Skip to main content

I Answer 5 Questions Christians Have For Atheists

I've always been interested in political and philosophical discussion. Analyzing and critiquing fiction has greatly informed my beliefs.

Passive-aggressive "questions" often seem like they're directed at us as rhetorical challenges, rather than genuine questions.

Passive-aggressive "questions" often seem like they're directed at us as rhetorical challenges, rather than genuine questions.

Questions and Answers

So, there are many questions Christians have for atheists. Sometimes, the intention of the question's wording is to stump atheists, either to get them to say something irrational or unconscionable or to simply get them to rethink the whole "atheism" thing. But sometimes, the questions are not designed as traps, they come instead from a place of genuine curiosity. Sometimes, Christians asking these questions might be in the process of questioning their own faith. Or they might simply be curious about what it's like to not believe in God because they never thought not to themselves. But the thing is, every atheist is an individual. Aside from atheism, a lack of belief in God or gods, atheists do not necessarily share any other belief about any other thing. Therefore, everyone's answers to these questions might be different; none of us necessarily represents the whole of atheism.


1. What Happens After You Die?

Basically, we don't know. While we can speculate based on neuroscience and near-death experiences, the people who had near-death experiences did not die completely. People who have died completely don't come back. So, seeing as how someone who dies can't speak to us, we have no way of knowing for certain. However, given that brain damage damages what we call "consciousness," it's likely that without brain function, there is no longer what we think of as consciousness.

Furthermore, believing in a God or gods does not in and of itself do anything to prove that your idea of what happens to a human being's consciousness after death is correct. The Egyptians believed in one kind of afterlife, the Hindus another, and so on. Whose hypothesis is correct, and on what basis can you make that claim? Not all God hypotheses can be simultaneously correct because they contradict each other. You could spend your whole life worshiping God for there to be nothingness after you die, which means you will have wasted precious, finite time praying to something that did not exist. Or you could die and be wrong about your particular beliefs about God and the afterlife. So belief in a deity does not necessarily provide comfort or assurance in the face of death. Therefore, I prefer to simply think of death as the end of life, the end of existence, after which nothing is experienced. To me, morally speaking, God's afterlife hypotheses could be used to justify killing or suicide, cheapening human life.

Not from where yours comes from.

Not from where yours comes from.

2. Where Do You get Morality From?

In some ways, I can see the appeal of religion in having it all figured out, with one objectively true moral law given to us by a perfect deity and handed down for humanity to follow on immutable stone tablets. But again, not all theists agree on what law to follow, which books are divinely inspired and which aren't, and which rules apply to modern times and which are obsolete.

They figure this out with a little thing called philosophy that predates and supersedes religious traditions. With moral philosophy, one can use reason to deduce if a certain action in a certain given situation is good or evil. Good and evil are not concepts that come from Christianity or Judaism. They existed as long as humanity has lived in settled, organized civilization, where law and order created harmony and rules helped people settle disputes. Different atheists follow different moral principles, but so do different theists. For example, Catholics oppose abortion in all cases, while other Christians may support abortion on the grounds that it is a woman's right to choose. Theists tend to make up theological reasons to justify a wide range of moral decisions. And yet, there can only be one "true" morality in a monotheistic worldview, so whose is it? Is it the view of the terrorist who hijacks a plane or that of the Quaker who says one should never do violence? Both of them believe that God is on their side.

So basically, atheists "make up" their own principles on which they base morality. For me, a heavy emphasis is on the law, being a good citizen, hard work, not disrupting the harmony of society, and respecting other people. Other people have other personal systems of morality. But everyone essentially "makes up" their morality, even theists, who pick and choose which version of the God story fits in with their beliefs about morality that they already hold. Figuring out how to make ethical decisions is one of the most important parts of growing up. And at least a child raised without religion learns how to make these decisions in a logical way. A child raised religiously is taught what to think, not how to think. So they end up being told "do X" and "don't do Y," but they get out into the real world and away from their parents, and they end up breaking almost every rule they were raised with because they were never given a compelling reason why not to do Y and why to do X, beyond the "God said so" thing, which seems arbitrary. You don't have to become an ethics philosopher, but you should be able to reason what is moral and immoral for yourself. Chances are, even if you're a religious person, you already are by deciding what books to follow, what preachers to listen to, and so on.

Seems like theists can use God to justify almost anything they're doing.

Seems like theists can use God to justify almost anything they're doing.

3. So, You Can Do What You Want?

This is kind of the same thing as the previous question. It speaks to a religious mind's fear of atheism, that atheism means "too much freedom," and that people who don't believe in God or a final Judgment thereby will consider themselves free to rape, murder, and pillage to their heart's content. But, the truth is, most people don't want to be violent, they want to have good, happy, productive lives, and violence is rarely, if ever, the most effective means to that end. While people have a wide range of beliefs about morality, most people agree that murder, rape, theft, and other acts of violence are wrong in almost all cases.

I would flip this question around and ask the believer, especially the Christian, can you do what you want, pray, and be forgiven? I'm more morally worried about someone who doesn't fear earthly consequences because of their belief that God is on their side than I am about someone who does not fear heavenly consequences because they doubt the existence of God or an afterlife. Because the former will believe that their deplorable act such as rape, murder, or terrorism is a necessary part of following their God's will, no earthly punishment system will deter that sort of criminal. But, atheists with a violent impulse can be dissuaded by the threat of any "swift, sudden, and severe" punishment here and now. Loss of liberty is a genuine threat for atheists, who know their time on Earth is already finite and limited. But prison can be seen as a temporary waiting room before heaven for those with delusions of leaving this planet alive. And Christianity teaches that any immoral act, however bad, can be absolved by truly believing in Jesus and asking for His forgiveness. That seems kind of messed up, in my opinion!

4. Where Did The Universe Come From?

I don't know. Where did your God come from?

Basically, atheism does not pretend to have all the answers to everything. Religion does that. Religion claims to know the universe's origin, purpose, and destiny and the place of human life in it. Irreligion doesn't. To some, it's quite scary or different from admitting that humanity doesn't really know these things. But it's the only intellectually honest answer to that question. We don't know. Nobody does. And that's okay.

Or, if you care way more than I do about astrophysics, you probably know about how the Big Bang theory has evidence for it and does not require a God. And explaining the universe in terms of a God does not explain why and how God came into existence in the first place.


5. But What If You're Wrong?

Again, this is a question that can just as easily be applied to a religious believer. What if the real gods are the Greek ones, the Egyptian ones, or the Mesopotamian ones? Then certainly, believers in the Hebrew Lord Yahweh will have a bit of explaining to do. How do you know you're not wrong? The standards for belief in one God can be applied to belief in any other.

This is also used as a thinly veiled threat of hell. I'm pretty sure Christians are the ones who are wrong about the concept of hell. First of all, a "lake of fire" is only referenced in the final book, the Revelation, which delineates events that transpire at the end of the world. The concept of heaven as a city with pearly gates is also from that book. Previously, heaven and hell were not Judaic concepts, and they stray from what Jesus actually said. The word he used to refer to hell as a place of punishment for wrongdoers was Gehenna. In Hebrew, this word referred to a place where trash was thrown to be burned on the outskirts of the city. So the word connoted that sinners would be thrown away, cast out, but not necessarily literally burned. And it makes no sense for a God "is love" that loves his entire creation and places humans as the pinnacle of that creation, to make almost all humans that have ever been created burn forever for the simple fact that they didn't believe in hadn't heard of, or weren't alive after the coming of some Messiah figure. That's so illogical that the remote possibility that it's all true isn't much of a threat to me.

So what if you're wrong?

None of us can know anything with absolute certainty. We just believe whatever we think is probably true. Does the evidence that's out there really point to the literal truth of some translation of a translation of a translated account of one particular God of a meandering, landless desert tribe?

What if you're wrong?

Questions & Answers

Question: You can ask creationists if they are wrong and most would say its a win-win. If they are right they go to heaven, if they are wrong they are just dead. Also, the thing about God coming to be is wrong. Creationists believe that God always was and that he didn't appear he just always existed and always will, yes?

Answer: 1. "If they are right they go to heaven, if they are wrong they are just dead." That's Pascal's Wager. My response to that is, how do they know it's not true that if they're wrong, they could also go to Hell, if they're wrong about the specific form of theism they're supposed to believe in? At any rate, I just don't think the possibility of heaven seems that likely. And what would there be to do there anyway? It sounds boring. Plus I could never enjoy an afterlife where my friends and family who didn't believe in the right God or practice the right religion in the right way could not see me, and would be in eternal agony. It's impossible to reconcile the image of a blissful heaven with the image of souls being tormented in hell, who may be your loved ones.

2. "Creationists believe that God always was and that he didn't appear he just always existed and always will?" Well, what atheists would ask is why God is allowed to have always existed, and that's reasonable and satisfying. Where was he in all that time before creating matter? Anyway, if you say existence had to have a beginning, and therefore had to have a beginner, I don't get why the same logic can't apply to God. 1. Everything in existence has a beginning. 2. Therefore it has a creator. 3. God has no beginning and no creator. 4. God exists. You see how contradictory it is to believe in all four statements simultaneously?

Question: Would you agree with me that just because we cannot see something with our eyes—such as our mind, gravity, magnetism, the wind—that does not mean it doesn’t exist?

Answer: All of those things can be observed and measured in some way though. You can make predictions based on evidence, and if your model is correct, your predictions will always be true. For example, while we cannot see gravity, we know that it causes all objects to fall to Earth at a rate of roughly 9.8 meters per second. You can make an accurate prediction of how long a thrown projectile will take to hit Earth based on that mathematical model. There is no accurate predictive power from any understanding or theoretical model of God, just look at how many people believe in God, yet disagree on basic things like - Is there one God or many? Is there heaven and hell, and who goes there if so? Why does God allow evil? Which religion is true? And so on. You can't compare God to basically any of the other things you mentioned because all the other things you mentioned like the wind have observable effects, can be perceived by other senses (wind can be felt), or can be seen by instruments (such as your brain being visible in an MRI scan). None of those applies to any God or other supernatural concepts.


jonnycomelately on September 22, 2016:


Looking back at your opening question, I'm impressed by your recognition that not all "believers" are necessarily antagonistic towards non-believers, or vise versa. In the same way that not all big businesses and their controllers are corrupt, not all politicians are untrustworthy and living the high life. There are many individuals doing their utmost to live according to high principles.

I have, often unwittingly, been guilty of this - presuming that every born-again is out to judge me and hook me according to their gospel.

I feel it's important to drop the defensive and really listen to that pother side of the argument and be unafraid of disagreement. It can't do any harm in allowing and letting-be....unless perhaps the familiar message sounds like it's stuck in the proverbial groove and boring the pants off us.

Suzie from Carson City on September 22, 2016:

You surely are patient, as I said and definitely reasonable, Paladin. Never doubt that.

Jonny....I'll have to take a rain check on that Tasmanian lawn party of yours. I've been known to check with my host on the "guest" list before I decide to attend. So my dear, if you have enough in your pocket for bail money, I can come by.....if not, it's best I stay home. I trust I need not elaborate.

Good evening gentlemen................Paula

Paladin_ on September 22, 2016:

Thank you for your kind words, Paula. Like Jonny, I also wish our debates with certain elements here at HubPages could be more friendly and less antagonistic.

Unfortunately, my weakness is that I tend to respond in kind to others' comments. If someone comes into a comment section all full of obnoxious swagger, I'm more inclined to want to give them the proverbial beat-down. Similarly, if they present their comments in a more reasonable and intellectual manner, I'll go out of my way to be diplomatic and find common ground, even if I completely disagree.

Like Catherine, many of us have been "put through the torture chamber," and in my case, I can only hope that it's taught me a bit more patience and made me a more reasonable commenter. I suppose time will tell...

jonnycomelately on September 22, 2016:

And to yourself Paula. Thanks for laughing with us. Beautiful sunny spring morning here, with Mr. Rooster crowing for all he's worth. Wish we could all (Ostinato, Norine included) sit out here on the lawn and coffee/tea/cola together. It might even be worth inviting The Creator if (better be politically correct here) She was willing to join our humble gathering.

Have a laugh everyone.

Suzie from Carson City on September 22, 2016:

Rachael, Paladin & Jonny.....I want to commend you on your courteous patience & tolerance. Rachael, especially since you are the author & made it clear you were OK with the back & forth exchange. Paladin, you always amaze me with your knowledge & wisdom. Jonny, you have cracked me up today. (I always say, when you feel somewhat overwhelmed, the only thing to do is laugh!..It's healthy) You are funny!

I realize that all of you are aware that this banter should not be taken personally. "It" is done continually in terms of this particular topic. If you are familiar with an excellent fellow writer, Catherine Giordano, you likely know she has been put through the torture chamber more than once. She has likewise been tolerant. So too for several others here. It seems everyone gets the repetitious & monotonous monologue no matter what else.....come hell or high water (pun may or may not be intended)

You all impress me with your brilliance.

I do not ask questions in this topic.....precisely because I'm painfully aware of the incessant banter. I'm retired after decades in the mental health field. I did my time like a champion. I no longer am required to be patient nor tolerant and I'm happy to tell you, I am not. I do smile a lot through gritted teeth, if absolutely necessary.

Well wishes to all. Peace, Paula

Rachael Lefler (author) from Illinois on September 22, 2016:

I used to be interested in things for which there is no evidence, after leaving Christianity, I originally planned to stay spiritual, so I studied Wicca, meditation, chakras, spirit animals, astrology both east and west, Feng Shui, the myths of various cultures, and practiced divination with runes and tarot cards. But these don't produce accurate, specific, testable, or replicable results. You might get lucky with your pendulum or your tarot cards once, but most of the time you're getting nonsense that sounds philosophical and important, but is actually vague nonsense that you will just interpret however your existing unconscious biases want to interpret it. Aha! The runes prove I was right all along!

My point is, I think Oz is essentially doing with pseudoscience "news" articles what I used to do with astrology or the tarot.

I think that's why I see that the main issue with "proofs" for God like Thomas Aquinas' don't point to any one culture's specific supreme deity. God is multiple concepts. Not one.

jonnycomelately on September 22, 2016:

Sure do! It's a sort of feedback - "Ukak and Le Dog."

Sorry to be so flippant.

Paladin_ on September 22, 2016:

Oh, for goodness' sake! Science has now proved bilocation, telepathy and the God of Einstein?

Evidence, Oz. Evidence. Otherwise, you're just spitting in the wind (and I think you know what happens when you do that...) :-P

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 22, 2016:


you must be reading my mind. I was just about to add an image of that.

Science has now proved bilocation, telepathy and, wait for it, the God of Einstein.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum.............we found God in "Numbers: Chapter Einstein verses Godel and Kaku".

jonnycomelately on September 22, 2016:

"A funny thing happened to me on the way to the Forum...."

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 21, 2016:

See you at the forum! :)

Paladin_ on September 21, 2016:

Oz, why would we respond to quotes from Dr. Kaku involving his references to God? So he appears to have a theological opinion. So what? His opinion on the topic of God is no more valid -- or invalid -- than anyone else's.

I'm still waiting for your evidence that "...the latest scientific breakthroughs are proving to the scientists themselves that God exists..." Second-hand quotes in a dubious "news" story about an impossible study (involving non-existent particles) don't cut it!

As for the forum, until HubPages modifies the rules for posting, I'll mostly tend to avoid commenting there. As currently structured, fewer and fewer words are allowed with each subsequent comment -- which makes absolutely no sense! It's also one of the reasons I don't waste my time with Twitter .

Hub comment sections are currently much more conducive to comprehensive commentary. And it doesn't hurt that more numerous comments adds traffic to hubs -- such as it is -- which benefits the hub author.

Rachael Lefler (author) from Illinois on September 21, 2016:

I think you're just upset that you're losing. 面白い、ね?

But please explain why you think you're being misrepresented. This should be fun.

Oztinato on September 21, 2016:

Well there has been a nasty "troll" accusation, lots of vindictive personal misrepresentation and the beginnings of very long winded forum style debate, so it's good to reign it in and move on.

Rachael Lefler (author) from Illinois on September 21, 2016:

"It is unethical to clutter up people's hubs with long winded nasty stuff so please take it to the forum."

I only delete obvious troll or spam comments but so far, everyone's been fairly on topic and not "nasty" in any way.

Oztinato on September 20, 2016:

It is unethical to clutter up people's hubs with long winded nasty stuff so please take it to the forum.

I note no one atheist has commented on what Dr Kaku means by ususing God so frequently in his explanations. It might not be the God of Abraham but the God of Einstein. So what??

Paladin_ on September 20, 2016:

Absolutely! The argument from authority is a logical fallacy frequently employed by apologists -- though they're careful not to defer to any 'authorities' who are atheists!

Rachael Lefler (author) from Illinois on September 20, 2016:

Yeah, that's cool, I guess my point was that even if Kaku-sensei were a die-hard Christian or something, his lone opinion doesn't prove or disprove God's existence.

Paladin_ on September 20, 2016:

Rachael, Oz's "intelligent design" quote from Dr. Kaku is almost certainly fake. There is NO link anywhere to Dr. Kaku's original thesis -- not even on the news link Oz cited. It doesn't exist!

And, Oz, I know enough about Kaku's work to recognize that he wouldn't presume to "test" hypothetical particles (tachyons)! REAL scientists don't engage in such foolishness! To paraphrase your own quote -- only a diehard apologist could possibly misconstrue or belittle this.

As for your second quote, it's from an interview with Dr. Kaku on the Quora website, and it's casual reference to "the mind of God" is hardly "proof" of any deity's existence!

You're scraping the bottom of the barrel, my friend, and there's nothing there but empty delusions and scorched straw men!

Rachael Lefler (author) from Illinois on September 20, 2016:

It's irresponsible journalism to say Kaku "proves" God exists. All he does is happen to believe in intelligent design. Humans like to see patterns and have brains that are probably wired to see human hands at work where there are none. Just because "some smart guy" believes in something, doesn't mean we should take it seriously. Smart people have blind spots. Many people who are very smart in one area are wrong about other things or have irrational beliefs for things outside their area of expertise. God is an explanation for things he can't understand, that might even be outside the human capacity to understand. It doesn't "prove" God exists, and you'll notice he never endorses one particular religion's claims, and they all make competing claims about God. Intelligent design alone isn't necessarily an endorsement of all the other claims in a given religion. In Christianity for example, you also have to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the Hebrew Messiah, and also God, that he rose again after being killed by the Romans, that he can speak to us and answer prayers, and so on. Intelligent design hypotheses alone don't prove any of those claims, but religious people act like they do.

We have a natural tendency to anthropomorphize natural phenomena.

We also have a natural tendency to want an explanation for everything, not liking to leave things unexplained. I'm sure for a theoretical physicist, "We don't know" is a scary statement. Especially for one who wants a lot of spotlight attention for pretending to know. :P

We want to see patterns and order in things.

jonnycomelately on September 20, 2016:

So, Oz, you are now mixing up one theoretical framework, M Theory, with another, the God Theory. That is rather like mixing in an Expresso with a Short Black, then asking for the pure water to be extracted so you can drink it!

If my posting here gets you all confused, unable to laugh, then that God of yours is way too serious.

Lighten up my friend.

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 20, 2016:

Another God quote from Dr Kaku:

"In string theory, all particles are vibrations on a tiny rubber band; physics is the harmonies on the string; chemistry is the melodies we play on vibrating strings; the universe is a symphony of strings, and the mind of God is cosmic music resonating in 11-dimensional hyperspace."

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 20, 2016:

Here's the controversial Dr Kaku quote:

“To me it is clear that we exists in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance.”

Sounds like science is joining hands with religion. Only a diehard atheist (not a real scientist) could possibly misconstrue this or belittle it.

Oztinato on September 20, 2016:

This is not a forum and it's unethical to have long winded atheist debaters trying to muscle in on someone's hub.

I'll see you all at the forum because the atheists have all backed off from the point I have raised directly to do with the hubs theme (ie M theory and new found maths proof of God)

jonnycomelately on September 19, 2016:

I still say 2+2=5, because pentagons were used by God to make flowers and sea shells and anyone out there believing me? I'm happy to be your guru if you will just stop calling me stupid!

Setank Setunk on September 19, 2016:

You are a true paladin Paladin: minus the religious implications of that title of course. A clean kill all in all; I commend you.

Paladin_ on September 19, 2016:

Hehe. Oz, in at least one regard, you're quite handy to have around. I can think of no more consistent or dependable example of confirmation bias when it comes to theological issues. Indeed, you're my go-to example!

Your constant references to Kurt Gödel's ontological theorem has been my classic example, and now you've added Michu Kaku to the list (more on that in a moment). With regard to Gödel, some time ago you found a news item on the internet (or perhaps it was forwarded to you) proclaiming that mathematician Kurt Gödel had "proven" God's existence. Thereafter, you cited it in numerous atheism and agnosticism hubs.

But you clearly never researched the issue beyond the initial story, as it appeared to confirm your existing bias that God exists. On the other hand, I took the time to search beyond the news items and read Gödel's actual initial theorem (which is available for anyone to read and examine). You didn't. You didn't need to.

Even after I wrote a hub critically examining Gödel's theorem, I couldn't get you go examine it (the theorem) for yourself. You continually refused, citing the excuse that you didn't understand the math (event though it was there in plain English).

After a great deal of prodding and goading, I FINALLY got you to examine the theorem for yourself. After contesting one minor definitional point, you ran from the hub like it had the plague! You didn't dare actually contemplate your 'proof' being in error!

And your link to the 'news' item about Dr. Kaku is quite similar. You found an article that proclaims "Scientist Michio Kaku Finally Proves God Exist" (which, for some reason, forgets the "s" at the end), and your bias was satisfied. You looked no further.

If you had, you would have noticed that the link provided to the 'original' paper of Dr. Kaku's is inoperable. And if you go to the AGEAC website on your own, and do a search, the article is nowhere to be found:

Indeed, while there are multiple references to the news item quoted by you (all, unsurprisingly, on Christian websites), there are NO links to this supposed original paper by Dr. Kaku ANYWHERE on the internet. It's as if it doesn't even exist! (imagine that!)

And given that Dr. Kaku's supposed conclusions are based on tests he supposedly ran on 'tachyons,' the whole thing is most likely a hoax. (News flash -- tachyons are THEORETICAL particles. You CANNOT run tests on them!)

As you say, Google exists. Try using it sometime! ;-)

Setank Setunk on September 19, 2016:

Shawn the Humanist is an intriguing pseudonym. Just a moniker or is it a cavalier allusion to serious studies in Human enlightenment.

Shawn the Humanist from Canada on September 19, 2016:

I especially appreciated the juxtaposition of the two 'motivational' memes. One misrepresenting atheists, and the other misrepresenting theists. Hopefully people will search next time and find these answers!

Setank Setunk on September 19, 2016:

Wonderful answer Rachael. I just get annoyed when Google trollers think they know everything yet make ignorant claims like religion invented law.

Disclaimer: I Love Google. Google is a valuable tool for research and general knowledge when used responsibly.

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 19, 2016:

I note for the record that certain atheist commentators here have not responded to the latest scientific M theory "maths proofs" of God.

I don't respond to attempts to obsfucate with other irrelevant topics.

Please swallow some pride, pick up the shattered pieces of your philosophy and start looking at what your own scientists are telling us. It might be hard ato first but you'll get there. Good luck!

Rachael Lefler (author) from Illinois on September 19, 2016:

Civilization meant the first laws and the first religions came about wherever there was agriculture. Laws were put in place primarily to settle disputes so that feuds, inter-family and intra-family conflicts would not disrupt the order and unity in society. These first societies did have worship of deities too. Civilization and agriculture allows for larger building projects, and many of the earliest of such were for religious purposes (temples, the pyramids of Egypt, etc.). This is conflating coincidence with causality. These religions were polytheistic and involved ritual slaughter, ritual sex and rape, and ritual human sacrifice. using them as an example to argue in favor of the ethical monotheism arising from Judaism and Christianity is wrong, the latter is antithetical to the former in every way.

Setank Setunk on September 19, 2016:

Oztinato. Since you have it all figured out, perhaps you can point out when Deity worship became organized religion. Then, in the absence of the concept of law, how religion became organized and regimented so that it could then give us law. Define the distinction between the rule of law and common law ( no quick Google answers accepted), and explain the nature of religion before writing came around.

Kylyssa Shay from Overlooking a meadow near Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA on September 19, 2016:

You can't actually cherry-pick Google like you cherry-pick the Bible, Oztinato. If you think the laws in the Bible are sacred and come directly from God, you are worshipping the wrong God because the laws in your Bible came from The Code of Ur-Nammu and other pre-existing legal codes from people who worshiped other Gods and Goddesses. Jews added the part about only obeying their God, but so did some other people that borrowed the legal codes of the time, so it's not that earth-shattering an addition.

I hope you learn to stop being so frightened and become confident enough of your own value as a person that your desperate need to dehumanize atheists melts away. You'll feel better when you are able to focus on things other than your hatred of people different from yourself and your need to control their actions. Every one of my friends who escaped that same sort of self-generated fear and hatred has said at some point that they feel better for it. They are all still Christians, so no, they didn't need to give up their beliefs to give up the hatred and the need to control other people. Those things really aren't even part of your religion; they're just a warping of it. You truly can give up on hating other people without giving up your religion or belief in God. You'll also find it's easier to make friends and get along with the people you already know once you stop trying to control them. They'll be a lot nicer to you and start to care about what you have to say when you no longer say abusive things to them or try to control their behavior to match your religious beliefs.

I know it's likely you'll respond with something abusive or irrelevant as you have in the past, but today, I was willing to face the emotional upset your attacks on my character will cause because despite all the hate and fear you project, I know you are human inside and that you deserve to be saved from the ravages of containing all that fear and hate. But you can save yourself the effort of trying to find the right words to make me upset because I have no plans to read your response. Try to find love inside yourself and maybe you'll learn to stop lashing out so much.

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 19, 2016:

As usual I have to do certain unmentionable atheist's homework for them even though Goodle exists.

Of course we will see the usual denial and obfuscation plus the never ending railing against other maths proofs such as Godel's perfect God equation.

PS for evidence re law just Google history of law. Easy for the realist but hard for those still in denial.

jonnycomelately on September 18, 2016:

We atheists will just have to settle for the imperfect and enjoy it best we can! For all eternity, what fun!

Setank Setunk on September 18, 2016:

Humor implied, you are incorrect about the flip-flop on question 5. If Atheists wake up in Hell they will say "O Shit".

If Christians, or whomever, die and are just dead they will never know they were mistaken. They are covered either way.

Paladin_ on September 18, 2016:

Thanks for having another go at this ongoing discussion, Rachael. We certainly won't settle the matter here, but it's always good to provide more perspectives from both sides.

If you'll forgive me, I'll also add one minor correction -- Hell is associated with fire throughout both the Old and New Testaments (I can provide a link with references if you're curious), and not just Revelation. That said, obviously your main point still stands.

Oz, please explain to us how the "latest scientific breakthroughs are proving to the scientists themselves that God exists (see M theory)." As I understand M Theory, it does no such thing. It simply tries to unify all the variations of String Theory which, itself, tries to unify the four primary physical forces.

As for "all ethics and law" evolving directly from religions, that's a pretty all-inclusive claim, and I'd like to see evidence for that as well...

Andrew Petrou from Brisbane on September 18, 2016:

All ethics and law evolved directly from religions. In fact religion and law are still intimately connected. For example there is a Bible in all Western courts. Most of our legal Principles in the west come from the Bible.

The latest scientific breakthroughs are proving to the scientists themselves that God exists ( see M theory).

jonnycomelately on September 18, 2016:

Good questions, thanks for asking them. Please allow me to point out a couple of errors from what you have included here.

"...then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs."

No, this does not make sense. The theories center around our knowledge of the laws of physics. Energy, created by a state of difference, causes work to be done; the energetic state flows from region of greater energy (difference) to region of lesser difference; changes in chemical and biological organisation are brought about and we see the results of those extremely complex and complicated pathway which, as you have stated, we get to know virtually nothing about with any certaintly.

I also know a very small amount about physics and the universe. By I have a sense of awe contemplating the visible, experiencial universe that I am part of. You are right, mystery surrounds the whole of these conceptual ideas. We can never know for sure about anything.

YES - we can observe other life forms succumbing to death. There is no apparent consciousness in their state after the fact of death. Why should we human animals be any different?