Question about atheists

Benjamin Taylor6 said:A true believer can't look at it that way. The Bible is a book given directly by God—meaning, it was recorded by individuals who were divinely inspired.

It’s very similar to how these newer faiths came about:

Mormons call themselves: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This movement was founded in 1830 by Joseph ( Joe ) Smith (1805–1844) from the USA, whose ancestors migrated from England and belonged to a free Presbyterian church. His father was involved in fortune-telling and gold prospecting, and his mother had a bit of a superstitious streak herself. That kind of religious atmosphere definitely left its mark on Joe. On top of that, he dealt with some significant trauma during his formative years, which led to some mental instability.

He claimed that when he was fourteen, Jesus appeared to him and told him that all existing churches were misguided—and that he was the chosen one to establish a new, true Church of Jesus Christ. He also claimed that a Mormon prophet sent him a messenger, a son of Moron, who told him that several gold plates were buried in a nearby hill. Apparently, these plates were inscribed in a reformed Egyptian language and contained Godly revelation and the history of ancient Americans. With the help of the angel Moron, Smith translated these records and published them as the Book of Mormon. To me, this book just feels like a scattered collection of thoughts from the Old and New Testament mixed with a made-up history of America. It isn't even worth mentioning—though I will—that there have been nearly 4,000 revisions made to this book to date, a fact that speaks volumes about the "authority" of the text.

Stop acting like a programmed robot. And for the record, I didn't put any money into this.🤦

wiredfalcon2 said:The whole thing is, there is no such thing as this "common sense" you keep leaning on. It’s just as common sense to let a guy inside as it is to keep him out. The only logical move is to peek through the window and see if the dude is actually holding an axe or not.

Same deal with the whole seven days of creation thing. There isn't some common sense way to decide if it's an allegory or whatever. All we can do is check if it's actually true—it's not, because the Earth wasn't made in seven days, so what's written in the Bible is just bullshit.

Since there’s no universal common sense, if we're going to play that card, my interpretation of the Bible being a manual for a toaster is just as valid as yours being about soul salvation.

You can't have it both ways. The Bible can't be an allegory and also be literal truth at the same time. And common sense can't be universal if everyone's version is different, which it clearly is.

Look, letting some guy show up at your door in the middle of the night wielding an axe has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Honestly—I don't even know why I bother commenting on this kind of nonsense. You can play dumb until tomorrow for all I care; I really don't give a damn. The thing is, by the day after tomorrow, you’ll probably pick up a book or some piece of writing and finally realize—most of the time—the difference between when a text is being literal and when it's using allegory or metaphor. You won't be hitting yourself in the head with the book like a complete idiot just because you "don't understand" the nuance. I truly have zero desire to go back and forth with someone who lacks even the basic will to have a normal conversation—someone who just types out whatever random garbage pops into their head solely to be contrarian, whether it's because of atheism or whatever else.

Nathan Doyle said:So, if you're really out there claiming that objective morality actually exists, how does that even work in practice... like, what exactly does it cover and where is it all coming from? Is this stuff just etched in stone forever, or is it something that shifts and changes as we go...
I wonder if those kids raised by wolves out in the wild actually possess some kind of objective morality, or if it's all just instinctual survival... it really makes you think about whether right and wrong are hardwired into us from birth or if we have to learn them through society and culture...

I honestly think morality basically started because we just needed a way to make living together less of a headache, you know, like a way for everyone to keep each other in check... When most people actually stick to those social rules—whether they’re written down or just understood by everyone—life gets a lot easier because you finally know what to expect from the people around you and how to act yourself. That’s really the whole deal with morality. As long as a person's own sense of right and wrong doesn't clash too much with the standards of the rest of the community, everything tends to run pretty smoothly and stay in harmony...

My morals don't mean anything? How does that even make sense... If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would've caused so much damage to the people around me and ended up wrecking my own life in the process. But the way things are, I feel good, and I'm actually pretty satisfied with the way I've lived my life and how I'm living it now... It’s not like any of it is worthless...
Am I living some kind of "higher purpose" or whatever? Honestly, I'm just out here living my life. My life *is* my purpose, you know... I try to live it in a way where every single day feels as good as it possibly can, and there's nothing fake about that at all...
Yeah, look, when you start searching for some kind of "meaning" and everything just feels heavy and pointless because you can't find it, you really should consider talking to a professional... I mean, why would you just settle for living life feeling totally drained if there's actual ways to help yourself feel better? It could honestly be anything from a chemical imbalance in your brain to some deep-seated stuff in your subconscious that needs to be dug up and sorted out... Mental health struggles are real, and depression is such a common thing, so there's really no point in acting like it isn't a serious issue...

Honestly, I think concepts like good and evil are just things humans made up to make sense of the world... In reality, there’s really only objective pleasure or benefit versus pain and damage, whether you're looking at the immediate impact or the long-term consequences, in any combination you can imagine. Anything beyond that is just a lie, and no matter how many times people repeat those moral labels, it doesn't actually make them true...

Honestly, that whole dog versus rooster in a ring thing is such a spot-on comparison, I’m actually pretty happy with it... 😁 You believers are all just playing out this imaginary scenario in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and these imaginary rewards and punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were basically designed just to be tested? And then on top of that, you're supposed to love the very thing that created you. It feels just as twisted and tragic as some stray fighting dog loving its owner... but the dog doesn't know any better and doesn't even know how to break free... 😢

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything at all to just hand me a winning hand of cards. If the absolute most an omnipotent being would bother doing for me is give me one silly book and a bunch of narrow-minded people, I'll pass... 😁

It’s pretty much your standard, traditional Christian morality.
Amy Bennett:

Morality basically stems from this fundamental human need to make living in a community a little easier—it’s a way for us to keep one another in check. When most people actually stick to those social rules we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed upon, life becomes predictable; you know what to expect from others and how to carry yourself. That's really the heart of the matter when it comes to morality. As long as an individual's personal code doesn't clash too much with the standards of the community, they’ll generally live in harmony with everyone else.

Alright... so... where do we even begin?
Amy Bennett:

My morals don't mean anything—how can that be? If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would’ve caused a lot more damage to the people around me, and by extension, to myself. But this way, things feel right—I actually feel good about how I’ve lived my life and how I’m living it now. It's not like any of it is worthless.

There’s really no such thing as objective morality. What you have is just a set of personal preferences—which, honestly, are pretty trivial. It’s funny—if you argue that God doesn't exist and that people just made Him up, you can easily flip that logic and apply it to morality, too. And we both know your version of "morality" isn't just about you. Tomorrow, you’ll jump into a thread about abortion and start lecturing about rights or how things *ought* to be, acting like you're discussing some objective truth that's actually up for debate. But it's not. Once you lean into moral relativism, any real moral discourse becomes impossible.

Am I living "my own purpose"? I’m just living my life. My life *is* my purpose—I live it in a way that makes my day-to-day as good as it can be, and there’s nothing dishonest about that.
And yeah, if you’re searching for "meaning" and feeling listless because you can't find it, you should probably seek professional help. Why struggle through being unmotivated when you could get assistance and feel better? It could be a chemical imbalance, or maybe something buried in your subconscious that needs untangling. Mental health issues are real; depression is a common disorder—why pretend otherwise?

But why wouldn't you be listless? There’s really no point in trying to be anything else when everything is ultimately meaningless, including your own existence. Besides, in your worldview, even illness can't truly exist. Illness implies a state where something isn't as it "should" be, but in a mechanical universe without purpose, everything is exactly as it "must" be. This is that recurring issue where the atheistic worldview ends up being totally inverted—it goes completely against our actual experience and how we perceive the world.

Both good and evil are human inventions. Objectively speaking, there is pleasure/benefit and pain/harm—whether short-term or long-term—in varying degrees and combinations. Anything beyond that is just a fiction, and repeating it doesn't make it true.

I was talking about Christianity. But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared the air that good and evil are just fabrications in your view. So, essentially, every moral system you construct is, by definition, just an arbitrary invention of your own—which is exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't even make sense to call it "morality."

Though, I have to say, that dog or rooster in a ring is a really solid analogy; I’m quite pleased with it. 😁 You believers are basically playing out this imaginary match in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and imaginary rewards or punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were created just to be tested? And then to actually love the one who created you? It feels just as twisted and tragic as a fighting dog being devoted to its owner. But the dog doesn't know any better, and it doesn't know how to break free. 😢

We weren't designed for that.

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything to just deal me a winning hand. If all an all-powerful entity would bother to do is give me one silly book and a bunch of stubborn people, I'll pass. 😁

The further this conversation goes, the less you seem to grasp. Or maybe—and I say this with all due respect—it’s just showing that you don't actually *want* to understand, much like the other guy. Honestly, I don't think I could find a better example of my point than you right now. You're skipping over the core issue because you feel like God isn't going to step in and deal you a winning hand just because you want one. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

Christian morality... what even is that? 😁

bluepuma9 said:Christian morality... what even is that? 😁

It’s basically just stone-throwing at anyone who doesn't fit in—whether it's the LGBTQ+ community, kids who won't follow orders, or even just people out gathering firewood on a Saturday...

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

I gotta be honest—I'm not really following you. What are you actually getting at? Could you break that down for me?

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

I mean, I don't know—you tell me. Why exactly is that a flawed argument? Sure, an animal doesn't have the same level of consciousness—they’re basically operating on pure instinct—but they can still feel pain just like any human can. When I talk about suffering, that's specifically what I'm getting at. My point is this: if we're going to complain, we could honestly find something to whine about every single second of our lives, depending on how you look at it. You didn't actually address the "freedom of life" part of my argument, either. I don't see how you're even picturing a free life without the room to mess up.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

We’re circling back to the same loop again—and then people go ahead and label God as evil. Look, I already said it: God allows evil to happen. I’m not denying that He permits it—and honestly, it doesn't seem like any of you are either. The only real difference is that you can't wrap your heads around a God like that. You're expecting a world that’s perfectly manicured, totally devoid of decay, sin, or any kind of darkness. But here's the catch—if you actually want to scrub evil out of existence, you can't do it halfway. To get a world without evil, there can't be even a single stray thought of malice, not one murder, not one moment of lust, not a hint of greed or theft. If we're talking about a world truly free of evil, perfection is the only setting. And that brings us to a world without freedom. Because if you aren't capable of making a mistake—if the option to fail isn't even on the table—then your ability to act is basically neutralized. Your entire experience changes. In other words, it just wouldn't be this world anymore. Not this world of flesh and blood—the world of birth, growth, decay, and death.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Not true. We’re talking about the real world—the actual struggles people deal with every single day. Nobody in the Bible ever promised that life on this planet would be smooth sailing or free from sin. That kind of perfection is only mentioned as a possibility for eternal life, not for our current existence here on Earth.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

That’s a massive mistake right there—I honestly don't get where you're coming from. Why on earth would you try to picture life on Earth as some kind of paradise? It just doesn't work that way. Not with all the sin running rampant and the evil we're dealing with every day.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Not quite. Paradise isn't some destination in this fleeting, messy world of sin and moral tug-of-war—this life is just a facade. It’s basically just the stage set for the real thing happening behind the curtain.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Look, you guys aren't actually making statements of faith here—you're just giving affirmations. You're basically saying you can accept that God exists, but you just can't stomach the reality of this world being so broken. You can't wrap your heads around how decaying and messy everything is—the fact that this isn't some earthly paradise where life is easy and sweet. Why is that, I wonder?

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

Maybe you guys aren't reading between the lines enough if you think that's the only way He's portrayed. I mean, there's plenty of talk about getting beaten in paradise, too. It's like how our parents used to lay a hand on us—for our own good, obviously—just so we wouldn't grow up being rude or disrespectful.

darkraven said:You know how some atheists love to clown on Christians because they think they're worshipping some "invisible old guy floating in the clouds"?

Studies like The faces of god in America : Revealing religious diversity across People and politics almost debunk that notion, which doesn't actually make the idea any less absurd—if anything, it makes it worse. 🤣

The real question is, what even qualifies as evil, death, pain, or decay? If we go down that road, then every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a prayer so the tragedy of its decay doesn't happen. On what grounds would a human being be considered a more valuable creature (assuming there is no God for an atheist)? In a way, this leads to the idea that life—this free existence, full of mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, living, and dying—could only exist exactly like this, where making mistakes is part of the deal. And maybe the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from those mistakes.

When we talk about "evil" in the problem of evil, we’re usually talking about moral evil (the messed-up stuff people do to one another and other animals, like mass killings, war crimes, animal cruelty, etc.) and natural evils that stem from natural laws and processes. These are "evils" from the perspective of the ones getting hit by them and suffering through it. And naturally, from our perspective too, because we feel for those people. That's why humanitarian organizations exist to help victims of natural disasters. It's also why medicine exists, which goes completely against natural selection and a nature that, if it weren't for anthropomorphism, wouldn't want anything more than the total annihilation of life.

Just remember the percentage of all species that have ever lived that went extinct (and why) if you don't believe me.

But you're ignoring all that and the only thing popping into your head is a falling leaf. 🙄

***
What basis do atheists have to claim a human is more valuable than a leaf? GMAFB. I am so sick of these brainless theistic arguments. Honestly, I don't even feel like getting into a debate about it.

We can never truly know what someone else wants or doesn't want. They might be aiming for something entirely different. People can speculate, but they'll never have proof.

To be "good" implies, especially when we're talking about omnibenevolence and ultimate love.

Think about a woman who had most of her brain exposed to elements and was crying in agony while worms ate away at her gray matter—something I saw in a video on a dark corner of the internet—or a small child waiting for death, lying naked in a gas chamber in a Nazi camp, or even that dog from the previous example—how can anyone be "good" while passively watching all of that without doing a single thing, when they have the power to stop it just by moving a finger? This simply does not hold water.

Look, this is where we really start to clash: why does the existence of evil automatically mean God isn't there? This is exactly what I always bring up when I'm grabbing a beer with my atheist buddies: nobody ever promised us a smooth ride or a life made of milk and honey in any of the major religions. It was never a guarantee that everything would be perfect.

Paradise, heaven, and all that.
"The World to Come" and stuff like that.

All those concepts are exactly what you're claiming "nobody ever promised" in organized religion—except, obviously, for the Abrahamic faiths which make up over 50% of believers on this planet.

And they relate directly to the specific concept of God that the problem of evil is trying to attack.

🙄

My counter-question is: how are we even supposed to imagine a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans aren't capable of messing up, then a world of decay has to cease to exist; basically, such a world couldn't inhabit a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys even conceive of freedom if you take away the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life, or rather, the freedom to actually live.

It’s envisioned as paradise, obviously.

Would that also serve as an argument against the existence of heaven? If you believe in paradise and you hold onto the core essence of 'freedom,' then I’m afraid you’re shooting yourself in the foot here.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong thing. Instead of trying to justify existence through something lesser, maybe we should look at it from the opposite angle. Look at the people who do absolutely nothing. They say God allowed evil—famine, death, disease. And yet, these people do nothing for those who are starving or suffering. They totally could. That's an interesting point right there. So yeah—God allowed evil. He even allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in His Son, the greatest righteous man to ever live, dying on a cross because of our sins. That’s precisely what shows that God is sending a message to humanity. Whether people actually listen and discern what He’s trying to tell them is up to them. But honestly, most people just assume they possess all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The God of the Bible is a monster; I’ve never doubted that. Instead of just—pardon my French—needing a bloody, painful human sacrifice. His own Son.

Hands down, the worst fictional Dad ever.

It's not like I ever looked at the biblical God as some embodiment of absolute love or anything. That whole concept comes from different sources entirely.

To me, that’s a weak argument for an atheist, because they're still treating God like he's a living being.

Well, it's not like he's a dead entity or a non-entity. No, that's how most believers picture him anyway. Atheists are just reacting to that specific image.

As a believer, I can tell you you're dead wrong on this one. I don't view God as dead; He's alive. Honestly, according to the Bible, that's something every believer should know and accept.

Amy Bennett said:Look, letting some guy show up at your door in the middle of the night wielding an axe has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Honestly—I don't even know why I bother commenting on this kind of nonsense. You can play dumb until tomorrow for all I care; I really don't give a damn. The thing is, by the day after tomorrow, you’ll probably pick up a book or some piece of writing and finally realize—most of the time—the difference between when a text is being literal and when it's using allegory or metaphor. You won't be hitting yourself in the head with the book like a complete idiot just because you "don't understand" the nuance. I truly have zero desire to go back and forth with someone who lacks even the basic will to have a normal conversation—someone who just types out whatever random garbage pops into their head solely to be contrarian, whether it's because of atheism or whatever else.

It’s pretty much your standard, traditional Christian morality.
Amy Bennett:

Morality basically stems from this fundamental human need to make living in a community a little easier—it’s a way for us to keep one another in check. When most people actually stick to those social rules we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed upon, life becomes predictable; you know what to expect from others and how to carry yourself. That's really the heart of the matter when it comes to morality. As long as an individual's personal code doesn't clash too much with the standards of the community, they’ll generally live in harmony with everyone else.

Alright... so... where do we even begin?
Amy Bennett:

My morals don't mean anything—how can that be? If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would’ve caused a lot more damage to the people around me, and by extension, to myself. But this way, things feel right—I actually feel good about how I’ve lived my life and how I’m living it now. It's not like any of it is worthless.

There’s really no such thing as objective morality. What you have is just a set of personal preferences—which, honestly, are pretty trivial. It’s funny—if you argue that God doesn't exist and that people just made Him up, you can easily flip that logic and apply it to morality, too. And we both know your version of "morality" isn't just about you. Tomorrow, you’ll jump into a thread about abortion and start lecturing about rights or how things *ought* to be, acting like you're discussing some objective truth that's actually up for debate. But it's not. Once you lean into moral relativism, any real moral discourse becomes impossible.

Am I living "my own purpose"? I’m just living my life. My life *is* my purpose—I live it in a way that makes my day-to-day as good as it can be, and there’s nothing dishonest about that.
And yeah, if you’re searching for "meaning" and feeling listless because you can't find it, you should probably seek professional help. Why struggle through being unmotivated when you could get assistance and feel better? It could be a chemical imbalance, or maybe something buried in your subconscious that needs untangling. Mental health issues are real; depression is a common disorder—why pretend otherwise?

But why wouldn't you be listless? There’s really no point in trying to be anything else when everything is ultimately meaningless, including your own existence. Besides, in your worldview, even illness can't truly exist. Illness implies a state where something isn't as it "should" be, but in a mechanical universe without purpose, everything is exactly as it "must" be. This is that recurring issue where the atheistic worldview ends up being totally inverted—it goes completely against our actual experience and how we perceive the world.

Both good and evil are human inventions. Objectively speaking, there is pleasure/benefit and pain/harm—whether short-term or long-term—in varying degrees and combinations. Anything beyond that is just a fiction, and repeating it doesn't make it true.

I was talking about Christianity. But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared the air that good and evil are just fabrications in your view. So, essentially, every moral system you construct is, by definition, just an arbitrary invention of your own—which is exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't even make sense to call it "morality."

Though, I have to say, that dog or rooster in a ring is a really solid analogy; I’m quite pleased with it. 😁 You believers are basically playing out this imaginary match in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and imaginary rewards or punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were created just to be tested? And then to actually love the one who created you? It feels just as twisted and tragic as a fighting dog being devoted to its owner. But the dog doesn't know any better, and it doesn't know how to break free. 😢

We weren't designed for that.

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything to just deal me a winning hand. If all an all-powerful entity would bother to do is give me one silly book and a bunch of stubborn people, I'll pass. 😁

The further this conversation goes, the less you seem to grasp. Or maybe—and I say this with all due respect—it’s just showing that you don't actually *want* to understand, much like the other guy. Honestly, I don't think I could find a better example of my point than you right now. You're skipping over the core issue because you feel like God isn't going to step in and deal you a winning hand just because you want one. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

🤣 bluepuma9 and Nicole James pretty much covered it all. I mean, obviously... 😁

Alyosha said:Okaaaay....?

The thing is, morality doesn't actually come from God, it comes from people. Some folks are convinced it’s divine, but since God is just a human invention too, there's nothing supernatural about morality. It’s just this super natural thing for humans, something that inherently develops when we live together in a community—just a set of values and rules that lets us cooperate and live together somewhat peacefully. It's honestly pretty naive to claim religion is the source of morality when we know it existed thousands of years before any Abrahamic religions even showed up. Your religion is just a result of the morality that was already there being woven into it. It isn't the source.

Alyosha said:There's no such thing as morality. There are just your personal tastes, which are totally insignificant. Just like you say God doesn't exist and is just made up by people, you can easily flip that logic and say the same goes for morality. And we both know your "morality" isn't just about you. Tomorrow you'll jump into a thread about abortion and talk about rights or how things "should" be, acting like you're discussing something objective that can actually be debated. You can't do that; once you dive into "moral" relativism, any kind of moral discourse becomes impossible.

"Personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles for how I act is my morality. And it's definitely not insignificant to me. Did you ever take sociology in school? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how in the standard definition, God and faith aren't even mentioned.
Just one serious question: didn't you have moral principles back when you were an atheist?
And regarding being bold—you can debate everything—both the subjective and the objective.

Alyosha said:Well, why wouldn't someone be aimless? It makes no sense not to be aimless when everything is meaningless anyway, including your own life. Besides, under your worldview, sickness couldn't even exist. Sickness implies a state where something isn't the way it's supposed to be, but in a purposeless, mechanical universe, everything is exactly how it "should" be. That's the issue again, where the atheistic worldview turns everything upside down and completely contradicts our actual experience and perception of the world.

I don't really need some grand saga about a fall from grace, hell, or heaven just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly, if living without faith makes your life feel worthless, maybe you should just take a step back and ask yourself what's actually going on... like, try building a real connection with someone or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... those delusions about God being the ultimate purpose probably aren't fooling anyone entirely, because deep down, that underlying unhappiness is still simmering...

And regarding the whole sickness thing—don't even try to pin that on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. The way a living organism functions biologically is totally independent of how humans define right and wrong from a moral standpoint. If you want to debate the actual definition of disease, we should probably move this over to philosophy or the natural sciences...

Alyosha said:I’m talking specifically about Christianity. But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared the air that good and evil are just fabrications in your worldview. Which means any moral system you construct is, by definition, just your own arbitrary invention, which is exactly my point. It doesn't even make sense to call it "morality"...

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans...

Alyosha said:It wasn't meant for us...

Of course it was intended. You've never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is a heavily edited, expensive book and some guys in robes claiming He exists, even though they haven't seen or heard or felt anything either...

Alyosha said:The further this conversation goes, the less you seem to understand. Or maybe it's just showing that you lack the will to understand, just like that other guy. Honestly, it's hard for me to think of a better example of what I'm trying to say than you right now. You're skipping over points because God isn't going to dictate your hand of cards for you. That's exactly what I mean...

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an almighty being, if one actually existed, to just do that one little thing for me? It's a rhetorical question because the hypothetical situation is incredibly asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically can't damage my brain enough to accept the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an almighty being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He would surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have zero intention of basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and repulsive content...

wiredfalcon2 said:Science was around long before the Bible ever existed.

Sure, in some kind of primitive way. We aren't talking about the modern scientific method that popped up later to shape everything we know today.

But honestly, that's beside the point. It’s not even a real debate when you consider that people have been looking at Bible stories as allegories for way longer than just the last 500 years.

Science has basically proven that the Bible is just a collection of old stories. You've got Adam and Eve, then Noah's Ark... where's the actual empirical evidence? It's non-existent.
The Church just bleeds us dry while they couldn't care less about the poor. I was a believer myself until the day I died, but back then, all I saw was total darkness, not some light at the end of a tunnel... nothing at all.
To the Church, the Earth is still flat and being different is treated like a disease.

Nathan Doyle said:🤣 bluepuma9 and Nicole James pretty much covered it all. I mean, obviously... 😁

The thing is, morality doesn't actually come from God, it comes from people. Some folks are convinced it’s divine, but since God is just a human invention too, there's nothing supernatural about morality. It’s just this super natural thing for humans, something that inherently develops when we live together in a community—just a set of values and rules that lets us cooperate and live together somewhat peacefully. It's honestly pretty naive to claim religion is the source of morality when we know it existed thousands of years before any Abrahamic religions even showed up. Your religion is just a result of the morality that was already there being woven into it. It isn't the source.

"Personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles for how I act is my morality. And it's definitely not insignificant to me. Did you ever take sociology in school? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how in the standard definition, God and faith aren't even mentioned.
Just one serious question: didn't you have moral principles back when you were an atheist?
And regarding being bold—you can debate everything—both the subjective and the objective.

I don't really need some grand saga about a fall from grace, hell, or heaven just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly, if living without faith makes your life feel worthless, maybe you should just take a step back and ask yourself what's actually going on... like, try building a real connection with someone or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... those delusions about God being the ultimate purpose probably aren't fooling anyone entirely, because deep down, that underlying unhappiness is still simmering...

And regarding the whole sickness thing—don't even try to pin that on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. The way a living organism functions biologically is totally independent of how humans define right and wrong from a moral standpoint. If you want to debate the actual definition of disease, we should probably move this over to philosophy or the natural sciences...

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans...

Of course it was intended. You've never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is a heavily edited, expensive book and some guys in robes claiming He exists, even though they haven't seen or heard or felt anything either...

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an almighty being, if one actually existed, to just do that one little thing for me? It's a rhetorical question because the hypothetical situation is incredibly asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically can't damage my brain enough to accept the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an almighty being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He would surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have zero intention of basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and repulsive content...

The evolution of altruism, empathy, and reciprocity in animals can lead to—and has led to—pre-moral feelings, but not actual morality.

Religion didn't just pop up in the human race alongside Abrahamic faiths; we can trace its roots back 50,000 to 60,000 years, all the way back to the first Neanderthal burials... sites where remains were laid to rest, sometimes even intentionally burned.

If religion and spirituality have such ancient roots, how can anyone be so sure which one is the cause and which is the effect?...

"My personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles is my morality. And it matters to me personally. Did you ever take a sociology class? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a set of unwritten rules, customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how the standard definition of morality doesn't mention God or faith at all.

I think that definition is incomplete.

One serious question: didn't you have moral principles when you were an atheist?

Since I used to be—if not an atheist, then pretty indifferent to religion—I'll answer as if it were directed at me...
I had moral principles, but I wasn't aware of their source, and they didn't carry nearly as much weight for me back then.

I don't need some story about a fall, hell, or heaven to stay mentally stable and happy.

This isn't the place to try and convince each other what's necessary and what isn't...

And that goes for your "recommendations" too...

If your life without faith isn't worth living, you'd better take a step back and ask yourself why. Build some decent relationships, find something that actually makes you happy... because those delusions about God being your "purpose" aren't fooling anyone—misery is still simmering underneath.

...which they’re totally missing because you’re acting like you can judge someone's "luck or misfortune" over the internet. Absurd.

Don't try to pin that crap on me regarding illness—seriously. Disease has absolutely zero to do with morality. A living organism functioning correctly has nothing to do with how humans perceive right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to debate the precise definition of disease, let's move this over to philosophy or the hard sciences.

It’s not about whether sickness exists, it’s about how you react to it.

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans.

That’s unprovable via naturalistic methodology, but it’s just as impossible to disprove... believers would say that during that whole process, man was being guided by the hand of God.

Of course it was designed. You’ve never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is an overpriced, edited book and guys in robes claiming He exists—guys who also haven't seen, heard, or felt Him.

You can speak for yourself regarding what you see, hear, and feel... but don't speak for everyone else.

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an omnipotent being—if one existed—to perform that tiny little favor for me? It's a rhetorical question because that hypothetical scenario is infinitely asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically cannot damage my brain enough to take the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He’d surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have no intention of basing my one and only life on a book with questionable sources and offensive content.

An omnipotent being obviously thinks it's better for you not to meet Him just yet... because you aren't ready.
Also, if God wanted people to be physical clones of vending machines or house pets instead of humans with free will, He would have made them that way. But He didn't...

You don't reach God through thinking—especially not by hunting for special effects (like, "make the stars form Your message and turn my hair green..." 🤣 )

...but through surrendering to Him.

Gerald Jackson48 said:Sure, in some kind of primitive way. We aren't talking about the modern scientific method that popped up later to shape everything we know today.

But honestly, that's beside the point. It’s not even a real debate when you consider that people have been looking at Bible stories as allegories for way longer than just the last 500 years.

Yeah, even St. Augustine warned his students about looking like total idiots in front of pagans by trying to defend the faith with absolute nonsense.

I don't really feel like typing out a whole novel here, so I'll just leave this much:

Lisa Jackson7 said:The evolution of altruism, empathy, and reciprocity in animals can lead to—and has led to—pre-moral feelings, but not actual morality.

Religion didn't just pop up in the human race alongside Abrahamic faiths; we can trace its roots back 50,000 to 60,000 years, all the way back to the first Neanderthal burials... sites where remains were laid to rest, sometimes even intentionally burned.

If religion and spirituality have such ancient roots, how can anyone be so sure which one is the cause and which is the effect?...

"My personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles is my morality. And it matters to me personally. Did you ever take a sociology class? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a set of unwritten rules, customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how the standard definition of morality doesn't mention God or faith at all.

I think that definition is incomplete.

One serious question: didn't you have moral principles when you were an atheist?

Since I used to be—if not an atheist, then pretty indifferent to religion—I'll answer as if it were directed at me...
I had moral principles, but I wasn't aware of their source, and they didn't carry nearly as much weight for me back then.

I don't need some story about a fall, hell, or heaven to stay mentally stable and happy.

This isn't the place to try and convince each other what's necessary and what isn't...

And that goes for your "recommendations" too...

If your life without faith isn't worth living, you'd better take a step back and ask yourself why. Build some decent relationships, find something that actually makes you happy... because those delusions about God being your "purpose" aren't fooling anyone—misery is still simmering underneath.

...which they’re totally missing because you’re acting like you can judge someone's "luck or misfortune" over the internet. Absurd.

Don't try to pin that crap on me regarding illness—seriously. Disease has absolutely zero to do with morality. A living organism functioning correctly has nothing to do with how humans perceive right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to debate the precise definition of disease, let's move this over to philosophy or the hard sciences.

It’s not about whether sickness exists, it’s about how you react to it.

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans.

That’s unprovable via naturalistic methodology, but it’s just as impossible to disprove... believers would say that during that whole process, man was being guided by the hand of God.

Of course it was designed. You’ve never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is an overpriced, edited book and guys in robes claiming He exists—guys who also haven't seen, heard, or felt Him.

You can speak for yourself regarding what you see, hear, and feel... but don't speak for everyone else.

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an omnipotent being—if one existed—to perform that tiny little favor for me? It's a rhetorical question because that hypothetical scenario is infinitely asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically cannot damage my brain enough to take the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He’d surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have no intention of basing my one and only life on a book with questionable sources and offensive content.

An omnipotent being obviously thinks it's better for you not to meet Him just yet... because you aren't ready.
Also, if God wanted people to be physical clones of vending machines or house pets instead of humans with free will, He would have made them that way. But He didn't...

You don't reach God through thinking—especially not by hunting for special effects (like, "make the stars form Your message and turn my hair green..." 🤣 )

...but through surrendering to Him.

Yeah, even St. Augustine warned his students about looking like total idiots in front of pagans by trying to defend the faith with absolute nonsense.

How am I supposed to surrender to something that doesn't even exist?
If an Almighty Being thinks I'm not ready, then He's mistaken, because I actually am (like I said before, a simple deck of cards would be plenty 🍿), and since an Almighty Being can't be wrong (or can He? 😁), then obviously He isn't real.

Free will, at least not in the way you believe in it, simply doesn't exist. I don't have it, you guys don't have it. Nobody has it. Free will is the biggest lie Christianity is built upon, because without it, there's no such thing as reward or punishment.

casualwalker18 said:Science has basically proven that the Bible is just a collection of old stories. You've got Adam and Eve, then Noah's Ark... where's the actual empirical evidence? It's non-existent.
The Church just bleeds us dry while they couldn't care less about the poor. I was a believer myself until the day I died, but back then, all I saw was total darkness, not some light at the end of a tunnel... nothing at all.
To the Church, the Earth is still flat and being different is treated like a disease.

Look, NDEs aren't the afterlife described in the Bible. Those two concepts are completely incompatible unless you start getting really aggressive with the cherry-picking. I’ve read countless accounts of these experiences that basically tear Christianity apart, often coming from the mouths of the people claiming to have met "Jesus" themselves during the experience. Some even claim "Jesus" introduces doctrines that fly in the face of Christian teaching, like reincarnation and stuff like that. Even the "God" some people encounter in these visions isn't the God of Abrahamic religions; it's more like some panentheistic concept—this omnipresent consciousness or whatever.

So, yeah, they don't line up at all. Honestly, if I were in your shoes and had an NDE—if I saw the tunnel and everything—and if I were gullible enough to take that as definitive proof of an afterlife where the consciousness exists independently of the body, I’d actually see it as yet another reason to toss the Bible aside, not the other way around like you're thinking.

The core message of the Bible is about the resurrection of the body, not some disembodied existence in the afterlife. Most biblical scholars would tell you that the philosophical dualism required to make your point is a Greek Trojan horse, not something purely biblical. There are plenty of Christians who reject dualism and any idea of a soul existing outside the body. From their perspective, the fact that you weren't conscious makes perfect sense.

P.S.
You didn't die. Death is final. You're still here. You can't have it both ways.

So, it just doesn't add up... If I were in your shoes, having had an NDE—seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and all that—and if I was gullible enough to take it as proof of alien life or consciousness existing outside the body, I’d probably see it as one more reason to walk away from Christianity, not embrace it like you’re suggesting...

If I’d actually seen a tunnel, I’d know there was something there, but for me, clinical death was more like just flicking a light switch on and off... Christianity itself is fine, I guess, but the way the church handles things is just off. There's way too much politics mixed into faith these days; it feels like religion has turned into a political movement rather than something deeply personal... I don't know enough about theology to be an expert, but the whole forced-belief thing is just pretty lame...

Maybe you just blacked out back then...

But honestly, death isn't much different. One second you're here, and the next... you're just gone.

casualwalker18 said:

So, it just doesn't add up... If I were in your shoes, having had an NDE—seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and all that—and if I was gullible enough to take it as proof of alien life or consciousness existing outside the body, I’d probably see it as one more reason to walk away from Christianity, not embrace it like you’re suggesting...

If I’d actually seen a tunnel, I’d know there was something there, but for me, clinical death was more like just flicking a light switch on and off... Christianity itself is fine, I guess, but the way the church handles things is just off. There's way too much politics mixed into faith these days; it feels like religion has turned into a political movement rather than something deeply personal... I don't know enough about theology to be an expert, but the whole forced-belief thing is just pretty lame...

The whole concept of an afterlife isn't automatically synonymous with immortality, nor does it mean you immediately continue having subjective experiences in some out-of-body state right after you pass.

You’re probably using "afterlife" to mean one of those two things—this idea of personal survival that lasts forever—but that’s definitely not the only way to look at it.

On the flip side, you’ve got the idea of impersonal survival. It’s like those Eastern philosophies where you merge with a "higher self" or some kind of universal consciousness, basically losing your personality and individuality in the process. Then you have different ways of surviving within a physical framework, like the resurrection of the body along with the mind/ego (which works with the idea that there’s zero consciousness between death and resurrection—kind of like Christian mortalism), or even something like mind uploading, which would let an ego persist but in a totally different material medium.

And for the record, there’s absolutely no guarantee that even if you do survive death in an out-of-body state, that existence is eternal. Some people believe it’s just a temporary phase that eventually ends in total annihilation or that same impersonal merging where the ego gets wiped out anyway.

Basically, the idea of life after death is way more complicated than people give it credit for.

Also, when you say "I was switched off and back on," in scientific terms, that’s just losing and recovering consciousness. That isn't a description of clinical death. Clinical death is when you stop breathing and your blood stops circulating because your heart either fails or just quits entirely.

And you can lose and regain consciousness for a million different reasons. Like, general anesthesia, an epileptic seizure, a concussion, whatever. None of that is clinical death.

Nathan Doyle said:🤣 bluepuma9 and Nicole James pretty much covered it all. I mean, obviously... 😁

The thing is, morality doesn't actually come from God, it comes from people. Some folks are convinced it’s divine, but since God is just a human invention too, there's nothing supernatural about morality. It’s just this super natural thing for humans, something that inherently develops when we live together in a community—just a set of values and rules that lets us cooperate and live together somewhat peacefully. It's honestly pretty naive to claim religion is the source of morality when we know it existed thousands of years before any Abrahamic religions even showed up. Your religion is just a result of the morality that was already there being woven into it. It isn't the source.

"Personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles for how I act is my morality. And it's definitely not insignificant to me. Did you ever take sociology in school? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how in the standard definition, God and faith aren't even mentioned.
Just one serious question: didn't you have moral principles back when you were an atheist?
And regarding being bold—you can debate everything—both the subjective and the objective.

I don't really need some grand saga about a fall from grace, hell, or heaven just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly, if living without faith makes your life feel worthless, maybe you should just take a step back and ask yourself what's actually going on... like, try building a real connection with someone or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... those delusions about God being the ultimate purpose probably aren't fooling anyone entirely, because deep down, that underlying unhappiness is still simmering...

And regarding the whole sickness thing—don't even try to pin that on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. The way a living organism functions biologically is totally independent of how humans define right and wrong from a moral standpoint. If you want to debate the actual definition of disease, we should probably move this over to philosophy or the natural sciences...

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans...

Of course it was intended. You've never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is a heavily edited, expensive book and some guys in robes claiming He exists, even though they haven't seen or heard or felt anything either...

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an almighty being, if one actually existed, to just do that one little thing for me? It's a rhetorical question because the hypothetical situation is incredibly asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically can't damage my brain enough to accept the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an almighty being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He would surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have zero intention of basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and repulsive content...

I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

Amy Bennett said:I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

It is. Everything was developed by humans, including religions...

If you had a moral code back when you were an atheist, was it meaningless then? Did you just not act according to it?

Claiming there's an "objective morality" is just like claiming there's "objective art." Both art and morality come from people, and you can't precisely define how either should look, especially since both vary from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define "objective art."
It's pretty ridiculous to say traditional Christian morality is objective, just like it would be stupid to say Confucian morality is objective. It's like saying Expressionism is objective art. There's nothing "objective" about it...

So I guess that predator follows that traditional Christian morality?
I remember seeing a breakdown on a forum once showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is way higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting... I went looking for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you've got maybe one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), but among priests, it's one in 20.

Alisha said:So, what you're saying is you don't even believe spiritual experiences are real?

But what does that even mean, a "spiritual experience"?
If you're talking about things like visions or divine revelations, there's just zero proof that people aren't just lying or maybe having some kind of hallucination...
Just because someone hallucinates seeing God doesn't mean they actually saw God, it just means they experienced something and then decided to label it as "God."

Alisha said:Anyone who’s genuinely searching can find God. It’s not like God owes you anything just because you’re too lazy to actually study the stuff you’re so busy criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of my point right here. You're acting like some judge at a circus, making demands of God. Like, "Look how smart and rational I am, I won't accept anything without hard evidence," but you aren't even looking for any actual evidence to begin with. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset...

I’m not making demands of God because God isn't real.
And man, look at the tone you're using with me, especially coming from a Christian... Pride and wrath are literal deadly sins, you know... 🙂

Amy Bennett said:I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

Yeah, I was trying to be brief, so I guess I ended up being vague...

I already wrote entire essays on Religion and I honestly don't have the energy to keep repeating myself. Should I really sit here and debate someone's anthropomorphic views of God (I almost lost it there)?

Anyway, it might make more sense to talk about this book instead...

copperhound12 said:A brilliant (and quite eye-opening) book: "What We Believe, We Who Don't Believe in God"

I don't feel any kind of hostility toward God. I'm a pantheist. ☕

If anyone's read it, let me know which ones... there are a few people sharing their stories at this link.
“WHAT WE BELIEVE, WE WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD” – STATEMENTS FROM FAMOUS AMERICAN ATHEISTS AND AGNOSTICS

First impression? These aren't just mindless ramblings.
Even if these 7 or 8 didn't blow my mind with anything groundbreaking, they at least have a personal touch—which is pretty decent, especially considering a book on this topic even exists.

casualwalker18 said:

So, it just doesn't add up... If I were in your shoes, having had an NDE—seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and all that—and if I was gullible enough to take it as proof of alien life or consciousness existing outside the body, I’d probably see it as one more reason to walk away from Christianity, not embrace it like you’re suggesting...

If I’d actually seen a tunnel, I’d know there was something there, but for me, clinical death was more like just flicking a light switch on and off... Christianity itself is fine, I guess, but the way the church handles things is just off. There's way too much politics mixed into faith these days; it feels like religion has turned into a political movement rather than something deeply personal... I don't know enough about theology to be an expert, but the whole forced-belief thing is just pretty lame...

Look, you can totally be a Christian and still feel like the Church, as an institution right now, has completely lost its way.
When someone says "too much politics in the church," they could mean a lot of things... but if it's because the church hierarchy and the government are essentially intertwined—even if not legally—then we've got a massive problem for the church, the country, society, and anyone actually trying to maintain their faith.

But let's be real: practicing faith enters the public sphere—it was never *just* a private matter.
We have to draw a line between the public square (civil society) and actual government institutions.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, you can totally be a Christian and still feel like the Church, as an institution right now, has completely lost its way.
When someone says "too much politics in the church," they could mean a lot of things... but if it's because the church hierarchy and the government are essentially intertwined—even if not legally—then we've got a massive problem for the church, the country, society, and anyone actually trying to maintain their faith.

But let's be real: practicing faith enters the public sphere—it was never *just* a private matter.
We have to draw a line between the public square (civil society) and actual government institutions.

It really makes you wonder if in reality believers and atheists can actually coexist and function well together? It gets tricky, especially when one side or the other starts trying to push their views onto everyone else's personal liberties. Honestly, both sides have tried to pull that kind of thing throughout history.

Saying "I went out and came back" is just scientific shorthand for losing and regaining consciousness. It isn’t a description of clinical death. Clinical death is when you actually stop breathing and your blood stops circulating because your heart either fails or just quits on you entirely...

darkraven, what are you, some doctor or a preacher? You're talking nonsense—I had two strokes and my heart stopped. And you call that just passing out? Besides, I didn't see God or Jesus or anything. When I finally came to, there was a priest standing over me, and I pretty much kicked him out of the room. It sounds crude, but I don't regret it. Just Google pneumothorax and extra-corporeal circulation if you want the real story...
I was baptized, but honestly, that whole sect is so disconnected from the people and the Bible...