(March 8, 2013 at 2:04 am)Lion IRC Wrote: My point is that the Christian can do something ''righteous'' and that Christian's Church would endorse it biblically. And that same Christian could also sin and they would for the very same reason, agree that the Church's admonishment was based on a standard set by the same God.

Your 'biblical endorsement' bullshit reminded me of the word 'guarantee'. I then couldn't help but think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf4C9ssuPjE

(March 17, 2013 at 1:28 am)Tonus Wrote:

(March 16, 2013 at 9:43 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: My point would be that the atheist could not do it because they would not think/hope there was going to be an afterlife.

Even if the theist DOES go to heaven they have STILL sacrificed their earthly/secular life while the atheist is still alive.

But the theist 'knows' that he has another existence to fall back on. You sacrifice one consciousness for another, better one....

No. They do not all know 100% for certain.
There are those who hope there is an afterlife and yet still doubt. There are those who do not presume their own salvation even if they DO think God definitely exists.
It's not a matter of simply buying your way into heaven by ''good works''.

The key point here is the comparison of like with like.
BOTH the atheist and the theist have a life to sacrifice.

Only the biblical theist can act in the belief of a ''bigger picture'' and so I think this answers the Hitchens wager because the atheist (who equally doesnt want to die) cant match that.

I heard one Christian guy, Mark Roberts, suggest to Christopher Hitchens that praying for someone would meet the challenge (atheists couldnt pray with integrity) but that was a stretch because the atheist wants proof that praying is actually ''doing'' something.

In the case of giving up ones life for no earthly reward, the consequences of the moral act are secular and tangible. It is irrelevant whether the Christian actually goes to heaven or not.
All that matters is the earthly consequence and that they did something which AFAICT the atheist couldnt justifiably do.

I would love to see an atheist scenario that rebuts my suggested answer to Hitchens challenge. Preferably a scenario which doesnt include naive idealism or unfalsifiable metaphysical ''woo''
or revealed wisdom such as the words ''greater love hath no man''

(March 18, 2013 at 12:03 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Only the biblical theist can act in the belief of a ''bigger picture'' and so I think this answers the Hitchens wager because the atheist (who equally doesnt want to die) cant match that.

What on earth makes you think this? Perhaps you only meant that the atheist and the theist are looking at different "bigger pictures". Not that the picture seems to have any effect of a persons ability to sacrifice. There are atheists in foxholes after all...
Go to Arlington, find an MOH headstone without a cross or a star of david on it. There you are. Some poor motherfucker sacrificed his godless life, most likely so that someone could one day claim that theists can sacrifice their lives in a way that atheists "just can't match".

(March 18, 2013 at 12:03 am)Lion IRC Wrote:

(March 17, 2013 at 1:28 am)Tonus Wrote: But the theist 'knows' that he has another existence to fall back on. You sacrifice one consciousness for another, better one....

No. They do not all know 100% for certain.
There are those who hope there is an afterlife and yet still doubt. There are those who do not presume their own salvation even if they DO think God definitely exists.
It's not a matter of simply buying your way into heaven by ''good works''.

The key point here is the comparison of like with like.
BOTH the atheist and the theist have a life to sacrifice.

Only the biblical theist can act in the belief of a ''bigger picture'' and so I think this answers the Hitchens wager because the atheist (who equally doesnt want to die) cant match that.

I heard one Christian guy, Mark Roberts, suggest to Christopher Hitchens that praying for someone would meet the challenge (atheists couldnt pray with integrity) but that was a stretch because the atheist wants proof that praying is actually ''doing'' something.

In the case of giving up ones life for no earthly reward, the consequences of the moral act are secular and tangible. It is irrelevant whether the Christian actually goes to heaven or not.
All that matters is the earthly consequence and that they did something which AFAICT the atheist couldnt justifiably do.

I would love to see an atheist scenario that rebuts my suggested answer to Hitchens challenge. Preferably a scenario which doesnt include naive idealism or unfalsifiable metaphysical ''woo''
or revealed wisdom such as the words ''greater love hath no man''

Society is a "bigger picture". Atheist die for their country plenty fold in the name of their society. "The greater happiness" is a "bigger picture" and this unselfishly contributed by both all the time. At least we can apply logic to these as to religion you can only apply faith. I tell the truth because it is both logical and moral not because sky daddy is watching. By the way Hitchens was better morally and intellectually than the god of the bible was.

(March 18, 2013 at 12:34 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 12:03 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Only the biblical theist can act in the belief of a ''bigger picture'' and so I think this answers the Hitchens wager because the atheist (who equally doesnt want to die) cant match that.

What on earth makes you think this? Perhaps you only meant that the atheist and the theist are looking at different "bigger pictures". Not that the picture seems to have any effect of a persons ability to sacrifice. There are atheists in foxholes after all...
Go to Arlington, find an MOH headstone without a cross or a star of david on it. There you are. Some poor motherfucker sacrificed his godless life, most likely so that someone could one day claim that theists can sacrifice their lives in a way that atheists "just can't match".

Getting killed with a gun in your hand isn't sacrificing your life.
It just means that the guy you wanted to kill.was a better aim than you.

(March 18, 2013 at 12:03 am)Lion IRC Wrote: No. They do not all know 100% for certain.
There are those who hope there is an afterlife and yet still doubt. There are those who do not presume their own salvation even if they DO think God definitely exists.
It's not a matter of simply buying your way into heaven by ''good works''.

But earlier you said you "thought the best contender would be laying down your earthly life for your fellow humans with no earthly reward. (ie. no insurance policy payout to your surviving relatives.) Self-sacrifice purely for love, done in the faith that there is an afterlife." And it may not be a matter of buying your way into heaven, but that doesn't mean that someone who sacrifices his life doesn't have that reward as an expectation. I find it hard to believe that a theist can disregard such an important factor in making the decision to offer his life for another, since it's the only difference between him and the atheist. Once you remove it, they're on common ground.

Lion IRC Wrote:The key point here is the comparison of like with like.
BOTH the atheist and the theist have a life to sacrifice.

Only the biblical theist can act in the belief of a ''bigger picture'' and so I think this answers the Hitchens wager because the atheist (who equally doesnt want to die) cant match that.

If we remove the reward the only true concern is the practical one. And on that level the atheist might even be ahead; it stands to reason that atheists are more likely to consider the practical consequences of their actions, having no mystcial considerations to mind. There is no reason to think that one "cannot" match the other when the circumstances are the same.

Lion IRC Wrote:I heard one Christian guy, Mark Roberts, suggest to Christopher Hitchens that praying for someone would meet the challenge (atheists couldnt pray with integrity) but that was a stretch because the atheist wants proof that praying is actually ''doing'' something.

So is he admitting that using prayer is a bad test because it wouldn't be possible to prove that it works? And that therefore, it's better to use another option, where the rewards are equally impossible to prove (at least to those who remain behind)?

If the argument is that a person is more likely to sacrifice his life based on beliefs that he cannot validate, but only have, well you've got me there. People have been moved to do some extraordinary things driven by nothing more than self-delusion. Few of them as beneficial as self-sacrifice, I'm guessing.

Lion IRC Wrote:In the case of giving up ones life for no earthly reward, the consequences of the moral act are secular and tangible. It is irrelevant whether the Christian actually goes to heaven or not.
All that matters is the earthly consequence and that they did something which AFAICT the atheist couldnt justifiably do.

Why do you assume that the atheist would not take the practical choice, given the same end result? If you remove the tangible reward for sacrificing one's life, what is the 'bigger picture' that compels one to act and not the other?

Lion IRC Wrote:I would love to see an atheist scenario that rebuts my suggested answer to Hitchens challenge. Preferably a scenario which doesnt include naive idealism or unfalsifiable metaphysical ''woo''
or revealed wisdom such as the words ''greater love hath no man"

Well, once you remove the metaphysical "woo" they're both in the same place. Why would you claim that the atheist "cannot" (as opposed to would not) make the same decision? If they both face the same end result and know this, what compels the theist to act, and why couldn't the atheist find the same or better motivation?

(March 18, 2013 at 6:27 am)Tonus Wrote:

(March 18, 2013 at 12:03 am)Lion IRC Wrote: No. They do not all know 100% for certain.
There are those who hope there is an afterlife and yet still doubt. There are those who do not presume their own salvation even if they DO think God definitely exists.
It's not a matter of simply buying your way into heaven by ''good works''.

But earlier you said you "thought the best contender would be laying down your earthly life for your fellow humans with no earthly reward. (ie. no insurance policy payout to your surviving relatives.) Self-sacrifice purely for love, done in the faith that there is an afterlife." And it may not be a matter of buying your way into heaven, but that doesn't mean that someone who sacrifices his life doesn't have that reward as an expectation. I find it hard to believe that a theist can disregard such an important factor in making the decision to offer his life for another, since it's the only difference between him and the atheist. Once you remove it, they're on common ground.

The scenario is that neither the atheist nor the theist gains any earthly reward. Thats a level playing field. The challenge would be for the atheist to show a corresponding sacrifice for no earthly gain.

(March 18, 2013 at 6:27 am)Tonus Wrote:

Lion IRC Wrote:I heard one Christian guy, Mark Roberts, suggest to Christopher Hitchens that praying for someone would meet the challenge (atheists couldnt pray with integrity) but that was a stretch because the atheist wants proof that praying is actually ''doing'' something.

So is he admitting that using prayer is a bad test because it wouldn't be possible to prove that it works? And that therefore, it's better to use another option, where the rewards are equally impossible to prove (at least to those who remain behind)?

If the atheist is allowed to invoke an accusation against the theist that the possibility of heaven is a theist's ''reward'' for laying down one's life, then the act of praying should be put back onto the table as a moral action that an atheist couldnt do.

If the atheist says heaven doesnt exist, then going to heaven cant be called a reward. And if praying isnt seen as a moral action because atheists say there is no One listening, then it falls into the same category.

But these acts, (that an atheist couldnt do,) can result in very real, positive moral outcomes in terms of human happiness and good will even if the atheist says heaven and prayer can't be empirically verified.

(March 18, 2013 at 3:12 am)Lion IRC Wrote: Getting killed with a gun in your hand isn't sacrificing your life.
It just means that the guy you wanted to kill.was a better aim than you.

Perhaps you should read the MOH recipients "resumes" for yourself, before I start berating you for being ignorant. It's rare, this sort of gimme from me. Sufficeth to say, one does not get the MOH for "getting killed with a gun in their hands"........ and almost to the man, they had to sacrifice their lives for the distinction. Another common denominator amongst MOH recipients was that their enemies were very good shots, many of them suffering an absurd number of wounds while dragging others to safety or assaulting a position with complete disregard for their own lives to the benefit of their compatriots...or defending a position against impossible odds.

No, never mind, that was an ignorant response. No gimmes.

(March 18, 2013 at 10:13 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: If the atheist is allowed to invoke an accusation against the theist that the possibility of heaven is a theist's ''reward'' for laying down one's life, then the act of praying should be put back onto the table as a moral action that an atheist couldnt do.

If the atheist says heaven doesnt exist, then going to heaven cant be called a reward. And if praying isnt seen as a moral action because atheists say there is no One listening, then it falls into the same category.

Except that you believe that you will go to heaven, and that affects your actions. You live your life as a theist under the assumption that your death isn't permanent and that afterwards you'll spend eternity in paradise, especially if you do good things.

It's not so much a matter of the reward one gets, but of how the promise of that reward alters the motivations behind actions; the sacrifice a theist makes is necessarily less selfless because to them, the death they are going to isn't permanent, and the life they are giving up was only a pit stop on the way to something greater, anyway.

By contrast, the atheist is giving up everything when they sacrifice themselves. It's a question of motivation, not reward; either one of us could die and discover that we were wrong about our beliefs, that doesn't invalidate the thought experiment entirely. Neither of us can say anything conclusive about the actual reward, only about the motivations one has in the real world.

(March 18, 2013 at 10:13 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: The scenario is that neither the atheist nor the theist gains any earthly reward. Thats a level playing field. The challenge would be for the atheist to show a corresponding sacrifice for no earthly gain.

You cannot remove the reward of an afterlife from the table, because it's an important part of the theist's belief system. Lacking that, the theist is in exactly the same situation as the atheist, and there is no reason to think that they will act differently.

Lion IRC Wrote:But these acts, (that an atheist couldnt do,) can result in very real, positive moral outcomes in terms of human happiness and good will even if the atheist says heaven and prayer can't be empirically verified.

Aren't those positive outcomes dependent on the prayer having an effect? Is it the case that every time a theist prays, his prayer is answered? Or is the theist occasionally (perhaps frequently) disappointed, and how will this affect his happiness and good will? Or is it a form of the Placebo Effect, where a person believes prayer will help, and is thus motivated to take the steps necessary to improve his situation?

An atheist would not be helped by prayer, that is true. He'd be left to his own devices and not dependent on a capricious being who might answer his prayer or might decide that he wasn't deserving.