Why Do The Skeptics Take The Chance At Being Wrong When They Don't Have To?
Why is it so important to them to take that chance? Has their delusions been so real to them that, even though they have no evidence or facts to support their delusions, to stick with them? They keep demanding my brothers and sisters and I to prove that God is alive and His Word is Truth by pulling this burden of proof nonsense on us. Why can't they see the fact that, since God already has proven Himself to mankind by His Word and His Work, the burden of proof is on them instead of us?
They see the evidence but they will not accept it as evidence. They want to believe that this came about by some freak accident and allow the fairy tale of evolution to take over in their distorted thinking. What are they afraid of? Why do they run when faced with the Truth? Don't they know that God doesn't wish to harm them when they humble themselves and seek His Face?
It's certain that they are afraid of hell fire. They want to believe that hell doesn't exist. In order to accomplish this, they must also believe that God doesn't live, or even heaven doesn't exist. They'll probably read this and laugh and mock and ridicule, but, they'll never prove what they want to believe is true. Hell was not meant for man at all, it was meant for the devil and his angels. Unfortunately, a lot people believe that it was meant for man as well, which isn't true.
God hates this because letting some of His beloved creation enter into hell breaks His heart. People don't realize that when they enter hell, that they'll discover, what God already knows, that it's a place of torment which no man or woman could with stand.
Their heart knowledge seeks after the Truth of God and not the lies of men.
Again, why would skeptics want to take the chance at being wrong when they don't have to?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
You premise is false and appears to be yet another refrain of Pascal's Wager.
Atheists aren't taking a chance as if it is a deliberate gamble nor are they demanding anything unreasonable.
The simple fact is that the Atheist is unconvinced by the arguments and evidence that the Theist brings to the table. The Atheist can no more decide to be convinced by that which they find unconvincing than you can. In the same way that you could not make the choice that you believe Santa Claus is real.
lol you say that every time now and it hasn't been that long...but you've avoided the point i made, that point being that belief is not a choice but a conviction. Do you disagree with that point? Yes or no?
Do you have evidence or don't you?
I doubt it because what evidence can there be which disproves a supernatural claim? And that's not a rhetorical question, i want you to answer it if you can: Hypothetically, what manner of evidence would be such that it could disprove the existence of god?
If you cannot think of even an imaginary example then you must admit that your claim is not falsifiable in which case your challenge is illogical.
you say that every time now and it hasn't been that long...but you've avoided the point i made, that point being that belief is not a choice but a conviction.
You still have a choice whether you're convicted or not.
SW-User
@GodSpeed63 The problem is that the deluded substitute testimonial evidence for testable evidence. They vastly lower the quality of truth by vastly lowering the standard for proof.
You still have a choice whether you're convicted or not.
With God as your witness, attempt right now to make the choice that you believe Santa Claus is real. Were you successful?
If you can swear in God's name that you were then i will concede the point. If you cannot honestly say that you were successful then you necessarily concede that belief is not a choice and one is either convinced or not.
Ok...oh i wasn't successful. I am convinced that my mother and father are real. I've done what you asked and now you will do as i asked: With God as your witness, attempt right now to make the choice that you believe Santa Claus is real.
I asked you a question, you demanded i answer a question of yours first and i showed you the respect of obliging. You need to show me the same respect and answer my question before i answer more of yours.
With God as your witness, attempt right now to make the choice that you believe Santa Claus is real.
Since you refuse to offer me the same courtesy than i granted to you, why don't we cut to then end. Make your point in full and then answer my question.
Great, glad we sorted that out. Now that i've answered your (second) question, you promised to answer mine so here it is: With God as your witness, attempt right now to make the choice that you believe Santa Claus is real and flies around the world in a magic sled delivering presents to kids at Christmas.
Since you believe it is a sin to be dishonest and you would surely not sin over something as petty as an internet discussion, I'll put this down to you misunderstanding my question.
You already got your answer, move on.
Please don't be rude. Anyway, i gave you TWO answers in response to your questions so you still owe me another😉 To be clear: I was NOT asking you if you believed there to be a historical figure upon which the myth is based nor if you believed in a symbol represented by that myth.
The question i am interested in the answer to was if you were able to make the choice that you believe Santa Claus is real and flies around the world in a magic sled delivering presents to kids at Christmas. So...were you successful?
So please show me the same respect i showed you and answer that question.
It's a sin to be dishonest. You're sinning against your god because you don't want to lose face on the internet. Obviously you don't love god as much as you pretend.....
You answered one, i answered two. You still owe me one.
Please, do not bring subject up again
lol If you want resect you must give it. I asked you if you were successful at the task a set you. And to cut short any more of your dishonest tap-dancing: No, of course you were not successful. You could not make the choice to be convinced of something you found unconvincing which is why you attempted to play silly games and agree to something of which you already were convinced.
You proved my point. I just wish you were able to prove it through discussion rather than clumsy dishonesty.....
