Richard Dawkins says "What if you're wrong?"

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

You could go far in emphasizing how a mass murderer would go to heaven over an atheist simply for believing in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense?

I'd just like to point out that this would have no bearing either way on the truth of the religion. Just because Christianity has rules you don't agree with doesn't make it false.

well, just because people are born into different religions, doesn't make any particular religion false either. so thanks for pointing out the obvious. In fact, all religions are Russel's teapots.

[Purple Rabbit]

You could go far in emphasizing how a mass murderer would go to heaven over an atheist simply for believing in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense?

I'd just like to point out that this would have no bearing either way on the truth of the religion. Just because Christianity has rules you don't agree with doesn't make it false.

Most god concepts don't stop with a statement on the existence of their god but additionally assert that their god is good and therefore should be worshipped. In most cases this is an integral part of the claim.

Firstoff one can observe that such an addition technically is a non-sequitur for it is a normative statement not a logical necessity to worship good entities.

Secondly, being right on existence can coexist with being wrong on the moral clause. Consistency of moral statements can be evaluated independently from the existence clause. This is why it is easier to reject most theisms on basis of the morals they present.

Traditional christianity purports that god exists, is benevolent and that the bible is the word of god. We cannot exclude the possibility that the entity exists, but we must on basis of a logical evaluation necessarily conclude that the other parts of the claims are inconsistent since god ordering genocide in the OT on the one hand and a message of love in the NT do not add up.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

"Consistency of moral statements can be evaluated independently from the existence clause. This is why it is easier to reject most theisms on basis of the morals they present."

Good stuff, purple Rabbit. Noteworthy.

[Meatball]

You could go far in emphasizing how a mass murderer would go to heaven over an atheist simply for believing in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense?

I'd just like to point out that this would have no bearing either way on the truth of the religion. Just because Christianity has rules you don't agree with doesn't make it false.

Firstoff one can observe that such an addition technically is a non-sequitur for it is a normative statement not a logical necessity to worship good entities.

Which was my point to begin with?

Secondly, being right on existence can coexist with being wrong on the moral clause. Consistency of moral statements can be evaluated independently from the existence clause. This is why it is easier to reject most theisms on basis of the morals they present.

My whole point was that consistency of moral statements is independant of a religions truth. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

[Pippy]

What if you're wrong, the ultimate qualifier. I ask myself that all day long. I'm very comfortable with the possibility. I may be wrong about god and the nature of reality. If so, I sure wasted my time helping and learning and sharing and growing, boy do I have egg on my face. Turns out there is no judgment, so all the things I did for others, what a waste.

I constantly consider that I may be wrong, about every thought I have.

Try it, it keeps you grounded.

Unless you don't think anything, you jut KNOW SCIENCE! PERMANENTLY, and without FAULT!

But that is what I think, and I might be wrong.

Thanks,
-Pip

[Meatball]

What if you're wrong, the ultimate qualifier. I ask myself that all day long. I'm very comfortable with the possibility. I may be wrong about god and the nature of reality. If so, I sure wasted my time helping and learning and sharing and growing, boy do I have egg on my face. Turns out there is no judgment, so all the things I did for others, what a waste.

I constantly consider that I may be wrong, about every thought I have.

Try it, it keeps you grounded.

Unless you don't think anything, you jut KNOW SCIENCE! PERMANENTLY, and without FAULT!

But that is what I think, and I might be wrong.

Thanks,
-Pip

Is your return key broken?

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

---

You could go far in emphasizing how a mass murderer would go to heaven over an atheist simply for believing in Jesus Christ. Does that make sense?

I'd just like to point out that this would have no bearing either way on the truth of the religion. Just because Christianity has rules you don't agree with doesn't make it false.

Firstoff one can observe that such an addition technically is a non-sequitur for it is a normative statement not a logical necessity to worship good entities.

Which was my point to begin with?

Secondly, being right on existence can coexist with being wrong on the moral clause. Consistency of moral statements can be evaluated independently from the existence clause. This is why it is easier to reject most theisms on basis of the morals they present.

My whole point was that consistency of moral statements is independant of a religions truth. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

---

well, i could be wrong in my interpretation, that's why i was waiting for him to respond but he hasn't responded yet so I'll try to explain his post based on my interpretation. He said that he agrees with you and I do too on the fact that there is no way to disprove or prove the 'existence clause': "being right on existence can coexist with being wrong on the moral clause." That's where he agrees with you but I think he would disagree with you when you say that moral statements are independent of a religion's truth because we can evaluate a religion's truth or dismiss a religion based on the consistency of its moral clauses. in the end it's a decision over whether or not you want to abide by a dogma that is inconsistent or not. My statement on eternity in hell for atheists is my trying to emphasize a belief held by Christians that goes against what most people consider 'moral' now. I actually know someone (who knows a group of people) that refuses to believe in the most popular versions of Christianity because she does not believe anyone should go to hell for eternity.

[Pippy]

no, I have a lot of disjointed thoughts.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

no, I have a lot of disjointed thoughts.

who asked you?

[Purple Rabbit]

Which was my point to begin with?

Don't know. What is your point?

Secondly, being right on existence can coexist with being wrong on the moral clause. Consistency of moral statements can be evaluated independently from the existence clause. This is why it is easier to reject most theisms on basis of the morals they present.

My whole point was that consistency of moral statements is independant of a religions truth. I don't understand what you're trying to say.

I'm making a statement that differs from yours. Even if god exists, I see no reason for the worshipping part.