Are theists afraid of atheists?

Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
Click to expand...

actually, atheists are a parasite of Christianity. If anything, the fear is all theirs as they only "evidence" for atheism is the destruction of theistic arguments. Since biblical theism is far and away the best philosophy out there I agree with Pascal that the outside chance that I might be wrong combined with the lack of any negative consequences is far and away exceeded by the likelihood that I am right combined with the incredible benefits.
 
What if there are no benefits for those who think in terms of Pascal's wager, not having, from God's perspective, their hearts in the right place.
 
Enmos said:
I am.. I mean what the fuck are they thinking ? They creep me out..
Click to expand...
we could form a support group.
I personally am most afraid of skeptics. I mean what if they decide to doubt the idea that other humans are sentient and just run me over with their 'only possibly real' cars.
And then all the agnostic witnesses saying to the judge that really there is no way to know if the 'running over that guy' was what killed him.

I want atheists or theists behind the wheel of those cars and in the witness stand.

Call me crazy.
 
mynameisDan said:
...I agree with Pascal that the outside chance that I might be wrong combined with the lack of any negative consequences is far and away exceeded by the likelihood that I am right combined with the incredible benefits.
Click to expand...
For anyone who believes in Pascal's wager, I have great news! In two days a magic parrot will deliver a check for $2 million to you. But only if you believe it will happen. Ok, go ahead and apply your Pascal's wager decision matrix. Weigh the costs and benefits of being right or wrong about believing or not believing. Clearly according to Pascal, it is most reasonable for you to believe me about this magic parrot that will soon make you rich. Yet I can't help but suspect that for some reason you won't really believe me about the parrot. Ponder why you don't believe in my magic parrot despite Pascal telling you to, and perhaps you will understand why most atheists don't consider Pascal to be very persuasive.
 
Simon Anders said:
we could form a support group.
I personally am most afraid of skeptics. I mean what if they decide to doubt the idea that other humans are sentient and just run me over with their 'only possibly real' cars.
And then all the agnostic witnesses saying to the judge that really there is no way to know if the 'running over that guy' was what killed him.

I want atheists or theists behind the wheel of those cars and in the witness stand.

Call me crazy.
Click to expand...

lol :D
 
Nasor said:
For anyone who believes in Pascal's wager, I have great news! In two days a magic parrot will deliver a check for $2 million to you. But only if you believe it will happen. Ok, go ahead and apply your Pascal's wager decision matrix. Weigh the costs and benefits of being right or wrong about believing or not believing. Clearly according to Pascal, it is most reasonable and logic for you to believe me about this magic parrot that will soon make you rich. Yet I can't help but suspect that for some reason you won't really believe me about the parrot. Ponder why you don't believe in my magic parrot despite Pascal telling you to, and perhaps you will understand why most atheists don't consider Pascal to be very persuasive.
Click to expand...
You're not selling, man. You gotta learn to sell, if you wanna throw Pascal's Wager in an empirical study.

But I do believe the Wager puts the cart before the horse, so I am with you to some extent.
 
Nasor said:
For anyone who believes in Pascal's wager, I have great news! In two days a magic parrot will deliver a check for $2 million to you. But only if you believe it will happen. Ok, go ahead and apply your Pascal's wager decision matrix. Weigh the costs and benefits of being right or wrong about believing or not believing. Clearly according to Pascal, it is most reasonable for you to believe me about this magic parrot that will soon make you rich. Yet I can't help but suspect that for some reason you won't really believe me about the parrot. Ponder why you don't believe in my magic parrot despite Pascal telling you to, and perhaps you will understand why most atheists don't consider Pascal to be very persuasive.
Click to expand...

I am not concerned with what is persuasive to you, only what is persuasive to me. I find atheist infantile spagetti monster comparisons to be as equally stupid and irrelevent as you consider the arguments of theists.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
Click to expand...


I have rethought this question and wish to put forth a new response. Yes, I am afraid of atheists. Atheists pretend to possess a morality of their own, but I don't trust them. I am afraid that if they possess high enough numbers, they will commit the same atrocities they did during the French revolution, the Bolchevik revolution and the Cultural revolution. I am afraid the millions more innocents will die under the new morality of the new atheist believers. I am afraid of some theists also, particularly the islamic variety, as there morality which is derived from the Quran actually encourages genocide.

I have some fear of abherrant catholics as well. They have a history of violence which stems from their decision to merge their faith with paganism and to reject biblical literalism for papal decrees and abuses. Yet my fear here is much less than that of atheism because the sheer numbers of murder of the papists doesn't come close to rising to the smelly stench of atheist revolutionary's.

I don't fear evangelical bible believing christians. Although there are some abuses such as the burning of witches in the U.S. and U.K, those crimes were small by comparison to any other faith mentioned above (numbering less than 1000). Calvin was a pretty nasty fellow also, even approving of the burning of a friend as a heretic and other such abuses. Yet I am consoled by the fact that evangelical theists are followers of Jesus and if they are true to His teaching, they will make for the best citizens, the best neighbors and the best friends. Here in the U.S. evangelicals are in the vast majority and I have yet to hear of any calling for the death of nasty athiest believers. We are largely a very tolerant bunch of folks who would rather duke it out in the world of ideas.

Yes, I am afraid of atheist believers, I don't believe they possess any objective morality. While most obey the laws of the land, given the right opportunity, I view them as dangerous to society, as has been the case time and time again.
 
mynameisDan said:
I am not concerned with what is persuasive to you, only what is persuasive to me. I find atheist infantile spagetti monster comparisons to be as equally stupid and irrelevent as you consider the arguments of theists.
Click to expand...

And yet you have not addressed my basic point; one can use the logic of Pascal's wager to "prove" that one should believe in all sorts of absurd things, like the magic parrot in my example. Do you disagree? If so, explain why. Clearly according to Pascal it is best to believe in my magic parrot; if you believe and are wrong you have lost nothing, while if you don't believe and are wrong you will lose out on $2 million. So why don't you believe in the magical, money-bearing parrot?
 
Last edited:
Nasor said:
And yet you have not addressed my basic point; one can use the logic of Pascal's wager to "prove" that one should believe in all sorts of absurd things, like the magic parrot in my example. Do you disagree? If so, explain why. Clearly according to Pascal it is best to believe in my magic parrot; if you believe and are wrong you have lost nothing, while if you don't believe and are wrong you will loose out on $2 million. So why don't you believe in the magical, money-bearing parrot?
Click to expand...

because unlike christian theism, your magic money-bearing parrot offers nothing of substance which I find convincing. I do find biblical faith convincing. Former atheist believer Antony Flew acknowledged that he does find the evidence for the resurrection miracle "rational". My own personal study of biblical prophecy has led to me to the conclusion that the bible is as it states that it is, of divine authorship, just like it did Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist to have ever lived. Like former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle, I find the alternative explanation that life originated by blind chance on the side of some volcanoe to be completely ridiculous and so like he and Dr Chandra Wichsramasingh I believe, there must be a God! I believe the kalam cosmological argument that everything which has a beginning has a cause is sound and consistant with biblical monetheism, but inconsistant with atheism and most other religions. I feel that the laws of logic themselves, which are immaterial universal truths independent of human invention, argue that an immaterial world exists and that materialistic atheism is irrational. My own personal non objective experience also confirms to me that my axiomatic positions are correct. I could go on, but suffice to say that for me, christian theism is no blind leap in the dark as is atheism, but rather a step of faith on a solid foundation of good arguments and sound reasoning.
 
mynameisDan said:
because unlike christian theism, your magic money-bearing parrot offers nothing of substance which I find convincing.
Click to expand...
But the entire point of Pascal's wager is showing that people should believe in christianity regardless of whether or not you find the evidence for it convincing. Evidence doesn't enter into it; according to Pascal, you should believe in it anyway because there are no consequences for incorrect belief but major consequences for incorrect disbelief. But perhaps I am assuming that you understand Pascal's argument better than you actually do.
 
Nasor said:
But the entire point of Pascal's wager is showing that people should believe in christianity regardless of whether or not you find the evidence for it convincing. Evidence doesn't enter into it; according to Pascal, you should believe in it anyway because there are no consequences for incorrect belief but major consequences for incorrect disbelief. But perhaps I am assuming that you understand Pascal's argument better than you actually do.
Click to expand...

It is possible that neither of us understand his wager completely as it was a pretty technical argument. But I do not feel Pascal would agree with you that one should make a blind leap in the dark equivalent to your silly parot analogy. I think his point would have been that nothing can be absolutely known and that at some point, you must make a committment. In the case of Christianity, that decision to committ is followed by only positive repercussions, unlike the decision to commit to atheism. Pascal was a genius and your characterization of him is a straw man.

While Blaise Pascal was a man of faith, he was also a man of reason and would never assent to faith schemes which he did not find reasonable intellectually. ‘Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contradictory to their findings.’ Nothing in scripture invites the adherent to check their minds at the door, which is why christians are enjoined to love God with all their mind and the first Christians, including Paul, cited the resurrection as the reason for assent to Christianity.

Pascal was very familiar with the laws of probabiliy and undoubtedly thought long and hard about his faith and the likelihood of is premises being true. We know he went through a time of doubt but eventually embraced Christian faith. He died at age 39 and had this to say upon his death:

‘And so I stretch forth my hands to my Redeemer, who came to earth to suffer and die for me.’ Upon your death, you will discover, whether Pascal was correct or not, just like the rest of us.
 
mynameisDan said:
actually, atheists are a parasite of Christianity. If anything, the fear is all theirs as they only "evidence" for atheism is the destruction of theistic arguments. Since biblical theism is far and away the best philosophy out there I agree with Pascal that the outside chance that I might be wrong combined with the lack of any negative consequences is far and away exceeded by the likelihood that I am right combined with the incredible benefits.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Obviously you don't have an understanding of the parasite-host that atheists are parasites on christians. In fact, the opposite is true. Christianity is a parasite of not only atheism, but of all other religions. Hosts don't want or need parasites, but parasites need their hosts.

You're an idiot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top