Is there "hope" for atheists?

[Charlemagne_III]

One observation: I would say that atheists deal more with more facts as we know them than theists do.

What if it’s true that God exists?

Can you prove it’s a fact that God does not exist?

And as I said earlier, the natural law instilled in us moves us toward God, not away from God.

That is why the vast majority of mankind have believed some kind of religion.

And that’s a fact!

 

[atheistgirl]

The atheist doesn’t get a free pass into heaven because he sincerely believes there is no God. If fact, he has lied to himself about God, for whatever purpose it may serve him (as it served Satan) to lie about God to Adam and Eve. He is still lying to every atheist about God, and every atheist is willfully buying into the lie.

I respectfully disagree.

I am not lying to myself about anything.

You may like to think I am, but the simple fact is, I’m not.

Sarah x

 

[Oreoracle]

No, he is asking them to try a different food than they have ever tried before

No, he isn’t. I’m not sure if we agree at this point what Pascal’s Wager is. This is the gist of Pascal’s Wager as I understand it:

God either exists or he doesn’t, and you either believe in him or you don’t. Thus there are 4 possibilities: 1) You don’t believe and he doesn’t exist. 2) You don’t believe and he does exist. 3) You do believe and he doesn’t exist. 4) You do believe and he does exist.

There is no penalty or payoff for (1) and (3). There is a penalty for (2) and a payoff for (4). So you can, if anything, only be penalized for not believing or be rewarded for believing. Thus is it most rational to believe.

There are several problems with this argument due to its implicit assumptions, but the important point is that trying to believe doesn’t give you anything. You can’t say to God after you die, “Well, I tried to believe in your religion on Earth, Your Holiness, but I wasn’t very convinced by it, so I changed my mind and pursued a different religion.” You get 0 points for that as far as Pascal’s Wager is concerned. The belief in God must be the last belief you held upon your death. So you aren’t sampling a religion. You are, as the name of the argument suggests, “wagering” everything on the truth of that religion. It isn’t called a wager for nothing.

 

[Amandil]

I did not say that all atheists will necessarily be saved. I suggested that those who do not accept faith for reasons which cannot be considered sin…

Sincerity alone is not sufficient for salvation. “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” And as a fomer atheist I know for sure that I did not enter into my atheism because I understood Christianity. But I guarantee you coming out of it I recognized that my disbelief and my ignorance, and the immoral acts that I committed as an atheist, are things for which I was fully culpable for.

The difference is the difference between the objectivity of someone in the midst of an addiction and the objectivity of someone who has overcome the addiction.

Addicts neither do not nor cannot view their addiction objectively. But objectively their disbelief in God is in fact sinful, no mattet how sincere they may be in their disbelief.

catholicscot:

…and who respond to the promptings of grace in other ways might be saved.

One can argue that responding to the prompting of grace necessarily implies belief and a firm adherence to natural law and an upright morality.

The problem though goes back to Scripture, if the Jews could not keep the law, then it is impossible for anyone to.

catholicscot:

You may attribute someone else’s atheism to their pride but only God can know what goes on inside a persons heart and mind. If the Church can, as it does, hold out hope for the salvation of some of those who have no explicit faith then you can too. Besides, the only soul you are answerable for is your own and can you be sure of your own salvation?

While this is all true, it also necessarily applies to the atheist as well. Prudence demands that one truly and objectively examine the truth claims put forth by Christ, and then a decision must be made. Many atheist don’t even bother to examine the evidence but rather remain in ignorance and merely attack the popular misrepresentations of Christianity that are circulated by those who seek to make a name for themselves.

This is not to discount the truly honest atheists out there (though they are few), yet they’re atheism does not stem from the popular misconceptions, but rather that they have objectively examined the evidence, even the Bible, and that they just believe that the evidence is just too good or too fantastic to be true. There’s a huge difference between them and someone like Dawkins or Dennett.

 

[Amandil]

It depends on what you mean by “hope”.
There is a lot of hope for someone who does not believe a God exists to have amazing, fulfilling, loving lives of accomplishment and beauty and grace and goodness.

Precisely what hope are you referring to? The hope of chasing after pleasures and avoiding pain? Pleasures which are only temporary and subject to the law of diminishing returns?

Or the hope of the grave?

What precisely is the purpose of life if you’re an atheist.

I’m telling you as a former atheist that I had a serious problem finding any.

 

[Amandil]

Are we so certain that we know and can presume to think that our way is the ONLY path to God?
God bless you.

Frankly, yes.

Christ said, I am the way, the truth, and the life; nobody comes to the Father but by Me."

Christ is the only means by which anyone is saved, period.

If the Church is the Body of Christ, then the Church necessarily has a role in salvation.

Our certainty doesn’t follow from our opinion, it comes from the authority of Christ.

 

[rodgerdodger]

Shoot are you kidding. hope is always there. im in the procession with Jesus. I try to show my joy.

 

[Amandil]

Shoot are you kidding. hope is always there. im in the procession with Jesus. I try to show my joy.

If there was never any hope for atheists then I could have never converted.

The real question is that is there any hope for atheists as atheists?

It’s possible to be hopeful I guess, but is that hope grounded in reality?

That is why we have a duty to evangelize.

 

[atheistgirl]

Of course there would be a “penalty” for 3).
The penalty could be spending an entire life–your* one and only* life-- making decisions every step of the way and perhaps causing loved ones much pain…all built on a delusion.

.

You beat me to it

Sarah x

 

[Bradski]

Precisely what hope are you referring to?

I think DaddyGirl specifically referred to a fulfilling life amongst other things. Not, as is constantly being brought up, simple hedonism. Not just the next sensual pleasure (although I do think I’ll have another beer while I’m typing this).

I’m telling you as a former atheist that I had a serious problem finding any.

Then in your case, religion has been a good thing. I’m absolutely certain it is for the majority of the followers of any religion you’d care to think of. If life itself doesn’t offer you enough to keep you happy and fulfilled then by all means look for whatever else you feel is required.

And this goes to the heart of the problem in trying to convince an atheist that Christianity is her only hope. If the atheist feels there is nothing more that it can offer, if she is already leading a life that is fulfilling, then you will get nowhere.

You were an atheist who felt he needed Christianity. I was a Christian who felt that he didn’t. We all find our own paths in life.

Incidentally, earlier you mentioned that you committed immoral acts when you were an atheist and then stopped when you were a Christian. Was becoming a Christian the only way you felt you could stop?

 

[atheistgirl]

Christ is the only means by which anyone is saved, period.

Except to say that the Church herself recognizes that Christ is not bound by the sacraments.

In short, you simply have no idea what the judgment on atheists will be - that is a matter for God and God alone.

If there is a God and there is a Heaven you might be pleasantly surprised at how many of us have rooms reserved

Sarah x

 

[Amandil]

Except to say that the Church herself recognizes that Christ is not bound by the sacraments.

In short, you simply have no idea what the judgment on atheists will be - that is a matter for God and God alone.

If there is a God and there is a Heaven you might be pleasantly surprised at how many of us have rooms reserved

Sarah x

If you’re presuming that based upon that little bit of information that those who assume that are “safe”, that it alleviates them from the obligation of belief in Christ, that instead they can just get on with being “good” without really knowing what that means, but that God will still reward those who make these assumptions despite their intellectual laziness and cowardice. Are you really willing to gamble your eternal soul on that presumption?

IOW while Christ is not bound by the sacraments, the fact is that in order to be saved He has bound us to them. They are the ordinary means by which we enter into salvation. And if you know that they are necessary, then you are obligated to obey.

 

[Amandil]

I think DaddyGirl specifically referred to a fulfilling life amongst other things. Not, as is constantly being brought up, simple hedonism. Not just the next sensual pleasure (although I do think I’ll have another beer while I’m typing this).

I never mentioned just sex or lust. All pleasures, whether it be sex or money or things like cars, gambling, drugs, even “good” or neutral pleasures like food or video games are all subject to the same law.

People spending their whole lives and bank accounts attached to novelty and expensive tedium as “pleasures” moving from one vain attachment to the next.

Bradski:

Then in your case, religion has been a good thing.

I didn’t adopt religion because it works for me. I adopted Christianity because it is true, and even if Christianity gave me no help at all I’d still be obligated to believe it.

Bradski:

I’m absolutely certain it is for the majority of the followers of any religion you’d care to think of. If life itself doesn’t offer you enough to keep you happy and fulfilled then by all means look for whatever else you feel is required.

There is no real happiness or fulfillment in this life, at least not any to be found in things. What they claim makes them “happy” or “fulfilled” one moment bores them the next.

The only truly joyful and content people I’ve ever seen or read about are the saints, and its not because they sought after pleasures, but the good of others.

“Those who will lose their lives for my sake will find it.”

Bradski:

And this goes to the heart of the problem in trying to convince an atheist that Christianity is her only hope. If the atheist feels there is nothing more that it can offer, if she is already leading a life that is fulfilling, then you will get nowhere.

If someone only considers Christianity or any religion for what they will get out of it, then the problem lies with their own egocentrism, not Christianity or religion.

Bradski:

You were an atheist who felt he needed Christianity. I was a Christian who felt that he didn’t. We all find our own paths in life.

I was an evangelical protestant, who became an atheist, who became a Catholic. It had nothing to do with what I “felt” that I needed. I didn’t set out to find “fulfillment” as an egocentric self-interested pursuit, I set out to find the truth for it’s own sake, and in that I was given more.

Bradski:

Incidentally, earlier you mentioned that you committed immoral acts when you were an atheist and then stopped when you were a Christian. Was becoming a Christian the only way you felt you could stop?

I didn’t know, the pursuit of virtue wasn’t necessarily a concern until I was fully aware of it’s necessity.

What I know now is that without God’s grace the pursuit of any real virtue by which true love is the object is impossible. Sure you can tell yourself, “I’ll be virtuous in respect this virtue or that, even if it kills me.” What you fail to realize without the Christian perspective is that it in fact certainly will kill you. All the virtues are forms of love, thus they necessarily imply self-sacrifice(“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.”) Practicing virtue is the practice of dying little deaths every day.

And without the grace of God and by following wisdom of Christ, people will, and do, give up the pursuit of virtue believing that because it is so difficult that it is simply unattainable.

So they either settle for a mediocre Christianity where they become content in the low temperature of their spirit.

Or they become atheists because they feel that they didn’t get anything out of it.

 

[Ion]

Hi!

I have an atheist friend who believes in the “big bang” beginning and such. I’m a devout Catholic and I get where he’s coming from (sorta).
I tried to reason with him a little bit, kinda going the science route.

I told him that if the Big Bang really did happen and evolution really is true (rather than God physically making the world how it is told in the book of Genesis), there must be a cause because in science every scientific even has a cause. He seems to agree with me on that.
Then he went on to say that humans are just mistakes. I was going to say that we aren’t mistakes and were just made because God loved us (and still does) but I decided against it since he doesn’t believe that there’s a Maker. I then thought of asking him,“So you mean that your parents are a mistake?” but I thought that might come out a little too strong than how I mean it to be.

I then talked to someone else about if they were able to convince an atheist that there really is a God and they said that atheists are “hopeless and can only be changed through prayer and God’s grace if they are open”.

Is there really no “hope” for them at all? (I mean to convince them verbally.)

Former atheists, can you please tell me what changed you that made you believe there is a God?

Catholics and other Christians, if you have been able to sort of convert someone, how did you do it?

-7discerning7

P.S. This thread is NOT intended for arguments and/or debates on religion itself.

Oreoracle: Obviously conversion techniques haven’t worked on me, but I have been exposed to a lot, so I can tell you which techniques are the least effective.

My father was religious but in my childhood I did not believe him because I was indoctrinated by the teachers into the belief that science can prove everything and will do anything. “Your parents do not know science this is why they believe in God. You can learn science etc”. The theory of evolution was implemented in our heads using all the “conversion techniques” possible in a marxist lenininst environment.
Now I can see it is a bunch of lies.

Tell your friend what you know the truth is and explain it it best you can. Even the simple witness that you believe something may be sufficient. Do not expect results right away even if he admits that what you say it is true because we can force ourselves to chose what we think is good.(this is why some people think there is no hope for atheist). See your ideas like seeds. His mind will take them but “deposit” somewhere in the back of the head because he doesn’t want to accept them. There will be for him a time of reevaluation (maybe a extreme conflict) and the mind will “take out” all the truths that were pushed back and look again at them. Somebody dear to me died and there I was with all the “evolutionary truths” that worth nothing. My father prayed for me and this was the way my conversion happened to me. Pray for him. Also, the more seeds you put, the better.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are several problems with this argument due to its implicit assumptions, but the important point is that trying to believe doesn’t give you anything. You can’t say to God after you die, “Well, I tried to believe in your religion on Earth, Your Holiness, but I wasn’t very convinced by it, so I changed my mind and pursued a different religion.” You get 0 points for that as far as Pascal’s Wager is concerned. The belief in God must be the last belief you held upon your death. So you aren’t sampling a religion. You are, as the name of the argument suggests, “wagering” everything on the truth of that religion. It isn’t called a wager for nothing.

This is not an accurate rendition of Pascal’s logic. Pascal is not talking about choosing different religions. Pascal is talking about choosing God or choosing no God.

Trying religion is the essence of getting to know God. If you close your mind and heart to God, there is no way you can discover God. It’s as simple as that. After you have tried God, given God the benefit of the doubt, you have opened yourself to the graces that will flow into your mind and your heart. If you don’t try God, you have effectively sealed yourself off from any knowledge or experience of God. If you try God, you are then able to find God. And that’s a wonderful find, as I’ve discovered.

 

[Bradski]

I never mentioned just sex or lust. All pleasures, whether it be sex or money or things like cars, gambling, drugs, even “good” or neutral pleasures like food or video games are all subject to the same law.

I don’t think anyone mentioned sex. Maybe you mistook sensual to mean sexual. But you’re listing things like a car or good food that most people would consider to be morally neutral. I’m pretty certain that Jesus would have taken pleasure in a well made piece of furniture or a decent glass of wine.

They may not be spiritually satisfying (although perhaps some art could be considered as such - Pie Jesu, Handel’s Messiah, Baba O’Reilly etc) but I hope that you’re not trying to imply that pleasure gained from them is wrong. But maybe you walk everywhere, don’t go to the cinema, never take a holiday and eat gruel three times a day.

I’d propose that most people are like you. They live their daily lives as best they can and take some pleasures in the good things in life. I don’t think you’d be able to tell who was a committed Christian and who wasn’t by checking his garage or vacation photos.

I didn’t adopt religion because it works for me. I adopted Christianity because it is true, and even if Christianity gave me no help at all I’d still be obligated to believe it.

I said that being a Christian, for you, was a good thing. You feel it makes you a better person (I can’t imagine anyone following a religion that you thought made you a worse person). Your problem in getting any given atheist to follow Christianity is to convince them that they will also be a better person for it. Whereas that atheist may, perhaps with some umbrage, compare himself to you and suggest that there is no difference between the two of you except that you have faith. Which goes nowhere with almost all atheists I know.

If you admit that you are just as much a sinner as the atheist, then he’s going to suggest that it therefore seems to make no difference.

There is no real happiness or fulfillment in this life, at least not any to be found in things.

There is happiness in good music, a decent whisky, blue skies and powder snow, a clear night in the outback, a last minute try to win the game, a good drama, a fifteen knot breeze on the harbour with a boat load of friends and cold beer…look, I could go on. But are all those things fulfilment? Well, given the choice, I would rather have a life with them than without.

But real fulfilment comes from the love of family and friends. The things I mentioned should not be pursued at the expense of family but you’re going to have to go a long way to convince me that having them as well is a bad thing.

I didn’t know, the pursuit of virtue wasn’t necessarily a concern until I was fully aware of it’s necessity.

So I can take that as a Yes? Without Christianity you would still have been immoral?

If someone only considers Christianity or any religion for what they will get out of it, then the problem lies with their own egocentrism, not Christianity or religion.

Do you know of any religions without an afterlife? I think Christianity mentions it a fair bit.

Or they become atheists because they feel that they didn’t get anything out of it.

Well, I’m glad that you did. It’s obviously worked in your case.

 

[Amandil]

I don’t think anyone mentioned sex. Maybe you mistook sensual to mean sexual. But you’re listing things like a car or good food that most people would consider to be morally neutral. I’m pretty certain that Jesus would have taken pleasure in a well made piece of furniture or a decent glass of wine.

They may not be spiritually satisfying (although perhaps some art could be considered as such - Pie Jesu, Handel’s Messiah, Baba O’Reilly etc) but I hope that you’re not trying to imply that pleasure gained from them is wrong. But maybe you walk everywhere, don’t go to the cinema, never take a holiday and eat gruel three times a day.

I’d propose that most people are like you. They live their daily lives as best they can and take some pleasures in the good things in life. I don’t think you’d be able to tell who was a committed Christian and who wasn’t by checking his garage or vacation photos.

I said that being a Christian, for you, was a good thing. You feel it makes you a better person (I can’t imagine anyone following a religion that you thought made you a worse person). Your problem in getting any given atheist to follow Christianity is to convince them that they will also be a better person for it. Whereas that atheist may, perhaps with some umbrage, compare himself to you and suggest that there is no difference between the two of you except that you have faith. Which goes nowhere with almost all atheists I know.

If you admit that you are just as much a sinner as the atheist, then he’s going to suggest that it therefore seems to make no difference.

There is happiness in good music, a decent whisky, blue skies and powder snow, a clear night in the outback, a last minute try to win the game, a good drama, a fifteen knot breeze on the harbour with a boat load of friends and cold beer…look, I could go on. But are all those things fulfilment? Well, given the choice, I would rather have a life with them than without.

But real fulfilment comes from the love of family and friends. The things I mentioned should not be pursued at the expense of family but you’re going to have to go a long way to convince me that having them as well is a bad thing.

So I can take that as a Yes? Without Christianity you would still have been immoral?

Do you know of any religions without an afterlife? I think Christianity mentions it a fair bit.

Well, I’m glad that you did. It’s obviously worked in your case.

You’re clearly missing the point.

 

[Amandil]

Yes! It’s grounded in reality!

You know that with certainty?
DaddyGirl:

Please don’t worry about evangelizing the atheists! We are A-okay!

.

Which is precisely the problem.

 

[Amandil]

Exactly the hope I detailed: to have a life of love, accomplishment, passion, grace, and goodness.

What is love? What is accomplishment? What is passion? What is grace? What is goodness?

What does any of these things mean from the perspective of atheism?

What is their worth when you meet the end and become worm food? Can you take them with you?
DaddyGirl:

Just because someone is atheistic, it doesn’t necessarily mean their life is only about chasing pleasure and avoiding pain, as you write it. That may have been your experience–and the experience of others, who then seek out religion/theism for that very same reason…but it is not that way for many.
I do understand that some people join a religion to give their life “purpose”…but…that still doesn’t mean the basis of that religion is true. But I suppose, if following a religious doctrine helps a person feel they have a “purpose” and makes them happy, as it does for you (I assume you are happy)–then it is very helpful in that way.
But not all need to do that to find this hope or purpose.

.

And atheists accuse Christians at times of living in a fantasy world.

 

[Bradski]

You’re clearly missing the point.

You made a few. Which one are you thinking about?