Question for Atheists

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kamalayka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyrey said:
Pascal was making the point that it is unreasonable not to believe in a loving God because by believing you have everything to gain and nothing to lose…
Click to expand...
Whether a Christian has nothing to lose depends entirely on the theology of all the alternate religions. Some say that a false believer will be punished worse than a non-believer, and that throws Pascal’s math all out of whack (if it was ever “in whack” to begin with).
Nebogipfel said:
I don’t understand why you think that atheists use the (im)probablity of alien life (the actual evidence for which, is currently nil) as an argument for the non-existence of a divine being?

What do either of those two statements have to do with the existence of God?
Click to expand...
They don’t have anything to do with the existence of God in a general sense, but I think they have something to do with certain religious concepts.

Most forms of Christianity have built into them an idea that all of the universe was specifically created for humanity. IMO, this might have seemed reasonable when we thought that the world was basically “it” and the stars were pin-pricks in the curtain of the sky, but as we realize just how vast the universe is, the view has to be altered somewhat: the starting view was something like “the universe is an apparatus intended to support us.” As we realize that 99.999999…% of the universe has absolutely nothing to do with us, we’re forced to revise our position to something more like “we are so special, that we warrant the creation of this whole universe”. If we were to find that humanity isn’t special at all in any way that matters, then the idea of special creation for humanity would be dealt a serious blow.

However, I think this all only ties into atheism in the sense that it speaks against the truth of specific religious beliefs; I don’t think that life being rare or common would necessarily imply that a god does or doesn’t exist.
 
Going back to the Rare Earth Argument itself, I think it’s very much equivalent to arguing that because I won the lottery, the game must have been rigged.
 
Kamalayka said:
I didn’t mean it in a bad way.

I meant you will feel the hurt you have caused God and humanity.

It’s has nothing to do about hell.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry - sometimes I have a bad case of “jerking knee”.

It’s just that whenever I hear someone saying things along the lines of you-won’t-know-until-it’s-too-late, they usually are talking about hell and damnation…
 
Shredderbeam said:
I think that atheists are not damned to hell as a punishment, but for not taking advantage of God’s offer to redeem them of their inherent human sinfulness.
Click to expand...
No one is “damned to hell as a punishment”. All those who choose to exist for themselves - whether they are atheists or not - pay the price of being totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others. Their punishment is self-inflicted…
 
tonyrey said:
No one is “damned to hell as a punishment”. All those who choose to exist for themselves - whether they are atheists or not - pay the price of being totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others. Their punishment is self-inflicted…
Click to expand...
Do you really think that atheists are “totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others”?
 
gearhead said:
Code: 
                           Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5754430#post5754430)                 
             *No one is "damned to hell as a punishment". All those who choose to exist for themselves - whether they are atheists or not - pay the price of being totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others. Their punishment is self-inflicted...*
Do you really think that atheists are “totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others”?
Click to expand...
You have obviously failed to read my statements carefully:
No one is “damned to hell as a punishment”. All those who choose to exist for themselves - **whether they are atheists or not **- pay the price of being totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others. Their punishment is self-inflicted…
Have I stated that all atheists are totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
tonyrey forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif Believing does not entail hypocrisy. :eek: It means loving others as persons created by God rather than regarding them as dispensable, biological machines.
Were do you get dispensable from? Just because you need to invent a god to treat others with respect does not mean we all do. It sickens me that people like you try to infer that because rational people realise and accept their origins (based on EVIDENCE) that they must think life is dispensable.

Maybe you would run about killing and raping if it wasn’t for your belief in a god, that however reflects on YOU, NOT ON ME!!! :mad::mad:
Click to expand...
As usual you have got the wrong end of the stick. I was answering liquidpele’s post**:
** Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidpele forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Except every Sunday of my life, and all the money in donations to the church, and possibly my mind from having to hang out with people that believe it for real instead of just doing it because we figured it was a safe bet. Does Jesus accept non-believers that go through the motions? Seems odd.

The operative words are non-believers that go through the motions. They are the ones who are likely to regard persons as dispensable, biological machines. I have made it quite clear on several occasions that sincere, good-living atheists cannot possibly go to hell. It is the way we treat others that counts not what we profess to believe or disbelieve.

I used the word “dispensable” because some atheists have stated on this forum that the right to life is just a human convention - which implies that it depends **solely **on what people decide: life can be dispensed with if it is regarded as useless or inconvenient, as in the case of an unborn child or a senile person…
 
tonyrey said:
As usual you have got the wrong end of the stick. I was answering liquidpele’s post**:
** Quote:
Originally Posted by liquidpele forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Except every Sunday of my life, and all the money in donations to the church, and possibly my mind from having to hang out with people that believe it for real instead of just doing it because we figured it was a safe bet. Does Jesus accept non-believers that go through the motions? Seems odd.

The operative words are non-believers that go through the motions. They are the ones who are likely to regard persons as dispensable, biological machines. I have made it quite clear on several occasions that sincere, good-living atheists cannot possibly go to hell. It is the way we treat others that counts not what we profess to believe or disbelieve.

I used the word “dispensable” because some atheists have stated on this forum that the right to life is just a human convention - which implies that it depends **solely **on what people decide: life can be dispensed with if it is regarded as useless or inconvenient, as in the case of an unborn child or a senile person…
Click to expand...
Or in the case of people that don’t share ones religion, or are gay, or not a virgin???

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

“Some atheists”? Atheism tells you nothing about a person…

I believe people are biological machines, i DON’T believe they are dispensable. How does that strike you?
 
Charles_Darwin said:
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Click to expand...
You are equating Christianity with the Old Testament…
“Some atheists”? Atheism tells you nothing about a person…
Click to expand...
An atheist’s statements tell you what that atheist believes…
I believe people are biological machines, i DON’T believe they are dispensable. How does that strike you?
Click to expand...
I’m delighted! 🙂
 
gearhead said:
Do you really think that atheists are “totally independent and indifferent to the sufferings of others”?
Click to expand...
Yes, because if atheists refuse to stone gay people, they show that they don’t love them because that are willing to let them be condemned to eternal torment for acting on their objectively disordered appetites.
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes, because if atheists refuse to stone gay people, they show that they don’t love them because that are willing to let them be condemned to eternal torment for acting on their objectively disordered appetites.
Click to expand...
Uh-oh. I suggest to watch the play: “Sister Mary Ignatius explains it all for you”.
 
Hi liquidpele,

You say that believing because of the possible consequences of being wrong is “unreasonable”.

I can think of many situations in which it is entirely reasonable. For example, a person is driving on an isolated road. Up ahead is a stop sign at a level crossing. It is flashing. The driver remembers someone telling her that this railtrack has a faulty sign and is disused. If she believes that she should stop and check before driving across is she really being unreasonable?

A man is walking towards a rope bridge. He knows that its attachments on the other side were frayed and about to break the last time he checked. He remembers someone saying that they were pretty sure that it had been fixed. Is it unreasonable for him to take a different route?

You have an infection. It may be X, and you’ll be ill but survive or it may be Y and it will kill you. No-one knows which you have. There is medication that will cure Y, but it is very expensive and will wipe out your savings. Would it be unreasonable to take the medication?

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture.
 
gearhead said:
Whether a Christian has nothing to lose depends entirely on the theology of all the alternate religions. Some say that a false believer will be punished worse than a non-believer, and that throws Pascal’s math all out of whack (if it was ever “in whack” to begin with).
Click to expand...
Pascal was a Catholic… The Catholic Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.
 
Fran65 said:
Hi liquidpele,

You say that believing because of the possible consequences of being wrong is “unreasonable”.

I can think of many situations in which it is entirely reasonable. For example, a person is driving on an isolated road. Up ahead is a stop sign at a level crossing. It is flashing. The driver remembers someone telling her that this railtrack has a faulty sign and is disused. If she believes that she should stop and check before driving across is she really being unreasonable?

A man is walking towards a rope bridge. He knows that its attachments on the other side were frayed and about to break the last time he checked. He remembers someone saying that they were pretty sure that it had been fixed. Is it unreasonable for him to take a different route?

You have an infection. It may be X, and you’ll be ill but survive or it may be Y and it will kill you. No-one knows which you have. There is medication that will cure Y, but it is very expensive and will wipe out your savings. Would it be unreasonable to take the medication?

I could go on, but I’m sure you get the picture.
Click to expand...
Oh no, you misunderstood. I didn’t mean to imply that the possible *consequences *were unreasonable, I was saying it’s unreasonable to choose a path that is unknown (and will remain unknown) and assert that it is truth.

Just as a clarification using your examples, checking to make sure you’re not going to get hit my a train is of course reasonable. Not only is it something you can verify right there, but it’s a minor inconvenience at best. Now, what if the person was told that the train was invisible and made no sound, but that if they tried to cross it would either hit them or let them pass depending on if they were a good person? This is a bit more unreasonable to believe, would you not agree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top