Another question for atheists...

[ianb321red]

Pascal's wager, eh? Your statement is only correct if there is no god of any sort - if any other religion is correct you're in just as much trouble as any other non-believer.

Not quite....in fact, far from it as it happens!

Actually very few of all the worlds religions believe in hell.
The below is not an exhaustive list of world religions that have any sort of concept of hell/ eternal punishment (it's probably good enough for this discussion):

1.Asatru
2.Bah'ai Faith
3.Christianity
4.Druze
5.Islam
6.Mormonism
7.Zoroastrianism

-Asatru is a Norse/ Germanic pagan cult that worship Norse Gods and Goddesses. Very little is known about this religion - most importantly no one actually knows how salvation is achieved
-Bah'ai Faith say that hell is not a physical place, rather it is a state of mind
-Druze is an Egyptian Islamic sect. Their concept of hell is mental in that reincarnation might distance you from God. They don't believe in a physical hell.
-Zoroastrianism believe that hell is temporary until final purgatory, rather than an eternal hell

So the majority of these religions do not even believe in a physical eternal hell.

In the end we're left with a choice between these 3:

Christianity
Islam
Mormonism

I am absolutely confident that having looked in to both Islam and Mormonism considerably that both of these are false teaching and therefore rejecting these religions poses no threat to my eternal destiny whatsoever..

So the reality that we're all faced with is whether Christianity is true versus a.n.other religion yet to have been discovered or no religion at all? The argument versus other religions (for me) doesn't stack up in any way, shape or form. I'd like to hear a mildly convincing argument otherwise though....

If Christianity IS true and it's teaching on the afterlife is TRUE, then it is something we will ALL have to deal with sooner or later regardless of whether you like it or believe it or reject it or ignore it. That's the black and white of the situation ultimately. As patient as God is, the argument from ignorance won't wash given what Paul says in Romans chapter 1.....

 

[Danny777]

No, it isn't. Belief does not work that way.

I cannot put it much simple than what I just said, but I will try. I believe that 2+2=4 is a true statement. I cannot just choose to think otherwise. I would have to be convinced that 2+2=4 is incorrect before I would be able to think otherwise. The same is with God and with Christianity. I am a non-Christian and an atheist. I will remain such until I am a recipient of a convincing argument and/or phenomena in the world that convinces me otherwise.

If you asked every person on the planet whether 2+2=4 you would get a 100% positive response...logic dictates that this is a true statement.

The same is NOT true with God despite what you say...

If you asked every person on the planet whether they believe a God exists I suspect at least 75% would also answer yes (based on number of Muslims, Christians, Catholics etc). There MUST be reasonably compelling evidence for the existence of God. It there was no evidence for the existence of God you would get 100% people saying there is no God just in the same way that no-one would dispute that 2+2=4...

I don't see how your mathematical point proves anything!

 

[ianb321red]

If you asked every person on the planet whether 2+2=4 you would get a 100% positive response...logic dictates that this is a true statement.

...except if it was 2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8, and you would round this up to 5, no?
Bring on the GSCE maths!

 

[ianb321red]

No it isn't. That's what you seem to have missed. One of the most popular inaccuracies on this forum is that belief is a choice. There's no room for choice there at all. Belief in a proposition or not depends entirely on whether or not we are convinced by it. We do not "choose" to not believe in a God(s). We are unable to. We do not because we do not see that any evidence or good argument exists for God's existence.

Until that changes then that is how it will remain.

Are you a fatalist then? Or can you explain (without relying on logically fallacious arguments such as special pleading, mind projection and so on..) how there is an absence of choice in belief(s) ? How are we unable to choose when we are presented with a choice? Are you living in a parallel universe or something?

Can you explain why you can see neither the evidence or arguments for God when millions of ordinary people can (regardless of whether you accept or reject it). To justify excluding evidence; you can't simply say there is not evidence because this is clearly false premise and totally weakens your position.

Even if evidence existed to convince only 1 person of God, you would still need to justify excluded the evidence that convinced that 1 person - if you simply ignored it then it would be an informal fallacy and your position would held up as being not justified.

 

[Gadarene]

Are you a fatalist then? Or can you explain (without relying on logically fallacious arguments such as special pleading, mind projection and so on..) how there is an absence of choice in belief(s) ? How are we unable to choose when we are presented with a choice? Are you living in a parallel universe or something?

You cannot choose something into existence, and given what one knows of a topic will determine whether or not they believe in its existence or not.

As I said earlier, I doubt that either of you can choose yourself into not believing in God, so let's drop the silliness.

Can you explain why you can see neither the evidence or arguments for God when millions of ordinary people can (regardless of whether you accept or reject it). To justify excluding evidence; you can't simply say there is not evidence because this is clearly false premise and totally weakens your position.

Even if evidence existed to convince only 1 person of God, you would still need to justify excluded the evidence that convinced that 1 person - if you simply ignored it then it would be an informal fallacy and your position would held up as being not justified.

There may be evidence consistent with a particular conclusion but not conclusive evidence - this is a semantic objection. Just because you have some fragments that are consistent with your conclusion doesn't mean your conclusion is the more sensible one.

You also seem to be conflating "thinking someone is wrong" with "excluding evidence", which seems a little weaselly.

 

[Gadarene]

I wonder - is the reason why so many Christians claim they had to choose to believe is because they know they are being inconsistent, treating their belief's claims with a different set of standards to all other claims?

 

[Cute Tink]

What do you think will happen to you when you die?

I cease to exist except in the memories of the living who knew me. I don't find it comforting, but then again, I haven't come to my beliefs hoping for comfort. It is what it is. If I am condemned to an eternity of torture (depends on who's interpretation you follow), then so be it. I don't consider myself to be an evil person - I don't seek to harm anyone, I try to help people. If my lack of faith lands me an eternity of torture, then I can honestly say that I wouldn't want to be with someone who could command that. If Hell is more of a separation from God, then so be it.

 

[Skavau]

If you asked every person on the planet whether 2+2=4 you would get a 100% positive response...logic dictates that this is a true statement.

(There might be a few who are ignorant of basic numeracy)

At any rate, this is my point. People who know the most basic things about anything will be unable to argue against the idea that 2+2=4. They would be compelled to accept it unless they were the recipient of evidence or a convincing argument against it.

This is the same with God. People who believe in God really do believe it and cannot just change. Similar for those who do not believe in God.

The same is NOT true with God despite what you say...

That depends on what it is you're thinking I'm saying about God.

If you asked every person on the planet whether they believe a God exists I suspect at least 75% would also answer yes (based on number of Muslims, Christians, Catholics etc). There MUST be reasonably compelling evidence for the existence of God.

There are certainly reasons for why people believe in God. There are also certainly ways in which people interpret natural phenomena that make them conclude that God does not exist. Those arguments and phenomena asserted to favour God, I can assure you I have heard many times and responded to. I am convinced by good argumentation and good evidence not popular argumentation and evidence.

It there was no evidence for the existence of God you would get 100% people saying there is no God just in the same way that no-one would dispute that 2+2=4...

I don't see how your mathematical point proves anything!

You missed my point entirely. My "mathematical point" was to demonstrate that people accept things as true or false based on their conviction in their evidence. It is not a choice but a conclusion.

 

[Skavau]

Are you a fatalist then?

No.

Or can you explain (without relying on logically fallacious arguments such as special pleading, mind projection and so on..) how there is an absence of choice in belief(s) ?

Because a belief is effectively the same as a conclusion. I will respond by asking you how we actually "choose" a belief. Did you honestly "choose" to believe that 2+2=4? Could you with complete sincerity and conviction elect at will at any time to stop believing that 2+2=4?

Why or why not?

How are we unable to choose when we are presented with a choice?

Belief isn't about being "presented with a choice". It is about whether or not you can accept a proposition as true, no matter how many other hypothetical possibilities may exist. Whatever is most convincing to you is the one you accept whether or not you admit it or not.

Are you living in a parallel universe or something?

No.

Can you explain why you can see neither the evidence or arguments for God when millions of ordinary people can (regardless of whether you accept or reject it).

Because what convinces those "ordinary" people does not convince me.

By the way, millions of "ordinary" people also do not believe in God. It is not an exclusive title reserved for theists.

To justify excluding evidence; you can't simply say there is not evidence because this is clearly false premise and totally weakens your position.

I say that the exists arguments for God that people assert is evidence. I also say that there exists specific interpretations of natural phenomena that people assert is evidence for God.

Even if evidence existed to convince only 1 person of God, you would still need to justify excluded the evidence that convinced that 1 person -

I wouldn't "need" to do anything. I can ignore, respond to or adopt whatever I like and with no-one's permission.

I presume on this that you have justified why you've "excluded the evidence" asserted against Christianity and theism in general?

if you simply ignored it then it would be an informal fallacy and your position would held up as being not justified.

Who says I'm ignoring it anyway? Or who says I have ignored it anyway?

This sounds remarkably similar to the oft-repeated theist notion that an atheist must know absolutely everything, ever in order to coherently disbelieve in God. Or the notion that we cannot rule out God because we weren't present at the beginning of the universe. Do you yourself honestly think that an individual most know everything about absolutely every position they do not hold ever in order to be considered sensible when they disbelieve in those positions?

 

[Danny777]

You missed my point entirely. My "mathematical point" was to demonstrate that people accept things as true or false based on their conviction in their evidence. It is not a choice but a conclusion.

A really can't see why your making a big deal about whether something is a choice or a conclusion.

A jury, when presented with evidence will either convict the defendant with a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. This verdict will be a conclusion reached on the basis of their own perception of the evidence - each juror still has a CHOICE to select either a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. No-one is telling them they must reach a particular verdict...

When looking at world around us we may weigh up the evidence for the existence of God. We are free to choose to believe OR dis-believe in God - it is an CHOICE...we are not forced one way or the other, hence there are many people who do believe in God and there are equally many who do not. We have free will in this matter, therefore we have a choice...

 

[Gadarene]

A really can't see why your making a big deal about whether something is a choice or a conclusion.

A jury, when presented with evidence will either convict the defendant with a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. This verdict will be a conclusion reached on the basis of their own perception of the evidence - each juror still has a CHOICE to select either a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. No-one is telling them they must reach a particular verdict...

When looking at world around us we may weigh up the evidence for the existence of God. We are free to choose to believe OR dis-believe in God - it is an CHOICE...we are not forced one way or the other, hence there are many people who do believe in God and there are equally many who do not. We have free will in this matter, therefore we have a choice...

So choose to not believe for us then. Demonstrate it.

 

[ianb321red]

Because a belief is effectively the same as a conclusion. I will respond by asking you how we actually "choose" a belief. Did you honestly "choose" to believe that 2+2=4? Could you with complete sincerity and conviction elect at will at any time to stop believing that 2+2=4?

I'll interrupt you here...but I'll read the rest of your post later

Proving 2+2=4 is not just a case of implying that "everyone knows this". That's no different implying that God exists and "everyone knows this"

Can you actually prove though that 2+2=4? This involves mathematical logic such as peano axioms and so on (if you google "proving 2+2=4" you'll find all sorts of discussions out there...)

So clearly most people do believe that 2+2=4, but I would argue that 99% of them cannot actually prove it in a mathematical way, but then a lot of people also believe that God exists without being able to technically prove it.

Could you choose not to believe that 2+2=4? Technically, yes - you could probably challenge the axioms and theory. Would you succeed? Maybe not?
Can you choose not to believe that God doesn't exist? Technically, yes - but as with 2+2=4, you'd have a choice to do this or not.

 

[Skavau]

A really can't see why your making a big deal about whether something is a choice or a conclusion.

Because there is a big difference between saying someone chooses to do something and is convinced of something. When you suggest that I am an atheist by choice you are in fact misrepresenting what it means to believe.

A jury, when presented with evidence will either convict the defendant with a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. This verdict will be a conclusion reached on the basis of their own perception of the evidence - each juror still has a CHOICE to select either a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. No-one is telling them they must reach a particular verdict...

That's not at all what I mean when I say that belief is not a choice. I am not saying that you are coerced, manipulated or directed by another agent into acting or thinking a certain way. I am saying that your conclusions derive from how convincing you think a certain claim is. If you think a claim (such as the existence of God) is convincing then you will believe in God. If you think that the claim is unconvincing then you will not.

Regarding a jury, those in it, if honest will make their decision based on their conviction. If they think the case presented by the prosecution is convincing they will then vote to convict the defendant. If they think the defense is convincing they will vote not guilty. What leads them to their conclusion is not based on choice but based on what their interpretation of the evidence.

When looking at world around us we may weigh up the evidence for the existence of God. We are free to choose to believe OR dis-believe in God - it is an CHOICE...

No.

Sorry, belief does not work that way. How you interpret the evidence for anything can be influenced by bias but ultimately that interpretation will inform upon your conclusion. It would be inaccurate to label it solely as a choice.

we are not forced one way or the other, hence there are many people who do believe in God and there are equally many who do not. We have free will in this matter, therefore we have a choice...

That's not what I'm arguing. You are misunderstanding my argument here.

 

[Skavau]

I'll interrupt you here...but I'll read the rest of your post later

Proving 2+2=4 is not just a case of implying that "everyone knows this". That's no different implying that God exists and "everyone knows this"

I'm not trying to prove 2+2=4 nor am I comparing 2+2=4 to belief in God either way. I am using it to illustrate that belief in proposition is informed by our understanding of the evidence of that proposition and/or reasoned arguments for that proposition.

Can you actually prove though that 2+2=4? This involves mathematical logic such as peano axioms and so on (if you google "proving 2+2=4" you'll find all sorts of discussions out there...)

So clearly most people do believe that 2+2=4, but I would argue that 99% of them cannot actually prove it in a mathematical way, but then a lot of people also believe that God exists without being able to technically prove it.

This is irrelevant. The point is that no-one who knows anything can just at will say "2+2=5" and believe it. The only way they could do it would be if belief is as you assert: choice. Since they cannot, the point stands.

Could you choose not to believe that 2+2=4? Technically, yes -

Okay then.

Demonstrate it. Stop believing right now that 2+2=4. I don't even mean for you to look up arguments for this. I'm asking you to, without any evidence whatsoever to just arbitrarily choose to believe that 2+2 does not equal 4.

you could probably challenge the axioms and theory. Would you succeed? Maybe not?

So close and yet so far. If you would need to demonstrate that 2+2 does not equal 4 and if you could fail in doing so then you concede the point that belief in a proposition derives from an understanding and interpretation of the evidence.

Can you choose not to believe that God doesn't exist? Technically, yes - but as with 2+2=4, you'd have a choice to do this or not.

You're just asserting things now with argument. I am telling you, right now that I cannot choose to just believe that God exists. I could, at best pretend to.

I must ask you though: Why do you think cognitive dissonance exists? Why do people suffer from it? If belief is entirely a choice then how could it exist?

 

[Danny777]

Skavau and Gadarene...

To be fair, I do take your points re choice/conclusion etc...

I have made a choice/reached the conclusion that God does exist and you guys have made a choice/reached the conclusion that there is no God. I imagine it is very unlikely either of us will change our mind.

I can understand why it must be annoying to have Christians trying to convince you that they are right. I suppose one of the differences between us is the consequences of reaching the wrong conclusion. (Lets leave aside the issue of other religions for a moment).

You have no reason to care if I don't agree with you as they are no consequences for anyone if your conclusion is the correct one.

I have every reason to care about your fate if I have reached the correct conclusion...

Whether we define them as choices or conclusions will ultimately prove irrelevant when we find out (or not) the truth...

 

[Skavau]

Skavau and Gadarene...

To be fair, I do take your points re choice/conclusion etc...

I have made a choice/reached the conclusion that God does exist and you guys have made a choice/reached the conclusion that there is no God. I imagine it is very unlikely either of us will change our mind.

Okay.

I can understand why it must be annoying to have Christians trying to convince you that they are right. I suppose one of the differences between us is the consequences of reaching the wrong conclusion. (Lets leave aside the issue of other religions for a moment).

You have no reason to care if I don't agree with you as they are no consequences for anyone if your conclusion is the correct one.

I have every reason to care about your fate if I have reached the correct conclusion...

Yes, you do.

However this discussion is about what "belief" means and not you proselytizing Christianity. At any rate, speaking for myself I rarely get upset, annoyed or offended at that kind of thing. I like debate. I also can't exactly complain either about receiving it on a Christian forum of all places.

Whether we define them as choices or conclusions will ultimately prove irrelevant when we find out (or not) the truth...

This would be true as well. To a point.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A jury, when presented with evidence will either convict the defendant with a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. This verdict will be a conclusion reached on the basis of their own perception of the evidence - each juror still has a CHOICE to select either a guilty or a not-guilty verdict. No-one is telling them they must reach a particular verdict...

Remember the OJ Simpson murder trial? Most people believe he was guilty. The evidence presented did not support that conclusion, so a not-guilty verdict was returned. Are you saying the jury chose not to believe he was guilty? For me it's a case of "despite what I believe, the evidence presented does not support that belief". Your logic says that I should be able to change my belief but the simple fact of the matter is that I cannot. I believe OJ Simpson is guilty.

 

[Gadarene]

Skavau and Gadarene...

To be fair, I do take your points re choice/conclusion etc...

I have made a choice/reached the conclusion that God does exist and you guys have made a choice/reached the conclusion that there is no God. I imagine it is very unlikely either of us will change our mind.

I can understand why it must be annoying to have Christians trying to convince you that they are right.

Not really.

I'm more annoyed by Christians telling me I chose to believe something I didn't.

Instead of actually trying to just make their case, so often Christians start casting aspersions on our standards for evidence or the reasons why we became an atheist.

It's getting to the point where it'd be a welcome change for Christians to try and convince me they're right and present some evidence for their claims.

I do frequently ask them for it after all.

I suppose one of the differences between us is the consequences of reaching the wrong conclusion. (Lets leave aside the issue of other religions for a moment).

You have no reason to care if I don't agree with you as they are no consequences for anyone if your conclusion is the correct one.

Of course I do - if you plan on trying to affect society, politics with your beliefs in this life. The fact that I don't believe in God doesn't mean the idea of God can't inconvenience me at all.

I have every reason to care about your fate if I have reached the correct conclusion...

Whether we define them as choices or conclusions will ultimately prove irrelevant when we find out (or not) the truth...

Of course, but hopefully it's not too difficult to realise that talking about consequences of a system you can't even prove to us will not really mean much.

 

[ramdas goochta]

What do you think will happen to you when you die?

One day all of us will be finding out. Yes indeedy.

 

[Danny777]

It's getting to the point where it'd be a welcome change for Christians to try and convince me they're right and present some evidence for their claims.

The is lots of evidence of design in the universe around us - there are many "fine-balances" which for me point to design. Take a look at the link for some of these in a chart.

Does God Exist? - Evidence for Design in the Universe

Does any of this present evidence of a designer or is it LIKELY this was all a huge co-incidence?

There are many examples of organisms and systems which function with "irreducible complexity" that are highly unlikely to have sprung into operation without design. I will pick out many examples if you feel it would be a useful exercise?

Of course I do - if you plan on trying to affect society, politics with your beliefs in this life. The fact that I don't believe in God doesn't mean the idea of God can't inconvenience me at all.

I have no desire to affect politics with my "beliefs" in this life - Jesus didn't and neither will I. Taking the life of Jesus Christ, do you think it would be a bad thing to use His life and an example to follow?