[figment]

This came up in a study we are doing on the major philosophers. I've never liked the premise either. Although Pascal was trying to build a bridge of faith to non-believers and not a religious way of belief, it is largely interpreted as a way to base ones faith, as a wager.

[dB]

I agree that the premise sucks and really misses the point. Threats don't usually win love and devotion. But man, that argument against it is just as lame.

[Serial Thriller]

Originally Posted by dB

I agree that the premise sucks and really misses the point. Threats don't usually win love and devotion. But man, that argument against it is just as lame.

I agree. Believing in God just to avoid going to hell misses the point.

[figment]

Originally Posted by dB

But man, that argument against it is just as lame.

Agreed. If you are not living a life of diversion, you will soon realize that there is either an end of everything (and the pointlessness of it all if there is nothing else to look forward to)...or something else...

[dB]

They do a decent job of applying logic against Pascal's Wager, but what bothers me is the Atheist's Wager at the bottom of the page which goes unexamined and is just as flawed. I don't even know where to start.

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

If there is no God or you believe there is no God, what is Good (or "better")? How do you know you are making the world a better place (wouldn't that be survival of the fittest to the true Atheist)? How do you know that what you think of as good aligns with what the God you don't believe in thinks of as good?

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by dB

They do a decent job of applying logic against Pascal's Wager, but what bothers me is the Atheist's Wager at the bottom of the page which goes unexamined and is just as flawed. I don't even know where to start.

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

If there is no God or you believe there is no God, what is Good (or "better")? How do you know you are making the world a better place (wouldn't that be survival of the fittest to the true Atheist)? How do you know that what you think of as good aligns with what the God you don't believe in thinks of as good?

2 points:
1. Luke 18:17 "Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein." Without guile, without judgement, without fear. This is the state of mind necessary to appreciate our birthright as children of God. We are the breath of life, the breath of God. If that's true, and I believe it to be, if we are in touch with who we really are, we will act accordingly and the proper decisions will be made without the need for a judgement of right or wrong. For centuries horrible acts have been committed in the name of God, with one side saying good, another saying bad. Who's the judge? The more convinced the perpetrator of his own "righteousness", the more horrible the act. Even Hitler quoted scripture. So the whole "right vs wrong" thing is typically human and very unreliable.
2. Gandhi was asked, in regard to theology, what he believed. He replied, "How I live my life, that is what I believe." Says it all. Were individual acts of Gandhi right or wrong? Did he make good or bad decisions? Who's to judge? He lived a humble life, risked his life for others and preached non-violence even when he could have had immense political power by organized uprising.

In the West we are obsessed with the idea of right or wrong. As if the validity of either can be judged objectively by man. Better to live a Christ-like life and remind yourself everyday as to your divine heritage, than carry around a tally sheet with right/good on one side and wrong/bad on the other.
Just my opinion...

[figment]

Originally Posted by zenblader

2 points:
1. Luke 18:17 "Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein." Without guile, without judgement, without fear. This is the state of mind necessary to appreciate our birthright as children of God. We are the breath of life, the breath of God. If that's true, and I believe it to be, if we are in touch with who we really are, we will act accordingly and the proper decisions will be made without the need for a judgement of right or wrong. For centuries horrible acts have been committed in the name of God, with one side saying good, another saying bad. Who's the judge? The more convinced the perpetrator of his own "righteousness", the more horrible the act. Even Hitler quoted scripture. So the whole "right vs wrong" thing is typically human and very unreliable.
2. Gandhi was asked, in regard to theology, what he believed. He replied, "How I live my life, that is what I believe." Says it all. Were individual acts of Gandhi right or wrong? Did he make good or bad decisions? Who's to judge? He lived a humble life, risked his life for others and preached non-violence even when he could have had immense political power by organized uprising.

In the West we are obsessed with the idea of right or wrong. As if the validity of either can be judged objectively by man. Better to live a Christ-like life and remind yourself everyday as to your divine heritage, than carry around a tally sheet with right/good on one side and wrong/bad on the other.
Just my opinion...

1 Corinthians 13


Love

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love in this passage is translated from the word "agape", Gods kind of love.

and

Isaiah 64:6
All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by figment

Love

Figman,

Not really sure where yer goin' with the love thing. Is God love. Yeah. Are we children of God? Yeah. Sooooooo...we are all quite capable of loving one another without somebody sticking there freakin' nose in and making a good or bad call. Do you think Jesus walked around all day goin" "uh, is this right or wrong?" He partied with some serious sinners, yet He walked with God therefore he was an expression of God's will. You can walk with God and be an expression of God's will. We all can cause we were created by God (forgive me fellow buddhists). Jesus expressed God and love by example rather than condemning everybody he met. A right or wrong call from the mouths of men just gets in the way every time.
I don't see where the conflict is...

Is it possible for those who do not believe in God to express God's love? Of course! Because whether they believe in God or not, they are God's children. You guys should know that...oops. Made a judgement there. sorry!

[dB]

Originally Posted by zenblader

In the West we are obsessed with the idea of right or wrong. As if the validity of either can be judged objectively by man. Better to live a Christ-like life and remind yourself everyday as to your divine heritage, than carry around a tally sheet with right/good on one side and wrong/bad on the other.
Just my opinion...

I wasn't making a judgement about good vs. bad or suggesting that good works had anything to do with getting to heaven(as that atheism page does). My point was that the logic of the Atheist's Wager is just as weak as that of Pascal's Wager on the link that figment posted. (see the table at the bottom of the page where the non-believer who meets God gets into heaven based on their good life)

What confuses me is this: What does an atheist care about "good" or "love"? Of course those things feel as right to an atheist as they do to a believer. In my mind, good and love are of God and defined by God in His creation.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by dB

I wasn't making a judgement about good vs. bad or suggesting that good works had anything to do with getting to heaven(as that atheism page does). My point was that the logic of the Atheist's Wager is just as weak as that of Pascal's Wager on the link that figment posted. (see the table at the bottom of the page where the non-believer who meets God gets into heaven based on their good life)

What confuses me is this: What does an atheist care about "good" or "love"? Of course those things feel as right to an atheist as they do to a believer. In my mind, good and love are of God and defined by God in His creation.

DB,
I know you weren't making a judgement about good vs bad. I wasn't very clear with my comment--my fault. I was trying to answer your question regarding why an atheist would care about what was right or wrong, or what the loving thing would be to do. Atheists or agnostics are not separate from God. They are God's children just like everybody else. The fact that they don't know God or choose not to believe the accepted notions about who God is, does not change the fact that they are children of God. Does it?
I personally know an agnostic that exhibits more Christ-like values than some of the Christians I know.
Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus all can be loving, caring peaceful folk who at any time will place themselves in harm's way for another. That is the very basis of the parable of the good Samaritan. The priest walked by without stopping to help. It was the "unbeliever" who stopped to help, demonstrating God's love. That was the message of the parable, IMO. Don't get hung up on whether a person believes this or that. We aren't to judge them anyway. Rather accept that God can be in the heart of an "unbeliever" just as easily as he can be in the heart of the guy sitting next to you at church.
I've said it before. It's man's ego that looks for a reason to exclude someone else from God's grace. God just ain't that picky, neither was Jesus based on the folk he chose to ride with. That was his beef with the Pharisees. They were the ones obsessed with the rules and the correct interpretation and appearance. Jesus was into love, forgiveness and acceptance. And don't forget the wine. Gotta love that guy... Even if your a buddhist.

[Rios929]

This is the first I have heard of Pascal's Wager....pretty interesting.

That being said, I can't imagine anyone taking it seriously....I mean, it seems like a ten year old can come up with that logic. Basically all it is saying is that you just have to pretend to believe in god to get into heaven. That risk/benefit analysis logic is a basic mathmatical principal. I think it's a bit more complicated that that. I think atheists and believers alike can agree on that.

[dB]

Hey Zen,

Originally Posted by zenblader

DB,
I know you weren't making a judgement about good vs bad. I wasn't very clear with my comment--my fault. I was trying to answer your question regarding why an atheist would care about what was right or wrong, or what the loving thing would be to do. Atheists or agnostics are not separate from God. They are God's children just like everybody else. The fact that they don't know God or choose not to believe the accepted notions about who God is, does not change the fact that they are children of God. Does it?

No...but isn't this a hypocrisy of atheism? That's my main point/question. Atheists can know right from wrong and can love, but how can they explain these things without acknowledging God, a Creator?

Originally Posted by zenblader

I personally know an agnostic that exhibits more Christ-like values than some of the Christians I know.
Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus all can be loving, caring peaceful folk who at any time will place themselves in harm's way for another.

None of those are atheists. I used "unbeliever" as a synonym for atheist earlier which was probably not clear...I think you interepreted it as non-Christian?

Originally Posted by zenblader

Don't get hung up on whether a person believes this or that. We aren't to judge them anyway. Rather accept that God can be in the heart of an "unbeliever" just as easily as he can be in the heart of the guy sitting next to you at church. I've said it before. It's man's ego that looks for a reason to exclude someone else from God's grace.

I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing. Nobody knows my own fallability like I do. Again, just questioning atheism, not pointing my finger at any individuals.

[Rios929]

Originally Posted by dB

Hey Zen,



No...but isn't this a hypocrisy of atheism? That's my main point/question. Atheists can know right from wrong and can love, but how can they explain these things without acknowledging God, a Creator?

The atheists you are thinking of have been raised in a society in which they were told what was accepted as right and what was accepted as wrong. Our country's idea of right and wrong are based on very common religious morals. Almost everyone raised in this environment will have similar ideas of right and wrong.


There's been cases where children or teenagers/adolecents have been found who were being raised in their family's cellar or something similar. Sometimes they have no concept of right or wrong.

[zenblader]

[quote=dB]Hey Zen,



No...but isn't this a hypocrisy of atheism? That's my main point/question. Atheists can know right from wrong and can love, but how can they explain these things without acknowledging God, a Creator?

QUOTE]

DB,
IMO, you can be a child of God without acknowledging God. That's my point. I believe that God, (or Jung's Universal Consciousness, etc) is behind the creation of all life. More, I believe that because of this we are all, at our core, children of God. That doesn't change because we believe in him or not. Because of the stress and confusion of the physical (carnal) world, we get confused. If we choose to take a direction against the divine "flow" we may be wayward children of God, but it doesn't change the core truth. My guess is that is why Jesus asked his followers to not only love their friends, but their enemies as well. I personally suspect that most atheists are people who are turned off by "organized" religion and the inherent dangers therein. Especially atheists in Western civilization.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by Rios929

The atheists you are thinking of have been raised in a society in which they were told what was accepted as right and what was accepted as wrong. Our country's idea of right and wrong are based on very common religious morals. Almost everyone raised in this environment will have similar ideas of right and wrong.


There's been cases where children or teenagers/adolecents have been found who were being raised in their family's cellar or something similar. Sometimes they have no concept of right or wrong.

Rios929,

Children raised in a cellar have serious stresses that may occlude their connection to their creator. All humans, in all societies, because of the variable and chaotic stress of living in a physical, as opposed to spiritual realm, are prone to lose their grip on who they are, why they're here and who put them here in the first place. Those who lose hold on their connection to God and the corresponding connection with all life, are capable of committing horrible acts. Such as crucifying a son of God. Yet they are still considered children of God and worthy of love and forgiveness, as demonstrated by a humble prayer: "Father forgive them for they know not what they do..."

I am simply suggesting an answer as to how atheists can know love and right from wrong. Since God is love and atheists are clearly capable of acts of love, selflessness and charity, than the only conclusion that I see is that they are acting in concert with God whether they acknowledge him or not.

[zenblader]

Originally Posted by dB

Hey Zen,



No...but isn't this a hypocrisy of atheism? That's my main point/question. Atheists can know right from wrong and can love, but how can they explain these things without acknowledging God, a Creator?

Duh! I'm such a dolt. I finally got the point you were trying to make. Yeah, the selflessness of love, charity and forgiveness does seem to point to a higher spiritual nature as opposed to a world totally dominated by natural selection or survival of the fittest. Yeah, there is a whiff of hypocrisy here. But look at it this way. I think there's another parable that covers this. Who's held to higher account? Those who claim to know and love God yet still take steps in opposition? Or those who, for reasons not apparent, deny the existence of God while still exhibiting a higher nature?

The moral of the story for me is to not worry too much about atheists. 1. They may be believers and not admit it on all levels. 2. I'm not responsible for them anyway. 3. They may come around some time down the road, who knows?
Sorry it took me so long to figure out what you were saying.

[figment]

Originally Posted by zenblader

Who's held to higher account? Those who claim to know and love God yet still take steps in opposition? Or those who, for reasons not apparent, deny the existence of God while still exhibiting a higher nature?

John 15:5
"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.

Emphasis mine.

Which means (and is in consistency with Corinthians 13) nothing is taken into any account by God unless it is done by a person who knows God. The verse from Isaiah also shows the worth of our own works. Why does God need our works? Cant He get it done without us if He is God?

Works are for us to help us live a meaningful life and to learn how to be like Him and to glorify Him with our faith. I dont think works of non-believers glorify God based on my understanding of the Bible.

So to answer your question, neither are taken to higher account, unless the person has a personal relationship with Jesus.

[figment]

Originally Posted by zenblader

I am simply suggesting an answer as to how atheists can know love and right from wrong. Since God is love and atheists are clearly capable of acts of love, selflessness and charity, than the only conclusion that I see is that they are acting in concert with God whether they acknowledge him or not.

God created us all with enough faith to be able to know Him. But it is our choice. Your point about everyone acting in concert with Gods plan is in some way similar to my understanding. Since God knows everything, how can His plans be foiled? So regardless of what we do or say, being believers or non-believers, Gods plan will prevail.

[dB]

Originally Posted by zenblader

I finally got the point you were trying to make.

Thanks Zen. I'm no world-class communicator...

Who's held to higher account? Those who claim to know and love God yet still take steps in opposition? Or those who, for reasons not apparent, deny the existence of God while still exhibiting a higher nature?

To actively deny His existence would require at least a small knowledge of God...even if it's only that yearning for love/peace/joy that characterizes every human heart at some point. Beyond that I trust that God knows our hearts and is loving and just. Both sides of the fence will continue to fall short of the glory of God. Fortunately, and incredibly, He's already paid the fine for us.

The moral of the story for me is to not worry too much about atheists. 1. They may be believers and not admit it on all levels. 2. I'm not responsible for them anyway. 3. They may come around some time down the road, who knows?
Sorry it took me so long to figure out what you were saying.

My bro-in-law and his wife were vocal atheists in their college days. They're devout Christians now. His reasons for being an atheist sounded a lot like the originally posted webpage, i.e. not as logical as they sounded in college.

[Serial Thriller]

Like some of the earlier posts said, you can't 'convince' an unbeliever to believe in God.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Only the Holy Spirit can change someone's heart. The best we can do as Christians is to try to follow Christ's example of how to live.

[ER]

Man, I sure wish I had more available time here at work to read through all the responses here and engage in this discussion. Thanks for the link Figment.

The Athiest's Wager, according to the site:

It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him.

While it would be great if everyone lived their lives to better the world, it's still very important to understand that the Christian faith doesn't revolve around works - it revolves around faith in the grace of God to have a relationship with Him. We can't earn our ways into Heaven. We can live a great, kind life, but if we don't accept Christ as our Savior, we will be judged. So this argument might apply to most religions in the world (who's concept of salvation includes deeds and works to earn it), but it won't apply to the Christian religion. It is only by His grace that we are saved, and our works merely reflect our faith in Him -- they're not paying for the ticket into His kingdom (Christ already paid that debt ).

At any rate...I think it's already been pointed out that those who believe in God and believe that the Bible is His Word most likely believe that only the Holy Spirit can convict someone's heart. As witnesses for Him, we simply sow the seeds and make ourselves available to be used. And I doubt God wants to work through us to tell a lost one about Pascal's Wager.

This looks like a great discussion. I'll check back in -- I hope to see it still going.

[ER]

Sorry...one additional question: If there is no God, from where has the concept of good and bad originated? What convicts us to do what's right and not what's wrong?

[figment]

Originally Posted by ER

Sorry...one additional question: If there is no God, from where has the concept of good and bad originated? What convicts us to do what's right and not what's wrong?

Originally Posted by Possible Athiest reply

Good and bad/right and wrong are a mechanism of societal survival formed over the centuries to promote the species because humans need cooperation to survive.

[Rios929]

Originally Posted by ER

Sorry...one additional question: If there is no God, from where has the concept of good and bad originated? What convicts us to do what's right and not what's wrong?

The concept of good and bad originated way before anyone heard of adam and eve, jesus or his father. The egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all had their ideas of good and bad. The Aztecs believed it was good to sacrafice virgins to their gods. Our culture has our idea of good and bad which we (including myself) believe to be accurate, but it is not shared everywhere.

Basically you guys are saying that everyone is born good, and this good can either be harvested or the person can be corrupted....this is called innate purity I think. While I think it is more likely that people are born with a blank slate....tabula rasa.

Of c