Reasons to despise " god " ( in the almost zero possibility of he/she/its existence )

[leo-rcc]

Hey you answer my question in Dutch see how much sense you make.

[bozo]

Hey you answer my question in Dutch see how much sense you make.

pass!

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd agree with you if every religion and denomination would work that way, but they don't all do that.

If anything the notion of punishment after death is much stronger with theists then atheists. After all, when we die, we assume it is over (apart from the atheists believing in re-incarnation of course). No hell, no punishment.

Yeah, and for example, Christians interpret the bible differently, so there are Christians who don't believe bozos example of course. There are Christians who although believing in God they still think moral goodness as a whole is the bible's message. And a more important part of the bible than the whole "believe" thing, although they would probably take that very seriously too of course.

With respect guys, I think you miss my point, which is that a serial killer ( pretty heavy? ) will be pardoned and welcomed by " god " despite the heinous crimes committed, whereas someone who doesn't accept " god " will be damned despite being innocent of any heavy stuff. It pisses me right off when I read reports of all those convicted of crimes who promptly " find god " as soon as they go inside.
The conclusion to be drawn is that " god " welcomes anyone prepared to worship him/her/it above anything else.

But in reality neither of them go to hell or heaven and not all Christians believe that the serial killer would go to heaven and the atheist to hell. If the atheist is/was a good person then some Christians would think that the atheist may even go to heaven and I'm sure that some Christians would certainly at least also send the serial-killer to hell too. Just having faith in God, even if its 100% faith, is not enough for all Christians certainly, there are many Christians that think even though his faith is at the maximum, the serial-killer would still need to be a much better person and to never have done such horrible things in order to get into heaven. Surely?
So thats what I mean.

[bozo]

I'd agree with you if every religion and denomination would work that way, but they don't all do that.

If anything the notion of punishment after death is much stronger with theists then atheists. After all, when we die, we assume it is over (apart from the atheists believing in re-incarnation of course). No hell, no punishment.

Yeah, and for example, Christians interpret the bible differently, so there are Christians who don't believe bozos example of course. There are Christians who although believing in God they still think moral goodness as a whole is the bible's message. And a more important part of the bible than the whole "believe" thing, although they would probably take that very seriously too of course.

With respect guys, I think you miss my point, which is that a serial killer ( pretty heavy? ) will be pardoned and welcomed by " god " despite the heinous crimes committed, whereas someone who doesn't accept " god " will be damned despite being innocent of any heavy stuff. It pisses me right off when I read reports of all those convicted of crimes who promptly " find god " as soon as they go inside.
The conclusion to be drawn is that " god " welcomes anyone prepared to worship him/her/it above anything else.

But in reality neither of them go to hell or heaven and not all Christians believe that the serial killer would go to heaven and the atheist to hell. If the atheist is/was a good person then some Christians would think that the atheist may even go to heaven and I'm sure that some Christians would certainly at least also send the serial-killer to hell too. Just having faith in God, even if its 100% faith, is not enough for all Christians certainly, there are many Christians that think even though his faith is at the maximum, the serial-killer would still need to be a much better person and to never have done such horrible things in order to get into heaven. Surely?
So thats what I mean.

So what's " god's " opinion then?

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd agree with you if every religion and denomination would work that way, but they don't all do that.

If anything the notion of punishment after death is much stronger with theists then atheists. After all, when we die, we assume it is over (apart from the atheists believing in re-incarnation of course). No hell, no punishment.

Yeah, and for example, Christians interpret the bible differently, so there are Christians who don't believe bozos example of course. There are Christians who although believing in God they still think moral goodness as a whole is the bible's message. And a more important part of the bible than the whole "believe" thing, although they would probably take that very seriously too of course.

With respect guys, I think you miss my point, which is that a serial killer ( pretty heavy? ) will be pardoned and welcomed by " god " despite the heinous crimes committed, whereas someone who doesn't accept " god " will be damned despite being innocent of any heavy stuff. It pisses me right off when I read reports of all those convicted of crimes who promptly " find god " as soon as they go inside.
The conclusion to be drawn is that " god " welcomes anyone prepared to worship him/her/it above anything else.

But in reality neither of them go to hell or heaven and not all Christians believe that the serial killer would go to heaven and the atheist to hell. If the atheist is/was a good person then some Christians would think that the atheist may even go to heaven and I'm sure that some Christians would certainly at least also send the serial-killer to hell too. Just having faith in God, even if its 100% faith, is not enough for all Christians certainly, there are many Christians that think even though his faith is at the maximum, the serial-killer would still need to be a much better person and to never have done such horrible things in order to get into heaven. Surely?
So thats what I mean.

So what's " god's " opinion then?

He almost certainly is incapable of having one. Since he almost certainly doesn't exist. IF he does exist, I have no idea what his opinion is because what God is he? What rules does he have? He could be anything conceivable or perhaps even inconceivable whatsoever if he exists. And therefore the same would go for his opinion, it could be anything.
Of course, if you are talking about the Christian God the same things still apply, just to a slightly less extent. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways and his opinion could perhaps still be virtually anything IF he does exist.
Especially considering how unlikely it is that the Christian God or any God exists, he perhaps would have to go against logic in order to exist. So the bible could be full of lies even if the Christian Yahweh does exist.
So I still have no idea what God's opinion is even if he does exist AND he is Christian. How should I know?
I guess if we assume that IF God exists, not only does he exist and is the Christian God but also everything in the bible is 100% literally true. Well I still don't know what his opinion is but I understand that it is almost certainly something very sick twisted and evil considering what Yahweh is like.
"However!" if only the New Testament is to be followed, then since Jesus says he doesn't wish to go against the Old Testament but he thinks it is all great and wants to fulfill it all, then God's opinion is probably still sick twisted and evil.
But once again, even literal interpretations can be disputed, how do we actually know what God means literally even IF the words of the bible was indeed 100% true?
But thats what I think anyway.
Like I said: How should I know?

[bozo]

I'd agree with you if every religion and denomination would work that way, but they don't all do that.

If anything the notion of punishment after death is much stronger with theists then atheists. After all, when we die, we assume it is over (apart from the atheists believing in re-incarnation of course). No hell, no punishment.

Yeah, and for example, Christians interpret the bible differently, so there are Christians who don't believe bozos example of course. There are Christians who although believing in God they still think moral goodness as a whole is the bible's message. And a more important part of the bible than the whole "believe" thing, although they would probably take that very seriously too of course.

With respect guys, I think you miss my point, which is that a serial killer ( pretty heavy? ) will be pardoned and welcomed by " god " despite the heinous crimes committed, whereas someone who doesn't accept " god " will be damned despite being innocent of any heavy stuff. It pisses me right off when I read reports of all those convicted of crimes who promptly " find god " as soon as they go inside.
The conclusion to be drawn is that " god " welcomes anyone prepared to worship him/her/it above anything else.

But in reality neither of them go to hell or heaven and not all Christians believe that the serial killer would go to heaven and the atheist to hell. If the atheist is/was a good person then some Christians would think that the atheist may even go to heaven and I'm sure that some Christians would certainly at least also send the serial-killer to hell too. Just having faith in God, even if its 100% faith, is not enough for all Christians certainly, there are many Christians that think even though his faith is at the maximum, the serial-killer would still need to be a much better person and to never have done such horrible things in order to get into heaven. Surely?
So thats what I mean.

So what's " god's " opinion then?

He almost certainly is incapable of having one. Since he almost certainly doesn't exist. IF he does exist, I have no idea what his opinion is because what God is he? What rules does he have? He could be anything conceivable or perhaps even inconceivable whatsoever if he exists. And therefore the same would go for his opinion, it could be anything.
Of course, if you are talking about the Christian God the same things still apply, just to a slightly less extent. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways and his opinion could perhaps still be virtually anything IF he does exist.
Especially considering how unlikely it is that the Christian God or any God exists, he perhaps would have to go against logic in order to exist. So the bible could be full of lies even if the Christian Yahweh does exist.
So I still have no idea what God's opinion is even if he does exist AND he is Christian. How should I know?
I guess if we assume that IF God exists, not only does he exist and is the Christian God but also everything in the bible is 100% literally true. Well I still don't know what his opinion is but I understand that it is almost certainly something very sick twisted and evil considering what Yahweh is like.
"However!" if only the New Testament is to be followed, then since Jesus says he doesn't wish to go against the Old Testament but he thinks it is all great and wants to fulfill it all, then God's opinion is probably still sick twisted and evil.
But once again, even literal interpretations can be disputed, how do we actually know what God means literally even IF the words of the bible was indeed 100% true?
But thats what I think anyway.
Like I said: How should I know?

From the exchanges we have had since I first posted my explanation of the relevance of my screenname i.e. Orwell's embittered atheist, you have repeatedly stated that you find god's existence to be so remote as to not worth considering. I respect that, but I still am a 6 on the Dawkins scale. Now then, as regards despising god, you seem reluctant so to do. Your posts approach my point from the christians' attitude to dealing with atheists/serial killers.
Now I'm no shrink, but I suggest that if god actually exists and you get to meet him, you'll fall to your knees in repentance.....you've had your proof.
What say you?

[leo-rcc]

People should stop referring to the Dawkins scale imho, either you believe in gods or you don't.

As for your question, I indeed would have my proof. But repenting, hardly, it would be to late for that, see Pascal's wager. Besides, I am pretty sure my lord the FSM has the beer cold and the strippers waiting for me in heaven.

[Tiberius]

The Dawkins scale is deeply flawed because Richard Dawkins does not understand the word "agnostic" (at least not when he wrote his book). Agnosticism is not a half-way point between atheism and theism. I came up with my own (more complex) version of the scale after reading The God Delusion:

1 - Strong Gnostic Theist (one who believes in God, says God is provable, and that they know God exists)
2 - Weak Gnostic Theist (one who believes in God, says God is provable, and is certain God exists)
3 - Strong Agnostic Theist (one who believes in God, says God is not provable, but is certain God exists)
4 - Weak Agnostic Theist (one who believes in God, says God is not provable, and makes no claim about certainty)
5 - Deist (one who believes in a specific form of non-intervention God)
6 - Weak Agnostic Atheist (one who disbelieves in God, says God's non-existence is not provable, and makes no claim about certainty)
7 - Strong Agnostic Atheist (one who disbelieves in God, says God's non-existence is not provable, but is certain about God's non-existence)
8 - Weak Gnostic Atheist (one who disbelieves in God, says God's non-existence is provable, and is certain about God's non-existence)
9 - Strong Gnostic Atheist (one who disbelieves in God, says God's non-existence is provable, and claims to know there is no God)

A few notes about the "Hayter Scale":

- "God" is referred to as the idea of God, not any one in particular. Hence the special section for deists.
- The scale accurately portrays the differences between belief, knowledge, and certainty. Generally speaking, theism/atheist relates to belief, agnostic/gnostic relates to knowledge, and "strong"/"weak" relate to certainty.
- Deists by nature are agnostic, simply because their God is one of non-intervention, and thereby unprovable. An extended version of the scale could include both "strong deism" and "weak deism" to show certainty. I consider deism an adequate halfway point, because it is a "minimal" God view which supports the naturalistic side of atheism (i.e. bits of both).

In my experience through talking to people on here (heads up to Ace) and through my blog, I think everyone can find a slot on this scale. The only people who cannot are those who do not correctly understand the semantics of certain words, or the relationships between belief, knowledge, and certainty.

FYI, I'm ranked at #7 on the scale.

I'm also open to improvements / questions about explanations / general insults concerning the amount of time I have on my hands when deriving these things.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'd agree with you if every religion and denomination would work that way, but they don't all do that.

If anything the notion of punishment after death is much stronger with theists then atheists. After all, when we die, we assume it is over (apart from the atheists believing in re-incarnation of course). No hell, no punishment.

Yeah, and for example, Christians interpret the bible differently, so there are Christians who don't believe bozos example of course. There are Christians who although believing in God they still think moral goodness as a whole is the bible's message. And a more important part of the bible than the whole "believe" thing, although they would probably take that very seriously too of course.

With respect guys, I think you miss my point, which is that a serial killer ( pretty heavy? ) will be pardoned and welcomed by " god " despite the heinous crimes committed, whereas someone who doesn't accept " god " will be damned despite being innocent of any heavy stuff. It pisses me right off when I read reports of all those convicted of crimes who promptly " find god " as soon as they go inside.
The conclusion to be drawn is that " god " welcomes anyone prepared to worship him/her/it above anything else.

But in reality neither of them go to hell or heaven and not all Christians believe that the serial killer would go to heaven and the atheist to hell. If the atheist is/was a good person then some Christians would think that the atheist may even go to heaven and I'm sure that some Christians would certainly at least also send the serial-killer to hell too. Just having faith in God, even if its 100% faith, is not enough for all Christians certainly, there are many Christians that think even though his faith is at the maximum, the serial-killer would still need to be a much better person and to never have done such horrible things in order to get into heaven. Surely?
So thats what I mean.

So what's " god's " opinion then?

He almost certainly is incapable of having one. Since he almost certainly doesn't exist. IF he does exist, I have no idea what his opinion is because what God is he? What rules does he have? He could be anything conceivable or perhaps even inconceivable whatsoever if he exists. And therefore the same would go for his opinion, it could be anything.
Of course, if you are talking about the Christian God the same things still apply, just to a slightly less extent. The bible can be interpreted in so many ways and his opinion could perhaps still be virtually anything IF he does exist.
Especially considering how unlikely it is that the Christian God or any God exists, he perhaps would have to go against logic in order to exist. So the bible could be full of lies even if the Christian Yahweh does exist.
So I still have no idea what God's opinion is even if he does exist AND he is Christian. How should I know?
I guess if we assume that IF God exists, not only does he exist and is the Christian God but also everything in the bible is 100% literally true. Well I still don't know what his opinion is but I understand that it is almost certainly something very sick twisted and evil considering what Yahweh is like.
"However!" if only the New Testament is to be followed, then since Jesus says he doesn't wish to go against the Old Testament but he thinks it is all great and wants to fulfill it all, then God's opinion is probably still sick twisted and evil.
But once again, even literal interpretations can be disputed, how do we actually know what God means literally even IF the words of the bible was indeed 100% true?
But thats what I think anyway.
Like I said: How should I know?

From the exchanges we have had since I first posted my explanation of the relevance of my screenname i.e. Orwell's embittered atheist, you have repeatedly stated that you find god's existence to be so remote as to not worth considering. I respect that, but I still am a 6 on the Dawkins scale. Now then, as regards despising god, you seem reluctant so to do. Your posts approach my point from the christians' attitude to dealing with atheists/serial killers.
Now I'm no shrink, but I suggest that if god actually exists and you get to meet him, you'll fall to your knees in repentance.....you've had your proof.
What say you?

I don't despise God. I can't despise something that I believe doesn't exist.
Faith however, I think is outrageously ignorant overall and can be very bad for the world.

The Dawkins scale is deeply flawed because Richard Dawkins does not understand the word "agnostic" (at least not when he wrote his book).

I thought he made it clear that there are two kinds of agnosticism. PAP: permanent agnosticism is principle, which means those who do not only believe you can't be certain either way to whether God exists or not, but they believe you can't even put an estimated probability on his existence, never mind an accurate one. And there are those who are TAP agnostics: Temporary agnosticism in practice. He says that basically 1 and 7 on the scale are gnostic and the rest are TAP. He also says that PAP can't be put on the scale because they don't think you can put a probability on the existence of God, nor can you know he does or doesn't exist. I quote Dawkins from TGD (the paperback edition) chapter 2, the God Hypothesis, about a page after the spectrum he says:
"The spectrum of probabilities works well for TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice). It is superficially tempting to place PAP (permanent agnosticism in principle) in the middle of the spectrum, with a 50 per cent probability of God's existence, but this is not correct. PAP agnostics aver that we cannot say anything, one way or the other, on the question of whether or not God exists. The question, for PAP agnostics, is in principle unanswerable, and they should strictly refuse to place themselves anywhere on the spectrum of probabilities. The fact that I cannot know whether your red is the same as my green doesn't make the probability 50 per cent. The proposition on offer is too meaningless to be dignified with a probability. Nevertheless, it is a common error, which we shall meet again, to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and his non-existence are equiprobable."
I thought Dawkins made it clear that agnosticism is NOT just a halfway point between atheism and theism.
PAP is agnosticism and all on the Dawkins' scale are a different degree of TAP agnosticism except 1 and 7 because those are opposite ends of total strong gnosticism. 1 is very strong gnostic theist, 7 is very strong gnostic atheist, the rest are TAP agnosticism. Except for PAP of course with isn't on the scale.