Answer to atheists

[OpenSky]

Cyrrylia, by "This" i mean,

Suppose you are an Atheist. You are gardening, because you enjoy gardening. Suddenly, a Christian missionary comes up and tries to save you. But you are busy. You are tending to your garden. You do not want to have to go and stop. To you, they are bothering you during your hobby time.

Furthermore, they may interupt your dinner. They may interupt your favorite show. They may catch you when you are trying to shower. They can appear at inconvienent times. Thus, you are bothered. You are just trying to enjoy your time on Earth. But they keep bothering you.

Also, you may be in a train, on a plane, on the bus, ect. And the person next to your decides to interupt your quiet thinking time with the "Do you know Jesus" question.

That is how they can. I am not saying that Christians in general bother them, but that evangelising must be annoying for them.

We are trying to help you because we love you, do you know what love is?

Everything you posted about is selfishness, which leads to selflessness...

How do we keep quiet about Gods Love? How do we keep quiet and not share how wonderful He is?

Well, you see, you are trying to shut up these people whos purpose is to talk to people about God, and to tell them about His wonderful Son Jesus, who saves everyone who believes in Him.

but that evangelising must be annoying for them.

Why, do you think God is annoying?

[Cyrrylia]

Um, I am not an Atheist. At all. Not even a little bit.

Now, again, you see it as helping because you assume you are right. They see it as anoying because they assume they are right.

[Oh No Melon]

Well...um. That is not rational. The proposal is invalid from the start, as from the very beginning it assumes that Christianity is right. As well, it fails to account for any other possibilty. It assumes in its nature that the only two possibilities are "Christian God" or "No God" which is simply not true..

As I told you before, there are many conditions I purposely left out (e.g. justification by faith vs. justification by works, classical monotheism vs. polytheism/pantheism, etc.). They are irrelevant to my argument. And I'm afraid you're missing the point. The truth is -- no matter which philosophy happens to be correct, atheists lose out. How does an atheist benefit if he's right? How could he ever even know if he's right?

Sure they do. An atheist would not want to waste his life rotting in jail. The point for them is to enjoy life, as that is all there is. You can not enjoy life by being in jail, or getting yourself caught in the death penalty, or any other punishment. It is within their best interest to keep to the law.

Not all atheists subscribe to hedonism (fortunately). But in that case, I'm surprised more of them aren't anarchists... if government is the only thing that could give the atheist a sense of "right" and "wrong". He cannot believe in absolute morality without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality, as all law requires a Lawgiver. Immanuel Kant did considerable work in this subject.

The point for them is to enjoy life, as that is all there is. You can not enjoy life by being in jail, or getting yourself caught in the death penalty, or any other punishment. It is within their best interest to keep to the law. Unlike theists, their punishment comes from man. It still exists for them however.

So the atheist "behaves himself" out of self-preservation, not moral obligation.

Edited April 14, 2006 by Oh No Melon

[Fiosh]

To our Atheist friends:

This is the God that we know...

"Christ Jesus, 6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,

8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. "

(Philippians 2: 6-8)

We recognize Him because the prophets foretold of His coming...

ISAIAH Chapter 53

"1 Who would believe what we have heard? To whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up like a sapling before him, like a shoot from the parched earth; There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him.

3 He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem.

4 it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.

6 We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way; But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.

7 Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.

8 Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny? When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,

9 A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.

10 (But the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.) If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.

11 Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days; Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.

12 Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked; And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. "

This is how He loves us...

33 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him and the criminals there, one on his right, the other on his left.

34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, they know not what they do." They divided his garments by casting lots.

35 The people stood by and watched; the rulers, meanwhile, sneered at him and said, "He saved others, let him save himself if he is the chosen one, the Messiah of God."

36 Even the soldiers jeered at him. As they approached to offer him wine

37 they called out, "If you are King of the Jews, save yourself."

44 It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon

45 because of an eclipse of the sun. Then the veil of the temple was torn down the middle.

46 Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit"; and when he had said this he breathed his last.

47 The centurion who witnessed what had happened glorified God and said, "This man was innocent 8 beyond doubt."

(Luke 23)

The Creator and King, Almighty God of the Universe, humbled Himself and died a horrific death out of His great love....for me....for you.

I could I not try to tell you this Truth?

In His Love,

Fiosh

[Cyrrylia]

As I told you before, there are many conditions I purposely left out (e.g. justification by faith vs. justification by works, classical monotheism vs. polytheism/pantheism, etc.). They are irrelevant to my argument. And I'm afraid you're missing the point. The truth is -- no matter which philosophy happens to be correct, atheists lose out. How does an atheist benefit if he's right? How could he ever even know if he's right?

That is not true. If Atheists are right, then Atheists win. They enjoyed life. That is all that mattered.

And your agument can apply to anything. What if Christians are wrong? If you put any other philosophy there, and they are right, Christians lose out. But just like if Atheists are right, if a Christian is right in that instance, they win.

Your argument is not valid.

Not all atheists subscribe to hedonism (fortunately). But in that case, I'm surprised more of them aren't anarchists... if government is the only thing that could give the atheist a sense of "right" and "wrong". He cannot believe in absolute morality without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality, as all law requires a Lawgiver. Immanuel Kant did considerable work in this subject.

That too is wrong. A government is not the only thing that stops them. People can have morals withought a god or other highter power.

And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power.

[Kabowd]

People can have morals withought a god or other highter power.

And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power.

This is incorrect. Kant did no such thing. In fact, in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant did teach that morality came from man's good will but at some point needed to be validated by an external source.

[Oh No Melon]

That is not true. If Atheists are right, then Atheists win. They enjoyed life. That is all that mattered.

Perhaps, but "losing" could cost the atheist so much. And many are not "enjoying life." Some (mostly antitheists) are bitter and full of contempt for those who don't see things their way. They go out of their way to convert people to a life of hopelessness. Even agnostics find these people obnoxious. You say you are not an atheist. Might I ask your theological persuasion?

And your agument can apply to anything. What if Christians are wrong? If you put any other philosophy there, and they are right, Christians lose out. But just like if Atheists are right, if a Christian is right in that instance, they win.

I'm not discussing the odds of being right; I'm discussing the penalty for being wrong. What do Christians lose if they happen to be wrong? Nothing. What do atheists lose if they happen to be wrong? Everything.

A government is not the only thing that stops them. People can have morals withought a god or other highter power.

True, it is certainly possible for atheists to lead moral lives. But what reason do they have (other than self-preservation) for doing so? None. You originally said, "so they wouldn't end up in jail." So fear of government is one reason. Can you give another?

And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality.".

I disagree. That's why moral relativism is such a popular philosophy today. You can't have absolute moral law without acknowledging an absolute moral Authority. Relativists hold that right and wrong are "relative" to the practitioner. Blah.

[apothanein kerdos]

That too is wrong. A government is not the only thing that stops them. People can have morals withought a god or other highter power.

And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power.

I suggest you actually read Kant, specifically his moral arguements for God's existance. Though humans come to good will (morality) through their own autonomous production (fee will as Kant labels it), for these absolute goods to exist there must be an absolute (God from Kant's argument). In other words, Kant was not arguing that we create our own morals but instead that morality starts from the human and works without, but that we are all subject to similar morals because there is a moral law giver. In other words, trying to say that athiests can have morals and using Kant to justify it makes no sense.

[Cyrrylia]

This is incorrect. Kant did no such thing. In fact, in the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant did teach that morality came from man's good will but at some point needed to be validated by an external source.

I think you need to re-read Kant. What he said was that for absolute certain, we will never know if an action is moral or not because one of the qualities of a good act is by defignition not knowable. And it is not God, if that is what you are thinking.

Kantian ethics exist. The categorical imperative exists. Thus, what I said was correct.

Perhaps, but "losing" could cost the atheist so much. And many are not "enjoying life." Some (mostly antitheists) are bitter and full of contempt for those who don't see things their way. They go out of their way to convert people to a life of hopelessness. Even agnostics find these people obnoxious. You say you are not an atheist. Might I ask your theological persuasion?

Can you indeed quantify the nature of Athiests and antitheists? Could you perhaps point me to a study done, or some other sort of work that shows your assertion to be true?

You may ask. Does not mean I will answer.

I'm not discussing the odds of being right; I'm discussing the penalty for being wrong. What do Christians lose if they happen to be wrong? Nothing. What do atheists lose if they happen to be wrong? Everything.

I am not discussing the odds either. If Christians are wrong, and Athiests are right, then a Christian did not live life like they could have, and they have no second chance.

Again, stop using this. It is logicaly invalid, and is not reasonable. There are other possibilities. What if Muslims are right? Then you burn. What if Buddhists are right? Then you got nowhere at all in trying to leave this cycle of life. My point is again, that your suggestion is logicaly invalid. It offers nothing.

True, it is certainly possible for atheists to lead moral lives. But what reason do they have (other than self-preservation) for doing so? None. You originally said, "so they wouldn't end up in jail." So fear of government is one reason. Can you give another?

I can give you two.

The want of being nice. Contrary to what you may think, the nature of every man is not to be evil and chaotic. Some people may be nice for the sake of being nice.

Another reason would be that because they believe there to be no life after this one, they want to spread the happiness and goodness, so that everybody may enjoy this life better.

I disagree. That's why moral relativism is such a popular philosophy today. You can't have absolute moral law without acknowledging an absolute moral Authority. Relativists hold that right and wrong are "relative" to the practitioner. Blah.

Moral relativism is popular because it is easy, and people who are not moraly inclined by religion do not want to think of how to quantify goodness.

You are right about the absolute moral authority. But that authority does not need to be God, or a god. Kant has his categorical imperative. Utilitarianism has its quantitative maximization of good. There are others of course. And no god says anything in either.

I suggest you actually read Kant, specifically his moral arguements for God's existance. Though humans come to good will (morality) through their own autonomous production (fee will as Kant labels it), for these absolute goods to exist there must be an absolute (God from Kant's argument). In other words, Kant was not arguing that we create our own morals but instead that morality starts from the human and works without, but that we are all subject to similar morals because there is a moral law giver. In other words, trying to say that athiests can have morals and using Kant to justify it makes no sense.

I remember you...are you not the one who can not understand me? I hope so, because this argument is a straw man. I never said that athiests can have morals and use Kant to justify it. And if I actualy did, I must be crazy. Can you show me where I said this?

[apothanein kerdos]

I think you need to re-read Kant. What he said was that for absolute certain, we will never know if an action is moral or not because one of the qualities of a good act is by defignition not knowable. And it is not God, if that is what you are thinking.

Kantian ethics exist. The categorical imperative exists. Thus, what I said was correct.

Your first problem is you treat Kant as if though he's actually correct. Your second problem is you don't know Kant. Kant argued that God existed because morals exist, and that man is drawn to some form of a moral imperative because God has programmed it within man. The problem is you are reviewing Kant's epistimology, not his argument for morality. The two are different.

Keep in mind that Kant developed a posteriori and a priori. He distinguished between experience and base worldviews; beliefs based on experience were after the fact whilst belief based upon reasoning were before the fact. In other words, judgements based on our senses can be rejected without a contradiction really occuring. In other words, if I have a bad experience with a white person and subsequently judge the entire white race on this experience, that can be rejected right out because it's based solely on experience. If, however, I use logical analysis (which is what a priori is) then it cannot be rejected outright, because it has used logic absent of experience. I can deny the experience, but I cannot deny the logical conclusion without offering up another logical conclusion that is mutually exclusive to the one I am countering. This is his belief on epistimology.

If we want to link this to morality, we still see that you are not interpreting Kant correctly. Morality, according to Kant, is knowable to a certain extent. Now philosophies that have come sense Kant have taught an unknowable epistimology applied to morality, but Kant himself never taught this. To understand Kant's moral position, you really need to read "Grounds of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "Critique of Practical Reason." In this we see that to Kant morals must be based solely on reason and not on experience. In other words, killing is not wrong because it could potentially harm me but instead for another rationalistic explanation absent of experience. This is where we see Kant's dichotomy come into place; there is a distinct seperation in what we experience and what is rationally true. Morals, to Kant, fall under rational decisions and not experience. Since this is the case, Kant is teaching that we can know the source of morals and what is moral based upon rationalism. He calls this the "Categorical Imperetive" which he also translates to mean "God." In fact, he argues that true morality will bring us to true happiness and that God is the one regulating all of this.

I think you are getting Kant confused with Keirkegaard or Neitzsche.

I remember you...are you not the one who can not understand me? I hope so, because this argument is a straw man. I never said that athiests can have morals and use Kant to justify it. And if I actualy did, I must be crazy. Can you show me where I said this?

I understand you...the problem is you don't know what you're posting and can't justify it. Case in point:

You're saying you never said that athiests can have morals and can use Kant to justify it. Yet, we look to your post:

"And you can have absolute morality "without acknowledging a transcendent Author of morality." Kant is one of many who created a self consistent system of absolute morality withought a higher power."

You are saying people do not need to use a higher power in order to justify morality. That is why my reply works. You won't respond to this because, just like in the other topic, you can't, you don't know how.