Is God real post your thoughts!

[mmmcannibalism]

Not quite. The wager is that he'd rather believe in one and have a chance of being wrong than believing in none and having no chance of being right. Nothing to do with fear or a "ticket to heaven" or whatever. Henceforth why it's called a wager (A wager, mind you, people take every day in different forms).

 

 

 

So much anger.

 

 

 

agreed, but its just as logical to say said god would punish you for what is realistically a false faith.

[Rebdragon]

Not quite. The wager is that he'd rather believe in one and have a chance of being wrong than believing in none and having no chance of being right. Nothing to do with fear or a "ticket to heaven" or whatever. Henceforth why it's called a wager (A wager, mind you, people take every day in different forms).

 

 

 

So much anger.

 

I don't see how anything you said contradicted what I said (ie, I know what the wager is, thank you), but that doesn't change the fact that it's a [cabbage] and weak-minded decision to make. One's religion is an important and integral part of one's life; betting with it likes it's some little poker chip shows not only poor-decision making, but a deep lack of respect for the religion to which they adhere.

 

 

 

Does any religious person here actually think that Pascal's Wager is something for those of true faith? Honestly, I'd like to know.

[venomai]

How can you make the claim that God is undoubtedly non-existent?

 

In the same way that somebody would make the claim that, for example, incubi and succumbi certainly do not exist. (Mind you, I am not talking about 100% certainty.)

 

 

 

I don't know but when you compare a theists arguments with the arguments of an Easter Bunny believer, I think that makes things pretty clear.

 

Obviously it wasn't clear enough for you...

 

 

 

Nobody is trying to equate the arguments of a theist to the arguments of an Easter Bunny believer. Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the (hypothetical) Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny.

 

 

 

Saying that X is as real as Y does not mean that believers in X are no different from believers in Y.

 

 

 

Could you actually find something like that out? If there was God and there was an afterlife then you would be have the consciousness to "know" God exists if you saw him after your life on Earth. However, if God doesn't exist and there is no afterlife, you wouldn't "know" that you were wrong anyways. You'd just be dead. So I ask again, how would that be considered a waste?

 

A loss of consciousness will not negate your life's wastefulness, although it will restrict you from knowing about it.

 

 

 

Of course, it is just as possible that (a) you believed in the wrong God, and as a result you were sent to Hell, or (B) the afterlife is shared by theists and atheists alike (which seems far more reasonable than separation).

[i_love_burritos]

Also, haaaa Pascal's Wager. I think that's the stupidest reason to be religious. I mean, I guess, logically, it can be a good idea, but God =/= logic. About 32 xkcd comics come to mind right now.

 

 

 

No just 1.

 

 

 

I'm an avid reader.

 

 

 

XKCD

[mmmcannibalism]

a) you believed in the wrong God, and as a result you were sent to Hell

 

 

 

(B) the afterlife is shared by theists and atheists alike (which seems far more reasonable than separation).

 

 

 

always thought these types of deductions were interesting, not disagreeing just pointing out some funny things

 

 

 

a. If so then at least 66% of the population is going straigth to hell upon death. (33% of the world is christian and that is largest group, though clearly its a very diverse religion. So probably 75% or so would be auto flamed

 

 

 

b. I hope so, I want some logical people to play chess with :lol:

[Zierro]

Obviously it wasn't clear enough for you...

 

 

 

Nobody is trying to equate the arguments of a theist to the arguments of an Easter Bunny believer. Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the (hypothetical) Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny.

 

 

 

Saying that X is as real as Y does not mean that believers in X are no different from believers in Y.

 

 

 

If you agree that God is a more justified belief then how can you equate them as being "just as real/fake as each other"? Surely, you have some reasoning other than the fact that neither has empirical evidence to back them up? It's an inaccurate analogy because mankind has the knowledge that the Easter Bunny is a fabrication, while there are still plenty of debates about the existence of God and even atheists admit there could be a possibility. Do you actually believe there is a possibility for the Easter Bunny to be real?

 

 

 

A loss of consciousness will not negate your life's wastefulness, although it will restrict you from knowing about it.

 

 

 

I don't see how it holds any weight if you don't even know. When we're talking about "wastes" we're talking about what you perceive as useless or profitless activity. If you're dead and you don't know that being a theist was useless or profitless then how can you claim it is a waste? "Useless" and "profitless" are subjective. I only use this phrase seldom when needed - ignorance is bliss. From as far as you know, the activity was profitable and useful.

 

 

 

Of course, it is just as possible that (a) you believed in the wrong God, and as a result you were sent to Hell, or (B) the afterlife is shared by theists and atheists alike (which seems far more reasonable than separation).

 

 

 

So it's a waste because you could just be an atheist and get the same afterlife rewards? I was mainly getting at the effect that theism has on your life while you're living, which can indeed be beneficial - not a waste. You could live a happy and hopeful life as a theist and then die, losing all consciousness, and you wouldn't know that you were wrong. All that matters is you would have been happy when it mattered.

 

 

 

By saying it is a "waste", that would be saying you were punished for having the wrong belief. But wait a second... Isn't it a common argument to say that it's unreasonable to punish people exercising their freewill when it comes to faith?

 

 

 

A - You're using a specific theist's argument which I don't even agree with myself.

 

B - That doesn't make it a waste. If B were true, you could just argue that the atheist's life on Earth was a "waste" because he had the wrong beliefs - and he would have the knowledge about it as opposed to a theist who's consciousness just ceases to exist.

[venomai]

If you agree that God is a more justified belief then how can you equate them as being "just as real/fake as each other"? ... It's an inaccurate analogy because mankind has the knowledge that the Easter Bunny is a fabrication, while there are still plenty of debates about the existence of God and even atheists admit there could be a possibility.

 

You've answered your own question.

 

 

 

And the amount of debate surrounding a topic is irrelevant. For example, claiming that "Intelligent design is as real as the Easter Bunny" is not invalidated simply because there is more debate about ID than the Easter Bunny. In other words, this claim equates to "Intelligent Design is not real."

 

 

 

Do you actually believe there is a possibility for the Easter Bunny to be real?

 

A possibility no different from the Judeo-Christian God being real. That is to say, neither is very possible at all.

 

 

 

I only use this phrase seldom when needed - ignorance is bliss. From as far as you know, the activity was profitable and useful.

 

If the only alternative to Heaven/Hell is unconsciousness, you are right, ignorance is bliss. But this does not justify the actions, nor does it make them profitable and useful.

 

 

 

To use an extreme example, Islamic radicals believe that they will reach Paradise by killing infidels. For all they know, these actions were profitable. The rest of society, however, sees it very differently.

 

 

 

Profit and wastefulness are not terms defined solely by your own perceptions, but also the perceptions of society. Being a couch potato is considered "wasteful" not because you think it is, but because others think it is.

 

 

 

You're using a specific theist's argument which I don't even agree with myself.

 

... That's the idea. :lol: This is a debate.

 

 

 

That doesn't make it a waste. If B were true, you could just argue that the atheist's life on Earth was a "waste" because he had the wrong beliefs - and he would have the knowledge about it as opposed to a theist who's consciousness just ceases to exist.

 

If atheists were treated no differently from those of faith (i.e. God does not respond to worship and prayer), then the atheist's life on Earth, albeit misguided, would not have been wasteful, compared to the theist who spent his time worshipping and sacrificing to no avail.

[Zierro]

You've answered your own question.

 

 

 

And the amount of debate surrounding a topic is irrelevant. For example, claiming that "Intelligent design is as real as the Easter Bunny" is not invalidated simply because there is more debate about ID than the Easter Bunny. In other words, this claim equates to "Intelligent Design is not real."

 

 

 

It says something about their differences though. In my opinion there are pretty good justifications for believing ID but as for the Easter Bunny there are none. The justifications for believing God and believing the Easter Bunny are not equal. In other words - the justifications for God do exist while they do not when it comes to the Bunny.

 

 

 

A possibility no different from the Judeo-Christian God being real. That is to say, neither is very possible at all.

 

 

 

When speaking of God, I'm talking in a very general sense. Of course there is a very small chance of a religion's ideals being completely right - but what about if you take the religion out of the equation and just see it as Intelligent Design?

 

 

 

It sounds more realistic to believe that our world was made this way for us as opposed to a magic bunny traveling around the world filling up kids' baskets with candy at the speed of light.

 

 

 

If the only alternative to Heaven/Hell is unconsciousness, you are right, ignorance is bliss. But this does not justify the actions, nor does it make them profitable and useful.

 

 

 

To use an extreme example, Islamic radicals believe that they will reach Paradise by killing infidels. For all they know, these actions were profitable. The rest of society, however, sees it very differently.

 

 

 

It goes back to the idea that all religious people sit on their knees and waste their time praying all day. I've said before that your lifestyle can still be the same, atheist or theist. We're talking about the beliefs after all and not the actions behind the beliefs. I think it's a stretch to say having the idea that God exists in the back of your head is a "waste".

 

 

 

And what about those who's mentalities of life has changed for the best because they started to believe in God? You don't have to invest a large amount of time to believe in God. You can think about God during your everyday life - taking walks, in class, before you go to bed. I see it as a complement to life - not a drastic change in habit. I see that as quite the contrary of a waste.

 

 

 

As for Islamic infidels, you're right. But as you said, it's only an extreme example. My point is that theism as a whole is not a waste.

 

 

 

Profit and wastefulness are not terms defined solely by your own perceptions, but also the perceptions of society. Being a couch potato is considered "wasteful" not because you think it is, but because others think it is.

 

 

 

We're all living humans without knowledge about whether there is an afterlife or not - so how can anyone deem theism as a waste?

 

 

 

If atheists were treated no differently from those of faith (i.e. God does not respond to worship and prayer), then the atheist's life on Earth, albeit misguided, would not have been wasteful compared to the theist who spent his time worshipping and sacrificing.

 

 

 

Not all theists do that, just like how all atheists don't spend an enormous amount of time doing research about the existence/non-existence of God.

[venomai]

It says something about their differences though. ... The justifications for believing God and believing the Easter Bunny are not equal. In other words - the justifications for God do exist while they do not when it comes to the Bunny.

 

As I've said, "Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny."

 

 

 

You've merely reiterated my argument and attempted to pass it off as a rebuttal.

 

 

 

It goes back to the idea that all religious people sit on their knees and waste their time praying all day. ... My point is that theism as a whole is not a waste. ... Not all theists [worship].

 

As I've said, "Some form of payment is expected in almost every theistic belief -- worship, money, sacrifice, etc."

 

 

 

I am not discussing all theistic beliefs, but rather those that do involve worship and sacrifice (which, over the course of history, appear to be in the majority).

 

 

 

When speaking of God, I'm talking in a very general sense. ... what about if you take religion out of the equation...?

 

As I've said, "The conception of god brought about by organized religion is really the only conception of god I care to argue against."

 

 

 

 

 

I'm tired of debating with you, Zierro. Your rebuttals fail to address my points and only serve to attack claims that I have not been making, or reiterate claims that I have already made.

[Zierro]

You've merely reiterated my argument and attempted to pass it off as a rebuttal.

 

 

 

Which means are they are too different to serve as an analogy here.

 

 

 

I am not discussing all theistic beliefs, but rather those that do involve worship and sacrifice (which, over the course of history, appear to be in the majority).

 

 

 

Which means theism as a whole is not a waste of time. Just that organized religion is.

 

 

 

I'm tired of debating with you, Zierro. Your rebuttals fail to address my points and only serve to attack claims that I have not been making, or reiterate claims that I have already made.

 

 

 

When arguing against the existence of God, you are arguing against all perceptions of him. You can pick and choose if you wish, but then that would mean your arguments don't apply to theism but only to particular religions.

 

 

 

I really don't think you can call a theistic life a wasted life - only when it comes to those specific examples you brought up.

[dpattle]

It says something about their differences though. ... The justifications for believing God and believing the Easter Bunny are not equal. In other words - the justifications for God do exist while they do not when it comes to the Bunny.

 

As I've said, "Theists have much different, and often much more justified, reasons for believing in god than the Easter Bunny believers do for believing in the Easter Bunny."

 

 

 

You've merely reiterated my argument and attempted to pass it off as a rebuttal.

 

Then why try to compare the two (religion and easter bunny) if they are justified differently, one not having any justification at all. All religions have some form of justification, whatsoever it may be, so saying that because the easter bunny isn't real theism isn't true, is in fact false.

 

 

 

The person who made the argument in the first place and compared the two like such, obviously meant to say that theism isn't true because belief in the bunny isn't true...but as i just stated, and even according to you, this can't possibly be true, and is a TERRIBLE example to try to make a point with.

[mmmcannibalism]

 

The person who made the argument in the first place and compared the two like such, obviously meant to say that theism isn't true because belief in the bunny isn't true...but as i just stated, and even according to you, this can't possibly be true, and is a TERRIBLE example to try to make a point with.

 

 

 

The claim was that believing in the easter bunny is just as logical as believing in god, that is not to say they are both equally true or untrue. The whole point of that analogy is to demonstrate that without empirical evidence a belief in any god is just as reasonable as a belief in an easter bunny because you cant factor faith into the logical state of something.

 

 

 

Actually, the only logical claim for some kind of god I can think of is not believing the universe could be in an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches, or multiverses or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

wow I sound like an atheist lol.

[venomai]

Which means are they are too different to serve as an analogy here.

 

Differences serve as the groundwork for any analogy.

 

 

 

What is an Analogy?

 

"The two items used in the analogy do not have to be alike in any respect other than the element that is the topic of the discussion."

 

 

 

Obviously, both beliefs are vastly different. The claim being made is that both entities are alike only in that they are not real. i.e. It is equal to making the claim that "God is not real."

 

 

 

When arguing against the existence of God, you are arguing against all perceptions of him.

 

Not at all. It would be futile to try and encompass all conceptions of god when we debate "his" existence. Likewise, when you argue for the existence of god, you are not arguing for the existence of all conceptions of god, but rather for the existence of a specific conception of god.

 

 

 

... only when it comes to those specific examples you brought up.

 

And it is examples like these (involvement of prayer, worship, sacrifice, etc) that make up the vast majority of all theistic beliefs.

[dpattle]

 

The person who made the argument in the first place and compared the two like such, obviously meant to say that theism isn't true because belief in the bunny isn't true...but as i just stated, and even according to you, this can't possibly be true, and is a TERRIBLE example to try to make a point with.

 

 

 

The claim was that believing in the easter bunny is just as logical as believing in god, that is not to say they are both equally true or untrue. The whole point of that analogy is to demonstrate that without empirical evidence a belief in any god is just as reasonable as a belief in an easter bunny because you cant factor faith into the logical state of something.

 

 

 

Actually, the only logical claim for some kind of god I can think of is not believing the universe could be in an infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches, or multiverses or whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

wow I sound like an atheist lol.

 

 

 

Yes, yes you do. but faith aside, you just can't compare believing in God to believing in the easter bunny with that statement, and try to say that both are untrue. This is because people have a reason to believe in God, as opposed to people who "believe" in the easter bunny.

 

 

 

Christians as an example; we have the bible, the "works" that are still happening today, the different prophesy's that have indeed come true, and historical non-christian proof that Jesus, a main part of Christianity was in fact real and was believed at the time to be the son of God. People who believe in easter bunny is completely different. the statement was to put the two beliefs in a "group" of sorts and say that since the easter bunny belief isn't true, the belief in God isn't either. The reason they are not both "just as logical" is because Christianity has a sorts of "proof" that the events believed in did actually occur; the easter bunny has never had any proof whatsoever. This is almost the same tbh as the big bang theory, as it was developed by a man out of the blue blue sky after he was mad at his church. There was actually no evidence to support it.

 

 

 

OT ~ i almost didn't wanna make this post...wanted to keep the count at 3030 replies...cool number. [im random]

[Zierro]

Differences serve as the groundwork for any analogy.

 

 

 

What is an Analogy?

 

"The two items used in the analogy do not have to be alike in any respect other than the element that is the topic of the discussion."

 

 

 

Obviously, both beliefs are vastly different. The claim being made is that both entities are alike only in that they are not real. i.e. It is equal to making the claim that "God is not real."

 

 

 

Alright. Call it an analogy. I'm still calling it a strawman.

 

 

 

Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version

 

 

 

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

 

 

Not at all. It would be futile to try and encompass all conceptions of god when we debate "his" existence. Likewise, when you argue for the existence of god, you are not arguing for the existence of all conceptions of god, but rather for the existence of a specific conception of god.

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

 

 

And it is examples like these (involvement of prayer, worship, sacrifice, etc) that make up the vast majority of all theistic beliefs.

 

 

 

No, I was talking about the Islamic infidels. Just because you have prayed before does not mean you wasted your one and only life which you seem to be arguing.

[venomai]

Alright. Call it an analogy. I'm still calling it a strawman.

 

"X is (not) real" is a position, not a rebuttal. Although The Easter Bunny comparison may be loaded with unnecessary ridicule, I certainly wouldn't call it a straw man.

 

 

 

Here is a better example of the straw man fallacy, using relevant material:

 

 

 

Person A takes position X, paraphrased to: "Prayer and other payments to god would be a waste if it was all for nothing [i.e. if god does not exist as assumed]."

 

Person B presents position Y (a distorted view of position X), paraphrased to: "Your life is a waste if you have prayed."

 

Person B then attacks position Y, saying that "Just because you have prayed before does not mean you wasted your one and only life..."

 

 

 

EDIT: I misread part of your post and got rid of my other argument.

[dpattle]

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God.

 

Not according to your last post:

 

 

 

"When arguing against the existence of God, you are arguing against all perceptions of him."

 

 

 

um. I think he said you as in you venom :roll:

[dpattle]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

 

 

EXACTLY!! =D> =D> =D>

[venomai]

This is almost the same tbh as the big bang theory, as it was developed by a man out of the blue blue sky after he was mad at his church. There was actually no evidence to support it.

 

There is a substantial amount of scientific and well-tested evidence to support the Big Bang theory.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

 

 

It's ignorance like this that gives Christianity such a bad rep. :lol:

[venomai]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you meticulously capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say? This is what your argument is beginning to sound a lot like.

[dpattle]

This is almost the same tbh as the big bang theory, as it was developed by a man out of the blue blue sky after he was mad at his church. There was actually no evidence to support it.

 

There is a substantial amount of scientific and well-tested evidence to support the Big Bang theory.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

 

 

It's ignorance like this that gives Christianity such a bad rep. :lol:

 

 

 

lolz? its long...ill read l8r...1 am here, bed time for me =)

 

and btw, dont say things like "It's ignorance like this that gives Christianity such a bad rep" because it's just rude. and lastly dont forget, that before evolution theories and BBT, there was always Christianity and belief in God~though they were not called Christians at the time~and hell, the world was sure as hell better then than it is now.

[dpattle]

[hide=]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

[magekillr]

dpattle, nothing is proven in this world. Things are just disproved, and then we accept that the things we cannot disprove through the scientific method as being proven with 100% certainty (if these results can be repeated).

 

 

 

We "don't know" that the Earth revolves around the sun. We "don't know" that cells exist.

 

 

 

All theories are "still being developed". That is what science is, and that is why it's a theory.

[warri0r45]

[hide=]

You can't say God is "as real as" the toothfairy. It's a total cop-out to equate the thing which is being debated "IS GOD REAL?" to something which we all know is not real.

 

How is this a cop-out? It's a position one would take, much like "God is real," or even "God can exist."

 

 

 

Actually I'm arguing about any conception of God. "God does/can exist."

 

Yet you continually capitalize the term, implying a very specific conception of god. :lol:

 

 

 

Announcing that "any or none of the models of the universe could be correct" seems rather obvious, wouldn't you say?

[/hide]

 

 

 

Soz to double post like this instead of on one...but before i left, i just wanted to say, There is still much debate even over the BBT itself, it can hardly be agreed on at all even by the scientist who understand it the most. Lastly, it state that it is still a theory that is still being developed. In the science world itself, a theory is stated as something that is NOT proven, but just accepted as being true. But if it is not proven, how can it then be stated as fact and put over religion? Wouldn't religion and BBT and evolution all be at the same place since none have actually been proven, even if all have some evidence? Even some of the things used to arrive at conclusions for BBT are using other theory's!! This just seems somewhat weird to me.

 

 

 

If I could just butt in, there are a few points I want to make.

 

 

 

First, it's worth getting the scientific view on the BBT correct. It's not true that there is significant debate that the big bang is the best model; most cosmologists accept it as such. [1]

 

 

 

Sure, there may be some debate about the details and some problems to iron out, but there is no other alternate model which explains as much of the evidence as well as the big bang. Religious ideas weren't formed when we knew about cosmic microwave background radiation and the red shifting of galaxies, so they're not going to be able to cut it with modern science when it comes to explaining the evidence we find. Added, religious ideas don't adapt to the evidence like science does, and they can't be empirically tested. Religious ideas are based ultimately on faith and personal conviction while scientific theories are based ultimately on the objective empirical evidence available.

 

 

 

While it's true that in science a theory is not something which in it's entirety is proven, good theories do contain many facts and some of their main tenets may be treated as facts by virtue of overwhelming evidence. I'm not sure exactly how cosmologists treat the main tenet of BBT, but from what reading I've done it seems it's treated as good as a fact. It's also worth realising that the main purpose of a scientific theory is to serve as an explanation and to make predictions to be tested to further our understanding. They're not half-baked ideas yet to be proven.

[mmmcannibalism]

christianity has done more harm then good for the world in a lot of aspects. See the crusades, the spanish inquisition, salem witchcraft trials, southern justification for slavery in the americas based off of the bible etc.

 

 

 

Also, the big bang is all but proven, there are some tiny little things they cant work out like dark matter and energy but the basis of the theory that the universe expanded from one point in space is quite solid. Unless you wish to claim god faked all that evidence to test us of course, in which case were going to end up with a debate on the nature of god.