I want to know more about Aethism! help me please

[Charlemagne_II]

MegaTherion

Pascal’s Wager is, I’m sorry to say, a dumb idea. In the first place, it ignores all other religions. How can you ever be sure you’ve picked the right god? You’d have to worship them all just to be sure.

Pascal does not ignore all religions. He assumes the existence of one true God and one true religion. The argument is about whether we can safely say there is no God. The question of which religion is the true one is another debate altogether. Let’s not confuse the issue. I have explored all the religions and there is no doubt in my mind that Christianity is the true one.

If you say there is no God, and there is a God, where will you stand in eternity?

You don’t have to worry about where you will stand if there is a Lochness Monster?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nepenthe

*And if we’re wrong, well, same as theists of all varieties, we’ll find out when we get there. *

Well, that’s a pretty empty answer.

 

[Nepenthe]

It was a pretty empty question.

 

[MegaTherion]

Pascal does not ignore all religions. He assumes the existence of one true God and one true religion.

He assumes that there’s one god – so he ignores all those religions that assert that there’s more than one. He ignores Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, the Greek and Roman religions, etc.

I have explored all the religions and there is no doubt in my mind that Christianity is the true one.

Well, I’ve explored them and don’t find sufficient evidence for any of them. That’s kind of what we’re discussing.

You seem to think the threats that Christianity makes is a reason to accept it, despite the lack of evidence. You’re wrong.

If you say there is no God, and there is a God, where will you stand in eternity?

If the Christian god exists, when I die, I will be consigned to the lake of fire for all eternity, to suffer and burn and be apart from the lord and creator.

Similarly, if the Greek gods exist, when I die, I will be consigned to Hades for all eternity, to suffer and burn and be apart from the Elysian fields.

Similarly, if Norse gods exist, when I die, I will be consigned to Nephilheim, to suffer and…well, maybe not burn…and be apart from the glories of Valhalla.

Similarly, if a certain form of Buddhism is correct, there are Buddhist hells that I could end up in.

So anyway, if any religion is right, I guess I’m in big trouble. But here’s my point: the situation is exactly the same for you.

If you die and one of those other religions is true, then you’re in just as much trouble as me (maybe more since you worshipped a false god!).

Are the threats of those other religions reasons for you to convert?

At any rate, I noticed you didn’t address my point about belief not being an act of will. Do you think that you can will yourself to believe that the Lochness Monster is real? Can you will yourself to believe in Bigfoot? I can’t.

“Belief” is just a word for “been convinced by evidence.”

Threats aren’t convincing – at least not to rational people.

 

[severntofall]

How in the hell would you know that!!? Seems to me this is an unfounded certainty based on a belief that nothing transcends the laws and nature of physics. It is certainly not science! Please get your facts straight; and if you have any respect for knowledge then please put the words “i believe” in front of your baseless assertions in future.

The mere fact that an author can attribute miracles to Jesus is no more proof of their actual occurance than are the mention of Mohammed’s miracles in the Quran. If the bible can be said to prove the divinity of Jesus then the Quran can be said to disprove that same divinity. Both books contain unsubstantiated claims and the logic behaind affirming the truth of one book applies equally to the other.

 

[wasmit]

MegaTherion

Likening the existence of the Loch Ness Monster to the existence of God is hardly comparable.

When you say you don’t believe in a Loch Ness Monster, you have no reason to be concerned for your welfare. When you say there is no God, you had better have a good deal more reason to believe there is no God than that there is no Monster. The welfare of your immortal soul depends on it.

Your argument is circular, as your argument for believing in something for which there is no evidence (god), relies on another something for which there is no evidence (soul).

Also, threats are not evidence.

 

[wasmit]

Dameedna

Yes we could be wrong. Post # 46

Atheists could be wrong? Wow! That a fascinating admission.

And if you are wrong, what then?

Of course, atheists could be wrong. If they are wrong, Odin will smite them !

 

[severntofall]

He assumes that there’s one god – so he ignores all those religions that assert that there’s more than one. He ignores Hinduism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, the Greek and Roman religions, etc.

Well, I’ve explored them and don’t find sufficient evidence for any of them. That’s kind of what we’re discussing.

You seem to think the threats that Christianity makes is a reason to accept it, despite the lack of evidence. You’re wrong.

If the Christian god exists, when I die, I will be consigned to the lake of fire for all eternity, to suffer and burn and be apart from the lord and creator.

Similarly, if the Greek gods exist, when I die, I will be consigned to Hades for all eternity, to suffer and burn and be apart from the Elysian fields.

Similarly, if Norse gods exist, when I die, I will be consigned to Nephilheim, to suffer and…well, maybe not burn…and be apart from the glories of Valhalla.

Similarly, if a certain form of Buddhism is correct, there are Buddhist hells that I could end up in.

So anyway, if any religion is right, I guess I’m in big trouble. But here’s my point: the situation is exactly the same for you.

If you die and one of those other religions is true, then you’re in just as much trouble as me (maybe more since you worshipped a false god!).

Are the threats of those other religions reasons for you to convert?

At any rate, I noticed you didn’t address my point about belief not being an act of will. Do you think that you can will yourself to believe that the Lochness Monster is real? Can you will yourself to believe in Bigfoot? I can’t.

“Belief” is just a word for “been convinced by evidence.”

Threats aren’t convincing – at least not to rational people.

Of course, even in the event that there is actually a creator of the universe, the notion that it would sit in judegment of creatures of it’s own design and creation is absurd. It is inconcievable that a being with the wisdom and power to create a universe could be so petty and cruel as to find it necessary to eternally torture the subjects of its own creation. I can say without hesitation that while I do not look forward to death (yet) I also do not fear it.

 

[doughnut]

Well, before I discovered the marvels of being religious, I declared myself atheist. From young I questioned what was taught~the concept of something supernatural never quite sit well on me; I was the kid that drove teachers mad when they taught about Jesus, and I pressed on with too many whys. Eventually they called up my parents and inform them they failed to raise up a kid properly in ways of Christ.

It was only as I age that I realised that to be without faith is like a ship lost in the oceans, drifting from place to place without a destination. Without faith, one struggled with letting go, one always tried to take full control of things happening and not happening; imagine how many life events are beyond our means to control, without faith one gets a lot stressed up when unpredictable things were thrown in your path of calculated decisions. That is where I found faith when I stepped back into church one day.

Certainly leading an atheist life doesnt mean its pitiful or uncomfortable, but the feeling of love and bliss residing in your hearts is absent. (Sorry I just rambled on about personal opinions)

There are all sorts of people with all sorts of reasons why they do not believe in God anyway. Mine was due to refusal to acknowledge things that does not seemed possible in the scientific context.

 

[Squishy]

I dont beleave in god because it doesnt ive seen no evidence, or credible theorys put forward. The same as i dont beleave in a lot of things for that very same reason.

I know religious people probebly dont like this comparison but im going to make it anyway, my good friend Nessy. Who aparantly stays just up the road from me.

Many people who claimed to see her, and experiance her on a personal basis. But just because someone claims that X = Y does not in fact make it true.

When i analys most claims people tell me i usually ask my self, what do they gain. In the case of nessy usually some notoriaty and money. In the case of the early church fathers and the current church. Riches beyond imagining, and power over a rediculous amount of people. I would be less dubious over an organisation that promoted somthing where their own profit wasnt obcene.

As an atheist i ask, questions. I dont beleave somthing for the sake of answering those questions, im happy to sit not knowing the answer rather than jump to a conclusion based on conjecture.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

This has probably already been mentioned, but if not . . .

When i meet a thoughtful atheist, i like to ask two questions:

1. ]Of all the scholarly journals in all the libraries and databases in all the world, how much of that total body of knowledge do you yourself actually know? Perhaps 0.001%?]Let’s say you actually know 0.1% of all there is to know, are you really willing to dismiss the probability that sound evidence for God does not exist in the 99.9% of knowledge you know nothing about?
   
   I then go on to say that Catholics might not be smarter than atheists, only luckier to have stumbled across convincing proof (or, as Catholics say, blessed).

 

[Squishy]

This has probably already been mentioned, but if not . . .

When i meet a thoughtful atheist, i like to ask two questions:

1. ]Of all the scholarly journals in all the libraries and databases in all the world, how much of that total body of knowledge do you yourself actually know? Perhaps 0.001%?]Let’s say you actually know 0.1% of all there is to know, are you really willing to dismiss the probability that sound evidence for God does not exist in the 99.9% of knowledge you know nothing about?
   
   I then go on to say that Catholics might not be smarter than atheists, only luckier to have stumbled across convincing proof (or, as Catholics say, blessed).

1. 
   I think 0.001% is way way to high, and yes i do think that in all the knowledge that i do not possess that their is no defining proof of god. Because if their was it would be well known throughout the world and their would be no room for debate.
   
   I have no read all the conjecture and work leading upto the discovery of Pi. But me and the vast majority of the world know that it is a universal constant (at leaste in our solar system)
   
   a God might exist, its entiarly possible, however its no more probable than 100billion other things that i dont incorperate into my everyday life.

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna, I am a nontheist myself! Many here would categorize me as an atheist, but that isn’t, as I have pointed out, a very precise term. Since I fall at about the weak-atheist/strong-agnostic position (for those who don’t know, those are slightly technical terms and not very related to the way they may sound to the religious or uninformed), I usually use the term ‘nontheist’, but don’t mind being called either agnostic or atheist by people who understand the meanings of the words. And yes, I am also of the sort that refuses to succumb to notionalism to the utmost of my ability, and have paid quite a price at times - but a price I feel privileged to pay.

Hehe, the language of non-belief has not caught up with the language used by believers yet has it?

I do also feel privaledged to be in this mindset, regardless of the cost. It may hurt, but it also means no more lies. It means I can face anything that comes my way, with no fear that comes with a belief that cannot be verified.

I don’t find the various notions about the supernatural especially interesting - although not entirely devoid of interest- but not because it merely suits my purposes.

Hence why I defined the two different groups.

Rather, I find them lacking in discipline very often, and that very few people have much that is meaningful to say about them - and there are so very many things that we can (and should!) verify/falsify and ideals that we can accomplish without the presumption of the supernatural that my focus is more on such matters

I’m not sure who or what you are talking about at this point. Sorry

 

[Dameedna]

Dameedna

Yes we could be wrong. Post # 46

Atheists could be wrong? Wow! That a fascinating admission.

And if you are wrong, what then?

I will be wrong.?? Not sure what else you were looking for…

 

[Dameedna]

MegaTherion

Pascal’s Wager is, I’m sorry to say, a dumb idea. In the first place, it ignores all other religions. How can you ever be sure you’ve picked the right god? You’d have to worship them all just to be sure.

Pascal does not ignore all religions. He assumes the existence of one true God and one true religion.

Pascal himself admited his wager was a joke and a stupid argument. I can’t believe people actually use it as though it’s supposed to be worth something.

 

[Dameedna]

This has probably already been mentioned, but if not . . .

When i meet a thoughtful atheist, i like to ask two questions:

1. ]Of all the scholarly journals in all the libraries and databases in all the world, how much of that total body of knowledge do you yourself actually know? Perhaps 0.001%?]

1. 
   Probably less.
   

   Let’s say you actually know 0.1% of all there is to know, are you really willing to dismiss the probability that sound evidence for God does not exist in the 99.9% of knowledge you know nothing about?

   If there is evidence of a God, and if god required belief, it wouldn’t be hidden away in an obscure library in some text that only certain individuals could understand.
   
   You are trying to use, in a not so clever way, the age old argument of “yes we can’t prove god exists, but…since we can’t know everything we can’t prove god DOESN’T exist can we?”.
   
   Please.
   
   If God required human belief, he would have made it very obvious. And a 2000 year old book, that is constantly up for debate and admittedly written by failable humans who were completely ignorant of nature is hardly the work, of a God…that requres(with the thread of eternal damnation) belief.
   
   Sorry, but the argument won’t wash with any “thinking” athiest.
   
   The ONLY thing you are attempting to do, is get an athiest to admit they dont’ know everything.
   
   Well done. You can achieve that goal rather easily without invoking endless library books. It has nothing to do with your belief system and a lack of knowlege does not pertain to a faith in a God that requires no evidence.
   
   The athiest wants the truth. And they wont’ believe in pretty stories, or threats of hellfire because they are simply not that weak minded. That’s why they become the way they are. Making a point of saying they don’t know…does what exactly?
   

   I then go on to say that Catholics might not be smarter than atheists, only luckier to have stumbled across convincing proof (or, as Catholics say, blessed).

   Yes, it’s about pure luck it is. I guess you can be thankful for your luck, while living eternally, knowing another will eternally suffer. One must worship this great, glorious and horrifying God.
   
   Or else…down to hell you go.
   
   What is sad to me, is that you actually think…this is love. How much you miss!!!

 

[Leela]

This has probably already been mentioned, but if not . . .

When i meet a thoughtful atheist, i like to ask two questions:

1. ]Of all the scholarly journals in all the libraries and databases in all the world, how much of that total body of knowledge do you yourself actually know? Perhaps 0.001%?]Let’s say you actually know 0.1% of all there is to know, are you really willing to dismiss the probability that sound evidence for God does not exist in the 99.9% of knowledge you know nothing about?
   
   I then go on to say that Catholics might not be smarter than atheists, only luckier to have stumbled across convincing proof (or, as Catholics say, blessed).

1. 
   If you actually have convincing proof, I hope you’ll share it with us.
   
   Otherwise, as an argument for belief, the above questions could be used to justify any belief whatsoever.
   
   I ask you, are you willing to dismiss that sound eveidence of the proof of magic, UFO abductions, voodoo, palm reading, astrology, and the like is not contained in the 99.9% of things you don’t know?
   
   Best,
   Leela

 

[davidv]

Probably less.

If there is evidence of a God, and if god required belief, it wouldn’t be hidden away in an obscure library in some text that only certain individuals could understand.
{snip}

It is not hidden away. It is available to the simplist of children. It is my opinion that those who do not see it have shut their eyes to it. And, they have shut their eyes to it because they believe, correctly or incorrectly, that they have to give up something dear to them if they admit the evidence as admissible.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Sorry, but the argument won’t wash with any “thinking” athiest.
{snip}

This is one of those “dear things” that I refereed to in my previous posted. Why do you think belief in God requires you have give up thinking?

 

[Nepenthe]

I doubt Dameedna does!

Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of people, regardless of their faith, or lack there of as well, who lack either the available information, the desire, imperative or the ability in some cases (particularly lay people, in my experience, amongst the religious) to devote themselves to rigorous thought, but rather are content with a mishmash of what they are told (often sloppily and vaguely) and what they read in the lowerbrow ‘comic’ strips.

The Catholic Church, among many other great faiths, have awe-inspiring traditions of erudition, inquiry and questioning any and all preconceived notions, and it wasn’t so long ago at all that this was considered entirely vital for the health of the Catholic faith. I have become appalled by the apparent lassitude about classical education and reason now displayed among many Catholics, and the entire USA for that matter, at least here and elsewhere as well.

Please bring that back! How I want so much to feel the same respect for those at least the rudiments of good education I once did for the much of my earlier life! Yes, a personal plea, but from the bottom of my heart.