Atheist or Agnostic?

[JuliaL]

He knows when you've been dirty
He knows when you're a lout,
He knows if you been flogging it
So don't be quick to rub one out!

Sure He knows.
But you're still supposed to tell the guy in the dress your
deepest darkest most ashamed of secrets.
They won't be used against you.
Priesthood is a higher calling.
Really, I mean it.

It's a beautiful scam: imaginary goodies for real world cash.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oy, you impudent children. Go on, you scamps, cavort and caper.

In seriousness, the quote comes to mind, "When you understand why you don't believe in Odin, you'll understand why I don't believe in God."

That is the failing of Pascal's Wager. One must assume the deity in question is the correct one. It is a very slender reed for your plea.

[Mudhammam]

Pascal's wager is even worse than that. It implies that god is a cynical monarch both stupid enough and vain enough to be pleased with self-interested flattery and that the fool who finds it persuasive is an abjectly opportunist human being.

[JuliaL]

Oy, you impudent children. Go on, you scamps, cavort and caper.

In seriousness, the quote comes to mind, "When you understand why you don't believe in Odin, you'll understand why I don't believe in God."

That is the failing of Pascal's Wager. One must assume the deity in question is the correct one. It is a very slender reed for your plea.

Agree that PW fails on that point alone.
I am partial to a meta-god argument which never seems to be considered let alone addressed by the theists.
If we have a God over us, why doesn't God have a God over Him?
Because God says so?
Why are they so sure He isn't lying?

BTW, the first meta-god's name is Larry.

[Chas]

That's what I admire most about Christianity.  It elevates what is best in human beings to the point where he may consider all his actions in the light of getting a carrot or a whip.  So enlightening and uplifting.  [/sarcasm]

I see, you'd rather your life, achievements, and experiences be crowned with becoming nothing more than a rotting corpse. So enlightening and uplifting. [/sarcasm]

Wanting something to be true does not make it true, or even likely.  Time to grow up and give up wishful thinking.

[Bad Wolf]

I find it funny, the term 'be good for goodness sake' coming from a christian. Because for the christians that believe in hell, they aren't good for goodness sake. They are good, to avoid hell. I don't actually believe that, most christians are good just because they are good people, even if they claim they are only good because of the bible, most of them probably don't mean it.

Meanwhile, when atheists are good, they are good for goodness sake, because they understand that our actions have consequences.

And what's even funnier is that according to Catholics, you don't even have to be good to go to heaven. A serial rapist / murder could convert and repent on his deathbed and profess true belief in god and go to heaven. Meanwhile, perfectly innocent people (like Christopher Hitchens), who's only crime is to not believe in the right god, are burning in hell.

[Simon Moon]

Moreover, I agree that if for someone, the existence of no god is more plausible than the existence of any other god, then which god to choose to worship is a problem.

My favorite answer to PW is the "God of intellectual honesty wager".


So, lets suppose atheists are wrong and a god does exist.

But the god that exists is one that values intellectual honesty and critical thinking. This god is responsible for creating all religions and holy books, but as a test to weed out the credulous and gullible. 

He purposely remains hidden, and does not provide any demonstrable evidence for his existence, in order to see how many of his creation are willing to fall for outrageous, unsupported theistic claims, and how many are unwilling to believe them.

Those of us that exercise our critical thinking skills and determine that the belief in any proposed gods is unjustified, and skepticism is the only rational route, are rewarded in the afterlife. And those that were gullible enough to believe any of the equally unsupported religions are punished. So the best wager is not to believe in any of them.

After all, there is no evidence for the nonexistence of this god, right, datc?

[datc]

So, lets suppose atheists are wrong and a god does exist.

But the god that exists is one that values intellectual honesty and critical thinking. This god is responsible for creating all religions and holy books, but as a test to weed out the credulous and gullible.

Since intellectual honesty and critical thinking are virtues, and the Christian God desires that we be virtuous, He most likely does value these things. I know I do.

The Pascal's wager may have some import for those who are already leaning heavily toward Christianity but who still have a few doubts in their hearts.

Think of it as the absolutely last resort for coming to true beliefs about God.

After all, there is no evidence for the nonexistence of this god, right, datc?

I am a "gnostic theist" regarding a rather particular version of the Christian God. I can prove that He exists, and in proving it, unfold God's attributes one by one, or so I hope. By the end of these proofs a concept of God would have been built up, and it would be shown that this concept refers to something real. (I do not claim of course that my proofs are the only ones available; at any rate, metaphysics and theology are queens of the sciences, and as is well-known, to become queen, a pawn has to traverse the entire "field" of knowledge, and I certainly have not done that.)

So, yes, I'd be a (speculative) agnostic and (practical) atheist regarding all other types of gods; I don't know anything about them, nor do I care. My (mostly Catholic) God suffices for me.

[Simon Moon]

Since intellectual honesty and critical thinking are virtues, and the Christian God desires that we be virtuous, He most likely does value these things. I know I do.

The Pascal's wager may have some import for those who are already leaning heavily toward Christianity but who still have a few doubts in their hearts.

Think of it as the absolutely last resort for coming to true beliefs about God.

It doesn't even work as that.

By the way, the Muslims had an identical version of Pascal's Wager 500 years before Pascal was born.

I am a "gnostic theist" regarding a rather particular version of the Christian God. I can prove that He exists, and in proving it, unfold God's attributes one by one, or so I hope. By the end of these proofs a concept of God would have been built up, and it would be shown that this concept refers to something real. (I do not claim of course that my proofs are the only ones available; at any rate, metaphysics and theology are queens of the sciences, and as is well-known, to become queen, a pawn has to traverse the entire "field" of knowledge, and I certainly have not done that.)

I am wide open to your proof.

Please open another thread and lay it out. If it is convincing, I will be compelled to accept it.

So, yes, I'd be a (speculative) agnostic and (practical) atheist regarding all other types of gods; I don't know anything about them, nor do I care. My (mostly Catholic) God suffices for me.[/quote]

[robvalue]

All I am hearing is that I should believe the most impressive or scary fairy tale, just in case it is true.

Even if I wanted to, I can't. My brain doesn't have belief settings that I can change. All I could do is pretend to believe in it. And if God is so ridiculous as to want me to do that, he can forget it.

Here's a hint for proofs: you can't prove something exists in reality just with logic. You need evidence at some point.