The Believers Eternal Fight for "Validation"

[gentle_dissident]

This video scripture deals with most issues we have discussed ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD9Q3zJ8IoU

Not on this video, but in the book, the Messiah finally shows up late at the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe ... shortly before the universe ends ;-)

Happy Towel Day!

[aitm]

If you're wrong, it could mess up your whole eternity.

I'm not wrong. There isn't even a remote chance of it.

The sky is not water, a third of the stars never fell to earth....three times, the sky cannot be rolled up like a scroll and oh yeah, there is no dragon living in the earth that can fly around and gather another third of the stars with its tail...sheeesh.  At least the Brothers Grimm have believable stories, your shit is just moronic. But hey, swim where the water is knee deep eh?

[Blackleaf]

What kind of a perfectly loving god would decide that eternal punishment is an appropriate response to skepticism in the first place? If God wanted to be known, he could make himself known. But he chooses to hide instead, and reward the mindless sheep who happen to be with the right religion. A perfectly loving God wouldn't care whether or not someone worshiped him. Imagine if a human father acted that way. After being absent for many years, he shows up without warning.

"Hello. I'm your father."

"How do I know you're my father? I don't have any pictures of you. You never wrote to me or called me. Do you have any pictures of me?"

"That is true. I got your letters, text massages, and phone calls, but I never replied because I wanted to see if you believed in me. But you stopped, so you didn't believe in me."

"Well, now that I know you are real, what do you want? Do you expect that you can just walk in here and start having a relationship with me?"

"Of course not! I'm going to lock you in the basement for the rest of your life because you didn't believe in me."

There's no love like God's love!

[Randy Carson]

I'm not wrong. There isn't even a remote chance of it.

How do you know this?

[SGOS]

A couple of years ago, I asked how Pascal could be considered an important intellectual after coming up with his ridiculous "wager".  I was quickly bombarded by a host of links to his many accomplishments in philosophy, math, engineering, and science.  But the most interesting was a video, where a speaker introduced his lecture on Pascal by saying something like, "How would you feel if you made so many outstanding contributions to mankind in various fields, but were remembered mostly by a bone headed brain fart you never intended to publish, but jotted down on a piece of scrap paper after a dinner with friends at a local restaurant?" 

I guess I'd vow to stop overindulging on the dinner wine.

[Simon Moon]

To the contrary, Pascal's Wager is very reasonable.

Only a fool plays a game he is guaranteed to lose.

How are we guaranteed to lose?

What if the god that ends up existing, is one that rewards atheist's intellectual honesty for not believing unsupported,  unevidenced claims, and punishes those that choose to believe in one of he 1000's of religious cults?

Pascal's wager is about as bad a reason to believe as there is. It ignores every other god, and the possible rewards and punishments of one of those gods.

It was a flawed argument in the 17th century, it is still flawed in the 21st.

oops...

Make that 1054 when Muslim scholar,  Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, thought up the same flawed argument as a justification for Islam beliefs.

[aitm]

How do you know this?

Well, I read the babble, so that leaves that god out, I read the quran, that takes care of that one, I read lots of the Veda's…meh…and then you have the thousands of god previous..so…..meh again. At least the older ones were nicer and more lovable than your babble piece of crap. So yeah, I know this.

[Baruch]

How do you know this?

A word you don't know ... epistemology.

[Hakurei Reimu]

I counter your Pascal's wager with Pascal's triangle, which actually has something to do with probability.

[aitm]

The willingness to dismiss the other gods without at least acknowledging them is the first sign of pure cultural biaism. You never see muslim or christian or hindu or jewish people suddenly saying they dreamed of a prophet they never heard of. The gods are surely cultural eh?

[Randy Carson]

How are we guaranteed to lose?

What if the god that ends up existing, is one that rewards atheist's intellectual honesty for not believing unsupported,  unevidenced claims, and punishes those that choose to believe in one of he 1000's of religious cults?

1. You seem to be overlooking that their pursuit of those cults was undertaken (presumably) with the same degree of "intellectual honesty" as you attribute to yourself. Thus, would they be punished if you are not?
2. You overlook the atheists who are not being "intellectually honest" but merely living their lives with little regard for (or even open animosity toward) God. You are responsible for forming your conscience properly.

Pascal's wager is about as bad a reason to believe as there is. It ignores every other god, and the possible rewards and punishments of one of those gods.

Pascal's Wager is not a reason to believe. It is a reason to act. It appears you have misunderstood the Wager.

It was a flawed argument in the 17th century, it is still flawed in the 21st.

I'll wager it is your understanding of Pascal that is flawed.

oops...

Make that 1054 when Muslim scholar,  Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni, thought up the same flawed argument as a justification for Islam beliefs.

I am not familiar with his argument, but if it is formulated correctly, then there is no problem with two scholars arriving at the same conclusion.

It is foolish to live one's live as if God does not exist.

[Randy Carson]

Well, I read the babble, so that leaves that god out, I read the quran, that takes care of that one, I read lots of the Veda's…meh…and then you have the thousands of god previous..so…..meh again. At least the older ones were nicer and more lovable than your babble piece of crap. So yeah, I know this.

Oh. So, on the basis of some reading of various books, you have arrived at the certainty that God does not exist?

Interesting.

Is this the logical conclusion of your study?

I can understand if you decided that A) you have not fully understood the texts or B) the texts themselves are flawed. But you've gone way beyond these conclusions.

Would you read Galileo's treatise and conclude that black holes do not exist because he does not describe them? Would you read a medical text from the 18th century and conclude that all of medicine is useless because leeches were used to bleed patients with fevers? Finally, would you read a paper presented at a colloquy of astrophysicists and cosmologists and conclude that their studies were pointless simply because the paper was beyond your ability to understand it?

All you've admitted is that you didn't understand what you read. You haven't made the logical connection between that and the conclusion that God does not exist.

1. I don't understand this book.
2. Therefore, God does not exist.

Is that the logic employed by you?

[SGOS]

Pascal's Wager is not a reason to believe. It is a reason to act. It appears you have misunderstood the Wager.

As a typical Christian, you understand part of the wager, the part Pascal was making under the assumption of a Christian god, which in his moment of probable drunken ecstasy, must have seemed like a good idea.  But as a typical Christian, you are blinded to the weak, and even fallacious aspects of the argument, which are beyond your limited perspective of "only one true god," and therefore incomprehensible to you.  The wager has been debunked by actual scholars, which you so much love to point to.  Yes scholars; Actual scholars!  <Whoohoo!>  Not just some bitter atheists that are angry at God, and spew their vile hatred in a forum empty of independent thinking.

Furthermore, it makes little difference whether the wager is about believing or acting.  The alleged consequences would be the same.  If your actions worship the wrong god, you still end up in Hell.  Further, according to Christian doctrine, although perhaps not so much for Catholics, salvation revolves around blind faith believing, as opposed to acting, which by the way, makes your endless attempts at providing proof, well, err, evidence, totally unnecessary.

But we appreciate your efforts.  We really do.  We love demanding proof of God from Christians, when in fact, none of us can actually prove he exists or doesn't exist, ourselves.  Well, the Christian god, maybe, but that's a special case.  We just like to watch you guys struggle to find unobtainable proofs, which according to your own religion, aren't even necessary  for your own salvation anyway.  Let me tell you.  From this end, it's a real hoot to watch.

[Randy Carson]

As a typical Christian, you understand part of the wager, the part Pascal was making under the assumption of a Christian god, which in his moment of probable drunken ecstasy, must have seemed like a good idea.  But as a typical Christian, you are blinded to the weak, and even fallacious aspects of the argument, which are beyond your limited perspective of "only one true god," and therefore incomprehensible to you.  The wager has been debunked by actual scholars, which you so much love to point to.  Yes scholars; Actual scholars!  <Whoohoo!>  Not just some bitter atheists that are angry at God, and spew their vile hatred in a forum empty of independent thinking.

And yet, you provide no links to them, no bibliography of resources...just the flat assertion that "scholars" have debunked Pascal.

Furthermore, it makes little difference whether the wager is about believing or acting.  The alleged consequences would be the same.  If your actions worship the wrong god, you still end up in Hell.  Further, according to Christian doctrine, although perhaps not so much for Catholics, salvation revolves around blind faith believing, as opposed to acting, which by the way, makes your endless attempts at providing proof, well, err, evidence, totally unnecessary.

There is only one true God; anyone who is seeking to live according the natural law that He has written in their hearts will be pleasing to God - even if they do not know him fully.

And blind faith? No. This is a straw man.

But we appreciate your efforts.  We really do.  We love demanding proof of God from Christians, when in fact, none of us can actually prove he exists or doesn't exist, ourselves.  Well, the Christian god, maybe, but that's a special case.  We just like to watch you guys struggle to find unobtainable proofs, which according to your own religion, aren't even necessary  for your own salvation anyway.  Let me tell you.  From this end, it's a real hoot to watch.

If it's such a hoot, then why not click over to one of my threads and disprove any of my OP's on the gospels.

But you don't want to do that, do you, sport?

Because you CAN'T.

[SGOS]

And blind faith? No. This is a straw man.

It's not a straw man.  It's the only way belief in the unprovable can happen.  That's why religions don't encourage snooping around evidence, logic, and critical thinking.  Those who would go there, will find nothing to support what they seek.  Blind faith is the only way to believe in the unknowable, and it's even encouraged by most religions lest people become too adept at critical thinking and fall from the grace that only their church can provide.

Yet for some, such as yourself, it's still a bit unsettling to swallow the absurdities of doctrine on blind faith alone.  You need a little more than that, so you look for evidence, even when you don't need to.  To believe you have actually found evidence gives you a sense of closure.  You believe you are no longer a robot believing whatever you are told, but that you have found the answer outside of yourself independently.  You believe you have found inscrutable evidence that would convince everyone, even the most ardent skeptics, if they would but open their hearts and accept Jesus Christ as their savior. 

Even if it fails the peer review of a forum of skeptics, you know that you are right, because your god wants you to know he exists, and surely he would leave foot prints for everyone to see.  Sleep well my friend, and dream of gardens with waterfalls with pixies hiding among the flowers.  It actually sounds rather nice to me too.