(29th November 2008, 15:01)Psalm 23 Wrote: The question was, "What if Jesus Christ does return to Earth?" Can you please answer the question, and try not to respond to my question with a question. That's not how a debate session works..
Lol. Come on. Seriously man are you suggesting you don't know what I was implying when I answered your question? I was obviously implying as I have said anyway that its about just as likely that Jesus will return as any weird supernatural entity will visit us instead.
So this implies that obviously
IF Christ returns to earth I will
have been wrong among all other atheists. I will be amazed. And you will be amazed if a supernatural chariot made of crocodile meat that takes over the universe in order to be evil and vile comes to earth. Or shocked rather. As we all would be.
So obviously if Jesus returns I will have been wrong and amazed to say the least. But its the same for you with any supernatural entity you do not believe in.
So why did I answer a question with a question? Because its a stupid question and it should be obvious what I was implying by doing it. I thought it would have been to you.
Quote:I'm not talking about absolute evidence. I am talking about current evidence in practice.
If you're suggesting that God isn't probable because there's no evidence whatsoever of his evidence...would you be willing to say the same equally about ALL the other Gods? Zeus? Thor? Allah? Or anything supernatural like the FSM or the IPU?
You replied with:
Quote: The "lack of evidence" argument only works if every possible angle has been studied. Can I say for 100 percent fact that Thor and Allah are imaginary gods? Answer, No I cannot. I can't prove they were not gods.
What I say in this exact quote that you replied with? : "I am NOT talking about absolute evidence I am talking about absolute evidence in practice".
So why on earth are you talking about "proving for 100 percent fact" when thats exactly what I said I am NOT talking about.
I am talking about the matter of God's IMPROBABILITY. Surely you think its improbable that an invisible intangible supernatural
clown with a horses face and a giant toffee flavored tail is in the room with you right now? Because there obviously is no evidence of such an entity and its a highly complex and absurd claim right?
Just as there is no evidence of God and he's a highly complex and absurd claim too. So God is highly improbable for the same reason as that clown. That's why the idea of God's existence is so highly improbable.
Unless you believe that the likelihood of that clown' existence is 50/50 or you simply can't suggest the likelihood. You can't say that its highly improbable that such a bizarre, absurd and messed up supernatural clown-like-horse-like toffee flavoured supernatural
entity is in the room with you right now?
Quote:That's right.. A god could exist that sends all believers to Hell and send all atheists to Heaven, but wait!! Why would atheists want to spend eternity in Heaven with a God who they believed was imaginary? I guess that would make you believe in him? Secondly, Pascal's wager is not a doubt. I believe in God. But if he doesn't exist, I win.
It's a response to the question, 'What if?" if God doesn't exist, I win.
Thats just messed up pure bullshit. Not all atheists hate the idea of a GOOD God they just don't believe he exists and don't want him to control or mess around with their lives. But most of all they believe he just doesn't exist and its highly delusional and stupid to believe he does. Others just don't want any God to exist even if he was good.
So if atheists were sent to heaven by this God but God didn't show his face. How would they know it was God? It could be anything supernatural that sent them to heaven. You can believe in heaven without believing in any particular theistic God. And if they believed in God how would they know which God it was that had sent them there?
This God could even show his face and help them out but use his absurd supernatural omnipotent powers to make all the atheists from then on continue to disbelieve in him as a "reward". Or he could just send them to hell if they lost all doubts of his existence. If they no longer believed there could be a natural explanation
for the whole thing. I dunno there are so many combinations and hypothetical variables that it is simply a failure of the imagination to proclaim that a God for theists would be better than a God for atheists.
God could use his powers to make atheists think he doesn't exist even while they're in atheistic heaven. Basically meaning whatever world they would like to live in. IF indeed they DID want to go to a (very interesting enjoyable and peaceful, etc) afterlife. If they didn't then you couldn't say you'd won by going to your theistic heaven anyway.
This is hypothetically speaking of course. I am grouping atheists together just for simplicity of the hypothetical argument.
Oh and I've just thought. If the whole Jesus and everything you know of thing comes true for you and you go to heaven.
How do you know that atheists are not in a different heaven somewhere else - like in another universe - that is 10 times better in every way?
Your God could even say they were being punished for not believing when in fact he's talking bullshit or the hypothetical atheist God that I am postulating has corrupted your God into believing that the atheists really are being punished . When really they are having a much better time.
Hypothetically speaking. Seen as we're playing the 'be totally absurd' game here.
Quote:That's correct. There is no evidence whatsoever of God approving of those who believe and disbelieve. All we have are ancient manuscripts that give detailed accounts of ancient man speaking to God through Visions and Dreams. Why should I believe these men? I don't know them,, are they liars? Were they on drugs that made these visions appear? Who knows? I don't, and neither do you.
Yeah there is no reason to believe them. But you don't need a reason to NOT believe them. Since you already have no reason to believe them. You first need a reason to believe not disbelieve, if you want to be logical. You can't just go around believing anything because there's no reason to NOT believe those things. You couldn't function. You can't just believe Santa Claus, celestial teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns and Zeus and Thor exist just because you feel like it. Well actually you can but like I said its not logical.
I need reasons to believe things. Not disbelieve them. I believe something once there is a good reason. Not just because I've imagined it or just visualized it because it has been simply suggested to me.
If you want to believe in any random nonsense just because you approve of it or many people are almost certainly deluded by it. Then fine. But in that case this conversation can't go really any further. Because how can I argue with "I just believe because I believe because I believe. There is no reason
behind it" how could I possibly argue with that? All I can say is there's no logical reason to believe that way and what you believe is almost certainly nonsense. And there's no rational reason to believe that believing in it is any better than disbelieving in it.
Quote:Sounds like Pascal's Wager to me. A truly spineless argument with no merit or value other than self-deluded placebo.
Pascal's Wager is the ultimate answer to the question, 'What if?'
Ok since you don't seem to understand the point that there's no reason to believe that "God" would want belief anymore than disbelief. I'll make two other points two.
1.Sincere belief is not a matter of policy.
2. There almost certainly is no God. Also as I said there is no reason to believe God would prefer belief than disbelief. BUT also, even IF he does
since the probability of God's existence is so small its put simply, you might as well say its basically zero... you are almost certainly basically guaranteed to be wasting your life believing in a delusional myth if you are a theist and you are concentrating not only on the life that you actually live in. But you are also wasting your time focusing on an afterlife that almost certainly doesn't exist.
Whereas an atheist doesn't waste his time believing in delusional myths and he can focus living his life to the full instead of wasting time believing in an afterlife that almost certainly doesn't exist and a God that almost certainly doesn't exist and even if God did exist there's no reason to believe he'd prefer belief over disbelief anyway.
So to sum it up: If theists are right they: benefit if they go to heaven.
If atheists are right they: benefit by not wasting their life believing in what's almost certainly delusional mythological bullshit. AND its just as likely that IF there IS a God (and there almost certainly isn't) that God will prefer disbelief over belief. And the atheists will get their own "heaven". And it will be fine-tuned to how atheists want their heaven. Or they can just have their life on earth prolonged instead if they so wish - because that would be their heaven - or they can just die and never live again (as it REALLY happens in reality) if they so wish - as that would then be their heaven.
AND: Belief is not a matter of policy.
Quote:That's right! There is no evidence Jesus will return, and there is no evidence he was the Son of God. However, on that note, you cannot disprove these claims. In reality, all you can say is, "I don't believe it." And all I can say is, "I believe it happened." In the end, no one wins. Because neither party can display any proof.
Its called the burden of proof mate. Thats what I'm talking about. The very fact there is no evidence of the second coming's existence
RATHER than NON-existence makes the second highly improbable. That and the fact that the whole thing is supernatural, its against the laws of nature, its highly complex and highly improbable for those reasons too.
If I say that you can't disprove the existence of the IPU and I say you can't just say "I don't believe it" because there is no evidence for the truth of such a thing. Then that's absurd. Do you feel the same way about that? Do you feel the existence of any of the trillions of possible supernatural deities are all about just as likely (or unlikely) because there is no evidence of the existence of any of them.
Ok there's no evidence for the second coming or of the existence of God. Ok so we start at basically zero probability. Are you going to build it up from there? Are you going to give ANY evidence? No its just a load of nonsense.
Why don't you commit yourself to every single supernatural being that you can conceive of just to make sure because there's no reason to believe in any of them anyway? As 'there is no reason to NOT believe in any of them'! Lol.
Really there is. The reason to NOT believe in God is that there is no reason TO believe in God.
Now with something like gravity or evolution there is a reason to believe in them. The fact there is actual evidence of the fact of them. The fact they actually exist in reality.
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens.
Quote:You don't have to believe the Bible was inspired by a supernatural deity. But it doesn't mean you're correct. It means you simply don't believe. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes indeed I simply don't believe. Because I don't need any reason to disbelief other than the fact that there's no reason TO believe in something. Its delusional to just believe something when there's no reason to do so.
Quote:Why don't you believe in Bloop instead? Because I don't want to believe in Bloop? My religion is extremely commanding about worshipping other gods, idols or statues.
Because you don't WANT to? Can't you tell the difference between wanting and believing? Belief is not a matter of policy. We believe things for a reason. And your reason that you believe in God is that you WANT to believe in God?
So you don't actually believe he exists then? You don't believe in God's existence? You don't belief in God. You just believe in belief
in God. Right?
Sounds like just pure pascals wager. So doesn't God want sincere belief? He just wants belief in belief? Craving for belief? Fake belief?
And of course IF he exists you don't know what he wants anyway?
Quote:Warning, your opinion on my Holy Bible is making you a less credible debater.
Warning the fact you believe in a book full of supernatural bullshit means its hard to have a credible debate with you anyway when you just play the "faith card". When you just say "Well I CHOOSE to believe, you choose NOT to believe". Thats not a debating anyway!
How can we debate when you just say you choose it? When you refuse to give any reasons for your belief? My reason NOT to believe is that there is no reason TO believe. The burden of proof is on the believer. There is no evidence of the "Truth" of the bible. Or anything supernatural. So basically the bible IS bullshit. And the supernatural almost certainly doesn't exist.
**Warning! your repeated misunderstanding of the burden of proof is making you a less credible debater!**