Ask an Atheist

[Strathos]

Dangerous line of thinking here: proposing that God ordered the world in such a way that it looks entirely plausible without God.

Only if you ignore the creation act and subsequent acts of divine intervention.

 

[Larniavc]

Why should I not pursue my own interests at the expense of others?

Are you saying that you (specifically you, not the general
‘you’) genuinely cannot see a reason not to pursue one’s own interest at the expense of other if there was no threat of punishment in the afterlife?

 

[Larniavc]

They're pretty straightforward yes-or-no questions.

Here are some more I like to put atheists on the spot with:

1. Was Jesus born of a virgin?

2. If so, should we view Him as a glorified ape Who died on the Cross to redeem us?

3. Are we mutant copy-errors claiming to be made in the image & likeness of God?

4. Were the OT Jews appropriately considered: ignorant, Bronze Age, desert-dwelling nomads?

1: no
2: no
3: Christians, Jews and Muslims are.
4: of many things, yes.

 

[jayem]

Could God not have planned it that way?

Sure. If you have to invoke a god. But then you're multiplying entities unnecessarily. Friar William of Ockham would object.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dangerous line of thinking here: proposing that God ordered the world in such a way that it looks entirely plausible without God.

Or, the actual complexity with which He invested it is such that, from a human perspective, it almost appears ... He didn't touch it.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

There is only one God. God is not offended by name-calling.
He is only offended by not following the leading of His Spirit:

37 Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’d
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’e
40 All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Then Why do people of other religions. Pray to their God /I guess the Non-Christian God. And still receive their miracle.

 

[AV1611VET]

So feel free to ask me just about anything?

Are you (hopefully) planning on coming back soon?

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Are you (hopefully) planning on coming back soon?

I've been a bit busy this last week, so I haven't had a chance to comment.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Are you saying that you (specifically you, not the general
‘you’) genuinely cannot see a reason not to pursue one’s own interest at the expense of other if there was no threat of punishment in the afterlife?

I don't see a threat of an afterlife as a motive for anything. I have no apparent reason to believe that there will be any kind of judgement after death so to use that as a motivator would be nonsensical to me. My motives are much more immediate. Firstly my own sense of guilt keeps me from committing acts harmful to others, secondly the judgement from my peers are a large motivator for me. I care how others see me, if people see me as a good person then civil life will be easier and better.

The thing that seems to be agreed upon by most of us is that a capacity for a moral code is an ingrained feature in us. We just don't necessarily agree on why/how we have it.

 

[TheFriendlyAtheist]

Hello friendly atheist:

Do you think the world would be better off without religion?

Why do you think anyone (even intelligent people) would believe in God?

What would it take to prove God existed IYO?

It's been a little bit but I'll try to answer anyway.

I think we'd be better off if we move away from religion being the main driver of society. I don't think I can honestly say we'd be better off without religion because it is too ubiquitous to imagine things without it.

Someone else mentioned Michael Shermer in response to your second question and I would concur with that. He has a very good presentation on youtube about why people believe.

Lastly, not to be flippant, but if God would show himself to us with a pillar of fire or other kinds Old Testament acts, it would definitely make me reconsider.

 

[Belk]

If I don't believe in a God or an afterlife, then there are no consequences for my actions, assuming they are legal. Freud rightly puzzles over the Golden Rule in Civilization and Its Discontents. Rather than feeling humane love for a neighbor unknown to him, Freud pronounced "this stranger on the whole unworthy of love, but, to be honest I must confess he has more claim to my hostility, even to my hatred." In his mind "Love thy neighbor as thy neighbor loves thee" was a more sensible formulation.

Do you believe God forgives you your transgressions if you repent? If so how do you see that as different from there not being a God? Are you not spared consequences in both cases?

 

[Allandavid]

The only question for a Christian to ask an atheist is whether their assumption of materialism allows for the possibility of a spiritual realm having souls, consciousness, God, etc. If the answer is "no", then no other questions need to be asked. The discussion is dead.

Possibility....yes. Probability....not so much!

 

[evoeth]

Only if you ignore the creation act and subsequent acts of divine intervention.

How does that go again?

oh yes:

God ->??????????-> Earth

Yes, I see. God perfectly explains creation.

 

[Strathos]

How does that go again?

oh yes:

God ->??????????-> Earth

Yes, I see. God perfectly explains creation.

God doesn't explain it, not in the way you are implying. God is ultimately responsible.

 

[evoeth]

God doesn't explain it, not in the way you are implying.

That's the point I'm making. In order to cite "creation" as evidence for the existence of God, you need a mechanism linking it to God. No mechanism => not evidence for God.

That God is responsible for creation, is an assertion. Creation is not evidence for the existence of God without a known link between the two.

 

[durangodawood]

That's the point I'm making. In order to cite "creation" as evidence for the existence of God, you need a mechanism linking it to God. No mechanism => not evidence for God.

That God is responsible for creation, is an assertion. Creation is not evidence for the existence of God without a known link between the two.

Its a matter of faith. I think that was the unspoken background of his reply to me.

 

[Strathos]

That's the point I'm making. In order to cite "creation" as evidence for the existence of God, you need a mechanism linking it to God. No mechanism => not evidence for God.

That God is responsible for creation, is an assertion. Creation is not evidence for the existence of God without a known link between the two.

I'm not citing it as evidence. I'm elucidating my belief.

 

[evoeth]

I'm not citing it as evidence. I'm elucidating my belief.

Do you think that's useful or convincing?

 

[Strathos]

Do you think that's useful or convincing?

It is useful in terms of clarifying my position. As to whether it's convincing to you, I honestly couldn't care less. I suggest you get over yourself.

 

[evoeth]

You gave creation as an argument for the existence of God, or rather you cited as something an atheist needed to ignore to not believe in God (which is the same thing, contraposition and all).

Yet now you're saying it's just "elucidating your belief?"

Sounds much more like a cop out.