Consi writes…

Only when you twist it intentionally or unintentionally.  My statements are not premised at all on the existence or lack thereof of Thor as a god.

Then you are not answering DOF’s question.

WOOT! It’s playing on the discovery channel right NOW.

Damn, I missed it. Forgot all about it.  :(

So, what kind of evidence did he have? Was it convincing?

NO WORRIES!!!

James Cameron Discovery Channel Special!!!

Thanks for the pointer, Webs.

I watched the first 3 or 4 ‘interviews’ with Simcha whilst Wiki-ing and reading a little about him.
I got the general idea - no need to see any more; it’ll just be a re-hash of the Jesus fallacy/scam/myth.

I can’t see how the DNA, if available, could be attributed to Jesus – at best the tests might confirm there was a group of related boned bone boxes and they happened to be contained in boxes with similar names.
Every one knows Jesus went to a (physical) heaven so his bone box must be an impostor’s. 

Whatever reality results, do you think it’s gonna ‘cure’ xians? Of course not.
They’d say it was the devil doing what he does/did with fossils. 

The Wiki entry makes mention of fellas accusing James & Simcha of ‘doing it for the money’; I wonder why xian pushers think they’re justified in letting themselves off the same hook.

I don’t know if it has any relevance here but while we are the subject of Thor I was writing on my site that he was the author of “Unintelligent Design” after all this kerfuffle about Cameron came out.

In an official statement Mr. Wildmon said; “People now have the feeling that the world is spinning out of control, and that they have no security anymore. They question whether the Big Guy is up there looking out for them, hence our new doctrine, Unintelligent Design.”

“We believe that we are on are onto a winning marketing strategy,” he said. “People are hard-wired to believe there is a Divinity and to blame the mess on an errant family member just seems natural.”

Your “just the facts ma’am” sribe;
Allan W Janssen

Posting a response on this website was not something I intended to do today. I’m not even sure how I can across it except it popped up in an internet search. I was just skimming some of the comments when I found one by LuckyJohn19.

So far as the ‘strong atheist vs weak atheist’ goes - I’m a strong atheist cos I’m 100% sure there’s no invisible man who takes an interest or even cares about the affairs of humankind on earth, let alone individuals.
If an invisible man like the one Xians are fond of deluding themselves with did exist, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Shrub never would have.
I know xian apologists have countered that with the ‘free will’ concept but, as far as I can see, which isn’t far, there can only be free will if there’s no god

LuckyJohn19, you say you are a strong atheist because you are “100% sure there’s no invisible man who takes an interest or even cares about the affairs of humankind on earth, let alone individuals.” Well, this should not prevent you from looking into belief in God. Many individuals hold forms of deism which deny a personal, relational God. But even deism holds to the existence of a god (obviously not the Christian God). These deists would certainly not classify themselves as atheists. Therefore, denying a personal god does not require you to be an atheist.

I suspect you have many other reasons for denying the existence of God. I am just interested in removing as many obstacles for you as possible that prevent you from considering faith in Christ.

So may I ask you a question, how do you consider yourself an atheist? To make such a statement that you are “100% sure there’s no” God would require you to have complete knowledge of the entire universe. But even if you had this sort of knowledge you would not be able to deny the existence of God. Because who is God? He is the being that knows everything. You would be merely making yourself into God. Claiming 100% certainty that there is no God is a self refuting statement.

How then, can you be an atheist; one who denies the existence of a supreme being? Wouldn’t agnostic; one who doubts the existence of God or the possibility of knowing him be the proper term?

I also noticed that you mentioned Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. It seems to me that you claim their existence denies the existence of a good God who controls all things. But by mentioning Hitler, Mao, and Stalin aren’t you making a moral judgement on their lives? Indeed humans cannot escape moral judgements. The problem is moral judgement presuppose a moral law by which we make moral judgements and the existence of a moral law requires the existence of a moral law giver. God, who is the ultimate good gives the intrinsicly understood moral law by which humans make moral judgements. The existence of evil in Hitler, Mao, and Stalin should not point you away from the existence of God but to his existence. Otherwise, you cannot make a moral judgement.

You cannot escape the reality of God’s existence.

Please, engage me. I mean no disrespect and I thank you for taking the time to read what I have posted. I think you will find the Christian faith is based on sound evidence and reason. Please keep thinking. A good and personal God does exist. I hope you will find him.

Please, engage me. I mean no disrespect and I thank you for taking the time to read what I have posted. I think you will find the Christian faith is based on sound evidence and reason. Please keep thinking. A good and personal God does exist. I hope you will find him.

I asked a question of my freind Rod on the weekend and told him it was simple question that probably required a very long and complicated answer.
Rod is a shrink and an Athiest and the question was, “I believe in First Cause, but this whole religion thing is beyond me.
How can normal, sane, intelligent people believe some of the crap that is put up by “mainstream religion”
The long and short of it was that althoug he and the professional community of shrinks agreed that people believed in my old saying ”tell people something enought times, with enough conviction, and they will believe almost anything” pretty well hit nail on the head.
Other than that his professional opion was, ”Damned if I know!”

Every one knows Jesus went to a (physical) heaven so his bone box must be an impostor’s. 

Whatever reality results, do you think it’s gonna ‘cure’ xians? Of course not.
They’d say it was the devil doing what he does/did with fossils. 

Please seriously consider what I am about to say. I welcome anyone to present why they do not believe in God. Unfortunately, finding a clearly marked grave with the name Jesus is a rather poor reason for rejecting God.

Think about it. If Jesus did not rise from the grave then he did not appear to his disciples as the Bible teaches. If Jesus did not appear to his disciples then his disciples were liars. The disciples would be well aware that they were lying and preaching about a resurrection that never happened. Only someone who was crazy or out for personal gain, maybe popularity or financial gain, would make such a claim knowing it was false.

We know they were not intellectually out of their mind. because you can still read their writings in the Bible and you will find that they are intellectually sound. They make arguments with the precision of a lawyer and paint word pictures with the skill of a poet. We also know that they had nothing to gain by lying about Jesus’ resurrection. They would be rejected by their people the Jews, be thrown out of the temple (which was of extreme importance to the Jews), and run the risk of being killed themselves all the while living in poverty. In fact, eleven of the twelve disciples were martyred for their faith. The last one, John, was exiled and imprisoned on the island of Patmos. All of them suffered for their faith. Now logically, why would twelve men of sound mental capacity suffer such things for what they know was a lie? No one would voluntarily die a horrible death for what they know is a lie. They evidently believed what they said.

But there is more. The disciples were commanded by Jesus to begin their preaching ministry in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified. It is not that they immediately left for some distant land and began to preach among people who could not validate their story. They preached where people would have known if they were lying or not. People would have known if Jesus were being hidden somewhere and had not been crucified. It would even be beneficial for the Jewish leaders who crucified Jesus to find his body. Yet they do not.

This brings me to my last point. Why would the followers of Jesus, who were lying about Jesus’ death, allow his body to be placed in a clearly marked grave when people would be clearly interested in finding his body and proving them to be liars? No one with any common sense would bury Jesus in a marked grave. Therefore, Christian or non-Christian, if you find a grave clearly marked “Jesus” in Jerusalem; you should already be suspicious. Jesus was a very common name during that time period. It would be like finding a grave with your mother’s first name and assuming she is buried in it.

The fact that Jesus cannot be found because he arose from the grave demonstrates that God was satisfied with the punishment laid on his Son. God’s wrath against us sinners has been satisfied through the death of his Son. This is the good news to all who would believe in Christ that they too will one day rise from the dead.

Oh noes!  The Christians have found us!  Jig is up! 

Christian, I’m tellin’ ya… this would be a good time to chill out and do some more reading around this site before diving into this discussion.  Just a suggestion but trust me, a good one.

For that matter, read up on other religions.  All have martyrs, all have fine poetry and art, all have logic.  Only thing special about your religion is its popularity in the country where you happened to be born.

How can normal, sane, intelligent people believe some of the crap that is put up by “mainstream religion”

Thank you for your response. I would be interested to hear you explain what you mean.

For that matter, read up on other religions.  All have martyrs, all have fine poetry and art, all have logic.  Only thing special about your religion is its popularity in the country where you happened to be born.

Yes, you are right. All other religions have martyrs. But the twelve disciples are a different situation. They would have known beyond the shadow of a doubt the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the claims for which they were losing their lives. They would have known if what they believed was the truth or a lie.

Christianity has more imperial evidence to substantiate its claims then any other religion in the world. Sadly, people will die for their misplaced faith but they cannot die with the same assurance that the disciples had or the same evidence for their faith that Christians have today.

You had a very good post. Thank you.

Guys - at least this one’s being polite.  We’ve had worse.

Christian, one more time - take a little vacation and go read some other threads on this site.  You’ll at least be able to avoid some of the arguments we’ve all heard a hundred times.

Go read the thread i linked above.  Read the Kent Hovind thread.  For about a week, g’bye!

Christian wrote:

Only someone who was crazy or out for personal gain, maybe popularity or financial gain, would make such a claim knowing it was false.

Well Christian, I think you unwittingly hit the simple truth of your (and all other) religions square on the head.

Having been a serious Born Again Christian at one time myself, I can only say that I’d recommend you look deeper into the book you have so much faith in.  I’m not suggesting you stop believing, but look at the Bible, it’s history and what it actually says with a critical eye. 

A good place to start might be the essay “About the Bible” by Robert Ingersol.  Given, the essay is a bit abrasive, but do a little research about what Ingersol claims, and you might be a little surprised.  The worst that could happen is that your faith will be strengthened, right?

Whoops, the Ingersol essay is called “About the Holy Bible”.  You can find a copy Here.
The main page has the complete list of his essays and speeches.  I’d encourage anyone, Christian or otherwise to take a look at a few of these essays (though there are some that do not actually relate to religion on there, as Ingersol was a bit of a social commentator/activist that spoke out vocally about religion as well).

Christian: Posting a response on this website was not something I intended to do today.

That’s a good start. It’s the way I’d start to Bullshit too.

I’m not even sure how I can across it except it popped up in an internet search. I was just skimming some of the comments when I found one by LuckyJohn19.

You really think I came down in the last shower, don’t you?
You really think I’m ten years old and I believe the shit you spin, don’t you?
You’re not starting off at all well. If this is the level of intelligence you allocate to me you are not only a fuckwit, you’re a typical lying, scamming, delusional xian.
And you know what a xian is: (John Gorgy) A Christian is a person who, if born in Saudi Arabia, would be a Muslim.

Therefore, denying a personal god does not require you to be an atheist.

Mmm. Obviously you’re deaf and can’t read either. 

I suspect you have many other reasons for denying the existence of God.

I only need ONE reason to ‘deny the existence of’ dog.
Try and guess what it is.
Go on.
It’s really very simple.
Just say after me:
THERE - that’s right – there.
ISN’T – just mouth it - you don’t have to say it aloud and … HE won’t hear you … just say it – isn’t.
Very good – only one more word – woops I said it already – ONE!
See how easy it is?

I am just interested in removing as many obstacles for you as possible that prevent you from considering faith in Christ.

The jester’s come to town to spin, tumble and turn. Smile everybody. 
The only way you could remove my single obstacle is to REMOVE MY FUCKING BRAIN you idiot.
I have thoughts and I question stuff.
Damn. I told mum I wouldn’t raise my voice – it hurts her ears.
As St. Augustine said: There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity.
That’s me.
You employ logic to prove god (god is the first cause) but you retreat from logic when the obvious question is asked: what made god?
From memory your usual spin would be: dog is outside of logic.
Stephen King: The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window.

Oh, by the way I’m not gonna be a hypocrite and say I’m sorry I’m disrespectful of you and your beliefs – I no more disrespect you or your beliefs than I would the beliefs of someone who held different political, economic, environmental, best car or country beliefs.
These beliefs are something we’ve been programmed with somehow, always.
You choose your beliefs after the age of reason – in Catholicism I think it’s seven.

And just before you go assuming, I’m different to most of the other posters on this board for I was brought up with NO religion to de-programme myself from so I suppose I cheated in a way. It was simple.

would require you to have complete knowledge of the entire universe.

My universe is me – I have explored me, my past and present - there is no evidence to support your delusion.

But even if you had this sort of knowledge you would not be able to deny the existence of God. Because who is God? He is the being that knows everything.

That was cool … even if I did have complete knowledge of the entire universe - - - I’d still be wrong.
You fucking clown! Go back to the circus.
Your opinion, delusion, cognitive programming, training … is all your choice of spin to believe in.

Wouldn’t agnostic; one who doubts the existence of God or the possibility of knowing him be the proper term?

I know what an agnostic is – I’m an atheist.

The problem is moral judgement presuppose a moral law by which we make moral judgements and the existence of a moral law requires the existence of a moral law giver.

Wrong. You’ve been sucked into the theistic vortex of spin. 
Morals are not gained from religion – they’re gained in spite of religion.
They’re gained from the trial and error tribes learnt to enable them to live together with the least damage.
It’s all very simple stuff really … the way I keep my stuff is if the other fella doesn’t take it and the way he keeps his is if I don’t take it – we’ll have a chat. Right - we agreed – we won’t take each others stuff. Etcetera, etcetera.
KISS, mate. K.I.S.S.
If we all followed your ‘good book’ every poofter, blackfella, every son of a bitch that didn’t believe in your version of The Delusion, etc, and a lot more etceteras, would be d.e.a.d..
Now You think about this very carefully.
You may love the ignorant idea you can cherry-pick your way thru the bible but it’s either all true, and therefore should be followed to the letter, or not.
I choose the latter.

Why don’t you run off and attack some children with your invisible man delusions; their minds are still young and pliable … although I do consider that to be the epitome of child abuse.

A good and personal God does exist. I hope you will find him.

When my first brother was about five he had an invisible friend called Tommy Checker. The rest of the family, including me, never met him.
I consider your god to be your Tommy Checker.

Just know that I fear people like you cos Xians and Muslims (and there is NO difference between the two regardless of what you think or not think) are ego-tripping delusionalists who believe the best is yet to come; you would willingly sacrifice us all to your delusion.

Please seriously consider what I am about to say.

And a hush fell over the crowd – heads cocked toward the speaker.
And a little boy up the back asks: Please master; what’s the latest shit you’re gonna spin?

Only someone who was crazy or out for personal gain, maybe popularity or financial gain, would make such a claim knowing it was false.

It just passed you by didn’t it? It never dawned on you did it?
Haven’t you realised yet that it’s all about power. Of course you have.
Power and money.
Seneca: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
And it’s damn good money too – just for selling the invisible teddy bear.

We know they were not intellectually out of their mind. Because you can still read their writings in the Bible

And they wrote them a hundred years after the ‘accounts’ of The Events happened.

and you will find that they are intellectually sound.

To a goat or sheep? Yes. Not to a thinking human.

They make arguments with the precision of a lawyer and paint word pictures with the skill of a poet.

What can I say? Your standards of justice and poetry are far too low for a well-read, just and honourable man like me.
Maybe that shit works on primitives. Obviously it does.

We also know that they had nothing to gain by lying about Jesus’ resurrection.
Blah blah blah
They evidently believed what they said.

Yep. Simple answer. They were delusional and or sucked in. It covers it as well as the woo woo men of god crap,

And then you go on with a lot of xian propaganda and logic.

God was satisfied with the punishment laid on his Son. God’s wrath against us sinners has been satisfied through the death of his Son. This is the good news

So the sick fucker sacrificed himself to himself … yeah, right.

Why don’t you read The God Delusion.
There’s a nice little chapter on why men had to invent gods.
The short answer is the fact that stuff happened.
You know; wind, rain, sun, moon and shit like that and everyone knows there has to be a cause for everything and …
VOILA! We’re right back to where we started.
We aren’t that smart at all it seems. 
Well, I am. 

Oh by the way, thank your mother for the rabbits.

TAFKA Buzz, thank you for seriously engaging me. I appreciate both of your posts and look forward to making time to respond to them. I am about to go to bed but I thought I would add a final comment for the night.

First, I did look up and read a selection of “About the Holy Bible” by Robert Ingersol. The content of his writings sound very familiar but contained numerous errors in the short portion I read. Please let me give you an example. Ingersol claims that,

“It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line.”

The problem with Ingersol’s claim is that no one holding these views can be considered an “intelligent” or “honest” theologian. See if you agree with me. I am reasoning that it would only be “intelligent” and “honest” for someone claiming to be a follower of Christ to actually follow Christ in what Christ believed. Contrary to what these unnamed “theologians” assert, Jesus believed in Matthew 8:4 that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Matthew 8:4 says,

And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

Jesus says “Moses commanded.” This command for a leper to present himself to the priest is found in Leviticus 14:1-32. Leviticus is part of the Pentateuch which includes the books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

It would be hard for an “intelligent” and “honest” Christian theologian to deny Jesus held Mosaic authorship. It would be either ignorance or pride. They would be placing their own interpretation over that of their Lord. How could any such Christian trust in Christ for salvation if they don’t even trust in his authority to comment on who wrote Leviticus? Therefore, I would argue that such a theologian is not really “intelligent,” “honest,” or a true Christian and should not be used to bolster one’s own argument against the Bible.

Mosaic authorship is again affirmed in Luke 2:22, John 1:17, John 6:32, Acts 6:14, and Acts 28:23. I probably even missed a few references. My point is Robert Ingersol is unfair and unjustified in his claims about the Holy Bible. This was only one example.

“About the Holy Bible” is a long document with many such claims I could respond to. But if you are truly interested in discussing it, would you please pick one or two of the most troubling that I might use my time wisely in responding to those you find the most convincing.

Finally, it bothers me to point this out but I think the conversation requires it. You said,

“Having been a serious Born Again Christian at one time myself, I can only say that I’d recommend you look deeper into the book you have so much faith in.”

Please, I do not wish to question your testimony but it does not line up with the Bible’s own teachings about the nature of conversion. John 10:25-30 says,

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”

Those who belong to Christ have been given to him by the Father and cannot lose their salvation. If you are claiming that you were a “born again Christian” then I would have to point you to this teaching where the Bible shows you were not a born again Christian. Those who are born again will not fall away from the faith because God sustains them. This teaching is also found in John 3, John 6, and other Bible passages.

It grieves my heart and I apologize that the Church, through her inexcusable lack of scriptural knowledge, ever gave you the impression that you were born again or that a Christian could fall away from the faith. Your statement is a much needed indictment of the Church’s failure to pursue Biblical teaching and not “worldly” business modeled techniques to “get someone saved.” My most humble apologies to you. The Church will one day be held accountable for her failure in this area. But please examine who Christ was and what Christ taught because that is the basis of the Church not rampant misunderstanding in the American Church.

Thank you again for your post. It was very, very good.

The problem with Ingersol’s claim is that no one holding these views can be considered an “intelligent” or “honest” theologian.

On this point you couldn’t be more wrong. 

As to this:

“See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

even if you are a literalist, the statement says nothing about what Moses wrote; it is also missing any mention of who wrote the Pentateuch.

Jesus says “Moses commanded.”

So Jesus thought that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. So what? He also thought that the stars were little points of light in that big dome called “the sky” and that epilepsy was caused by the debbil. The man was clearly an ignoramus.

It grieves my heart and I apologize that the Church, through her inexcusable lack of scriptural knowledge, ever gave you the impression that you were born again or that a Christian could fall away from the faith.

That sounds rather arrogant and condescending to me. But then I’m just another godless apostate.

My sheep hear my voice, and…

Sheep is right.

Christian -

To be honest, my first response to your initial posting was similar to LuckyJohn’s. It boiled down to this: “Do you honestly believe I (actually, in this case LuckyJohn because you responded to his post) haven’t already heard it?  Do you really think you’re about to say anything that hasn’t already been said ad nauseum?” But I thought I’d give you a chance, feeling a bit of empathy.

However, you argue everything from “The Bible Said” (as I suspected you would, and I too would have), so there really is no point in continuing. 

You challenge me to disagree with you on the “Intelligent” and “Honest” theologians part of Ingersoll’s statement.  Ok, I think I know what your definition of “Honest and Intelligent” theologian would be, and that is someone who trusts implicitly the veracity of the Bible and all it’s claims.  I am simply going to be late for work if I attempt to argue with you on why you are using a circular logic loop to defend the Bible, but that is exactly what you are doing.

And as far as my “conversion experience”, I would love for you to tell me what you believe a “True Christian” is.  Obviously I turned out to not be by almost any Christian definition a True Believer because I fell away (apostacy).  However, I am interested in hearing what you really think equates to a True Christian, and if you can identify such a person in any way.

Buzz, I was under the impression he was responding to you mainly because of

TAFKA Buzz, thank you for seriously engaging me. I appreciate both of your posts [your two posts just before mine] and look forward to making time to respond to them.

But it hardly matters.
As you say ‘we’ve heard it all before’.

Once someone starts quoting bible at me as some sort of universally valid and accepted authority I switch off.
It’d mean more to me if it was written in Greek; at least then I’d be fascinated by the shape of the letters.
It has as much veracity as if I started quoting Bhagavad-Gita at him; it’d finish up a dick measuring competition as most of these discussions eventually reduce to.

You either believe in the invisible man delusion or you don’t.

My dog’s dick is bigger than your dog’s dick.
Yeah, whatever you reckon mate. 

What DOF said.

Christian, a few hints:

The non-theists on this site consider all religions as myths and therefore the gods of all religions as man-made. Any argument pertaining to scripture speaks to nothing but the internal consistency of one religion or other and even in the best case such is not a compelling argument for the veracity of religion.

The non-theists hold that the natural world is all there is, which puts you in more of a bind than you might realize. To show that anything supernatural exists, in a reversal of “have you looked for god everywhere?” you have to show that anything you attribute to a supernatural cause cannot have a natural one. To make this explicit, it doesn’t suffice to say that something currently lacks a naturalistic explanation, you have to show that a naturalistic explanation is principally impossible, now and forever. Have you exhaustively researched our universe? To make matters worse, embarking on such a course is self-defeating, because anything supernatural that interacts with the natural world is by definition natural.

The non-theists around here are not inclined towards metaphysical fairness. Yes, there is an unbounded number of things that have an infinitesimally small chance of existing, the gods of religion included, but it’s not worth our time to seriously investigate risible claims. Do not mistake a willingness to debate religious issues with being receptive to conversion.

Did I mention “What DOF said”? Chances are that everything you can bring to the table has been debated before and few of us care for yet another iteration.

Christian - I’ve only had time to read your first comment so far (and no-ones reply yet- i have to be getting to work but will be back) - to the extent of that comment you seem nice enough to be taken seriously, and you consider degree of certainty, which in my view also needs to be applied to a religous theory rather than simple faith

Christian: Wouldn’t agnostic; one who doubts the existence of God or the possibility of knowing him be the proper term?

That’s what I am, because in my view we simply don’t know what it could be, but we can try to get into the mindframe of a potential creator, which is helpful to dispell some of the fear created in mainstream religion. I dislike the categorisation of beliefs because it never fits quite right.

Christian: I also noticed that you mentioned Hitler, Mao, and Stalin. It seems to me that you claim their existence denies the existence of a good God who controls all things.

If god were all good, all powerful, and all intelligent, then if he did create people and the world they would be 100% innately perfect from the start, anything less means one of these conditions isn’t being filled. My thoughts are that maybe the potential for evil is the prerogative of independance and a sign that ‘god’ does not hold absolute power if he is unable to 100% control all other spirits

Indeed humans cannot escape moral judgements. The problem is moral judgement presuppose a moral law by which we make moral judgements and the existence of a moral law requires the existence of a moral law giver.

I consider anything that affects you beyond your control to be society (including wild animals and the weather), society holds it’s own views and is a factor in your decisions. Nothing makes something necessarily right or wrong in your own personal morality but your ability to influence society is limited so long as you’re not an all-powerful god yourself

God, who is the ultimate good

I ask you to ask yourself these
How do you know god is good? Why should he have any orientation? Would an anti-god with evil of equal magintude to god’s good have to exist in order for god to exist? Is god accomadated by an infinite number of ‘imaginary’ dimensions? Was creating people necessarily a good thing? Why is evil allowed to exist in people’s minds?

Otherwise, you cannot make a moral judgement.

You could make an incomplete and potentially incorrect one, which is the best humans an do without the full knowledge of all people and their motives, and completely watertight morality and having all morality in the right proportions

Generally speaking also I would like you to question why things should necessarily be the christian way after death, for all I know (not having had an NDE) it could be the flying spaghetti monster, indeed ther could be something completely different behind the scenes of NDE’s, that may be deliberately misleading people on possibly more than one side of life - even when you die you won’t know if there is something behind the scenes

To make this explicit, it doesn’t suffice to say that something currently lacks a naturalistic explanation, you have to show that a naturalistic explanation is principally impossible, now and forever.

Why?

Consi, how do you prove a negative?