What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Arkolon]

There is one core possibility outlined in the teachings of a certain religion, this religion being Christianity for cultural reasons: that God will send Christians to heaven and atheists to hell. For theists and atheists, this is a (1,-1) scenario. There is an infinite set of other possibilities, but they all negate one another. Note that your possibility, that only atheists go to heaven, is a (-1,1) scenario, but it would also create the chance that a different deity exists and sends all Christians to heaven anyway without the theists, again (1,-1), but then also a different deity that doesn't send either anywhere, (0,0), sends both to heaven, (1,1), or sends both to hell (-1,-1). Note that, for both atheists and theists, all of these possibilities cancel out to nil-nil. Repeat this as many times as you want, it will always be a nil-nil conclusion. Until you factor in the teachings of your original religion, (1,-1), where the theists end with 1, and the atheists -1.

I'm honestly intrigued by this argument from an academic standpoint, if only because I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Could you elaborate in a bit more detail?

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

[Xerusia]

God is an atheist. He doesn't believe in a higher power than Himself.

sigged

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I wouldn't call strong agnosticism a form of atheism.

? is different from 0

[Conscentia]

I wouldn't call strong agnosticism a form of atheism.
? is different from 0

I have a simple set of graphs to explain:

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

I'm honestly intrigued by this argument from an academic standpoint, if only because I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Could you elaborate in a bit more detail?

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

Then you include the circumstance of no gods, in which case atheists "win" and theists lose. Which is back to even, even if you are going to pretend that all the thousands of gods that people have made up over the years are somehow fairly balanced in sending people to paradise(and also having paradise, which is weird).

[Augarundus]

I'm honestly intrigued by this argument from an academic standpoint, if only because I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Could you elaborate in a bit more detail?

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

Still a bit confusing for me, so let me just try to summarize this argument to make sure I understand:

1) A given hypothetical god will send all his believers to heaven and all atheists to hell.
2) There is a hypothetical counterpart to this god that, instead, sends all atheists to heaven.
3) Adding together all gods and their possible counterparts, risk "cancels out" (for each god condemning atheists, there's a hypothetical counterpart that saves them, meaning risk ends up summing to zero).
4) My question is with the last step: we "factor in the Christian god"... what exactly does this mean? That the risk of theism/atheism is logically zero in a probabilistic sense... unless you count the Jesus factor!

Could you elaborate?

[Arkolon]

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

Then you include the circumstance of no gods, in which case atheists "win" and theists lose. Which is back to even, even if you are going to pretend that all the thousands of gods that people have made up over the years are somehow fairly balanced in sending people to paradise(and also having paradise, which is weird).

The circumstance of having no gods is (0,0). How would atheists win? What made you think that the circumstance of having no gods is (0,1)?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Then you include the circumstance of no gods, in which case atheists "win" and theists lose. Which is back to even, even if you are going to pretend that all the thousands of gods that people have made up over the years are somehow fairly balanced in sending people to paradise(and also having paradise, which is weird).

The circumstance of having no gods is (0,0). How would atheists win? What made you think that the circumstance of having no gods is (0,1)?

The same way that you pretend that other ends are equally probable, by totally bullshitting.

Did you know that there is no such thing as jewish heaven or hell? They don't exist. Did you know that norse hell is equivalent to christian heaven, and vice versa? Are you aware of the many religions who believe in forms of reincarnation, or the afterlife being existance on the earth in a nonmaterial form?

Pascal's wager is not a good idea for christians, it is a tool for making faith look silly. Praying to god hoping for that heaven payoff is as silly as wearing a garlic necklace in hopes of the payoff of not being murdered by a vampire.

[Arkolon]

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

Still a bit confusing for me, so let me just try to summarize this argument to make sure I understand:

1) A given hypothetical god will send all his believers to heaven and all atheists to hell.

Sort of. The god we believe in (the god whose existence we are trying to promote) will send his believers to heaven and all non-believers to hell.

2) There is a hypothetical counterpart to this god that, instead, sends all atheists to heaven.

Or that neither exists, that neither atheists nor theists go to heaven, or hell, or either. Also, not "to this god". The god we believe in in this argument has NO counterparts. When we say "oh, but what if another god existed and only sent atheists to heaven", we have to remember that our god doesn't do this (see 1), and that a different god, G_(-1,1), does this. But then, wouldn't a different, other God also exist doing the opposite-- say, a G_(1,-1), dissimilar in existence but similar in actions to our own god?

3) Adding together all gods and their possible counterparts, risk "cancels out" (for each god condemning atheists, there's a hypothetical counterpart that saves them, meaning risk ends up summing to zero).

Yes.

4) My question is with the last step: we "factor in the Christian god"... what exactly does this mean? That the risk of theism/atheism is logically zero in a probabilistic sense... unless you count the Jesus factor!

All the other gods that might exist have counterparts whose risk adds up to 0 for both believers and non-believers. The god we speak of, however, has no counterparts, and has a solid (1,-1) in favour of his own believers.

Could you elaborate?

Can I just say here that I'm an agnostic atheist, but I do recognise that belief in god is more rational than atheism.

[Arkolon]

The circumstance of having no gods is (0,0). How would atheists win? What made you think that the circumstance of having no gods is (0,1)?

The same way that you pretend that other ends are equally probable, by totally bullshitting.

Have you considered reading the posts I write or are you just going to spout-- oh, too late.

Did you know that there is no such thing as jewish heaven or hell? They don't exist. Did you know that norse hell is equivalent to christian heaven, and vice versa? Are you aware of the many religions who believe in forms of reincarnation, or the afterlife being existance on the earth in a nonmaterial form?

How does this change anything at all?

Pascal's wager is not a good idea for christians, it is a tool for making faith look silly. Praying to god hoping for that heaven payoff is as silly as wearing a garlic necklace in hopes of the payoff of not being murdered by a vampire.

I used to think philosophy was supremely boring and a total waste of time, thinking it was silly and it wasn't a good idea for people to study it. When I came to actually, you know, understand it, everything made a whole lot more sense. Maybe you should take this advice re: the wager?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Still a bit confusing for me, so let me just try to summarize this argument to make sure I understand:

1) A given hypothetical god will send all his believers to heaven and all atheists to hell.

Sort of. The god we believe in (the god whose existence we are trying to promote) will send his believers to heaven and all non-believers to hell.

2) There is a hypothetical counterpart to this god that, instead, sends all atheists to heaven.

Or that neither exists, that neither atheists nor theists go to heaven, or hell, or either. Also, not "to this god". The god we believe in in this argument has NO counterparts. When we say "oh, but what if another god existed and only sent atheists to heaven", we have to remember that our god doesn't do this (see 1), and that a different god, G_(-1,1), does this. But then, wouldn't a different, other God also exist doing the opposite-- say, a G_(1,-1), dissimilar in existence but similar in actions to our own god?

3) Adding together all gods and their possible counterparts, risk "cancels out" (for each god condemning atheists, there's a hypothetical counterpart that saves them, meaning risk ends up summing to zero).

Yes.

4) My question is with the last step: we "factor in the Christian god"... what exactly does this mean? That the risk of theism/atheism is logically zero in a probabilistic sense... unless you count the Jesus factor!

All the other gods that might exist have counterparts whose risk adds up to 0 for both believers and non-believers. The god we speak of, however, has no counterparts, and has a solid (1,-1) in favour of his own believers.

Could you elaborate?

Can I just say here that I'm an agnostic atheist, but I do recognise that belief in god is more rational than atheism.

I don't believe you, due to the massive special pleading I have indicated.

[Arkolon]

Sort of. The god we believe in (the god whose existence we are trying to promote) will send his believers to heaven and all non-believers to hell.


Or that neither exists, that neither atheists nor theists go to heaven, or hell, or either. Also, not "to this god". The god we believe in in this argument has NO counterparts. When we say "oh, but what if another god existed and only sent atheists to heaven", we have to remember that our god doesn't do this (see 1), and that a different god, G_(-1,1), does this. But then, wouldn't a different, other God also exist doing the opposite-- say, a G_(1,-1), dissimilar in existence but similar in actions to our own god?


Yes.


All the other gods that might exist have counterparts whose risk adds up to 0 for both believers and non-believers. The god we speak of, however, has no counterparts, and has a solid (1,-1) in favour of his own believers.


Can I just say here that I'm an agnostic atheist, but I do recognise that belief in god is more rational than atheism.

I don't believe you, due to the massive special pleading I have indicated.

Point to me where in the Christian Bible does it say that the Christian God does things that the Christian God doesn't. I know this sounds stupid as a request, but you highlighted the most absurdly obvious part of my post.

[Zottistan]

I'm honestly intrigued by this argument from an academic standpoint, if only because I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Could you elaborate in a bit more detail?

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

How does the Christian god not have any probabilistic counterparts? A god that rewards and punishes the exact opposites of what it does?

[Arkolon]

The Christian God has no probabilistic counterparts (we are sure that the god we believe in does this); the Christian God sends all theists to heaven (+1 for the theists) and all atheists to hell (-1 for the atheists). All other probabilities that a different god, or gods, exist all have their own equal and opposite counterparts-- for every god that sends all atheists to heaven, there is a god that sends all atheists to hell, for instance. The probabilities of the actions of all the (probable) other gods cancel out, as to make neither theism or atheism preferable, that is until we factor in that the Christian God ("our" God we use to test this with) prefers theists to atheists.

How does the Christian god not have any probabilistic counterparts? A god that rewards and punishes the exact opposites of what it does?

Aside from the Christian God, which other Christian God is there?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Point to me where in the Christian Bible does it say that the Christian God does things that the Christian God doesn't. I know this sounds stupid as a request, but you highlighted the most absurdly obvious part of my post.

Zottistan got it right. If other gods have counterparts, your god does as well. Making up rules that express your special pleasing in the form of adding extra gods that promote your conclusion is extremely dishonest.

[Arkolon]

Point to me where in the Christian Bible does it say that the Christian God does things that the Christian God doesn't. I know this sounds stupid as a request, but you highlighted the most absurdly obvious part of my post.

Zottistan got it right. If other gods have counterparts, your god does as well. Making up rules that express your special pleasing in the form of adding extra gods that promote your conclusion is extremely dishonest.

Aside from the Christian God, which other Christian God is there?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Zottistan got it right. If other gods have counterparts, your god does as well. Making up rules that express your special pleasing in the form of adding extra gods that promote your conclusion is extremely dishonest.

Aside from the Christian God, which other Christian God is there?

Which is a complete non-sequitur. You are making up an equal number of gods on each side, then adding in your own god as if it was a rational thing to do, not even considering a lack of gods. Put forth an argument for the rationale of that method, because from where i'm sitting you reek of apologetics.

[Zottistan]

How does the Christian god not have any probabilistic counterparts? A god that rewards and punishes the exact opposites of what it does?

Aside from the Christian God, which other Christian God is there?

This would only be a problem if the Christians could rule out the other possible gods.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I wouldn't call strong agnosticism a form of atheism.
? is different from 0

I have a simple set of graphs to explain:

Fair enough.

[Arkolon]

Which is a complete non-sequitur. You are making up an equal number of gods on each side, then adding in your own god as if it was a rational thing to do, not even considering a lack of gods. Put forth an argument for the rationale of that method, because from where i'm sitting you reek of apologetics.

You're forgetting that the possibility of a different God that performs the same functions as the Christian God acts as the counterpart of that set without actually being the Christian God. Read my posts to Aug.

[Arkolon]

Aside from the Christian God, which other Christian God is there?

This would only be a problem if the Christians could rule out the other possible gods.

G_(1,-1) and the Christian God aren't necessarily the same.

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Which is a complete non-sequitur. You are making up an equal number of gods on each side, then adding in your own god as if it was a rational thing to do, not even considering a lack of gods. Put forth an argument for the rationale of that method, because from where i'm sitting you reek of apologetics.

You're forgetting that the possibility of a different God that performs the same functions as the Christian God acts as the counterpart of that set without actually being the Christian God. Read my posts to Aug.

Or there are multiple gods warring like the Greek ones and if you get it wrong you go to their hell.

You have to consider your god being wrong.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Which is a complete non-sequitur. You are making up an equal number of gods on each side, then adding in your own god as if it was a rational thing to do, not even considering a lack of gods. Put forth an argument for the rationale of that method, because from where i'm sitting you reek of apologetics.

You're forgetting that the possibility of a different God that performs the same functions as the Christian God acts as the counterpart of that set without actually being the Christian God. Read my posts to Aug.

No, i was not. Now, your argument is mathmatically invalid. If you are going to stop your special pleading and not add in your most specialest god:
gods that send atheists to heaven (+x,-x)
gods that send christians to heaven (-x,+x)

sum = (0,0)


But the atheists "win" in the sense that christians are going to be wrong in almost all cases about what god exists.

[Arkolon]

You're forgetting that the possibility of a different God that performs the same functions as the Christian God acts as the counterpart of that set without actually being the Christian God. Read my posts to Aug.

Or there are multiple gods warring like the Greek ones and if you get it wrong you go to their hell.

You have to consider your god being wrong.

Obviously, and I have.

[Zottistan]

This would only be a problem if the Christians could rule out the other possible gods.

G_(1,-1) and the Christian God aren't necessarily the same.

So? The Christian god still has finite traits and each of those traits has one or more alternatives.