Problem dealing with death as an atheist

[Zenith]

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.

Actually I referred to verses like Gen 6.17. I know that in Gen 2.7 it is "man became a living being", but it is written that man became a living being by receiving the "breath" (which also means "spirit") of life. You can't deny the fact that in the bible it is written that man became a living being after receiving the breath/spirit of life, not before.

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.

Right. Scientists cannot create a "soul". And what is a man without a soul? dead. (if man became a living being by receiving the soul).

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”?

Yes.

Would I still believe despite this knowledge?

Possibly. Many would say "yes".

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)

So you tell me that everything can be explained rationally and without the need for a “higher power” and evidence so far available suggests that an “intelligence” was involved in creation (i.e. that there needs to be a higher power). Please decide.

It really boils down to a set of beliefs, independent of “science”, does it not? What then? Are we to continue despite evidence?

I guess it's mostly a philosophy, rather than maths/physics/chemistry/cosmology, etc.

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.

Again, please decide: either the one above or 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.

Despite many apparent “contradictions”, the Bible can be trusted as evidence suggests it to be trustworthy.

That means nothing. What you said is like something I've heard a muslim once: "Islam is the true religion. The others are fabricated religions!" (by which he attempted to convince people that Islam is the true religion). In other words, you can't expect people to trust the bible because you told them that it is "trustworthy".

Historical problems? I would be happy to receive info on that.

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.

Why not spend some time in the Christianity sub-forum? You'll get plenty of opportunities to answer to people.

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.

Well, that's a good thing. Very many people don't know anything, don't study anything, but they are eager to teach others.

But a fundi on any other religion? No, I am not.

I didn't mean a fundi, no.

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”?

Depends what you understand of "morals". Usually, people call what they do as "moral" and "good".

---

Also, I plan to leave my marks where I have lived. People will remember me. They will tell stories of me. I will leave my diaries to my children. And luckily my family is big on geonoligy, and dutifully keeps the records of the family tree - I know my information won't get lost quickly, and thus a part of me will be saved. The concept of *I* is more then who I am. It is the traces I leave here, it is the stuff I write, it is the memories that other people have, and the children I have. And the impact of people last longer then they give themselve credit for. I likely won't be remembered after 200 years, but small traces of me will always be around, like an echo.

I sincerely don't believe that we "live on" in the memories of others: whether they'll remember you or not, you'll not be there to know it. We are not living in others' memories, or by the children we bear, or in the documents we wrote. I sincerely don't care if I would be forgotten after a year I die.