Which is worse - believing an being wrong or not believing and being wrong?

[Reiku]

You can have as much anal sex as you want, so long as you later repent and mean it.

After Redarmy's, let's have fun in my bum escapades, i needed to stop RIGHT HERE.

Look everyone at this literature. This contradictory, oxymoronic, and divinely depressing literature.

This shows that christians, catholics and mormons are nothing more than a paradox. They are creatures that preach goodness, but in the dark of the night, the subject will commit a sin, and under in/hers hot breath, they will repent for being too weak...

If this is the case, why no sin all your life, then simply repent afterwards, knowing that resistence was still more or less futile.

 

[Cris]

Kerux,

If someone known supposedly as "atheist"

Supposedly? Do you somehow doubt that atheists exist?

require an OBJECTIVE evidence of a being,

Evidence that can be logically validated will do fine.

invisibly existing, as proven by the existing mind invisibly understood by the visible human beings who cannot explain the animalistic phenomenon known as "beast clothing ignorance",

Ahh Christian propaganda surfaces: The desperate argument of those who cannot use reason. The idea here of course is that only those who blindly choose to believe will be shown it is true. The problem you have though is that such reasoning cannot be distinguished from those who are simply self-deluded, which is a significantly more believable and credible observation compared to the claim that a vast supernatural realm exists and that universes can be created by a single invisible being.

then he is a supernatural inquirer (in short, spiritual quester) and ceases his position of being an atheist.

A very curious perspective. By your reasoning then if you were to attempt to objectively investigate the activities of child molesters you would then become such a molester by way of making enquiries. I hope you see that your statement is gibberish.

Reasonably speaking, some so-called atheists divide themselves into weak and strong.

What is this “so-called” term here, what does this mean? The strong position is an assertion that a god or gods do not exist and those who hold that view need to justify that in the same way that theists need to justify their assertions. The weak position is the base definition of atheism – the absence of belief in a god or gods. These differences are very real and should be clear to anyone who wishes to debate here.

What a sheer mimicry, inasmuch as they imitate the Bible's division of christians into true brethren and false brethren.

Not really sure what you mean here but within Christianity there are some 20,000 different sects and cults all claiming to have the only truth. This is to be expected since Christianity isn’t based on fact but the creative imagination of man. The different atheist perspectives in contrast are overwhelmingly simpler.

 

[Nasor]

Ahh Christian propaganda surfaces: The desperate argument of those who cannot use reason. The idea here of course is that only those who blindly choose to believe will be shown it is true. The problem you have though is that such reasoning cannot be distinguished from those who are simply self-deluded, which is a significantly more believable and credible observation compared to the claim that a vast supernatural realm exists and that universes can be created by a single invisible being.

And obvious problem with this argument (well, other than the fact that it's pretty much absurd on its face) is that people from different religions all over the world make exactly this same claim, but they come to different conclusions about what is true. No matter what religion you believe in, the majority of the world disagrees with you. So clearly most of the people who “want to believe” come to the wrong conclusions, meaning it’s not a reliable way to determine truth.

 

[Cris]

Nasor,

Yup and wouldn't just a single piece of real evidence for just one of the claims cut through all the crap? Hmm - well perhaps not, people apparently just much prefer to believe what they want to believe.

 

[Nasor]

I'm still waiting for Why? to tell me whether or not he's going to give me a dollar. Clearly it's better to suffer the loss of a dollar than to be attacked by vampires. Since the consequences of not believing me and being wrong are much worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong, where the hell is my dollar? Are you out there, Why?

 

[kerux]

Cris?

Kerux,

Supposedly? Do you somehow doubt that atheists exist?

Evidence that can be logically validated will do fine.

Ahh Christian propaganda surfaces: The desperate argument of those who cannot use reason. The idea here of course is that only those who blindly choose to believe will be shown it is true. The problem you have though is that such reasoning cannot be distinguished from those who are simply self-deluded, which is a significantly more believable and credible observation compared to the claim that a vast supernatural realm exists and that universes can be created by a single invisible being.

A very curious perspective. By your reasoning then if you were to attempt to objectively investigate the activities of child molesters you would then become such a molester by way of making enquiries. I hope you see that your statement is gibberish.

What is this “so-called” term here, what does this mean? The strong position is an assertion that a god or gods do not exist and those who hold that view need to justify that in the same way that theists need to justify their assertions. The weak position is the base definition of atheism – the absence of belief in a god or gods. These differences are very real and should be clear to anyone who wishes to debate here.

Not really sure what you mean here but within Christianity there are some 20,000 different sects and cults all claiming to have the only truth. This is to be expected since Christianity isn’t based on fact but the creative imagination of man. The different atheist perspectives in contrast are overwhelmingly simpler.

I don't doubt. There are no atheists. I knew in fact in the history of Roman religion, that there were agnostics.
We christians use reason to prove biblical facts and strategies twisted by these so-called agnostic atheists or atheistic agnosts.
Idea? Do you have an idea? WHAT is your valid proofs? You seem to evade the existence of your invisible mind, or untouchable, unfelt mind. Lol
Don't contradict your statements: you said I cannot use reason, then you jump to "such reasong".

Universe alone is singular. Lexicographically, you were just telling the readers about pluriverse (sic, universes). You sweptly jump to your gibberish conclusion like your fellow gibberish comrades. You shouldn't hope inasmuch as hope is an ABSTRACT word. Why hope? and what is hope for you? You do hope I will be darkened by your gibberish conceited twisted deceit. No wonder you are imaginary people imagining that you are living a kingly realm which milieu is fruitful for your benefit. People, arise and be resurrected and though this is a christian propaganda, don't dismiss this. Feel at ease and let others read my biblical points of view.

Don't pretend you don't meet the folks out there who were responsible for this http://www.godisimaginary.com and for this www.christianism.com .

NON SIQUITOR, why? these some 20,000 so-called christians are not at all Bible-based organizations. There is but one, which was told by the early Apostles witnessing as we can read them in the Bible. "Church of God" not sects and cults. In addition, christians are people, not imaginary people, peopling the words of the God of truth. Besides, atheism (if this is an existing school of fantastically explicable objective phenomena) has baseless assertions inasmuch as the advocates (so-called atheists) depend on the 66 books of the Bible to let it remain standing as a school. (correct me if I am wrong, in your own stand).

 

[scorpius]

If someone known supposedly as "atheist" require an OBJECTIVE evidence of a being, invisibly existing, as proven by the existing mind invisibly understood by the visible human beings who cannot explain the animalistic phenomenon known as "beast clothing ignorance", then he is a supernatural inquirer (in short, spiritual quester) and ceases his position of being an atheist. Reasonably speaking, some so-called atheists divide themselves into weak and strong. What a sheer mimicry, inasmuch as they imitate the Bible's division of christians into true brethren and false brethren.

:shrug:
could someone please TRANSLATE this into english!

 

[kerux]

simplify?

:shrug:
could someone please TRANSLATE this into english!

I can simplify this:

"If someone known supposedly as "atheist" require an OBJECTIVE evidence of a being, invisibly existing, as proven by the existing mind invisibly understood by the visible human beings who cannot explain the animalistic phenomenon known as "beast clothing ignorance", then he is a supernatural inquirer (in short, spiritual quester) and ceases his position of being an atheist. Reasonably speaking, some so-called atheists divide themselves into weak and strong. What a sheer mimicry, inasmuch as they imitate the Bible's division of christians into true brethren and false brethren."

Christians are an assembly of people basically studying and fulfilling the doctrines of Christ written in the Bible. Atheists (as they say) assume a school. They assemble themselves by the aid of their own interpretations of the Bible of the christians. Is it understandable now?

 

[Grantywanty]

God will burn in hell all the 'christians' who are good and believers to get into heaven.
And God will send to heaven all those athiests who are moral and good because of their own desires.

 

[Enterprise-D]

I don't doubt. There are no atheists. I knew in fact in the history of Roman religion, that there were agnostics.
We christians use reason to prove biblical facts and strategies twisted by these so-called agnostic atheists or atheistic agnosts.
Idea? Do you have an idea? WHAT is your valid proofs? You seem to evade the existence of your invisible mind, or untouchable, unfelt mind. Lol
Don't contradict your statements: you said I cannot use reason, then you jump to "such reasong".

This has got to be some of the most refined doo-doo I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing.

Kerux, you christians use circular reasoning and fallacies to attempt to add credibility to biblical claims. No religion has even come close to proving a single line in their tomes as truth or fact.

Further, the trend nowadays is that theists are stealing the debating tactics of logical folks (not that I blame them for wanting to assimilate superior reasoning), except that the theft is blatant. Take for example the question

Idea? Do you have an idea? WHAT is your valid proofs?

Kerux, the idea postulated is wholly theist. Theists make the claim, and therefore the burden of proof is on theists. Atheists do not need to put forth any valid proofs. Not a single one. All we need to do is say "Prove your claims."

 

[Cris]

Kerux,

I don't doubt. There are no atheists.

Who then are the billion or so people in the world who label themselves as atheist?

We christians use reason to prove biblical facts

If true then to support your claim please show any single biblical claim of fact that has been shown as true? For example any of the claims that requires the supernatural to be true, gods, souls, spirits, etc.

You seem to evade the existence of your invisible mind, or untouchable, unfelt mind. Lol

The term “mind” is a label of convenience we give to a set of neural functions which we can examine and detect through clinical tests. The invisible god of your claim is otherwise undetectable through any known means.

Universe alone is singular. Lexicographically, you were just telling the readers about pluriverse (sic, universes).

Presumably if your god can create one universe he could create others, perhaps one after another. Or are you implying that your god could only do it once and thus has limited power?

You do hope I will be darkened by your gibberish conceited twisted deceit.

Hopefully if you continue to attempt to debate here in hopefully a more courteous manner, then you might eventually come to see past your Christian conditioning and propaganda and begin to think for yourself. At this stage though you are expecting that your religious conditioning about evil atheists will help you in a real debate. You are clearly new to this and also sound quite young. You have much to learn.

No wonder you are imaginary people

Hmm, so if we are imaginary people then who are you talking to?

imagining that you are living a kingly realm which milieu is fruitful for your benefit.

Can you prove otherwise?

People, arise and be resurrected and though this is a christian propaganda, don't dismiss this.

Why not? Do you have any evidence that the dead can be resurrected?

Feel at ease and let others read my biblical points of view.

You are free to debate here although please don’t attempt to preach.

NON SIQUITOR, why? these some 20,000 so-called christians are not at all Bible-based organizations. There is but one, which was told by the early Apostles witnessing as we can read them in the Bible. "Church of God" not sects and cults.

Ahh so your Christian sect is “Church of God”. What makes your particular interpretation of bible myth anymore credible than any other sect/cult? Note they all assert that their version is the only true one. With none offering any proofs why should we believe any of them?

In addition, christians are people, not imaginary people, peopling the words of the God of truth.

Still not sure how you think you can converse with people who you think are imaginary? And asserting something true does not make it true, you actually have to show it true before you should expect anyone to listen to you.

Besides, atheism (if this is an existing school of fantastically explicable objective phenomena) has baseless assertions inasmuch as the advocates (so-called atheists) depend on the 66 books of the Bible to let it remain standing as a school. (correct me if I am wrong, in your own stand).

The basis for mainstream atheism around the world is an absence of belief in a god or gods. That is not a claim merely a valid philosophical position. But for sure the Abrahamic bible myths do offer the atheist one of the best sources to support their position.

 

[Cris]

Kerux,

There is but one, which was told by the early Apostles witnessing as we can read them in the Bible. "Church of God" not sects and cults.

The problem there is that the gospels were written decades after the alleged Jesus was meant to have lived. I.e. they are not eye-witness accounts of the Jesus period. Remember that life expectancy at the beginning of the 20th century was still only 45, and that 2000 years ago it was much less. Realize also that there is not a single piece of independent evidence that the Jesus character actually ever lived.

Whether a man named Jesus that had the life described in the NT ever existed is unknown. How he was born and how he died is equally unknown, as is what he might have said. We do know that myth-making was rife in those times and that there were many older myths similar to the Jesus stories that appear to have been adapted by myth makers to create the Christian religion. We also know that the gospel of Mark was the first and that most of the content of the others were later imaginary embellishments of Mark. All the gospels were written by numerous unknown authors that make verification of their tales even more difficult.

So if your sect is trying to claim truth then you have much work to do to prove it.

 

[Learned Hand]

You will be attacked by vampires unless you pay me $1. Which is worse, believing me and being wrong or not believing me and being wrong? If you believe me and are wrong, you are only out $1. If you don't believe me and are wrong, you will face a vampire attack! So, will you pay me the dollar?

Hopefully now you understand how stupid this thread is. If not, let me spell it out for you: Although the consequences of not believing me and being wrong (vampire attack) are much worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong (loss of $1), you know based on your reason and experience that vampires almost certainly don't exist. You need some credible reason to believe that vampires exist and that they are likely to attack you if you don't pay me $1 before you would seriously consider my claim, even though the consequences of not believing me and being wrong are much worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong. Similarly, atheists don't consider the bible to be credible evidence that god exists, or that he will punish people in the afterlife if he does exist. So before this "argument" can be of any use, you first need to present convincing evidence that you god does, in fact, exist.

This post (and thread) is just an altered version of Blaise Pascal's "The Wager." There is no reason to prove that God exists. It's a four way paradigm. (1) You believe, and you're right, you get infinite happiness. (2) You believe, and you're wrong, then you missed out on some "devilish" fun that your morals prevented you from participating (more sex, drugs & rock 'n roll, but far less than infinite happiness) (3) You don't believe, and you're right, then you've had your fun and life is over. (4) You don't believe, and you're wrong, you face damnation for all eternity.

"What will you wager?"
-- Blaise Pascal

 

[Cris]

The fallacy of the pascal wager is sincerity. A reasonable god is unlikely to accept someone's professed belief if it was only based on a wager. By the same token one should expect a rational god to comprehend the good nature of someone who chooses not to believe and wouldn't punish them for their sincere and honest choice.

I believe it is only the Christian religion that uses the terrorist threat of eternal torture for someone who uses their brain. Most other religions appear to recognize good deeds as qualifiers.

 

[kerux]

To Cris

The basis for mainstream atheism around the world is an absence of belief in a god or gods. That is not a claim merely a valid philosophical position. But for sure the Abrahamic bible myths do offer the atheist one of the best sources to support their position.

Absence - meaning? What? None!

However we christians perceive the meaning of a "god" or "gods", still to effect your meaning of "atheism," you will instantly disregard it. Don't forget and always remember that Philosophy is the Love of Wisdom.
And I, as a christian, am a lover of Wisdom. In fact, God is love, but not love is god.

I chatted with some atheists but they told me that they are observing righteousness. Anyway, that is enough, the wind is still the wind, though the water may integrate with the wind. I cannot read your thinking (if you have) but for sure you have known your thoughts either freely or forcibly.

 

[Nasor]

The fallacy of the pascal wager is sincerity.

That is but one of many flaws. Another notable flaw is the fact that there are more than just four options in the decision matrix. For example, it's possible that god exists and will reward anyone who tries to be nice to other people, regardless of whether or not they believe in him. Or perhaps god sends everyone to the same afterlife regardless of their deeds while alive. That seems more fair than a god who sends good people to hell simply because they were unlucky enough to be born in a country where everyone worships Vishnu instead of Jesus. Or perhaps people are reincarnated. Or perhaps god sends everyone who dies on a Monday to heaven and everyone who dies on Tuesday to hell, etc. I’m sure a theist would immediately dismiss that last one as implausibly arbitrary, but there’s about as much evidence to support it as anything else.

 

[Learned Hand]

The fallacy of the pascal wager is sincerity. A reasonable god is unlikely to accept someone's professed belief if it was only based on a wager. By the same token one should expect a rational god to comprehend the good nature of someone who chooses not to believe and wouldn't punish them for their sincere and honest choice.

I believe it is only the Christian religion that uses the terrorist threat of eternal torture for someone who uses their brain. Most other religions appear to recognize good deeds as qualifiers.

The Wager a fallacy in sincerity? Not so sure about that. His ultimate goal was to express by paradigmatic design the reason one should wager upon belief without even logically discerning whether God exists. His argument simply contributes to the logic behind the paradigm that it is better to believe than not to believe. The rest is up to the person -- to find God, what he is, take the leap of faith. His essay not only asked, "what will you wager," in the paradigmatic sense, but advocated that once wagered, those with unbelief should go out of their way to find a means to believe, etc.

 

[Learned Hand]

That is but one of many flaws. Another notable flaw is the fact that there are more than just four options in the decision matrix. For example, it's possible that god exists and will reward anyone who tries to be nice to other people, regardless of whether or not they believe in him. Or perhaps god sends everyone to the same afterlife regardless of their deeds while alive. That seems more fair than a god who sends good people to hell simply because they were unlucky enough to be born in a country where everyone worships Vishnu instead of Jesus. Or perhaps people are reincarnated. Or perhaps god sends everyone who dies on a Monday to heaven and everyone who dies on Tuesday to hell, etc. I’m sure a theist would immediately dismiss that last one as implausibly arbitrary, but there’s about as much evidence to support it as anything else.

Actually, Pascal is not concerned with all the in betweens. Infinite happiness vs. infinite hell is the wager, with the finite of belief and disbelieve if wrong in the middle.

 

[Nasor]

Pascal’s entire “argument” in his wager is based around the idea that since heaven has infinite value, it is always better to “wager” for it so long as there is any non-zero chance that the wager will pay off. It’s essentially an argument in expected value theory, where the expected value of a bet is the value of the winnings multiplied by the chances of winning. If heaven is of infinite value, then a bet on heaven will have an infinite expected value so long as the odds of heaven existing are non-zero.

If you don’t see the problem with his reasoning consider this:
I am now officially claiming that if you spend the rest of your life wearing a blue hat, you will gain something of infinite value. If you don’t wear a blue hat for the rest of your life, you will suffer an infinite loss. According to Pascal, it is now in your best interest to accept my wager and wear a blue hat for the rest of your life. Are you going to go out and buy a blue hat now? I doubt it. To better understand the flaws in Pascal’s wager, ponder the reasons why you aren’t planning to wear a blue hat for the rest of your life - even though a correct belief in my blue hat claim will result in an infinite gain, while an incorrect disbelief will result in an infinite loss.

Regarding the whole "sincere belief" thing that Cris brought up, it's true that Pascal didn't actually use his wager as an argument for why people should believe in god. But that vast, vast majority of people who try to use his wager as a rhetorical tool (including the guy who started this thread, I imagine) don't understand that, and do end up committing that fallacy.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Absence - meaning? What? None!

However we christians perceive the meaning of a "god" or "gods", still to effect your meaning of "atheism," you will instantly disregard it. Don't forget and always remember that Philosophy is the Love of Wisdom.
And I, as a christian, am a lover of Wisdom. In fact, God is love, but not love is god.

You do realise that the mathematical concept of zero is still a valid mathematical concept right? Zero does not mean that zero doesn't exist.

Similarly, a lack of belief in a god does not mean that people who lack this belief do not exist.

Maybe you do not exist as you appear to lack understanding?

I chatted with some atheists but they told me that they are observing righteousness. Anyway, that is enough, the wind is still the wind, though the water may integrate with the wind. I cannot read your thinking (if you have) but for sure you have known your thoughts either freely or forcibly.

The unfortunate aspect of this statement is that you assume it as foregone truth that good morals are a direct result and responsibility of your god. You and other christians have yet to prove this claim.