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.


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

Pascal's wager is also assuming that any actual God is necessarily 'good', and would not punish us anyway, or perhaps might actually reward people who used their 'God-given' reasoning poweres and expressed honest disbelief.

Pascal was one of the more reason-impaired of philosophers, which is saying a lot.

 

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


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Pascal's

BobSpence1 wrote:

Pascal's wager is also assuming that any actual God is necessarily 'good', and would not punish us anyway, or perhaps might actually reward people who used their 'God-given' reasoning poweres and expressed honest disbelief.

Pascal was one of the more reason-impaired of philosophers, which is saying a lot.

 

 

Is that such a large assumption?

Let's see.

If God exists, and tells us to obey His every whim.

If we obey His every whim, we at least have some chance of gaining His favor, whereas if we rebel against Him we lose whatever chance we had of gaining His favor, and His wrath becomes less of a possibility and more of a certainty. So the wager stands.

 

I disagree with the wager for other reasons.

Faith cannot be given as a precaution. There is only one reason for faith, and it is either genuine or fake. There is no in between.

So Pascal's Wager is a very good reason to look into Christianity (or any other religion for that matter), but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc.

 

And being a devout Christian would cover you for several beliefs actually. Any religion which tells you to be kind and good to your fellow man, Christianity also tells you that, so your odds go up.

"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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:BobSpence1

Musicdude wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Pascal's wager is also assuming that any actual God is necessarily 'good', and would not punish us anyway, or perhaps might actually reward people who used their 'God-given' reasoning poweres and expressed honest disbelief.

Pascal was one of the more reason-impaired of philosophers, which is saying a lot.

 

 

Is that such a large assumption?

Let's see.

If God exists, and tells us to obey His every whim.

If we obey His every whim, we at least have some chance of gaining His favor, whereas if we rebel against Him we lose whatever chance we had of gaining His favor, and His wrath becomes less of a possibility and more of a certainty. So the wager stands.

 

I disagree with the wager for other reasons.

Faith cannot be given as a precaution. There is only one reason for faith, and it is either genuine or fake. There is no in between.

So Pascal's Wager is a very good reason to look into Christianity (or any other religion for that matter), but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc.

 

And being a devout Christian would cover you for several beliefs actually. Any religion which tells you to be kind and good to your fellow man, Christianity also tells you that, so your odds go up.

Most gods, including the Christian God, are rather capricious bastards who enjoy changing their minds, ignoring and or fucking with people.  I think it is an unlikely assumption that a deity who could create the world as we know it is at all interested in the human concept of 'good'.

The point is Pascal assumes to know the desires and nature of God when there is clearly no way to know such a thing, unless you operate blindly under the assumption that whatever cultural religion you grew up with is true by default, and proceed to modify your concept of 'good' to meet the 'evidence' in your cultures popularly accepted religious stories.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Musicdude wrote:Is that such

Musicdude wrote:

Is that such a large assumption?

Yes, it's a huge assumption. Pascal's Wager contains perhaps a dozen absurdem quod non sequiturs. 

Quote:
Let's see.

If God exists,

- If a supernatural, immaterial being exists.

- If this being is omnipotent.

- If this being is omniscient.

- If there is absolute morality - if this being is omnibenevolent.

- If this being created this universe, including humans.

Quote:
and tells us to obey His every whim.

- If this being wants humans, specifically, to obey him.

Quote:
If we obey His every whim, we at least have some chance of gaining His favor, whereas if we rebel against Him we lose whatever chance we had of gaining His favor, and His wrath becomes less of a possibility and more of a certainty.

- If there is an afterlife.

- If this being will reward us in the afterlife if we obey him. If this being will punish us in the afterlife if we don't. 

- As part of the omnibevolence requirement, if this being is good even though it punishes people simply for not believing in Him (btw, if this being, despite being immaterial, is male).

Quote:
So the wager stands.

It is probably the worst argument for God ever conceived.

Quote:
So Pascal's Wager is a very good reason to look into Christianity

- If this being is the Christian God!

Quote:
(or any other religion for that matter), but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc.

Huh? Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism are not religions?

Pascal's Wager is an equally good reason to look into any afterlife belief that potentially includes a reward/punishment system, which would include Judaism and Islam. It would include anything anyone could imagine that fits the premises, including a God that rewards atheism. 

Quote:
And being a devout Christian would cover you for several beliefs actually. Any religion which tells you to be kind and good to your fellow man, Christianity also tells you that, so your odds go up.

Lol. Being a good person is not part of the wager. The wager is whether or not you believe in the Christian God. This is simply irrelevant; you don't have to be a Christian to be a good person anyways.

Also, it's a bit ironic that you would say that, since your own religion usually emphasizes belief over virtue.  

 

"He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not 
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the 
only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as 
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3

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


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Let's

butterbattle wrote:

Let's see.

If God exists,

- If a supernatural, immaterial being exists.

Why immaterial?

Quote:
- If this being is omnipotent.

Why omnipotent. He wouldn't have to be all-powerful, just more powerful than humanity.

Quote:
- If this being is omniscient.

Why? He wouldn't have to be all-knowing, just know more than we do.

Quote:
- If there is absolute morality - if this being is omnibenevolent.

Why absolute morality? It doesn't have to be absolute morality, just His personal preferences would suffice here, because He can enforce them.

And why omnibenevolent? Why not just basically a good guy? I mean, wouldn't any good person attempt to save someone who was dying?

Quote:
- If this being created this universe, including humans.

Ok.

Quote:
- If this being wants humans, specifically, to obey him.

Persons in positions of authority usually expect obedience. That's not a big assumption.

Quote:
- If there is an afterlife.

That's not an assumption than the idea that nothing happens when we die. The only people who know are unable to tell us.

Quote:
- If this being will reward us in the afterlife if we obey him. If this being will punish us in the afterlife if we don't. 

Well, I included that wager in my statement. Logic shows that leaders reward obedience and/or punish disobedience. Even those that don't reward obedience, still punish disobedience, so it's a perfectly logical assumption that we have a better chance of gaining God's favor if we are obedient.

Quote:
- As part of the omnibevolence requirement, if this being is good even though it punishes people simply for not believing in Him (btw, if this being, despite being immaterial, is male).

This is where you prove your lack of knowledge of the bible. God does not punish disbelief. He punishes transgressions against His perfect law. As do we humans when men break our established laws. So if you are implying God is wrong for this, then you must also assume that men are wrong for enforcing their laws.

Quote:
It is probably the worst argument for God ever conceived.

If it truly had all those requirement, I would agree with you. But it clearly doesn't.

Quote:
- If this being is the Christian God!

See below. I included other religions.

Quote:
Huh? Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism are not religions?

Yes, they are religions. And Pascal's wager is a good reason to look into any religion, including those.

Quote:
Pascal's Wager is an equally good reason to look into any afterlife belief that potentially includes a reward/punishment system, which would include Judaism and Islam. It would include anything anyone could imagine that fits the premises, including a God that rewards atheism. 

I know. I said that, in not so many words.

Quote:
Lol. Being a good person is not part of the wager. The wager is whether or not you believe in the Christian God. This is simply irrelevant; you don't have to be a Christian to be a good person anyways.

But if you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and follow His teaching, as a by-product you will be a good person, and that might be enough to get you into heaven according to other beliefs.

Quote:
Also, it's a bit ironic that you would say that, since your own religion usually emphasizes belief over virtue.  

Virtue naturally follows belief. One could argue that if there is no virtue, there was no belief. "Good trees produce good fruit."

 

Quote:
"He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not 
is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the 
only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

"And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as 
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3

It's because you sinned that you need to believe for salvation. If you never sinned you wouldn't need salvation.

It's like a man who jumps off a ship at sea, and is drowning. And another man throws him a life-jacket. But the drowning man refuses to put it on.

Would you say that he's drowning because he jumped off the ship.

Or would you say that he's drowning because he refuses to put on the life-jacket.

Both are true, aren't they?

"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


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

Musicdude wrote:
Why immaterial?

Okay, so it could be a material, supernatural being?

Quote:
Why omnipotent. He wouldn't have to be all-powerful, just more powerful than humanity.

Why? He wouldn't have to be all-knowing, just know more than we do.

You're right. He does not have to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent. That's simply how the argument is usually presented.

But, if you want.

- If this being is more powerful than humans.

- If this being knows more than humans.

This is slightly better, as it doesn't contain the extra assumptions that omnipotence and omnibenevolence are meaningful terms that a being can possibly possess.

Quote:
Why absolute morality? It doesn't have to be absolute morality, just His personal preferences would suffice here, because He can enforce them.

Right. This is how the argument is usually presented.

But, if you're saying that we should obey him even if he's not absolutely good, simply because he'll punish us if we don't, then you're illustrating a point I often make, which is that Pascal's Wager is more like a threat than an actual argument. It's completely an appeal to consequences.

Quote:
And why omnibenevolent? Why not just basically a good guy?

Okay, then.

- If this being is "basically a good guy."

But, why does he have to be a good guy at all? You said, "just His personal preferences would suffice here, because He can enforce them." Doesn't this imply that his goodness is inconsequential?

Quote:
I mean, wouldn't any good person attempt to save someone who was dying?

I don't see how that's relevant. 

Quote:
Persons in positions of authority usually expect obedience. That's not a big assumption.

Sure it is. You can't compare human rulers to some hypothetical being. Unless you want:

- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.

Quote:
That's not an assumption than the idea that nothing happens when we die. The only people who know are unable to tell us.

Oh, I beg to differ.

Consciousness is purely a product of physical states. All the evidence suggests that when we die, we're gone, just like any other animal.  

Quote:
Well, I included that wager in my statement. Logic shows that leaders reward obedience and/or punish disobedience. Even those that don't reward obedience, still punish disobedience, so it's a perfectly logical assumption that we have a better chance of gaining God's favor if we are obedient.

Again:

- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.

Quote:
This is where you prove your lack of knowledge of the bible. God does not punish disbelief. He punishes transgressions against His perfect law. As do we humans when men break our established laws. So if you are implying God is wrong for this, then you must also assume that men are wrong for enforcing their laws.

It doesn't make any difference. It's just a apologetics semantic game of exchanging punishment threats with positive reinforcement. There is no way to atone for sins except through belief, so all nonbelievers are punished. Nonbelief is effectively a transgression against his law. 

Men are wrong for enforcing unjust laws. To say that God's actions are good, you have to assume that his laws are just, and I don't think his are just. A much better way to atone for sins would be to simply do good things or be punished in the afterlife for a finite amount of time, not to cling to some arbitrary scapegoat.

Btw, if you talk about God's perfect law, then you must assume there is some inherent good that transcends God.

Quote:
Yes, they are religions. And Pascal's wager is a good reason to look into any religion, including those.

You said, "but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc." Is this just a typo?

Quote:
I know. I said that, in not so many words.

Oh, okay then. We might fundamentally in agreement on this.

Quote:
But if you believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and follow His teaching, as a by-product you will be a good person, and that might be enough to get you into heaven according to other beliefs.

Sure, but this would then be an argument for being a good person, not for subscribing to Christianity. 

Quote:
Virtue naturally follows belief. One could argue that if there is no virtue, there was no belief. "Good trees produce good fruit."

That's just bullshit. There are many people who believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that are not virtuous; cognitive dissonance is easy. They could even use the Bible to justify immoral acts. Unless you define a Christian as a good person, all you can do is pull an ad hoc. 

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


Musicdude
Theist
Musicdude's picture
Posts: 239
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:But,

butterbattle wrote:

But, if you're saying that we should obey him even if he's not absolutely good, simply because he'll punish us if we don't, then you're illustrating a point I often make, which is that Pascal's Wager is more like a threat than an actual argument. It's completely an appeal to consequences.

According to the bible, there are consequences for sin. And if you wish to forego those consequences you must play by His rules, and that rule is faith in Jesus Christ as savior, according to Christianity anyway.

Quote:
I don't see how that's relevant. 

Because with regard to Christian salvation, God is basically throwing us a life-jacket when we are drowning. Any descent person would do that, if it was in their power to do so. You don't have to be perfect to do something like that.

Quote:
Sure it is. You can't compare human rulers to some hypothetical being. Unless you want:

- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.

Typically atheists are the ones who try to say God is irrational because He doesn't fit our human model of what a Deity should be. I'm just trying to play by your rules here. God is certainly not human and not subject to the laws of human nature.

Quote:
Oh, I beg to differ.

Consciousness is purely a product of physical states. All the evidence suggests that when we die, we're gone, just like any other animal.  

But clearly in many other ways we are far above all other animals. So maybe the same rules don't apply to all of us. Prove to me that consciousness is a purely a product of physical states. Or give me a reference that proves it.

Quote:
- If God is analogous to a person, a human ruler.

What other example do we have at our disposal?

Quote:
It doesn't make any difference. It's just a apologetics semantic game of exchanging punishment threats with positive reinforcement. There is no way to atone for sins except through belief, so all nonbelievers are punished. Nonbelief is effectively a transgression against his law.

Yes, but all men have transgressed His law even if you don't count "unbelief" as a sin.

Quote:
Men are wrong for enforcing unjust laws. To say that God's actions are good, you have to assume that his laws are just, and I don't think his are just. A much better way to atone for sins would be to simply do good things or be punished in the afterlife for a finite amount of time, not to cling to some arbitrary scapegoat.

Much better according to you. But ask 50 different people, and you'll get 50 different answers. Maybe God's way is best, and we just can't comprehend it until we've experienced it.

Quote:
Btw, if you talk about God's perfect law, then you must assume there is some inherent good that transcends God.

Why? If God is perfect, why wouldn't his laws be perfect? But take "perfect" out of the equation if you want. Just say God's laws.

Quote:
You said, "but it's an invalid reason to become a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc." Is this just a typo?

It's a valid reason to consider any religion. But it's not a valid reason to join said religion. Kinda like a good commercial might be a good reason to test drive a car, but it's not a good reason to buy one. If you are smart, you will do some research on said car before buying, and the results of your research will either be the reason you by it, or the reason you don't.

Quote:
Sure, but this would then be an argument for being a good person, not for subscribing to Christianity. 

No, because just being a good person may cut it with other religions, but it doesn't cut it with Christianity. So if you believe in Jesus and as a result become a better person, you are covered under Christianity and other do-gooder religions. Whereas if you just do good, you are only covered under the do-gooder religions, but not Christianity.

Quote:
That's just bullshit. There are many people who believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost that are not virtuous; cognitive dissonance is easy. They could even use the Bible to justify immoral acts. Unless you define a Christian as a good person, all you can do is pull an ad hoc. 

And how can you prove that those supposed Christians actually have faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior? Becaue they said so? That doesn't really prove it. People can sometimes not even know what they believe or why.

Anyone can say they are a Christian, but that doesn't make it so. Christians are those who follow Christ. Christ did not commit immoral acts. If you do, then you're not following Christ, are you?

"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


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Read my account name and weep! :D

Just so you know, Christians have feelings, ideas, and opinions as well. We don't go around openly slandering what you believe (or don't). I'm proud to call myself a Christian, even in the face of opposition and atheism.

 

P.S.-- Atheism isn't real. You have to believe in something, like evolution, right? Awesome. You're a THEIST of evolution. Congratulations!

 

P.P.S-- IT'S CALLED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION FOR A REASON!!! IT'S MADE UP!!!

Child of God


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Just so you know, christians

Just so you know, christians only have feelings, since you guys appear to be devoid of reason. If you think christians don't go around slandering people, you clearly have no connection to reality.

 

PS. Atheism is the absence of theism. Conflating "belief" in evolution with religious thinking is a clear symptom you are thinking religiously. Congratulations on being like so many other morons who make that mistake.

 

PSS. Yes it is. Because it is a scientific theory. Not knowing the difference between a scientific theory and the colloquial use of the word "theory" is another typical mistake of morons.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:P.S.--

Child of God wrote:
P.S.-- Atheism isn't real. You have to believe in something, like evolution, right? Awesome. You're a THEIST of evolution. Congratulations!

Theism is belief in God, not just believing in anything. I don't believe in God; therefore, I'm an atheist.

Quote:
P.P.S-- IT'S CALLED THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION FOR A REASON!!! IT'S MADE UP!!!

A theory, in science, is defined as an explanation for a class of phenomena.    

 

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


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Christians who slander other people...

...are featured on TBN: people like Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn. (Google those names if you have to.) They're the main reason Christians have a bad name.

 

By the way, nice picture, #259. Yes, you all may think this statement just shot down my beliefs, but Christians have a sense of humor, too. Not the same as y'all's, but we have one.

Child of God


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Theism

 

 

Theism isn't belief in God, it's actually defined as 'belief in gods'. You have Romans and Greeks who are polytheistic, believing in many gods. Then there's just about everyone else (Besides RRS...) who are monotheistic, belief in only one god. For Christians and Jews, it's Yahweh. (Originally, God told Moses his name was spelled Yhwh, since the original Hebrew alphabet couldn't support vowels. Historians and writers later added 'a' and 'e', where we also get the TV channel A&E. The last eight words are a joke, just in case you couldn't comprehend that. Ba-dum-bum.)

 

Apparently, from what I've seen on this website, y'all tend to support the Islamic beliefs. So I take it y'all are theists of Islam, and you support and/or believe in Allah and Mohammed. Awesome. Enjoy worshipping a fake god. I'm gonna sit poolside sipping Holy-Ade in Heavenly Gardens.

Child of God


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Child of God

Child of God wrote:
Apparently, from what I've seen on this website, y'all tend to support the Islamic beliefs. So I take it y'all are theists of Islam, and you support and/or believe in Allah and Mohammed. Awesome. Enjoy worshipping a fake god. I'm gonna sit poolside sipping Holy-Ade in Heavenly Gardens.

That's pretty... stupid. You must have a severe problem with reading comprehension if you managed to get that impression off this site.


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

Child of God wrote:
Apparently, from what I've seen on this website, y'all tend to support the Islamic beliefs. So I take it y'all are theists of Islam, and you support and/or believe in Allah and Mohammed. Awesome. Enjoy worshipping a fake god. I'm gonna sit poolside sipping Holy-Ade in Heavenly Gardens.

Aww dammit! Yeah, y'alls got us. Atheists don't actually exist; we're Muslims.

Actually, all non-Christians are involved a secret conspiracy to undermine Jesus, because we know he's the one true savior, but I'm sure y'all already knew that. 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:Theism

Child of God wrote:

Theism isn't belief in God, it's actually defined as 'belief in gods'. You have Romans and Greeks who are polytheistic, believing in many gods. Then there's just about everyone else (Besides RRS...) who are monotheistic, belief in only one god. For Christians and Jews, it's Yahweh. (Originally, God told Moses his name was spelled Yhwh, since the original Hebrew alphabet couldn't support vowels. Historians and writers later added 'a' and 'e', where we also get the TV channel A&E. The last eight words are a joke, just in case you couldn't comprehend that. Ba-dum-bum.)

Apparently, from what I've seen on this website, y'all tend to support the Islamic beliefs. So I take it y'all are theists of Islam, and you support and/or believe in Allah and Mohammed. Awesome. Enjoy worshipping a fake god. I'm gonna sit poolside sipping Holy-Ade in Heavenly Gardens.

The dictionary app on my computer, which uses the New Oxford American Dictionary, defines Theism as

"belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures. Compare with deism ."

Islamic beliefs? Are you kidding?? We generally regard it as even worse than Christianity, but we don't have Muslims coming on here anywhere near as often as Christians.

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


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Reading Comprehension

Okay then, KSMB: If I fail at reading comprehension, how come I fit into the SAT's 95th percentile in the reading comprehension test?

Child of God


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
So what's the purpose of atheism? Just a facade?

Thank you so much, ButterBattle, for bringing me to my next point!

 

If you KNOW that God and Jesus exist, why do you "atheists" blatantly say He doesn't?

Child of God


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:Thank you

Child of God wrote:

Thank you so much, ButterBattle, for bringing me to my next point!

If you KNOW that God and Jesus exist, why do you "atheists" blatantly say He doesn't?

Umm, that seems to be a poor attempt at a sarcastic response to a clearly sarcastic post.

I trust that someone with such reading comprehension skills would not have missed the fact, or at least the strong possibilty, that ButterBattle was not responding seriously. 

I trust you don't seriously believe he was really conceding he does 'know' that God exists????

You have a partial excuse if you are not familiar with his style, but that should have lead you to ask for some sort of clarification of his intent, rather than just assuming an atheist would really respond like that.

But of course you really understood that, right? And are just responding in kind?

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:Okay

Child of God wrote:

Okay then, KSMB: If I fail at reading comprehension, how come I fit into the SAT's 95th percentile in the reading comprehension test?

Because they've dumbed down the SAT considerably?

"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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:Thank you

Child of God wrote:

Thank you so much, ButterBattle, for bringing me to my next point!

 

If you KNOW that God and Jesus exist, why do you "atheists" blatantly say He doesn't?

I hope what just flew over your head doesn't take a crap on you.

"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


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Your Videos

Are you kidding?! There's a woman featured on this website's video page who is going on and on about her Islamic beliefs! But NO, no CHRISTIAN videos or anything like that!

 

Am I right, Mod boy?

Child of God


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
It must have...

What flew over my head, Bronze Member, were birds. Birds you and everyone else who has replied to my messages have verbally flipped me.

 

Thanks very little.

Child of God


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Whatever, Mod.

Whatever, Mod. You wanna know something else? Screw Brian and Kelly What's-Their-Faces who debated with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. The only reason a church full of atheists, haha, listened to Brian and Kelly was because her dress barely fit on her torso.

Child of God


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Occam's razor is not about

Occam's razor is not about the hypothesis with the least number of primitive terms, it is about the one that proposes the least number of additional primitives, ie additional to those that are already accepted prior to the current argument.

With God, you not only have introduced a new entity (God), you have to make a series of assumptions (guesses) as to its motivation and intent. IOW many specific assumptions about reality.

So, no God is the simplest by far.

Even if you get a pass on the existence of a God, there are an infinite number of conceivable (and inconceivable, to our minds) possible set of attributes of such an entity, and even if we restrict the options to the smallest feasible number in the interests of parsimony, there are many, with no intrinsic reason to exclude the ones which reward a skeptical attitude. So there is no a priori reason, intrinsic to the argument, to assume that the Christian idea of God is the most likely one, let alone the only one.

Typical analyses of the options presumes both the existence of a God and that its attributes match the typical doctrinal specifications.

So sorry, your over-analysis a situation almost totally devoid of any basis for plausible initial assumptions, ie input data, is less than convincing.

 

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


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Child of God = Troll.

Child of God = Troll.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:Thank you

Child of God wrote:
Thank you so much, ButterBattle, for bringing me to my next point!

If you KNOW that God and Jesus exist, why do you "atheists" blatantly say He doesn't?

< not sarcasm>Did you really not notice that I was being facetious? Wow, I'm impressed. You are a truly closed-minded and ignorant fundamentalist. I applaud. It seems like I could write almost anything, and you'd believe me. < / not sarcasm>

*cough* 

< sarcasm> I mean, uh, yep, you are entirely correct. Heck, there's no way you could be wrong, with your awesome reading comprehension skills.

Atheism is just a facade; we actually KNOW, with 100% certainty, that God exists. Scientists have known this beyond any doubt for thousands of years, but they hide it from the general public because they are immoral atheists (Muslims). For example, in DNA, you normally only have adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine, but there is one particular strand of human DNA that spells out Jehovah (don't ask me what base compounds those letters are based on). Seriously, if you look at our DNA with a microscope, you can see the letters! (that totally makes sense....not really) Unfortunately, I have no source or evidence for any of this since the evil scientists always cover their tracks. But, you should have faith that I am telling you the truth; you have a lot of faith, right? After all, I am a physics student at a fairly prestigious university, so I partake in Islamic rituals in these atheist lairs fairly often.

So, why do we blatantly assert that he doesn't exist? Well, because we are homosexual, puppy torturers that like to have group sexual orgies with five year olds. In fact, as I write this, I'm stir frying a five month old Beagle in the kitchen; it's making quite a ruckus. Anyways, atheism is just a cover for a radical Islamic faction that is waging a global war against Jesus. Like all other non-Christians religions, Islam is really just a rebellion against the true God by worshipping Satan. Only Christians actually believe what they say they believe (well, the 'True' Christians anyways, which is a small sect of Baptists in a fairly unpopulated region in the midwestern United States, all other 'Christians' actually worship Satan). Everyone else is just lying. < /sarcasm> 

Quote:
Are you kidding?! There's a woman featured on this website's video page who is going on and on about her Islamic beliefs! But NO, no CHRISTIAN videos or anything like that!

What video are you talking about? 

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


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Kidvelvet's Dog...

...is roadkill. With a spear through its head. And a cyanide pill in its stomach.


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Dessert

My neighbor has 5.5 chihuahuas (half of its body is paralyzed) and a pug. There's your dessert for your tempura stir-fry beagle.

 

Again, people on TBN, such as Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn (Google their names), are the #1 reason why Christians have a negative label. Satisfied? Good! Now shut up.

Child of God


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:Again,

Child of God wrote:

Again, people like Child of God, are the #1 reason why Christians have a negative label. Satisfied? Good! Now shut up.

 

Fixed that for you.

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


Child of God
Child of God's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Mellestad and Everyone Else on this God-Forsaken Website

No matter who you are, no matter whether you like it or not, Judgment Day will come, and you WILL recognize that Jesus Christ is Lord of everything.

 

That includes you, Mellow-Stag, er, Mellestad.

 

And always remember, keep your socks on until marriage. Then you are allowed to throw them into the hamper.

Child of God


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Asserting something does not

Asserting something does not make it true.


11111011
11111011's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2010-04-13
User is offlineOffline
Child of God wrote:No matter

Child of God wrote:

No matter who you are, no matter whether you like it or not, Judgment Day will come, and you WILL recognize that Jesus Christ is Lord of everything.

 

 

Look, getting back to Pascal's wager, it's an argument from practicality that puts deciding the merit of a claim on the back-burner to gauging the expected value (to quote someone from a different page) of an outcome.  In all other ventures, we seek to establish the credibility of a claim prior to thinking about the consequences--noone takes 2012 conspiracies seriously solely on the basis of the catastrophic consequences that may ensue if it were.  Likewise, Pascal's wager fails for the same reason.  If you can't prove a claim, I don't give a fuck about the consequences of said claim.

Now, back to you, "Child of God." What you're claiming is that the "Judg[e]ment Day" will come, but how do you know? The answer, I can tell you, is that you don't.  You aren't privy to special knowledge that the rest of us (many of which, including myself, used to think how you do) don't possess.  The most we could agree on is that you believe it to be so based on the Bible.

Now, here's your task: show us what you know.  What differentiates the Bible from numerous other sources claiming the same sort of thing (i.e. revealed truths from God)? Because who knows, I may be mistaken. 

Here is your chance to convert an Atheist.  Strike the fear of God into me.

P.S. I'm not mocking you either.  I, like many skeptics/atheists, are fully open to the possibility of their being a God/gods, if only we were shown the incontrovertible evidence that you claim to possess.  Give me solid evidence and I'll convert right now.  And it has to be really good evidence, which shouldn't be a problem for you, since you have God on your side and all.

I eagerly await.


humblesmith
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-02-04
User is offlineOffline
I haven't read all 282

I haven't read all 282 messages in this thread, and don't intend to. But as a theist and wannabe philosopher, I'll say that Pascal's wager is weak at best. Of that, I'll grant you. But a word of suggestion.........

Before you merely flush Mr. Pascal's wager, I urge you to read Pascal. He wasn't presenting it as a stand-alone argument, but one piece in much larger context where he had previously narrowed the argument and eliminated many other possibilities. I just don't think it's fair to the historical person to not read their work, pull one paragraph out of a lengthy work, then beat up a straw man.

But as Pascal's wager is commonly used today, it's not a proof for anything. At most it would be like a proverb.

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
humblesmith wrote:I haven't

humblesmith wrote:

I haven't read all 282 messages in this thread, and don't intend to. But as a theist and wannabe philosopher, I'll say that Pascal's wager is weak at best. Of that, I'll grant you. But a word of suggestion.........

Before you merely flush Mr. Pascal's wager, I urge you to read Pascal. He wasn't presenting it as a stand-alone argument, but one piece in much larger context where he had previously narrowed the argument and eliminated many other possibilities. I just don't think it's fair to the historical person to not read their work, pull one paragraph out of a lengthy work, then beat up a straw man.

But as Pascal's wager is commonly used today, it's not a proof for anything. At most it would be like a proverb.

I have listened to a more complete discussion of Pascal and his beliefs and philosophy, and see him as a not very impressive thinker.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
humblesmith wrote:I haven't

humblesmith wrote:

I haven't read all 282 messages in this thread, and don't intend to. But as a theist and wannabe philosopher, I'll say that Pascal's wager is weak at best. Of that, I'll grant you. But a word of suggestion.........

Before you merely flush Mr. Pascal's wager, I urge you to read Pascal. He wasn't presenting it as a stand-alone argument, but one piece in much larger context where he had previously narrowed the argument and eliminated many other possibilities. I just don't think it's fair to the historical person to not read their work, pull one paragraph out of a lengthy work, then beat up a straw man.

But as Pascal's wager is commonly used today, it's not a proof for anything. At most it would be like a proverb.

I have listened to a more complete discussion of Pascal and his beliefs and philosophy, and see him as a not very impressive thinker.

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


NON-aethiest
Posts: 6
Joined: 2010-05-15
User is offlineOffline
can you explain why he isn't

can you explain why he isn't an impressive thinker, that would be quite helpful.

sorry for the trouble

I love to SPAM
-sorry unavailable


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NON-aethiest wrote:can you

NON-aethiest wrote:

can you explain why he isn't an impressive thinker, that would be quite helpful.

sorry for the trouble

I can't bring to mind right now specific examples, it was some time ago that I listened to an account of his work on a philosophy podcast which left me with a poor impression of his approach.

Generally far too informal reasoning, full of unsupported assumptions and holes, far too uncritically accepting of Christian doctrine. As with the Wager, it seemed frequently strongly biased, not necessarily consciously, to the Theist position. 

Generally like the Wager, but pervading his whole 'philosophy'. 

I seriously expected to hear more careful argument from a famous philosopher, and I was prepared to accept a predisposition to Theism, given the period in which he lived, but he seemed to go beyond just leaning to Theism. He too frequently went perilously close to preaching, IMHO.

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


drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Pascal's Wager - Incomplete

So sorry, seems I am late to every discussion.

I wonder if anyone has read the context in which Pascal wrote his famous wager?

Also, The Wager itself is not useless but in order to work it has fit into the larger framework of a sustained argument.  For sure, it has been abused by pop apologists the world - or nation? - over, but that does not make the logic of The Wager unsound on a fundamental level, it is just that its adherents think they have found a silver bullet and that they need study their apologetics no further.  I believe Pascal's point is that the existence of God or lack thereof cannot be proven with rational certainty one way or the other, so something must tip us either away from or in favor of the thesis that God exists.  For Pascal it is The Wager but for other philosophers or academicians it has been something else.  In a sense Pascal is a precursor to the Christian Existentialism of Kierkegaard and the Religious Psychology of William James.  Kierkegaard may or may not have accepted The Wager and James outright disagrees with it, but the insight among these thinkers is the same: whether or not God exists cannot be proven with reason alone, and therefore it falls beyond the scope of reason to decide what one should believe about His existence.  Kierkegaard argues that all life projects except the Christian one are doomed to fail, whereas James argues that suspension of judgment as to the question collapses into the same thing as dis(or un-)belief, so that the choice, at this level, really is binary: either I believe or I do not, and to say I do not know if I believe amounts to the same thing as I choose not to believe.  I recommend to anyone interested that they read Kierkegaard's Either/Or, along with The Sickness Unto Death, and William James's "The Will to Believe," where they flesh out these arguments.  As a standalone argument The Wager is quite deficient, but in the context of other presuppositions taken for granted I suspect its intuition is correct.

IC XC

David


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote:As a

drichards85 wrote:
As a standalone argument The Wager is quite deficient, but in the context of other presuppositions taken for granted I suspect its intuition is correct.
Well, this would seem to be a particular problem of the Wager, then; that it must be taken in the 'context of other presuppositions taken for granted'.  This makes the Wager completely useless except for people who choose to accept those presuppositions and who necessarily have given up on reason.  There is no need to take for granted the presuppositions of any Christian apologist; reasonable consideration of them alone would lead a person to discount them, not least because the presuppositions are illogical.  The Wager, particularly in the context of unnecessary, illogical presuppositions, is a poor argument to justify belief.

By the way, if you abide by the philosophy of the apologists you mentioned ('[...] [W]hether or not God exists cannot be proven with reason alone, and therefore it falls beyond the scope of reason to decide what one should believe about His existence.'), I wonder why you would ever defend the Wager at all, let alone believe that it makes some good point ('[...] I suspect its intuition is correct.').  Perhaps you'd do better to stick to divine revelation to justify your belief?  That is, if you do abide by those apologists' philosophies.

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."


drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Not a Defense, but a Clarification

The point is that those other presuppositions must be argued for, and supported, before The Wager can have any force at all.  I know most atheists do not grant Christian presuppositions, but that was not my point.  It is not that you must accept them right now so The Wager can impact you; it is that these need to be fleshed out and defended before The Wager can be a cogent and persuasive argument.  As I said before, I believe that Pascal's basic intuition is that belief in God cannot be determined through a process of pure reason.  So The Wager is supposed to be some tie-breaker.  Not that I want my faith to be seen as a gamble, but I agree here that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the other by natural science or even philosophy and thus belief in God falls outside the scope of a pure rational process.  (I disagree with some theists on this point.)  If this is granted it opens the door to argue that there are other "reasons" for belief that do not depend on reason itself.  Pascal, Kierkegaard, and James for example all hint that passion may hold the key.  They suggest that belief must be, on some level, subjective.

Note also that there is a difference between a rational argument and personal belief, just as there is a difference between proof and justification, or cogency and persuasion.  I can provide a solid rational defense while my subjective reasons for belief are "illogical" (better to say non-rational), but that has little impact on whether my arguments are good or my belief is true, because I can believe the right thing for the wrong reasons.  In similar fashion I cannot prove to you that God exists, but you cannot prove to me He does not; what matters here are not knock-down proofs but a justification of our reasons to believe as we do.  Finally my arguments may be cogent and persuade no one, or persuasive while at the same time they are shoddy pieces of work.  So if someone rejects my argument without good reason that does not make my argument any less cogent, and the proverbial ball is in their court to tell me why they are unpersuaded by it.

When you say that the presuppositions of the Christian apologists are "illogical" and "unnecessary," which presuppositions did you have in mind?  It is important to hammer out what we take Christian presuppositions to be, and then to argue for why we believe those presuppositions are illogical and unnecessary.  My "defense" of The Wager lay in the fact that I believe The Wager affirms, in context, my belief that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt one way or the other through the use of natural science or philosophy.  Thus my belief in God is a non-rational, not irrational, belief.  It is not some conclusion which I arrived at through the use of my natural reason so in this sense it is proper to say that God is known because He revealed Himself.  But before we deal with that, some other argumentative legwork is necessary.

IC XC

David


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
David, I'll make this as

David, I'll make this as simple as possible.  God does not exist.  It follows necessarily that any and all Christian presuppositions are illogical and unnecessary.  There's not much to discuss after that, you can imagine.

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."


drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Don't make it simple on account of me

Thomathy,

It would be most helpful if you could furnish us with your actual argument as to why you believe God does not exist, rather than simply assert it.   Thanks.

IC XC

David


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote:The point

drichards85 wrote:

The point is that those other presuppositions must be argued for, and supported, before The Wager can have any force at all.  I know most atheists do not grant Christian presuppositions, but that was not my point.  It is not that you must accept them right now so The Wager can impact you; it is that these need to be fleshed out and defended before The Wager can be a cogent and persuasive argument.  As I said before, I believe that Pascal's basic intuition is that belief in God cannot be determined through a process of pure reason.  So The Wager is supposed to be some tie-breaker.  Not that I want my faith to be seen as a gamble, but I agree here that the existence of God cannot be proven one way or the other by natural science or even philosophy and thus belief in God falls outside the scope of a pure rational process.  (I disagree with some theists on this point.)  If this is granted it opens the door to argue that there are other "reasons" for belief that do not depend on reason itself.  Pascal, Kierkegaard, and James for example all hint that passion may hold the key.  They suggest that belief must be, on some level, subjective.

Note also that there is a difference between a rational argument and personal belief, just as there is a difference between proof and justification, or cogency and persuasion.  I can provide a solid rational defense while my subjective reasons for belief are "illogical" (better to say non-rational), but that has little impact on whether my arguments are good or my belief is true, because I can believe the right thing for the wrong reasons.  In similar fashion I cannot prove to you that God exists, but you cannot prove to me He does not; what matters here are not knock-down proofs but a justification of our reasons to believe as we do.  Finally my arguments may be cogent and persuade no one, or persuasive while at the same time they are shoddy pieces of work.  So if someone rejects my argument without good reason that does not make my argument any less cogent, and the proverbial ball is in their court to tell me why they are unpersuaded by it.

When you say that the presuppositions of the Christian apologists are "illogical" and "unnecessary," which presuppositions did you have in mind?  It is important to hammer out what we take Christian presuppositions to be, and then to argue for why we believe those presuppositions are illogical and unnecessary.  My "defense" of The Wager lay in the fact that I believe The Wager affirms, in context, my belief that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt one way or the other through the use of natural science or philosophy.  Thus my belief in God is a non-rational, not irrational, belief.  It is not some conclusion which I arrived at through the use of my natural reason so in this sense it is proper to say that God is known because He revealed Himself.  But before we deal with that, some other argumentative legwork is necessary.

IC XC

David

Son, you are confused if you think there is a difference between non-rational and irrational. It sounds to me like you are saying belief in God is irrational. Obviously you haven't read the Bible. The Bible clearly states the evidence for belief in God. Starting on Genesis 1:1. How could God create the Heavens and the Earth, if He wasn't God? How could Jesus turn water into wine, if He wasn't God?

But the reason of reasons to believe in God is not, as Pascal said, because you might go to Hell if you don't. No, no, no. The real reason you should believe in God is because you will go to Hell if you don't.

It sounds to me, from reading over your confusion about why to believe in God, that you still aren't 100,000% sure that there is a God who fits the exact description that the KJV1611 gives. You had better hurry up and get right before time runs out and you are gagging on Satan's serrated stool packer in Hell.

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.


drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
Did Christians burn in hell before 1611?

Billy Bob,

I take you to be a parody of some sort, so I will not encourage you.  Take care.

IC XC

David

P.S. Excellent choice of name.


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote:Billy

drichards85 wrote:

Billy Bob,

I take you to be a parody of some sort, so I will not encourage you.  Take care.

IC XC

David

P.S. Excellent choice of name.

  You are the one who is a parody, saying belief in God is irrational, and then saying you believe in God. If you believe believing in God is irrational, then you don't really beileve in Him. Make up your mind, son. Are you gonna go to Heaven with me and the True Christians from Landover Baptist Church, or are you gonna go to Hell and be pile drived by Satan for all eternity?

You are afraid to engage me in debate, because you know I am more Christian than you'll ever be.

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote:Billy

drichards85 wrote:

Billy Bob,

I take you to be a parody of some sort

Oh, you wish.


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
@ David Richards,If you are

@ David Richards,

If you are unable to defend yourself, I will assume it is because you aren't really a Christian. What choice do I have?

It makes me sad to think you are going to Hell. Hopefully it will be soon, so you don't corrupt others, thereby damning them along with you.

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.


drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
I believe Landover Baptist

I believe Landover Baptist is satirical (I have been to the website and it seemed pretty over-the-top), so I would take Billy Bob with a grain of salt.

IC XC

David


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote:I believe

drichards85 wrote:

I believe Landover Baptist is satirical (I have been to the website and it seemed pretty over-the-top), so I would take Billy Bob with a grain of salt.

IC XC

David

So are you ready to officially declare him "not a christian" ?


Billy Bob Jenkins
Theist
Billy Bob Jenkins's picture
Posts: 184
Joined: 2010-07-14
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote:I believe

drichards85 wrote:

I believe Landover Baptist is satirical (I have been to the website and it seemed pretty over-the-top), so I would take Billy Bob with a grain of salt.

IC XC

David

You accuse me of being a fake Christian, but I think it is you who is the fake Christian. I haven't heard you correct anything that I've said. You don't even seem to be sure whether or not you agree with me. Make up your mind, son.

I think you are intimidated by the fact that I am more of a Christian than you'll ever be.

If I am wrong about something, say so. What is it about my teachings that are so wrong, in your view, so as to accuse me of not being a True Christian?

I assure you, I am as True as any Christian you have ever met. Probably Truer.

You are too much of a coward to argue with me. You hide behind petty insults.

You are 100% wrong about Landover Baptist being satirical. We are more serious about Christianity than a queer like you could ever be.

The Truest Christian these atheists will ever meet. I worship the only Lord at the Church with the Truest Christians: Landover Baptist.