A theory without any consistent signs is called a learned guess. And even with learned guesses, it's just a game of taking the least assumptions.

If it were really a matter of taking the least assumptions, then belief in God is the obvious choice. It requires far less assumptions to conclude that There is a magical being who created everything than it does to assume that all the right factors came into play at the exact right time and intervals for things to create themselves.

That's not at all my point. You're recommending I take as truth potentially hazardous dogma.

I'm not recommending that you take up any specific doctrine at all. And although it's likely that I have revealed my religious affiliation in the forums in the past, for the purposes of this discussion you don't even know what my affiliation is (I could be a member of that fairy cult you mentioned for all you know).

Right, but it's safe to think that there aren't any faeries living under your garden.

Not really. If there were fairies there who were just kind of kicking back and chilling, there's not really any reason to think you'd ever be able to detect them. Now if you assume that all the plant growth in your garden is due to magic fairies helping them out then of course you run into some problems, but if you just have some dudes who don't really do much then there's not really any reason to think that you'd ever be able to say with confidence that there are no non-interventionist fairies hiding under your garden.

R. Descartes, a French knowledgelover, played this game and came to the endsay that the only "proof" he has of anything is his wise being - "I think thus I am.".

As I said, you have to draw the line somewhere. Do you accept nothing as proof? Do you accept the theory that requires the least assumptions? Do you accept testimony from other people as proof?

I'd say it's going a bit too far to say that nothing can be proven, but when you take into account that the very basis of human society is faith-based assumptions, it sounds a bit silly to say that you won't accept something with no proof.

It's needless learning of a word that stacks up in the long time. Folk shouldn't have to know the Greek roots that lead up to this word, either, unless they're Greek, when there're good English roots.

This word, Theos, is all over the place, you don't really need to learn any greek to pick up it's meaning.

An allstrong and allknowing god would himself design who would do mindtraps on themselves and who would be helled forever (this god would not be a kind one). It's his own blame and he knows it.

The ability of humans to think as rational beings is a truly wonderful thing. Taking this away is very, very cruel, not kind or benevolent.

Furthermore, it's not a mindtrap to not assume that there's a God without signs, it's the standard way of doing things.

Actually, irreligion is relatively new as far as major religious movements go. By default most people seem to drift towards religion.

If his point was for you to be logic about it, then sure it would. You passed his the test of logos, you took the appropriate endsay, and he purposefully made no sign of himself.

As I said, it practically makes no sense. The idea that a being would reward you for ignoring the moral code he has set out for you in favor of your own due to some logical trap you've constructed is outlandish at best.

i would choose our almighty god, lord and saviour zalmoxis
zalmoxism is the one and only true faith, my ancestors were the chosen people of zalmoxis and all infidels will be converted. my ancestors and zalmoxis gods will smile upon me once i have done my deeds and i will then ascend to zalmoxis

haven't read any besides the OP.

atheists tend to follow a belief of, believe that which is easiest to disprove.
we can never prove that a religion is incorrect, but we can prove that they are correct quite simply.
and I am not a coward.. a coward pretends to be something he's not in hopes of personal gain. If I do something wrong, I will face and take my punishment rather than pretend I didn't do it.
also, as an american I know the christian god best, and the bible contradicts itself regularly, which leads me to believe that the christian god cannot be true.. but lets say logic aside and it is real. the texts have often stated to be true in your heart, that good actions and intentions are more important than lip service, and that atonement can save you despite your failures..
I attest to the fact that if the *christian* god is real, there will be more atheists than lip service believers walking through the pearly gates once all is said and done.

It requires far less assumptions to conclude that There is a magical being who created everything than it does to assume that all the right factors came into play at the exact right time and intervals for things to create themselves.

Over time in a really really really colossal world? Not so much, and there's actual signs of how these factors came into play. Otherwise it would be a guess and would be perhaps a matter of debate. But even then, you can't know a god is.

I could be a member of that fairy cult you mentioned for all you know.

There's literally no sense in believing in what has no signs of being true. Most Christians and Muslims and other folks of faiths are raised in a Christian/Muslim family and community, and so it's pretty reasonable why they believe it - everyone else that they trust and love believe it, too. And the same thing is with racism and gayhate, and a few other mostly unsigned beliefs.

if you just have some dudes who don't really do much then there's not really any reason to think that you'd ever be able to say with confidence that there are no non-interventionist fairies hiding under your garden.

If there's fully no sign that something is, then it's safe to assume that there isn't. Even for the most fringe beliefs like vampires, aliens, and ghosts, there are some signs of it, mainly witnesses with odd and unexplained happenings.

Do you accept nothing as proof? Do you accept the theory that requires the least assumptions? Do you accept testimony from other people as proof?

Accepting the theory that needs the least assumptions as the most likely is a standard. The point that I was making, anyhow, was that you can believe what's been proved consistently and signed to consistently, the only thing that's up to you is perhaps the meaning of the word "consistently" (but experimenters and statisticians most likely have a better thought than you do).

the very basis of human society is faith-based assumptions

I don't understand.

This word, Theos, is all over the place

It shouldn't be, only need to know "god".

The ability of humans to think as rational beings is a truly wonderful thing. Taking this away is very, very cruel, not kind or benevolent.

I'm not saying it's taking it away, I'm just saying that Abrahamic God would know what our whole lives and our afterlife "fate" would be.

it's the standard way of doing things.

Actually, irreligion is relatively new as far as major religious movements go. By default most people seem to drift towards religion.

I didn't say traditional, I said "standard". It was the standard a few hundred years ago to kill the Jews if too much went wrong, that if you had a headache, your left arm had to go, and there was not nearly as many scientific disbands with faith as there is today. Heck in Europe, much of the church led scientific insight, not many folk know, but Kopernik was a very faithful Catholic fellow, and it greatly irked him that what he found looking at the stars put him in a great faith anguish.

The idea that a being would reward you for ignoring the moral code he has set out for you

Who says he has made a moral code for me? And if he doesn't tell me, then I can't follow.

I just like Christianity because it makes people moral

I like America for two grounds:

1. it's a Christian country founded on the good principles of Jesus Chirst
2. it brings freedom and order and builds peace all about the world.

I like America for two grounds:

1. it's a Christian country founded on the good principles of Jesus Chirst
2. it brings freedom and order and builds peace all about the world.

When Lukashenko tries building relations with the United States

My uncle once caught autism from a park bench.

Over time in a really really really colossal world?

It is true that over time things have a better chance of happening. For example, if there's a 1 in 200,000 chance that in any given year an airplane would crash into a circus and only kill the humans under the age of thirty and nothing else then on average this would have happened once so far in human existence.

However, this wasn't really my point at all. Rather, I pointed out that any belief that God does not exist requires way more assumptions than believing in God does.

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

1. Evidence we have picked up supporting this theory is credible (ie not fabricated)

2. The people interpreting this evidence are competent enough for their opinions on the matter to be credible

3. That every belief requires empirical or logical evidence to support it (an assumption that you seem to hold close to heart btw)

And a lot more, but you get the point. And none of these are trivial assumptions either. There are countless instances of fabricated evidence practically everywhere, and there are a lot of people who misinterpret stuff.

Contrasted with this, the only assumption really required to believe that a powerful God exists is to assume that he exists.

I don't understand.

See above. Faith in empirical evidence is one example, as well as faith that stuff actually exists, or faith in interpreters of evidence. Also, faith in the scientific method is still faith. Here's a video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2Vx9qoLzFs

It shouldn't be, only need to know "god".

I don't really see any reason why. English borrows words lots of words from other languages, and when you strip out the foreign words it's really pretty meaningless to an english speaker.

(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.language.artificial/ZL4e3fD7eW0/_7p8bKwLJWkJ)

I'm not saying it's taking it away, I'm just saying that Abrahamic God would know what our whole lives and our afterlife "fate" would be.

Same point, different idea. Taking away our free will, even if it means that we're not able to damn ourselves anymore is nevertheless a very cruel thing to do.

I didn't say traditional, I said "standard". I

Standard =

ADJECTIVE

1 Used or accepted as normal or average:

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

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

Who says he has made a moral code for me? And if he doesn't tell me, then I can't follow.

If you are rejecting a God then you are rejecting the moral code that he has prescribed for you. Pick any religion you want, all of them have moral codes.

Edited 8/15/2016 18:43:42

One of the better Catholic voices is Father Barron.

Here's an example of a few of his videos on topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe5kVw9JsYI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVsbVAVSssc

He can actually have an intelligent and respectful debate with critics of his ideas, which today is a seemingly a lost art.

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