Atheism: What's the point?

[Treznor]

I'm Baha'i so ... yeah.

[The Alma Mater]

I serve only Jesus, I rebuke and bind the prince of lies in the name of Jesus. I am not the one trying to twist scripture am I.

But you are referencing arguments known to be flawed to support your claims.
Or did you not know ? The flaws of Pascals wager were mentioned before in this very topic - multiple times in fact. It is also a tad bit hard to study your faith in debt without reading about it. But not impossible I suppose.

So I guess that in that case it depends on if God considers ignorance to be an excuse. I do, but the old testament suggests He does not. What do you think ?

[Ifreann]

John 3:16 (New International Version)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I prefer Austin 3:16
[Stone Cold Steve Austin] just kicked your ass

[New Brittonia]

I'm Baha'i so ... yeah.

You have never heard of the Baha'i faith (or for that manner Wikipedia/Google)?


(Granted the fact that I do disagree with their opinion on homosexuality and their wish for a world government will not fulfill itself in my lifetime and their ban on participation politics is just silly considering that there are already some Baha'i politicians already.)

[Treznor]

I'm Baha'i so ... yeah.

You have never heard of the Baha'i faith (or for that manner Wikipedia/Google)?


(Granted the fact that I do disagree with their opinion on homosexuality and their wish for a world government will not fulfill itself in my lifetime and their ban on participation politics is just silly considering that there are already some Baha'i politicians already.)

I have heard of Baha'i, I just question what your post has to do with this discussion.

[B1ack Magic]

Um... could you please be more specific? I mean, I could ask what's the point of religion as well.

Well with atheism when you die you are gone, that is it, and there is nothing after.

With religion you have something to look forward to afterward.

Look at Pascal's wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_W ... ion_theory

[Dyakovo]

This thread is like the song that doesn't end...

it just keeps growing.

Atheism: It grows on you.

Is that kind da like a bad rash?

yup

[New Brittonia]

I have heard of Baha'i, I just question what your post has to do with this discussion.

People were posting things about Christianity so I just felt like saying that.

[Dyakovo]

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make? However if I am right and you are wrong ....

Ah yes, Pascal's Wager. It's primary weakness lies in its binary proposition. Suppose we're both wrong? Suppose Krishna is the god we have to worship, then both you and I are out of luck. Then there's Odin, Zeus, Ba'al, Ra and a million more recorded and unrecorded throughout human history. So suddenly the odds aren't one to one, they're one to one million or more.

Still want to take that bet?

Yes I am very willing to put my trust in my beliefs in spite of your math. Can you say the same?

Yes, I have encountered no reason to believe in any god.

[The Alma Mater]

Um... could you please be more specific? I mean, I could ask what's the point of religion as well.

Well with atheism when you die you are gone, that is it, and there is nothing after.

With religion you have something to look forward to afterward.

Look at Pascal's wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_W ... ion_theory

Do read the next paragraph as well You know, the one that tells us why the argument is moronic

[Dyakovo]

John 3:16 (New International Version)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

And this has what to do with , well, really anything?

[Dyakovo]

John 3:16 (New International Version)

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

How is this relevant to the thread?

It proves God does exist

No, it proves nothing.

[Ashmoria]

Its simply not believing in any god(s) and/or other supernatural power. In otherwords, the lack of religion

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make? However if I am right and you are wrong ....

yes but what are the chances that this god is the god YOU believe in? we can still both be screwed when it turns out to be odin.

[Luna Amore]

Do read the next paragraph as well You know, the one that tells us why the argument is moronic

Like this bit:

"The wager assumes that one can consciously decide. Critics argue that they cannot do this, and therefore Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. In addition, an omniscient God would presumably see through the deception. [23] Richard Dawkins writes "Would you bet on God's valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even honest belief) over honest skepticism?"

[The Tofu Islands]

I believe that God is real, you believe there is no God. If I am wrong and you are right then what differance does it make? However if I am right and you are wrong ....

1. Takaram didn't say ey was an atheist.
2. An atheist is not necessarily someone who believes there is no god.
3. Your argument is Pascal's Wager/Gambit. The error is that it assumes that the only possible situations are: the Christian god exists or no gods exist. The problem is that there are lots of other religions that could be true instead.
4. It also assumes that God (if Ey does exist), doesn't mind people worshiping just for their own gain.

---

Pascal has nothing to do with this except that God loves him too

Pascal was brought up because the argument "those who believe have nothing to lose if they're wrong, everything to gain if they're right" was brought up (by you). This is known as Pascal's Wager, or Pascal's Gambit.

---

It proves God does exist

No it most definitely does not. Unless me quoting a little of the Koran would prove that Allah exists.

---

I'm starting to think Poe on this one.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm unsure.

---

Well with atheism when you die you are gone, that is it, and there is nothing after.

With religion you have something to look forward to afterward.

Look at Pascal's wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_W ... ion_theory

It fails because it doesn't account for the myriad of possible religions.

[Deschenek]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

[Ashmoria]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

do you have the hindu gods covered too? what about the greek pantheon? could you pass the egyptian death test?

its not just the christian god you have to worry about...what if its ISLAM and you have doomed yourself with bacon cheeseburgers and beer?

[Dyakovo]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Another idiot who thinks Pascal's wager is a convincing argument...

[Buffett and Colbert]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Supposing the Christian God exists, I don't think He'd like it if you worshipped just to get to heaven. I don't think it quite works that way. And how would you like to be called an insurance agency, huh?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Another idiot who thinks Pascal's wager is a convincing argument...

When will they learn? Oh well...

[The Tofu Islands]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Oh for god's (if Ey exists) sake!

I know reading the whole thread is too much to expect, but maybe reading the post directly above yours?

[Luna Amore]

This is an elaborate joke right? There's no way new posters keep conveniently lining up to preach Pascal's Wager as if it's this brand new way of looking at the matter.

[Tmutarakhan]

By your logic, those who term themselves political 'anarchists' should run around blowing things up and causing trouble.

It is what people think you mean when you call yourself "anarchist". I am not saying you should live up to that, but that if you deliberately choose to call yourself by a name that causes people to think this about you, then you should not be surprised at the reactions you get; you should expect to have to explain yourself over and over again: you're the one who cause the communications problem.

By your logic, the Democratic Party should be seeking to remove the 'representation' system.

No, that is not what most people would think the word meant. There is a small group of pedants in the poli-sci field who use "democratic" for a system of direct governance without representative intermediaries, but that technical usage has never gained any traction in the public at large.

By your logic, floppy disks should have a consistency somewhat akin to a pancake.

You are evidently too young to remember the original floppy disks, which did have such a consistency. It is only after the common understanding of the term shifted, so that "floppy disk" came to suggest "any small storage medium", that the rigid squares came to be commonly called floppies; if the rigid squares had been introduced first, of course they would never have been named "floppy" disks.

By your logic, Independence Day should never be celebrated in large groups.

By your logic, the American Revolution should have been about Canada and Mexico exchanging places.

WTF?????? I cannot imagine anyone having any such expectations on hearing those words.

The lay terminology WILL adapt, as it tends to do. Eventually.

No. It won't. If you keep describing yourself in a way that is bound to be misunderstood, then you will continue to be misunderstood. A few hundred posts from now, somebody will join this thread and, without reading all the discussion you have read before, will take your words at their normal meaning and start the whole thing again; this failure to communicate is what you have chosen.

If you are joining Canuck in his crusade against Implicit Atheism, you've no real interest in the discussion we're having here.

I don't see Canuck "crusading" against anything. He is simply defending his right to talk the way that just about the entire population of English speakers talk.

[Dyakovo]

<SNIP>

I'll point you to this then -> Implicit Atheism

[Otagia]

Atheism is stupid having no religion, religion is like insurance if atheism is real and there are no gods well it doesnt matter your gonna die anyway but if a god is real like the god of the bble or something you can look forward to burning in a lake of sulfur or something like that I read in revelations so I like religion and Christianity is the most popular religion (even though thats a logical fallacy of appealing to the people) so thats whaT i do like anybody cares

Another idiot who thinks Pascal's wager is a convincing argument...

Personally, I much prefer Pratchett's Wager. Of course, that has it's own set of risks, namely a large collection of divinities meeting you at Heaven's gate with nailbats for being a smartass.