ok if we dont live for eternal life in some type of heaven then what happens when we die " the lights go out" or "we become a tree"

As far as we know from the way the universe works, when you die, it is final. Your brain is what gives you your personality and self-awareness.

ya ok first off why live if there is nothing to live for.

Life is open-ended. There is no plan, no goal. We exist merely because we can. This means that we can only ever create a reason to live for ourselves. Religion is an example of this, people many years ago created a fiction unintentionally to keep themselves busy and to help explain life in a comprehensive way.

secondly explain the miracles that happen today ( Lourdes, France the Shrine)

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. Therefore using them to support your belief is to build a foundation upon the impossible. Instead of assuming that miracles are real, use scepticism to figure out how the illusion happened.

Mind you, to compress God to His benevolent side is to flatten out the issue and to lock yourself in that false premise you've been keeping yourself in.

Question: is god perfect?

Yes: Then any attribute describing god must be perfect, meaning absolute, infinite.

No: Then god is essentially a really powerful alien or sentient being, and cannot be immutable.

If god is perfect, and benevolent, then he is absolutely benevolent, which means that he cannot do anything that is evil, malevolent, cruel, malicious, or violent. It's not a matter of choice, infinite benevolence negates the ability to harm.

Going after other gods (note the small 'g') or doctrines is wrong in the eyes of the Creator. Just think: can people get help from things and ideas they fashion themselves?

You using your computer means that our ideas we fashioned ourselves are helping you.

So while God does want the best, He won't force people to it because He has given us free will, and we will be given what we deserve according to our deeds.

An infinitely benevolent god cannot punish people. Any action that is harmful, violent, retributive, cruel, etc. cannot be done by an infinitely benevolent being. Free will would therefore be irrelevant. An absolutely benevolent god could no more send you to eternal punishment than you could breathe underwater.

Not that they rejected Him....the need is to accept Him as your personal Lord & Saviour.

A benevolent god cannot send people to hell. The concept of a god is that of absolutes, all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. Being perfectly benevolent means that it is impossible to commit an act that is in any way cruel or hurtful. Therefore, no matter what biblical doctrine you cite, if your god sends people to hell he is not benevolent, if he is benevolent then he cannot send people to hell.

Experts in the scientific community>>>>Your Gods. I bet you beleive everything they say dont you. I have a friend who is atheist and he turned on the t.v. and watched about creation of the earth, and beleived every single freakin detail. You cant tell me science is not a relgion.

Peace is a form of war. Both involve countries, both involve countries building weapons, both take money to fund defense and trade, both see countries firing weapons, both involve soldiers, so you cannot convince me that peace is not war.

Did you have the chose to be born, did you control the beggining of your time and the question is will you be able to control the rest of your time. The answer is no. Do we control the weather do we tell the wind to shift right or left. Do we have the power to move the waves, and order the birds to fly east in fear of theiir safty? No. And saying everything created everything is blank.

You're being incomprehensible. As best as I can tell you're saying that nature couldn't develop from its own rules. Why not? The laws of matter and energy are intrinsic, and the complex interactions they have cause greater rules to develop, with the theme always being simple to complex. Matter forms from high energy collisions after a big bang, elements form from stars, planets form from nebulae, life forms from simple elements, and grows more complex. It's all within the laws of nature.

I am referring to evidence which can be independantly verified and is scrutinised by experts in the scientific community. This keeps out forgeries.

You seem to think of things in a way analogous to religion but science and evidence isn't religious by definition. Your comparison was way off the mark.

The bible doesn't count as evidence to prove the bible. This is circular reasoning. The only testimony, witnesses of Jesus, and accounts of him are religious stories, most were written decades after the alleged events. It is completely unreliable for the same reason that we don't consider the audience in a story book that witnesses magic to be a legitimate account of the story's magic, and thus proof.

Unless you can make an entire world and all living creatures or prove this in some way that is not based upon the theories of man or wishful thinking on your part, then religion is the best position to take.

Not relevant to the topic. Your beliefs are unsubstantiated.

So in other words you take the argument of looking forward or the argument that beleives that nothing matters, and why should we even discuss this.

I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here. You need to expand your point.

First of all God does show himself you just dont bother to even look. Open your ears and eyes then you will see.

Gut-feeling response. I asked for hard evidence, not intuition.

That all English speakers can understand virtually all other English speakers is a perfect example of what could happen with Esperanto.

Singapore heavy creole example:

"Dis guy Singrish si beh powderful sia."

Australian colloquialism example:

"My mate and I went to the barbie yesterday but I was the only bloke who was pissed."

Regional variations only get greater with time. The same would happen with Esperanto.

Language globalisation cannot work, because languages evolve in isolation and region, much like species diverge. This is why English, one of the most adopted languages, is extremely different between Singapore, South Africa, Australia, Britain, and the USA.

I don't have to say anything. My last post still applies to this post.

Like how 1 pakistani muslim exploding a car bomb makes all pakistani muslims evil.

Right?

Please.....

You didn't read what I said. Maybe a simple but congruent example will appeal to you. Organised crime is a driving force in a number of countries, it even gets immunity in some countries because it entangles itself with government. Organised crime syndicates have their own manifestos and rules, as well as their own punishments for breaking these rules. I would be pointing out how organised crime, despite some of the good things it has been behind historically (like supporting the Allies in world war 2, and producing order in city slums where law enforcement avoids a presence), it still makes ordinary people capable of acting very violently or destructively. You would be the one arguing to me that I'm only looking at the bad, and that one mob boss performing a hit doesn't make all of his underlings evil.

What you seem not to understand is that all religions make people trust in authorities regardless of their character. They divide people based on how your parents indoctrinated you, instead of your actual interests. Look at India, for an example of this. India is a nation with hundreds of millions of people, of different cultures and ethnicities, but they are all citizens of that country, or ought to think of themselves in those terms but what you have is a country divided along religious lines. Muslims receive separate laws from Hindus, for example. They should all have the same laws, that is what a secular country would do. There are bombings that occur by separatists, and by Muslims who want Sharia implemented for all (again, only the religion would make a person act this way) and yet you ignore this flatly. If these religions didn't exist, India would have one law for all, and bombings wouldn't occur by radicals seeking medieval fascism. Religion makes a simple situation complicated and you just ignore it like it's a rare, non-representative occurrence.