Do athiests feel angst when confronted with death

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I think it's morally preferable that Hitler gets eternal bliss than that anyone, including Hitler, go to hell for eternity.

But, AThousandYoung, do you really think Hitler is not blameworthy, and might not be justly punished for a finite period of time?

Only if that punishment would or did have consequences which prevented further suffering or promote greater happiness. If it's a secret punishment which is it's own end and which has no further ramifications than "giving him what he deserves", then no, it's totally immoral.

Originally posted by Darfius
Morally preferable? Brb, I now have free reign to go slaughter millions of people because Pawn does not believe in justice.

Free reign? You already do. Go ahead.

I'll stop you if I can, and if I am able to I will make sure you suffer for your crimes and that all of humanity is aware of your punishment. If I can't do that, and no one else can - then of course you can do anything you want.

Originally posted by ivanhoe

Where is the usual anti-crowd ? Rwingo, Cribs, Nemesio, No1 ?

...... not so vocal this time, gentlemen ?

Goading, Ivanhoe? You're being a good little
WolfPack member, aren't you?


As I think pcaspian's premise is flawed, I don't
feel that answerings his questions would be
sincere. He wanted sincere debate and so I
recused myself.

Since you asked,
Nemesio

Originally posted by Maustrauser
Of course they are separate things. That's what belief is about. I am pleased that you finally recognize that your belief and reality may be different. Well done.

I may be wrong. Heaven and Hell may exist, but from my observation of the world, my reading of the Bible and other material tells me that I am not wrong.

Why is it believing that chi ...[text shortened]... od (the loving and kind God that you seem so keen on) would have sent them to hell. Charming...

If they had stayed with their pagan god worshipping parents and worshipped pagan gods, yes God would have sent them to hell. Justifiably so. The Creator deserves worship from His creation. To think otherwise is pure arrogance.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You don't need to do anything to deserve happiness. You can do anything and still deserve happiness.

As I said before, the only moral purpose of punishing or hurting someone is to prevent greater pain. If we're talking about "deserving" then everyone deserves happiness. We're all flawed beings in a flawed world and we make our choices accor ...[text shortened]... terrent to him while he was alive. As this is not the case, punishing him is immoral and wrong.

The deterrent is that something can't come from nothing. It's the same deterrent you have.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Hmm. So you seem to be claiming that if science is the study of how God did things, then one must believe in God. In that case, science is not the study of how God did things. Instead it's the study of how things are whether or not God did them.

Genesis describes a mechanism in which Earth was directly transformed into man. The TOE does not ag ...[text shortened]... ssed with someone else at some other time. I might have something to say about my own premises.

You're right, Thousand. God couldn't possibly have told Genesis to Moses in a way Moses and everyone alive on the earth at the time could understand. He would have specifically said "evolution" and talked about multicellular organisms...

You claim to be agnostic, Thousand, right? Well, act like it. Quit acting like God couldn't do anything He wanted. Our claim is that He created the universe. Is raising someone from the dead a stretch for someone who created the universe? I'm not saying to just believe it, but give it a chance...

Originally posted by Darfius
The deterrent is that something can't come from nothing. It's the same deterrent you have.

What are you talking about? That statement has no relevance to what I was saying, unless I'm just not understanding you.

Originally posted by Darfius
You're right, Thousand. God couldn't possibly have told Genesis to Moses in a way Moses and everyone alive on the earth at the time could understand. He would have specifically said "evolution" and talked about multicellular organisms ...[text shortened]... erse? I'm not saying to just believe it, but give it a chance...

Act like an agnostic? What does that mean?

If God exists, he could do anything he wanted, sure. So what? I don't recall saying anything about what God could do if he exists. I disagreed with this statement which is not about God, but about Genesis and evolution:

Evolution sounds suspiciously like what is described in Genesis

Our claim is that He created the universe. Is raising someone from the dead a stretch for someone who created the universe? I'm not saying to just believe it, but give it a chance...

I do give it a chance. Why do you think I don't? I give Islam a chance, and Judaism, and Shintoism, and Wicca, and the infinite numbers of possible religions that no one follows.

I have no idea how hard raising someone from the dead is or how hard it is to create a universe. I don't remember mentioning anything about raising the dead.

Are you sure I wrote the posts you're responding to?

Originally posted by Darfius
If they had stayed with their pagan god worshipping parents and worshipped pagan gods, yes God would have sent them to hell. Justifiably so. The Creator deserves worship from His creation. To think otherwise is pure arrogance.

[/b] CONVERSATIONS WITH GOD

"G'day God, the Aussie atheist here again. I was wondering whether you enjoy being worshipped?"

"Oh hello again. I thought you would have given up on talking to me as you don't believe I exist."

"Go on YOUR GREATNESS, humour me, please?"

"Well, frankly I can't think of why my creation bothers with worship. I mean, I know I created you, so why do I think I need to be told how great I am? I KNOW how great I am. As I think you are all puny little critters, why do I want praise from you?"

"So we are wasting our time with churches and such things?"

"Oh absolutely. Why not turn them into McDonald's restaurants? At least they would be vaguely useful. Come on, when you are told 'Dad - you're the best' by your three year old child, it feels good, but it doesn't really mean anything does it? You know you are the best to the three year old. BUT, if the Prime Minister of Australia awards you 'Father of the Year' and Kofe Annan appoints you head of the UNICEF because of your sheer brilliance, you feel even better. That's the same with me. I feel a warm tingling feeling when you tell me I'm brilliant and your saviour, but nothing more than that. If I really want to feel good about myself, I just PRAISE myself. You can't be praised by anyone higher than GOD. So I constantly feel GREAT!"

"Even when Darfius tells us that you slaughter innocent children for the actions of their parents and these actions are simply that they didn't worship you enough?"

"Well, I don't have the interest to care about one tiny individual. So what this chap Darfius says is up to him. It's his reality. Not mine. Good night!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Opportunity cost is a term used in economics, to mean the cost of something in terms of an opportunity foregone (and the benefits that could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable foregone alternative. For example, if a city decides to build a hospital on vacant land that it owns, the opportunity cost is some other thing that might have been done with the land and construction funds instead. In building the hospital, the city has forgone the opportunity to build a sporting centre on that land, or a parking lot, or the ability to sell the land to reduce the city's debt, and so on. In more personal terms, the opportunity cost of spending a Friday night drinking with your friends could be the amount of money you could have earned if you had devoted that time to working overtime.

I believe opportunity cost is something we all deal with, whether Christian or Atheist or Agnostic. Should God approach a believer and tell them (e.g.: Moses confronting the Pharaoh) to do something which means they will need to give something they value, this implies they need to weigh up their belief in God vs. the value they place on their lives, or whatever they stand to lose should they follow God's command. In Abraham's case, this was his firstborn son. How great must his faith have been for him to be willing to sacrifise his only son to something he believed to be God.

For the agnostic, the opportunity cost of following God may be substantially greater than for a Christian. As for a Christian, many instructions of the Bible make logical sense. Irrespective of their beliefs in God, they come to believe that God's commands are not to be obeyed for no reason, but rather because they make practical sense in the long run. Thus for an agnostic to believe and follow in God, this often requires many a sacrifice in their daily lifestyles, for they do not believe that we can know for sure God exists. They do not know which way to turn or whether they will continue to exist past death, as such their only option is to maximise their life on Earth.

Finally. For the atheist, opportunity cost is quite substantial. The possibly gain of acting in a manner to reach God is very expensive, particularly because they do not believe they have anything to gain. When compared to the agnostic (who may actively search for some form of 'God'😉, the atheist however sees all such attempts as a waste of time. As their view of life is limited to X amount of hours in a virtually infinite spectrum of time, any small part of X, which is wasted on finding God, is indeed a substantial loss. When compared to a lifespan of say 80 years, the older the atheist, the most precious the time they believe they have left to live. Wasting valuable time on trying to find a 'God' is thus even more expensive in terms of value gained.

A simple example. A group of people approach an atheist an agnostic and a Christian. They claim to have found God and will lead you there if you follow them. The journey however is 7 days travel by foot. To the atheist, this is preposterous and he does not care to waste 7 days just on something he knows does not exist and as such, he declines the offer of the group. The agnostic however (someone who believes that we do not and cannot know for sure whether God exists.) seems interested by this group however does not believe in a God we can know, as such dismisses the groups testimony. Furthermore, travelling 7 days by foot is also futile.
The Christian however, who constantly seeks God, does not see this as a waste of time. Of course he does know that the testimony of the group could be bogus, however he has very little to lose. His life is not limited to X hours on Earth and as such possibly meeting God is certainly worth the journey.

I think faith is similar to opportunity cost. Faith is often tested when he have the most to lose if we are wrong. If we have strong faith that a horse will win, we will have no problem betting a lot of money on it. But a weak faith would prove the opposite. We will bet either little, or no money. Our faith however does not make a difference whether the horse will win or lose, but rather on our own lives, whether we'll become rich, poor, or remain where we are. The horse will win/lost irrespective of our faith.

Now finally I made the claim that atheists do require to a certain extent, some faith. Some have claimed that they are atheists, only because the evidence has caused them to reject the notion of a God. Well, this may be true and whilst I can certainly sympathise with such people, I do not believe they can live life without some form of faith, whether that be in the shape of faith in their own abilities, or faith in someone else. Lets take the movie "Dark City". A group of aliens abduct humans and unbeknown to the humans, they are being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. The humans have no proof or realisation that this is happening and the main character that does catch on to the truth is considered a 'Quack'. Take a newborn rat, place it in isolate for its entire lifespan, devoid of any contact with other rats, human beings. What evidence exists for this rat to believe he/she is not the only rat on this planet? In this case, we know the truth, the rat however does not. So if the rat has faith (for whatever reason) that it is not the only rat in existence, it is correct no? Does it go on gut instinct or hard fact?

The atheist I believe is similar. It can see the universe; it can see the desolation and lack of organic life everywhere but on earth. Even the discoverers of DNA (atheists) could not conceive DNA created on Earth. God however is not an option, cannot be an options. For should He exist, that would imply either that God doesn't like the atheist enough to make contact with him, or God doesn't care to make contact. That is a foreign and weak concept and no reason at all to care whether God exists or doesn't exist, for it doesn't make any no difference to God. To believe however in a personal God, a God that one can get to know, that would imply that
the atheist is wrong and needs to change his life to do so. That however is a step in the direction of faith, an expensive step, a very likely "waste of time" in the minds of an atheist.

In conclusion I ask the atheist. Would you accept the testimony of a person as true should they not at will be able to recreate the event? If not, why? As an example, a fellow soldier in WWII claims to have spotted the enemy in the woods, 5 miles from your location. Do you trust his testimony or dismiss it as a lie? How do you differentiate between testimonies of truth and lies?

pc

Originally posted by pcaspian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

[b]Opportunity cost is a term used in economics, to mean the cost of something in terms of an opportunity foregone (and the benefits that could be received from that opportunity), or the most valuable foregone alternative. For example, if a city decides to build a hospital on vacant land that it owns, the ...[text shortened]... or dismiss it as a lie? How do you differentiate between testimonies of truth and lies?

pc
[/b]

Regarding the soldier, I'd tentatively accept what he had to say. I mean, I already know there are enemies somewhere. It makes perfect sense that there might be one five miles away.

How do you differentiate between testimonies of truth and lies?

It depends how outlandish the claim is; how trustworthy the person is; and what evidence the person can provide for the claim whether or not I believe the person's claim. If the claims is not true, for it to be a lie there must be intent to deceive and the person must know their claim is not true.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

It depends how outlandish the claim is; how trustworthy the person is; and what evidence the person can provide for the claim whether or not I believe the person's claim. If the claims is not true, for it to be a lie there must be intent to deceive and the person must know their claim is not true.

Ok, now suppose a person you have never known to be a liar, lets say a fellow athiest you know. Should this person claim to have experienced that which he considers God, do you

1. Investigate his claim, believing him to be telling the truth
2. Assume he is lying.
3. Assume he experienced some form of hypnosis/dilusion.

Assuming 2 or 3, I believe is dishonest and indeed not in line with the scientific process of evaluating evidence. Indeed that would be greatly biassed surely.

Investigating his claim (1) will be based either on faith in his word, or a duty to test the evidence (in this case a testimony). If however this investigation does not neccesarily guarantee a replicatable result, would this render his testimony as false ? As we know a theory can only be proved true if we're able to replicate it. Is this a shortcoming of science or a failsafe measure to guarantee truth ?

Originally posted by pcaspian

Ok, now suppose a person you have never known to be a liar, lets say a fellow athiest you know. Should this person claim to have experienced that which he considers God, do you

1. Investigate his claim, believing him to be telling the truth
2. Assume he is lying.
3. Assume he experienced some form of hypnosis/dilusion.

Assuming 2 or 3, I believe is ...[text shortened]... to replicate it. Is this a shortcoming of science or a failsafe measure to guarantee truth ?=
[/b]

Your assumed actions are wrong. The options are:

1. Investigate his claim (making no assumption about truth or lies)
2. Assume he is lying and do no further investigation.
3. Decide that the opportunity cost is too high and do no further investigation. 😀

Your (3) is a possible answer to option 1.

The scientific method would be to do (1). Indeed, you would hope to replicate his claim. If a test for his claim cannot be devised that is falsifiable (eg Popper's approach) then it cannot be scientifically tested and his claim simply comes down to faith.

Falsifiability is not a shortcoming of science. It is essential for determining objective truth. It CANNOT be used to assessing faith.

However, if my truthful friend said that he had turned his wine into water, then his claim is testable. Saying he saw someone change wine into water is not testable. Believing him is a matter of faith.

Originally posted by Maustrauser

Falsifiability is not a shortcoming of science. It is essential for determining objective truth. It CANNOT be used to assessing faith.

However, if my truthful friend said that he had turned his wine into water, then his claim is testable. Saying he saw someone change wine into water is not testable. Believing him is a matter of faith.


Accepted. Granted though we are now left at a dilema. An athiest often requires faith to discern between any historic truths. I.E. Should an event be witnessed by a group of people, this 'evidence' is never sufficient grounds for basing fact on. Simply put, alot of fact would need to be dismissed, purely on grounds that it cannot be replicated. We do know however that the atheist believes in certain testimonies, though this would require faith. As such, how can an atheist claim that they do not believe in God and that this belief is based on fact, when their belief system does incorporate faith ? Keep in mind that the atheists views are based on many a scientific experiment which they themselves have not replicated, but rather take certain testimonies that it can be replicated as faith.

Well not quite. A lot of historical evidence is less taken on 'faith' but more on logic.

Eg.
1. Does the claimed event fit with what we know of the natural world and physical laws?
2. Does the claimed even fit with what we know was going on historically at the time?
3. Were the observers of the event reliable?
4. Were there other reasons for 'twisting' the observation for other purposes?

This all helps determine the objectiveness of the claim.

For example if one uses the above criteria with the resurrection, it isn't possible to believe in the resurrection from a rational point of view.

1. Resurrection has never been seen before or since (Christ's resurrection). It breaks nearly all physical laws.
2. Resurrections have not been seen and were not particularly common in the historical context and are never seen today.
3. There were no direct observers of the resurrection (correct me if I'm wrong).
4. There were many political reasons for inventing the resurrection. it proved that Christ was more important than the other prophets running around the Middle East at that time claiming to be the Messiah, so it served a political purpose to bring more power to the early Church.

Therefore for the reasons listed above, whilst the claim was not testable, other tools help us come to the correct conclusion.