Problem dealing with death as an atheist

[Carnavon]

Actually, the creation of a human by scientific methods does imply that a soul is absent: firstly, it implies that life has been born accidentally, by biological means. Secondly, if man can create man, then it means that a man with a soul is the same as a man without soul, which means that the soul is the same as non-existing, which implies that the soul does not exist. Also, if a man is created by scientific methods, then that contradicts the christian bible, because the bible claims that the man became a living being by receiving a soul.

You claim that life is in any case accidental, yet accept that you have a soul. So being accidental has nothing to do with having a soul, according to your own arguments.

As about cells and humans, in the bible it is written that the man has begun to live by receiving the "breath/spirit of life" (breath = spirit). About the animals it is also mentioned that they have "breath/spirit of life". About plants is never mentioned that they would have "life" (or, spirit of life) in them. It also think that it sounds absurd to claim that every cell has a soul.

The argument was actually about conception and the act of normal conception implying a soul - which you have now also refuted.

Anyway, a question for you: if you believe in God, and if a man is created by scientific means (i.e. without soul) then will he go to paradise or to hell, after death? Because, he would be a normal man, just like you and me, doing and feeling and believing things, just like you and me, etc.

Your assumption is incorrect, as I have indicated. You state for a fact that which you do not know (man created by chemistry is void of a soul). What is your basis for claiming that man created by human effort and using non-living matter will be void of a soul?
If a human is without a soul, what would go to hell?

And the creation of a living cell from atoms also implies that life has been created by accident.

How come? What is your basis for suggesting this? It seems to me a very deliberate and non-random action with a specific purpose in mind, contrary to willy nilly aberrations.

I was almost certain that you would lead the discussion here. The first problem with your theory is that a man cannot believe in God because He may exist. The second problem is this: what are the odds that your religious path is correct? For instance, if the islamic god Allah exists (and He may exist though He is unfair, racist, a deceiver, etc. - a god that perhaps no mentally healthy person would desire), then you will go in the hell He has prepared, because you are a christian. You can't just pick the seemingly safest theory, because you always have something big to lose, if you're wrong.

You are correct, one cannot believe in God of his own volition. One reason being that man, as a fallen creature, will not seek God. Secondly, to become a Christian is more than mere intellectual assent, but does not exclude that as we are asked to love God with our minds as well (with adequate proof that God is the creator - referring to first life, irreducible complexity etc.) So God has to take the "first step" - and He does as it is stated that He loved us while we were still sinners, and sent his Son to die for our sins without us having to "deserve" it.
As far as other religions are concerned, I would assess whether what they claim, is indeed true (as far as I can verify objectively). Now it is open for everybody to see that archeological discoveries confirm the Bible, prophecies indicates prior knowledge and creation suggest intelligent design. Again I do not suggest that intellectual assent make you a Christian. Far from it.

As about NDEs, they seem to prove the existence of souls. e.g. I've read or heard somewhere that after a 'death' experience, the person has heard and seen things that happened after the brain ceased to function. And, if I remember well, there was also a thing when a blind person from birth had a surgery and got to a NDE, after which he/she has claimed to have seen for the first time, and he/she has described the objects in the surgery room correctly.
Also, I've just found this: http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence03.html
However, these are not "evidence", because they cannot answer to the impossible question "what if it's not so?" (i.e. in this particular case, "what if there is another explanation?").

Yes indeed, it is not irrefutable evidence. My question is only this:" If an honest man has all this information available, what conclusion would he come to?
This is not to suggest that all questions are answered. There is the problem of suffering. There I can only speak for myself in that the part of my life where I was supposed to have the worst "suffering" (diagnosed and treated for cancer) was indeed the best part of my life - and not because I held onto an idea that will help me through that (like positive thinking or similar) but it just happened. There is a little poem about "footsteps in the sand", which I found to be true.
Regards