Good reason to be an atheist?(moved from Christian Appologetics)

[Eudaimonist]

Pascal basically founded the field of probability, and that is the backbone of his wager. He doesn't assume people have nothing to lose by being Christians and being wrong. His claim is simply that whatever they have to lose, is finite, whereas what they have to gain, is infinite.

I meant nothing to lose in comparison to something infinite. Sorry, that wasn't clear in my wording. Regardless, I'm still saying that Pascal is dead wrong about that.

IMO, the point about more than two options (atheism and Christianity) is only a minor flaw in his argument compared to the integrity issue.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheists,
I propose a question: How did the universe begin?

I don't believe it ever did. Time may have had a beginning, but IMV the universe (natural existence) has always existed in some form.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wicked Willow]

Atheists,
I propose a question: How did the universe begin?

I propose that you study the findings of astrophysics in order to receive potential answers to that question. As a layperson with a very limited understanding of theoretical physics, my answer would be: "I don't know, but the data available suggests that none of the creation myths proposed by various religions reflects what actually happened - at least not in a literalist reading."

 

[2 King]

I do not need to go to a Library. I said that creation lines up with Biblical account of Creation because it does, Evolution does not line up with Biblical creation, You take the evidence found by creationists by many different methods, it perfectly lines up with creation.

This is partly true, mainly because only a certain number of Atheists take into account different methods of creation. The others just believe that there is no God and that sums up their claim on it.

In order for Evolution to make any Argument against the origins of the Universe it has to be wrong, because they have to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order to make an argument that makes sense, and only in the biblical worldview does this these preconditions of intelligibility make sense and at the same time stay rational and internally consistent.

Yes, if an evolutionist wanted to be truly successful, then they would have to study on creation and then counter it, thus knocking another target off their agenda. But they won't do that. Because they've failed time and time again. Mostly because the atheistic debaters were novice at best in their knowledge of creation.

I don't believe it ever did. Time may have had a beginning, but IMV the universe (natural existence) has always existed in some form.

Mark

Interesting thoughts Mark.

I propose that you study the findings of astrophysics in order to receive potential answers to that question. As a layperson with a very limited understanding of theoretical physics, my answer would be: "I don't know, but the data available suggests that none of the creation myths proposed by various religions reflects what actually happened - at least not in a literalist reading."

Thank you, I have studied into evolution theories and of the like.
Or else I wouldn't be able to argue my case against evolutionists and such.
I believe in the Big Bang, God said "Bang!" and it was there

 

[Rasta]

Do you doubt that the Gospels are valid?

Yes.

Is there such a thing as absolute truth?

If there is, we have no way of knowing.

 

[2 King]

Yes.



If there is, we have no way of knowing.

would you go as far as to say, "Theoretically" there would be an absolute truth?

and also

Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead according to what the eyewitness accounts tell us in the Gospels?

 

[Rasta]

For one you said that people (evolutionists) do not talk about the big bang, well then how come someone from this Christian forum messaged me about the big bang??? And I hear it inside my school and it's one of the biggest in the state, Yeah, Not talked about, you obviously don't know much. About the capitalizations, That I just do because I like to, I could Type Without them but Since it IS A BIG DEAL To You Guys Ill go Ahead and Do It Anyway.

I do not need to go to a Library. I said that creation lines up with Biblical account of Creation because it does, Evolution does not line up with Biblical creation, You take the evidence found by creationists by many different methods, it perfectly lines up with creation.

In order for Evolution to make any Argument against the origins of the Universe it has to be wrong, because they have to assume the preconditions of intelligibility in order to make an argument that makes sense, and only in the biblical worldview does this these preconditions of intelligibility make sense and at the same time stay rational and internally consistent.

Um, perhaps noone has told you yet . . . evolution is a fact of reality. Specation has been observed. We can trace the commonalities and divergences of all species through mapping their genome. Even apes that are in denial.

 

[2 King]

There are many evidences that Charles Darwin repented on his deathbed.
I found the following quote quiet interesting.: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

 

[Rasta]

would you go as far as to say, "Theoretically" there would be an absolute truth?

I would say theoretically there COULD be an absolute truth.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead according to what the eyewitness accounts tell us in the Gospels?

No.

1. I don't believe the gospels were written first hand. They were written in a foriegn language, in a foriegn land, decades after the elleged events.
2. Even if they were eyewitness accounts (unlikely), eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. They are the worst form of evidence in a court of law.
3. I don't believe magic is real.

 

[Rasta]

There are many evidences that Charles Darwin repented on his deathbed.

Which have been subsequently debunked by his daughter who was there when he died. This is irrelivant however. Darwin laid the groundwork for evolution. A lot has happened in science since 1882.

I found the following quote quiet interesting.: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them."

How is this relevant?

 

[2 King]

I would say theoretically there COULD be an absolute truth.

So you must be familiar with the tactics I would use , most people are.

No.

1. I don't believe the gospels were written first hand. They were written in a foriegn language, in a foriegn land, decades after the elleged events.
2. Even if they were eyewitness accounts (unlikely), eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. They are the worst form of evidence in a court of law.
3. I don't believe magic is real.

why would you not consider them to be accurate? After all, they claim to be written by eyewitnesses, are historically accurate, have been verified archaeologically, etc.

Secondly, there is nothing that has been "unearthed" that conflicts with the gospels, right?

Which have been subsequently debunked by his daughter who was there when he died. This is irrelivant however. Darwin laid the groundwork for evolution. A lot has happened in science since 1882.

K thanks for the reminder

How is this relevant?

Not relevant

 

[Rasta]

So you must be familiar with the tactics I would use , most people are.

Yes.

why would you not consider them to be accurate? After all, they claim to be written by eyewitnesses, are historically accurate, have been verified archaeologically, etc.

I just told you why.

Secondly, there is nothing that has been "unearthed" that conflicts with the gospels, right?

Only the existence of the Catholic Church.

 

[2 King]

Yes.



I just told you why.



Only the existence of the Catholic Church.

Proof can be an ambiguous thing since different people have different requirements to qualify as proof.

When I look at the Gospels I see eyewitness accounts. I also see that they were written in that time and in that location. Also, when you look at the behavior of the disciples I think it is fair to conclude that something very significant happened that would cause them to become so strong in their beliefs. I mean, why would they lie?

 

[Rasta]

Proof can be an ambiguous thing since different people have different requirements to qualify as proof.

I think you mean evidence. Proof is more concrete.

When I look at the Gospels I see eyewitness accounts. I also see that they were written in that time and in that location. Also, when you look at the behavior of the disciples I think it is fair to conclude that something very significant happened that would cause them to become so strong in their beliefs. I mean, why would they lie?

Why would anyone lie? Every religion has strong beliefs. The most simple explaination is that they were mistaken.

 

[2 King]

I think you mean evidence. Proof is more concrete.

Thus a point has been proven.
so possibly

Why would anyone lie? Every religion has strong beliefs. The most simple explaination is that they were mistaken.

Mistaken? interesting, that is very simple.

If it were do to religious beliefs, then what would they gain? Remember, they were in an environment where Roman rule (that taught emperor worship) and a Jewish culture, which included acknowledging the one and only God revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures. To go against either one, would be very costly. What would motivate them to establish a religion based upon something they knew to be false; namely, the resurrection of Jesus? In their present situation they would have lost their families, lost their means of income, risked social rejection, and could even have lost their lives. Remember, that's what happened to Jesus. So, if you were going to discount the Gospels shouldn't you provide an alternative explanation for the claims and actions of the gospel writers?

 

[Rasta]

If it were do to religious beliefs, then what would they gain?

A feeling of importance and significance.

Remember, they were in an environment where Roman rule (that taught emperor worship) and a Jewish culture, which included acknowledging the one and only God revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures. To go against either one, would be very costly.

All new religions must deal with this. Islam did, Bahai did, the Jews did, among others.

What would motivate them to establish a religion based upon something they knew to be false; namely, the resurrection of Jesus?

They were mistaken. I already told you I don't believe the gospels were written first hand.

In their present situation they would have lost their families, lost their means of income, risked social rejection, and could even have lost their lives. Remember, that's what happened to Jesus. So, if you were going to discount the Gospels shouldn't you provide an alternative explanation for the claims and actions of the gospel writers?

I did. I disbelieve them.

 

[redwards]

I was an atheist when I was young. As far as I can remember, I did not have a good reason to be an atheist. Now, this question is becoming more puzzling to me than ever. Why would people want to be an atheist?

One does not have to be a Christian. But to my experience, one "should" have a religious belief. So, if you are an atheist, I would like to hear (and seriously consider) your reasons. I am not trying to debate you, but trying to understand you by a few questions.

So, please give me your best reasons of being an atheist. You may start with the most convincing one.

Thanks.

It seems to me that you're missing a fundamental point. I'm an atheist because I don't find any arguments for religion convincing. I cannot force myself to believe something that does not convince me. I could claim to be religious, but I'd simply be lying.

 

[2 King]

All new religions must deal with this. Islam did, Bahai did, the Jews did, among others.

You are correct. Countless thousands have died for their beliefs. But if you don't mind let me try and make a point. Muslims, for example, believe in Islam and die for what they believe about the Quran. The Quran does not say that Mohammed rose from the dead, performed any miracles, etc. Yet, Muslims will die for Islam. What makes the account of the disciples different is that they said and proclaimed that the reason they were doing what they were doing was because Jesus had risen from the dead. Any followers of a religion can become fanatical and even suicidal. It neither proves or disproves the validity of that religion. But, with the followers of Christ, the disciples specifically and publicly declared that Jesus had risen from the dead. There were many people alive at that time who could've disputed this, but, as far as I know, there are no ancient records of any disputations. If Jesus had not risen, all the Jews had to do was produce a body. Anyway, the claims of the disciples themselves are the motivation.

They were mistaken. I already told you I don't believe the gospels were written first hand.

Ok.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Many evolutionists believe a number of the following : The Bible is irrelevant to science, empiricism ( all things are know by observation ), naturalism ( nature is all that there is ), evidence can be interpreted "neutrally," and unaided human reasoning is capable of determining truth. Some evolutionists accept evolution itself to be as itself a presupposition -- an unquestionable fact through which other evidences are interpreted.

Evolutionary presuppositions do not form a consistent worldview in which knowledge is possible. In many cases, secular presuppositions turn out to be self-refuting. In all cases, they fail to provide the preconditions of intelligibility. If evolution were true, science and reasoning would not be possible: there would be no basis for logic, nor would there be any basis for uniformity in nature. So if evolutionists were consistent with their worldview, they would not be able to reason or do science. Thus it follows that evolutionists do not consistently rely upon their worldview. they rely upon creationist presuppositions! How can we account for this inconsistency?

 

[redwards]

Many evolutionists believe a number of the following : The Bible is irrelevant to science, empiricism ( all things are know by observation ), naturalism ( nature is all that there is ), evidence can be interpreted "neutrally," and unaided human reasoning is capable of determining truth. Some evolutionists accept evolution itself to be as itself a presupposition -- an unquestionable fact through which other evidences are interpreted.

The fact that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that to deny it is to deny reality does not mean evolution itself is a presupposition. It isn't taken on faith, it's taken on evidence.

Evolutionary presuppositions do not form a consistent worldview in which knowledge is possible. In many cases, secular presuppositions turn out to be self-refuting. In all cases, they fail to provide the preconditions of intelligibility. If evolution were true, science and reasoning would not be possible: there would be no basis for logic, nor would there be any basis for uniformity in nature. So if evolutionists were consistent with their worldview, they would not be able to reason or do science. Thus it follows that evolutionists do not consistently rely upon their worldview. they rely upon creationist presuppositions! How can we account for this inconsistency?

Oh, this is nonsense. On what grounds do you argue that logic should be impossible? The uniformity of nature, the problem from induction, is well accounted for in scientific inquiry. I know perfectly well that it is not demonstrable, by anyone, that gravity won't suddenly stop tomorrow, but that's no reason to suspect that it will.