Easy Life of an Atheist

[laylow]

unless previously informed by valid sources.

There is the red flag. You assume your sources are valid because your loved ones taught you the “truth”. Fair enough. But so do the Buddhists and the Hindus and the Mormons and the atheists, etc. I’m sure you would agree that an all-loving God would be contradictory if he held “not having valid sources” against someone for eternity.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

One can disavow that, and all I can say, death will illuminate all. I would also say, for the opponent, that’s a bad bet to wait till that happens.

So how is this bet made exactly? So God is so petty that he will conclude that a person did not “choose” him but they used the brain that he gave them to conclude that the lack of evidence in his existence gives them no reason to think he does exist and that they are just being conned by society? And because they didn’t “chose” him that they deserve to be eternally punished?

I’m sure you know somewhat of the story of Jesus already. Let me know if that’s not the case.

Jesus performed while on this earth, unbelievable miracles for people to actually see including raising people from the dead as well as He also was raised from the dead just as He said would happen.

Some of His own disciples, who saw His miracles, left Him over His teaching, saying who could believe THAT?

Jesus didn’t go after them. They saw the miracles. Yet they wouldn’t believe. He let them go. Free will can be a real bugger. But it is free, and needs to be free or we are responsible for nothing.

laylow:

That would be compared to a boss that fires an employee because they didn’t do a job he expected them to do even though he didn’t tell them to do it and there was no evidence that they should have done it.

Stick with examples that actually exit.

 

[laylow]

I’m sure you know somewhat of the story of Jesus already. Let me know if that’s not the case.

Of Nazareth? Apocalyptic preacher who got himself in trouble by claiming to be the King of the Jews and was hung on a tree? Yep

Jesus performed while on this earth, unbelievable miracles for people to actually see including raising people from the dead as well as He also was raised from the dead just as He said would happen.

Some of His own disciples, who saw His miracles, left Him over His teaching, saying who could believe THAT?

Pagan traditions are ripe with virgin births and miracle healings in which people firmly believed and even lost their lives for. How can you deny these didn’t happen? People believed and said that they did happen?

Stick with examples that actually exit.

Stay mature.

And you still didn’t answer the question. Would he hold it against them or not?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

unless previously informed by valid sources.

There is the red flag. You assume your sources are valid because your loved ones taught you the “truth”. Fair enough. But so do the Buddhists and the Hindus and the Mormons and the atheists, etc.

Any of those guys raise anyone from the dead with eyewitnesses looking on?
Any of those guys tell everyone He would die and rise from the dead 3 days later and did?

laylow:

I’m sure you would agree that an all-loving God would be contradictory if he held “not having valid sources” against someone for eternity.

Today, information has never been in all of history been so easy to access. Since God wants all to come to the knowledge of truth, He doesn’t inhibit anyone from accessing truth. All one has to do is seek knowledge.

 

[laylow]

Any of those guys raise anyone from the dead with eyewitnesses looking on?
Any of those guys tell everyone He would die and rise from the dead 3 days later and did?

Rising from the dead is the criteria for what exactly?

Today, information has never been in all of history been so easy to access. Since God wants all to come to the knowledge of truth, He doesn’t inhibit anyone from accessing truth. All one has to do is seek knowledge.

I am guessing if God wanted this, he would probably be capable of a better means to spread his message. Unless of course he already has in the form of “the Donald”

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Any of those guys raise anyone from the dead with eyewitnesses looking on?
Any of those guys tell everyone He would die and rise from the dead 3 days later and did?

Rising from the dead is the criteria for what exactly?

tough crowd.

Today, information has never been in all of history been so easy to access. Since God wants all to come to the knowledge of truth, He doesn’t inhibit anyone from accessing truth. All one has to do is seek knowledge.

laylow:

I am guessing if God wanted this, he would probably be capable of a better means to spread his message.

Ever hear this one?

If you want to make God laugh, tell Him how to run things.

 

[laylow]

tough crowd.

I know it may seem crazy, but I was actually looking for a serious answer.

Ever hear this one?

If you want to make God laugh, tell Him how to run things.

No. I would live to hear him laugh, but never seem elicit a response.

 

[hergratefulchild]

God would hold it against them.

 

[laylow]

God would hold it against them.

I agree, if he is anywhere near as vengeful as he his in the Old Testament!

 

[TheLittleLady]

I am still wondering how atheists have “more free time” as was theorized above.

 

[Elf01]

I am still wondering how atheists have “more free time” as was theorized above.

I would guess no need to go to Church or pray.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

I am still wondering how atheists have “more free time” as was theorized above

No Sunday mass or HDO’s. The closet atheist otoh…

 

[TheLittleLady]

So, an extra hour, hour and a half per week.

Every human has internal dialogue and times of silence, we call it prayer, the atheist may call it reflection or meditation.

 

[Damian]

No sir, this again is the problem with religion. I was addressing directly what you chose to present. Your presentation was from your book that pointed out a group as the enemy. Since you are using that as your argument, you directly imply that you accept that argument since you presented it. Therefore, you declared people like me as the “enemy” of your book and of you. I pointed out that what your book states is wrong when describing people like me and your response did not indicate that you actually took in that new information to adjust your understanding and still kept to your will full ignorance, which is how I use the word “stupid”. You are willfully ignoring any new actual feedback and keeping to your texts as the only source for this topic. That keeps you in your bigotry towards this group. My response was grounded from what you actually presented, I responded to what you actually wrote. Then you try to group in every other catholic on this site that my response was to all of them instead of just directed at you and your willful stupidity and bigotry. That is what your religion is doing to you. Trying to rally others into being attacked when they were not part of our conversation and that I was addressing you and only you. Please stop insulting the intelligence of the readers to think they don’t understand what you did here as well.

 

[Damian]

Yes it does help to discuss how words are used so that everyone understands what concepts people are trying to communicate. But you are unwilling to look at someone else’s map to talk about the same point of reference than the map you are using. That is a waste of time to me then since you are saying, My map is the only one that is valid, even though the other person clearly pointed out how they are using their map to talk about the same point of reference and why their map is different. If you just let me know you understood what the point of reference I was going to, I don’t care that you still want to use your map. But you didn’t do that did you. You just said, I don’t acknowledge anything you said or acknowledge anything that you are talking about until you use my map only. That’s why I asked “what word would you use for the concept I am talking about” since you are trying to force your map on to everyone instead of giving feedback that you understood what they are trying to talk about or what you don’t understand that they are trying to talk about. You care more about your map than the point of the conversation. That’s a waste of time for me then and everyone else. It’s like talking about a car that’s broken down on the side of the road and you cant get passed the fact that someone called the car a ford instead of a toyota. That’s irrelevant to the point of the conversation about how to fix the car.

 

[Damian]

Isn’t the whole point of pascal’s wager to act religious regardless of belief or disbelief? If you don’t actually believe, but you can fake it till the people around you believe your sincere in your religion is what is important because this implies that you can also con the deity or the deity cares more that you fake being religious than actually believe it, which is just what people are doing, so it reduces this deity to the level of just another human being that is able to be tricked or cares more about tribal unity than actual true belief. Funny how they keep making this deity to have the same emotional manipulation as every other human. Points towards man-made to me it seems.
But pascal’s wager presupposes that people actually worry about the rewards and punishment of a religion because no one worries about the reward or punishment of every other religion out there except their own. So the deist that is raised in a culture of a specific religion may only be educated in that specific religion’s rewards and punishments, but that’s not the case anywhere anymore. I worry about hell as much as I worry about being cursed by a witch or the destruction of Ragnarok.

 

[PickyPicky]

It is certainly one of the weaknesses of the wager that it implies God could be conned by a pretend believer. But you go on to talk about “they” as if Pascal were the whole of Christendom. That follows a couple of posts in which your tone of voice makes you sound quite irate. As one unbeliever to another, can I respectfully suggest that we should not adopt the anti-irenic methods of the more annoying among the faithful.

 

[Bradskii]

First off I’ll second Picky’s heads up re the tone of your posts, Damian. I’m sure some might mention kettles and pots to have me say such a thing and they would be right up to a point. And I’ll make no excuses for an ocassional let off of steam. But I try not to post anything that I wouldn’t consider saying to someone if we were discussing any given matter in a bar or at a barbie.

That said, Pascal never suggests that we could believe simply by wishing it so. He suggests that we put ourselves into a frame of mind where belief woukd follow:

“But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief, and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness.”

I guess that might work for some people, but personally speaking…no chance.

 

[PickyPicky]

I try not to post anything that I wouldn’t consider saying to someone if we were discussing any given matter in a bar or at a barbie

I do my best not to adopt British snotty ignorance about Australian culture (except where it overflows onto the cricket field) but do Aussies really chat about theology at the barbie?

 

[Vonsalza]

No sir, this again is the problem with religion. I was addressing directly what you chose to present.

As I didn’t present anything to you, you’re not making any sense here.

Your presentation was from your book that pointed out a group as the enemy.

A few issues here;

1. you’re going to need to be quite a bit more specific about the text and what it says for the sake of fair textual criticism since at this point, you’re the only one who knows exactly what you’re referring to here. “No bueno” as far as discussions go.
2. I’m not Catholic, but I’m going to attempt to reply to as though I were since you’ve come to a Catholic site - This is not a text-based religion. This is an apostolic religion (unlike most of our protestant friends). The text will always be secondary to the living episcopate since it is a historical derivative of that episcopate.

Therefore, you declared people like me as the “enemy” of your book and of you.

When? Where, exactly???

That is what your religion is doing to you. Trying to rally others into being attacked…

Frankly, Damian, I think that’s exactly how you’re reacting. It’s almost like you’ve held up a mirror to yourself and wrote “you/Catholics” instead of “me” in describing what you see.

they were not part of our conversation and that I was addressing you and only you.

Then send PMs instead of public forum posts, as a matter of courtesy and common sense.

Yes it does help to discuss how words are used so that everyone understands what concepts people are trying to communicate. But you are unwilling to look at someone else’s map to talk about the same point of reference than the map you are using.

Yeah, ain’t semantics a real chore.

You prefer a much more modern revision of the word. Others, like me, prefer the historical, etymologically correct understanding of the word. Apologies if “we” won’t convert to your views on the matter.

You care more about your map than the point of the conversation.

If I’m reading you correctly, the conversation is actually about that map, Damien.

Most folks come to the debate floor with fairly practiced, cogent arguments if you concede to their terms. Thus a debate over semantic is what the discussion becomes because once it is granted, the following arguments usually flow pretty well.

---

I think you may wish to consider some of the suggestions brought forth by some of your “coreligionists” here on these forums.