Why say no to God?

Great Debates
41

And of course all atheists are sociopathic egotists with no ethical code. And every pagan sacrifices babies to the devil on May Eve. :frowning:

Try reading a little on what Christians do, for good or evil, rather than believing some anti-Christian hogwash. This is the mirror image of what the Institute for Creation Science thinks the folks behind the Skeptical Inquirer are.

After church this morning my wife and I decided to skip out on a meeting regarding a letter drive petitioning Congress to forgive Third World debt to discuss with our Lesbian friend what is involved in a ministry of prayer for healing, and what it does not involve (visualize Oral Roberts for the latter). We are by no means alone; it’s just that the Falwells of the world get all the juicy stories.

I don’t blame you for getting upset, though. According to the press, “most Christians” are more interested in getting you saved and a pledging member of their church than they are in the needs of the world. It’s been my experience that this is far from so, but you need to get behind the scenes and one-on-one to find it out sometimes.

42

Not that I am trying to defend tarring a giant group of people with the same brush, but I believe galen was trying to differntiate between people who say they’re Christians and people who act like they are. At least, that’s what his putting “Christians” in quotes said to me. If someone spoke about atheists who did un-atheistic things and referred to them as “atheists” with the quotes, I’d think it entirely proper to imply that their “atheist” label was suspect. So by referring to “Christians” and not Christians, he’s specifically excluding those Christans who do follow their teaching. However, I don’t think that “christians” who support oppresive polical regimes are quite as prevalent as galen implies, although those that do support such things certainly are noisy.

43

Even though there are now over forty messages in this thread, only one of which is by im_a_squirrel, we should remember that it has been only two days. However, I would like to add another objection to the OP: the OP clearly assumes that the reader believes in God. After all, the question “Why have you said no to God” is meaningless if the person in questtion does not believe in God. If im_a_squirrel believes that everyone believes in God, this means two things:
im_a_squirrel claims to have the ability to read our minds;
im_a_squirrel is calling everyone who claims to not believe in God a liar.

Something can seem logical to one person, but not to another. But it is either logical or not.

You don’t seem to understand what “logical” means. It means that, given some set of assumption, the conclusion can’t be wrong. It does not mean that one believes oneself to be infallible, any more than flight consists solely of the belief that one can jump off tall buildings without dying. Furthermore, it is not the plan itself that is logical or not, it is the alledged proof that the plan cannot fail.

Again, simply believing that the plan will fail is not the same as the plan actually failing. Furthermore, you are committing an inductive fallacy from going from the claim “no one has gotten away with it” (which is itself an untrue statement; uncaught bank robbers just don’t get much media coverage) to “no one can get away with it”.

44

David B said:

The problem started with a series of mistranslations. In the Old Testament the term was translated as “the Lord God,” when it was really “the LardGod.” Then, to compound things, in the New Testament “Christ” (“Messiah”) was mistakenly dervived from what should have been “Crisco”(“Lard In A Can”).

This is why religious “proofs” contain so much slippery logic.

45

David B. wrote

Logic is a method which always requires assumptions. Squirrel’s logic is sound within his set of assumptions. Since he hasn’t posted back yet to clarify, I’ll make a guess at his assumptions.

(1) God exists
(2) People who follow God are happy
(3) People who don’t follow God are disatisfied
(4) Anyone can choose to follow God if they wish
(5) People seek happiness

His conclusion that all people should follow God is logical given these assumptions. Your decision not to believe God is based on a different set of assumptions and it is likely equally logical. We can try to show that some of his assumptions are inaccurate, but there is no way to prove it to him. This is one way something can be logical but appear illogical.

46

Guys, please don’t call that person Squirrel. I don’t want to be confused with his brand of trolling. I was almost happy to see yet another Sqrl come to the board until I saw the troll that came from it.

HUGS!
Sqrl

47

Not to worry, Sqrl…most of us retain enough sanity to distinguish between you and him…and he uses im_a_squirrel anyway…which makes me wonder if he’s starring in a Swedish porn flic! :wink:

As I keep trying to maintain, and I think so far only Lib. agrees with me on, logic is a system for making deductions and inferences from a set of data. You can reason clearly and logically from an invalid data set. It is perfectly logical to arrive at Fred Phelps’ conclusion working from his premises. And it is perfectly logical to conclude the “stopgap theory” of creation science (where God in mid-October 4004 BC creates fossils and mineral deposits that appear to be hundreds of millions of years old, presumably chuckling sadistically at the world’s greatest practical joke as he does so) if you assume the literal truth of Genesis 1.

Lib. and I reason logically from a dataset that includes the presence of a loving God. Gaudere, slythe, and David, and other “pragmatic atheist” posters, reason logically from a set that does not include Him, and in the absence of evidence presumes His absence. (It’s important to note the distinction between “presume” and “assume” here.) Freyr, Sqrl, and others reason logically from a dataset that presumes some “spiritual” force pervading nature – their evidence for this presumption being sensorial and intuitive on the basis of what they experience in nature – which does not lead them to the conclusion of a personal, “other” (as opposed to His creation) God. A variety of people reason illogically from one of these three datasets, or a variety of variations thereon. (Chaim Keller would be the obvious example of a person working from a variant on Lib.'s and mine that does not include an avataric intrusion of that God into history in the early decades A.D., though he accepts into his dataset theophanic and prophetic invasivenesses of that God in periods preceding the one we add.)

It would follow that many of us can reason logically, but only a selected group of them will come up with valid conclusions because the others will be working with erroneous datasets. This is one reason why I find it useful to have an atheist whom I respect check my logic assuming a theist dataset for the purposes of the check. Because atheist, monotheist, and polytheist logicians are all prone to bring in “hidden assumptions” that are so much a parcel of their worldviews that they are not seen as assumptions but as an element of the conclusion, making the logic sequence circular rather than syllogistically or inductively valid.

48

Actually… my life was empty until I discovered masturbation. It has been a daily joy ever since.

49

Dr. Lao

You are correct. Our axioms make a great deal of difference, and can derive two opposite conclusions — both equally true!

There are also the undefined terms. And the terms that are defined are cloaked in self-referential tautology.

50

Polycarp

Actually, in logic the term “valid” refers to whether a conclusion logically follows from the premises. The truth of the premises is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.

Libertarian:

Something is either true or not. If something is true, then its opposite must be false. Just because you can derive something from a set of axioms doesn’t make it true.

51

Point taken – I got my terms switched. The point I tried to make is that it is quite possible to have a valid logical sequence which results in false conclusions because it works from a false dataset…something I hope was clear despite my erroneous vocabulary.

And while I’m responding to TheRyan, let me add that an unfortunate juxtaposition of sentences in my earlier post on this page does not imply that I think Chaim reasons illogically – I gave him as an example of someone using a variant of the theist dataset, failing to notice that the sentence bringing them up started by referring to the possibility of illogical conclusions from any of the datasets. Sorry, Chaim!!

52

For some reason when I read the subject I thought this would be a discussion of Pascal’s wager. And even though it isn’t, the OP seems to have a thread of this in it:

This is one of the most famous arguments ever presented for believing in God. Note, however, it does not discuss the existence of God. Certainly philosophers have had certain problems with this. Many have naturally pointed out that this argument may apply to almost any god. And Pascal’s argument about reason essentially being a wash is totally off the mark. It certainly seems to say your reason can tell you not to believe in God, yet you still should, which to many would be a tautological impossibility.

Of course, anyone who claims to know for sure there is no God is frequently just as guilty of arrogance and presumption as someone who claims there is one.

53

A truer adherent to Pascal’s Wager I never saw portrayed than in “The Mummy.” (Recent remake starring Brendon Frazer(sp?)) In this movie, a weaselly character named Benny is faced with the undead mummy slowly approaching. He reaches into his shirt and pulls out a fistful of medallions and holy symbols, offering up a prayer to each in turn, waiting for it to work, and then moving on to the next. Now that’s hedging your bets!

54

Pascal’s wager.

Ok, so you’re telling me that there is a belief out there that someone is thoroughly convinced of. And because someone is thoroughly convinced of it, there is a possibility that it might be true. Because there is a possibility that it might be true, I should ignore everything I absolutely know to be true, and bet that he’s right, just in case?

Ok, tell you what.
If the sun sets tonight, you pay me $1000.
If a syphilitic armadillo flies out of my left nostril at midnight tonight and does his best Johnny Carson impression, I’ll pay you $1000.

Deal?

55

Well Jack, Pascal was thinking only in terms of God/No God and one’s eternal resting place. He didn’t really even try to extend his argument to Shiva, Allah, or any of those…sniff…other deities. Many Christian proselytizers who try witnessing here bring up arguments to support the belief in a god, often not seeming to realize that it doesn’t necessarily follow that it supports their particular god. Pascal’s argument is along those lines as well. By using his logic you should really do your best to believe in every god that comes along, (except the bad ones who do really icky things to you in the Great Beyond.)

56

Jack,

I think the point Pascal was trying to make (although erroneously in my opinion) would translate more to…

If the sun sets tonight, you pay me $0.0000000001.
If a syphilitic armadillo flies out of my left nostril at midnight tonight and does his best Johnny Carson impression, I’ll pay you $999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999.

57

Oh, you didn’t tell me there were odds.

Anyway, I apologize. Try not to take me too seriously when I start talking about syphilitic armadillos.

But my original argument holds true, I believe. In fact I might make the same points regarding Pascal’s wager, as others have made to the OP. By the way, it may just be my opinion, but I read Pascal’s wager in a similar vein. That is, he is referring to God. Capital G. Not a generic deity. And it still seems like a wimpy argument. It would be like a Christian testifying for three hours on your doorstep, in attempt to convince you that God exists as he believes, and ending up asking you to “maybe” consider what he has been saying.

58

OK, I admit that Squirrel posited a question that presumes quite a bit. And with many of the people here, it’s too much. Got it.

BUT… while y’all might be pretty sick of being told about the “true path,” using misrepresentations and straw man attacks only demeans yourselves. Degenerating to name calling essentially (only in more florid terms) and making wild attacks on something that are by definition beyond your knowledge (why Sq. is a Christian, whether he is venal enough to believe it just for the supposed benefits, and whether he has given up personal responsibility) is, frankly, kind of embarrasing.

Yes, in case I have any chance of being misread here, this is a “shame, shame” post. I know we can all do better than this, even to an OP not as eloquent as many would like, or even arguably a little niave about some of the people here, or threads previously discussed.

Many good points were made in opposition, but the venom is something I can do without around here. The SDMB has been notable for its retention of a good natured dorm-room discussion atmosphere, and I would hope it continues.

Ultimately, the meaning of man and God is something that cannot be proven as such with history, or science. Some will insist on those genres of proof, others will allow for discriminating personal revelation. Some will opt for making it up to suit themselves.

The only argument I’d like to make about this myself is that I would at least hope we could agree that spirituality should be an attempt to accurately describe spiritual reality. And if there is a spiritual reality, then whatever it is, that’s what it is. Wishing it to be different doesn’t do any more good than a four-year-old deciding to treat himself as if he is part of a different family because he’s mad at his parents.

I hope this doesn’t step on toes, for my part, I’m tired of people acting like they can re-invent the universe on a whim. Anyway, thanks for lisnen’

59

The Ryan

Given parallel lines A and B on plane P, which is true, that they intersect, or that they do not?

Poly

In the truth table, if A is a false proposition and B is a true proposition, then “A implies B” is a true implication. The implication “A implies B” may also be written, “if A then B”. Thus, if two minus three is greater than zero, then two is greater than three.

True, but so what?

60

Dave Swaney wrote:

Spiritual reality!
Jumbo shrimp!
Military intelligence!
Freezer burn!