What If Us Atheists Are Right? Hmmmm...

[Wize Owl]

Unless someone can prove atheists wrong by proving god, then atheists are right until further notice.

 

[BrianH]

Unless someone can prove atheists wrong by proving god, then atheists are right until further notice.

According to who and what? You're own opinion? Athiest cannot prove the non-existence of God...

 

[Anguille]

Unless someone can prove atheists wrong by proving god, then atheists are right until further notice.

According to who and what? You're own opinion? Athiest cannot prove the non-existence of God...

Why? Just because we don't have a Bible?

 

[DiveCon]

Unless someone can prove atheists wrong by proving god, then atheists are right until further notice.

According to who and what? You're own opinion? Athiest cannot prove the non-existence of God...

Why? Just because we don't have a Bible?

REALLY????

 

[N4mddissent]

1st, your scriptures still don't name any one church, nor mention that you should go to church.

2nd, these are things that God wants, and does not necessarily mean that people will follow it.

3rd, my relationship with God is not determined, nor affected by, any church or religion. I read the Bible and get what I get out of it. I will also say that I'm a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins. I will just agree to disagree if it suits you.

It suits me perfectly well if you agree to disagree. I am not making an attempt to have you agree with me on theological premises. On this thread, specifically in response to your posts about it boiling down to either rotting or burning in hell, I was merely trying to make you aware of the central flaw of Pascal's wager, which is essentially that same argument.

You see, it operates under a false dichotomy. It claims to offer two possibilities: either a god exists or he doesn't- which is a true dichotomy. But by stating the consequences of belief, it plays a bit of a shell game, substituting a particular conception of god in place of the more general term "god". You see, the part of the statement indicating non-believers will go to hell and believers go to heaven presents specific characteristics of a god- the christian god in particular. These characteristics are not supported in the argument itself and indeed the hidden premise is that if there is a god, it must be this sort of god. And that is the false dichotomy. The argument, clearly stated, is:

Either this specific type of god which punishes non-believers exists or no god exists.

It is much easier to see how the dichotomy is false when the hidden premise is plainly stated. It tries to automatically rule out the possibility of other types of god. While this position may be argued if one feels it is accurate, it is not supported by simply stating the "wager" argument. Some evidence supporting a view that this is the only type of possible god must be presented to make it viable.

Usually this is supported through various "sacred" texts. Of course to accept texts as divinely inspired, one has to presumptively accept the existence of god, and so the reasoning becomes circular. But that is an argument for another thread.

I just wanted to clarify that my responses were to illustrate the fallacious logic in the "wager" argument so that perhaps you will consider its shortcomings before trying to use it to assert your position and why it may prove ineffective at convincing those who are not already beholden to the believer's premise.

 

[BrianH]

1st, your scriptures still don't name any one church, nor mention that you should go to church.

2nd, these are things that God wants, and does not necessarily mean that people will follow it.

3rd, my relationship with God is not determined, nor affected by, any church or religion. I read the Bible and get what I get out of it. I will also say that I'm a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins. I will just agree to disagree if it suits you.

It suits me perfectly well if you agree to disagree. I am not making an attempt to have you agree with me on theological premises. On this thread, specifically in response to your posts about it boiling down to either rotting or burning in hell, I was merely trying to make you aware of the central flaw of Pascal's wager, which is essentially that same argument.

You see, it operates under a false dichotomy. It claims to offer two possibilities: either a god exists or he doesn't- which is a true dichotomy. But by stating the consequences of belief, it plays a bit of a shell game, substituting a particular conception of god in place of the more general term "god". You see, the part of the statement indicating non-believers will go to hell and believers go to heaven presents specific characteristics of a god- the christian god in particular. These characteristics are not supported in the argument itself and indeed the hidden premise is that if there is a god, it must be this sort of god. And that is the false dichotomy. The argument, clearly stated, is:

Either this specific type of god which punishes non-believers exists or no god exists.

It is much easier to see how the dichotomy is false when the hidden premise is plainly stated. It tries to automatically rule out the possibility of other types of god. While this position may be argued if one feels it is accurate, it is not supported by simply stating the "wager" argument. Some evidence supporting a view that this is the only type of possible god must be presented to make it viable.

Usually this is supported through various "sacred" texts. Of course to accept texts as divinely inspired, one has to presumptively accept the existence of god, and so the reasoning becomes circular. But that is an argument for another thread.

I just wanted to clarify that my responses were to illustrate the fallacious logic in the "wager" argument so that perhaps you will consider its shortcomings before trying to use it to assert your position and why it may prove ineffective at convincing those who are not already beholden to the believer's premise.

The problem is, people tend to believe that they know exactly what God's personality, intentions are. I simply responded to the OP. What if athiests are right??? Then we'll all rot in the ground...simple as that. What if athiests are wrong?

The problem is, many athiest on here answer the question as if they know that God doesn't exist. I believe one poster said that he was 1000% sure that God didn't exist. The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

 

[renoite]

if athiests are wrong then they will soon enough know what will happen only GOD can be the judge of that. if they are right then they have nothing to worry about bottom line

 

[N4mddissent]

1st, your scriptures still don't name any one church, nor mention that you should go to church.

2nd, these are things that God wants, and does not necessarily mean that people will follow it.

3rd, my relationship with God is not determined, nor affected by, any church or religion. I read the Bible and get what I get out of it. I will also say that I'm a Christian and believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for my sins. I will just agree to disagree if it suits you.

It suits me perfectly well if you agree to disagree. I am not making an attempt to have you agree with me on theological premises. On this thread, specifically in response to your posts about it boiling down to either rotting or burning in hell, I was merely trying to make you aware of the central flaw of Pascal's wager, which is essentially that same argument.

You see, it operates under a false dichotomy. It claims to offer two possibilities: either a god exists or he doesn't- which is a true dichotomy. But by stating the consequences of belief, it plays a bit of a shell game, substituting a particular conception of god in place of the more general term "god". You see, the part of the statement indicating non-believers will go to hell and believers go to heaven presents specific characteristics of a god- the christian god in particular. These characteristics are not supported in the argument itself and indeed the hidden premise is that if there is a god, it must be this sort of god. And that is the false dichotomy. The argument, clearly stated, is:

Either this specific type of god which punishes non-believers exists or no god exists.

It is much easier to see how the dichotomy is false when the hidden premise is plainly stated. It tries to automatically rule out the possibility of other types of god. While this position may be argued if one feels it is accurate, it is not supported by simply stating the "wager" argument. Some evidence supporting a view that this is the only type of possible god must be presented to make it viable.

Usually this is supported through various "sacred" texts. Of course to accept texts as divinely inspired, one has to presumptively accept the existence of god, and so the reasoning becomes circular. But that is an argument for another thread.

I just wanted to clarify that my responses were to illustrate the fallacious logic in the "wager" argument so that perhaps you will consider its shortcomings before trying to use it to assert your position and why it may prove ineffective at convincing those who are not already beholden to the believer's premise.

The problem is, people tend to believe that they know exactly what God's personality, intentions are. I simply responded to the OP. What if athiests are right??? Then we'll all rot in the ground...simple as that. What if athiests are wrong?

The problem is, many athiest on here answer the question as if they know that God doesn't exist. I believe one poster said that he was 1000% sure that God didn't exist. The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

If atheists are wrong then...who knows? That would be my response. There could be a vicious bastard of a god out there. That is central to the problem. Even accepting the premise of a god's existence for the sake of argument, that leads us no closer to understanding the nature of that god. For that an entire new set of arguments about the communication of the nature of that god to humans must be engaged. This is why the deistic position is one I have no argument with. I don't accept it, but it stops short of making the next leap and acknowledges ignorance about the nature of god. But of course, then it has no practical affect on your life.

 

[Anguille]

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

Either way, I wish to be cremated. Though it doesn't really matter since I'll be dead anyway.

 

[BrianH]

It suits me perfectly well if you agree to disagree. I am not making an attempt to have you agree with me on theological premises. On this thread, specifically in response to your posts about it boiling down to either rotting or burning in hell, I was merely trying to make you aware of the central flaw of Pascal's wager, which is essentially that same argument.

You see, it operates under a false dichotomy. It claims to offer two possibilities: either a god exists or he doesn't- which is a true dichotomy. But by stating the consequences of belief, it plays a bit of a shell game, substituting a particular conception of god in place of the more general term "god". You see, the part of the statement indicating non-believers will go to hell and believers go to heaven presents specific characteristics of a god- the christian god in particular. These characteristics are not supported in the argument itself and indeed the hidden premise is that if there is a god, it must be this sort of god. And that is the false dichotomy. The argument, clearly stated, is:

Either this specific type of god which punishes non-believers exists or no god exists.

It is much easier to see how the dichotomy is false when the hidden premise is plainly stated. It tries to automatically rule out the possibility of other types of god. While this position may be argued if one feels it is accurate, it is not supported by simply stating the "wager" argument. Some evidence supporting a view that this is the only type of possible god must be presented to make it viable.

Usually this is supported through various "sacred" texts. Of course to accept texts as divinely inspired, one has to presumptively accept the existence of god, and so the reasoning becomes circular. But that is an argument for another thread.

I just wanted to clarify that my responses were to illustrate the fallacious logic in the "wager" argument so that perhaps you will consider its shortcomings before trying to use it to assert your position and why it may prove ineffective at convincing those who are not already beholden to the believer's premise.

The problem is, people tend to believe that they know exactly what God's personality, intentions are. I simply responded to the OP. What if athiests are right??? Then we'll all rot in the ground...simple as that. What if athiests are wrong?

The problem is, many athiest on here answer the question as if they know that God doesn't exist. I believe one poster said that he was 1000% sure that God didn't exist. The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

If atheists are wrong then...who knows? That would be my response. There could be a vicious bastard of a god out there. That is central to the problem. Even accepting the premise of a god's existence for the sake of argument, that leads us no closer to understanding the nature of that god. For that an entire new set of arguments about the communication of the nature of that god to humans must be engaged. This is why the deistic position is one I have no argument with. I don't accept it, but it stops short of making the next leap and acknowledges ignorance about the nature of god. But of course, then it has no practical affect on your life.

Ok, that's all you had to say. You walked danced around that response for days.

The point that you miss, is that if athiests are right, then we all die and rot in a box. It really won't matter if you lived life to the fullest, because you won't have the satisfaction to know that you did so...

If athiest are wrong, whether God is a "bastard of a God", or a loving God, you'll be on his bad side either way for not believing in him, so good luck to you...

 

[BrianH]

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

Either way, I wish to be cremated. Though it doesn't really matter since I'll be dead anyway.

lol, that's right. you won't know any different.

 

[N4mddissent]

The problem is, people tend to believe that they know exactly what God's personality, intentions are. I simply responded to the OP. What if athiests are right??? Then we'll all rot in the ground...simple as that. What if athiests are wrong?

The problem is, many athiest on here answer the question as if they know that God doesn't exist. I believe one poster said that he was 1000% sure that God didn't exist. The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

If atheists are wrong then...who knows? That would be my response. There could be a vicious bastard of a god out there. That is central to the problem. Even accepting the premise of a god's existence for the sake of argument, that leads us no closer to understanding the nature of that god. For that an entire new set of arguments about the communication of the nature of that god to humans must be engaged. This is why the deistic position is one I have no argument with. I don't accept it, but it stops short of making the next leap and acknowledges ignorance about the nature of god. But of course, then it has no practical affect on your life.

Ok, that's all you had to say. You walked danced around that response for days.

The point that you miss, is that if athiests are right, then we all die and rot in a box. It really won't matter if you lived life to the fullest, because you won't have the satisfaction to know that you did so...

If athiest are wrong, whether God is a "bastard of a God", or a loving God, you'll be on his bad side either way for not believing in him, so good luck to you...

Once again, you miss my point. Obviously that's why you thought I was "dancing" around. You are making an unjustified assumption that god wants me to believe in him. Perhaps my bastard of god doesn't like people who believe in him. Perhaps the bastard of a god likes people who are skeptical, or perhaps judges people on their actions and doesn't (literally) give a damn if people don't believe. In an extreme case, the bastard of a god could despise people who believe in him- that's why he doesn't manifest himself. Then he sends you to hell and rewards me.

That's what I've been saying. You are still using that fucking wager argument. It's right there, the last line of your post. It is completely irrational, using hidden premises about what god wants or doesn't want. You see, my entire argument made to you on this thread was a patient explanation of the logical flaws in that portion of your post I just underlined.

You claimed the problem was when atheist throw their beliefs into the argument.

The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

The problem here is that you keep throwing YOUR beliefs about god into the argument. Specifically YOUR belief that he wants you to believe in him or will disapprove of those who do not.

Do you truly not understand any of the logical problems with that wager argument that I have tried to make clear? Or can you not separate what you personally believe from what is rationally supported by the argument?

 

[Anguille]

Once again, you miss my point. Obviously that's why you thought I was "dancing" around. You are making an unjustified assumption that god wants me to believe in him. Perhaps my bastard of god doesn't like people who believe in him. Perhaps the bastard of a god likes people who are skeptical, or perhaps judges people on their actions and doesn't (literally) give a damn if people don't believe. In an extreme case, the bastard of a god could despise people who believe in him- that's why he doesn't manifest himself. Then he sends you to hell and rewards me.

This is a concept I've never been able to get across. I think some people must just spend too much time looking for stuff in the Bible to support whatever their agenda is to be able to be objective and view things from different perspectives.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

It sucks that we won't be able to say we told you so.

Well, I wouldn't worry about that; your ilk is wrong on EVERYTHING... so the odds are fairly low.

BUT, for the sake of argument... If aitheists are right and there is no God, no life after this... then the jokes on US! We've pissed away our lives trying to be decent people, when the goal should have been mayhem and power, hedonistic consumption and self centered pleasure.

In other words, we shoulda been Leftists...

 

[BrianH]

If atheists are wrong then...who knows? That would be my response. There could be a vicious bastard of a god out there. That is central to the problem. Even accepting the premise of a god's existence for the sake of argument, that leads us no closer to understanding the nature of that god. For that an entire new set of arguments about the communication of the nature of that god to humans must be engaged. This is why the deistic position is one I have no argument with. I don't accept it, but it stops short of making the next leap and acknowledges ignorance about the nature of god. But of course, then it has no practical affect on your life.

Ok, that's all you had to say. You walked danced around that response for days.

The point that you miss, is that if athiests are right, then we all die and rot in a box. It really won't matter if you lived life to the fullest, because you won't have the satisfaction to know that you did so...

If athiest are wrong, whether God is a "bastard of a God", or a loving God, you'll be on his bad side either way for not believing in him, so good luck to you...

Once again, you miss my point. Obviously that's why you thought I was "dancing" around. You are making an unjustified assumption that god wants me to believe in him. Perhaps my bastard of god doesn't like people who believe in him. Perhaps the bastard of a god likes people who are skeptical, or perhaps judges people on their actions and doesn't (literally) give a damn if people don't believe. In an extreme case, the bastard of a god could despise people who believe in him- that's why he doesn't manifest himself. Then he sends you to hell and rewards me.

That's what I've been saying. You are still using that fucking wager argument. It's right there, the last line of your post. It is completely irrational, using hidden premises about what god wants or doesn't want. You see, my entire argument made to you on this thread was a patient explanation of the logical flaws in that portion of your post I just underlined.

You claimed the problem was when atheist throw their beliefs into the argument.

The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

The problem here is that you keep throwing YOUR beliefs about god into the argument. Specifically YOUR belief that he wants you to believe in him or will disapprove of those who do not.

Do you truly not understand any of the logical problems with that wager argument that I have tried to make clear? Or can you not separate what you personally believe from what is rationally supported by the argument?

There's one big difference between your "mean" god and my God. You throw out all of these possible God personaly scenarios without having anything to back it up with. You're saying it "he could be this, or he could be that" without having anything to back it up with other than your own ideas. Whether the Bible is really God's word or not (in your eyes) at least it's something concrete that displays the "personality" of God. I have "something" to base my opinion of God's intentions while you're just throwing out possibilities...THAT'S the difference between our argument. That's like having a scientific theory with NOTHING to back it up with.

 

[Gurdari]

It sucks that we won't be able to say we told you so.

Ha! Right about what? That we have no reason to believe a God (or Gods) exist at present? Sort of like not believing that Elvis is alive, you might catch some flak from a couple 'true believers' once in a while, but otherwise you carry on living however it is you have chosen to.

Though if there is a God, it would be pretty awesome. Just the idea of God is interesting already - but if one exists, wow. It would be a whole new level of existence to learn about. Assuming we had a chance to.

Of course, the idea that the 'next step up' from idiotic humanity is some universe-creating supreme being who exists beyond time and space might be a bit arrogant on our part.

 

[JBeukema]

Though if there is a God, it would be pretty awesome

Not if it's the evil, vile, cruel, sadistic piece of shi of the Abrahamists. If the biblical god appears to me, I will not bow down to a glorified Hitler. The true hero of the Judeo-Christian religion is Lucifer. How many genocides does Lucifer order in the bible? None! Who told us the truth in Eden? Lucifer! Who would abolish the laws about making girls marry their rapist? Lucifer. Who orders all the genocides, kills people for obeying him, orders disobedient children stoned to death and condones rape? El/YHWH!

 

[JohnStOnge]

Well, guys and gals, all I can say is that you'd better hope there is something beyond and outside of ourselves that sets the rules. If not, there is absolutely nothing "wrong" about, say, grabbing a two year old girl out of a day care, raping her, then dousing her body in gasoline and burning her. In the absense of that something beyond and outside of ourselves that sets the rules, there is no objective basis for saying there's anything wrong with that as long as you can get away with it.

There is nothing "wrong" with what Hitler did. There is nothing "wrong" with what Stalin did. Such things simply are; just like a meteorite burning up in our atmosphere is. There is not intrinsic "right" or "wrong."

And, if those who are wishing to do so succeed in killing the concept of "God," sooner or later a critical mass of people will realize that there is no intrinsic right or wrong under the atheistic premise. That is not going to be a good thing.

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem is, people tend to believe that they know exactly what God's personality, intentions are.

What makes you think they don't? It's not as if God keeps His will and plan secret from those who seek Him out. I mean whats the point of religion if it isnt to learn about God and what He has planned for us? How is it problematic to believe the purpose of religion?

The problem is, many athiest on here answer the question as if they know that God doesn't exist. I believe one poster said that he was 1000% sure that God didn't exist. The problem arises when instead of just answering the question, they throw their beliefs into it.

I agree. It is impossible to know God doesn't exist. Knowing He does exist is quite a different story. People dont seem to realize that.

I answered the question....we will all rot in a box.
Then I countered a question....What if athiests are wrong.

If they are wrong, they will have every opportunity to change their mind about it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Once again, you miss my point. Obviously that's why you thought I was "dancing" around. You are making an unjustified assumption that god wants me to believe in him. Perhaps my bastard of god doesn't like people who believe in him. Perhaps the bastard of a god likes people who are skeptical, or perhaps judges people on their actions and doesn't (literally) give a damn if people don't believe. In an extreme case, the bastard of a god could despise people who believe in him- that's why he doesn't manifest himself. Then he sends you to hell and rewards me.

But He does manifest Himself. All the time.

That's what I've been saying. You are still using that fucking wager argument. It's right there, the last line of your post. It is completely irrational, using hidden premises about what god wants or doesn't want. You see, my entire argument made to you on this thread was a patient explanation of the logical flaws in that portion of your post I just underlined.

Im not very impressed with the wager myself. If there is a God, I dont want to just believe in him because of some probability wager. I want to actually know Him. I want to know what He wants or doesnt want, if He wants anything.

You claimed the problem was when atheist throw their beliefs into the argument.

Personally, my only problem with it is when it keeps us from learning and searching for actual answers rather than simply concluding that all the answers are found.