Why should I become an atheist?

mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Why should I become an atheist?

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

A free DVD. 


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
So it's a bargain to you?

So it's a bargain to you? You wanna gain something, before you even consider what is true? That's the problem. I'm an atheist, not because I chose it, but because with what I know of the world, what that makes me is atheist. It is not something I choose to be, it's just something I am. Actually, the word atheist is only one I have started using about myself after I started frequenting these boards.

Before that I didn't even consider the word. I was born not believing in God, and that's how I've remained.

So you don't stand to gain anything (tangible), but since there is no such thing is heaven, nor do you stand to loose anything by not being religious.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: I'm

MattShizzle wrote:

I'm sorry, Im new to rationalresponders.

although it was a pleasure to be acquainted with your ignorance.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Nikolaj wrote:So it's a

Nikolaj wrote:

So it's a bargain to you? You wanna gain something, before you even consider what is true? That's the problem. I'm an atheist, not because I chose it, but because with what I know of the world, what that makes me is atheist. It is not something I choose to be, it's just something I am. Actually, the word atheist is only one I have started using about myself after I started frequenting these boards.

Before that I didn't even consider the word. I was born not believing in God, and that's how I've remained.

So you don't stand to gain anything (tangible), but since there is no such thing is heaven, nor do you stand to loose anything by not being religious.

apparently a lot of you guys were not understanding the gist of my argument. If belief in God makes me happy (and it does BTW), and not believing in God gives me nothing, then why should I not believe in God?

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Nikolaj

mig_killer2 wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

So it's a bargain to you? You wanna gain something, before you even consider what is true? That's the problem. I'm an atheist, not because I chose it, but because with what I know of the world, what that makes me is atheist. It is not something I choose to be, it's just something I am. Actually, the word atheist is only one I have started using about myself after I started frequenting these boards.

Before that I didn't even consider the word. I was born not believing in God, and that's how I've remained.

So you don't stand to gain anything (tangible), but since there is no such thing is heaven, nor do you stand to loose anything by not being religious.

apparently a lot of you guys were not understanding the gist of my argument. If belief in God makes me happy (and it does BTW), and not believing in God gives me nothing, then why should I not believe in God?

Do you elect public officials?  If you are already willing to believe things without verifiable evidence why shouldn't it bother me?  What evidence do you have to support your belief that the killer for god doesn't?  I am against unfounded beliefs.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Drugs make people happy

Drugs make people happy too.  Because it makes them happy should they continue to abuse them?  No, of course not.  Now, you can do whatever you want.  An abuser of heroine can certainly continue abusing a drug, its their body.  Your drug is God.  It does not allow you to think beyond the constraints of dogma, refuses you the ability to think critically about arguments that go against your specific perspective.  You're welcome to continue deluding yourself, that is your right. 

My problem is when deluded Christians/Muslims/etc... want to impose their delusions onto other people who have the exact same right to not delude themselves as you have to delude yourself. 

What does this have to do with you becoming an atheist?  Well, being an atheist does not make you more intelligent (there are idiot atheists like there are idiot theists).  Being a theist doesn't make you stupid.  It isn't about happiness either, since I'm very happy without god belief, and since I deconverted from Christianity I have been happier.  What this has to do with is evidence.  You, as a theist, believe in something with no evidence.  I, as an atheist, do not believe in a god because there is, simply put, no evidence.  This is really the fundamental difference.  It is up to you if you want to put down the drug and realize the hallucinations or if you want to pick up your crucifix pipe and take another hit.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Drugs

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Drugs make people happy too.  Because it makes them happy should they continue to abuse them?  No, of course not.  Now, you can do whatever you want.  An abuser of heroine can certainly continue abusing a drug, its their body.  Your drug is God.  It does not allow you to think beyond the constraints of dogma, refuses you the ability to think critically about arguments that go against your specific perspective.  You're welcome to continue deluding yourself, that is your right. 

My problem is when deluded Christians/Muslims/etc... want to impose their delusions onto other people who have the exact same right to not delude themselves as you have to delude yourself. 

What does this have to do with you becoming an atheist?  Well, being an atheist does not make you more intelligent (there are idiot atheists like there are idiot theists).  Being a theist doesn't make you stupid.  It isn't about happiness either, since I'm very happy without god belief, and since I deconverted from Christianity I have been happier.  What this has to do with is evidence.  You, as a theist, believe in something with no evidence.  I, as an atheist, do not believe in a god because there is, simply put, no evidence.  This is really the fundamental difference.  It is up to you if you want to put down the drug and realize the hallucinations or if you want to pick up your crucifix pipe and take another hit.

Hi Rook, the problem with comparing controlled substance abuse to belief in God is because hard drugs (eg cocaine, heroine) evidently cause harm to myself and my immediate friends and family. belief in God however does no such thing, in fact in my experience belief in God does the exact opposite. Here, you missed my point. If belief in God helps me, and nonbelief does not help me, then why should I choose unbelief?

Now, normally I woulden't dignify the rest of your dirge with a response given that it was completely irrlevant (you believe in God and have no evidence), but I think I will. first off, there are legitimate arguments for the existence of God (argument from the resurrection is a terrific example. perhaps I can discuss that with you on one of the days you have a show at stickam, or possibly someone can make a response to my upcoming 19 part video series defending the resurrection.

the last point I wish to make is that accusing your opponent of "deluding himself" or "having no critical thinking skills" and other ad hominems and personal attacks will get you nowhere fast. This is the problem I and lots of other Theists and Atheists have with the RRS, that the RRS does not encourage real scholarly intellectual debate over the question of God, but rather wishes to dogmatically assert atheist principles and convey them whilist ridiculing Christians and Christianity. Ridiculing the opponents belief will get you nowhere because odds are the person you are debating believes these principles to be extremely important.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Nikolaj

mig_killer2 wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

So it's a bargain to you? You wanna gain something, before you even consider what is true? That's the problem. I'm an atheist, not because I chose it, but because with what I know of the world, what that makes me is atheist. It is not something I choose to be, it's just something I am. Actually, the word atheist is only one I have started using about myself after I started frequenting these boards.

Before that I didn't even consider the word. I was born not believing in God, and that's how I've remained.

So you don't stand to gain anything (tangible), but since there is no such thing is heaven, nor do you stand to loose anything by not being religious.

apparently a lot of you guys were not understanding the gist of my argument. If belief in God makes me happy (and it does BTW), and not believing in God gives me nothing, then why should I not believe in God?

Do you get the same kind of happy feeling from God as you do from other things in your life that make you happy?

If so, why do you go to God instead of to those things?

If not, what makes the happy feeling you get from God different?

I'd like to know becaus belief in God really wrecked my life and self-esteem and things didn't improve until I stopped believing.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1196
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

Reality.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
If believing in something

If believing in something makes you happy, you should? You call that an "argument"? By the same logic, if believing the moon is made of cheese makes me happy, I should believe it? Bottom line: no one cares about your or my emotions in this. We care about how well your evidence lines up with reality.


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Do you get

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you get the same kind of happy feeling from God as you do from other things in your life that make you happy?

'tis but one factor which contributes to my happiness.

jcgadfly wrote:
If so, why do you go to God instead of to those things?

*insert above statement*

jcgadfly wrote:
If not, what makes the happy feeling you get from God different?

*insert above statement*

jcgadfly wrote:
I'd like to know becaus belief in God really wrecked my life and self-esteem and things didn't improve until I stopped believing.

now why do I find that impossible to believe?

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:If believing in

KSMB wrote:

If believing in something makes you happy, you should? You call that an "argument"?

no actually it was not an argument. It was just a question asking why I should become an atheist. it wasn't an argument for why you should become a Christian.

KSMB wrote:
By the same logic, if believing the moon is made of cheese makes me happy, I should believe it? Bottom line: no one cares about your or my emotions in this. We care about how well your evidence lines up with reality.

now you and just about every atheist here is missing my point. Acceptance of a particular component of reality (the non-existence of God) DOES NOT BENEFIT me. Acceptance of a "delusion" (in this case, God) DOES NOT HARM ME, and at the same time BENEFITS ME.

 

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2

mig_killer2 wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Drugs make people happy too.  Because it makes them happy should they continue to abuse them?  No, of course not.  Now, you can do whatever you want.  An abuser of heroine can certainly continue abusing a drug, its their body.  Your drug is God.  It does not allow you to think beyond the constraints of dogma, refuses you the ability to think critically about arguments that go against your specific perspective.  You're welcome to continue deluding yourself, that is your right. 

My problem is when deluded Christians/Muslims/etc... want to impose their delusions onto other people who have the exact same right to not delude themselves as you have to delude yourself. 

What does this have to do with you becoming an atheist?  Well, being an atheist does not make you more intelligent (there are idiot atheists like there are idiot theists).  Being a theist doesn't make you stupid.  It isn't about happiness either, since I'm very happy without god belief, and since I deconverted from Christianity I have been happier.  What this has to do with is evidence.  You, as a theist, believe in something with no evidence.  I, as an atheist, do not believe in a god because there is, simply put, no evidence.  This is really the fundamental difference.  It is up to you if you want to put down the drug and realize the hallucinations or if you want to pick up your crucifix pipe and take another hit.

Hi Rook, the problem with comparing controlled substance abuse to belief in God is because hard drugs (eg cocaine, heroine) evidently cause harm to myself and my immediate friends and family.

You're right it was a stupid analogy.  God belief causes herm to not just yourself (mentally and physically), those around you (little girls and boys dying because parents would rather pray over them than get them scientifically verified medical treatments), but causes war (crusades, English protestants vs. IRA Catholic Irishmen, Iraq).  So you're right.  God belief is exponentially worse than drug abuse.  At least the drug abuser can't say his dogmatic beliefs lead to a holocaust and genocide.

Quote:
Now, normally I woulden't dignify the rest of your dirge with a response given that it was completely irrlevant (you believe in God and have no evidence),

It's not irrelevant it is entirely on topic.  You wanted to know why you should be an atheist over a theist if you're happy as a theist.  I gave you one advantage.  You do not have to believe in something with out evidence. 

Quote:
but I think I will. first off, there are legitimate arguments for the existence of God (argument from the resurrection is a terrific example.

Right...because people bodily resurrect all the time!  Hell, my nephew Pete just resurrected last week, he said it was a blast. 

How about this, provide me with one scientific, peer reviewed journal by a community of credentialed academics that prove resurrections happen, and I might just believe you.

Quote:
perhaps I can discuss that with you on one of the days you have a show at stickam, or possibly someone can make a response to my upcoming 19 part video series defending the resurrection.

Yeah, we'll see.

Quote:
the last point I wish to make is that accusing your opponent of "deluding himself" or "having no critical thinking skills" and other ad hominems and personal attacks will get you nowhere fast.

I'm sorry, what about believing in a mythical afterlife with a lightening-throwing all-knowing superbeing in the sky isn't a delusion?  Here's a quick test you can do.  Replace "God" with "fairy" or "unicorn" the next time you're in church listening to scripture or sermon and see if you can still stomach the idea after.

Quote:
This is the problem I and lots of other Theists and Atheists have with the RRS, that the RRS does not encourage real scholarly intellectual debate over the question of God,

Right, and you showing up here with the incredibly "scholarly" and "academic" claim that resurrections are a fact is just so intellectually superior.  Who do you think you are fooling here?

And for the record, if people are as clueless as you were when you first signed up and started assuming my positions on things, no wonder people don't like us!  They don't know a thing about us, save what a few handfuls of haters might say (and often they were the ones who got their asses handed to them on some form or another).  Perhaps if you, and others, realized what it is we do stand for, and what we do here (which only takes a few minutes of browsing time) we would have less ignorant people out there assuming our positions like you have done here.

Quote:
Ridiculing the opponents belief will get you nowhere because odds are the person you are debating believes these principles to be extremely important.

And?  I'm trying to help you the same way you're trying to help me.  You want me to believe because otherwise I'll burn forever in a fiery pit of damnation.  You want me to be with god.  I think these ideas you have are signs of brainwashing and manipulation since you were a child, and I (as an intellect) can recognize fantasy and make believe when I hear it.  A guy walking on water and calming storms, healing the sick with "faith" (magic - ironically early second century depictions of Jesus show him with a wand) and apocalyptic battles with winged children with swords and horn-headed demonic powers is just a little too much hellenistic fairytale for me to buy into. I'm trying to save you from going down the path of mental retardation with this delusion you have. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Milkshake (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I think the RRS encourages

I think the RRS encourages intelligent debate but has ad hominem on the side for fun. Which I agree is totally useless, if not harmful to the cause, because people (theists in this case) can be such pussies.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Quote:jcgadfly wrote:I'd

Quote:
jcgadfly wrote:
I'd like to know becaus belief in God really wrecked my life and self-esteem and things didn't improve until I stopped believing.

now why do I find that impossible to believe?

Because you're brainwashed and deluded into thinking that God can only bring good and not the bad in somebody else's life.  You find it hard to swallow because it goes against everything you were taught about Christianity.  If there was ever a statement you could make to prove to us all how far gone you are in terms of your critical thinking skills, this was the statement to make.  You couldn't have proved my point more beautifully.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:KSMB

mig_killer2 wrote:

KSMB wrote:

If believing in something makes you happy, you should? You call that an "argument"?

no actually it was not an argument. It was just a question asking why I should become an atheist. it wasn't an argument for why you should become a Christian.

Good. Because that would have been a really stupid argument.

mig_killer2 wrote:
KSMB wrote:
By the same logic, if believing the moon is made of cheese makes me happy, I should believe it? Bottom line: no one cares about your or my emotions in this. We care about how well your evidence lines up with reality.

now you and just about every atheist here is missing my point. Acceptance of a particular component of reality (the non-existence of God) DOES NOT BENEFIT me. Acceptance of a "delusion" (in this case, God) DOES NOT HARM ME, and at the same time BENEFITS ME.

I find it astounding that you tell us we're missing your point. We get what you're saying, it's just completely invalid.


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Hawkins, I nominated you

Hawkins, I nominated you for a screwball award at Tektonics. I've seen better arguments at the off-topic board at Gamespot. now, onto your pile of shit you would like to call an "argument"

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

You're right it was a stupid analogy.  God belief causes herm to not just yourself (mentally and physically), those around you (little girls and boys dying because parents would rather pray over them than get them scientifically verified medical treatments), but causes war (crusades, English protestants vs. IRA Catholic Irishmen, Iraq).  So you're right.  God belief is exponentially worse than drug abuse.  At least the drug abuser can't say his dogmatic beliefs lead to a holocaust and genocide.

Now Rook, you intentionally missed my point. my question is why should *I*, singular, become an atheist? why should I abandon *MY* belief in God. Now, I am sure you are aware of this inconvenient fact that *MY* belief in God caused none of those things which you ascribe to religion (protestants vs. IRA, Iraq, etc.). Now, once again to restate my question, why should *I* give up *MY* belief in God?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

It's not irrelevant it is entirely on topic. 

you wish it were relavent. Perhaps if you had a proper understanding of my question you might understand why it was irrelavent.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You wanted to know why you should be an atheist over a theist if you're happy as a theist.  I gave you one advantage.  You do not have to believe in something with out evidence. 

*facepalm*. we have assumed from the outset that God does not exist, or did you forget that? Now let's try to avoid burning strawmen and get to the actual issue at hand, and I must remind you that hte issue at hand is *MY* personal belief in God.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
but I think I will. first off, there are legitimate arguments for the existence of God (argument from the resurrection is a terrific example.

Right...because people bodily resurrect all the time!  Hell, my nephew Pete just resurrected last week, he said it was a blast. 

How about this, provide me with one scientific, peer reviewed journal by a community of credentialed academics that prove resurrections happen, and I might just believe you.

*facepalm*. I cannot believe I am forced to dignify this "argument" of yours with a response. very well then. This idea you espouse is exactly the same as Troeltsch's "Principle of analogy". Now the principle of analogy is very useful in reconstructing what may have happened in the past, but you cannot use this principle to say what could not have happened in the past. Secondly, your argument amounts to nothing more than 2 giant logical fallacies

1: appeal to authority. You are assuming that because a peer-reviewed scientific journal doesn't publish something, then it must not be true. I however wish to point out that a scientific journal could not do such things because of the simple fact that the philosophy of science prevents them from doing such a thing. Have you ever heard of "Methodological naturalism"?

2: argument from ignorance. The lack of evidence for the existence of a God who intervenes in the Universe occaisonally does not count as evidence against that. You cannot use this as an argument against the resurrection unless you have evidence AGAINST the existence of a personal God.

[sarcasm] now try to publish a paper with a peer-reviewed scientific journal that says that God does *not* exist[/sarcasm]

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Yeah, we'll see.

I can't wait, but before I do I have a few more books to read (Bauckham Jesus and the Eye-witnesses, Wright: The Resurrection of the Son of God, The New Testament and the People of God, and Metzger and Ehrman The Text of the New Testament)

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I'm sorry, what about believing in a mythical afterlife with a lightening-throwing all-knowing superbeing in the sky isn't a delusion?  Here's a quick test you can do.  Replace "God" with "fairy" or "unicorn" the next time you're in church listening to scripture or sermon and see if you can still stomach the idea after.

ROFLMAOZ, good god Rook, and I actually thought you were more knowledgable than your average garden variety youtube atheist. Anyway, replacing the word "God" with other ridiculous supersitions dodges the point, which is why should *I* give up *MY* faith in God.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
This is the problem I and lots of other Theists and Atheists have with the RRS, that the RRS does not encourage real scholarly intellectual debate over the question of God,

Right, and you showing up here with the incredibly "scholarly" and "academic" claim that resurrections are a fact is just so intellectually superior.  Who do you think you are fooling here?

Rook, my arguments stand or fall on their own merits. Look at you, you just dogmatically assert points about the inherent improbability of Miraculous events whilist ridiculing your opponent. Key concept for debate Rook, never mock your opponent if you are serious about helping him to change his position.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Ridiculing the opponents belief will get you nowhere because odds are the person you are debating believes these principles to be extremely important.

And?  I'm trying to help you the same way you're trying to help me. 

I'm not trying to help you, I am asking a question. Remember, my point is not an argument FOR Christianity, it is merely my point that I personally have no reason to become an atheist. You want to remain an atheist FINE!

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You want me to believe because otherwise I'll burn forever in a fiery pit of damnation. 

well that's a nice side reason for me to debate you. mostly I debate atheists for the sport. I have already come to grips with the fact that atheists are by and large too irrational and too delusional and above all too emotionally invested in this ideology to understand why they are wrong.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You want me to be with god. 

well that would be nice.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I think these ideas you have are signs of brainwashing and manipulation since you were a child, and I (as an intellect) can recognize fantasy and make believe when I hear it. 

If I was as brainwashed as you claim, then I would not have given up belief in free will, and I would not have given up belief in a 6,000 year old earth. I however would have no choice but to conclude that you are just as brainwashed as you claim your theist opponents to be given that you display outlandish behavior when someone poses reasons for believing differently than you do.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
A guy walking on water and calming storms, healing the sick with "faith" (magic - ironically early second century depictions of Jesus show him with a wand) and apocalyptic battles with winged children with swords and horn-headed demonic powers is just a little too much hellenistic fairytale for me to buy into. I'm trying to save you from going down the path of mental retardation with this delusion you have. 

again, you have missed my point. I don't care if Christianity is false, remember? we assumed FROM THE START that God does not exist. You however have not given me sufficient reason to accept that.

now, onto your arguments against Christianity

1: what evidence do you have of depictions of Jesus with a wand?

2: are you aware that Hellenization was only superficial in Palestine? there is very little evidence of religious influence from the Greeks upon Palestinian Jews.

3: are you aware that Christians would compete with art? finding pagan symbols in art found in pagan areas (Rome, Corinth, Philippi etc.) should hardly strike anyone as a surprise.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

If having an accurate depiction of the world without deliberate self-delusion is natural to you, accepting the apparent fact would be inevitable. However! let's say, also for the sake of argument, that the psychological gains of a self-delusion outweighed the consequences of having a self-deceiving world view. This would still say nothing about the actual truth value of the premise; it merely refers to what one would prefer be so. But if that becomes the vector of measurement, then that idea, too, can be scrutinized. Most remain in the religion they're born into, but there may be a religion that offers the most psychological bang for one's delusional buck. I would be hard pressed to say that it's the life-demeaning, nihilistic religion of pomp and damnation. From a natural human perspective, I'd imagine the most joy would be offered by something with a bit more flavor, maybe something eastern. Then, there's also those Raelians; with their adorable French accents, inclusion of scientific principles, and nude frolicking!


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:mig_killer2

KSMB wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

KSMB wrote:

If believing in something makes you happy, you should? You call that an "argument"?

no actually it was not an argument. It was just a question asking why I should become an atheist. it wasn't an argument for why you should become a Christian.

Good. Because that would have been a really stupid argument.

at least you are sober enough to recognize that it was not an argument intended to *show* the truth of Christianity.

KSMB wrote:
mig_killer2 wrote:
KSMB wrote:
By the same logic, if believing the moon is made of cheese makes me happy, I should believe it? Bottom line: no one cares about your or my emotions in this. We care about how well your evidence lines up with reality.

now you and just about every atheist here is missing my point. Acceptance of a particular component of reality (the non-existence of God) DOES NOT BENEFIT me. Acceptance of a "delusion" (in this case, God) DOES NOT HARM ME, and at the same time BENEFITS ME.

I find it astounding that you tell us we're missing your point. We get what you're saying, it's just completely invalid.

actually no, I have made a few topics here at rationalresponders, and no one ever understands my point hte first time. You did miss my point, and the question was why should I give up *my* faith in God. I had no intention of convincing an atheist to believe in God.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:However! let's

magilum wrote:

However! let's say, also for the sake of argument, that the psychological gains of a self-delusion outweighed the consequences of having a self-deceiving world view. This would still say nothing about the actual truth value of the premise;

congratulations, out of the members who responded to my point, you were came the closest to understanding it. *applauds magilum*

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:magilum

mig_killer2 wrote:

magilum wrote:

However! let's say, also for the sake of argument, that the psychological gains of a self-delusion outweighed the consequences of having a self-deceiving world view. This would still say nothing about the actual truth value of the premise;

congratulations, out of the members who responded to my point, you were came the closest to understanding it. *applauds magilum*

*Looks up from full-color Raelian brochure*

Huh?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Funny, your OP seemed to

Funny, your OP seemed to indicate that it was the sole factor in your happiness.

So if it is just one factor - is it a major one or a minor one? What makes the warm fuzzy feeling you get from God different from the other things that give you the warm fuzzies?

As to why you find my life impossible to believe - perhaps becaus it's not your life and you don't like having someone's raw honesty put in your face. It ruins those warm fuzzies you get from God.

Now to magilum's point - why are you so scared of seeking truth that you are willing to hold a delusion for the sake of happiness? Sounds more like hedonism than Christianity.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

Atheism isn't a denial or belief that god does not exists, but a lack of belief in a deity.  No positive assertion of knowledge.

Are you saying that without a belief in a deity you wouldn't live your life any differently? 

[Edit: fixed some spelling and forgot to add this:  Which is commendable, and would be similar to my situation, nothing changed about my life after I acknowledged the fact that I didn't have any evidence to suppose a deities existence.  ]

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

Ok, god does not exist. Why does there need to be a pay off? Or are you really asking, "Why be an atheist?"


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3132
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
That easy.

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

Well since you asked. There is a secret group of atheist scientist that are working on the technology to resurrect people from the dead. These scientists are real hard asses, but we love and worship them anyway. They demand that everyone that is resurrected should should love and worship them. For this the will put us into a state of constant bliss for time eternal.

If you refuse to renounce religion and don't force yourself to not believe in God, you will be tortured with the continually pain for an interminable existence. It would be like a combination electrodes on your testicles, waterboarding, watching Pauly Shore movies and having bamboo shove up your fingernails all at the same time, only a trillion times worse.

I know it may be difficult to love these scientists and believe this story, but they are all good and perfect and must never be questioned. You must force yourself to love them. And they can't be fooled cause they can read every thought you have. Only a few of us have ever heard from these scientists, but fortunately we have a book describing their experiences.

Hope that clears things up.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Can we give this fuckwad the

Can we give this fuckwad the asshat avatar?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2

mig_killer2 wrote:

Hawkins, I nominated you for a screwball award at Tektonics. I've seen better arguments at the off-topic board at Gamespot. now, onto your pile of shit you would like to call an "argument"

I'm sorry was that supposed to be insulting?  I'm honored!  Not just because I think tektonics is the biggest proprietor of horse manure in apologetics, but that you would do me justice as to suggest I stand in opposition to such horse manure really makes me swell with pride.  I am happy to accept your nomination as the person you feel most likely contradicts the values laid out at Tektonics!  I hope I am nominated so I can feel even more like your intellectual superior.  In fact, I hope I am nominated so that I can flaunt the fact that you're such an idiot, you actually feel this is some sort of insult! 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

You're right it was a stupid analogy.  God belief causes herm to not just yourself (mentally and physically), those around you (little girls and boys dying because parents would rather pray over them than get them scientifically verified medical treatments), but causes war (crusades, English protestants vs. IRA Catholic Irishmen, Iraq).  So you're right.  God belief is exponentially worse than drug abuse.  At least the drug abuser can't say his dogmatic beliefs lead to a holocaust and genocide.

Now Rook, you intentionally missed my point. my question is why should *I*, singular, become an atheist?

I told you already.  It would be beneficial as it would be removing your deluded, ignorant perception of reality and replacing it instead with actual, verifiable data.

Quote:
why should I abandon *MY* belief in God.

Because it is clearly causing your brain to lack functionality in critical thought.

Quote:
Now, I am sure you are aware of this inconvenient fact that *MY* belief in God caused none of those things which you ascribe to religion (protestants vs. IRA, Iraq, etc.).

That's really irrelevant, since you give power to the people who do cause horrible things.  They can say, "Look, 98% of american theists are Christians" giving authority to their already deluded perspectives.  You are a factor in the crimes against humanity committed by your fellow Christians.   Just as every Nazi was a part of the strength that party held, you are a part of the strength that fundamentalist bigots use against government.  You give them power by accepting that these crimes, although not your fault, are a part of the dogma you adhere to.  You are as much responsible for these crimes as those who committed them precisely because by accepting the label you have accepted the possibility that such crimes can happen again in the future. 

Quote:
Now, once again to restate my question, why should *I* give up *MY* belief in God?

Because right now you look like a babbling nimrod. 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

It's not irrelevant it is entirely on topic. 

you wish it were relavent. Perhaps if you had a proper understanding of my question you might understand why it was irrelavent.

It was relevant.  You just don't like the fact that I can give you an actual, credible reason why your belief in God is harmful to everyone around you and to yourself.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You wanted to know why you should be an atheist over a theist if you're happy as a theist.  I gave you one advantage.  You do not have to believe in something with out evidence. 

*facepalm*. we have assumed from the outset that God does not exist, or did you forget that?

Fine, but that doesn't change my point.  If we assume from the outset that God does not exist, that would mean that especially *in this argument* you are accepting something without evidence.  Are you really this dense?

Quote:
Now let's try to avoid burning strawmen and get to the actual issue at hand, and I must remind you that hte issue at hand is *MY* personal belief in God.

Right.  We're assuming God does not exist.  Therefore you are believing in something without evidence.  The benefit for being an atheist is you no longer have to accept something based off of your complete ignorance of the world.  Henceforth, you would cease believing in things without evidence.  Capice?  Or do I have to spell it out for you monosyllabically?

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
but I think I will. first off, there are legitimate arguments for the existence of God (argument from the resurrection is a terrific example.

Right...because people bodily resurrect all the time!  Hell, my nephew Pete just resurrected last week, he said it was a blast. 

How about this, provide me with one scientific, peer reviewed journal by a community of credentialed academics that prove resurrections happen, and I might just believe you.

*facepalm*. I cannot believe I am forced to dignify this "argument" of yours with a response.

Translation:  "Holy shit, he asked me to back up my baseless assertion!"

Quote:
very well then. This idea you espouse is exactly the same as Troeltsch's "Principle of analogy". Now the principle of analogy is very useful in reconstructing what may have happened in the past, but you cannot use this principle to say what could not have happened in the past. Secondly, your argument amounts to nothing more than 2 giant logical fallacies

1: appeal to authority. You are assuming that because a peer-reviewed scientific journal doesn't publish something, then it must not be true. I however wish to point out that a scientific journal could not do such things because of the simple fact that the philosophy of science prevents them from doing such a thing. Have you ever heard of "Methodological naturalism"?

So what you're saying is that because a scientific journal hasn't published a paper refuting or accepting the possibility of fairies, then fairies might indeed exist because Science is so anti-fairy (due to its limitations and the philosophy of science) that it just cannot examine the "supernatural" realm that fairies live in.  This is great news!  Lets all go to the local Ward and have them release all those fairy-seeing individuals, because obviously they might be right! 

You are so brainwashed, friend. 

Quote:
2: argument from ignorance. The lack of evidence for the existence of a God who intervenes in the Universe occaisonally does not count as evidence against that. You cannot use this as an argument against the resurrection unless you have evidence AGAINST the existence of a personal God.

No, because God would not necessarily play into a resurrection.  If resurrections happen that would not prove God.  It would only prove the validity of resurrections.  You are making an extreme logical leap by assuming that one would prove the other.  More specifically, if another test were done to prove a link between resurrections and personal gods, it would not mean that YOUR god is the personal god doing the resurrecting.  It could be any one of a million of gods believed in since man invented the concept.

Quote:
[sarcasm] now try to publish a paper with a peer-reviewed scientific journal that says that God does *not* exist[/sarcasm]

Try to publish a paper with a peer-reviewed scientific journal that fairies do not exist.  Because in your twisted world of logic, we should just assume the existence of everything until science proves it otherwise.  Why not just believe in all Gods and all mythical creatures?  After all, they all have the exact same amount of evidence for their existence.  Zero.  Yet, no published study has ever been written on unicorns and their nonexistence, so you should really not be a hypocrite here and believe in them as well.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Yeah, we'll see.

I can't wait, but before I do I have a few more books to read (Bauckham Jesus and the Eye-witnesses, Wright: The Resurrection of the Son of God, The New Testament and the People of God, and Metzger and Ehrman The Text of the New Testament)

Wow are your sources one-sided.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I'm sorry, what about believing in a mythical afterlife with a lightening-throwing all-knowing superbeing in the sky isn't a delusion?  Here's a quick test you can do.  Replace "God" with "fairy" or "unicorn" the next time you're in church listening to scripture or sermon and see if you can still stomach the idea after.

ROFLMAOZ, good god Rook, and I actually thought you were more knowledgable than your average garden variety youtube atheist. Anyway, replacing the word "God" with other ridiculous supersitions dodges the point, which is why should *I* give up *MY* faith in God.

Perhaps you're missing the original dodge of yours that I was responding to?  I had to console you after I seemed to have disrupted your barrier of incredibly thin skin.  You're the one who got all emotional and changed the subject.  I'm sorry if insulting your delusions makes you hurt inside.  Here, have a tissue.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
This is the problem I and lots of other Theists and Atheists have with the RRS, that the RRS does not encourage real scholarly intellectual debate over the question of God,

Right, and you showing up here with the incredibly "scholarly" and "academic" claim that resurrections are a fact is just so intellectually superior.  Who do you think you are fooling here?

Rook, my arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

So far asking you to present an argument is like pulling teeth from a lion.  You seem extremely offended when I ask you for evidence (which is scholarly and scientific) after labeling the RRS as a group which doesn't uphold standards of scholarly and scientific debate!  You're a complete tool.  And you're not fooling anybody here.

Quote:
Look at you, you just dogmatically assert points about the inherent improbability of Miraculous events whilist ridiculing your opponent.

Says the kettle to his LSD-altered perspective, labeling a spoon a pot and calling it black.  Look here. I did not assert the inherent improbability of miracles you fool, I asked you for evidence to back up a baseless assertion.  You probably do not grasp the sheer basics of logic, but you can't have an "argument" without evidence.  You certainly have a lot of complaints, a lot of assertions, but nothing substantial.  So far in this discussion you're not but an ant who dreams of becoming a Myrmidon.  

Quote:
Key concept for debate Rook, never mock your opponent if you are serious about helping him to change his position.

You don't even understand the basic concepts of logical argumentation, you aren't informed enough to be lecturing anybody on the "concept" of debate - whatever that means.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Ridiculing the opponents belief will get you nowhere because odds are the person you are debating believes these principles to be extremely important.

And?  I'm trying to help you the same way you're trying to help me. 

I'm not trying to help you, I am asking a question. Remember, my point is not an argument FOR Christianity, it is merely my point that I personally have no reason to become an atheist. You want to remain an atheist FINE!

Sure, lie some more.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You want me to believe because otherwise I'll burn forever in a fiery pit of damnation. 

well that's a nice side reason for me to debate you. mostly I debate atheists for the sport.

You must have a pretty sore ass by now.

Quote:
I have already come to grips with the fact that atheists are by and large too irrational and too delusional and above all too emotionally invested in this ideology to understand why they are wrong.

In other words you have done nothing but project your insecurities onto others who are more intellectual, more rationally motivated than you could ever be.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
You want me to be with god. 

well that would be nice.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
I think these ideas you have are signs of brainwashing and manipulation since you were a child, and I (as an intellect) can recognize fantasy and make believe when I hear it. 

If I was as brainwashed as you claim, then I would not have given up belief in free will, and I would not have given up belief in a 6,000 year old earth.

But yet you'll still believe in ridiculous concepts like the resurrection of the body?  Again I have to ask, who the hell do you think you're fooling?  Only brainwashed individuals believe in irrational, mythical fodder like that.  Just because you managed to give up some of the mythical bits does not mean you're any less brainwashed, especially if you believe in more mythical bullshit that comes with the same package. 

You're argument here is like a Tolkien enthusiast who was brought up his whole life believing that Elves, Dwarves and Wizards are real.  They might give up the fact that Elves taught the trees to talk and man language, but if they still believe that Elves and men launched a battle against a mace-wielding wing-holder with immeasurable power, they're still nutters, regardless of how you try to gloss over the fact.  And so are you.

Quote:
I however would have no choice but to conclude that you are just as brainwashed as you claim your theist opponents to be given that you display outlandish behavior when someone poses reasons for believing differently than you do.

Examples? 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
A guy walking on water and calming storms, healing the sick with "faith" (magic - ironically early second century depictions of Jesus show him with a wand) and apocalyptic battles with winged children with swords and horn-headed demonic powers is just a little too much hellenistic fairytale for me to buy into. I'm trying to save you from going down the path of mental retardation with this delusion you have. 

again, you have missed my point. I don't care if Christianity is false, remember? we assumed FROM THE START that God does not exist. You however have not given me sufficient reason to accept that.

Once more I'm responding to your original dodge. 

Quote:
now, onto your arguments against Christianity

1: what evidence do you have of depictions of Jesus with a wand?

Seriously?  Pick up any academic book on catacomb art, sarcophagi inscriptions and sculptures, early paintings, etc...  Here's one for your benefit.

Catacomb art depicting Jesus raising Lazarus with a wand.  2nd Cent. CE

Another one, Byzantine.

Depicted scene of the raising of Lazarus from a Roman sarcophagus, 3rd Cent. CE.

There are many, many others. 

Quote:
2: are you aware that Hellenization was only superficial in Palestine? there is very little evidence of religious influence from the Greeks upon Palestinian Jews.

FALSE!  Gymnasiums and Hellenistic places of worship have been uncovered all over Palestine.  Additionally, new studies in socio-cultural jewishness during the Hellenistic period refute this position.  Even if Hellenism had somehow remained aloof in Jewish culture during the third century BCE (even with the huge Hellenistic sites, including many metropoleis), it was most certainly instilled in society by the 2nd century BCE.  No scholar that I have read or know would ever make such a claim as you have.  You need to read recent studies done by Louis Feldman, John J. G. Barclay, Lester Grabbe, Erich Gruen, Philip R. Davies and many others. 

Quote:
3: are you aware that Christians would compete with art? finding pagan symbols in art found in pagan areas (Rome, Corinth, Philippi etc.) should hardly strike anyone as a surprise.

Nope, you're right.  Still doesn't change the fact that some Christians thought of Jesus as a wand-wielding magician. 

{fixed-aiia}

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...This is the most

...This is the most ridiculous demand ever.

'What do *I* get out of being an atheist, huh!?'

At least it serves to be a highlight of exactly what religious surrender is actually about - complete selfishness.

 

What do you think you 'get out of' atheism, mig? This isn't a damn track meet. You don't 'get' anything - you can choose to accept fact or you can choose not to; nobody's going to give you a big blue ribbon or bake you a plate of cookies because you managed to correctly use your brain and reached reasonable conclusions about the world.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The same

mig_killer2 wrote:
what do I stand to gain by believing this?

I agree with the other posters. Why do you need to gain something? If it's the truth, it's the truth.

mig_killer2 wrote:
apparently a lot of you guys were not understanding the gist of my argument.

No, we understood it perfectly. You didn't like our answers, so you want to think that we were mistaken.

mig_killer2 wrote:
If belief in God makes me happy (and it does BTW), and not believing in God gives me nothing, then why should I not believe in God?

mig_killer2 wrote:
If belief in God helps me, and nonbelief does not help me, then why should I choose unbelief?

Again, why does it matter? If the only thing that you care about is the amount of emotional stimulation you get, then you shouldn't choose unbelief. Go join a cult or something.

It's not even an honest question to begin with. You're starting with a flawed assumption. How do you know that theism will help you more than atheism? Because Jesus said so?

Quote:
"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias

If you know anything about religion at all and make this statement, chances are you're an idiot.

mig_killer2 wrote:
now why do I find that impossible to believe?

Because you're a fundamentalist Creationist?

mig_killer2 wrote:
Acceptance of a "delusion" (in this case, God) DOES NOT HARM ME, and at the same time BENEFITS ME.

You're the guy who would rather stay inside the matrix? The answer is: I prefer reality.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
We've already answered your question dozens of times.

mig_killer2 wrote:
1: appeal to authority. You are assuming that because a peer-reviewed scientific journal doesn't publish something, then it must not be true.

Wrong. He is appealing to logic. If there are mountains of evidence for Christianity, why doesn't anyone publish these things?

mig_killer2 wrote:
2: argument from ignorance. The lack of evidence for the existence of a God who intervenes in the Universe occaisonally does not count as evidence against that. You cannot use this as an argument against the resurrection unless you have evidence AGAINST the existence of a personal God.

Wrong again. If there is no evidence that a magical pink unicorn exists, then the automatic conclusion must be that it does not exist, since the chance of any specific, complex, unobserved, supernatural, entity existing is basically none. He has no obligation to prove a negative. However, you have an obligation to prove that God DOES exist.

There is really no reliable method proving the non-existence of something except by the very fact that there is no evidence of its existence.

mig_killer2 wrote:
Rook, my arguments stand or fall on their own merits.

Your arguments are plagued with non sequiturs.

mig_killer2 wrote:
I have already come to grips with the fact that atheists are by and large too irrational and too delusional and above all too emotionally invested in this ideology to understand why they are wrong.

Wow...this isn't moving in the right direction.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Future Indefinite
Future Indefinite's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Truth.

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

 

 

 

I would have thought that you would choose to believe what is true regardless of its happy-making properties.   Truth doesn’t necessarily provide happiness and sometimes the reverse.  But it does provide the quiet satisfaction of personal integrity .       

Your whole argument, such as it is has overtones of Pascal’s Wager, i.e. choose to believe that which gives you most.  I trust you are aware that Pascal’s Wager is totally discredited and that a little close scrutiny reveals the flawed logic and reasoning behind it.  It is actually one of the weakest arguments a theist could come up with.

 

 

 

 

 

............................................................

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Nikolaj

mig_killer2 wrote:

Nikolaj wrote:

So it's a bargain to you? You wanna gain something, before you even consider what is true? That's the problem. I'm an atheist, not because I chose it, but because with what I know of the world, what that makes me is atheist. It is not something I choose to be, it's just something I am. Actually, the word atheist is only one I have started using about myself after I started frequenting these boards.

Before that I didn't even consider the word. I was born not believing in God, and that's how I've remained.

So you don't stand to gain anything (tangible), but since there is no such thing is heaven, nor do you stand to loose anything by not being religious.

apparently a lot of you guys were not understanding the gist of my argument. If belief in God makes me happy (and it does BTW), and not believing in God gives me nothing, then why should I not believe in God?

Eh... You didn't read my argument... I didn't say you should do anything. There is no should in this.

Like I said, if you see it as a bargain, you are seeing it wrong.

I just explained to you why I am an atheist, and noting that I am not an atheist because I should be one, but because I am one.

 

You should do whatever you want. That's the responsibility of freedom: you, and only you can make your decisions.

Now if you act like a dick, I will object to your behavior, because I have no other choice: I can't sit idly by while someone condemns homosexuals, the scientific method, people who engage in pre-marrital sex, and "Un-patriotic" Americans et.c. If you don't act like a dick (and you haven't done so to me, you seem like a perfectly friendly and reasonable person, so I expect that you are one) then you can believe whatever you want.

If ever you were to reject your beliefs it would not be because you decided that you should, it would simply be when you can no-longer deny the obvious you would automatically become an atheist, no "choice" involved. It's a state of mind, not an ideology.

 

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
Rook, perhaps when I have

Rook, perhaps when I have the energy to deal with you endless string of red herrings, strawmen, and appeals to authority I will do so, but your arguments for pagan influence on Christianity are probably a lot more worthwhile.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Seriously?  Pick up any academic book on catacomb art, sarcophagi inscriptions and sculptures, early paintings, etc...  Here's one for your benefit.

Catacomb art depicting Jesus raising Lazarus with a wand.  2nd Cent. CE

Another one, Byzantine.

and these are where? oh, right, not 1st century palestine palestine but in pagan areas like Byzantium, Rome, Greece, and post 2nd-temple palestine amirite?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Depicted scene of the raising of Lazarus from a Roman sarcophagus, 3rd Cent. CE.

There are many, many others. 

given that Christians would compete with art, this should hardly strike you as a surprise.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
FALSE!  Gymnasiums and Hellenistic places of worship have been uncovered all over Palestine. 

none of them (places of worship) 1st century BCE or CE. again, my point was Jews became more conservative in their beliefs after the maccabean revolt.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Additionally, new studies in socio-cultural jewishness during the Hellenistic period refute this position.  Even if Hellenism had somehow remained aloof in Jewish culture during the third century BCE (even with the huge Hellenistic sites, including many metropoleis), it was most certainly instilled in society by the 2nd century BCE.  No scholar that I have read or know would ever make such a claim as you have.  You need to read recent studies done by Louis Feldman, John J. G. Barclay, Lester Grabbe, Erich Gruen, Philip R. Davies and many others. 

perhaps you should the work of Jonathan Reed. 1st century palestine was extremely conservative. ever wonder why there are no coins minted in 1st century palestine showing a human face? it's because of Roman sensativity to the Jews' observance of the 2nd commandment. have you also wondered why there are so few pork bones found in the excavation sites from 1st century palestine?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Nope, you're right.  Still doesn't change the fact that some Christians thought of Jesus as a wand-wielding magician. 

the belief of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century christians is of no relavence. you remind me of the zeitgeist movie touting "born on Dec. 25th" as a parallel.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

 

How you benefit from switching to an atheistic viewpoint is totally subjective and depends on you.

 

From your later contributions on this thread it appears that you have invested a substantial part of your personality and sense of identity in the delusion of the existence of a deity, and several other comments by you reveal that you fail to distinguish between reality and fantasy, both of which make such a switch unlikely in any case.

 

In my experience it is not everyone who derives any real benefit from abandoning beliefs founded in superstition as it places on them a demand for which they have in no way prepared themselves. Having lived a life in which solace and meaning is derived from irrational beliefs, and in which the very irrationality of those beliefs has been elevated to the primary reason for continuing such beliefs, any abrupt switch to a mentality where rationality, fact and reason take priority could be traumatic in the extreme, and even permanently damaging from a mental health perspective.

 

Since there is absolutely nothing in your contributions thus far that would suggest you have even developed a capacity for critical thinking I would respectfully suggest you do not consider placing inordinate demands on your intellect at the moment. However, should you take the process in easy stages (for example, begin applying informed doubt to your assumptions) you might find indeed that your transition to being delusion-free does bear dividends along the way.

 

Not having to lie to oneself all the time, and by extension to others, is often cited by many who make such a transition as the major benefit. But as I said, this is not something that everyone is mentally equipped to achieve so don't be too disappointed should you fail.

 

I wish you luck, whatever you decide.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
your civility made me almost

your civility made me almost feel obligated to respond.

Nordmann wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

 

How you benefit from switching to an atheistic viewpoint is totally subjective and depends on you.

 

From your later contributions on this thread it appears that you have invested a substantial part of your personality and sense of identity in the delusion of the existence of a deity, and several other comments by you reveal that you fail to distinguish between reality and fantasy, both of which make such a switch unlikely in any case.

 

In my experience it is not everyone who derives any real benefit from abandoning beliefs founded in superstition as it places on them a demand for which they have in no way prepared themselves. Having lived a life in which solace and meaning is derived from irrational beliefs, and in which the very irrationality of those beliefs has been elevated to the primary reason for continuing such beliefs, any abrupt switch to a mentality where rationality, fact and reason take priority could be traumatic in the extreme, and even permanently damaging from a mental health perspective.

 

Since there is absolutely nothing in your contributions thus far that would suggest you have even developed a capacity for critical thinking I would respectfully suggest you do not consider placing inordinate demands on your intellect at the moment. However, should you take the process in easy stages (for example, begin applying informed doubt to your assumptions) you might find indeed that your transition to being delusion-free does bear dividends along the way.

 

Not having to lie to oneself all the time, and by extension to others, is often cited by many who make such a transition as the major benefit. But as I said, this is not something that everyone is mentally equipped to achieve so don't be too disappointed should you fail.

 

I wish you luck, whatever you decide.

Nordmann, here is the problem, this is not an argument for the truth value of God's existence, but rather is merely an inquiry as to why *I* personally should stop believing in God. Don't forget, I assumed from the outset that God does not exist. Rook Hawkins has failed miserably in demonstrating how my own belief in God does harm to myself and others. Simply put, Atheism, even if true, even if proven beyond doubt, is useless to me. Theism, even if proven to be bullshit (and to this day, no one has accomplished such an endeavor), is useful to me.

Now if you say that I have no critical thinking capacities, perhaps you can check out my responses to Rook Hawkins over at the Jesus mythicist campaign.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Rook,

mig_killer2 wrote:

Rook, perhaps when I have the energy to deal with you endless string of red herrings, strawmen, and appeals to authority I will do so, but your arguments for pagan influence on Christianity are probably a lot more worthwhile.

Translation: "I just got pwnt by Rook Hawkins"

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Seriously?  Pick up any academic book on catacomb art, sarcophagi inscriptions and sculptures, early paintings, etc...  Here's one for your benefit.

Catacomb art depicting Jesus raising Lazarus with a wand.  2nd Cent. CE

Another one, Byzantine.

and these are where? oh, right, not 1st century palestine palestine but in pagan areas like Byzantium, Rome, Greece, and post 2nd-temple palestine amirite?

Quite the contrary, we find nothing at all of Jesus in the first century.  Not in Rome, Palestine, not anywhere.  How fitting to annihilate your point all together.  Apparently only later Christians felt obligation to actually depict Jesus, and often his appearance changed depending on who was doing the work.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Depicted scene of the raising of Lazarus from a Roman sarcophagus, 3rd Cent. CE.

There are many, many others. 

given that Christians would compete with art, this should hardly strike you as a surprise.

Still doesn't change a thing about how Jesus was portrayed and looked at.

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
FALSE!  Gymnasiums and Hellenistic places of worship have been uncovered all over Palestine. 

none of them (places of worship) 1st century BCE or CE.

Yeah no shit, because they were occupied by Romans not Greeks during that period, idiot.  You said "hellenized" not "romanized".  What a twit you are.

Quote:
again, my point was Jews became more conservative in their beliefs after the maccabean revolt.

Yet somehow all four Maccabees are written in Greek, circulated in Greek, and were discussed in Greek.  And yet Jews still wrote and acted Greek and took on Greek names.  Hmm, and funny how we have a whole library from Jerusalem sitting in Qumran filled with Judeo-Hellenistic literature.  Gee, sounds like Hellenism to me.  Perhaps you just don't know what the hell "Hellenism" is. 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Additionally, new studies in socio-cultural jewishness during the Hellenistic period refute this position.  Even if Hellenism had somehow remained aloof in Jewish culture during the third century BCE (even with the huge Hellenistic sites, including many metropoleis), it was most certainly instilled in society by the 2nd century BCE.  No scholar that I have read or know would ever make such a claim as you have.  You need to read recent studies done by Louis Feldman, John J. G. Barclay, Lester Grabbe, Erich Gruen, Philip R. Davies and many others. 

perhaps you should the work of Jonathan Reed. 1st century palestine was extremely conservative. ever wonder why there are no coins minted in 1st century palestine showing a human face?

Because they were under the Dinarii you idiot.

Quote:
it's because of Roman sensativity to the Jews' observance of the 2nd commandment.

How does that not make the Hellenized?  There are still papyri found everywhere composed in Greek, Greek inscriptions, tomb stones containing Greek names - dating to the 1st century BCE.  This is hellenism. 

Quote:
have you also wondered why there are so few pork bones found in the excavation sites from 1st century palestine?

You really have no idea what Hellenism is, do you? 

Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Nope, you're right.  Still doesn't change the fact that some Christians thought of Jesus as a wand-wielding magician. 

the belief of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century christians is of no relavence. you remind me of the zeitgeist movie touting "born on Dec. 25th" as a parallel.

You remind me of an idiot who can't beyond what he reads.  There is no other evidence outside 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Christians, you fool! 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Simply put, Atheism,

Quote:

Simply put, Atheism, even if true, even if proven beyond doubt, is useless to me. Theism, even if proven to be bullshit (and to this day, no one has accomplished such an endeavor), is useful to me.

 

This is more or less what I had deduced from your earlier contributions. What it says in black and white is that you derive a "use" (whatever that might actually mean) from your subscription to a belief even when and if that belief is proven to be irrational. On that basis alone I would suggest your ability to ever adopt an atheistic view is impaired beyond repair, making your question at the start so hypothetical to be meaningless. Even more impaired, by your own admission, is your ability to become a person who prioritises rationality. So that answers your first question anyway.

 

Your responses to Rook Hawkins regarding the more historical aspects to the development of christian theology would be interesting if they were not always so rooted in (and phrased in) archaic superstitious terms themselves. Rook's approach to theists is normally to take their totems and, through verifiable research, show them up for what they are, which is almost invariably at odds with the theist's assumptions. Personally, as a method of convincing a theist they are wrong I have never found it to be effective since it encourages a lot of arguments conducted using the terminologies and imagery concocted by religionists themselves. Conducted as they are within the theist's "comfort zone" they are therefore prone to become circular arguments of assertion and counter-assertion. Rook has the intelligence, experience and research behind him to at least back his assertions up with convincing fact, but when did fact ever mean much to a deluded person? There are very interesting discussions to be had regarding the origins and development of christianity but they are not to be found in a theist/atheist debate and most certainly do not encourage the theist to employ critical thinking. The opposite in fact.

 

But as I said, good luck with whatever you get up to in the future. Despite your avowals to the contrary I suspect you are doing so with an impediment that I wouldn't care to bear, but hey - that's something christian theists are told to wear as a badge of honour, isn't it? So I'm sure you'll do ok.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
What do you get

Simply the truth, without the need of faith in that which has no evidence of existance. That's it that's all, it won't make you happier, or sad, it won't make you homicidal (unless you already have these tendencies, then your just using this as an excuse then), it just gives you the most realistic view of this life, that it is the only life we have, it is not a test to please a god. I can say that the belief in god from a single person has caused the death of others, I do not know your personal ideology of god, but I have seen the harm that the belief in god can cause, from plain ignorance to straightout hatred. If you are looking for personal gain, there is nothing to gain personally by dening the existance of a god, with the exception of accepting universe as it is, without gods. That this it, the only one life we get, maybe it will push you to better yourself, to make yourself happier, to surround yourself with people that accept you for you and not for your beliefs, I can say what it will do for you. I know that I cannot believe in a god because there is ZERO evidence that any god exists. If you want to delude yoursel of heaven with gold streets and mansions go ahead, but that is a waste of time. However the evidence against god is great, the evidence for a natural world is overwhelming, you can decide what you believe in....but belief in a god requires far more faith than simply accepting the truth. If you wish to live this way, that's your choice.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

You haven't given nearly enough information in this one post the determine in which ways your belief in God might be detrimental to your own well-being, the well-being of your friends and family, the development of your neighbourhood or your country, or the further development of society as a whole.

In essence, your responses to the perfectly valid answers have been predicated on this lack of information. In essence, you have said, "Ah, that might work in general, but that does not apply to me!" without indicating exactly what you believe, or in which ways you practice that belief.

So, there is no actual answers except those given, which you have failed to either address directly (relying instead on derision and insufferable arrogance) or to address indirectly, by providing data on your actual beliefs.

The general answer relies entirely on the answer to these questions:

1. Would you rather live in self-delusion, or understand the nature of reality?

2. Does your belief cause you to behave in a way that is detrimental to others?

3. If so, do you mind behaving in a way that is detrimental to others?

4. Does cognitive dissonance cause you physical discomfort?

As long as you don't mind your own self-delusion, you don't care how your self-delusion affects others, and the cognitive dissonance caused by the conflict of your self-delusion and reality does not cause you mental discomfort, you stand nothing to gain subjectively. Objectively, however, incorrect beliefs cause artificial obstacles when confronting reality, which may make certain decisions seem easier, when in fact your blinkered view of reality obscures the correct decision.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
I will respond to you just

I will respond to you just because I am bored out of my fucking mind right now.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

Rook, perhaps when I have the energy to deal with you endless string of red herrings, strawmen, and appeals to authority I will do so, but your arguments for pagan influence on Christianity are probably a lot more worthwhile.

Translation: "I just got pwnt by Rook Hawkins"

ROFL.

do you hear that sound? is that the sound of all your credibility going out the window? again, Rook, you incessantly made use of logical fallacies in your other post and I do not have the energy to deal with them knowing that you will be unable to understand why they are fallacious.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Seriously?  Pick up any academic book on catacomb art, sarcophagi inscriptions and sculptures, early paintings, etc...  Here's one for your benefit.

Catacomb art depicting Jesus raising Lazarus with a wand.  2nd Cent. CE

Another one, Byzantine.

and these are where? oh, right, not 1st century palestine palestine but in pagan areas like Byzantium, Rome, Greece, and post 2nd-temple palestine amirite?

Quite the contrary, we find nothing at all of Jesus in the first century.  Not in Rome, Palestine, not anywhere.  How fitting to annihilate your point all together.  Apparently only later Christians felt obligation to actually depict Jesus, and often his appearance changed depending on who was doing the work.

your point? I never said that we find art of Jesus in 1st century palestine. My point was the depictions of Jesus with a wand in those areas I mentioned (Rome, Greece, Byzantium, post-2nd temple palestine) are of no relavence given that pagan religion was rampant and Christians competed with art (or tried to combine some aspects of Greek philosophy with Christianity)

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Depicted scene of the raising of Lazarus from a Roman sarcophagus, 3rd Cent. CE.

There are many, many others. 

given that Christians would compete with art, this should hardly strike you as a surprise.

Still doesn't change a thing about how Jesus was portrayed and looked at.

the fact that Christians would compete with art relegates your point to one being of absolutely no relavence.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
FALSE!  Gymnasiums and Hellenistic places of worship have been uncovered all over Palestine. 

none of them (places of worship) 1st century BCE or CE.

Yeah no shit, because they were occupied by Romans not Greeks during that period, idiot.  You said "hellenized" not "romanized".  What a twit you are.

*facepalm* its not like Greek influence just went away after the Romans took over. they still spoke greek. secondly, Romans in that time were likewise hellenized. ever wonder why so many Roman gods are just Greek gods with a new name?

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
again, my point was Jews became more conservative in their beliefs after the maccabean revolt.

Yet somehow all four Maccabees are written in Greek, circulated in Greek, and were discussed in Greek.  And yet Jews still wrote and acted Greek and took on Greek names.  Hmm, and funny how we have a whole library from Jerusalem sitting in Qumran filled with Judeo-Hellenistic literature.  Gee, sounds like Hellenism to me.  Perhaps you just don't know what the hell "Hellenism" is. 

perhaps I should have elaborated more because you were unable to understand my larger argument. In terms of religious belief and observance, the Jews became more conservative after the Maccabean revolt and before the destruction of the Temple. Why you were unable to string this much together is beyond me. Now as Eddy, Boyd, and Reed noted, Hellenization throughout the whole of the east just a new superficial veneer.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Additionally, new studies in socio-cultural jewishness during the Hellenistic period refute this position.  Even if Hellenism had somehow remained aloof in Jewish culture during the third century BCE (even with the huge Hellenistic sites, including many metropoleis), it was most certainly instilled in society by the 2nd century BCE.  No scholar that I have read or know would ever make such a claim as you have.  You need to read recent studies done by Louis Feldman, John J. G. Barclay, Lester Grabbe, Erich Gruen, Philip R. Davies and many others. 

perhaps you should the work of Jonathan Reed. 1st century palestine was extremely conservative. ever wonder why there are no coins minted in 1st century palestine showing a human face?

Because they were under the Dinarii you idiot.

you are aware that the denarius had human portraits on their faces right?

However, in Palestine, no coins with human portraits were minted. The scarcity of pork bones in 1st century palestinian excavation sites only serves to reinforce my point that Hellenization around the World was a superficial veneer and that the Jews of Palestine only became more conservative in their religious beliefs and observances.

Quote:
it's because of Roman sensativity to the Jews' observance of the 2nd commandment.

How does that not make the Hellenized?  There are still papyri found everywhere composed in Greek, Greek inscriptions, tomb stones containing Greek names - dating to the 1st century BCE.  This is hellenism. 

again, you have missed my point. skeptical scholars (like Crossan) propose that Hellenzation was very thorough and included a shift in religious practice. The 2 observations I listed however contradict this point and only strengthen the case against religious syncretism in 1st century palestine.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
have you also wondered why there are so few pork bones found in the excavation sites from 1st century palestine?

You really have no idea what Hellenism is, do you? 

Hellenization was the shifting of a culture to a more greek-oriented culture. the lack of pork bones suggests that the jews of that period, in contrast to those who claim that the Jews were open to religious syncretism, still observed dietary laws layed down in the Old Testament.

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Quote:
Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Nope, you're right.  Still doesn't change the fact that some Christians thought of Jesus as a wand-wielding magician. 

the belief of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century christians is of no relavence. you remind me of the zeitgeist movie touting "born on Dec. 25th" as a parallel.

You remind me of an idiot who can't beyond what he reads.  There is no other evidence outside 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century Christians, you fool! 

*facepalm* you have missed my point entirely. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century christians would have syncretised Christianity with the pagan philosophies and religions.

 

however, I should remind you that very nearly the entirety of the NT was written in the 1st century

(though I would like to see your take on Acts' silence on the deaths of Peter, Paul, or James, and its silence on the neronian persecution of Christians, or its silence on the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. I would also like to hear your thoughts on the author's claim to companionship with Paul)

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


FreeThinker2012
Posts: 45
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote: Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

As a former Christian, my ONLY incentive to believe/obey/repent was fear of eternal torment in hell. Through much online research from many wonderful sites, including but not limited to: www.godisimaginary.com, www.SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com, www.EvilBible.com, www.TalkOrigins.org, www.Infidels.org, http://ExChristian.net, www.GodlessGeeks.com, www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm, [and this site (of course)],
I was able to examine these sites carefully. I've ALWAYS struggled w/ sin & doubts especially when I was a Christian.
If you don't have the courage to check out those sites & try to keep an open mind about it, then you'll always have a fear of God/hell.
So, getting to your question, I believe you have A LOT to gain by not believing! You can pretty much rule out an everlasting lake of fire that you won't be winding up in in the afterlife. That's the good news!
Heaven never really sounded that fun to me either (worshipping god for centillions of years & then some). Wouldn't God & you get bored of all that worshipping somewhere down the line? If you were God, would you want to be worshiped for all eternity?
To me, no sane or humble male/female would wish to be worshipped for all eternity. Eventually, they would exuse the worshippers from their 'duty' of worshipping (I know I would!)

As an unrelated sidenote: if you were God, would you have had NO OTHER alternative then to send a worldwide flood & kill innocent babies, animals, perfectly good vegetation/edibles? If god is so capable of miracles, why couldn't he have just rescued those innocent animals/babies etc. from the flood telekinetically?!!
My advice: never stop questioning things (it's not a weakness as many christians would have you believe). Keep up the research as well!

Jesus didn't ride a donkey don't ya know, he rode an Apotasaurus!
www.flickr.com/photos/58362611@N00/431306643/


FreeThinker2012
Posts: 45
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
More cool websites that I

More cool websites that I recommend are:
www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/questions_for_god.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Questions-Your-Pastor-Will-Hate&id=103223 [this site is written by a former pastor]

Check out Sam Harris, Dan Barker (a former Christian), Dawkins, D. Dennett, C. Hitchens, T. Drange, Michael Martin, Richard Carrier, & others.

Jesus didn't ride a donkey don't ya know, he rode an Apotasaurus!
www.flickr.com/photos/58362611@N00/431306643/


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
I am, once again, compelled

I am, once again, compelled to respond to this post as it was civil and did not aim to mock me or my position.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
As a former Christian, my ONLY incentive to believe/obey/repent was fear of eternal torment in hell.

that was once my only incentive as well, but I learned more about hell and discovered that is a place of shame, not of physical torment. Afterwords I began to research the arguments for Christianity from scholars like Craig, Licona, Habermas, Bauckham, Boyd, Eddy, Bruce, or Wright and found them to be, well, compelling.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
Through much online research from many wonderful sites, including but not limited to: www.godisimaginary.com, www.SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com, www.EvilBible.com, www.TalkOrigins.org, www.Infidels.org, http://ExChristian.net, www.GodlessGeeks.com, www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm, [and this site (of course)],

there is but one website you listed which is credible (that being talk.origins). the other websites you listed do not even begin to approach any semblance of credibility or scholarship.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
I was able to examine these sites carefully. I've ALWAYS struggled w/ sin & doubts especially when I was a Christian.

this sort of reinforces my sentiments against the church at large. The Church in America seems to assume that people are willing to believe in something just so long as lots of other people believe it too. Those days are long gone, and the church is still not trying to teach church history or apologetics.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
If you don't have the courage to check out those sites & try to keep an open mind about it, then you'll always have a fear of God/hell.

I don't believe out of fear. I have however checked out those websites arguing against God (I've never seen talk.origins argue against the existence of God) and have found them to be nothing more than ridiculous appeals to emotion. That is one characteristic of new atheism, most argumetns against the existence of God are emotional appeals.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
So, getting to your question, I believe you have A LOT to gain by not believing! You can pretty much rule out an everlasting lake of fire that you won't be winding up in in the afterlife. That's the good news! Heaven never really sounded that fun to me either (worshipping god for centillions of years & then some). Wouldn't God & you get bored of all that worshipping somewhere down the line?

well, no. but you think they would get bored serving God.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
If you were God, would you want to be worshiped for all eternity?

that's not so bad, having billions and billions of conscious entities serving you.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
To me, no sane or humble male/female would wish to be worshipped for all eternity. Eventually, they would exuse the worshippers from their 'duty' of worshipping (I know I would!) As an unrelated sidenote: if you were God, would you have had NO OTHER alternative then to send a worldwide flood & kill innocent babies, animals, perfectly good vegetation/edibles? If god is so capable of miracles, why couldn't he have just rescued those innocent animals/babies etc. from the flood telekinetically?!! My advice: never stop questioning things (it's not a weakness as many christians would have you believe). Keep up the research as well!
well thankfully I don't believe in a global flood.

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


FreeThinker2012
Posts: 45
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:I am, once

mig_killer2 wrote:

I am, once again, compelled to respond to this post as it was civil and did not aim to mock me or my position.

 

that was once my only incentive as well, but I learned more about hell and discovered that is a place of shame, not of physical torment. Afterwords I began to research the arguments for Christianity from scholars like Craig, Licona, Habermas, Bauckham, Boyd, Eddy, Bruce, or Wright and found them to be, well, compelling.

Interesting. I'm assuming you're a Christian based on the above people mentioned.  So, basically YOU decide which parts of the bible are true & which parts of the bible are false, but still presumably call it the complete inerrant word of God?

Quote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
Through much online research from many wonderful sites, including but not limited to: www.godisimaginary.com, www.SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com, www.EvilBible.com, www.TalkOrigins.org, www.Infidels.org, http://ExChristian.net, www.GodlessGeeks.com, www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm, [and this site (of course)],

there is but one website you listed which is credible (that being talk.origins). the other websites you listed do not even begin to approach any semblance of credibility or scholarship.

I doubt very seriously that you had the time (we're only talking about an hour or so since I wrote this to you last) to check out ALL of these sites in their entirety!! 

Quote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
I was able to examine these sites carefully. I've ALWAYS struggled w/ sin & doubts especially when I was a Christian.

this sort of reinforces my sentiments against the church at large. The Church in America seems to assume that people are willing to believe in something just so long as lots of other people believe it too. Those days are long gone, and the church is still not trying to teach church history or apologetics.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
If you don't have the courage to check out those sites & try to keep an open mind about it, then you'll always have a fear of God/hell.

I don't believe out of fear. I have however checked out those websites arguing against God (I've never seen talk.origins argue against the existence of God) and have found them to be nothing more than ridiculous appeals to emotion. That is one characteristic of new atheism, most argumetns against the existence of God are emotional appeals.

Appeals to emotion?!  And you honestly think that religion isn't based on appeals to emotion?! Give me a fuckin' break!!

Quote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
So, getting to your question, I believe you have A LOT to gain by not believing! You can pretty much rule out an everlasting lake of fire that you won't be winding up in in the afterlife. That's the good news! Heaven never really sounded that fun to me either (worshipping god for centillions of years & then some). Wouldn't God & you get bored of all that worshipping somewhere down the line?

well, no. but you think they would get bored serving God.

 

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
If you were God, would you want to be worshiped for all eternity?

that's not so bad, having billions and billions of conscious entities serving you.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
To me, no sane or humble male/female would wish to be worshipped for all eternity. Eventually, they would exuse the worshippers from their 'duty' of worshipping (I know I would!) As an unrelated sidenote: if you were God, would you have had NO OTHER alternative then to send a worldwide flood & kill innocent babies, animals, perfectly good vegetation/edibles? If god is so capable of miracles, why couldn't he have just rescued those innocent animals/babies etc. from the flood telekinetically?!! My advice: never stop questioning things (it's not a weakness as many christians would have you believe). Keep up the research as well!

well thankfully I don't believe in a global flood.

Once again, YOU decide which parts of the bible are true & which parts of the bible are false, but still presumably call it the complete inerrant word of God. How interesting!!

{fixed-aiia}

Jesus didn't ride a donkey don't ya know, he rode an Apotasaurus!
www.flickr.com/photos/58362611@N00/431306643/


mig_killer2
Theist
Posts: 70
Joined: 2008-06-16
User is offlineOffline
thank you for being civil

thank you for being civil with me. that's more than I can say for Rook Hawkins.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:

mig_killer2 wrote:

I am, once again, compelled to respond to this post as it was civil and did not aim to mock me or my position.

 

that was once my only incentive as well, but I learned more about hell and discovered that is a place of shame, not of physical torment. Afterwords I began to research the arguments for Christianity from scholars like Craig, Licona, Habermas, Bauckham, Boyd, Eddy, Bruce, or Wright and found them to be, well, compelling.

Interesting. I'm assuming you're a Christian based on the above people mentioned.  So, basically YOU decide which parts of the bible are true & which parts of the bible are false, but still presumably call it the complete inerrant word of God?

who said anything about the bible being the inerrant word of God? could you quote me saying that the bible is inerrant?

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
Quote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
Through much online research from many wonderful sites, including but not limited to: www.godisimaginary.com, www.SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com, www.EvilBible.com, www.TalkOrigins.org, www.Infidels.org, http://ExChristian.net, www.GodlessGeeks.com, www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm, [and this site (of course)],

there is but one website you listed which is credible (that being talk.origins). the other websites you listed do not even begin to approach any semblance of credibility or scholarship.

I doubt very seriously that you had the time (we're only talking about an hour or so since I wrote this to you last) to check out ALL of these sites in their entirety!! 

in their entirety? have YOU even checked them out "In their entirety"? but I have been to those websites before, and they by and large rely on emotional appeals.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
Quote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
I was able to examine these sites carefully. I've ALWAYS struggled w/ sin & doubts especially when I was a Christian.

this sort of reinforces my sentiments against the church at large. The Church in America seems to assume that people are willing to believe in something just so long as lots of other people believe it too. Those days are long gone, and the church is still not trying to teach church history or apologetics.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
If you don't have the courage to check out those sites & try to keep an open mind about it, then you'll always have a fear of God/hell.

I don't believe out of fear. I have however checked out those websites arguing against God (I've never seen talk.origins argue against the existence of God) and have found them to be nothing more than ridiculous appeals to emotion. That is one characteristic of new atheism, most argumetns against the existence of God are emotional appeals.

Appeals to emotion?!  And you honestly think that religion isn't based on appeals to emotion?! Give me a fuckin' break!!

my religion certainly is not based on appeals to emotion. your websites however, especially godisimaginary and whatever websites that fucktard Mushfer Brains runs have nothing but emotional appeals.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
Quote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
So, getting to your question, I believe you have A LOT to gain by not believing! You can pretty much rule out an everlasting lake of fire that you won't be winding up in in the afterlife. That's the good news! Heaven never really sounded that fun to me either (worshipping god for centillions of years & then some). Wouldn't God & you get bored of all that worshipping somewhere down the line?

well, no. but you think they would get bored serving God.

 

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
If you were God, would you want to be worshiped for all eternity?

that's not so bad, having billions and billions of conscious entities serving you.

FreeThinker2012 wrote:
To me, no sane or humble male/female would wish to be worshipped for all eternity. Eventually, they would exuse the worshippers from their 'duty' of worshipping (I know I would!) As an unrelated sidenote: if you were God, would you have had NO OTHER alternative then to send a worldwide flood & kill innocent babies, animals, perfectly good vegetation/edibles? If god is so capable of miracles, why couldn't he have just rescued those innocent animals/babies etc. from the flood telekinetically?!! My advice: never stop questioning things (it's not a weakness as many christians would have you believe). Keep up the research as well!

well thankfully I don't believe in a global flood.

Once again, YOU decide which parts of the bible are true & which parts of the bible are false, but still presumably call it the complete inerrant word of God. How interesting!!

{fixed-aiia}

I never onced called the Bible "the inerrant word of God"

"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias


Sleestack
Sleestack's picture
Posts: 172
Joined: 2008-07-07
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Simply

mig_killer2 wrote:

Simply put, Atheism, even if true, even if proven beyond doubt, is useless to me.

How in the world can you prove or disprove atheism? Atheism is simply the disbelief in any god or gods. That's like asking someone to prove that they believe Derek Jeter is going to hit a home run in the 9th inning or proving you don't believe hamburgers taste good.

It's quite evident that you don't understand what the definition of atheism is or you are intentionaly skewing the meaning of it to fit your argument or maybe you are just using the wrong word.

 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2

mig_killer2 wrote:
FreeThinker2012 wrote:
mig_killer2 wrote:

that was once my only incentive as well, but I learned more about hell and discovered that is a place of shame, not of physical torment. Afterwords I began to research the arguments for Christianity from scholars like Craig, Licona, Habermas, Bauckham, Boyd, Eddy, Bruce, or Wright and found them to be, well, compelling.

Interesting. I'm assuming you're a Christian based on the above people mentioned.  So, basically YOU decide which parts of the bible are true & which parts of the bible are false, but still presumably call it the complete inerrant word of God?

who said anything about the bible being the inerrant word of God? could you quote me saying that the bible is inerrant?

FreeThinker2012 was asking how did you determined which parts are true and which are not.

Quote:

in their entirety? have YOU even checked them out "In their entirety"? but I have been to those websites before, and they by and large rely on emotional appeals.

Provide an example of this emotional appeal.

Quote:
my religion certainly is not based on appeals to emotion.

Then provide us with the facts on which you base your believe.

Quote:
I never onced called the Bible "the inerrant word of God"

Good.

mig_killer2 wrote:
well thankfully I don't believe in a global flood.

Somehow you've come the the same conclusion as most rational people; by whatever method you used to determine this, please apply this method to all of the bible.
 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2482
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:Let's for

mig_killer2 wrote:

Let's for the sake of argument assume that God does not exist.

 

what do I stand to gain by believing this?

You are apparently saying that it is OK for you to believe a delusion as long as you are happy.

mig_killer2 wrote:

If belief in God makes me happy (and it does BTW), and not believing in God gives me nothing, then why should I not believe in God?

Here is where you say it makes you happy.

mig_killer2 wrote:

Acceptance of a particular component of reality (the non-existence of God) DOES NOT BENEFIT me. Acceptance of a "delusion" (in this case, God) DOES NOT HARM ME, and at the same time BENEFITS ME.

This is where you say you are accepting a delusion as true. If this is the case, you should be aware that accepting delusions as real is a marker of possible schizophrenia. In this case what you would gain is a better life and mental health. It may also be a sign of a medical condition that could be treatable.

This applies in the case where it is certain that you are accepting a delusion as real in order to satisfy an inner need or to be as you say happy.

This is not to say you are in fact schizophrenic in the real world where you have concluded erroneously that God is real. In this case you have incorrectly made assumptions about certain assertions and have accepted them as real without hard evidence. Many have done this in our world on many levels. Eventually reality smacks you in the face and you discover the world is round and is not the center of the Universe.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


FreeThinker2012
Posts: 45
Joined: 2008-06-28
User is offlineOffline
mig_killer2 wrote:I am,

mig_killer2 wrote:
I never onced called the Bible "the inerrant word of God"

If you don't think that the bible is the inerrant word of god, then which sacred book do you believe in then?! If you believe parts of the bible are true & the Flood isn't (or the Genesis account), then you are picking & choosing. Who decides what is allegorical or true?

{improved if not accurate aiia}

Jesus didn't ride a donkey don't ya know, he rode an Apotasaurus!
www.flickr.com/photos/58362611@N00/431306643/