A Question for Atheists..

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your focus here is on PW,

Yes, because that's what the thread is about. That's the main theme of the OP.

 

[Loaai]

Back in #26 I stated that if people find comfort in such ideas, that's fine.
I define "magic" as the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality, and "miracle" as that subset of magic which is said to be performed by a supernatural being which is worshiped.
We don't know who wrote the Qur'an. Although we think it comes from around the time of Muhammad, we don't know if it had been written by someone else a little earlier, or at the same time. Put it this way ─ which of these possibilities is more likely: (a) that it was written by someone else and influenced Muhammad (b) that Muhammad was the author and was better educated than the evidence otherwise suggests (c) that it was dictated by a supernatural being. It seems obvious, uncontroversial, that the chances of (a) are distinctly high, the chances of (b) are not impossible, and the chances of (c) are indeed impossible.
There's that nasty punitive streak again, the bully who rules by threats and acts of violence both purposeful and arbitrary.
The Big Bang theory says no such thing. Instead it postulates a singularity as close to infinitely compact as physics will allow, which expanded with colossal force, creating within itself the universe ... and so on.
I wish Professor Palmer well, as I wish people of goodwill everywhere well, but how many Muslims have lost their faith as they learnt and understood modern cosmology, modern physics?
Thales, generally regarded as the originator of Greek philosophy, said that water was the basis of matter c. 600 BCE. That someone should say water was the basis of life a thousand years later doesn't seem at all extraordinary to me. And although modern theories of abiogenesis postulate the likelihood that life originated in water, however life started, it was not made from water but simply from chemical events probably taking place in water.
The trouble is that the statement is so vague that no single clear meaning appropriate to physics can be attached to it.

And if we ignore that aspect, why would a god make statements to [his] followers that they wouldn't be able to understand for another 1400 years?
No, that sounds more like the biblical idea of the firmament ─ the sky as a hard dome you can walk on. (The bible also thinks the stars are attached to it.)
I'm wholly unpersuaded. Fundamentalist Christians make similar arguments from the bible which don't stand scrutiny either.


You don't address the moral problem that seems to me to be central ─ you describe fear, the threat of divine violence, death and post-mortal torment, as the substitute for respect; and also punishment / torment instead of healing.

My morality rejects all of those out of hand.

"I wish Professor Palmer well, as I wish people of goodwill everywhere well, but how many Muslims have lost their faith as they learnt and understood modern cosmology, modern physics?"

Ironically, They have became more religious and more tied to God! The Quran is not a book of science it is divine revelation. However, there are certainly facts in the Quran which coincide with modern discoveries. Science is susceptible to change the Quran is not. There are quite a few facts in the Quran which align with modern discoveries which cant have been known previously.

'We don't know who wrote the Qur'an."

Please read before mentioning anything according to your mind. Don't say 'We' It's only You who doesn't know it's origin, and that --> History of the Quran - Wikipedia further proves why there is only a single Qur'an version.

"The clock drew near and the moon has splitted" 1: AlKammar: Qur'an
Another verse that mentions splitting of the moon 1400 years ago, and this was proven to be right recently.

"You don't address the moral problem that seems to me to be central ─ you describe fear, the threat of divine violence, death and post-mortal torment, as the substitute for respect; and also punishment / torment instead of healing."

God's mercy comes before his torment, People who have obeyed his rules and believed in him will live immortally in unimaginable heavens, so you're telling me that people who didn't should also live in such heavens? If that happened then THAT would be unfair, and would spoil the whole test.

We as human beings didn't create law for nothing, didn't create courts to be empty and didn't create prisons to be abandoned, Why? Because we know that there are some insane/criminal people who deserve to be in them, and should be in them. We know they are miserable places, but they have to exist in order to keep justice in the world.

If you think God should have everyone in heaven no matter what they do in their lives, then I would be the first one to skip this whole thing and suicide! I think you should rethink logically about how justice works.

 

[Loaai]

This is just Pascal's Wager. It's not generally accepted by atheists because:

1. It assumes a false binary. It isn't atheism or your religion, it's atheism and thousands of religions with different ideas about gods and afterlives. I don't see any more reason to believe Christian or Jewish or Muslim beliefs about it are more worthy than Asartu or Hindu or Hellenists or Wiccans.

2. It assumes atheism is chosen. I'm not an atheist because I choose to be. I'm an atheist because I haven't been convinced by any claims of gods. I can't choose to be a theist just because someone argues 'it would be better for me.'

3. It assumes lip service would be rewarded. Since we established that I don't actually believe gods exist and the only reason given by Pascal's wager is avoid punishment/get reward, we can safely say that this behavior is insincere. Not because of love of God or mankind but because of selfish motivation. Most gods are against that sort of thing. So there's no point in trying to carrot or stick afterlife claims to an atheist.

4. It assumes irreligious (which aren't always atheist or theist) have no more objection to religious ritual than just waste of time. Rather than systematic oppression of out-tribal groups religious people often participate in: i.e. persecution of gays and trans for no better reason than 'my religion told me to.'

5. Lastly, it assumes that you should be seeking approval from a god is a value that every theist has. Lots of theists don't believe their god or gods seek your approval. And lots of atheists, like myself, don't believe in authoritarianism and don't believe 'because I said so' is an acceptable answer. Hence why the so-called 'atheist wager' exists.
It goes like this:

"1- I don't see any more reason to believe Christian or Jewish or Muslim beliefs about it are more worthy than Asartu or Hindu or Hellenists or Wiccans."

The most logical religions are Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Islam is the last one which is also confirmed in the bible that's why if you think you should look for an answer for this question you should read about Islam.

"2- I'm not an atheist because I choose to be. I'm an atheist because I haven't been convinced by any claims of gods."

There has been a lot of miracles in the Qur'an and the fact that an illiterate person was able to 'invent' a 600 page poetry book is in itself a separate miracle

"3 - Since we established that I don't actually believe gods exist and the only reason given by Pascal's wager is avoid punishment/get reward, we can safely say that this behavior is insincere."

We (as Muslims) are established to believe that his mercy always comes before his torment and we realise that he has mentioned torment not to be injustice. In fact he mentioned that to justice between those who believe in him with those who don't, only the believers should go to heaven. Otherwise, it would be unfair.

"4- Rather than systematic oppression of out-tribal groups religious people often participate in: i.e. persecution of gays and trans for no better reason than 'my religion told me to.'"

If you look at the moral and scientific part of it, it would make sense. Homosexuality was proven scientifically to be harmful mentally and physically for those who practise it, and till now is looked to be abnormal among most societies, and if you believe in the first place then you will have to treat any word/sentence in your holy book to be divine, thus require no further debate, just like we know that there is air around us, I can't debate you that there is not as we can't see it. We know it's there, we believe.

"5- Lastly, it assumes that you should be seeking approval from a god is a value that every theist has. Lots of theists don't believe their god or gods seek your approval"

Every Muslim believes 100% that God doesn't seek anybodies approval. If he does, then he's not actaully God. You should be the one who seeks his approval! And here lies the biggest barrier for atheists, Dignity. You see.. God is called God for a reason, if you believe he exists then you should obey his rules and beg for his mercy because you simply confirm that he is your creator, most atheists think this is not justified, but as I said, We (as Muslims) believe that his mercy always comes before his torment and we realise that he mentioned torment NOT to be injustice. In fact he mentioned that to justice between those who believe in him with those who don't, only the believers should go to heaven. Otherwise, it would be unfair.

 

[blü 2]

'We don't know who wrote the Qur'an."

Please read before mentioning anything according to your mind. Don't say 'We' It's only You who doesn't know it's origin, and that --> History of the Quran - Wikipedia further proves why there is only a single Qur'an version.

The point I made was and is that we don't know that Muhammad wrote it. It's unlikely but possible. We do know that God didn't dictate it ─ that can only be a statement of faith, not of fact. Mormons assert the same thing about their Book of Mormon, for instance, notwithstanding its disconcerting verbosity and prolixity (though only fundamentalists assert God wrote the bible ─ the book itself makes no such claims).

"You don't address the moral problem that seems to me to be central ─ you describe fear, the threat of divine violence, death and post-mortal torment, as the substitute for respect; and also punishment / torment instead of healing."
[ God's mercy comes before his torment, People who have obeyed his rules and believed in him will live immortally in unimaginable heavens, so you're telling me that people who didn't should also live in such heavens? If that happened then THAT would be unfair, and would spoil the whole test.

But you haven't told me why God would demand to be worshiped at all. It sounds like a very human ego trip, the sort of thing very earthly kings (and people like Trump) are keen on. And when someone doesn't believe in God, or believing in God, accuses or rebukes or swears at [him], God has known about that since before [he] made the universe, and has only [him]self to blame if [he] doesn't like it. Indeed, when you're omnipotent, ALL the bucks stop with you ─ there's no other possibility.

And whereas "the compassionate, the merciful" is one of God's titles in Islam, you think [he] rules on earth by terror, and in the afterlife by threats and torments. Your idea of torture instead of healing is barbaric, neither compassionate nor merciful.

 

[Loaai]

The point I made was and is that we don't know that Muhammad wrote it. It's unlikely but possible. We do know that God didn't dictate it ─ that can only be a statement of faith, not of fact. Mormons assert the same thing about their Book of Mormon, for instance, its disconcerting verbosity and prolixity and all (though only fundamentalists assert it about the bible, which contains no such claim).
God's mercy comes before his torment, People who have obeyed his rules and believed in him will live immortally in unimaginable heavens, so you're telling me that people who didn't should also live in such heavens? If that happened then THAT would be unfair, and would spoil the whole test.

Did you even open the wiki link? Of course he didn't write it! He was illiterate, his companions at the time saved every word he said and the Qur'an was written in the year of his death by multiple of his companions who all didn't disagree on a single verse while writing it together. The point is that the Qur'an was revealed from God to a single human being (Muhammed -peace be upon him-) and to prove it, there is only a single version of the Qur'an and there are millions who have studied and have saved Qur'an in their minds, and even the Qur'an it self mentions Muhammed to be the LAST prophet to be sent to humans, also we as Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses because they were also inviting people to worship the only and single God.

I think you always want to ignore the historical facts and just jump to the logic, rational and theoretical thinking and that doesn't apply to historical facts. You are just saying that if God tortures anybody then he's unjust. As I said If he doesn't torture anybody I would be the first one to suicide and skip this whole thing!

This debate is just based of opinions at this point, I have showed you why I believe, now it's up to you to believe or not, it's up to you to actually know the history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. These are the only heavenly religions and they were all inviting people to worship the same only God, if you want to know more about them you have all the tools in the world, but if you're not willing to then that's also completely fine by me, but don't debate about something you haven't read about.

 

[Bird123]

Peace be upon you everybody!

I have seen a lot of atheists here on the forums, but honestly I expected to see believer not atheists; as this site is called "religious forums", but anyway I've had a really interesting question for those who don't believe in after life and think that Its all fake, and as my communist friend once said (Karl Marx) "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

- Let's all assume that this is correct.
that after life is all fake and atheists were correct after all.. nature created the universe, planets, sun, human beings, animals, birds, Everything..but then would it really matter for believers?
20 minutes is the average time that a believer "wastes" everyday to pray, and worship his/her God, a very humble number that never compares to the hours that we all admit to waste on social media and random stuff, if believers are wrong.. Are they sincerely going to be regretful for those "wasted" minutes everyday?
I don't think so.

- Now, Lets assume the opposite.. that after life was true and that there is a single God who created this whole universe, what are atheists going to say then? What are atheists going to say when Heaven and Hell are revealed? and that only those who believed in God will go to heaven and others will not.

To any atheist reading this, I know that pride and dignity are your divine principles, but they won't do anything for you if believers were correct, they won't have any value if you find out that afterlife was true, consider both situations to happen, personally as a believer myself I would never feel ashamed if my beliefs were incorrect, I would never feel ashamed because I would just die and that's it. No afterlife!

For you atheists If believers were to be correct about Heaven, Hell, Afterlife, God, What would you do/say then?

Is this no more than threats and intimidation? Believe or burn in Hell?

What kind of God would create a system where God would know some of his children will end up in Hell forever? Would this not make God a Monster??

Which is the greater sin? 1. Not believing or 2. Frying the kids for not believing.

You see, you can't have it both ways. Either God is Intelligent or God is a monster frying those kids.

For everyone out there, the choice is yours to decide. On the other hand, your choice shows God and the world who you really are and what you need to learn.

When one makes choices ask oneself: Is this how I really want to define myself? Is this really me? Is this a Higher Level? Is this Unconditional Love?

Somehow through all the muddling through all the kiddies are going to make it. Why? It is the only Intelligent thing God can do.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[blü 2]

Did you even open the wiki link? Of course he didn't write it! He was illiterate, his companions at the time saved every word he said and the Qur'an was written in the year of his death by multiple of his companions who all didn't disagree on a single verse while writing it together.

There's no historical basis for what you claim. Nor, despite your previously citing the writing of the Qur'an as a 'miracle', is there anything literally miraculous about your claim here. Back in the real world, the coherence of the writing of the Qur'an points to a single author, or, just possibly but improbably, a single redactor.

The point is that the Qur'an was revealed from God to a single human being (Muhammed -peace be upon him-) and to prove it, there is only a single version of the Qur'an.

That doesn't show Muhammad wrote it. Nor does it show ─ indeed nor can it show ─ God wrote it. Why would God waste [his] time writing the fundamentalists' bible, AND the Qur'an AND the Book of Mormon? These are all obviously human creations, and the first two are not without literary merit.

and there are millions who have studied and have saved Qur'an in their minds, and even the Qur'an it self mentions Muhammed to be the LAST prophet to be sent to humans, also we as Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses because they were also inviting people to worship the only and single God.

So if I write "Everything I write is always and absolutely true" in these posts, you'll accept that?

I think you always want to ignore the historical facts and just jump to the logic, rational and theoretical thinking and that doesn't apply to historical facts. You are just saying that if God tortures anybody then he's unjust. As I said If he doesn't torture anybody I would be the first one to suicide and skip this whole thing!

That's absurd. At the same time, while it's your call. I strongly encourage you not to commit suicide.

This debate is just based of opinions at this point, I have showed you why I believe, now it's up to you to believe or not, it's up to you to actually know the history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

There isn't even a coherent definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether he/she/it/they/other were God or not. the evidence is overwhelming that God exists only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains.

And as for the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I prefer an historian's viewpoint. As Sportin' Life sings in Ira Gershwin's lyric, The things that you're li'ble / to read in the bible [Qur'an / Book of Mormon &c &c] / It ain't necessarily so.

However, you're welcome to your faith. What I disagree with most strongly is your god who prefers to torture people rather than heal them. I continue to think that's barbaric, and that fear is no substitute for respect. Since you wish to believe, it's time you embraced the compassionate, the merciful God, and let go of your Monster in the Dark.

 

[Loaai]

There's no historical basis for what you claim. Nor, despite your previously citing the writing of the Qur'an as a 'miracle', is there anything literally miraculous about your claim here. Back in the real world, the coherence of the writing of the Qur'an points to a single author, or, just possibly but improbably, a single redactor.
That doesn't show Muhammad wrote it. Nor does it show ─ indeed nor can it show ─ God wrote it. Why would God waste [his] time writing the fundamentalists' bible, AND the Qur'an AND the Book of Mormon? These are all obviously human creations, and the first two are not without literary merit.
So if I write "Everything I write is always and absolutely true" in these posts, you'll accept that?
That's absurd. At the same time, while it's your call. I strongly encourage you not to commit suicide.
There isn't even a coherent definition of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we could determine whether he/she/it/they/other were God or not. the evidence is overwhelming that God exists only as a concept / thing imagined in individual brains.

And as for the history of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, I prefer an historian's viewpoint. As Sportin' Life sings in Ira Gershwin's lyric, The things that you're li'ble / to read in the bible [Qur'an / Book of Mormon &c &c] / It ain't necessarily so.

However, you're welcome to your faith. What I disagree with most strongly is your god who prefers to torture people rather than heal them. I continue to think that's barbaric, and that fear is no substitute for respect. Since you wish to believe, it's time you embraced the compassionate, the merciful God, and let go of your Monster in the Dark.

"There's no historical basis for what you claim."

I don't know if you understand how history works but with your logic I would ask.. who wrote the Bible? and who wrote the Torah? who wrote Qur'an?
An illiterate person?
Of course not.
Someone invented it?
No, because it has literal miracles and it's eloquence is unmatched by any book.
Wrote by God?
No, But it was revealed/recited to prophets who would then recite what has been revealed to them to their people at the time, then these people would save what they heard in their minds by heart to be then written after the death of Muhammed -peace be upon him-.

I don't understand why you just don't want to accept history! critics before you were much genuine and better honestly, they were criticizing more debatable topics that actually makes sense, ironically you're here just denying historical facts.

"Since you wish to believe, it's time you embraced the compassionate, the merciful God, and let go of your Monster in the Dark."

I personally would feel annoyed if I found an atheist with me in heaven! and not only me, I would say most believers would consider this to be unjust too, why would someone who worshipped God for years go heaven with those who cursed, insulted and denied his existence, if you think God should "heal" those who didn't believe (which is more like 'Give them heaven'), then I as a believer would see this unjust. Your opinion is different from mine, you believe that's "barbaric" I believe this is justice.

 

[blü 2]

"There's no historical basis for what you claim."

I don't know if you understand how history works but with your logic I would ask.. who wrote the Bible?

None of the Tanakh authors is known with certainty, and in the NT the nearest to an exception is Paul, who I think was historical, though I'm aware of arguments that he was devised by supporters of Marcion in the 2nd century CE.

who wrote Qur'an?

We don't know.

Someone invented it?

Obviously, but they may have been reflecting an existing tradition or taking such a tradition a step further.

No, because it has literal miracles and it's eloquence is unmatched by any book.
Wrote by God?

There is not even one authenticated example of a miracle, in any religion.

No, But it was revealed/recited to prophets who would then recite what has been revealed to them to their people at the time

What test can I use to tell whether any person, but particularly one deemed a prophet, is actually delivering the words of God, and if so, which God, or is mistaken or deluded, or is adopting "God" to reinforce his or her credibility, or is passing off his or her own opinion as from God, or is just plain making stuff up?

I don't understand why you just don't want to accept history! critics before you were much genuine and better honestly, they were criticizing more debatable topics that actually makes sense, ironically you're here just denying historical facts.

What "historical facts" specifically?

And as I said, God has no definition appropriate to a real being, one with objective existence, one not wholly conceptual/imaginary. That implies to me that even believers don't think God is real, that is, exists otherwise than as a shared concept.

Or to take my usual illustration of this point, what objective test will determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not? If God is real, not imaginary, then God must exist in nature and there must be such a test, the same way I can determine whether my keyboard is a ferret, or nitrous oxide, or light in the green band, or the smell of frying onions (none of which it is).

"Since you wish to believe, it's time you embraced the compassionate, the merciful God, and let go of your Monster in the Dark."

Yes, absolutely.

I personally would feel annoyed if I found an atheist with me in heaven! and not only me

Why? Don't you understand all creatures to be God's? Why would unbelief alter that? Why would compassion and mercy cease to apply? What about all those people around the world who have died, or are dying, or will die, never having heard of Islam? Straight into eternal torment?

I would say most believers would consider this to be unjust too, why would someone who worshipped God for years go heaven with those who cursed, insulted and denied his existence, if you think God should "heal" those who didn't believe (which is more like 'Give them heaven'), then I as a believer would see this unjust. Your opinion is different from mine, you believe that's "barbaric" I believe this is justice.

And you don't believe that God is compassionate or merciful and you don't want [him] to be after all the sweat you've put into your faith.

Anyway, we're an enormous distance apart in our moral views. I say heal, you say burn forever in hell. I say understand, you say, Hey, I paid for my ticket, burn the so-and-sos trying to get in free! Hotter, hotter, hotter!

After having been an infant, son, friend, citizen, husband, father and grandfather, I think that what matters is mutual goodwill ─ decency, respect, and inclusion. I have a very high confidence that there's no afterlife, but if there is, then as the Buddha said, if the powers who govern the afterlife are just, I should be okay. (Some Christians share >a similar view<.)

 

[Loaai]

None of the Tanakh authors is known with certainty, and in the NT the nearest to an exception is Paul, who I think was historical, though I'm aware of arguments that he was devised by supporters of Marcion in the 2nd century CE.
We don't know.
Obviously, but they may have been reflecting an existing tradition or taking such a tradition a step further.
There is not even one authenticated example of a miracle, in any religion.
What test can I use to tell whether any person, but particularly one deemed a prophet, is actually delivering the words of God, and if so, which God, or is mistaken or deluded, or is adopting "God" to reinforce his or her credibility, or is passing off his or her own opinion as from God, or is just plain making stuff up?
What "historical facts" specifically?

And as I said, God has no definition appropriate to a real being, one with objective existence, one not wholly conceptual/imaginary. That implies to me that even believers don't think God is real, that is, exists otherwise than as a shared concept.

Or to take my usual illustration of this point, what objective test will determine whether this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not? If God is real, not imaginary, then God must exist in nature and there must be such a test, the same way I can determine whether my keyboard is a ferret, or nitrous oxide, or light in the green band, or the smell of frying onions (none of which it is).
Yes, absolutely.
Why? Don't you understand all creatures to be God's? Why would unbelief alter that? Why would compassion and mercy cease to apply? What about all those people around the world who have died, or are dying, or will die, never having heard of Islam? Straight into eternal torment?
And you don't believe that God is compassionate or merciful and you don't want [him] to be after all the sweat you've put into your faith.

Anyway, we're an enormous distance apart in our moral views. I say heal, you say burn forever in hell. I say understand, you say, Hey, I paid for my ticket, burn the so-and-sos trying to get in free! Hotter, hotter, hotter!

After having been an infant, son, friend, citizen, husband, father and grandfather, I think that what matters is mutual goodwill ─ decency, respect, and inclusion. I have a very high confidence that there's no afterlife, but if there is, then as the Buddha said, if the powers who govern the afterlife are just, I should be okay. (Some Christians share >a similar view<.)

"who wrote Qur'an?
We don't know."

Wow. I'm done trying to convince you with historical facts, you are not even willing to accept history. Believe whatever you want to believe, just don't say 'We'.

"Anyway, we're an enormous distance apart in our moral views. I say heal, you say burn forever in hell. I say understand, you say, Hey, I paid for my ticket, burn the so-and-sos trying to get in free! Hotter, hotter, hotter!

After having been an infant, son, friend, citizen, husband, father and grandfather, I think that what matters is mutual goodwill ─ decency, respect, and inclusion. I have a very high confidence that there's no afterlife, but if there is, then as the Buddha said, if the powers who govern the afterlife are just, I should be okay. (Some Christians share >a similar view<.)"

If a God exists then It's only a single God not "Powers" and he should be always just, I didn't say every non-believer will be tortured forever in hell, In fact some believers even Muslims, Christians, Jews are going to be punished for the sins they did, it's not just about believing it's also about doing good deeds during your lifetime, most atheists do the good deeds only but deny the existence of a creator while others do both, If God exists and he's equitable he will have to judge between those who did good deeds and believed in him, and those who also did good deeds but didn't believe in him.

 

[blü 2]

I didn't say every non-believer will be tortured forever in hell, In fact some believers even Muslims, Christians, Jews are going to be punished for the sins they did,

The barbarous, cruel option instead of the healing option. You and I live in different moral worlds.

Let's leave it there.

 

[Loaai]

The barbarous, cruel option instead of the healing option. You and I live in different moral worlds.

Let's leave it there.

Imagine a world without laws, power, punishements or prison, it would look like heaven and the right thing to do, but in reality it would turn the world into a mayhem.

I'll leave it here.

 

[blü 2]

Imagine a world without laws, power, punishements or prison, it would look like heaven and the right thing to do, but in reality it would turn the world into a mayhem.

I'll leave it here.

We're not talking about rules for earth, we're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient being. One who, in your view, prefers gratuitous and pointless torture to gratify [his] ego and make sure [he] gets the worship [he] craves, none of that sooky, namby-pamby understanding and healing, none of that "the compassionate, the merciful" nonsense.

You're welcome to [him]. Enjoy!

 

[Loaai]

We're not talking about rules for earth, we're talking about an omnipotent, omniscient being. One who, in your view, prefers gratuitous and pointless torture to gratify [his] ego and make sure [he] gets the worship [he] craves, none of that sooky, namby-pamby understanding and healing, none of that "the compassionate, the merciful" nonsense.

You're welcome to [him]. Enjoy!

Have been off for a while, I don't think anybody would actually worship him if he doesn't punish anybody for not doing it. Cruel punishments! Yes of course! Then how are you going to actually worship him if he promise to give heaven to everybody! Those who killed thousands, sined, burnt people would go to heaven with those who got burnt to death by them, ***MOD EDIT***

 

[blü 2]

I don't think anybody would actually worship him if he doesn't punish anybody for not doing it.

What a vain little god that god must be! Why would an omnipotent being give a stale cookie whether anyone worships [him] or not?

Cruel punishments! Yes of course! Then how are you going to actually worship him if he promise to give heaven to everybody! Those who killed thousands, sined, burnt people would go to heaven with those who got burnt to death by them, ***MOD EDIT***

So your god has no idea why people act as they do, how the forces of genetics and environment result in human conduct? Isn't [he] said to be omniscient? If so, that can't be correct.

Because if it were, [his] remedy for people who are deficient or broken would not be to torture them, but to heal them.

I deplore the mentality you attribute to [him] as primitive, ignorant and brutish. You're more than welcome to [him] as long as you keep [him] to yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"
No, because it has literal miracles and it's eloquence is unmatched by any book.

This is repeated by people like you like some kind of mantra. But it's just some empty claim.
It's a subjective opinion. There's no objective measure for this at all.

From my perspective, it is not surprising though that such books achieve a certain level of "eloquence" and literature standards. After all, would you expect a story that reads like it was written by a 5-year old to gather such a following for millennia? I sure wouldn't.

As for the "miracles": just more empty claims. All bark and no bite.

I don't understand why you just don't want to accept history! critics before you were much genuine and better honestly, they were criticizing more debatable topics that actually makes sense, ironically you're here just denying historical facts.

What "historical facts" are you talking about?

I personally would feel annoyed if I found an atheist with me in heaven! and not only me, I would say most believers would consider this to be unjust too, why would someone who worshipped God for years go heaven with those who cursed, insulted and denied his existence, if you think God should "heal" those who didn't believe (which is more like 'Give them heaven'), then I as a believer would see this unjust. Your opinion is different from mine, you believe that's "barbaric" I believe this is justice.

What I would consider unjust is for people to be judged to an eternal reward or an eternal punishment based on what they believed (mostly because of geographic accident in 99.99% of cases), instead of based on how they lived their lives and behaved themselves towards their fellow man.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have been off for a while, I don't think anybody would actually worship him if he doesn't punish anybody for not doing it.

This is like, literally, the modus operandi of the likes of Kim Jong Un.

Cruel punishments! Yes of course! Then how are you going to actually worship him if he promise to give heaven to everybody! Those who killed thousands, sined, burnt people would go to heaven with those who got burnt to death by them, ***MOD EDIT***

Please.

In your theology, an atheist who's all flower power and who treats everyone with ridiculous amounts of respects and who never even squashed a bug in his life, gets the exact same treatment as Hitler would.

For the "crime" of not being a believer who worships allah.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So your god has no idea why people act as they do, how the forces of genetics and environment result in human conduct? Isn't [he] said to be omniscient? If so, that can't be correct.

Because if it were, [his] remedy for people who are deficient or broken would not be to torture them, but to heal them.

A bit off topic, but this reminded me of the Netflix show "The Good Place".
If you have Netflix and haven't watched this show, I recommend it.

It's a comedy, but I think to story line is very interesting and thought provoking.
In a nutshell: there's an afterlife and a system of scoring behavior. One needs a certain amount of points to be able to go to the Good Place. If you don't score enough during life, you end up in the Bad Place. But the system is "broken".

I'll leave it at that otherwise there will be too many spoilers.

 

[Inquire of God]

Peace be upon you everybody!

I have seen a lot of atheists here on the forums, but honestly I expected to see believer not atheists; as this site is called "religious forums", but anyway I've had a really interesting question for those who don't believe in after life and think that Its all fake, and as my communist friend once said (Karl Marx) "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

- Let's all assume that this is correct.
that after life is all fake and atheists were correct after all.. nature created the universe, planets, sun, human beings, animals, birds, Everything..but then would it really matter for believers?
20 minutes is the average time that a believer "wastes" everyday to pray, and worship his/her God, a very humble number that never compares to the hours that we all admit to waste on social media and random stuff, if believers are wrong.. Are they sincerely going to be regretful for those "wasted" minutes everyday?
I don't think so.

- Now, Lets assume the opposite.. that after life was true and that there is a single God who created this whole universe, what are atheists going to say then? What are atheists going to say when Heaven and Hell are revealed? and that only those who believed in God will go to heaven and others will not.

To any atheist reading this, I know that pride and dignity are your divine principles, but they won't do anything for you if believers were correct, they won't have any value if you find out that afterlife was true, consider both situations to happen, personally as a believer myself I would never feel ashamed if my beliefs were incorrect, I would never feel ashamed because I would just die and that's it. No afterlife!

For you atheists If believers were to be correct about Heaven, Hell, Afterlife, God, What would you do/say then?

If belief in no God were correct and if everyone believed that imagine how awful the world would be.
We would literally have zero laws, everyone would just do whatever they wanted to and none of it would be good, moral nor ethical, all of these qualities came from religious beliefs. There is no civilization without religion, there is no structure of safety, no farming, no education nothing of any value. Those who believe in no God do so because right now they can get away with it, the time is coming when they will no longer be able to deny and to influence others to deny and reject. When that time comes they will no longer have a voice until they come around to the right way of thinking, because no one will listen to them and they will know they are not going to be listened to. Their freedom to disbelieve is a temporary condition.

 

[Tao82]

If belief in no God were correct and if everyone believed that imagine how awful the world would be.
We would literally have zero laws, everyone would just do whatever they wanted to and none of it would be good, moral nor ethical, all of these qualities came from religious beliefs. There is no civilization without religion, there is no structure of safety, no farming, no education nothing of any value. Those who believe in no God do so because right now they can get away with it, the time is coming when they will no longer be able to deny and to influence others to deny and reject. When that time comes they will no longer have a voice until they come around to the right way of thinking, because no one will listen to them and they will know they are not going to be listened to. Their freedom to disbelieve is a temporary condition.

Are you being serious or sarcastic? What you wrote is so ridiculous and counter to reality I can't tell.