That was a facetious reply I admit because, to be honest, I did not understand a word of what you said.
Anyway it’s a highjack so I’m happy to let it drop.
Not necessarily. A God that values intellectual honesty over obedience would reward atheists (who followed the evidence) and punish theists (who believed without it). You may be setting yourself up for eternal damnation, my friend, while all the non-believers wind up gobsmacked in paradise.
As a great philosopher once said
[QUOTE=Homer Simpson]
Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder.
[/QUOTE]
We don’t have all of the answers and athiests readily admit this. The thing is that thus everything that we have been able to learn about the universe seems indicate that it is based on certain physical laws. So it is reasonable to assume that the other stuff we don’t know about also in some ways relate to physical laws. We could be wrong, and we don’t claim to know the answer to these unknown questions.
If all you are saying is “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Then we would probably agree with you. There is lots of physics and bio-phychology as yet undiscovered. The problem is that religion claims that there are certain answers to these unknown questions, namely that a divine being with characteristics X, Y, and Z is responsible.
It is like there is a locked wall safe in an office about which nothing else is known. The theist says that there there is a black size 14 left sneaker which is only laced up half way. The atheist will say, he doesn’t know whats inside, but without any evidence and given all of the other things that are likely to be in there, it is probably not a sneaker. In fact he will go so far as to say, I don’t believe that it is a sneaker, much less black or size 14.
Now with certain theists it is even worse in that their claims violate what we already know about the universe. In that case is is like the theist saying there is live elephant inside the safe. In this case the athiest will make a more positive claim that the theist is wrong. I know that there is no elephant in the safe. It could be that the whole fabric of space as understood by the athiest is wrong, but he is willing to discard that possibility out of hand.
You’ve essentially just repeated Pascal’s Wager
It seems I paraphrased Pascal’s Wager without realizing it.
You may then wish to read up on Flaws with this line of reasoning
People who treat Pascal’s Wager as an insurance against a negative afterlife are ignoring the fact that they’re still affecting how they live life itself.
Ultimately we all have to wager.
Did you read the link provided?
Not necessarily - feral children who have never heard of any God or Gods could not wager. Neither could children who didn’t reach the cognitive level of being able to wager.
Further, our odds are extremely poor - a one in, what, 10,000 shot at picking the right God?
I don’t agree with that attitude, and I wouldn’t call it a wager.
I think I understand what you’re saying here. If my wager is that I am destined for heaven as an Elect, then I don’t have to bother with being a good person. In fact, I can be as bad as I wanna be and still avoid the inferno.
You don’t have to be a good person regardless of what happens after you die. Either way, you’ll probably piss off a lot people while you’re alive and wind up not too happy with your life.
I won’t retract my statement just because you are the Site Admin.
Reply to Buck Godot:
Agreed. What you say I think it is very reasonable and pretty much follows the reasoning of what, in general, is used as supporting argument for “why I’m an atheist, or why I’m not a theist”.
And yes I do belief there are more things in Heaven and Earth, and it is those things which simply cannot be encapsulated into a mathematical relationship, of which there are more of.
I wish we could have this conversation without assuming this more of stuff is a particular God or religious belief. I think it is perfectly rational to do so. It takes nothing away from science to do so. It says simply that my experience of life extends beyond the information and mathematical relationships science provides. In the actual living is where I establish my relationship to the Universe I exist in based on my experience of that Universe.
I don’t need to be consicous of the physical rules to help me experience the Universe. My body as a result of existing is in perfect harmony with the rules. My body provides the source of my experiences, which happen to teach me that I am part of a greate whole, that I am part of a greater movement, that I am a part of the Universe that is self-conscious and aware. You can’t reduce that to a specific belief, it is an experience. It may lead many of us to seek some particular religious affiiliation but we certainly all have these experiences, whether or not we do.
That depends on how much of a bastard I turn out to be. If my aim is to piss off a lot people (which it isn’t IRL) I think I’d wind up happy and fulfilled.
Well, try it – see how it turns out
Not only that, and ignoring all the other flaws with this argument, religion itself affects the world – arguably, not for the best.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, there’s an 0.0000000000000000000001% chance that the Norse gods and Valhalla exists, and there’s a 99.9999999999999999999999% chance that nothing happens when you die and no gods exist. Sure, that tiny chance benefits you to live a violent, bloody life and die in battle, taking from the weak, raping and abducting womenfolk, and killing the children of your enemies. Sure, it benefits you if you happen to be right, and once you’re dead it’s the only possible benefit you get, but what happens while you – and everyone else – are alive? That’s, of course, the part of existing that we actually know really occurs.
To put it simply, who do you think is more admirable: someone who pursues the truth, or someone who picks a belief system based on selfish reasons?
I was posting as a regular poster, not moderating the thread, and I didn’t ask you to retract anything. I said I disagreed with you: I don’t think we’re ultimately wagering on anything (it implies someone’s going to win and someone’s going to lose), it doesn’t reflect the spirit in which people make decisions on these kinds of issues, and it isn’t a competition. Does that clarify things for you?