Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Better Be Religious Just In Case God Exists

Hambone
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:35:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's better to be religious, just in case God does exist. I've never understood this about atheists, who claim there is nothingness. If you genuinely believe there's nothingness, then there's no risk in believing in a God that could save you from a potentially bad afterlife. There's much more of a risk gambling that God doesn't exist if he actually does. Basically it comes down to this:
1.) Believe in God and he doesn't exist: Nothingness in Afterlife.
2.)Don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist: Nothingness in Afterlife.
3.) Believe in God and he does exist: Great Afterlife.
4.) Don't believe in God and he does exist: Bad Afterlife.
Only one of these outcomes is bad. Two are negligible, because the same result happens. One is great. The risk of not believing doesn't seem to balance out the reward of just being correct until you finally reach the nothingness.
Hot and Dangerous
Agnostic86
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:39:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:35:41 PM, Hambone wrote:
It's better to be religious, just in case God does exist. I've never understood this about atheists, who claim there is nothingness. If you genuinely believe there's nothingness, then there's no risk in believing in a God that could save you from a potentially bad afterlife. There's much more of a risk gambling that God doesn't exist if he actually does. Basically it comes down to this:
1.) Believe in God and he doesn't exist: Nothingness in Afterlife.
2.)Don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist: Nothingness in Afterlife.
3.) Believe in God and he does exist: Great Afterlife.
4.) Don't believe in God and he does exist: Bad Afterlife.

Believe in the wrong God, bad afterlife!

Only one of these outcomes is bad. Two are negligible, because the same result happens. One is great. The risk of not believing doesn't seem to balance out the reward of just being correct until you finally reach the nothingness.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:44:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you just wasted your one and only life restricting yourself to the hundreds of laws put forth by the Bible/Quran etc.

Also, if you believe in the wrong God you may experience the wrath of Allah or Zeus.

So even if you're trying to play it safe, which God do should you believe in?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:50:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:35:41 PM, Hambone wrote:
It's better to be religious, just in case God does exist.

What if God is a lover of skepticism and science, who loathes wish-washy religious convictions and puts such people as hold them in an eternal hell?

What if God is a lover of truthfulness and honesty, who loathes people who lie to themselves just for their own benefit and thus hates people who hold religious convictions because they think it'll be beneficial?

What if belief can't be chosen?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 1:50:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:44:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, you just wasted your one and only life restricting yourself to the hundreds of laws put forth by the Bible/Quran etc.

Also, if you believe in the wrong God you may experience the wrath of Allah or Zeus.

So even if you're trying to play it safe, which God do should you believe in?

Whichever one has the best candy.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 2:33:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You left life on earth out of your analysis.

Also, sincere belief is not subject to will.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 2:38:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, due to how this is titled.

"Lost in a theological wilderness. Better drink my own piss."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 3:17:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I thought we were beyond this already? Didnt Pascals Wager get addressed and re-addressed many many times?

Oh, and no, its "Better drink my own piss JUST IN CASE."
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 3:37:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would suggest that everyone, when they come across the word "god", replace that word with "actuality" and see how different their understanding of the statement becomes.

Sometimes it is humorous.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 3:38:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, Pascal's Wager is fundamentally fallacious.

Argument Ad Pussium.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 3:58:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 3:38:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, Pascal's Wager is fundamentally fallacious.

Argument Ad Pussium.

God doesn't really care what religion you are.... Why would God care about such petty things?

What's in your soul is what matters most. Wise souls will learn this. Specific religions and dogma mean nothing. Truth, wisdom, knowledge; these are the keys to enlightenment.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 4:18:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 3:58:18 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/1/2011 3:38:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, Pascal's Wager is fundamentally fallacious.

Argument Ad Pussium.

God doesn't really care what religion you are.... Why would God care about such petty things?

What's in your soul is what matters most. Wise souls will learn this. Specific religions and dogma mean nothing. Truth, wisdom, knowledge; these are the keys to enlightenment.

Materialists and gingers have no need for souls. Lucky for me I'm both.
My manwich!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 4:26:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 4:18:35 PM, Merda wrote:
At 6/1/2011 3:58:18 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 6/1/2011 3:38:32 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, Pascal's Wager is fundamentally fallacious.

Argument Ad Pussium.

God doesn't really care what religion you are.... Why would God care about such petty things?

What's in your soul is what matters most. Wise souls will learn this. Specific religions and dogma mean nothing. Truth, wisdom, knowledge; these are the keys to enlightenment.

Materialists and gingers have no need for souls. Lucky for me I'm both.

Gingers have souls... Just black, tainted evil ones. Its asians who dont have souls.
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 4:45:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your argument is eternity exists cuz it's awesome and this is not the end and it suks if it was the end but in case it's not the end and I don't believe then I should believe because there an incentive to believe but if there isn't an heaven then you have wasted Sunday's that's bad god told me so :p
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 5:52:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I hate Pascal's wager. Argument ad Cunnus indeed.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think there are plenty of valid objections to the wager, so I don't use it, but something did come to mind the other day. Does anyone support...

"What if you chose the wrong God?"

"I still have a better chance than you, since I at least picked one."

"What if God only lets atheists into Heaven?" <---- that response as a valid objection by itself?
Rusty
Posts: 2,109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:46:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 6:45:07 PM, Denote wrote:
I think there are plenty of valid objections to the wager, so I don't use it, but something did come to mind the other day. Does anyone support...

"What if you chose the wrong God?"

"I still have a better chance than you, since I at least picked one."

"What if God only lets atheists into Heaven?" <---- that response as a valid objection by itself?

Again, I don't think the wager holds it's weight, I'm just wondering about this response in particular as a valid objection.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 6:51:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 6:45:07 PM, Denote wrote:
"What if God only lets atheists into Heaven?" <---- that response as a valid objection by itself?

It's a null objection, by which, it is largely unfounded (outside of some Hindu stuff). You can run with a scepticism argument from it I guess, but it's fairly weak.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:05:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 6:51:21 PM, Puck wrote:
It's a null objection, by which, it is largely unfounded (outside of some Hindu stuff). You can run with a scepticism argument from it I guess, but it's fairly weak.

The point is that if pascal's wager is used to establish that you should believe in God in the absence of any evidence because otherwise you will go to hell, it's trivial to invent a hypothetical God (for which there is also no evidence) who would send you to hell for believing in God. The two hypothesis cancel each other out.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:10:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 7:05:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/1/2011 6:51:21 PM, Puck wrote:
It's a null objection, by which, it is largely unfounded (outside of some Hindu stuff). You can run with a scepticism argument from it I guess, but it's fairly weak.

The point is that if pascal's wager is used to establish that you should believe in God in the absence of any evidence because otherwise you will go to hell, it's trivial to invent a hypothetical God (for which there is also no evidence) who would send you to hell for believing in God. The two hypothesis cancel each other out.

Yeah except G is capitalised which denotes a specific set to draw from - "I can make up stuff" only works as a counter point to unfounded beliefs from the Pascal advocate - and it's rarely if ever advocated as that. Whether the dissenter agrees or not is irrelevant as such - Pascal is advocated for those who are perceived to reject evidence that others find justified. All it really does is ask the advocate "are you sure of your belief?"
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:30:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 7:10:54 PM, Puck wrote:
Yeah except G is capitalised which denotes a specific set to draw from

There are no such ontological limits in the argument - the 'set' contains every potential being which could confer infinite utility - a plausibly infinite set.

- "I can make up stuff" only works as a counter point to unfounded beliefs from the Pascal advocate - and it's rarely if ever advocated as that.

Eh, it is in pop theology (and the original argument); but whatever.

Whether the dissenter agrees or not is irrelevant as such - Pascal is advocated for those who are perceived to reject evidence that others find justified. All it really does is ask the advocate "are you sure of your belief?"

Most of the arguments for God could apply equally to the invented variants which themselves confer infinite utility for non-belief. The only exception is the argument which attempts to prove the truth of any particular religion (historicity of resurrection, perfection of Qu'ran etc.). But I agree that the objection no longer applies if it's used as part of a cumulative case.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 7:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 7:30:27 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 6/1/2011 7:10:54 PM, Puck wrote:
Yeah except G is capitalised which denotes a specific set to draw from

There are no such ontological limits in the argument - the 'set' contains every potential being which could confer infinite utility - a plausibly infinite set.

Not the point. The issue is not what the detractor draws from but the advocate.

- "I can make up stuff" only works as a counter point to unfounded beliefs from the Pascal advocate - and it's rarely if ever advocated as that.

Eh, it is in pop theology (and the original argument); but whatever.

It was never intended as such by Pascal. He died beforehand though. As a standalone even it's awkward since someone has to be advocating it with intent in mind. Otherwise it's just a floating abstract - and in that sense it would fail, sure.

Whether the dissenter agrees or not is irrelevant as such - Pascal is advocated for those who are perceived to reject evidence that others find justified. All it really does is ask the advocate "are you sure of your belief?"

Most of the arguments for God could apply equally to the invented variants which themselves confer infinite utility for non-belief. The only exception is the argument which attempts to prove the truth of any particular religion (historicity of resurrection, perfection of Qu'ran etc.). But I agree that the objection no longer applies if it's used as part of a cumulative case.

Yeah, the point is really not what the detractors beliefs are but the advocates. For the detractor "which god, hey what about Zeus?" is irrelevant really. The advocate knows which God they are advocating Pascal for. It's less, pick a god any god and hope for the best, and more pick my god because I know I'm right about it existing and this is your best bet if you don't believe. The wager is less about what god and more about hedging for a specific. Granted it's still a fail argument no matter how it's done. ^^
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:22:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/1/2011 1:35:41 PM, Hambone wrote:
It's better to be religious, just in case God does exist. I've never understood this about atheists, who claim there is nothingness. If you genuinely believe there's nothingness, then there's no risk in believing in a God that could save you from a potentially bad afterlife. There's much more of a risk gambling that God doesn't exist if he actually does. Basically it comes down to this:
1.) Believe in God and he doesn't exist: Nothingness in Afterlife.
2.)Don't believe in God, and he doesn't exist: Nothingness in Afterlife.
3.) Believe in God and he does exist: Great Afterlife.
4.) Don't believe in God and he does exist: Bad Afterlife.
Only one of these outcomes is bad. Two are negligible, because the same result happens. One is great. The risk of not believing doesn't seem to balance out the reward of just being correct until you finally reach the nothingness.

Pascal's wager fails so hard. I will not believe in something just because I want to escape punishment if someone else happens to be right. That goes against my integrity. I believe what I have reasoned to be most likely. I don't think God would like me very much if I didn't really believe in him but pretended to just to get into heaven.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:34:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Pascals Wager FTW !!!

Maybe God doesn't like people who adhere to pascals wager, maybe pascals wagers pisses him off, to be safe we should use pascals wager on pascals wager, and be safe and not adhere to pascals wager.......errr what.

How about Muhammed wager ?

If Allah exists, then its better to believe he exists, if it turns out Allah does not exist then you havn't lost much. Sounds good to me, where is the nearest mosque ? Where do I sign up ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
rarugged
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2011 10:49:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So if I don't believe in God and he exists, I'm destined to have a terrible afterlife?

What a petty, shallow God.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, a cross would be the last thing he would want to see.