Two Questions for Atheists

[forkup]

-Wondering why music can be beautiful, a human brain is complex, a baby is born and the sun sets is NOT a reason to believe in God. All these things can be explained within the framework of science.

He didn't claim it was a reason to believe in God. He asks if it made you wonder if God might exist? So, I guess these things DON'T make you wonder?

His point is to illustrate how nonbelievers fail to challenge themselves or even to have an open mind. Yet they often berate believers for the very same thing.

Not at all. Give me something that science can't explain and I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea of a supreme being after all if I'm not able to disprove something any hypothesis carries the possibility to be right. Give me things that do fall within the framework of reason, the God hypothesis is simply nonsensical.

 

[forkup]

-First of, The first reply I gave in this OP was a direct answer to your premise.

No. Your first reply in this thread was to answer the question with a question. That's called constructing a straw man. It's a technique of avoidance in answering the question. Since then, I have repeatedly explained that I am not asking you about which God(s) you find more attractive or what alternatives you have. It's just a very simple question which you're obviously not inclined to answer, for whatever reason.

So wanting a clear framework to answer a question is a construction straw man? Boss that's simply untrue. If I ask you," what is the color of the sky in the place I live?" Is asking," where do you live" a construction straw man?"
I'll give you an example. Lets assume it's the OT God. Then me being a non believer would make me go to hell. Since I rather not exist than be tortured for eternity. I would hope I'm right. if it's the NT God then I have hope that God would allow me to go to heaven because I'm a moral man so I'd hope I'm wrong. If god would be Odin then being a murderer and a rapist would get me to Valhalla so I'd hope I'm wrong. If God is just an advanced alien who doesn't do anything then create us as some lab experiment it wouldn't matter since me being right or wrong has absolutely no consequences either way so it wouldn't matter. Depending on who God is my answer to that question varies so how am I to answer without a definition of God?

 

[forkup]

-First of, The first reply I gave in this OP was a direct answer to your premise.

No. Your first reply in this thread was to answer the question with a question. That's called constructing a straw man. It's a technique of avoidance in answering the question. Since then, I have repeatedly explained that I am not asking you about which God(s) you find more attractive or what alternatives you have. It's just a very simple question which you're obviously not inclined to answer, for whatever reason.

So wanting a clear framework to answer a question is a construction straw man? Boss that's simply untrue. If I ask you what is the color of the sky in the place I live? is asking" where do you live?" a construction straw man?"
I'll give you an example. Lets assume you believe in the OT God. Then me being a non believer would make me go to hell. Since I rather not exist than be tortured for eternity. I would hope I'm right. if you believe in the NT God then I have hope that God would allow me to go to heaven because I'm a moral man so I'd hope I'm wrong. If god would be Odin then being a murderer and a rapist would get me to Valhalla so I'd hope I'm wrong. If God is just an advanced alien who doesn't do anything then create us as some lab experiment it wouldn't matter since me being right or wrong have absolutely no consequences either way so it wouldn't matter. Depending on who God is my answer to that question varies so how am I to answer without you defining God?

You even said it yourself. That you respect atheists who hope their wrong because you feel they realize the consequences of being right. But there's only consequences if we accept your definition of God. Not existing any more is not a meaningful consequence.

 

[forkup]

-As I said there are thousands of different man/ men and woman in the sky myths, all are different, most are dramatically different. This would all have bearing on my answer since you are basically asking if I find any of them more attractive then my belief that there is no God. So if you ask do I want to be wrong? How can I answer if I don't know what the alternative is?

I have not asked you which God you find more attractive.Nor have I asked if you want to be wrong. I've also not asked you for any alternative. Apparently, you're having trouble comprehending a very simple and straightforward question. I merely asked if you hope you are right or hope you are wrong. I don't understand why that's so difficult to understand or why you are struggling so hard to avoid answering. You obviously have a belief of some kind... do you hope your belief is right? Or do you hope you're wrong?

To my belief. The closest thing I have is that I don't know. Doubt is not a belief, it's actually the opposite of belief. I'm sure the God's as described in any of the so called holy books are bullshit. They are too well defined. Anything you define you can investigate and test. Every time something in the holy books get tested they are proven wrong. So those Gods I can dismiss.
As to another version of a supreme being it is more difficult. How am I to know the difference between an advanced alien and a God? As long as I don't have any experiment to test one way or another, "I don't know" is the only valid answer. I lean to the explanation that there's only physics and nothing else, but that's just an hypothesis not a belief.

 

[sealybobo]

Inspired by god the way a suicide bomber is? Inspired by the god concept or hypothesis sure

That atheist Stalin didn't need a god to inspire him to murder MILLIONS. The world needs less religion and more guys like Stalin.

Didn't bush say god told him to invade Iraq?

 

[Tehon]

I presume to speak for Bernie now and then just to be entertaining. But actually, no one can't really fill in for someone who's not present. Quote what Prager says that you endorse or just state what you think. It's you who needs to communicate your own thoughts. We're not talking with any Prager here.

I don't know what you mean. I'm not speaking for Prager, I've quoted Prager. Of course I agree with him or I wouldn't have posted this. But my personal observations go a little deeper. As I discovered here when I asked Prager's first question-- suddenly, all the Atheists in the room turned to Agnostics! No one wanted to honestly answer the question. We've got 8 pages of "agnosti-atheians" standing on their ear to avoid the OP topic and divert the thread. Prager didn't prepare me for that.

I answered your questions.

 

[rightwinger]

"Probably"

I would say they are not accounts of any real flood, but are "probably" just made up, apocalyptic myths

Even today, local floods are too common not to have ever happened back then. Back when I was in high school I lost two friends in a local flood. And, comparatively speaking, it wasn't that large of a local flood.

Mt Everest is 40,000 feet

For a flood to cover it would take more than 40 days
Where did the water go?

I dont think he's claiming there was ever such a flood.

The bible says it covered the earth
Everest is the highest point to be covered

 

[rightwinger]

Mt Everest is 40,000 feet

For a flood to cover it would take more than 40 days
Where did the water go?

I know of no flood story that describes Mount Everest as being under water. Which flood is that?

God knew Everest existed. The Bible says the flood covered the earth
Everest is on the earth

 

[K9Buck]

-To your first question I can only answer with another question. Wrong about what? It's ill defined. Because it demands of me that I know which God you believe in.

My question is not about what I believe. It's about what YOU believe and whether you hope you're wrong or right. It doesn't demand anything, it asks a question, as denoted by the question mark at the end.

While your question may be about what others believe, he makes a valid point. Which God? If you plan to constrain the discussion to monotheism, then you should say so.

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

 

[rightwinger]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

 

[K9Buck]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

No, you just believe that the universe magically made itself.

 

[rightwinger]

the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

The crux of our differences
Atheists do not need the threat of a magical being who will punish us to do the right thing. As social animals, humans intrinsically do what is right. We do not need a book of myths to tell us so

Atheists do not fear death. We acknowledge it is inevitable. We do not need someone blowing sunshine up our ass that if we give them money....we can live forever and ever

You live your life and when it is over...it is over
Just like any other animal

 

[rightwinger]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

No, you just believe that the universe magically made itself.

I believe matter cannot be created or destroyed. The elements of the Periodic Table have always existed in the universe
There was no magical "poof" creating them out of nothing

 

[K9Buck]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

No, you just believe that the universe magically made itself.

I believe matter cannot be created or destroyed. The elements of the Periodic Table have always existed in the universe
There was no magical "poof" creating them out of nothing

There you go with your magical, fantasy horseshit theories again. I have a bridge to sell you...sucker.

 

[K9Buck]

the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

The crux of our differences
Atheists do not need the threat of a magical being who will punish us to do the right thing. As social animals, humans intrinsically do what is right. We do not need a book of myths to tell us so

Atheists do not fear death. We acknowledge it is inevitable. We do not need someone blowing sunshine up our ass that if we give them money....we can live forever and ever

You live your life and when it is over...it is over
Just like any other animal

You're free to reject God's gift of eternal life. It sounds like you already have.

 

[edthecynic]

I know of no flood story that describes Mount Everest as being under water. Which flood is that?

Genesis 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen ° cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

 

[edthecynic]

You're free to reject God's gift of eternal life.

God has no such "gift" to give.

 

[rightwinger]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

No, you just believe that the universe magically made itself.

I believe matter cannot be created or destroyed. The elements of the Periodic Table have always existed in the universe
There was no magical "poof" creating them out of nothing

There you go with your magical, fantasy horseshit theories again. I have a bridge to sell you...sucker.

Fantasy is matter magically appearing from nothing

 

[Grumblenuts]

I presume to speak for Bernie now and then just to be entertaining. But actually, no one can't really fill in for someone who's not present. Quote what Prager says that you endorse or just state what you think. It's you who needs to communicate your own thoughts. We're not talking with any Prager here.

I don't know what you mean. I'm not speaking for Prager, I've quoted Prager.

Obviously, up the page, you've both spoken for and quoted Prager exactly twice. One presumes to speak for another whenever they paraphrase them:

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism.

Paraphrasing is fine, but to then quote them anyway makes it easy to see where the paraphrasing veers wildly from the reality - as is clearly the case here. Nowhere does Prager assert that anything is "important" for example. That's called bunk and the rest follows suit. So not only is this Prager full of his own beans to begin with, but you add insult to the injury by adding your own while hiding behind him as though you needed some excuse. You lack the balls to simply say what you mean and mean what you say.

Of course I agree with him or I wouldn't have posted this. But my personal observations go a little deeper. As I discovered here when I asked Prager's first question-- suddenly, all the Atheists in the room turned to Agnostics! No one wanted to honestly answer the question. We've got 8 pages of "agnosti-atheians" standing on their ear to avoid the OP topic and divert the thread. Prager didn't prepare me for that.

Prager blows a ton of gas just like millions of others. Of course he couldn't prepare you. What do you imagine qualifies him to speak more authoritatively on the subject than you do?

 

[rightwinger]

the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

The crux of our differences
Atheists do not need the threat of a magical being who will punish us to do the right thing. As social animals, humans intrinsically do what is right. We do not need a book of myths to tell us so

Atheists do not fear death. We acknowledge it is inevitable. We do not need someone blowing sunshine up our ass that if we give them money....we can live forever and ever

You live your life and when it is over...it is over
Just like any other animal

You're free to reject God's gift of eternal life. It sounds like you already have.

I am free to reject those theories that do not make sense

With God, I did it at around age 12