Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 01-31-2006, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Having faith is not bad. That which is bad is the refusal of skeptics to admit their faith.

A lack of belief which stems from zero evidence does not constitute "faith".

Even if it did, you still are caught in a double standard: you say that skeptics' "faith" can never be certain.

Yet magically you just told us that you were certain about your "faith".

Quote:

They believe in that which they refuse to concede cannot be proved and refuse to admit how religious they really are.

Lack of belief is not a faith, just like lack of life is not a form of life.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-01-2006, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

The only way that skeptics can be fairly held accountable for rejecting the God of the Bible is if they know that he exists and still reject him. If God exists, if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely some skeptics would become Christians. Regarding skeptics who would become Christians if God clearly revealed himself to everyone, the intent of their hearts cannot be fairly questioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I have responded to this. The person is accountable to God for everything he does. God does not have to reveal Himself to anyone (although God argues that He has done so through His creation and that is sufficient). The purpose for God to reveal Himself to anyone is to save that person. Thus, God has obligated Himself to reveal Himself only to those He intends to save.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But according to the texts, Jesus demonstrated his supernatural powers to many people who rejected him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yes. This is an example of the triumph of emotion over reason.

You have refuted you own argument. I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

The only way that skeptics can be fairly held accountable for rejecting the God of the Bible is if they know that he exists and still reject him. If God exists, if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely some skeptics would become Christians. Regarding skeptics who would become Christians if God clearly revealed himself to everyone, the intent of their hearts cannot be fairly questioned.

You replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The purpose for God to reveal Himself to anyone is to save that person. Thus, God has obligated Himself to reveal Himself ONLY [emphasis mine] to those He intends to save.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

But according to the texts, Jesus demonstrated his supernatural powers to MANY [emphasis mine] people who rejected him.

Then you reversed your position and agreed with me when you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yes. This is an example of the triumph of emotion over reason.

Would you care to try again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But I proved that you are interested in evidence only if it appeals to your own self interest, and that your choice to become a Christian was based solely upon emotions. Under the scenario that I presented, you surely would choose to remain a Christian even though the evidence indicated that being B, the being who said that he would send everyone to hell, was more powerful than being A, who claimed that he was Jesus. If Christianity hadn’t come along, you would have chosen some other religion that appealed to your own self-interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

No, that is wrong. One always looks at the evidence. In your hypothetical, you would choose the most powerful being because that is the one who will have his way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

No you wouldn’t. The evil being might not be God, and the good being might not be Jesus. You would hope that the evil being wasn't God, that he wouldn't be able to send everyone to hell as he promised, that the supposedly good being impersonated Jesus, and that the God the Bible will eventually send you to heaven. If I were confronted with the same scenario, I would also hope that the evil alien would not be able to send everyone to hell as he promised, and I most certainly would not conclude that he was the uncaused first cause. The same applies if a being claiming to be Jesus returned to earth in the manner that is described in the Bible. I most certainly would not conclude that he was the uncaused first cause. Of course, you or anyone else with any world view would accept a comfortable eternal life from any being, whether from a being claiming to be a God or from an advanced alien. Eternal comfort is the goal. Whoever provides it is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I asked you “Do you dispute that the odds that God is good are no better than 50/50? If so, where is your evidence?�? Please answer my question. As I said, “If God is evil, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible, and he could easily deceive anyone who he chose to deceive.�? Do you dispute this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The odds that God is good are 100% because that is how the Bible describes Him.

But that is exactly what an evil, lying, deceptive God would want the Bible to say. The odds are just as good that the Bible describes an evil God who is masquerading as a good God and intends to send everyone to hell. 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 say “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.�? Mark 13:22 says “For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.�? The problem for Paul and Mark is that they didn’t tell believers how to tell the difference between a good God and an evil God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Now, you ask, What if the contrary were true and God were evil? IF that were true,

But until you address something to the contrary, you must first reasonably prove what already is, and you have not reasonably proven that God is good. In addition, if God is evil, that would be impossible for us to reliable determine at this time if he is trying to deceive us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

we get a whole new set of conditions.

But under the present set of conditions, God might be an evil God who is masquerading as a good God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It would be like saying, What if waterfalls flowed up the mountain and not down? Introducing the IF makes it a 50/50 proposition. Just like it would be a 50/50 proposition that a person in a canoe might go over a waterfall depending on whether it flows down or up. So, what’s the point?

The point is that it is impossible to tell whether God is good, evil, or amoral by using my hypothetical scenario or by using the evidence that is available in the Bible.

Jack the Bodiless · 02-01-2006, 03:37 AM

rhutchin:

It appears that you have again stopped responding to my posts (most recently post #959). Does this mean that you have conceded?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin (in response to Wayne Delia)

Still, some people die before they retire. In fact, all people eventually die. What we see is people planning for a future that is not guaranteed to them nor one that they necessarily will be able to control. People plan for uncertainty. For some reason, you don’t seem to think that this is advisable, or maybe for emotional reasons, you just don’t think it advisable to plan for the uncertainty that follows death.

Here's at least one atheist who has planned for death by reducing the risk of "eternal torment", by choosing NOT to go to my death believing in the existence of Hell.

Have you conceded that my plan is rational?

If not: why won't you address it?

rhutchin · 02-01-2006, 03:51 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I am absolutely convinced that the Bible tells us about eternal torment and no one can prove there will be no eternal torment.

Sauron
Interesting claim.
Let's see the proof.

Yes, and more claims can be made. How about--

No one can prove there will be eternal torment.

Uncertainty rules.

I guess I should have said, "I am absolutely convinced that...no one [has been able to] prove there will be no eternal torment." The proof is that no one can cite a source that has done this.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-01-2006, 04:01 AM

Message to rhutchin: Since hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having been able to make a wager, why is it important that anyone has ever made a wager? Please reply to my previous post. I proved that you contradicted yourself and I want to see if you will admit it.

rhutchin · 02-01-2006, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Here's at least one atheist who has planned for death by reducing the risk of "eternal torment", by choosing NOT to go to my death believing in the existence of Hell.

Have you conceded that my plan is rational?

Well, let's look at your decision.

If you are correct, and there is no eternal torment, then your choice not to believe in eternal torment does not cost you anything.

If you are not correct, and there is eternal torment, then your choice not to believe in eternal torment cost you everything.

The rational person would determine the costs of the decision and seek to reduce those costs to zero. For some reason, you have chosen to assume the risk (and the cost) of being wrong. For your plan to be rational, you should have a rational argument for taking that course of action. Can you explain your argument? That would help me determine whether your plan is rational.

Alf · 02-01-2006, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yes, and more claims can be made. How about--

No one can prove there will be eternal torment.

Uncertainty rules.

I guess I should have said, "I am absolutely convinced that...no one [has been able to] prove there will be no eternal torment." The proof is that no one can cite a source that has done this.

Do you believe there is an invisible tiger lurking behind you right now? Ready to attack and devour you whenever I give him the command to do so through supernatural means.

If you don't, why do you disbelieve this? There is absolutely nobody who has ever proven that such a tiger does not exist. If so your pick and choose which hazard to believe in and which to disbelieve in appear random, irrational and erratic.

If you do, then you better behave nice to me so I don't give him the command to devour you!

Alf

JPD · 02-01-2006, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Well, let's look at your decision.

If you are correct, and there is no eternal torment, then your choice not to believe in eternal torment does not cost you anything.

Maybe. Maybe not. Merely holding the belief that there is no eternal torment could be punished by a malevolent God. "How dare you think I would treat my creations this way" he might say, adding "you coward".

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If you are not correct, and there is eternal torment, then your choice not to believe in eternal torment cost you everything.

Maybe. Maybe not. Merely holding the belief that there is eternal torment could be punished by a benevolent God. "How dare you think I would treat my creations this way" he might say, adding "you coward".

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The rational person would determine the costs of the decision and seek to reduce those costs to zero. For some reason, you have chosen to assume the risk (and the cost) of being wrong. For your plan to be rational, you should have a rational argument for taking that course of action. Can you explain your argument? That would help me determine whether your plan is rational.

Since when have you come up with anything rational in these discussions?

rhutchin · 02-01-2006, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

rhutchin:

It appears that you have again stopped responding to my posts (most recently post #959). Does this mean that you have conceded?

Guys,

I am only one person. You are many. There are only so many hours in the day and only a limited amount of time to respond to comments. I generally start with the most recent comment and work backwards. It seems the easiest way to stay current with the discussions. It also means that I can miss some comments when discussions are really active. If I miss one and you really want me to respond, you need to bring it up again.

In addition, if you quote me and do not cite the source message so that I can review the context, it is likely that I will not have the time to search through back messages to develop a response. Sauron tends to do this and then gets a bug up his butt when I don't respond. As a rule, I do not see that it is fair to spend a lot of time on one response or to respond to one person and ignore everyone else.

Also, I don't want to spend time wading through many and sundry bloviations. If a comment starts out in that manner, I tend to skip through it. If you have something substantive to say, say it, and forget the rest. Let Bill O'reilly do the bloviating.

JPD · 02-01-2006, 04:27 AM

You're doing OK rhutchin. You do have a heck of a lot of posts to respond to. But, and this I feel is a really important point, you do have a bit of a tendency to repeat your arguments so you could probably save yourself a bit of time there. Anyway, keep going!

02-01-2006, 04:01 AM	#1035
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Pascal's Wager started as The Resurrection is irrelevant Message to rhutchin: Since hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having been able to make a wager, why is it important that anyone has ever made a wager? Please reply to my previous post. I proved that you contradicted yourself and I want to see if you will admit it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-01-2006, 04:27 AM	#1040
JPD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 5,322	You're doing OK rhutchin. You do have a heck of a lot of posts to respond to. But, and this I feel is a really important point, you do have a bit of a tendency to repeat your arguments so you could probably save yourself a bit of time there. Anyway, keep going!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.