Sorry guest, my point was that the only way to scientifically test post death realities is to die. And you can't take other people's word for it. So it's neither fully serious or fully a joke. But at least I put my name to what I write.

And this thread so beautifully reminds me why I'm cutting down on time spent antagonizing the intellectually ridiculous nu-atheists.

"Is Heaven "real"? Is Jesus/God "real"? Surely if these things are "real" then there would be someway of verifying their existence"

I propose a test, you off yourself, and see what happens. It's a modified pascal's wager. If you're wrong, then, you lose. If you're right, well, in the scheme of things in the grand scale of eternity you've really lost nothing, given the amount of time you're investing in the argument for the non-existence of God your life clearly isn't that fulfilling. If you're right you also get the satisfaction of knowing you were right for zero minutes, and at least some sort of kudos for your martyrdom. You in?

While I have no problem with evolutionary theory, aren't we all just talking apes, essentially. with a few generations over a Spanish of time in the mix. Throw God and some literary genre considerations into the mix and I'm not sure your obstacle is all it seems. But you atheists generally read the bible like idiots anyway, you may be the exception, who knows. I don't care. It seems that we agree that discourse on this matter is largely pointless.

Also...

Why? why isn't it good enough for you? we have been running society like this since the dawn of time. Do you need a philosophical reason how a computer works??

This is such a bizarre analogy for an atheist to be using. Computers work because they are designed and programmed to function a particular way. We have also been using religion to set both the high bar for ethical living, and the low bar for conduct we punish, since about the beginning of time (at least since the first religion was invented, which was pretty early on).

I really don't see what your point is - unless you think computers somehow evolved, by themselves, and thus nobody needs to spend any time thinking about why they work? There are actually plenty of philosophical questions underpinning the way computers work. Economic decisions made through different philosophical convictions have led to the development of plenty of technology. And in some sense to understand the way a computer works (as is the case for understanding how to make apple pie) first you must understand how the universe works, and work inwards from there (you can go outwards from the computer too)...

So anyway. Your analogy is pretty stupid and completely dodges the question.

"Well, Christianity doesn't say that, btw - but it's not really relevant. " Hell yes it does. And so do many religious people in history. To say christianity has never been about "do this or go to hell" is plain wrong.

Since Andrew hasn't responded to that - I will. Christianity is precisely not about obeying a moral code in order to avoid hell. It is about the moral code being demonstrably impossible to obey, which is why Jesus steps in and takes the punishment for people's sins. That's pretty much the foundation of any form of "Christianity" out there - how we're then to live (ie morality) and what impact that has, is a matter of some debate (see the protestant reformation) - but the only thing Christianity says you have to do to not go to hell is "follow Jesus"... There certainly are Christian teachers and other religious people who have strayed away from this foundational truth, but I think you'll find that most Christians consider this to be a foundational belief, and a distinction between Christianity and the other monotheistic religions (Islam and Judaism).

"This is preciously the purpose of faith – belief in contempt of the evidence"

That's really not what faith is. It's certainly not how faith is defined by the Bible. Faith is not belief in spite of evidence, or belief against the evidence - it is defined in the Bible as the hopeful belief of things unknown. For most reasonable minded Christians faith does not leave us blocking our orifices in the face of scientific claims, but rather science reveals to us the mechanisms of God's workings - it's not like knowing how something works explains away the need for agency - especially if we're dealing with the question of a pre-existant God. Sure, blind faith is dumb, and dangerous. But not all faith is blind. It's just a blatant fallacy to suggest that blind faith is synonymous with faith. And it's a dangerous case of poisoning the well when it comes to listening to the claims made by Christian philosophers and thinkers...

"Apologists seem to abandon this rational approach when it finally and inevitably fails them."

You seem to be making a broad brushed off hand dismissal of "apologists" as if having an agenda is a reason not to listen to people is similarly bizarre. Sure, take somebody's bias into account. But it seems like you're saying "that person is an apologist therefore I will not listen" - at that point you leave yourself listening only to the agnostic voices (unless you're not as keen to apply the same approach to apologists for atheism).

Don't the Catholics also sign up the Apostle's Creed?

Flabbergasting.

I haven't scrolled through to the next pages so apologies if I've missed this already - but a real clanger is when you take some words Satan says to Jesus and make them your church slogan

"If you, therefore, will worship me, all will be thine" - Luke 4:7