Two Questions for Atheists

[rightwinger]

Why are Bible Thumpers always trying to challenge the sincerity of atheists?
Are you that threatened by someone who does not believe what you do?

It is always....."Atheists secretly believe in God" or "There are no Atheists in fox holes" or "Atheists convert right before they die"

If you really want to challenge my beliefs, provide some proof that God exists and I will gladly admit I was wrong

 

[MarkDuffy]

Dennis Prager - Wikipedia

This is what Boss uses, this clown

 

[Meriweather]

You keep using these excuses.

If Christian scholars don't care enough to produce "correct" translations of the Gospels, then why should we bother to try to believe?

English is the official language of planet Earth

You claim Christian leaders are lying to us. Why does God allow that?

I am claiming there is correct information all around you, yet you appear only to want to focus on misinformation. Where do you think I got my correct information? It was from Christian and Jewish leaders--and, being trained in journalism, I double and triple checked my sources. Where did you get your incorrect information? And why didn't you double/triple check it? Why didn't you do your own research, your own exploration?

If you have a question for God ("Why does He allow misinformation?") find Him and ask Him. I (and the Bible) have some ideas about this, but what do you say?

 

[Meriweather]

I'm smarter then that. No you don't come across as a young earth creationist. You come across as someone who wants to integrate the bible in modern society. I'm arguing the futility of doing that. For the record it doesn't bother me, but you seem willing to discuss it so here we are. So first what are the similarities between the Hebrew creation story and scientific fact?

No, I don't want to integrate the Bible into modern society. However, if modern society is going to read the Bible, then I want people to take the time to understand the original intent and meaning. Otherwise, let it go.

Anyone who knows scientific fact and has access to Genesis can do their own comparison without me taking my time to do it for them as I have other things to do.

What I believe people today would best be served by is to decide if they believe they are a brain organism that this brain operates their limbs and makes their decision--or, if they believe humans are also made up of a unique spirit who reads the information the brain supplies and makes independent decisions.

Those who believe brain only should not waste time on spiritual matters. Those who believe they are not just brain, but spirit as well, may want to take time to tend to their spirit as well as their body. They may also wish to make explorations into the spiritual realm.

 

[Meriweather]

Why are Bible Thumpers always trying to challenge the sincerity of atheists?
Are you that threatened by someone who does not believe what you do?

It is always....."Atheists secretly believe in God" or "There are no Atheists in fox holes" or "Atheists convert right before they die"

If you really want to challenge my beliefs, provide some proof that God exists and I will gladly admit I was wrong

Proof requires physical matter. As God is pure spirit, there can be no proof. This is not a difficult concept to understand. So why do otherwise intelligent people keep requesting proof of that which there is no proof?

 

[MarkDuffy]

You keep using these excuses.

If Christian scholars don't care enough to produce "correct" translations of the Gospels, then why should we bother to try to believe?

English is the official language of planet Earth

You claim Christian leaders are lying to us. Why does God allow that?

I am claiming there is correct information all around you, yet you appear only to want to focus on misinformation. Where do you think I got my correct information? It was from Christian and Jewish leaders--and, being trained in journalism, I double and triple checked my sources. Where did you get your incorrect information? And why didn't you double/triple check it? Why didn't you do your own research, your own exploration?

If you have a question for God ("Why does He allow misinformation?") find Him and ask Him. I (and the Bible) have some ideas about this, but what do you say?

Non-responsive

Try again

 

[MarkDuffy]

Why are Bible Thumpers always trying to challenge the sincerity of atheists?
Are you that threatened by someone who does not believe what you do?

It is always....."Atheists secretly believe in God" or "There are no Atheists in fox holes" or "Atheists convert right before they die"

If you really want to challenge my beliefs, provide some proof that God exists and I will gladly admit I was wrong

Proof requires physical matter. As God is pure spirit, there can be no proof. This is not a difficult concept to understand. So why do otherwise intelligent people keep requesting proof of that which there is no proof?

Then God could not be the creator. That requires physical matter

 

[MarkDuffy]

If I am a spiritual being, why can't I do magic too?

 

[rightwinger]

Dennis Prager - Wikipedia

This is what Boss uses, this clown

Which has more prestige?

A degree from Prager University or Trump University?

 

[PredFan]

Back a few weeks ago, I posed my first question to Atheists and I was surprised how suddenly we had so many posters proclaim themselves "Agnostic!" It was an amazing thing to see. We constantly get bombarded with the so-called "naysayers" on this forum regularly but for some odd reason, my question turned them away from Atheism to Agnosticism instantly. I don't think I ever got an honest answer to my question. So I decided it would be a good idea for a thread OP.

First Question for Atheists:

Do you hope that you are wrong or do you hope that you are right?

It's not a trick question. It's relatively easy. Just answer it honestly. If you can't answer, perhaps you need to ask yourself the question in quiet contemplation? How you answer is important and I will explain later.

The second question is:

Do you ever have doubts about your Atheism?

Again, not a trick question, relatively easy to answer.

Now, I wish that I could take credit for these profoundly brilliant questions but I can't. They are presented by Dennis Prager in an article he posted some time back. I will outline a little more about what he had to say later on. For now, I just want to get some feedback from our Atheist contingent... if we have one.

I'll answer because I used to be an atheist.

1. I hoped I was right.
2. For a long time I didn't have doubts. Then they creeped in and that led me to no longer be an atheist. However, I'm not exactly a spiritual person and I don't attend church services.

 

[rightwinger]

Why are Bible Thumpers always trying to challenge the sincerity of atheists?
Are you that threatened by someone who does not believe what you do?

It is always....."Atheists secretly believe in God" or "There are no Atheists in fox holes" or "Atheists convert right before they die"

If you really want to challenge my beliefs, provide some proof that God exists and I will gladly admit I was wrong

Proof requires physical matter. As God is pure spirit, there can be no proof. This is not a difficult concept to understand. So why do otherwise intelligent people keep requesting proof of that which there is no proof?

Spirit is purely mental not physical

Therefore God is just a belief

 

[Boss]

Not at all. Give me something that science can't explain and I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea of a supreme being after all if I'm not able to disprove something any hypothesis carries the possibility to be right. Give me things that do fall within the framework of reason, the God hypothesis is simply nonsensical.

Cosmological constant. Quantum entanglement. The existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Gravitational constant. How electrons can be in two places at the same time or exist, yet, occupy no space in time. How physical nature could create itself and do so from nothingness. The existence of the Golden Ratio. Fibonacci sequence. How light can be both a wave and particle. The observer effect. Origin of life.

 

[MarkDuffy]

If heaven does not have cable, cell phones, computers, hiking wilderness, booze and lots of sex; then I am not interested.

Oh, by the way, that "free will" thingie. Does THAT also apply in heaven, or is that only an Earth thang?

 

[Boss]

-First of, The first reply I gave in this OP was a direct answer to your premise.

No. Your first reply in this thread was to answer the question with a question. That's called constructing a straw man. It's a technique of avoidance in answering the question. Since then, I have repeatedly explained that I am not asking you about which God(s) you find more attractive or what alternatives you have. It's just a very simple question which you're obviously not inclined to answer, for whatever reason.

So wanting a clear framework to answer a question is a construction straw man? Boss that's simply untrue. If I ask you," what is the color of the sky in the place I live?" Is asking," where do you live" a construction straw man?"
I'll give you an example. Lets assume it's the OT God. Then me being a non believer would make me go to hell. Since I rather not exist than be tortured for eternity. I would hope I'm right. if it's the NT God then I have hope that God would allow me to go to heaven because I'm a moral man so I'd hope I'm wrong. If god would be Odin then being a murderer and a rapist would get me to Valhalla so I'd hope I'm wrong. If God is just an advanced alien who doesn't do anything then create us as some lab experiment it wouldn't matter since me being right or wrong has absolutely no consequences either way so it wouldn't matter. Depending on who God is my answer to that question varies so how am I to answer without a definition of God?

So wanting a clear framework to answer a question is a construction straw man? Boss that's simply untrue. If I ask you," what is the color of the sky in the place I live?" Is asking," where do you live" a construction straw man?"

No, but I'm not asking you a question about myself. I'm asking about your beliefs.

Again... because you seem to be a hard head... the question is not about what kind of God you don't believe in. I presume, if you are truly an Atheist, you don't believe in any God. So do you hope that you're wrong or hope that you're right? It's really simple and needs no clearer framework.

You avoidance of an answer is leading me to think you are unsure as to what you believe.

 

[Boss]

-First of, The first reply I gave in this OP was a direct answer to your premise.

No. Your first reply in this thread was to answer the question with a question. That's called constructing a straw man. It's a technique of avoidance in answering the question. Since then, I have repeatedly explained that I am not asking you about which God(s) you find more attractive or what alternatives you have. It's just a very simple question which you're obviously not inclined to answer, for whatever reason.

So wanting a clear framework to answer a question is a construction straw man? Boss that's simply untrue. If I ask you what is the color of the sky in the place I live? is asking" where do you live?" a construction straw man?"
I'll give you an example. Lets assume you believe in the OT God. Then me being a non believer would make me go to hell. Since I rather not exist than be tortured for eternity. I would hope I'm right. if you believe in the NT God then I have hope that God would allow me to go to heaven because I'm a moral man so I'd hope I'm wrong. If god would be Odin then being a murderer and a rapist would get me to Valhalla so I'd hope I'm wrong. If God is just an advanced alien who doesn't do anything then create us as some lab experiment it wouldn't matter since me being right or wrong have absolutely no consequences either way so it wouldn't matter. Depending on who God is my answer to that question varies so how am I to answer without you defining God?

You even said it yourself. That you respect atheists who hope their wrong because you feel they realize the consequences of being right. But there's only consequences if we accept your definition of God. Not existing any more is not a meaningful consequence.

Well MY definition of God differs from Prager's. He is merely outlining the consequences of a universe without God. From his perspective (I happen to agree), if you hope that you're wrong, then at least you've contemplated these consequences. If you hope you are right, you seem to be emotionally detached and haven't given any thought to the consequences.

 

[Boss]

-As I said there are thousands of different man/ men and woman in the sky myths, all are different, most are dramatically different. This would all have bearing on my answer since you are basically asking if I find any of them more attractive then my belief that there is no God. So if you ask do I want to be wrong? How can I answer if I don't know what the alternative is?

I have not asked you which God you find more attractive.Nor have I asked if you want to be wrong. I've also not asked you for any alternative. Apparently, you're having trouble comprehending a very simple and straightforward question. I merely asked if you hope you are right or hope you are wrong. I don't understand why that's so difficult to understand or why you are struggling so hard to avoid answering. You obviously have a belief of some kind... do you hope your belief is right? Or do you hope you're wrong?

To my belief. The closest thing I have is that I don't know. Doubt is not a belief, it's actually the opposite of belief. I'm sure the God's as described in any of the so called holy books are bullshit. They are too well defined. Anything you define you can investigate and test. Every time something in the holy books get tested they are proven wrong. So those Gods I can dismiss.
As to another version of a supreme being it is more difficult. How am I to know the difference between an advanced alien and a God? As long as I don't have any experiment to test one way or another, "I don't know" is the only valid answer. I lean to the explanation that there's only physics and nothing else, but that's just an hypothesis not a belief.

Doesn't sound like you're truly an Atheist.

 

[Boss]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

Prager also points out that he doesn't pose these questions in order to argue with Atheists over their disbelief in God. His purpose is to reach those who are uncertain or have doubts.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

Prager also points out that he doesn't pose these questions in order to argue with Atheists over their disbelief in God. His purpose is to reach those who are uncertain or have doubts.

Uh huh

This special feature series of Ultimate Issues Hours is dedicated to exploring the relevance of the Bible.
It's a relatively new idea that Biblical literacy is not important.
Dennis poses the question, "Do you have an instruction manual? If not the Bible, then what?"

The Dennis Prager Store

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

-To your first question I can only answer with another question. Wrong about what? It's ill defined. Because it demands of me that I know which God you believe in.

My question is not about what I believe. It's about what YOU believe and whether you hope you're wrong or right. It doesn't demand anything, it asks a question, as denoted by the question mark at the end.

While your question may be about what others believe, he makes a valid point. Which God? If you plan to constrain the discussion to monotheism, then you should say so.

Atheists like to cite the concept of competing gods as if, somehow, that proves there is no creator and everything made itself.

No, it just forces you to explain why the context must be monotheism.

 

[rightwinger]

Man... I love how I come back to my thread to find 8 pages of Atheists-- oops-- Agnostics, talking about Hitler, Trump, ancient Christianity, Rome, God killing children... anything BUT the thread OP! It's like you think you're in the Coffee Shop thread or something. Hey maybe we can open a discussion on Global Warming and Gun Control too? WHY NOT? It's not like this is a message board where you can actually create individual threads to discuss specific topics.. oh wait? Never mind!

So let's get back to the thread OP, shall we?

Prager points out that the first question is important because it tells him whether the person has seriously considered the ramifications and consequences of their Atheism. If they hope they are right, they haven't seriously thought about what that means.

I respect atheists who answer that they hope they are wrong. It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism: that all existence is random; that there is no ultimate meaning to life; that there is no objective morality — right and wrong are subjective personal or societal constructs; that when we die, there is nothing but eternal oblivion, meaning, among other things, that one is never reconnected with any loved ones; and there is no ultimate justice in the universe — murderers, torturers and their victims have identical fates: nothing.

Anyone who would want all those things has either not considered the consequences of atheism or has what seems like an emotionally detached outlook on life. A person who doesn’t want there to be ultimate meaning to existence, or good and evil to have an objective reality, or to be reunited with loved ones, or the bad punished and the good rewarded has a rather cold soul.

That’s why I suspect atheists who think that way have not fully thought through their atheism. This is especially so for those who allege that their atheism is primarily because of their conclusion that there is too much unjust human suffering for there to be a God. If that is what has led you to your atheism, how could you possibly not hope there is a God? Precisely because you are so disturbed by the amount of suffering in the world, wouldn’t you want a just God to exist?​

As for the second question, Prager finds it interesting that nonbelievers often criticize believers for not challenging themselves intellectually. Yet, he has never know a believer who hasn't doubted God's existence at some point. When he asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

When experiencing, seeing or reading about terrible human suffering, all of us who believe in God have on occasion doubted our faith. So, I asked the atheists, how is it that when you see a baby born or a spectacular sunset, or hear a Mozart symphony, or read about the infinite complexity of the human brain — none of these has ever prompted you to wonder whether there really might be a God?​

Source link

Prager demonstrates a lack of understanding of the nature of atheism
We have heard all the fables, we just do not believe they are true
Yes, it would be nice if Santa delivered toys on Christmas. As a non-believer in Santa, I admit it would be nice if it turned out to be true but am extremely confident that it is not so do not waste my time on Santa worship. There are many things I would like to be true....doesn't mean I secretly believe they are

With the second question, Prager again demonstrates his misunderstanding of atheism. We just don't believe in a magical being in the sky. So, until some magical being appears, we will go on in not believing

Prager also points out that he doesn't pose these questions in order to argue with Atheists over their disbelief in God. His purpose is to reach those who are uncertain or have doubts.

Does he also reach out to Christians who have doubts?