Good Job halflife2.net

[Absinthe]

I'm an agnostic, even though Absinthe doesn't believe we exist! :shh:

I never said you don't exist. You're just also an atheist. :O

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Lies!

Agnosticism is a branch of atheism :shh:

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

How do you keep an atheist in suspense?

 

[Stigmata]

Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

You can't come up and tell me that "there's a one-in-a-million chance of a god existing, therefore agnosticism is stupid" because the argument is inherently flawed, as you've assumed (based on nothing) that there is a low probability of a god existing. The fact of the matter is, I'm talking about the existence of one or more gods, not a Christian god, or a Muslim god, or what have you, and you simply can't know whether my undefined gods exist or not.

 

[Qonfused]

There is a 1-out-of-infinity chance of there being a god, but that is as close to zero as anything can possibly get.

That possibility was made up as you typed it and has no scientific research to back it up -- coincidentally, this is also the reason I don't believe in the Bible.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That possibility was made up as you typed it and has no scientific research to back it up

Actually, that one-in-infinity probability is based on mathematical fact.

To judge probability, you have a number of possible results and a (smaller) number of desired results.

Christians desire for there to be a god described in the bible. Same, basically, with all other religions.
That's one each.

The number of possible gods, since they have no basis in evidence, is limited only by the human imagination
There are infinite.

So, the chance is one-in infinity.

The technical term for this in probability is "almost surely".
As in "there is almost surely no god".

It means a probability that is infinitely small, and thus the lowest nonzero probability in the universe

 

[Qonfused]

Well, their "evidence" is the Bible which claims there's one. However, there is no sane evidence. But that wasn't what my post was about... it was more focused on the second part of the sentence.

 

[Geogaddi]

Oh man, it feels good to get past the denial and the mental blocks I had against even entertaining the fact that god might not exist.

 

[esplin]

I'm just going to cast my vote and say that I am almost certain that there is a god and that he knows me and I can speak to him through prayer.

I haven't heard any pro-relegious posts yet, so I'll be the first.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Agnostic: A person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

You can't come up and tell me that "there's a one-in-a-million chance of a god existing, therefore agnosticism is stupid" because the argument is inherently flawed, as you've assumed (based on nothing) that there is a low probability of a god existing. The fact of the matter is, I'm talking about the existence of one or more gods, not a Christian god, or a Muslim god, or what have you, and you simply can't know whether my undefined gods exist or not.

NO, NO MY FRIEND. Do not wake the sleeping dragon. Do not argue with an atheist about agnosticism. You know what you believe, leave it at that. You don't ever wanna start an argument about it, especially here of all places.

 

[brink's]

Oh man, it feels good to get past the denial and the mental blocks I had against even entertaining the fact that god might not exist.

The good thing is that you questioned the norm, even you had come to the exact opposite conclusion.

People of every ideology should take a long look at their beliefs to see if they're merely a product of conditioning.

 

[theotherguy]

Agnosticism is alright, and I don't see much problem with it.

But the problem is, if there is no possible evidence for god anywhere, and therefore we "cannot know" (the definition of agnosticism), then god has no effect on the universe, if he does in fact exist. If god had an effect on the universe, then the effect would be clearly contributible to him.

Thus, if God has no effect on the universe, then he might as well just not exist, and we can stop wasting time worrying about it.

 

[brink's]

Yea, but if god does exist then he created man and plays a major role in our lifes whether we admit it or not. And, for some unexplainable reason, God wants us to believe he is doing this inspite of the fact that there is no evidence at all.

He really has a lot of free time on his hands.

 

[DeusExMachina]

If God exists, I don't imagine it in the judeo-christian-islamic sense. A supreme being who is indifferent to all human affairs? That I can see. That could actually make sense to me.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, a God who gets in a rage all the time saying "You didn't worship me enough!" or "You didn't sacrifice your son in my name!" and then turns around and says "I love each and every living thing" seems highly illogical.
A bit a of bipolar even.

 

[brink's]

And why would a god need to be worshipped to begin with, id be pretty content with being the most supreme being in all of existence.....but hey different strokes for different folks i guess.

 

[kirovman]

It's almost as if God had some kind of inferiority complex!

"Goddamn it, I need to convince these plebs to worship me... it's the only way to prove I'm better than them, because I'm fictional and they're not!"

 

[brink's]

wrong thread

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, a God who gets in a rage all the time saying "You didn't worship me enough!" or "You didn't sacrifice your son in my name!" and then turns around and says "I love each and every living thing" seems highly illogical.

Not unless he means "love" in the "**** with" sense.

I'm just going to cast my vote and say that I am almost certain that there is a god and that he knows me and I can speak to him through prayer.

I haven't heard any pro-relegious [sic] posts yet, so I'll be the first.

You can speak to him? What does he say?

Or do you just mean "to him" as in "I speak to my furniture sometimes, but it never says anything back".

Question: assuming there is a god and god is omniscient, why do you need to pray for him to hear you?
Questio 2: assuming there is a god and god is omniscient, why is it impressive if he knows you?
Question 3: what makes you 'almost certain' he exists (and is a 'he')?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

If God exists, I don't imagine it in the judeo-christian-islamic sense. A supreme being who is indifferent to all human affairs? That I can see. That could actually make sense to me.

* Angry Lawyer kneels down and worships Yog-Sothoth, even though he doesn't give a damn.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Baal]

It's funny; I read Ryan's posts, and I really can't figure out where he stands.

In one of his posts it looks like he believes in some sort of religion, and in the other it's the opposite.

I still very much enjoyed reading his posts. They made me think, or at least think once again what I have already thought, just maybe in a different, more in-depth way.

 

[Absinthe]

I'm quite sure he's an atheist, unless I've misread something.

 

[Stigmata]

Agnosticism is alright, and I don't see much problem with it.

But the problem is, if there is no possible evidence for god anywhere, and therefore we "cannot know" (the definition of agnosticism), then god has no effect on the universe, if he does in fact exist. If god had an effect on the universe, then the effect would be clearly contributible to him.

Thus, if God has no effect on the universe, then he might as well just not exist, and we can stop wasting time worrying about it.

Exactly Whether or not a god exists is irrelevant, as either state is unknowable. So though I am a logical agnostic, I really just don't give a damn about god, as long as people aren't using him/her/it/they as an excuse to push oppressive, repressive, or anti-logic doctrines on others.

 

[Ennui]

I'm absolutely an atheist. I was raised as an unconventional Christian (no church or anything, just a deep faith and belief in god) but I started to lose that belief when I was probably 12 or so and slipped from Christian to agnostic to atheist. I've thought about it more than just about anything else and really atheist is the only way to go. I could explain it in a lot more depth but I think most of you understand.

I haven't been a major player in the politics section lately (no Lemonking for me to get furious at and rape repeatedly) but I'm very glad to hear that my comrades in arms like Stern and Mecha have had an effect on you

 

[Absinthe]

Exactly Whether or not a god exists is irrelevant, as either state is unknowable. So though I am a logical agnostic, I really just don't give a damn about god, as long as people aren't using him/her/it/they as an excuse to push oppressive, repressive, or anti-logic doctrines on others.

You're still an atheist.

 

[Ennui]

that's more of an atheist point of view, soupstorm!

really i don't believe in god, but not because i deny the existence of god, but rather i deny the plausibility or reason for there to be a god. i see no evidence of a god, i see no reason for a god to exist, so i merely state that no god exists. it's not that i'm opposed to the idea of god (well, i am, but not for the intent of this explanation) but there's just no reason for there to be one

 

[Slacker]

I shift around. I was raised Catholic, and started questioning around age 13 or 14. Then recently I started sort of being open-minded for it again, but just recently again the idea seems less and less plausible to me. I've been researching meditaton and various forms of spirituality, and it just seems so much more plausible to me then "faith."

 

[Stigmata]

that's more of an atheist point of view, soupstorm!

Bah! BAH, I say!

Speaking of, who do I contact about a username change? I've been meaning to get around to that for about four months now.

[edit] Thanks Ennui

 

[Ennui]

an admin, like pi or munro

 

[delusional]

baaaaahhhh sinners learn your evil ways... damn heathens
anyway is anyone religious here? kinda onesided.
i did say religion was the worst thing that happed to mankind and said i was atheist at school and my friend got all offended and one said it was his goal to convert me to christianity by the end of the year. and this wasnt some remedial class but an honors class.

 

[bbson john]

Actually, we should spend no time on our belief. Every worship and congregation is a waste of time. If people fear of going to hell afterlife, why don't they pay more attention on their current life? Religionists have given me an impression that they put their time and money on something that may not exist, like gambling. People believe in Christ because they don't want to face the hell, a symbol of sorrow and agony. From that we can see, their final destination is happiness. They are hedonic, so why don't they pay attention on reality and gain as much tangible happiness as they can, rather than pursuing something that does not exist. In most of the time, atheist is happier than theist, in my opinion.

 

[bbson john]

http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

I like this article. Read it.
My favourite part:

The Moral Problem
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell." That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come." That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, "The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth"; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." He continues, "And these shall go away into everlasting fire." Then He says again, "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. "He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: 'No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever' . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: 'Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.'" This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.

 

[Tagaziel]

Well, I'm Christian, but have stepped away from the Roman Catholicism and rituals. True, I still attend masses and am even a church servant (non-molestable one, mind you), but for me, it's more about principles and mindset (love thy neighbour!) than beliefs.

Oh, and...

God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

If He doesn't exist you will lose very little. But suppose you don't believe in His existence and don't lead a Christian life. If He does exist, then you will suffer eternal damnation! So it is rational and prudent to believe in [a Christian] God's existence and to live a Christian life.

Though still, I don't really ponder it that much, as...

Well, I think we will all know which religion is true (if any) when we die. Now, where's my shotgun?

Self-quoting FTW.

 

[theotherguy]

God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

If He doesn't exist you will lose very little. But suppose you don't believe in His existence and don't lead a Christian life. If He does exist, then you will suffer eternal damnation! So it is rational and prudent to believe in [a Christian] God's existence and to live a Christian life.

But there are thousands of gods. There are billions and billions of possible gods, yet you have to choose one of them? If, for instance, you chose God, but Allah was the true God, you'd be going to hell anyway.

If you chose to beleive in no God, you would choose for the right reasons, and some god would probably be more lenient to you than to someone who worshiped a false god and called him the false god for no reason at all.

It is therefore safer to be an atheist.

However, if there are thousands of human-made gods, and billions and billions of gods yet-not-thought-of, what are the chances of any one of them being right? If you have thousands of contradictory statements, none based on any evidince, chances are, none of them are right.

You have no more to fear in death from god than you do of the grim reaper, of turning into a zombie, or being whisped away by pink fairies, because none of it is real, all is equally unsupported by evidence.

 

[Absinthe]

Exactly.

Pascal's Wager is one of the worst attempts to justify belief in God. On the off chance that a god does exist, there's nothing to indicate it being the Christian one. Your chances of burning in a Hell of some kind (or still disappearing utterly and completely upon death) are no better than an atheist's. You also have to question the legitimacy of such beliefs if their prime impetus is the fear of hellfire.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah, consider religion, if they didn't threaten eternal damnation for failing to keep the faith.

How many faithful would there be? A lot less I suspect.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well, I'm Christian, but have stepped away from the Roman Catholicism and rituals. True, I still attend masses and am even a church servant (non-molestable one, mind you), but for me, it's more about principles and mindset (love thy neighbour!) than beliefs.

That's not a principle in the bible. You're taking that quote out of context, because people with different religious beliefs aren't allowed to be neighbours in the bible.
Jesus actually says that if one of your neighbours is of another religion, he must be killed.
If a neighbouring town has muslims or jews in it, their city is to be burnt down and quarantined for eternity.

It's all very clear.

God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here.

Wrong. Reason looks at the odds and bases real-world descisions on them.

There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then?

This is, I hope, a reference to the infinite odds against there being a god. The chance of there being a god is equal to the chance of flipping a coin infinite times and never, ever getting "tails". There is nothing stopping this from happening (except the time needed to flip) but it is infinitely unlikely.

I certainly hope he's not calling it a 50-50 chance, because that's mathematically incorrect. That's the odds of there being "a" god, in the vaguest sense of the word (meaning "powerful invisible creature somewhere in the universe", basically).
What Pascal is talking about is the Christian god, whose specific traits are infinitely unlikely, as described above.

Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery.

This indicates to me that Pascal actually is interpreting the chance as 50-50. That's incorrect and invalidates his argument right there.
But let's assume he's correct about it being a coin toss. Let's see which has more benefit, in terms of knowledge, happiness, reason, will, truth, good, error and misery.

Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled.

Well, no. That's untrue. You mustn't choose because any choice made constitutes a logical fallacy. Either it shirks the burden of proof or it is a negative proof.
This is also a straw man argument and a false dichotomy, because basic atheism does not say "there is no god".
It says "god is so unlikely as to be an utterly worthless concept". That, based on real probability, is the only logical conclusion.

But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

This is absurd. You lose plenty from being christian, especially if it's wrong.
Hell, just read pretty any random thing in this forum to see the various blunders christianity has caused over the years.
Creationism, the crusades, obfuscating and destroying reproductive rights, subjugating women, promoting homophobia, faith-"healers" causing deaths, merging church and state, (partly) electing George W. Bush, scamming tax dollars with faith-based initiatives. The list goes on and on.
And then there's the minor downsides like spending hours in church each week, spending money on religious things that do nothing, making shitty christian rock. Etc.

If He doesn't exist you will lose very little.

See above list for why this is bullshit.

But suppose you don't believe in His existence and don't lead a Christian life. If He does exist, then you will suffer eternal damnation! So it is rational and prudent to believe in [a Christian] God's existence and to live a Christian life.

Suppose it's Allah, who will hate you for your christian faith and send you to hell.
Suppose it's Yaweh, who never had a son and will send you to hell for following the false prophet Jesus.
Suppose it's etc. etc.
This is another false dichotomy because it ignores these infinite variables.

Did I mention that the bible has been misread for the last 2000 years, because jesus said specifically to follow the old testament to the letter, and the peaceful parts that contradict this were written by Paul of Tarsus (who is not Jesus).
That means no-one is following the christian god properly, so even if he does exist, everyone is hellbound no matter what.

Well, I think we will all know which religion is true (if any) when we die. Now, where's my shotgun?

You won't know anything when you die. The brain and all sense organs shut down completely.

 

[Tagaziel]

"De gustabimus non disputantum est" like some wise person said.

I think there must be something beyond, since otherwise it would be a total waste of energy, for all living beings on the face of the Earth. Besides, the notion of a black screen of death (TM) and nothing beyond just depresses me.

Well, if I'm wrong, and there's nothing further, I'm pwn3d.

If, however, there IS something, then you will get pwn3d greatly.

And can I ask for the citations where Jesus says to kill your neighbour of a different religion? I don't have a Bible handy right now.

 

[Absinthe]

Well, if I'm wrong, and there's nothing further, I'm pwn3d.

If, however, there IS something, then you will get pwn3d greatly.

Far from it. Read the last two posts on the previous page.

 

[Slacker]

Yeah, consider religion, if they didn't threaten eternal damnation for failing to keep the faith.

How many faithful would there be? A lot less I suspect.

Judiasm doesn't believe in eternal damnation.