Gambling your soul?

[Ethan]

And what the hell? Why would ther ebe a God that rewards Atheists? No being, celestial or mortal, would prefer someone to disregard them rather than to worship them.

My point exactly. I realize GA that you were pointing out a hypothetical situation just in order to thrown a wrench in his argument, but let's be practical here please. I think its common sense that God is not going to reward you for not believing in him.

 

[scythemantis]

let's be practical here please. I think its common sense that God is not going to reward you for not believing in him.

How is that any less "practical" than the relationship between free will and damnation? It's EXACTLY as reasonable. What if the real God intended us to NEVER know that he existed, but the forces of evil created the bible (and other religious texts) to create conflict? Or what if God made parts of the bible deliberately confusing just to see who was ignorant enough to fall for them? I hate to break it to you, but your specific belief system is not "just common sense" when there are literally infinite possible truths.

This Is just stupid, what omnipresant all powerful being would say, "Hey these Guys dont beleive in me, to Heaven they go!"

One that is more impressed by people who think for themselves instead of just believing the first story that sounds good?

 

[Brettt]

How is that any less "practical" than the relationship between free will and damnation? It's EXACTLY as reasonable. What if the real God intended us to NEVER know that he existed, but the forces of evil created the bible (and other religious texts) to create conflict? Or what if God made parts of the bible deliberately confusing just to see who was ignorant enough to fall for them? I hate to break it to you, but your specific belief system is not "just common sense" when there are literally infinite possible truths.p

An innane behaviour in humans is to find and accept a higher being of somesort, something to rely upon, something to fear, something to worship, something that gives them a sense of security that if they please it, they might be saved. That would be the most illogical thing to say, to say that "God intended us to NEVER know that he existed" because in all civilization, dating back as far as humans go, there has been some concept of an afterlife, and of a god-like deity, considering that people have always buried their dead.

Also, God did not write the bible, just to be clear. Also, saying everything you just said about God would not be a omnibenevolent one, more of a cunning one, one that doesn't respect true human qualities and belief in him, but instead respects those who see through his cunning ruse. There are infinite possibilites, but that is rather illogical.

One that is more impressed by people who think for themselves instead of just believing the first story that sounds good?

Saying so would basically be saying that until recently, most of the human population has gone too "hell" from a God that would rather have you not believe in him. Atheism is a relatively new concept (I realize it has been around for a while, but only recently it became widespread), and if one says they believe in a God that rewards them for not believing, it makes one a hypocrite, does it not? Even the original statement saying that there might be a God like that is dripping with hypocrisy, the fact that you would even consider a God existing.

And just to get one thing straight, though I do believe it has already been cleared up: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the same Gods! The religions are utterly different, and I'm not saying that they are in any way the same. But they are all based around the same Gods historically. Islam accepted Jesus as a prophet, not a God. Christianity accepted Jesus as the son of God and as a Messiah. Judaism does not believe a Messaih. They are the same Gods, different religions. The God was just interpreted differently in each place that it spawned.

 

[GhostAnime]

I think its common sense that God is not going to reward you for not believing in him.

LOL common sense? what do you know about ANY gods? nothing! my guess is as good as yours pal.

"God intended us to NEVER know that he existed" because in all civilization, dating back as far as humans go, there has been some concept of an afterlife, and of a god-like deity, considering that people have always buried their dead.

why do you people act like god has to have a certain personality? maybe its a test of heart: agree with stupid BS like slavery just so you can get to heaven, being a follower or you dont agree with it and be your own man? you dont know what hes doing.

"Also, God did not write the bible, just to be clear.

and this supports the above EVEN MORE!

And just to get one thing straight, though I do believe it has already been cleared up: Islam, Christianity and Judaism have the same Gods!

you can wallow in your ignorance all you want. it is clear that allah and the christian god do not hold the same outlook of life. you will have to prove it to me.

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/27/120222.php

you will go to hell for choosing the religion that banishes the non-believers, thus, you risk allah sending you. muslims risk god sending them. we are all RISKING. pascal's wager fails.

 

[Ethan]

How is that any less "practical" than the relationship between free will and damnation? It's EXACTLY as reasonable. What if the real God intended us to NEVER know that he existed, but the forces of evil created the bible (and other religious texts) to create conflict? Or what if God made parts of the bible deliberately confusing just to see who was ignorant enough to fall for them? I hate to break it to you, but your specific belief system is not "just common sense" when there are literally infinite possible truths.

Well what if gravity is actually hot sauce? What if we are all holograms played by aliens in a virtual reality game? How do we know clouds aren't really made out of cotton candy? In fact how do you your even posting on this forum right now? See the utter irrationality in your logic? Why don't you let me know of a God ANY God that rewards you for not believing in him. Bringing up a hypothetical case is blowing out hot air, and quite frankly wasting yours and my time.

 

[GhostAnime]

we all equally waste time because they are all equally assumptions. just because you dont like it doesnt mean yours is more possible. if you want to prove yours is more possible, provide evidence.

 

[Brettt]

LOL common sense? what do you know about ANY gods? nothing! my guess is as good as yours pal..

Then why argue?

why do you people act like god has to have a certain personality? maybe its a test of heart: agree with stupid BS like slavery just so you can get to heaven, being a follower or you dont agree with it and be your own man? you dont know what hes doing..

I am simply using the information that each and every person here, atheists included, has said, which is that the God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. And the rest of that should've been reworded, as I didn't really understand it.

and this supports the above EVEN MORE!.

I only said this to disprove the fact that God did not deliberately put incorrect information in the bible, as he did not right it directly.

you can wallow in your ignorance all you want. it is clear that allah and the christian god do not hold the same outlook of life. you will have to prove it to me. .

I never said they hold the same outlook, you seem to be overlooking the fact that I said they were interpreted differently. Both religions were spawned 600 years apart, you can't expect them to be anything like each other! Like I have said before, they are not the saem religion, they are simply based off the same God.

you will go to hell for choosing the religion that banishes the non-believers, thus, you risk allah sending you. muslims risk god sending them. we are all RISKING. pascal's wager fails.

Of course we risk it, but I am not arguing being sent to hell by another religion, I am arguing that wouldn't it be less risky to have a religion rather than a lack of?

 

[GhostAnime]

Then why argue?

to prove that pascal's wager is a fallacy.

I am simply using the information that each and every person here, atheists included, has said, which is that the God is supposed to be omnibenevolent. And the rest of that should've been reworded, as I didn't really understand it.

none of this proves that if a god exists, he wants you to believe in him.

I never said they hold the same outlook, you seem to be overlooking the fact that I said they were interpreted differently. Both religions were spawned 600 years apart, you can't expect them to be anything like each other! Like I have said before, they are not the saem religion, they are simply based off the same God.

no, they are not. show some evidence or reasoning. im waiting.

Of course we risk it, but I am not arguing being sent to hell by another religion, I am arguing that wouldn't it be less risky to have a religion rather than a lack of?

and i am arguing that this is irrelevant because of the possibility that a god could be flipping a coin, or a god could reward atheists. the possibilities are endless and you are promoting a false dilemma fallacy.

 

[Ethan]

no, they are not. show some evidence or reasoning. im waiting.

No problem.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/themes/religion/index.html

So here's how it works. Both Christianity and Islam branch from Judaism as they all identify with the prophet Abraham. If you read through the old testament(Torah) and the Qura'n you will see similar stories.

Such as this for example.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBorientalist.html

All three religions are like a story told by three different people about one person. The person in question is God. While I do not agree that they are them God I do concede that semantically speaking they are.

There are also linquistic ties.The Hebrew title or name for God is 'Elohim' and it is the plural form of eloah. It is made plural by adding "im," which is masculine. This corresponds to adding "s" to make a word plural in English. So the commonality between Allah and Elohim is "eloah" and "ilah."

So there you have it.

 

[Brettt]

to prove that pascal's wager is a fallacy.

But you can't prove it!

none of this proves that if a god exists, he wants you to believe in him.

We are not speaking of random Gods that you have made up for the purpose of this thread; we are speaking of Gods that may or may not exist, that are worshipped in the modern world today. And you can you find one religion in which you don't worship a God? No. Because then it is not a religion, it is a lack of. And a lack of religion means a lack of a God, and so, for all intents and purposes, there is no God that rewards you for not worshipping him.

no, they are not. show some evidence or reasoning. im waiting.

Its a common, well-known historical fact that those three religions are based off the same God. See the above post by Babylon.

and i am arguing that this is irrelevant because of the possibility that a god could be flipping a coin, or a god could reward atheists. the possibilities are endless and you are promoting a false dilemma fallacy.

I see your point although, despite the fact that it may be a false dilemma fallacy, it still does not prove that there is a God that could reward atheists as well. Its simply irrational, impractial, and highly implausible. An almighty being would not create a universe and everyone and everything in it simply wishing to be ignored and disproved. Saying it rewards people who are intellectually honest (which, by your definition, is someone who only belives in what they percieve with their five sense) is saying it wishes humans to be robots, as those five sense do not include abstract concepts. It would just be completely irrational to have an almighty being that had such a mindset. I don't want to be so die-hard definite about this, but its simply not true. I know you'll say that it can't be proved, but these ideas were just created for an arguement on a pokemon forum. I highly doubt one of the infinite possibilites of a omnipotent deity is one that was just made up on the spot for the purpose of debate.

You must think about human innane behaviour. When we are born, we all know how to reproduce, we all know how to eat, we all know to breathe, we all know how to blink. Its simply an automatic function in our brain. Throughout history, right up to the emergence of civilization, there have been burials, tombs, etc. This means that humans have had an innane behaviour to believe in an afterlife. No "God" who wished to be ignored and rewarded the "intellectually honest" would implant that in their minds, and since a God is omnipresent and omniscient, he would know the repercussions of planting such a behaviour. This may not prove taht a God exists, but it does prove that a God who rewards non-believers doesn't exist.

 

[Ethan]

And you can you find one religion in which you don't worship a God? No. Because then it is not a religion, it is a lack of. And a lack of religion means a lack of a God, and so, for all intents and purposes, there is no God that rewards you for not worshipping him.

Well there is Buddism. That doesn't matter though since the main subject is God(s) Just thought I'd let you know though. ~_-

 

[Brettt]

Well there is Buddism. That doesn't matter though since the main subject is God(s) Just thought I'd let you know though. ~_-

Yeah, I did realize that, thats why I didn't argue Buddhism. But buddhism still focusses on an afterlife (nirvana, if I'm correct in speaking) which no other religion does not do. So either way, there is some sort of higher being (or place) associated with each religion

 

[HyenaHaze]

Yes. I'm Buddhist. Although we don't believe in any god(s), we simply strive to be the best human beings we can be in order to be resurrected as something good. We believe in an endless cycle of life (which is why I don't eat factory-farmed meat, because yes, it could be someone I know ressurected as a cow).
Nirvana is a debatable peace of mind. It's basically when you realise that everything is interconnected. Yeah.

 

[scythemantis]

See the utter irrationality in your logic? Why don't you let me know of a God ANY God that rewards you for not believing in him. Bringing up a hypothetical case is blowing out hot air, and quite frankly wasting yours and my time.

I never hypothesized anything. "Irrationality in my logic?" WHAT? I wasn't trying to HAVE a logic. My only point was that the imaginary scenario of an atheistic God is just as "practical" as your own beliefs. I never, ever claimed to believe in such a possibility.

You not only miss the point, but you come off as belligerent and condescending about it.

 

[Brettt]

Yes. I'm Buddhist. Although we don't believe in any god(s), we simply strive to be the best human beings we can be in order to be resurrected as something good. We believe in an endless cycle of life (which is why I don't eat factory-farmed meat, because yes, it could be someone I know ressurected as a cow).
Nirvana is a debatable peace of mind. It's basically when you realise that everything is interconnected. Yeah.

Yeah, thanks for that, I don't really know much about Buddhism. Its still a religion, and being resurrected through being good in this life is virtually the same concept, because being good in life and going into a favorable afterlife is what other religions are based on, and Buddhism pretty much fulfils the role, despite the lack of a God.

I never hypothesized anything. "Irrationality in my logic?" WHAT? I wasn't trying to HAVE a logic. My only point was that the imaginary scenario of an atheistic God is just as "practical" as your own beliefs. I never, ever claimed to believe in such a possibility.

You not only miss the point, but you come off as belligerent and condescending about it.

These debates are based on logic, and in using it, you win the debate. Arguing illogically and irrationally simply makes your side of the debate a waste of time. I direct you to my last post:

I see your point although, despite the fact that it may be a false dilemma fallacy, it still does not prove that there is a God that could reward atheists as well. Its simply irrational, impractial, and highly implausible. An almighty being would not create a universe and everyone and everything in it simply wishing to be ignored and disproved. Saying it rewards people who are intellectually honest (which, by your definition, is someone who only belives in what they percieve with their five sense) is saying it wishes humans to be robots, as those five sense do not include abstract concepts. It would just be completely irrational to have an almighty being that had such a mindset. I don't want to be so die-hard definite about this, but its simply not true. I know you'll say that it can't be proved, but these ideas were just created for an arguement on a pokemon forum. I highly doubt one of the infinite possibilites of a omnipotent deity is one that was just made up on the spot for the purpose of debate.

You must think about human innane behaviour. When we are born, we all know how to reproduce, we all know how to eat, we all know to breathe, we all know how to blink. Its simply an automatic function in our brain. Throughout history, right up to the emergence of civilization, there have been burials, tombs, etc. This means that humans have had an innane behaviour to believe in an afterlife. No "God" who wished to be ignored and rewarded the "intellectually honest" would implant that in their minds, and since a God is omnipresent and omniscient, he would know the repercussions of planting such a behaviour. This may not prove taht a God exists, but it does prove that a God who rewards non-believers doesn't exist.

Simply, it is much more rational for a God to exist that has been worshipped and believed in for centuries rather than one made up here for the sole purpose of this debate. Its just logic

 

[GhostAnime]

babylon, thank you for providing more to discuss with, however, your first source says:

Muslims believe that Allah (the Arabic word for God) sent his revelation, the Quran, to the prophet Muhammad in the seventh century C.E. to proclaim it to mankind.

may i just say that i find it hilarious that one of the few sources you ever gave me that are correct actually comes from.. PBS? lol!

But you can't prove it!

i already have. i told you that it commits the false dilemma fallacy by assuming that youre either christian or atheist when there are other religions and an infinite amount of gods.

We are not speaking of random Gods that you have made up for the purpose of this thread

but they are required to prove that it is a fallacy.

No. Because then it is not a religion, it is a lack of. And a lack of religion means a lack of a God, and so, for all intents and purposes, there is no God that rewards you for not worshipping him.

you still havent disproved a god that rewards atheists. simply saying atheism isnt a religion doesnt disprove it. again, you dont know whether this being would reward people who dont care or not. quit acting arrogant and actually disprove it.

I see your point although, despite the fact that it may be a false dilemma fallacy, it still does not prove that there is a God that could reward atheists as well. Its simply irrational, impractial, and highly implausible.

just like your god.

i dont think you understand me. im not trying to PROVE that a god out there will reward atheists. im trying to prove that the risks are all the same once you count things OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY.

An almighty being would not create a universe and everyone and everything in it simply wishing to be ignored and disproved. Saying it rewards people who are intellectually honest (which, by your definition, is someone who only belives in what they percieve with their five sense) is saying it wishes humans to be robots, as those five sense do not include abstract concepts. It would just be completely irrational to have an almighty being that had such a mindset.

calling it irrational does not make it so. youve yet to disprove it.

now either concede to the fact that my guess is as good as yours or actually show a way to disprove *my* god.

 

[Brettt]

i already have. i told you that it commits the false dilemma fallacy by assuming that youre either christian or atheist when there are other religions and an infinite amount of gods.

I never limited the topic of discussion to only Christianity, I was simply trying to prove that there is not an infinite amount of possibilites, which I already did, and which you failed to respond to.

but they are required to prove that it is a fallacy.

They aren't. You have no substantial evidence to support these *Gods*, so they can't be used to prove me otherwise. Other religions can though, although, this is not a topic of Christianity vs. other religion, this is a topic of religion vs. Atheism, to a certain extent.

you still havent disproved a god that rewards atheists. simply saying atheism isnt a religion doesnt disprove it. again, you dont know whether this being would reward people who dont care or not. quit acting arrogant and actually disprove it.

I was not acting arrogant, you simply didn't read the last paragraph of my post, in which I proved that there is no God like that. Atheism not being a religion does disprove it, because a lack of religion means no belief in a God or afterlife, and for the rest, I refer you to my last paragraph.

just like your god.

i dont think you understand me. im not trying to PROVE that a god out there will reward atheists. im trying to prove that the risks are all the same once you count things OUTSIDE OF CHRISTIANITY.

If your *God* is so irrational compared to the others of the world, then why are so many people members of these different religions. Even considering the fact that a God as such exists makes you not an Atheist, and thus, your *God* will punish you accordingly. Like I said, I'm not limiting this thread to Christianity, but it is a matter of the risk of being atheism vs. the safety of being of a certain religion. Christianity was simply an example.

calling it irrational does not make it so. youve yet to disprove it.

now either concede to the fact that my guess is as good as yours or actually show a way to disprove *my* god.

I cannot prove that a God exists, but I can prove that your particular God does not exist. I will repost my last paragraph again, because I forgot what I said, though I do believe it has substantial reasoning to disprove your *God*.

You must think about human innane behaviour. When we are born, we all know how to reproduce, we all know how to eat, we all know to breathe, we all know how to blink. Its simply an automatic function in our brain. Throughout history, right up to the emergence of civilization, there have been burials, tombs, etc. This means that humans have had an innane behaviour to believe in an afterlife. No "God" who wished to be ignored and rewarded the "intellectually honest" would implant that in their minds, and since a God is omnipresent and omniscient, he would know the repercussions of planting such a behaviour. This may not prove taht a God exists, but it does prove that a God who rewards non-believers doesn't exist.

That cannot completely disprove your God, but it proves the irrationality in your arguement.

 

[GhostAnime]

I never limited the topic of discussion to only Christianity, I was simply trying to prove that there is not an infinite amount of possibilites, which I already did, and which you failed to respond to.

i didnt see a refutation of any possibilities of what god could and could not be. all you said was that it was irrational. well, WHY? you think the gods humanity came up with are so special? give me a REASON.

They aren't. You have no substantial evidence to support these *Gods*, so they can't be used to prove me otherwise. Other religions can though, although, this is not a topic of Christianity vs. other religion, this is a topic of religion vs. Atheism, to a certain extent.

i dont need 'evidence'. do you even understand what the fallacy says? all i need are possibilities, and the possibilities are just as good as yours. youve yet to show why they arent. youre just saying its irrational.

I was not acting arrogant, you simply didn't read the last paragraph of my post, in which I proved that there is no God like that. Atheism not being a religion does disprove it, because a lack of religion means no belief in a God or afterlife, and for the rest, I refer you to my last paragraph.

you are acting arrogant when you say there is no god that doesnt care because you think you have the knowledge of the whole universe when you obviously dont. im not convinced just by saying "IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE." demonstrate why it doesnt instead of your personal feelings.

and again, saying atheism is a lack of theism doesnt disprove the idea of a god rewarding them. that is the whole point of a god (which you cant disprove) rewarding them: because they are ATHEIST.

If your *God* is so irrational compared to the others of the world, then why are so many people members of these different religions.

appeal to majority fallacy.

Even considering the fact that a God as such exists makes you not an Atheist, and thus, your *God* will punish you accordingly. Like I said, I'm not limiting this thread to Christianity, but it is a matter of the risk of being atheism vs. the safety of being of a certain religion. Christianity was simply an example.

being a certain religion still gets you sent to hell due to a god that possibly sends EVERYBODY to hell. quit promoting the fallacy. you even ADMITTED that it was fallacious.

I cannot prove that a God exists, but I can prove that your particular God does not exist. I will repost my last paragraph again, because I forgot what I said, though I do believe it has substantial reasoning to disprove your *God*.

your reasoning isnt evidence. your reasoning was nothing but "WELL THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO." sorry, i want evidence; not your personal feelings.

That cannot completely disprove your God, but it proves the irrationality in your arguement.

are you still hiding behind that tree screaming irrational? tell me why. show me the logic; i dont want personal feelings. the fact remains that you cant prove *logically* a god would create a universe for ANY reason. it can be any reason he desires no matter how dumb it is to you.

 

[Brettt]

Can't be bothered quoting, because you're just repeating yourself. First of all, I do understand what a fallacy is, it just simply does not disprove anything completely. I cannot disprove any other modern, past, or lack of religions, but I can disprove the religions that were simply made up by you to disprove my arguement.

The same arguement you keep throwing is fallacy and infinite possibilities. Can you prove that there are infinite possibilities?

 

[GhostAnime]

when you commit a fallacy, the argument is fallacious by nature. read the debate rules.

oh, and what do you mean 'prove possibilities'? if you want to refute the infinite possibilities, you have to PROVE that it isnt infinite. im waiting for you to do that. they remain infinite if there isnt a single possibility greater than the other.