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.
Sorry, I meant "the creation of a human by scientific methods suggests that a soul is absent".

The passage you may refer to (Gen 2:7-nephesh) refers to “properly a breathing creature, that is, animal or (abstractly) vitality.” It is distinguished from other references to soul as pneuma or psuchē.
Nevertheless, the creation of a human by whatever means does not imply the absence or presence of a “soul”. We do not “create” a “soul” by physical contact/normal fertilization.

"You claim that life is in any case accidental, yet accept that you have a soul" - how did you get to that conclusion??

Life is claimed accidental (evolution) yet we are discussing the absence/presence of a soul which is somehow more than a physical entity. If it is your view that we are only body and brain, it raises a few questions. Would you suggest that this is the case?

So I have to ask you this question: what do you understand of "soul"? The 'soul' is usually regarded as something of the 'spiritual' realm. So you can't put one atom + one atom = spirit/soul.

Yes, you are correct.

Sorry, again I meant "And the creation of a living cell from atoms also strongly suggests that life has been created by accident". Think about this: if a cell will be created tomorrow by scientists, directly from atoms, what would everybody say? "We made what God did millions of years ago!"??

Yes, I see your argument. If everything can be explained rationally and without the need for a “higher power”, would that make God “ redundant”? Would I still believe despite this knowledge? The question is then: “Why do you still choose to believe there is not sufficient proof for a “higher power” despite the fact that evidence so far available suggests that an “intelligence” was involved in creation? (Even Richard Dawkins admits that but attributes it to some wonderful extraterrestrial creatures” ). The only difference being that yours is still a hypothesis at present ( “if a cell”) and mine is true (for at least the present)
It really boils down to a set of beliefs, independent of “science”, does it not? What then? Are we to continue despite evidence?

I meant, it's a logical problem. The same reason one can't believe that there are actually 12 gods, even though many would say "it is possible". That "possible" lacks many things to become "obvious" (or at least, very credible).

Yes, it is a logical problem if one were to ignore the facts and merely hypothesize. Despite many apparent “contradictions”, the Bible can be trusted as evidence suggests it to be trustworthy. There are things that cannot be proven, but what we can investigate, bears the stamp of truth. Even recent discoveries confirm rather than disprove the Bible. I will rather trust something which proves to be correct than something that is proven to be often based on falsehoods, trying to prove its validity.

1. If God must take the "first step", why did you take the first step by starting to preach Him?

Trust me, God will take the first step. This means that God will prepare your heart. Preaching Him? One can really not call it “preaching”but semantics aside, I engage in conversations such as this for basically two reasons. First is the fact that atheists often ask very relevant questions and I enjoy researching them. Secondly, I enter to discussion to try and give a reasonable answer to those that question Christianity.

2. You believe that you can recite a christian theory as some "magical words" that is supposed to make God convert people.

Sounds like some “voodoo” that I would like to bring “upon you” for some or other reason! That is not the reason, and even though “the heart is deceitful above all things” and we should often question our own motives, I only wish you to receive God's blessings and that in abundance.

Bold statement! Ask people about the Bible and you'll get thousands of contradictions, historical problems, logical problems, moral problems, etc. from them. You just assume that everybody believes that the Bible is undoubtedly the "perfect", trustworthy book. In other words, everybody (or yeah, all atheists, agnostics, deists, etc.) sees the Bible just like the Qur'an and any other book. I'm also certain that you didn't study about any other religion (well, perhaps not even about your own religion - all this theory of yours may be simply what a preacher taught you).

I do not dispute that there are many interpretations even within the Christian community, logical problems and apparent moral problems, as any study on most topics will reveal. What I however do know is that no true Christian lay claim to infallible understanding of the Bible. There are strong and opposing convictions on many subjects (i.e. the issue of predestination/free will) but this does not invalidate Christ. This I leave to God – which I trust to judge fairly. My salvation does not rely on my proper understanding of the issue of speaking in tongues, or laying on of hands, or creation or such, but only on the sovereign grace of God. I accept that I am a sinner, saved by grace, through no merit of my own, through faith (which is a gift of God) and by the blood of Jesus on the cross – where He paid for my sins.
Historical problems? I would be happy to receive info on that.
To suggest what I believe is gullible acceptance of what the preacher says is contrary to the truth as those knowing me personally, will testify.
I have not made a thorough study of all religions. I have conversed with Muslims and found their faith to contain definite lies. The denial of Jesus' death and resurrection is a central issue with some convoluted story about somebody else dying on the cross. Plain logic and historical record will prove that to be false.
As far as Hinduism is concerned a book called “The death of a guru” (you will find it on amazon) gave me some insight. It is a good read, irrespective of your views. But a fundi on any other religion? No, I am not.

A man cannot believe that your religion is true for the sole reason that if you may somehow be right, he'll go to hell.

Why is this a problem? Do you suggest that we live a life as we please without any morals and also be pure and holy enough to "inherit" heaven? And what is the basis of these “morals”?

I doubt that you'll really understand many what I said, but anyway...

Sorry about that.