Why I'm an atheist

[BADecker]

Some people get a psychological support from family and friends.  Others get it from imaginary friends, aka God(s).

Atheists have a strong understanding of reality around them.  They can distinguish what is real and what is not.

To answer the OP question:

I'm an atheist because I can think critically.  

These days I don't even consider religions worth studying.  They are in the same bucket as dragons, witchcraft, warlocks, ghosts, tarot reading and astrology, among number of other superstitions.

Religions were invented for one purpose: To control and unite large groups of people.

If you could think critically, you would stop being an atheist. Why?

I can think critically therefore I am an atheist.

But your next point shows that you are not doing it... at least not with regard to your post here.

Not sure what you mean?  I gave you my reasons.  

I simply mean that you didn't seem able to understand that I wasn't connecting cause and effect with random. You can't connect cause and effect with something that doesn't exist.

So far, cause and effect is a scientific law, that is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law, which is law because of the billions and trillions of things that happen daily that show that it is fact, and by the fact that nothing has factually refuted it so far. Pure random has never been shown to exist in anything. In fact, the concept of pure random is not really understandable.

Randomness and cause and effect are not the same.  Not sure why you are linking cause and effect to "pure randomness".

Exactly. There is no evidence of pure random, which is real random. The general random that you and I use when we roll the dice or flip a coin is not pure random. It is simply evidence of our weakness to understand all the forces acting on the object of our focus.

The universe cannot exist with random pure random activity.

There is no link between cause and effect and randomness.  This is what you are implying.  The rest of your reply is incoherent.

See? There you go again. I am not implying. I am stating. The fact that you are having a difficult time understanding what I am saying, shows that you are rather weak in the critical thinking area.

Even though entropy is extremely complex, the factual understanding about it is that everything is gradually moving from complexity to simplicity. Given enough time, complexity as we know it would not exist. Further, science is having a difficult time determining exactly what nearly complete entropy would be like.

Evolution shows that complex organisms evolve from simpler ones.

Math and probability show that evolution is not possible. In fact, evolution is so impossible that it cannot begin to have a setting within the possibility area. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.0.

If you think evolution is not possible, I think the conversation is over.

Simply looking at the applied math.

If "evolution" means "change," why not use "change?" If evolution means inanimate chemicals turning into a human being, the math shows that this is so impossible that it is off the reality scale. If you believe this kind of evolution, you are stuck in a religion without even knowing it.

1. If the universe had existed continually forever, without beginning, then entropy would have reduced it to a state of simplicity long ago. We would not exist. Because of this, we can see that there was a beginning.

Big Bang Theory is the only scientific theory we currently have for the beginning of our universe.

Perhaps. But why look to theory, which is guesswork, when what I am showing you here proves the existence of God?

You are not showing anything.  You are linking entropy to randomness, randomness to complexity, complexity to intelligence, and finally intelligence to God  All of your mental leaps are incorrect.

Again, there is no way to link anything to randomness. As far as science has been able to discover, randomness does not exist except in the dictionary. Why do you think I am linking entropy to randomness, which does not exist? It's impossible to do.

2. Complex intelligence - such as the intelligence of mankind - is part of the universe. Because it is part of the universe, it is affected by entropy, just like the rest of the universe. This means that formerly, intelligence was greater than it is now.

Not sure I understand.  You are saying that entropy has something to do with intelligence.  I do not see a link.  You are making a mental leap and not explaining it.

All I am saying is, since intelligence is a complex thing that is within the universe, entropy is reducing the complexity of intelligence just like it is reducing the complexity of everything else. In other words, over time, intelligence is diminishing.

Again complex organisms evolve from simpler ones.  We have indisputable physical evidence of this fact.  Your assumption that declining entropy is reducing the complexity of the universe and reducing "the complexity of intelligence" is false.  I don't even know what you mean by "the complexity of intelligence".

One sure way to decrease your intelligence is to limit yourself to study from one book (be it Bible, Quran or Talmud).

None of the successful evolution is in nature. It is all in the lab. That is not evolution. It is manipulation.

3. Cause and effect in everything shows that everything was pre-programmed. People are the AI of the universe. The Thing that is behind the pre-programming is intelligent beyond understanding to have been able to pre-program it all, and especially the intelligence of mankind. This great Intelligence fits our dictionary definitions of "God."

No.  There is no evidence that anything was pre-programmed.  You are pulling this assumption straight out of your you know what.

Cause and effect, a scientific law that exists in everything, is evidence of the pre-programming in action.

No it is not.  Cause and effect is just that.  There is a cause and there is an effect.  Nothing to do with re-arranging causes to affect the outcomes, i.e. nothing to do with pre-programming.

What? If you roll the billiard ball this way, it rolls this way. You programmed it to roll this way by causing it to roll this way. If you cause it to roll that way, your causing is the programming. Since cause and effect exists throughout the universe in everything we know about factually, everything was programmed to act the way it does.

You are missing a big chunk of critical thinking regarding Newton's 3rd Law.

There is nothing that is science law that competes with the above. There might be lots of science theory - like Big Bang Theory - that might appear to compete. But even Big Bang Theory doesn't take into account things like intelligence and emotion... doesn't have any explanation for them.

The Big Bang Theory does not deal with intelligence or emotions of sapiens.

Exactly. But since there is intelligence and emotion in the universe, where does it come from? After all, if they didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang, entropy would keep the complexity of intelligence and emotion from ever existing. So, why are they not figured into Big Bang Theory? BB is greatly flawed.

As an example. There are 3 major BB theories. There are 4 major Black Hole theories. Yet none of the Black Holes from the BH theories could fit in any of the BB universes. They simply don't sync. It's all guesswork. Fun to play with if you like juggling math and physics. But a waste of time if you are looking for something solid in life.

Intelligence is a neural network.  Emotions are chemical reactions in your brain.  

We did not exist during BB, life on Earth appeared much, much later.  Human intelligence as defined today, was a result of millions of years of evolution.
Not sure what your argument here is.

BB is a cute story. There is no proof of it. Yet there are tons of proofs of Newton's 3rd Law which shows that everything has been programmed. If intelligence is nothing more that neural networking, it was programmed to be that way... by a much greater Intelligence, with a much greater "neural network."

The point is, the strongest part of science - science law - shows that God exists. Don't you think that it is time that you start to think not only critically, but clearly, as well?

No. Science does not show that God exists.  Quite the opposite is true.

My above explanation is exactly why science shows that God exists.

Entropy shows that there is a beginning, and that everything is becoming less complex since the beginning.

Cause and effect show that every little thing exists according to the way the thing(s) that caused it to exist moved it. And each cause was caused by some other cause, which was caused by some other cause... all the way back to the beginning.

Whatever could set the cause and effect of this complex universe into motion, must be very complex in itself. Since there is intelligence in the universe, cause and effect caused the intelligence to exist. Whatever could cause this whole thing including the intelligence, necessarily had to be even more complex. Why? Because entropy is reducing the complexity of everything, even intelligence.

Something that is great enough and intelligent enough to program the universe into existence fits our definition of the word "God."

No, you are not showing that science shows that God exists.  Entropy and complexity are unrelated.

If you really think this, you need to study a lot more.

The primal cause did not have to be complex.  The intelligence is the neural network in the brains of animals.  Primal cause did not cause the intelligence to exist during BB.

First, BB is not known to be factual at all. That's why it is called the BB Theory.

Second, there is no evidence that anything exists except by cause and effect. And there are countless things that show that cause and effect are fact in everything that we know. This means that even if we were uncertain that intelligence was a result of cause and effect, it should be assumed that it was.

Entropy is not related to complexity or intelligence.  You want proof?  Software behind everything you touch everyday is becoming more complex every year, yet entropy of the universe is declining.  Entropy and complexity are two different things.

Again, the only reason we need or use software, is because we have declined in intelligence so much that we need something else to do our thinking for us.

Hint: Universe is expanding...

Anyway, you are a typical Christian religiotard, no fault of your own.  Probably your parents are to blame.

I hope you see your own logical fallacies (entropy=complexity, complexity=intelligence).

This is fun, showing people how they have let the science community overrun their thinking by brainwashing them into believing that God doesn't exist.

[1714484513]

1714484513

[Moloch]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

If you refuse to look at the evidence from both sides of an issue, you will continually be ignorant and biased

[BADecker]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

If you refuse to look at the evidence from both sides of an issue, you will continually be ignorant and biased

And when you believe the irrational side to be truth, like atheists do, you have a religion going for yourself.

[qwik2learn]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I am an avid reader of RationalWiki.

Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.

For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.

[qwik2learn]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I am an avid reader of RationalWiki.

Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.

For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.

Moloch, virtually all of the claims made in your link are either inconsistent with other evidence or based in unproven assumptions. The links I posted here provide a more adequate understanding of the mechanism behind NDEs. If you want to discuss this with me, simply take a claim from that link (or any other source) and post it here for our discussion.

[awesome31312]

It is very interesting that you bring up dextromethorphan in your original post. You often fail to partition religiosity and spirituality throughout your post.

[Moloch]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I am an avid reader of RationalWiki.

Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.

For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.

Moloch, virtually all of the claims made in your link are either inconsistent with other evidence or based in unproven assumptions. The links I posted here provide a more adequate understanding of the mechanism behind NDEs. If you want to discuss this with me, simply take a claim from that link (or any other source) and post it here for our discussion.

That is simply your biased opinion...

The facts are that your "scientific studies" are not scientifically conducted... they do not conduct proper experiments, and their "conclusions" are not legitimate... pseudoscience is not science... there is a huge fucking difference

I have looked at studies you posted in the past and they are all bullshit... there is not a shred of scientific credulity among them... its completely anecdotal with no substance, like religion

[BADecker]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Evidence_of_afterlife

http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a52

If you refuse to look at the evidence of both sides of an argument, you will continually be ignorant and biased

Actually, you may be surprised to learn that I am an avid reader of RationalWiki.

Evidence that I have posted refutes the claims on RationalWiki.

For example, according to RW, the survival hypothesis "ignores scientific evidence that indicates consciousness is dependent on the brain", but RW likewise ignores case studies which indicate that consciousness is independent of the brain. Not only this, but RW ignores the evidence from quantum biology as presented by Hammeroff which indicates that feelings came before the brain.

Moloch, virtually all of the claims made in your link are either inconsistent with other evidence or based in unproven assumptions. The links I posted here provide a more adequate understanding of the mechanism behind NDEs. If you want to discuss this with me, simply take a claim from that link (or any other source) and post it here for our discussion.

That is simply your biased opinion...

The facts are that your "scientific studies" are not scientifically conducted... they do not conduct proper experiments, and their "conclusions" are not legitimate... pseudoscience is not science... there is a huge fucking difference

I have looked at studies you posted in the past and they are all bullshit... there is not a shred of scientific credulity among them... its completely anecdotal with no substance, like religion

The fact is, you are programmed to talk like this because of your weak faith in God. God looks at the weakness in your faith, and goes back to the Beginning and juggles everything in the universe a little, so that you are programmed to do the things that match your weak faith... all through cause and effect.

[qwik2learn]

they do not conduct proper experiments, and their "conclusions" are not legitimate... pseudoscience is not science... there is a huge fucking difference

Science is about drawing conclusions from repeated observations, for example the observation that consciousness has occurred during a period when the brain was non-functional leads to the conclusion that "A high level of consciousness while physically unconscious is medically unexplained", and this conclusion is perfectly in line with the discoveries of experimental neuroscience like the following:

a global brain phenomena (consciousness) would always result in a positive measurement of brain activity. The link between neural activity, brain activity, and the brain's higher functions is very well established, for example "ongoing [brain] activity fluctuations ... constitute an essential property of the neural architecture underlying cognition", so a global shutdown of neural activity would cause a disruption in the EEG and total loss of consciousness with no restoration of higher function until the global shutdown is reversed. Cognition, like perception and awareness, is always observed to be a global phenomena, and such a phenomena cannot be expected during a global shutdown.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnsys.2010.00020/full

[qwik2learn]

Neural network is essentially an electrical network.

NOT TRUE
Firstly, Providing a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of near-death experience has been a difficult challenge for scientists ever since data in the form of NDE testimonials started appearing in the mid 1970's. (Read the Primary Source here)

Also, you have no response to Hammeroff's observations; you obviously have some reading to do.

You have no response to the AECES TOP 40 observations; you have some reading to do there as well.

Similarly to you, Moloch would like to deny veridical perception during NDE despite the fact that it has been shown in a published paper that "NDE memories are more real than real memories"! Where is Moloch's argument??

Many lines of evidence are examples of valid scientific research i.e. conclusions based on observation using methodological naturalism and valid evidential reasoning (my definition), so that is why I present 52 points of scientific evidence for atheists to evaluate with the conclusion being that skeptical criticism of NDE In This Thread is irrational.

Many eminent researchers (like Darwin and Godel) have admitted that materialism is irrational, these educated men and women present a lot of the same arguments that remain unaddressed. The arguments that you present are very weak; it will likely surprise you to learn that your arguments are not based in evidence, and this is easily seen by anyone who has bothered to click and read through all of these references:

ALL 52 points of evidence on the near-death site;
Hammeroff's work as presented here (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer")
The AECES top 40 cases

SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? YOU ARE NEWBIE_AS_FUCK AT DEBATING WITH THEISTS; YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE NEW IDEAS WHEN PRESENTED; THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RATIONAL! HAVE YOU EVEN DONE ANY SERIOUS REVIEW OF THESE REFERENCES AT ALL??

[awesome31312]

If you refuse to look at the evidence from both sides of an issue, you will continually be ignorant and biased

Religion is faith based, not evidence based. Kind of like fiat currency.

[popcorn1]

Which came first: feelings or the brain?"...The brain come first 100%..Why you ask because when people are brain dead you have no feelings
None what so ever...To write to Richard Dawkins was a waste of time when it was such a simple answer

[popcorn1]

Neural network is essentially an electrical network.

NOT TRUE
Firstly, Providing a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of near-death experience has been a difficult challenge for scientists ever since data in the form of NDE testimonials started appearing in the mid 1970's. (Read the Primary Source here)

Also, you have no response to Hammeroff's observations; you obviously have some reading to do.

You have no response to the AECES TOP 40 observations; you have some reading to do there as well.

Similarly to you, Moloch would like to deny veridical perception during NDE despite the fact that it has been shown in a published paper that "NDE memories are more real than real memories"! Where is Moloch's argument??

Many lines of evidence are examples of valid scientific research i.e. conclusions based on observation using methodological naturalism and valid evidential reasoning (my definition), so that is why I present 52 points of scientific evidence for atheists to evaluate with the conclusion being that skeptical criticism of NDE In This Thread is irrational.

Many eminent researchers (like Darwin and Godel) have admitted that materialism is irrational, these educated men and women present a lot of the same arguments that remain unaddressed. The arguments that you present are very weak; it will likely surprise you to learn that your arguments are not based in evidence, and this is easily seen by anyone who has bothered to click and read through all of these references:

ALL 52 points of evidence on the near-death site;
Hammeroff's work as presented here (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer")
The AECES top 40 cases

SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? YOU ARE NEWBIE_AS_FUCK AT DEBATING WITH THEISTS; YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE NEW IDEAS WHEN PRESENTED; THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RATIONAL! HAVE YOU EVEN DONE ANY SERIOUS REVIEW OF THESE REFERENCES AT ALL??

Just want you to know this...Humans have brains and act the same..You will take in the life you live in your brain and i will take the life i live..But if we get hurt i feel pain like you if we get sick i feel the same sickness as you..
Now if i DREAM i DREAM the same dreams as you but with little twist like who is in these dreams..
But because more than 30 people say the same thing  got to be god ..IT'S WHAT BRAINS ACT LIKE WE ARE ALL HUMANS WITH A BRAIN..
IT FUNCTIONS THE SAME..

Now i think your wasting your time but if you think your not then good luck because i am a believer that nothing is impossible in this day and age..
So one day you might prove us all wrong..And then you got to prove it's to do with god
So good luck with your quest..And most important we need proof your right.. And not with writing show us so are eyes can see the proof to your claims..
GOOD LUCK..Still think your better wasting your time doing something else..YOU MIGHT PROVE US WRONG..
Like winning the lottery jackpot 10 times so good luck..plus people wanting to know if an after life for hundreds maybe thousands of years with no joy of proof..

[Moloch]

Where is Moloch's argument??

I already explained this to you 6 months ago...

Science is based upon experimentation, not testimony

Scientific experimentation has shown that NDE can be caused by a magnet... it not not spiritual, it has nothing to do with god... it has a perfectly normal scientific explanation like everything else

The only people who see a white light, etc, are religious... if you are not religious, you see aliens, or some other weird shit

Alien abduction stories are the exact same thing as NDE... it is caused by the same lack of oxygen in your brain

It is not real, quit believing all the crazy shit you read on the internet... check your facts... google the opposition and see what they say... don't get all your info from a single biased source (who is probably trying to sell you something)

[passwordnow]

Because i am more into reality that we create our own destiny and gods are just from our imagination that is talkin to us.

[BADecker]

Neural network is essentially an electrical network.

NOT TRUE
Firstly, Providing a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of near-death experience has been a difficult challenge for scientists ever since data in the form of NDE testimonials started appearing in the mid 1970's. (Read the Primary Source here)

Also, you have no response to Hammeroff's observations; you obviously have some reading to do.

You have no response to the AECES TOP 40 observations; you have some reading to do there as well.

Similarly to you, Moloch would like to deny veridical perception during NDE despite the fact that it has been shown in a published paper that "NDE memories are more real than real memories"! Where is Moloch's argument??

Many lines of evidence are examples of valid scientific research i.e. conclusions based on observation using methodological naturalism and valid evidential reasoning (my definition), so that is why I present 52 points of scientific evidence for atheists to evaluate with the conclusion being that skeptical criticism of NDE In This Thread is irrational.

Many eminent researchers (like Darwin and Godel) have admitted that materialism is irrational, these educated men and women present a lot of the same arguments that remain unaddressed. The arguments that you present are very weak; it will likely surprise you to learn that your arguments are not based in evidence, and this is easily seen by anyone who has bothered to click and read through all of these references:

ALL 52 points of evidence on the near-death site;
Hammeroff's work as presented here (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer")
The AECES top 40 cases

SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? YOU ARE NEWBIE_AS_FUCK AT DEBATING WITH THEISTS; YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE NEW IDEAS WHEN PRESENTED; THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RATIONAL! HAVE YOU EVEN DONE ANY SERIOUS REVIEW OF THESE REFERENCES AT ALL??

Just want you to know this...Humans have brains and act the same..You will take in the life you live in your brain and i will take the life i live..But if we get hurt i feel pain like you if we get sick i feel the same sickness as you..
Now if i DREAM i DREAM the same dreams as you but with little twist like who is in these dreams..
But because more than 30 people say the same thing  got to be god ..IT'S WHAT BRAINS ACT LIKE WE ARE ALL HUMANS WITH A BRAIN..
IT FUNCTIONS THE SAME..

Now i think your wasting your time but if you think your not then good luck because i am a believer that nothing is impossible in this day and age..
So one day you might prove us all wrong..And then you got to prove it's to do with god
So good luck with your quest..And most important we need proof your right.. And not with writing show us so are eyes can see the proof to your claims..
GOOD LUCK..Still think your better wasting your time doing something else..YOU MIGHT PROVE US WRONG..
Like winning the lottery jackpot 10 times so good luck..plus people wanting to know if an after life for hundreds maybe thousands of years with no joy of proof..

None of this is significant either way. Why not? Because it is a little thing for God to remember every little thing about the life of a person, and to keep the person's soul alive without the body if necessary. And God can instantly materialize a new body for any soul He wants at any time.

[awesome31312]

Neural network is essentially an electrical network.

NOT TRUE
Firstly, Providing a scientific explanation for the phenomenon of near-death experience has been a difficult challenge for scientists ever since data in the form of NDE testimonials started appearing in the mid 1970's. (Read the Primary Source here)

Also, you have no response to Hammeroff's observations; you obviously have some reading to do.

You have no response to the AECES TOP 40 observations; you have some reading to do there as well.

Similarly to you, Moloch would like to deny veridical perception during NDE despite the fact that it has been shown in a published paper that "NDE memories are more real than real memories"! Where is Moloch's argument??

Many lines of evidence are examples of valid scientific research i.e. conclusions based on observation using methodological naturalism and valid evidential reasoning (my definition), so that is why I present 52 points of scientific evidence for atheists to evaluate with the conclusion being that skeptical criticism of NDE In This Thread is irrational.

Many eminent researchers (like Darwin and Godel) have admitted that materialism is irrational, these educated men and women present a lot of the same arguments that remain unaddressed. The arguments that you present are very weak; it will likely surprise you to learn that your arguments are not based in evidence, and this is easily seen by anyone who has bothered to click and read through all of these references:

ALL 52 points of evidence on the near-death site;
Hammeroff's work as presented here (see the Huffington Post articles: "Which came first: feelings or the brain?" and "An open letter to Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer")
The AECES top 40 cases

SO WHERE ARE YOUR REFERENCES? YOU ARE NEWBIE_AS_FUCK AT DEBATING WITH THEISTS; YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO EVALUATE NEW IDEAS WHEN PRESENTED; THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RATIONAL! HAVE YOU EVEN DONE ANY SERIOUS REVIEW OF THESE REFERENCES AT ALL??

Just want you to know this...Humans have brains and act the same..You will take in the life you live in your brain and i will take the life i live..But if we get hurt i feel pain like you if we get sick i feel the same sickness as you..
Now if i DREAM i DREAM the same dreams as you but with little twist like who is in these dreams..
But because more than 30 people say the same thing  got to be god ..IT'S WHAT BRAINS ACT LIKE WE ARE ALL HUMANS WITH A BRAIN..
IT FUNCTIONS THE SAME..

Now i think your wasting your time but if you think your not then good luck because i am a believer that nothing is impossible in this day and age..
So one day you might prove us all wrong..And then you got to prove it's to do with god
So good luck with your quest..And most important we need proof your right.. And not with writing show us so are eyes can see the proof to your claims..
GOOD LUCK..Still think your better wasting your time doing something else..YOU MIGHT PROVE US WRONG..
Like winning the lottery jackpot 10 times so good luck..plus people wanting to know if an after life for hundreds maybe thousands of years with no joy of proof..

None of this is significant either way. Why not? Because it is a little thing for God to remember every little thing about the life of a person, and to keep the person's soul alive without the body if necessary. And God can instantly materialize a new body for any soul He wants at any time.

If God can make changes to his will at any given time, then is his will really perfect or divine?

[BADecker]

...
Just want you to know this...Humans have brains and act the same..You will take in the life you live in your brain and i will take the life i live..But if we get hurt i feel pain like you if we get sick i feel the same sickness as you..
Now if i DREAM i DREAM the same dreams as you but with little twist like who is in these dreams..
But because more than 30 people say the same thing  got to be god ..IT'S WHAT BRAINS ACT LIKE WE ARE ALL HUMANS WITH A BRAIN..
IT FUNCTIONS THE SAME..

Now i think your wasting your time but if you think your not then good luck because i am a believer that nothing is impossible in this day and age..
So one day you might prove us all wrong..And then you got to prove it's to do with god
So good luck with your quest..And most important we need proof your right.. And not with writing show us so are eyes can see the proof to your claims..
GOOD LUCK..Still think your better wasting your time doing something else..YOU MIGHT PROVE US WRONG..
Like winning the lottery jackpot 10 times so good luck..plus people wanting to know if an after life for hundreds maybe thousands of years with no joy of proof..

None of this is significant either way. Why not? Because it is a little thing for God to remember every little thing about the life of a person, and to keep the person's soul alive without the body if necessary. And God can instantly materialize a new body for any soul He wants at any time.

And yet he could not save himself.  He let people to commit a cardinal sin in order to forgive sins???  Did he forgive Daesh sins as well?

Do you mean Jesus could not save Himself from death on the cross? His Father saved Him. He arose on the third day after. He is alive right now, and in control of everything, because His Father gave Him control.

People commit sins because they want to, or because they are weak. All sins have been forgiven except one... the sin against the Holy spirit.

Your Christian mythology has some serious holes....

Muslims bring this up all the time:  "Allah is more powerful, he would never let people crucify him.  Christian god is not powerful, he let humans kill him and could not save himself."

BADecker, if your guy in the sky is so powerful, ask him to post a message here and sign it with my bitcoin address private keys. :-)
If he does not know how to use bitcoin, explain it to him :-)

Jesus didn't "let" people crucify Him. He invited it, at the correct time, of course. Why did Jesus do this? Here's why.

In the Garden, at the Beginning, there were only two people and the snake (Satan, the Devil, was in the snake.). The people had control at that time, but didn't realize how powerful their control was. Satan tempted them to eat the fruit, and when they did, they gave their control over to Satan by listening to his temptations. Satan took control, but death followed for people... we all give in to the temptation from Satan.

Jesus never gave in to the temptation from Satan. He died the death without giving in to the temptation, thereby taking back the control. (When a person is dead, he can no longer be tempted to do anything. His position is locked in.)

Now, because of Jesus death, people have control, again. Why? Because Satan can never tempt Him to sin again. Jesus arose from the dead to prove it. His Father gave Him all authority in Heaven and on Earth for what He did.

Jesus has promised salvation from death for all who believe in Him. But you can't know this if you only read Islamic texts, because Islamic texts have serious gaps and holes in them. You know which book to read to understand this.

[BADecker]

And yet he could not save himself.  He let people to commit a cardinal sin in order to forgive sins???  Did he forgive Daesh sins as well?

Do you mean Jesus could not save Himself from death on the cross? His Father saved Him. He arose on the third day after. He is alive right now, and in control of everything, because His Father gave Him control.

People commit sins because they want to, or because they are weak. All sins have been forgiven except one... the sin against the Holy spirit.

Your Christian mythology has some serious holes....

Muslims bring this up all the time:  "Allah is more powerful, he would never let people crucify him.  Christian god is not powerful, he let humans kill him and could not save himself."

BADecker, if your guy in the sky is so powerful, ask him to post a message here and sign it with my bitcoin address private keys. :-)
If he does not know how to use bitcoin, explain it to him :-)

Jesus didn't "let" people crucify Him. He invited it, at the correct time, of course. Why did Jesus do this? Here's why.

In the Garden, at the Beginning, there were only two people and the snake (Satan, the Devil, was in the snake.). The people had control at that time, but didn't realize how powerful their control was. Satan tempted them to eat the fruit, and when they did, they gave their control over to Satan by listening to his temptations. Satan took control, but death followed for people... we all give in to the temptation from Satan.

Jesus never gave in to the temptation from Satan. He died the death without giving in to the temptation, thereby taking back the control. (When a person is dead, he can no longer be tempted to do anything. His position is locked in.)

Now, because of Jesus death, people have control, again. Why? Because Satan can never tempt Him to sin again. Jesus arose from the dead to prove it. His Father gave Him all authority in Heaven and on Earth for what He did.

Jesus has promised salvation from death for all who believe in Him. But you can't know this if you only read Islamic texts, because Islamic texts have serious gaps and holes in them. You know which book to read to understand this.

You are funny.  Gaps and holes?  Just listen to Ricky for an "in-depth" analysis of the Bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oH0ReL3Cew

Mwahahahahaha! You and Ricky try to mock God. You can't do it. You will die. And when He raises you in the judgment, He will show you how you have only mocked yourself.

But this isn't what He really wants. Come now, and believe Him, so that you can be saved. He'll forgive you for all that attempted mockery of Him.

[qwik2learn]

The only people who see a white light, etc, are religious... if you are not religious, you see aliens, or some other weird shit

You are totally wrong about that! Admit it!
Source:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a50
Another source:
http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a26