NationStates Jolt Archive

Searching through a book of religious quotations, I found this gem by Blaise Pascal from his work Pensées. It’s called Pascal’s Wager, and some of you may already be familiar with the concept. The full text is pretty long, so for those of you who don’t feel like a page and a half of philosophy, I’ve cut it down to the most important few lines, which pretty much sums it up:

Either God exists, or he does not exist. To which view should we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. An infinite distance separates us from the answer. At the far end of this distance a coin is being spun which will come heads or tails. How will you wager? If you win, you win everything. If you lose, you lose nothing, So do not hesitate; wager that God exists.

There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.

Before you launch into debate, there is one point I would like to clarify. While Pascal does not mention hell, and though he does not state it explicitly here, Pascal did believe that all Atheists, indeed all non-Christians, were predestined to hell, and this is a sentiment that I, at least, pick up in this writing. I would like to point out that I do not harbour this belief (I’m Catholic, and the belief that all non-believers go to hell has been a heresy since the Second Vatican Council). In this respect, therefore, I believe this challenge I have set down is more aimed at those who intentionally live a life of sin and immorality under the pretext that God does not exist. However, atheism is still a sin, and therefore this challenge is still there for all those that deny the existence of God.

The fuller text of Pascal’s Wager is as follows. Don’t feel you have to read it all.

We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that numbers are not finite. Thus there is an infinite number, even though we do not know what it is. This infinite number is neither even nor odd, because it cannot be changed by adding a unit. And yet it is a number, and every number is even or odd.

Therefore we may say that God exists, even though we do not know what he is. We do not know the size of God, nor the time since his inception because he is infinite and eternal. Yet by faith we know his existence, and ultimately we shall encounter him.

Who then, can blame Christians for not being able to give rational grounds for their beliefs? They do not profess a rational foundation for their faith. They declare openly that faith is folly; so no one should complain that they cannot prove it. If they could prove it, their declaration of folly would be dishonest. The lack of proof shows that they do not lack honesty.

'Yes,' you agree, 'but although this absolves them from charges of dishonesty, it does not absolve them from charges of irrationality.' We can respond to your point by saying, 'Either God exists, or he does not exist.' To which view should we be inclined? Reason cannot decide this question. An infinite distance separates us from the answer. At the far end of this distance a coin is being spun which will come heads or tails. How will you wager? Reason cannot prove your choice right or wrong.

Do not condemn as wrong those who have made a choice, since your choice is not better than theirs. 'No,' you reply, 'I will not condemn them for making a particular choice. But I will condemn them for making any choice. The one who calls heads and the one who calls tails are equally at fault. The proper response is not to wager at all.'

Yes, but you must wager. On that there is no choice; you are already committed. Which will you choose? Since a choice must be made, we must see which is the least bad. You have two things to lose: truth and happiness. You have two things at stake: your reason and your happiness. And you have two things to avoid: error and misery. Since you must necessarily choose, your reason is no more affronted by choosing one rather than the other. So this point is cleared up. How about your happiness? Let us weigh up the gain and the loss in calling heads that God exists. If you win, you win everything. If you lose, you lose nothing, So do not hesitate; wager that God exists.

Let us change the odds, and assume that there is one chance of winning against a large number of chances of loosing. Yet that number is finite. The prize of winning, by contrast, is infinite: it is infinite and eternal happiness. This leaves no choice: where the prize is infinite, but the chances of losing are finite, you must place everything on winning the prize.

'This is unfair,' you protest. 'I am not free to act and speak as I want. I am being forced to wager. I am not free, but in chains. My nature is such that I cannot believe. So what do you want me to do?'

'Your protests are justified,' we reply. 'But you should understand that your own selfish desires are the obstacles preventing belief. Thus, although reason impels you towards faith, your desires impede you. The solution, then, lies not in further argument, in which you multiply the proofs of God's existence; but rather in controlling your desires. You want to find faith, and yet you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and yet you ask for a remedy. Learn from those who were once like you, and now wager all they have. They are the people who know the road you wish to follow, and you have been cured of the affliction from which you suffer. Follow their path. They began to believe as if they believed, participating in religious worship, and obeying the moral teachings of religion; and gradually their souls followed their behaviour - they became quite docile.'

'That is what I am afraid of,' you reply.

'But you have no reason for fear,' we say, 'because you have nothing to lose. What harm can come to you from choosing this course? You will become faithful, honest, humble, grateful and charitable; you will become a true and sincere friend. Certainly you will no longer enjoy the pleasures that destroy the soul and weaken the body; but you will be far happier. You will benefit even in this life. And at every step you take, you will become more certain of the future benefits. In the end you will realise that you have wagered on something without either risk or cost.

Maybe atheists go to heaven and everyone else goes to hell

Dude. Pascal has been refuted in here hundreds of times, if not thousands.

Next.

Dude. Pascal has been refuted in here hundreds of times, if not thousands.

Next.

How? Please explain, I'm not really the most experienced NS General player.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn shall smite thee!

im not going to believe in god just because it seems better. what makes you so sure your betting on the right side? is it just for the sake of having comfort?

Pascal's Wager is flawed because it presumes Christianity and atheism to be the only two possible choices, and seems to also assume someone can just force themselves to believe in something they honestly don't believe in.

Furthermore, if God doesn't exist, you won't lose nothing. You'll have wasted much time and effort obeying the tenets of a false religion rather than being yourself and enjoying what you enjoy.

Perhaps my definition of "Folly" is a bit different from yours...But I can't suppose this is a very pursuasive argument to anyone at all.

"Belive because you lose nothing by believing" To gain some understanding of the world, some lense to see the world through...And what do you lose by choosing one lense over another?

Well...everything and nothing.

Why don't you believe in any number of other religions? Why not believe in Shinto beliefs? You're not Japanese, but why take that chance? Pray to Zeus so you don't get hit by thunderbolts? It may not help, but why risk it?

I can't begin to cover all the reasons "Why not" is not as good as "why"...Come back when you have "WHY" one believes in god, not "why not believe in god, its better than nothing".

Seriously, if they are actually atheistic, how empty must one's beliefs be for them to say, "Oh, a Christian God? Why not. I'm free this Sunday."

EBH, I think that you are going to be cannon fodder for the seasoned arguers on this forum...

Pascal's Wager is flawed because it presumes Christianity and atheism to be the only two possible choices, and seems to also assume someone can just force themselves to believe in something they honestly don't believe in.

That's only Pascal's way of saying. He was Jansenist, so he though that any religion other than Christianity was as bad as atheism. However, the basic point still stands, Atheists are risking the loss of a finite life of happiness followed by an infinity of happiness, in exchange for a finite life of pleasure.

As for the "forcing to believe" thng, you may want to read the full thing.

Pascal sucks. Read Future of an Illusion.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I am God. I hate you, and I'm planning on sending you to hell in the afterlife, but I will reconsider if you send me a one-off payment of $50.

Think about it
If you send me the money and I'm God, you win bigtime.
If you don't send me the money and I'm God, you lose bigtime.
If you send me the money and I'm not God, all you lose is 50 measely bucks. Compared to, say, the Christian religion, which requires a couple of hours of worship every week and 10% of your income, that's pretty cheap.

I look forward to recieving your payment.

Sincerely, God. (Sventria)

EBH, I think that you are going to be cannon fodder for the seasoned arguers on this forum...

Hey FB.

That's why I posted it. I cant see how Athiesm can hold water if Pascal's Wager holds, so I want to see it disproven. Converting the atheists would be too easy otherwise :D

Pascal's Wager - ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/pascal_w.htm)

The Atheist's Wager (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html)

Apologia Atheos: Pascal's Wager Refuted (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm)

And because I imagine you didn't understand the Invisible Pink Unicorn comment:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn Home Page (http://www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/)

The Invisible Pink Unicorn - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn)

The Invisible Pink Unicorn shall smite thee!
It's not an invisible pink unicorn. It's a great blue handkerchief!

I'll let you in on a little secret. I am God. I hate you, and I'm planning on sending you to hell in the afterlife, but I will reconsider if you send me a one-off payment of $50.

Think about it
If you send me the money and I'm God, you win bigtime.
If you don't send me the money and I'm God, you lose bigtime.
If you send me the money and I'm not God, all you lose is 50 measely bucks. Compared to, say, the Christian religion, which requires a couple of hours of worship every week and 10% of your income, that's pretty cheap.

I look forward to recieving your payment.

Sincerely, God. (Sventria)

:D I like you. You have Cynisim down to an art.

Christianity gives me peace and happiness in this lifetime, as opposed to giving you money, which doesn't.

That's only Pascal's way of saying. He was Jansenist, so he though that any religion other than Christianity was as bad as atheism. However, the basic point still stands, Atheists are risking the loss of a finite life of happiness followed by an infinity of happiness, in exchange for a finite life of pleasure.

As for the "forcing to believe" thng, you may want to read the full thing.

Christians are risking the loss of immortality in Valhalla, where roast boar and mead abound. The heavy, sinful souls of Christians will outweigh the Feather of Truth placed on the scales by Anubis, and they will be devoured by Ammet, Eater of Souls.

See where I'm going with this? It's just a flawed argument. And I HAVE read the whole thing--look, think of it this way. Can you believe in leprechauns? There's no evidence but a bunch of fables, but can you believe in them? No? Well, I can't believe in a god with no evidence behind it but a bunch of stories that have as much validity as the tales of Thor and the words of a few people who say "Well gosh, the world's really pretty, so God must have made it right?"

I'll let you in on a little secret. I am God. I hate you, and I'm planning on sending you to hell in the afterlife, but I will reconsider if you send me a one-off payment of $50.

Think about it
If you send me the money and I'm God, you win bigtime.
If you don't send me the money and I'm God, you lose bigtime.
If you send me the money and I'm not God, all you lose is 50 measely bucks. Compared to, say, the Christian religion, which requires a couple of hours of worship every week and 10% of your income, that's pretty cheap.

I look forward to recieving your payment.

Sincerely, God. (Sventria)

I've seen that website where the guy has a Paypal account set up accepting donations for people to hedge their bets with. I can't remember it for the life of me.

Christians are risking the loss of immortality in Valhalla, where roast boar and mead abound. The heavy, sinful hearts of Christians will outweigh the Feather of Truth placed on the scales by Anubis, and they will be devoured by Ammet, Eater of Souls.

See where I'm going with this? It's just a flawed argument. And I HAVE read the whole thing--look, think of it this way. Can you believe in leprechauns? There's no evidence but a bunch of fables, but can you believe in them? No? Well, I can't believe in a god with no evidence behind it but a bunch of stories that have as much validity as the tales of Thor and the words of a few people who say "Well gosh, the world's really pretty, so God must have made it right?"

'Your protests are justified,' we reply. 'But you should understand that your own selfish desires are the obstacles preventing belief. Thus, although reason impels you towards faith, your desires impede you. The solution, then, lies not in further argument, in which you multiply the proofs of God's existence; but rather in controlling your desires. You want to find faith, and yet you do not know the road. You want to be cured of unbelief, and yet you ask for a remedy. Learn from those who were once like you, and now wager all they have. They are the people who know the road you wish to follow, and you have been cured of the affliction from which you suffer. Follow their path. They began to believe as if they believed, participating in religious worship, and obeying the moral teachings of religion; and gradually their souls followed their behaviour - they became quite docile.'

Look Familliar?

You act as if faith is something you can suddenly just aquire, and that changing religious beliefs is like changing clothes. I honestly do not believe there is a god, and no amount of fear is going to change that. I might pay lip service out of fear, but to truly believe something because I am afraid? Not very likely. Right now I would make shitty christian, and I doubt that would get me into heaven anyway.

Look Familliar?

You didn't respond to my argument. Pascal assumes I want to believe, but won't because I'm selfish and sinful. That's a bunch of horseshit. I can't believe because there's no compelling evidence backing up the Christian claim. To become a Christian now would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme, simply lying to oneself.

Why is it "folly" to choose one side of the coin over the other. The main problem that I have with the christian religions is that you live your life to die. Everything you do and every decision you make is based on your death and going somewhere "better". So, you ultimatly live your life to die. Well I say live your life to live. Do what you want, sin a little, live a little and die happy. Where you go from there is all just a flip of the coin anyways isn't it?

You act as if faith is something you can suddenly just aquire, and that changing religious beliefs is like changing clothes. I honestly do not believe there is a god, and no amount of fear is going to change that. I might pay lip service out of fear, but to truly believe something because I am afraid? Not very likely. Right now I would make shitty christian, and I doubt that would get me into heaven anyway.

I am under no illusions as to how hard faith is to aquire.

There are two things about what pascal says that arent true. First of all there arent just two sides.
There is the side of atheists and there are the sides of all the different religions in the world. How do you know to believe in God or Allah or Boeda or the greath big pink hamster up in the sky? If you bet on the wrong side you still got a lot of problems.
Maybe it is smarter not to bet on any side and just hope that what is really out there (if anything) is nice enough to let ppl that dont believe go to hell (or eqiuvilant like reincarnating in a ant).
There is no way to know what the rules of this higher being are, so there is no way you know you are doing the right things. And maybe beliving in God and reading the Bible is pissing of Allah or maybe reading the Koran and believing in Allah is pissing of God.

The second thing is that you do have a lot to lose by following most religions. Most of the want you to stop doing things. Some of witch you would never even do (like murder). But some you really like.
I like having sex. I wouldnt want to wait till i get marryed. I have that to lose. And a milion other things. Some religions even want you to believe you are a sinner with almost everything you do. I dont want to think im bad and feel depressed all day long just because there might be a very very small change (small change because there is know way to know what She/He wants) that is what the higher being wants.

I dont say i have the solution. I just try to live my live and not hurt other ppl with my actions. And when there is a change help somebody i try. And i just hope that my sense of what is good is also what the higher being thinks is good. But well no way of knowing so im just going to have fun.

Christians should make life for themselves easier: children, after their first prayer, are murdered, so they end up in the good afterlife for sure. That speeds things up considerably and the kids get into heaven.

If I win the lotto, I win millions of dollars. If I lose, I only lose a buck. Why don't I try to win the lotto? Because I'm not an idiot who wastes a dollar on something with an extremely small chance of winning. I could use that dollar to something I know will make me happy. I might miss out on millions of dollars, but its much more likely I will come out better than the other lotto players.

Hey FB.

That's why I posted it. I cant see how Athiesm can hold water if Pascal's Wager holds, so I want to see it disproven. Converting the atheists would be too easy otherwise :D

You can't convert atheists (well, not proper atheists. If they're only "pseudo-atheists" that do it for the attention then it's easy) though. They seem to be determined to make complete asses out of themselves.

You didn't respond to my argument. Pascal assumes I want to believe, but won't because I'm selfish and sinful. That's a bunch of horseshit. I can't believe because there's no compelling evidence backing up the Christian claim. To become a Christian now would be intellectually dishonest in the extreme, simply lying to oneself.

We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that numbers are not finite. Thus there is an infinite number, even though we do not know what it is. This infinite number is neither even nor odd, because it cannot be changed by adding a unit. And yet it is a number, and every number is even or odd.

Therefore we may say that God exists, even though we do not know what he is. We do not know the size of God, nor the time since his inception because he is infinite and eternal. Yet by faith we know his existence, and ultimately we shall encounter him.

Who then, can blame Christians for not being able to give rational grounds for their beliefs? They do not profess a rational foundation for their faith. They declare openly that faith is folly; so no one should complain that they cannot prove it. If they could prove it, their declaration of folly would be dishonest. The lack of proof shows that they do not lack honesty.

Pascal does argue that down. Anyho, I'm going now, so if anyone feels like continuing their abuse of me and the Wager, feel free to telegram me.

Look Familliar?
Actually, reason impels me away from faith.

"What Has Athens To Do With Jerusalem?" - Tertullian

It wasn't abused - it was shot down, quite easily. Now go into your corner and cry, because it didn't work out as planned :D

Pascal does argue that down. Anyho, I'm going now, so if anyone feels like continuing their abuse of me and the Wager, feel free to telegram me.

Cop-out. Expecting someone to believe something with no evidence behind it whatsoever is foolish.

I've seen that website where the guy has a Paypal account set up accepting donations for people to hedge their bets with. I can't remember it for the life of me.

I think this is what you're thinking of.

http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php


Christianity gives me peace and happiness in this lifetime, as opposed to giving you money, which doesn't.


Ahh, but giving me money will lessen your fear of death at least as much as going to church as a bet will lessen mine.

On an unrelated note, daydreams give me a sense of peace and happiness, but I don't believe in those. ;)

meh.

didnt have the patience to read through the whole thing, but i think ive got enough of an idea of where this is going.

personally, im prolly somewhere 'twixt an antheist and an agnositic. i dont really care enough to specify any further.

i think this ties into the whole religion=morality misconception.

i believe i have morals, but many would disagree.

basically, i try to get by in my life without causing any harm to others. not sure whether i believe/disbelieve in any sort of god-like being or whatever, im just trying to get by a day at at time...

generally, i dont steal, because i think its bad due to the harm it causes other's.
i generally dont lie, because of the potential harm it can do to others(depending on situation), plus, it gets rather tiresome trying to keep up with lies and maintain them.


on the other hand, if the sole reason im going to 'burn in hell' or whatever, is simply because i wont pray to/worship/whatever some diety, then, well, i dont want any of that supposed 'paradise' or whatever. if all said diety wants is lip service, then, well, they will have to look elsewhere. on the otherhand, if they just want people to be decent to each other, then hopefully they will recognize my attempts towards that, regardless of whether i believe in their existance or not.

plus, i think its sorta fake to take on some set of morals or something just out of fear of punishment (i.e., going to hell) or to recieve a reward (i.e., go to heaven) but, if thats what you base your system on, then, whatever.

I think this is what you're thinking of.

http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.php

That'd be the one. Thank you kindly, sir/madam.

One thing the original poster isn't considering is faith. When you weigh out the situation as a cost-benefit analysis, Pascal is saying that people who don't believe in God just should do so anyway. But wouldn't God say something to the effect of "Well, just because you want to get in to heaven doesn't necessarily count as faith, therefore you go to hell." That makes sense to me. More accurately, God would probably say "I don't f-cking exist. Quit debating about me and enjoy the few moments you have on Earth. Do something more meaningful than trying to convert people who already think you're an idiot." But that's just my opinion. :mp5:

Um...

Some theologians posit that there is a special place reserved in hell for people who believe in God based on Pascal's Wager. Wanna fix your argument?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn shall smite thee!

all hail the invisible pink unicorn!

pascal's wager can't get you anywhere.
1) there are an infinite number of possible dieties
2) each of those infinite dieties has an infinite variety of choices in terms of reward and punishment
3) each of those infinite dieties have an infinite number of criteria for deciding how to dish out that infinite variety of rewards and punishments.

your chances of picking the right diety are vanishingly small; non-existent really. even if you happen to guess right, that doesn't guarantee you get a reward. the real god may just punish everybody. or maybe they reward everybody. or maybe they only punish those who believe in them. etc. the wager gives no rational reason to choose any particular god over another.

it certainly wouldn't lead you to the proper faith. after all, the only reward you can hope for in the true faith is to be eaten first.

http://img254.echo.cx/img254/3083/cthulhu166ed.jpg

That's only Pascal's way of saying. He was Jansenist, so he though that any religion other than Christianity was as bad as atheism. However, the basic point still stands, Atheists are risking the loss of a finite life of happiness followed by an infinity of happiness, in exchange for a finite life of pleasure.

As for the "forcing to believe" thng, you may want to read the full thing.
Well. I hate to break it to you, Pascal went to hell. Even if he bet on the right religion. Sorry, it's the curse of his Dogma. Having spent some time examining these questions, it's pretty clear. Christianity requires an act of faith. The believe without proof. You're aloud to question, even pointedly, and God directly, but you're not allowed to doubt God. Knowing, having material evidence makes pure faith all but impossible. (Which makes all the creationist arguments all the more ammusing). And it's pretty clear that in the business of soul judging God's not doing it in Monte Carlo. So if one accepts that He's all-knowing, one accepts that He'll be able to seperate the true believers from those playing the odds. But that's given a rather pedestrian view of God. I like a more erudite view where the argument for faith is more of a subtle statistical argument, and because it's hard to trust in, it's just better to lie to people about it. It's for their own good.

I mean really. Read Pascal's quote. You think that Jehovah would get conned by Sisyphus? What kind of omniscience is that? Who would demand such a small, impotent, and easily decieved God? And why would anyone trust in him? Clearly He can't be the best judge of character, if Pascal's correct.

Pascal's wager, as has been said before, has been criticised many times.
To summerise them:

1) It assumes there is only a choice between Christianity and non-Christianity
2) It assumes the basic tenets of Christianity are uncontested, and can be easily followed
3) It assumes that believing is the soul criteria for going between heaven and hell
4) It assumes that a selfish belief - i.e. believing so you can get into heaven - is acceptable, when this actually seems morally reprehensible

There's probably many more to list, but that's not the point I want to make here.
What really pisses me off is atheists AND believers who are convinced the other sides views are unteneable, and insist on assuming THEY are right. Anyone who's done a bit of philosophy reading knows that every argument inevitably recieves a counter-argument, and then a counter-counter-argument. This is all intellectually fun, but should it be the basis of asserting you're views are absolutely right?
Read more widely - you'll realise that things are as simple as one side is wrong, the other is right.
In fact, the certain belief in such simple divides is actually very childish - nothing in this world is black or white, and to portray it as such is dangerous.

nothing in this world is black and white, and to portray it as such is dangerous.


Skunks.

Newspapers.

Nun's clothing.

One thing is for certain, none of you, and I mean none of you truly has the answer to that question. Not even me, for that matter. It just gives you all something contentious to dispute in this forum. And to flash your rapier wit at someone's expense. Atheists just love to do that. Or so it seems. I could do that as well, for that matter, but it is kinda pointless to do so. You cannot prove His non-existence to me any more than I can prove His existence to you. On the surface, any and all arguments of every kind can be disssected and analyzed until a "fault" is found, then dismissed. This usually comes soon after a salient point is discovered within the construct that clashes headlong with what we want to be recognized as the "truth". The answer to Pascal's Wager will be revealed to one and all after we all have gone, and then it will be far too late to change your minds (or mine). I believe in God, it is not something measurable or quantifiable, to be proven or disproven, it simply is. I don't criticize other folks for their beliefs (or lack thereof). We all take our chances. Roll them bones. I just know that I believe in Him, and it brings me peace. I was an agnostic once (I had always tried to keep an open mind, some of you should try it sometime.), and it did nothing for me but raise more questions. :headbang:

Invisible Pink Unicorn?

How utterly ridiculous.

The only true god is Eris.

it did nothing for me but raise more questions. You don't like questions? ;)
Atheists just love to do that. Way to prove your point with idiotic generalizations! :rolleyes:
I just know that I believe in Him, and it brings me peace.
I know that belief in a singular deity is pointless and illogical, unless of course that deity happens to be pink and invisible of course. :D

What it boils down to is the question of what is "Proof".
Can I prove that God doesnt exist?
No.

But I can prove that there is no proof that he does exist.
Is that evidence?

I prefer other methods to explain my view on athiesm.

There is no proof that god loves you.

There is no proof that God cares anything about you, or anyone else.

In a murder trial, there is the law of "Corpus Dilecti" (I probably spelled that wrong, anyway...)
It says that there must be a corpse, or enough of a corpse, to proove that someone was indeed murdered.

I tend to liken that to Theism.
I'll believe in your God, when you show me that there is indeed one.

Yeah. Saw that one coming. I didn't think it was necessary to mention the joys of quoting out of context, though.

Got to admit that at least Backwood Squatches managed to make his point without being abusive, though. Someone else (Falhar, for instance) must have felt threatened or he wouldn't have felt the need to build up his argument by attempting to dismantle mine. :p

I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance....

I believe this challenge I have set down is more aimed at those who intentionally live a life of sin and immorality under the pretext that God does not exist.
Emphasis added to above quote

I despise people who slam the author of an argument, but this is not what I'm trying to do. I merely want to ask a question for my own benefit... why do you equate atheism with immorality? An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god, or at least doesn't worship a god. An immoral person is someone who, knowing the difference between right and wrong, chooses to do wrong.

I have friends of many different religious beliefs, and it is my observation that my atheist friends tend to have stricter moral codes than the Christians, and that they're more likely to uphold those morals. How does being Christian make someone moral? After all, Hitler was Christian, but I doubt anyone would call him a moral person. Well, not anyone who doesn't need to undergo serious psychoanalysis, anyway. I am not claiming that all atheists are moral, either. I am simply trying to say that an atheist is just as likely to be moral or immoral as a Christian, and vice versa.

Anyone responding to this will please be kind enough to forego the "but Hitler wasn't a 'true' Christian" argument. I define a Christian as someone who believes Jesus Christ to be the messiah. End of discussion.

*Sits back to watch and see how many accuse one of being an atheist.*

Got to admit that at least Backwood Squatches managed to make his point without being abusive, though. Someone else (Falhar, for instance) must have felt threatened or he wouldn't have felt the need to build up his argument by attempting to dismantle mine. Peace mate. I'm not directly attacking you, merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement. I'm sorry if I offended, for twas' not my intention. Admittadly the last comment may have been a bit too much, but I always attempt to stop unhelpful generalisations wherever I may find them.

Peace mate. I'm not directly attacking you, merely pointing out the fallacy of your statement. I'm sorry if I offended, for twas' not my intention. Admittadly the last comment may have been a bit too much, but I always attempt to stop unhelpful generalisations wherever I may find them.

I stand corrected. I hate blanket generalizations as well. We're cool.

No hassles. I have never made an enemy over the internet, and I hardly intend to start now. :)

Skunks.

Newspapers.

Nun's clothing.

1 - Not if you paint it

2 - Newspapers have colour front pages sometimes

3 - Some where blue and white instead.

mwhahahahaha :p :D

Got to admit that at least Backwood Squatches managed to make his point without being abusive, though. Someone else (Falhar, for instance) must have felt threatened or he wouldn't have felt the need to build up his argument by attempting to dismantle mine. :p


I have gotten out of sorts in threads like these before, but for the most part I try to maintain a certain philosophy.

Why get abusive towards another poster, when I just might be wrong?

I cannot know for certain that God does not exist, all I can do is ask my own being, and heart, and listen to the answer it gives me.

The answer it gives me is "No, God Does not, Cannot exist."

That makes me opinionated, but not necessarily correct.

It amuses me that your argument was so bad that you got shot down by all the newbs (talkin bout ppl with <100 posts, altho ofcourse I dont know their other forum experience) and this thread didnt even require the experienced arguers to come in

1 - Not if you paint it

2 - Newspapers have colour front pages sometimes

3 - Some where blue and white instead.

mwhahahahaha :p :D


1. YOU paint the skunk. (In wich case, you'll get what you have coming for trying to paint a skunk. *nods*)

2. Thats how they gitch ya!

3. Only ones who magically turned into Sally Feilds, and flew around the place.

--snip--
In a murder trial, there is the law of "Corpus Dilecti" (I probably spelled that wrong, anyway...)
It says that there must be a corpse, or enough of a corpse, to proove that someone was indeed murdered.

I tend to liken that to Theism.
I'll believe in your God, when you show me that there is indeed one.

corpus delicti (no worries about the spelling, I did too when I searched it):

n : the body of evidence that constitute the offence; the objective proof that a crime has been committed (sometimes mistakenly thought to refer to the body of a homicide victim) (emphasis added).

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

So yeah, so much for that karyatid -- thus crumbles the roof.

1. YOU paint the skunk. (In wich case, you'll get what you have coming for trying to paint a skunk. *nods*)

2. Thats how they gitch ya!

3. Only ones who magically turned into Sally Feilds, and flew around the place.

1. Paint it from the front end :p

2. I know...grrr the ickle gits

3. The nuns who are members of Mother Teresa's sect wear blue and white...

corpus delicti (no worries about the spelling, I did too when I searched it):

n : the body of evidence that constitute the offence; the objective proof that a crime has been committed (sometimes mistakenly thought to refer to the body of a homicide victim) (emphasis added).

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

So yeah, so much for that karyatid -- thus crumbles the roof.

Eh, it still jibes with my point, even if I was only half-informed about the legal example.

Whattya do?

1. Paint it from the front end :p
Skunks naturally range from bright white, to grey, to chocolate, to black. They can even change color throughout the course of their lives. When they are sick, their white stripe can take on a yellow hue, and their fur loses its luster.

Not this Pascal dribble again. :headbang:

Since this man is known to have made several valuable contributions to science, I can only assume that he was drunk out of his mind the day he wrote that crap.

Just to name one refuting point off the top of my head (I can think of more, but not now): What religion to believe in? Do you have better "odds" on going to the Christian heaven or to the Muslim one? What if those are all wrong and the Sikhs are right, or the Hindus? Or the old Scandinavian/Germanic gods, and we're all due to be toasted by trolls for not having worshipped Odin and Thor?

Since this man is known to have made several valuable contributions to science, I can only assume that he was drunk out of his mind the day he wrote that crap.
Just goes to show ya, no one is smart about everything, and no one is smart all the time.

Skunks naturally range from bright white, to grey, to chocolate, to black. They can even change color throughout the course of their lives. When they are sick, their white stripe can take on a yellow hue, and their fur loses its luster.

:eek:

As someone said in another thread, every day is a school day here!

If god does exist i do not think that he would be to impressed by people believing in him just incase.

If god does exist i do not think that he would be to impressed by people believing in him just incase.

Yes, that is another point. If God exists and is all-knowing, then this "wager" would lose all sense since he'd see people's ulterior motives.

There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. :cool:

Yes, that is another point. If God exists and is all-knowing, then this "wager" would lose all sense since he'd see people's ulterior motives.More or less where I would have come in on this conversation (superseding even the 'which God would that be then?' question that wonders which you should decide to believe in...)

In my mind, any decent God worth his Holy Spirit (with apologies to deities without such a tendency) is going to accept true Christians for being good Christians and true Muslims for being good Muslims and true Atheists for being good Atheists, and sticking to their guns... erm... beliefs... erm... to their principles and doing what they think is Commanded of them by God or Allah or Humanity. And it applies to every single religion.

What might seem distasteful is that the child brought up as a radical $insert_religion_here and who partakes in a suicidal attack on the enemies of his Belief would also benefit from the Afterlife they think they deserve, but it is not their fault. The blame would (in my mind's eye) lie upon those who cynically nurture that child to believe things that they, themselves, do not commit to and their's would be the burden of the Eternal Damnation (in whatever form).

And thus, during this period that I have no cause to believe in any particular deity, I carry on my life as Atheist-Agnostic (I'm certain that I couldn't know in the first place and as such follow no spiritual belief system) and I do so in (what I hope is) a moral way. I don't stay moral through fear of the supernatural and a nasty eternal afterlife, I stay moral (within the parameters given by society, which I acknowledge has some religious background to it) because that is the way to make this known period of my existence most happy.

Most explicitly, the reason I don't kill people in my 'godless frame of mind' isn't because I fear any Wrath or Eternal Vengeance for doing so, but because I suspect (though can equally never know) that oblivion is the destination of the dead, that when I die I will no longer have awareness and thus anyone I kill will also disappear into nothing, leaving nothing behind but their legacy. It is hard enough with someone who dies 'naturally' to accept the loss from the world of their experieince and memories and personality, and so to actively promote someone's demise... It would take someone with a really distasteful nature (a killer themselves, which more particulary might be one who was trying to deprive the world of me) to prompt me to take a life.

Compare with those who kill others 'on behalf of their religion', the Islamic suicide bomber, the prostitute-killing southern 'Preacher-man', just about anyone (including Atheists) who commit or order acts of genocide in order to send their victims to heaven/hell/oblivion... I think I have a more 'genrally' moral footprint on Earth and one more acceptable to the majority of (living) humanity, and I genuinely have no less a chance of ascension to whatever happy afterlife exists than they do, or (alternately) we all disappear into the mists of time as consciousness ends as we die.

Thusly, the Wager is senseless. If you do not believe and yet act like you do, you then act a life against your principles and, as well as whatever this life may throw against you, you may well be destined to the worst of whatever the afterlife has to offer. Work for your own life. If you must kill those who try to kill you then I see nothing wrong, but if you rampage on the assumption that this life means nothing then you spoil all existences for you and for others. I'll let you work out the logic about not praying for the 'right' God but praying for the one you believe in (if any) instead... It should be self-evident from the above tome...

We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that numbers are not finite. Thus there is an infinite number, even though we do not know what it is. This infinite number is neither even nor odd, because it cannot be changed by adding a unit. And yet it is a number, and every number is even or odd.

Infinity is not a number. Some infinities may be bigger than others (L'Hopital's Rule), but any given set of numbers with infinity in it is not a closed set because infinity cannot be included. In addition to this, it is mathematically incorrect to use infinity as a number: An integral from n (where n is a real number) to infinity is classified as an indefinite integral and cannot be calculated unless a limit is taken thus:

lim(a->infinity,(Int(0,a,f(x),x))). So, since infinity cannot truly be defined as any category of number (integer, real, rational, or irrational) it must not be a number and thus Pascal's argument is null.

That's only Pascal's way of saying. He was Jansenist, so he though that any religion other than Christianity was as bad as atheism. However, the basic point still stands, Atheists are risking the loss of a finite life of happiness followed by an infinity of happiness, in exchange for a finite life of pleasure.

As for the "forcing to believe" thng, you may want to read the full thing.
What if god is more angry at those who worship a false religion than those who are atheist? What if he actually likes atheists. He hasn't shown himself, so perhaps he's weeding the logical from the blindly faithfull, and will only give the logical people eternal life. There are too many possibilities for Pascal's wager to work. Anyone who thinks it's a good argument for theism is a complete moron.

Just goes to show ya, no one is smart about everything, and no one is smart all the time.
Newton was a fundamentalist christian who wasted much of his time and energy on biblical prophecy. Smart people tend to be a little weird sometimes.

Searching through a book of religious quotations, I found this gem by Blaise Pascal from his work Pensées. It’s called Pascal’s Wager, and some of you may already be familiar with the concept. The full text is pretty long, so for those of you who don’t feel like a page and a half of philosophy, I’ve cut it down to the most important few lines, which pretty much sums it up:

There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.



Even before you discuss the wager itself, the whole thing falls down on one of Pascal's assumptions.. one which is unsupportable, and certainly unprovable:

"Yes, but you must wager. On that there is no choice; you are already committed. Which will you choose? Since a choice must be made, we must see which is the least bad.

Pascal assumes only two states, a person who has chosen 'god', and a person who has 'not chosen god'.

Personally, I am an Atheist... so I do not believe in the existence of 'god'... certainly not any of the pre-packaged models. However, I have also been 'Saved' - and so I am 'going to heaven' regardless of my disbelief in 'gods' - or the fact that I don't believe in ANY afterlife.

Further - even assuming that there is no out for the 'Saved', Revelation clearly describes a method by which the un-redeemed can be redeemed at a later date... so there IS no cut-and-dry choice in this life.

snip!

That's exactly what I would have said if

a) I was as good with words
b) could sit still for long enough to write that

;)

Good job there E B

I hate the assumption that atheists are immoral. I'm going to spend eternity burning in hell because I didn't believe in god for the extremely short period of time that I was alive? Christians are dumb. It's such a hateful philosophy.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I am God. I hate you, and I'm planning on sending you to hell in the afterlife, but I will reconsider if you send me a one-off payment of $50.

Think about it
If you send me the money and I'm God, you win bigtime.
If you don't send me the money and I'm God, you lose bigtime.
If you send me the money and I'm not God, all you lose is 50 measely bucks. Compared to, say, the Christian religion, which requires a couple of hours of worship every week and 10% of your income, that's pretty cheap.

I look forward to recieving your payment.

Sincerely, God. (Sventria)
I'll take a cut of that too.
What the hell $100 is still cheaper than 10%

Today I am being mostly atheist.

Well, this seems like a better idea:

The bible says that god will be forgiving to you as long as you have decided upon his divinity at some point in your life. So, my idea is live life as an atheist, and if you really feel like it, decide that god is indeed divine on your death bed and you'll be set to get into heaven.

I dunno, maybe I found a loophole. Not that there aren't a lot in christianity...

This is my first post in any forum, so if it goes screwy my apologies.

First trick. the morality of God. Whatever nature or ennumeration of deities there may be, I still will only worship a moral one.

Now, Pascals wager presumes God wants obdience and nothing else, not even true belief, only obedience enforced by fear of damnation.

As human being, I expect God to be ethically superior to me. Someone with a hardon for control and worship, all things considered, is a tyrant and a bully.

Second trick. A moral god would accept anyone who is good and moral into the afterlife, because the multiplicity of faiths and splinter faiths that make it impossible to decide on the one true faith. Without a miracle, by definition any 'holy' feeling you get may just be in your head.

So, postulating God is moral: God would accept me if I too am moral and good. Postulating God desires obedience: God would not accept me yet I would not accept it either.

Does this sufficiently challenge Pascal's wager? If there are logical flaws, please point them out too me *smiles*

Ja

Well, this seems like a better idea:

The bible says that god will be forgiving to you as long as you have decided upon his divinity at some point in your life. So, my idea is live life as an atheist, and if you really feel like it, decide that god is indeed divine on your death bed and you'll be set to get into heaven.

I dunno, maybe I found a loophole. Not that there aren't a lot in christianity...

Do what you like.You have to be really bad to be sent to hell from what I gather.If you do not believe, purgotary is a possibility.And by all accounts this is a grand place.Significantly better than hell and less high-brow and snobbish than heaven.But you can't stay there forever.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn shall smite thee!

thou fate has been sealed... :eek:

If your going to believe in anything why believe in something which has caused more deaths through war than any weapon of mass destruction, has itself defined and acted out unjustified atrocities in the cause and name of religious supremacy.

Religion itself, not just Christianity, is a tool which was used to answer questions to which science at the time had no answers. There is no need or place for religion in today’s society. It could also be argued that a more significant religion in today’s society is that or sport, people support their teams with the vigour of 15 century monks, you wouldn’t change your team as they wouldn’t change their religion and one must consider which bares more resemblance to society today, the all powerful mighty or the FA Cup/Supper Bowl/Masters, even the Olympics.

Therefore i put it to you that religion itself is the route cause and definition of evil, religion is uneconomic, oppressive, outdated and seriously lacking in fact and continuity.

Now I’m no hippy but lets face it the way forward is to forget these historic obscenities and live life for yourself, in a way which suites your individual needs, not by the rules of some forgotten time. Ultimately religion is the only reason why humanity will never be truly united as one but fragmented on disillusioned beliefs fighting a forgotten war.

Yet again another Christian violating one of the basic tenets of their own religion. How quaint. "Judge not less ye be judged" "Let the among us without sin cast the first stone." If you were a true Christian in any sense of the word you would heed these teachings & stop bashing others beliefs. Your job if you choose to accept it is to spread the word. Not tear down the words of others. By posting this you have sinned against your father & are just as guilty as any non-christian in here.
Think about that the next time you post something like this.

I think i got you worried there, are you maybe starting to question your own beliefs???

I was brought up a Christian, CoE to be precise non of that right wing Catholicism. But my time included confirmation. It wasn’t until i reached an age where it occurred to me that the reality of the almightily is evidently and fundamentally flawed. Religion bares no acceptance to the wider concept of science and progress.

Therefore Sir as a once member, and indeed still member (they keep sending me the card) of the church it is my given right to argue this point whenever and however i feel the need. If people can preach in the streets so can i here!

Wake up, stop praying and realise than no one is listening, there is no god, and when the lights go out there is no afterlife: everything just stops!

ok, maybe I'm weird, but I really don't want to live forever and I don't believe that one does live forever. Frankly, I'd rather make the most of my life here on earth where I know it's real instead of living my life in hope of living forever in Heaven where life is supposedly perfect.
I mean, what's the point in living if life is perfect?! Seriously, think about it.

I don't believe in God, period. I never have and I doubt I ever will. I don't have faith in him, nor will I believe. By mathematics, anything is possible -- God's existance, or non-existance.

Despite this not being close to the point, but this doesn't mean I'm going to try acting any different from anyone else who is religious. I believe in acting kind and good (to an extent) to my fellow man, and I don't need a book to tell me so.

I think asking people to justify their beliefs (if that was what you were asking for and I interpreted correctly) proves that you can't believe in your own. If you try and prove your religion other than "I just believe in it", I refuse to believe that you truly are of that religion. Proving it isn't the same as believing in it. Justification is not needed, nor is insult to anyone else's beliefs. But then again, that's just my opinion.

If we go by South Park rules, Mormons are the correct religion though, sorry. We all lose at life. :(

I like Christianity, I just don't like most Christians. If "The Meek shall inheret the Earth," then why are Christians so arrogant in professing thier beleifs to others?

Ja

Theif. Just like everyone else, they assume its ok to steal my catch phrases such as
1. Man Eating Wildebeas-Stolen by Fairly Oddparents or whoever about a year after I kept saying it, their words went along the lines of "She got eaten by a wildabeast."
2. Communist- One of my insult words. Stolen by just about everyone I know (Yes they think I am really a communist no matter how many times I try to tell them that I am more of a fascist)
3. Ja in place of yeah. Stolen by thee.

Now I will learn how to copy right these phrases but it will do me no good since well technically um Oh yeah I am to cheap to pay.
I am me, You are not me. I am just a nonCommy communist caller. Why did McCarthyists hunt communists anyway, I mean communists are nice respectable people. Uh oh maybe McCarthyists were communists and tried to make a secret communist army
Now back on the persons thingy um Catholics aren't supposed to believe in hell. If I remember correctly there are very few lines that contain the word in the bible. Hell started to become a thing people said to get the protestants back to being roman catholics and to convert people. Anyway if there was a hell atheists could go to (YES I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC. Why doesnt anybody believe me?) then there is a one shot way to get them out. One shot because it could only be done once and it supposedly frees every one from hell. Now I am planting a secret message, Idea from Drunk Commies.(On a note I am actually giving the source so no stealing here.)

ok, maybe I'm weird, but I really don't want to live forever and I don't believe that one does live forever. Frankly, I'd rather make the most of my life here on earth where I know it's real instead of living my life in hope of living forever in Heaven where life is supposedly perfect.
I mean, what's the point in living if life is perfect?! Seriously, think about it.

Read sophie's world, it makes you think (well not me, it was stupid). She thought her world was real to. But it wasnt ha ha ha ha. She was actually in a book.

there is no god
there is no devil
there is no heaven
there is no hell

live with it

Lazurus Long

there is no god
there is no devil
there is no heaven
there is no hell

live with it

Lazurus Long

Prove it

How do ye know this God of yours is a good god or not?

Why should I give my homage to a dead-beat god (if he exists), because Pascal say so!?!? Hehe, who the hell Pascal thinks he is!? He has all the same real answers as I do, diddly!

Is your god supreme? Is your god better than mine? If so, who says so, some flimsy book writen by few desert mad men bent on controling other peoples ideas.

This world of ours has a plague in it, it needs to erradicated for the better-ment of our kind. That plague is religion! The truth shall indeed set you free... there is no god, or, if there is, shame on him for what he wrought!

Mankind will rise up above all of this one day.... then, Man will be his own god!

Prove it

How about you PROVE there is god, hmmmmm.... what I thought... ye can't, shutup Jibea!

Mindless, useless eatters, like this are a waste. He says prove it, when he can't even begin to prove there is a god!

Theif. Just like everyone else, they assume its ok to steal my catch phrases such as
1. Man Eating Wildebeas-Stolen by Fairly Oddparents or whoever about a year after I kept saying it, their words went along the lines of "She got eaten by a wildabeast."
2. Communist- One of my insult words. Stolen by just about everyone I know (Yes they think I am really a communist no matter how many times I try to tell them that I am more of a fascist)
3. Ja in place of yeah. Stolen by thee.

Now I will learn how to copy right these phrases but it will do me no good since well technically um Oh yeah I am to cheap to pay.
I am me, You are not me. I am just a nonCommy communist caller. Why did McCarthyists hunt communists anyway, I mean communists are nice respectable people. Uh oh maybe McCarthyists were communists and tried to make a secret communist army
Now back on the persons thingy um Catholics aren't supposed to believe in hell. If I remember correctly there are very few lines that contain the word in the bible. Hell started to become a thing people said to get the protestants back to being roman catholics and to convert people. Anyway if there was a hell atheists could go to (YES I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC. Why doesnt anybody believe me?) then there is a one shot way to get them out. One shot because it could only be done once and it supposedly frees every one from hell. Now I am planting a secret message, Idea from Drunk Commies.(On a note I am actually giving the source so no stealing here.)

I'm pretty sure that the late Pope clarified the issue of heaven and hell as not being locations, but rather that hell is the state of a soul that is not in contact with God and that heaven is the bliss of being in contact with God for all eternity. A very platonic way of looking at things, except without the reincarnation.

Theif. Just like everyone else, they assume its ok to steal my catch phrases such as
1. Man Eating Wildebeas-Stolen by Fairly Oddparents or whoever about a year after I kept saying it, their words went along the lines of "She got eaten by a wildabeast."
2. Communist- One of my insult words. Stolen by just about everyone I know (Yes they think I am really a communist no matter how many times I try to tell them that I am more of a fascist)
3. Ja in place of yeah. Stolen by thee.

Now I will learn how to copy right these phrases but it will do me no good since well technically um Oh yeah I am to cheap to pay.
I am me, You are not me. I am just a nonCommy communist caller. Why did McCarthyists hunt communists anyway, I mean communists are nice respectable people. Uh oh maybe McCarthyists were communists and tried to make a secret communist army
Now back on the persons thingy um Catholics aren't supposed to believe in hell. If I remember correctly there are very few lines that contain the word in the bible. Hell started to become a thing people said to get the protestants back to being roman catholics and to convert people. Anyway if there was a hell atheists could go to (YES I AM A ROMAN CATHOLIC. Why doesnt anybody believe me?) then there is a one shot way to get them out. One shot because it could only be done once and it supposedly frees every one from hell. Now I am planting a secret message, Idea from Drunk Commies.(On a note I am actually giving the source so no stealing here.)


Hehe...Wat a tool... ye seems to think you originated those phrases!?!? OMG. Of cousrse ye did... Sheeeessh...

As for trying to identify your self as a communist or fascist, lucky you are in a Republic thats allows you actup like the fool ye are! Eh!?!?

Mindless peeps like this Jiblet-sh*t-for-brains are a totaly frikin waste to humanity, and, if god is real, is a waste to god too!

Thinks he a communit/fascist, and indicates that he knower of god too!
Hehe, wateva floats yer boat numnut!

Hehe...

A little advice, friend...

The language you have chosen to use, and the attitutude you have chosen to display... both pretty likely to get you deleted pretty quickly.

If you don't wish the moderators to dispose of you, you might want to think about straightening up a little.

Ok sure this has been said before but I found this ... farly good talk through


The flaws

The most obvious problems with Pascal's Wager are:

* How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?
* God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven? How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?
* If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.
* Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.
* Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.
* It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?
* It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.

Christians are risking the loss of immortality in Valhalla, where roast boar and mead abound. The heavy, sinful souls of Christians will outweigh the Feather of Truth placed on the scales by Anubis, and they will be devoured by Ammet, Eater of Souls.


He's talking about belief in any God. Not specificly Christianity. Belief in no God is folly. Which belief system you choose is your choice.

Atheism is only folly if you believe that what affect your actions have on the world are of no significance after you die. If you believe that atheism presents a better way to live your life than religion, then you are not making a mistake in being an atheist. The only thing that you could do that would be a mistake would be to force yourself to believe something for selfish personal reasons.

That Pascal's Wager business always seemed a bit stupid to me... I think Douglas Adams said it best:

"If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway."

That Pascal's Wager business always seemed a bit stupid to me... I think Douglas Adams said it best:

"If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway."
Nice :) will have to remember douglas adams

Blah blah blah God is teh uber

I can't force myself to believe in something. If I'd take Pascals advice, I'd just be paying lip-service to a cult, which isn't really an attractive option. In my mind there is no "wager" because I don't think there is a god.

Besides, it's not as if there are only two possibilities. And if it boils down to religion being a lottery, I'd buy a ticket with a better reward, I find the idea of the drunken brawls of "Asgard" much nicer than spending an eternity with a bunch of eunuch priests in heaven (though, i don't believe in either).

I have more productive and usefull things to do than to spend my life serving a non-existant ghost. And that's what I have to lose: Time and energy, neither of which I'm willing to sacrifice for a silly 999999999999999999999:1 wager.

Ok sure this has been said before but I found this ... farly good talk through <snip quote>

good post UT

Mindless peeps like this Jiblet-sh*t-for-brains are a totaly frikin waste to humanity, and, if god is real, is a waste to god too!

Thinks he a communit/fascist, and indicates that he knower of god too!
Hehe, wateva floats yer boat numnut!
Yeosa, your personal attacks will cease and desist AT ONCE. Read the Glossary of Forbidden Actions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=288255), particularly the section on flaming. NationStates is not a free-for-all insult-fest. Disagree with the position, not the poster.

Are we clear? Good.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

good post UT
Thanks

Ohh got it here

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Forgot to post that :D quoted it with no linky lol

Thanks

Ohh got it here

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html

Forgot to post that :D quoted it with no linky lol

hmm, interesting tid bit with the Atheists Wager on that page...

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

hmm, interesting tid bit with the Atheists Wager on that page...

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."
Yup ... (another reason a lot of us fight with christianity) in their belief you are not judged by works

I do not care to follow a deity that would judge you by how much hommige you pay them

Wow, I am impressed...there is still somebody who has remained so willfully ignorant that they think Pascal's Wager is legit. It takes special skill to remain that foolish, in this age of information.

Though it's a bit sad to know that they probably won't be able to maintain that level of ignorance, due to the contributions of rational and informed people on this thread. If you're not careful, guys, you all are going to cause the extinction of the rare and exquisite Great Theistic Boobie.

Atheists:

Prove God doesn't exist.

Theists:

Prove God does exist.

Both of you will fail in providing any sort of absolute proof. The mere physical abscence of God does not constitute evidence as to his non-existence.

By the standards of most of the replies today, I would say atheists are just as willing to thrust their beliefs onto other people as theists are.

Someone said earlier that religion should be abolished but I ask why should religion be abolished if it is what people want to believe? Does it matter that their belief is without reason or any real evidence? No, of course not.

You shouldn't deny someone their right to believe in God any more than you would deny an atheist the right to disbelieve in God.

God is a personal choice that should be made for personal reasons. The Bible and preaching should be merely aids to your own interpretation of God. For that reason the orginal poster was wrong to try and throw his own opinions upon us. But then so are several atheists for attempting to throw their beliefs onto the orginal poster.

So in conclusion: both sides are as bad as each other.

Atheists:

Prove God doesn't exist.

Theists:

Prove God does exist.

Both of you will fail in providing any sort of absolute proof. The mere physical abscence of God does not constitute evidence as to his non-existence.

By the standards of most of the replies today, I would say atheists are just as willing to thrust their beliefs onto other people as theists are.

Someone said earlier that religion should be abolished but I ask why should religion be abolished if it is what people want to believe? Does it matter that their belief is without reason or any real evidence? No, of course not.

You shouldn't deny someone their right to believe in God any more than you would deny an atheist the right to disbelieve in God.

God is a personal choice that should be made for personal reasons. The Bible and preaching should be merely aids to your own interpretation of God. For that reason the orginal poster was wrong to try and throw his own opinions upon us. But then so are several atheists for attempting to throw their beliefs onto the orginal poster.

So in conclusion: both sides are as bad as each other.

Ah... a morally superior agnostic.

Ah... a morally superior agnostic.

Yep...that sounds about right.

Atheists do not have to prove God does not exists. Most of the time they have more important things on their minds and whether God exists or not is irrelevant, except when they find in-your-face Theists trying to prove he does with methods that (because, as Athiests and Agnostics agree, there can be no proof of God) are always erroneous.

I think what you're describing as Atheist proofs is explanations of how something like Evolutionary theory really works to those that dismiss it on false (or empty) basis.

The thing is that we're all atheists. Just some of us believe in one God less than the others. When you (THEISTS) realize why you don't believe in any of the potentially existing gods, you'll understand why we (Atheists) don't believe in yours.

To accept Pascal's Wager to be true, you must also accept that learning and experience is meaningless. Pascal could do that because he believed that there was no experience or learning without God. I cannot imagine that the original poster's namesake would concur.

Atheists:

Prove God doesn't exist.

Theists:

Prove God does exist.

Both of you will fail in providing any sort of absolute proof. The mere physical abscence of God does not constitute evidence as to his non-existence.

By the standards of most of the replies today, I would say atheists are just as willing to thrust their beliefs onto other people as theists are.

Someone said earlier that religion should be abolished but I ask why should religion be abolished if it is what people want to believe? Does it matter that their belief is without reason or any real evidence? No, of course not.

You shouldn't deny someone their right to believe in God any more than you would deny an atheist the right to disbelieve in God.

God is a personal choice that should be made for personal reasons. The Bible and preaching should be merely aids to your own interpretation of God. For that reason the orginal poster was wrong to try and throw his own opinions upon us. But then so are several atheists for attempting to throw their beliefs onto the orginal poster.

So in conclusion: both sides are as bad as each other.

You are correct except that in here, the atheists are worse. There are more of them, and much of their time in here is spent vehemently defending their position by tearing down the other side's.

He's talking about belief in any God. Not specificly Christianity. Belief in no God is folly. Which belief system you choose is your choice.

Curious way to word it, Neo... basically, you have just said that: so long as someone BLINDLY follows something, you approve.

Those who fail to find any of the 'stories' that can hold their conviction, obviously are prone to 'folly'?

But - since neither you, nor I, believe in Loki... we are both prone to the same folly, surely?

You are correct except that in here, the atheists are worse. There are more of them, and much of their time in here is spent vehemently defending their position by tearing down the other side's.

How does there being more of us make us worse????? Being part of a majority does not make you bad. And no, we are not defending our position by 'tearing down' yours, we want to debate rationally on the subject.

You are correct except that in here, the atheists are worse. There are more of them, and much of their time in here is spent vehemently defending their position by tearing down the other side's.

Just as they vehemently tell us we are going to hell or we cant marry who we wish we get upset over it and there are more of us … does not make things right or wrong but really most of us spend our time making well reasoned arguments (besides the lowbie wonders but all sides have thoes)

We logically take apart ANYTHING we can … religion just puts itself in the way most (also seems to be the most logically devoid really but really it is meant to be belief does not have to be logical)

You are correct except that in here, the atheists are worse. There are more of them, and much of their time in here is spent vehemently defending their position by tearing down the other side's.
Hey, if someone drags a dead horse into the town square, don't be surprised if other people leap into the square to beat it. One should keep one's God in the quiet privacy of the home, and the contemplative community of the church should they wish to keep him safe from criticism and ridicule, should one's God be so delicate and easily damaged. It is a free country after all.

How does there being more of us make us worse????? Being part of a majority does not make you bad. And no, we are not defending our position by 'tearing down' yours, we want to debate rationally on the subject.

Annoyances are much more palatable in small portions.

Just as they vehemently tell us we are going to hell or we cant marry who we wish we get upset over it and there are more of us … does not make things right or wrong but really most of us spend our time making well reasoned arguments (besides the lowbie wonders but all sides have thoes)

We logically take apart ANYTHING we can … religion just puts itself in the way most (also seems to be the most logically devoid really but really it is meant to be belief does not have to be logical)

I do respect your posts on here UT, you don't fall into the category of atheists who ruin theological threads with off-topic venemous posts. But even you know you cannot have a thread that debates the nature of God or the nature of Christian beliefs without it being invaded my a massive amounts of atheists.

Hey, if someone drags a dead horse into the town square, don't be surprised if other people leap into the square to beat it. One should keep one's God in the quiet privacy of the home, and the contemplative community of the church should they wish to keep him safe from criticism and ridicule, should one's God be so delicate and easily damaged. It is a free country after all.

Beating a dead horse has a negative connotation because it is an idiotic thing to do.

Searching through a book of religious quotations, I found this gem by Blaise Pascal from his work Pensées. It’s called Pascal’s Wager, and some of you may already be familiar with the concept.

Yes... in all it's glorious idiocy. He should have stuck to math.

There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.

Why do you bet everything on the non-existence of Odin, AND Vishnu, AND Allah, AND Zeus, AND the thousands of other gods and deity-esque constructions human beinge have dreamt up over the years? You know an awful lot of them look unkindly on followers of false gods... and I know of several who have descriptions of their versions of hell that puts the christian ones to shame... therefore you should be a believer in one of them (or more than one if you can find a loophole to maximize your odds) to make absolutely sure you don't end up in the worst possible torment!

Pascal's wager, and the conclusions he expects people to draw based on it, are equally stupid. You believe something because you are given reason to think it is true... not because it would be really cool if it was, or really scary if you didn't and you were wrong. That kind of "logic" is supposed to be outgrown right about the same time as the sandbox.

Atheists:

Prove God doesn't exist.

Theists:

Prove God does exist.

Both of you will fail in providing any sort of absolute proof. The mere physical abscence of God does not constitute evidence as to his non-existence.

By the standards of most of the replies today, I would say atheists are just as willing to thrust their beliefs onto other people as theists are.

Someone said earlier that religion should be abolished but I ask why should religion be abolished if it is what people want to believe? Does it matter that their belief is without reason or any real evidence? No, of course not.

You shouldn't deny someone their right to believe in God any more than you would deny an atheist the right to disbelieve in God.

God is a personal choice that should be made for personal reasons. The Bible and preaching should be merely aids to your own interpretation of God. For that reason the orginal poster was wrong to try and throw his own opinions upon us. But then so are several atheists for attempting to throw their beliefs onto the orginal poster.

So in conclusion: both sides are as bad as each other.

Its funny because this is also used as an arguement against the existance of god. Does divine hiddenness justify Atheism? Some people argue that the balance of both sides facts about being able to prove or not prove god is evidence against his existance. Its a fun arguement you should look into it if your stuck at this point. Do I nessecarily agree with it no but it does bring up some good points.

Annoyances are much more palatable in small portions.

You can say that you find us moer annoying because there are more of us, but to say that for that reason we are worse in terms of forcing our beliefs, is to just try to insult without any logic or reasonable argument whatsoever.

I love how everytime a Christian stumbles across Pascal's Wager they think they have discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Of course, many churches have declared it a heresy.

And it is fundamentally flawed.

And immoral.

And cheapens religion and any god worthy of worship.

But, hey, it sounds great if you don't think too hard!

Ok, I'll bite. Now, your question to me as a non-theist is why do I choose to throw the coin out the window. Well, on the flip side to your statement of beleave in christianity, follow and worship your god, and go by your moral code.
If what I had worshiped through life was false, I would just have a letdown at the end. Now, seeing as how I don't beleave in a afterlife, why is it that you say my was is foolish and that I should beleave in what you do? Now, I ask you... Why is it that I should follow a moral code that I disagree with? Why do I need to get up early sunday or spend wednesday night someplace I don't deem nessisary instead of working, studying, getting much needed sleep, or telling others to mind thier own business. Why should I degrade my quality of life because someone tells me that, from thier beliefs, that I am going to hell, being reborn as a turtle.. etc. As I have said to others before you, sence you have no proof of a heaven or hell, and you seem to have appetite for telling others how to live thier life..... go f**k yourself.

Pascal's wager was written at a time when people were still uneducated enough as a species that religion was necesary to explain the world. We are past that now. Additionally, organized religion (especially the Catholic church) has caused more wars, genocides, and murders than any other entities in the history of time. So, when the world ends, religion will be remembered as a far more evil force than a good one. That is why I am atheist, I do not want to associate myself with the most evil (and therefore hypocritical because they claim to be good) establishment in human history.

Alternately, put yourself in the shoes of a god. Any god, it doesn't matter which. You have before you three humans, waiting to get into the afterlife that you reign over.

(Assume these statements are true)

The first human approaches and says, "I believed in another god. I worshipped him, and devoted my life to this god."

The second human says, "I believed in no gods at all, and decided that the world as it was needed help, and would probably not save itself."

The third human smiles and bows, hands clasped together in prayer. "My Lord/Lady, I loved you throughout my life, and even now, my devotion is undying."

-----
The challenge:

You must send one of these humans to the "underworld." Which one do you send?

Logical response: Send the one who worshipped the other god. Since there are so many religions, it is probable that there will be many such people, if there is a 'god/goddess' or numerous 'gods/goddesses' at all. One of the other two has lived a full, good life, and the other is one of your disciples.


Summary:

Pascal's Wager loses because a god/goddess would probably hate one who worshipped another religion over an atheist who now has proof that at least one god/goddess exists.

If that's not enough, see the websites mentioned earlier on in the thread for the Atheist's Wager, which is another way to combat Pascal's Wager.

If you want to reduce belief to the act of stating an unproven theorem, this wager might apply. For example, I could 'believe' that when I release this stone from my hand, it will fly up into the air.

However, belief is better defined as "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something"

Also, conviction from this definition implies certainty. So belief is not something you can 'turn on' when it may be convenient. Thus, I submit the wager is useless.

If someone really is convinced by pascals wager and becomes christian, do you really think god would be impressed by that? I think he'd have to have the mentality of a lawyer to do grant someone access to heaven because of that.

You can say that you find us moer annoying because there are more of us, but to say that for that reason we are worse in terms of forcing our beliefs, is to just try to insult without any logic or reasonable argument whatsoever.

Note than in the first post I stated that they are worse, I did not say at what. The first justification for that statement was that there are more of them. Neither side has any basis for their arguments other than what they personally believe or don't believe, but both side seem perfectly willing to waste 20 pages of posts. It just so happens that on NS, the majority of the wasted posts are from atheists.

And I don't want it to seem like I am singleing you out, either.

I didn't read any other post, so forgive me (jesus would at least). but who is to say your religion is more credible than mine (i have no religion)? Obviously it is called faith for a reason, there is no way you can prove (or more like it would be sac-religious to) your religion to be right. open your mind and realize that there is more to life than being scared 24/7 that you might sin, just so your soul can be spoiled for eternity in heaven.

The first justification for that statement was that there are more of them.
It just so happens that on NS, the majority of the wasted posts are from atheists.


Do you know other forums where it is the other way round?

Do you know other forums where it is the other way round?

Nope, I am a one forum man.

Alternately, put yourself in the shoes of a god. Any god, it doesn't matter which. You have before you three humans, waiting to get into the afterlife that you reign over.

(Assume these statements are true)

The first human approaches and says, "I believed in another god. I worshipped him, and devoted my life to this god."

The second human says, "I believed in no gods at all, and decided that the world as it was needed help, and would probably not save itself."

The third human smiles and bows, hands clasped together in prayer. "My Lord/Lady, I loved you throughout my life, and even now, my devotion is undying."

-----
The challenge:

You must send one of these humans to the "underworld." Which one do you send?
The third one, of course.

If I banish the first one, the god she had worshipped might have an issue with that, and I don't want to spoil my relations with fellow deities (particularily if the god in question is someone like Shiva or Thor). ;)

The third one, of course.

If I banish the first one, the god she had worshipped might have an issue with that, and I don't want to spoil my relations with fellow deities (particularily if the god in question is someone like Shiva or Thor). ;)

Ah. I was giving the assumption that the third man's religion was the only 'real' one. Of course, if his god(s)/goddess(es) existed, it would be wise to go with the third man. ;)

If god does actually exist, the I firmly believe that he's good enough to show mercy on those who haven't seen enough evidence to believe in him. So I'm not all that worried. If god exists, I don't think he's petty enough to nit pick about the varying degrees of faith.

I love how everytime a Christian stumbles across Pascal's Wager they think they have discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Of course, many churches have declared it a heresy.

And it is fundamentally flawed.

And immoral.

And cheapens religion and any god worthy of worship.

But, hey, it sounds great if you don't think too hard!

Yes, that's basically my point as well. (Nine pages ago)

Seems we can all agree that Pascal's Wager is a little silly, given the length and bredth of our spiritual possibilities. There are so many possible options, so many different ways of looking at the world, "Why not" is simply not enough reason...you need a "Why"

God damn it! That is the third time this week I have been offered Pascal's Wager. I want to burn in hell, there I said it.

You can't convert atheists (well, not proper atheists. If they're only "pseudo-atheists" that do it for the attention then it's easy) though. They seem to be determined to make complete asses out of themselves.
Who us atheists?

Well, religious people use religion as a way to justify their good morals. Me, as a near-atheist, believes an honestly good person that should go to a heaven should not have to justify a reason for being good. A person should KNOW whether they are good or not and not repent for so-called 'sins'. Religion is merely a made-made idea to make people think they have to be good. That tells the true morality of human beings as they must be tricked.

Who us atheists?

yes, us atheists who claim that life is sacred and support the death penalty, who claim abortion is murder and therefore wrong, but murdering an abortion doctor is ok for some reason, us atheists who impose our beliefs on homosexuals who just want to get married and live in peace, us atheists who blame homosexuals for 9/11, us atheists who start crusades into the Holy Land, us atheists who look forward to the day when a man who has been dead for almost 2000 years comes back to smite all the bad people and take all the good people to heaven, us atheists who don't know the meaning of seperation of church and state, us atheists who make an ass of ourselves knocking on peoples doors and trying to convert them.

Oops, I mixed up atheists and Christians. I do that sometimes. Sorry.

I haven't read thru all the posts, just the first page of the thread. I got the impression that Atheists live a life of debauchery, just because we don't believe in God. Not true. I live my life with love. I love my wife, my kids, and (most times) my fellow man. I adhere to the 10 commandments. Not cuz God said so, but because I have morals. Morals are what you are born with, and taught. If you need God to tell you how to live a moral and decent life, there is something wrong with you wiring. Aside from your parents, no one should have to tell you this stuff. The commandments are nothing but common sense. Something that SOME "believers" seem to be lacking.

For the record, I'm not an Atheist. I'm Agnostic.

However, there are a couple of problems with Pascal's wager:

1. As an incentive to believe in God, it assumes that you can change your beliefs just by wanting to.
Even if you believe that it would be a better 'bet' to believe in God, if the evidence points to a godless universe than it points to a godless universe. Your preferred outcome doesn't change the basis of your beliefs.

2.It assumes that there is nothing to be lost by believing in God, whereas in fact being a Christian may involve considerable personal sacrifice.

3. It assumes that there is nothing to be gained by not believing in God.
What about sleeping in on a Sunday morning, not feeling guilty about having sex with whoever you happen to be in love with and attracted to?

4.It assumes that the only two possibilities are a universe with the Christian God, and a universe with no God at all, when in fact the possibilities are infinite.
What if you believe in the Christian God, and it turns out that some other religion was right, and their God has nothing against non believers but really hates Christians?

5. Maybe God just doesn't like a smart arse. Perhaps he would send you to Hell just for 'hedging your bets' like that.

I got most of these ideas from what I remember of an article about Pascal's Wager I read on the Wikipedia last year. Presumably it's still there, and may go into more detail than I did, and undoubtedly it is put better, so feel free to look it up.

I'll let you in on a little secret. I am God. I hate you, and I'm planning on sending you to hell in the afterlife, but I will reconsider if you send me a one-off payment of $50.

Think about it
If you send me the money and I'm God, you win bigtime.
If you don't send me the money and I'm God, you lose bigtime.
If you send me the money and I'm not God, all you lose is 50 measely bucks. Compared to, say, the Christian religion, which requires a couple of hours of worship every week and 10% of your income, that's pretty cheap.

I look forward to recieving your payment.

Sincerely, God. (Sventria)
LOL! :p

All this argument can't help but make me think of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, which, at the very end, just casually tosses the closest thing to a proper meaning of life that I've ever seen:

Now, here's the meaning of life....Well, it's nothing very special. Uh, try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.

atheism is fun, especially the part when we get to listen to a bunch of Christian blowhards rant on about how we are damned and are bad people and all that bullshit. for the record, I do pray every night, but only for myself,my family, my friends, and for the world. not for some mistical-all-seeing being.

Infinity is not a number. Some infinities may be bigger than others (L'Hopital's Rule), but any given set of numbers with infinity in it is not a closed set because infinity cannot be included. In addition to this, it is mathematically incorrect to use infinity as a number: An integral from n (where n is a real number) to infinity is classified as an indefinite integral and cannot be calculated unless a limit is taken thus:

lim(a->infinity,(Int(0,a,f(x),x))). So, since infinity cannot truly be defined as any category of number (integer, real, rational, or irrational) it must not be a number and thus Pascal's argument is null.

You sound like you know a bit. This is off topic, but some years ago I read a book called "The Secret of the Aleph" about Georg Cantor's work with infinity. If I remember right, he wound up in a mental asylum on his last problem, something to do with classes of infinity. I wonder, do you know if his problem was ever solved?

On topic, I don't like the way Pascal says we want to believe, but can't because of desire. I don't believe that is a sound axiom on which to build his argument. I surrendered all desire once, but I became buddhist, not Christian. It was awkward for the angel...

I'm an atheist.

Saying that I'm sinning by being atheist doesn't affect me in the slightest, because being an atheist, I don't believe in hell. You can have your beliefs, and I can have mine, but when you try to press your beliefs onto me and call me a sinner for not converting, I lose my respect for your beliefs.

so here's my opinion of god:

Supposedly he gave humans free will. However, if we don't use this 'free will' to follow a strict set of rules, we will all burn in hell forever when we die.

The belief that a giant magical entity just went "Poof!" and created the universe completely eludes me.

Atheists:

Prove God doesn't exist.



Why?

First - I don't lose any sleep over his/her existence/non-existence...

Second - not all Atheists believe "God doesn't exist"... many simply DON'T believe that 'god' DOES exist.

Sounds like a subtle change, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Are there actually any people still arguing in here or is it just all atheists putting a few more boots in to the arguement's prone carcass?

Why?

First - I don't lose any sleep over his/her existence/non-existence...

Second - not all Atheists believe "God doesn't exist"... many simply DON'T believe that 'god' DOES exist.

Sounds like a subtle change, but it makes all the difference in the world.

From what I've heard, in debates those who "define the debate" frequently win the debate. By dictating what you're talking about, and thus what you are NOT talking about, you prevent your opponent from having their strongest arguments listened to, while focusing entirely on your strongest arguments.

This seems appropriate here. If Atheists beleive that "God doesn't exist" then they are denying something that Theists can then take issue with. Its a theological debate about belief systems.

However, if they simply "don't believe that god does exist" then Theists cannot argue effectively in theological terms; because the discussion is no longer about theology. Its effectively disregarding every theological argument as equally irrelevant to the debate; theists thus have no leg to stand on.

Why?

First - I don't lose any sleep over his/her existence/non-existence...

Second - not all Atheists believe "God doesn't exist"... many simply DON'T believe that 'god' DOES exist.

Sounds like a subtle change, but it makes all the difference in the world.

I think very few atheists bother to make the distinction.

I think very few atheists bother to make the distinction.

As an Atheist... (and an Atheist that knows a few other Atheists), I think you are wrong.

Some call the difference Hard v's Soft Atheism.

Some call it Weak v's Strong Atheism.

Some call it Implicit v's Explicit Atheism.

I think you should probably look into it a little before making any more blanket assertions.

From what I've heard, in debates those who "define the debate" frequently win the debate. By dictating what you're talking about, and thus what you are NOT talking about, you prevent your opponent from having their strongest arguments listened to, while focusing entirely on your strongest arguments.

This seems appropriate here. If Atheists beleive that "God doesn't exist" then they are denying something that Theists can then take issue with. Its a theological debate about belief systems.

However, if they simply "don't believe that god does exist" then Theists cannot argue effectively in theological terms; because the discussion is no longer about theology. Its effectively disregarding every theological argument as equally irrelevant to the debate; theists thus have no leg to stand on.

So... you think those of us that are Implicit Atheists (do not believe in 'god'... rather than outright denial of his/her/its/their existence), are Implicit Atheists as a matter of debate convenience???

Possible, I guess - but I was an Implicit Atheist long before I was a forum debator...

Some call it erect vs. floppy atheism.

KEEP ON KICKIN' BOYS!

Some call it erect vs. floppy atheism.

KEEP ON KICKIN' BOYS!

Errr... yeah... thanks.

Errr... yeah... thanks.

Np, I've had my fun. I'll stop now.

A question for anyone out there interested.......would people hate God (those who do hate him) so much if there were no Christians around?

A question for anyone out there interested.......would people hate God (those who do hate him) so much if there were no Christians around?

If there were no religious people there would be no god.

Atheists don't hate god, they don't believe it exists.

I am not sure there is anyone who believes and yet still hates god.

The reason why I posted the question is that it seems to me that those who don't believe God exists do so on a basis (usually, forgive me if this seems a bit blanket-statement-ish) of not having met Him. Probably not a good basis, if you see my point. Anyone can criticise a bad Christian, and say, 'if God is a God of that person, He must be either non-existent, or not worth believing in'. But that doesn't let the thinking person off the hook, if you know what I mean.
If you have never personally examined an atom, or a single protein, let alone an electron, or maybe something bigger, like a star or a galaxy, do you have any trouble believing in its existence?

So... you think those of us that are Implicit Atheists (do not believe in 'god'... rather than outright denial of his/her/its/their existence), are Implicit Atheists as a matter of debate convenience???

Possible, I guess - but I was an Implicit Atheist long before I was a forum debator...

No, no. I was merely thinking out loud (on my computer?). I assigned no motives so such things. Merely an observation about the nature of the debate, and my thoughts on why there are seemingly more than one way of looking at atheism and why it proves such a problem for those who would debate them.

This thinking extends to all forms of debate where they lines are not clearly drawn, where the arguments are not settled in their form. Where there is still room for induvidualism within idealology.

The reason why I posted the question is that it seems to me that those who don't believe God exists do so on a basis (usually, forgive me if this seems a bit blanket-statement-ish) of not having met Him. Probably not a good basis, if you see my point. Anyone can criticise a bad Christian, and say, 'if God is a God of that person, He must be either non-existent, or not worth believing in'. But that doesn't let the thinking person off the hook, if you know what I mean.
If you have never personally examined an atom, or a single protein, let alone an electron, or maybe something bigger, like a star or a galaxy, do you have any trouble believing in its existence?

Actually - the reverse seems to be true... MOST of the Atheists I have met (the same for Agnsotics) have come to that position FROM a religious background.

The reason why I posted the question is that it seems to me that those who don't believe God exists do so on a basis (usually, forgive me if this seems a bit blanket-statement-ish) of not having met Him. Probably not a good basis, if you see my point. Anyone can criticise a bad Christian, and say, 'if God is a God of that person, He must be either non-existent, or not worth believing in'. But that doesn't let the thinking person off the hook, if you know what I mean.
If you have never personally examined an atom, or a single protein, let alone an electron, or maybe something bigger, like a star or a galaxy, do you have any trouble believing in its existence?

Your argument applies equally to the invisible pink unicorn. Do you believe in her?

Proteins, atoms, electrons, stars and galaxies have all been observed in documented scientific ways (stars and galaxies you can just use a telescope, and electrons show their presence every time you use a CRT monitor). I can repeat the experiments carried out (many of the basic ones are repeated regularly by students, and I know a broad cross section of people at university) and achieve the same results.

Actually - the reverse seems to be true... MOST of the Atheists I have met (the same for Agnsotics) have come to that position FROM a religious background.

That'll be me then, from the moment i was born to the age of 12 I was taken to a Methodist church and sometimes the church of England, as well as being part of the Crusaders Christian youth group up to the age of 14. Now I am a quite happy agnostic with buddhist leanings. :D

No, no. I was merely thinking out loud (on my computer?). I assigned no motives so such things. Merely an observation about the nature of the debate, and my thoughts on why there are seemingly more than one way of looking at atheism and why it proves such a problem for those who would debate them.

This thinking extends to all forms of debate where they lines are not clearly drawn, where the arguments are not settled in their form. Where there is still room for induvidualism within idealology.

I appreciate the thought process... but, since some Atheists have aconviction that 'there is no god', and some Atheists (like myself) are more along the lines of 'i don't believe in any gods'.. I'm not sure how it applies.

In religious debate - I demand evidence from those that assert, AS FACT, the existence OR non-existence of god/gods.

We are all Atheists, in a way... because nobody believes in ALL gods... so all lack belief in some gods (Implicit), or believe them to be fictional (Explicit).

Your argument applies equally to the invisible pink unicorn. Do you believe in her?


No, but you should check out the levitating purple whale with a wings. ;) :p :D

That'll be me then, from the moment i was born to the age of 12 I was taken to Methodist and sometimes the church of England, as well as being part of the Crusaders Christian youth group up to the age of 14. Now I am a quite happy agnostic with buddhist leanings. :D

I was raised as a token Anglican, attending a 'slightly' Christian school. Now, I am a Godless Heathen, and not at all worried about it. :)

You sound like you know a bit. This is off topic, but some years ago I read a book called "The Secret of the Aleph" about Georg Cantor's work with infinity. If I remember right, he wound up in a mental asylum on his last problem, something to do with classes of infinity. I wonder, do you know if his problem was ever solved?

On topic, I don't like the way Pascal says we want to believe, but can't because of desire. I don't believe that is a sound axiom on which to build his argument. I surrendered all desire once, but I became buddhist, not Christian. It was awkward for the angel...

Do you mean his continuum hypothesis? I don't really want to discourse in this thread about it, but wikipedia has some info on it Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_hypothesis). It seems to be proven to be unprovable, as many mathematicians have tried and failed at either proving or disproving it.

Dude. Pascal has been refuted in here hundreds of times, if not thousands.

Next.
as has every other arguement out there.

next next

If there were no religious people there would be no god.

You wish.

Oh, well if Pascal of all people said that, I'm inclined to agree now. I SEE THE LIGHT! HALLEUJAH!

Why do Christians feel the need to recruit (or convert)? Why can't they just live and let live. For positive reassurnace? That is part of the reason, but the big reason (and the one that turns me off of the religion the most) is so that they can make money. If Christian churches did what they proclaim to be one of their most important purposes (to care for the less fortunate) then there would be no Churches in Compaq Center (formerly the Houston Summit). All of that money that is spent on these luxuries would be sent to aid those who need it the most, not on a more comfortable pew for some fat cat doctor or lawyer.

Wake up and smell the coffee, relgion (especially Christianity) is big business that does not have to pay taxes in the US. What a racket.

ALSO: I am offended by some one who thinks that they need to "convert" me because their way of living is better than the way that I choose to live my life. What is right for you is not necessarily right for all.




Hey FB.

That's why I posted it. I cant see how Athiesm can hold water if Pascal's Wager holds, so I want to see it disproven. Converting the atheists would be too easy otherwise :D

Your argument applies equally to the invisible pink unicorn. Do you believe in her?

Proteins, atoms, electrons, stars and galaxies have all been observed in documented scientific ways (stars and galaxies you can just use a telescope, and electrons show their presence every time you use a CRT monitor). I can repeat the experiments carried out (many of the basic ones are repeated regularly by students, and I know a broad cross section of people at university) and achieve the same results.

I accept that my argument can apply to a pink unicorn. And yet there is a difference. For I maintain that there is a good argument for the existence of God, not just for the possibilty that He may exist. An atheist will always be on shaky ground whenever he or she assumes that there is no God, because they can only make that claim on the basis that they know everything, a position the Christians (and some other religions) claim only God can have. Their claim should always be on the basis of their own experience. And, if they are humble, they will admit that the experience of one person, even should they live for one hundred years, is still just a small drop in the ocean.

Because God is not within the realms of the limited nature of science, He cannot be observed or documented in the same way as galaxies and proteins. My point is that there are many things that scientists believe, indeed, know to exist, but that have never been observed directly. The knowledge comes to us indirectly. No one has ever observed an atom, but we know they must exist because we have lots of indirect evidence of their nature.
The same principle can be applied to God. Since we cannot point a telescope at Him and observe Him, we must resort to other methods of deduction. Let's take, for example, the origin of life. A very old example, but serves my purpose. Since science cannot explain it, much less demonstrate it, how is it that millions of people are convinced that life arose from non-life? And yet that fact that we have life suggest that there must be a starting point, an origin. An atheist says that is happened by chance. A miraculous colision of particles that contained the ability to reproduce. This sounds like a pink unicorn to me. But why stop there? What about sex between a man and woman? How come that is so good, when any old copulant act (observe some of the more painful versions in the animal world) would do? How does all that develop, mutation by mutation?
How is it that the sun comes up each morning, without fail, producing all the right conditions for life on earth?
How is it that every culture on earth testifies to the conscience of the individual?
How is it that we recognise beauty, innocence, love, truth (or at least we are capable of recognising it).
You cannot seriously rule out God's existence, surely.

I accept that my argument can apply to a pink unicorn. And yet there is a difference. For I maintain that there is a good argument for the existence of God, not just for the possibilty that He may exist. An atheist will always be on shaky ground whenever he or she assumes that there is no God, because they can only make that claim on the basis that they know everything, a position the Christians (and some other religions) claim only God can have. Their claim should always be on the basis of their own experience. And, if they are humble, they will admit that the experience of one person, even should they live for one hundred years, is still just a small drop in the ocean.

Because God is not within the realms of the limited nature of science, He cannot be observed or documented in the same way as galaxies and proteins. My point is that there are many things that scientists believe, indeed, know to exist, but that have never been observed directly. The knowledge comes to us indirectly. No one has ever observed an atom, but we know they must exist because we have lots of indirect evidence of their nature.
The same principle can be applied to God. Since we cannot point a telescope at Him and observe Him, we must resort to other methods of deduction. Let's take, for example, the origin of life. A very old example, but serves my purpose. Since science cannot explain it, much less demonstrate it, how is it that millions of people are convinced that life arose from non-life? And yet that fact that we have life suggest that there must be a starting point, an origin. An atheist says that is happened by chance. A miraculous colision of particles that contained the ability to reproduce. This sounds like a pink unicorn to me. But why stop there? What about sex between a man and woman? How come that is so good, when any old copulant act (observe some of the more painful versions in the animal world) would do? How does all that develop, mutation by mutation?
How is it that the sun comes up each morning, without fail, producing all the right conditions for life on earth?
How is it that every culture on earth testifies to the conscience of the individual?
How is it that we recognise beauty, innocence, love, truth (or at least we are capable of recognising it).
You cannot seriously rule out God's existence, surely.

On the contrary... there is exactly as much evidence that there IS a god, as there is that there is NOT a god...

i.e. there is NO evidence, either way.

I accept that my argument can apply to a pink unicorn. And yet there is a difference. For I maintain that there is a good argument for the existence of God, not just for the possibilty that He may exist. An atheist will always be on shaky ground whenever he or she assumes that there is no God, because they can only make that claim on the basis that they know everything, a position the Christians (and some other religions) claim only God can have. Their claim should always be on the basis of their own experience. And, if they are humble, they will admit that the experience of one person, even should they live for one hundred years, is still just a small drop in the ocean.

Because God is not within the realms of the limited nature of science, He cannot be observed or documented in the same way as galaxies and proteins. My point is that there are many things that scientists believe, indeed, know to exist, but that have never been observed directly. The knowledge comes to us indirectly. No one has ever observed an atom, but we know they must exist because we have lots of indirect evidence of their nature.
The same principle can be applied to God. Since we cannot point a telescope at Him and observe Him, we must resort to other methods of deduction. Let's take, for example, the origin of life. A very old example, but serves my purpose. Since science cannot explain it, much less demonstrate it, how is it that millions of people are convinced that life arose from non-life? And yet that fact that we have life suggest that there must be a starting point, an origin. An atheist says that is happened by chance. A miraculous colision of particles that contained the ability to reproduce. This sounds like a pink unicorn to me. But why stop there? What about sex between a man and woman? How come that is so good, when any old copulant act (observe some of the more painful versions in the animal world) would do? How does all that develop, mutation by mutation?
How is it that the sun comes up each morning, without fail, producing all the right conditions for life on earth?
How is it that every culture on earth testifies to the conscience of the individual?
How is it that we recognise beauty, innocence, love, truth (or at least we are capable of recognising it).
You cannot seriously rule out God's existence, surely.

Yes indeed you can, i did quite a while ago. The argument that "its just all looks so complicated, i dont understand the scientific explanation so i just go with god created it all" is even worse than pascals wager. There is a theory pertaining to the origins of life and you dont know why the sun comes up? what?

I accept that my argument can apply to a pink unicorn. And yet there is a difference. For I maintain that there is a good argument for the existence of God, not just for the possibilty that He may exist. An atheist will always be on shaky ground whenever he or she assumes that there is no God, because they can only make that claim on the basis that they know everything, a position the Christians (and some other religions) claim only God can have. Their claim should always be on the basis of their own experience. And, if they are humble, they will admit that the experience of one person, even should they live for one hundred years, is still just a small drop in the ocean.

Because God is not within the realms of the limited nature of science, He cannot be observed or documented in the same way as galaxies and proteins. My point is that there are many things that scientists believe, indeed, know to exist, but that have never been observed directly. The knowledge comes to us indirectly. No one has ever observed an atom, but we know they must exist because we have lots of indirect evidence of their nature.
The same principle can be applied to God. Since we cannot point a telescope at Him and observe Him, we must resort to other methods of deduction. Let's take, for example, the origin of life. A very old example, but serves my purpose. Since science cannot explain it, much less demonstrate it, how is it that millions of people are convinced that life arose from non-life? And yet that fact that we have life suggest that there must be a starting point, an origin. An atheist says that is happened by chance. A miraculous colision of particles that contained the ability to reproduce. This sounds like a pink unicorn to me. But why stop there? What about sex between a man and woman? How come that is so good, when any old copulant act (observe some of the more painful versions in the animal world) would do? How does all that develop, mutation by mutation?

I'd like you to clarify what 'god' is before we take this much further, if you would.

If you want to know about how things develop by mutation, read up on modern evolutionary theory.
How is it that the sun comes up each morning, without fail, producing all the right conditions for life on earth?

It's called physics. Newtonian gravity will get you most the way there. The Earth goes round the sun, and the Earth rotates. The Earth will not stop rotating unless a force acts on it (look into Newton's laws). Life is here because conditions were right, not the other way around.

How is it that we recognise beauty, innocence, love, truth (or at least we are capable of recognising it).


Social conditioning.

Why do Christians feel the need to recruit (or convert)? Why can't they just live and let live. For positive reassurnace? That is part of the reason, but the big reason (and the one that turns me off of the religion the most) is so that they can make money. If Christian churches did what they proclaim to be one of their most important purposes (to care for the less fortunate) then there would be no Churches in Compaq Center (formerly the Houston Summit). All of that money that is spent on these luxuries would be sent to aid those who need it the most, not on a more comfortable pew for some fat cat doctor or lawyer.

Wake up and smell the coffee, relgion (especially Christianity) is big business that does not have to pay taxes in the US. What a racket.

ALSO: I am offended by some one who thinks that they need to "convert" me because their way of living is better than the way that I choose to live my life. What is right for you is not necessarily right for all.

I'm slighty offended by your assumption that all Christians are into it for the money. Undoubtedly, many are, but not all atheists are into atheism just for the money either, I assume.
As for Christians feeling the need to convert.....I cannot agree with many of their 'methods', and yet would you forgive someone who happened to hurt your feelings when they barged into your bedroom in the middle of the night, woke you up by screaming in your ear, and dragged you out of the house because your roof was on fire, and you were far too deeply asleep to realize it?

Let's take, for example, the origin of life. A very old example, but serves my purpose. Since science cannot explain it, much less demonstrate it, how is it that millions of people are convinced that life arose from non-life? And yet that fact that we have life suggest that there must be a starting point, an origin. An atheist says that is happened by chance. A miraculous colision of particles that contained the ability to reproduce. This sounds like a pink unicorn to me.
A current lack of a scientific evidence is in no way evidence towards god.

But why stop there? What about sex between a man and woman? How come that is so good, when any old copulant act (observe some of the more painful versions in the animal world) would do? How does all that develop, mutation by mutation? It feels good because it is neccesary to the continuation of the species. Eating is pleasurable because it keeps us alive. We evolved from the fittest animals, and it would make sense that the ones who were the best at survival were the ones that liked doing what was needed to survive.

How is it that the sun comes up each morning, without fail, producing all the right conditions for life on earth? We are suited to the conditions of earth, it is not suited to meet our needs

How is it that every culture on earth testifies to the conscience of the individual?
How is it that we recognise beauty, innocence, love, truth (or at least we are capable of recognising it).
You cannot seriously rule out God's existence, surely.
I can rule god's existence out as easily as you can rule it in.

I'm slighty offended by your assumption that all Christians are into it for the money. Undoubtedly, many are, but not all atheists are into atheism just for the money either, I assume.
As for Christians feeling the need to convert.....I cannot agree with many of their 'methods', and yet would you forgive someone who happened to hurt your feelings when they barged into your bedroom in the middle of the night, woke you up by screaming in your ear, and dragged you out of the house because your roof was on fire, and you were far too deeply asleep to realize it?

There's very little money in atheism really.

What about if they barged in every other week even though there was no fire?

As for Christians feeling the need to convert.....I cannot agree with many of their 'methods', and yet would you forgive someone who happened to hurt your feelings when they barged into your bedroom in the middle of the night, woke you up by screaming in your ear, and dragged you out of the house because your roof was on fire, and you were far too deeply asleep to realize it? I'm sorry, what does being a Christian have to do with your house being on fire? :confused:

I'm slighty offended by your assumption that all Christians are into it for the money. Undoubtedly, many are, but not all atheists are into atheism just for the money either, I assume.
True, but to be fair atheists usually aren't the ones passing around the collection plate every Sunday.

I'm slighty offended by your assumption that all Christians are into it for the money. Undoubtedly, many are, but not all atheists are into atheism just for the money either, I assume.
As for Christians feeling the need to convert.....I cannot agree with many of their 'methods', and yet would you forgive someone who happened to hurt your feelings when they barged into your bedroom in the middle of the night, woke you up by screaming in your ear, and dragged you out of the house because your roof was on fire, and you were far too deeply asleep to realize it?

First - Atheists aren't 'in it for the money', because you don't get tax breaks for NOT being a religious organisation.

Second - the house-on-fire idea is good... but you are viewing it only subjectively. How about if you 'kindly rescued me from my burning house'... but my house WASN'T burning... it was all in your head?

Then, it looks more like you broke into my house and kidnapped me...

I'm sorry, what does being a Christian have to do with your house being on fire? :confused:

Isn't that obvious?

Christians must be fire-proof...

They must have 'evolved' a resistence, dating back to the burning Catholics times...

As for Christians feeling the need to convert.....I cannot agree with many of their 'methods', and yet would you forgive someone who happened to hurt your feelings when they barged into your bedroom in the middle of the night, woke you up by screaming in your ear, and dragged you out of the house because your roof was on fire, and you were far too deeply asleep to realize it?
But my house wasn't on fire, they just said that if I didn't believe in Jesus my roof would burn for all eternity when I died.

But my house wasn't on fire, they just said that if I didn't believe in Jesus my roof would burn for all eternity when I died.

Isn't that extortion?

'Pay up or your house will burn'.... reminds me of those old Mafia movies...

I'd like you to clarify what 'god' is before we take this much further, if you would.

If you want to know about how things develop by mutation, read up on modern evolutionary theory.


It's called physics. Newtonian gravity will get you most the way there. The Earth goes round the sun, and the Earth rotates. The Earth will not stop rotating unless a force acts on it (look into Newton's laws). Life is here because conditions were right, not the other way around.



Social conditioning.

Sorry, I cannot define God, for He would still be far too big, and my definition too small, so that if you ever got to meet Him, and would compare Him to my definition of Him, you would go away thinking that I was talking about someone else. (I even hesitate to describe Him as 'He', for I believe that He is the source of feminism and masculinity, even though Jesus did teach His disciples to call Him father.)

I have read the textbooks on evolutionary theory. I am a biochemist. I teach some parts of it. (The bits I accept.) And it's partly because I know what the theory consists of that I cannot accept that it even begins to adequately explain the wonderful mysteries that surround us. It is totally lacking.
I know less about physics, and yet I do know that no one really knows what the basis of gravity is. Of course, I hope one day we shall get there. But even when we do know it, can we explain how the law of gravity came into being. Who put the law there. Or did it come out of no-where? Who holds the law in place? Or do we assume that all the laws of nature can continue on their own? Nobody has ever proven this.

I am offended by some one who thinks that they need to "convert" me because their way of living is better than the way that I choose to live my life. What is right for you is not necessarily right for all.
I think God makes the rules, and we have to live by them. Therefore, I think that when God has decided that something is right for everyone, then it is right for everyone. That doesn't mean we all become clones; but, just as we are all human, and therefore are all similar in some essential ways, in the same way, there are some life practices that are right for all people (e.g. generosity, forgiveness, unconditional love), and some that are wrong for all people (e.g. gossip, greed, slander, rape).

I can't defend the luxuriant living standards of some churches in the face of poverty, though I don't know what proportion of their income they do give to the poor. If you think we Christians are doing a bad job in our following of Jesus Christ, one option is for you to start following Him, and do such a good job that you challenge and inspire all the Christians you know to do better.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn shall smite thee!

LOL. Was that comment from what I said a few weeks ago? If so, I feel honored! I love following the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Sorry, I cannot define God, for He would still be far too big, and my definition too small, so that if you ever got to meet Him, and would compare Him to my definition of Him, you would go away thinking that I was talking about someone else. (I even hesitate to describe Him as 'He', for I believe that He is the source of feminism and masculinity, even though Jesus did teach His disciples to call Him father.)

I have read the textbooks on evolutionary theory. I am a biochemist. I teach some parts of it. (The bits I accept.) And it's partly because I know what the theory consists of that I cannot accept that it even begins to adequately explain the wonderful mysteries that surround us. It is totally lacking.
I know less about physics, and yet I do know that no one really knows what the basis of gravity is. Of course, I hope one day we shall get there. But even when we do know it, can we explain how the law of gravity came into being. Who put the law there. Or did it come out of no-where? Who holds the law in place? Or do we assume that all the laws of nature can continue on their own? Nobody has ever proven this.

So your god is so incomprehensible it is beyond definition? If you cannot say what it is how can you say it exists?

Flooble exists.
What is Flooble?
I can't define Flooble, but it definitely exists.

Gibberish.

How do clouds get into the sky? Dunno, must be the invisible pink unicorn...

First - Atheists aren't 'in it for the money', because you don't get tax breaks for NOT being a religious organisation.

Second - the house-on-fire idea is good... but you are viewing it only subjectively. How about if you 'kindly rescued me from my burning house'... but my house WASN'T burning... it was all in your head?

Then, it looks more like you broke into my house and kidnapped me...

Ok, so my house on fire perhaps wasn't the brightest idea of an example. How about if you were a little boy playing by making mud pies in a slum, and someone came along and offered to take you to a really nice beach, but because you had never seen one, you refused, and was even insulted at the suggestion of a lovely beach. And then someone else came along and gave you another offer of a ride through a safari, but since you had stopped believing in safari's since you were a small child, you laughed at them. Then someone else suggested a day at the snow resort. Then you got annoyed at all these people asking you, because you felt that they wanted to take you along to a place that didn't exist.
My point is that how do you know they don't exist if you have never been there?

Sorry, I cannot define God, for He would still be far too big, and my definition too small, so that if you ever got to meet Him, and would compare Him to my definition of Him, you would go away thinking that I was talking about someone else. (I even hesitate to describe Him as 'He', for I believe that He is the source of feminism and masculinity, even though Jesus did teach His disciples to call Him father.)

I have read the textbooks on evolutionary theory. I am a biochemist. I teach some parts of it. (The bits I accept.) And it's partly because I know what the theory consists of that I cannot accept that it even begins to adequately explain the wonderful mysteries that surround us. It is totally lacking.
I know less about physics, and yet I do know that no one really knows what the basis of gravity is. Of course, I hope one day we shall get there. But even when we do know it, can we explain how the law of gravity came into being. Who put the law there. Or did it come out of no-where? Who holds the law in place? Or do we assume that all the laws of nature can continue on their own? Nobody has ever proven this.

Why would you NOT assume that the 'laws of nature' can continue on their own?

There is no evidence to say they have ever been supported in any way, and yet the universe seems quite happy to trundle along on it's own merry way. Why would you assume that it will suddenly stop?

I think you are confused about 'laws', in a scientific sense... there is no 'law of gravity'... there just 'is' gravity. We can calculate what it does, and 'how much' there is... but it isn't a 'law' that binds reality.. it is an observable characteristic of reality.

Gravity is 'part' of reality... not a set of rules.

You teach "some parts" of biochemistry? What do you do about the other parts?

So your god is so incomprehensible it is beyond definition? If you cannot say what it is how can you say it exists?

Flooble exists.
What is Flooble?
I can't define Flooble, but it definitely exists.

Gibberish.

How do clouds get into the sky? Dunno, must be the invisible pink unicorn...

I feel that God is mostly incomprehesible to me, and, for the most part beyond my ability to define. However, that doesn't make Him gibberish, any more than the ant's inability to define you makes you gibberish.

I have thought of one definition of God. (Don't know why I didn't think of this sooner.....)
Jesus

Is this how desperate Christianity has become for recruiting?
"Hey - you don't have to really believe any of this, but just pretend for our sake - so we can pad our numbers and look important."

Why don't you just leave Atheists alone, in much the same way we leave Christians alone. Why is it all or nothing with you people?

I think God makes the rules, and we have to live by them. Therefore, I think that when God has decided that something is right for everyone, then it is right for everyone. That doesn't mean we all become clones; but, just as we are all human, and therefore are all similar in some essential ways, in the same way, there are some life practices that are right for all people (e.g. generosity, forgiveness, unconditional love), and some that are wrong for all people (e.g. gossip, greed, slander, rape).

I can't defend the luxuriant living standards of some churches in the face of poverty, though I don't know what proportion of their income they do give to the poor. If you think we Christians are doing a bad job in our following of Jesus Christ, one option is for you to start following Him, and do such a good job that you challenge and inspire all the Christians you know to do better.

You are confusing ethics with ethos... in assuming that there is 'moral law', that is true for all cultures.

Many cultures have upheld very different moral laws... rape being one of the classic examples. Vikings, the Roman Empire, The Mosaic Hebrews: all accepted rape as morally valid.

I suspect your assertion is based on Lewis?

I feel that God is mostly incomprehesible to me, and, for the most part beyond my ability to define. However, that doesn't make Him gibberish, any more than the ant's inability to define you makes you gibberish.

I have thought of one definition of God. (Don't know why I didn't think of this sooner.....)
Jesus

That's just another name.

Believe in tishbang.
I am unable to define tishbang, so you'll just have to have faith.

My point is that how do you know they don't exist if you have never been there?

Since you cannot proove a negative, then it is up to you to show me compelling evidence that they do exist. Just like the existance of G-d. He does not exist. I cannot proove a negativce, so proove to me he exists. "he just does" is not an acceptable answer either.

I have thought of one definition of God. (Don't know why I didn't think of this sooner.....)
Jesus

Why?

Ok, so my house on fire perhaps wasn't the brightest idea of an example. How about if you were a little boy playing by making mud pies in a slum, and someone came along and offered to take you to a really nice beach, but because you had never seen one, you refused, and was even insulted at the suggestion of a lovely beach. And then someone else came along and gave you another offer of a ride through a safari, but since you had stopped believing in safari's since you were a small child, you laughed at them. Then someone else suggested a day at the snow resort. Then you got annoyed at all these people asking you, because you felt that they wanted to take you along to a place that didn't exist.
My point is that how do you know they don't exist if you have never been there?

I don't think 'older folks offering incentives to small children in the gutter' is likely to be a more successful approach, my friend.

It's too close to 'showing them your puppy'.

But - in this example... perhaps the small child is right? Perhaps person A imagined a beach... and person B has dreamed about safaris, and can no longer tell the difference between reality and dreams?

Perhaps person C has HEARD OF snow resorts, but is actually no 'wiser' than the child?

Why SHOULD the small child wander off, hand-in-hand, with some potential crackpot or pervert?

I have thought of one definition of God. (Don't know why I didn't think of this sooner.....)
Jesus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not a definition. That's justing giving 'God' another name.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not a definition. That's justing giving 'God' another name.

And, one that has only been applied to 'god' by certain cultures, at certain times.

Equally appropriate would be Satan, Beelzebub, Apophis, Huitzilopochtli, Dagon, Quetzocoatl, Ahura Mazda.... etc.

As you say - they are names for 'god'... not definitions.

(Well, to be ABSOLUTELY accurate... "satan" is actually kind of a description....)

Why would you NOT assume that the 'laws of nature' can continue on their own?

There is no evidence to say they have ever been supported in any way, and yet the universe seems quite happy to trundle along on it's own merry way. Why would you assume that it will suddenly stop?

I think you are confused about 'laws', in a scientific sense... there is no 'law of gravity'... there just 'is' gravity. We can calculate what it does, and 'how much' there is... but it isn't a 'law' that binds reality.. it is an observable characteristic of reality.

Gravity is 'part' of reality... not a set of rules.

You teach "some parts" of biochemistry? What do you do about the other parts?

Just 'is' gravity sounds like someone trying find an excuse not to explain it.....I'm not trying to criticise you, but your assumption about there being no 'law of gravity' doesn't make much sense. It's a law if it always holds true. Have you ever seen water run uphill, for example. At least, I doubt that gravity has ever failed you. The fact that we can base our calculations on it, and assume that it is always there, makes it a law, according to how I see it.
Do you have an aversion to 'rules'? Perhaps we need to define our terms before we can discuss this much further.
As for reality, how do you define that, before we get to the nitty gritties.

I teach biochemistry, and leave out the supposed history problems, like the chicken or the egg, the protein or the RNA.

Philosophy will only deny the existence of God, using fellows like Hume, or even the later Existentialists will prove that belief in God, as a means of faith, are from a skeptical standpoint, completely fallacious. There is no rational, logical, or deductive basis for the existence in God. In regards to Pascals Wager, would you want God to let you into Heaven based upon a faithless insurance policy? Idiots, take a little bit of time to consider both traditional theological perspectives on God and basic deductive logic. Belief in God relies on Faith, or you could cut to the chase and say Belief in God relies on 'untruths' or 'white lies' if you are using a Nietszchian perspective. Read the Bible if you want to prove the existence of God, don't fuck around and misuse philosophy as a means of proving something as ridiculous as 'proving' the existence of God. You are much soon going to prove that 3+3=7 than you are going to PROVE the existence of God. At least Athiest are better than Agnostics, those guys are lunatics.

"Because you are luke warm I will spit you from my mouth"

Just 'is' gravity sounds like someone trying find an excuse not to explain it.....I'm not trying to criticise you, but your assumption about there being no 'law of gravity' doesn't make much sense. It's a law if it always holds true. Have you ever seen water run uphill, for example. At least, I doubt that gravity has ever failed you. The fact that we can base our calculations on it, and assume that it is always there, makes it a law, according to how I see it.
Do you have an aversion to 'rules'? Perhaps we need to define our terms before we can discuss this much further.
As for reality, how do you define that, before we get to the nitty gritties.

I teach biochemistry, and leave out the supposed history problems, like the chicken or the egg, the protein or the RNA.

The egg came first.

The concept of gravity is reproducable and testable by everyone. You cannot even tell me what 'god' is, let alone give me the means to test your hypothesis.

I'm going to enjoy it when Reformantia gets wind of this thread.

Also, the egg came first.

At least Athiest are better than Agnostics, those guys are lunatics.

Why thank yee

Religion = buLlShIt

I don't think 'older folks offering incentives to small children in the gutter' is likely to be a more successful approach, my friend.

It's too close to 'showing them your puppy'.

But - in this example... perhaps the small child is right? Perhaps person A imagined a beach... and person B has dreamed about safaris, and can no longer tell the difference between reality and dreams?

Perhaps person C has HEARD OF snow resorts, but is actually no 'wiser' than the child?

Why SHOULD the small child wander off, hand-in-hand, with some potential crackpot or pervert?

AGGRRR.....yes, you are right, how could I not have thought ahead and suspected someone would twist my point. Could you imagine this analogy where each of the adults in the story were neither perverts, nor high on dreams or any other stuff.

But you raise yet another good point. The child could not possibly know if any of the adults were false (deceptive) or just plain sincerely wrong. I suppose both of these scenarios have been repeated as long as there has been humans.

But is it worth the risk for an atheist to take the plunge into the mystery of the unknown and the unmeasureable? That is the question every person must face. It's 'take your pick' of course. But as a Christian, I have to say it.....please choose carefully (assuming you haven't already), and don't be in a hurry. There just might be a whole lot at stake.

There it is. I now put down the challenge to non-religious atheists, and to those who live a life of immorality and sin, to tell us why they choose the foolish side of the coin, and bet everything on the non-existence of God, when there is nothing to gain from this stance.


The degeneration of society, religion impedes scientific study, and interfers with reason. If everyone just accepted the scientific evidence about our creation, and how our world works, then our society would advance much faster.

Basicly, I don't respect a man who has to knee before his god because he can't stand on his own.

But is it worth the risk for an atheist to take the plunge into the mystery of the unknown and the unmeasureable? That is the question every person must face. It's 'take your pick' of course. But as a Christian, I have to say it.....please choose carefully (assuming you haven't already), and don't be in a hurry. There just might be a whole lot at stake. One could respond to this with the old philosopher's adage; "why?"

Just 'is' gravity sounds like someone trying find an excuse not to explain it.....I'm not trying to criticise you, but your assumption about there being no 'law of gravity' doesn't make much sense. It's a law if it always holds true. Have you ever seen water run uphill, for example. At least, I doubt that gravity has ever failed you. The fact that we can base our calculations on it, and assume that it is always there, makes it a law, according to how I see it.
Do you have an aversion to 'rules'? Perhaps we need to define our terms before we can discuss this much further.
As for reality, how do you define that, before we get to the nitty gritties.

I teach biochemistry, and leave out the supposed history problems, like the chicken or the egg, the protein or the RNA.

Just because gravity hasn't failed me, doesn't make it a law... my point is that gravity is an EFFECT of mass, rather than a law that governs it, as such.

To view it as a law is a flawed perception... to view it as an observable characteristic is probably a better idea.

Reality is what is. It is what exists.

What do you mean, you 'leave out the chicken and the egg'? You teach biochemistry, and yet you do not know that chickens are a fairly recent invention... a mere domesticated version of an earlier creature... and not a very old one, at that?

Just 'is' gravity sounds like someone trying find an excuse not to explain it.....Just 'is' God sounds like someone trying to find an excuse not to explain Him......

(No, not what you say, exactly, but what the general feeling is from some who preach...)


As to the whole 'law' thing. The "Law of gravity" is just a fancy name for the "Theory of gravity" and essentially means that "It's so good a theory that the originator decided it was fundementally true. (Interestingly, Newton had some rather interesting spirituality...)

I think they decided it was a 'law' premeturely, to be honest, asit does not always hold true... While I haven't seen water run uphill (well, not without arranging for it artificially or happening upon a natural 'flume' situation) Mercury has been observed to break the 'Law' as the predcted motion of that planet is different from the measured path of the planet. That's explainable by the application of various more modern theories, i.e. the Theory of Relativity in particular (general/specific, Idunno, I always get confused between them).


Do you have an aversion to 'rules'? Perhaps we need to define our terms before we can discuss this much further.Personally, I believe (I hate to use that word here, but you know what I mean) that there are 'ultimate rules' behind all behaviour (including the seemingly random quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space) but the 'rules', 'laws' and (more correctly) Theories that we derive from observation are our perspectives upon the way the Universe works as limited by the intrinsic inability to know everything. And so Science evolves. Nobody and no think within the universe can actually know everything and whether there's a God sitting just outside looking at it all and comprehending (even poking little bits) is irrelevant, because the 'rules' that we make are about the Universe, not what is outside.

As for reality, how do you define that, before we get to the nitty gritties."What is." Though that's probably a bit simplistic a way of describing it. And its limit is at the edge of the Universe, and so does not (for me) include God.

I teach biochemistry, and leave out the supposed history problems, like the chicken or the egg, the protein or the RNA.The egg came first. Reptiles (and amphibians before them) laid eggs long before the first creature that (fizzily) could be considered a bird emerged from an egg that was laid by a creature that (fuzzily) was still more Archeopteryx-like (or whatever the lineage actually is) and the same occurs as some birds transitioned, generation by generation, into a chicken-as-we-know-it.

If you specify "chicken egg", then do you mean "egg that contains something we say would be a chicken" (in which case the above applies) or "egg that is laid by a chicken" in which case that answer is obvious too...

I'd say RNA came first (without being up-to-date in the field, sorry) as RNA can self-catalyse and the ability to create proteins, then catalysing proteins, could have come later. (If I remember my lessons correctly.)

But is it worth the risk for an atheist to take the plunge into the mystery of the unknown and the unmeasureable? That is the question every person must face. It's 'take your pick' of course. But as a Christian, I have to say it.....please choose carefully (assuming you haven't already), and don't be in a hurry. There just might be a whole lot at stake.

I think that is part of the confusion. One doesn't choose to be atheist. One just knows that he is. For me, it was a realization. "OMG! God doesn't exist!!" Trying to make myself believe that he does would be me just living a lie. Just imagine if I had robbed a bank. I could pretend all I want that I didn't do it, but the fact remains that I did. Saying that I didn't do it does not change the facts. In atheism, it is fact that G-d does not exist. You cannot change that fact, but you can pretend that it is not true.

I was raised Christian. I know what is supposed to happensto people who "turn their backs on G-d". Knowing that, why on earth would I CHOOSE to not believe in G-d?? I would be insane!

The egg came first.

The concept of gravity is reproducable and testable by everyone. You cannot even tell me what 'god' is, let alone give me the means to test your hypothesis.

I feel that you have unfairly assume this. I can give you a means to test the hypothesis. It's actually the only way it can be tested. Certainly, many have tried and left feeling that it (the hypothesis) has failed them. So the end is not certain. However, if you want to meet God for yourself, you have to firstly allow that He exists, that if so, He can communicate with you (quite well actually), and that He is cabable of proving to you personally that He is alive and well and cares a great deal that you should get to know Him.

The Bible describes God as unfathomeable. And thus the purpose of Jesus was for Him to come to us, on our terms, submit to the same laws (eg. gravity) that we are subjected to, and bring with Him just His heart, stripped of all His powers. So, if you like, Jesus is the heart of God. That is perhaps the closest I can get to a definition of God, since you have forced me to this :)

AGGRRR.....yes, you are right, how could I not have thought ahead and suspected someone would twist my point. Could you imagine this analogy where each of the adults in the story were neither perverts, nor high on dreams or any other stuff.

But you raise yet another good point. The child could not possibly know if any of the adults were false (deceptive) or just plain sincerely wrong. I suppose both of these scenarios have been repeated as long as there has been humans.

But is it worth the risk for an atheist to take the plunge into the mystery of the unknown and the unmeasureable? That is the question every person must face. It's 'take your pick' of course. But as a Christian, I have to say it.....please choose carefully (assuming you haven't already), and don't be in a hurry. There just might be a whole lot at stake.

I have been a Christian.

My personal viewpoint... (and I don't want any other Christians out there to be insulted by this, it IS my personal view) is that I was Christian because I was immature.

As I learned more about the way I worked, and the world worked around me... I realised that many things I had been 'told' were not true... and many things I had been told were 'evidence' of 'god', were equally explainable in other ways.

Example: The religious 'fervour'... the pleasure that, in some churches, leaves worshippers breathless on the floor, stimulates all the same nerve centres and brain areas as sex. That 'rapture' the worshipper feels is, effectively, an orgasm inspired by god-fantasies.


So - I have TRIED the unknown, and the unmeasurable... and (to me) it is the wrong path... it is a path of deliberate ignorance of reality, and a path of wilfull self-denial of what you can see, think and infer.


As you mention above - the child in the example doesn't know if ANY of the strangers are well-meaning, or even if they are correct in their beliefs.

No offence to you, but I (for example) am more likely to be the adult, being surrounded by three children... due to my experiences.

I think that is part of the confusion. One doesn't choose to be atheist. One just knows that he is. For me, it was a realization. "OMG! God doesn't exist!!" Trying to make myself believe that he does would be me just living a lie. Just imagine if I had robbed a bank. I could pretend all I want that I didn't do it, but the fact remains that I did. Saying that I didn't do it does not change the facts. In atheism, it is fact that G-d does not exist. You cannot change that fact, but you can pretend that it is not true.

I was raised Christian. I know what is supposed to happensto people who "turn their backs on G-d". Knowing that, why on earth would I CHOOSE to not believe in G-d?? I would be insane!

I have never found myself believing in the absence of God, though I know I have at times lived as though He has never existed. Thus, I cannot really understand what it must have been like to have the 'OMG' feeling. I readily grant that it must have been quite an experience. But does it mean that my experience of God is no longer valid? Not to mention the many others whom I personally know who can vouch for the same thing. Is it possible that your feeling of 'OMG' was mistaken? Certainly, the same question can be applied to me. My point is that these personal experiences will never be enough to convince another person. You have to have your own experience. And yet, when your experience does not agree with the 'evidence of God' that we have all around us, perhaps you should question your experience some more......

I have never found myself believing in the absence of God, though I know I have at times lived as though He has never existed. Thus, I cannot really understand what it must have been like to have the 'OMG' feeling. I readily grant that it must have been quite an experience. But does it mean that my experience of God is no longer valid? Not to mention the many others whom I personally know who can vouch for the same thing. Is it possible that your feeling of 'OMG' was mistaken? Certainly, the same question can be applied to me. My point is that these personal experiences will never be enough to convince another person. You have to have your own experience. And yet, when your experience does not agree with the 'evidence of God' that we have all around us, perhaps you should question your experience some more......

But then, as I pointed out above.. many Atheists seem to come FROM a religious background... so they KNOW what they are missing... and they consider it to be as 'real' as you might consider fairies or goblins.

I have yet to see ANY evidence for the existence of 'god'.

Believing in God to get into heaven is a bad idea, he has quality bouncers.
I don't think you should follow this idea but nor do I believe you have that much to lose from following religion other than one hour a week.
I'd say that an atheist who campaigned to help those in need or worked in a service such as police or a nurse is far more worthy of a place in heaven than a Religous person who believed in God but never did His work.

I teach biochemistry, and leave out the supposed history problems, like the chicken or the egg, the protein or the RNA.

Woohoo Biochemistry! I'm a major.

I have been a Christian.

My personal viewpoint... (and I don't want any other Christians out there to be insulted by this, it IS my personal view) is that I was Christian because I was immature.

As I learned more about the way I worked, and the world worked around me... I realised that many things I had been 'told' were not true... and many things I had been told were 'evidence' of 'god', were equally explainable in other ways.

Example: The religious 'fervour'... the pleasure that, in some churches, leaves worshippers breathless on the floor, stimulates all the same nerve centres and brain areas as sex. That 'rapture' the worshipper feels is, effectively, an orgasm inspired by god-fantasies.


So - I have TRIED the unknown, and the unmeasurable... and (to me) it is the wrong path... it is a path of deliberate ignorance of reality, and a path of wilfull self-denial of what you can see, think and infer.


As you mention above - the child in the example doesn't know if ANY of the strangers are well-meaning, or even if they are correct in their beliefs.

No offence to you, but I (for example) am more likely to be the adult, being surrounded by three children... due to my experiences.

Certainly, I cannot take offence at your honesty. In fact, I would embrace it like a breath of fresh air.
So you have found a way to explain everything......is that what you say? And because your explanations seem to hold water, you accept them as true. But you cannot really be serious about it. For example, your description of the path of Christianity as wilful self-denial and ignorance of reality is exactly the opposite to the way I have found it. Maybe your experience of Christianity is what failed you and disappointed you. But are you saying it was God who failed you? But, ahem, I see your dilema, for if there is no God, then of course it was the belief system of certain deluded Christians that failed you. But of course, there are bound to be false Christians out there. Could it be that you were with them at one time?
Does a bite in one apple, when found to be rotten at the core, mean that you throw it away, never tagain to eat another apple.

If the egg came first, who laid it?

But does it mean that my experience of God is no longer valid?

Not at all. I have my experience and you have yours. Just because I do not "believe" in G-d, it does not make your belief less valid. How I see it (and this is not meant to be offensive), some people have a need to believe in a diety. It helps them "be a better person". It would be wrong of me to tell them that they should not have that belief...now that does not mean that I will tell them that I do not agree with them, but I will not shove it down anyone's throat.

Not to mention the many others whom I personally know who can vouch for the same thing. Is it possible that your feeling of 'OMG' was mistaken? Certainly, the same question can be applied to me. My point is that these personal experiences will never be enough to convince another person. You have to have your own experience. And yet, when your experience does not agree with the 'evidence of God' that we have all around us, perhaps you should question your experience some more......

Well, I can see where you are coming from, but I do not agree. My OMG experience was mine and mine alone. It was also something that happened over the period of years. I explain it to others to help them see where I am coming from, but you are right. It is MY experience. You can take from it what you like. :) As far as the evidence of G-d that is all around us, I do not see it as evidence. I see most of it as scientifically explainable. That which cannot be explained by any current means does not make it proof of a diety. All it is is something that we have not figured out yet.

If the egg came first, who laid it? An organism which was genetically dissimilar enough for us to call it "not a chicken".

Believing in God to get into heaven is a bad idea, he has quality bouncers.
I don't think you should follow this idea but nor do I believe you have that much to lose from following religion other than one hour a week.
I'd say that an atheist who campaigned to help those in need or worked in a service such as police or a nurse is far more worthy of a place in heaven than a Religous person who believed in God but never did His work.

That's basically where I'm at. This strikes me as a problem with much of organized religion, that simply believing in God makes you saved. I would say being a good person makes you saved. Doesn't matter if there's a heaven or not, I'm living my life the same way.

But then, as I pointed out above.. many Atheists seem to come FROM a religious background... so they KNOW what they are missing... and they consider it to be as 'real' as you might consider fairies or goblins.

I have yet to see ANY evidence for the existence of 'god'.

I realize that many Atheists come from a religious background. There must be a reason. One reason could be that religion is wrong. I think on this ground, you and I must agree. But that doesn't make all religion wrong. So that doesn't let the atheist off the hook. If he has had a bad experience from one religion, or one version of that religion, he should not assume that all religions are wrong. That would be arrogant.
In addition, it is possible that is some cases the atheist has not been honest, and has chosen to be an atheist because he percieves it as the easier and more pleasureable way, not because he believes there is more truth in it. No doubt, there are many honest atheists, but there must be very many dishonest ones too.

No evidence for God.......there could be several possibilities. One is that you are right, there is no God. One is that you are dishonest (please take no offense here). One is that you are honest, but blind. As a fellow human, I am certianly in no position to judge, although given my beliefs......

An organism which was genetically dissimilar enough for us to call it "not a chicken".
Friend, you are not being convincing, for the genetically dissimilar organism has to come from somewhere, right down to the problem of the protein or the RNA......which came first?
That, I'll bet, you cannot answer, not for a million dollars.

As I learned more about the way I worked, and the world worked around me... I realised that many things I had been 'told' were not true... and many things I had been told were 'evidence' of 'god', were equally explainable in other ways.



Coming from a scientist and a fellow atheist, this is not a refutation of the existence of God. Simply because I understand the colors of the sunset are simply a product of the physical properties of the light travelling through our atmosphere at a changed angle does not take away from the beauty of the spectacle.

Certainly, I cannot take offence at your honesty. In fact, I would embrace it like a breath of fresh air.
So you have found a way to explain everything......is that what you say? And because your explanations seem to hold water, you accept them as true. But you cannot really be serious about it. For example, your description of the path of Christianity as wilful self-denial and ignorance of reality is exactly the opposite to the way I have found it. Maybe your experience of Christianity is what failed you and disappointed you. But are you saying it was God who failed you? But, ahem, I see your dilema, for if there is no God, then of course it was the belief system of certain deluded Christians that failed you. But of course, there are bound to be false Christians out there. Could it be that you were with them at one time?
Does a bite in one apple, when found to be rotten at the core, mean that you throw it away, never tagain to eat another apple.

If the egg came first, who laid it?

The egg was laid by a Jungle Fowl... the bird from which our modern chickens was derived.

Regarding things like the 'wilful self-denial'... My in-laws are Southern Baptists. They take medicine when they are sick, they use telescopes to look at things far away, and microscopes to look at things very close. They have had surgeries, they drive internal combustion engine vehicles. They talk on cellular phones, and they plot their routes using satellite-generated maps.

They accept 'science' for all those things.

And yet, they will not accept that science even COULD be right about a process like evolution? That science could be right about the age of the earth? That science could be right about certain things that contradict their holy book.

They wilfully choose to disregard what can be seen, recorded, documented... in order to stay 'true' to the tenets of their faith.

Regarding ignorance of reality... well, there are things we may disagree on, you and I. There is no evidence that the whole world has EVER been flooded, in the manner described in Genesis... certainly not since there has been 'human' life. There are histories that date back to BEFORE the flood (that killed everyone, supposedly) by OTHER cultures... in the Fertile Crescent and the Orient... that fail to describe a flood that killed everyone.

Did the Ancient Egpytians somehow fail to mention a flood that killed them all? And, if it killed them all, why did they continue writing before AND after the alleged event?

What 'failed' me, was the fact that there is no evidence for a 'god', except one book. And it is far from the only book. And many of those OTHER books give good reasons as to why THEY are correct, and the Bible is wrong.

And, since NONE of them have any evidence for god, why believe ONE over any other?

Friend, you are not being convincing, for the genetically dissimilar organism has to come from somewhere, right down to the problem of the protein or the RNA......which came first?
That, I'll bet, you cannot answer, not for a million dollars.
So you're saying that if we don't know the answer to a question we must automatically assume a deity is responsible. So which god kidnapped Amelia Erhart? Why did he/she kidnap her? Why no ransom note?

I realize that many Atheists come from a religious background. There must be a reason. One reason could be that religion is wrong. I think on this ground, you and I must agree. But that doesn't make all religion wrong. So that doesn't let the atheist off the hook. If he has had a bad experience from one religion, or one version of that religion, he should not assume that all religions are wrong. That would be arrogant.
In addition, it is possible that is some cases the atheist has not been honest, and has chosen to be an atheist because he percieves it as the easier and more pleasureable way, not because he believes there is more truth in it. No doubt, there are many honest atheists, but there must be very many dishonest ones too.

No evidence for God.......there could be several possibilities. One is that you are right, there is no God. One is that you are dishonest (please take no offense here). One is that you are honest, but blind. As a fellow human, I am certianly in no position to judge, although given my beliefs......

I have never met an Atheist that 'chose' to be an Atheist.

Why would you?

Why would you give up having all your mistakes forgiven, all your burdens shared, or your responsibilities lifted? All your sins ignored?

Why would you give that up?

You don't 'give it up'... you just don't believe the stories, any more.

During my 'recovery' from Christianity, I read many holy books. I read about many faiths. I read about many branches of the theological tree... and I found the same amount of evidence for all.

What would be arrogant, would be to assume that ONE religion was right, and all the others were wrong, surely?

Rather than saying I am dishonest, blind... or even right... why not show something that IS evidence of 'god'? I see nothing.

right down to the problem of the protein or the RNA......which came first? Now we're getting into abiogenesis territory, in which I am not very well versed. I don't know where life originated from, but I haven't really looked into it.

However, I'm not very convinced that some magic dude in the sky made me out of clay. Nor do I believe that the Earth was a giant egg, or that the Universe was a God who was murdered by his children.

Not at all. I have my experience and you have yours. Just because I do not "believe" in G-d, it does not make your belief less valid. How I see it (and this is not meant to be offensive), some people have a need to believe in a diety. It helps them "be a better person". It would be wrong of me to tell them that they should not have that belief...now that does not mean that I will tell them that I do not agree with them, but I will not shove it down anyone's throat.



Well, I can see where you are coming from, but I do not agree. My OMG experience was mine and mine alone. It was also something that happened over the period of years. I explain it to others to help them see where I am coming from, but you are right. It is MY experience. You can take from it what you like. :) As far as the evidence of G-d that is all around us, I do not see it as evidence. I see most of it as scientifically explainable. That which cannot be explained by any current means does not make it proof of a diety. All it is is something that we have not figured out yet.

Sorry if I seem a bit picky, but, but as a scientist, since learning science, I have come to see just how much we don't know. Continuing on with this thread of thought, science will never know many things, because it doesn't ask the right questions. It is very very limited. Sure, it can bring you your TV and Internet and mobile phones. It can explain why your teeth go yellow, and eventually fall out. But it cannot explain why everyone everywhere has a conscience. It cannot tell us why we are here, what our purpose is, what is worth living for, what is worth dying for. It can't tell us the answers to the big questions. Science is a little tool in the hands of intelligent humans. Are you going to point your little tool at God and measure Him? Of course not. If he made all the laws that science has discovered, and if it's in His best interests not to be discovered by a telescope, than you can be sure, it will never happen.

Coming from a scientist and a fellow atheist, this is not a refutation of the existence of God. Simply because I understand the colors of the sunset are simply a product of the physical properties of the light travelling through our atmosphere at a changed angle does not take away from the beauty of the spectacle.

Re-read my post... I didn't say that any given evidence was a refutation of god. I said that I had been told things WERE evidence of god, but that they COULD be explained in OTHER ways.

And, sorry friend.... beauty does not equal truth.

I agree with you that a sunset is beautiful... but that doesn't make it 'mystical'... or mean that it MUST have been painted there by 'god', the 'sun' spirit, or artistic goblins.

So you're saying that if we don't know the answer to a question we must automatically assume a deity is responsible. So which god kidnapped Amelia Erhart? Why did he/she kidnap her? Why no ransom note?

It's not such a big leap of logic to assume someone did this. Especially if there is no real alternative.

I see the difference between atheism and agnosticism this way.

Imagine that you are in a giant room, with four walls and a cieling, and a floor. There are no doors or windows, and as far as you can tell, the walls and cieling and floor are indestructible. (Ignore for the moment the questions of food or air, and just say you get them somehow.)
Now a theist would tell you that behind the walls is a giant man holding the room above his head, and in the final days he will throw the room into the burning pits of Hades, and all the true believers will ascend to the clouds. You don't believe him, because you've never seen what's on the other side of the wall, and frankly, neither has he.

Then an Atheist comes up to you and tells you that there IS nothing beyond the walls. This room is all there is to everything, and why won't you just accept that? Of course, like the theist, the Atheist has never seen the other side of the wall and cannot back up his claims.

The other difference beyond that is that most agnostics feel that their senses are not necessarily trustworthy. It could be a dream. It could be a dillusion. Perhaps while you think you are in a room staring at an impregnable wall, you are really riding on the back of an invisible pink unicorn. Or perhaps you are really posting a thread on a forum.

Sorry if I seem a bit picky, but, but as a scientist, since learning science, I have come to see just how much we don't know. Continuing on with this thread of thought, science will never know many things, because it doesn't ask the right questions. It is very very limited. Sure, it can bring you your TV and Internet and mobile phones. It can explain why your teeth go yellow, and eventually fall out. But it cannot explain why everyone everywhere has a conscience. It cannot tell us why we are here, what our purpose is, what is worth living for, what is worth dying for. It can't tell us the answers to the big questions. Science is a little tool in the hands of intelligent humans. Are you going to point your little tool at God and measure Him? Of course not. If he made all the laws that science has discovered, and if it's in His best interests not to be discovered by a telescope, than you can be sure, it will never happen.

Why do we need some magical purpose for being here? It seems to me you are inventing questions to justify why we need religion.

And you still have explained why god is any different to tishbang.

It's not such a big leap of logic to assume someone did this. Especially if there is no real alternative.
Sure it is. Here's why. There are as many alternatives as the human imagination can come up with, and probably more than that. Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that a deity or group of deities would create a universe and populate it with life (or kidnap and aviatrix) and never give a clear and consice message to the intelligent beings they've created? Never even reveal themselves in any way, even by accident?

Friend, you are not being convincing, for the genetically dissimilar organism has to come from somewhere, right down to the problem of the protein or the RNA......which came first?
That, I'll bet, you cannot answer, not for a million dollars.If you deny the possibility of the genetically dissimilar organism, then that's an evolution/Creation argument. Otherwise, the question is answered.

And I'm hazarding a guess (based on the reasons I originally gave) that RNA created the first RNA-created protein before any protein assisted in the construction of RNA, although it's up in the air (or water) whether a folded chemical chain that was definable as a protein was independantly created before or after an independant formation of a chemical chain that is defined as an RNA...

I see the difference between atheism and agnosticism this way.

Imagine that you are in a giant room, with four walls and a cieling, and a floor. There are no doors or windows, and as far as you can tell, the walls and cieling and floor are indestructible. (Ignore for the moment the questions of food or air, and just say you get them somehow.)
Now a theist would tell you that behind the walls is a giant man holding the room above his head, and in the final days he will throw the room into the burning pits of Hades, and all the true believers will ascend to the clouds. You don't believe him, because you've never seen what's on the other side of the wall, and frankly, neither has he.

Then an Atheist comes up to you and tells you that there IS nothing beyond the walls. This room is all there is to everything, and why won't you just accept that? Of course, like the theist, the Atheist has never seen the other side of the wall and cannot back up his claims.

The other difference beyond that is that most agnostics feel that their senses are not necessarily trustworthy. It could be a dream. It could be a dillusion. Perhaps while you think you are in a room staring at an impregnable wall, you are really riding on the back of an invisible pink unicorn. Or perhaps you are really posting a thread on a forum.

In the case of your room:

The Theist says he KNOWS what is outside the walls.

The Agnostic says that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what is outside the walls.

The Implicit Atheist says doesn't believe there is anything outside the walls,

The Explicit Atheist says he KNOWS there is nothing outside the walls.

I have never met an Atheist that 'chose' to be an Atheist.

Why would you?

Why would you give up having all your mistakes forgiven, all your burdens shared, or your responsibilities lifted? All your sins ignored?

Why would you give that up?

You don't 'give it up'... you just don't believe the stories, any more.

During my 'recovery' from Christianity, I read many holy books. I read about many faiths. I read about many branches of the theological tree... and I found the same amount of evidence for all.

What would be arrogant, would be to assume that ONE religion was right, and all the others were wrong, surely?

Rather than saying I am dishonest, blind... or even right... why not show something that IS evidence of 'god'? I see nothing.

I suspect you have been through some grave disappointments, friend, and far be it from me to judge you or look down on you for your conclusions.
I also think there to be a great many reasons what people have stopped believing. Of them all, I feel disappointment and despair to be one of the most crushing and strongest. I have had a taste of this also. But what makes one person believe, and another not. Is it not a choice of some kind. Are you saying that it was no choice of yours, that one day you woke up and found yourself not believing? I readily accept that this choice is not quite the same as the choices made on a wedding day. Perhaps it consists of lots of little choices made along the way, ones that harden your heart, eg. unwillingness to forgive, harbouring hatred and ill feeling. Please note. I am not accusing you of this, merely using this as an example. These choices harden ones heart, and result in, perhaps years later, a cold numbness that seems like a great wall of hardness, cutting one off from not only God, but even the feeling like one can believe in Him.

If you are blind, how would I descibe sight to you. If you are deaf, how could I descibe music to you? If you have never tasted anything, how could I explain the taste of my faviourite chocolate? How do you know your 'Christian' experience was really one that God was involved in. The Bible describes authentic Christianity as one that experiences Jesus in a living way, on a daily basis. To be sure, I realize that this sort of Christianity is a bit rare these days, so that is why I ask the question. I am not questioning your honesty.

Sorry if I seem a bit picky, but, but as a scientist, since learning science, I have come to see just how much we don't know. Continuing on with this thread of thought, science will never know many things, because it doesn't ask the right questions. It is very very limited. Sure, it can bring you your TV and Internet and mobile phones. It can explain why your teeth go yellow, and eventually fall out. But it cannot explain why everyone everywhere has a conscience. It cannot tell us why we are here, what our purpose is, what is worth living for, what is worth dying for. It can't tell us the answers to the big questions. Science is a little tool in the hands of intelligent humans. Are you going to point your little tool at God and measure Him? Of course not. If he made all the laws that science has discovered, and if it's in His best interests not to be discovered by a telescope, than you can be sure, it will never happen.

Science isn't a tool at all... science is the APPLICATION of tools, and of logic.

You are basing your arguments on flawed assumptions.. for example: your 'assumption' that everyone has a 'conscience'.

First - that isn't true.

Second - even among those who DO have a conscience, the 'conscience' has no clear 'rules' - EXCEPT for those determined by society... so - the conscience is clearly a societal construct.... especially since it varies from society to society.

Also - why would it be in god's best interest not to be seen?

Doesn't that make the whole interacting with Adam thing a nonsense?

As an Atheist... (and an Atheist that knows a few other Atheists), I think you are wrong.

Some call the difference Hard v's Soft Atheism.

Some call it Weak v's Strong Atheism.

Some call it Implicit v's Explicit Atheism.

I think you should probably look into it a little before making any more blanket assertions.

You ask most atheists what defines their beliefs and the answer shall come forth:

"I believe that God doesn't exist"

I also know a few atheists, albeit less skilled at debating than you, and that is their definition of their beliefs. Not mine.

Anyway your orginal criticism of my point: I was attempting to show neither atheists or theists have adequate evidence to substantially back their beliefs.

It is also quite inadequate to state that most atheists do not care if God does or does not exist - if they don't care, why do so many of them come to threads like these and scream at the theists who are attacking the idea of God's non-existence?

Theists, if they believe in God (s), need not defend their beliefs as their beliefs are unassailable especially by posters are some half rate topical discussion board. But they still come and assault the walls of atheism time and time again.

Sure it is. Here's why. There are as many alternatives as the human imagination can come up with, and probably more than that. Also, doesn't it strike you as odd that a deity or group of deities would create a universe and populate it with life (or kidnap and aviatrix) and never give a clear and consice message to the intelligent beings they've created? Never even reveal themselves in any way, even by accident?

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bible for yourself?

Sorry if I seem a bit picky, but, but as a scientist, since learning science, I have come to see just how much we don't know. Continuing on with this thread of thought, science will never know many things, because it doesn't ask the right questions. It is very very limited. Sure, it can bring you your TV and Internet and mobile phones. It can explain why your teeth go yellow, and eventually fall out. But it cannot explain why everyone everywhere has a conscience. It cannot tell us why we are here, what our purpose is, what is worth living for, what is worth dying for. It can't tell us the answers to the big questions. Science is a little tool in the hands of intelligent humans. Are you going to point your little tool at God and measure Him? Of course not. If he made all the laws that science has discovered, and if it's in His best interests not to be discovered by a telescope, than you can be sure, it will never happen.

The reason science can't answer those questions is because they are not of a scientific nature...they are philosophical in nature. Science will explain things tangible...things that are physical. I cannot and will not explain things that occur within the thoughts of a human brain. It may explain why the thought processes work, but not the actual thought processes. That's why we have psychology. It helps explain the inner thought processes of the brain.

As far as your conscience, I have actually heard theories out there stating that things like Conscience and even the belief in a superior diety is something we as humas evolved into. Survival of the fittest. You know? Early humans somehow developed this "conscience". It made them see that there was "good and bad". Now This also stated that dieties not only came about as an explaination for the unexplainable, but it also was something that allowed humans survive. Instead of going about killing each other or otherwise acting like "mear animals", a sense of accountability and "divine" laws were established. These gave humans purpose and a reason for doing good. "you do good in your earthly life and you get a reward in the afterlife...do bad and get punished."

Re-read my post... I didn't say that any given evidence was a refutation of god. I said that I had been told things WERE evidence of god, but that they COULD be explained in OTHER ways.

And, sorry friend.... beauty does not equal truth.

I agree with you that a sunset is beautiful... but that doesn't make it 'mystical'... or mean that it MUST have been painted there by 'god', the 'sun' spirit, or artistic goblins.

My point was not that beauty equals truth, it was that when I look at a sunset, I appreciate the beauty of it. It seems to me that a divine being could very easily have made the conditions such that the sunset could occur. I would say we have the same viewpoint, but I say there is still room for God in science, and you would seem to be leaning the opposite direction.

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bible for yourself?

I have, and most of the Quran too. Both are viscious books, with obvious undertones of control and manipulation. The history of religion is one of abuse and hatred.

Please explain to me what you mean by the word 'god' otherwise it is as meaningless as the word 'snigglepoob'.

My point was not that beauty equals truth, it was that when I look at a sunset, I appreciate the beauty of it. It seems to me that a divine being could very easily have made the conditions such that the sunset could occur. I would say we have the same viewpoint, but I say there is still room for God in science, and you would seem to be leaning the opposite direction.

Your god seems to be about blind faith and supernatural experience. This is the polar opposite of what science is - the rational and reasoned exploration of the world, developing testable and reproducable theories.

I can't help but yawn at this thread. Another fanatic catholic trying to tell everyone that his religion is the only true one.

I suspect you have been through some grave disappointments, friend, and far be it from me to judge you or look down on you for your conclusions.
I also think there to be a great many reasons what people have stopped believing. Of them all, I feel disappointment and despair to be one of the most crushing and strongest. I have had a taste of this also. But what makes one person believe, and another not. Is it not a choice of some kind. Are you saying that it was no choice of yours, that one day you woke up and found yourself not believing? I readily accept that this choice is not quite the same as the choices made on a wedding day. Perhaps it consists of lots of little choices made along the way, ones that harden your heart, eg. unwillingness to forgive, harbouring hatred and ill feeling. Please note. I am not accusing you of this, merely using this as an example. These choices harden ones heart, and result in, perhaps years later, a cold numbness that seems like a great wall of hardness, cutting one off from not only God, but even the feeling like one can believe in Him.

If you are blind, how would I descibe sight to you. If you are deaf, how could I descibe music to you? If you have never tasted anything, how could I explain the taste of my faviourite chocolate? How do you know your 'Christian' experience was really one that God was involved in. The Bible describes authentic Christianity as one that experiences Jesus in a living way, on a daily basis. To be sure, I realize that this sort of Christianity is a bit rare these days, so that is why I ask the question. I am not questioning your honesty.

How do you know that YOU are feeling this 'real' christianity of which you speak?

I have talked to other Christians. I have compared my experiences with theirs. I felt that rush of the spirit when I was saved... the cooling suffusion of the spirit into me. I felt the sudden relief from so many trials, so many worries. I felt that love and assurance, the feeling as though I really were in the palm of some other entity... that my steps were being guided.

In the case of your chocolate or music examples... I HAVE tasted the chocolate... and heard the music.

Have you ever lost your faith? If you haven't, you are the one lacking an experience here - I have been both sides of the line.

You can probably find out from some of the people I debate with online, here (not appealing to popularity.. just refering to character witnesses, if you will) that I DO live a Christ-like life. The same sort of life I lived as a Christian. If THAT is the marker of the 'true' christianity... then I was it.

The only thing I don't have - is belief in the God of the bible, or any other entity beyond comprehension.

I did not make a choice to become an Atheist. Atheism is the default position when you don't believe any 'god' story.

Honestly, have you ever tried reading the Bible for yourself? Yes, but I don't see how that is relevent. Drunk Commies is referring to actual evidence, not a book with a bunch of stories.

If there were no religious people there would be no god.

Atheists don't hate god, they don't believe it exists.

I am not sure there is anyone who believes and yet still hates god.

I think that you will find that people will always make God. It is human nature to enshrine the values that we deem as valuable.

That, in a very glib nutshell, is what God is: the enshrinement of social values which humans place on pedestal so that they too can aim for this. Such is a quality seen in all deities, not just the Christian ones.

Thereby destroying religious people won't destroy God - eventually the human need to 'hero worship' will bloom again in one form or another.

It might bloom in the form a person - for example Stalin essentially made himself a deity to the Russian people and the values the Bolshevik Party enshrined. He himself said to his son

"You're not Stalin. I'm not Stalin. Stalin is what the Russian people want him to be".

In essence, people will always create a role model for themselves, be it God, several Gods, a person or even a principle.

The only way to eradicate religion is probably to eradicate humans.

Why do we need some magical purpose for being here? It seems to me you are inventing questions to justify why we need religion.

And you still have explained why god is any different to tishbang.

The questions I asked here are the ones that I hear coming from other people, quite frequently, particluarly children. My point is that I did not invent the questions. Of course, simply having questions does not prove that God exists, even if he does seem to answer them quite well, for it could mean that people invented God to satisfy such questions. Alternatively, it could mean that God made us with such questions. I favour the second argument, obviously. And I do think there is more merit in it. Lots of people have invented lots of religions. But only one religion decribes a God so full of love as to send His own Heart into the world to reach us. This, I feel, is just too fantastic for any human imagination. Truth is stranger that fiction, they say.

I think that you will find that people will always make God. It is human nature to enshrine the values that we deem as valuable.

That, in a very glib nutshell, is what God is: the enshrinement of social values which humans place on pedestal so that they too can aim for this. Such is a quality seen in all deities, not just the Christian ones.

Thereby destroying religious people won't destroy God - eventually the human need to 'hero worship' will bloom again in one form or another.

It might bloom in the form a person - for example Stalin essentially made himself a deity to the Russian people and the values the Bolshevik Party enshrined. He himself said to his son

"You're not Stalin. I'm not Stalin. Stalin is what the Russian people want him to be".

In essence, people will always create a role model for themselves, be it God, several Gods, a person or even a principle.

The only way to eradicate religion is probably to eradicate humans.

I believe one day we will be educated enough not to need hero worship. Not everyone needs a hero - I, for one, accept everyone has flaws and try to make the best of my life I can. No-one is my idol.