Two Questions for Atheists

[edthecynic]

It tells me that they understand the terrible consequences of atheism

The only "terrible" consequence of Atheism is the constant scolding from mindless know-it-alls like Prager and the idiots who mindlessly parrot him.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

The crux of our differences
Atheists do not need the threat of a magical being who will punish us to do the right thing. As social animals, humans intrinsically do what is right. We do not need a book of myths to tell us so

Atheists do not fear death. We acknowledge it is inevitable. We do not need someone blowing sunshine up our ass that if we give them money....we can live forever and ever

You live your life and when it is over...it is over
Just like any other animal

You're free to reject God's gift of eternal life. It sounds like you already have.

I am free to reject those theories that do not make sense

With God, I did it at around age 12

About the time I realized that stuff doesn't make itself.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The crux of our differences
Atheists do not need the threat of a magical being who will punish us to do the right thing. As social animals, humans intrinsically do what is right. We do not need a book of myths to tell us so

Atheists do not fear death. We acknowledge it is inevitable. We do not need someone blowing sunshine up our ass that if we give them money....we can live forever and ever

You live your life and when it is over...it is over
Just like any other animal

You're free to reject God's gift of eternal life. It sounds like you already have.

I am free to reject those theories that do not make sense

With God, I did it at around age 12

About the time I realized that stuff doesn't make itself.

Very true

There is no magical "poof" and stuff gets created out of nothing

 

[Tehon]

When he (Prager) asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

Did he ask if they had always been atheist?

 

[edthecynic]

-Wondering why music can be beautiful, a human brain is complex, a baby is born and the sun sets is NOT a reason to believe in God. All these things can be explained within the framework of science.

He didn't claim it was a reason to believe in God. He asks if it made you wonder if God might exist? So, I guess these things DON'T make you wonder?

His point is to illustrate how nonbelievers fail to challenge themselves or even to have an open mind. Yet they often berate believers for the very same thing.

Actually Atheists DO wonder on both the beauty of music AND its existence, for example, which led them to existentialism.
The Atheist realizes the the music of Bach did not come into existence until the physical appearance of Bach. Bach's existence begot his essence, music, which continues to live long after his physical death.
What small minds like Prager fail to see is reasonable people can see the "wonders of God" quite differently from him.

 

[Meriweather]

God knew Everest existed. The Bible says the flood covered the earth
Everest is on the earth

As I have pointed out many times, the Hebrew word used for earth was not the word encompassing the entire planet, Earth. Rather, it was the word meaning earth/ground/dirt...like the earth around your house, all around your town, etc. Everest may be on Earth, but it is certainly not on the earth in most people's backyards.

 

[rightwinger]

-Wondering why music can be beautiful, a human brain is complex, a baby is born and the sun sets is NOT a reason to believe in God. All these things can be explained within the framework of science.

He didn't claim it was a reason to believe in God. He asks if it made you wonder if God might exist? So, I guess these things DON'T make you wonder?

His point is to illustrate how nonbelievers fail to challenge themselves or even to have an open mind. Yet they often berate believers for the very same thing.

Actually Atheists DO wonder on both the beauty of music AND its existence, for example, which led them to existentialism.
The Atheist realizes the the music of Bach did not come into existence until the physical appearance of Bach. Bach's existence begot his essence, music, which continues to live long after his physical death.
What small minds like Prager fail to see is reasonable people can see the "wonders of God" quite differently from him.

And Bach has lived on forever

Not because of some magical being, but because of his accomplishments while he was on earth

 

[rightwinger]

God knew Everest existed. The Bible says the flood covered the earth
Everest is on the earth

As I have pointed out many times, the Hebrew word used for earth was not the word encompassing the entire planet, Earth. Rather, it was the word meaning earth/ground/dirt...like the earth around your house, all around your town, etc. Everest may be on Earth, but it is certainly not on the earth in most people's backyards.

Noah did not have a flood in his back yard
Bible says everything was covered in water especially the mountains. The mountains did not reappear until the flood receded

 

[rightwinger]

When he (Prager) asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

Did he ask if they had always been atheist?

In order for an Atheist to doubt their atheism, they would have to see some reason to doubt it

Until that reason appears, they maintain their belief

 

[Tehon]

When he (Prager) asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

Did he ask if they had always been atheist?

In order for an Atheist to doubt their atheism, they would have to see some reason to doubt it

Until that reason appears, they maintain their belief

I agree.
The way the question is posed by the OP does not account for the possibility that atheists searched for a deity in their past and were unsuccessful in finding one. At which point they would have no reason to doubt their belief that one does not exist.

 

[Meriweather]

If you don't believe in ANY God, what difference does it make?

Try to understand. Imagine two groups of people who believe they have a book on football rules. The first group actually has a book on the rules of golf, which they believe to be the rules of football. The second group actually has the rules of basketball, which they are told are the rules of football. The first group seems to be telling the second group they have to get something the size of a basketball (29.5") into a 4.25" hole. In the same way, literal religious and atheists are not speaking on the same issue or even the same language. They are like the two groups of people, each truly believing they are reading football rules, but in fact are talking past each other about two things that have nothing to do with football.

My experience of God: This is a Being who loves each of us to an extent beyond what we can imagine. God's love poured fourth on an individual leaves no doubt that this love is poured out, not on single people, but on everyone. God, in fact, is love. The Israelites identified this as God helping powerless slaves escape from a very powerful nation. Some in Noah's time identified God's love for good people as eliminating bad people. My own thoughts on these two incidents is that God can use natural disasters and bring good from them. Imagine looking at the worst disaster that can befall you, and know, "I can make good come from this."

Addressing evil: Evil cannot exist in love anymore than darkness can exist in light. As a kid, I spent time trying to get the reverse sides of magnets to hold together. Couldn't do it. In the same way, an evil person cannot get close to God.

Perhaps the question should not be, "Do you hope you are right or wrong about God?" (bringing up fear of a tyrant or the hopelessness that one should have tried harder to meet up with God), but rather the question, "Do you hope there is a Being of Love that loves YOU, just as you are, beyond all you can imagine?" Finding God is finding Love--nothing less. Do you hope God is what I experienced/described? That is the truer question.

 

[forkup]

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

No, you just believe that the universe magically made itself.

No, we don't know what or even if the universe is made. The best we can do is we're working on it. Which is an infinitely better answer then God did it in 6 days because that's how the bible describes it. You are making claims of knowledge without a shred of evidence. Atheism doesn't.

 

[Meriweather]

No, we don't know what or even if the universe is made. The best we can do is we're working on it. Which is an infinitely better answer then God did it in 6 days because that's how the bible describes it. You are making claims of knowledge without a shred of evidence. Atheism doesn't.

Keep in mind it is the literal English translation that has a few believing six days. The original Hebrew more accurately presents the idea of "era". In the first era...

 

[rightwinger]

When he (Prager) asked a symposium of Atheists if they ever doubted their Atheism, not a single hand went up.

Did he ask if they had always been atheist?

In order for an Atheist to doubt their atheism, they would have to see some reason to doubt it

Until that reason appears, they maintain their belief

I agree.
The way the question is posed by the OP does not account for the possibility that atheists searched for a deity in their past and were unsuccessful in finding one. At which point they would have no reason to doubt their belief that one does not exist.

I never searched for a deity

I just reached a conclusion at a very young age that the stories I was being told about God seemed fake
I saw no difference in the stories about God than Santa, Horoscopes, Witchcraft, Ghosts and magic fairies...still don't

Most revolved around stories of "I knew a guy" and a heavy, heavy dose of faith

 

[forkup]

No, we don't know what or even if the universe is made. The best we can do is we're working on it. Which is an infinitely better answer then God did it in 6 days because that's how the bible describes it. You are making claims of knowledge without a shred of evidence. Atheism doesn't.

Keep in mind it is the literal English translation that has a few believing six days. The original Hebrew more accurately presents the idea of "era". In the first era...

Still means you want me to accept an explanation on the bases of a book, that can be proven factually wrong using rational means. We know for instance that earth and the universe have nearly a 10 billion year time difference between the age of the universe and the age of the earth. We know that the origin story is complete bogus. The ark we talked about. By the way when you say study books besides the bible and then dismiss those books because they question the divine nature of the bible you're contradicting yourself. It's like I said. if you assert that God exist on the bases of the Bible and I can assert that the bible is wrong in their explanations of the origin of both the universe and mankind, how credible is the existence of a biblical God then?

 

[forkup]

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

No, you just believe that the universe magically made itself.

I believe matter cannot be created or destroyed. The elements of the Periodic Table have always existed in the universe
There was no magical "poof" creating them out of nothing

Actually that's untrue. Only the lightest elements were formed during the Big Bang. The heavier ones are formed in stars. How elements are formed

 

[Meriweather]

Still means you want me to accept an explanation on the bases of a book, that can be proven factually wrong using rational means. We know for instance that earth and the universe have nearly a 10 billion year time difference between the age of the universe and the age of the earth. We know that the origin story is complete bogus. The ark we talked about. By the way when you say study books besides the bible and then dismiss those books because they question the divine nature of the bible you're contradicting yourself. It's like I said. if you assert that God exist on the bases of the Bible and I can assert that the bible is wrong in their explanations of the origin of both the universe and mankind, how credible is the existence of a biblical God then?

First, I am not the one arguing the Bible is a science book. I've pointed out time and again it is not even a factual newspaper account. Back in the day, people did not get others to remember lessons by presenting a list of dry facts. They told stories. I guarantee you that if you recited a list of scientific facts to people, the greatest majority won't be able to remember a third of it. But, tell them a story and it is going to sink in.

The Hebrew creation story is remarkably accurate when compared to modern scientific facts. What is bogus is that in the late 1800s, an Englishman decided he could accurately count up the age of the earth by counting up generations recorded in the Bible. The English definition of generation, mathematically, was about 25-30 years. The Hebrew use of the word translated into "generation" could compact many generations into one. The biggest error some people make is their belief that the King James version of the Bible is literally true and the English contains no error. Even though the six thousand year estimate didn't appear until the late 1800s, and was corrected by science not too many years later, SOME continue to insist the 1880s calculation must be correct. Then you atheists come along with the belief EVERYONE (not a minority) believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Snort. I expect you to be smarter than that.

 

[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

You abandoned the thread so we had some fun.

Terrible consequences of atheism, eh? So your perfect God created the worst universe possible, with all the evil pain and suffering. He did this on purpose to force us to worship him and save ourselves. That is a con fitting of donald trump, not God.

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

The fact that evil pain & suffering exits is total evidence there is no God, especially your God.

 

[MarkDuffy]

No, we don't know what or even if the universe is made. The best we can do is we're working on it. Which is an infinitely better answer then God did it in 6 days because that's how the bible describes it. You are making claims of knowledge without a shred of evidence. Atheism doesn't.

Keep in mind it is the literal English translation that has a few believing six days. The original Hebrew more accurately presents the idea of "era". In the first era...

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?

 

[forkup]

Still means you want me to accept an explanation on the bases of a book, that can be proven factually wrong using rational means. We know for instance that earth and the universe have nearly a 10 billion year time difference between the age of the universe and the age of the earth. We know that the origin story is complete bogus. The ark we talked about. By the way when you say study books besides the bible and then dismiss those books because they question the divine nature of the bible you're contradicting yourself. It's like I said. if you assert that God exist on the bases of the Bible and I can assert that the bible is wrong in their explanations of the origin of both the universe and mankind, how credible is the existence of a biblical God then?

First, I am not the one arguing the Bible is a science book. I've pointed out time and again it is not even a factual newspaper account. Back in the day, people did not get others to remember lessons by presenting a list of dry facts. They told stories. I guarantee you that if you recited a list of scientific facts to people, the greatest majority won't be able to remember a third of it. But, tell them a story and it is going to sink in.

The Hebrew creation story is remarkably accurate when compared to modern scientific facts. What is bogus is that in the late 1800s, an Englishman decided he could accurately count up the age of the earth by counting up generations recorded in the Bible. The English definition of generation, mathematically, was about 25-30 years. The Hebrew use of the word translated into "generation" could compact many generations into one. The biggest error some people make is their belief that the King James version of the Bible is literally true and the English contains no error. Even though the six thousand year estimate didn't appear until the late 1800s, and was corrected by science not too many years later, SOME continue to insist the 1880s calculation must be correct. Then you atheists come along with the belief EVERYONE (not a minority) believes the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Snort. I expect you to be smarter than that.

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?