Two Questions for Atheists

[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.

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

McDuffinator, I'm not going to let you derail my thread to argue about Prager. That's the oldest trick in the book and we're all familiar with it. Good heavens to Betsy, I don't think I have ever seen a group of clowns so insecure in their convictions as you guys. I've asked you simple questions you refuse to answer. Many of you won't even admit your Atheism. And you, along with your Juggalo Atheist cohorts, are doing everything in your power to derail the thread from the topic and flood the board with straw men and unrelated bullshit. Man, it takes virtually no effort to rattle an Atheist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

McDuffinator, I'm not going to let you derail my thread to argue about Prager. That's the oldest trick in the book and we're all familiar with it. Good heavens to Betsy, I don't think I have ever seen a group of clowns so insecure in their convictions as you guys. I've asked you simple questions you refuse to answer. Many of you won't even admit your Atheism. And you, along with your Juggalo Atheist cohorts, are doing everything in your power to derail the thread from the topic and flood the board with straw men and unrelated bullshit. Man, it takes virtually no effort to rattle an Atheist.

I directly amswered your questions. Btw, agnostics ARE atheists.

 

[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

McDuffinator, I'm not going to let you derail my thread to argue about Prager. That's the oldest trick in the book and we're all familiar with it. Good heavens to Betsy, I don't think I have ever seen a group of clowns so insecure in their convictions as you guys. I've asked you simple questions you refuse to answer. Many of you won't even admit your Atheism. And you, along with your Juggalo Atheist cohorts, are doing everything in your power to derail the thread from the topic and flood the board with straw men and unrelated bullshit. Man, it takes virtually no effort to rattle an Atheist.

Remind me to pray for your lost soul in case I forget.

 

[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

McDuffinator, I'm not going to let you derail my thread to argue about Prager. That's the oldest trick in the book and we're all familiar with it. Good heavens to Betsy, I don't think I have ever seen a group of clowns so insecure in their convictions as you guys. I've asked you simple questions you refuse to answer. Many of you won't even admit your Atheism. And you, along with your Juggalo Atheist cohorts, are doing everything in your power to derail the thread from the topic and flood the board with straw men and unrelated bullshit. Man, it takes virtually no effort to rattle an Atheist.

I directly amswered your questions. Btw, agnostics ARE atheists.

As did I. I have't checked back to see if I got a thank you from Boss.

LOL to your second point & true too! Agnostics are playing it safe or so they think. The theists take no prisoners though. They will tell agnostics they will burn in the lake of fire.

 

[Boss]

I directly amswered your questions. Btw, agnostics ARE atheists.

If you did, I thanked your post. But you'll have to post your answers again because they're now buried under a mountain of kitty litter from those of you who don't want to discuss the thread OP.

At the top of the last page, I addressed those who have honestly answered my questions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agnostic atheist, here. As are all the self-identified agnostics in this thread....else they would be theists!

1) I dont think this question truly applies to "not knowing is there is a god". But, I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about unicorns and dragons, so I am what you would probably call an atheist.

So, the question must be further qualified. If there IS a god, and she's an evil birch, then I hope the idea "there are no gods" is correct. On the other hand, if she's super swell and plans to place me in a happy place forever...then I hope that idea is wrong!

2) The same principle applies. I can't doubt "not knowing", or more accurately, I have never doubted it. Do I ever doubt that gods' existence seems unlikely? No.

 

[Boss]

Btw, agnostics ARE atheists.

I also addressed this several pages ago. The mere fact that you have to make this distinction says a lot about your conviction. From my perspective, there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists and someone who is certain God doesn't exist. Now you can certainly make a philosophical argument to the contrary but I could apply the same argument to people who claim to be Christians but don't truly believe in the God they claim to believe in. So Christians can also be Agnostic, or even Atheists.

 

[MarkDuffy]

WooHoo

Filed under here we go again...

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

I hope that you are wrong

Do you ever have doubts about your Atheism?

I watch Ancient Aliens and I know the truth!

And yet ANOTHER example of someone who is unwilling to honestly answer my question! Why is this question so profoundly hard for Atheists to answer?

Cuz as you well know in the other thread you lied and did not tell us why the questions, you still haven't here either.

You also know your brethren have classified me as a defacto atheist when I have clearly over and over said that as a scientist, I cannot deny the possibility of a God.

Using only three categories is not fair. Technically I am much closer to atheist than agnostic. Agnostic implies we don't have an opinion. I do, a strong one.

As for the first question, of course I hope I am right.

So both questions answered.

Give me a Thank You

 

[Boss]

Agnostic atheist, here. As are all the self-identified agnostics in this thread....else they would be theists!

1) I dont think this question truly applies to "not knowing is there is a god". But, I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about unicorns and dragons, so I am what you would probably call an atheist.

So, the question must be further qualified. If there IS a god, and she's an evil birch, then I hope the idea "there are no gods" is correct. On the other hand, if she's super swell and plans to place me in a happy place forever...then I hope that idea is wrong!

2) The same principle applies. I can't doubt "not knowing", or more accurately, I have never doubted it. Do I ever doubt that gods' existence seems unlikely? No.

Stating the question needs to be further qualified is not answering the question. That's protesting the question, not answering it. The question doesn't require any further qualification, it's very straightforward and succinct. It has nothing to do with "what kind of God" as you keep insisting. It is assumed an Atheist doesn't believe in ANY kind of God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Btw, agnostics ARE atheists.

I also addressed this several pages ago. The mere fact that you have to make this distinction says a lot about your conviction. From my perspective, there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists and someone who is certain God doesn't exist. Now you can certainly make a philosophical argument to the contrary but I could apply the same argument to people who claim to be Christians but don't truly believe in the God they claim to believe in. So Christians can also be Agnostic, or even Atheists.

"there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists andsomeone who is certain God doesn't exist"

Both are atheists. The latter is a special case of atheism called "Gnostic atheism".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agnostic atheist, here. As are all the self-identified agnostics in this thread....else they would be theists!

1) I dont think this question truly applies to "not knowing is there is a god". But, I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about unicorns and dragons, so I am what you would probably call an atheist.

So, the question must be further qualified. If there IS a god, and she's an evil birch, then I hope the idea "there are no gods" is correct. On the other hand, if she's super swell and plans to place me in a happy place forever...then I hope that idea is wrong!

2) The same principle applies. I can't doubt "not knowing", or more accurately, I have never doubted it. Do I ever doubt that gods' existence seems unlikely? No.

Stating the question needs to be further qualified is not answering the question. That's protesting the question, not answering it. The question doesn't require any further qualification, it's very straightforward and succinct. It has nothing to do with "what kind of God" as you keep insisting. It is assumed an Atheist doesn't believe in ANY kind of God.

"Stating the question needs to be further qualified is not answering the question."

100% wrong, as the answer depends on how it is qualified, in my case. Not allowing others to qualify it to suit their personal cases smacks of charlatanry. Your porblem with people not answering your losded questions is that they were never designed to actually get to the truth of what people believe, but rather to force people onto contradictions in a context where all of your assumptions must be honored. Again, charlatanry.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Btw, agnostics ARE atheists.

I also addressed this several pages ago. The mere fact that you have to make this distinction says a lot about your conviction. From my perspective, there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists and someone who is certain God doesn't exist. Now you can certainly make a philosophical argument to the contrary but I could apply the same argument to people who claim to be Christians but don't truly believe in the God they claim to believe in. So Christians can also be Agnostic, or even Atheists.

So you admit this is a really really dumb thread.

LOL

trump is one of those atheist Christians

 

[Boss]

"there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists andsomeone who is certain God doesn't exist"

Both are atheists. The latter is a special case of atheism called "Gnostic atheism".

Nope. One is Atheist and one is Agnostic. What you're doing is called Word Salad. That's a popular tactic of those who are avoiding the obvious implications. Or... someone who is mentally challenged. I'll let you decide on that one.

 

[Boss]

"Stating the question needs to be further qualified is not answering the question."

100% wrong, as the answer depends on how it is qualified, in my case. Not allowing others to qualify it to suit their personal cases smacks of charlatanry. Your porblem with people not answering your losded questions is that they were never designed to actually get to the truth of what people believe, but rather to force people onto contradictions in a context where all of your assumptions must be honored. Again, charlatanry.

LMAO... Charlatanry? By my asking you if you hope you're right or wrong?

That's bizarre!

 

[Boss]

So you admit this is a really really dumb thread.

No, I don't believe I ever said that.

 

[MarkDuffy]

"there is a considerable difference between someone who is unsure whether God exists andsomeone who is certain God doesn't exist"

Both are atheists. The latter is a special case of atheism called "Gnostic atheism".

Nope. One is Atheist and one is Agnostic. What you're doing is called Word Salad. That's a popular tactic of those who are avoiding the obvious implications. Or... someone who is mentally challenged. I'll let you decide on that one.

• theist: believes a literal God exists
• atheist: believes that a literal God does not exist
• agnostic: doesn’t know whether or not a literal God exists

• hard agnostic: we can’t know (now) whether or not God exists. Perhaps because God is so complex and if “he” exists would be in everything, and everywhere, so how could we possibly know what is and what is not God? or perhaps for some other reason
• soft agnostic: “ I don’t know whether or not God exists.” Maybe some people do know, but the soft agnostic either doesn’t care, or isn’t in possession of enough facts, or isn’t smart enough, or whatever

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-gnostic-and-atheist

For believers, agnostics are the same as atheists. Neither are believers

 

[edthecynic]

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

- Unknown

 

[MarkDuffy]

Agnostic atheist, here. As are all the self-identified agnostics in this thread....else they would be theists!

1) I dont think this question truly applies to "not knowing is there is a god". But, I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about unicorns and dragons, so I am what you would probably call an atheist.

So, the question must be further qualified. If there IS a god, and she's an evil birch, then I hope the idea "there are no gods" is correct. On the other hand, if she's super swell and plans to place me in a happy place forever...then I hope that idea is wrong!

2) The same principle applies. I can't doubt "not knowing", or more accurately, I have never doubted it. Do I ever doubt that gods' existence seems unlikely? No.

Stating the question needs to be further qualified is not answering the question. That's protesting the question, not answering it. The question doesn't require any further qualification, it's very straightforward and succinct. It has nothing to do with "what kind of God" as you keep insisting. It is assumed an Atheist doesn't believe in ANY kind of God.

"Stating the question needs to be further qualified is not answering the question."

100% wrong, as the answer depends on how it is qualified, in my case. Not allowing others to qualify it to suit their personal cases smacks of charlatanry. Your porblem with people not answering your losded questions is that they were never designed to actually get to the truth of what people believe, but rather to force people onto contradictions in a context where all of your assumptions must be honored. Again, charlatanry.

Boss is a rightwinger. They only do binary

 

[Boss]

We don't need a God to give meaning to life and have objective morality....

You're going to need to prove that and I doubt you can.

Morality is clearly subjective, particularly if there is nothing holding you accountable. You simply define your own parameters of morality based on your own personal desires. Moral relativism.

There's a reason stores lock their doors at night and have cashiers. If morality were universally "objective" then this wouldn't be required. We'd all go to the store when we need things and we'd drop money in the collection plate as we leave for the items we took. But without a presence holding us morally accountable, we begin to define our own parameters based on our own selfish desires. Pretty soon, even the most morally righteous person sees others leaving without paying and they follow suit. It's the human condition, we're fallible. We need something to hold us morally accountable beyond ourselves.

 

[MarkDuffy]

God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

- Unknown

That should send em screaming into the night