How Do Atheist Deal With Death?

[Ouroboros]

Since you claim to have knowledge of the Bible can you refute what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15?

 

1 Cor 15:3-

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

First, Paul didn't meet Jesus while Jesus was on this planet in his body. Paul saw a vision of Jesus. A hologram. A hallucination. We can call it whatever we want, since it wasn't really the real resurrected Jesus-body. He had too many mushrooms, who knows.

 

The other ones are just hearsay, and what they really meant with a "resurrected Jesus" is hard to say, since they could have meant the exact same things as Paul. Perhaps they all saw Jesus in a vision and not as a body.

 

People see ghosts. Does it mean that ghosts really exists, or can psychology and biology explain hallucinations? You should ask yourself that.

 

A side note here, I find that verse interesting since it makes a separation between the 12 and the apostles. He is suggesting that they are not the same. Something is wrong with his statement here, or the church screwed up the history of the correlation between the disciples and the apostles.

[Guest amazed]

 

Have you ever read the New Testament and the evidence it offers for the resurrection?

 

 

Since you claim to have knowledge of the Bible can you refute what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15?

 

"...what I also received..." - someone TOLD him. 'Paul' witnessed nothing first hand, and in fact there were NO eyewitnesses to any 'resurrection.' The 'gospels' are fables.

Have you read the other side that shows the gospels are not fables and are in fact reliable historical reports?

 

Paul, did see the risen Christ himself (Acts 90) and he is relating in I Corinthians 15 those others who have also seen him. This kind of reporting is not easily dismissed.

[bdp]

 

Have you ever read the New Testament and the evidence it offers for the resurrection?

 

 

Since you claim to have knowledge of the Bible can you refute what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15?

 

"...what I also received..." - someone TOLD him. 'Paul' witnessed nothing first hand, and in fact there were NO eyewitnesses to any 'resurrection.' The 'gospels' are fables.

Have you read the other side that shows the gospels are not fables and are in fact reliable historical reports?

 

Paul, did see the risen Christ himself (Acts 90) and he is relating in I Corinthians 15 those others who have also seen him. This kind of reporting is not easily dismissed.

 

...ahem...EX-Christian..?

 

'reliable historical reports...' - bullshit.

[Vigile]

Atheism is not a philosophy. You are betraying your bias and your handicapping cognitive dissonance.

Its a philosphy in the sense that it deals with ultimate issues in life. Some certainly do consider it a philosophy.

 

It's a conclusion to a question. The question itself may be philosophical, but arriving at that conclusion is no different than looking outside and noting that it's raining/or not.

[Vigile]

There is a lot of evidence for near death expierences that cannot be explained away by some brain activity. Take the case of young boy who had died and was able to recount what his family was doing miles away at their home. How could a person who is dead (has no physical powers such as sight etc) be able to describe in detail what his family was doing miles away? This kind of thing certainly points to some kind of survival of a person that is not physical in nature and one that has awarness without the physical body.

 

Provide documentation, otherwise this is just more hearsay.

[Vigile]

There is a lot of evidence for near death expierences that cannot be explained away by some brain activity. Take the case of young boy who had died and was able to recount what his family was doing miles away at their home. How could a person who is dead (has no physical powers such as sight etc) be able to describe in detail what his family was doing miles away? This kind of thing certainly points to some kind of survival of a person that is not physical in nature and one that has awarness without the physical body.

 

Provide documentation, otherwise this is just more hearsay.

 

I'm very much aware of critical thinking and the scientific method as it relates to the NT. It has excellent evidence for being historical. In fact to deny this would mean you would have to deny all history of the ancient world since the evidence for it is superior.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is what is tragic about what you write here. You once had the truth and the hope and have lost it to a system of belief that has no grounding in reality. What positive evidence do you have that the grave is the end in light of near death expierences and the resurrection of Christ?

It's not only me.

 

Read this again: this is the EX-Christian website.

 

That means, pretty much 99.9% of the members here used to be Christians. Most members are regular people, but we do have some ex-pastors, ex-scholars, ex-missionaries, etc. We have people who speak and read Hebrew. We have people who studied years in theology.

 

But with that being said, I didn't have the truth once. I know now how deceptive and manipulative religion is as a meme. It's a virus, which eats and rots your brain. It was because Christianity was a system of belief that was not grounded in reality, that I lost my faith. I know your brain is filled with the lies about Jesus and God and you can't help it, and I pity you. Poor soul who must go through life with a fantasy.

 

The positive evidence I have that the grave is the end is none. That's not the question really. I don't believe there is a continuation, but of course I can't be completely sure. But I can deal with it, since I have accepted it.

 

And when it comes to Jesus's resurrection, I don't find the evidence for the resurrection to be compelling enough. If you are emotionally attached to your faith, then I'm sure the Biblical record is enough to compel you to stay, but if you have no preexisting hook into the religion, then just a few verses written by the religions nutheads won't sway your mind.

 

There are other stories from other religions about miracles and resurrected saviors and gods. It doesn't make it true in those religions. So I have no reason to think that Christianity got some better evidence just because its name starts with "C."

 

Compare Christianity to Raelians. They have a religious leader too. He claims he met with the aliens. Can you prove that he didn't? He swears up and down that he met them. So he can't be lying, can he? It couldnt' have been a hallucination, could it?

[Guest amazed]

I'm still to use the quote and it doesn't come out the way i want it to. This is post is from amazed.

 

Since you claim to have knowledge of the Bible can you refute what Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15?

 

1 Cor 15:3-

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

First, Paul didn't meet Jesus while Jesus was on this planet in his body. Paul saw a vision of Jesus. A hologram. A hallucination. We can call it whatever we want, since it wasn't really the real resurrected Jesus-body. He had too many mushrooms, who knows.

The problem with your comments is that Paul was not in a frame of mind to have any visions. Secondly, those who were traveling him saw the light and heard a voice. This elimates the hologram and hallucinations theory.

 

 

The other ones are just hearsay, and what they really meant with a "resurrected Jesus" is hard to say, since they could have meant the exact same things as Paul. Perhaps they all saw Jesus in a vision and not as a body.

The idea of a group of people having the same visions does comport with what we know about this kind of thing.

 

People see ghosts. Does it mean that ghosts really exists, or can psychology and biology explain hallucinations? You should ask yourself that.

I agree. The problem is that when Jesus appeared in the upper room he ate food and they touched his physical body. We can dismiss the hallucinations theory with this alone.

 

A side note here, I find that verse interesting since it makes a separation between the 12 and the apostles. He is suggesting that they are not the same. Something is wrong with his statement here, or the church screwed up the history of the correlation between the disciples and the apostles.

I don't see any problems in the reporting of these events. They are straightforward accounts.

[Japedo]

 

 

What positive evidence do you have that the grave is the end in light of near death expierences and the resurrection of Christ?

 

What evidence do you have that Horus isn't the Savior? He was a half god man, who was born of a virgin, it was announced by a star, he was baptized, performed miracles he rose from the dead to save mankind. He existed long before Christ did and was worship the same way you worship Jesus. He's an Egyptian god, with a near mirror story of yours. Why wouldn't people believe the first god like that was the original one? Disprove to us that Horus isn't the "real" savior, and you'll disprove your own Christ. Just remember, you can't unsee things .

 

While you're at it why don't you do a study into Krishna,Mithra,or Adonis just to start. All fables existed long before your Christ, all have similar stories. There is not one thing original to Christianity. Hell no more exists then Hades or the underworld does.

 

Why don't you show us one thing different about Christianity, it's a copycat region, Christians are the least informed about their own dogma. Stop appealing to emotionalism, and start using the brain you think god gave you to decipher truth from lies, facts from fables. After all there can only be ONE truth, right?

[Guest amazed]

How do YOU deal with the knowledge that some of your loved ones may be going to Hell? At least I don't have to worry about that anymore. Peaceful nonexistence sounds much more comforting to me than the thought of my loved ones writhing in agony for all eternity.

This is difficult for christians thinking that a loved one could be in hell. Its one of those issues i won't know until i die. I trust in the goodness and mercy of God.

That's the thing atheists have over Christians, we don't have to deal with that problem. We know no one goes to Hell. So we're at peace. And it's better than to have a false hope.

On what basis do you know there is no hell and no one goes there?

[bdp]

 

I don't see any problems in the reporting of these events. They are straightforward accounts.

 

prove they're not just outright fiction. Oh, and how are you qualified to say if 'Paul' was in a 'frame of mind' to have visions or not?

 

side note: how come LNC couldn't manage this?

[Guest amazed]

 

 

What positive evidence do you have that the grave is the end in light of near death expierences and the resurrection of Christ?

 

What evidence do you have that Horus isn't the Savior? He was a half god man, who was born of a virgin, it was announced by a star, he was baptized, performed miracles he rose from the dead to save mankind. He existed long before Christ did and was worship the same way you worship Jesus. He's an Egyptian god, with a near mirror story of yours. Why wouldn't people believe the first god like that was the original one? Disprove to us that Horus isn't the "real" savior, and you'll disprove your own Christ. Just remember, you can't unsee things .

 

While you're at it why don't you do a study into Krishna,Mithra,or Adonis just to start. All fables existed long before your Christ, all have similar stories. There is not one thing original to Christianity. Hell no more exists then Hades or the underworld does.

 

Why don't you show us one thing different about Christianity, it's a copycat region, Christians are the least informed about their own dogma. Stop appealing to emotionalism, and start using the brain you think god gave you to decipher truth from lies, facts from fables. After all there can only be ONE truth, right?

Actually if you look carefully at what these other religions taught and said you find they are not saying the samethings as Christianity. Secondly, morst these religions actually come after Christianity. This stuff sounds like the movie Zietgeist which has been soundly refuted by scholars.

 

Have you studied Krishna,Mithra,or Adonis in depth and demonstrate that the authors of the New Testament did indeed borrow from these religions? If so, can you name the sources you have that have done this?

[bdp]

...so you really just came here to preach after all. how surprising.

[Ouroboros]

The problem with your comments is that Paul was not in a frame of mind to have any visions.

How do you know? Did you talk to him? What do you know about his state of mind? He was traveling wide and far, in desert land, eating whatever the ground could provide. How does that not make him in the state of mind?

 

Secondly, those who were traveling him saw the light and heard a voice. This elimates the hologram and hallucinations theory.

Exaggerations.

 

I know people do that. They embellish to the story to add credibility.

 

This year the fish I caught was 6" long. Next year I'll say it was 7", and then the year after it becomes 8", and so on.

 

But even with that in consideration, Paul didn't see Jesus in a physical body, since the other ones didn't see Jesus in a physical body. Light isn't a physical body, it's... light. Noise and rumble isn't a physical body either, it is... sound. It's even possible that something else went on. Do we have the records of the people who were with Paul? Do we have written accounts of what they actually heard and saw? If just one of them could step forward, and lets say he told us that it was an earthquake and the dust made the light weird and shiny, then what? Should we still believe they saw Jesus?

 

I agree. The problem is that when Jesus appeared in the upper room he ate food and they touched his physical body. We can dismiss the hallucinations theory with this alone.

I think that is an embellishment too.

 

So why did Jesus have to have a physical body? Did he bring that body with him to Heaven? Or did he leave it behind? Or perhaps it was disintegrated 5,000 feet up in the air when he was floating on the cloud to the sky?

 

And talking about the resurrection story, what about all the zombies? Why is it only mentioned in the Gospels and not anywhere in any outside historical source?

 

I don't see any problems in the reporting of these events. They are straightforward accounts.

Well, if I would say:

 

First Bob went to see the President, then he met with Andrew, and then he met with Obama.

 

Wouldn't that raise your eyebrow a little? Why would I make a distinction between the President and Obama? Unless I perhaps meant Michelle Obama, and not Barack.

[Guest amazed]

 

I don't see any problems in the reporting of these events. They are straightforward accounts.

 

prove they're not just outright fiction. Oh, and how are you qualified to say if 'Paul' was in a 'frame of mind' to have visions or not?

 

side note: how come LNC couldn't manage this?

These are not fictions becasue the NT is not that kind of genre. The gospel are bio-graphical accounts. Take Luke 1:1-4 as an example of this.

 

Paul's frame of mind before his Damascus road expierence was focused on stamping out Christianity. He was an enemy dead set against the faith. This condition is not conducive to visions as he was traveling.

 

What do you mean by how come LNC couldn't manage this?

[Guest amazed]

The problem with your comments is that Paul was not in a frame of mind to have any visions.

How do you know? Did you talk to him? What do you know about his state of mind? He was traveling wide and far, in desert land, eating whatever the ground could provide. How does that not make him in the state of mind?

 

Secondly, those who were traveling him saw the light and heard a voice. This elimates the hologram and hallucinations theory.

Exaggerations.

 

I know people do that. They embellish to the story to add credibility.

 

This year the fish I caught was 6" long. Next year I'll say it was 7", and then the year after it becomes 8", and so on.

 

But even with that in consideration, Paul didn't see Jesus in a physical body, since the other ones didn't see Jesus in a physical body. Light isn't a physical body, it's... light. Noise and rumble isn't a physical body either, it is... sound. It's even possible that something else went on. Do we have the records of the people who were with Paul? Do we have written accounts of what they actually heard and saw? If just one of them could step forward, and lets say he told us that it was an earthquake and the dust made the light weird and shiny, then what? Should we still believe they saw Jesus?

 

I agree. The problem is that when Jesus appeared in the upper room he ate food and they touched his physical body. We can dismiss the hallucinations theory with this alone.

I think that is an embellishment too.

 

So why did Jesus have to have a physical body? Did he bring that body with him to Heaven? Or did he leave it behind? Or perhaps it was disintegrated 5,000 feet up in the air when he was floating on the cloud to the sky?

 

And talking about the resurrection story, what about all the zombies? Why is it only mentioned in the Gospels and not anywhere in any outside historical source?

 

I don't see any problems in the reporting of these events. They are straightforward accounts.

Well, if I would say:

 

First Bob went to see the President, then he met with Andrew, and then he met with Obama.

 

Wouldn't that raise your eyebrow a little? Why would I make a distinction between the President and Obama? Unless I perhaps meant Michelle Obama, and not Barack.

You made a number of assertions here claiming these accounts were emblished. Can you show from the texts this was indeed the case? What evidence do you have to back these assertions up?

[Guest amazed]

...so you really just came here to preach after all. how surprising.

Not to preach but to reason with you and others. Big difference.

[Ouroboros]

On what basis do you know there is no hell and no one goes there?

Because I don't believe there is a God. And I think Hell is a concept contradictory to a loving and merciful God. It would be more merciful if God just ended the life of everyone he didn't like. There's no need for him to torture his own creation, unless he finds a pleasure in it.

 

On the other hand, a God which incorporates both good and evil would also make more sense and could allow for a Hell, but then it's not the God Christian believes in.

 

So either way, Hell doesn't make sense.

 

What would be the purpose of God to send people of his own creation to Hell for torture for eternity? He can't end their lives? He can't forgive? He can't make sure they know what they're supposed to know before they die? And is it true that God is omnipresent, except in Hell? So God is omnipotent, but refuse to help them. He wants them to suffer. He is not there, because he is not completely omnipresent. He is benevolent, except for when it comes to vengeance.

 

It's all too twisted to be true. It all stinks like political and religious manipulation tools.

[Guest amazed]

Each person who loses a loved one responds differently. The difference between the atheist and the christian is that the atheist has no hope in death. For the atheist, when a person dies thats it. They believe they will never see that loved one again. Christians on the other hand do not mourn without hope because we know death is not the end. We are more than just a meat machine that when our bodies die that's it. Rather we believe and know we have a spirit that survives death of the body.

The problem I had with death when I was a Christian was fear that a person who died would go to Hell. It wasn't hope. It was fear. I didn't like it. I couldn't be sure where the person would go. Heaven or Hell? I wasn't even sure if I got the right belief and would go to Heaven. Had I committed the ultimate and unforgivable sin? I didn't know. So even if I had the hope that I might come back to life again, the hope was eclipsed by the fear of me or someone else going to Hell.

 

I don't have that fear anymore.

 

So how does a Christian deal with the fear of Hell?

Christians deal with the fear of hell by trusting in Christ who took our punishment for sin. Thats what i remind myself of.

[Ouroboros]

You made a number of assertions here claiming these accounts were emblished. Can you show from the texts this was indeed the case? What evidence do you have to back these assertions up?

Because the stories differ between the Gospels. The older Gospels have less details, while the newer ones have more details, which is indicative of a behavior of embellishment.

 

In one story the travelers with Paul hear a voice, but do not see the light. In the other story, they all see the light, but don't hear any voice. (If I recall correctly)

 

Different stories, with different embellishments to increase the tone. It's all manufactured to impress the audience.

[Ouroboros]

Christians deal with the fear of hell by trusting in Christ who took our punishment for sin. Thats what i remind myself of.

Well, I'm glad I don't have to keep reminding myself anymore. I remember those days too. I had to convince myself that I was most likely going to Heaven and not to Hell. I was hoping I had not committed the ultimate unforgivable sin. But the fear never left completely. But now it's gone. I don't fear it anymore. How come peace came this way?

[bdp]

 

I don't see any problems in the reporting of these events. They are straightforward accounts.

 

prove they're not just outright fiction. Oh, and how are you qualified to say if 'Paul' was in a 'frame of mind' to have visions or not?

 

side note: how come LNC couldn't manage this?

These are not fictions becasue the NT is not that kind of genre. The gospel are bio-graphical accounts. Take Luke 1:1-4 as an example of this.

 

Paul's frame of mind before his Damascus road expierence was focused on stamping out Christianity. He was an enemy dead set against the faith. This condition is not conducive to visions as he was traveling.

 

What do you mean by how come LNC couldn't manage this?

 

'genre' - god this shit is tiresome. YOU take Luke, and use your imagination. 'Luke' was not an eyewitness to ANYTHING in the 'gospels.' He's telling second-hand stories.

 

Your 'explanation' of Paul's 'state of mind' is asinine.

 

LNC is just an inside joke.

[bdp]

...so you really just came here to preach after all. how surprising.

Not to preach but to reason with you and others. Big difference.

 

You're PREACHING. Which you're supposed to do with boldness, so just admit it and go on.

[Guest amazed]

Have you ever read the New Testament and the evidence it offers for the resurrection?

 

 

The NT is not evidence. It is hearsay.

Not so. Simon Greenleaf who was a lawyer examined the NT with the rules of evidence used in a court of law and found the accounts of the resurrection to be true. Other lawyers have done the samething and arrived at the same conclusion.

 

If you claim the NT is hearsay how do know that ancient historical accounts of Alexander were not hearsay also? After all he did incredible things with his army that still astound historians.

[bdp]

Have you ever read the New Testament and the evidence it offers for the resurrection?

 

 

The NT is not evidence. It is hearsay.

Not so. Simon Greenleaf who was a lawyer examined the NT with the rules of evidence used in a court of law and found the accounts of the resurrection to be true. Other lawyers have done the samething and arrived at the same conclusion.

 

If you claim the NT is hearsay how do know that ancient historical accounts of Alexander were not hearsay also? After all he did incredible things with his army that still astound historians.

 

rules of evidence used in a court of law is NOT a historical standard and can't 'prove' the 'resurrection' to be true. Funny how an unwitnessed event can be 'proven' to be 'true.'