so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
This is called pascals wager. There are many problems with this, the biggest being you're assuming that simply believing in god or being a theist is enough to save you from hell, it is not. There are a number of religions in the past, present and very likely the future. If you just pick a religion based off fear of hell or whatever punishment you can only pick one following one religion usually means violating another one. Not to mention God is an unknowable force how can you really claim one religion is more likely than another? At most theists have only been able to poke holes in alternate explanations of the universe just proving the deist position (that there is a god, but doesn't do anything), but have never had evidence for their specific religion more so than any other.
A better explanation is this video imo of why Pascal's wager is flawed. + Show Spoiler +
Although really if that's too much then how about this. Shouldn't an all knowing God know your specifically believing just to avoid hell or to get some sort of reward? Although I'm not sure there is anything against that in religious texts.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
not true, its the realistic choice. logically theism is the correct choice: let me explain.
atheists are correct god does not exist: theist dies, nothing happens atheist dies nothing happens agnostic dies nothing happens
theists are correct, god does exist (in this case using christian god because that is the religion im most familiar with)
theist dies, eteranal happy happy fun times atheist dies, eternal damnation agnostic dies, eternal damnation
so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
Really, Pascals Wager? Are you really that transparent? Your argument is of the view that if there is a God, it is specifically the Christian God, which is not true, who's to say which God is more believable, what if for believing in the wrong God you will be punished more severely than an atheist? Who are you to say God's existence automatically guarantees damnation?
It's also untrue that with theism, nothing happens if you're false because you potentially wasted a good chunk of your life devoting it to some religion.
Third, a supreme being would know damn well if I only pretended to believe simply because it would suit my needs better, I can't just get up one day and be like, you know what the Bible is retarded but I believe because I don't want to go to hell, that isn't real belief.
It contains so many blatant assumptions that you have no proof or evidence to support.
Even theists are reluctant to use this argument, even they realize how absurd and desperate it is.
This is so sad on so many levels. On the individual level, of course, but also on the level where this even had to be an issue in the first place. I'll join in with the shoulda-woulda-couldas here and say that he probably should have told the principal that they could have a prayer that wasn't affiliated with the school afterwards, but I guess it's too late for that. Another option would have been a moment of silence during which people could pray without specifying a religion. Oh well. I wish people could stop hurting each other over petty things like this.
Wow, this isn't surprising at all. It's in a country where even though the state and religion should be separate, presidents swear in by the bible and there are even prayers.
So ridiculous, what amazing parents too, you don't believe what I believe then you aren't my kid anymore. I guess being from Canada you kinda take it for granted that public stuff is all atheistic. I would hate to live in the bible belt in the States. Good to see that his brother at least has some common sense.
On May 29 2011 09:09 Hipsv wrote: So ridiculous, what amazing parents too, you don't believe what I believe then you aren't my kid anymore. I guess being from Canada you kinda take it for granted that public stuff is all atheistic. I would hate to live in the bible belt in the States. Good to see that his brother at least has some common sense.
sigh i do not know what stupid parents like that would kick their own son out. Obviously the administration should be in trouble if they are responsible for his name for being leaked
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
not true, its the realistic choice. logically theism is the correct choice: let me explain.
atheists are correct god does not exist: theist dies, nothing happens atheist dies nothing happens agnostic dies nothing happens
theists are correct, god does exist (in this case using christian god because that is the religion im most familiar with)
theist dies, eteranal happy happy fun times atheist dies, eternal damnation agnostic dies, eternal damnation
so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
Really, Pascals Wager? Are you really that transparent? Your argument is of the view that if there is a God, it is specifically the Christian God, which is not true, who's to say which God is more believable, what if for believing in the wrong God you will be punished more severely than an atheist? Who are you to say God's existence automatically guarantees damnation?
It's also untrue that with theism, nothing happens if you're false because you potentially wasted a good chunk of your life devoting it to some religion.
Third, a supreme being would know damn well if I only pretended to believe simply because it would suit my needs better, I can't just get up one day and be like, you know what the Bible is retarded but I believe because I don't want to go to hell, that isn't real belief.
It contains so many blatant assumptions that you have no proof or evidence to support.
Even theists are reluctant to use this argument, even they realize how absurd and desperate it is.
actually what im saying is that you have more potential gain by believing in a particular theological system then by in believing that there is nothing. it works for pretty much every religion......maybe not daoist or shinto, not very familiar with those.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
not true, its the realistic choice. logically theism is the correct choice: let me explain.
atheists are correct god does not exist: theist dies, nothing happens atheist dies nothing happens agnostic dies nothing happens
theists are correct, god does exist (in this case using christian god because that is the religion im most familiar with)
theist dies, eteranal happy happy fun times atheist dies, eternal damnation agnostic dies, eternal damnation
so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
Really, Pascals Wager? Are you really that transparent? Your argument is of the view that if there is a God, it is specifically the Christian God, which is not true, who's to say which God is more believable, what if for believing in the wrong God you will be punished more severely than an atheist? Who are you to say God's existence automatically guarantees damnation?
It's also untrue that with theism, nothing happens if you're false because you potentially wasted a good chunk of your life devoting it to some religion.
Third, a supreme being would know damn well if I only pretended to believe simply because it would suit my needs better, I can't just get up one day and be like, you know what the Bible is retarded but I believe because I don't want to go to hell, that isn't real belief.
It contains so many blatant assumptions that you have no proof or evidence to support.
Even theists are reluctant to use this argument, even they realize how absurd and desperate it is.
actually what im saying is that you have more potential gain by believing in a particular theological system then by in believing that there is nothing. it works for pretty much every religion......maybe not daoist or shinto, not very familiar with those.
I just proved that wrong. Lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute an error on mine. Even if it did conclusively hold the greatest chance for benefit(which it most certainly does not), that doesn't necessarily make it the logical choice, maybe the "logic deprived cowards choice", yeah that has a nice ring to it.
is there a way to view the whole thread at once? i cant click 78 times to read this thread nomatter how much i want to.................
thread reminds me of the part in Religulous (film) where some ex-mormons talk about how it was impossible for any person in their town to become independent from the religion because if they admitted to disbelief then their whole town and their families would hate their guts and ruin their lives
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote: Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
Say I'm a Christian going to school who wants to attend the graduation ceremony. I ask Knowledgable Bob what's going to happen during the graduation and he says there's going to be a section where all the atheists (the vast majority of this school's population) get to spend a few minutes discussing why every religion is stupid and wrong and thanking the lack of a god that they aren't wasting their life praying and going to church. That's basically what a prayer session is. Unfortunately, religion is considered sacred (funny that) and anyone who says anything bad about it is automatically an evil monster who only wants to oppress everyone else. Of course, since atheists aren't fanatically obsessed with their faith or lack thereof no one has a problem with discriminating against them and disregarding their beliefs.
On May 29 2011 09:48 FFGenerations wrote: is there a way to view the whole thread at once? i cant click 78 times to read this thread nomatter how much i want to.................
thread reminds me of the part in Religulous (film) where some ex-mormons talk about how it was impossible for any person in their town to become independent from the religion because if they admitted to disbelief then their whole town and their families would hate their guts and ruin their lives
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
not true, its the realistic choice. logically theism is the correct choice: let me explain.
atheists are correct god does not exist: theist dies, nothing happens atheist dies nothing happens agnostic dies nothing happens
theists are correct, god does exist (in this case using christian god because that is the religion im most familiar with)
theist dies, eteranal happy happy fun times atheist dies, eternal damnation agnostic dies, eternal damnation
so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
Really, Pascals Wager? Are you really that transparent? Your argument is of the view that if there is a God, it is specifically the Christian God, which is not true, who's to say which God is more believable, what if for believing in the wrong God you will be punished more severely than an atheist? Who are you to say God's existence automatically guarantees damnation?
It's also untrue that with theism, nothing happens if you're false because you potentially wasted a good chunk of your life devoting it to some religion.
Third, a supreme being would know damn well if I only pretended to believe simply because it would suit my needs better, I can't just get up one day and be like, you know what the Bible is retarded but I believe because I don't want to go to hell, that isn't real belief.
It contains so many blatant assumptions that you have no proof or evidence to support.
Even theists are reluctant to use this argument, even they realize how absurd and desperate it is.
actually what im saying is that you have more potential gain by believing in a particular theological system then by in believing that there is nothing. it works for pretty much every religion......maybe not daoist or shinto, not very familiar with those.
People like you are so ignorant it's not funny. Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, chapter four goes into detail about Pascal's Wager and explains it far better. By the end of the chapter you'll realise just what a ridiculous argument it is and why most Christians shy away from using it these days. The sad thing is before 2006 it was still quite a common argument amongst apologetic circles.
They are equal in that they both take faith, and they both cannot be proven. The "faith" is the issue between the two as they cannot be proven. It is fully illogical to believe either of these since you have to follow both blindly.
Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
^aka - The logical choice.
not true, its the realistic choice. logically theism is the correct choice: let me explain.
atheists are correct god does not exist: theist dies, nothing happens atheist dies nothing happens agnostic dies nothing happens
theists are correct, god does exist (in this case using christian god because that is the religion im most familiar with)
theist dies, eteranal happy happy fun times atheist dies, eternal damnation agnostic dies, eternal damnation
so logically speaking, one should choose the theist perspective because they lose nothing if they are wrong and gain everything if they are right, wherease the agnostic and atheist gain nothing if they are correct and lose everythign if they are wrong.
Really, Pascals Wager? Are you really that transparent? Your argument is of the view that if there is a God, it is specifically the Christian God, which is not true, who's to say which God is more believable, what if for believing in the wrong God you will be punished more severely than an atheist? Who are you to say God's existence automatically guarantees damnation?
It's also untrue that with theism, nothing happens if you're false because you potentially wasted a good chunk of your life devoting it to some religion.
Third, a supreme being would know damn well if I only pretended to believe simply because it would suit my needs better, I can't just get up one day and be like, you know what the Bible is retarded but I believe because I don't want to go to hell, that isn't real belief.
It contains so many blatant assumptions that you have no proof or evidence to support.
Even theists are reluctant to use this argument, even they realize how absurd and desperate it is.
actually what im saying is that you have more potential gain by believing in a particular theological system then by in believing that there is nothing. it works for pretty much every religion......maybe not daoist or shinto, not very familiar with those.
People like you are so ignorant it's not funny. Read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, chapter four goes into detail about Pascal's Wager and explains it far better. By the end of the chapter you'll realise just what a ridiculous argument it is and why most Christians shy away from using it these days. The sad thing is before 2006 it was still quite a common argument amongst apologetic circles.
what makes me ignorant, that i use an outdated apologetic arguement? im not trying to argue that faith is better or convince anyone else that they should chose it, frankly i don't care, its your choice not mine. how about we drop the conversation and get back on topic.
.There's no chance in hell I could read all the posts even if I wanted to... Idk exactly when this topic devolved into pascal's wager and what one could gain or lose by believing or not believing in a Pantocrator or Odin or Perun or Zeus or Jupiter or Buddha or Alah or Ra or any other diety. The fact that his community is so hopelessly dependent on such an event taking place which is unconstitutional with the separation of church and state and of course the infamous 1st amendment only show's their own narrow mindedness and intolerance to the different. Since the constitution forbids it, that kid totally had every right moral and according to the law to stop that publicly funded prayer taking place. No one has the right to impose their belief system/rituals onto others with public funding in a secular country(at least that's what the constitution says).
And about what you gain about not believing in a supernatural all mighty being is solely in the freedom to do so. Why should one limit him/herself to the will of something that can't be felt or proven, since the ones who have passed away wouldn't come back to tell us how are the things on the other side. One's morality and kindness doesn't stem from fearing eternal roasting but their own set of values. And while the books of different religions generally promote love tolerance and other positive stuff, they're too easily twisted into abominations which led to horrific events not unlike this 1.
This is insane. I really hope somehow we can move onto a different place than this...
this story reminds me one a few years ago...a girl was expelled from her PUBLIC highschool for refusing to join a prayer circle before a basketball game...there's even a video of it.
This is completely ridiculous. What hits me the most is that this is another example of harm being done by the religious people 'in the name of their god'. For some reason when non believers does something wrong, to them it is due to their lack of guidance in belief or something, and then when they bring harm directly upon others, it must be out of their rational self justification, and in this case with the excuse of tradition.
This just goes back to medieval periods where local communities pretty much bully their way into converting people. This is the sort of stuff that pisses me off so much and why I will never be religious.
Fact is, it doesn't take religion to guide a person into being good, and both sides of the coin can produce the same kind of people. And in this case, the Christians are just being a bunch of a-holes. Self directed communities stray far from their 'core' values. They deserve to be criticized by the world.
And wow some parents they are. Better watch out for their final years.
EPT
