Just_An_Atheist

What about me, did you think that I could handle myself well, given my worldview? (I say this, because some evangelicals-and I'm not saying that they're representivie-seem to have a "holier than thou attitude.)

"I don't think people believe what they want in spite of what they experience (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste etc.), like denying a computer exists before them purely out of volition. Rather, when deciding one's stance absent sense data (e.g. atheism vs. theism) one's presuppositions (desires) most certainly do influence said stance. Call it an amateur human-behaviorist's observation."



Yes, but it does weaken a volunterist's claim, and that people are (in the large part.) not in control of their beliefs. Your point about our desires influencing our beliefs, seems to strenghthen it. If our beliefs are formed (very strongly) by the evidence we consider, combined with our desires leaves still less room for free will concerning belief.

Furthermore, I think that a lot of people believe that have some data pertaining to God's existence, and to the contrary. (I feel like I have good evidence of God's nonexistence, but that general point is not the issue, except as an example of involuntary beleifs.)

I also see in scripture that God will not put anyone where they do not want to be (hell vs. heaven that is).

I disagree, some atheists even *profess* that they wish that theism is true. (And since we cannot regard a person as lying, unless we have good reason to believe that one is lying.) One of the top infidels in this site, Jeffery Jay Lowder, reapetedly claims that he wishes that theism were true. And since I think that, at least post Christ, the After Life defence is bankrupt, it would seem that by helping people such as Mr. Lowder become believers, He would actually be conforming with their free will, and possibly enhancing it.

onceuponapriori

Mageth, thank you for this intriguing discussion.


In other words, such revelations tend to be based on the religious influences to which the person has been exposed. That lends a good deal of subjectivity to such experiences, does it not?

It certainly does give an appearance of subjectivity. I'm sure that many of them are based on feelings, delusion, confusion etc, which is why one need not accept any of them as public evidence.

I simply don't think that really qualifies as "general revelation". Maybe you need to put it in a new category so we can just discuss meaningful stuff like real-world incidences of "revelation."

If you'd prefer to do that, I'm not against it. We can call it "Postmortem Revelation". The problem is, I will want to appeal to it if someone acts as though it's not possible that God reveals himself to people in that way.

But you're assuming the existence of god and an afterlife. Note that the OP and the topic in general is talking about things of the here-and-now, of the existence we know exists, how do we find god now.

I really don't view it the same way. The OP was looking for an explanation as to why certain states of affairs obtains right now. A reasonable answer to that question, when discussing the activities of a person, might be that he will act to make another state of affairs obtain in the future.

Introducing what may happen in an afterlife is not necessary for this discussion, and indeed detracts from it. It's superfluous.

Obviously, I disagree. If one would call God unjust for not doing something *now* a useful retort is that he might do something *later*. Right?

Are you saying this objective morality exists separately and independently from God?

Yes. But God always acts morally, and God reveals objective morals to those people who honestly believe in him. He does so by guiding their understanding towards the truth.

If God's not its source of objectivity, what is?

I happen to think that moral truths are necessary, brute facts; that there is no possible world where torturing for pleasure is good.

First, you need to define "murder". What is murder?

The unjustified, intentional slaying of another human being. That works for now. Keep in mind, I've not spent hours thinking about the definition.

Are you sure that "murder is wrong" is "objective"?

Rather sure.

Does everyone, even Christians, always assume that murder is wrong?

Anyone who worships the same God that I do would believe that murder is wrong.

Do you consider murder wrong in all situations?

Yes.

And if these morals are objective, you should be able to list more than one, and do a similar breakdown on them that I've asked you to do for "murder is wrong".

I can, but I don't really have time to do that. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish to from this. Another example though, would be:

- Caring for others is right.

Answer my questions above without appealing to the bible, implicitly or explicitly, then.

I did. It might help to explain to you my position regarding the Bible. I believe that the Bible contains many truths, but I do not believe that it is inerrant.

If these things [morals] are objective, then everyone asking God for guidance should always come up with the same answers to moral questions. Do they? I think not.

Anyone who has come to believe in the existence of my God, and whom honestly seeks these answers, will come to believe the same thing regarding certain moral truths.

I also think that each and every *totally* honest "seeker" will come to believe in him at some point. Please, try not to take that offensively; I do not mean it so.

How do you come to the conclusion that you are right and they are wrong? You have to subjectively determine that you are right, that you understand the "objective" morals and know the correct definition of god.

I come to this conclusion by thinking through the relevant facts, and coming up with the best explanation given those facts. I also ask my God for guidance along the way.

And how you can do that without appealing to the bible, your subjective interpretation of the bible, I don't know.

See above: the Bible is not my primary source of truth regarding God and morality; my reason, guided by God, is.

Are you implying the Abrahamic, Christian God (e.g. the one of your preferred definition) or any old god? One can be atheistic about a particular god and still be a theist, you know.

I rejected belief in all gods, then began to believe in a deistic God, and then, finally, a God very close, but not identical, to the God conceived of by "popular Christianity".

Cross Examiner

Hello Mageth, I've yet to speak with you. Thanks for reading my post and responding.

I believe you are not applying Occam's Razor properly if you prefer the universe as the ever-existant mover over intelligence, which is manifestly abundant in my opinion. I believe the God of the Bible is substantiated above all others described in various sacred-texts by the single act of Resurrection, which I hold as historical fact after substantial survey.

Oh? So we've found a replacement for Terra when we use this one up?

I don't have time nor the determination at the present to build this case satisfactorily but I'll note in passing that a bit more, a bit less gravity and Earth becomes unlivable. The specifications required and the specifications met by Terra are replete and suspiciously purposeful. It's an interesting study if you are so inclined.

Sorry, I was summarizing. Not the time and place for a thesis paper. Suffice it to say, natural selection/mutations/greater complexity does hinge upon randomness. At the end of the day, after exhaustive study, I find it too difficult to ascribe all that is to chance. It really does come to this if you follow the trail.

Why are we the only animals that have a conscience, are self-aware, plan for the future, use reason etc. Either these are the functions of increased cranial capacity (which I personally reject) or they are the properties of our immaterial selves--think soul or spirit.

Oh? Then you'll kindly show me the atheistic tribes of the third world? That mankind has a thirst for the supernatural is self-evident.

And some care to debate it. I'm just saying that I've concluded the Resurrection as a historical fact. You may dispute this and I would expect no less from any person whose ideology (and subsequent modus operendi) must refute this in order to stand.

As admitted, this is not remotely empirical save to say I am truly a different person due to Christ.

Are you perfect? God says this is the standard of admittance into his eternal presence. We may be declared perfect (righteous) by living a perfect life (demonstrably unattainable) or we may throw ourselves on the mercy of the court, take Christ as our advocate and lord. As mentioned, while easy to understand in concept, difficult to embrace due to pride.

Do you not believe that you are imperfect in body and soul? Ever done anything wrong? Do you suspect you will die? Acknowledging this is humbling in itself. Would a doctor be loving if he said you were healthy yet concealed a cancer he found in you in order to preserve your healthful self-perspective?

Christ did claim to be God. One only need read the Bible haphazardly to see this sentiment stated repeatedly. One must rely upon the the most remarkable, successful conspiracy-theory ever foisted upon humankind to insist that other men inserted these claims. This is where Occam's Razor comes in.

Imperfect. We are. Hard to say, isn't it? He didn't create us imperfect, our progenitors voluntarily chose to experience both good and evil. The result of evil is bodily and spiritual imperfection. He chose not to make us anew but rather purchase us from imperfection, preferring to nail all human sin to a cross on a part of himself, made flesh so as to experience all that we do yet sin not. Shedding this, as you put it, is your choice, you see the plan unfolding now? No one will end up where they do not want to be. It's really a beautiful thing.

Mageth

onceuponapriori:

Mageth, thank you for this intriguing discussion.

And thank you. Note that I'm not a "bitter atheist" or anything, and I do enjoy discussing subjects such as this, particular with those who have at least a slightly different take on it that your "average" Xian and that can discuss things intelligently and civilly.

It certainly does give an appearance of subjectivity. I'm sure that many of them are based on feelings, delusion, confusion etc, which is why one need not accept any of them as public evidence.

It gives the appearance of subjectivity because it is subjective. I think the subjectivity extends to all such experiences, and that “feelings, delusion, confusion etc.” are involved in all of them. Otherwise, if there was a “one true god”, all such experiences should lead to that god (since revelation seems to imply positive action on part of the revealer). Thus, what is “revealed” to such a person is what they expect would be revealed under such a circumstance. The Christianity-influenced sees Christ, the Islam-influenced sees Allah, the Buddhism-influenced sees Buddha. One explanation I can think of is that there is a god that reveals himself in different ways; another is that all revealed gods exist. Another, of course, is that there is no god, and the person is experiencing “revelation” of a particular definition of god.

If you'd prefer to do that, I'm not against it. We can call it "Postmortem Revelation". The problem is, I will want to appeal to it if someone acts as though it's not possible that God reveals himself to people in that way.

I admit it’s “possible”, and indeed I’ve discussed it elsewhere on the thread. I just don’t think it’s of much use in dealing with this present life. It would seem to lead, if true, to the potential to disregard one’s actions in the present life knowing that one will be given the option of enjoying a happy afterlife in spite of one’s actions in the physical life. That’s not really a problem for me as an atheist (though I think there are reasons for living a “good” life that require no god or “objective” morals at all), but it would seem to present problems to a theistic worldview.

I really don't view it the same way. The OP was looking for an explanation as to why certain states of affairs obtains right now. A reasonable answer to that question, when discussing the activities of a person, might be that he will act to make another state of affairs obtain in the future.

I can see that, but it still appears as an appeal to a “magical” answer to me. No problem, after you’re dead you can choose! And, as stated above, appears to give a person the option of living as “wrongly” as they wish while providing an after-death option for a happy afterlife. This leads to obvious absurdities such as Stalin, Hitler and other such stellar examples of earthly existence being offered such an option.

Obviously, I disagree. If one would call God unjust for not doing something *now* a useful retort is that he might do something *later*. Right?

And would it be “just” for God to offer Stalin and Hitler such an afterlife option?

Yes. But God always acts morally, and God reveals objective morals to those people who honestly believe in him. He does so by guiding their understanding towards the truth.

How do you know how god “always acts”? You have no knowledge of how god always acts. And note that you’ve created a higher power than your god – the set of objective morals that defines what he can and cannot do. Why should I worship your god and not those morals? And from whence does this “stand-alone” set of morals derive its objectivity?

I happen to think that moral truths are necessary, brute facts; that there is no possible world where torturing for pleasure is good.

I can conceive of worlds where torturing for pleasure is impossible, hence negating the need of such a “brute fact” moral. Similarly for murder – I can conceive of a world where murder is impossible.

I asked: What is murder?

You replied: The unjustified, intentional slaying of another human being. That works for now. Keep in mind, I've not spent hours thinking about the definition.

“That works for now”? If it’s an objective moral and a “brute fact”, surely you can do better than that. And if it is such and has been revealed to you, why would you have to think about it?

Now you need to define “unjustified” and “intentional” – there is a lot of room for subjectivity in both of those. And how, say, if you were a police officer, a judge, or on a jury, would you determine if a murder is unjustified, justified, intentional, or unintentional? Would you ask god?

And why limit it to human beings? I may think it applies to all life. That’s my subjective judgment; your subjective judgment may say it applies to only human beings.

So where is the “brute fact” objectivity in “murder is immoral”, then?

Anyone who worships the same God that I do would believe that murder is wrong.

Yes, but would they supply the same definitions of “murder”, “justified” and “intentional”? If two (or 12) who worshipped the same god that you do were on a jury, would they all reach the same conclusion?

I asked: Do you consider murder wrong in all situations?


Yes.

Then I hope you never serve on a jury.

I can, but I don't really have time to do that. You can draw whatever conclusions you wish to from this. Another example though, would be:

- Caring for others is right.

There’s a hell of a lot of subjectivity built into that one as well. What does “caring for others” mean?

I did. It might help to explain to you my position regarding the Bible. I believe that the Bible contains many truths, but I do not believe that it is inerrant.

If you don’t believe it’s inerrant, then how do you determine what in it is true and what is not?

Anyone who has come to believe in the existence of my God, and whom honestly seeks these answers, will come to believe the same thing regarding certain moral truths.

So by definition, someone who does not believe the same thing regarding certain moral truths that you do does not believe in the existence of your god and/or does not honestly seek the answers? I think you should look into the “moral truths” of pride, presumptuousness, and arrogance.

I also think that each and every *totally* honest "seeker" will come to believe in him at some point. Please, try not to take that offensively; I do not mean it so.

Intent does not prevent offense. Another “moral truth” for you to chew on.

Whatever, I’m not “offended”, because I think you’re just plain wrong. Lots of people honestly “seek” and don’t find your particular definition of god. Presuming that everyone but your little group are not totally honest in their search strikes me as a bit, well, immoral (judgmental, presumptuous, arrogant).

Further, you earlier insisted on giving an out in the afterlife. So someone could not be a “totally honest seeker” and, I assume, still come to believe in God, using your out. A bit contradictory, that.

I come to this conclusion by thinking through the relevant facts, and coming up with the best explanation given those facts. I also ask my God for guidance along the way.

You’ve just described a subjective process for reaching your conclusion, if I’ve ever heard one. Any morals you determine based on that conclusion, then, are not determined objectively.[/b]

[b]See above: the Bible is not my primary source of truth regarding God and morality; my reason, guided by God, is.

And that’s a subjective process, through and through.

I rejected belief in all gods, then began to believe in a deistic God, and then, finally, a God very close, but not identical, to the God conceived of by "popular Christianity".

It’s not surprising that’s where you wound up, if my assumption is right that the “God conceived of by "popular Christianity"”, or varieties thereof, is what you were indoctrinated with in your early life, by your parents and society. If you grew up in Saudi Arabia with Moslem parents, you’d more than likely be bowing to Alllah right now and defending the “objective” morals taught to you by him.

Cross Examiner

I can't believe how fast you write Mageth! I don't know if I can keep up. You're answering on mulitple fronts as well I suspect.

No specific verse per se. Just an apparent principle derived from much study. The entire book of Romans is a good place to start though. Paul states that men have the light of creation and conscience yet they choose to worship the creation rather than the creator. Modern man worships himself, and his own intellect and achievement; same disease, different symptoms. We also have the testimony of scripture, that Christ rose from the dead. I'm sure you've read Simon Greenleaf's analysis of the credibility of the four Gospel writers? It's a good read if your legally-inclined. Whoah, I've spent too much time on this point. Moving on.

Your choice is made here. You've heard the Gospel I suspect. It is apparent you detest the ideas I've presented. What makes you think you'll like them better on the other side of eternity? Eternity is simple. Either with God or whithout Him. Hell is one, Heaven is the other. Remember, Jesus came as a Jew. When an Aramaic-speaking man described something, he gave a colorful, emotion inducing description. He might compare the English concept of "suffering", a rather vague notion, to a smoldering city-garbage dump (e.g. Gahenna outside Jerusalem's walls) to indicate a place of torment. Will there really be brimstone on one side and harps and angels on the other? Doubt it. He was framing seperation from God as something that anyone could understand. Just so no one goes in thinking it's a cool place to hang with other infidels. Put another way, Hell is the complete absence of the goodness of God, which we experience in small part every day while we live our natural lives. You're still breathing right? Point is, if you want nothing to do with God now, you'll really not like the whole of Him so you're better off seperated if remaining self-sufficient to the bitter end is your "final answer". Pardon the cliche. Darn, went too long again.

Laws of physics still keeping you in one peice, receiving every chance to live and believe? Maybe you'll be around tomorrow to ponder the same, that'd be a gift of love which you do not necessarily deserve (nor does anyone really). All the blessings that encompass your life amigo. You can ascribe them to chance or your own doing if you wish. Ain't it great to choose whatever you wish?

Yes. I believe in free-will. The Bible is my authority on that. It also states God knows the future (since He is not subject to time). The Bible is my authority because I believe in the Resurrection as stated prior.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:26

BioBeing

I think it was phyrro who posted this early on in this discussion as evidence that children do not go to heaven. I just wanted to point out that I have had this passage used to me to show that children have an innate sense of God (and hence go to heaven), which is lost as they get older. Hence, the need to be reborn. Of course, you gotta kinda side-step original sin to get that interpretation, and I'm not sure about what happens in-between "forgetting" all about God and being reborn.

BioBeing

Oh, and I almost forgot... there is that awful song "Jesus loves the little children". That PROVES that they don't go straight to hell...

onceuponapriori

I admit it’s “possible”, and indeed I’ve discussed it elsewhere on the thread. I just don’t think it’s of much use in dealing with this present life. It would seem to lead, if true, to the potential to disregard one’s actions in the present life knowing that one will be given the option of enjoying a happy afterlife in spite of one’s actions in the physical life. That’s not really a problem for me as an atheist (though I think there are reasons for living a “good” life that require no god or “objective” morals at all), but it would seem to present problems to a theistic worldview.

One cannot simply say "I believe in and accept you, God". God, by virtue of his omniscience, would not be so easily fooled. If Hitler or Stalin or <insert favorite meanie here> were to try and trick God into believing that they are honest about their acceptance of God, they'd be sure to fail. The fact that some people might *try to* abuse this possible option (it may not be given to everyone... I don't know), does not make it impossible or even implausible that such an option exists.

And would it be “just” for God to offer Stalin and Hitler such an afterlife option?

Probably not. But I'm sure God would be a much better judge of that than I. I can say: I'm sure, by virtue of his being just, God will treat them justly.

My guess, though, is that some of those "meanies" will find their place in Hell. I doubt that many people will remain for long in Hell, but some will be so obstinate as to reject God even after being shown their depravity, and being punished for it. Some might even continue to hate God forever. I'm not sure.

How do you know how god “always acts”? You have no knowledge of how god always acts. And note that you’ve created a higher power than your god – the set of objective morals that defines what he can and cannot do.

Sorry. I *believe* that God always acts morally. God could act imorally (mind you, I wouldn't worship him), but he never would.

I can conceive of worlds where torturing for pleasure is impossible, hence negating the need of such a “brute fact” moral. Similarly for murder – I can conceive of a world where murder is impossible.

Good point. In any world where murder exists, it is wrong.

“That works for now”? If it’s an objective moral and a “brute fact”, surely you can do better than that. And if it is such and has been revealed to you, why would you have to think about it?

As I said, I know that murder is wrong. That doesn't mean that I've spent the time to define each and every one of its terms. Do you have similar, perfect, and technical definitions for "love, car, the, boat, elephant, justice, is, exist, occupy, relation, etc"? The point I'm trying to make: a concept can be rather clear in one's mind, but difficult to explicate.

Now you need to define “unjustified” and “intentional” – there is a lot of room for subjectivity in both of those. And how, say, if you were a police officer, a judge, or on a jury, would you determine if a murder is unjustified, justified, intentional, or unintentional? Would you ask god?

I think I'll refrain from defining each of those words. After I did, would you ask me to define those words which I used to define them, and after those, the next? I'm not trying to be rude, but I don't have hours to spend on this.

Yes, but would they supply the same definitions of “murder”, “justified” and “intentional”? If two (or 12) who worshipped the same god that you do were on a jury, would they all reach the same conclusion?

I suppose so. But since reason (which is fallible) is involved, and is only guided by God, someone might be mistaken along the way. Of course, just because a truth is apprehended by a subjective process, does not preclude that truth's being objective.

"There’s a hell of a lot of subjectivity built into that one as well. What does “caring for others” mean?"

More defining of my definition's defintion's definition? I hope you understand why I'd rather not go down this road.

If you don’t believe it’s inerrant, then how do you determine what in it is true and what is not?

By the same process I use to try and determine if what someone is telling me is true. I look to the other relevant facts, and try to find the best possible explanation. Do you belief there is no truth in the Bible? Do you believe that each science text book is inerrant? If not, how do you distinguish the truth from error?

So by definition, someone who does not believe the same thing regarding certain moral truths that you do does not believe in the existence of your god and/or does not honestly seek the answers? I think you should look into the “moral truths” of pride, presumptuousness, and arrogance.

They might be mistaken about particular details along the way. But yes, I do believe that, should someone claim to worship the same God as I, but insisted that brutal rape is moral, I would think that he was lying, or confused about which God *I* believe in.

Truth is "proud, presumptuous, and arrogant". By definition, it excludes all falsehoods. I've always wondered at the irony of someone calling someone else arrogant for believing that they know something...

"Lots of people honestly “seek” and don’t find your particular definition of god. Presuming that everyone but your little group are not totally honest in their search strikes me as a bit, well, immoral (judgmental, presumptuous, arrogant)."

I'm sure they do. And those that do will *at some point during their existence* find God.

"Further, you earlier insisted on giving an out in the afterlife. So someone could not be a “totally honest seeker” and, I assume, still come to believe in God, using your out. A bit contradictory, that."

As I said, God will not be fooled by empty words.

You’ve just described a subjective process for reaching your conclusion, if I’ve ever heard one. Any morals you determine based on that conclusion, then, are not determined objectively.

Arriving at a truth through a subjective process does not preclude it's being objectively so.

And that’s a subjective process, through and through.

OK.

Cross Examiner

All apologies Just_An_Atheist to make you wait. I answer FIFO (first in, first out) and Mageth had two in there before yours.

Sorry, I meant handle the noun, not the verb. As in my handle is "Billy Graham is cool", about which I joked that my stances should not come as surprises to y'all. But yes, I do think you handle yourself well

Sounds like an interesting point but I truly don't follow all of it, especially the first part of the first sentence. Care to expound? The evidence we consider, even have access to, with regards to most important questions of life, is limited. We fill the rest of the picture with what he estimate it to look like which is always the product of what we preconceive. That is to say, the vast majority of what we know, is actually what we believe rather than "know" in the empirical sense. Or put another way, that which we know, really makes up very little of our cognizance. If the unknown is a plane (infinite), and the known is a circle on that plane, as our cumulative human knowledge (product of science) grows in diameter so does our contact with the unknown (circle's circumference) so that the more we know, the less we "know".

I've heard good arguments on both sides. I stand with Paul though and say no one is without reason to believe in God via conscience and creation (see Romans 1:18-32). Once one moves to theism by this, he is then compelled by the Resurrection, among other lesser evidences, to move into saving faith in Christ (another called this general revelation and special revelation, respectively).

Notice the struggle most go through to "arrive" at atheism? I've had many honest atheists admit this much to me. God expects one to follow that instinct to Him. The prideful creature will not however, thus God says eventually to him, thy will be done. To deny God his place as creator is to deny him forever, even unto eternity.

The heart is desperately wicked, who can know it (Jeremiah 17:9)? No doubt some do wish unto theism. God only knows the heart what they really wish though. Man looks at the outward appearance but God sees the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). I think if one really wants to believe in God, he will find evidence for Him. As I did.

Mageth

Hello Mageth, I've yet to speak with you. Thanks for reading my post and responding.

Hiya back, BgiC.

I believe you are not applying Occam's Razor properly if you prefer the universe as the ever-existant mover over intelligence, which is manifestly abundant in my opinion.

Well, your opinion scarcely applies to my application of Occam’s Razor, does it? If the universe is a sufficient “mover” unto itself, then god (any ‘ole god) is superfluous.

I believe the God of the Bible is substantiated above all others described in various sacred-texts by the single act of Resurrection, which I hold as historical fact after substantial survey.

You are aware that many other religions also include resurrection tales, aren’t you? Have you looked into comparative mythology?

Oh? So we've found a replacement for Terra when we use this one up?

No, we haven’t “found” one, but there are likely millions if not billions of them out there if we can devise a way to reach them. But in the time being, I’d suggest we make the best of life here on Earth; shedding ourselves of ancient, exclusive religions that have led us to the brink of “using this one up” is a good place to start.

I don't have time nor the determination at the present to build this case satisfactorily but I'll note in passing that a bit more, a bit less gravity and Earth becomes unlivable. The specifications required and the specifications met by Terra are replete and suspiciously purposeful. It's an interesting study if you are so inclined.

Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard this bit before, many times.

Ever heard of the Anthropic Principle? Of course the earth seems well-suited to the earth’s particular manifestation of life; this is where earthlife has developed, after all, so it wouldn’t make much sense for the local environment to be unsuited for the life found here, would it?

Reading “purposeful” into the universe is a waste of time; there is no purpose, no purpose is even necessary. Occam’s razor strikes again.

Sorry, I was summarizing. Not the time and place for a thesis paper. Suffice it to say, natural selection/mutations/greater complexity does hinge upon randomness.

Randomness is a component, an input into the process.

At the end of the day, after exhaustive study, I find it too difficult to ascribe all that is to chance. It really does come to this if you follow the trail.

There you go again with the same strawman. No one in science claims “all that is” is ascribed to chance. I’ve followed the trail; you must have made a wrong turn somewhere. A chance accident?

Why are we the only animals that have a conscience,

How do you know we are?

are self-aware,

We’re not considered the only self-aware animal.

plan for the future,

You mean like the bear growing fat for hibernation, the bees selecting a spot and building a nest for their future brood, the squirrel stashing acorns for the winter, the bower bird building its bower to attract its future mate, the elephant migrating dozens or hundreds of miles to reach a remembered food source at just the right time of year?

use reason etc.

Again, how do you know that we are?

Either these are the functions of increased cranial capacity (which I personally reject) or they are the properties of our immaterial selves--think soul or spirit.

Well, you may reject it, but I don’t. Our brain’s complexity is sufficient to account for our abilities without resorting to invisible, supernatural, undetectable, imaginary essences (magic, really). Dualism has suffered under Occam’s razor, as well.

All one has to do is look at the range of capabilities in the above and other related areas in the animal kingdom (of which we are a part) to see that brain structure accounts for mental ability.

And then one can look at the evidence from brain injury or drugs, how the directly affects capabilities in the above areas – even personality. Odd, that, if a soul or spirit is what gives us those functions.

Oh? Then you'll kindly show me the atheistic tribes of the third world? That mankind has a thirst for the supernatural is self-evident.

Well, I didn't make that claim; I believe that's called a "strawman". It’s up to you to prove your statement that “all men since the dawn of time have sought to answer the question of the supernatural of his own volition”. Don’t worry; I don’t expect you to, as it’s an unprovable assertion.

And some care to debate it. I'm just saying that I've concluded the Resurrection as a historical fact. You may dispute this and I would expect no less from any person whose ideology (and subsequent modus operendi) must refute this in order to stand.

And I could as well say that I expect no less from any person whose ideology (and subsequent modus operendi) must believe this in order to stand. Where does such a statement get us? Nowhere, right?

Actually I approached it from the other direction – I once had a similar ideology to yours, but my conclusion, after a thorough investigation, was that the resurrection is a myth. This wasn’t in defense of my ideology; it was in spite of my ideology.

Trust me, my life would be much easier if I could believe (my wife, parents and all but one of my siblings, as well as most of my relatives and society at large, are believers), but being intellectually honest I can’t.

So I’m not defending my ideology; I’m being intellectually honest with myself and my acquaintances.

As admitted, this is not remotely empirical save to say I am truly a different person due to Christ.

And the Buddhist is truly a different person due to the Buddha, and the Moslem is truly a different person due to Allah, and so on, and so on. Change of “person” is not unique to Christianity.

Are you perfect?

No; I don’t claim “perfection”, nor do I claim “imperfection”. It would be meaningless to. “Perfection” is a meaningless concept to me in this context.

God says this is the standard of admittance into his eternal presence.

Does he? Why should I listen to the words of a non-existent being, invented by a tribe in the eastern Mediterranean to support the pillaging of their neighbors?

We may be declared perfect (righteous) by living a perfect life (demonstrably unattainable) or we may throw ourselves on the mercy of the court, take Christ as our advocate and lord. As mentioned, while easy to understand in concept, difficult to embrace due to pride.

More stuff that needs to be tossed on the junkpile of history, that.
For me, it’s difficult (impossible, actually) to embrace due to reason. Pride has nothing to do with it; intellectual honesty does. As I said, I’d be better off in my life if I could believe, not because of any hope of “salvation” but because it would make my relationships easier.

Do you not believe that you are imperfect in body and soul?

I don’t believe in “soul” at all. And I have no need to consider myself “perfect” or “imperfect” in body or any other sense, either. I am what I am. Comparing myself to some (unknown) ideal standard of "perfection" is a waste of time, and worse a road to disillusionment.

Ever done anything wrong?

Of course, but so what? God’s gonna fry me for eternity if I don’t beg forgiveness for pulling Sally’s hair in 3rd grade, is that it?

Do you suspect you will die?

I know I will die, and have no problems with that.

Acknowledging this is humbling in itself.

How so? I’m uplifted by the joy of living, even if it’s for a brief time. Acknowledging death, and accepting its inevitability, is a freeing experience.

Would a doctor be loving if he said you were healthy yet concealed a cancer he found in you in order to preserve your healthful self-perspective?

And don’t forget that doctor introduced the cancer to me in the first place.

Christ did claim to be God. One only need read the Bible haphazardly to see this sentiment stated repeatedly.

Actually, some men a long time ago wrote something that some interpret as Christ claiming to be god. And claiming so doesn’t make it so. Christ is certainly not the only individual in history who reportedly claimed to be god.

One must rely upon the the most remarkable, successful conspiracy-theory ever foisted upon humankind to insist that other men inserted these claims. This is where Occam's Razor comes in.

Not so. It’s more likely for men to make such fantastical things up than for them to be based in reality. Jesus isn’t the only person in history around which such myths have developed, that’s for sure. We have lots of evidence that people make fantastical things up and no evidence that God exists, after all.

Imperfect. We are. Hard to say, isn't it?

No; it would be meaningless to claim “perfection”, and just as meaningless to claim “imperfection”. We just are; we’re human, sufficient enough to live relatively happy lives in the lifespans we have. Now if we can just rid ourselves of these ridiculous superstitions.

He didn't create us imperfect, our progenitors voluntarily chose to experience both good and evil.

Good for them; life would be boring as hell otherwise. But I assume you’re speaking of the myth of Adam and Eve, right? You do realize that’s a myth, don’t you? You do realize that creation accounts, even “Fall” accounts, are not unique to your particular religion?

The result of evil is bodily and spiritual imperfection.

Again, no “spirit” exists, and “perfection” and “imperfection” are meaningless to me in this context.

He chose not to make us anew but rather purchase us from imperfection, preferring to nail all human sin to a cross on a part of himself, made flesh so as to experience all that we do yet sin not.

Ah, the old “god sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself” bit.

Another myth (death and resurrection of a deity to bring a boon to humankind) found in many of the world’s mythologies. As is the virgin birth bit, too, by the way.

If Christ didn’t “sin”, then there’s no way he experienced much of anything that we do.

Shedding this, as you put it, is your choice, you see the plan unfolding now?

I’ve heard it all before; hell, I was weaned on it. And no, I don’t see any plan unfolding; only a bit of wishful thinking based on 2000-year old blood-sacrifice religious myths surrounding a tribal war-god.

No one will end up where they do not want to be. It's really a beautiful thing.

Newsflash: we’re all gonna end up in the same place – six feet under, wishful thinking myths that promise a joyful afterlife if you’ll just submit to the fearful god, the bringer of life and death (put your donation in the plate as it passes, please; we need a new sanctuary) notwithstanding. You might as well make the best of life while you can. Ridding yourself of your ancient religious myths is a good place to start. Then you can get on with leading a “beautiful” life. And have your Sunday mornings free!