What If Us Atheists Are Right? Hmmmm...

[BrianH]

Seriously, you never wondered about this? Why didn't god just ensure that they became immortal. The entire dying and abuse thing was unnecessary.

And if Hitler committed genocide on the jews and then followed it up with an amazing act of grace and mercy, claiming that he loved them all along, wouldn't your opinion be that he is insane?

N-, I've decided you are a troll...your posts are full of holes and hypothetical scenarios....simple as that

You know, that's a first. Most of the time, even those I have frustrated with rational arguments at least acknowledge that I have been fair and my arguments are reasonable. That's why many people with whom I have had intense disputes and with whom I still have profound disagreements, both politically and theologically, I have no personal animosity toward. I have had positive reps from people on some issue, even though we had a contentious argument over another topic. And I likewise, hold respect for those who disagree with me, as long as they stay within the boundaries of civil debate, and rep them when strong arguments are presented (even arguments with which I disagree).

But you have quickly stooped to mudslinging here. The other argument which you and I had was not even intended to be an argument. I simply was trying to help you understand, broaden your horizons about an argument you were making that is widely regarded as ineffective and seriously flawed. It was for your benefit.

And in the case in which you quoted here, the relevance of my comments is plainly obvious. First of all, the question of why an all-powerful being would find it necessary to use pain, torture, and death to forgive sin is a legitimate logical obstacle to christian theology.

The comment about insanity was reference to the hitler/god comparison that was taking place in the posts I quoted originally. The bible is full of passages where god orders the genocide of gentiles. Yet, then he sends his son to "save" and forgive all people, including all the gentiles, who he has always loved. If these actions were done by a human figure, like hitler, isn't it fair to say his actions would be perceived as contradictory? Since the bible is regarded as true among many christians, and the fact that god loves us and sent jesus in an act of mercy is also regarded as true, then the contradictory nature of god's actions is a legitimate question.

If you have trouble answering legitimate questions and viewing rational debate objectively, that does not indicate that "I" am a troll. Asking difficult questions does not make one a troll. If I made outrageous claims or insults- perhaps you could justify that label. But my arguments are sound, I am willing to engage in discussion, and I make every effort to avoid attacking opponents rather than attacking their arguments. A consideration you have obviously failed to extend to me as evidenced by this post you have made.

Please, point out the "holes" in my arguments. That's debate at its best. It strengthens your credibility and helps me by making me aware of possible pespectives I have not considered. I do not ignore criticism, as a troll does. I embrace it, consider it, and either change my position or defend my position. I think you would be better served doing likewise- even if it's not so simple.

The "holes" in your argument are conjectures. You make up hypothetical scenarios based on absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support your claim that God is a bastard of a God. You're basing your entire opinion on a hypothetical personality.

Second, your talking down to me as if I'm not smart enough to understand what you're talking about. "It's for my own good?" lol. Hardly...

Even Socrates understood that we all don't know jack-shit about anything. You, on the other hand, act as if you've got it all figured out and want to spread your knowledge of God and religion, or lack there of...

The fact is, you're arguing hypotheticals with NO sources. I simply answered a question.

What if athiests are right? Then we all rot in a box or in the ground, or whatever.

Then I countered a quesiton..."What if athiests are wrong?" ANSWER: Whether God is bastard of a God(No sources to even suggest so--keeping in mind that the destructions of life in the Bible were punishments for wrong-doing) or not, Athiests will still be in trouble. All sources of faith suggest that God WANTS you to believe in him, therefore, whether he's mean or not will not matter...the fact that Athiests don't believe will inevitable put them on his shit list.

Your "wisdom" is baseless...

I don't typically stoop to mudslinging when someone has a VALID argument...it's when people start pulling bull-shit out of their ass and passing it off as if it has a sturdy ground to sit on.

 

[N4mddissent]

The "holes" in your argument are conjectures. You make up hypothetical scenarios based on absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support your claim that God is a bastard of a God. You're basing your entire opinion on a hypothetical personality.

Second, your talking down to me as if I'm not smart enough to understand what you're talking about. "It's for my own good?" lol. Hardly...

Even Socrates understood that we all don't know jack-shit about anything. You, on the other hand, act as if you've got it all figured out and want to spread your knowledge of God and religion, or lack there of...

The fact is, you're arguing hypotheticals with NO sources. I simply answered a question.

What if athiests are right? Then we all rot in a box or in the ground, or whatever.

Then I countered a quesiton..."What if athiests are wrong?" ANSWER: Whether God is bastard of a God(No sources to even suggest so--keeping in mind that the destructions of life in the Bible were punishments for wrong-doing) or not, Athiests will still be in trouble. All sources of faith suggest that God WANTS you to believe in him, therefore, whether he's mean or not will not matter...the fact that Athiests don't believe will inevitable put them on his shit list.

.

That's where you're wrong. You see, you admit that "All sources of faith suggest..." which implies that you are familiar with all sources of faith. Furthermore, by recognizing that your premise (god wants people to believe) comes from an assertion of faith- you exhibit the problem I was illustrating in the first place. If one does not already accept what you acknowledge is an article of faith- i.e. that god wants us to believe- then the wager argument is completely inadequate.

Yes, I presented a hypothetical god. It was to illustrate a flaw. Here is the wager argument presented.

1. If god does not exist, it does not matter if we believe or not.
2. If god does exist, believing will be rewarded and disbelief will be punished.
Conclusion: It is riskier to not believe, so belief is the rational choice.

This is one of the most philosophically childish arguments in existence. I used a hypothetical god to illustrate the fact that in the argument above, as stated, there is no reason or support for the statement that belief will be rewarded and disbelief punished. It is an assumed premise based on beliefs already held. So it is foolish to think this argument would be convincing or accepted as sound by a non-believer, since it already requires an inherent belief. Only those who already believe could find it reasonable. This was the point of the hypothetical god- to point out your own subjective assumptions as a major flaw in the argument.

This does not even get into the question of whether belief is a choice. I personally do not think one can rationally and honestly choose to believe something. This is a weak argument on many levels.

I wasn't trying to talk down to you. My efforts were simply an attempt to encourage you to seek other, better arguments that haven't been rehashed and dismissed as flawed for many years now. If you would consider it for a moment, you would realize this means I was operating under the assumption that you were intelligent and reasonable enought to accept constructive criticism and develop stronger arguments. I did not take you for the dogmatic type to stubbornly stick to a flawed argument. But you seem determined to prove me otherwise.

As far as having it all figured out...I have never claimed such. You would be hard-pressed to find a definitive theological claim I have made. I consider myself an atheist, but readily concede that I would not claim absolute certainty that this is the case. Beyond that, most of my criticism takes the form of questioning certain statements and beliefs others put forth, or answering questions and criticisms directed at me. I have thought a great deal about the topic, and studied a great deal as well. Included in this is a large amount of my life spent studying the bible. So I may have some knowledge, some questions, some insights, or some doubts- but I don't claim to dispense wisdom. By asking questions, I give the opportunity for others to answer. And in the course of my search for truth, I have come across the wager argument you put forth and have seen many criticisms of it and know it is rarely used in philosophical debate because of its flaws. I was just trying to share this information with you.

 

[BrianH]

The "holes" in your argument are conjectures. You make up hypothetical scenarios based on absolutely nothing. There is nothing to support your claim that God is a bastard of a God. You're basing your entire opinion on a hypothetical personality.

Second, your talking down to me as if I'm not smart enough to understand what you're talking about. "It's for my own good?" lol. Hardly...

Even Socrates understood that we all don't know jack-shit about anything. You, on the other hand, act as if you've got it all figured out and want to spread your knowledge of God and religion, or lack there of...

The fact is, you're arguing hypotheticals with NO sources. I simply answered a question.

What if athiests are right? Then we all rot in a box or in the ground, or whatever.

Then I countered a quesiton..."What if athiests are wrong?" ANSWER: Whether God is bastard of a God(No sources to even suggest so--keeping in mind that the destructions of life in the Bible were punishments for wrong-doing) or not, Athiests will still be in trouble. All sources of faith suggest that God WANTS you to believe in him, therefore, whether he's mean or not will not matter...the fact that Athiests don't believe will inevitable put them on his shit list.

.

That's where you're wrong. You see, you admit that "All sources of faith suggest..." which implies that you are familiar with all sources of faith. Furthermore, by recognizing that your premise (god wants people to believe) comes from an assertion of faith- you exhibit the problem I was illustrating in the first place. If one does not already accept what you acknowledge is an article of faith- i.e. that god wants us to believe- then the wager argument is completely inadequate.

Yes, I presented a hypothetical god. It was to illustrate a flaw. Here is the wager argument presented.

1. If god does not exist, it does not matter if we believe or not.
2. If god does exist, believing will be rewarded and disbelief will be punished.
Conclusion: It is riskier to not believe, so belief is the rational choice.

This is one of the most philosophically childish arguments in existence. I used a hypothetical god to illustrate the fact that in the argument above, as stated, there is no reason or support for the statement that belief will be rewarded and disbelief punished. It is an assumed premise based on beliefs already held. So it is foolish to think this argument would be convincing or accepted as sound by a non-believer, since it already requires an inherent belief. Only those who already believe could find it reasonable. This was the point of the hypothetical god- to point out your own subjective assumptions as a major flaw in the argument.

This does not even get into the question of whether belief is a choice. I personally do not think one can rationally and honestly choose to believe something. This is a weak argument on many levels.

I wasn't trying to talk down to you. My efforts were simply an attempt to encourage you to seek other, better arguments that haven't been rehashed and dismissed as flawed for many years now. If you would consider it for a moment, you would realize this means I was operating under the assumption that you were intelligent and reasonable enought to accept constructive criticism and develop stronger arguments. I did not take you for the dogmatic type to stubbornly stick to a flawed argument. But you seem determined to prove me otherwise.

As far as having it all figured out...I have never claimed such. You would be hard-pressed to find a definitive theological claim I have made. I consider myself an atheist, but readily concede that I would not claim absolute certainty that this is the case. Beyond that, most of my criticism takes the form of questioning certain statements and beliefs others put forth, or answering questions and criticisms directed at me. I have thought a great deal about the topic, and studied a great deal as well. Included in this is a large amount of my life spent studying the bible. So I may have some knowledge, some questions, some insights, or some doubts- but I don't claim to dispense wisdom. By asking questions, I give the opportunity for others to answer. And in the course of my search for truth, I have come across the wager argument you put forth and have seen many criticisms of it and know it is rarely used in philosophical debate because of its flaws. I was just trying to share this information with you.

There is more to suggest that belief in God would be rewarded than not...scriptures are full of stories where God rewards those who believe and punishes those who do not.

If you were to take into account, the amount of "information" available for side of the discussion, it would still suggest that the belief in God is to be rewarded. I have yet to read any religious scriptures that say otherwise...unless you consider Satanist doctrines.

I have never claimed that Pascal's Wager was a flawless argument. That's the reason it is called a "wager," because it's uncertain. When you wager on a football game, you're uncertain of the outcome.

 

[Hawkins]

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

Right on what? Atheists believe in evidence. So they can never be right about things after death or the existence of God, coz there will be no evidence about either a "yes" or a "no".

 

[Rubber Hoser]

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

Right on what? Atheists believe in evidence. So they can never be right about things after death or the existence of God, coz there will be no evidence about either a "yes" or a "no".

In other words, atheists are right because the absence of a god cannot be disproven.

 

[amrchaos]

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

Right on what? Atheists believe in evidence. So they can never be right about things after death or the existence of God, coz there will be no evidence about either a "yes" or a "no".

In other words, atheists are right because the absence of a god cannot be disproven.

If you could define GOD, then the question of disprove is a matter of contradicition. The strange thing about it, I keep coming up with semi-logical arguements that if God is an All powerfull, all knowing compassionate being, then religion is not necessary.

 

[rdean]

I have no mystical or occult beliefs. However, I'm really glad the religious do.

Seriously,

How many times have you heard someone religious say, "If you don't believe in God, then what’s to keep you from murder and rape and robbery?"

You see how scary that is? Our founders put protections in our constitution against the religious because they knew how dangerous these people are. How many protections did they put against atheists? None.

So I say, "I'm glad the religious have found a 'supernatural' and 'mystical' being, otherwise what's to stop them from rape and murder and robbery?"

 

[Karateka]

Just me, but I find religions - all of them that I've come across, anyway - to be flat-out nuts. I have an easier time with Pagans who connect with the seasons - at least the cyclical thing is something I can appreciate the practicality as well as the delicacy of. As to the rest ... not so much.

 

[renoite]

Right on what? Atheists believe in evidence. So they can never be right about things after death or the existence of God, coz there will be no evidence about either a "yes" or a "no".

In other words, atheists are right because the absence of a god cannot be disproven.

If you could define GOD, then the question of disprove is a matter of contradicition. The strange thing about it, I keep coming up with semi-logical arguements that if God is an All powerfull, all knowing compassionate being, then religion is not necessary.

THAT DON'T MAKE SENCS BECAUSE RELGION IS GOD AND GOD IS RELIGION him bing all powerfull and all knowing and compasionate dont mean you dont worship him in a religion. Pluse another thing america was found based apone freedome of religion

 

[Rubber Hoser]

THAT DON'T MAKE SENCS BECAUSE RELGION IS GOD AND GOD IS RELIGION him bing all powerfull and all knowing and compasionate dont mean you dont worship him in a religion. Pluse another thing america was found based apone freedome of religion

I see they're still trying to teach apes how to type.

 

[rdean]

In other words, atheists are right because the absence of a god cannot be disproven.

If you could define GOD, then the question of disprove is a matter of contradicition. The strange thing about it, I keep coming up with semi-logical arguements that if God is an All powerfull, all knowing compassionate being, then religion is not necessary.

THAT DON'T MAKE SENCS BECAUSE RELGION IS GOD AND GOD IS RELIGION him bing all powerfull and all knowing and compasionate dont mean you dont worship him in a religion. Pluse another thing america was found based apone freedome of religion

Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. I prefer Marvel Comics, just as believable and much more interesting.

 

[renoite]

If you could define GOD, then the question of disprove is a matter of contradicition. The strange thing about it, I keep coming up with semi-logical arguements that if God is an All powerfull, all knowing compassionate being, then religion is not necessary.

THAT DON'T MAKE SENCS BECAUSE RELGION IS GOD AND GOD IS RELIGION him bing all powerfull and all knowing and compasionate dont mean you dont worship him in a religion. Pluse another thing america was found based apone freedome of religion

Freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. I prefer Marvel Comics, just as believable and much more interesting.

well the man Im with loves marvel we play the game but we also still love GOD how can you compare marvel games or movies or tv show to GOD. WELL its easy for you I guss but in any case its not freedom from religion read up on your history freedom of religion or in this case freedom of no religion. freedom of choice and you cant say marvel is even close to GOD. SUPPER MAN bat man the hulk are not like GOD.

 

[renoite]

I have no mystical or occult beliefs. However, I'm really glad the religious do.

Seriously,

How many times have you heard someone religious say, "If you don't believe in God, then what’s to keep you from murder and rape and robbery?"

You see how scary that is? Our founders put protections in our constitution against the religious because they knew how dangerous these people are. How many protections did they put against atheists? None.

So I say, "I'm glad the religious have found a 'supernatural' and 'mystical' being, otherwise what's to stop them from rape and murder and robbery?"

those are all sins for one and if you dont know GOD IS REAL WICH YOU DONT KNOW how can you sit on your butt on your pc chair and state he is nothing but a meth. WELL for those who have seen him and felt him around and for those that have been saved from things in life from him they know.

 

[renoite]

THAT DON'T MAKE SENCS BECAUSE RELGION IS GOD AND GOD IS RELIGION him bing all powerfull and all knowing and compasionate dont mean you dont worship him in a religion. Pluse another thing america was found based apone freedome of religion

I see they're still trying to teach apes how to type.

wow yet another person like you... go ahead anything you are going to say I have heard.... give me your best shot... your you cant type you cant do this your that blah blah your GOD anit real he is a meth bash bash oh ya some more bashing. Well anything you say has no effect on me becasue one I dont know you. You are just a person at a pc desk on on your couch you and two who cares what you think... If I was as close minded as you are maybe then I would understand why you and people like you act the way you do.

 

[Anguille]

I have no mystical or occult beliefs. However, I'm really glad the religious do.

Seriously,

How many times have you heard someone religious say, "If you don't believe in God, then what’s to keep you from murder and rape and robbery?"

You see how scary that is? Our founders put protections in our constitution against the religious because they knew how dangerous these people are. How many protections did they put against atheists? None.

So I say, "I'm glad the religious have found a 'supernatural' and 'mystical' being, otherwise what's to stop them from rape and murder and robbery?"

And yet they still manage to rape and kill. What's to be done about these people?

 

[renoite]

in GOD WE TRUST it states that on the money you spend funny

 

[renoite]

I have no mystical or occult beliefs. However, I'm really glad the religious do.

Seriously,

How many times have you heard someone religious say, "If you don't believe in God, then what’s to keep you from murder and rape and robbery?"

You see how scary that is? Our founders put protections in our constitution against the religious because they knew how dangerous these people are. How many protections did they put against atheists? None.

So I say, "I'm glad the religious have found a 'supernatural' and 'mystical' being, otherwise what's to stop them from rape and murder and robbery?"

And yet they still manage to rape and kill. What's to be done about these people?

ASK GOD he will judge them not I. I have been raped so you know dont go there with that. I AM A CHRISTIAN WOMAN.

 

[Anguille]

What if athiests are right? Then we all rot in a box or in the ground, or whatever.

Then I countered a quesiton..."What if athiests are wrong?" ANSWER: Whether God is bastard of a God(No sources to even suggest so--keeping in mind that the destructions of life in the Bible were punishments for wrong-doing) or not, Athiests will still be in trouble. All sources of faith suggest that God WANTS you to believe in him, therefore, whether he's mean or not will not matter...the fact that Athiests don't believe will inevitable put them on his shit list.

You are projecting your own human nature onto the concept of God. It does not necessarily follow that a god, even if it is a god who wants us to believe in him, would put atheists on his shit list.

It's simply not true that all sources of faith suggest God wants or even cares that anyone believes in it.

 

[BrianH]

What if athiests are right? Then we all rot in a box or in the ground, or whatever.

Then I countered a quesiton..."What if athiests are wrong?" ANSWER: Whether God is bastard of a God(No sources to even suggest so--keeping in mind that the destructions of life in the Bible were punishments for wrong-doing) or not, Athiests will still be in trouble. All sources of faith suggest that God WANTS you to believe in him, therefore, whether he's mean or not will not matter...the fact that Athiests don't believe will inevitable put them on his shit list.

You are projecting your own human nature onto the concept of God. It does not necessarily follow that a god, even if it is a god who wants us to believe in him, would put atheists on his shit list.

It's simply not true that all sources of faith suggest God wants or even cares that anyone believes in it.

Come on dude, at least be original...now you're just echoing what N4dissent posted...

Find me scripture from any religion that suggests that God does not want us to believe in him. (That doesn't mean to post sources from a Satanist website.)

 

[Ralph]

"WHAT IF................"? Does not that SUBJECTIVE question hold the inherent answer? I find it amusing that anyone wants to justify their lack of morality by denying the very source from were all human morality stems...GOD, as nature has no demonstrable moralistic traits, as self professed by all naturalists and Darwinian cultists.