Does morality exist without God?

[Shane Roach]

how are Atheists in chaos? Are Atheists more inconsistent in their morality than Christians or people from other religions? Are Atheists more likely to be confused as to which actions and beliefs are moral?

I'm not saying that no Atheist ever has any doubt or has to think things through as to what is moral. But I doubt that Atheists have significantly more doubt and uncertainty as concerns morality than anyone else.

Atheists do not have any core body of work from which to build, and far from laying one down, they seem to thrive on being able to say, "There is no one Atheist viewpoint on anything." As the previous atheist said, "We have no dogma."

One can argue the extent to which religious dogma has been too inflexible, but without any dogma AT ALL, you basically have no cogent system at all. That is the sense in which atheists are in chaos in my opinion. They not only lack a dogma, but seem instinctively averse to following their ideas to conclusions, testing those, and establishing a lasting foundation for morals and ethics in an age they anticipate will be dominated by irreligion.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Bigotry? How. You have this three times now admitted there is no possible uniting value system. And now you are saying again that the legal system is to govern right and wrong, whereas I have already told you that I have spoken to at least one atheist who believes the law is NOT to govern right from wrong.

1. There is no possible uniting value system, because Atheism itself is not a system of belief. It is an opinion on one particular question, the existence, or non existence of God. Anything beyond that is irrelevant. The person you were talking to seems to be an Anarchist of some kind, which is not related at all to Atheism.

2. As for the bigotry statement... read your own words. "I have spoken to at least one atheist" etc...

Well, fantastic, using your criteria I can claim all Christians are anti-semetic because I have spoken to at least one Christian that is. Likewise, I have also spoken to at least one Christian that advocates overthrowing the constitution and establishing a Christian Theocracy. So that must obviously mean Christians don't respect the law either.

Judging an entire class of people based on your conversations with one guy shows ignorance, intolerance and prejudice towards everyone else.

By the way, your entire premise is contradictory as we would need to have a set standard of belief for you to draw the conclusion we all believe what that guy does.

It seems you are rather eager to take offense. I find atheism and atheists to be chaotic, unpredictable, and unwilling to construct a holistic morality based on their views of the origins and nature of things. Our current legal systems owe FAR more to our religious history than to atheistic philosophy, which is still ... well, in chaos.

1. If I came out and called you a chaotic, immoral person who is openly angry and resentful of moral behavior, would you not take offense? If you toss out prejudicial insults, you can expect to offend the people you are insulting.

2. Again, Atheism is not a belief system, it is a singular position on a specific question. Likewise, someone who is a Theist also has no holistic morality based on that point, as Theism is not a belief system either. A holistic morality is irrelevant to both positions in and of themselves.

3. As for the current legal system, you are wrong. In fact the legal system is specifically non-religious, while allowing citizens free exercise of whatever religion they choose. As for the historicity of the legal system, American Law is based on British Law. British Law in turn can trace its roots to Roman law, which predates Christianity.

And you offer no refutation to the idea that there is no cohesive atheistic philosophy, but yet find offense in me describing it and the general group of people that call themselves atheists as chaotic?

How may I refer to you in order to not offend and still express the impression you give?

There's also no cohesive philosophy among bald people, or people that believe or disbelieve in Bigfoot. Does that make them Chaotic too?

Likewise, would you be justified in calling them immoral and angry because as Bigfoot disbelievers, they have no unified moral code? That's exactly what you're doing with Atheists.

Just because people have a uniting characteristic, does not mean they need a written set of dogma. It's idiotic to state that they do.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Your argument is not logical. He must know the outcome of every choice if he can see all time.

I did not say otherwise.

Even if the decision is freely made by ourselves, he would have known in advance that's what we were going to choose. By necessity he would have also created us in such a way that we were going to make that choice.

To the first part, "in advance" indicates a timeline. God is outside the timeline. He doesn't know "in advance." He just knows.

Second part: no. There is no necesity that He create us to make a certain choice. He is God and perfectly capable of making us to make an independent decision. That's why it is called "free will." Sorry, but this isn't Calvinism.

No, but your analogy isn't consistent with your argument.

A more accurate scenario was God created you as the pilot of an aircraft with faulty engines. He then forces you into flying the aircraft, and blames you for the crash.

With your worldview contrary to Christianity you must have God "force" me into a decision. You tried it above to get around my free will. You do it here in forcing me to fly the plane. Sorry but your analogy is forced from your prejudices.

Let me give an example. Lets say you are a brilliant inventor, and in your lifetime you develop a time machine. On top of that, you perfectly figure out how to manipulate genetics so when you have a child, you can make him however you want him to be.

If you create your kid with a brain chemistry that is prone to religiosity, he will be far more likely to accept religion. You can hop in your time machine and see if he will accept Jesus or not.

So, you could then hop back in your time machine and go back to the time you are creating your child, and do so in a way that will make him extremely unlikely to accept religion. You can then fast forward and see what the results will be.

You could then go back and test out every possible incremental difference between guaranteed non-acceptance to guaranteed acceptance, and see the exact results of their creation.

Someone with that kind of power will know exactly what a person will do with their lives, and has the power to create them exactly in a way that will lead to those choices being made.

Your proposed God by definition has that power, and must by necessity know if you are going to accept Jesus or not before you are even born. That means he would have purposefully created you in such a way that you would ultimately be saved or condemned, as he must know what you will ultimately choose.

Again, your hypothetical is not reality. Nice try, but the God of the Bible does not allow for a going back and forth to try again. He knows. From our beginning to our end.

Other views have tried to envision this as a tree. We start at the root and as we move toward the future, and infinate number of branches stretch out before us, each is a decision and a path that contains different results. Obviously we can only choose one path at any decision point. In this view, God can see all paths at once and some see God as "ushering" us down certain paths so that we end up in paths to His liking or to His making.

But again, this view would remove "free will" from man. IF God can see any hypothetical path in such a manner, He still would not "usher" man and force his hand. Man would be free to choose. But God would be able to "see" the branching paths at any point in "time" -- beginning, middle or end. He sees and knows all.

Show me reason why I should accept this as fact, and I will take note.

I have no reason that you would accept as anything less than fantasy. This is firmly your decision based upon the gospel message that you have heard throughout your life and the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is completely your decision to accept or reject.

But if you reject it, it does not make it any less real.

It is 3am. I sit on a freeway here in Phoenix. You tell me to get up and get off the freeway for I will get run over by a car. I look around; there is no car. I laugh. This is a wonerful place to lie down. No, you say, you will get run over. I look around again; there is no car. Go away, I laugh. I lay down and stretch out. It feels good. I don't have to live by your superstitions. I fall asleep. At 5am I get run over and die. My rejection did not change reality.

 

[Dave Ellis]

To the first part, "in advance" indicates a timeline. God is outside the timeline. He doesn't know "in advance." He just knows.

Second part: no. There is no necesity that He create us to make a certain choice. He is God and perfectly capable of making us to make an independent decision. That's why it is called "free will." Sorry, but this isn't Calvinism.

You're playing with words, The point is he knows what your choices will be based on how you are created.

You can't have a clear view of all time, and not know every decision someone made in their lifetime.

With your worldview contrary to Christianity you must have God "force" me into a decision. You tried it above to get around my free will. You do it here in forcing me to fly the plane. Sorry but your analogy is forced from your prejudices.

No, it's based from logic. My opinion on Christianity by necessity would mean that God doesn't force you to do anything, as I don't believe God exists. In reality, I completely believe in free will... however your concept of God is contradictory to free will.

I'm making this argument from a Christian perspective, working from within the scenario.

Again, your hypothetical is not reality. Nice try, but the God of the Bible does not allow for a going back and forth to try again. He knows. From our beginning to our end.

Nice dodge, but you're still just playing with words.

So to counter your dodge, I will slightly change the scenario without changing the point. So, instead of you having a time machine, you develop a technology that allows you to see all time, without having to travel through time to get there.

Using the exact same scenario, replacing the time machine with the new type of technology actually makes it a closer comparison to what you define as God, and still makes the rest of the scenario valid.

You would be able to know exactly what choices a person makes in their lifetime by setting them up a specific way.

Other views have tried to envision this as a tree. We start at the root and as we move toward the future, and infinate number of branches stretch out before us, each is a decision and a path that contains different results. Obviously we can only choose one path at any decision point. In this view, God can see all paths at once and some see God as "ushering" us down certain paths so that we end up in paths to His liking or to His making.

But again, this view would remove "free will" from man. IF God can see any hypothetical path in such a manner, He still would not "usher" man and force his hand. Man would be free to choose. But God would be able to "see" the branching paths at any point in "time" -- beginning, middle or end. He sees and knows all.

If God can see any path at any point in time, he therefore knows what paths someone goes down. He will be able to see an entire life story of anyone, and how that person is created would base what decisions a person makes.

I have no reason that you would accept as anything less than fantasy. This is firmly your decision based upon the gospel message that you have heard throughout your life and the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is completely your decision to accept or reject.

But if you reject it, it does not make it any less real.

True, however if you accept it, it also doesn't make it any more real. Your point is moot.

The point is, is it real or not, and there's no reason to assume it is.

It is 3am. I sit on a freeway here in Phoenix. You tell me to get up and get off the freeway for I will get run over by a car. I look around; there is no car. I laugh. This is a wonderful place to lie down. No, you say, you will get run over. I look around again; there is no car. Go away, I laugh. I lay down and stretch out. It feels good. I don't have to live by your superstitions. I fall asleep. At 5am I get run over and die. My rejection did not change reality.

This is a ridiculous scenario.

We know that the whole point of a freeway is so cars can drive on it.

Likewise, it is not superstition that a car will drive down it, as that is a testable claim, and have countless examples of this occurring.

The ironic thing is, your rejection was based on denying empirical evidence and ignoring the odds that you were going to get run over when you had good reason to assume you were. You took it on faith you were safe where you were despite the evidence against your belief, and got smoked because of it.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Atheists do not have any core body of work from which to build, and far from laying one down, they seem to thrive on being able to say, "There is no one Atheist viewpoint on anything." As the previous atheist said, "We have no dogma."

One can argue the extent to which religious dogma has been too inflexible, but without any dogma AT ALL, you basically have no cogent system at all. That is the sense in which atheists are in chaos in my opinion. They not only lack a dogma, but seem instinctively averse to following their ideas to conclusions, testing those, and establishing a lasting foundation for morals and ethics in an age they anticipate will be dominated by irreligion.

Atheists lack a central dogma, but how does this mean that they are in "chaos"?

I've known many Atheists, and all seem to have a personal moral code.

I have a personal moral code, and in most cases know what I believe to be right or wrong. And I find this moral code easy to follow.

You seem to be latching on to the idea that Atheists are not centrally coordinated. But by using the word "chaos", you seem to be implying that there are negative aspects to this. What are these negative aspects? And how do these negative aspects result in bad social effects? Does the lack of central coordination (e.g. not having an "Atheist Bible") result in Atheists being less moral than Theists? If so, what evidence do you base this on?

 

[quatona]

I did not ask for anything at all. I stated I rarely hear an argument that God is immoral. The problem of evil provides an argument that a moral god is impossible. It does not argue that there is indeed a God, but that that God is immoral.

It argues that if there is/were a god this god is immoral.

So you skipped from the discussion we were having about God's authority if you assume he exists, and used instead an argument that he does not exist because no righteous God of the type in the Bible can exist due to your personal perception of the problem of evil.

Neither implicitly nor explicitly did I make this argument.
I asked you a question, and instead of answering it you responded to an argument that I hadn´t made (and on top you misrepresented the conclusions that are typically drawn from it).
In response, I pointed that out.

I would be happy to skip the entire PoE part, and see a response to my initial question to you (post #824). Thanks.

 

[quatona]

Atheists do not have any core body of work from which to build, and far from laying one down, they seem to thrive on being able to say, "There is no one Atheist viewpoint on anything." As the previous atheist said, "We have no dogma."

One can argue the extent to which religious dogma has been too inflexible, but without any dogma AT ALL, you basically have no cogent system at all. That is the sense in which atheists are in chaos in my opinion. They not only lack a dogma, but seem instinctively averse to following their ideas to conclusions, testing those, and establishing a lasting foundation for morals and ethics in an age they anticipate will be dominated by irreligion.

Are you talking about each individual atheist here, or are you talking about them as a group?
In the latter case: I don´t seem to even understand why you would even expect persons who only have in common that they lack a belief in deities to have (or strive for) common dogmata beyond that which renders them atheists?

 

[Netbug009]

A singular moral system requires a universal truth, which simply does not exist without God. Morals can exist without belief in God, but they will vary wildly.

 

[Eudaimonist]

A singular moral system requires a universal truth, which simply does not exist without God.

Why is that? There is only one universe -- the real one. So why not one truth about that one universe?

Morals can exist without belief in God, but they will vary wildly.

They vary wildly with that belief.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Netbug009]

If existing in one universe alone was enough to make morals match up, wouldn't everybody already believe the same things are right and wrong?

And the only morals that should vary among Christians are worldly opinions; if the Bible has set a truth in stone, it's truth whether it fits my selfish agendas or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If existing in one universe alone was enough to make morals match up, wouldn't everybody already believe the same things are right and wrong?

No, since right and wrong aren't necessarily self-evident.

However, existing in one universe may very well make only one standard of morality correct.

And the only morals that should vary among Christians are worldly opinions; if the Bible has set a truth in stone, it's truth whether it fits my selfish agendas or not.

All we have as human beings are "worldly opinions". That includes Christians, whether they have "selfish agendas" or not.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ebia]

If existing in one universe alone was enough to make morals match up, wouldn't everybody already believe the same things are right and wrong?

And the only morals that should vary among Christians are worldly opinions; if the Bible has set a truth in stone, it's truth whether it fits my selfish agendas or not.

The reality is that Christians do differ, and always have done - the bible even records them differing.

Since the bible is not a set of decontextualised absolutes anyway, but a highly contextual narrative that's not at all surprising.

 

[quatona]

If existing in one universe alone was enough to make morals match up, wouldn't everybody already believe the same things are right and wrong?

Adopting your kind of reasoning: If One God existing was enough to make morals match up, wouldn´t everybody already believe the same things are right and wrong?

 

[now faith]

Atheists lack a central dogma, but how does this mean that they are in "chaos"?

I've known many Atheists, and all seem to have a personal moral code.

I have a personal moral code, and in most cases know what I believe to be right or wrong. And I find this moral code easy to follow.

You seem to be latching on to the idea that Atheists are not centrally coordinated. But by using the word "chaos", you seem to be implying that there are negative aspects to this. What are these negative aspects? And how do these negative aspects result in bad social effects? Does the lack of central coordination (e.g. not having an "Atheist Bible") result in Atheists being less moral than Theists? If so, what evidence do you base this on?

If you do not believe in a God or higher authority than yourself, you only believe by the standards of your own intelligence. Since intelligence differs in persons where do you find common ground? Do you set your morals by the company you keep, what if you hang out with murderers? If you can accept your actions everyone else should to. Chaos is a correct statement for atheists, humanist same thing.

 

[Reliant297]

If you do not believe in a God or higher authority than yourself, you only believe by the standards of your own intelligence. Since intelligence differs in persons where do you find common ground? Do you set your morals by the company you keep, what if you hang out with murderers? If you can accept your actions everyone else should to. Chaos is a correct statement for atheists, humanist same thing.

I completely agree with your argument. Without the concepts of Christianity our society would be overwhelmed with crime. Christians are the high ground for low percentages of criminal activity in the United States. However, I find it hard to to understand why these atheists lack order and thrive in confusion.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

If you do not believe in a God or higher authority than yourself, you only believe by the standards of your own intelligence. Since intelligence differs in persons where do you find common ground? Do you set your morals by the company you keep, what if you hang out with murderers? If you can accept your actions everyone else should to. Chaos is a correct statement for atheists, humanist same thing.

I completely agree with your argument. Without the concepts of Christianity our society would be overwhelmed with crime. Christians are the high ground for low percentages of criminal activity in the United States. However, I find it hard to to understand why these atheists lack order and thrive in confusion.

I'm sorry, but I do have to slow this train down a bit.

now faith -- atheists have much common ground, even with Christians, when it comes to moral issues. They simply do not believe that it stems from God. Have there been no Christians who have sinned? Or even committed murder?

You are, to a degree, correct about is the commonality of thought. But then even between Christian denominations we have much in-fighting.

Reliant -- I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that society would be overwhelmed with crime without Christianity. Ever heard of the Crusades? Since to me God is the reality and morals come from Him, I can only think of atheists in this argument as if they went off and started their own country -- let's give them Australia. Let's suppose that Australia was filled with only atheists, had not Christians, and there was no communication between the outside, Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc.) world and themselves. Do you think they would ride downward into a society of crime and chaos? I think some percentage of them would, but a larger percentage would enact laws against the crime.

Why? Because the crime and the hate, the stealing and the murder: hurt. It hurts personally, it hurts society, it hurts the group in general. And the group would rise above it and form some type of "civilization."

To say that a lack of Christianity leads to chaos would be to say that Hindu societies are violent and in chaos. They are not. They are lost spiritually, but they are quite peaceful. Or take a Buddist society. Even a large portion of the Muslim society is based on peace.

The major argument here is that the lack of Christianity -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for mankind -- leads to lost man. A mankind that is eternally separated from God, their Creator, and thus eternally lost and without His Love. We do not preach the Gospel to avoid chaos. We preach to give the Good News to men so that they may be saved and have their relationship with the Father repaired. We preach so that they may be saved.

 

[now faith]

I completely agree with your argument. Without the concepts of Christianity our society would be overwhelmed with crime. Christians are the high ground for low percentages of criminal activity in the United States. However, I find eit hard to to understand why these atheists lack order and thrive in confusion.

It is the root of all sin,worship of self. If you think about flesh and sin it starts with a selfish action, people who are a the top of the list are atheist simply because they do not want to be accountable for their actions. By out shouting and refuting anything said they make their own doctorian another example of worship of self. In some confused state it is somewhat childlike, I do not like the rules so it's a stupid game I quit! What amazes me is the effort they put into trying to disprove what they do not belive. A rational person when told about some crazy worship shakes his head and dismisses it case closed. So this tells me by obsessing over religion their hearts are pricked and their trying to make peace with themselves. After all how many Christians argue and debate the atheist forums . I'm glad their with us and hoping some will find their way home in Christ.

 

[now faith]

I'm sorry, but I do have to slow this train down a bit.

now faith -- atheists have much common ground, even with Christians, when it comes to moral issues. They simply do not believe that it stems from God. Have there been no Christians who have sinned? Or even committed murder?

You are, to a degree, correct about is the commonality of thought. But then even between Christian denominations we have much in-fighting.

Reliant -- I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that society would be overwhelmed with crime without Christianity. Ever heard of the Crusades? Since to me God is the reality and morals come from Him, I can only think of atheists in this argument as if they went off and started their own country -- let's give them Australia. Let's suppose that Australia was filled with only atheists, had not Christians, and there was no communication between the outside, Christian (or Muslim or Hindu, etc.) world and themselves. Do you think they would ride downward into a society of crime and chaos? I think some percentage of them would, but a larger percentage would enact laws against the crime.

Why? Because the crime and the hate, the stealing and the murder: hurt. It hurts personally, it hurts society, it hurts the group in general. And the group would rise above it and form some type of "civilization."

To say that a lack of Christianity leads to chaos would be to say that Hindu societies are violent and in chaos. They are not. They are lost spiritually, but they are quite peaceful. Or take a Buddist society. Even a large portion of the Muslim society is based on peace.

The major argument here is that the lack of Christianity -- the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what He did on the cross for mankind -- leads to lost man. A mankind that is eternally separated from God, their Creator, and thus eternally lost and without His Love. We do not preach the Gospel to avoid chaos. We preach to give the Good News to men so that they may be saved and have their relationship with the Father repaired. We preach so that they may be saved.

Ok slow it down but don't go riding that long black train

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

You're playing with words, The point is he knows what your choices will be based on how you are created.

You can't have a clear view of all time, and not know every decision someone made in their lifetime.

I don't mean to seem like I'm playing with words. I did not say otherwise: God has a clear view of all time. His creation of you did not force your hand. His knowledge of the future (all possible futures) did not force your decisions. His knowledge of your decisions did not change anything in Him about how He created you. God's ways and abilities are so far outside our understanding; His ability to deal with "time" is phenomenal -- and we may not be able to understand it all. But we do know from scripture (whether you like this book or not: I say again, if you want to discuss the Christian God you are discussing the Bible) that (a) He is omniscient and knows all time, past and future; and (b, arguably) that He has given man a free will to choose his eternal destiny.

No, it's based from logic.

Why? At least logic as you understand it. Again, you formed your analogy as an eisegesis of your position.

My opinion on Christianity by necessity would mean that God doesn't force you to do anything, as I don't believe God exists. In reality, I completely believe in free will... however your concept of God is contradictory to free will.

First, we are not talking about an athiest's world of no God. The conversation is about God's view of humans from His POV outside of "time." To have this conversation you must then assume that God exists.

Further, the concept of free will must be then framed in a world where God exists. Given that, I don't see why you say that that my concept of God is contradictory to free will.

(1) He created us with an ability to freely choose.
(2) He allows us to freely choose with that ability.

I don't know what is difficult here. God could create us in the Calvinistic sense, wherein He has chosen the elect (whether of not they then have a will to accept their position and be saved or reject it and be lost with the non-elect; or whether it is Irresistible Grace and they will eventually make the "right" decision). Or God could create in the Arminian sense, wherein He has given us the free ability to choose, outside of His desires, short of His calling which is not forceful but enabling. No contradiction with free will and a Creator God exists here in the second scenario.

(3) God is omniscient and can see the past and the future, even the future that we have not lived yet, because He is outside of "time," having created said time. But His office outside of time, in regards to our salvation, is to offer and observe, because He has positioned Himself such having given man a free will to choose his own destiny. God can see the future, so our end result is not something that has yet to happen, but simply something in "time" that we have yet to experience. God is not limited by our "time." He clearly sees the choices that we will make. But He does not influence or force those decisions. To Him, they have already occurred. He has nothing to influence or force since they are already "done." The problem is that our minds can not comprehend the concept of eternity once "time" has been dismantled and burned up. What then is "time?" I can't tell you. I only know that scripture talks of eternity, which may not be a progression of ticks of a cosmic clock.

I'm making this argument from a Christian perspective, working from within the scenario.

I would hope so.

Nice dodge, but you're still just playing with words.

So to counter your dodge, I will slightly change the scenario without changing the point. So, instead of you having a time machine, you develop a technology that allows you to see all time, without having to travel through time to get there.

Using the exact same scenario, replacing the time machine with the new type of technology actually makes it a closer comparison to what you define as God, and still makes the rest of the scenario valid.

You would be able to know exactly what choices a person makes in their lifetime by setting them up a specific way.

Again, I don't mean to come across as "playing with words." I mean exactly what I've said.

Your new scenario: fair enough. But you ended it with a statement that " would be able to know....a person[s choices]....by setting them up a specific way." Why do you need to presuppose that the choice are set up by the "God." I will acquiesce that it is POSSIBLE for God to have preselected the choices....but that is not my argument. My argument is that God did not preselect or in any manner force or create your decisions. He gave you a free choice and He allowed you to make your own choice. He set before you Life and Death. If there was any inducement it was only in His giving a hint: choose Life!

Think of it this way for a moment: let's say that God was indeed locked in "time" or that He at least honored it to the point that He didn't peek. Then He creates man with a free will and allows him to live his life, without coercion, and allows man to make a free will choice between Life and Death. Would this allow, in your mindset, a harmony between man's free will and God's creation/existence?

And if so, then, after understanding and allowing for man to freely choose, then and only then give God the ability to see the results. Move Him outside this thing called "time" so that He can see the whole thing at once. Allow for Him to read the last chapter of the book, but know that He doesn't come back and rewrite the earlier chapters because of what He sees.

If God can see any path at any point in time, he therefore knows what paths someone goes down. He will be able to see an entire life story of anyone, and how that person is created would base what decisions a person makes.

You almost had my agreement. "How a person is created" is not the base for his decisions (does not force them). "How a person is created" is with a free will.

True, however if you accept it, it also doesn't make it any more real. Your point is moot.

The point is, is it real or not, and there's no reason to assume it is.

We could go down this path ad infinitum. First let me agree with your first statement. My acceptance does not make it real. In your second statement, there is no reason to assume it is not (Pascal's Wager, for instance). The problem with Pascal's Wager is that simply accepting a God because He might be real is not accepting God and what Jesus did for you: and you, under Pascal's Wager, would still be as lost as ever.

This is a ridiculous scenario.

No it isn't.

We know that the whole point of a freeway is so cars can drive on it.

Ahhh. But you have accepted the reality of cars driving on a freeway. The athiest view in this scenario is that there is not such thing as a Car. The idea of Car came from stories cobbled together by primitive people many many centuries ago.

Likewise, it is not superstition that a car will drive down it, as that is a testable claim, and have countless examples of this occurring.

No. You are saying that you could remove yourself from the reality of the pavement and "see what would happen in the end." Oops a car went by....I guess it was real.....ok I believe in cars. In the religious world, you are saying that you will wait and see, and when the end comes you will see God and say...oops, there is a God; ok I believe. But at that time it is too late (you are given once to die, and then the Judgement).

No, in the scenario I give you deny the car. You stay on the pavement based upon the denial and you go to sleep. You don't get to know the worldview ahead of time....same manner as you have no "proof" of God.

The ironic thing is, your rejection was based on denying empirical evidence and ignoring the odds that you were going to get run over when you had good reason to assume you were. You took it on faith you were safe where you were despite the evidence against your belief, and got smoked because of it.

Back at ya.

Atheistic thinking has only been about 4-7% of the thinking; nowadays there are upwards of 12-15% who SAY they are atheist, but under controlled test conditions they answer questions that show their belief in a god, leaving us back around 4-7%. People, whether they choose [what I believe to be] the correct answer, Christianity, WANT to believe in a Supreme Being. I believe that this is because God is whisperring in that small still voice, they are hearing His calling. But they are making a choice to seek after their desires instead of seeking after His Will. Romans 2 tells us that they truly do know the difference, even if they have not learned the details. Just like any baby, they KNOW how to dring the milk.

 

[Freodin]

It is the root of all sin,worship of self. If you think about flesh and sin it starts with a selfish action, people who are a the top of the list are atheist simply because they do not want to be accountable for their actions. By out shouting and refuting anything said they make their own doctorian another example of worship of self. In some confused state it is somewhat childlike, I do not like the rules so it's a stupid game I quit! What amazes me is the effort they put into trying to disprove what they do not belive. A rational person when told about some crazy worship shakes his head and dismisses it case closed. So this tells me by obsessing over religion their hearts are pricked and their trying to make peace with themselves. After all how many Christians argue and debate the atheist forums . I'm glad their with us and hoping some will find their way home in Christ.

You believe that lying is a sin, correct?

Now I accept that it is possible to be sincerely incorrect in your beliefs and thus tell something wrong without lying.
But if you are unwilling to accept correction about your false views, and continue to proclaim them even when you have been confronted with corrections, this would amount to "lying". (And why this unwillingness... perhaps you are "selfish"?)

You have told lies - by repetition of what you have heard - already on this thread. Now again you proclaim a lot of things that are wrong.

Are you willing to be corrected, to accept correction and to stop making these false statements... or are will you be starting to lie?