What is the logic in "life after death"?

[KUSA]

God wanted us to be conscious, intelligent creatures who could think, rationalize, and act in ways that are free from pure instinct and natural programming.

This is why I don't believe in it.

[SteveII]

First, I'm not sure you know the meaning of masochistic.

Second, both we and God are eternal beings. One eternal being rejecting another has..guess what...eternal consequences. While you complain that is unjust, what is your reasoning that it is unjust?

It is unjust because, this god only gives us about 70 or so years, with minimal or no evidence, contradictory ancient texts, thousands of competing gods, etc, etc,  to figure it out.

Then he has the audacity to claim that it was our choice.

Sorry, but if he wanted a just system for us to choose him, he shouldn't have created one that relies to much on gullibility.

Billions of people alive right this minute have discovered him not difficult to find. You exaggerate the hurdles to boost your point. We are hardwired to believe in the supernatural, he is evident in the natural world, if you do hear his message from the NT, it is compelling to so many (that tells you something), and if you have not heard the gospel message, he will judge you based on your response to what has been revealed to you. 

A distinction you might have missed is that God wants a person to admit on the inside that he/she is incomplete and in need of a relationship with God. That relationship has been made possible thought the plan of salvation outlined in the NT. It is the desire of this relationship and the change that goes on in your heart that has to be the draw to God. If it took personal appearances and big flashy miracles, a choice to believe in God would be based on other things and not the necessary internal desire to change/have relationship.

[Drich]

OK I know that you'll say that logic and religion don't go together but there must be something that religious people use to rationalize this very central reason why most of them bother with religion.

Because it is about being with God.

So, what would be the point of creating this world only to test people here to see if they'll go to heaven or hell?

That the thing not all are tested, some are the tests. Heaven or Hell is not a good or bad person thing. it is a redemption thing.

Looking at popular belief (and not strictly the scriptures) of who goes where : the killers, thieves, gluttonous and rapists get denied of heaven and are sentenced to hell - but why?

Only because they are unrepentant. No other reason.

Because when you get to heaven you are immortal and if you can't die - nobody can kill you;

That's not true.

After the judment, Christ will reign for 1000 years. after this 1000 years satan will be released to tempt those who were ruled under christ once again sparking unrest leading to a further seperation of the sheeps and goats wheat and weeds. Meaning there are those who make the first judgement but fail to live forever.

if everybody has everything - why bother stealing?

That is kinda the reason for streets of gold and pearl lined gates. When our most precious things become common building material then our value system is over turned. That again is the point. At the heart of stealing is coveting what your neighbor has, and wanting it for yourself. If heaven is not about things it them will be about position and who you are with/to God.

; if you don't have to eat because you're a ghost and already dead - so what if you were gluttonous

Being a glutton is not even mentioned in the bible as being a sin.

?; and if everybody is lacking genitals then nobody can rape anybody.

where does the bible say that?

What am I missing here? Does anyone have an answer to this?

maybe study beyond the limits of your understanding of religion and you current muslim understanding of an after life.

Perhaps there could be made a case that this construction of life after death is damaging to society because it gives felons some sort of supernatural dimension of evil and therefore society is reluctant to help not only to renovate these people but make society a better place. If we take that most crime is driven by poverty, injustice and least of all mental illness then in better societies there is less crime.

[Edwardo Piet]

OK I know that you'll say that logic and religion don't go together but there must be something that religious people use to rationalize this very central reason why most of them bother with religion.
So, what would be the point of creating this world only to test people here to see if they'll go to heaven or hell? Looking at popular belief (and not strictly the scriptures) of who goes where : the killers, thieves, gluttonous and rapists get denied of heaven and are sentenced to hell - but why? Because when you get to heaven you are immortal and if you can't die - nobody can kill you; if everybody has everything - why bother stealing?; if you don't have to eat because you're a ghost and already dead - so what if you were gluttonous?; and if everybody is lacking genitals then nobody can rape anybody.
What am I missing here? Does anyone have an answer to this?

Perhaps there could be made a case that this construction of life after death is damaging to society because it gives felons some sort of supernatural dimension of evil and therefore society is reluctant to help not only to renovate these people but make society a better place. If we take that most crime is driven by poverty, injustice and least of all mental illness then in better societies there is less crime.

Your whole question is malformed. The point of this world is not to test you. The point of this world is to allow you the opportunity to freely choose a relationship with God. You go to hell because you reject God. Listing particular sins and then extrapolating them into heaven makes no sense.

So God is a dude and homosexuality is a sin and yet he wants a relationship with you? What a hypocrite.

#godisinthecloset

[Simon Moon]

It is unjust because, this god only gives us about 70 or so years, with minimal or no evidence, contradictory ancient texts, thousands of competing gods, etc, etc,  to figure it out.

Then he has the audacity to claim that it was our choice.

Sorry, but if he wanted a just system for us to choose him, he shouldn't have created one that relies to much on gullibility.

Billions of people alive right this minute have discovered him not difficult to find. You exaggerate the hurdles to boost your point.  

Please let me know how to discover your god without my having to appeal to fallacious arguments (like ad populum fallacy, in the first sentence in your response), insufficient demonstrable evidence, and lack of reasoned argument.

Far from exaggeration. I could list paragraphs of legitimate hurdles that have to be overcome for me to justify belief.

We are hardwired to believe in the supernatural, he is evident in the natural world, if you do hear his message from the NT, it is compelling to so many (that tells you something), and if you have not heard the gospel message, he will judge you based on your response to what has been revealed to you.

No, we are hardwired to be pattern seeking beings and agency detectors. This hardwiring translates to belief in the supernatural.

There is no evidence in the natural world other than the natural. Our pattern seeking and exaggerated agency detection superimposes gods over the natural world.

A distinction you might have missed is that God wants a person to admit on the inside that he/she is incomplete and in need of a relationship with God. That relationship has been made possible thought the plan of salvation outlined in the NT. It is the desire of this relationship and the change that goes on in your heart that has to be the draw to God. If it took personal appearances and big flashy miracles, a choice to believe in God would be based on other things and not the necessary internal desire to change/have relationship.

I am well aware of the dogma and doctrine.

How would I go about accepting any of what you state above, without first believing that this god exists? Sorry, but I am not susceptible to circular logic.

[KUSA]

Billions of people alive right this minute have discovered him not difficult to find.

They even find him on a piece of toast.

We are hardwired to believe in the supernatural

Some people are hard wired to be stupid.

he is evident in the natural world

Other than toast and Cheetos I don't see it.

if you do hear his message from the NT, it is compelling to so many (that tells you something),

It tells me that some people are idiots.

and if you have not heard the gospel message, he will judge you based on your response to what has been revealed to you. 

He couldn't spare a Bible?

A distinction you might have missed is that God wants a person to admit on the inside that he/she is incomplete and in need of a relationship with God.

He is like a crazy insecure girlfriend.

That relationship has been made possible thought the plan of salvation outlined in the NT. It is the desire of this relationship and the change that goes on in your heart that has to be the draw to God. If it took personal appearances and big flashy miracles, a choice to believe in God would be based on other things and not the necessary internal desire to change/have relationship.

If I am wrong and do see Jesus one day, I am going to put my hands around his throat and choke the little pussy until he goes limp.

[SteveII]

---

First, I'm not sure you know the meaning of masochistic.

Second, both we and God are eternal beings. One eternal being rejecting another has..guess what...eternal consequences. While you complain that is unjust, what is your reasoning that it is unjust?

Eternal consequences for not believing in something there is no evidence for.  For giving us the capability of reason, and punishing us for using it

Except there have been hundreds of millions (if not billions) of adult conversions over the centuries. How do you explain that if there was 'no evidence'? This 'no evidence' tune shows a  gross lack of understanding of the issues. You can say all you want that you don't find the evidence compelling, but to say there is no evidence is just nonsense repeated by atheists often enough that a good portion of you actually believe it. Sad.

[Simon Moon]

---

Eternal consequences for not believing in something there is no evidence for.  For giving us the capability of reason, and punishing us for using it

Except there have been hundreds of millions (if not billions) of adult conversions over the centuries. How do you explain that if there was 'no evidence'?

The same way I'd explain conversions to other god beliefs besides yours.

This 'no evidence' tune shows a  gross lack of understanding of the issues. You can say all you want that you don't find the evidence compelling, but to say there is no evidence is just nonsense repeated by atheists often enough that a good portion of you actually believe it. Sad.

I always state that there is insufficient and poor evidence. Anecdotal evidence is evidence, just very bad evidence.

It is not our fault that what theists claim is evidence is not convincing. Would you give any credence to similar types of evidence as you provide, provided by believers in other gods to support their beliefs?

[SteveII]

Billions of people alive right this minute have discovered him not difficult to find. You exaggerate the hurdles to boost your point.  

Please let me know how to discover your god without my having to appeal to fallacious arguments (like ad populum fallacy, in the first sentence in your response), insufficient demonstrable evidence, and lack of reasoned argument. [1]

Far from exaggeration. I could list paragraphs of legitimate hurdles that have to be overcome for me to justify belief. [2]

We are hardwired to believe in the supernatural, he is evident in the natural world, if you do hear his message from the NT, it is compelling to so many (that tells you something), and if you have not heard the gospel message, he will judge you based on your response to what has been revealed to you.

No, we are hardwired to be pattern seeking beings and agency detectors. This hardwiring translates to belief in the supernatural. [3]

There is no evidence in the natural world other than the natural. Our pattern seeking and exaggerated agency detection superimposes gods over the natural world. [4] 

A distinction you might have missed is that God wants a person to admit on the inside that he/she is incomplete and in need of a relationship with God. That relationship has been made possible thought the plan of salvation outlined in the NT. It is the desire of this relationship and the change that goes on in your heart that has to be the draw to God. If it took personal appearances and big flashy miracles, a choice to believe in God would be based on other things and not the necessary internal desire to change/have relationship.

I am well aware of the dogma and doctrine.

How would I go about accepting any of what you state above, without first believing that this god exists? Sorry, but I am not susceptible to circular logic. [5]

1. A response to your assertion that God is somehow hard to find with all the confusion by pointing out the billions who didn't find things as confusing as you make them to be is certainly not a fallacy. It is undercutting evidence that your premise of as to the hiddenness of God is wrong. 

2. Did you try to find the answers to these supposed hurdles? There are so few objections to Christianity that have not been answered over and over for thousands of years. 

3. That is just a theory you could not possibly know is true or ever have a hope of testing (non-falsifiable). 

4. The very existence of the natural world is evidence.

5. What is evidence of God existing? Miracles? There is a whole catalog of them in the NT. Nothing circular there.

---

Except there have been hundreds of millions (if not billions) of adult conversions over the centuries. How do you explain that if there was 'no evidence'?

The same way I'd explain conversions to other god beliefs besides yours. [1]

This 'no evidence' tune shows a  gross lack of understanding of the issues. You can say all you want that you don't find the evidence compelling, but to say there is no evidence is just nonsense repeated by atheists often enough that a good portion of you actually believe it. Sad.

I always state that there is insufficient and poor evidence. Anecdotal evidence is evidence, just very bad evidence.

It is not our fault that what theists claim is evidence is not convincing. Would you give any credence to similar types of evidence as you provide, provided by believers in other gods to support their beliefs? [2]

1. Which is? 
2. I find the evidence compelling. Would I if I was not raised in a Christian home? I don't know the answer to that. However, we can see from tens of millions of adult conversions a year that some find it compelling. I do think that Christianity is the best evidenced religion of all time. Even if you find it insufficient, wouldn't you agree on that point?

[Simon Moon]

Please let me know how to discover your god without my having to appeal to fallacious arguments (like ad populum fallacy, in the first sentence in your response), insufficient demonstrable evidence, and lack of reasoned argument. [1]

Far from exaggeration. I could list paragraphs of legitimate hurdles that have to be overcome for me to justify belief. [2]


No, we are hardwired to be pattern seeking beings and agency detectors. This hardwiring translates to belief in the supernatural. [3]

There is no evidence in the natural world other than the natural. Our pattern seeking and exaggerated agency detection superimposes gods over the natural world. [4] 


I am well aware of the dogma and doctrine.

How would I go about accepting any of what you state above, without first believing that this god exists? Sorry, but I am not susceptible to circular logic. [5]

1. A response to your assertion that God is somehow hard to find with all the confusion by pointing out the billions who didn't find things as confusing as you make them to be is certainly not a fallacy. It is undercutting evidence that your premise of as to the hiddenness of God is wrong. 

2. Did you try to find the answers to these supposed hurdles? There are so few objections to Christianity that have not been answered over and over for thousands of years. 

3. That is just a theory you could not possibly know is true or ever have a hope of testing (non-falsifiable). 

4. The very existence of the natural world is evidence.

5. What is evidence of God existing? Miracles? There is a whole catalog of them in the NT. Nothing circular there.

---

The same way I'd explain conversions to other god beliefs besides yours. [1]



I always state that there is insufficient and poor evidence. Anecdotal evidence is evidence, just very bad evidence.

It is not our fault that what theists claim is evidence is not convincing. Would you give any credence to similar types of evidence as you provide, provided by believers in other gods to support their beliefs? [2]

1. Which is? 

People believe existential claims for all sorts of reasons, some are good reasons (demonstrable evidence, valid and sound logic), some are bad (ancient texts, anecdotal, personal experience).

People of all religions have their ancient texts, personal experiences, etc, just like you have.

2. I find the evidence compelling. Would I if I was not raised in a Christian home? I don't know the answer to that. However, we can see from tens of millions of adult conversions a year that some find it compelling. I do think that Christianity is the best evidenced religion of all time. Even if you find it insufficient, wouldn't you agree on that point?

Again, people as adults convert to all sorts of religions. The fact that some convert to Christianity lends absolutely no evidence that it is true.

---

Please let me know how to discover your god without my having to appeal to fallacious arguments (like ad populum fallacy, in the first sentence in your response), insufficient demonstrable evidence, and lack of reasoned argument. [1]

Far from exaggeration. I could list paragraphs of legitimate hurdles that have to be overcome for me to justify belief. [2]


No, we are hardwired to be pattern seeking beings and agency detectors. This hardwiring translates to belief in the supernatural. [3]

There is no evidence in the natural world other than the natural. Our pattern seeking and exaggerated agency detection superimposes gods over the natural world. [4] 


I am well aware of the dogma and doctrine.

How would I go about accepting any of what you state above, without first believing that this god exists? Sorry, but I am not susceptible to circular logic. [5]

1. A response to your assertion that God is somehow hard to find with all the confusion by pointing out the billions who didn't find things as confusing as you make them to be is certainly not a fallacy. It is undercutting evidence that your premise of as to the hiddenness of God is wrong. 

Yes, finding the Christian god is so simple, that the majority of theists find a different god or gods. Nice planning there, Yahweh.

2. Did you try to find the answers to these supposed hurdles? There are so few objections to Christianity that have not been answered over and over for thousands of years. 

Sure did. They are far from convincing to anyone not looking to have their confirmation bias reinforced. Most are blatantly fallacious.

Apologists from other religions have similar 'answers' to the hurdles of buying into their religions.  

3. That is just a theory you could not possibly know is true or ever have a hope of testing (non-falsifiable). 

There are 1000's of experimental evidence that supports this.

4. The very existence of the natural world is evidence.

Circular logic.

"God created the natural world. The natural world exists. Therefore, it is proof that god created the natural world".

Nicely played sir, nicely played!

5. What is evidence of God existing? Miracles? There is a whole catalog of them in the NT. Nothing circular there.

---

Texts written by ancient, superstitious tribesmen that include some miracle stories is not evidence.

The NT is THE claim, it is not evidence.