Happy Atheist Forum

My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

Pascal's Wager fails on two levels:  First, why should a loving God seek recourse into threats in order to accrue followers?  Why should a church purporting to spread this god's word do the same?

Second, this argument works against Christianity, too:  What happens if the Quran is right?  All the Christians bleating about this Wager are toast.

Haha, well, I think faking belief is a far cry from 'taking a chance' first of all.  To me, Pascal's Wager is about the worst argument ever in favor of religion.  It's a coward's choice, first of all.  Like saying - hey, even if you don't think there's a god, shouldn't you pretend you do just in case so maybe he'll be so shallow and callous, he won't notice you were faking worship of him and let you into heaven anyway?  Yeah, no.  Somehow I imagine the kind of god that would be OK with people faking belief 'just in case' is not a god worth worship, even on the extremely slim chance that it DOES exist.

People who pop up with this argument tend to assume that people are fighting against something to be an atheist.  For me, that's completely untrue.  It's not like I've felt god's presence in the past or feel it now and I'm just choosing to ignore it because atheism is more fun or somehow 'safer' something - I have never in my life experienced anything that would lead me to believe that god exists.  Pair that with the fact that god is not at all a logical concept and you get me as an atheist.  It's not like I could just choose to believe if I wanted to, just like people who are totally down with a certain god-myth can't usually just stop believing just because someone else says 'hey, why not just not believe?  I mean, you might as well, right?'

So let me ask - do you believe in god?  Do you think Pascal's Wager is compelling?  Why/why not?

Most of the major religions mention bad things will happen to you if you believe in/worship the wrong god, so if you're worshiping a god for Pascal's wager and it ends up being the wrong god, then your very screwed, but I haven't seen any religious text mention anything bad will happen for not worshiping a "false" god.

So the safer bet is to not believe in any of them until you know which one it is or even if there is one in the first place.

Your friend just paraphrased Pascal's Wager which is basically just saying you should pretend to believe just in case; you are taking a bet that God accepts fake belief on top of hoping that the God you randomly select is real.

As a side note; people who belong to religions don't fall under "freethinker"  It's not meant to mean someone who simply thinks whatever they want, it is intended to describe a group of people who value reasoned independent philosophical thought as a tool for understanding the world around us.

Quote from: "Whitney"Your friend just paraphrased Pascal's Wager which is basically just saying you should pretend to believe just in case; you are taking a bet that God accepts fake belief on top of hoping that the God you randomly select is real.

As a side note; people who belong to religions don't fall under "freethinker"  It's not meant to mean someone who simply thinks whatever they want, it is intended to describe a group of people who value reasoned independent philosophical thought as a tool for understanding the world around us.

This is a good point, Whitney, but I sometimes wonder what term could be applied to some Christians, especially those who, at the very least, do some research and give some thought to the mythical side of religion, and chose the more practical side.  I have a very good friend who claims to be a Christians, but who also has a PhD in physics and math, understands the whole cosmological arguments and agrees with them, but still holds onto his "faith" that god somehow exists, perhaps even inspite of, all his knowledge.  He is indeed an interesting man.  Just curious about your thoughts.

Quote from: "Martin TK"This is a good point, Whitney, but I sometimes wonder what term could be applied to some Christians, especially those who, at the very least, do some research and give some thought to the mythical side of religion, and chose the more practical side.  I have a very good friend who claims to be a Christians, but who also has a PhD in physics and math, understands the whole cosmological arguments and agrees with them, but still holds onto his "faith" that god somehow exists, perhaps even inspite of, all his knowledge.  He is indeed an interesting man.  Just curious about your thoughts.

If he can use reason to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus and the God of the Bible are real then perhaps the term could apply.  Basically, just because someone is smart and has thought about their faith critically doesn't make them a freethinker if they are still following a prescribed religion (if they make up their own religion based on their philosophical studies then perhaps freethinker might make more sense as a label).

I accept deists and other non-religious theists as under the umbrella of free-thought though.

I have a friend and he and his wife are Pentecostal. They think if you do not go to church, then you will not receive salvation. I said to him, so your religion is all about what is in it for you, not because you love God or actually worship him. I think many people attend church for fear they will go to hell. This is no way for a deity to handle a religion. It looks like all of these fear based conditions are purely man made.

Pascal's Wager? It's really impossible to take that wager isn't it?

If you realize that the only reason to believe in God is the slim possibility that you'll go to hell, then you CAN'T make yourself truly believe in God, can you? The only way to believe in God is to actually have some reason in your mind to THINK it's actually real. If you have this, Pascal's Wager is useless to you because you have some other reason to have faith in God.

If you realize there's really no good reason to think god should exist, You've already outsmarted theism, so the only way to take Pascals Wager is to pretend you believe in God, when you really don't have any real thoughts that constitute faith.  Wouldn't God KNOW that you're just faking belief for an Insurance policy?  Also, you can use Pascals wager on any religion.

Shouldn't you convert to Hinduism, just in case you end up coming back as a tapeworm?
Shouldn't you convert to Islam, just in case Allah sends your infidel ass to hell?
Shouldn't you convert to Paganism, just in case the goddess is displeased and decides to curse you?
Shouldn't you convert to Scientology, just in case you're Thetans destroy you from the inside out?
Shouldn't you convert to Pastafarianism, just in case The Flying Spaghetti Monster puts you in Hell with stale beer and STDs?
Shouldn't you join that cult, just in case you miss the opportunity to have your soul swept away by Haley's Comet?

I say that you need to take the chance that all these superstitions are complete nonsense, and become an atheist, just in case you waste your life worshiping something that isn't there. If you're right, you get to live your life as a free thinker. If you're wrong, there's no telling what will happen to you, because any one of these religions could be right and there is no way to tell which one.

Quote from: "Whitney"If he can use reason to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus and the God of the Bible are real then perhaps the term could apply.  Basically, just because someone is smart and has thought about their faith critically doesn't make them a freethinker if they are still following a prescribed religion (if they make up their own religion based on their philosophical studies then perhaps freethinker might make more sense as a label).

I accept deists and other non-religious theists as under the umbrella of free-thought though.

Of course you can be a free thinker and still believe in God. I'm an atheist, but I'm insulted by that on behalf of my Christian friends. I know exceedingly intelligent people who believe in god. They're free thinkers, they just didn't come to the same logical conclusion as you because their experiences have led them to believe something different.

You're not a free thinker if you believe nonsensical myths that have been disproven (Creation, Flat Earth, Young Earth, Scientific Conspiracies...etc.) But God is a much more complicated issue than illogical science denial. You can be a free thinker who believes in god.  You don't need to be under the God Delusion to come to the God Conclusion.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Second, this argument works against Christianity, too:  What happens if the Quran is right?  All the Christians bleating about this Wager are toast.

As much as I hate to play Devil's Advocate against your argument, if the Qu'ran were right then Christians (and Jews) would go to Heaven. Muslims think they all worship the same God, simply that they're more enlightened. Surprisingly, the theology is one of the more tolerant and peaceful of any religion. Or at least... it's suppose to be. It's the people like you me that will burn in hell.  

But your point is still valid in that there are many religions and not just one to pick from. As Dawkins put it, "What if you're wrong about Thor or Zeus? What if you're wrong about the Great JuJu at the bottom of the sea?"

And to add to KebertX's attack on poor Pascal's Wager I'll say that wouldn't your belief need to be geniune? Would Yahweh really like the fact that you feigned to believe in him just to save your own ass? If it's really a gamble I would be all in: I'd be an Omnitheist.

Your friends argument is the same as say "well I believe in Santa and you should too before it's to late (Dec 25) I would hate to be enjoying all the presents I get while you sit there with coal. Why take the chance of coal when all you have to do is believe to get presents?" Can you force yourself to believe in Santa? Try it right now, really believe in Santa. Write a letter. Set out milk and cookies. Sing carols. Do you believe? No? well I guess it wasn't something you can choose.

Now switch Santa with Jesus, presents with Heaven, coal with Hell, letter writing with prayer, and carol singing with reading the Bible. Do you believe in Jesus? No? well I guess that too isn't a choice.

Pascal's Wager is one of the Worst arguements for anything EVER.

QuoteAs much as I hate to play Devil's Advocate against your argument, if the Qu'ran were right then Christians (and Jews) would go to Heaven. Muslims think they all worship the same God, simply that they're more enlightened. Surprisingly, the theology is one of the more tolerant and peaceful of any religion. Or at least... it's suppose to be. It's the people like you me that will burn in hell.

Muslims regard Christians and Jews both as unwashed, because they have not received the Word of God's Last Prophet.  Christianity regards Jesus as, essentially, God's avatar.  Muslims regard Jesus as only one in a long line of prophets.  There is a difference.

Quote from: "mthans75"I have a friend and he and his wife are Pentecostal. They think if you do not go to church, then you will not receive salvation. I said to him, so your religion is all about what is in it for you, not because you love God or actually worship him. I think many people attend church for fear they will go to hell. This is no way for a deity to handle a religion. It looks like all of these fear based conditions are purely man made.

I wonder how much church attendance is simply habit, done because its always been done. Do people really think that they may go to hell and as such go to church? I'm not convinced, mainly because I very rarely see logic applied by anyone in any situation. If a church going individual really was that logical and capable of critical thinking surly they'd work out the inconsistencies of dogma and superstition?

Welcome aboard!

Quote from: "AverageFreeThinker"My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

There could be a God that hates the idea of spending eternity with believers.  I know I do.

Quote from: "Ellainix"

Quote from: "AverageFreeThinker"My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

There could be a God that hates the idea of spending eternity with believers.  I know I do.

I think your safe, you'll be down in hell with all us lot   actually that may not be an improvement!

Quote from: "AverageFreeThinker"My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

I struggle with the idea as well as I am a former christian. My problem is most religions don't just require that you believe in their god but also that you worship it and sacrifice your entire life (literally if need be) for it. Every minute of every day of your life is meant to be devoted to that god. Looking at most of the gods of various religions they dont deserve that kind of love and devotion considering the things they are said to advocate. Gambling your life, love,time money,devotion and energy on the slim chance that there is a god and you got the right one is wreckless. There is alot to lose. If I said im going to spend my last dollar on a lottery ticket in hopes of winning you'd probably say i was irresponsible. Why then gamble what is probably the only life you'll get one the remote chance of a god?

Well put, NothingSacred.

Pascal's wager is a terrible selling point for Christianity, but there are a few religions that it makes more sense for.

Such as Odinism/heathenry, Hellenistic Paganism, Shamanism, maybe Shinto?, and my personal set of beliefs. Among others.

Quoted from wikipedia: "Half of those that die in combat travel to Valhalla upon death, led by valkyries, while the other half go to the goddess Freyja's field Fólkvangr."

Notice how it doesn't say BELIEVERS, the only qualifier is that you die in combat.

In my version of things it has more to do with who you are as a person, than what you believe in. All souls go to the summerland, but what they find there depends a great deal on how they lived their lives.

I like my afterlife, but I'd be willing to hang in Valhalla. It sounds like all kinds of fun!  

I've been on this board for a little over a year, and admittedly don't have the best memory (thanks in part to numerous concussions) but this seems to be about the 5th thread that has been started by someone who has come across Pascal's wager, without knowing it as such, and the question has moved them enough to post on here about it. Then, the collective we informs that this is PW that they are struggling with and poke holes in it. At least a couple of those threads had to be started by trolls, right???   I don't think that is the case here. No disrespect intended to the OP.

So what is it about PW that makes people who hear it for the first time think it is so profound?

I remember asking myself essentially the same thing when I first started questioning my faith at about 14 years old, but it was more along the lines of "I'll continue to believe, because 'what if I'm wrong?'". It wasn't until I considered there might be an Indian teenager asking himself the same thing about Hinduism that I realized it was BS.

If I'm going to hell with the rest of you people...thank god.

man talks with god 2000 years ago: blessed prophet
man talks with god today: crazy nutcase

Now that's unfair... People can speak to any god they want without being crazy, deluded perhaps, crazy no.

If god speaks BACK, then we can talk about crazy.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Now that's unfair... People can speak to any god they want without being crazy, deluded perhaps, crazy no.

If god speaks BACK, then we can talk about crazy.

Deluded is just another dimension of crazy.

Yeah I would argue that talking to god is a little on the crazy side.
That, or childish.  see: imaginary friend.

Fine, I'll concede that conversations with unvarifeid invisible beings are a tad crazy... But I retain my belief that crazy isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

my main point  of my talk was this:
believe you will conscious forever and you will be
easy pass for eternal life?

how can you become 'unconscious' to reality once your conscious it exists? even after death you remain conscious somewhere in existence

i dont believe in 'god', i believe in love, my worldview is love

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Fine, I'll concede that conversations with unvarifeid invisible beings are a tad crazy... But I retain my belief that crazy isn't a bad thing in and of itself.

Crazy is also relative to the observer.
Healthy crazy is just a synonym for 'different'.

"I'm insane. I didn't understand a word you said."
â€" Friedrich Nietzsche  

Quote from: "kaze420"even after death you remain conscious somewhere in existence

Wait a minute, that isn't in my reference manual.

Quote from: "kaze420"my main point  of my talk was this:
believe you will conscious forever and you will be
easy pass for eternal life?

how can you become 'unconscious' to reality once your conscious it exists? even after death you remain conscious somewhere in existence

i dont believe in 'god', i believe in love, my worldview is love

Kaze, I'm all for smokin' out, but lay off the bong for a few minutes.

Humans became aware long before it was healthy, imo.  You could call it, man's reach exceeding his grasp.
We struggle with the idea that when we die, that's it.  We want to believe that our 'soul' our 'essence' will live on somewhere in the ether.
I would love to observe humanity's progress myself.  Sadly, I just don't think it's in the cards.

Quote from: "kaze420"how can you become 'unconscious' to reality once your conscious it exists?

You do it every night when you go to sleep and are not dreaming....

Quote from: "DropLogic"I would love to observe humanity's progress myself.

I feel the same way.  Contrary to your approach I'm looking into life extension and cryogenic preservation.

Cryogenic preservation is a bad idea.

Now going ot the future via time travel? That's plausible, and preferable. Who knows... by the time you get there they could have immortality of some sort they'd be willign to share with you.

Or it could be a backwards ape based society that'll make you a slave... I'd say that would be interesting, though not in the same way.

If society crumbled before you got there, you'd essentially be a god... though if it advanced too much you'd be more like a mentally retarded monkey in their eyes.  

That's even if you could communicate with them at all. What was I talking about?

I've considered those scenarios and come to the conclusion that humanity's treatment of the dead is as outdated as it's morality.

Consider this:  If I do have my corpse buried or burned I will have no chance of seeing the future.
If I am preserved, I could awaken to a utopian dream.  Sound fascinating?  Yeah probably.   But look at the progess of the last century.  The didn't even have anesthesia 100 years ago.  Now we're doing elective surgery daily.  The odds are equal (and therefore random) that I will wake up in a utopian society, a distopian society, or somewhere in between.  I want to at least have the chance to see and if it's too horrible to live in I can always off myself when I get there.  

Unless they make you immortal out of spite, or drug you so much you can't tell it's a distopia at all...

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Unless they make you immortal out of spite, or drug you so much you can't tell it's a distopia at all...

The possibilities are endless.  Concerning the ones you mentioned, the former would suck.  In fact it would be the closest thing to Hell that I can think of.  The latter I wouldn't mind, by definition.

I wouldn't want to be drugged, my mother had my on a large ammount of ADHD meds when I was a kid and THAT was hellish.

Of course those wern't happy drugs, so it's not exactly the same... But It still really screwed me up when it comes to drugs, I don't even like taking things like pain meds or lactase tablets...  

I'm a Christian and I have never liked Pascal's Wager for many of the reasons named above. Two of the biggest problems I have with Pascal's Wager include:

1. Different religions claim different "Gods" and different paths to heaven - how to "wager" on the correct one?
2. According to the Bible a true saving belief in God is based on heart change and confession of Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10, others) and not an odds driven wager/gamble.

A much better framework for defending the existence of God is shown here (at least in part): http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... answer.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp)

Quote from: "Joel25"I'm a Christian and I have never liked Pascal's Wager for many of the reasons named above. Two of the biggest problems I have with Pascal's Wager include:

1. Different religions claim different "Gods" and different paths to heaven - how to "wager" on the correct one?
2. According to the Bible a true saving belief in God is based on heart change and confession of Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10, others) and not an odds driven wager/gamble.

A much better framework for defending the existence of God is shown here (at least in part): http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... answer.asp (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/answer.asp)

Wow welcome back joel. Where have you been for 3 years? I'm glad you came back.

QuoteWow welcome back joel. Where have you been for 3 years? I'm glad you came back.

Thanks!

Quote2. According to the Bible a true saving belief in God is based on heart change and confession of Jesus Christ as Savior (John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10, others) and not an odds driven wager/gamble.

This is one part that always bugs me.  How does anyone know this is the requirement to get into heaven?  
I also find myself asking, why would god set up this game where you have to believe in him with no proof at all in order to hang out at his place after you die, or else suffer eternal pain.  Doesn't that seem childish to you believers?  Just think about it for a second, don't answer automatically.  It almost seems like it's made up by man, to control other men with fear.

Using the Bible as evidence of your god is circular reasoning.

I always assumed that heaven was like one of those stuffy/fancy parties where you can only get in if you know someone who's on the List... or if you're hot/cool enough, and they have a whole bunch of stupid rules like black tie only.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"I always assumed that heaven was like one of those stuffy/fancy parties where you can only get in if you know someone who's on the List... or if you're hot/cool enough, and they have a whole bunch of stupid rules like black tie only.

If the requirements to get into heaven are accurate, and all that stuff in the bible is true...Heaven would be empty.

The requirements for christian heaven just irk me now. I was in a book store the other day with my mother in law and we stumbled upon a biography book about a notorious criminal who murdered several people and then went to confession and was killed a few days later. She said to me" wow he's lucky our god is a forgiving god" and I thought to myself " the christian god will grant eternal bliss to a serial murderer but I simple disbelieve and I get eternal torture???" ... if heaven exsisted and folks like him are up there how heavenly could it be?

Quote from: "AverageFreeThinker"My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

What is it with christians and this? Do they think we're stupid or that such dishonesty will gain them treasures in heaven?

Pascal's wager is the least convincing argument for believing in god ever conceived because it doesn't convince and it is not intended to convince. It is sort of like the "fuck you" flung at the end of an argument. After failing to convince, they trot out the wager to say "even though I failed to provide a convincing argument, you should believe me anyway." That many christians lead with the wager is telling.

I think Pascal's wager is exactly wrong as far as our species as a whole is concerned. If you believe in a plan, how could that plan go wrong? If you believe in a designer, how could we possibly do anything to destroy the design? If you believe that there is a being out there who will save us, then why save ourselves?

We live in a dark, dangerous universe. If anything of the spark we humans have discovered is to survive, we have to abandon our belief that someone else is looking out for us. If there really is such a being, well, we've done no harm in trying to be self-sufficient. If, however, such a being doesn't exist, then we're all we've got.

Quote from: "AverageFreeThinker"My friend and I were having a debate about whether god is not real or not.He is a average free thinker and I am also a average free thinker.While we were debating,he said something that really hit me.

 He said "John,if you do believe in god you go to heaven if you don't,you have the possibility to go to hell,so why take the chance?"He then proceeded to tell me that religion is really just a gamble and that choosing one religion is that you have one chance to go to heaven so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

I was really thinking about the question he asked me,so I wanna know what you guys think about this question.

As the above users had said, that argument is called Pascal's Wager.  At first, it seems like a strong and solid argument, but once you examine it carefully, it proves to be fallacies.

Pascal's Wager assumes it's a 50/50 chance that either the God of 1 religion exists or no God exist.  In reality, there are an infinite number of theoretic possibilities. Essentially, believing in God, mathematically, isn't anywhere near 1/2.  It's more along the lines of 1/9999999999999...

The theory convinces some people to live as if there were a God (why an omniscient being would be fooled by one of his creations, I don't know), but it doesn't prove the existence of God.

QuoteThis is one part that always bugs me. How does anyone know this is the requirement to get into heaven?

If the Bible is God's Word, and I believe it is, then given the definition of who God is (all-knowing, all-powerful, love, truth, merciful, just, holy, etc.) as He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Word, His Son Jesus Christ, and creation itself then nothing I or any other mere human can say can claim the authority that God's Word can when it says that: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 (http://bible.cc/acts/4-12.htm)) You can't truly know anything just because I or any other group of people say it is so just like I can't truly know anything just because you or any other group of people say it is so. The ultimate source of truth on this issue has to be God and His Word.

QuoteI also find myself asking, why would god set up this game where you have to believe in him with no proof at all in order to hang out at his place after you die, or else suffer eternal pain. Doesn't that seem childish to you believers? Just think about it for a second, don't answer automatically.

I disagree with your assumption and your conclusion. There are many reasons why a belief in God makes more sense to me than not believing in a God. As for your conclusion, God did not create man in order to suffer (although He certainly could have if He wanted to because He is God and who are we to attempt to make Him "fit into what we can understand" with our little pea brains?) Our own sin and disobedience to God's commands and a rejection of His free gift of salvation is where we send ourselves to eternal pain.

QuoteIt almost seems like it's made up by man, to control other men with fear.

Evil people seeking power under the guise of religion is not an uncommon thing throughout history but here is a question to ponder: Did you know that what separates Christianity* apart from every single other religion in the world is that Christianity is the only religion that states that man cannot save Himself and is utterly sinful and utterly incapable of achieving salvation apart from accepting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Now ask yourself, if every other religion says in some form or another that man can achieve salvation on his own (through pleasing Allah, through achieving enlightenment, etc.) and Christianity says that man on His own is worthless and needs to admit his utter sinfulness and powerlessness and need of a Savior - which religions do you think sound like they would be man-created and which one sounds like it would be God-created?

I will quote you and say to don't answer right away - Just think about it for a second, which category sounds man-created vs. God-created....

* "Christianity" = Biblical Christianity that accepts the entire Bible as the Word of God and that salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ (I clarify just because so many different groups call themselves "Christian" but may believe entirely different things)

QuoteUsing the Bible as evidence of your god is circular reasoning.

If the Bible is God's Word, and God is the ultimate source of truth (an important distinction: God is not just truthful but He is actually the source of truth - as in God is the measuring stick for what is and what is not true - given that God is truly all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, etc. and not the irreverent and incorrect cartoon depictions of a "man upstairs" or some other nonsense) then there is no higher reference point for proof of God's existence then His very own Word (exhibited in the Holy Bible and in the Living Word - His Son Jesus Christ).

QuoteThe requirements for christian heaven just irk me now. I was in a book store the other day with my mother in law and we stumbled upon a biography book about a notorious criminal who murdered several people and then went to confession and was killed a few days later. She said to me" wow he's lucky our god is a forgiving god" and I thought to myself " the christian god will grant eternal bliss to a serial murderer but I simple disbelieve and I get eternal torture???"

You and I and everyone else all were born with hearts full of evil and the capacity to do things just as evil as that murderer. We may not follow through and actually do the deed but Jesus says in Matthew 5 if we have been wrongfully angry with someone then we are equivalent to having murder in our hearts or if we have lusted after someone then it's as if we have had adultery with them in our hearts.

Our own evil hearts and our own rejection of God's free gift of salvation will send us to eternal torture but not because God is not extending to us, each and every one of us - people who have just thought murderous thoughts in their heart and those who have actually committed murder, the free gift of salvation. We all do not deserve salvation because of our evil hearts: you, me, and the murderer you mentioned. We all have to choose to accept His free gift of salvation.

When you say you "simply disbelieve" you are acting as if that is not a big deal that you are choosing to refuse God's free gift of salvation, say that He does not even exist, and that you will be OK on your own. That is very much a big deal.

Quote... if heaven exsisted and folks like him are up there how heavenly could it be?

Everyone will be sinless in heaven and God will make everything perfect. Side note: No, it will not be a boring eternity filled with cloud sitting and harp playing but a perfect version of everything wonderful on earth.

QuoteIf you believe in a plan, how could that plan go wrong? If you believe in a designer, how could we possibly do anything to destroy the design? If you believe that there is a being out there who will save us, then why save ourselves?

The amazing thing is that God's plan involves creating us to have free will and not simply be robots that He controls. Our limited human minds can't even begin to fully grasp how Divine Sovereignty and personal responsibility work together but would you rather that God had made you just a robot?

Nothing can thwart God's overall Divine plan but because of His allowing man to have free will to make both good decisions (like accept God's free gift of salvation and follow Biblical principles) and bad decisions (like refuse to acknowledge that there is a God, refuse salvation, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, steal, etc.) then there are many things within his overall Divine plan that he does not desire as best for us and those bad decisions have very negative consequences both for the person committing the sin and for others around them.

Quote from: "Joel25"Evil people seeking power under the guise of religion is not an uncommon thing throughout history but here is a question to ponder: Did you know that what separates Christianity* apart from every single other religion in the world is that Christianity is the only religion that states that man cannot save Himself and is utterly sinful and utterly incapable of achieving salvation apart from accepting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Now ask yourself, if every other religion says in some form or another that man can achieve salvation on his own (through pleasing Allah, through achieving enlightenment, etc.) and Christianity says that man on His own is worthless and needs to admit his utter sinfulness and powerlessness and need of a Savior - which religions do you think sound like they would be man-created and which one sounds like it would be God-created?

I will quote you and say to don't answer right away - Just think about it for a second, which category sounds man-created vs. God-created....

* "Christianity" = Biblical Christianity that accepts the entire Bible as the Word of God and that salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ (I clarify just because so many different groups call themselves "Christian" but may believe entirely different things)

You can't accept the entire Bible as the literal Word of God and also accept that the only salvation is through grace.  The Bible literally lays out a second path to salvation through works, and even mentions which works will keep you out of the book of life.  There was a preacher who told me the Bible was God's word and was literal.  I mentioned the Great White Throne Judgment, of which he was aware.  He said that to understand the Great White Throne Judgment, you have to read about ten other Bible verses, and then you will understand that at that judgment nobody will have their name in that book.  He was interpreting that section of the Bible after telling me the Bible was not for interpretation, but was to be taken literally.

That part of Revelation literally leaves the door open to salvation through works if you happen to miss out on salvation through grace.  However, this does not suit Christianity, because of course what is the point in believing in Jesus, er... Horus, er... Krishna if you can get there simply by not being a complete deviant.

As for literal... Matthew and Luke have different genealogies for Jesus.  Luke has 53 generations from Abraham.  Matthew has 42.  God seems to be perfectly imperfect.

Didn't answer this before, did I..?  

Quote from: "AverageFreeThinker"so why become an atheist and take no chances at all?

Sometimes fun costs you, and life without certain forms of fun is arguably not worth living. That there would be as good an answer as any. Personally, the afterlife was never even close to being an issue when I started calling myself atheist.

The problem with many religious people who raise this question is their lack of understanding of the fact that people see things differently and value different things. If I literally woke up dead, for example, I'd be positively surprised to find myself still in existence. And if the place where I woke up was hell, well... I'd work with that. I'd have to, wouldn't I? Going by what I know, however, there is near-zero chance (So close it might as well BE zero) of waking up dead, as I put it,  so why should I base any decision in the life I know I have on the prospect of some highly hypothetical life beyond? I'll just live my best and die like the rest.

I did not choose atheism to avoid a gamble, and I think I speak for the majority when I say that, even though our reasons differ greatly.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteThis is one part that always bugs me. How does anyone know this is the requirement to get into heaven?

If the Bible is God's Word, and I believe it is, then given the definition of who God is (all-knowing, all-powerful, love, truth, merciful, just, holy, etc.) as He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Word, His Son Jesus Christ, and creation itself then nothing I or any other mere human can say can claim the authority that God's Word can when it says that: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 (http://bible.cc/acts/4-12.htm)) You can't truly know anything just because I or any other group of people say it is so just like I can't truly know anything just because you or any other group of people say it is so. The ultimate source of truth on this issue has to be God and His Word.

And how do you know all that?

Quote

QuoteI also find myself asking, why would god set up this game where you have to believe in him with no proof at all in order to hang out at his place after you die, or else suffer eternal pain. Doesn't that seem childish to you believers? Just think about it for a second, don't answer automatically.

I disagree with your assumption and your conclusion. There are many reasons why a belief in God makes more sense to me than not believing in a God.

Most likely because you're starting out with the assumption that a God does exist.

QuoteAs for your conclusion, God did not create man in order to suffer (although He certainly could have if He wanted to because He is God and who are we to attempt to make Him "fit into what we can understand" with our little pea brains?)

Who are we to question God? We should never question things that we can't possibly understand and just take everything on faith. Right?

QuoteOur own sin and disobedience to God's commands and a rejection of His free gift of salvation is where we send ourselves to eternal pain.

You Christians always word that in a way that attempts to reduce the ridiculousness of it. I see no evidence of God, and try to be a good person, but my "own sin and disobedience to God's commands and a rejection of His free gift of salvation" is sending me to Hell. You're trying to make it seem as if I know full well that your religion is true and am just denying it (which you might actually think). I don't. And what about people of other religions, like Islam?

QuoteEvil people seeking power under the guise of religion is not an uncommon thing throughout history but here is a question to ponder: Did you know that what separates Christianity* apart from every single other religion in the world is that Christianity is the only religion that states that man cannot save Himself and is utterly sinful and utterly incapable of achieving salvation apart from accepting the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ (For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8,9)?

Doesn't Islam state that as well? Anyways, so what? Your religion doesn't like humanism. What relevance does that have? All religions have certain features that set them apart from all the rest.

QuoteNow ask yourself, if every other religion says in some form or another that man can achieve salvation on his own (through pleasing Allah, through achieving enlightenment, etc.) and Christianity says that man on His own is worthless and needs to admit his utter sinfulness and powerlessness and need of a Savior - which religions do you think sound like they would be man-created and which one sounds like it would be God-created?

They all sound fake.

QuoteI will quote you and say to don't answer right away - Just think about it for a second, which category sounds man-created vs. God-created....

Both.

Quote* "Christianity" = Biblical Christianity that accepts the entire Bible as the Word of God and that salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ (I clarify just because so many different groups call themselves "Christian" but may believe entirely different things)

That seems like it's bordering might close to a No True Scotsman fallacy. I would call a Christian anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was the son of God.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteUsing the Bible as evidence of your god is circular reasoning.

If the Bible is God's Word, and God is the ultimate source of truth (an important distinction: God is not just truthful but He is actually the source of truth - as in God is the measuring stick for what is and what is not true - given that God is truly all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, etc. and not the irreverent and incorrect cartoon depictions of a "man upstairs" or some other nonsense) then there is no higher reference point for proof of God's existence then His very own Word (exhibited in the Holy Bible and in the Living Word - His Son Jesus Christ).

You just used circular reasoning here. Let me explain with a graphic:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcoasm.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F06%2Fbreak-the-cycle.jpg&hash=790938ce17726aaab36ba6c0abe98304b52b001d)

QuoteYou can't accept the entire Bible as the literal Word of God and also accept that the only salvation is through grace. The Bible literally lays out a second path to salvation through works, and even mentions which works will keep you out of the book of life.

It's very easy to take one verse or one passage of Scripture out of context and literally make it say almost anything. Many very smart and even very Godly Christians have gone astray in different areas because of this, not to mention atheists A proper hermeneutic or method of interpreting Scripture involves yes, a literal approach, but also an approach that looks at every verse and passage in context of Scripture as a whole.

For this particular grace/works issue there are overwhelming numbers of Scripture that show that salvation is a free gift and not earned by works (Ephesians 2:8,9 as mentioned and even in Isaiah it goes so far as to say that man's attempts at righteousness apart from God is "as filthy rags" - which in the Hebrew means used menstrual rags so as vile as one could imagine is our own attempts at doing good works/earning salvation apart from God)

For example, some Christians, Martin Luther notably (I think it was him), had problems understanding the book of James because James was so works focused. The key to understanding James is that many people say they are Christians (but don't really understand what they are saying nor do they really care) but a true Christian will show good works ("fruit" if you will) so works does not earn salvation but those who are saved will show "fruit" of their salvation in the form of good works (so, where there is salvation there is works but works does not bring about salvation)

QuoteAs for literal... Matthew and Luke have different genealogies for Jesus. Luke has 53 generations from Abraham. Matthew has 42. God seems to be perfectly imperfect.

One genealogy was traced through Mary and the other through Joseph: (More Info (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/06/feedback-questioning-the-bible))

QuoteYou just used circular reasoning here. Let me explain with a graphic:

All reasoning at its highest level is circular. Here is what I mean:

(I'll just cherry pick two different worldviews: Christian and atheist and forgive me for painting in broad strokes because I realize that every Christian and every atheist is obviously not the same)

Christian: God is the the source of all truth. Whatever God says (the Bible) is truth. Why is it the truth? Because God said it. How can that claim be trusted? One the basis of who God is - because God is all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful, etc.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is a God and He really is who He says He is - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that there is no possible higher standard for truth holds. Of course, if there is not a God then everything falls apart.

Atheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is no God and man must make sense out of a possibly senseless world and be the final arbiter of truth - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that what the best and brightest of mankind over the centuries have discovered as being truth sounds good but even given the assumption that there is no God then how can we know that our human brains aren't only partially developed and we really aren't fully evolved enough to grasp what is truth and what is not? We may think we are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary process but what if we are hardly even 1.3% of the way there and trillions of years in the future suprahumans will look back on us and our pathetic attempts at reason and understanding the same way that we now look back at amoebas? How do we truly know or rely on anything if all we have to trust is our own brains (that are admittedly still an in process work of evolution)? We can certainly rely on the consensus that we can arrive at together with our pooled amoeba knowledge and we can feel good about ourselves, but should we?

QuoteWe should never question things that we can't possibly understand and just take everything on faith. Right?

Wrong. Question everything. Given what I know about the world around me believing in God makes the most sense to me among all other alternatives:

1. That there is an absolute right and wrong that all of us know without it having to be taught to us (God has placed a "conscience" and knowledge of Him within us "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19,20)

2. The wonder of the universe and how it works perfectly together in perfect order ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork")

3. We don't see anything that is in the process of evolution or halfway evolved

4. I have a desire to know God (Ecclesiastes says that the reason all of us want to know God and want to live for ever and want something more than just this short life is because He made us that way - He "placed eternity in our hearts")

5. The coded information found in the smallest parts of us (DNA code = coder/code designer)

6. The bazillion different interrelated and interdependent machinations that all must be working 100% correctly and in coordination with each other for the world to exist otherwise we all die (i.e. one little machination couldn't evolve and survive on its own and the whole couldn't survive without all of its parts functioning properly at the same time)

7. I called to God and I have experienced His working personally in my life (Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you know not.")

Remember, these are not "proofs" that I am citing that God exists just observations about what I observe to be true in the world and then based on these things that I have observed I am making rational conclusions - one of which is that given the absence of any credible alternatives the most likely, and yes what I wholly believe by faith, and now know because of personal experience, is that God does exist.

The key reason why people can ask the same questions and get different answers is kind of like the idea behind the Upton Sinclair quote that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." so if you approach the issue with a vested interest that you already don't want there to be a God because you don't want to be proven wrong, you enjoy being an atheist, you enjoy living any way you want without having to submit to a Higher Power, you don't like to see the consequences of your actions, etc. then sure, it's very easy for someone to "question things" without really "questioning things". You could also come right back and say the same thing applies to me but I would counter that the atheist has the largest vested interest in maintaining their status quo and not changing given that under the assumption that there is no God if I were to forsake my faith then all I have done is had to admit to you that I was wrong where as an atheist if you were to admit that you were wrong and the Christian God exists then you would have to not only admit you were wrong but admit that you were a powerless sinner headed for eternal torture and in need of a Savior to forgive your sins. Quite a difference in incentives.

Quote from: "Joel25"3. We don't see anything that is in the process of evolution or halfway evolved.

There is no such thing as "halfway evolved" as the process is not progressive toward some predestined goal.  This is a point where many end up confusing evolution with development - they are not the same thing.

Quote from: "Joel25"Atheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

I'm an atheist. Let's see if I really can't do better...

Truth is relative to the observer - I would even go as far as calling it conceptual in the way the word is used. The more objective truth is something we can look for, but even once found, unless it is a matter of yes/no with no possible shadings, that truth will be percieved in different ways by different observers. A small for instance: I see a star. I know** it's there because I see it. An astronomer sees a star. He knows** it died a million years ago and what I'm actually seeing is the light of that dead star still traveling towards Earth. Is my truth less true than the astronomers? Depending on perspective, the answer can go both ways. (As I am unaware of the astronomer's perspective nor he of mine) The star still being there or not is really rather irrelevant to me. I still see the light, do I not? So as far as I'm concerned, the star is still there. If confronted by a different truth, I'll likely say "Oh. Ok" and still regard that specklet of light in the night sky as a star. Of course, eventually the starlight will go out and the astronomer's truth will be the last one standing, making it more true than mine. It need not end there either - there may be truths which will ground the one the astronomer presented too, however unlikely they seem at the time.

So how can you trust a truth to be true? You can not. Not completely, at least. What you can do, however, is examine it and, if it seems to hold its water, assume that it is the truth until proven otherwise. What you demand of proof is somewhat subjective to self, but you can use as objective guidelines as humans can conjure, get your truth reviewed by your peers, etc.

So how do I know* the Earth is elliptical in shape? I don't. However, seeing the pictures taken from the orbiters and the general consensus among the experts on the matter, I assume it is. This assumption is at this moment very strong, so with the numbers on my side, I can call it knowledge**

*Using "know" here as absolute knowledge, or knowledge of the absolute truth
**NOT using knowledge here as absolute knowledge. See? This is where shadings come in.

Excuse the on-the-fly examples used... Found none better due to time of night

Quote from: "Joel25"One genealogy was traced through Mary and the other through Joseph: (More Info (http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/06/feedback-questioning-the-bible))

Matthew traces the genealogy of Abraham through Jacob, the father of Joseph, who is the husband of Mary, the mother of Jesus.  Jacob was the father of Joseph, not the father of Mary, therefore the genealogy here traces through Joseph.

Luke calls Jesus the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, who was the son of Matthat, etc., through Abraham, all the way to Adam.

Both genealogies traced through Joseph, even though, according to Matthew and Luke, Joseph was only Jesus' adoptive father, since Mary was apparently a virgin (Mark, the oldest gospel, doesn't see fit to mention the virgin birth, even though Jesus' divinity is so important to Christianity).

 

QuoteAtheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

This is interesting, considering you say your belief is truth because a book says so.  You say your book was inspired by God, so it must be true, so God must exist.

The Tooth Fairy exists, and is great and powerful, and has unlimited funds to distribute to toothless children.  It is written.

Now you must believe my story, because it was written.  I would not claim I was divinely inspired by the Great Tooth Fairy, but I could be the instrument of the Tooth Fairy's to get the message out.  Perhaps I'm part of the Tooth Fairy's great plan.  I do tend to give away a lot of candy at work.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteYou just used circular reasoning here. Let me explain with a graphic:

All reasoning at its highest level is circular.

No. All reasoning at its highest level has to invoke the use of axioms.

QuoteChristian: God is the the source of all truth. Whatever God says (the Bible) is truth. Why is it the truth? Because God said it. How can that claim be trusted? One the basis of who God is - because God is all-knowing, eternal, all-powerful, etc.

Logical critique: If the assumption that there is a God and He really is who He says He is - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that there is no possible higher standard for truth holds. Of course, if there is not a God then everything falls apart.

No issues here.

QuoteAtheist: Truth exists somewhere out there and whenever I or a proper quotient of others agree that a given thing is truth then that is truth. Whatever we agree on as being truth is truth. Why is it the truth? Because we said so. How can that claim be trusted? On the basis of what we have accomplished together over the ages as humans - our study, research, observation, etc.

Almost. I believe that objective truth exists, but it is impossible to know something is true with one-hundred percent certainty. All we have are our own perceptions of truth and rational thinking. So, basically, "truth" is subjective. The way to make our perceptions of the truth as close as they can be is science.

QuoteLogical critique: If the assumption that there is no God and man must make sense out of a possibly senseless world and be the final arbiter of truth - if that initial assumption is true then the conclusion that what the best and brightest of mankind over the centuries have discovered as being truth sounds good but even given the assumption that there is no God then how can we know that our human brains aren't only partially developed and we really aren't fully evolved enough to grasp what is truth and what is not? We may think we are at the pinnacle of the evolutionary process but what if we are hardly even 1.3% of the way there and trillions of years in the future suprahumans will look back on us and our pathetic attempts at reason and understanding the same way that we now look back at amoebas? How do we truly know or rely on anything if all we have to trust is our own brains (that are admittedly still an in process work of evolution)? We can certainly rely on the consensus that we can arrive at together with our pooled amoeba knowledge and we can feel good about ourselves, but should we?

In a nutshell, we can't. We have no way of knowing that all of the things we hold as true are actually completely wrong. However, there is no reason to think that.

Quote from: "Joel25"

QuoteWe should never question things that we can't possibly understand and just take everything on faith. Right?

Wrong. Question everything.

This is interesting, considering you said "(although He certainly could have if He wanted to because He is God and who are we to attempt to make Him "fit into what we can understand" with our little pea brains?)"

Quote1. That there is an absolute right and wrong that all of us know without it having to be taught to us (God has placed a "conscience" and knowledge of Him within us "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19,20)

The most reasonable alternative explanation is that our conscious and morality comes partially from evolution and partially from society. Which sounds like the better theory? Occam's Razor would tell me the latter.

Quote2. The wonder of the universe and how it works perfectly together in perfect order ("The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork")

How is this evidence of God?

Quote3. We don't see anything that is in the process of evolution or halfway evolved

As Squid said, this is straw man argument. In any case, how does the theory of evolution being wrong become evidence that your religion is correct?

Quote4. I have a desire to know God (Ecclesiastes says that the reason all of us want to know God and want to live for ever and want something more than just this short life is because He made us that way - He "placed eternity in our hearts")

As with your first argument, this can easily be explained by evolutionary and societal factors. Again, Occam's Razor.

Quote5. The coded information found in the smallest parts of us (DNA code = coder/code designer)

As with the second argument, how is this proof of God?

Quote6. The bazillion different interrelated and interdependent machinations that all must be working 100% correctly and in coordination with each other for the world to exist otherwise we all die (i.e. one little machination couldn't evolve and survive on its own and the whole couldn't survive without all of its parts functioning properly at the same time)

Douglas Adams wrote: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in â€" an interesting hole I find myself in â€" fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

Quote7. I called to God and I have experienced His working personally in my life (Jeremiah 33:3 "Call to me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you know not.")

Again, societal and evolutionary factors. It's easily explainable why you think you have experienced God.

QuoteThe key reason why people can ask the same questions and get different answers is kind of like the idea behind the Upton Sinclair quote that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." so if you approach the issue with a vested interest that you already don't want there to be a God because you don't want to be proven wrong, you enjoy being an atheist, you enjoy living any way you want without having to submit to a Higher Power, you don't like to see the consequences of your actions, etc. then sure, it's very easy for someone to "question things" without really "questioning things".

Ha ha. That's true, but that argument works largely against believes, not atheists. If God exists, you go to Heaven; there's somebody always watching out for you; and things of that nature. Religious folk are far, far more likely to commit the sentimental fallacy than nonreligious folk.

QuoteYou could also come right back and say the same thing applies to me

As I have. It applies to you a lot more than it does to me.

Quotebut I would counter that the atheist has the largest vested interest in maintaining their status quo and not changing given that under the assumption that there is no God if I were to forsake my faith then all I have done is had to admit to you that I was wrong where as an atheist if you were to admit that you were wrong and the Christian God exists then you would have to not only admit you were wrong but admit that you were a powerless sinner headed for eternal torture and in need of a Savior to forgive your sins. Quite a difference in incentives.

So? "Oh, I have to admit that I was not only wrong, but a sinner, that was going to Hell? Now I REALLY don't want there to be a god!"

If you admitted you were wrong and became an atheist, you would have to stop believing in an afterlife, and that there's a cosmic being that rules over the universe who loves you and is watching over you. If I admitted I was wrong and became a Christian, I would start believing in those things, as well as stop feeling excluded and being persecuted for my lack of religious beliefs.

Quote from: "Asmodean"something too long to quote

As far as I can tell, Asmodean said the same thing I did in respect to the concept of truth, only in more words.

As a general observation on Joel25's posts, it seems that theistic allegiance requires a rare smugness not to be found outside religious conviction. Allied with an overweaning certainty in the value of personal incredulity and grovelling declarations of one's decrepitude and unworthiness, the remaining body of Joel's cosmogony comprises self-congratulatory proclamations of horrible destinies for non-believers.

Joel writes; Nothing can thwart God's overall Divine plan but because of His allowing man to have free will to make both good decisions (like accept God's free gift of salvation and follow Biblical principles) and bad decisions (like refuse to acknowledge that there is a God, refuse salvation, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, steal, etc.)

Such egregious views can only emanate from a mind saturated in bigotry. My choice of atheism is not a commitment to a life of murder, lying, cheating, adultery and theft. For a christian to assert so demonstrates a depth of iniquity that only religious commitment can make into virtue.

A feature so mundane as prison statistics for the USA on a theist/atheist per capita basis puts the lie to Joel's assertion irrevocably.

I hold little hope for the day when I may encounter a theist's declaration of his/her faith that abstains from all insult and contempt for atheists. But that would be the first theist to gain my respect.

If you show such disrespect for the atheist commitment and such lack of appreciation of the depth of that commitment, Joel, then can you in all fairness expect that the atheist will afford respect and appreciation to you?

There is a number of differing atheistic commitments, just as there are numerous sects of christianity. But if I were to presume that your christianity carried with it the baggage of a tendency toward paedophilia and that you very likely would become a paedophile if you maintained your commitment.............how would you react to my assertion? But keep in mind that you made a similar assertion in your quote above.

Extropian

C'mon people, Pascal's Wager is great...if you want to find a way to validate the beliefs you already hold and feel good and safe about going to a heaven you believe exists via a path you believe will get you there. It's pure circular negotiation.

I believe that belief in god will get me into a place I believe exists called heaven, and I'm so certain of those that I'll give them a 100% chance of existing.

Now best believe- just in case - so that I can go to heaven.  

Weakest thing out there...even worse than the bible.

Well, Joel25?
Are you less inclined now to see atheists as liars, thieves, murderers and rapists?

Or has this dose of reality incensed you into paroxysms of righteous dudgeon?

Have you run away at the mere whiff of a shot across your bows?