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

[2 King]

this does not excuse a person from at least trying to discover if there is a God or not and who He might be.

 

[2 King]

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

 

[Super_Rational]

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

A library, especially at a college or university, will have volumes of reading material if you actually are interested.

 

[SiderealExalt]

this does not excuse a person from at least trying to discover if there is a God or not and who He might be.

Or she or THEY or non-euclidean Cthulhu-ishness or actually wondering if it's a valid question in the first place.

 

[2 King]

Or she or THEY or non-euclidean Cthulhu-ishness or actually wondering if it's a valid question in the first place.

you answered it yourself. Got bored of looking for a god/gods/godess/it?

 

[SiderealExalt]

you answered it yourself. Got bored of looking for a god/gods/godess/it?

Oh you thought that was a SERIOUS answer? A serious answer would be your question is a nice lesson in presupposition nonsense.

 

[Super_Rational]

2 King's Posts are very good, He states everything the way it should be.

One thing as to How do we know our GOD is right, How do we know other gods are wrong?

Well, you can take all the religions that cannot account for the Origins of the universe and Life & Death out of the picture because If any religion does not give an explanation for this then you can exclude this religion and their god(s) out of the picture, because What good would that be to not even know why we have life/death and the origins of the universe that a god(s) cannot account for?

Sorry, christianity isn't so special that it's the only religion to ponder life,death, creation, etc, if that's what you're trying to say. Hard to tell. Please write more coherently & Drop the random Capitalizations.

"Evolutionists" don't talk about the big bang, at least very often. You are confusing two very different areas/theories. You're not even in the same academic department. Besides you're science is way off. You should also visit a library. But you won't b/c learning about the big bang & evolution is hard work, & you're not willing to do that. You want simple answers that have no use other than making you feel superior.

Of course the biblical creation "account" lines up perfectly with the word of god, b/c it is from the bible, which you believe is the word of god. They are the same thing. An of course it accounts for everything that is created, that is, you can say "god did it" to everything.

And what's w/ the "preconditions of intelligibility?" You are starting with a conclusion about evolution, & then making up conditions that it obviously don't apply & cannot meet. I've got a condition I bet you won't meet, too: Go to a library, learn something the topics you're talking about, then post about science.

Such beliefs as Evolution is a unlogical Fallacy that is just a hoax made up by man in the 1800's.

Oh noes! You're on to our big evil conspiracy to actually learn something about the world.

 

[2 King]

That explains the Custom user title:

I even confuse myself....

 

[2 King]

You want simple answers that have no use other than making you feel superior.

now you get an idea of how we feel about you

You should also visit a library. But you won't b/c learning about the big bang & evolution is hard work, & you're not willing to do that.

replace big bag & evolution with religion and deity

 

[Super_Rational]

now you get an idea of how we feel about you

Hopefully you weren't referring to the part about simple answers.

replace big bag & evolution with religion and deity

Not sure if you're saying the big bang is like "religion" & evolution the "deity" or what. This is what I assume since I've heard this before. Seriously, get a hold of some textbooks on the subjects & see for yourself. There's more on them then you could probably read in a lifetime. A little learning never hurt anyone.

 

[Penumbra]

Yes, the premise is that God exists.

So, the life will certainly be different if it is with God, or it is without God (otherwise, you denied the existence of God). However, I am not able to describe the value of having eternal life with God to you because I am not there yet. However, you may imagine the differences simply by logic.

The value of life is also different on the earth, with God or without God. There are a lot of noise on human behavior, so this difference can not always be easily seen. A dramatic example is usually heard:

Soldier: Deny your (Christian) God, or I will kill you.
Christian: .....

It is a historical fact, which defied logic explanation, and it clearly shows the value system.

Persecution has been common to many religions (and from many religions).

Here's a Buddhist monk protesting Buddhist persecution:

-Lyn

 

[2 King]

A little learning never hurt anyone.

"I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments."- Colossians 2:4

"8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority."- Colossians 2:8-10

Anyways, looking foward to seeing you in heaven.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it does, Mainly because, If it is true that Atheists and Agnostics believe that they just cease to exist after death, then they have more to lose than I do. Simply because, according to Christianity, When you die, you either go to heaven or hell, if I'm wrong. I just cease existence. If Atheists are wrong, they burn in hell. So who has more to lose?

Pascal's Wager is flawed. (At least the version people throw around today. It makes Pascal look like an idiot.) If Christians are wrong, Allah punishes them. If Muslims are wrong, Jesus and Yahweh punish them.

From my perspective, any deity that would torture me for asking tough questions and not coming to the conclusion that there is a god based on what knowledge I have is not a god I would want to exist anyway.

Granted.
Do you doubt that the Gospels are valid?

The Gospels were written by unknown authors decades after Jesus' death who were most likely non-eyewitnesses. Why would they be valid?

Is there such a thing as absolute truth?

I believe so, yes.

this does not excuse a person from at least trying to discover if there is a God or not and who He might be.

Many here probably have. Those that have searched and concluded that there probably is not one have a strong personal experience backing up why they feel the way they do.

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

I don't know. When I don't know something, I admit I don't know, instead of making a guess and claiming it's true. There is knowledge about what occurred after the big bang, in terms of cosmology, but what triggered the bang and what, if anything, was here before it is unknown currently. Maybe it was Brahma, seeing how he is a god of creation supposedly.

-Lyn

 

[2 King]

From my perspective, any deity that would torture me for asking tough questions and not coming to the conclusion that there is a god based on what knowledge I have is not a god I would want to exist anyway.

Nice.

The Gospels were written by unknown authors decades after Jesus' death who were most likely non-eyewitnesses. Why would they be valid?

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?

I believe so, yes.

Isn't that an absolute truth statement you just made?

Many here probably have. Those that have searched and concluded that there probably is not one have a strong personal experience backing up why they feel the way they do.

Good for them, looks like because they failed no one has to search anymore

 

[Penumbra]

[FONT=&quot]The biggest flaw in Pascal's Wager, as I see it, is that it assumes that atheists have nothing to lose and everything to gain by becoming Christians. However, they have something fundamentally important to lose -- their integrity. Nothing is worth that.


eudaimonia,

Mark[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]That's not completely accurate. A lot of Christians toss around Pascal's wager (usually not by name), and atheists and agnostics often respond by pointing out how incorrect his wager is or what Pascal must have missed. Pascal himself was a genius, and though he had some wacky beliefs (he was a Jansenist, a once Catholic sect now considered heretical), was not a complete idiot to throw that wager out there without other facts. His wager was published after his death from his writings, and is part of a larger series of works was in the process of writing on the defense of Christianity. The supporting material is never included when people discuss his wager, which is sad, because it makes him look more idiotic than he really was. This is not all directed at you, I just feel like clarifying things about Pascal when he is brought up.

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. He presents four options:
1. Live as though the Christian god exists and he does exist: infinite reward.
2. Live as though the Christian god exists and he does not exist: finite loss.
3. Don't live as though the Christian god exists and he does exist: infinite loss.
4. Don't live as though the Christian god exists and he does not exist, finite gain.

He approached it like a gambling problem, which is mainly how he developed probability. If you're given a chance to flip a coin, and if you get heads you get $1000 and if you get tails you lose $1, someone would be silly not to play. That's how he looked at the wager.

The two holes in his argument (at least) are that:
1) It doesn't take into account multiple gods. If a Christian is wrong and Allah exists, that's an infinite loss and his wager is invalid. What many people who argue against Pascal's Wager don't know is that he did consider other gods. He didn't just overlook that flaw. Pascal's wager was presented in a text that contained a series of essays he authored as to why Christianity was right and other religions were lacking. It wasn't presented by itself. So in his mind, he had discredited other gods, and then submitted this wager about why it's reasonable to live as though this one god does. His arguments are very much invalid today with what we know now, but his arguments weren't as terrible if someone in the 1600s is discussing this.

2) He assumes that God punishes someone for having an inquisitive mind and withholding a conclusion. (His biggest mistake was insisting that this is a game people have to play.) He assumes that God cares what people believe, and that he rewards those who pursue him with this self-seeking wager in mind. These assumptions were based on doctrine at the time, both common Christian doctrine and the doctrine of his particular sect which was Jansenism, not just personal assumptions he came up with.

Pascal was a genius scientist and thought like one most of the time, so it's a shame to see his work tossed around out of context. I certainly disagree with his conclusion, but his work was reasonably progressive for the time period.

-Lyn[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[Penumbra]

Nice.

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?

Firstly, historians (even most Christian historians) agree they were written decades after. Christian historians like to propose the 60-70AD range where secular historians tend to go with the 70-100AD range. Hardly any actually think it's the 30-40AD range. Some of Paul's epistles actually pre-date the Gospels.

Secondly, if you pay attention to details in the Gospels, they are written like a novel, where the author knows things that an eyewitness would not know. For example, the authors know what Jesus is saying when he is praying alone, or what certain characters are thinking. They describe events that took place 30 years before Jesus' death, like his birth. The authors weren't there for that, but instead merely relying on legend.

Thirdly, they're not exactly lying. They're writing down verbal stories that have been passed through the decades.

Isn't that an absolute truth statement you just made?

Nope.

I said that yes, I believe there is absolute truth, not that there is absolute truth. Unless your argument is that by saying "I believe" then I'm stating an absolute truth. Did you mean it in that context?

Good for them, looks like because they failed no one has to search anymore

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

-Lyn

 

[2 King]

Firstly, historians (even most Christian historians) agree they were written decades after. Christian historians like to propose the 60-70AD range where secular historians tend to go with the 70-100AD range. Hardly any actually think it's the 30-40AD range. Some of Paul's epistles actually pre-date the Gospels.

the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.

Ill get back to ya later.

 

[Penumbra]

the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.

Ill get back to ya later.

Being "Under the direction of those who were his disciples" does not make an eyewitness.

-Lyn

 

[juvenissun]

Persecution has been common to many religions (and from many religions).

Here's a Buddhist monk protesting Buddhist persecution:

-Lyn

Since it is common, it must have a very good reason.

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

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.