Sklansky has it backwards

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Except that a lot of us are hoping that we will be proven wrong, and will rejoice when it happens.

[m1illion]

[ QUOTE ]


1. In terms of eternal destination, the belief that God doesn't exist IS a security blanket. The nonbeliever has that shot at salvation right now and chooses to ignore it.

2. Christian or non-Christian, NOBODY lives a perfectly righteous life. So, the non-Christian now has to answer for his sins. The Christian drops the "glory of God" stuff of which you speak from his vocabulary and moves on. Which is tougher?

[/ QUOTE ]

You've twice now made the first point and neither time have you made any attempt to justify it other than saying it is so.
There is no security blanket for the non believer. The overwhelming majority of non believers(99.9%) are not running amok, wantonly causing chaos and destruction safe in the knowledge that there is no eternal judgement. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise.
The believer, having invested his entire psyche in the reassurance that his eternal reward is assured, when faced with the sure knowledge that this is not so will be devastated. How can you say the believer will just shrug this off?

As for your second point, I didn't say a PERFECTLY righteous life. I said the average non believer would not have to make that many adjustments because the average non beliver still lives a righteous life. Which is to say, that they live a regular life, go to work, raise a family, contribute to the community. Very little changes for the non believers excepting that, now faced with irrefutable evidence of god, they are faced with the decision to worship/obey/atone or don't. There would be a multitude of Saul's running around, not hard to imagine.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris.

[txag007]

Taken point by point:

M1llion-
"You've twice now made the first point and neither time have you made any attempt to justify it other than saying it is so.
There is no security blanket for the non believer."

First of all, I didn't realize that point needed any more justification. Secondly, you've done the same thing. A "security blanket" by definition is "a usually familiar object whose presence dispels anxiety". Now, aside from the fact that we are speaking of a belief and not an object, the reliance on the "fact" that God does not exist allows many nonbelievers to justify their sinful acts (which we ALL commit by the way) whether they be of commission or of omission.


M1llion-
"The overwhelming majority of non believers(99.9%) are not running amok, wantonly causing chaos and destruction safe in the knowledge that there is no eternal judgement. It's just ignorant to suggest otherwise."

In that case, it's a good thing I never suggested otherwise. If you read my other posts in this thread, you will see that I said I do not think all nonbelievers are morally bankrupt. I said that we are ALL sinners. The only difference is that those who believe there is no God think that they will never be held accountable for their sins.


M1llion-
"The believer, having invested his entire psyche in the reassurance that his eternal reward is assured, when faced with the sure knowledge that this is not so will be devastated. How can you say the believer will just shrug this off?"

I made a point in my original post not to dismiss the emotional aspect of it. Of course there will be emotional trauma either way.


M1llion-
"As for your second point, I didn't say a PERFECTLY righteous life."

Yes, you did. Reread your post.


M1llion-
"I said the average non believer would not have to make that many adjustments because the average non beliver still lives a righteous life. Which is to say, that they live a regular life, go to work, raise a family, contribute to the community. Very little changes for the non believers excepting that, now faced with irrefutable evidence of god, they are faced with the decision to worship/obey/atone or don't. There would be a multitude of Saul's running around, not hard to imagine."

There are many reasons that people don't believe in God. It is important that we don't group all nonbelievers together and say, "This is what they are like."

Some who don't believe really want there to be a God. For the most part, I'm not talking about them. There is plenty of reasonable evidence for those who are truly searching, but that is off topic of this thread.

Others are mad at God. Others don't care, and don't want to bother with any potential evidence either way. Still others truly believe that their evidence proves God's nonexistence and refuse to consider any counter-evidence. It's these types of people to which I'm referring.

Also, something else should be clarified here. If God somehow revealed himself to everyone in the world using some type of "Road to Damascus" situation, it's not hard to imagine that everyone would believe.

But what if the proof was more subtle? If if was just a few calcuations on paper that proved God's existence or nonexistence, who would be more likely to refuse to acknowledge its truthfulness?

[txag007]

"Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris."

Not all nonbelievers refuse to believe because of lack of evidence. For the ones use "lack of evidence" as their excuse for unbelief, there is plenty of reasonable evidence for God's existence right now. If it's "irrefutable proof" they are waiting on, they aren't going to get it.

In how many other aspects of life does a person need irrefutable proof before he commits to something? Not many.

[txag007]

"Are you kidding? Have you SEEN how bitter a true believer gets when they 'lose their faith?'"

To my knowledge, God has not been proven to be nonexistant. Therefore, that was not the reason for the loss of faith of which you speak. Furthermore, making a general argument based on one experience is a flaw in your reasoning.

Unless of course, you were just being sarcastic.

[txag007]

See my response to your other post.

[David Sklansky]

The reason why you are, for the most part wrong, is because you make an assumption about most non believers that is, I am almost sure, not the case. Namely that their non belief is a big deal to them. You think it is because you think most non believers have a lot at stake in their non belief. Serial sinners and anthropologists being two examples.

You don't seem to understand that the great majority of non believers got that way gradually and with no feelings of revelation as they read, studied, and thought about what makes the world tick. This is especially true if you include in the non believers camp those who are unsure about God in general, but simply believe strongly that any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God. That last statement requires an IQ of 45 to understand and even BluffThis reluctantly admits he can't refute it.

Bootom line: Non belief in a specific organized religion requires no psychological component, especially if the non belief is in the brain of someone versed in physics, logic and probability.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
"Any non believer because of lack of evidence wouldn't skip a beat becoming a worshipper if there was irrefutable proof. Any exception would be because of insanity or stupidity, not hubris."

Not all nonbelievers refuse to believe because of lack of evidence. For the ones use "lack of evidence" as their excuse for unbelief, there is plenty of reasonable evidence for God's existence right now. If it's "irrefutable proof" they are waiting on, they aren't going to get it.

In how many other aspects of life does a person need irrefutable proof before he commits to something? Not many.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is "Plenty of evidence"? Did I miss something? Where? Enlighten me.

[txag007]

Hey David! Glad to see you're back. Before I respond, I'd like to make sure I've got something correct:

"any individual religion is a big underdog to be correct even if there is a God."

Is this because you believe all religions to be diametrically opposed to one another, so the chances of one being correct is small? Or is there another reason?