Atheists.. find a religion. For your own sake.

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"]uh.. no. i'm not gonna spend my days bowing to the southeast and fasting for a month every year in hopes that i picked the right religion... me: " hey god, i'm dead now and i followed all your crazy rules. its paradise time right?" god: "oh.. sorry... the correct religion was zoroastionism.. you burn!"-Big_Red-

not really, pascal's wager can be a cogent argument, albiet, not an argument for christianity, but probably the best argument imaginable against Atheism. The reason is that there are a very limited number of high utility worldviews, those which promise eternal happiness for those who accept their worldview, and those who promise eternal torment for those who reject said worldview. There are only a limited number of these and of them, Christianity is the most reasonable. But it would be silly to wager on a medium utility worldview (one that promises eternal bliss for everyone) or a non-utilitarian worldview (an annihliationist worldview, those which say that there is no afterlife)danwallacefan

It would be a fine argument if it weren't for the fact that nobody chooses what they believe. Because of that, it makes the transition to a useless argument.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="-Big_Red-"] I made this topic to persuade people Ideology, to become a Musilm, or a Christian , or a Buddhists. Not to.... Pretend.-Big_Red-

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"] Why are you being foolish? You and I both know that you cannot convert to every known religion.-Big_Red-

I don't think you thought your logic all the way through.

No. You misunderstand. If you are willing to admit that there is the possibly an atheist might be wrong and should convert to a religion for strategic purposes. Then, by implication you admit that every belief could possibly be wrong. This is known as an axiom, a fact an individual MUST accept if he wishes to confront an idea or philosophy. Since you automatically exclude all other religions when you choose one for yourself, (in most cases anyway) you run the risk of being wrong and suffering for it. By not adhering to ALL religions, you run the same risk as an atheist. Because you are not willing to reject your religion for the sake of security, you contradict your argument that religions should be chosen for strategic reasons.

QED

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

I don't think you thought your logic all the way through.

FamiBox

ohh... the irony.

How in the hell am I acting like I lack common sense? Are you even trying to act like an intelligent human being? Or are you just.... Trolling?

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="FamiBox"]Pascal's Wager = for the lose.
unholymight

This is only if there were a 50% chance that the Bible is fact, which isn't the case.

but Pascal's wager CAN at minimum show that Atheism and adherence to any worldview which promises no afterlife is totally irrational

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]not really, pascal's wager can be a cogent argument, albiet, not an argument for christianity, but probably the best argument imaginable against Atheism. The reason is that there are a very limited number of high utility worldviews, those which promise eternal happiness for those who accept their worldview, and those who promise eternal torment for those who reject said worldview. There are only a limited number of these and of them, Christianity is the most reasonable. But it would be silly to wager on a medium utility worldview (one that promises eternal bliss for everyone) or a non-utilitarian worldview (an annihliationist worldview, those which say that there is no afterlife)GabuEx

It would be a fine argument if it weren't for the fact that nobody chooses what they believe. Because of that, it makes the transition to a useless argument.

[QUOTE="unholymight"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] not really, pascal's wager can be a cogent argument, albiet, not an argument for christianity, but probably the best argument imaginable against Atheism. The reason is that there are a very limited number of high utility worldviews, those which promise eternal happiness for those who accept their worldview, and those who promise eternal torment for those who reject said worldview. There are only a limited number of these and of them, Christianity is the most reasonable. But it would be silly to wager on a medium utility worldview (one that promises eternal bliss for everyone) or a non-utilitarian worldview (an annihliationist worldview, those which say that there is no afterlife)danwallacefan

This is only if there were a 50% chance that the Bible is fact, which isn't the case.

but Pascal's wager CAN at minimum show that Atheism and adherence to any worldview which promises no afterlife is totally irrational

Convicted fraud and pseudoscience charlatan, MISTER Kent Hovind argues that what has already been directly-observed and shown to be certainly true is (in his opinion) impossible, and the only option he thinks is possible is that an imperceptible (and possibly imaginary) mystical being poofed everything out of nothing by magic. The irony is that what he proposes is physically impossible because it defies all natural laws, and it's logically implausible since it has neither precedent nor parallel anywhere in reality to imply that it could still be true anyway. Where is there evidence anywhere that such a thing actually exists, or that anything even could have any of these abilities? AronRa

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="unholymight"]

This is only if there were a 50% chance that the Bible is fact, which isn't the case.

unholymight

but Pascal's wager CAN at minimum show that Atheism and adherence to any worldview which promises no afterlife is totally irrational

well how do you know that no one chooses their beliefs? I see people choose to deny obvious beliefs all the time, and I see many people hold to beliefs which they do not find rational all the time. It seems that all rationality, being composed of a series of "oughts" implies freedom to choose what to believe. danwallacefan

What does it mean to believe in something? That you think it is true, or at least the most likely thing to be true, no? Then how in the world could you determine that something else is true just by willing yourself to do so?

People can lie to themselves by choice; that's easy. But people can't change what they actually believe.

If god is omnipotent, all powerful and all knowing, he would have known when he "created" me that I was going to choose Athiesm and go to hell.
God is a jerk!

Higher probability that Christianity is right? How can we quantify such a thing? From the script of the Fourteenth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism [quote="AronRa"]Convicted fraud and pseudoscience charlatan, MISTER Kent Hovind argues that what has already been directly-observed and shown to be certainly true is (in his opinion) impossible, and the only option he thinks is possible is that an imperceptible (and possibly imaginary) mystical being poofed everything out of nothing by magic. The irony is that what he proposes is physically impossible because it defies all natural laws, and it's logically implausible since it has neither precedent nor parallel anywhere in reality to imply that it could still be true anyway. Where is there evidence anywhere that such a thing actually exists, or that anything even could have any of these abilities? CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]What is the point of following a religion if you don't actually have faith in it? Would it save you from hell?-Big_Red-

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]well how do you know that no one chooses their beliefs? I see people choose to deny obvious beliefs all the time, and I see many people hold to beliefs which they do not find rational all the time. It seems that all rationality, being composed of a series of "oughts" implies freedom to choose what to believe. GabuEx

What does it mean to believe in something? That you think it is true, or at least the most likely thing to be true, no? Then how in the world could you determine that something else is true just by willing yourself to do so?

People can lie to themselves by choice; that's easy. But people can't change what they actually believe.

I see you C&P AronRa's statement quite often. I am a fan of AronRa's foundational falsehoods of creationism, but this point he made seems to espouse a really ****ed up epistemology. Furthermore, the reason that christianity is more likely to be true is simply that it has more evidence than the other high-utility worldviews which don't rely on ad hoc rationalizations. danwallacefan

Higher probability that Christianity is right? How can we quantify such a thing? From the script of the Fourteenth Foundational Falsehood of Creationism CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]indeed. There is quite a bit higher probability of Christianity being right. But once again, the problem is you can't wager between christianity and the lack of christianity, but merely between Christianity and other high-utility worldviews. of all the high utility worldviews (those which promise infinite gain for those who believe, and infinite loss for those who deny), which is the most reasonable, or better, which has the MOST evidence?

but Pascal's wager CAN at minimum show that Atheism and adherence to any worldview which promises no afterlife is totally irrational

danwallacefan

Sorry, but you should know that calling it "absurd" does nothing to discredit the argument.

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

I don't think you thought your logic all the way through.

Frattracide

No. You misunderstand. If you are willing to admit that there is the possibly an atheist might be wrong and should convert to a religion for strategic purposes. Then, by implication you admit that every belief could possibly be wrong. This is known as an axiom, a fact an individual MUST accept if he wishes to confront an idea or philosophy. Since you automatically exclude all other religions when you choose one for yourself, (in most cases anyway) you run the risk of being wrong and suffering for it. By not adhering to ALL religions, you run the same risk as an atheist. Because you are not willing to reject your religion for the sake of security, you contradict your argument that religions should be chosen for strategic reasons.

QED

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]I see you C&P AronRa's statement quite often. I am a fan of AronRa's foundational falsehoods of creationism, but this point he made seems to espouse a really ****ed up epistemology. Furthermore, the reason that christianity is more likely to be true is simply that it has more evidence than the other high-utility worldviews which don't rely on ad hoc rationalizations. CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]well how do you know that no one chooses their beliefs? I see people choose to deny obvious beliefs all the time, and I see many people hold to beliefs which they do not find rational all the time. It seems that all rationality, being composed of a series of "oughts" implies freedom to choose what to believe. GabuEx

What does it mean to believe in something? That you think it is true, or at least the most likely thing to be true, no? Then how in the world could you determine that something else is true just by willing yourself to do so?

People can lie to themselves by choice; that's easy. But people can't change what they actually believe.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="unholymight"] The Bible's most elementary notions are contradictory. God is immortal and omnipotent, correct? Now, is God capable of killing himself? If he is, he wouldn't be immortal, and if he wasn't, he wouldn't be omnipotent. The Bible builds itself on a logically unsound basis, therefore it cannot be fact.unholymight

Sorry, but you should know that calling it "absurd" does nothing to discredit the argument.

CptJSparrow, have YOU seen the evidence for other high-utility worldviews besides christianity? until then you really have an epistemic obligation to choose christianity over other world religions. danwallacefan

[QUOTE="-Big_Red-"][QUOTE="Cloud_Insurance"]What is the point of following a religion if you don't actually have faith in it? Would it save you from hell?Cloud_Insurance

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Your statement that immortality implies the lack of omnipotence is absurd. You're building upon an omnipotence which entails the ability to violate logic, which is absurd. danwallacefan

Sorry, but you should know that calling it "absurd" does nothing to discredit the argument.

What is a strawman? How is it a strawman? Violate the laws of logic? Let's see. Let's say God then violates logic and decides to be immortal and not immortal at the same time. How does the Bible tell them apart?

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] CptJSparrow, have YOU seen the evidence for other high-utility worldviews besides christianity? until then you really have an epistemic obligation to choose christianity over other world religions. CptJSparrow

When it comes to choosing I religion for strateginc reasons I look at it like this. Lets say some kid is only a straight C student at best. And they want to go to college, now in this analogy college= heaven. You know what that kid is going to do. When they get to high school they're going to become an athlete. Pick a sport, in this analogy a sport= a religion. They're going to pick one that their best at, in this analogy this is believing in a certain religion. And they are going to work their hardest, in this analogy this means having faith in whatever religion they choose. And hopefully they can get into a college, in this analogy= heaven. And now you do not run the same risk as an Atheist. In Atheism you rot in the ground. In many other religions, you go to a place called heaven. Or something like that. . -Big_Red-

You missed the point. Your reasoning is flawed because you have to reject it in order to adhere to any specific religion.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="unholymight"]

Sorry, but you should know that calling it "absurd" does nothing to discredit the argument.

unholymight

What is a strawman? How is it a strawman? Violate the laws of logic? Let's see. Let's say God then violates logic and decides to be immortal and not immortal at the same time. How does the Bible tell them apart?

Your statement that immortality implies the lack of omnipotence is absurd. You're building upon an omnipotence which entails the ability to violate logic, which is absurd. danwallacefan

You cannot fault me for trying. Yeah I failed. But damnit I tried.-Big_Red-

You could try convincing people that there is an actual reason to believe in something. :P Pascal's Wager is nothing more than one big appeal to fear logical fallacy.

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] Your statement that immortality implies the lack of omnipotence is absurd. You're building upon an omnipotence which entails the ability to violate logic, which is absurd. danwallacefan

Sorry, but you should know that calling it "absurd" does nothing to discredit the argument.

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Your statement that immortality implies the lack of omnipotence is absurd. You're building upon an omnipotence which entails the ability to violate logic, which is absurd. CptJSparrow

[QUOTE="unholymight"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"] its absurd because its a strawman. I doubt that any theist in this thread would agree with Descartes that God can violate the laws of logic. danwallacefan

What is a strawman? How is it a strawman? Violate the laws of logic? Let's see. Let's say God then violates logic and decides to be immortal and not immortal at the same time. How does the Bible tell them apart?

If God is omnipotent, he is able to make himself not immortal. Unless there are limits to his omnipotency.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Your statement that immortality implies the lack of omnipotence is absurd. You're building upon an omnipotence which entails the ability to violate logic, which is absurd. danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"][QUOTE="unholymight"]What is a strawman? How is it a strawman? Violate the laws of logic? Let's see. Let's say God then violates logic and decides to be immortal and not immortal at the same time. How does the Bible tell them apart?unholymight

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Your statement that immortality implies the lack of omnipotence is absurd. You're building upon an omnipotence which entails the ability to violate logic, which is absurd. danwallacefan

I don't think I want to follow someone who sends someone to go burn in a lake of fire for the rest of eternity just because they don't believe in them.boshlonavish

Why in the hell do people still use Pascal's Wager?Blood-Scribe

On the SAT, if you get a question wrong you lose 1/4 of a point. Not answering a question is just 0 points. So I could easily end up doing worse if I guess.

Also, Pascal's wager is an awful argument.