[Shade]

I'd rather give up the finite, in the hope of the infinite, than vice versa.

You'd rather give up on a sure thing and hope for something for which there's no proof whatsoever? Well, to each their own. And besides, what's to keep you from hoping while still having fun? You don't need to believe in a god to hope for something beyond death. I don't believe there's anything after death but, again, to each their own.

IDK about you, but I'd rather enjoy an eternity promised to me by God (who has a VERY good credit score, btw.  Take a look at Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Jeremiah 4, and so many more)

We consider a proven-to-be-wrong-in-many-cases and, in many versions, piss-poorly translated book a credible source now? Any time you choose to quote like that instead of presenting a logical argument, that point is basically lost by default, because those quotes only mean anything if the existence of that particular god is taken for granted.

That's not a possibility at all.  Truth is objective.  Reality is objective.  Senses can be tricked, but they exist in a consistent universe.  By arguing that this idea is possible, you cut your own throat.

You'd almost think so, wouldn't you? Except I wasn't arguing, I was proposing it (hence the 'What if') to make a point later. Later being now.

You see, the whole idea of an afterlife is based on the soul leaving our body and going... somewhere. Heaven or hell according to the whim of the christian god, according to you. But noone really knows, do they? Noone has ever come back and told the tale, indeed, those who have come back (being revived after having been dead for a short time) have had no tale to tell. So again, it comes down to belief. And in that realm of thinking, it is just as possible that the person's own beliefs decide the final stop as it is for a god to do so or, if you insist on having a god in the picture, for the god to render judgement based on where that paricular soul thinks it belongs. And if so, wouldn't it be better to not believe in hell?

The point being: It is all down to belief. And while the world may be objective and rational, belief is not constrained by such things. So if this is no possibility at all since the world is rational, then logically neither is religion as they are both simply aspects of belief.

[Janos]

I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? 

Atheism is non-belief. It's non-belief in metaphysical deities which cannot be proven. That's all there is. If you do not believe in gods, you are an atheist.

[G0atmaster]

I apologize for my tactless word choice.  I'm not talking about forcing people to renounce atheism at all.  I do believe Atheism is a bad thing, but that's a side effect of believing that there is a sole, objective truth that I know.  And I merely want to spread that truth.  I'm still left wondering how people could stay sane believing they cease to exist when they die.  Even with the whole "we exist in the memory of those left alive" bit.  I believe, regardless of whether it's due to our own designs, an apocalypse brought on by God, or some random event of nature, Humanity will die out.  And all we call "human progress" will die with it.  That leaves me wondering, "Why bother?"  That leads me to the answer of God, quite honestly.  I believe I would find it much more difficult living as an atheist than I do as a Christian, by that alone.

That's one of the many, many reasons I'm a Christian.

I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? 

What you are talking of, more specifically, is Humanism, which is, in most cases, an atheistic system.  Not always, though.

Now to answer Shade.

[G0atmaster]

I'd rather give up the finite, in the hope of the infinite, than vice versa.

You'd rather give up on a sure thing and hope for something for which there's no proof whatsoever? Well, to each their own. And besides, what's to keep you from hoping while still having fun? You don't need to believe in a god to hope for something beyond death. I don't believe there's anything after death but, again, to each their own.

and I quote: "How do you know lions exist?  You've simply seen a cat, and imagined something greater, and called it a lion.  There are no such things as lions.  Only cats." Kudos if you get the reference without googling.

IDK about you, but I'd rather enjoy an eternity promised to me by God (who has a VERY good credit score, btw.  Take a look at Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Jeremiah 4, and so many more)

We consider a proven-to-be-wrong-in-many-cases and, in many versions, piss-poorly translated book a credible source now? Any time you choose to quote like that instead of presenting a logical argument, that point is basically lost by default, because those quotes only mean anything if the existence of that particular god is taken for granted.

  Poorly translated?  Proven wrong?  Examples and evidence please?  What research have you done into the labors of bible scholarship?

That's not a possibility at all.  Truth is objective.  Reality is objective.  Senses can be tricked, but they exist in a consistent universe.  By arguing that this idea is possible, you cut your own throat.

You'd almost think so, wouldn't you? Except I wasn't arguing, I was proposing it (hence the 'What if') to make a point later. Later being now.

You see, the whole idea of an afterlife is based on the soul leaving our body and going... somewhere. Heaven or hell according to the whim of the Christian god, according to you. But noone really knows, do they? Noone has ever come back and told the tale, indeed, those who have come back (being revived after having been dead for a short time) have had no tale to tell. So again, it comes down to belief. And in that realm of thinking, it is just as possible that the person's own beliefs decide the final stop as it is for a god to do so or, if you insist on having a god in the picture, for the god to render judgment based on where that particular soul thinks it belongs. And if so, wouldn't it be better to not believe in hell?

  There is one.  I'm sure you know of the story.  He was dead for a few days.  Three, to be precise.

The point being: It is all down to belief. And while the world may be objective and rational, belief is not constrained by such things. So if this is no possibility at all since the world is rational, then logically neither is religion as they are both simply aspects of belief.

  I'm confused.  The world is an aspect of belief?

[karajorma]

The point of Pascal's Wager is to prove that there is a reason to believe in God without the need to already assume he exists. The second you start quoting scripture to prove the wager is correct you lose.

I thought the whole point of Atheism was to believe in yourself and what you are capable of, rather than a deity. Am I misinformed? 

The whole point of atheism is not to believe.


Now back on subject.

[TrashMan]

You had your chance then, you failed. You don't get to push the reset button and claim that the discussion didn't happen just because you feel like making the same arguments again. If you want to know why you're wrong search for the previous thread and look at the answers to that particular point back then. If you want to come back with something new after that then all well and good.

If you're simply going to make the same arguments you made last time then you might as well give up. The thread is about pascal's wager and if you think you're going to drag it off-topic to make the exact same argument you made months ago you are VERY much mistaken.

Apparently, you didn't understand a single thing I said.
the previous discussion is irrelevant, because what you classify atheism as is also irrelevant - it's the behavior that matters.
And as I said - I know more than enough atheists that act worse then the worst religious people I know.

-----------------

And it's not just the money- it's the believing in a lie willingly which is evil, and the consequences it has on your decisions which negatively impact the world around you.

Lie?
Negatively impacting the world? What am I doing to negatively impact the world?

Speaking of which, atheists killed more people in the last century that most world religions in their combined history.

you're ignoring buddhism, hinduism, confucianism, norse, etc.

This was about believing in God....what you mention aren't monotheistic religions.



You're wrong on point 3, b.t.w. Wrong by a loooooooooooooongshot.

[Ghostavo]

And it's not just the money- it's the believing in a lie willingly which is evil, and the consequences it has on your decisions which negatively impact the world around you.

Lie?
Negatively impacting the world? What am I doing to negatively impact the world?

Speaking of which, atheists killed more people in the last century that most world religions in their combined history.

Well, if you are to believe the bible, God killed much more people than Stalin so that point is moot. 

you're ignoring buddhism, hinduism, confucianism, norse, etc.

This was about believing in God....what you mention aren't monotheistic religions.

Norse, roman, greek, etc... religions have gods, therefore they are as liable in the wager as christian, muslin, etc... religions. Not to mention religions that may not exist, because after all, how can you be certain that "the true god" has already been "discovered"?

[TrashMan]

Well, if you are to believe the bible, God killed much more people than Stalin so that point is moot. 

Where did you get that from?
And there were many more from where Stalin came from b.t.w. (you just don't hear much about them)

Norse, roman, greek, etc... religions have gods, therefore they are as liable in the wager as christian, muslin, etc... religions. Not to mention religions that may not exist, because after all, how can you be certain that "the true god" has already been "discovered"?

If multiple "Gods" make sense to you...that aren't even godly (in power or behavior)....then I guess it applies too (for you).

[karajorma]

the previous discussion is irrelevant, because what you classify atheism as is also irrelevant - it's the behavior that matters.

Your entire point was irrelevant to the subject of Pascal's Wager and in posting a deliberately inflammatory comment designed to derail the thread came very close to trolling. You've then compounded that by now making pointless off-topic inflammatory remarks in reply to me about how bad atheists you know act. Again borderline trolling.

Don't do it again. Last warning.

This was about believing in God....what you mention aren't monotheistic religions.

That's the entire point Trashman. Pascal's Wager completely ignores every single polytheistic religion and assumes that it's a binary choice between God (whatever name he uses) and no god. It doesn't allow for the possibility that there are other Gods other than yours. Thus it is fundamentally flawed as a piece of logic.


And that's before we get to the fact that even Pascal himself didn't mean the wager to be used in the way you think it should be used. It was meant to persuade agnostics to convert.

[Ghostavo]

Well, if you are to believe the bible, God killed much more people than Stalin so that point is moot. 

Where did you get that from?
And there were many more from where Stalin came from b.t.w. (you just don't hear much about them)

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html

And what about the theists that also commited mass murder? Say... Hitler? (Godwin's law once again...)

It's pointless saying X killed Y people. People kill people either atheist, theist, male, female, black, white, etc...

[Mika]

Pascal's wager, haha!

I recommend also Discworld approach (Terry Pratchett has great understanding of the realities of life!). When the guy proposed this idea died, and met the gods, they each had a heavy club and had nasty thoughts of giving someone a lesson of having seemingly bright ideas...

The only thing which has bothered me for a long time is that if you choose to believe in (especially Christian) god, you have to obey some rules given by the god. But the thing which finally converted me out of any belief systems was that if you follow those rules, you are actually being selfish because then you only follow the rules since you want to get to heaven rather than accept the judgement of your true personality's actions at the end.

Also, it dawned to me that church here never did much good for those in need before modern times, it was actually the relatives. Current system is again that kind that the people already pay taxes to support the homeless, but church has pretty much nothing to do with that! Yeah, this country is really a pagan country, even though the church did its best to override the old traditions. Besides Ukko the Overlord God sounds much better than God.

Somebody already said that if you can improve things today, why do you wait and hope it will be any different in heaven? One of the best examples of this was a priest coming from Holland, (this happened in China) he saw me doing some fighting exercises in Beijing. He came to me and asked my name and if I believe in God, also asked about the reasons for the training. He also had a Chinese girl with him.

I suppose he thought I would answer that I'm from the almighty and believing Europe, I proudly believe in Christian god, and train only for the self-defence. Instead I replied honestly that I'm not in the position to argue for or against the existence of godly beings, and I train to be able to kick someone's ass (yeah, Finns have this special relation with priests). Seemingly shocked he tried to explain about the mercy of God and so there would be no need to train against threats if you believed in God.

He then continued explaining his daughter became a teenage mother, his son became crazy and is currently in asylum, and his wife cheated on him and divorced later - during the trips he has done to Asian contries preaching of the mercy of God. He said he would be happier dead, but God's mercy has kept him going. The only thought I had that where were you mister when all that happened, but this I didn't tell him. I pity for that poor Chinese girl, though. The church could choose their evangelists/priests a little bit better if you ask me. And I have my own suspicions regarding that girl also.

Oh and regarding martial arts, I have actually done only something what most of the people would consider positive with those skills. One suicide attempt (actually a devoted Christian) stopped and one foreign student saved from certain beating which resulted in short fight between me and five drunken yutes. And then there are some interventions in bar fights.

Mika

[TrashMan]

Your entire point was irrelevant to the subject of Pascal's Wager and in posting a deliberately inflammatory comment designed to derail the thread came very close to trolling. You've then compounded that by now making pointless off-topic inflammatory remarks in reply to me about how bad atheists you know act. Again borderline trolling.

Don't do it again. Last warning.

WTF?
Are you deliberately misinterpreting/misunderstanding everything I say? You're the one that brought  the last debate in this topic, not me.

O.k. - one last time..
Atheists believe what they believe(or don't) is right. Religious people too. They both act on the premise that they are right. They both can sometimes act like total retards.
Ergo, since they both act just as stupid, what you classify them doesn't really matter in the end - since we were discussing behaviour of people in the first place.

Comprende?

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html

And what about the theists that also commited mass murder? Say... Hitler? (Godwin's law once again...)

It's pointless saying X killed Y people. People kill people either atheist, theist, male, female, black, white, etc...

 
that page is flat out wrong for many ,many reasons. First, the world was never flooded - only a religion is (but the the writer of that time that was all the known world..guy didn't travel much). I don't even think there WERE 30 million people on Earth waaaaay back then.

And on another note, Stalin, Mao-Ce Tsung, Tito and a bunch of others killed untold millions. Hitler is small fry compared to them.
You might argue that back then, during all the "religious killings" there were far fewer people to kill, thus the smaller death toll. But then again, that really doesn't matter.

[Nuke]

i consider christianity judism 2.0. essentially some of the jewish writings with some books from some crazy people that followed another crazy person, sorta like the manson family. all the books assembled in such a way as to promote a the idea for roman imperialism, which is why christians are so eager to convert the cattle. most of the old testament is more or less based of ancient jewish fokelore which was eventually written down by older prophets. fokelore comes in to being when people without a developed understanding of things try to explain unusual phenomena. this gets passed down from  generation to generation an gets added to or inspires some profit to write works about it.

thing is human knoledge tends to expire. better ideas become accepted than something slapped together by cavemen and and revised by people who know slightly more and assume just as much. sometimes an old government comes around and adds its own input. what better way to make people follow your rules than embedding them in their religion. in 1000 years the bible will cover file sharing, no doubt about that.

all the big prophetic religions tend to place people into a subordinate role to their deities. many forms of paganism put the humans on equal footing with the gods. they have their needs and humans have theirs an an if you scratch my back sorta way. greek and roman paganism sorta invented hell (and the word hell comes from hel, of norse paganism). but for them it was mandatory, everyone had to pay for their transgressions before they could proceed with their afterlife. i think this is more of demand for the greek and roman empires, needing a penalty-reward system in the minds of their people at a low level. consider it social engineering. on that note think about how many commandments were anti-egyptian propaganda (being enslaved and all i think moses would hold a grudge and tweak the rules accordingly). i actually find it amusing that schools in the us are allowed to teach paganism but not religion.

my point is simply that religion is social engineering. it doesnt matter what you believe in so long as it suits the needs of those in power.

[Ghostavo]

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2007/01/how-many-has-god-killed-complete-list.html

And what about the theists that also commited mass murder? Say... Hitler? (Godwin's law once again...)

It's pointless saying X killed Y people. People kill people either atheist, theist, male, female, black, white, etc...

 
that page is flat out wrong for many ,many reasons. First, the world was never flooded - only a religion is (but the the writer of that time that was all the known world..guy didn't travel much). I don't even think there WERE 30 million people on Earth waaaaay back then.

And on another note, Stalin, Mao-Ce Tsung, Tito and a bunch of others killed untold millions. Hitler is small fry compared to them.
You might argue that back then, during all the "religious killings" there were far fewer people to kill, thus the smaller death toll. But then again, that really doesn't matter.

Like I said, according to the bible, that's how many people god killed. The world population at the time is a modern estimate.

And here I thought you considered the bible to hold nothing but the truth. Why then in other debates you hold it so dearly if the writer at the time didn't have any knowledge of the world?

I can also site other names of theists who murdered "untold millions". But that won't accomplish anything. Here's an interesting article pointing out the problem.

[G0atmaster]

I've got mroe to say, but it will take a long time to write.  So for now, I'd just like to point out that according to the Bible, God is responsible for every death in the world.  That makes Him infinitely more at fault than Stalin or Hitler or any of the Popes, or Napoleon, or Alexander.  Now that that's out of the way, He's also responsible for all life.

And according to the Bible (not that you should just assume that that's true, just take this as insight on what I believe), in that respect, God comes out as a good guy overall, because of all the people to have been made, I think three have not died and will not.  Therefore, God has done more life creation than life destruction, and thus, comes out ahead.  Just thought I'd point that out.  When I have more time I'll actually address the past few posts that have shown up while I was busy living life.

[Ford Prefect]

because of all the people to have been made, I think three have not died and will not.

lol wut

[G0atmaster]

Enoch, Christ and Elijah are never said to have died.  I think there are a couple more, but I can't remember for sure.

[TrashMan]

Like I said, according to the bible, that's how many people god killed. The world population at the time is a modern estimate.

And here I thought you considered the bible to hold nothing but the truth. Why then in other debates you hold it so dearly if the writer at the time didn't have any knowledge of the world?

It is the truth (The New Testament. I don't have that much faith on the Old one. It's still the truth, but a bit colored.)
And I don't even get where do you think you're going with this point?
Do the words of of ancient Greek philosophers hold any less weight or credence if they only knew a small part of the word?



As for the article you posted - bollocks! They guy is trying to wrestle with semantics there to somehow claim that no one has ever been killed by atheism, since it's isn't a principle or philospohy. Bollcoks. What is it if not a philospohy or principle? Trying to worm ones way out of it. Geez, that writer should face reality - accept the past and move on. Nothing can be done about it anyway.

[achtung]

TrashMan, when did any of those people you listed claim they were killing for atheism?

[NGTM-1R]

TrashMan, when did any of those people you listed claim they were killing for atheism?

This is faulty logic, since we've already described atheism as the lack of belief, as opposed to belief in anything. Apathy doesn't cause massacres on its own. However the charge that more people have been killed in the name of secular power then in the name of religion remains perfectly valid.