New thought about Pascal's Wager

[Eudaimonist]

You used word "God", why? Because you know, He exists.

No, but because monotheists use the word "God".

I also use the term Sith Lord (the evil Jedi in the Star Wars movies), but I don't believe that they exist either.

The engine of atheist is not the freewill and reason, but the sick instincts, including rejection of hated God.

I only hate God in the sense that I hate Darth Vader. I can disapprove of the evil of a fictional character.

I'm not sure what you think you are accomplishing with this armchair psychology. The only "instinct" that led me to atheism was a natural curiosity to have knowledge of reality.

All men by nature desire knowledge.
- Aristotle

I discovered that I had less good reason to conclude that God exists than I had thought when I was a Catholic, and I haven't seen any good reason to change my mind about that. If anything, I have come to see that theism is a projection of human psychology on (and beyond) the universe.

Regarding the evilness of God, that is only true for some concepts of God. The Universalists have a far less evil God than Calvinists, for instance. If all I was concerned about was evil, I could easily worship a God that lives up to high standards of goodness. Or I would simply believe that God is evil, but nevertheless exists.

But that isn't the issue for me. It is rather that it has become increasingly obvious (though by no means obvious at first) that there is no good reason to think that a God exists, and many reasons to think that a natural and godless interpretation of existence is rationally superior.

You don't have to agree with me, but all these protestations that atheists are influenced by Satan or "sick instincts" or whatever are self-evidently false to me. I have to assume that you are preaching to the choir, and hoping that they believe what you say in order to keep them from questioning their beliefs. You could do that better in private though. When you make that a public pronouncement, it just comes across as childish. I'm sure that Darth Vader's Jedi Mind Trick must be making you believe such things.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I noticed you did not debate the oort cloud was unobserved, so victory there.
now moving on.
next point...

Beautiful refutation of the madness like the clinical cases of atheism and solipsism. Thank You. Can you expose your real first-name (at least)? I would like to quote you in my books or papers. Or you are too much afraid of the coming persecution from Anti-Christ?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Beautiful refutation of the madness like the clinical cases of atheism and solipsism.

Do you know what the Oort Cloud is? Please explain what you think that it is. What specific reasons do you have to view it as a fiction?

Also, do you know what comets are and where they come from?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[createdtoworship]

Books, they are plentiful.

Do you disagree?

Books, they are plentiful.

Do you disagree?

good morning sir, I hope you are doing well.

your post appears to be committing the fallacy of non sequitur, or does not follow.

in having no reply to the more pointed questions of the debate one may resort to word fillers or distraction comments to avoid and to dodge.

this seems to be a word filler, or a non sequitur comment.

thank you and I hope the rest of your monday is wonderful!

 

[createdtoworship]

Beautiful refutation of the madness like the clinical cases of atheism and solipsism. Thank You. Can you expose your real first-name (at least)? I would like to quote you in my books or papers. Or you are too much afraid of the coming persecution from Anti-Christ?

thanks. thumbs up!

 

[KCfromNC]

so as I mentioned rosyln jallow's peer review were pet beliefs and her nobel prize work?

Who?

 

[bhsmte]

you comment does not add any new information to the debate, nor does it support your premise or mine.

just so you know.

Sure it does. Books, are a dime a dozen and you can find books that claim to support basically any position.

Here is the other thing about books, a lot of people tend to read and rely on books, that tell them what they want to hear.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sure it does. Books, are a dime a dozen and you can find books that claim to support basically any position.

Here is the other thing about books, a lot of people tend to read and rely on books, that tell them what they want to hear.

I quess I am not understanding your premise,

if you are saying that books in general are not authoritative and peer review must be used, then you are at fault because you offer no peer review for your position.

if you are saying that you disagree with books that I quote and their logic, then you must state that as well.

books are typically what is studied in most schools so they are not inherently wrong or unathoritative.

to say books are not authoritative then no one could get PhD or even a regular degree.

I presume you studied books to come to your conclusions. if not, then you presume to know more than books, and have become an authority in and of yourself, which too would need verification.

 

[bhsmte]

I quess I am not understanding your premise,

if you are saying that books in general are not authoritative and peer review must be used, then you are at fault because you offer no peer review for your position.

if you are saying that you disagree with books that I quote and their logic, then you must state that as well.

books are typically what is studied in most schools.

to say books are not authoritative then no one could get PhD or even a regular degree.

I didn't say, books could not be authoritative in the topics they discuss. This would depend, on what support and evidence, the books used, in supporting their position. In science, some books reference peer reviewed work, some don't. Some, misrepresent peer reviewed work, to support their premise. IMO, people with faith beliefs, that tend to lack objective support, will gravitate towards books, that tell them what they want to hear, just as they gravitate towards church's that have a theology that match's their personal needs. Could be why we have so many different denominations of Christianity, with different theologies and they all believe they are correct.

Try walking into the fitness and diet section of your book store and see all of the books written by MD's, Phd's, that claim to have the best plan to lose weight and get in good physical shape. They all claim to be the authoritative source of the best plan, yet, these books can have completely different view points, just as you will find in the religious section of the bookstore.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's a virtue to reject the mindless, which is what you are asking of atheists, though you apparently do not realize this. You are asking for non-rational sources of knowledge (subjective "asking"), but only reason and observation can generate knowledge.

That doesn't explain how the scriptures explain human behavior accurately
where Freud and the others have failed.

 

[createdtoworship]

I didn't say, books could not be authoritative in the topics they discuss. This would depend, on what support and evidence, the books used, in supporting their position. In science, some books reference peer reviewed work, some don't. Some, misrepresent peer reviewed work, to support their premise. IMO, people with faith beliefs, that tend to lack objective support, will gravitate towards books, that tell them what they want to hear, just as they gravitate towards church's that have a theology that match's their personal needs. Could be why we have so many different denominations of Christianity, with different theologies and they all believe they are correct.

Try walking into the fitness and diet section of your book store and see all of the books written by MD's, Phd's, that claim to have the best plan to lose weight and get in good physical shape. They all claim to be the authoritative source of the best plan, yet, these books can have completely different view points, just as you will find in the religious section of the bookstore.

you say that people "with faith" beliefs are automatically disqualified from being authoritative.

however,

I have a question. What do you call it when you believe in something you have not observed directly?

faith?

so then believing in the OORT cloud for example (something unobserved) would be just as much a religious devotion as believing in any one of the many religions today and would be disqualified on a faith level as no one has seen it.

that is all faith means technically, and so your own logic disqualifies you as well as many of the posters of this thread.

now I presume at this point there will be backpedaling and dodging,

but ultimately your post is self defeating

 

[bhsmte]

you say that people "with faith" beliefs are automatically disqualified from being authoritative.

however,

I have a question. What do you call it when you believe in something you have not observed directly?

faith right?

so then having faith in transition forms that do not exist is faith by that definition.

yet you have faith in evolution,

so therefore by your own logic you are disqualified.

(because you did not say faith in deity, you said faith in general).



now I presume at this point there will be backpedaling and dodging,

but ultimately your post is self defeating because you forgot to exempt religious faith and faith in general.

which is a grey area anyway, however.

You are putting words in my mouth again. Try reading what I wrote again, more carefully.

Lastly, when one has objective evidence, no faith is required.

When a jury in a murder case, is presented with forensic evidence that it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime, do they acquit them, because they didn't observe the crime?

 

[shadowhunter]

Sorry for being a late-comer to the thread. I don't know much of anything. But I do know what is in my garage, and i do know my God, not simply my belief in God.

I cannot prove to you what is in my garage except by showing it to you.
Likewise I cannot prove God except by introducing you to him.

Yes. I know you think me a fool. But I know what is in my garage while you may deny I even have a garage.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry for being a late-comer to the thread. I don't know much of anything. But I do know what is in my garage, and i do know my God, not simply my belief in God.

I cannot prove to you what is in my garage except by showing it to you.
Likewise I cannot prove God except by introducing you to him.

Yes. I know you think me a fool. But I know what is in my garage while you may deny I even have a garage.

Showing us you have a garage and what is in it, is quite easy, would you agree?

Feel free, to introduce us to the God you believe in.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes. I know you think me a fool.

No, I just suspect that you are misinterpreting your experiences.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[shadowhunter]

Your invitation is disingenuous... you have reduced God to a mere 'belief in God'. You wish merely to examine my belief in God, not to meet him. When you show up to see my garage I will be happy to introduce you. You certainly would not expect me to prove the contents of my garage in this forum.

And it really does not matter to me if you choose to meet him or not, that choice is always yours.
------
To the other:
It is curious that one claiming to depend on fact and science would discount my own experiences based on his own beliefs without examining the claim. But that's usually the way of irrational men, to have a different standard for themselves.

You can have your thread back. The invitation stands should you choose to see may garage.

 

[bhsmte]

Your invitation is disingenuous... you have reduced God to a mere 'belief in God'. You wish merely to examine my belief in God, not to meet him. When you show up to see my garage I will be happy to introduce you. You certainly would not expect me to prove the contents of my garage in this forum.

And it really does not matter to me if you choose to meet him or not, that choice is always yours.
------
To the other:
It is curious that one claiming to depend on fact and science would discount my own experiences based on his own beliefs without examining the claim. But that's usually the way of irrational men, to have a different standard for themselves.

You can have your thread back. The invitation stands should you choose to see may garage.

This post, is in response to what?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

This post, is in response to what?

The time when theist accepts the madness: "No God", he immediately looses the mind and becomes will-less robot, driven by demons, latters are driven by hate (the known song "I love to hate You" is the crazy prayer of atheist to God, isn't it?).

 

[bhsmte]

The time when theist accepts the madness: "No God", he immediately looses the mind and becomes will-less robot, driven by demons, latters are driven by hate (the known song "I love to hate You" is the crazy prayer of atheist to God, isn't it?).

I find it personally quite challenging, to hate something I don't believe exists.

But hey, you go on with believing whatever suits you.

 

[Dmitri Martila]

I find it personally quite challenging, to hate something I don't believe exists.
But hey, you go on with believing whatever suits you.

This was the song from God, I think. Therefore, it can be true. This is song about atheists' feeling. They deal so hardly with saying "No God", that they need Him even more, than we do. This song is not about demons, because God does not send to them "lovers", latters are me and other nice people.