Best argument against god

[wynn]

still unclear how eternal ramifications somehow render the process of choice unassailable

Perhaps you have a Christian mindset after all. :shrug:


I mean: Are you perfectly allright with the possibility that you might choose wrongly, and as a result, burn in hell for all eternity?

What if all your fancy philosophy is wrong - and millions of people believe it is - and you end up in hell, with no chance of ever getting out?

 

[Search & Destroy]

much like there are numerous medicinal applications one can utilize in the attempt to cure or treat an illness

It is possible that one could choose a bogus treatment or a treatment that inflames the condition, possibly even resulting in fatality

Your points have been lowered for this bad analogy. It's good but you really can't prove anything purely with an analogy that has many obvious differences with the topic of discussion.

 

[keith1]

Your points have been lowered for this bad analogy. It's good but you really can't prove anything purely with an analogy that has many obvious differences with the topic of discussion.

LG was replying to Syzygys' "multi-gods battling are a good reason to remain
a non-believer", which was not a proper response to "best argument against there being gods".
A topical ointment applied to the erroneous post could then seem appropriate**

(**Nah, they're both scabs)

 

[lightgigantic]

Your points have been lowered for this bad analogy.

It utilizes the same points as your argument that dictates problems with choice in teh field of religion

It's good but you really can't prove anything purely with an analogy that has many obvious differences with the topic of discussion.

what are the obvious differences?

 

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps you have a Christian mindset after all. :shrug:


I mean: Are you perfectly allright with the possibility that you might choose wrongly, and as a result, burn in hell for all eternity?

What if all your fancy philosophy is wrong - and millions of people believe it is - and you end up in hell, with no chance of ever getting out?

I still don't follow.

I mean generally when the stakes become higher , the more refined the tools of discrimination , no?

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

I still don't follow.

I mean generally when the stakes become higher , the more refined the tools of discrimination , no?

Only if you somehow trust your own intellect to be a reliable guide toward God.

How a person can come to such trust, that I do not know. Perhaps one simply has it, or doesn't have it.

 

[Syzygys]

Here is another approach, just because I am going for the extra point:

1. There are 100s of gods. Nobody knows which one(s) is/are the real ones, if any.

2. Choosing the wrong god(s) has either repercussion or not:

a/ If there is no repercussion, it doesn't matter which one you choose, but you might as well not play at all (stay atheist).
b/ If there is repercussion, you better choose the right one, but since point #1 (nobody knows which one), it is just safer not to play than choosing a wrong god.

So can I have my icecream now???

 

[keith1]

So can I have my icecream now???

No awards for you, but a demerit is in order. Your stance, "Multi-gods battling are a good reason to remain a non-believer", was not a proper response to the OP: "give your best argument against there being gods".

 

[lightgigantic]

Only if you somehow trust your own intellect to be a reliable guide toward God.

no more a problem then somehow trusting your own intellect to make some sort of decision to address a medical issue

:shrug:

 

[NMSquirrel]

Die without suicide.

the movie 'Beyond and Back' devoted a segment to suicide returns, testimonies said it wasn't a pleasant experience.

Now then, the surefire way to get to heaven (and I am keeping with the largest belief from Christianity here), is to die before the age of "innocence" is over.

i have heard; to die saving another's life(selfless act), assures heaven.

If I truly believed this stuff I would slay all my children before age 10. What more noble thing could you do, than to guarantee yourself hell so that your children could be guaranteed heaven?

if that were acceptable,your parents would have done that..

 

[Believe]

The best one to date is God does not exist because I can't see Him.
This is the only one that actually makes sense.

jan.

Or it would be a good argument except I can't see the wind either.

Or electrons, or DNA, or.......

 

[Believe]

OK, let me try:

1. There are 100s of gods to choose from.
2. It is possible that choosing the wrong one will anger the real one, causing trouble for eternity.
3. Angering the real one could be much worse than being a non-believer.

Conclusion:

So the safest scenario is if one choose NOT to play and be a non-believer. Any reasonable god would understand the above logic...

What did I win???

P.S.: I want extra credit for the unusual approach and that I play the religions against each other instead of arguing against god.

Ever see the movie dogma? Everyone knows those who refuse to choose have the worst! LOL

 

[Believe]

Omnipotent means available at all times, and this omnipotent one spends more time accounting and addressing in it's after-world, rather than being a presence in it's created world here.

Rather lame to leave an impression of, "I'm a weak creator, and can only hang around in the after-world, so my creation is on it's own, because I have no extra energy left to be with them all".
Impotency is not an expected omnipotent trait.

Alternately, it would be lame too, to be cryptic enough an egotist, to allow it's creation to think it is being tested with the omnipot's absence.
Ego is a human trait, and not fitting of an omnipotent being.

OR perhaps our world is only actually small potatoes. If your only alive on this world for 80 years and you spend another 10,000,000 years in the after life which would you focus on?

You confuse allowing us to find our own way with impotency. It's not that God can't do it, it chooses not to. If God came along and bailed us out every time we messed up we would still be living in caves and relying on it for everything.

@MOD FOR THIS SECTION

Sorry to post so many times in a row, I suck at multiquoting and I am reading through this whole thread all at once and responding.

 

[Believe]

Perhaps you have a Christian mindset after all. :shrug:


I mean: Are you perfectly allright with the possibility that you might choose wrongly, and as a result, burn in hell for all eternity?

What if all your fancy philosophy is wrong - and millions of people believe it is - and you end up in hell, with no chance of ever getting out?

You also burn if you don't choose at all so......

 

[nietzschefan]

if that were acceptable,your parents would have done that..

Well they were obviously not up on their bible study. Ot chickenshit...or most likely...kinda just playing along like most people...

Are you telling me a baby that dies the day after it's baptized, is murdered by anyone, does not go to heaven? It goes to hell? Remember there is no second go around in this life according to the prevailing Christian belief. (Jew or Islamic for that matter)

 

[Syzygys]

"give your best argument against there being gods".

I guess you have a point. My bottomline is that if there is no difference (effect on your life) between having gods or no god, then really why does it matter?

And that itself is an argument against gods... Because no difference....

 

[lightgigantic]

I guess you have a point. My bottomline is that if there is no difference (effect on your life) between having gods or no god, then really why does it matter?

And that itself is an argument against gods... Because no difference....

Brilliant!
Kind of like there is no difference whether you do or do not treat a disease.
:crazy:

 

[wynn]

no more a problem then somehow trusting your own intellect to make some sort of decision to address a medical issue

You need to go back in time and give old Soren a good kick in his arse. Failing that, we are still left with having immense trust in our own judgment.

 

[wynn]

Brilliant!
Kind of like there is no difference whether you do or do not treat a disease.

1. How do you exclude that (a particular practice of a) religion is not merely a placebo?

2. How do you justify negative experiences with (a particular practice of a) religion as being sufficient to rule out said religion from the candidates for the true religion?

 

[origin]

There is absolutely no evidence that there is a god.

That would be true if thousands of years of religions and worship of gods wasn't part of history.

But it is, so there's a problem: you have to discount those thousands of years of history, writings, and other evidence that a lot of people believed in the existence of a god/gods and a lot of people still do.

That is not evidence of the existence of god. That is evidence that people believed in a god. Huge difference.

It all seems rather silly.

What does? Trying to dismiss a fundamental element of our anthropology/culture? I'd agree with that, and I'd say you have a lot of work to do.

You could of course, simply dismiss all that history as some kind of aberration; a glitch in our cultural development. Pretty big glitch though.

Huh? I don't have to dismiss any history. Many of the early writings of man can be termed historical epics. The old testement is one such writing. There is some history in the book once you move out of the begining which is simply mythology.

It's an unarguable fact that humans have a belief in mythology; hell, we need myths.
The one you need in order to support the argument that there is no evidence, is that human history is based on "a load of silly nonsense".
Good luck with that.

Well... Since there is no evidence of god. I would say the crusades were 'a log of silly nonsense', the term silly doesn't quite do the pain and suffering justice but you get my point.

During the civil war both the north and the south proclaimed god was on there side. That is simply a justification. The US always states that god is on our side; again as a justification and to get the religious people on the side of the war.

So yes, I think it is silly or maybe the right term is horrendous that so much suffering can be justified by a mythology based on zero evidence.