A question for atheists

[Jan Ardena]

Thersites,

There are more problems: if you back the wrong god in the race you're going to go to hell anyway, so all your time and effort believing was wasted.

Using your teminology, there is no question of backing the wrong god if you serve the one God who is described in all the bona-fide religions of the world.
Allah, Jehovah and Vishnu are the same person.

What is so great about your use of time and effort, that makes you believe my time and effort is being wasted?

If you believe in god on this basis then your whole life is a continuous gamble.

How many people believe in God on this basis?

Most gods say you shouldn't gamble, so the very act of believing like this, even if your belief is justified, will get you sent to hell anyway.

What do you mean my "most gods?"

Finally, a god that behaves like this would be perfectly capable of lying and sending believers to hell as well. It doesn't deserve belief or worship.

This is just suppositions and what-ifs, they are not based on real belief in God. Pascal was talking about God, not gods.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Thersites]

Thersites,
Allah, Jehovah and Vishnu are the same person.

Person? Have you asked them individually?

What is so great about your use of time and effort, that makes you believe my time and effort is being wasted?

I'm not gambling on very long odds with a welching bookie.

How many people believe in God on this basis?

Haven't got a clu. Can't see why anyone believes in god on any basis.

What do you mean my "most gods?"

Most gods as depicted in allegedly holy books

This is just suppositions and what-ifs, they are not based on real belief in God. Pascal was talking about God, not gods.

Which god or, as the case may be, God? What is the difference between them?

 

[skeptic]

hi....
i didnt get a chance to read every previous posting on this thread, so if i'm being redundant and repeating what someone already said, forgive me. My statement is regarding Pascal's Wagar. This wager is illogical and fallicious in many ways.
Lets assume for a minute that a god exists. Anyone who decides to believe in God based on this wagar, is just doing so for selfish reasons. They are deciding to believe in God because that way, if god turns out to be real, they will get rewarded (or at least not get punished) in the end. Put this wagar assumes that god would regard selfishness and mindless belief in him higher than he regards honest freethought!! I surely hope that a god like that does not exist.
Secondly, this wagar seems toassume that the chances that god exists is 50/50. In reality, I feel that it is extremely unlikely that any supernatural god exists. Therefore, if you bed against god, the odds are definately with you.
Thirdly, we do have alot to lose if we assume god is real and he is not. We lose our ability to think freely, and view the world for its natural wonders. I feel that the concept of a godless world is actually much more enlightening than one created by God.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

skeptic: "I feel that the concept of a godless world is actually much more enlightening than one created by God."
*************
M*W: Most assuredly so! We are the enlightened ones -- not the gods we've relinquished our powers to!

 

[Neildo]

M*W: Most assuredly so! We are the enlightened ones -- not the gods we've relinquished our powers to!

Only those that pray and worship relinquish their powers to God. One can be religious and/or spiritual without submitting to their God. Needless to say, I'm not one of those worshipping types, but I do believe in "God" (for lack of a better word). And that God, whatever it is, has no bearing on my life. No miracles, doesn't do anything for me, I'm in complete control of my own destiny (aside from nature and other people that interact with me). Once God flipped the switch for the laws of nature and creation to run it's endless loop, that's the moment he's had no further involvement in our lives (or died as a result of exploding into the big bang, who knows, lol).

- N

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thersites,

Person? Have you asked them individually?

Judging by the descriptions in holy books, what else could they be.

I'm not gambling on very long odds with a welching bookie.

Neither am i.
So again, please explain to me what is so great about your use of time and effort, that makes you believe my time and effort is being wasted?
I am not interested in what you’re NOT doing.

Haven't got a clu. Can't see why anyone believes in god on any basis.

Then don’t make claims you can’t back up.

Most gods as depicted in allegedly holy books

Point out where in any scripture God say’s “you shouldn’t gamble.”

Which god or, as the case may be, God? What is the difference between them?

I have already explained this.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Thersites]

Judging by the descriptions in holy books, what else could they [allah Jehovah and Vishnu] be [but the same person].

Three rather different persons, powers or delusions. Actually, Jehovah changes and varies in attributes and attitudes in the course of the bible.

So again, please explain to me what is so great about your use of time and effort, that makes you believe my time and effort is being wasted?
I am not interested in what you’re NOT doing.

Tough. I am interested in not wasting my time and effort believing in Nobodaddy, or whatever othet label you affix to whatever it is you believe you believe in.

Then don’t make claims you can’t back up.

As my claim was not to know how many people believe in god on the basis of Pascal's wager I can back it easily- or do you think I do know how many people believe in god on the basis of Pascal's wager?.

Point out where in any scripture God say’s “you shouldn’t gamble.”

In the koran and the bible there are instructions not to play games of chance.

I have already explained this [the differences between god, God and gods].

You haven't. You have merely asserted that there is no difference between them.

 

[anonymous2]

7x7, you're forgetting something. It's not a simple division between Islam and atheism. According to Christian beliefs, you're going to burn for eternity in hell. There are Buddhist hells, Hindu hells, the Zoroastrian hell, Jain hells, etc.

What do you think will happen to you if you eat animals according to this website?
http://treks.com.np/hell/

You may not directly kill animals, but I doubt that will get you off the hook.

If there were no other religions ever thought of, then maybe you'd have an argument. However, I still don't think you have very much of an argument, since it's based on fear of something which can't be proven. Prove that there's a hell. I don't think you can.

To 786:

You say you don't follow Islam correctly. So, are you even assured that you will go to heaven?

 

[anonymous2]

Thersites,

Point out where in any scripture God say’s “you shouldn’t gamble.”

Jan Ardena.

Jan, the Qur'an states you shouldn't gamble. As for the Bible, I've never seen an explicit reference forbidding it, although I guess it could go under "greed." I don't see where the Bible mentions gambling in the modern sense, but there are mentions of people casting lots in order to divide property (even God ordered it to happen according to Numbers 26:52-56), or in one case, to determine which apostle God wanted (Acts 1:23-26), implying that God's really behind the "luck". There's no indication they were putting up an initial "wager" though, from what I can tell.

 

[Sirius83]

Just a late reply, I was just skimming through and realised I had left something unresponded to =P

No, about bodies, not like that. It just for special peoples, not all. Not because of any funeral. Beside there are no real meanings for funeral in Islam. Warp the dead with white and dip him in.

I come from an Islamic family, believe me I know funerals in islam are a very basic thing, without elaborate ceremony. Gathering of family and friends, a few prayers, wrap them in white in a veyr basic coffin...more of a box than anything else, and drop them in there, put some boards so there's space over the body and cover it with dirt. I'm very awar eof the procedure...however, the body is still prepare dbefore you put it in the ground. It's still taken care of, not simply chucked in the ground upon death. They would usually make the body presentable for family to view it before putting it in the ground.

A freshly dead body doesn't look peaceful if they didn't die peacefully, so that peaceful appearance is dependent on how the perseon died, and what was done to the body before being presented at the funeral. A man with his eyes wide open is most certainly not peaceful looking. But before they put him in there, they would close his eyes. Also remember the muscles of the body usually go slack upon death, contributing even more to that peaceful look.

 

[okinrus]

i didnt get a chance to read every previous posting on this thread, so if i'm being redundant and repeating what someone already said, forgive me. My statement is regarding Pascal's Wagar. This wager is illogical and fallicious in many ways.

I don't think this is what Pascal meant by the wager; presumably Pascal believed before giving the wager. Rather, the purpose of the Wager was to convince someone of the importance of God, so that they would hopefully further investigate the truth.

Secondly, this wagar seems toassume that the chances that god exists is 50/50.

Not as given by Pascal. Pascal for the sake of argument considers the chance of God existing small but not infinitely small.

In reality, I feel that it is extremely unlikely that any supernatural god exists.

You cannot rationally say that the chance is infinitely small, because you have only been given evidence of a finite nature.

Therefore, if you bed against god, the odds are definately with you.
Thirdly, we do have alot to lose if we assume god is real and he is not. We lose our ability to think freely, and view the world for its natural wonders.

What we would lose would not infinite.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thersites,

Three rather different persons, powers or delusions. Actually, Jehovah changes and varies in attributes and attitudes in the course of the bible.

What's your point?

Tough. I am interested in not wasting my time and effort

So am I.

Whichever way you look at it, you lose out in Pascals wager, and to add to that, your life is not necessarily better than mine.
To want to accept the better option is a logical and reasonable pursuit, not a gamble. To gamble means to take a chance and if it doesn't pay off, you lose. That is your position.

As my claim was not to know how many people believe in god on the basis of Pascal's wager I can back it easily- or do you think I do know how many people believe in god on the basis of Pascal's wager?

Your claim was,

"if you back the wrong god in the race you're going to go to hell anyway, so all your time and effort believing was wasted.
If you believe in god on this basis then your whole life is a continuous gamble..."

There is no fear of backing the wrong God as there is only one. The various gods used in arguments against the wager such as Thor, are demi-gods not God. God is the creator of all that is according to any scripture.

In the koran and the bible there are instructions not to play games of chance.

Let's say you have understood these instruction correctly, how is believing in God a game of chance?

You haven't. You have merely asserted that there is no difference between them.

Read above.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Thersites]

What's your point?

Jehovah in the course of the OT changes attributes. Allah has other attributes. So too in turn does Vishnu. They therefore reflect different concepts of god and different gods

Whichever way you look at it, you lose out in Pascals wager, and to add to that, your life is not necessarily better than mine.
To want to accept the better option is a logical and reasonable pursuit, not a gamble. To gamble means to take a chance and if it doesn't pay off, you lose. That is your position.

You have to show that yopur option- gambling at all- is "better" and how it is "better". The effects of taking that gamble extend to other areas of your thought and affect the way you think- or avoid tyhinking- about other things.

Your claim was,

"if you back the wrong god in the race you're going to go to hell anyway, so all your time and effort believing was wasted.
If you believe in god on this basis then your whole life is a continuous gamble..."

There is no fear of backing the wrong God as there is only one. The various gods used in arguments against the wager such as Thor, are demi-gods not God. God is the creator of all that is according to any scripture.

There is no reason to think that any of the holy books are reliable. A false god would undoubtedly claim that its rivals were themselves false. There may be one god, no god or a great many gods. It or they may have an enormous number of attributes or none which are comprehensible to humans. There is no reason to take the gamble. Even if you plump for the "right" god it may not notice your worship anyway.

Let's say you have understood these instruction correctly, how is believing in God a game of chance?

Believing in god on the basis of Pascal's wager- remember? That's what we're talking about- is a continuous gamble.

Read above.

Jan Ardena.

Still no change. You still think that asserting there is only one god demonstrates that there is any god. It doesn't.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thersites,

Jehovah in the course of the OT changes attributes. Allah has other attributes. So too in turn does Vishnu.

Please explain.

You have to show that yopur option- gambling at all- is "better" and how it is "better".

How do you figure that i am gambling?

The effects of taking that gamble extend to other areas of your thought and affect the way you think- or avoid tyhinking- about other things.

Again, I do not see where i am taking a chance, maybe you can point it out to me.
Also, every single action, reaction and interaction affects the way we think.

There is no reason to think that any of the holy books are reliable.

Proper reliability comes through understanding.
Do you understand the holy books?

Believing in god on the basis of Pascal's wager- remember? That's what we're talking about- is a continuous gamble.

If I am not mistaken regarding Pascals wager, the believer loses nothing, so how can it be conceived as a bet or a gamble?

Still no change. You still think that asserting there is only one god demonstrates that there is any god. It doesn't.

Did Pascal make reference to any particular characterisation of God?
Did he use the term god{s}?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Thersites]

Please explain.

If you read the OT you will see JHVH changing from a limited local tribal god to one with absolute global power.

How do you figure that i am gambling?

You have chosen to pick one out of the enormous number of possibilities when there is no evidence to support any of them- what would you say you are doing?

Again, I do not see where i am taking a chance, maybe you can point it out to me.

You say you are "backing" the only god- again, with no evidence for this assertion. You also assume that your motives for worshipping this god will be acceptable to it if it exists at all.

Also, every single action, reaction and interaction affects the way we think.

Certainly. However, you have chosen to make this one decision dominate your life. You have arbitrarily selected a set of beliefs and chosen to live in a way that will suit the hypothetical being which inspires these beliefs. This one action affects all of your later actions by restricting them drastically.

Proper reliability comes through understanding.
Do you understand the holy books?

Eh? The various holy books make various assertions, some demonstrably untrue, others unsubstantiated. What is there to understand?

If I am not mistaken regarding Pascals wager, the believer loses nothing, so how can it be conceived as a bet or a gamble?

You are mistaken. the believer loses the ability to think untrammelled by arbitrary and self-imposed rules. Even if you accept the hypothesis that there is a god or gods, the believer will probably lose by picking wrongly. Even if the believer makes the right choice then, as I said, the chosen powers may well decide that it doesn't approve of the believer's motives anyway and disregard the belief.

Did Pascal make reference to any particular characterisation of God?
Did he use the term god{s}?

In his case he was arguing people ought to turn papist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Thersites,

If you read the OT you will see JHVH changing from a limited local tribal god to one with absolute global power.

I have read the OT and have seen no such transformation. Maybe you can quote the relevant scriptures which lends support to your claim.

You have chosen to pick one out of the enormous number of possibilities when there is no evidence to support any of them- what would you say you are doing?

This is only your opinion. As far as i am concerned there is only one 'God' (as described in all the scriptures) for which there is evidence (e.g. life comes from life).

You say you are "backing" the only god- again, with no evidence for this assertion.

I never said i was 'backing' anything, but i do believe in God and am confident of the evidence which supports the idea that there must be an originial cause.

You also assume that your motives for worshipping this god will be acceptable to it if it exists at all.

I'm not assuming that at all, plus that has nothing to do with 'Pascals wager'. His wager was based on 'belief' not worship.

Certainly. However, you have chosen to make this one decision dominate your life.

There is no way you can know how i choose to live my life unless i inform you, or you know me personally, and even then you will only understand a part. So please refrain from making these assumptions and generalisations, and i will do the same.

You have arbitrarily selected a set of beliefs and chosen to live in a way that will suit the hypothetical being which inspires these beliefs.

1) everyone believes in something or someone. It is an entirely human attribute.

2) everyone (when maturity is reached) arbitrarily selects their set of beliefs, it is impossible to for humans to do otherwise unless they are totally brainwashed, or mind-controlled.

This one action affects all of your later actions by restricting them drastically.

The same can be said for any mind set.
Why do you automatically accept that believing in God is restrictive?

Eh? The various holy books make various assertions, some demonstrably untrue, others unsubstantiated. What is there to understand?

You can understand who/what you are in relation to this phenomenal world, who/what God is in relation to you, and how to understand this position. You can understand the real meaning of love, compassion, empathy and sacrifice.
You can understand the real meaning of living a moral life, how it affects you, your family, your society, etc.. In short you can understand what it means to be a human being.

You are mistaken. the believer loses the ability to think untrammelled by arbitrary and self-imposed rules. Even if you accept the hypothesis that there is a god or gods, the believer will probably lose by picking wrongly.

This is a biased opinion which seeks to generalise all people who believe in God. I have not lost the ability to think and do not act upon "self-imposed rules", you are quite mistaken.
As for "picking the wrong god or gods", it is clear that you do not understand what or who God is, and what or who gods are. This makes it almost impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion as your argument is based on ignorance.

Even if the believer makes the right choice then, as I said, the chosen powers may well decide that it doesn't approve of the believer's motives anyway and disregard the belief.

Due to your ignorance of the subject matter, your "Even if the believer makes the right choice......." argument is null and void.
My advise.... make an effort to find out who/what God is at least from a scriptoral point of view, and do not assume to know, then argue from that position.

Jan Ardena.

 

[SnakeLord]

The various gods used in arguments against the wager such as Thor, are demi-gods not God.

To you, I'm sure that's true - but to those who worshipped other such gods, you're completely wrong. It's the same as many people who view jesus as a demi-god.. I mean, the entire concept of "the god" impregnating a human being, so he could have a child to come to earth and die is laughable at best, but better stated as "astoundingly pathetic". And yet, it is no different to stories of Gilgamesh and many others who have featured throughout ancient texts. But because it's "your" particular belief, it's ok for you to say everyone other than who you believe in, is a demi god whereas yours is the 'real mccoy'.

One would expect nothing smarter from a religiously inclined brain.

This is only your opinion. As far as i am concerned there is only one 'God' (as described in all the scriptures) for which there is evidence (e.g. life comes from life).

There are many ways of looking at it. Sure, we could state that there's always a "starter" god who gets things in motion - but that is not to state that 'secondary' gods have not been more powerful or important.

In Sumerian, Tiamat was the first god, so what you would class as the god, yet she never created mankind, she was a she, as opposed to the "male" image given to your particular version of god, she was also killed by the other gods - which shows a vulnerability of the god who is now dead, and then all life as we know it was made by one of these other gods.

So although she 'set the ball in motion', the other gods played a bigger part, did not share the same fate as her and everything we see and know was created by a 'secondary' god, (Marduk - the god that also killed Tiamat, (a big snake), chopped her into seven pieces which went towards making the earth/space etc - and upon chopping her explained that he had "crushed her head with his heel" - a line we now find in genesis when god curses the snake - which is no surprise given that genesis is based upon earlier Sumerian writing)

Now the thing is, the early portions of the OT were based upon stories found much earlier in history, (creation/flood/abraham story etc), and as such clearly does not have as much, (if any), validity as the original would have. It is also considered to be the reason why the early parts of the OT see god speaking in plurals with:

"let us go down"
"man has now become like one of us

and so on.

So overall what you're actually saying is worthless. You try to state there's only one god, and label everything else off as a demi-god, (aside from your own little demi-god), and then say as far as you're 'concerned', which shows you just simply don't care enough about anything other than your own baseless beliefs. Everything else is a fraud, you're right, end of story.

Pfft, sickening.

 

[Michael]

if i'm correct = then i might end in heavens
if i'm wrong = then nothing will happen to me.

i'm on the safe side.

This seems to sum it up.

BUT, the same can be true of any belief.

So we ask: WHY do you believe as you do? For god (or any other imaginary thingy) the only answers seem to be –
(1) Because I was told to or
(2) A feeling.

These are not mutually exclusive.

For the people who “feel” it is correct - some of them actually “see” or “hear” god in their head so I can pity them and I imagine it must be close to impossible not to believe that there is something there. There probably is a part of the brain that is responsible for the belief in Gods and in some it is overly developed and other not so. I wonder if being brainwashed from day dot to believe somehow causes increased development in this area of the brain?

Anyway, 7x7, you said yourself that had you been raised to believe some other way then you’d believe that way. In this you admit that your belief is not based on whether or not it is correct but purely is a reflection on the way in which you were taught to believe – which is to admit you’ve been brainwashed as a child.

Even in your "Islam and Science" post we were left with no substantial reasoning in the realm of science that the Qur’an in miraculous. And actually is incorrect scientifically speaking. Yet it is impossible for you to come to terms with that. Else you’d had ended that Post in agreement with the final summations.

THAT is the power of brainwashing.

Rationality is what you have sacrificed for it.

Not that it’s your fault. You’re the end result of a highly successful method used to control the minds of people. To be left in the camp of “I am told to believe this way therefore I do” is (in my opinion) the saddest state to be in. To keep their ducks in a row the religious organizers have introduced the believer to the idea that they get a cookie if they believe or they face pain and suffering and no cookie if they don’t. Quite simple really.

I wonder, truly 7x7, what if the God had said, believe and worship and adore me and when you die that’s that – no rewards, no eternal bliss, just death. How happy would you be about worshipping then? Maybe not so. Isn’t it lucky that there’s a cookie in it for you?

 

[Michael]

there is nothing creates alone, I was not created from nothing and for nothing.

There is nothing that says this is correct. There is nothing to say the universe wasn't around forever. There is nothing to say that there aren't many universes.

But, I will ask: does your postulation include God?

 

[Thersites]

Thersites,



I have read the OT and have seen no such transformation. Maybe you can quote the relevant scriptures which lends support to your claim.

Judges 1:19, where although "the lord" is with Judah the two combined cannot defeat lowlanders because they have iron chariots suggests that god is far from omnipotent there. Compare with the claims of some of the prophets.

This is only your opinion.As far as i am concerned there is only one 'God' (as described in all the scriptures) for which there is evidence (e.g. life comes from life).

There is no evidence whatsoever. If "life comes from life" then 'God' [or God or 'god' or god or your hypothetical demigods] came from something else, which came... "As far as I am concerned" is not convincing evidence except to you. The bible asserts that there is only one god, that all the info you could want about it is in the bible and all other books are wrong. the koran asserts that the koran is the absolute word of god, that the bible is corrupt and unnecessary now the koran is here and all other religious books are false and all other gods- including Vishnu- are lies and delusions. You may believe that Jehovah, Allah and Vishnu are the same person- as you put it- but in that case the books describing them are all inaccurate and unreliable and you must use other sources and reasons to justify your belief.

I never said i was 'backing' anything, but i do believe in God and am confident of the evidence which supports the idea that there must be an originial cause.

What evidence? The first cause hypothesis is completely separate from the actual depicted deities in the books you cite. We could hypothesise a first cause which set the universe going and then left it in charge of others, named Jehovah, Allah or Vishnu. This would explain the curious annoyance Jehovah and Allah show when someone doesn't show what they think adequate respect.

I'm not assuming that at all, [that your motives for worshipping god will be acceptable to it] plus that has nothing to do with 'Pascals wager'. His wager was based on 'belief' not worship.

You are assuming it. Where is your evidence? As for belief and worship, Jehovah and Allah are very enthusiastic for worship and threaten dire and horrible fates for those that don't worship them. If you believe in either without worshipping it you are either very heroic, very masochistic or both.

There is no way you can know how i choose to live my life unless i inform you, or you know me personally, and even then you will only understand a part. So please refrain from making these assumptions and generalisations, and i will do the same.

the psychology of believers has much in common with the psychology of other believers and it is a fairly good chance that two believers will think and behave similarly in many ways. Well, are you going to refrain from assuming that Jehovah and Allah and Vishnu exist and are the same god?

1) everyone believes in something or someone. It is an entirely human attribute.

2) everyone (when maturity is reached) arbitrarily selects their set of beliefs, it is impossible to for humans to do otherwise unless they are totally brainwashed, or mind-controlled.

Are you going to abandon these generalisations, too? Different people do not believe in things in the way you use the word, in the way you believe in god, for example. That is why the term "unbeliever" was invented. You acknowledge then that your beliefs are arbitrary and without reason, do you? In fact, most people make their choice of beliefs in a far from arbitrary way: they go by what they have been told, they judge by what they have seen and learned. Their minds are partly controlled by their families and the society they live in, which affect what they have seen and learned, but they also decide independently on the basis of what they have learned directly and indirectly.

The same can be said for any mind set.
Why do you automatically accept that believing in God is restrictive?

I don't automatically accept that believing in god is restrictive. I think it is a logical assumption. a believer has to do what they think god wants and has to think in a way that reflects their beliefs. There are circumstances where they are more likely to make mistakes because of those trammels.

You can understand who/what you are in relation to this phenomenal world, who/what God is in relation to you, and how to understand this position. You can understand the real meaning of love, compassion, empathy and sacrifice.
You can understand the real meaning of living a moral life, how it affects you, your family, your society, etc.. In short you can understand what it means to be a human being.

On an arbitrary absurd and unsubstantiated set of assumptions and interactions betwwen those assumptions. Really?

This is a biased opinion which seeks to generalise all people who believe in God. I have not lost the ability to think and do not act upon "self-imposed rules", you are quite mistaken.

i did not say you have lost the ability to think. i said you had lost the ability to think untrammelled by arbitrary and self-imposed rules. The fact that you believe that those rules are imposed by god does not make you freer from them.

As for "picking the wrong god or gods", it is clear that you do not understand what or who God is, and what or who gods are. This makes it almost impossible for us to have a meaningful discussion as your argument is based on ignorance.

As I said, the gods depicted in the bible and the koran have pretty definite tastes and opinions and pretty definite punishments for those that do not follow their rules or please them. Are you saying that they are false portraits? If so, why do you cite the versions of god depicted in those books as exemplars?

Due to your ignorance of the subject matter, your "Even if the believer makes the right choice......." argument is null and void.

Why? Again, the bible and the koran both make it pretty plain that motives are impoortant- presumably motives for belief also matter.

My advise.... make an effort to find out who/what God is at least from a scriptoral point of view, and do not assume to know, then argue from that position.

No thanks. Mad, bad and dangerous to know.