Atheist or Agnostic?

[Cyberman]

I mean, are you as though autistic toward God?

I'm not sure that was the word you needed there.

[robvalue]

Every second spent worrying about unfalsifiable propositions is a second of life wasted from the only one we know we will have.

It's entirely pointless speculation, until such time as anyone produces better evidence than a story book.

[Simon Moon]

Just how would I go about applying Pascal's Wager? Do I believe in ALL gods (even the ones with mutually exclusive doctrines), so I don't offend any of them? Is that what you do, simply out of overabundance of caution? Wouldn't want to piss of Allah and end up in Jahanamm for eternity, would you?

And lets say I decide to believe in your god, simply out of overabundance of caution. Wouldn't your god be able to see through my little "I'll believe just to cover my ass" ploy?

Overabundance of caution seems to suggest that you pick the god who threatens the most punishment for ignoring him and pay proper respects to that god, in whatever they consist.

Allah it is then!

Will I see you in the Mosque? You better be praying 5 times a day.

But seriously. 

Why would you want to worship a god that would punish people (the vast majority of his creation, as it turns out) for eternity for the finite crime of disbelieving he exists? Even if that god does exist, no way does it deserve to be worshiped. 

How is that god any different than a Mafia Don? "Hey, that's a nice soul you have there. It would be ashamed for it to get roughed up for eternity. If you pay me the right respect, I may see that it is taken care of."

If I had to go to hell under the rule of such a god. I would go with the knowledge that I am more moral than he is.

The best attribute your god has, is that he almost assuredly does not exist.

---

[robvalue]

Further to that, how can I trust these douche bags? They are clearly fucking with us from the word go. They hide from me my whole life, expect me to kiss their arse, then they may just chuck me in the can anyway for kicks.

I'll stick with I am reasonably sure is actually real, and go from there.

[datc]

Atheist philosopher David Stove called religion, and Christianity in particular, "terrifying." He had a point. So this may fit the bill.

Again, whether you heed or fail to heed Pascal's wage is your life and none of my business. I only say that logically, it has some sway; that is, the (practical) choice of atheism is not self-evident for an agnostic who (speculatively) neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.

[robvalue]

You seem to be ignoring me as I've rebutted this point several times already, so I shall take my leave.

[abaris]

Atheist philosopher David Stove called religion, and Christianity in particular, "terrifying." He had a point. So this may fit the bill.

Again, whether you heed or fail to heed Pascal's wage is your life and none of my business. I only say that logically, it has some sway; that is, the (practical) choice of atheism is not self-evident for an agnostic who (speculatively) neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.

You mean the christian god, catholic edition. You may have noticed that there are other gods. Why not give Wishna a chance? Why not Allah? Why not Zeus or Odin or Osiris, Isis and all the other gods that have been and sometimes exited longer than the christian version, which again looks very different for a mainstream protestant or an Evangelical, a Yehowahs witness, a mormon and all the other denominations. Why not go with Arianism, which was much more prevalent in the early days until it was utterly crushed by Rome?

You see, there are many possibilities to ruin your life fretting over someone looking over your shoulder.

[Bad Wolf]

Pascal's wager fails, here is why: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...%27s_Wager

[Mudhammam]

Atheist philosopher David Stove called religion, and Christianity in particular, "terrifying." He had a point. So this may fit the bill.

Again, whether you heed or fail to heed Pascal's wage is your life and none of my business. I only say that logically, it has some sway; that is, the (practical) choice of atheism is not self-evident for an agnostic who (speculatively) neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.

  It's not like acting on irrational fears ever hurt anybody! Now that's what I call logical sway! 

[Whateverist]

Atheist philosopher David Stove called religion, and Christianity in particular, "terrifying." He had a point. So this may fit the bill.

Again, whether you heed or fail to heed Pascal's wage is your life and none of my business. I only say that logically, it has some sway; that is, the (practical) choice of atheism is not self-evident for an agnostic who (speculatively) neither affirms nor denies the existence of God.

My bold.  I don't find that logic applied to unverifiable hypotheticals has any sway at all on my speculative activity.  You seem intent on interpreting agnosticism to mean extreme impartiality.  I am highly agnostic and that is not the way I view it.  Being agnostic simply means I avoid overstating what I know when I can.  That doesn't mean I hold a neutral position regarding every fanciful hypothetical creature you care to bring up.  Agnostics need not surrender control over their own agendas either concerning practical action nor what we care to contemplate.  Keep your boogy men to yourself please.