Azrael Antilla
Active Member
I don't recall asking to be born Link. So I see no reason to be grateful. If there is a creator God. Then I have some constructive feedback for him or her. Indeedy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Serious Question To Self-Proclaimed Atheists ...
- Thread starter PureX
- Start date
- Status
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I do it differently.
Whether you recall it or not, you once appreciated God or claimed you would, so let's see how true you will be to your covenant and promise to her/him/it.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
You are mistaken. I have always been atheist.
I'm talking about the covenant you took with God and his chosen before coming to this world.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
I have no recollection of doing so. So unfortunately, I will be unable to fulfill any bargain I agreed to in my state of non existent potentia.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There can be agnostic theists, but they seem to be a very small minority. Most agnostics are also atheists. I think the problem is that the OP appears to be trying to redefine atheism as a belief that a god or gods do not exist. It appears that you agree with me that atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods.
To try to address the OP a bit more. When I have a lack of belief in something I will treat it as if it does not exist. For example until someone provides evidence that Bigfoot exist I will have to oppose any laws banning hunting of Bigfeet since that law is more apt to be abused than used. I am not advocating killing Bigfoot with this position, I am merely against a law that would do no good. (And I am rather surprised that "Bigfeet" is the correct plural for "Bigfoot" according to my spell checker).
That's your decision. The life of this world may not be a learning ground, but really a test. Maybe God doesn't know the future and wants to come to know us and the only ones trying to set our fates as sorcerers and evil Jinn while he and his chosen and Angels have a way of breaking their fabrics of fate.
You want to gamble, it's up to you, Pascal's wager however is a sound argument.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
You had better make damn sure that you can evidently demonstrate this "reality" and "truth" you are assuming people are ignorant of. I might be ignorant of the cast of characters from the most recent book by J.K. Rowling, but as long as no one claims that such ignorance is tied to me failing to valuate items that are "real" and "true," then there is nothing to care about in that. The moment someone does claim that those characters from that book by J.K. Rowling represent truths and realities that I am ignorant of, however? Well, that's the moment they are going to have to PROVE to me that there is something to care about there. And if they can't do that to MY satisfaction then there is absolutely no reason for me to take them seriously.
And by that, I am literally stating that I see absolutely no reason to take you seriously, @Link. None.
Last edited:
I been trying to show various proofs in various threads.
Whether you take me seriously or not is really up to you.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
Pascals wager fails in the face of the fact a wide variety of God's and Goddesses are posited by theists of many religious traditions. Of which only a few describe eternal punishment for failure to comply with religious indoctrination.
It doesn't fail in that. There is two threads I've made in regards to it. You've misunderstood it.
PureX
Veteran Member
These are religious positions and justifications. I am asking about the philosophical counter-proposition that God/gods don't exist, and the logical rationalization for choosing that position when one could simply remain agnostic (undetermined).
But regardless of what people accept or don't as evidence, none of it can be logically validated for transference to anyone else. There is no possible way for any human being, regardless of what they "believe", to verify the nature or existence of God/gods. Not even to themselves, if they are being honest. But more importantly, not to anyone else.
What anyone chooses to believe is their own business. What I am seeking is a logical rationale for choosing atheism over agnosticism.
By what logical reasoning did you expect to be able to gain, and recognize, evidence for the existence of God? What would such evidence look like, and how would you validate it?
Then you are not technically an atheist. Because atheism is the counter-proposition to theism, which is that no God/gods exist. "Not believing" that gods exist doesn't make you anything. The issue is what do you accept as your truth, and why? Do you presume that God exists, and live accordingly? Or do you accept that you simply don't have sufficient information/evidence to determine that God exists or not? Or do you choose to presume that no gods exist, and live accordingly. And if the latter, why? Specifically, by what logical reasoning did you make that choice?
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
Please by all means correct me. In brief.
Azrael Antilla
Active Member
Irrespective of pascals wager. 8d never worship or believe in something, out of fear of eternal punishment if I don't. My psychology would not permit it anyway.
He uses Christianity as a variable, he believes it's the true religion, true, but it doesn't matter, you can plug a different religion for it. But the over all argument, is that, unless you are 100% sure your fate won't be hell, you keep striving to search for truth and don't settle for a religion you don't know is true. If you are sure there is no hell, this is different. But as long as there is a chance in your mind, it's irrational to gamble there is no hell. Even 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance in your mind there is heaven and hell, not to gamble, because forever is infinitely greater then a temporary sacrifice we did with our time here. Whatever gains, even if there is no hell, was not worth the risk of hell if there was a hell.
So then you have to live a life striving to find the truth and trying to guarantee you don't enter hell. This is as long as the mere possibility exists. If you are sure there is no hell for your life decisions, that's something else.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Yes, I have participated in some of those threads. Your items are things that boil down in meaning to (paraphrased) statements like: "It is such exquisite poetry, that no human being(s) could possibly have crafted it alone." You ever watch the movie "The Ghostbusters?" There is a great scene in the library near the beginning, where one of the characters (Ray) says "Symmetrical book stacking. Just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947.", to which his partner Peter replies "You’re right, no human being would stack books like this." sarcastically. That's how I see the claim that the Quran is written so ingeniously that it is evidence that something supernatural must have lent a helping hand.
This is exactly right. It is encouraging to me more than you know for you to have acknowledged this. Thank you.
Actually the original argument, says, you must not believe in something for fear of hell. This how he solves the problem of other religions that have hell, like Islam, which Pascal sees as false. So part of the toolkit is to search for truth and not accept something while not knowing to be true.
I completed my analysis of that issue decades ago. Why should I keep pursuing it without new evidence? Why should I keep looking for evidence that probably doesn't exist, that none of the billions of searchers deceased or alive now have uncovered or presented?
And why should I presume that there is any value in finding this god if I could? Let's say that the universe were created by a conscious entity. If so, it's one that didn't leave any compelling evidence that it had done so, so there is no reason to believe it exists. And unless it has a revelation for us, the failure to understand of which could lead to consequences, or will answer our prayers, what difference does it make either way whether it exists or we discover that?
You could call this apathy, but I call it accepting that this is a question that neither I nor anybody else can answer except with guesses. If one can recognize that that is the case, he accepts it and moves on. I liken this endless, fruitless searching to looking for a lost set of keys for the rest of ones life, never understanding that there comes a time to move on. It is not a virtue to do such searching, and I don't envy those stuck doing so for the inability to break out of a loop.
The theists' spoon is empty. They feed not.
And what experienced skeptic is actually still expecting theists to provide any evidence for their beliefs? I know that they have none and expect that they never will, so I see no need to go to them for "spoonfeeding." What do theists have to offer skeptics in support of their beliefs apart from tortured arguments? What have you offered here that doesn't require faith to believe?
The linguistic eloquence (exalted above humans ability) is very hard to prove. I admit that. It's not easy. But to me, it can be proven if you take your time to study. I also will admit, I been lazy in that thread, and have not made a cumulative case. I will try to add more evidence.
However, this is not the only argument I've made. This is just one argument.
- Status