Here's why Theism is irrational

Theists always ask, "What if you're wrong?". They always claim that they're risking the finite, for a infinite gain, while atheists are risking the infinite, for a finite gain.

I'll acknowledge that god cannot be disproven, but here is why that is a weak argument.

Russel's Teapot. For those of you who don't know what it means, I'll elaborate now.

What if I said to you that there was a teapot, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars, orbiting the sun. You tell me that "No, if the teapot is there, why can't we find it".

To that I respond "The teapot is too small to perceive, even with the aided eye. It is completely transparent, and does not give off, or reflect any energy detectable. Any energy it absorbs is given off directly across from it." In short, we have no way of knowing if the teapot is actually there.

You now protest that that is silly, "There's no reason for a teapot to be there, and the likelihood of one being there is impossible".

However, you could not disprove me, always leaving the possibility that the teapot exists. Now, saying this, I might be just one loony, but if I told my children and my friends about the teapot, and some of them honestly believed me, and they taught their children; if we had holy books about the teapot, and worshipped the teapot every Saturday at noon, then soon someone who said that there wasn't a teapot would be the loony.

Now, you ask me. "But what if you're wrong? Don't you have so much to lose by not worshipping God?"

Here's my question to you... "What if YOU'RE wrong?". Granted, maybe you are right, and god exists... But maybe the Romans are right; you should actually worship Zeus: Eternal Damnation for not worshipping Zeus. Maybe the Muslims are right, and you're worshipping the wrong aspect of God, in the wrong way: Eternal Damnation for you again.

Norse god Thor, Egyptian god Osiris, Pastafarian god The Flying Spaghetti Monster: Damnation, Damnation, Damnation.

Granted, you may be right, and everyone else is going to be burning in hell. But what makes that so likely.

What makes this

More likely than this?

Ultimately, any deity based beliefs have no more evidence or logic behind them than a thousand others, so what makes you so sure that YOU are right?

The skeleton of this argument came from Richard Dawkins, but it is in my own words.

I'm not specifically targeting Christians, but as they are the vast majority on this forum, I'm using their point of view for arguments of worshipping the wrong god.

P.S. Do Masochists experience eternal damnation?

Copycat threads now dude? You could have posted in the other thread. As for rational/irritational beliefs...I'll guess we'll find out someday huh?LJS9502_basic

Only a copycat thread in the fact that it parodies the title. This thread is in direct opposition to the original, and is no joke. In my opinion a copycat thread is supposed to be a joke. This is a serious opposition, and a look from the other direction.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Copycat threads now dude? You could have posted in the other thread. As for rational/irritational beliefs...I'll guess we'll find out someday huh?Tylendal

Only a copycat thread in the fact that it parodies the title. This thread is in direct opposition to the original, and is no joke. In my opinion a copycat thread is supposed to be a joke. This is a serious opposition, and a look from the other direction.

"why so seriuos?......Batman!"

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Copycat threads now dude? You could have posted in the other thread. As for rational/irritational beliefs...I'll guess we'll find out someday huh?Tylendal

Only a copycat thread in the fact that it parodies the title. This thread is in direct opposition to the original, and is no joke. In my opinion a copycat thread is supposed to be a joke. This is a serious opposition, and a look from the other direction.

:roll: I wonder of Russel was joking when he came up with that. his is clearly ad hoc and absurd adn the topic of God has been a legitimately debated topic for thousands of years.

but anyhow, there is, as I've demonstrated before, an impressive lot of evidence for the existence of God.

:roll: I wonder of Russel was joking when he came up with that. his is clearly ad hoc and absurd adn the topic of God has been a legitimately debated topic for thousands of years. What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?

but anyhow, there is, as I've demonstrated before, an impressive lot of evidence for the existence of God. Very well, what evidence to you propose?

fanofazrienoch

Theists always ask, "What if you're wrong?". They always claim that they're risking the finite, for a infinite gain, while atheists are risking the infinite, for a finite gain.

I'll acknowledge that god cannot be disproven, but here is why that is a weak argument.

Russel's Teapot. For those of you who don't know what it means, I'll elaborate now.

What if I said to you that there was a teapot, somewhere between the orbits of Earth and Mars, orbiting the sun. You tell me that "No, if the teapot is there, why can't we find it".

To that I respond "The teapot is too small to perceive, even with the aided eye. It is completely transparent, and does not give off, or reflect any energy detectable. Any energy it absorbs is given off directly across from it." In short, we have no way of knowing if the teapot is actually there.

You now protest that that is silly, "There's no reason for a teapot to be there, and the likelihood of one being there is impossible".

However, you could not disprove me, always leaving the possibility that the teapot exists. Now, saying this, I might be just one loony, but if I told my children and my friends about the teapot, and some of them honestly believed me, and they taught their children; if we had holy books about the teapot, and worshipped the teapot every Saturday at noon, then soon someone who said that there wasn't a teapot would be the loony.

Now, you ask me. "But what if you're wrong? Don't you have so much to lose by not worshipping God?"

Here's my question to you... "What if YOU'RE wrong?". Granted, maybe you are right, and god exists... But maybe the Romans are right; you should actually worship Zeus: Eternal Damnation for not worshipping Zeus. Maybe the Muslims are right, and you're worshipping the wrong aspect of God, in the wrong way: Eternal Damnation for you again.

Norse god Thor, Egyptian god Osiris, Pastafarian god The Flying Spaghetti Monster: Damnation, Damnation, Damnation.

Granted, you may be right, and everyone else is going to be burning in hell. But what makes that so likely.

What makes this

More likely than this?

Ultimately, any deity based beliefs have no more evidence or logic behind them than a thousand others, so what makes you so sure that YOU are right?

The skeleton of this argument came from Richard Dawkins, but it is in my own words.

I'm not specifically targeting Christians, but as they are the vast majority on this forum, I'm using their point of view for arguments of worshipping the wrong god.

P.S. Do Masochists experience eternal damnation?

Tylendal

how about everything atheists have are theories... you know nothing more than we do. we have the most historically accurate piece of literature ever written.

how about everything atheists have are theories... you know nothing more than we do. Scientific Theories are completely different from the colliquial usage of the word, and while the vast majority of scientists are atheists, science itself is officially neutral on anything supernatural.

we have the most historically accurate piece of literature ever written. I assume you're talking about The Bible. Bear in mind that everything in the Bible that is, in fact, historically accurate was either actually happening at the time it was written, or was already common knowledge via means completely independent of any divine inspiration. Also, just because some of the Bible is historically accurate for the above-mentioned reasons does not mean everything else in the Bible actually happened.

jlh47

There's nothing irrational about people wanting to follow a god that calls himself jealous. There's nothing irrational about people who enjoy glorifying a deity that is omniscient and all powerful. There's nothing irrational about a god that wants people killed if they work on sabbath to be sacrificed or stoned to death. As long as people destory and gain the riches of other nations, the praising of a deity to please "jealous" is being just. You can not kill or murder your "neighbor". Neighbor imples "Jew" in the Torah. To please a Yahweh, people had to kill those who are not of the children of Israel. To Allah, people had to kill those who aren't muslim.

Gods are personal.

Both the Koran and Old Testament "can't" be irrational. These books do not teach morality. They are middle eastern books created by the fairy tales and legends of prophets who talked and interacted with the supernatural that was plausible due to their culture and belief system.

If anything, these religions are of belief systems. It has nothing to do with rationalism or in being irrational. Morality is not imported from religion.

Uggh..
Why did you make this thread? It doesn't matter what other people think, especially on an internet forum...
No one needs to prove anything...

*In before 9+ pages*IcyToasters

Agreed. Nobody is going to convert over this.

Wrong!CoreoVII

Fantastic input on your behalf! Truly fantastic! :roll:

What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?creepy_mike

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"] What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?fanofazrienoch

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

Yeah! 'Cause there is nothing absurd about talking snakes and donkeys.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"] What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?Frattracide

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

Yeah! 'Cause there is nothing absurd about talking snakes and donkeys.

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"] What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?fanofazrienoch

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

Jesus didn't predict that everyone would think he was white, did he?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="creepy_mike"] What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?scorch-62

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

Jesus didn't predict that everyone would think he was white, did he?

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="creepy_mike"] What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?fanofazrienoch

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

Yeah! 'Cause there is nothing absurd about talking snakes and donkeys.

*facepalm*

It IS in the Bible... >>

[QUOTE="jlh47"]

how about everything atheists have are theories... you know nothing more than we do. Scientific Theories are completely different from the colliquial usage of the word, and while the vast majority of scientists are atheists, science itself is officially neutral on anything supernatural.

we have the most historically accurate piece of literature ever written. I assume you're talking about The Bible. Bear in mind that everything in the Bible that is, in fact, historically accurate was either actually happening at the time it was written, or was already common knowledge via means completely independent of any divine inspiration. Also, just because some of the Bible is historically accurate for the above-mentioned reasons does not mean everything else in the Bible actually happened.

The renowned archaeologist Nelson Glueck put it like this:

It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which conform in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible (1959, p. 31).

creepy_mike

http://www.seeking4truth.com/historical_accuracy_of_the_bible.htm

i'm sorry if i come off as rude, but someone makes a topic about this every day. kinda gets on your nerves when people try to put down my God every day.

the other thread just said that it's better to give yourself better chances if there is a god, mwhich makes perfect sense, if it dosn't disturb your regular life or other people's what's wrong with it?

That article you posted yourself said that there was a posibility that it was there, if it dosn't effect you, you might as well not take he risk and aknolage it.

It IS in the Bible... >>

scorch-62

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]

It IS in the Bible... >>

fanofazrienoch

NO, but it does exhibit the absurdity of your religion. You made the claim that the teapot cannot be compared to other deities because it is so absurd, but your religion is just as absurd to those who don't believe it.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]

It IS in the Bible... >>

Frattracide

NO, but it does exhibit the absurdity of your religion. You made the claim that the teapot cannot be compared to other deities because it is so absurd, but your religion is just as absurd to those who don't believe it.

*Facepalm*. Just let Richard Dawkins do the atheist work and stay out of it.chester706

[QUOTE="creepy_mike"] What makes the subject of (your) God more legitimate than the teapot, or at least any other deities?fanofazrienoch

Russel's example, as I've already stated is ad hoc and absurd and you cannot deny that the existence of god has been a legitimately debated subject for millenia. russel's example was not another deity, but other deities are not the same as some teapot conjured up by Russel

Very well, what evidence to you propose?creepy_mike

I would like to see the evidence that Jesus was a real person.

I would like to see the evidence that Jesus was a real person.

Devil-Itachi

A: are you willing to continue this debate after it starts?

B: why do you reject the historicity of Jesus?

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]

It IS in the Bible... >>

fanofazrienoch

NO, but it does exhibit the absurdity of your religion. You made the claim that the teapot cannot be compared to other deities because it is so absurd, but your religion is just as absurd to those who don't believe it.

I suppose you could take a more modern view of the religion. You could say that all those stories are just metaphors but the core of the religion is still absurd.

[QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]

I would like to see the evidence that Jesus was a real person.

fanofazrienoch

A: are you willing to continue this debate after it starts?

B: why do you reject the historicity of Jesus?

Well it's in the bible, can't really take the bible as a historical document. Though I do realize it mentions some historical events.

And depends.

One thing about that, the Romans didn't worship Zues, they worshipped Jupiter. Granted he was basically a rip-off of Zues, but still :P.

Also, here's the way to avoid eternal damnation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]

It IS in the Bible... >>

Frattracide

NO, but it does exhibit the absurdity of your religion. You made the claim that the teapot cannot be compared to other deities because it is so absurd, but your religion is just as absurd to those who don't believe it.

I suppose you could take a more modern view of the religion. You could say that all those stories are just metaphors but the core of the religion is still absurd.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]

It IS in the Bible... >>

Frattracide

NO, but it does exhibit the absurdity of your religion. You made the claim that the teapot cannot be compared to other deities because it is so absurd, but your religion is just as absurd to those who don't believe it.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"]

I would like to see the evidence that Jesus was a real person.

Devil-Itachi

A: are you willing to continue this debate after it starts?

B: why do you reject the historicity of Jesus?

Well it's in the bible, can't really take the bible as a historical document. Though I do realize it mentions some historical events.

And depends.

why do you reject the epistles and Gospels as non-historical genre? fanofazrienoch

Could of easily been made up.

the core of christianity is God and his son Jesus, but its very hard to make a case that the absurdity of the core of christianity is just as absurd as Russel's teapot considering that this subject has been a legitimately debated topic for thousands of years. fanofazrienoch

Guys coming back from the dead, eternal damnation for not believing in certain things, that sounds pretty absurd to me. Just because something has been debated, does not make it sensible or legitimate. That is in fact, why things are debated.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

why do you reject the epistles and Gospels as non-historical genre? Devil-Itachi

Could of easily been made up.

1: who made it up?

2: what evidence do you have that the gospels and epistles were fabricated documents?

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] the core of christianity is God and his son Jesus, but its very hard to make a case that the absurdity of the core of christianity is just as absurd as Russel's teapot considering that this subject has been a legitimately debated topic for thousands of years. Frattracide

Guys coming back from the dead, eternal damnation for not believing in certain things, that sounds pretty absurd to me. Just because something has been debated, does not make it sensible or legitimate. That is in fact, why things are debated.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] the core of christianity is God and his son Jesus, but its very hard to make a case that the absurdity of the core of christianity is just as absurd as Russel's teapot considering that this subject has been a legitimately debated topic for thousands of years. fanofazrienoch

Guys coming back from the dead, eternal damnation for not believing in certain things, that sounds pretty absurd to me. Just because something has been debated, does not make it sensible or legitimate. That is in fact, why things are debated.

"A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="scorch-62"]

It IS in the Bible... >>

LJS9502_basic

NO, but it does exhibit the absurdity of your religion. You made the claim that the teapot cannot be compared to other deities because it is so absurd, but your religion is just as absurd to those who don't believe it.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2022:28-30

[QUOTE="Devil-Itachi"][QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"]

why do you reject the epistles and Gospels as non-historical genre? fanofazrienoch

Could of easily been made up.

1: who made it up?

2: what evidence do you have that the gospels and epistles were fabricated documents?

Someone around 30 AD-100 AD. I think the religions you don't believe should cover that.

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="fanofazrienoch"] the core of christianity is God and his son Jesus, but its very hard to make a case that the absurdity of the core of christianity is just as absurd as Russel's teapot considering that this subject has been a legitimately debated topic for thousands of years. Frattracide

Guys coming back from the dead, eternal damnation for not believing in certain things, that sounds pretty absurd to me. Just because something has been debated, does not make it sensible or legitimate. That is in fact, why things are debated.

"A witty saying proves nothing" -Voltaire.

the reason people go to hell is because of sin, not because they didn't believe some things. but regardless, it has been *legitimately debated*.

2 points

1: who made it up?

2: what evidence do you have that the gospels and epistles were fabricated documents?

fanofazrienoch

Someone around 30 AD-100 AD. I think the religions you don't believe should cover that.

Devil-Itachi

oh, and BTW, the Gospels were either written by eye-witnesses (John and possibly matthew) or written when the original witnesses were still alive (Mark, Luke, and probably Matthew). hence they are based on very early testimony and tradition. but regardless, Paul personally knew Peter and James. Paul also recites 2 extremely early creedal formulas in 1 Corinthians 11:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. the 1 Corinthians 11:23 creed dates to before Jesus died, and the 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 creed dates to 1-3 years after the death of Jesus.