Why Pascal's Wager Sucks

Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Why Pascal's Wager Sucks

A friend forwarded a message received from a xian attempting to use Pascal's Wager. The reply is classic.

 

The message:

Quote:

Someday, you'll understand. I feel sorry for you. Just promise me one thing, IF you were to hypothetically end up burning in hell or something, don't curse the religious for not saving you int time. Just consider that if my beliefs are wrong, so what, I'm worm food or whatever, no big loss. But if you're wrong, you're screwed. But you still have tons of chances to get it. Believe it or not, God loves you and when you meet your maker, you'll remember this and regret not taking it seriously. Good luck on your road of life, maybe our paths will cross someday.

My friend's reply:

Quote:


Hey, Bud! Thanks for your thoughts. When you sent your notice of pity, it would have been a lot more helpful had you mentioned which God I should avoid being screwed by.

There’s Allah whom the Muslim vehemently deny is triune; who say that Jesus is just a prophet, who say your Bible has been corrupted and so on. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.answering-christianity.com
www.muslim-responses.com
http://www.islam-guide.com

Or, how about the Jews. They say that Jesus at best was a good (if not problematic) Jewish Rabbi, but not the Messiah and certainly not God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.jewsforjudaism.org
www.messiahtruth.com

Or, how about the Mormons who say that there are a multitude of gods and we can become one through acts like believing in their holy books and that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.farms.byu.edu
www.fairlds.org

Or, how about the Jehovah’s witnesses who deny the trinity also. They say that Jesus was just a man and that the holy spirit is Jehovah’s active force. They say he is not omnipresent, that we are annihilated and not condemned to Hell and that Jesus has already come secretly. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.elihubooks.com
www.jehovah.to/index.htm

Even the Roman Catholic Church, who while saying they have the same God as you, say also that you can by God’s grace (through the sacraments and other good works) earn salvation. They believe such go to Purgatory when they die and one should do nearly every act of worship toward Mary that you do to Jesus, just don’t call it worship. They give evidence from ancient history, science, archeology, Greek and Hebrew, Christian scholars, the early church fathers and the Bible itself to support their claim.

www.catholic.com
www.catholicapologetics.org
www.envoymagazine.com

It seems partner that “god” has “left you without a witness.” Anyway you slice it, you are just as screwed as I am! But don’t worry! Look at these passages:

Deuteronomy 20:10-17 "When you draw near a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if its answer to you is peace and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labour for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand you shall put all its male to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemy, which the Lord God has given to you. Thus you shall do to all the cities which are far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. In the cities of these people that the Lord your God gives you an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amoriotes, the Canaanites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded."

Deuteronomy 7:2 "and when the Lord your God gives then [the enemies] over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them..."

Numbers 31:7, 17 They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male…[Moses said to them] "... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him..."

I Samuel 15:1-3 And Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore hearken to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, `I will punish what Am'alek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Am'alek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

II Kings 2:23-24 He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out from the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

Looks like we didn’t have to worry about God being all that loving after all.

 

I hope that the Pascal Wagerer felt that bitch slap!

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I think of our cousin fish

I think of our cousin fish community's perception of what's beyond their water world, as I also look and wonder, in humbling realization of our shared dilemma of limitation, as we are all fish in a bowl .... where blind ignorant arrogance abounds.      


Heath Watts (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
re: well, just because there is

Do most people, especially believers in a religion, actually survey other religions to determine which is best? Your religion is typically determined by your geography, your familiy, and your culture. If you're born in India, there is an ~83% chance that you'll be Hindu. When do you suppose a Hindu child (or adult) will take the initiative to review the merits of Christianity, Islam, or for that matter, ancient Greek religious beliefs? In many of the planet's currently popular religions, conversion to another is punishable by death. That seems to be a great deterent for conversion. Children are typically brainwashed by their parents and the clergy of their respective religions to revere and fear a particular god. I've helped many people lose their god, and it's not easy. Pascal's Wager is a silly one that blemishes the name of Pascal.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
"The being we call god is

"The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy.  This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily.  Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven." - Nicholas Yee

 

So, as per Pascal's Wager, one should clearly be an Atheist just in case this belief is correct.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


stellar renegade
Posts: 18
Joined: 2009-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:All Abrahamic

Quote:
All Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Rastafari, Baha'i, and probably a few more) condemn you to hell for not believing and being bad.

How is Baha'i an Abrahamic religion?  They only give Abraham as one spiritual guide among many widespread figures.  I would hardly call that an 'Abrahamic religion.'

I don't know much about modern Judaism, but I do understand that the ancient form of the religion believed in a sort of underworld grave like many of the other ancients believed in.  They called it Sheol, or the pit, and everyone went to it in some form.

Christianity is unique from its father faith in that it gives more of a distinct contrast between two groups of people.  There are those who follow their conscience and live lives of love, and they will be judged and resurrected to new life in the age to come.  Then there are those who live lives filled with cruelty, perversion and hatred, and they will awaken to everlasting death.  But the difference lies not in mental understanding or belief, but in one's heart and actions.  This is clearly stated in Romans 2.

Now, many and perhaps most, people fall in between the two.  But this is why there will be a judgment, to separate the sheep from the goats.  In the meantime people will continue to learn and grow either in goodness or badness until the true revelation of good and evil is understood, at which point the choice will be made and the people will be compelled to one side or the other.  This is Christianity's basic teaching on this.

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Poe?  Anyone?  I'm having

Poe?  Anyone?  I'm having a hard time telling the difference anymore.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm going with no.

I'm going with no.

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


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Well, I suppose his other

Well, I suppose his other posts do seem sincere...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Since I and others had quite

Since I and others had quite effectively put this foolish wager in it's place (the graveyard) months ago, I haven't been looking in this topic much. Today I flipped through it quickly. And while I could probably spend 4 hours responding to every pascal-supporting post since my last one, only one really caught my attention enough to bother with.

Ghost wrote:

The task of religion is always to affect the way one lives his or her life on the planet Earth.

Many people do not make a religious commitment because they are waiting for an answer.  But chances are, the answer is not going to just come to you. 

 

Well it should. This is far too large and complex a scenario to be brought into blind, deaf, and dumb. If there is no answer coming, then there isn't an answer. Or god is such a complete asshole that he isn't worth worshipping in the first place. I suggest Lucifer is a better example to follow. Though he's an ass too. Meh. You're fucked EVERY way.

Ghost wrote:

  There will be many things that we will never be able to prove. 

I doubt that very much. The only way it seems even remotely likely is in the notion that we will destroy ourselves before long.

Ghost wrote:
At some point, you HAVE to make a leap of faith. 

No, you don't.

Ghost wrote:

So make that leap of faith because it is going to affect the way that you live.

For the worse. I will not be making your leap into fiction.

Ghost wrote:
  Do not wait until the answers come to you because you'll probably be dead before they do....

That's about when they'll come to you. Or at least they would, but you'll be dead and quite beyond learning anything. How unfortunate.

Ghost wrote:
 and you'll have died not living your life like you could have lived it. 

Good.

Ghost wrote:

What do you have to lose? 

A whole shitload. My respect. My self respect. My intelligence. My freedom. My money. My happiness. My friends. My family. My country. My species. All out the window if everyone were to bow to your demands. I will never follow the lies you were taught to believe.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Paulusgnome
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Out of the mouths of babes

"Many people do not make a religious commitment because they are waiting for an answer.  But chances are, the answer is not going to just come to you. 

 

Well it should...."

To put it one way, If God actually existed, that existence would be clear and obvious to all. It is NOT clear and obvious to all, so.....

 

 


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Awesome Response

Zaq wrote:

"The being we call god is merely a pawn working for a powerful and rational force in some far-off galaxy.  This force is trying to weed out people who are irrational by seeing who would be stupid enough to believe in his god illusion so easily.  Those that believe in this illusion, he will send to eternal damnation and he will deliver the rational beings, those who stoically refused to believe in a god, to heaven." - Nicholas Yee

 

So, as per Pascal's Wager, one should clearly be an Atheist just in case this belief is correct.

 

The strongest refutation of Pascal's Wager I have ever seen, and I plan to use it from now on.

 

Tough I once created powerful refutation using a combination of game theory and the second law of thermodynamics to show that expected payoff was equal in all cases, including the atheist's case.  Everyone I told it too denied the application of thermodynamics to heaven and hell...

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Dirty Mean S.O.D
Dirty Mean S.O.D's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-27
User is offlineOffline
Pascal, that ole rascal.

Pascal has a good point, but it doesn't mean much. However, he is calling out all non believers.  Although there is no truth in chance, there is an underlying truth that can be seen from it. Simply that no man in his right mind should refute God so readily.

   So why are atheists doing exactly that? I can only suspect that it is something outside of persuing truth. I think any man who really is looking for answers might see the deception in "no faith". It means your nothing. And if you don't feel like nothing, then the best place to look would be in God, who would best explain what you really feel. 

   But if you do choose to deliberatelly refute the Creator of the universe, there is only one way to do it. And that is through dust science. There is also only one way to justify it. And that is because you are a soldier of truth. How can you be a soldier of truth? Through evidence of course.  How can evidence explain my belief of nothing? . By humbly confessing that you don't know the answers to everything, and your ok with that because your a truth soldier, not a fairy tale fanatic.  How can you get away with hiding your soul? Other dust scientists telling you that you are a truth soldier. Its a viscious cycle of lies.

    Now that takes a lot of digging to get you out of that mess. think of all the atheist friends you made.. So the only thing that can be done is to keep on finding answers to your pre-conditioned assumptions. Any time a theist comes by to knock your wall down, you better give him a mouth full  of dust science to show how little he knows. This same argument can go for anyone who makes false assumptions, that is why there is a word called religion.  Religion and atheism seem to have similar motives, none for which is truth oriented.

    So here comes little Pascal, giving you a wager. He says why be a "truth soldier" when  you don't have a uniform. Why pursue this when you can equally pursue that.   I think his intentions were fine indeed.  If I'm not mistaken, Pascal put a disclaimer on his wager by saying there is no spiritual value in his binary wager. So perhaps his wager was just a neat observation that made undecisive people veer towards the truth. 

Moral of the Story

Pascal the Rascal has rolled the dice. He threw cheese towards the theist for all the undecisive mice. The cheese wouldn't last for eternity, but the truth that did was not far from the cheese.

 

Jesus Christ should be the only one to trust. Don't trust me. for the love of everything that is good in this world, dont trust me.  

 


Dirty Mean S.O.D
Dirty Mean S.O.D's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-27
User is offlineOffline
oops

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It looks like my grass needs to be cut lol. Sorry. I guess you can't read my powerful wise first paragraph. Thats ok there will be plenty more my friends. Plenty more.


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Why not- I'm sort of bored

Why not- I'm sort of bored and feel like getting a bit aggressive- going over the extra-Biblical 'proofs' of Jesus' existence does that to me.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

Pascal has a good point, but it doesn't mean much.

No, he doesn't.

His wager assumes a binary: Pascal's God or nothing. It skips over the possibility that there are, say, lots of gods who are competing for humanity's worship, that there's one god but it's the god of the Ophite Gnostics, that the Jews are right, that the Muslims are right... etc. These are competing claims that have dire consequences for the unbeliever. If you're going to look at the Wager, you at least have to consider ALL the options- not just the options that would have been known to a Renaissance humanist Deist like Blaise Pascal.

Quote:
However, he is calling out all non believers.  Although there is no truth in chance, there is an underlying truth that can be seen from it. Simply that no man in his right mind should refute God so readily.

No 'man' in his right mind who only believes that there is Pascal's God or nothing, yes. Again, Pascal missed a *few* of the options potentially open to his Wager.

Quote:
So why are atheists doing exactly that?

What, refusing to hold onto societal assumptions and incomplete arguments based on potentialities? I fail to see how that's an insult.

Quote:
I can only suspect that it is something outside of persuing truth.

.... Seriously? You're coming at me with neo-Platonic 'faith' with no evidence beyond personal claims and hearsay (what others have written or claimed to have seen) and you're calling *me* the one 'outside of persuing truth'? 

How about this: Religion, mysticism, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, has added NOTHING to the sum of human knowledge for HUNDREDS of years. Scientific and social advances have had to fly in the face of almost all religious authorities for centuries. It is thanks to science that I can lambast you for being so wrong-headed and feeble-brained about liking the fact that religion/spirituality/mysticism has been hanging around- like unto a parasite, in lots of cases- and can tell you that, if you want to talk about being outside of the 'persuit' (SP) of truth, you can look no further than the spiritual descendants of Blaise Pascal.

Quote:
I think any man who really is looking for answers might see the deception in "no faith". It means your nothing. And if you don't feel like nothing, then the best place to look would be in God, who would best explain what you really feel.

Oh my, where to begin. Well- let's begin at the beginning. I get the sense that you're trying for the 'everyone has faith' argument, but didn't quite get it out right. Let's start right now by saying this: So.... fucking... what. Yes, everyone has 'faith' that the sun will rise, that the earth won't stop rotating the sun and shatter into thousands of pieces, that we feel what we feel... blah blah.

That's a totally different thing than the faith you're talking about. You're talking about a faith in something that cannot be seen, measured, quantified, or even explained satisfactorially. The last bit essentially means you're making shit up- but you call it the 'mystery of God' and tell us that ends the discussion. When it comes to the other things- if you can show me something that can't be measured or quantified, not even indirectly (no, "Look around you" doesn't work, because ANY OTHER RELIGION can do exactly the same thing) THEN I'd say you at least have a starting case for the existence of some sort of god.

You're also confusing 'atheism' with 'nihilism,' which truly *is* belief in nothing. Additionally, you're making this illogical leap from nihilism, to saying that someone with 'absence of belief' is empty, to stating that god (your god, I suppose- to which a question arises, "Which god?" And don't say "The God," because that just makes you a monotheist) Lastly: God can't explain anything. God is silent. Meaning, at the very least, the deity or deities in charge here are indifferent.

Quote:
But if you do choose to deliberatelly refute the Creator of the universe, there is only one way to do it. And that is through dust science.

Ah, now we're getting to the crazy nougat at the core of your entertaining post. First point: Can't refute what wasn't proven in the first place. The 'creator' was simply assumed. Also: 'dust science'? Does that mean geology? If you're trying to say science is weak, I'd tell you 'good luck.' There are lots of people around here with all sorts of science knowledge; it's not even close to my field, so I'm not going to go into that.

Quote:
There is also only one way to justify it. And that is because you are a soldier of truth.

Now I've got it. Protestant. Probably Baptist, or, judging by the poor spelling and pseudo-military imagery, Pentecostal or evangelical of some sort.

Quote:
How can you be a soldier of truth? Through evidence of course.

Which your religion has given us in spades, right? Christianity has brought us all the medical advances, mechanical advances, expansion of knowledge? It *didn't* dominate until the mid-to-late 1800s, ruining the lives of anyone who didn't bow and scrape to the will of the religious groups in charge? There were no ecclesiastical courts, no highly public and powerful religious press? No?

Quote:
How can evidence explain my belief of nothing?

Not nihilism, remember? One must at least believe that one's senses are reasonably accurate (note that I didn't say 'completely accurate,' as that's impossible and a pointless quest anyway) to get anything done. YOUR religion, however, posits an existence that has no evidence; something we can't experience until we die- and then, conveniently, we get no messages from anyone from beyond... except, of course, in god's little PR book. Truly, god is miraculous.

Quote:
By humbly confessing that you don't know the answers to everything, and your ok with that because your a truth soldier, not a fairy tale fanatic.

You don't need to 'confess' anything. We all know we don't know anything; even as a species, we don't know much. But we don't need any god to tell us that. We only need to *learn* more- which is hard enough, when we're constantly on our knees, with some 'wise man' telling us that we need only pray to get god's 'revelation,' that actual inquiry is a sin, and that there's nothing to discover anyway- it's all a matter of revelation. Please excuse me if I'm not impressed.

Also- second sentence: Projection much?

Quote:
How can you get away with hiding your soul? Other dust scientists telling you that you are a truth soldier. Its a viscious cycle of lies.

The soul hides itself pretty good. There have been attempts by science to find the soul- which actually caused YOUR people to move the goalposts. Instead of figuring out where the 'seat of the soul' was, an obsession for centuries in the West, we now talk about the soul being unmeasurable since it's part of that mystical lands of elves and fairies- sorry, god, angels and demons- that we can't find until we die. Gosh, how convenient. Again- please excuse me if I'm not impressed.

Quote:
Now that takes a lot of digging to get you out of that mess.

All this projecting you're doing- a movie theater should hire you.

Quote:
think of all the atheist friends you made.. So the only thing that can be done is to keep on finding answers to your pre-conditioned assumptions.

Which would be true if A) Atheists congregated together a la religious folks in a self-reinforcing metaphorical echo chamber (some gather for social events, but I've seen few who gather like religious folks) and B) We had anything in common besides absence of a belief in a god of some sort. Neither are true, hence your point is flawed, severely.

It also assumes that we sequester ourselves away from theists. We don't. Some of us are very vocal about our beliefs, others are not, but I've never heard of any atheist shutting out old friends or family members because of their new beliefs. You're projecting again, dear grass.

Quote:
Any time a theist comes by to knock your wall down, you better give him a mouth full  of dust science to show how little he knows.

Oh, if ANYONE knocks my wall down- assuming I didn't get fair notice of the impending demolition by the authorities- they would be getting more than a 'mouth full of dust science.' I have no idea what this means anyway- please don't explain it to me, your explanation will probably just be more crazy talk.

Quote:
This same argument can go for anyone who makes false assumptions, that is why there is a word called religion.  Religion and atheism seem to have similar motives, none for which is truth oriented.

No, why there's a word called 'religion' is that someone came up with the idea of cashing in on the explanation of 'the gods did it.' And they made money, hand over fist, for ages. 'Atheism' is not a unified doctrine; it's the absence of belief in a god. Atheists, for the most part, end up where they are because of their search for truth. Things just don't add up with religion- any religion- or any spiritual belief, actually. It all comes down to 'god/the gods/faeries/angels/devils/daevas/yamas/rakshas/ghosts/spirits/elves did it.' When you ask for evidence, they inevitably fall back upon personal experience (useless as an objective measurement of the veracity of spiritual belief), miracles/magic (none of which are repeatable, hence, again, useless for truth purposes) or some book or another (all spiritual systems have their own books, though, each with competing claims- so we go back to 'where is your proof?') So who's being untruthful here?

Quote:
So here comes little Pascal, giving you a wager. He says why be a "truth soldier" when  you don't have a uniform. Why pursue this when you can equally pursue that.

And misses *lots* of possibilities. Giving us a false binary that's weighted heavily, and unfairly, to his side.

Quote:
I think his intentions were fine indeed.  If I'm not mistaken, Pascal put a disclaimer on his wager by saying there is no spiritual value in his binary wager. So perhaps his wager was just a neat observation that made undecisive people veer towards the truth.

Certainly, his intentions were good. But his logic was severely lacking- it's why Pascal's Wager isn't used in logic classes as an example of a good logical problem. Introducing a false binary of any kind immediately and irrevocably invalidates your argument, no matter how frivolously the argument-maker may frame his argument.

Quote:
Pascal the Rascal has rolled the dice. He threw cheese towards the theist for all the undecisive mice. The cheese wouldn't last for eternity, but the truth that did was not far from the cheese.

Not even close. His wager is flawed.

Quote:
Jesus Christ should be the only one to trust. Don't trust me. for the love of everything that is good in this world, dont trust me.

So I should trust in a 2000 year old Jewish zombie who can't even keep a promise (changing his own everlasting Law, not coming back when he said he would- within the lifetime of the Apostles) and curses fig trees that are out of season for not giving him figs?  Oh yea, that sounds like a real reliable guy. Count me in.

I'll say what I say to all Christians- If you're right, and the god of the Bible is THE god, I will GLADLY go to hell and curse his name for all eternity. The guy's an asshole, and, as a father (our 'heavenly' father) he should have a permanent court order that keeps him at least 500 feet away from us at all times; he's a TERRIBLE role model and doesn't love us, because he's offering us the free choice between eternal slavery (glorifying him in Heaven) or eternal suffering (in hell- though if you believe what Cathoiics believe, hell is merely the absence of god.... how that would affect us, when Catholic doctrine also says we can't know god that well anyway- hence, why care if he's not around? and when there's not really any evidence for god anyway, I don't know.)

Anyway- it's been fun, my little chewtoy. We should do this again some time.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:I

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

I think any man who really is looking for answers might see the deception in "no faith". It means your nothing. And if you don't feel like nothing, then the best place to look would be in God, who would best explain what you really feel.

I think any man who really is looking for answers might see the deception in "no pasta". It means your nothing. And if you don't feel like nothing, then the best place to look would be in FSM, who would best explain what you really feel.

Quote:
But if you do choose to deliberatelly refute the Creator of the universe, there is only one way to do it. And that is through dust science.

As opposed to water science?

Quote:
Religion and atheism seem to have similar motives, none for which is truth oriented.

Religion - Converting everyone to it's belief system or saving people or killing people.

Atheism - ????????  

Quote:
So perhaps his wager was just a neat observation that made undecisive people veer towards the truth.

So, basically, a fallacious, unjustified fear tactic

Quote:
Jesus Christ should be the only one to trust.

Why should I trust him and what does he say?

Quote:
Don't trust me. for the love of everything that is good in this world, dont trust me.
 

Okay.

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


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Re DirtyMean

Did you not read my post?  Pascal's wager doesn't even work in a theism > atheism context because of my post.  Pascal's wager can be used equally well as a PRO-ATHEISM argument.  Any argument that works just as well for you as against you gives you no ground.  Pascal's wager, in working identically for all religions AND FOR ATHEISM, is overall neutral.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Dirty Mean S.O.D
Dirty Mean S.O.D's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-27
User is offlineOffline
for monkey

You are one crazy monkey. And I like that. Two crazies refutring eachother. All we need is a roof over our head and we can call it a mental institution. Wrong. You have good points because I havent backed up my refuting with facts.  Fair enough. But it doesn't change anything but the fact that youve demonstrated a will to resist instead of a factual based conversation. We both are guilty my friend. If you want email me sometime and well tlk truth. [email protected].  The common difference between christians and atheist create seemingly impossible boundries to get by. Heres why. Forgive me if Im being too blunt. I was given truth. You weren't.  So you think Im lying , crazy, ignorant, and detrimental to society. Jealous? I don't think so. More or less you really need to hang out with the right crowd. Or else you will just marinate in lies. 

 

  Iv'e spoken to many atheists, and I have many atheist friends. My atheist friends ask me genuine questions becasue they know I'm not trying to attack their disbelief. Atheists who don't know me are readily offended and suddenly start making outlandish claims like I misspelled this word here and that word there.

But thats ok. thats what Im here for. To pick fights and maybe shine some light in the process.  Thanks for your response monkey, crazy type.  Your one of a kind.

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Probably not a good idea

 Probably not a good idea to have your email address in a post like that (if, indeed, that is your email address).

Also, "will to resist"? That's creepy. What truth were you given that we weren't? Did I not get a memo?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh man, this is hard to

Oh man, this is hard to read. Alright, here goes.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

You are one crazy monkey. And I like that. Two crazies refutring eachother.

Huh?

Quote:
All we need is a roof over our head and we can call it a mental institution. Wrong.

Uuuhh, what is wrong?

Quote:
You have good points because I havent backed up my refuting with facts.

You haven't..."backed up your refuting with facts?"

Quote:
Fair enough.

I don't see how... *aarrg rips hair out*

I want to respond to your post, but I can't understand it.

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


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
@butterbattle: I understand

@butterbattle: I understand your confusion. My chewtoy was referring to me.

S.O.D.: Your post is pure gold. And not in a good way.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

You are one crazy monkey. And I like that. Two crazies refutring eachother.

I would agree with you here- except all you started doing was throwing around crazy stuff about 'dust science' and making blanket statements about atheists. Science has several hundred years of reliable methodology and data. Atheism is a reasonable and logical conclusion drawn from the immense silence of supernatural beings directly to humanity (barring a few outliers- generally debunked or seen as insane nowadays), the scale of the universe versus the scale of the planet (though many 'believers' simply shift their focus from a geocentric world-view [remnants of it were still around until astronomers learned just how vast the universe is- and our knowledge about it has only grown, massively] to something akin to 'we're special because we're the only planet we know of with complex life,' or 'it's amazing that god made all this empty space- kinda hefty on the hydrogen and helium- and here we are, still special! Wow!), the number of living and non-living things that can harm or kill us versus the number that we can actually use (or god REALLY loves beetles and bacteria.... I mean, *LOVES* them), and the fact that the times in which the mythologies of the surviving religions (and, in fact, the dead ones as well) were written were times when humanity thought they were far more important than they were- hence, all the talking to gods, hence all the world is made just for humans, etc. 

All this makes atheism absolutely not 'crazy.' It makes it sane; it makes it reasonable.

Though if you're just referring to my final paragraph, I can understand why that may seem insane. I'm standing with Milton's Satan, though; send your links to your personal blog or preferred Christian Web site elsewhere, I am not interested in what you're selling- it is a revolting belief system rife with moral cowardice (you depend on what you think god wants, not enlightened self-interest or some sort of sense of reciprocity to figure out what's right), and egotism (the Abrahamic monotheist's cry of 'But I'm a sinner, we're all sinners' is the pathetic bleating of the masochist.) I know, had I been alive at the time and place, that I would have joined the Roman plenum in ridiculing and reviling your beliefs. I would have been on the wrong side of history, but I would have been right (want to read some *really* unpleasant stuff? Go dig up some of the so-called 'early Church fathers;' Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria are a good place to start.)

Quote:
All we need is a roof over our head and we can call it a mental institution.

You're already in the prison, my fellow primate. You just refuse to see you're inside; you're calling out to me but all I can see is someone saying I should join them in bondage.

Quote:
You have good points because I havent backed up my refuting with facts.  Fair enough. But it doesn't change anything but the fact that youve demonstrated a will to resist instead of a factual based conversation.

Not really. I've backed up my arguments re: Pascal's Wager with facts. Or at least with the very basics of logic. I will admit freely that I'm not the most logical person on the planet- but it takes a real wrong-headed person to think that Pascal's Wager makes any sense.

To repeat my argument (not even close to original, but the Wager's old too):

Pascal's Wager assumes a binary- Pascal's God or nothing. It begins with an erroneous assumption: One God or no God. This stacks the deck, so to speak, far in the favor of the Wager, because, yes, assuming that there is only one god, and that Pascal's right, we have nothing to lose. However, if Pascal is wrong- and not in the sense that the Wager says he's wrong; like say there are a bunch of gods, or Allah is the true god, or the Jews are right, or it's the Ophite Gnostics or the people who wrote the Vedas or the Zoroastrians, etc, etc.- then the claim is incomplete... These are all competing claims that Pascal did not, and could not, have known about. Hence, his logical problem is flawed from the start.

So please explain to me how my refutation of the Wager is not valid. I'm really curious as to where I went wrong.

Quote:
We both are guilty my friend. If you want email me sometime and well tlk truth. [email protected].

I'm only guilty of being a little pissy in my first reply to you, nothing more. And I gave the disclaimer at the top of the post. I'm already 'tlk'(ing [SP]) truth. No need to take it to e-mail. That's what this board is for, after all.

Quote:
The common difference between christians and atheist create seemingly impossible boundries to get by.

Not really. I see what you are- you're a neo-Platonist in denial. Now, now, I know what you're going to say- Christianity came from Judaism. Not quite. It tacked on Judaism because Judaism gave early Christianity the legitimacy it craved without it being beholden to the 'pagan' philosophies that were all over the place. The author of Mark most likely was a Hellenized Jew- but that's only one bit of the pre-100ish puzzle. The epistles have been LONG known as being written earlier, and if we compare the philosophy of Paul and his followers to the Jesus of Mark, we're left with a bit of a conundrum: What did God want with the Law anyway?

Paul says it doesn't matter and that we're saved by grace. Jesus says the Law does matter (while apparently conscientiously breaking it, which is beyond weird.) However, that doesn't really matter anyway: ALL the Jewish sources agree, the Law was for ALL TIME. What varied from time to time and place to place was whether or not it was for all people or whether those whom the Jews conquered had to convert; this is what happened with the people in Galille.

Going back to my earlier point about c. 100, that's a really important time. The gospel of Mark may have been around for about 30 years at that point, and the followers of Paul might have still been around (or maybe the remaining followers started to reformulate their beliefs about what 'the Christ' was). About that time, many Jewish rabbis of the Diaspora came together and denounced heretical Jewish sects- which meant, basically, the Essenes, the Markian Hellenistic Jews, and quite a few Messianic groups. This split was one thing that made Christianity Christianity, and which brought an about-face (at least somewhat) for early Christians on 'pagan' learning.

After that point, we see a lot of cribbing of Plotinus, rather a lot of outright stealing of Stoic moral philosophy (sans the rigor- who needs reflection and virtue when you've got faith and grace, right?) and some elements of earlier narratives creeping in to the latter gospels (such as the more extended tempting of Jesus in the desert story, lifted almost word for word from the story of Horus' temptation by Set).

Let me say, at this point, a bit about the Gnostics. According to 'mainstream' Christianity (oh you crazy Nicenes, you!) they attached themselves to 'true' Christianity and caused trouble by promulgating 'heretical' teachings and practices. That's not entirely true, however. Gnostics were pre-Christian, by several hundred years. BUT, they have no less a claim to being 'true' Christians than the amalgamated Mark/Paul group. In fact, there were some in leadership positions. Valentinius, for instance, who used his relatively greater wealth to build the foundations of the Vatican. He was passed over for the position of bishop, his followers denounced and slaughtered. Some thanks, yes?

The Gnostics were, for the most part, annihilated from history. Had it not been for the sheer dumb luck of the Nag Hammadi libarary finds, and the presentation of Jesus in the gospel of John, we would still be relying upon Plotinus and the Christian apologists for Gnostic beliefs. Which is somewhat like relying upon Aristotle for a fair assessment of Zeno or Democritus.

Quote:
Forgive me if Im being too blunt. I was given truth. You weren't.  So you think Im lying , crazy, ignorant, and detrimental to society. Jealous? I don't think so. More or less you really need to hang out with the right crowd. Or else you will just marinate in lies.

You are not forgiven. And you were not given truth. You were given hand-me-down stories that people have believed unquestioningly, upon pain of pariahdom (had to look that one up) or worse, which has strangled societies since the moment it became the official religion of the dominant Western state at that time, and which continues to reinforce these horrible ideas about the inherent worthlessness of human beings. I believe you are ignorant, and moderately crazy, but not lying. You believe what you believe. That means you are not a liar, only mistaken.

And I've seen your 'right crowd.' There are good Christians, but they are far and away the exception and not the rule; that goes for any and all denominations. I don't care about that. I don't care about if you're one of these new 'kinder, gentler' Christians who go on and on about Christ's love and forgiveness- your religion will rear its ugly head again, and all those who are kind and gentle and forgiving will be pushed aside or forced to acquiesce. Your religion- all religion- is dangerous precisely because it sets up a situation where this is possible.

Give someone the right weapons, and fill them with the idea that some sort of deity is on their side, and nothing good will come of it. I (and others) thus say: Toss it all out. Let religious belief die the death it should have died years ago; we're better off as a species without it.

Quote:
Iv'e spoken to many atheists, and I have many atheist friends.

And I'm surrounded by theists every day, and have theist friends. Your point?

Quote:
My atheist friends ask me genuine questions becasue they know I'm not trying to attack their disbelief. Atheists who don't know me are readily offended and suddenly start making outlandish claims like I misspelled this word here and that word there.

Let me make this clear: I am attacking BELIEFS, not PEOPLE. Which actually makes it harder- if I just made blanket statements about *all* Christians, or *all* Muslims or *all* Jews, I'd be dead wrong. Instead I have to look through the complicated mess of beliefs each religion has (usually Christianity, because that's what's all around me, for the most part), figure out which sub-set of belief I'm looking at, refute that, and watch the goal-posts move out the door and into the street. I can sit here for ages pointing out the history of the Christian church(es) and how, for instance, Apostilic descent is pure pseudo-historical bullshit, and then someone will come back with 'oh, I don't care about that- all that matters to me is that Jesus died for all our sins.' GAH!

I don't care what other atheists who don't know you think, and I am not offended. You do not offend me; your *beliefs* both sicken and sadden me, and the fact that you hold on to these patently illogical beliefs with no other 'evidence' than 'I had a personal experience,' 'a book told me it's true,' 'very wise men who know a lot about this book told me it's true,' or 'things look so ordered- there had to be something to order it; and this book I've got explains what the orderer is and what it wants me to do' really makes me feel sad.

I want you to see that, at the very least, if there is some sort of deity, that it, or they, at the very least are indifferent. There's just too much hydrogen in the universe (versus the stuff we even need to survive), and far too many harmful or deadly bacteria, plants, insects, arachnids, etc, here on Earth versus how many an even semi-benevolent god would 'give' us to believe in a god like the god of the Bible. (Or Bibles- 'whose Bible?' is always a good question to ask; Catholic? Lutheran? Some sort of eastern Orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox? Coptic?) Sure, you can say it's due to the Fall or some such, but that doesn't really make any sort of god that may be out there more just- it merely makes that god or gods arbitrary. If the deity or deities are arbitrary, they are at the least not worthy of worship, and perhaps even non-existent.

And now you've just gotten a peek into one of the threads of thought that brought me to where I am today. It's not even close to all of them, but it's one.

Quote:
But thats ok. thats what Im here for. To pick fights and maybe shine some light in the process.  Thanks for your response monkey, crazy type.  Your one of a kind.

Honestly (you can probably tell from my LONG post) I love a good intellectual scrap. Gets the blood flowing and the brain working. Sure sometimes I get really worked up and have to settle down by watching some comedy or doing some meditation (hey- partial materialist Buddhist, guilty as charged), but overall, I really like this sort of thing.

CM

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Gavagai wrote:Now, as I say,

Gavagai wrote:

Now, as I say, I have not reached any decisive conclusion on the strength of Pascal's wager. But atheists (and even theists) who wish to attack the wager should be more careful than they usually are; it's not obvious that the wager fails so easily. 

No, it still fails terribly. I could equally say, as did Marcus Aurelius, that if you live a good life you win regardless, because worshipping unjust gods would be silly. Just gods wouldn't care if you worshipped them.

Pascal's wager asks people to worship an unjust god out of fear.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
crazymonkie

crazymonkie wrote:

@butterbattle: I understand your confusion. My chewtoy was referring to me.

S.O.D.: Your post is pure gold. And not in a good way.

I love a good discussion, but at this point, I think a conversation with my cat would be more intellectually stimulating. 

 

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
You are one crazy monkey. And I like that. Two crazies refutring eachother. All we need is a roof over our head and we can call it a mental institution. Wrong. You have good points because I havent backed up my refuting with facts.  Fair enough. But it doesn't change anything but the fact that youve demonstrated a will to resist instead of a factual based conversation. We both are guilty my friend. If you want email me sometime and well tlk truth. [email protected].  The common difference between christians and atheist create seemingly impossible boundries to get by. Heres why. Forgive me if Im being too blunt. I was given truth. You weren't.  So you think Im lying , crazy, ignorant, and detrimental to society. Jealous? I don't think so. More or less you really need to hang out with the right crowd. Or else you will just marinate in lies. 

  Iv'e spoken to many atheists, and I have many atheist friends. My atheist friends ask me genuine questions becasue they know I'm not trying to attack their disbelief. Atheists who don't know me are readily offended and suddenly start making outlandish claims like I misspelled this word here and that word there.

But thats ok. thats what Im here for. To pick fights and maybe shine some light in the process.  Thanks for your response monkey, crazy type.  Your one of a kind.

 

Okay, since your entire post is a mishmash of insults, naked assertions, and meaningless drivel, I'll just ignore it and make my own comments.

#1

- Pascal's Wager contains no logical argument for God's existence. It encourages people to believe in God based on the premises that Christianity holds better consequences than atheism. Thus, it is an appeal to emotion.  

- Believing is a state, not a choice. Thus, Pascal's Wager cannot make people believe in God. It can only make people want to believe in God.

- Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy. It proposes a dilemma between Christianity and atheism, ignoring the thousands of other organized religions, as well as an infinite number of possible hypothetical belief systems. 

- The possible consequences for each choice in the dilemma are completely unjustified. Unless you presuppose the Christian worldview, an atheist is just likely to transcend to a "heaven" as a theist, and a theist is just as likely to be cast down to a "hell" as an atheist.

#2 

Why do you believe in God?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/5652

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


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

crazymonkie wrote:

@butterbattle: I understand your confusion. My chewtoy was referring to me.

S.O.D.: Your post is pure gold. And not in a good way.

I love a good discussion, but at this point, I think a conversation with my cat would be more intellectually stimulating.

Oh, it would be at that. Personally I'm replying due to a combination of wanting to say what I want to say, to be entertained (in one of those 'if it doesn't make me laugh, I think I'll cry' sort of ways), and just sheer stubborn cussedness (inherited that from my dad, and it looks like my daughter's got that now too). The next reply should be fun, I think- more digressions from the point of this thread... hell, SOD's first post was a massive digression- I apologize for the further digression; it just seemed to sort of go that way.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


Dirty Mean S.O.D
Dirty Mean S.O.D's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-27
User is offlineOffline
reply

what do I have what you don't?

a need for Jesus Christ.  That is all. Thats why Im given truth. I didn't really do anything spectacular like juggle 5 watermelons at the same time. No all you need to do is have a need for Him. But you dont need anything, right. You already have what you need.  


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:what

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

what do I have what you don't?

You've got grass. I don't have grass. I've actually never owned my own grass. So you do have that.

Quote:
a need for Jesus Christ.

I thought we all needed Jesus. Wasn't that why he came to earth in the first place, sacrificing himself to himself, suffering for a whole day (*gasp*) to be able to return to Heaven in glory?

Quote:
Thats why Im given truth.

We went over this in the last post.

Quote:
I didn't really do anything spectacular like juggle 5 watermelons at the same time.

Didn't ask you to. And I hope nobody else did. Though if you wanted to do it, and you taught yourself how, I'd say: Really good for you. No joke, you should put a video up on YouTube or go on tour. You could probably make quite a bit of money, and I know I'd pay to watch.

Quote:
No all you need to do is have a need for Him. But you dont need anything, right. You already have what you need.

No, I don't have all I need. Let's delve a bit into my personal life, shall we?

-I'm working through an MA program; I need to finish it (the thesis is about two years away, but it looms large in my mind anyway)

-I'm living with my parents for financial reasons; I would love to be able to live on my own, but can't

-I have a massive list of books I can't buy yet, and even if I could buy them, I wouldn't have time (see first bullet point for why)

 

So, yea: Everyone needs something. It's just that something, universally, is *not* Jesus. I don't need someone who came down to earth to right his own mistakes and act like I should be grateful for something I never asked him to do anyway. And I certainly don't need that same person making me feel like crap for doing the 'wrong' thing; nor do I want any sort of powerful being telling me my choice is between eternal suffering (or, if you're Catholic, eternal distance from him) or eternal bliss while constantly praising him. If those are the choices, I go with the latter; I didn't ask for his help, and I definitely didn't want him to do it in the ass-backwards way imaginable.

The trick to life is to figure out what we need, how we can get it, and why we need it. Beyond biological necessities, there are really few things we *all* need, but I can very safely say religious belief is not one of these things.

OrdinaryClay wrote:
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Nobody needs Jesus

Nobody needs Jesus specifically.

Maybe they have a need for some psychological support, which belief in some version of the Jesus narrative may meet. There are almost certainly a whole range of beliefs which would help to a similar extent, if they could accept them.

The idea of blood scrifice to appease the angry gods is an ancient theme, so it must provide some sort of psychological relief for a certain class of life anxiety, even in the re-jigged version we get in the Xian crucifiction story.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:what

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

what do I have what you don't?

Apparently, grass.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
a need for Jesus Christ.  That is all.

Well, as usual, everything you stated is frustratingly vague and meaningless. You definitely have to define "need" in this context for us to make any progress. After all, I thought everyone "needed" Christ; otherwise, we're going to burn in hell, right? Since that's clearly not what you're referring to, the only thing I can imagine you're implying is that you have some emotional need for Christ.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
Thats why Im given truth.

Oops. This completely destroys the interpretation that I just suggested. I can't comprehend any valid reason why only those with an emotional need for Christ would become Christians, except the admission that Christianity is a lie that attracts followers by playing with their emotions, but, somehow I doubt that's what you're saying. Unless it's a perfect example of fundamentalist compartmentalization.

Therefore, I now, once again, have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, ditto.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
I didn't really do anything spectacular like juggle 5 watermelons at the same time.

Nope, what you're doing is even more spectacular. You appear to be juggling mutually exclusive claims in your head at this very instant.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
No all you need to do is have a need for Him. But you dont need anything, right. You already have what you need.  

This isn't even coherent. No wonder I have such a hard time understanding you.

Again, with the way you're utilizing the term "need," you're going to have to clearly define it. I feel that if you actually attempted this, we're bound to find some fallacy of equivocation. After all, you typed, "But you dont need anything, right" and "You already have you need." If I already have what I need, it follows that there are things that I need, so this is inconsistent. Perhaps you meant that I don't need anything else. So, then, what it is that I need that I already have?

Furthermore, I suppose we can at least agree that "need" is a strong word, so it should be state, not a choice. As in, I "need" food to stay alive, but I don't "need" candy to stay alive. You could qualify with something like, "I "need" candy to satisfy my sweet tooth." That would probably suffice. Thus, you're actually opening a huge can of worms here. If you "need" Jesus for emotional aid, then you're not only hinting at the dishonest foundations of your worldview, but for anything that might satisfy the emotional cravings of any individual, it follows that the individual needs that thing.  

So, needing Christ is not something that I "need to do," unless there are unstated, premises here (probably falllacious). In fact, it is not something that I can do at all. I cannot choose to have an emotional need for Christ.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Nobody

BobSpence1 wrote:
Nobody needs Jesus specifically.

Obviously wrong, Bob. As stated above by a piece of sod, we all need Jesus. It logically also follows that you need Jesus. As do I, and especially all the people who are worshipping the wrong gods. Oh, when will all those wrong-god-worshipping bastards get it right? Clearly, Jesus was the god you were looking for. How did you get it so wrong?

As for you atheists, all you have to do is add the one god, and you'll be fine. Just the one. How hard is that? You guys don't even need to replace a god, you just need to pick one up!

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:what

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
what do I have what you don't?

A belief in an unobservable entity? Am I close?

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
a need for Jesus Christ.

Oh! Okay. Yeah, you got me there. I don't have that.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
That is all. Thats why Im given truth.

What, like ALL the truth? Is there a Higgs Boson? I'd really like to know. It's theorized and everything, but I'd like to know for sure, and since you have all the truth, I figure you know.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:
 No all you need to do is have a need for Him. But you dont need anything, right. You already have what you need.

Is this a Zen Koan? All you need is Jesus, but you don't need anything, but you have what you need?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:What, like

HisWillness wrote:

What, like ALL the truth? Is there a Higgs Boson? I'd really like to know. It's theorized and everything, but I'd like to know for sure, and since you have all the truth, I figure you know.

LOL Surely he must know... He can also answer all of our questions about QM.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:LOL

spike.barnett wrote:

LOL Surely he must know... He can also answer all of our questions about QM.

Like, fer sher! Oh, that we may be so knowledgeable.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:If he

Hambydammit wrote:

If he believes Christianity is a 50/50 proposition, then he needs to take a class in logic. 

You could have made a better argument than that. That is actually pretty shabby.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:I was

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

I was given truth.

If you look at the whole point of the book of Jobe, it really is a crack down by God himself on presumption of having "the truth", which by definition only God can really have. The only knowledge you can have is that you don't have "the truth". If this is not the knowledge you talk about, you might wanna look into that.

Dirty Mean S.O.D wrote:

Iv'e spoken to many atheists, and I have many atheist friends. My atheist friends ask me genuine questions becasue they know I'm not trying to attack their disbelief. Atheists who don't know me are readily offended and suddenly start making outlandish claims like I misspelled this word here and that word there.

But thats ok. thats what Im here for. To pick fights and maybe shine some light in the process.  Thanks for your response monkey, crazy type.  Your one of a kind. 

Most of that sounds nice, welcome to the forum Smiling

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Hambydammit

ZuS wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

If he believes Christianity is a 50/50 proposition, then he needs to take a class in logic. 

You could have made a better argument than that. That is actually pretty shabby.

It's not shabby, it's obviously true dependant on the first part of that sentence.  Hamby is only pointing out ignorance.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


sevins
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
This entire thread is just

This entire thread is just plain confusing

First off:

I don't get why the original post was supposedly such a "bitch slap" to the spam this non-chrisitian received from some born again christian.  The only thought I have is that it's the communities version of "you go get 'em girl!" 

All it really reads like is an encyclopedia of various religions/prophets/gods or a Bahai handbook (totally obscure joke there.  Eye-wink  If the intent was to shut them up, you probably didn't do that.

Second:

The other argument which seems to be winning by group-think in this thread is the following: "obviously pascal's wager is ridiculous since it must assume existence of one particular god.  So neener neener, we can come up with other gods and the more we come up with the more wrong you are."

By the mathematics of probability, let's say there are 9 possibilities for gods which exist and 1 possibility for the presence of no god.  Now, if you bet on the wrong god you are going to hell.  If you bet on the right god, you will be saved.

Therefore if you pick a god and say you believe in him/her- you have a 1/10th chance of not going to "hell".  If you pick the "no god" option you have a 0/10 chance of not going to hell. 

10% is greater than 0%, therefore, Pascals wager is still valid.  You can continue this line of thinking and add 100 gods, 1,000 gods, or 1 millon gods.  But even one milionth is greater than 0.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Only when using your faulty

Only when using your faulty formula. Also requires the assumptions that the god is:
A: Unforgiving.
B: Unmerciful.
C: Unaware or uncaring that its message has been polluted and unable or unwilling to fix it.
These criteria write off every religion on Earth which believes in mono-theistic tenets, reducing the probability of picking the right god to 0.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


sevins
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't know if the

I don't know if the above additions to the "formula" prove that the formula itself is invalid.

However, I'd certainly agree that if you make those assumintions and/or have those beliefs, in this case the new forumla ammounts to 0 for each of the choices.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum.sevins

Welcome to the forum.

sevins wrote:

This entire thread is just plain confusing

Of course. It's five pages long and spans more than two and a half years.

Quote:
Therefore if you pick a god and say you believe in him/her- you have a 1/10th chance of not going to "hell".  If you pick the "no god" option you have a 0/10 chance of not going to hell. 

10% is greater than 0%, therefore, Pascals wager is still valid.  You can continue this line of thinking and add 100 gods, 1,000 gods, or 1 millon gods.  But even one milionth is greater than 0.

I disagree.

Pascal's Wager is still invalid because you assumed that atheists cannot enter heaven; this is another hidden premise that the atheist has not agreed to. For example, what if the creator of the universe actually champions reason and created religion as a test to decide whether people go to heaven or hell? In this hypothetical scenario, the religious would go to hell and most atheists would go to heaven. Also, you cannot only count every established belief system concerning what happens after death, but every possible scenario, including those that have not even been imagined. This would add up to a nearly infinite number of possibilities. So, even if we disregard my first point, the choice would be more like zero out of infinity or a few integers out of infinity, a completely negligible disadvantage for the atheist. This would be like claiming that you're better off because you live in a universe where Quantum Mechanics is true while I don't, and thus, you have a chance of walking through the wall while I do not.        

Furthermore, Pascal's Wager is an appeal to consequences anyways; implying otherwise commits a logical fallacy. It is completely irrelevant to any realist, to anyone who would have taken the red pill in the Matrix because it doesn't actually support the existence of God in any way. It's more like a threat than an actual argument. Pascal's Wager can scare stupid people into wanting to believe in God. It can even scare them so much that they delude themselves into believing in God, but it establishes nothing.

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


sevins
Theist
Posts: 8
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:I

butterbattle wrote:

I disagree.

Pascal's Wager is still invalid because you assumed that atheists cannot enter heaven; this is another hidden premise that the atheist has not agreed to.

Right but this assumption was part of the postulate in the first place, right?  What I understood of wager was:

"I might go to hell if I don't believe in God.  But if I do believe in God, I might not go to hell".

Even though it's not obvious, there are assumptions in the above- namely that there is a higher than likely chance that people who do not believe in God will go to hell. 

In otherwords, you don't agree with the assumptions of this argument- and for the record neither do I!  This is a valid way of arguing against the entire validity of pascals wager (again, I also think it's BS for many of the same reasons you do).

I was mainly pointing out that many of the writers on this forum are using really naive methods of arguing against it.  My original comment was pointing out that the argument about 50/50 probabilities, which in their line of reasoning turns out to be 10/100 probabilities of a certain type of god existing, which doesn't invalidate the system of statements, it merely changes some variables in the same system of equations.

I'm not sure how you would argue against Pascal's Wager OTHER than to challenge the assumptions of the argument.  This is the way to go- adding in deities doesn't necessarily refute the original premises.  Which basically turns out to be a waste of time.

Again- my personal feelings on this matter are irelevant.  I haven't even stated if I believe in god(s) or not yet.  All that mattered to me in posting was pointing out a few possible logical flaws in arguing against this "wager".  For the record, I'll state again that I think the wager is not really all that convincing, and doesn't fit with my world view.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I didn't read all the

I didn't read all the responses, 5 pages of um, so maybe it has been said already, but I would simply have asked what if HE was wrong, the only life he had would have been lived as a lie.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Calvin (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Right to be Right!

I think in most part of being Atheist is that you're right in your own counts. If you truly do not believe in the  existence of God, God will not show up. In many countries there has been so many version of "God" and you would  probably discounted all these Gods because you believe that we are biologically appeared from nowehere billions of years ago to highly intellectual being as what you say. It's sad to know my billion year old great grandfather could be a frog but that's a different issue. Bottom line, as much you can try to disproof the existence of God, you can't proof either that God doesn't exist. So what do you do?

You set up a stage to challenge your own beliefs versus other other human's belief system where if "really" you want to seek the answer of God existence, all you need to do is close your eyes and ask Him,..directly. 

 

My auntie was a staunch buddhist but when she died, she saw Jesus instead. She saw her own soul being sucked out from her body and she went through a tunnel of light that led her to Christ. Her doctor confirmed her being brain and heart dead but she came back to life to share these testimonial. Another incident when I was in a night street and one "Bomoh" also known as a witch-man was trying to sell something and the next thing after he show his audience his so-call special medicine, he started chanting and I felt like in trance for a moment and my inner-spirit just told me to walk away fast. I can't explain that feeling...can you? If you want to experience this, then fly down to Thailand and take that journey. Whatever science can't proof, they discount! 

 

You know, I would have countless of argument on this but bottom line is this. I saw smart people like you and wonder, if we are the by-product of millions of years in making - why are we progressing so rapidly over the last 5000 years ago? From the pyramids 2000 B.C. to now, it amazes me that human has advance so incredible fast in just a couple of thousand years. So to say we have biologically evolved over millions years ago just because one man (Darwin) said so is ridiculously unreal because we have radically advance too fast. More weird is that scientist has discovered millions of galaxy but even today, not one scientist can proof one planet with life like ours. Question is that if we have evolved, shouldn't planets in older galaxy should evolved as well? Why just earth? Are Darwin's theory only applied to earth? Isn't it baffles you that only Earth has evolved? Shouldn't it baffles you more that so many millions of planet, they can't even find one human planet that resembles a perfect livable place like Earth? And even the strongest telescope that sees the window of universe hundred million light years away, we can't find one with creature living it. So why?

 

 

For me, I am a Christian in a Muslim Country and in my country, we are allow to choose which religion to be. I chose Christianity not because my cultural beliefs (because my dad's side are Buddhist) but because faith came to me when I have the desire to seek it. And it is so dangerous to quote people like Einstein, Darwin, Pascal because they are not right all the time. And the dimension of the universe like you see it may be 4 or 5th dimension but what if there is a dimension that breaks the law of physics and has spiritual realm. Look scientist are not so smart if not, aging would be a thing of a past. Can scientist reverse aging? Do they have a theory about that since they believe energy cannot be destroyed.

 

Unfortunately, there is no law to say you can't doubt the existence of God. That's where the faith comes in. Sure, we are the pathetic creatures who turns on the blind side. But when you go out there to proof that God does not exist, be sure to also proof how you exist because until today, ALL hypothetical and nothing Rational about that! 


Atheist Dave
Atheist Dave's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Pascal's Wager

For me, if I were on the fence and couldn't decide, the introduction of Pascal's Wager would make me reject Christianity because of it's coercive nature.


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: And the dimension of

Quote:
And the dimension of the universe like you see it may be 4 or 5th dimension but what if there is a dimension that breaks the law of physics and has spiritual realm.

I have not seen the 5th dimension, but I have heard them.  They sang "The Age of Aquarius".

The first dimension sang "What Condition My Condition Was In."

I can readily imagine hearing either song while reading this...

 

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote:What I find

Susan wrote:

What I find interesting is that those who buy into Pascal's Wager assume that a person can force him/herself to believe something they know is untrue.

 

I agree with this. There is no way you can possibly be saved (according to the bible's requirements for salvation) just in case.

I think it was on the Mummy movie that one of the guys had tons of religious paraphenalia (probably didn't spell that right), and he would pull one out at a time, and kiss a cross, then a star of David, then this, then that. It was funny, but that is exactly what Pascal would have us do. If you are going to be a Christian just in case, then you'd better be every other religion just in case too. Unless you believe Christianity is the one true religion, in which case you aren't using Pascal's wager anymore, you are a full-fledged Christian.

 

You can't believe in something as a precautionary measure. You either believe it because you believe it, or you don't believe it at all.

The only reason that can cause true belief, is that you are convinced something is true. It may take less or more to convince different people, but the convincing needs to happen for belief to even be a possibility.

 

I can honestly say I've never used Pascal's Wager as a motivation for someone to get saved in evangelism, or in debate or otherwise. It's ridiculous.

 

I can see how Pascal's Wager might be a good reason to look into Christianity. But it's not a reason to believe in Jesus Christ.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
MrE2Me wrote:I recently

MrE2Me wrote:

I recently watched this video, which retaliates with a Pascal's Wager of its own:

Quote:
On the other side of the coin, if there is no god, YOU have lost something by worshipping him. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with his other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavors, and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your "good news."

 

I thought this was both witty and wise. 

What else would we have been doing? Watching TV?  Smiling

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheist Dave wrote:For me,

Atheist Dave wrote:

For me, if I were on the fence and couldn't decide, the introduction of Pascal's Wager would make me reject Christianity because of it's coercive nature.

 

That is a pretty ridiculous reason to choose hell over heaven. Of course you don't believe in either place, but if you were truly on the fence, you would have to believe a little.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Pascal's Wager is dishonesty in a nutshell!

Pascal's Wager is one of the worst examples of religious minds clutching for straws when it comes to convincing those on the fence. The thought that a cosmic deity would be impressed by a mere mortal hedging their bets is ludicrous. I have had theists in debates try to pull the "wager" out from left field, thinking they had pulled their trump card. The sad thing is that they treated it like an unassailable assumption, and not the disingenuous con that it is. When asked WHICH religion to hedge your bets to, confused religious people usually answer with blank gazes or the religion they are a part of, of course. My biggest problem with the "wager" is that if you really believe some deity created you, including your reasoning faculties, why would this god wish you to cast them away and fall back on simple fear of the unknown to at least feign faith in it. Now because the "wager" is for people unsure of the existence of this or that deity, the "wager" is only useful to decide to feign faith or not, it can never answer the question in a person's mind. If anyone has actually been convinced by the "wager", then I really doubt that they are doing anything but pretending. If not pretending, then their fear of death convinced them to ignore all of the logical fallacies of the "wager" itself.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:Atheist Dave

Musicdude wrote:

Atheist Dave wrote:

For me, if I were on the fence and couldn't decide, the introduction of Pascal's Wager would make me reject Christianity because of it's coercive nature.

 

That is a pretty ridiculous reason to choose hell over heaven. Of course you don't believe in either place, but if you were truly on the fence, you would have to believe a little.

Maybe they just mean the nature of a theist pushing a 'loving' God who is threatening you with damnation shows a contradiction.

 

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


nkbearsnk
nkbearsnk's picture
Posts: 10
Joined: 2010-03-02
User is offlineOffline
sevins wrote: By the

sevins wrote:
 By the mathematics of probability, let's say there are 9 possibilities for gods which exist and 1 possibility for the presence of no god.  Now, if you bet on the wrong god you are going to hell.  If you bet on the right god, you will be saved.

Therefore if you pick a god and say you believe in him/her- you have a 1/10th chance of not going to "hell".  If you pick the "no god" option you have a 0/10 chance of not going to hell. 

10% is greater than 0%, therefore, Pascals wager is still valid.  You can continue this line of thinking and add 100 gods, 1,000 gods, or 1 millon gods.  But even one milionth is greater than 0.

 

Nice math work. One problem though........ 

If you pick the "no god option, you don't have a 0/10 chance of not going to hell. It would be 1/10....just like the rest. 

If there is no god, there is no hell or heaven. 

So if there is 9 gods and the no god option.........regardless if it is heaven or hell.........it is a 10% shot your right.....90% chance your wrong. 

 

Nice try though.....


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm old.....sorry.

kidvelvet wrote:

Quote:
And the dimension of the universe like you see it may be 4 or 5th dimension but what if there is a dimension that breaks the law of physics and has spiritual realm.

I have not seen the 5th dimension, but I have heard them.  They sang "The Age of Aquarius".

The first dimension sang "What Condition My Condition Was In."

I can readily imagine hearing either song while reading this...

 

 

 

               I love both songs you mentioned but  "What condition My condition was in." was recorded by 'Kenny Rogers & the First Edition'  Not dimension.

 

 

              Has for Blaise Pascal and his ninny-assed wager.  I wonder if he believes his omnipotent all-knowing  god is so easily fooled by such a pretence.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Calvin

Calvin wrote:

 

....

Unfortunately, there is no law to say you can't doubt the existence of God. That's where the faith comes in. Sure, we are the pathetic creatures who turns on the blind side. But when you go out there to proof that God does not exist, be sure to also proof how you exist because until today, ALL hypothetical and nothing Rational about that! 

 

That is a very nasty sentiment. Would you actually prefer that it was illegal to doubt the existence of God?

Obviously it is not possible to enforce any law regulating actual beliefs, only expressions of beliefs or lack thereof.

If we were required to disprove with certainty any of the infinite number of propositions that could be made about what could hypothetically exist, that would be an absurd situation.

Strict proofs of most things are not possible, but we can establish degrees of plausibility, likelihood, based in weighing up  whatever actual evidence we have.

God belief is purely hypothetical, ie, no actual evidence whereas our existence is as close to being proved as any proposition can be, one of the few wise things Rene Descartes said.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology