The true believe of atheists: Everlasting death and no punishment for sins!

[Hollie]

Why would sane folks believe in everlasting death having a lot of proofs for afterlife?Instead to prepare themselves for God's judgment after dead they poison societies with wrong claims there are neither God nor punishment for sins.
BTW almost all of biggest criminals of all times where atheists: Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Marx, Trotzki & Co

There is no proof of an afterlife.

BTW, if you tally the numbers, believers in various religions are the cause of the greatest death and suffering.

 

[ding]

^ external locus of control.

 

[Hollie]

Some small proofs for existence of God

Is There a God?

Somebody stole that nonsense from one of the many ID’iot Christian creationist ministries or maybe Harun Yahya. It’s all the same script.

 

[ding]

What scares the new atheists | John Gray

By John Gray - atheist

A very informative insight into the irrationality of the new atheists by an atheist.

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Why would sane folks believe in everlasting death having a lot of proofs for afterlife?Instead to prepare themselves for God's judgment after dead they poison societies with wrong claims there are neither God nor punishment for sins.
BTW almost all of biggest criminals of all times where atheists: Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Marx, Trotzki & Co

I'd just as soon they get their punishment right here so I can gloat and point and laugh.

If you would gloat and laugh then you are an evil rotten stinking piece of dog poo.

Even god, in your precious bible, says NOT to laugh at them....

so...you think god is wrong?
you oppose the god you support?

 

[ding]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

 

[ding]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Agnostics do not believe in reincarnation.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Why would sane folks believe in everlasting death having a lot of proofs for afterlife?Instead to prepare themselves for God's judgment after dead they poison societies with wrong claims there are neither God nor punishment for sins.
BTW almost all of biggest criminals of all times where atheists: Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Marx, Trotzki & Co

another GREAT reason to become a christian;


you can kill and lie and rape and steal ALL YOU WANT TO and then just before you die become a TRUE BELIEVER in god and avoid all punishments!

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Agnostics do not believe in reincarnation.

This one does. Too bad for you.

 

[ding]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Agnostics do not believe in reincarnation.

This one does. Too bad for you.

Then you can't be agnostic.

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Agnostics do not believe in reincarnation.

This one does. Too bad for you.

Then you can't be agnostic.

Why not?

 

[ding]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

 

[ding]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Agnostics do not believe in reincarnation.

This one does. Too bad for you.

Then you can't be agnostic.

Why not?

Because agnostic means don’t know.

You are proclaiming you know.

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

 

[ding]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Agnostics do not believe in reincarnation.

This one does. Too bad for you.

Then you can't be agnostic.

Why not?

Because agnostic means don’t know.

You are proclaiming you know.

I'm agnostic about an invisible being called god, not about everything everywhere.

 

[Taz]

This agnostic believes in reincarnation, meaning everlasting life. As for sins, there's no proof that they affect anything.

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

 

[ding]

Sin is anything which distances one from God. Don't read anything more into it than that.

If it helps to not offend your delicate sensibilities you can think of sin as deviating from a standard of conduct.

No proof that an invisible being set any standards.

Wrong. The proof can be found in outcomes and our refusal to abandon the concept of right and wrong.

Point #6: Man believes in a universal right and wrong.


If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.


Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

Right and wrong are subjective. No proof of an invisible being anyways.

No. Humans are subjective. Right and wrong exist independent of humans. Right and wrong are standards of conduct. Standards exist for reasons. We can’t make the standard be anything we want.

Right and wrong are subjective concepts. What you consider standards aren't to other people. Plus, no proof of an invisible being who set any standards.

No. Humans are subjective because humans are biased. Right and wrong is a standard which exists in and of itself.

We know this because we can’t make right and wrong be anything we want. Why? Because consequences tell us what right and wrong really are. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Some behaviors lead to better outcomes than others and some behaviors lead to worse outcomes than others.