What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Which would also leave open the possibility of a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell, which brings it all back to 0/0

You intentionally avoided listing that one (even though other people have already mentioned it) for exactly the purpose of getting the result you WANT

Christian God (1,-1)
No god (0,0)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to hell (1,-1)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists nowhere (1,0)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists to heaven (-1,1)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists nowhere (-1,0)
God that sends all believers nowhere, atheists to heaven (0,1)
God that sends all believers nowhere, atheists to hell (0,-1)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to heaven (1,1)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists to hell (-1,-1)
God that sends neither anywhere (0,0)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)
FSM likes atheists (-1,1)

TOTAL: (-9,9)

I forgot nothing.

Oh, but you DID!
Fixed it for you, though.

[Twilight Imperium]

That's where our view on this matter differ. You get a +1 if it's an outcome you can live with in life, because that's what counts when you're "betting your life" when choosing whether God exists or not.

I am so confused as to how you can seriously think "Actually, I don't like the way that's written. I prefer my own version. See! Now I'm right!" is your attempt at serious debate.

This is kind of ironic when you're the one who added on the "infinite gods" rider to make it more than it was originally intended anyway.

[Mavorpen]

No. You don't get to choose a default position. The default position is inherent based upon the claim being made. In this current argument, "no god exists" is the default position. You need evidence or faith to move away from that, so present your evidence or your faith will become apparent.

Why is no God exists the default position?

Because that's how science works. When you formulate a model or hypothesis, and you add something to it that requires an assumption, you are testing that against the default position that that something that requires an assumption is not true.

[The Alma Mater]

Which would also leave open the possibility of a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell, which brings it all back to 0/0

You intentionally avoided listing that one (even though other people have already mentioned it) for exactly the purpose of getting the result you WANT

Christian God (1,-1)
No god (0,0)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to hell (1,-1)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists nowhere (1,0)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists to heaven (-1,1)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists nowhere (-1,0)
God that sends all believers nowhere, atheists to heaven (0,1)
God that sends all believers nowhere, atheists to hell (0,-1)
God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to heaven (1,1)
God that sends all believers to hell, atheists to hell (-1,-1)
God that sends neither anywhere (0,0)

TOTAL: (1,-1)

I forgot nothing.

Where would "God sends all believers who are only believers because of Pascals wager to hell" fit ?

[Arkolon]

This wouldn't be totally irrational, no, and not a horrible idea, either.

I seriously believe it is the only reasonable conclusion. People have literally worshipped millions of deities throughout history, so even if we assume that one of those religions was right the chance of picking the right one is very, very small.

So you have to assume you will pick incorrectly. Since we have decided that we MUST pick we should strive to eliminate the worst possible consequence of making that error.

We'd have to pick the nicest god or gods, wouldn't we? Didn't the Pope say something about righteous people being allowed into heaven anyway? That sounds like an admirable advertisement scheme.

[Shiie]

I judge ideas by the details of their realization and I don't like Atheism for that reason. I prefer the expectations and values that come with the culture of the abrahamic God.

[Twilight Imperium]

Where would "God sends all believers who are only believers because of Pascals wager to hell" fit ?

Isaiah 29:13

[Arkolon]

I forgot nothing.

Oh, but you DID!
Fixed it for you, though.

For every one you wrote, an additional counterpart exists. And again, I don't think you know what "goes on unto infinity" means, because you still think writing something a few more times will mean that it is somehow bigger than the rest of the shortened infinite.

[Mavorpen]

I don't remember it saying that Hell even exists on the first place. And there are Christians who also don't either, and who, instead, argue that rather than Hell, you're simply not taken into Heaven and cease to exist. There is no active punishment, but there is one in the sense that you are kept away from God.

The existence of Hell, even within the scope of Christianity, is another assumption that is disputed, even by fellow Christians. With such blatant problems with Pascal's Wager, I sincerely cannot comprehend the mental gymnastics required to sincerely argue it's a legitimate argument.

Hell regroups all hell-equivalents of the worst afterlife possible.

Which then requires the assumption that it's the worst afterlife possible. And I have no reason to accept that assumption.

[Conscentia]

No. You don't get to choose a default position. The default position is inherent based upon the claim being made. In this current argument, "no god exists" is the default position. You need evidence or faith to move away from that, so present your evidence or your faith will become apparent.

Why is no God exists the default position?

All null statements are true, unless a counter-example exists.
That's how proof by counter-example works in mathematics, and why science favours the null hypothesis in the absence of satisfactory evidence to support the alternative hypothesis.

[The Alma Mater]

I seriously believe it is the only reasonable conclusion. People have literally worshipped millions of deities throughout history, so even if we assume that one of those religions was right the chance of picking the right one is very, very small.

So you have to assume you will pick incorrectly. Since we have decided that we MUST pick we should strive to eliminate the worst possible consequence of making that error.

We'd have to pick the nicest god or gods, wouldn't we?

No, just the opposite. The nicest god would just send you to heaven even if you had picked another. The most cruel gods would make you suffer immensely for that mistake.

[Arkolon]

I forgot nothing.

Where would "God sends all believers who are only believers because of Pascals wager to hell" fit ?

This is God as in "a god, different to the Christian God", in all cases but Christian God (1,-1).

[WestRedMaple]

You claimed that I claimed that atheism made a claim......which is not a true statement.

This never happened. You just failed to read my posts.

You did, in fact, make such a claim.

I didn't say atheism made a claim.

You did.

You trying to pretend that this never happened or that you already forgot about it? That's pretty weak

And no, you don't get to turn it around when you make a claim and try to make your opponent prove the inverse. Prove your claim.

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

You claim that atheism requires faith. You've been utterly unable to back that up with even a single example.

I AM an example of reaching atheism without any use of faith.

I DO find it hilarious that you think you get to do what you say I don't get to do. But that's alright, we already know that you cannot support your claim.

I made a negative claim, and you want the negative to be somehow proven. You're the one making the positive claim, but you've proven utterly incapable of backing it up

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Oh, but you DID!
Fixed it for you, though.

For every one you wrote, an additional counterpart exists. And again, I don't think you know what "goes on unto infinity" means, because you still think writing something a few more times will mean that it is somehow bigger than the rest of the shortened infinite.

And for every time you post, you demonstrate your special pleading by inserting an extra god which you assert has no counterpart. It's weird that you still think people aren't on to your bullshit.

[Twilight Imperium]

What is the difference between

Christian God (1,-1)

and

God that sends all believers to heaven, atheists to hell (1,-1)

?

[Galloism]

Posit theory:

Our universe is a science project created by college-equivalent students of another universe after drinking a lot of alcohol-equivalent sustenance.

Counterevidence: there is no sign of poorly-drawn penises on, say, the other side of the moon, or in large cosmic formations. Also, our pants still seem to be on. Most of the time.

Though, we don't know what such students would have as genitals, and therefore we cannot be certain of what would be considered its vulgar illustration.

I bet belts are a sex toy. *nods*

EDIT: "no god exists" is the default position because the claim is "there exists a god". When someone actually starts to claim "no god exists", the default position will then be "a god exists".
Do not confuse the two: failure to demonstrate that no god exists is absolutely none of what you need to do to demonstrate that a god DOES exist.

So again, give your evidence or your faith will be apparent.

So, let's be clear, for the following claims:

Yes, yes it does - a lot more faith than I have.

As science has advanced over the millennia, particularly in the last couple hundred years, the harder it is for me to reconcile the universal structure of things with the lack of some sort of deity.

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

How would you propose to have less than zero?

I really lack sufficient levels of faith to be an atheist.

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

The default position is that atheism requires faith?

[Dyakovo]

No. You don't get to choose a default position. The default position is inherent based upon the claim being made. In this current argument, "no god exists" is the default position. You need evidence or faith to move away from that, so present your evidence or your faith will become apparent.

Why is no God exists the default position?

Because "god exists" is the positive claim.

[Conserative Morality]

This is God as in "a god, different to the Christian God", in all cases but Christian God (1,-1).

So what you're saying is that, of all the infinite possibilities for God, there is a counterpoint, except for the Christian God, who counts as a point against atheists without a counterpoint.

Wow.

[WestRedMaple]

Oh, but you DID!
Fixed it for you, though.

For every one you wrote, an additional counterpart exists. And again, I don't think you know what "goes on unto infinity" means, because you still think writing something a few more times will mean that it is somehow bigger than the rest of the shortened infinite.

But you're still refusing to address the part where you intentionally left out one possibility in order to arrive at 1/-1 instead of 0/0

[Arkolon]

I am so confused as to how you can seriously think "Actually, I don't like the way that's written. I prefer my own version. See! Now I'm right!" is your attempt at serious debate.

This is kind of ironic when you're the one who added on the "infinite gods" rider to make it more than it was originally intended anyway.

I didn't "add" the infinite gods part. It was always there. I just showed how, no matter how many other gods you add to Pascal's wager, the possibilities of all of their actions end up with neither atheists nor theists necessarily having the better afterlife. Keeping this in mind, it shuts off about ninety percent of the arguments against the barest form of Pascal's wager. Keeping this in mind, Pascal's wager is true, as the God whose existence we are promoting will conclude the probabilities.

[Mavorpen]

Counterevidence: there is no sign of poorly-drawn penises on, say, the other side of the moon, or in large cosmic formations. Also, our pants still seem to be on. Most of the time.

Though, we don't know what such students would have as genitals, and therefore we cannot be certain of what would be considered its vulgar illustration.

I bet belts are a sex toy. *nods*

EDIT: "no god exists" is the default position because the claim is "there exists a god". When someone actually starts to claim "no god exists", the default position will then be "a god exists".
Do not confuse the two: failure to demonstrate that no god exists is absolutely none of what you need to do to demonstrate that a god DOES exist.

So again, give your evidence or your faith will be apparent.

So, let's be clear, for the following claims:

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

How would you propose to have less than zero?

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

The default position is that atheism requires faith?

In this case, no. You made the positive claim, and they rejected it per taking the default position.

[The Alma Mater]

Where would "God sends all believers who are only believers because of Pascals wager to hell" fit ?

This is God as in "a god, different to the Christian God", in all cases but Christian God (1,-1).

Are you sure ?
To clarify: the question is if the God in question takes your motives for believing into account. "I only believe in you because that wager told me it was a good idea" might get you to hell sooner. It does with the Biblical God.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

Counterevidence: there is no sign of poorly-drawn penises on, say, the other side of the moon, or in large cosmic formations. Also, our pants still seem to be on. Most of the time.

Though, we don't know what such students would have as genitals, and therefore we cannot be certain of what would be considered its vulgar illustration.

I bet belts are a sex toy. *nods*

EDIT: "no god exists" is the default position because the claim is "there exists a god". When someone actually starts to claim "no god exists", the default position will then be "a god exists".
Do not confuse the two: failure to demonstrate that no god exists is absolutely none of what you need to do to demonstrate that a god DOES exist.

So again, give your evidence or your faith will be apparent.

So, let's be clear, for the following claims:

Atheism requires exactly 0 faith.

How would you propose to have less than zero?

Being an atheist doesn't require any faith at all.

The default position is that atheism requires faith?

No, you made the claim then provided precicely zero evidence. Everyone posting after you simply pointed that out, with the actual default position on the matter, that atheism requires no faith. So, you lost.
So are you ever going to provide that evidence, rather than just demonstrating blind faith?

[Arkolon]

We'd have to pick the nicest god or gods, wouldn't we?

No, just the opposite. The nicest god would just send you to heaven even if you had picked another. The most cruel gods would make you suffer immensely for that mistake.

So, what then?

[Galloism]

Why is no God exists the default position?

Because that's how science works. When you formulate a model or hypothesis, and you add something to it that requires an assumption, you are testing that against the default position that that something that requires an assumption is not true.

/shrug

I'm fairly certain intelligent aliens exist somewhere in the universe. As a matter of probability, it seems nearly certain (whether we'll ever find them is another matter).

I have no absolute proof of it of course, but given the size of the universe (200+ billion galaxies), the probability that we're the only intelligent life is nearly zero.

So are you saying we're the only intelligent life in the universe?