman! Not sure how good/valuable/interesting my response to your question is. Please feel free to rip it apart, seek clarification, call me an idiot (but do so kindly!), etc. Here goes:

 

There are lifestyle options that are easily recognizable (at least by me) as better/richer/wiser than others: It’s better to be hard worker than a slouch; it’s better to be a saver than a spender-of-every-penny-one-gets; it’s better to be drug-free than a coke-head. Hard work, conscientious spending and drug-free living offer much more possibility of contentment, happiness, and success in this life than do their alternatives. (Seems to me.) We could say the same about many other opposite alternatives.

 

Other lifestyle options, however, are not as easy to judge, if at all possible. Does being a teacher offer a better life and more fulfillment than being a doctor? Do those with children have it better off than those without? Are college-educated individuals happier than laborers? Who can say for any one individual which of these options is better? No one! It’s a matter of each person being an individual with unique needs, wants, desires, hopes, expectations and interests.

 

I think the same applies to religion. Both living one’s life as though there is no Being out there and living one’s life as though there is a Being out there are capable of offering fulfilling, stimulating, meaningful and intellectually fulfilling sources of happiness.

 

My choice is to live as though there is a Creator-Source Being behind all life, a Being who was represented most perfectly in the historical Jesus revealed quite accurately (in my view) in the gospel narratives. What does this offer to me that non-theistic living cannot. I don’t know for sure, having never lived in a non-theistic way. But maybe Christian theism offers solace in sorrow, peace in pain, contentment in catastrophe, hope in “hell,” as well as great expectations, bountiful beauty, and constant companionship that non-theistic living cannot.

 

Christianity offers to me the hope of resurrection for lost loved ones, friends, family, and indeed of my very own personality, completely healed of physical/psychological/spiritual ailments. Christianity offers hope of an ultimate fix for social injustice and economic inequality. It establishes the expectation that, in the final accounting, everything will pan out and everything will be set right.

 

Atheism offers none of this. This is not to say that atheists are wrong and that theists are right. But this was not the question. The question was a subjective one: What positive benefits are there to being Christian as opposed to being atheist?

 

I am well aware that as long as we live (in this body) these alleged benefits of Christian belief remain very much in the mind of the believer. Whether or not these expectations ever come to be reality, they are nice to ponder and they offer much solace. If they don’t come to pass, nothing is lost, and we’ll never know. But if these ideas (resurrection, setting right injustice, world peace, etc.) do come to pass, what a glorious, absolutely glorious, day that will be!

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

Thanks CC for the response, but I had intended for the discussion to take place over in that thread. Could you copy and post this response there? I'll address some points once it's in the right thread.

 

Thanks.

 

(the link I provided clarifying the question is the thread to post it into)

[currentchristian]

Thanks CC for the response, but I had intended for the discussion to take place over in that thread. Could you copy and post this response there? I'll address some points once it's in the right thread.

 

Thanks.

 

(the link I provided clarifying the question is the thread to post it into)

 

Hey, Antlerman. I post only in the GTI strand. I read elsewhere, but must limit my posting to this one strand. Sorry!

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

Hey, Antlerman. I post only in the GTI strand. I read elsewhere, but must limit my posting to this one strand. Sorry!

Really? I'm confused. Have you tried to post in the Collesium? Do you have restrictions or something? Everyone seems to be able to. It is a place for debate. Let me know if you actually can't, or are just thinking you can't. I suppose I can request the thread be moved here, but I felt it belonged there instead.

[currentchristian]

Hey, Antlerman. I post only in the GTI strand. I read elsewhere, but must limit my posting to this one strand. Sorry!

Really? I'm confused. Have you tried to post in the Collesium? Do you have restrictions or something? Everyone seems to be able to. It is a place for debate. Let me know if you actually can't, or are just thinking you can't. I suppose I can request the thread be moved here, but I felt it belonged there instead.

 

No, friend, it is a self-imposed restriction, for these reasons:

 

1. This website is for ex-Christians. I am here as a guest, by the good graces of all of you. I do not want to overstay my welcome or impose myself beyond this one area.

 

2. My first post was in GTI (the topic "calling liberal Christians" was referred to me a member of this group), so I stay here.

 

3. I post enough in this topic; goodness knows I have other things to do!!! (Like the laundry I'm running to right now!)

 

-CC in MA

[Antlerman]

No, friend, it is a self-imposed restriction, for these reasons:

 

1. This website is for ex-Christians. I am here as a guest, by the good graces of all of you. I do not want to overstay my welcome or impose myself beyond this one area.

 

2. My first post was in GTI (the topic "calling liberal Christians" was referred to me a member of this group), so I stay here.

 

3. I post enough in this topic; goodness knows I have other things to do!!! (Like the laundry I'm running to right now!)

 

-CC in MA

Ok then, good enough. I've started an addendum thread here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=14507

[currentchristian]

No, friend, it is a self-imposed restriction, for these reasons:

 

1. This website is for ex-Christians. I am here as a guest, by the good graces of all of you. I do not want to overstay my welcome or impose myself beyond this one area.

 

2. My first post was in GTI (the topic "calling liberal Christians" was referred to me a member of this group), so I stay here.

 

3. I post enough in this topic; goodness knows I have other things to do!!! (Like the laundry I'm running to right now!)

 

-CC in MA

Ok then, good enough. I've started an addendum thread here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=14507

 

I'll go there then. Thanks.

 

R.

[Dave]

......Atheism offers none of this.....

Atheism offers nothing. It is not supposed to offer anything. It can't offer anything. A lack of belief in gods is not anything that can offer anything.

 

HOWEVER! Secular Humanism, and secular life in general, does offer all that you want (except for the raising of the dead, they're gone, get over it). The thing is we have to do it ourselves since there isn't any skydaddy to do it for you.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

......Atheism offers none of this.....

Atheism offers nothing. It is not supposed to offer anything. It can't offer anything. A lack of belief in gods is not anything that can offer anything.

 

HOWEVER! Secular Humanism, and secular life in general, does offer all that you want (except for the raising of the dead, they're gone, get over it). The thing is we have to do it ourselves since there isn't any skydaddy to do it for you.

 

Freedom from religious guilt at the cost of condescending speaches by evangelizing Christians glorifying nothing outside of their own personal experience.