Grief without God is a challenge for unbelievers

When Rebecca Hensler's infant son died in 2009, she received numerous condolences from friends, colleagues and even total strangers she met online.

She knew their intentions were good, but their words weren't always helpful. And in the rawness of her grief, Hensler found some of them downright hurtful.

Hensler is an atheist, so when people described her three-month-old son Jude as being an angel, or part of God's plan, or "in a better place" than in his mother's arms, the pain sometimes overwhelmed her.

"(Atheists) don't think we are going to get to hold our children again," Hensler told a group of about 30 members of the East Bay Atheists, a monthly gathering of nontheists, where her descriptions of people's visions of her son as an angel drew a few gasps.

Continue reading at www.religionnews.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

Dave

Athiest with So much fear and self rightous that they are willing to deny or not except the truth.
- daves
  
  Sadly, this is too often the reason people turn to Christianity or any other religion.
Linda F.

I have to say that my faith in the Lord and my belief in an afterlife were (and still are) crucial in helping me to grieve my father's passing. If people don't like that, too bad! It helps me, and that's all that matters.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  It is all that matters in terms of helping you with your loss, but in terms of whether that means there is a god, it is meaningless.
  - Linda F.
    
    I beg to differ. The peace I experienced, even shortly before my father passed, could only come from God Himself. It was definitely not of this Earth.
    
    But hey! Believe what you will.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      No, it is that you will believe what you will. A personal experience is something that any religion can offer as "proof"
Myrtlelinder

I John 4:1-5
1. Beloved, believe not every spirit , but try the spirits whether they are of GOD: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2. Hereby know ye the SPIRIT OF GOD: every spirit that confesseth that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh is of GOD:
3. And every spirit that confesses not that JESUS CHRIST is come in the flesh, is not of GOD: and this is that spirit of the anti-CHRIST, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4. Ye are of GOD, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, that he that is int he world.
5. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world hears them.
6. We are of GOD: he that knoweth GOD heareth us; he that is not of GOD hears not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error
7. Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of GOD;and every on that loveth is born of GOD, and knoweth GOD.

I John 5: 1-3
1. Whosoever believeth that JESUS is the CHRIST is born of GOD: and every on that loveth HIM that begat loveth HIM also that is begotten of HIM
2. By this we know that we love the children of GOD, when we love GOD, and keep HIS commandments.
3. For this is the LOVE OF GOD, that we keep HIS commandments: and HIS commandments are not grievous
Robert De Leon

People that don't believe in God (so they say) have a very, very enormous disadvantage regarding believers. After life they have nothing because they believe in NOTHINGNESS. I'll keep praying for them, God have Mercy.
Robert.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Not at all. We all end up the same in the end, which is being dead with nothing else occurring. The only difference is that you live your life believing in delusion, while the atheist goes through life embracing reality.
  - myrtlelinder
    
    You always think of the nicest things to say, LOL.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Thank you.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Yes Jeff, you are the epitome of a realist. The only minor problem you have is a lack of objectivity.
      - Esther
        
        Hi Joe, Yes, Jeff is the epitome of a realist. Are you still mad at me getting my doctorate and have you looked up Westminster in PA, try Beale?
  - Despeville
    
    The only thing you are embracing is your minuscule, corrupt and unreliable perception of reality and that is not reality at all Dixon… None can even begin to fully define what reality truly is and that includes top notch scientists to which opinions you aspire without having even a slightest claim on science and its methodology.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Desperateville, you have been MIA for awhile. Did the sanatorium place new restrictions on using the internet?
      - Despeville
        
        Was not missing anything as your comment reaffirms…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Being MIA does not mean that you missed anything. It means you were missing. Are you off your game tonite Humpty?
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Gee what a real polymath you are… You actually can explain MIA? Wow.
        I do not play with handicapped. Does no good to both sides.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Since you obviously did not know what it meant, it was necessary to explain to you.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Let me know what else you need help understanding. I normally charge for teaching, but in the case of the handicapped, I make an exception.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        What a humdrum…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Having more trouble understanding what is being discussed?
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Bromidic, meaningless, useless trite.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Why are you musing about your postings?
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Yes, you normally charge for teaching Comic Books Analysis. I don't know which one is more egregious: the charging for your "teaching" or the teaching on Comics.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        And once more you make a claim without foundation. Show one posting where I said comics offer meaningful information. You cannot for they do not exist. But, as usual, you lie without concern.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        :) Indeed Joe and that in itself shows his vertigo.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Actually Jeff's inane postings, and the cut and paste stuff do induce a type of vertiginous sensation Despe.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Standing up would also provide that sensation to you.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, it shows that you and Joe lie without concern. But that has been evident for quite a while.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Sure comic book scholar Dixon… We all just lie while you are the prophet of truth sent to enlighten everyone else. Problem is that you cannot even begin to define what is the truth in your deficient worldview nor does it matter for your unattainable worldview.
  - keyboardshark
    
    Jeff: Our bodies all end up the same in the end, being returned to the dust of the earth, but not our souls. Only those who have placed their trust in Christ have anything to look forward to after that point. The atheist goes through life believing he has embraced reality, only to find out too late that he was wrong.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      The idea of a soul has never been shown to exist. There are many concepts in religion which people want to believe, but simply wanting to believe in something is not a reason to actually believe in it.
      
      "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. "
      – Frietrich Nietzsche
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        As you know Jeff, Nietzsche himself had a problem with reality–similarly to you. Objectivity wasn't his forte, and eventually it got the best of him. You should be careful with your google quotes.
      - Despeville
        
        Jeff might end up like Nietzsche too…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Someone who expanded our knowledge base and then had medical problems. I will take that as a compliment.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        "medical problems" is a charitable way of describing his insanity…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, because he is the only person ever described as insane.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        "expanded our knowledge base"! There you go Jeff, making me laugh again. Just stick to your Google "research" and maybe you will "expand our knowledge base" as well.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Joe, I realize you have no idea what knowledge is, and therefore cannot understand when someone offers a post with knowledge, but your inability to grasp reality is your issue.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Turgid buffoon.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Well, when you fold, you collapse like a deck of cards.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        You know Jeff, the fact is you have not even expanded your own knowledge through Google "research" or otherwise. Really, a crying shame.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        That comment makes even less sense than normal. I did not think that was even possible.
      - keyboardshark
        
        A soul cannot be "shown" to exist by ordinary means because it is a spiritual concept, not a physical substance human eyes can observe or test. Many people who have near-death experiences report a spiritual experience in which they visited the afterlife. http://thefinalhour.blogspot.com/2009/02/eyewitne…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        A soul cannot be shown by any method at all. It is simply a religious idea with no basis in reality whatsoever.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "A soul cannot be shown by any method at all. It is simply a religious idea with no basis in reality whatsoever."
        
        Except for the fact that there are persons who have had an out-of-body experience. If humans were nothing but physical flesh and bones nothing of this sort would be possible. I would call an eyewitness account a basis in reality.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Except that OOB experiences have not been shown to actually occur. Much like any religious experience, it is a delusion of the mind.
        
        By deliberately scrambling a person's visual and tactile senses, it is now possible to give them an "out-of-body" experience.
        
        Two procedures – which are the first to imitate an out-of-body experience artificially – use cameras to fool people into thinking they are standing or sitting somewhere else in a room. They provide the strongest proof yet that people only imagine floating out of their bodies during surgery or near-death experiences.
        
        "The brain can trick itself, and when it is trying to interpret sensory information, the image it produces doesn't have to be a real representation," says Henrik Ehrsson, of the Institute of Neurology, University College London, UK, who designed the first experiment.
        
        To trick his subjects, Ehrsson had them wear a head-mounted display that showed them footage of themselves filmed from behind, while preventing them from seeing anything else. He then used a plastic rod to prod the subject in the chest and simultaneously held a second rod in front of the camera behind them, to make it seem that the illusory "person" viewed from behind was being prodded in the chest too.
        
        Subjects physically felt themselves being prodded, but also had the weird sensation that it was their alter ego in the film footage being prodded. "It gives you a very strong sensation you're sitting somewhere else," Ehrsson said at a press conference held in London.
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12531-outof…
      - keyboardshark
        
        Sure, I agree we can trick the mind with the use of technology, but that is entirely different from someone who has had a near-death experience in which they remember an out-of-body event without the use of technological trickery. No conscious effort was being made to trick these individuals into thinking they were witnessing something that was actually an illusion. In the absence of such deliberate deception and based on numerous, similar accounts we have pretty strong evidence that what they experienced was indeed real.
      - Despeville
        
        "The wild thinker claims that he is free, and needs no liberty from Christ. The sinner who is in bondage to his passions and scorns the idea of being set at liberty, as if he were a bondman. The more a slave a man is to his own conceit or his own lust, the more he talks about his freedom. We should not know that he was free if he did not call himself so.
        
        Unbelief calls itself "Honest doubt," and not without cause; for we should not have known it to be honest if it had not labelled itself so. When a man puts up in his shop window, "No cheating practiced here," I should trade next door. "He doth protest too much."
        
        Your free love, free thought, free life, and so forth, are the empty mockery of freedom. Oh, that men knew their state, and then freedom would be prized. For lack of self-knowledge, the blessings of the gospel prove an offense when they should have hearty welcome."
        
        ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It is not the wild thinker. It is the rational thinker which you can neither understand or ever hope to attain.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Get a life for you are wasting it writing up your neophyte cliches on the net which most do not read and none cares about…
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Again your lack of understanding of changing semnatic domains is pitiful. Wild thinker in XIX century meant "free thinker" a very term you aspire to while all you are is a blind, perishing slave.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Many read them. I probably get as many responses as anyone on this site.
        
        What wild thinker meant in the past I could not care less about. (notice how I used the expression correctly, which you seem incapable of doing).
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        How words were used in past is absolutely needed when attempting to read and discuss ancient texts or older translations of those texts or older commentaries on those texts. You just admitted your turbid, turgid ignorance…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It depends on how the person is using them. And, so far, you have shown no ability to use them in a meaningful way.
      - http://youtu.be/uAeccsh1VJ4 Despeville
        
        Nothing can be shown to a blind man…
- Despeville
  
  Believing in God even the true one is not enough De Leon… read from Roman Catholics favorite book – James and most abused by them chapter 2… Read James 2:19
  - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
    
    You really hate the Catholics, don't you?
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

"I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case."
- Christopher Hitchens
- Linda F.
  
  One problem, Jeff: Christopher Hitchens has found out that his atheistic beliefs were a lie.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    One problem, you have no basis for making that claim. Prove your god exists and then you can start discussing what he accomplishes.
    - keyboardshark
      
      Is that your philosophy or Hitchen's? I actually agree with some of what he says, but for the most part I find it to be a mixed bag of half-truths, generalizations and falsehood.
      
      The proof God exists is all around you. There is no naturalistic explanation for the existence of the universe and everything it contains. The burden of proof is on those who say God does not exist.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Nonsense. The burden of proof has always been on those making the positive affirmation. I can claim there is a 20 foot squirrel in my backyard, but it is not up to others to prove I am wrong. It is up to me to prove I am right. Which is the same for people that claim that a god exists. Prove it.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Prove that the universe and the earth came into existence on its own by natural means. That is your positive affirmation.
        
        If you claimed there was a 20 foot squirrel in your backyard, you would indeed have to provide proof that it existed because I could not see it from my house. However, the earth is clearly visible from any location since we are all on it, so we already have the proof it exists. But yet there is no natural explanation for how it got here, therefore the burden of proof is still on those who claim such a naturalistic beginning.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        People who accept a scientific view of the world have never claimed we can prove our theories. There is no scientific theory that ever gets proven. However, theists claim that there is proof of their god. Therefore, prove it.
      - keyboardshark
        
        If your theory that the universe created itself by natural means not only has no evidence to support it, but also violates basic Laws of science, such as Thermodynamics, then why do you believe it to be true? If you are going to claim it created itself by natural means, then it must necessarily follow the natural Laws which govern the universe, yet such an explanation violates those Laws. The absence of such evidence is in itself very clear evidence that the universe had a supernatural beginning.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
        
        1.The second law of thermodynamics applies universally, but, as everyone can see, that does not mean that everything everywhere is always breaking down. The second law allows local decreases in entropy offset by increases elsewhere. The second law does not say that order from disorder is impossible; in fact, as anyone can see, order from disorder happens all the time.
        
        2.The maximum entropy of a closed system of fixed volume is constant, but because the universe is expanding, its maximum entropy is ever increasing, giving ever more room for order to form (Stenger 1995, 228).
        
        3.Disorder and entropy are not the same (Styer 2000). The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy. There are no laws about things tending to "break down."
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.htm…
      - keyboardshark
        
        If we are talking about whether the universe can create itself or not, the First Law automatically eliminates that possibility: "The First Law of Thermodynamics is really a prelude to the second. It states that the total energy output (as that produced by a machine) is equal to the amount of heat supplied. Generally, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, so the sum of mass and energy is always conserved." http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae28…
        
        If energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it could not 'create' itself. Entropy would only occur after a universe had been created, so it would have no bearing on whether it could create itself or not.
      - Steve03
        
        Let's grant you that the 2nd law of thermodynamics precludes increasing complexity and that evolution consists of a process by which simpler forms change into more complex ones.
        Then evolution is impossible IF AND ONLY IF the universe is a closed system.
        If the universe is a closed system, then there is nothing outside the system which can influence events within it.
        If the universe is a closed system, there is no God, or at least no God who can intervene in earthly events.
        So the 2nd law disproves evolution and the existence of God.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        1.The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because
        
        •the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
        •entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
        •even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
        In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        2.The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).
        
        Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff: You are correct that the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to the transfer of heat energy from one body to another. But the amount of that energy is decreasing:
        
        "Second Law of Thermodynamics—which says that in a closed system the amount of energy that is no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is energy “lost” to the system per unit degree of temperature, and it is called the entropy of the system. The principle of energy loss for useful work still applies in an open system, since there is no benefit unless there is a machine to use the energy added. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory by adding loads of sunlight or electricity unless the machinery is available to use that energy to build Boeing 777s. Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines just by adding energy if there is no machinery available to do this. Spontaneously forming of such machinery will not happen." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/…
        
        Entropy leads to an increase in disorder, not order. The only way order can arise from disorder is if we have energy and a mechanism for converting that energy into a useful form. For example, sunlight is useless to living organisms unless they have a way to convert the sunlight to a useful form. Plant use photosynthesis to convert sunlight, which the plant cannot directly use, into chemical energy, which it can use. But the raw energy of the sun is utterly useless without the mechanism to convert it.
        
        So then the question becomes, where did the mechanism come from? If the mechanism had to be there in the first place in order to convert the sunlight into useful energy, this precludes the possibility that it could have created itself.
        
        "What is a machine? A machine is a device for using energy to do work of some kind. Energy without machines just dissipates (the sun’s energy would be typical). But a machine harnesses energy to advantage: a solar cell turns the suns rays into electricity; a Rolls Royce Trent gas turbine turns chemical energy into thrust to power aircraft; the chlorophyll reaction in a plant leaf uses sunlight to enable the plant to grow and absorb carbon dioxide while emitting oxygen; the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) motor in living organisms transfers energy from food and respiration into useable energy to drive the cell machinery of DNA, ribosomes, amino acids and protein building, etc.
        
        In this sense all machines are entropy-lowering devices. But, unlike macro machines, chemical machinery at the molecular level involves setting up proteins of hundreds and usually thousands of polypeptide bonds linking a string of amino acids. And each of these bonds is in a raised energy state such that, left to itself, it would break down and not stay in that state. To suggest, as some are saying, that the raised energy state would be maintained while natural selection favored, over many generations, single random mutations, one by one, to finally bring together the full complement of necessary amino acids is, frankly, thermodynamically absurd. This is never observed and is contrary to all thermodynamic principles of energy transfer." http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/02/…
      - keyboardshark
        
        Steve03: The universe is a closed system. Why would this 'prove' that there is no God or that He cannot intervene? When He created the universe, He gave it all the energy and mass it would ever need. He did not need to keep adding more as time went on, The amount of USEFUL energy in the universe is continually decreasing.
        
        Basically, the First Law of Thermodynamics is a statement of the conservation of energy – the Second Law is a statement about the direction of that conservation – and the Third Law is a statement about reaching Absolute Zero (0° K). Thermodynamics is the study of the inter-relation between heat, work and internal energy of a system.
        
        The British scientist and author C.P. Snow had an excellent way of remembering the three laws:
        1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).
        
        2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).
        
        3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable). http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae28…
        
        Regarding the 2nd Law and evolution, that is a different subject altogether.
      - Steve03
        
        Entropy means the system always loses energy. It says nothing about complexity per se. If "more complex" life forms require less energy to sustain than "less complex" ones, then entropy actually favors evolution (and may even impel it). And more evolved animals are in fact more adaptable and able to cope with change than less evolved ones, as any observant parent can attest. Which is easier to keep alive in your home: a goldfish or a cat, a lizard or a dog?
        If God gave the system all the energy it would ever need, then it has plenty of energy to keep evolving until God's eventual plan is complete. So that case adds nothing to your argument.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Steve03: More complex organisms require MORE energy to sustain themselves, not less. A mere handful of of fish food will feed a zebra fish for at least a week, whereas a handful of dog food would only be enough to feed the average dog for one meal. Or, to make it even more clear by taking it to the extreme, an amoeba certainly needs far less food (energy) to sustain itself than a human.
        
        Complex organisms may be more adaptable than lower forms of life in some instances, but this would only be because of their intelligence or mobility. But in general, it would appear that the simpler organisms are more adaptable, as they have less moving parts, so to speak. Some simple microbes can tolerate extreme conditions that would quickly kill a human:
        
        "Extremophilic microbes are a wild bunch. They can be found thriving in some of the most hostile environments imaginable – swimming in near-boiling water, eating rocks, lounging in sub-zero temperatures, and hanging out where radiation levels rival nuclear reactors." http://www.livescience.com/133-wild-extreme-creat…
        
        I would argue that the goldfish is more difficult to keep alive than the cat, because it usually has a shorter lifespan than a cat and requires a container of oxygenated water, which could be spilled or broken, just to breathe. And the cat could eat the goldfish, whereas the goldfish could not eat the cat. Gulp! Bye bye fishy! Sure, the cat needs more food, but your question was which is EASIER to keep alive.
        
        How would entropy, which is a decrease in useful energy and therefore an increase in disorder, favor evolution? It is just the opposite. See my reply to Jeff above. Energy alone is not the answer. A machine or mechanism to convert that energy into a useful form is needed, or the energy will simply be dissipated.
      - Steve03
        
        And you've neatly evaded my basic point, which is that if the universe is closed system, then either (1) God does not exist or (2) God does not influence events within the universe. If (1), then you and all theists lose. If (2), then the Deists and Epicureans were at least on the right track, the Bible (which describes a universe in which God does intervene) is a pack of lies, and you and all Christians, Jews, and Moslems lose again.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Again, what does a closed universe have to do with the existence of God? Maybe we need to defined 'closed'. A closed universe does not mean that there is some kind of impenetrable wall between God and the universe. It simply means that there is nothing external to the universe that is either adding or subtracting energy and matter (mass).
        
        You are also assuming that God is somehow located 'outside' the universe. But God is not physical, He is spiritual. He is not bound by space or time as we are. He doesn't have a physical location either within or without the universe, so a closed universe in any sense of the word does not preclude His existence or intervention.
        
        God can influence events within the universe without adding energy or matter to it. Adding energy or matter, if it were possible, would be a physical event, whereas God's intervention in the universe, as well as the act of creating it, is supernatural. A universe that is closed in the sense of receiving no new energy or mass would not be closed to supernatural intervention.
        
        God Himself does not require additional inputs of energy or matter in order to function. That would be silly considering He created the universe and all the matter and energy within it. It would be illogical to conclude that He would require His own creation for His sustenance. He is already self-sustaining and eternal.
      - Bodey042
        
        Again you are wrong! Talk to a scientist who espouses evolution and they are convinced their assertions are correct and the only valid viewpoint. You are no better in that you leave no room for even the possibility that you are wrong.
        
        So much for the objectivity of the scientific mind.
      - Bodey042
        
        As I stated earlier, you are wrong. The fallacy of your argument is that the 20 foot squirrel is not an accepted truth. You are claiming that an organism which is universally accepted to be nonexistent indeed exists. It is for the individual posing the challenge to demonstrate that his or her challenge is valid. You challenge the faith of a multitude of believers. It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that the existence of that which science can not observe or measure does not exist. I cannot observe the wind directly. I can only measure its effects. Does the wind therefore not exist? By your logic that would be a reasonable conclusion. Except, we know the wind does exist. So your logic is therefore flawed.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The quote is from Hitchens, but I agree with it.
    - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
      
      Believing in God and proving He exists is fairly ease. Yet, what I told you yesterday on a different web site you should read several times. I've done you no favors in telling you those things, because now I've made you responsible for the things that were said. Sorry. But there was no choice. God was trying to get your attention, and one of these days He may nail you with a 2X4 right between your running lights, if nothing else works.
      I've said all I'm going to say to you on the subject; because the responsibility rests squarely on your shoulders.
      If you ask a legitimate question, I'll try to answer it. Otherwise, save your 'smart' remarks for someone else.
- aceituna
  
  Of all Athiests, you are the "most miserable"!
http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

Because people choose to be Atheists, doesn't make believers tellers of fairy tales. Of course anyone who tells someone who is grieving that their child is now an angel, is certainly telling a fairy tale. People, even children who pass, do not become angels, angels were created by God, humans were also created by God, and they are not the same. Humans, as it were are higher on the totem pole, to put it lightly. God created man in His own image, angels were not that fortunate. When a person denies that God exists, they also are forced to deny emotions such as joy, love, sorrow. These are the God given emotions. That is why Atheists feel hurt by those who express that emotion.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Nonsense. Emotions exist, that is a given. They can be seen and demonstrated. Your god cannot be seen and everything attributed to him is simply based on a desire that it be so. To claim that emotions, one must first prove that god exists. People have been attempting that for centuries, with no success.
  - Robert De Leon
    
    Jeff:
    I told you once and I’ll say it again: Watching Creation I see the Creator (that is to say, God). Are you going to say that men created Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry? And if men discovered these Science tools, how long have been in the Universe? Not before the Universe was created. They were God’s tools to build our Universe, and this fact escape to the greatest intelligence.
    By the way, back at the beginning of XX Century there was a Professor at certain Germany University saying to his pupils the same that you think, there is no God (so you say) because there is evil in the world. There were a moment of silence but then a young man stood ant started next dialogue:
    -Sir, do you think that cold exists?
    -Of course, had you not felt the cold?
    -Cold doesn’t exist. Cold is the lack of heat. Does darkness exists?
    -Of course that exists!
    -No, it doesn’t exist. Darkness is the lack of light. Professor, evil is the lack of goodness.
    The Teacher kept silence and the class clapped to their fellow student, Albert Einstein.
    Did you get the point?
    Robert
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Yes, I get the point. You use absurd stories to try and make your delusional views sound less crazy. Of course darkness and cold exists. If you were in outer space, you would know exactly how cold the universe can be in most of it.
      
      Darkness is the absense of light, but that does not mean it does not exist either. That implies that light can be everywhere. Consider Black Holes which creates a field with total absence of light(gravity field is so strong that photons are dragged into it), even when it's illuminated…
      
      The story you posted is just one of many falsly attributed to Einstein. Here is a link on that issue.
      http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com SargeE5
    
    If you must, prove that God doesn't exist.I see Him in everything, from the rising sun of a new day, to moonlit nights, in the flowers the trees, I feel Him in the rain.Prove that God does not exist, then explain why your body works the way it does.You can deny God if you wish, but He does exist, of this there is no doubt."Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      It is not up to me or any disbeliever to prove that god does not exist. It is up to you to prove he does.
      - Myrtlelinder
        
        Why do you think he has to prove GOD does exist??I think it up to you to prove that he doesn't exist. You will see that HE does exist when you meet HIM face to face, which will be too late then for you to acknowledge HIM!!
      - Bodey042
        
        That is where you are most certainly wrong. Any time a challenge is mounted against the status quo, it becomes the responsibility of the challenger to demonstrate the challenge is even worthy of consideration. Even the great scientific minds of the past understood this to be true.
        
        Protocol was never the problem. The problem comes when enough factual evidence is presented, yet the establishment continues to hide behind doctrine as in the case of Galileo Galilei.
        
        You claim that no evidence has every been sufficiently demonstrate the existence of an afterlife let alone the existence of any Diety (no just the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob). I suggest plenty of evidence has been offered. Not just on this board but on the other boards of which you are no doubt a member and in life in general.
        
        The problem is not with the evidence. The problem is with the mind considering the evidence. You maintain that any evidence presented is invalid. Well, just as you question the evidence; members of this and any other forum are proper in questioning your objectivity. I would maintain you are not being objective.
        
        In this you are certainly no better than another former member of this forum with whom I believe you are aquainted: msamericanpatriot. Each of you close minded. Each of you lacking objectivity. And as you demonstrated quite well in another thread: each of you quite willing to descend into character assassination and insults.
- Steve03
  
  Actually, the Bible says humans were made LOWER than the angels (Ps 8:4-5, Hebrews 2:7,9).
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com SargeE5
    
    Once again you misread, mis understand and you are seriously Biblically challenged. "Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
    - Steve03
      
      So the Bible is false?
      It's in the Qu'ran (2:30-38) and Jewish pseudepigraphy (Vita Adae et Evae 8.2) that God commands the angels to worship Adam.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes, the bible is false.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      That man is lower than angels is exactly what this says.
      
      Psalm 8:4-6
      King James Version (KJV)
      4What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
      
      5For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
      
      6Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
- Myrtlelinder
  
  i don't know about the child being an angel, i do not remember anything the Bible says about what we will be once we get to heaven.
  - Myrtlelinder
    
    I do know HE cast angels out heaven Satan and his followers!!
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Yep, he sorta missed out on that problem occurring with his all knowing superpower.
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
    
    Keep reading Myrtle, the Bible tells us what we will be when we get to heaven, trust me."Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
    - Myrtlelinder
      
      Watchman, Why don't you impart your wisdom?? It won't take a lot of steam to relate where in the Bible to find that little gem. I have read it through and through again, many times and have completely missed this gem. Then both of us will know or have you forgotten where it is?? I cannot teach something that I have not seen and read myself!!
http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

In an Atheists mind, there is no heaven, no hell, no salvation. One cannot console one who believes that there is nothing. I would imagine a simple sorry for your loss would have to suffice. Remember, an Atheist chooses not to believe. So they are probably correct that they will not see those loved ones who passed ever again. If you deny Jesus on this earth, He has promised to deny you to the Father. The option to be Atheist comes from free will, ironically free will is a gift from God.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Your inability to grasp what an atheist would do in a time of loss is simply your limitation. I have had aunts, uncles, grandparents and my mom pass on. Letting people talk about their grief, offering stories about the good times we shared with the people and expressing sorrow are just a few ways we help people with their loss.
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com SargeE5
    
    What does it matter, to you, the human being is merely a walking talking breathing piece of meat that came from nowhere and just ceases to exist when it expires.So live with it."Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Because that is not all I am. I do not have to just "live with it". I am able to express my opinions and show how absurd yours are.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        So, are you still hoping for a society based on the principles of North Korea and Iran that have no tolerance whatsoever?
    - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
      
      A little 'Tough Love' Huh?
- meknow
  
  This lady lost a child, who is now in HEAVEN WITH JESUS CHRIST FOREVER AND FOREVER. She wil never see this child again…………I will see my Christian relatives who have passed on when I go to Heaven. I feel so sad for her and her husband.
  God gives us free choice to accept Him as Lord and Savior, or not to accept Him. I know, without any doubt, THERE IS A GOD. I have experienced to many happenings in my life and a closeness to The Lord that goes beyond any doubt.
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
    
    Bravo, me too!"Tolerance is the last virtue of a dying society" AristotleSemper Fi, ~Jer
    - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
      
      So have I. I know for a fact that Eternity is real; I've seen it; not in a way Jeff would accept, but it is real just the same.
Chris

Why would you want to spend an eternity with your relatives? What happens there? Do people age or are these babies stuck in a time warp where they never grow up. The whole idea is preposterous. What do you do all day? Do they have TV's there?

Perhaps somebody could point to a scientific paper on what happens there.
- Robert De Leon
  
  Chris:
  There is nothing more preposterous than your comment. Heaven (and Hell) were not form by material. It goes to the Spiritual, something that one atheist can understands. They are not intelligent enough. Read what i said to Jeff Nixon above.
  Robert.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    It is Jeff Dixon, you mush for brains idiot.
- Despeville
  
  "Do they have TV's there? "
  
  Yes, they do with your dumbest sitcoms that you will watch for the eternity, truly another dimension of pain in hell.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Probably Kirk Cameron you tubes videos. A fate worse than death.
  - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
    
    That's one thing. I thought it might be a Test Pattern, and have to watch that for Eternity.
    Or how about Bill Mahre?
- keyboardshark
  
  Chris: If you have to ask those kinds of questions, it's clear you would not be happy there.
  
  How would a "scientific paper" paper tell us anything about heaven? Science only deals with the material world, not the spiritual afterlife.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    That is because there is no evidence for an afterlife at all.
    - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
      
      Heaven and Hell exist outside time and space. That's why you don't know where they are.
- Linda F.
  
  You are, by far, the most callous and uncouth person I have ever had the misfortune of "meeting," Chris.
  
  But hey! What should I expect from you? You've already proven that you care about one person, and one person only: yourself.
  - Eric
    
    Not that I'm trying to defend Chris or anything, but if he is truly the "most callous and uncouth person" you've ever met, you should consider yourself blessed. Chris is nothing but a nuisance; he doesn't even register on the "callous-meter" of how truly hardened some people can be.
- ned kelly
  
  yes babies and young people do grow and learn in paradise . as for relatives hopefully they will change for the better as we change for the better.
USPatriot

Dear Rebbeca,
I cannot know what you are feeling, because I am not you. When I was 19 years old, I suffered a serious accident/loss of blood requiring 20 pints to replace. While in surgery, I found myself floating above myself and watching surgeons work on me who were doubtful that I would recover my life. I heard what they were saying and was actually looking at my body on the operating table. Some hours later, I awoke in a hospital bed. My parents had been praying for me. Somehow it seemed "normal". From that time on, I knew there was life after death and I no longer feared death. In my older life I have worked with hospice patients sharing my story when appropriate. It provided a measure of comfort to those who were in great fear. I hope this brings you peace. As you look at the world and its various life forms, how can you think that this was an accident?
- daves
  
  I saw where some hospitals are testing this phenomenon by placing objects above critical patients operating tables to see if they could tell what this object is after they have returned to life. So far, they have not had much luck. It would go a long way as evidence to me that these experiences are not just chemicals in the brain dealing with stress and death.
  - Joe Anzilotti
    
    "daves" how do you know that your "chemicals" aren't working correctly right now? Sort of like Jeff Dixon's chemicals. We need a little more "luck" that's right.
  - Joe Anzilotti
    
    Are they testing this "phenomenon" similar to how they test the "big bang" "phenomenon"?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Of course not. Which shows how little you know of either topic.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  US Patriot, so god saved you even though he allows millions to die each year? Are you really so arrogant that you believe your god would save you, but allow small children to be molested and killed?