Easy Life of an Atheist

[Lee1]

Firstly let me say that I love your dedication to our improvement, you are like grit to the oyster and therefore a wonderful gift from Our Father. Sincerely.

I can only speak for myself but I do not disregard the possibility of punishment, in fact I have said earlier that what I fear most is the eventual separation from God, that’s a horrible idea and I don’t like the sound of eternal damnation in hell either but the former is far far worse. If a cell of my body could think and speak do you imagine it would be indifferent to union with me?

My aim is to be acceptable to God to experience His love and not the avoidance of punishment. That would be a genuine and healthy approach rather than to simply want to avoid obliteration.

 

[Bradskii]

My aim is to be acceptable to God to experience his love and not the avoidance of punishment. That would be a genuine and healthy approach rather than to simply want to avoid obliteration.

Indeed it would be. A commendable approach. A positive approach rather than the negative one which was suggested (not by you) that atheists avoid by denying God.

My point has always been that the majority of Christians seem to worry about hell as much as atheists do. That is, not at all.

 

[Lee1]

the majority of Christians seem to worry about hell as much as atheists do. That is, not at all.

It is a factor not to be ignored but Our Lord has told us that the most important commandments involve love, love thy God with all of your being, love your neighbour as yourself. If avoidance of hell fire and damnation was the most important thing He would’ve reframed His teaching I think.

 

[Bradskii]

Damian:

Atheists are not saying, “There is no god.”, they are saying, “We are not convinced there is one yet.”

That is not the definition of atheism, but a subcategory called agnosticism. Agnosticism, comes from the Greek, “a” (no, without, not, etc) and “gnosis” (knowledge, understanding, etc) and a sub-category of it (“Weak agnosticism (also called “soft”, “open”, “empirical”, or “temporal agnosticism”)” [1]), and thus to say, “We are not convinced there is one (God) yet.” is to raise the hand high and apply the badge of agnosticism (without knowledge, understanding, proof, etc), not atheism.

[1] " The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.”[31][32][33]" - Agnosticism - Wikipedia

It’s not either/or. One can be an agnostic atheist. It depends on what question you ask.

D: ‘Do you believe in God?’
B: ‘No. The evidence produced does not convince me’.

B is an atheist.

D: ‘Can you categorically claim that God does not exist?’
B: ‘No. There can never be sufficient evidence to make that claim’.

B is an agnostic.

 

[Bradskii]

@Damian

What do you think of the language of the DNA itself? It has letters in sequence, in a code, and multiple levels of code…

Who then is the programmer for that complex (multi-layer) code?

DNA is not just random letters, but an entire library of information stored in a specific order, with correcting mechanisms, etc.

It didn’t start off being complex. It started off being very simple. And contrary to popular opinion, the second law of thermodynamics requires entropy to decrease before it increases. That is, there is a natural tendency towards complexity.

Add natural selection and you have your solution.

 

[Bradskii]

…and provides no evidence.

There are quite a few people on this forum who would argue against various aspects of evolution. For various reasons. But their lack of understanding of the subject matter makes reasonable discussion quite difficult.

To suggest that there is NO evidence at all is a remark born of ignorance and precludes ANY chance of a sensible discussion.

 

[Sleepy2]

The extra sleep Sunday mornings and money does help a lot! Sex is a bonus.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Not really. I have had much loss and tragedy and suffering in my life. Every day I expect more to come.

In the past three months I have watched a person I love very much be tortured for hours on end by medical treatment that saved his life, but, left me with flashbacks it was sooo horrible to watch.

I have learned that Christ promised “a peace that passes all understanding”.

St Paul said the he learned whatever state he was in to be content. I also know that my suffering is not wasted, I can offer it up.

 

[Peebo]

I think as Christians we believe that God wrote his laws of what is right and wrong in ours hearts…our minds…even tribal communities have the sense of caring for each other…tribal laws…of course that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been abused…I suspect atheists have probably the same innate sense of right and wrong…some…but not all no doubt may have differing views on issues…abortion…SSM euthanasia etc…but so do Christians have differing views on those and other issues of the world…even political views which many Christians don’t agree on…as do atheists…I think it would be fair to say that atheists are not much different than Christians other than that they believe that it has been through natural evolution that humans have developed a belief of what is right and wrong…of morality…whereas …as Christians we believe it was by Gods design

 

[steve-b]

You’ve basically restated the problem. The potential exists within the wager for both outcomes to lose, kind of like betting red or black on roulette and zero coming in.

Yet in life there is just right or wrong. Good or bad.

 

[Inquisitor85]

That’s not true, pretty much everything is a shade of grey. Context is key, in one way an action can be deeply immoral, in another it’s less so.

 

[steve-b]

That’s not true, pretty much everything is a shade of grey. Context is key, in one way an action can be deeply immoral, in another it’s less so.

Look at you example. betting red or black on roulette and zero coming in.

Black, White, Zero are the options. Win = 1 of those only. The other 2 is a loss.

Point being, while a game can be used as an example in some issues, life is not like a game of roulette.

 

[Inquisitor85]

My point was that in Pascal’s Wager both outcomes can lose if a third possibility comes into play, hence the roulette analogy.

 

[Calliope]

The willing atheist desires to live without God (and they know this God, and hate God), suppressing the truth they already know, as seen all around them at all times, as Romans 1:18-32 reveals their heart, as shown to us by the Holy Spirit, and examples of this are given from Genesis, to the Flood, to Exodus, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to NT times, to Today.

I’m curious about this. You DO use the term “willing atheist” so perhaps you are describing a particular subset of atheists here? Because atheists, by definition, don’t believe in God. You are describing someone who does believe in God and chooses to live as if they don’t, or even actively choose to live in a manner spiteful to God purposely as an insult to him.

True atheists don’t believe in God. They don’t live their lives in relation or reference to him any more than a Christian is living in relation, reference or to spite any number of other gods of other religions.

I do believe that there are people who believe in God and due to anger or some other emotion purposely choose to spite him, but by definition, they are not atheists.

 

[steve-b]

My point was that in Pascal’s Wager both outcomes can lose if a third possibility comes into play, hence the roulette analogy.

In the end, it’s heaven or hell. Even Purgatory isn’t a 3rd option since everyone in purgatory goes to heaven. It’s still in the end, heaven and hell as the only options.

 

[PickyPicky]

The point is that there are many third options: the many non-Christian gods. What the wager presents as a 50:50 chance is therefore nothing of the kind.

 

[steve-b]

The point is that there are many third options: the many non-Christian gods. What the wager presents as a 50:50 chance is therefore nothing of the kind.

Stuff that doesn’t exist don’t count.

 

[Bradskii]

The point is that there are many third options: the many non-Christian gods. What the wager presents as a 50:50 chance is therefore nothing of the kind.

It’s like saying that as you will either win or not win the lottery then it’s a 50:50 chance either way.

 

[steve-b]

PickyPicky:

The point is that there are many third options: the many non-Christian gods. What the wager presents as a 50:50 chance is therefore nothing of the kind.

It’s like saying there is a 50:50 chance of winning the lottery: You either will or you won’t.

If only it was that high

 

[PickyPicky]

Stuff that doesn’t exist don’t count.

The whole point of Pascal’s wager was to find the most beneficial choice for someone who didn’t know what existed and what didn’t. For such a person the god Odin was as possible a choice as the other two.