Has any believer here ever called into the Atheist Experience?

[KWED]

As I said, God knows.

I like how "god knows" is generally used as an expression for the truly nonsensical and meaningless.

 

[KWED]

No, I am not. His argument does not acknowledge that a criminal must still face and pay the penalty for crimes here on earth..

Only if they get caught.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always thought that the calls are fakes / those who call are just actors pretending to be theist

There is a similar channel in spanish where the host openly admits that the callers are acting, so I simply assumed that all similar chanels are like that .

No, theists really are that laughable at times. We can see that here quite often. They may be intelligent but when it comes to their beliefs they cannot debate properly. By the way, you should recognize yourself in some of those callers.

 

[leroy]

No, theists really are that laughable at times. We can see that here quite often. They may be intelligent but when it comes to their beliefs they cannot debate properly. By the way, you should recognize yourself in some of those callers.

Would you say that there are theists that avoid answering questions and then lie in claiming that they already answered?

I have only seen the program like 1 or 2 times, but I don’t like it, it feels like a discussion between Dumb and Dumber

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

His argument does not acknowledge that a criminal must still face and pay the penalty for crimes here on earth

That's irrelevant to his argument, not to mention incorrect.

Also, this matter of justice isn't limited to criminal justice. How about betraying a friend, then running off without apologizing or making restitution, praying for forgiveness for ten seconds, and that's it. We're seeing answers of the sort that that's not good enough, that one has to make a transformation and repentance must be sincere. It's good enough for those people, and that's the point. They've been taught that they only need forgiveness from their god, and that that is on demand. They aren't told that in those words, but they are told to ask for forgiveness, but God never tells them that their prayer was rejected, and so they assume that the "request" was OK'ed, the sin was erased, and they're good to go.

Nor does he address the fact that all sins were paid for by Jesus Christ in full

Except the one he's going to hell for, the one he forgot to pray away. But this also doesn't contradict Dillahunty's loophole argument. That's the loophole. With justice, one pays for his own transgressions. Substitutional atonement is an injustice.

So basically Dillahunty, you, or anyone else who refuses Christ’s eternal payment will get to pay their own penalty.

This is still unrelated to Dillahunty's thesis. The penalty inflicted after death is not for betraying your friend, but for forgetting to beg forgiveness to God. The offense is always framed as being against God. A sin may hurt another person, but it is the offense to God that must be forgiven or paid for.

The reason Dillahunty can’t understand God’s justice or mercy is because he has no concept of what it means to repent or submit one’s life to Jesus to save him from his sins.

This is incorrect. Like me and millions of others, he's a former Christian who understands Christianity perfectly well.

Would you say that there are theists that avoid answering questions and then lie in claiming that they already answered?

Yes. It happens all the time. There are also theists who don't ever seem to understand what they read who make that claim about others who have answered their questions, but somehow, the theist couldn't see or understand it. You may have seen that a few times yourself in these threads.

 

[Windwalker]

OK. What are the lofty apples that support your version of the supernatural?

Not calling it the supernatural as you assume? What is it you assume about spiritual perspectives? That they're all about pre-rational magic and stuff? The fact you frame this way, does tend affirm my point in the post you quoted. You seem to assume a pre-rational magic.

And btw, what supports my views, is experience. They are based upon it.

 

[Windwalker]

If the person avoids punishment in this world, then yes, then there would be a "free pass".

Example. If Stalin had genuinely and sincerely repented and accepted Jesus on his death bed (not completely fanciful, after all he did train to be a priest as a young man), he would now be in paradise and would have received zero punishment for the untold death and suffering he caused. He may well run into some of his victims, which would be nice for them.

For argument's sake, if you believe someone just dies and that's it, isn't that getting a free pass for their bad deeds in this life as well? Or do you believe in some form of reaping what you sow beyond this life?

 

[InChrist]

That's irrelevant to his argument, not to mention incorrect.

Also, this matter of justice isn't limited to criminal justice. How about betraying a friend, then running off without apologizing or making restitution, praying for forgiveness for ten seconds, and that's it. We're seeing answers of the sort that that's not good enough, that one has to make a transformation and repentance must be sincere. It's good enough for those people, and that's the point. They've been taught that they only need forgiveness from their god, and that that is on demand. They aren't told that in those words, but they are told to ask for forgiveness, but God never tells them that their prayer was rejected, and so they assume that the "request" was OK'ed, the sin was erased, and they're good to go.

The biblical scriptures are full of instructions and admonitions concerning relationships with others, seeking forgiveness, apologizing, and/or making things right when others have been wronged. Certainly seeking forgiveness from God is important, but the Christian life involves a lot more, including living in a Christ like way towards others.


“Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”
Matthew 5:23-24



“Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother.”
Matthew 15:18


“Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. 32 And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you.“
Ephesians 4:31-32

 

[Sheldon]

But you accept that if a person genuinely and sincerely repents and accepts Jesus on their deathbed, then there is no divine punishment for their earthly sins, even if they were Hitler or Stalin. So if they weren't punished during their life, they get off scot free. They might even be living in paradise alongside their victims.

Their victims might be elsewhere...

 

[KWED]

For argument's sake, if you believe someone just dies and that's it, isn't that getting a free pass for their bad deeds in this life as well? Or do you believe in some form of reaping what you sow beyond this life?

If someone commits crimes and is not apprehended or punished, then yes, they got away with it.
Part of the purpose of an afterlife where people are punished is because people don't like the idea of people getting away with stuff.
It is a pretty straightforward concept. Tell the oppressed and exploited that if they keep their head down and don't cause trouble they will get a massive reward after they die, and the people doing the oppressing and exploiting will be punished, so no need to do anything about it in this life.

As Seneca said "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

 

[KWED]

Not calling it the supernatural as you assume? What is it you assume about spiritual perspectives? That they're all about pre-rational magic and stuff? The fact you frame this way, does tend affirm my point in the post you quoted. You seem to assume a pre-rational magic.

And btw, what supports my views, is experience. They are based upon it.

You claimed that people like Dillahunty only go for low-hanging fruit. I asked what the difficult arguments they avoid consist of. Interesting that you declined to present any.

 

[Windwalker]

If someone commits crimes and is not apprehended or punished, then yes, they got away with it. Part of the purpose of an afterlife where people are punished is because people don't like the idea of people getting away with stuff.

To clarify the point of my argument, you originally had said, "If Stalin had genuinely and sincerely repented and accepted Jesus on his death bed (not completely fanciful, after all he did train to be a priest as a young man), he would now be in paradise and would have received zero punishment for the untold death and suffering he caused."

The point of my questioning this is because for those who see this idea that a Hitler or a Stalin can just get off for free by converting on their deathbeds, is seen as unfair and unjust by people. In other words, what kind of justice is that. But by the same token, there is no justice in the nihilistic view either.

Although to your point, if one is to believe the afterlife is about "punishment", then that would appear no different than those who died unrepentant in this life, as far as the crowds are concerned who have a desire for vengeance to be served, and call that justice.

It is a pretty straightforward concept. Tell the oppressed and exploited that if they keep their head down and don't cause trouble they will get a massive reward after they die, and the people doing the oppressing and exploiting will be punished, so no need to do anything about it in this life.

This of course assumes the purely cynical view of religion as nothing but manipulation and exploration to control the unwashed masses. It assumes, as I said before, the low-hanging fruit of a purely narcissistic approach to religious faith, that 'what's in it for me?'. "If I do the right things, I get a 'massive reward'." And then subsequently, if those who were terrible people their whole lives and waited until their deathbeds to do the right thing, that they get that 'massive reward' too?

That's absolutely unjust to them. How is that fair, from the perspective of them getting their massive reward for doing the right thing their whole lives? That seems the core of this argument.Of course you know that Jesus himself addresses this exact complaint in this parable? Matthew 20:1-16.

The workers who had come to work at five o'clock in the evening received one silver coin each. 10 The workers who had come to work first thought that they would receive more than the other workers. But each of them also received one silver coin. 11 When they received their money, they were not happy. They told the master that he had not been fair to them. 12 They said to him, “Some of these other workers came last and only worked for one hour. But you have paid them the same money as you paid us. And we have worked all day in the hot sun.”​

My point here is that this illustrates, even in Jesus own teachings, that there is a low-hanging fruit of religion. And that is narcissism. "What's in it for me?" And that is what this parable illustrates. But hand in hand with this is this idea of the afterlife as a place of "punishment". "Justice" to many is just another word for vengeance. And that is itself very much a self-centered thing. "I want them to pay! I do the right thing, and I get my reward for being good. It's not fair they should just get away, while I cannot! Punish them!" In other words, "make me feel better about my choice to be good instead of bad".

That may be a little hard to understand the nuance of what I'm driving at here. But think of it like this. I'm sure you've heard Christians say to atheists, "If you don't believe in God, then what just keeps you from going out and killing someone?" Yes? Whenever I hear someone say this, I think yikes!, you mean to tell me the only reason you don't kill me is because you are either afraid of being punished, or are seeking a 'massive reward' for yourself at the end of the rainbow? That's horrible! That's not goodness at all. That says you are an evil person, not only because you would murder others if you felt no threats against you, but you are completely without any genuine internal moral compassion, and a complete lack of human compassion or empathy.

That is again, the low-hanging fruit. That is pure and utter selfishness. So the view of the afterlife as a place of getting rewards and punishments, in this sense for being either good boys and girls or bad, is purely self-interested and self-focused. It's not truly religious in the sense of spiritually mature, or transformative.

And it is that, that the unscrupulous who seek power over others, in their own self-interests, exploit and manipulate. It's also that low-hanging fruit, that the disillusioned cynic dismisses under the noble guise of "skepticism", calling religion nothing but this.

As Seneca said "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

I would modify this. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the cynic as false, by the wise as useful for spiritual transformation, and by the power-seekers to prey upon and make useful for themselves."

 

[syo]

The title says it all. Has anyone called the Atheist Experience? Who was the host that day? How did you think that you did? And if possible can you link the video?

I don't know what it is.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If someone commits crimes and is not apprehended or punished, then yes, they got away with it.
Part of the purpose of an afterlife where people are punished is because people don't like the idea of people getting away with stuff.
It is a pretty straightforward concept. Tell the oppressed and exploited that if they keep their head down and don't cause trouble they will get a massive reward after they die, and the people doing the oppressing and exploiting will be punished, so no need to do anything about it in this life.

As Seneca said "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful."

Apparently, Seneca never said this. A statement attributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca says, “religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Under what circumstances would the “by the rulers” part of this statement NOT be true? - Quora

 

[Windwalker]

You claimed that people like Dillahunty only go for low-hanging fruit. I asked what the difficult arguments they avoid consist of. Interesting that you declined to present any.

To be clear, I didn't not say that this person, whom I've not listened to, is necessarily doing that. I was speaking of my experience with those like Dawkins and other, what are called "neo-atheists". I don't know about this person himself, that they aren't likewise just merely "anti-theists" (which is a better term, more accurate term than neo-atheist).

That's what I complain is simply attacking the low-hanging fruit of religion. And when confronted with anything more challenging than debating at that level, you get things like "That's not Christianity you're talking about", sorts of responses. Which proves my point. What they are calling religion, is the religion of Fundamentalists.

Now to your accusation that I "declined to present any". I did not decline anything. I simply pointed out that you seem to affirm that idea that someone who might argue something positive about religion, or theism for that matter, thinks a certain way. You automatically called it the "supernatural". My post was only to highlight that, not attempt to present my views about these things.

My answer to that is "simple", at least to me. There is no 'supernatural'. It's all natural, even though we may not now, or even ever be able to comprehend the true nature of Reality. I believe Reality, or "ultimate reality", is beyond rationally comprehending, even with our best sciences, now or in the future. But it is not beyond apprehending. It is 'transcendent", but it is fully, and immediately immanent. It is that "Mystery", that can be known. And some call that "God".

So now, between my previous post this morning, and now this one, I've scratched the surface a little on this. If Dillahunty could engage on these points, as opposed to seeing religion as nothing but superstition and a pre-rational magical twaddle, than great! I was simply saying I wasn't willing to invest 1.5 hours on a YouTube video to find out.

 

[Sheldon]

Not calling it the supernatural as you assume? What is it you assume about spiritual perspectives?

Until someone can demonstrate any natural empirical evidence the claims place themselves under that descriptor.

That they're all about pre-rational magic and stuff? The fact you frame this way, does tend affirm my point in the post you quoted. You seem to assume a pre-rational magic.

Again if no one can offer rational argument, nor empirical evidence, only unevidenced anecdotal appeals to mystery, then the descriptors are apropos.

And btw, what supports my views, is experience. They are based upon it.

Like the lonely cowboys and ranchers beamed (allegedly) abroad alien spacecraft then, according to them anyway. Claims to have experienced something you can neither evidence nor accurately explain are not very compelling, and for pretty obvious reasons.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The biblical scriptures are full of instructions and admonitions concerning relationships with others, seeking forgiveness, apologizing, and/or making things right when others have been wronged. Certainly seeking forgiveness from God is important, but the Christian life involves a lot more, including living in a Christ like way towards others.

It doesn't matter what the scriptures say, and the typical Christian life isn't a lot more than feeling saved and trying to make it to the finish line saved, which they understand to mean smiling a lot, not cursing, and periodically resetting the sin meter with absolution on demand.

Christians don't generally feel beholden to scriptures notwithstanding lip service to the contrary. They pick and choose the ones they like. We look to the people to understand the religion, not their book, which supports any point of view one prefers. Some believers will say that that is not true Christianity, or that's not all of Christianity, but that's the face of the religion the outsider sees. That's virtually all of the Christianity he sees, and is more truly Christianity than the ideals it fails to teach or achieve.

The point is that Christianity is what each believer thinks it is. It doesn't matter that some think that they miss the mark. They don't.

There is no 'supernatural'. It's all natural,

Agreed. The concept of the supernatural as a separate reality from the natural realm yet able to affect it while remaining undetectable even in principle is incoherent. It's an invention to give the nonexistent the status of the existent by claiming a one-way causality from a place which can be found nowhere in time or space.

The point of my questioning this is because for those who see this idea that a Hitler or a Stalin can just get off for free by converting on their deathbeds, is seen as unfair and unjust by people. In other words, what kind of justice is that.

That's Dillahunty's point and the loophole to which he refers.

This of course assumes the purely cynical view of religion as nothing but manipulation and exploration to control the unwashed masses.

That's what organized religion is for. That's why there is a priesthood and a church hierarchy, and why the priests align with kings where possible. This is what the concept of an eternal soul is used for. This is what the doctrine of original sin, damnation, and salvation through Christ alone is for. This is what the Sermon on the Mount is about - controlling people. Be meek, suppress your spirit and will, stand down, for your reward will come later if you do. People who care about you don't talk to you like that. That's what people who want to exploit you and for you to not rise up about it say. This is the top-down view of religion. It began when nomadic peoples settled, formed large permanent communities, had a professional priesthood rise up with a central location to bring your tithes to replace the itinerant holy man of nomadic life, who was always there, and didn't need money. Being a priest is a great gig compared to manual labor and outdoor work.

For the average adherent, that's not the purpose of the religion at all, and not his purpose - to be controlled. He's trying to control his life through prayer and then his afterlife, not other people. That's the grassroots side of this - people looking for answers, comfort, and protection. But the priests are not his friend. They will sell him false promises for income, easy work, and social status.

It assumes, as I said before, the low-hanging fruit of a purely narcissistic approach to religious faith, that 'what's in it for me?'

Assumes? We see it. Doesn't this describe about half of the American people now - lack of empathy and a lack of a sense of community? What was all of that mask tantruming about? Karen is everywhere. People walk through Wal-Mart with assault weapons strapped to them. Mothers everywhere are crying for their fallen and severely traumatized children to the tune of "I don't care what you want, just what I want: guns." One Trump meme was "**** your feelings" What is owning the libs all about? And most of these people will tell you that they have God on their side against the godless Communist Democrats and atheist abortionists.

"Justice" to many is just another word for vengeance.

That's a religious notion. God condemns people to eternal suffering for no purpose other than to make them suffer. The humanist vision of justice rejects this, which is to prosecute and incarcerate to remove dangers from the streets, to serve as a warning to those who would otherwise commit crime, and someday, to rehabilitate offenders. Retributive justice is Old Testament stuff.

That's what I complain is simply attacking the low-hanging fruit of religion. And when confronted with anything more challenging than debating at that level, you get things like "That's not Christianity you're talking about", sorts of responses. Which proves my point. What they are calling religion, is the religion of Fundamentalists.

If you're still talking about Dillahunty et al., they don't choose who calls in. And it's all low-lying fruit. You said that you hadn't listened to these people calling in. I only listened to the first few minutes of the linked YouTube, and there was another confused caller who couldn't make an argument or even articulate a position. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the reason to watch the show is not to listen to the theist callers, but rather, the atheist hosts. The callers are rarely interesting for what they think, but rather, how they think.

 

[ppp]

Not calling it the supernatural as you assume? What is it you assume about spiritual perspectives? That they're all about pre-rational magic and stuff? The fact you frame this way, does tend affirm my point in the post you quoted. You seem to assume a pre-rational magic.

And btw, what supports my views, is experience. They are based upon it.

That is just a bunch of terminology bducking and weaving. What it comes down to is that theists present assertions, provide poor reasoning and evidence in support of those assertions; then accuse the people who recognize and point out the reasoning flaws and lack of evidence as making baseless assumptions.

 

[KWED]

To clarify the point of my argument, you originally had said, "If Stalin had genuinely and sincerely repented and accepted Jesus on his death bed (not completely fanciful, after all he did train to be a priest as a young man), he would now be in paradise and would have received zero punishment for the untold death and suffering he caused."

The point of my questioning this is because for those who see this idea that a Hitler or a Stalin can just get off for free by converting on their deathbeds, is seen as unfair and unjust by people. In other words, what kind of justice is that.

Correct. Such a system is not "fair" or "just".

But by the same token, there is no justice in the nihilistic view either.

Why do you think that a wold without gods is necessarily nihilistic?

Although to your point, if one is to believe the afterlife is about "punishment", then that would appear no different than those who died unrepentant in this life, as far as the crowds are concerned who have a desire for vengeance to be served, and call that justice.

Exactly. The whole concept of hell is about vengeance on those who may otherwise "get away with it". Of course, the problem is that hell also punished people who simply think differently.

This of course assumes the purely cynical view of religion as nothing but manipulation and exploration to control the unwashed masses.

Not so. Religion serves other purposes, not just the control of the masses.

It assumes, as I said before, the low-hanging fruit of a purely narcissistic approach to religious faith, that 'what's in it for me?'. "If I do the right things, I get a 'massive reward'."

Hardly "low-hanging fruit" though. That is essential what drives religious belief in most cases. Why else do you suggest people adhere to religious doctrine?

And then subsequently, if those who were terrible people their whole lives and waited until their deathbeds to do the right thing, that they get that 'massive reward' too?

The conversion has to be sincere, but yes. Under Christianity (and Islam), terrible people can not just avoid all punishment but also gain massive reward. That is the simple fact of the matter.

That's absolutely unjust to them. How is that fair, from the perspective of them getting their massive reward for doing the right thing their whole lives? That seems the core of this argument.

Indeed. It is a massive problem.

Of course you know that Jesus himself addresses this exact complaint in this parable? Matthew 20:1-16.

The workers who had come to work at five o'clock in the evening received one silver coin each. 10 The workers who had come to work first thought that they would receive more than the other workers. But each of them also received one silver coin. 11 When they received their money, they were not happy. They told the master that he had not been fair to them. 12 They said to him, “Some of these other workers came last and only worked for one hour. But you have paid them the same money as you paid us. And we have worked all day in the hot sun.”​

Yes. It is unfair if people get paid the same for one hour as people who have worked for twelve hours.​

My point here is that this illustrates, even in Jesus own teachings, that there is a low-hanging fruit of religion. And that is narcissism. "What's in it for me?"

No. Those people have a perfectly valid point.

And that is what this parable illustrates. But hand in hand with this is this idea of the afterlife as a place of "punishment". "Justice" to many is just another word for vengeance. And that is itself very much a self-centered thing. "I want them to pay! I do the right thing, and I get my reward for being good. It's not fair they should just get away, while I cannot! Punish them!" In other words, "make me feel better about my choice to be good instead of bad".

Correct.

That may be a little hard to understand the nuance of what I'm driving at here.

Not really (although I fail to see where the nuance lies).

But think of it like this. I'm sure you've heard Christians say to atheists, "If you don't believe in God, then what just keeps you from going out and killing someone?" Yes? Whenever I hear someone say this, I think yikes!, you mean to tell me the only reason you don't kill me is because you are either afraid of being punished, or are seeking a 'massive reward' for yourself at the end of the rainbow? That's horrible! That's not goodness at all. That says you are an evil person, not only because you would murder others if you felt no threats against you, but you are completely without any genuine internal moral compassion, and a complete lack of human compassion or empathy.

Again, correct. Although we all know that those people wouldn't be murdering if there was no god. It is a meaningless argument.

That is again, the low-hanging fruit. That is pure and utter selfishness. So the view of the afterlife as a place of getting rewards and punishments, in this sense for being either good boys and girls or bad, is purely self-interested and self-focused. It's not truly religious in the sense of spiritually mature, or transformative.

Not sure how that is "low hanging fruit".
If religionists say "this is my position", then sceptics can only address that position.

And it is that, that the unscrupulous who seek power over others, in their own self-interests, exploit and manipulate. It's also that low-hanging fruit, that the disillusioned cynic dismisses under the noble guise of "skepticism", calling religion nothing but this.

Not sure what point you were trying to make here.

I would modify this. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the cynic as false, by the wise as useful for spiritual transformation, and by the power-seekers to prey upon and make useful for themselves."

Question begging.
Why do you assume there is such a thing as "spiritual transformation"? And why can it only be achieved through religion?

 

[KWED]

To be clear, I didn't not say that this person, whom I've not listened to, is necessarily doing that. I was speaking of my experience with those like Dawkins and other, what are called "neo-atheists". I don't know about this person himself, that they aren't likewise just merely "anti-theists" (which is a better term, more accurate term than neo-atheist).

That's what I complain is simply attacking the low-hanging fruit of religion. And when confronted with anything more challenging than debating at that level, you get things like "That's not Christianity you're talking about", sorts of responses. Which proves my point. What they are calling religion, is the religion of Fundamentalists.

Now to your accusation that I "declined to present any". I did not decline anything. I simply pointed out that you seem to affirm that idea that someone who might argue something positive about religion, or theism for that matter, thinks a certain way. You automatically called it the "supernatural". My post was only to highlight that, not attempt to present my views about these things.

My answer to that is "simple", at least to me. There is no 'supernatural'. It's all natural, even though we may not now, or even ever be able to comprehend the true nature of Reality. I believe Reality, or "ultimate reality", is beyond rationally comprehending, even with our best sciences, now or in the future. But it is not beyond apprehending. It is 'transcendent", but it is fully, and immediately immanent. It is that "Mystery", that can be known. And some call that "God".

So now, between my previous post this morning, and now this one, I've scratched the surface a little on this. If Dillahunty could engage on these points, as opposed to seeing religion as nothing but superstition and a pre-rational magical twaddle, than great! I was simply saying I wasn't willing to invest 1.5 hours on a YouTube video to find out.

Sorry, still not clear what the "high-hanging fruit" arguments you are referring to are.
Or why you claim that addressing the arguments that people present is "picking low-hanging fruit".