But logically, wouldn't it be safer/more logical to choose to follow a religion, just as a backup plan if there really is possibly an afterlife? If there is a second life, there's at least a chance your religion is the right one, and you make it. If there isn't then who gives a shit, you're dead anyway. Comments, thoughts? And if you are atheist, maybe add what religion you would pick to cover your bases

What if the true God is actually a god of logic, and sent down on earth a bunch of different bullshit religions and superstitions, as a test for us to see who fall for it in spite of insufficient evidences.
If you fall for any of the religions -> Hell and suffering for eternity, and if you remain skeptical for lack of sufficient evidence -> you pass the test and go to Paradise

This hypothesis is supported by as much evidence as any of the current ones -> 0


See how illogical your pseudo Pascal's Wager argument is?

125ch209?

Another God: If you do not like the same sex, you go to hell

Another: Going to hell or not is entirely random

Another: eating eggs makes you go to hell when you die

As the French j****ss said, these all have as much evidence as the Abrahamic God, Vedic ones, or any other.

^ Not really.

For example, to believe that God does not exist you need to assume at least the following

No, the "proof burden", as it's called, is for believing in something that has few signs of it. If I don't see any signs of something, then it doesn't be. You could imagine thousands of things that you don't see any signs for, but if you dig for faeries, you won't find them, nor 99.9% other things.

1. Evidence we have picked up supporting this theory is credible

This is the grounds why proofburden is on believers. It's clear what proof would be for believers: god announces himself somehow in a way that can't be attributed to a hallucination of some kind.

Faith in empirical evidence is one example

from wiktionary: faith

1. The reasoning of beliefs hoped true by the proof of things, such as philosophy, that are without the real evidence of sight, sound, and touch.

only assumption really required to believe that a powerful God exists is to assume that he exists.

The only assumption needed for anything is that it is. The actual assumption for human society is that all the parts came together, something that can happen. The assumption of godbelief is that you assume some bits came together to make a god (or if not, then assuming that this god is forever) and that he did something on Earth, but we still haven't been able to see.

English borrows words lots of words from other languages

It shouldn't. I read your link - way better than most other English, where instead of good English words that make some sense and kind of self-explain, just some greek words, like "chlorophyll" that noone knows.

Since at most 10-20% of people worldwide think this way, it's most definitely not "standard".

The thing is, there are signs for these gods, and folk are raised in communities where often literally everyone else is the same faith as them - all the trusted folk in their lives are saying it's true from birth. For Christianity, it was Jesus and his teachings; for Islaam it was Muhammad.

Pick any religion you want, all of them have moral codes.

I'm talking about a god that there is no sign of. And as I said before, most Christians and Muslims cut out the things that they (in most thought, rightfully) think aren't moral for themselves, like banning women from teaching men.

Edited 8/15/2016 20:48:11

If a god is vindictive enough to send me to hell for not believing, I wouldn't want to worship that god anyway.

If a god is vindictive enough to send me to hell for not believing, I wouldn't want to worship that god anyway.

No offense, but this is a pretty entitled way of thinking. What it basically boils down to is "I should be able to do exactly what I want and have no consequences for it. And if there are consequences then the guy administering them is an evil jerk".

This is the grounds why proofburden is on believers.

This is only one way of looking at at. If you believe (as I do) that offering proof for your religious beliefs actually undermines the mysteries that make religion great, then it makes pretty much no sense to demand that you do so.

from wiktionary: faith

No reason to go with the complicated definition when you have a much simpler one from a perfectly credible source:

Complete trust or confidence in someone or something:

(http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/faith)

The only assumption needed for anything is that it is.

Yes, but it is literally all you need to assume if you are not willing to offer evidence for your belief. If you are basing your belief on evidence, you also have to assume the integrity of that evidence.

It shouldn't. I read your link - way better than most other English, where instead of good English words that make some sense and kind of self-explain, just some greek words, like "chlorophyll" that noone knows.

It seems those damn dirty greek words are invading even the purest of minds.

Accepting the theory that needs the least assumptions

:P

No offense, but this is a pretty entitled way of thinking. What it basically boils down to is "I should be able to do exactly what I want and have no consequences for it. And if there are consequences then the guy administering them is an evil jerk"

No, that isn't what I'm saying. Here's an example: I say "The government of [fictional country] is shit. But if I'm punished by this Government, who fairly often promotes racism, sexism, widespread death penalty (China x2) etc., I'm not going to go along with them when they tell me "hey, endorse the government and we wont let you rot in jail for the rest of your life.

If, instead, the Government said "Hey, you're allowed to have that opinion. But, because we're nice, you're going to get to live your life anyway, because it's okay that you disagree" then I'd be much more happy to support that government

I know it isn't a perfect example, but that's my thought process. Bring me a God that really does love everyone, and then we can talk.

Also...

The thing is, there are signs for these gods, and folk are raised in communities where often literally everyone else is the same faith as them - all the trusted folk in their lives are saying it's true from birth. For Christianity, it was Jesus and his teachings; for Islaam it was Muhammad.

That isn't a sign of a god, that's mob psychology handed down generation to generation. One group of people believed it, so they told their kids, who trusted because who doesn't trust their parents at a young age. Then those kids told their kids and so on, all the way down. Not sure what Jesus and Muhammad have to do with the rest of that paragraph.

Edited 8/16/2016 01:42:24

No, that isn't what I'm saying. Here's an example: I say "The government of [fictional country] is shit. But if I'm punished by this Government, who fairly often promotes racism, sexism, widespread death penalty (China x2) etc., I'm not going to go along with them when they tell me "hey, endorse the government and we wont let you rot in jail for the rest of your life.

It's not really a valid comparison, since the implication is that you are not under the jurisdiction of God's rules, and are therefore not obligated to follow them, an idea which is not the case in most religions.

Also little side note here, but most religions don't even punish people for doing bad things, literally the only requirement for salvation rather than damnation is that you acknowledge their God's existence. And if you think about it, this makes perfect sense also. Why should yo expect to receive infinite reward from someone who you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of?

Bring me a God that really does love everyone, and then we can talk.

Again, this is an very entitled way of thinking of things (Sorry again, I swear I'm using this word for the sake of debate and not just being a jerk :( ). Of course you can love someone, but if they don't love you back what is there to be done about it?

If you have someone who you want to give a chocolate bar to if they'll just turn around and look you in the eye while you're doing it, It's perfectly reasonable to withhold it from them until they do so. Furthermore, If they keep looking away from you and insisting that you give it to them anyway, They're acting like an entitled child demanding they get their way.

It's also reasonable in fact to never give them the chocolate bar if you sit there for 48 hours and they still refuse to look at you. It doesn't imply that you don't love them, or that you're an evil jerk. In fact, there's not really any implication at all, since this is how a reasonable person would act in these circumstances.

l m a o

This is the kind of conversation that makes you realize that none of the people on WL actually care about understanding the topic. If they were, they'd be in a venue where they tackle more than just hand-waving, ignorance, and fellow intellectual lightweights.

If you want to tip your fedoras, leave the kiddie pool. It's already too polluted from the endless circlejerking. Even the debate religion subreddit has much more depth than this clusterfuck.

If you're gonna keep "debating" here instead of heading to a community where people have some real understanding (i.e., they don't just come here for a Flash game) or maybe picking up a book and trying to build knowledge, you're only gonna reveal your lack of interest in picking up knowledge and stretching your understanding. This is just a ridiculously pointless exercise...

Any decently educated apologetics/counterapologetics community would've been able to put up an actual response to Pascal's Wager and dig some layers into the argument instead of the sorry excuses for discussion you see here.

Like y'all are either delusional or just like "showing off" what little you have, like first-grade boys comparing their "biceps" or obese guys giving one another tips on how to run a faster marathon. It's pretty sad tbh. But some of you might think that you're actually gaining something out of this discussion (technically, you are gaining a lot of misconceptions)... so, just seriously, either read up on the topic or head to a community where more people have read up. Because this is a joke and a massive waste of time.

Edited 8/16/2016 02:05:48

Alright look. All the preaching I've ever heard has always been "God loves everyone, even if you dont love him. Etc. etc. etc." Why then, is there even a hell in the first place? If god loves everyone, and we're all god's children, why would he ever want us to suffer? Why would he allow suffering either in life or after it? That's one of the main reasons I can't believe in the Abrahamic god. There are a few gods that I can at least tolerate, but still dont really believe in, but yours isn't one of them. I really have no interest in continuing this argument much more, as neither of us is going to change our minds. If you were insulting people more, I might, but I will let you respond, then respond again, and then I'm done.

It's cool man, don't worry about it :) To be honest I'm not even really trying to change anyones mind here, or preach at all. I enjoy posting on the forums and talking to other members of the wl community is all :)

If you were insulting people more, I might, but I will let you respond, then respond again, and then I'm done.

So you would change your mind If I were insulting more people, or you would continue the discussion?

Continue the discussion, just because I cant stand a bigot. But you weren't being rude, so we're cool.

Edited 8/16/2016 02:26:45

ALLAHU AKBAR!

Pascal's wager is an absolute nonsense argument. There's an INFINITE number of fictive beings you can come up with which would punish you for not believing in them, not just the christian/muslim/whatever one you believe in. If you choose to believe in one, there's still an infinite number of different ones left. It's not really going to improve your "odds" any more than believing in a malicious Santa Claus who's gonna eat you alive for not worshipping him every Saturday. Theism is and always will be irrational.

AOE lost all its credit after it started openly attacking other peoples political stances, being trolls on the forum and now..talking about religion which is okay to a certain extent but sometimes it goes to far

If everything in the Bible is true and if you disobey it you go to hell, then everybody goes to hell. It says "Thou shalt not kill" and "You must kill anyone who doesn't believe in God". You can't do both. Also, there is another reason men can't go to hell. It says "Men can't have long hair" and "You must not cut the hair off the sides of your head."

i am a satanist so i am safe as far as i see