Sushi platter

Follow up questions for if you deny that humans possess intrinsic value...

Then, wherein lies the value of a human life according to atheistic principles?

Do you not condemn murder or even mass genocide provided it’s not performed within your specific culture?

Besides stating the question in response of "Which religion?" or "Which god(s)?" or some other form thereof?

(Before answering the question, even if you are not going to read the whole thing, please read where I have marked with three asterisks [***])

-----------

Just so we all know what we're talking about here:

Pascal wrote: "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is." (Full quote provided below.)

In application; one should believe in God, follow Him in sincerity and obtain salvation according to His promise.

Option 1

A) If you do this and God is real, then you lose nothing but gain everything.

B) If you do this but God does not exist, you lose nothing.

Option 2

C) If you do not do this, and God does not exist you lose nothing.

D) If you do not do this, and God does exist, you lose everything.

The atheist/agnostic chooses 'option 2' and hopes for outcome 'C'.

The believer chooses 'option 1' and hopes for outcome 'A'.

Essentially the atheist/agnostic hopes for nothing but stands to lose everything, whereas the believer hopes for everything but stands to lose nothing.

-----------

If you, an atheist/agnostic, are so logical as you often claim, then why do you not choose the logical path?

***And to answer the main objection of "Which religion?" or "Which god(s)?" to follow...

Uncertainty does not preclude the necessity of making a choice, especially in the interest of self preservation.

If you are facing certain death and do not know which way to run to avoid dying, do you stand there and die in uncertainty? Or do you make a choice and hope that it is the right one?

Furthermore, you need not make a split second decision in determining the correct deity to follow, you have time and those logically thinking brains of yours to your advantage. Seeing the stakes are so high, would it not be logical (even advantageous) for you to do the research to determine the true path?

If not, then how do you logically justify you inaction when the best possible outcome is nothing?

===========

Full quote from Pascal:

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is."

As opposed to a disingenuous atheist?

The moral code for atheism is nonexistent, when one commits horrendous acts in the name of religion (Christianity specifically) they must do so in direct violation of their moral code... whereas the atheist who commits horrendous acts does so without moral hindrance and has logically come to the conclusion that what they are doing is 'right' or beneficial according to their worldview.

And since there is no such thing as evil; there is only expression, and differing opinions thereof -none the greater and none the lesser- which guide conduct, both of the heart and the body (whatever the heart releases the body to give itself over to).

Therefore, how does the atheist differentiate between those of like (non-) beliefs who either commit horrendous acts and those who lead "morally upright" lives? Which is better? Or is it all different forms of expression?

An atheist will often claim individually or societally derived morality having evolved (in a sense) independent of God/religion (or the need thereof).

How can one make this claim seeing there are no observed instances of this happening and resulting in the same moral standards we enjoy in western society - seeing morality in western society is derived from Judeo-Christian principles?

(For example, few other societies enjoy the same moral standard of equality between men and women independent of Judeo-Christian principles.)

In other words, where's you evidence to back up the original claim?

Or do you reject that claim? If so, then what is your proposed origin for morality?

(Please, point out any flaws in my logic as well.)

The atheist sees religion as a drag on society; useless, unproductive and even harmful. Some have even compared it to a disease. If this be so, then the followers of religion, being susceptible to this disease and/or having this systemic weakness, are not as fit for survival.

According the the evolutionary line of reasoning, should not the religious die out and religion with it for the greater benefit of society? Why then are you here answering questions, one of the only logical qualifiers you can come up with being compassion upon the "weak and confused"? How are you benefiting society from an evolutionary point of view if, by your worldview, the religious should perish from the earth leaving only those who are strong enough to have rejected religion?

Natural selection should weed out the religious leaving only atheists... right? Why then are you going against natural selection?

What is your logical reasoning on this topic?

---

Disclaimer:

I am not trying to say that atheists (and the like) shouldn't be here thus making this section some sort of religious club. After all, if it weren't for all of you atheists we Christians wouldn't have as many people to tell about the salvation that is through Christ Jesus. So in that respect I even like that you're here.

This doesn't make sense to me; why you would renounce any religion, and even that a deity exists, but then dedicate your time, energy and intellect with religious persistence to the continual denial thereof. Did it not take the first time when you denounced religion/deities? If it did, then why must you persist?

Will not your life in a sense still be governed by religion if you spend it in active opposition? …You complain how people are wasting their lives by following a religion yet you are doing the same by actively denying it, are you not? Why waste your time, any little bit of your one and only life, on something that you have no regard for in the first place?

It seems to me that you are trying not to convince others that you’re right but that you are trying to convince yourself. I know that you will deny this, but on what logical basis? How do you qualify your actions toward the religious (and religion itself) as being purposeful, even advantageous to you? – In other words; what do you get out of it?

-------

I’m not trying to say that you, an atheist, shouldn't be here in this section… I think you have every bit a place here as anyone else (in fact I like that you’re here, it gives me [and other Christians] an opportunity to tell you about the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, of whom I am more than happy to discuss).

I recently got my drivers license renewed and just noticed that it has the wrong zip code on it. The first three numbers are correct but the last two are not. I don't know if the clerk hit the wrong numbers or what...

Will this affect anything should I get pulled over or otherwise have to use my license for identification?

Do I need to get this fixed or does it not matter?

And if not, then what theory is there to take it's place that explains the origins of biological life?

Even if it is, what other theories are out there to possibly explain the origin of biological life?

I post this here for the potential religious implications; if evolution has no substantiated origin then the whole theory as it stands [that is; governed by natural processes], along with the qualifiers of many an atheist to disbelieve in a deity, falls.

This brings up a whole new set of problems though... if the theory of abiogenesis is truly no longer a viable one, would atheists and evolutionists still cling to it only because it's a necessary qualifying component of their system of (dis-)belief?

I'm not looking to drag anyone through the mud (so to speak), I'm looking for intellectual honesty. I've seen abiogenesis played down in recent times, I even had an atheist refuse to debate it with me once, so naturally I'm a little curious about what's going on... do evolutionists and atheists still hold to abiogenesis or are they giving it up for something else?

Without bogging you down in details, I made a cane for a friend of a friend who cannot walk without a cane (last I heard they thought she may have M.S.). She's in her mid 20s and a strong Catholic who is trusting in the Lord to get her through this ordeal.

The verses we considered were:

Isaiah 40:31

and

Psalm 27:1 "The LORD is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? the LORD is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?"

I quote Psalm 27:1 because that's our default... the one we liked better of the two.

Do any of you have a better idea? Something you feel might fit the situation as well, or better?