Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[serpentdove]

serpentdove,
are you a Prager fan?

If you call love/hate a fan. :idunno:

[H]e was on this this past Tuesday for Ultimate Issues.

That's a fun hour. :jump: Christians call him at times. He has been unable thus far to even understand their arguments. :sigh:

He is spiritually blind (Lk 4:18–21; Ac 26:18). Let's stand in the gap for our slow-of-heart, stiff-necked friends (Lk 24:25, Ac 7:51).

'do you hope you are right or wrong?' Spot on! pragerradio.com

He put the question out there: If you could ask an atheist one thing...

 

[Hedshaker]

If you are wrong you suffer a horrendous fate. If Christians are wrong we lose nothing. This describes Pascal's wager.

Why Pascal's wager is poor reasoning

From the link:
"The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The Christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument. "

The evidence is not the same. Eleven of Christ's disciples were tortured and killed for not denying the truth of their testimony, that they saw the risen Jesus.

And Muslims are prepared to blow themselves up, therefore Islam must be the true religion and Allah the one true god. Your reasoning not mine. :kook:

The Only true God proved He is love by the sacrifice of His Son, which was One with Him. His self incarnated. The Judgement is unavoidable because of His Holiness, His Love and Mercy are a product of that same Holiness.

:yawn: Religious platitudes and not in evidence. Mohamed rode to heaven on the back of a winged horse, no less. Therefore Allah is the true God and Mohamed his prophet. That must be true because it is written in an holy book

Humans have an inate sense of right and wrong, that philosophers call the natural law that we all know exists. This Law is evidence of moral truth, of a Law Giver (God). Only physcopaths have no conscience.

I agree, apart from the Law giver bit, for which there is no evidence. And of course, the last place we should look for moral guidance is the Bible.... shudder!

Physicists agree the universe came into being in an instant. Natural Selection proves that species change physical characteristics. It does not prove species changing into other species. Chromosomes are not added or subtracted. Amazingly Lions and Tigers are the same species with different physical characteristics.

Yeah, ain't nature something?

You'll be in trouble if you've chosen the wrong god. For me I just disbelieve in one more god than you do :greedy:

 

[Hedshaker]

If you seek God you will find Him. His presence will give you all the proof you need. Read the New Testament and sincerly ask Him to reveal Himself to you and He will.

If you're thinking of going into used car sales you might consider keeping your day job for a while

 

[aikido7]

Both sides claim impeccable evidence and both sides are unyielding.

 

[Tyrathca]

There aren't versions of God. God is good (Ex. 34:6, Ps. 31:19). Not the question. :juggle:

There aren't people different claims about who and what God is? All theists agree on the same God as you and no other claims could even be conceived? Because if there are more than one God claim to consider then that would be very relevant to the question of whether I want God claims to be true.

Not the question. God is: living, personal, relational, good and loving. Do you hope that you are right that God does not exist?

some of those terms meaningless in this context (living?), the rest is hardly a comprehensive summary.

[quot] We are not discussing your spaghetti god in the sky. We are discussing Yahweh , the God of scripture.[/quote] Are we? You should have said so earlier. By the way which Yahweh are we talking about? There are so many denominations with different interpretations....

You do not care if there is an ultimate justice--a God who sets all things right (Deut. 32:4). :idunno:

Actually the idea sounds appealing though it would depend on the form that justice took. Justice is a subjective term which changes between times, cultures and people.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Why Pascal's wager is poor reasoning

From the link:
"The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The Christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument. "



And Muslims are prepared to blow themselves up, therefore Islam must be the true religion and Allah the one true god. Your reasoning not mine. :kook:



:yawn: Religious platitudes and not in evidence. Mohamed rode to heaven on the back of a winged horse, no less. Therefore Allah is the true God and Mohamed his prophet. That must be true because it is written in an holy book



I agree, apart from the Law giver bit, for which there is no evidence. And of course, the last place we should look for moral guidance is the Bible.... shudder!



Yeah, ain't nature something?

You'll be in trouble if you've chosen the wrong god. For me I just disbelieve in one more god than you do :greedy:

The point of Pascal argument holds true in our circumstance. Yours and mine. I lose nothing by following Christ if I was wrong and you were right. You lose everything if you are wrong and I am right.

Muslims killing themselves and others has nothing to do with being murdered for not denying the truth of what your eyes witnessed.

Religious platitudes? Seeking understanding of God so far beyond us is difficult. The Cross does do an enormous endeavor to understand the love of a Holy God. Mohamed did not have witnesses murdered who proclaimed love and peace because of their testimony of Him.

 

[MrDeets]

I don't "hope that I'm right" any more than I hope the chair in front of me holds my weight before I sit. When there is sufficient evidence, one has no need to hope for a desired outcome.

 

[chrysostom]

The problem is it is a dumb question, not only because what we want is irrelevant to what is true but also because there isn't a single version of good to accept or reject. So do I hope of I'm right of there is no God? Depends on the god, a kind and benign one or an aloof and disinterested one maybe is like to be wrong. However most versions describe a petty and vindictive (if not downright cruel) God in which case I hope I am right.

just tell us what kind of God you want

 

[Granite]

The point of Pascal argument holds true in our circumstance.

Nope, not really. It's a joke.

Yours and mine. I lose nothing by following Christ if I was wrong and you were right.

...or you lose everything if the Muslims are onto something. And so on.

You lose everything if you are wrong and I am right.

Wouldn't that be best left to the almighty and not his not-so-helpful messengers on earth?:think:

 

[alwight]

The point of Pascal argument holds true in our circumstance. Yours and mine. I lose nothing by following Christ if I was wrong and you were right. You lose everything if you are wrong and I am right.

Pascal's wager was considered at the time to be a pretty much an even bet, but if the real god (should there be one) is in actuality a totally unknowable entity then picking the real god from an infinite number of possibilities is no wager at all.
Otoh why risk miffing the real god (if there is one), and wasting your time in this life, the only life you can be sure you will ever have, in a false belief?
Far from losing nothing surely spending a whole lifetime in an insincere and ultimately false belief would be losing much.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

I don't "hope that I'm right" any more than I hope the chair in front of me holds my weight before I sit. When there is sufficient evidence, one has no need to hope for a desired outcome.

It takes just an enormous amount of faith to believe Hawking that all that exists in our universe just created itself for no purpose or reason.

 

[MrDeets]

It takes just an enormous amount of faith to believe Hawking that all that exists in our universe just created itself for no purpose or reason.

My lack of belief in your god(atheism) says nothing about my opinions about the origins of the universe(astronomy, physics, etc).

 

[alwight]

Not do you think you're right--do you hope that you are right that there is no God and therefore no ultimate justice in the afterlife?

I'd like to think that existence itself is ultimately rational and if not fully explainable in this life perhaps explainable rationally in some other existence.
If creationists and Kent Hovind are right then there is no need for any rational answers, just "Goddidit", which is just not a satisfactory answer for me, so no I don't want that to be true.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't find a belief in God to be in any sense a necessary compromise of curiosity. The universe is mechanism, one way or the other, and the exploration of that mechanism is fascinating.

But it's an odd question, to my mind. If an atheist hoped for God he would adopt the closest approximation to that hope and cease being one, the issue being open objectively, impossible to settle empirically and the benefits rather immediate if right (and to some extent regardless). That is, if a man isn't simply enthralled by a romantic view of nihilism then he would or should advance the cause of an optimistic gamble within the context of this life (Pascal be hanged). But he hasn't, by definition, so what's the point of the inquiry?

 

[alwight]

But it's an odd question, to my mind. If an atheist hoped for God he would adopt the closest approximation to that hope and cease being one, the issue being open objectively, impossible to settle empirically and the benefits rather immediate if right (and to some extent regardless).

What an atheist may hope for imo isn't necessarily what must therefore be believed as actually true.
Hoping for a god to exist doesn't negate an atheistic conclusion.

If I've understood you TH, you perhaps think that the benefits of believing in God make disbelief somewhat invalid, while I don't agree. I think we have no reason to be here if we can somehow make ourselves believe something because it is personally beneficial and not because it is necessarily true.

Further to that I rather think that Darwinian evolution (That thing that atheists like to bang on about. ) has more to do with encouraging just that kind of theistic thinking, simply because it has perhaps worked better in the past than an atheistic alternative would, but not because it is actually true only because in practice it works.

That is, if a man isn't simply enthralled by a romantic view of nihilism then he would or should advance the cause of an optimistic gamble within the context of this life (Pascal be hanged). But he hasn't, by definition, so what's the point of the inquiry?

Atheists aren't typically attracted to nihilism or godlessness, atheism is merely a conclusion of disbelief made from a perceived lack of godly evidence. An atheist's position is typically provisional until something changes that perception.

 

[Hedshaker]

The point of Pascal argument holds true in our circumstance. Yours and mine. I lose nothing by following Christ if I was wrong and you were right. You lose everything if you are wrong and I am right.

No, you could also lose if you have chosen the wrong God, of which there are many, all of whom are claimed to be the one true God by their followers. And the only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god than you. This isn't rocket science.

Muslims killing themselves and others has nothing to do with being murdered for not denying the truth of what your eyes witnessed.

They are prepared to lay down their lives for their beliefs, as are many others, which is exactly the same regardless of who is making the claims. You have no sound evidence for the veracity of truth claims made by ancient anonymous authors but that you chose one faith belief over another.

Religious platitudes? Seeking understanding of God so far beyond us is difficult. The Cross does do an enormous endeavor to understand the love of a Holy God. Mohamed did not have witnesses murdered who proclaimed love and peace because of their testimony of Him.

And yet we do not see them converting in droves, do we? They are theists just like you yet they choose to edge their bets on mutually exclusive faith stories. If you take issue with the finer points involved you should take it up with them because I don't buy any of it. What you need to understand James is that proselytising, preaching and apologetics is for bolstering the confirmation bias of theists, not sceptics and atheists. I've already heard it all before, many times and I'm no more convinced now than ever I was.

If you sincerely seek the Truth Tm then what could possibly be wrong with taking a critical study of what you believe? And from sources outside of the Christian Apologetics fraternity. Start with the history of your religion and seek genuine (or as near as possible) contemporary, historical evidence to back up the stories that you now hold dear. Did someone really come back to life after being clinically dead for three days? Did someone really go around performing miracles all over the place? Did someone really do a gravity defying walk on water, feed 5000 people on a fish sandwich? Try to dig out neutral sources, or as near as you can get. Not all Biblical criticism is atheistic propoganda.

Was there really any eye witnesses to these events or did someone simply embellish the stories over time through word of mouth? Chinese whispers!. We both know there are no original Bible writings but surly, if it's all true, there must be some contemporary evidence.

And remember, this is not about bolstering existing cherished beliefs, it is a search for truth, no matter what. You are seeking extra biblical evidence :up:

If you already have the Truth then there is nothing to fear, right?

It's up to you of course but for me the truth is way more important than anything I believe, or disbelieve. I am more than willing to investigate sound, falsifiable evidence. But as for proselytising, preaching and apologetics..... don't waste you breath on those if you wish to engage educated sceptics.

Cheers :up:

Good luck.

 

[Hedshaker]

It takes just an enormous amount of faith to believe Hawking that all that exists in our universe just created itself for no purpose or reason.

Why not? And why-oh-why this assumption that existence itself must have been "created"? We all agree that there is existence, so all you are doing is adding and extra unseen, mysterious layer based on ancient holy books. But then, why stop there? Surly, following the same logic, the entity that created existence must itself have been created, which of course, leads to an infinite regress. And what exactly is infinity anyway to the minds of evolved apes with brains made of meat? The whole thing just disappears up its own rear given a little thought.

All we know for sure is that there is existence. No one knows anything about the state of existence pre Big Bang, not Hawking or any theologian or anyone. And there is no logical reason to assume that everything was poofed into existence at some point via supernatural magic. That's just superstition.

Time waits for no one - energy cannot be created or destroyed - given the existence of energy and matter (which we know are real) then space between events follows logically. How could it not?

Why assume this has ever been any different? And why not assume that, given deep time, anything can happen?

 

[serpentdove]

"There aren't people different claims about who and what God is?"

People make false claims all of the time (Ga 5:9). :idunno:

"All theists agree on the same God as you and no other claims could even be conceived?"

People come up with false gods all of the time (Matt. 24:4-5, 24)--like that spaghetti god in the sky.

"Because if there are more than one God claim to consider..."

Consider them. :idunno:

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

To the Unknown God

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings (Ac 17:22–26).

"...[T]hen that would be very relevant to the question of whether I want God claims to be true."

It would (Is 1:18).

"...[W]hich Yahweh are we talking about? There are so many denominations with different interpretations..."

The God of scripture.

"Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean..." Full text: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson Eph 4:14

See:

Hermeneutics

"Justice is a subjective term which changes between times, cultures and people."

God decides degrees of punishment (Matt. 23:14). You are not necessarily going to agree with him whilst burning in hell (Matt. 25:41).

 

[serpentdove]

"I don't "hope that I'm right" any more than I hope the chair in front of me holds my weight before I sit."

You hope all of the time. When you get on an airplane you hope that the pilot is not going to dive bomb your plane into a mountain.

Everyone has faith. :dizzy: You are your own god or God is your God (Ps. 73:6).

"When there is sufficient evidence..."

Internal testimony (Ro 2:15), external testimony (Ps 19:1) and the scriptures (Jas 1:18). You are without excuse (Ro 1:20).

Not asking if you believe. We know you do not believe. Asking do you hope you are right. :freak:

"[O]ne has no need to hope for a desired outcome."

You can say that you refuse to answer the question. :chz4brnz:

 

[serpentdove]

[Creation (Ge 1:1)] ..."Goddidit", which is just not a satisfactory answer for me, so no I don't want that to be true.

You do not care about an ultimate justice? 2 Thess 1:9