Atheists are stupid.

[JimmyJazz]

http://www.reddeerexpress.com/express/edition03/opinion-003.html


OPINION http://www.reddeerexpress.com/express/edition03/images/spacer.gif » LETTERS TO THE EDITOR «

Five 'difficult to admit' points for atheists to consider

07/08/09

In response to the letter “Atheists have a problem claiming evidence to disprove God”, published in the July 1, 2009 paper, I think Johnnie Bachusky is using the media for free advertising for atheism especially now that he is the editor.

Unfortunately, the opinion of Kim Beach was another “same story” diatribe regarding this topic that Bachusky is using to sell papers.

Beach states there is no evidence for God. This is not true. There are some key factors involved in this thinking by atheists that are not usually published.

Being the hot topic of the day, any discussion of atheism, should include these ‘difficult to admit’ points:

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

In closing, I would like to quote from the late Dr. J. Dominquez, MD, who said, “To be in error in Religion, is to have a ‘cancer in the soul’....it can ruin the only life on Earth, and the eternal one after Death. I am a Doctor in Medicine and Surgery. When I have a patient with cancer, I love the patient, but I hate his cancer, and I try my best to eradicate it from him... The ‘Greatest Love’ is to eradicate an ‘error’ from a person, even if it hurts!...and in fact, the ‘Greatest Love’ is to lay down your life to clean the sins, the bad karma, of your friends and foes, and to eradicate their errors once and for all...”

Nancy Greenwood
Red Deer:unsure:

[GPDP]

What. The. Fuck.

[JimmyJazz]

What. The. Fuck.

It's impossible that you just posted that (laws of thermodynamics) and yet you did.

YOUR MIND=BLOWN, GAME=OVER.

[GPDP]

It's impossible that you just posted that (laws of thermodynamics) and yet you did.

YOUR MIND=BLOWN, GAME=OVER.

OH GNOES :scared::scared::scared:

[EqualityandFreedom]

But people who believe in an invisible man in the sky are stupider.:D

[Revy]

"Red Deer Express" sounds like an awful name for a newspaper. And look at how they made the X so big to make it look "cool" :lol:

The letter's arguments are extremely weak....they're also arguments I've heard many times before.

[Havet]

i've seen even worst christians, but this is a nice specimen.

[9]

Hahah, oy vey iz mir! :laugh:
I'm an atheist, and I even think a lot of atheists are stupid half the time, but for shit's sake, this is the most horrid 'argument' I've ever read. As soon as someone throws in the "obviously [whatever group] have been hurt at some point in their lives", pseudo-argument, you know any legitimate debate is over. Sounds like something Abe Foxman from the ADL shit out after a bad bowl of borscht.

[Havet]

Hahah, oy vey iz mir! :laugh:
I'm an atheist, and I even think a lot of atheists are stupid half the time, but for shit's sake, this is the most horrid 'argument' I've ever read. As soon as someone throws in the "obviously [whatever group] have been hurt at some point in their lives", pseudo-argument, you know any legitimate debate is over. Sounds like something Abe Foxman from the ADL shit out after a bad bowl of borscht.

is anyone familiar with the austin atheist community? they sound like pretty smart atheists as far as i was able to tell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkII6Mr9LTg

[marxistcritic]

Yup. Christians make no sense

[Sarah Palin]

Christians with their logic man. What the hell is that.
"Yeah so god exists because if he didn't then who created the Earth?!"
Um I don't think the creation of Earth can be attributed to one person...
"Nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh!!! GOD CREATED TEH EARTHZ!!!!11one"

[marxistcritic]

Christians with their logic man. What the hell is that.
"Yeah so god exists because if he didn't then who created the Earth?!"
Um I don't think the creation of Earth can be attributed to one person...
"Nuh uh nuh uh nuh uh!!! GOD CREATED TEH EARTHZ!!!!11one"
:lol::lol:

[Trystan]

Bible = cool story bro. lulz

[JimmyJazz]

I'm an atheist, and I even think a lot of atheists are stupid half the time

Yeah, organized atheism is ususally pretty embarrassing. I don't blame this person's stupidity on Christianity or Christians in general, I just thought this letter was an example of one person's astounding stupidity.

Religion itself is more likely to be tied with support for disgusting things (like a subordinate role for women, or oppression of homosexuals, or a blame-the-victim attitude towards life in general) than with low intelligence. There are plenty of smart religious people, they just use their intellect to apologize for disgusting beliefs.

[Dervish]

Is this for real?

[Demogorgon]

I am presuming this is satire. The sort of person who says "it is scientifically impossible for bees to fly" is not the sort of person capable of literacy.

[JimmyJazz]

Nah, the "impossible for bees to fly" crap has been circulating for a long time:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1076/is-it-aerodynamically-impossible-for-bumblebees-to-fly

[Raúl Duke]

This 5 things this woman wrote are 1) dumb, irrelevant, and possibly strawman arguments 2)do not prove god

Also,

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.
The first part of this is called "Pascal's Wager" which is one of their old tricks. One problem of the wager is that since we have so many religions with many claiming to be the true one...then what happens if you pick the wrong god? You still have the dilemma of guessing which is the "right one."

the 3rd part, which talks about the number of adherents to religion (or of an Abrahamic religion, not sure what specific percentage that belongs to), fails on 2 points. One is that it's a fallacy (i.e. bandwagon fallacy) and 2nd is that while they might be the majority now the trend is now towards increase atheism/agnosticism across the world (especially the 1st world).

[9]

This 5 things this woman wrote are 1) dumb, irrelevant, and possibly strawman arguments 2)do not prove god

Also,

The first part of this is called "Pascal's Wager" which is one of their old tricks. One problem of the wager is that since we have so many religions with many claiming to be the true one...then what happens if you pick the wrong god? You still have the dilemma of guessing which is the "right one."

the 3rd part, which talks about the number of adherents to religion (or of an Abrahamic religion, not sure what specific percentage that belongs to), fails on 2 points. One is that it's a fallacy (i.e. bandwagon fallacy) and 2nd is that while they might be the majority now the trend is now towards increase atheism/agnosticism across the world (especially the 1st world).

Yes, but of course, when one considers that the problem to begin with is that this person ignores sound logic, employing the use of sound logic to deconstruct his/her argument is sort of futile.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The "arguments" quoted in the first post are so mind-numbingly dumb that I'm not even going to bother talking about them - except to say that this is the sort of thing that gives religion a bad reputation.

However, there is something else I want to reply to:


The first part of this is called "Pascal's Wager" which is one of their old tricks. One problem of the wager is that since we have so many religions with many claiming to be the true one...then what happens if you pick the wrong god? You still have the dilemma of guessing which is the "right one."
True, but even so, choosing any religion is a better wager than being an atheist. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument for Christianity, but it is an excellent argument against atheism (or, to be more exact, it is an excellent argument against being a self-interested atheist, because it shows that being an atheist is very likely to go against your self-interest).

[Havet]

The "arguments" quoted in the first post are so mind-numbingly dumb that I'm not even going to bother talking about them - except to say that this is the sort of thing that gives religion a bad reputation.

However, there is something else I want to reply to:


True, but even so, choosing any religion is a better wager than being an atheist. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument for Christianity, but it is an excellent argument against atheism (or, to be more exact, it is an excellent argument against being a self-interested atheist, because it shows that being an atheist is very likely to go against your self-interest).

better to convert to all religions just in case...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&feature=channel_page

[Invincible Summer]

better to convert to all religions just in case...

PqJpZOljjG8


I want to rep you so bad.


EDIT: You're restricted - nevermind! I might catch something icky! :lol:

[Decolonize The Left]

True, but even so, choosing any religion is a better wager than being an atheist. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument for Christianity, but it is an excellent argument against atheism (or, to be more exact, it is an excellent argument against being a self-interested atheist, because it shows that being an atheist is very likely to go against your self-interest).

:rolleyes:

From wikipedia's page on Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#Anti-Pascal_wager) - section Criticisms:

Pascal's Wager has been the target of much criticism, starting in its own day. Voltaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire), writing a generation after Pascal, rejected the wager as "indecent and childish... the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists." [11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-10) But Voltaire, like many other critics, misunderstood the Wager. Pascal did not offer the wager as a proof. [12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-Durant-Voltaire-11) It is merely a conclusion to his arguments against certainty that relies on the notion that reason is untrustworthy and that discerning God's actual existence appears to be "a coin toss." If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager&action=edit&section=5)] Argument from Inconsistent Revelations

Since there have been many religions throughout history, and therefore many potential gods, some assert that all of them need to be factored into the wager, in an argument known as the argument from inconsistent revelations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_inconsistent_revelations). This would lead to a high probability of believing in the wrong god, which destroys the mathematical advantage Pascal claimed with his Wager. Denis Diderot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot), a contemporary of Voltaire, concisely expressed this opinion when asked about the wager, saying "an Imam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imam) could reason the same way".[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-Diderot-12) J. L. Mackie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Mackie) notes that "the church within which alone salvation is to be found is not necessarily the Church of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church), but perhaps that of the Anabaptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists) or the Mormons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormons) or the Muslim Sunnis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunni_Muslims) or the worshipers of Kali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali) or of Odin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odin)." [14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-13)
Pascal himself didn't address the question of other religions in his section on the wager, presumably because throughout the rest of Pensées (and in his other works) he examined alternatives, like stoicism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism), paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism), Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam), and Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism), and concluded that if any faith is correct, it would be the Christian faith.
Nonetheless, as this criticism has surfaced, apologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist) of his wager counter that, of the rival options, only the ones that award infinite happiness affect the Wager's dominance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28game_theory%29). They claim that neither Odin's nor Kali's finite, semi-blissful promise could contend with the infinite bliss offered by Jesus Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ), so they drop out of consideration.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-autogenerated1-14) Also, the infinite bliss the rival god offers has to be mutually exclusive. If Christ's promise of bliss can be attained concurrently with Jehovah's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah) and Allah's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah) (all three being identified as the God of Abraham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions)), there is no conflict in the decision matrix in the case where the cost of believing in the wrong god is neutral (limbo/purgatory/spiritual death), although this would be countered with an infinite cost in the case where not believing in the correct god results in punishment (hell). [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-autogenerated1-14)
And furthermore, ecumenical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical) interpretations of the Wager[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-15) argue that it could even be suggested that believing in an anonymous god or a god by the wrong name, is acceptable so long as that god has the same essential characteristics (like the God of Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_view_of_God)). Proponents of this line of reasoning suggest that either all of the gods of history truly boil down to just a small set of "genuine options",[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-16) or that if the wager can simply bring one to believe in "generic theism" it has done its job.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-17) Critics respond by stating that the wager must account for all potential gods and goddesses, without specifying whether they belong to a historical religion or not.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-18)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pascal%27s_Wager&action=edit&section=6)] God rewards belief

Pascal's Wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:


a benevolent god exists and punishes or rewards according to one's belief, or
a benevolent god does not exist.

God could either be malevolent or not reward belief. In this view, a benevolent god, by definition, would give priority to the belief of the individual in determining rewards or punishments, rather than basing rewards on the basis of the individual's actions, such as rewarding kindness, generosity, humility or sincerity. Perhaps instead god rewards honest attempted reasoning and indeed might punish blind or feigned faith.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-19) Also see the Atheist's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager) as examples of assuming a different set of possibilities.
Richard Carrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier) expands this argument as such:
“ Suppose there is a God who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#cite_note-20) ” This would render the initial 4-box set inaccurate, because it does not include the possibility of a god who rewards honest unbelief or punishes dishonest belief.


- August

[Havet]

I want to rep you so bad.


EDIT: You're restricted - nevermind! I might catch something icky! :lol:

lol

Don't worry, I don't contaminate. I am, i mean, was a very self-contained person. I only posted opposing ideology threads/posts inside OI forum. But apparently I still needed to be restricted...

[Raúl Duke]

choosing any religion is a better wager than being an atheist.Why?
Considering the amount of religion in the world, the chances that I'm in the "wrong one" are pretty high.

It doesn't actually go against my self-interest considering that many religions have arbitary moral codes and/or justify horrendous viewpoints/actions. I could chose not to follow those arbitary moral codes (like the ridiculous "sex before marriage" one for example) or their viewpoints (i.e. homophobia) or try my luck and follow the rules of a religion (attempt to pick the right one which is like a 1 out of perhaps 50, not sure of how many religions could exist, chance) and yet risk the chance of still being wrong.

To think of it the wager as just "theism" vs "atheism" (or "religion" versus "non-religion") is simplifying the fact.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I never understood the Pascal's Wager. Isn't it possible God only rewards atheists? How is believing in God somehow what he wants? Maybe he wanted people to become atheist to affirm their independence and free will, the gift he supposedly gave them?

I'm atheist, but I think Pascal's Wager is rather lame as an opposition against atheism because it assumes a God wants you to believe in him. Why assume that?

[Dust Bunnies]

I'm a convert! God exists, I've seen the light! :rolleyes:

Disagree with me? Paschal's Wager. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

I want to rep you so bad.


EDIT: You're restricted - nevermind! I might catch something icky! :lol:

You can give restricted members rep. You just can't give thanks.

[Havet]

You can give restricted members rep. You just can't give thanks.

which reminds me, could someone from CC please review my first and latest request for reconsidering my restriction? I posted it a while ago in Unfair Restrictions III

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Why?
Considering the amount of religion in the world, the chances that I'm in the "wrong one" are pretty high.
But if you choose atheism, the chances of being on the wrong side are 100%.

The claim that "there are too many religions out there" does not diminish the strength of Pascal's Wager as an argument against hedonistic atheism.


It doesn't actually go against my self-interest considering that many religions have arbitary moral codes and/or justify horrendous viewpoints/actions. I could chose not to follow those arbitary moral codes (like the ridiculous "sex before marriage" one for example) or their viewpoints (i.e. homophobia)...
I am not aware of any major world religion which is uniformly homophobic. Most religions contain homophobic sects and groups, as well as entirely non-homophobic sects and groups. Some Christian churches think gay people are all going to hell, while others have gay priests.

As for things like "no sex before marriage" or other behavioral rules that believers are supposed to follow, some people find them easier to follow than others. For myself, for example, it's really quite easy, so I don't really consider it any kind of difficult sacrifice. In a lot of cases the rules are simply what I would have done anyway.

[anticap]

Nooo! Say it ain't so, Kwisatz Haderach! Pascal's Wager?! Really? :(

[danyboy27]

what the point with religion-bashing?

i am an atheist and personally i think that really offensive to attack the other beccause of their religion.

[Manifesto]

But people who believe in an invisible man in the sky are stupider.:D
Why must we all attack each other? Lets focus on the real enemy here. Fascists and Capitalists. Just because some of us have different beliefs than others is no reason to start debates. So what if someone is atheist? Great! Why people want to start this CRAP is beyond me. BTW Allah is God! Had to say it for that "Just in case" video. And thank you danyboy25.

[9]

what the point with religion-bashing?

i am an atheist and personally i think that really offensive to attack the other beccause of their religion.

I am on the same boat. Its so divisive and distracting, and at the end of the day, I'm sure no one has changed their mind.
This is probably particularly relevant in America, but if the left cannot carry a conversation without slamming the other person's religious beliefs - or being diverted into arguing against religion instead of capitalism - the broader proletariat (the majority of which is religious) will not give us the time of day. Ultimately, the people who we need to persuade will walk away with the sentiment that "the left wants to abolish our religion and they said something obscure about the means of production". The left continuing to hold this "official line" against religion is, among a long list of other things, only doing harm to the mass movement we seek to create.

[RedRise]

Christian or atheist, well that's great for you! But could you please keep it to yourself in future reference? :mad:
I'm a religious pagan; but I don't go preaching that we should all return to the Old Gods. Keep your bloody Christianity, but don't try and force it down my throat!:cursing:
Man, the world would be a much better place if religion was kept at 'I'll keep mine and you keep yours'.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Humouring the religious does nothing but reinforce the legitimacy of their absurd beliefs. Confronting them with a straight out, "no, it's bullshit for XYZ reasons" lets them not just know, but experience that there are people out there with different worldviews who disagree with the religious on a fundamental (no pun intended) level.

[SouthernBelle82]

I don't think people are stupid but have different experiences that lead them to their thoughts and beliefs or lack there of.

[Raúl Duke]

Putting some extra thought...
Doesn't Pascal's Wager base itself on fear (hell, etc) as an argument?
Isn't appeal to fear a logical fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Putting some extra thought...
Doesn't Pascal's Wager base itself on fear (hell, etc) as an argument?
Isn't appeal to fear a logical fallacy? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear)
Only if the argument is about the truth of some matter. Obviously, fear has no bearing on whether X is true or false. But fear may be relevant in an argument about how you should act. In most cases, if you are afraid of something, you should take steps to avoid it.

Pascal's Wager is not an argument about what is true. Pascal's Wager cannot be used to support the statement "religion is true" or "God exists." That would indeed be fallacious.

What Pascal's Wager can be used to support is the statement "you should not be an atheist." It is an argument about how you should act.


Nooo! Say it ain't so, Kwisatz Haderach! Pascal's Wager?! Really? :(
Yes, it is so. Pascal's Wager is a perfectly good argument against hedonistic atheism that gets brushed aside far too easily.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Only if the argument is about the truth of some matter. Obviously, fear has no bearing on whether X is true or false. But fear may be relevant in an argument about how you should act. In most cases, if you are afraid of something, you should take steps to avoid it.

Pascal's Wager is not an argument about what is true. Pascal's Wager cannot be used to support the statement "religion is true" or "God exists." That would indeed be fallacious.

What Pascal's Wager can be used to support is the statement "you should not be an atheist." It is an argument about how you should act.

I find it distinctly unconvincing. First of all, what are the odds, and how did you arrive at those odds? Only a fool takes a wager if they don't know the odds.

Secondly, exclusive monotheism is a relatively recent development, at least relative to the total span of human religious history. Zeus is a fearful character, but from what I've read about him he seems unlikely to care whether or not I worship him. And what about the religions that predate ancient Greek polytheism? What if the real god/dess/es/s have been lost to the mists of time? What about animist religions as well as those that favour orthopraxy over orthodoxy?

I'm sorry, but there are too many different (and contradictory) possibilities for me to take Pascal's Wager seriously.


Yes, it is so. Pascal's Wager is a perfectly good argument against hedonistic atheism that gets brushed aside far too easily.If when I die I end standing in front of Jehovah, Anubis, Hades, whoever, I'll simply say if asked why I didn't believe: "Not enough evidence, my Lord, not enough evidence!"

However, if I find myself in an underwater city with distinctly non-Euclidean geometry, I'll probably start screaming, since that would mean I'm about to get eaten by Cthulhu.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I find it distinctly unconvincing. First of all, what are the odds, and how did you arrive at those odds? Only a fool takes a wager if they don't know the odds.
I don't know the odds - no one does. But as for whether you should take a wager without knowing the odds, that depends on what you have to gain and what you have to lose. In this case, the potential gains of betting against atheism are some kind of reward after death. The potential losses are... well, that's the thing: I really don't see what you have to lose. For me, at least, atheism is distinctly unattractive. I would take Pascal's Wager, because I would see it as a bet in which you have unknown odds to win something, and you don't have anything to lose.

Now, if you derive some joy or satisfaction or other positive thing from being an atheist, then maybe you do have something to lose. But, as my example shows, that is not the case for all people.


Secondly, exclusive monotheism is a relatively recent development, at least relative to the total span of human religious history. Zeus is a fearful character, but from what I've read about him he seems unlikely to care whether or not I worship him. And what about the religions that predate ancient Greek polytheism? What if the real god/dess/es/s have been lost to the mists of time? What about animist religions as well as those that favour orthopraxy over orthodoxy?

I'm sorry, but there are too many different (and contradictory) possibilities for me to take Pascal's Wager seriously.
Going by the logic of Pascal's Wager, you should bet on worshiping the deity that is most likely to care whether you worship her or not. Also, you should give priority to the religions with large numbers of followers, because, if the true religion is one with very few followers, then the true deity is either relatively weak or relatively uncaring - and is therefore unable or unwilling to reward or punish you.

If the orthodoxy of one religion does not conflict with the orthopraxy of another, you should try to do both. For example, some religions promise rewards for, essentially, just being a nice person. You can be a nice person, and cover the possibility that one of these religions is true, while worshiping the deity of another religion - one who cares more about worship.


If when I die I end standing in front of Jehovah, Anubis, Hades, whoever, I'll simply say if asked why I didn't believe: "Not enough evidence, my Lord, not enough evidence!"
"Alright, fine. But why did you go out of your way to stop others believing in my teachings, too?" :tongue_smilie:


However, if I find myself in an underwater city with distinctly non-Euclidean geometry, I'll probably start screaming, since that would mean I'm about to get eaten by Cthulhu.
Cthulhu is a bad bet - he's liable to trample on your meaningless existence and show you the true uncomprehensible horror of the universe no matter what you do.

[SouthernBelle82]

You have encountered a wild theist!

You summon Christopher Hitchens!

http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/DontFuckwithHitchens.jpg

Christopher Hitchens uses logic!

dbhFXpI8DHA

It's super effective!

Theist fainted!

You saying Hitchens and logic in the same sentence I lol'd. He's a major rightwinger and for the Iraq invasion and occupation. He was for torture until he did it. Typical con.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't know the odds - no one does. But as for whether you should take a wager without knowing the odds, that depends on what you have to gain and what you have to lose. In this case, the potential gains of betting against atheism are some kind of reward after death. The potential losses are... well, that's the thing: I really don't see what you have to lose.

What about my personal integrity? Sure, I could go through the motions of being a religious person, but my belief would be a front, a facade, something totally insincere. Any god worthy of the name, and that gives a damn in the first place, would be able to see right through that.

I think Pratchett sums it up nicely:

A philosopher claimed, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When the philosopher died, he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'


For me, at least, atheism is distinctly unattractive. I would take Pascal's Wager, because I would see it as a bet in which you have unknown odds to win something, and you don't have anything to lose.That depends on which religion you follow, doesn't it? I enjoy pork (in fact it's the one kind of meat I can regularly afford), so being a Muslim or a Jew would be out of the question. I could follow a religion that doesn't have strictures that I find odious, but that would be cherry-picking.


Going by the logic of Pascal's Wager, you should bet on worshiping the deity that is most likely to care whether you worship her or not.The problem is that the deities that give a damn about individual followers' fidelity (as opposed to being more interested in the mass state-sponsored worship typical of Hellenic and Roman gods) have an overwhelming tendency to be psychotic assholes who lay down stupid and arbitrary rules for no good reason.


Also, you should give priority to the religions with large numbers of followers, because, if the true religion is one with very few followers, then the true deity is either relatively weak or relatively uncaring - and is therefore unable or unwilling to reward or punish you.How does that follow? The prevalence of a given religion is based on historical, cultural and social factors that appear to be completely independant of how much a god gives a damn for its followers.


If the orthodoxy of one religion does not conflict with the orthopraxy of another, you should try to do both. For example, some religions promise rewards for, essentially, just being a nice person. You can be a nice person, and cover the possibility that one of these religions is true, while worshiping the deity of another religion - one who cares more about worship.There are perfectly fine secular reasons for being a "good person" (by what standard, by the way?), and any god that reasonable would surely be reasonable enough to give honest skepticism a pass.


"Alright, fine. But why did you go out of your way to stop others believing in my teachings, too?" :tongue_smilie:I thought it was the right thing to do. Why give us the capability to reason and then not give any good reason to believe?


Cthulhu is a bad bet - he's liable to trample on your meaningless existence and show you the true uncomprehensible horror of the universe no matter what you do.The thing is, the Great Old Ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Old_One) and the Outer Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_God) are, by my reckoning, far closer representations of what a truly cosmic being would be like in the universe as we know it. Think about it; any such being would not have evolved on Earth, making them utterly alien (physically and mentally), perhaps even beyond sane human comprehension if they didn't originate in our universe. A being capable of drinking in, let alone creating, the vast scale and complexity of our universe would regard us in the same way that we regard microbes - in other words, utterly indifferent to our fate as individuals, and maybe also as a species if there are other intelligent beings sharing our place on the cosmic totem pole. Furthermore, we know that religious texts are written by human beings and have all the biases and flaws that are concomitant with that, so they're useless as a reference point for what any gods could possibly be like.


You saying Hitchens and logic in the same sentence I lol'd. He's a major rightwinger and for the Iraq invasion and occupation. He was for torture until he did it. Typical con.

Actually, Hitchens is fairly unique among conservatives in that he actually went through with waterboarding and admitted afterwards that it was a form of torture. That puts him in higher regard in my book.

[Black Sheep]

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do.
It's... beautiful.

[bcbm]

If the orthodoxy of one religion does not conflict with the orthopraxy of another, you should try to do both. For example, some religions promise rewards for, essentially, just being a nice person. You can be a nice person, and cover the possibility that one of these religions is true, while worshiping the deity of another religion - one who cares more about worship.

If my reward is to have to hang out for the rest of eternity with a mean-spirited, egotistical prick of a god who is more concerned with your belief in them than anything you've actually done, and all the folks who actually submit to that crap, I think I'd rather pass. Hell would certainly have more interesting characters.

[RedRise]

If my reward is to have to hang out for the rest of eternity with a mean-spirited, egotistical prick of a god who is more concerned with your belief in them than anything you've actually done, and all the folks who actually submit to that crap, I think I'd rather pass.

Agreed on that one bcbm!:lol:
I don't think that a true religion would have any notion of hell. Or heaven. I kinda believe in karma. What goes around comes around sorta thing. I don't think that anyone's gonna spend eternity in a heaven or hell, but people do get rewarded for good things. In this life or the next.;) Hell was just invented to scare people into behaving.:rolleyes: and heaven was like Mum saying, "If you tidy your room I'll give you some chocolate!" The worst bit is that I highly doubt there is any chocolate in Mum's cupboard. Wouldn't it be simpler to believe in reincarnation and karma? That way it all kinda works out fair and nobody's spending eternity in clouds or a fire-pit for one good or bad choice they made during their lifetime.:rolleyes:

[RedRise]

If my reward is to have to hang out for the rest of eternity with a mean-spirited, egotistical prick of a god who is more concerned with your belief in them than anything you've actually done, and all the folks who actually submit to that crap, I think I'd rather pass.

Agreed on that one bcbm!:lol:
I don't think that a true religion would have any notion of hell. Or heaven. I kinda believe in karma. What goes around comes around sorta thing. I don't think that anyone's gonna spend eternity in a heaven or hell, but people do get rewarded for good things. In this life or the next.;) Hell was just invented to scare people into behaving.:rolleyes: and heaven was like Mum saying, "If you tidy your room I'll give you some chocolate!" The worst bit is that I highly doubt there is any chocolate in Mum's cupboard. Wouldn't it be simpler to believe in reincarnation and karma? That way it all kinda works out fair and nobody's spending eternity in clouds or a fire-pit for one good or bad choice they made during their lifetime.:rolleyes:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem with karma is that it can be used to excuse life's injustices. Poor? Disabled? A member of an "inferior" race? Well, you must have done something horrible in a previous life.

[9]

The problem with karma is that it can be used to excuse life's injustices. Poor? Disabled? A member of an "inferior" race? Well, you must have done something horrible in a previous life.
That seems to be exactly the point of karma in the popular sense - to justify everything exactly as it is and to by default imply that humans don't need to work for justice because, in the end, justice happens on its own.
I do, however, realize that different religions use the concept of karma in different ways, and not all use it in this context.

[Luís Henrique]

"Pascal's Wager"

My own wager is better.

1.1. If you deprive yourself from [whatever your chosen religion forbids] and your god is the right one, you live a miserable life and then go to [whatever equivalent to heavens your chosen religion preaches]. Considering the things you are not allowed in this earthly existence, this probably means you inherit an eternity of boredom.

1.2. If you deprive yourself from [whatever your chosen religion forbids] and your god is not the right one, you live a miserable life and then go nowhere, or to [whatever equivalent to hell the correct religion preaches].

2.1 If you don't deprive yourself of anything and when you die you discover that there were, after all, a god and a true religion, you live a fun life and then go [whatever equivalent to hell the correct religion preaches], which is not worse than 1.2. (and depending on how boring heavens are, is possibly better than 1.1.)

2.2. If you don't deprive yourself of anything and when you die there is actual no god nor true religion, you have a fun life and then you are not worse than everybody else.

Additionally, you can live as if you believe in no god, and repent in articulo mortis.

And also there is the possibility that god exists, but doesn't care if you worship him or not. Or even that god exists but hates being worshipped (so only atheists, agnostics and worshippers of false gods go to heavens). Or that god exists, but this was supposed to a secret, and the worse sin is to reveal that secret. Or...

Theists don't have a fertile imagination. Perhaps there is a god, and she loathes unimaginative people...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

And the other problem with Pascal's wager, of course, it that it pressuposes a god different from the Christian god Pascal believed in.

Because faith in the Christian god, or so are we told, is a gift from the Christian god himself; it is not something you can decide about. Either you have it, and you are saved, or you don't, and you are doomed. Pretending to have it when you don't can't save you (and in fact, is probably one more sin encumbering your unenlightened soul).

So, if you don't have that inner voice telling you with absolute certainty that god exists, don't even try.

Luís Henrique

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Firstly, atheists claim that they themselves are god. They claim they have superior knowledge then the rest of us by trying to say that they have better knowledge because of their own thinking. They will not acknowledge anyone else to be above them.

That statement is insane. Atheists claim they are god? What?! How can they claim to be something that doesn't exist? And don't Christians do exactly the same by claiming they have knowledge of a God in the first place? Christians can talk about how homosexuality is against God's will - that's assuming superior knowledge because they're asserting 1) God exists, 2) they know what he thinks about everything, 3) they are correct.

Secondly, atheists have been hurt somewhere in their lives, can’t understand suffering, and are mad at God — so it is easier to deny there is one.

Secondly, Christians have been hurt somewhere in their lives, don't understand suffering, and are mad with life - so it is easier to say there's a kindly God. See, I can do that too.

Thirdly, atheists are looking for God for the same reason a thief would be looking for a police officer. They don’t want to be accountable to a higher being because of the wrong things they do.

Atheists are not looking for God, that's kind of the point! Also, here you're making the assumption that all atheists are doing wrong things. I object to the use of the word 'wrong' in this sentence for many reasons as well. Right and wrong are often very subjective terms.

Fourthly, atheists forget that when a person goes to a museum and admires a painting, that there was a painter/designer of that art piece. The art piece is absolute evidence of a painter and not caused by random nothingness.

Excuse me, I think we all know where paintings came from. Besides, evolution is not 'random nothingness' - it is a complex process.

All of the world, stars, animals, plants, oceans, and mountains are absolute proof of a divine intelligent being (beyond our human ability and thinking) who made these things.

Oh dear. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Can the atheist make a tree? It is scientifically impossible for bees to fly (laws of physics) and yet they do. It is impossible for our eyes to see and yet they do. What more proof does an atheist need than their own heart pumping in their chest without them commanding their heart to pump each beat in perfect timing each and every second necessary?

Evolution through natural selection explains every single thing in that paragraph.

Fifthly, denial is a strong coping mechanism in crisis, but does not serve anyone in the long run. Like an ostrich with its head in the sand, an atheist denies God not because God does not exist—but because the atheist doesn’t want God to exist and does not want to see the truth and evidence in front of their eyes.

I agree, denial is strong, especially when you are afraid of death and want to believe in salvation. Refusing to believe that your story is false - that's denial.

I would rather believe in God and make sure my life is doing what is acceptable to this Superior Being than to not believe in God and find out I will be accountable to this God for everything I’ve done after I die. With 84% of the world’s population believing in the existence of God, I think the majority rules in this case.

Which superior being? Vishnu? How do you know it's acceptable? Maybe god wants you to have ten wives and kill your son. How can you be so certain? The majority always rules, does it? Majorities don't always get it right, especially if they've been brainwashed.

Lastly, I have a problem with Pascal's wager because it makes the assumption that belief in any God is something that you can choose to have. Even if you agree with it in theory, how can you force yourself to believe something your instinct tells you is untrue?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What about my personal integrity? Sure, I could go through the motions of being a religious person, but my belief would be a front, a facade, something totally insincere. Any god worthy of the name, and that gives a damn in the first place, would be able to see right through that.
Perhaps it would be insincere in the beginning, but human psychology is built in such a way that if you pretend to believe something long enough, you eventually end up believing it. At least, most people do. Think of phenomena like cognitive dissonance for example.

As for integrity - why do you care about that, exactly? I mean, what is your rational philosophical justification for considering integrity to be good in and of itself?

One of my major problems with (most) atheists is that they criticize religion for being irrational but then don't bother to adopt any kind of rational philosophical basis for their ethics. They just take it for granted that certain things are good and certain things are bad with no explanation whatsoever.


I think Pratchett sums it up nicely:

A philosopher claimed, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When the philosopher died, he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, 'We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...'
Sounds like wishful thinking to me. No religion believes in any god that would react that way.

Saying "I don't believe gods exist, but if they existed, I'm sure they'd agree with me" is a horrible and frankly pathetic cop-out. Just admit you don't believe gods exist and you have no contingency plan or excuse to offer in case they do.


That depends on which religion you follow, doesn't it? I enjoy pork (in fact it's the one kind of meat I can regularly afford), so being a Muslim or a Jew would be out of the question. I could follow a religion that doesn't have strictures that I find odious, but that would be cherry-picking.
Well, if following any religion is better than following no religion, and if all religions have an equal probability of being true, then there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking. If you have no other criteria for choosing between religions, but if you must choose one, you might as well go with the one you like best.


The problem is that the deities that give a damn about individual followers' fidelity (as opposed to being more interested in the mass state-sponsored worship typical of Hellenic and Roman gods) have an overwhelming tendency to be psychotic assholes who lay down stupid and arbitrary rules for no good reason.
So, what? Surely you must live your life by some rules. What are they, and why are they better?


How does that follow? The prevalence of a given religion is based on historical, cultural and social factors that appear to be completely independant of how much a god gives a damn for its followers.
Many religions claim that their growth was due to divine assistance in its early stages. And it may be the case that the triumph of a certain religion over rival religions that filled similar social roles was due to divine assistance. For example, the historical context in the late Roman Empire favoured the rise of a single, unifying religion based around a single god or other central figure. But why did it end up being Christianity, as opposed to, say, the cult of Isis or the cult of Sol Invictus? Many religions could have filled the same social role. From a secular historical perspective, there was an element of pure chance involved. As a Christian, I believe that God had a hand in it.


There are perfectly fine secular reasons for being a "good person" (by what standard, by the way?), and any god that reasonable would surely be reasonable enough to give honest skepticism a pass.
Why must God be held accountable by human standards, by the way? I mean, assuming there was a god, and it did horrible things (imagine Cthulhu for instance), would you call it "evil," or would you put it in the same category as natural disasters and supernovae? And if it demanded your obedience, why would worshipping it be a breach of your personal integrity and not the equivalent of doing what you have to do to survive in the natural world?


I thought it was the right thing to do. Why give us the capability to reason and then not give any good reason to believe?
"I gave you the capability to do lots of things. That doesn't mean I want you to go ahead and do all of them. You might as well have asked, why give us the capability to be single-minded fanatics if you didn't want us to be single-minded fanatics? It's not even possible for you to be, at the same time, everything I gave you the capability to be. You are capable of being rational or irrational, or somewhere in between. How do you get from that to the conclusion that I want you to be completely rational?"


The thing is, the Great Old Ones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Old_One) and the Outer Gods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_God) are, by my reckoning, far closer representations of what a truly cosmic being would be like in the universe as we know it. Think about it; any such being would not have evolved on Earth, making them utterly alien (physically and mentally), perhaps even beyond sane human comprehension if they didn't originate in our universe. A being capable of drinking in, let alone creating, the vast scale and complexity of our universe would regard us in the same way that we regard microbes - in other words, utterly indifferent to our fate as individuals, and maybe also as a species if there are other intelligent beings sharing our place on the cosmic totem pole. Furthermore, we know that religious texts are written by human beings and have all the biases and flaws that are concomitant with that, so they're useless as a reference point for what any gods could possibly be like.
It is true that all the gods of all religions share more resemblances to humans than we might expect from an unrelated cosmic being. But that's just the thing: They're not unrelated cosmic beings. All the gods of all religions take a special interest in Mankind; some are even said to have created us to resemble them in some way, or to have interbred with us.

We might expect the Deist God to be utterly alien; but a God that takes a special interest in Mankind may well be somewhat antropomorphic (or to be more exact, it's the other way around - it may well be the case that Mankind is somewhat theomorphic).

Now, why would God take a special interest in us? Well, for one thing, as far as we can see, we are the only intelligent species in the universe. That's pretty special right there. Or maybe there are other intelligent species, but their minds are similar to ours - in other words, perhaps our kind of intelligence is the only possible kind of intelligence, regardless of the kind of body it inhabits. In that case, it would be reasonable to expect God to think in a similar way as well.

An antropomorphic God would be strange only if we found intelligent aliens with minds utterly different from our own. So far, that seems highly unlikely.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

My own wager is better.

1.1. If you deprive yourself from [whatever your chosen religion forbids] and your god is the right one, you live a miserable life and then go to [whatever equivalent to heavens your chosen religion preaches]. Considering the things you are not allowed in this earthly existence, this probably means you inherit an eternity of boredom.
Straw man. You're assuming that following the tenets of a religion - in fact, any religion* - causes you to "live a miserable life." Nonsense. I can't think of a single thing forbidden by Christianity that I wish I could do. In fact, Christianity is generally more focused on requiring you to do certain things that requiring you to refrain from doing others. You may object to the do's of Christianity, but the don't's basically amount to "don't be selfish".

* The fact that you make this statement about ALL religions, not just a certain subset, makes it all that much more untenable.

I've heard many atheists claim that religion forbids you from doing things you want to do, but I have no idea what those things might be. What exactly are you talking about? Sex with multiple partners? Eating pork? I like being monogamous anyway, and I don't have any special taste for pork (of course, my religion doesn't forbid me from eating pork, but even if it did, that would not be a problem). What else? Drinking alcohol? Again, my religion doesn't forbid it, but I hardly ever drink anyway (caffeine, on the other hand - mmmm). So, really, what is all that fun stuff that you supposedly get to do and I don't?


And the other problem with Pascal's wager, of course, it that it pressuposes a god different from the Christian god Pascal believed in.

Because faith in the Christian god, or so are we told, is a gift from the Christian god himself; it is not something you can decide about.
Really? Who said that? Only Calvin, as far as I'm aware. And the vast majority of Christians are not Calvinists.

[Ultra_Cheese]

Kwisatz, Pascal's Wager is nullified by the Discordian Hell Law ("The Hell Law says that Hell is reserved exclusively for them that believe in it. Further, the lowest Rung in Hell is reserved for them that believe in it on the supposition that they'll go there if they don't."). Since we give no credit to Christianity at all, it is simply one of an infinite number of possibilities in this scenario. The terms of the wager are completely unknowable.
The wager also assumes that an immortal life is somehow meaningful while a mortal one is not. Should one be a good Christian and in the end find it all to be false, they have lost their unrestricted mortal life, not the suggested nothing. You may say the restraints and requirements are few, but they are still far from nothing.

[Luís Henrique]

I can't think of a single thing forbidden by Christianity that I wish I could do.

Good for you - but, then, what is the point of having a religion? If your internal ethics is enough for keeping you in the tracks of a virtuous life, what is religion for?


Sex with multiple partners?

For instance. Or homosexual sex, anal sex, oral sex, sex with condoms/pills/IUDs, etc. Even if I don't enjoy some, most, or any of them, I realise that there are people who do, and I don't believe they are necessarily immoral any more than people who prefer the missionary position. Frankly, religion - at least Pascal's religion, but I would dare say most religions, or those followed by most people, and would refrain to say all of them only due to the fact that I don't know them all - seems to be a system to control what people do with their intimate parts.


my religion doesn't forbid me from eating pork, but even if it did, that would not be a problem

That would be a huge problem for me. Not because I particularly enjoy pork (I like it but I certainly can live without it), but because it is an unnaceptable infringiment on my freedom. I want to be free to eat pork, even if I don't want to eat it.


So, really, what is all that fun stuff that you supposedly get to do and I don't?

Freedom.


Really? Who said that? Only Calvin, as far as I'm aware. And the vast majority of Christians are not Calvinists.

Hm, Paul of Tarsus? Augustine of Hyppo?

I live in a mostly Catholic country, where Calvinists are relatively rare. But while the emphases of Catholicism may be different, it still requires an undeserved, unearned faith that comes directly from God. In fact, perhaps even more than Calvinism; for in Calvinism your life can be taken as a manifestation of that gift - if you live a virtuous life you won't earn your salvation, but it can be taken as a "symptom" of your salvation - while in Catholicism it is required, but not sufficient (and any presumption about it is a sin - the sin of pride - that can lead to damnation). And I don't think it can be said that a vast majority of Christians are not Catholic. They are at least the plurality among the confessions.

Luís Henrique

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Perhaps it would be insincere in the beginning, but human psychology is built in such a way that if you pretend to believe something long enough, you eventually end up believing it. At least, most people do. Think of phenomena like cognitive dissonance for example.

Oh you mean Doublethink? :lol: No thanks!


As for integrity - why do you care about that, exactly? I mean, what is your rational philosophical justification for considering integrity to be good in and of itself?I don't like the idea of lying to myself. I'll take my chances.


One of my major problems with (most) atheists is that they criticize religion for being irrational but then don't bother to adopt any kind of rational philosophical basis for their ethics. They just take it for granted that certain things are good and certain things are bad with no explanation whatsoever.Oh, bullshit. It's obvious that as social animals we need rules that make society safe to a certain degree. We can debate to what degree exactly but how do deities come into it?


Sounds like wishful thinking to me. No religion believes in any god that would react that way.You take religions' word for what gods will be like, and you have the gumption to talk about wishful thinking? :laugh: Since we have no physical evidence of what gods could be like, they could be anything if they even exist in the first place.


Saying "I don't believe gods exist, but if they existed, I'm sure they'd agree with me" is a horrible and frankly pathetic cop-out. Just admit you don't believe gods exist and you have no contingency plan or excuse to offer in case they do.I've got better things to worry about. I don't worry about body thetans, so why should I fear for my soul?


Well, if following any religion is better than following no religion, and if all religions have an equal probability of being true, then there is nothing wrong with cherry-picking. If you have no other criteria for choosing between religions, but if you must choose one, you might as well go with the one you like best.I'm not convinced that following one religion is better than following none. The phase space of possibilities is too large even if the existance of gods in the first place is a given (which it is not - where's the evidence?).

What if I don't like any of the choices on offer and instead make up my own religion? I bet I could make a kick-ass religion with an awesome pantheon, none of this goofy "herp derp I mekzz you outta cley", and "gods" with the character of a plank of wood and the physical substance of a fart in a hurricane.


So, what? Surely you must live your life by some rules. What are they, and why are they better?Well, none of my rules involve kissing the ass of cosmic psychos, so they're better already. Why should I give a damn what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?


Many religions claim that their growth was due to divine assistance in its early stages. And it may be the case that the triumph of a certain religion over rival religions that filled similar social roles was due to divine assistance. For example, the historical context in the late Roman Empire favoured the rise of a single, unifying religion based around a single god or other central figure. But why did it end up being Christianity, as opposed to, say, the cult of Isis or the cult of Sol Invictus? Many religions could have filled the same social role. From a secular historical perspective, there was an element of pure chance involved. As a Christian, I believe that God had a hand in it.Yes, but that's all you have: belief, not evidence. I need something a bit more robust than's someone's say-so.


Why must God be held accountable by human standards, by the way? I mean, assuming there was a god, and it did horrible things (imagine Cthulhu for instance), would you call it "evil," or would you put it in the same category as natural disasters and supernovae?Earthquakes and supernovae may not be "evil", but it still sucks if you get caught at ground zero


And if it demanded your obedience, why would worshipping it be a breach of your personal integrity and not the equivalent of doing what you have to do to survive in the natural world?So I'd be obeying out of fear? Because if such a being actively punished non-worshippers instead of just ignoring them, that would be the only reason for me to convert.


"I gave you the capability to do lots of things. That doesn't mean I want you to go ahead and do all of them. You might as well have asked, why give us the capability to be single-minded fanatics if you didn't want us to be single-minded fanatics? It's not even possible for you to be, at the same time, everything I gave you the capability to be. You are capable of being rational or irrational, or somewhere in between. How do you get from that to the conclusion that I want you to be completely rational?"I never claimed to be completely rational. I'm only human, after all. But I try.


It is true that all the gods of all religions share more resemblances to humans than we might expect from an unrelated cosmic being. But that's just the thing: They're not unrelated cosmic beings. All the gods of all religions take a special interest in Mankind; some are even said to have created us to resemble them in some way, or to have interbred with us.So you just take unevidenced claims at face value?


We might expect the Deist God to be utterly alien; but a God that takes a special interest in Mankind may well be somewhat antropomorphic (or to be more exact, it's the other way around - it may well be the case that Mankind is somewhat theomorphic).Why? the only example we have of a highly sapient species (that's us!) evolved naturally.


Now, why would God take a special interest in us? Well, for one thing, as far as we can see, we are the only intelligent species in the universe. That's pretty special right there. Or maybe there are other intelligent species, but their minds are similar to ours - in other words, perhaps our kind of intelligence is the only possible kind of intelligence, regardless of the kind of body it inhabits. In that case, it would be reasonable to expect God to think in a similar way as well.That doesn't mean any attention such a being gives us will be all for our benefit. What if the universe is some kind of experiment, and we're the test subjects? What if we're food or some other kind of resource? What if we've been abandoned like a puppy in a box?


An antropomorphic God would be strange only if we found intelligent aliens with minds utterly different from our own. So far, that seems highly unlikely.Actually, since we know intelligence is a consequence of certain conditions of natural selection, finding an anthropomorphic cosmic being would be very strange indeed, unless it evolved in a similar environment to our own. But the only known example contains no evidence of cosmic beings, even after billions of years of existance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Good for you - but, then, what is the point of having a religion? If your internal ethics is enough for keeping you in the tracks of a virtuous life, what is religion for?
I wasn't talking about my internal ethics, I was talking about my internal desires, and I said they coincide with Christianity in a negative sense - I have no particular desire to do the things that Christianity says I should not do.

However, my desires do not coincide with Christianity in a positive sense. I do not have an inherent desire to do all the things Christianity says I should do.


For instance. Or homosexual sex, anal sex, oral sex, sex with condoms/pills/IUDs, etc. Even if I don't enjoy some, most, or any of them, I realise that there are people who do, and I don't believe they are necessarily immoral any more than people who prefer the missionary position.
Eh? I don't think any of those forms of sex is inherently immoral either. At least, not as long as it is done between loving partners. And there are millions of Christians who agree with me.

Now, there are some things that I consider to be immoral and that other people enjoy. Casual sex for example. That, however, is their business.


Frankly, religion - at least Pascal's religion, but I would dare say most religions, or those followed by most people, and would refrain to say all of them only due to the fact that I don't know them all - seems to be a system to control what people do with their intimate parts.
What people do with their intimate parts belongs in the footnotes of religion, under "see also." The main focus of religion is not sex - it is altruism, living a virtuous life (for most religions), and faith (for some religions).


That would be a huge problem for me. Not because I particularly enjoy pork (I like it but I certainly can live without it), but because it is an unnaceptable infringiment on my freedom. I want to be free to eat pork, even if I don't want to eat it.
Then I do not understand your way of thinking. I have no desire to be free to do any action that I do not wish to do.


Freedom.
Define this "freedom," and tell me why it is desirable.


Hm, Paul of Tarsus? Augustine of Hyppo?
Surely you are referring to grace rather than faith, then?


I live in a mostly Catholic country, where Calvinists are relatively rare. But while the emphases of Catholicism may be different, it still requires an undeserved, unearned faith that comes directly from God. In fact, perhaps even more than Calvinism; for in Calvinism your life can be taken as a manifestation of that gift - if you live a virtuous life you won't earn your salvation, but it can be taken as a "symptom" of your salvation - while in Catholicism it is required, but not sufficient (and any presumption about it is a sin - the sin of pride - that can lead to damnation). And I don't think it can be said that a vast majority of Christians are not Catholic. They are at least the plurality among the confessions.
As far as I'm aware, in Catholic theology faith is a conscious and voluntary decision on the part of the faithful person. There is an undeserved, unearned gift from God - grace, or the forgiveness of sins made possible by the sacrifice of Christ - but this is given out to anyone who will take it, to anyone who chooses to have faith. It is not reserved for the selected few.

[Klaatu]

Here is an interesting author I had discovered twenty years ago: Joseph Campbell.

Campbell does not try to "prove" the existence of God, rather, he explores the role of mythology
in the quest of the attempt to understand the reality of human existence. Campbell observes that
all religions have, throughout the ages, invented myths (Myth is Greek for "story") in order to try
to explain that which cannot be scientifically explained. (for example: we cannot scientifically
explain "love" or "conscienceness") Some myths have personified God (Western religions) while
others have not (Eastern religions) Campbell explores this phenomenon in depth.


An interesting read (and DVD, available at the library)

The Power of Myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell_and_the_Power_of_Myth

Myth (definition)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myth

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That aside, "God Is Not Great" is a tremendous read and his role as a fixture of the 'new atheist movement' was very well-deserved. I prefer him even over Dawkins, myself.

I prefer Dawkins; he doesn't make out Islam to be a bigger "threat" than Christianity, which when you think about it, makes sense.

[Raúl Duke]

Here is an interesting author I had discovered twenty years ago: Joseph Campbell.

Campbell does not try to "prove" the existence of God, rather, he explores the role of mythology
in the quest of the attempt to understand the reality of human existence. Campbell observes that
all religions have, throughout the ages, invented myths (Myth is Greek for "story") in order to try
to explain that which cannot be scientifically explained. (for example: we cannot scientifically
explain "love" or "conscienceness") Some myths have personified God (Western religions) while
others have not (Eastern religions) Campbell explores this phenomenon in depth.


An interesting read (and DVD, available at the library)

The Power of Myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Campbell_and_the_Power_of_Myth

Myth (definition)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/myth


Sounds pretty interesting...especially if you are studying anthropology which probably focuses on this a bit.


I prefer Dawkins; he doesn't make out Islam to be a bigger "threat" than Christianity, which when you think about it, makes sense.

I agree

In terms of influence and despite 9/11, Christian fundamentalists are more of/should be a concern here in the U.S. then muslim fundamentalists since they actually have considerable influence and sway, since christianity is more prevalent here. muslim fundamentalists should be more of a concern (to leftists/progrssives; and it should considering the case of the 79 Iranian revolution...they cannot be trusted) in places where islam is prevalent.

[Klaatu]

I would also like to add an opinion of my own:

Religion will either save the world, or it will destroy it. Only time will tell...

[RedRise]

Religion will either save the world

How is religion gonna save the world? We've been fighting over it since the first Neanderthal bear-cult!:rolleyes: In the extremely unlikely event that we all end up agreeing on one faith or another, how exactly is that faith gonna save our planet when the sun dies?:confused:
From a purely scientific point of view, that is. But even thinking religiously I don't reckon our beliefs are gonna save us.

[LeninKobaMao]

Thank you Nancy Greenwood for making my day :lol: :laugh: HAHAHAHA what an idiot...

[Luís Henrique]

What people do with their intimate parts belongs in the footnotes of religion, under "see also." The main focus of religion is not sex - it is altruism, living a virtuous life (for most religions), and faith (for some religions).

Maybe to you sexual morality is a secondary part of religion; but I would say it is a central part of religion to most, if not all, organised religions, and to the people who have positions of power within them.


Then I do not understand your way of thinking. I have no desire to be free to do any action that I do not wish to do.

Because I am not in control of future, and I don't know what I may wish to do in the future.


Surely you are referring to grace rather than faith, then?

Sure, but faith comes as part of the package, as far as I can understand.


As far as I'm aware, in Catholic theology faith is a conscious and voluntary decision on the part of the faithful person.

It may be so; but in that case it is at odds with reality. I can't choose to believe there is one god that is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that the Son sacrificed himself in order to redeem me from an "original sin" that's in me (though I personally never committed it). My beliefs aren't voluntary decisions. Put it another way, if there is a creator god, it made the world and my mind in such way that my mind cannot come to the conclusion that there is a creator god. If this creator god is omniscient, then it knew, when it created the universe, that the minds of some people would be unable to believe such theology. So, your last sentence:


There is an undeserved, unearned gift from God - grace, or the forgiveness of sins made possible by the sacrifice of Christ - but this is given out to anyone who will take it, to anyone who chooses to have faith. It is not reserved for the selected few.

is a tergiversation; my salvation would require accepting as truth something my mind believes is impossible. In other words, it tries to describe my inability to believe as my own fault. As if I was not part of "creation".

My understanding of Catholic theory of faith and grace is admitedly limited; but I wouldn't think these theories are consistent if faith isn't part of grace. But then we are back to what you say is an exclusively Calvinist tenet: life is a bloody farce, in which we pretend to take decisions, but in reality we are but sockpuppets of a cruel and exclusionary "god". Someone described it more or less like, "God plays cards against Himself - and cheats".

Luís Henrique

[Comrade Anarchist]

And christians choose to believe that god and a book written about a guy 70 years after his death is total truth so what is the point of looking for answers with science so they must be the smart ones right?

[Luís Henrique]

And christians choose to believe that god and a book written about a guy 70 years after his death is total truth so what is the point of looking for answers with science so they must be the smart ones right?

Not many Christians believe this. Most believe that the book is alegorical and talks about morality in a metaphoric way. The degradation of the Bible into a highschool science textbook is, as far as I understand, an American phenomenon.

Luís Henrique

[Klaatu]

"The degradation of the Bible into a highschool science textbook is, as far as I understand, an American phenomenon."

Unfortunately, we here in the U.S. have gotten all of the nut-job religion fundamentalist immigrants who had been scorned in Europe and elsewhere. I am embarrassed for my country in this regard. :crying:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I prefer Dawkins; he doesn't make out Islam to be a bigger "threat" than Christianity, which when you think about it, makes sense.

Is this really true, given a modern context? I mean the texts themselves might be as equally troubling, but how the followers act seems to be quite different.

I mean, Christians want to subjugate women and ban abortions, but Islam does everything Christianity does and more. I mean a few years ago Denmark portrayed their profit badly and people died in protests.

Arguably, saying the Lord's name in vein is as bad to Christianity as portraying the profit is to Islam, yet I wouldn't fear for my life by doing the former in a Christian country, while I would fear for my life doing the latter in a Muslim country.

I'd like to say it's just political conditions that make Islamic followers. However, that simply doesn't correspond with the evidence. Incredibly rich Islamic countries appear just as extremist as the poorer ones.

I may very well be missing something because Christianity is so "the norm" in the West. I am simply accustomed to overlooking their faults. However, I can't see that the actions of Christian followers, modern followers, are as bad as Muslims when averaged across the amount of people. Sure, Christianity has more influence and does more damage, perhaps. But the average Christian seems quite harmless in comparison to the average Muslim.

Again, I could very well be missing an important part of the puzzle.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Again, I could very well be missing an important part of the puzzle.

Well, Islamists don't have a somewhat reasonable chance of putting one of their own in control of a massive nuclear arsenal...

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well, Islamists don't have a somewhat reasonable chance of putting one of their own in control of a massive nuclear arsenal...

True, but wouldn't they be more dangerous if they did have such an ability? Isn't their religious faith currently causing more harm than other faiths?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

True, but wouldn't they be more dangerous if they did have such an ability?

Yes, but they don't.


Isn't their religious faith currently causing more harm than other faiths?

How could such a thing be objectively measured?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

How could such a thing be objectively measured?

Maybe some sort of "fuzzy reasoning" innate to humans. For instance, put a pattern in front of people and ask them which thing appears more, blue, yellow, green, or orange balls. Some people will be better at guessing, even more inclined to guess exact numbers, simply by their memory and observatory skills.

This is very unreliable, I admit, but we both agreed that, if they had dangerous weapons, Islam would be more dangerous. So perhaps we both are adept (or perhaps both equally poor and mistaken in our views) at this type of reasoning.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is very unreliable, I admit, but we both agreed that, if they had dangerous weapons, Islam would be more dangerous.

Yes I did, didn't I? Thinking about it know I actually can't remember why. Why would Islamists be more dangerous than Dominionist Christians?

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Christians would be more danerous because they control many of the richest, most militarily powerful states on the planet and are allied to most of the the non-christian rich powerful nations the Muslims however control one small part of the planet with a only one really abundant resource that is really only valuable as a saleable commodity, Oil.

In a debate of which faith is more dangerous I'll take the one that controls the nuclear arsenal sufficient to blow the world in half by accident, rather than the one that might get stroppy throw a few AKs and nailbombs about and ultimately make my car stop running.