On the futility of evidence-based apologetics

[gaara4158]

Permissive god? You mean, something like Dionysus or Prometheus? ... well ya! Who wouldn't enjoy a Bacchanalia or two, or three? Or better yet: the high-life like that which Solomon had! M'boy!

You don’t even need to leave Christianity for that. I grew up surrounded by Catholics who were perfectly comfortable “living it up” as long as they made it to confessional every week. To many that’s a small price to pay to have the “best of both worlds,” as it were.

 

[bling]

But isn’t God forgiving? It seems very easy to bypass this Hell-anxiety if you just take on the belief that God sees you as a good person despite your inevitable moral failures. There are plenty of permissive conceptions of God that would be more appealing than atheism if you’re looking for spiritual meaning and an afterlife. Atheism is rife with existential horrors. Let’s not be too quick to assume people are running to atheism as a refuge from Hell.

When you truly believe in the Christian God, you come to realize there is a judgment and some will go to heaven and some will not go to heave which can be annihilation (burned up in hell).
I fully agree with you: God easily forgives any and all sinners and wants to forgive them, but accepting God's pure sacrificial gift of forgiveness as pure charity is humbling and people just do not like humbly taking charity.
The problem is not with God's Love (forgiveness/mercy/grace/charity), but humans liking, wanting unselfish, unconditional, undeserving Love. That is who God is and if you do not want to be Loved unconditionally and become unselfish, you would not be happy in heaven where there is only unselfish, unconditional Love. God is not going to force you to go if it makes you unhappy to be there.

 

[bling]

"Wanted", past tense.

OK people change,so do you want to change back?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You don’t even need to leave Christianity for that. I grew up surrounded by Catholics who were perfectly comfortable “living it up” as long as they made it to confessional every week. To many that’s a small price to pay to have the “best of both worlds,” as it were.

Perhaps see the other comments I've made elsewhere here on CF this morning and think about what my response to you might be, gaara?

 

[Tinker Grey]

OK people change,so do you want to change back?

Nope.

 

[gaara4158]

When you truly believe in the Christian God, you come to realize there is a judgment and some will go to heaven and some will not go to heave which can be annihilation (burned up in hell).
I fully agree with you: God easily forgives any and all sinners and wants to forgive them, but accepting God's pure sacrificial gift of forgiveness as pure charity is humbling and people just do not like humbly taking charity.
The problem is not with God's Love (forgiveness/mercy/grace/charity), but humans liking, wanting unselfish, unconditional, undeserving Love. That is who God is and if you do not want to be Loved unconditionally and become unselfish, you would not be happy in heaven where there is only unselfish, unconditional Love. God is not going to force you to go if it makes you unhappy to be there.

I don’t buy the idea that there’s any “true” concept of the Christian God, but if yours were the one I would agree with you that there might be some who wished it weren’t. But to answer your question as to why someone would want to believe in God, I think the idea that we have agency over our ultimate eternal fate is enticing to many.

 

[Tone]

Nope.

“Must I go, and empty-handed,”
Thus my dear Redeemer meet?
Not one day of service give Him,
Lay no trophy at His feet?
“Must I go, and empty-handed?”
Must I meet my Savior so?
Not one soul with which to greet Him:
Must I empty-handed go?
2
Not at death I shrink nor falter,
For my Savior saves me now;
But to meet Him empty-handed,
Thought of that now clouds my brow.
3
O the years in sinning wasted;
Could I but recall them now,
I would give them to my Savior,
To His will I’d gladly bow.
4
O ye saints, arouse, be earnest,
Up and work while yet ’tis day;
Ere the night of death o’ertake thee,
Strive for souls while still you may.
Hymn: Must I go, and empty-handed


What about for those in deep darkness...would you let your light be rekindled for those who may be forever lost?

 

[Tinker Grey]

What about for those in deep darkness...would you let your light be rekindled for those who may be forever lost?

Are you talking to me? If so, there is no "forever lost".

 

[Tone]

Are you talking to me? If so, there is no "forever lost".

Yes you and whoever else graces this thread. What is there then?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes you and whoever else graces this thread. What is there then?

You may have noticed that I'm an atheist. I'm don't believe in an afterlife.

 

[Tone]

You may have noticed that I'm an atheist. I'm don't believe in an afterlife.

So what is there then?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So what is there then?

I don't know. I strongly suspect nothing.

 

[Tone]

I don't know. I strongly suspect nothing.

Well, then there you have it.

I believe and hope for more...infinitely more...

 

[Tinker Grey]

Well, then there you have it.

I believe and hope for more...infinitely more...

Sounds greedy. Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins?

 

[Tone]

Sounds greedy. Isn't that one of the seven deadly sins?

Why, my hope is for you to be there...

*And that you will bring others...

 

[gaara4158]

So what is there then?

The discomfort that comes with not having an answer to that might be a factor in people’s desire to believe in God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It’s common in discussions between theists and atheists for the subject of “evidence” to come up. Atheists will often state that the evidence for God is not sufficient to warrant belief, and the theist will either agree and appeal to faith, or they will disagree and provide what they think to be good evidence. The problem is, either way the theist chooses to defend their belief in God, the two parties hardly ever end up talking about the same thing, as it’s rare to see them take the time to agree on definitions for evidence, faith, and God. It’s hard to blame them for this, because trying to tie down a strict definition for either one of these words could send them plunging into a philosophical rabbit hole where it’s very easy to lose your way.
Because of this, when we see theists and atheists locking horns, the discussion often devolves one of two ways: A) into a frustrating, repetitive bout of talking past each other that escalates into lost tempers and name-calling or B) into an in-depth examination of the epistemic tools being used by both parties, in which case the more experienced/educated interlocutor wins by mentally exhausting the other and the subject matter at hand doesn’t even get discussed.
That’s not to say it always goes those ways, but I’d go so far as to say it happens more often than not, at least in the threads in which I tend to participate. While not entirely pointless, these discussions rarely ever end up being about the question that’s asked originally.

I think the fundamental difference between theists and non-theists here isn’t in the arguments they’ve heard, the experiences they’ve had, or the facts they’re aware of. Rather, it is their approach to belief itself: what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something? Is it important for a belief to comport with reality? What beliefs must we take as self-evident before forming the rest? These are the issues that have to be settled up-front or else our discussions will end up devolving in the ways described above. And yet if we were actually able to accomplish that we would probably end up all on the same side anyway.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is none of the discussions we have here are likely to sway anyone from one side to the other. Instead these discussions serve to display how different people justify their views based on their own idiosyncratic epistemologies. The best we can do is point out each other’s inconsistencies.

Just something to keep in mind when you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over and the bonehead on the other side isn’t “getting” it.

In line with the parameters of your OP here, have you seen the recent "debate" between Mike Winger and Matt Dillahunty? If so, what'd you think, gaara?

 

[gaara4158]

In line with the parameters of your OP here, have you seen the recent "debate" between Mike Winger and Matt Dillahunty? If so, what'd you think, gaara?

Oh yeah, I saw that one went up a week or so ago and I never got around to watching it. I’ll give it a listen at work tomorrow and I’ll see what I can make of it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh yeah, I saw that one went up a week or so ago and I never got around to watching it. I’ll give it a listen at work tomorrow and I’ll see what I can make of it.

Honestly, I wasn't impressed with it overall, and I just kind of hopped here and there in the video. So, you just take whatever time with it you feel you need----maybe 3 minutes of sampling? That's all I did. ... it was rather weak on both sides, especially when they both alluded to 'epistemology.'

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh yeah, I saw that one went up a week or so ago and I never got around to watching it. I’ll give it a listen at work tomorrow and I’ll see what I can make of it.

Actually, what I would prefer to do is to watch an atheistic review OF the Mike Winger and Matt Dillahunty debate, such as the one which PineCreek did after the debate [see below].....and then evaluate and critique all five individual conceptions about "the evidence" which are encapsulated in the totality of PineCreek's video.