Posted on 10/15/2010 11:28:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
Whether they believe in God or not is irrelevant to the truth of His existance, and to the necessity of His existence for the existence of morality & right and wrong.
In other words, no, you don’t have to believe in God to have a sense of morality, but God does have to exist for you to have one. The two arguments are independent.
Now, what are you gonna do about doing what you know is wrong and the knowledge of judgement against that object standard?
Ah, but Pascal’s wager is not about being an adamant atheist and then becoming a Christian to cover bets, so we aren’t talking about what Hitchens was talking about.
I’ll ask again: How is it that a person who is unsure whether there is a God or not is cowardly or intellectually inferior for betting in a way that prevents them from suffering the worst possible catastrophic failure?
If betting there’s a God is cowardly and/or dumb instead of a smart bet, then so is buying homeowner’s insurance.
So start with those, and as Mr. B recommended, look into the whole of the Word and its meaning as a whole document.
Even if there was no God, the Bible is required reading as a touchstone of Western Civilization.
Who made yours? God?
It’s obvious that you haven’t, or else did not understand what you did read, in context, or you wouldn’t be asking these questions.
Now, back to the question - why are your made up standards any “better” or more right than someone else’s that are in direct opposition to yours?
Yet, Hitchens continues to spew forth constant denials about the reality of and existence of his Creator.<<
A position with an expiring shelf life!
May God in his infinite Wisdom and Mercy give Chris a repentant heart and the eyes to see the true path to salvation!!
Quick read, also,
“Mere Christianity” by CS Lewis.
Good case for objective morality and our subsequent responsibility.
And Religion is?
Not true. Religions that don’t have a concept of God have the golden rule. Religions that came before Christianity.
Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.
BTW, did you know Muslim extremists now kill more people each year than were killed in the entire Inquisition?
Christian countries in general and America in particular are the only countries where Jews have ever been able to live in peace, and Jews once again have a nation of their own because Christian nations made it happen. Take your bilge elsewhere.
Yes to all of them. Any problem with that?
Yes to all of them. Any problem with that?
Did you read and get my explanation that a “concept of God” is independent of his existence and independent of the necessity of His existence for such a “golden rule” to exist and be universal?
In the case of Christianity, it would be "Love makes right."
That proposition is: acceptable
I agree that the two arguments are independent. The first was the point of the thread though, and I think we are in agreement on that one. As for your question, what am I doing that I know is wrong?
This country could not have been founded without Christianity, and cannot be sustained without it. So what does a crotchety atheist like Hitchens do? He become a citizen of this backward country.
Don’t dismiss the rest of the argument -
Your belief in God is not necessary to have a sense of morality.
But that is INDEPENDENT of the real issue of whether God is necessary for there to BE morality.
There’s no avoiding that elephant in the room.
Your BELIEF in gravity is independent of whether you’ll break your leg if you jump off the roof.
Since you have turned the Wager on its head, I must not have made my post clear to you. Paschal’s wager is about faith in God. So here it is, from the cite you posted:
“Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingy has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.”
My point, again, is that a christian “hedging his/her bets” by expressing belief, prayer, partaking of communion, attending services, but so insecure in faith that they acknowledge to themselves (if no one else) that at least they haven’t wasted their time doing all those things, at least they had good lives/were upright law-abiding citizens (if they were) et cetera, and so on ...
Well, as far as religious faith goes that’s certainly a weak brew wouldn’t you say? I would say that it is not only cowardly but absurd: “I believe this, I truly do—but also, I don’t believe.” (I say this admitting I enjoy rolling the dice.)
However, you do raise an interesting logical corollary: for an atheist to say to himself and the world, “This is what I believe and I have no `fallback plan,’ or deathbed fear of hell confession to make.
Which position requires greater courage? What do you think of Hitchen’s statement that Paschal’s Wager is “religious hucksterism”?
what am I doing that I know is wrong?
OK, tell me that your conscience never accuses you... :)
Yes, I read it. I just didn't think it was relevant to the discussion at hand, which was about belief in God and the codification of God's laws being necessary for morality. From a non-believer's perspective, the golden rule does exist and is universal, they would just disagree on the "why" that is so. But if you believe I'm missing a subtlety I'll listen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.