Only Atheists Go to Heaven
alex...@my-dejanews.com
it would be the theist which believes in him that would stand a better chance
of getting into Heaven than that of an athiest. Thus the claim has been made
that if atheists are correct then upon death they get nothing--but if they
are incorrect they risk eternal damnation; whereas if the theist is correct
then upon death they get Heaven--but should they be wrong they get nothing.
In other words, atheists are playing a draw/lose game, and theists are
playing a win/draw game (considering the three outcomes to be
Hell/nothing/Heaven). Thus it would seem that theists are the more rational,
if only for hedging their bets.
But the above assumption of a theist's better chances of getting into Heaven
over that of an atheist is incorrect (assuming for the sake of argument that
a God exists). As it is demonstrably provable that should a God exist then he
wants man to believe that he doesn't. Thus, atheists would be conforming to
God's will, whereas theists would be going against it.
If a God did exist, then he must have given man the faculty of reason for one
purpose--namely, to use it--yet upon using it on the question of the
existence of a God, man by his use of reason would have no choice but to
conclude that a God does not exist. Thus, even if a God did exist, he wants
man to believe that he doesn't. Quite ironically then, even if God exists, an
atheist would stand a better chance of getting into heaven than a theist. As
the theist believes in something for which he has no evidence for--against
the wish of God who gave him the faculty of reason so as to be used. Whereas
the atheist has used his faculty of reason for which God had given him. Thus,
prudence requires that one should not believe in anything supernatural--as
reason dictates God would intend it, should he actually exist (absurd as the
notion of that possibility is).
Whereas I have not proved that a God does not exist, what I have proved is
that if a God does exists, he wants man to believe that he doesn't (along
with extrapolating the implications thereof). Thus, theists are found to be
the true heathens.
--Alex
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Selfish4
So your theory is that we have this ability to reason, and this *god* means for
us to use it, and using reason, we cannot believe in anything supernatural, so
no human could believe in a god. To believe in god is inhuman, or less than
human, and not quite animal. Very good. jp
Martin Cade
Reigncloud
alexopex wrote on Mon, Aug 10, 1998 5:22 AM:
=======
>It is commonly assumed
=======
By whom? (Read on, but keep in mind this is one man's interpretation of what
others supposedly believe. Also keep in mind it is an argument against a
specific set of beliefs as described by this individual, that may or may not
apply in the event god exists. An argument against a form of religion has
little or nothing to do with the argument of whether or not god exists. This
is an attempt to prove an interpretation of god wrong, without actually naming
the interpreter. I dare say it's a bit of a cop-out to argue against one's own
creation of an opponent.)
=======
>that should a God and his Heaven
=======
If one believes in god, he need not believe in the heaven part - unless you
aren't able to conceive of a religion other than judeo-christian, in which case
that's your hang-up, not mine.
=======
>actually exist, that it would be the theist
=======
Is there any particular sect you're speaking of, or just all believers of all
kinds?
=======
>which believes in him that would stand a better chance of getting into Heaven
than that of an athiest. Thus the claim has been made
=======
again I ask, by whom?
=======
>that if atheists are correct then upon death they get nothing--but if they are
incorrect they risk eternal damnation; whereas if the theist is correct then
upon death they get Heaven--but should they be wrong they get nothing. In
other words, atheists are playing a draw/lose game, and theists are playing a
win/draw game (considering the three outcomes to be Hell/nothing/Heaven). Thus
it would seem that theists are the more rational, if only for hedging their
bets.
=======
Even if we were locked in to *your* perception of what a belief in god is
supposed to be, you fail to realize that belief in god is not used like a
lottery ticket (although I don't doubt some *so-called* believers use it as
such. But those folks aren't believers, they're wishful thinkers).
=======
>But the above assumption
=======
again, whose assumption? All religions, or just a certain sect, or just what
you think a certain sect believes?
=======
>of a theist's better chances of getting into Heaven over that of an atheist is
incorrect (assuming for the sake of argument that a God exists). As it is
demonstrably provable
=======
Demonstrably provable? This is interesting. Especially from this person.
=======
>that should a God exist then he wants man to believe that he doesn't.
=======
Are you saying that you can prove that a being which doesn't exist, according
to you, has a desire, and even more, that that nonexistent being's "beingness"
is based entirely on your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of
what that being must be? Talk about faulty logic.
The simplest way to explain how inept this argument is, would be to point out
that you have taken a position on what others' positions must be *according to
you*. It's a cop-out to make an argument against your own presumption of what
a hugely diverse group *must* believe, and to further validate your presumption
by claiming it is proof god doesn't exist. If you wish to make a truly valid
argument, be specific. You have shaped your opponent to suit yourself. This
does not make you intelligent, it makes your argument arbitrary.
Yours is no more a sensible argument than would be an argument against, say,
people who believe pink is a pretty color. This would be like trying to
prove/disprove the existence of pink using my reasons for liking the color.
It's fine to try to prove whether or not pink exists, but don't claim to have
proof that pink does or doesn't exist, based on what you *think* my reasons are
for accepting pink in to my life - or that my reasons must be the same as my
neighbor's simply on the basis that we both like pink. If you believe in your
position, be prepared to stand up to your opponent. Name that opponent. Don't
play politician by claiming you have the perfect counter point to your own
fabricated opponent.
=======
>Thus, atheists would be conforming to God's will, whereas theists would be
going against it.
=======
I can only assume you have a specific religion (or snippets of several?) in
mind, from which you have framed your entire perception of what god/religion
should be. Not only is your perspective extremely narrow, it doesn't even
follow the "logic" of atheism. You have set out to argue against a thing that
you claim does not exist, yet you, like so many theists, have given that thing
a specific purpose which you assume applies to all religions/theists. *WHETHER
GOD DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IS A QUESTION UNTO ITSELF. HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO
RECOGNIZE A GOD IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU ARGUE AGAINST A
SPECIFIC BELIEF, THAT IS HARDLY AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.*
=======
>If a God did exist, then he must have given man the faculty of reason for one
purpose
=======
beware your continuing assumptions: ie, that if god exists, god *gave* man the
faculty of reason - or anything for that matter. (Does one equal the other
somehow? Or is this yet another presumption on your, and the theists, part?
Upon what religion do you base your definition of god?
=======
>--namely, to use it--yet upon using it on the question of the
existence of a God, man by his use of reason
=======
What if a man's experience led him to reason that god exists? Would you tell
him that he must be wrong because you have not seen it? If evidence is your
standard, and one has experienced evidence of god's existence, is that not use
of reason? Who is the final arbiter of what evidence should qualify?
If I may be so bold as to make as broad a generalization of god as have you, I
could argue that if god exists, it's possible that god wants us to question and
explore his existence, rather than accept him on blind faith. Now, I recognize
that this is a bit of a leap, but certainly no more than yours.
What sort of proof of god do you seek that would satisfy you? What sort of god
would you accept as real? What if you saw proof of god's existence, but that
god didn't fit what you have been conditioned to think god should be, if he is
to exist? Would you accept proof of a god that you never before conceived of,
or only that which you have been conditioned to recognize?
=======
>would have no choice
=======
Ahhhh, you assume no one has ever or will ever experience proof of god's
existence. This is called a leap of faith, and you have made it.
=======
>but to conclude that a God does not exist. Thus, even if a God did exist, he
wants man to believe that he doesn't.
=======
According to *your* own personal interpretation, my friend, not mine. (I'm
still wondering who brainwashed you so efficiently as to cause you to have only
this perception of what god must be like if he exists. I suppose even
non-believers have that irrational need to put a face on that which may be
beyond man's present awareness and mental capacity.)
=======
>Quite ironically then, even if God exists, an atheist would stand a better
chance of getting into heaven than a theist.
=======
Don't write your book yet....
=======
>As the theist believes in something for which he has no evidence for--against
the wish of God who gave him the faculty of reason so as to be used. Whereas
the atheist has used his faculty of reason for which God had given him. Thus,
prudence requires that one should not believe in anything supernatural--as
reason dictates God would intend it, should he actually exist (absurd as the
notion of that possibility is).
>Whereas I have not proved that a God does not exist, what I have proved
=======
You have proved nothing but your inability to grasp beyond what you have been
spoon fed, which, quite ironically, is the very thing many atheists take
exception to in theists.
=======
>is that if a God does exists, he wants man to believe that he doesn't (along
with extrapolating the implications thereof). Thus, theists are found to be
the true heathens.
=======
I am amused that such "logical" thinkers continue to try to argue against
something they often know so little about. This poster, as well as many
athiests, has made some huge presumptions of what god is supposed to be if he
were to exist - based on the interpretations of those who believe in the one
thing that atheists do not! Talk about irony.
P.S. Even if you don't believe in god, you have accepted a general description
of what he is supposed to be. That was your first mistake.
alex...@my-dejanews.com
>alex...@my-dejanews.com and Reign...@aol.com
>alexopex wrote on Mon, Aug 10, 1998 5:22 AM:
>
>=======
>>It is commonly assumed
>=======
>By whom?
By theists, princibly. (Surprise, surprise.)
>(Read on, but keep in mind this is one man's interpretation of what
>others supposedly believe.
No, rather, it is my presentation of the proof that if a God did exist then
he necessarily wants man to believe he doesn't. And thus, theists would be
going against God's will, whereas atheists would be conforming to his will.
> Also keep in mind it is an argument against a
>specific set of beliefs as described by this individual, that may or may not
>apply in the event god exists.
If a god, or gods, exist then it applies. If a god, or gods, does not exist
then the logical principle of it still applies.
> An argument against a form of religion has
>little or nothing to do with the argument of whether or not god exists.
I wasn't arguing as to the existance or nonexistance of God.
>This
>is an attempt to prove an interpretation of god wrong, without actually naming
>the interpreter. I dare say it's a bit of a cop-out to argue against one'
>s own
>creation of an opponent.)
My "opponent"? Let him be this: Any and All who believe in a supernatural
supreme being, or beings, i.e., "God" or gods.
>=======
>>that should a God and his Heaven
>=======
>If one believes in god, he need not believe in the heaven part - unless you
>aren't able to conceive of a religion other than judeo-christian, in which
> case
>that's your hang-up, not mine.
I'm able to conceive things no religion has yet to incorporate into their
canon. My analysis was not dependent on any notions of Afterlife. I was
simply giving an introduction to frame the analysis to come.
>=======
>>actually exist, that it would be the theist
>=======
>Is there any particular sect you're speaking of, or just all believers of all
>kinds?
Any and All who believe in a supernatural supreme being, or beings, i.e.,
"God" or gods.
>=======
>>which believes in him that would stand a better chance of getting into Heaven
>than that of an athiest. Thus the claim has been made
>=======
>again I ask, by whom?
By theists, princibly.
>=======
>>that if atheists are correct then upon death they get nothing--but if the
>>y are
>incorrect they risk eternal damnation; whereas if the theist is correct then
>upon death they get Heaven--but should they be wrong they get nothing. In
>other words, atheists are playing a draw/lose game, and theists are playing a
>win/draw game (considering the three outcomes to be Hell/nothing/Heaven). Thus
>it would seem that theists are the more rational, if only for hedging their
>bets.
>=======
>Even if we were locked in to *your* perception of what a belief in god is
>supposed to be, you fail to realize that belief in god is not used like a
>lottery ticket (although I don't doubt some *so-called* believers use it as
>such. But those folks aren't believers, they're wishful thinkers).
Wether it is or not, I don't care. Again, I was simply giving an introduction
to frame the analysis to come.
> =======
>>But the above assumption
>=======
>again, whose assumption?
Whoever may hold it.
>All religions, or just a certain sect, or just what
>you think a certain sect believes?
See above.
>=======
>>of a theist's better chances of getting into Heaven over that of an athei
>>st is
>incorrect (assuming for the sake of argument that a God exists). As it is
>demonstrably provable
>=======
>Demonstrably provable? This is interesting. Especially from this person.
Yes, Yes, and Yes. Thank you.
>=======
>>that should a God exist then he wants man to believe that he doesn't.
>=======
>Are you saying that you can prove that a being which doesn't exist, according
>to you, has a desire,
There is no such thing as a being which doesn't exist. Some people believe
that a being, "God," exists. I'm saying that _if_ a God exists, then he
necessarily has certain desires which follow from observed facts (assuming
that this "God" is also the "Creator"). It's a hypothetical, you know.
>and even more, that that nonexistent being's "beingness"
>is based entirely on your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of
>what that being must be?
Never did I say anything to that effect--it's meaningless nonsense. Now
you're just making stuff up.
>Talk about faulty logic.
Just your straw-man mis-interpretation.
>The simplest way to explain how inept this argument is, would be to point out
>that you have taken a position on what others' positions must be *according to
>you*. It's a cop-out to make an argument against your own presumption of what
>a hugely diverse group *must* believe, and to further validate your presum
>ption
>by claiming it is proof god doesn't exist.
My hypothetical analysis only requires this: that a Supreme Being, or beings,
i.e., a God or gods, are also the "Creator" or "creators."
>If you wish to make a truly valid
>argument, be specific.
I was quite specific. I'm now starting to think that you're just stupid. Or
one who gets their jolleys from endless amounts of incorherent and irrelevent
retorts.
>You have shaped your opponent to suit yourself. This
>does not make you intelligent, it makes your argument arbitrary.
Neither is the case.
>Yours is no more a sensible argument than would be an argument against, say,
>people who believe pink is a pretty color. This would be like trying to
>prove/disprove the existence of pink using my reasons for liking the color.
Now I know that it is the case that you are indeed stupid. As I stated in my
original post, I have not proved the nonexestance of a God. I believe that it
may well be impossible to disprove a negative, and I have yet to attept the
task.
>It's fine to try to prove whether or not pink exists, but don't claim to have
>proof that pink does or doesn't exist, based on what you *think* my reason
>s are
>for accepting pink in to my life - or that my reasons must be the same as my
>neighbor's simply on the basis that we both like pink. If you believe in your
>position, be prepared to stand up to your opponent. Name that opponent.
As hard as this may be for you to comprehend, my analysis is not dependent
upon any "opponent."
>Don't
>play politician by claiming you have the perfect counter point to your own
>fabricated opponent.
I was unaware I had an "opponent" untill you insisted I must.
>=======
>>Thus, atheists would be conforming to God's will, whereas theists would be
>going against it.
>=======
>I can only assume you have a specific religion (or snippets of several?) in
>mind, from which you have framed your entire perception of what god/religion
>should be.
No.
>Not only is your perspective extremely narrow, it doesn't even
>follow the "logic" of atheism.
I was unaware atheism had any logic. Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack
of one. And yes, my "perspective" (i.e., my analysis) was extremely narrow,
for I was only focusing on an extremely narrow--but quite profound--point.
>You have set out to argue against a thing that
>you claim does not exist,
I never claimed a God didn't exist, although I do believe I said that the
notion of such is absurd.
>yet you, like so many theists, have given that thing
>a specific purpose which you assume applies to all religions/theists.
I never claimed a God had any purpose.
*WHETHER
>GOD DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IS A QUESTION UNTO ITSELF. HOW PEOPLE CHOOSE TO
>RECOGNIZE A GOD IS ENTIRELY SEPARATE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU ARGUE AGAI
>NST A
>SPECIFIC BELIEF, THAT IS HARDLY AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.*
And I stated as much in my original post.
>=======
>>If a God did exist, then he must have given man the faculty of reason for one
>purpose
>=======
>beware your continuing assumptions: ie, that if god exists, god *gave* man the
>faculty of reason - or anything for that matter. (Does one equal the other
>somehow? Or is this yet another presumption on your, and the theists, part?
>Upon what religion do you base your definition of god?
Assuming of course God created mankind. Or created the means by which mankind
was created, and doesn't now object to the existance of man's faculty of
reason. All of this was clearly implied in the analysis--but I see that I
must hold your hands as well.
>=======
>>--namely, to use it--yet upon using it on the question of the
> existence of a God, man by his use of reason
>=======
>What if a man's experience led him to reason that god exists?
Then he should have no problem in reproducing the results that led him to
this conclusion based on objective reality.
>Would you tell
>him that he must be wrong because you have not seen it?
If he could offer no evedence, then yes. I have yet to see any evedence as to
a God's existance.
>If evidence is your
>standard, and one has experienced evidence of god's existence, is that not use
>of reason?
It sounds as if you're speaking of hallucination. In cases without objective
evedence, hallucination is the simplist, most reasonable explanation.
>Who is the final arbiter of what evidence should qualify?
Not who, but what: man's reason.
>If I may be so bold as to make as broad a generalization of god as have you, I
>could argue that if god exists, it's possible that god wants us to questio
>n and
>explore his existence, rather than accept him on blind faith. Now, I reco
>gnize
>that this is a bit of a leap, but certainly no more than yours.
Mine wasn't a leap, it was based on observed facts of reality.
>What sort of proof of god do you seek that would satisfy you?
If he exists, and if he is omnipotent, then he should have no problem in
making himself known.
>What sort of god
>would you accept as real? What if you saw proof of god's existence,
Then "goddamnit" would be meaningful.
>but that
>god didn't fit what you have been conditioned to think god should be, if he is
>to exist? Would you accept proof of a god that you never before conceived of,
>or only that which you have been conditioned to recognize?
I have not been conditioned to recognize any God. I am a godless, ungodly
soul, and a souless being.
>=======
>>would have no choice
>=======
>Ahhhh, you assume no one has ever or will ever experience proof of god's
>existence. This is called a leap of faith, and you have made it.
If you or anyone has proof of a God's existance, then by definition it is
possible to prove. No one has ever offered such proof. Funny.
>=======
>>but to conclude that a God does not exist. Thus, even if a God did exist, he
>wants man to believe that he doesn't.
>=======
>According to *your* own personal interpretation, my friend, not mine.
It's not an "interpretation," it's a logical analysis.
>(I'm
>still wondering who brainwashed you so efficiently as to cause you to have
> only
>this perception of what god must be like if he exists. I suppose even
>non-believers have that irrational need to put a face on that which may be
>beyond man's present awareness and mental capacity.)
Exept that my conclusions are well within man's present awareness and mental
capacity, as they are deducted on observed facts of reality by the use man's
faculty of reason.
>=======
>>Quite ironically then, even if God exists, an atheist would stand a better
>chance of getting into heaven than a theist.
>=======
>Don't write your book yet....
To late.
>=======
>>As the theist believes in something for which he has no evidence for--against
>the wish of God who gave him the faculty of reason so as to be used. Whereas
>the atheist has used his faculty of reason for which God had given him. Thus,
>prudence requires that one should not believe in anything supernatural--as
>reason dictates God would intend it, should he actually exist (absurd as the
>notion of that possibility is).
>
> >Whereas I have not proved that a God does not exist, what I have proved
>=======
>You have proved nothing but your inability to grasp beyond what you have been
>spoon fed, which, quite ironically, is the very thing many atheists take
>exception to in theists.
My analysis is original with me, as far as I know. Besides, it was you who
said of my analysis, that "it doesn't even follow the 'logic' of atheism."
>=======
>>is that if a God does exists, he wants man to believe that he doesn't (along
> with extrapolating the implications thereof). Thus, theists are found to be
> the true heathens.
>=======
>I am amused that such "logical" thinkers continue to try to argue against
>something they often know so little about.
To be quite serious, I don't even think you know what it is I was arguing.
>This poster, as well as many
>athiests, has made some huge presumptions of what god is supposed to be if he
>were to exist - based on the interpretations of those who believe in the one
>thing that atheists do not! Talk about irony.
As I stated before, all my analysis assumed was that a "God" (or gods)
created mankind. Or created the means by which mankind was created, and
doesn't now object to the existance of man's faculty of reason. Only this and
nothing more.
>P.S. Even if you don't believe in god, you have accepted a general descri
>ption
>of what he is supposed to be. That was your first mistake.
As I will again state, all my analysis assumed was that a "God" (or gods)
created mankind. Or created the means by which mankind was created, and
doesn't now object to the existance of man's faculty of reason. Assuming
this, the analysis is correct.
Reigncloud
Reigncloud:
>> Also keep in mind it is an argument against a
>>specific set of beliefs as described by this individual, that may or may not
apply in the event god exists.
>If a god, or gods, exist then it applies. If a god, or gods, does not exist
then the logical principle of it still applies.
Wrong. It would only apply if the god that exists is the god you reference in
your premise - which I again must point out is a very narrow and specific type
of god that may or may not be the god of the people to whom your conclusion
refers. I apparently wrongly assumed you knew that there are many beliefs of
many kinds in many types of gods. Some beliefs don't accept that god created
man - or anything man posesses. Some beliefs accept that god created man, and
that god even gave man the ability to reason, but also gave man free will to
choose whether all his ideas are to be guided by reason (which would mean that
god could then accept into heaven those that denied reason). I could go on ad
nauseum with the various beliefs that exist. Suffice to say, if you realize
there are other beliefs than the *one* of which you are aware, then you would
see your argument's failure.
Your argument depends on three things. (1) That god created man. (2) That
god gave man the ability to reason. (3) That god considers it a sin,
punishable by damnation, to fail to use that ability at all times.
What if god did not do #1 or #2 and does not agree with #3? Then you are left
with an argument against your own fabricated idea of what all theists are
supposed to believe - but do not.
>> An argument against a form of religion has
>>little or nothing to do with the argument of whether or not god exists.
>I wasn't arguing as to the existance or nonexistance of God.
My bad. K. You were arguing against a certain belief, trying to point out
that if that belief is correct, that it works against itself. Where I take
exception is that this belief against which you argue is *a fabricated idea*
that you claim is held by some group still left unnamed (although you continue
to incorrectly claim it is "theists"), and further, your conclusion depends on
what *you* think god would judge, should there be a god, which is entirely
supposition and may have nothing to do with god or theists should god exist.
In addition, your conclusion depends on an unknowable potential event - that
if this god exists, that there is not and will never be any evidence to allow
us to reason his existence. And we also don't know (but your analysis claims)
that if this god exists, and he desires to never provide such evidence, yet
desires we believe in him, thus acting against reason, and thus against his own
gift to us, that this god would consider that a sin punishable by denial of
entry to heaven. You've taken quite a bit of liberty with your interpretation
of "theists" and what they believe in and what may actually be.
>>This is an attempt to prove an interpretation of god wrong, without actually
naming the interpreter. >> I dare say it's a bit of a cop-out to argue against
one's own creation of an opponent.)
>My "opponent"? Let him be this: Any and All who believe in a supernatural
>supreme being, or beings, i.e., "God" or gods.
If that's the case, then your argument does not apply to a *great many* who
fall under this description, but who do not support the premise on which your
argument is based. (see points 1 and 2 above)
>>>that should a God and his Heaven
>>If one believes in god, he need not believe in the heaven part - unless you
>>aren't able to conceive of a religion other than judeo-christian, in which
>> case that's your hang-up, not mine.
>I'm able to conceive things no religion has yet to incorporate into their
canon.
...assuming you know all there is to know about all religions. Do you have
domain over these things you have conceived of? Or are you just assuming no
other human could imagine the things that you have? I look forward to reading
these things. Still, your entire premise is based on your interpretation of
one specific belief system (which is not as all theists believe). Whether you
can conceive of a great many things or not is an entirely separate issue.
Whether or not you can "conceive of a religion other than judeo-christian" *is*
the question.
It's a very simple task to argue against your own snippets of what you think
religion/god means or in what "theists" believe. The challenge would be to be
specific and accurate about that which you debate. If you are specific about
the ideas against what you argue, be specific against the origin of those
ideas. "Theists" cover a huge territory.
<<snip>>
>>Is there any particular sect you're speaking of, or just all believers of
>>all kinds?
>Any and All who believe in a supernatural supreme being, or beings, i.e.,
>"God" or gods.
...or, as you refer to ?them? as "theists". You still leave out anything
specific. You may *wish* to be referring to "any and all", but your argument
focuses on something rather specific - which doesn't even come close to
including "any and all". Theists do not all believe as you have presumed they
do. You generalize in your label, but specify in your argument. That would be
like saying "I don't like artists because they make pornographic pictures." A
logical argument would address those you believe are the actual pornographers.
Name them in your arguement, but don't include me - I may be an artist, but I'm
not Maplethorpe. (read as: I may be a theist, but I'm not the kind you
describe, thus your argument against theists doesn't apply.)
>>>which believes in him that would stand a better chance of getting into
Heaven than that of an athiest. Thus the claim has been made
>>again I ask, by whom?
>By theists, princibly.
>>>that if atheists are correct then upon death they get nothing--but if they
are incorrect they risk eternal damnation; whereas if the theist is correct
then upon death they get Heaven--but should they be wrong they get nothing. In
other words, atheists are playing a draw/lose game, and theists are playing a
win/draw game (considering the three outcomes to be Hell/nothing/Heaven). Thus
>>it would seem that theists are the more rational, if only for hedging their
bets.
>>Even if we were locked in to *your* perception of what a belief in god is
supposed to be, you fail to realize that belief in god is not used like a
lottery ticket (although I don't doubt some *so-called* believers use it as
such. But those folks aren't believers, they're wishful thinkers).
>Wether it is or not, I don't care. Again, I was simply giving an introduction
to frame the analysis to come.
Of course I realize this was not your main point. But it deserved response.
>>>But the above assumption
>>again, whose assumption?
>Whoever may hold it.
Still you fail to name your opponent. You call them/him/her/it "theists", and
"Any and All who believe in a supernatural supreme being, or beings, i.e.,
'God' or god", and finally "whoever may hold it" Your argument is against a
specific belief, yet your opponent is a generalized label.
>>All religions, or just a certain sect, or just what
>>you think a certain sect believes?
>See above.
>>>of a theist's better chances of getting into Heaven over that of an atheist
is incorrect (assuming for the sake of argument that a God exists). As it is
demonstrably provable
>>Demonstrably provable? This is interesting. Especially from this person.
>Yes, Yes, and Yes. Thank you.
(Dear, didn't you say that to me last night?)
>>>that should a God exist then he wants man to believe that he doesn't.
This is theory, not proof.
>>Are you saying that you can prove that a being which doesn't exist, according
to you, has a desire,
>There is no such thing as a being which doesn't exist. Some people believe
that a being, "God," exists. I'm saying that _if_ a God exists, then he
necessarily has certain desires which follow from observed facts
and these "observed facts" are? (Are you certain you're not confusing
"observed facts" with someone's beliefs?)
> (assuming that this "God" is also the "Creator"). It's a hypothetical, you
know.
I know, and you said you can prove something about that hypothetical.
Logically speaking, that's not possible.
>>and even more, that that nonexistent being's "beingness"
>>is based entirely on your interpretation of someone else's interpretation of
>>what that being must be?
>Never did I say anything to that effect--it's meaningless nonsense. Now
>you're just making stuff up.
Not making stuff up, just not fully understanding your point. I think I've got
it now, even though I think it's wrong.
>>Talk about faulty logic.
>Just your straw-man mis-interpretation.
God, I love that word. Unfortunately it's like a pop song. Too much play
minimizes the effect, and too many folks think they actually know what it
means.
>>The simplest way to explain how inept this argument is, would be to point
>>out that you have taken a position on what others' positions must be
*according
>>to you*. It's a cop-out to make an argument against your own presumption of
>>what a hugely diverse group *must* believe, and to further validate your
presumption
>>by claiming it is proof god doesn't exist.
>My hypothetical analysis only requires this: that a Supreme Being, or beings,
>i.e., a God or gods, are also the "Creator" or "creators."
Wrong again. See above points (2) and (3). (This is your analysis, so you
*must* realize your own premise.)
>>If you wish to make a truly valid argument, be specific.
>I was quite specific.
I was hoping you'd be specific about your opponent. Your argument was
specific, albeit fabricated, but again, your opponent is a generalized label
that really is inaccurate. Your argument just doesn't apply to all theists, or
all who believe in supernatural beings. It applies only to those who believe
as your premise dictates, and to build an analysis upon your own arbitrary idea
of what theists are is just fluff and no substance.
> I'm now starting to think that you're just stupid. Or one who gets their
jolleys from endless amounts >of incorherent and irrelevent retorts.
Hey now, just because you don't grasp my meaning, you needn't call me names.
>>You have shaped your opponent to suit yourself. This
>>does not make you intelligent, it makes your argument arbitrary.
>Neither is the case.
>>Yours is no more a sensible argument than would be an argument against, say,
>>people who believe pink is a pretty color. This would be like trying to
>>prove/disprove the existence of pink using my reasons for liking the color.
>Now I know that it is the case that you are indeed stupid. As I stated in my
>original post, I have not proved the nonexestance of a God
Forgive my mis-read. Sorry if I p*ssed you off, but you still don't need to
start the name-calling game.
<<snip>>
>> be prepared to stand up to your opponent. Name that opponent.
>As hard as this may be for you to comprehend, my analysis is not dependent
>upon any "opponent."
Hmm. Stay with me now.....Your analysis depends on the supposed belief of
someone from whom you borrowed your premise. Your analysis concludes that
"theists are found to be the true heathens." Your point seemed to be to show
exactly this: that theists are wrong in believing as [you think] they do.
Yours is an opposing view to that of the theists (as you describe them), thus
your opponent(s) are theist(s). In a forum of debate, which newsgroups often
are, ideas are debated. Even though you skipped around specifically naming
those whom you "debate" against (theists), you still made an argument against
that which you claim theists believe.
Opponents are not a bad thing. When making a point, they are rather helpful
and even necessary at times.
>>Don't play politician by claiming you have the perfect counter point to your
own fabricated opponent.
>I was unaware I had an "opponent" untill you insisted I must.
>>>Thus, atheists would be conforming to God's will, whereas theists would be
going against it.
>>I can only assume you have a specific religion (or snippets of several?) in
>>mind, from which you have framed your entire perception of what god/religion
>>should be.
I should have added here.... "because your idea that theists think as you claim
they do is incorrect."
>No.
>>Not only is your perspective extremely narrow, it doesn't even
>>follow the "logic" of atheism.
>I was unaware atheism had any logic.
Hmmm. Anyone atheists care to answer to this?
>Atheism is not a belief, it's the lack of one. And yes, my "perspective"
(i.e., my analysis) was >extremely narrow, for I was only focusing on an
extremely narrow--but quite profound--point.
Don't flatter yourself. You focused on your own fabricated, and not-at-all
accurate, premise.
<<snip>>
>>yet you, like so many theists, have given that thing
>>a specific purpose which you assume applies to all religions/theists.
>I never claimed a God had any purpose.
You borrowed a purpose for the sake of your argument. Or rather, you borrowed
what you *believe* others think god's purpose is. (def.: God's purpose =
created man, gave ability of reason to man). You needn't personally accept
that purpose, but you did *use* that purpose to support your conclusion.
I'm trying to say that this purpose you borrow is not the only believed
purpose, and may not be god's actual purpose should he exist, and may not be
the belief of those you claim to have it (theists), so the only point you have
made is this:
If god exists, people who believe in him, and also believe he created man, and
also believe he gave man the ability of reason, will be punished by denial of
entry to heaven, if they believe in heaven, if heaven exists, for the sin of
not using the ability of reason, if such a thing is deemed a sin by god, if
there is not and never will be any reasonable means available to any human to
determine god exists.
Whew. This leaves out a good deal of the theists to whom you claim your
conclusion would apply. It leaves out *all* theists, in fact, unless you can
find any biblical (or other religious book) reference that clearly claims that
god will not allow in to heaven those who don't use their god-given ability of
reason. I'm somewhat familiar with the 10 commandments, which don't make such
a reference. I also recall hearing something about a means to enter heaven
even after one has sinned. You made that part up about what should qualify one
to enter heaven. (not that there's anything wrong with that...) I don't know
too many other ways to say the same thing, which you don't seem to get yet.
Any individual with a 1st grade education could make a claim, call it analysis,
and arrive at a conclusion, if he wanted to. All he'd have to do is make up
what he thinks someone else thinks (without actually looking in to it), point
out the inadequacies of that idea, and conclude whatever he wants to about that
person based on what he made up in the first place.
<<snip>>
>>beware your continuing assumptions: ie, that if god exists, god *gave* man
>>the faculty of reason - or anything for that matter. (Does one equal the
other
>>somehow? Or is this yet another presumption on your, and the theists, part?
>>Upon what religion do you base your definition of god?
>Assuming of course God created mankind.
Thank you. "Assuming" is the key word.
> Or created the means by which mankind was created, and doesn't now object to
the existance of >man's faculty of reason.
That's *not* what your analysis implies. Your analysis clearly states "he
[god] must have given man the faculty of reason for one purpose--namely, to use
it..." This is not mere lack of objecting to one's use of reason. You are
implicitly stating an expectation of use on god's part.
In fact, your analysis' conclusion *depends* on god's expectation, not lack of
objection, to man's use of reason!
> All of this was clearly implied in the analysis--but I see that I must hold
your hands as well.
Hold my hand if you will, but I'm way ahead of ya. Let see if I can bring you
along now. You clearly implied that "assuming god created mankind", and "god
wants man to use reason". You also implied a number of other things. However,
that is *not* the problem. The problem is the people to whom your conclusion
is supposed to apply. They are fictional. They are not "theists", because not
all theists believe as you mistakenly think they do. The problem is your
supposition of what god would do to these people. Where do you get *that*
conclusion? What religious text offers that? It's a convenient conclusion,
but entirely made up. God would not allow theists in to heaven because they
failed to use reason? That's a pretty absolute conclusion based on a good deal
of non-absolutes. Why would god choose that specific response to that specific
act? Is that written somewhere? Do you know of some group of theists who
proclaim such? You have fabricated the idea of a specific punishment for a
specific act. Do you get it now? You made that up. It's not a conclusion,
it's a figment of your imagination. That part's not even borrowed from the
theists to whom you claim it applies.
>>>--namely, to use it--yet upon using it on the question of the
>> existence of a God, man by his use of reason
>>What if a man's experience led him to reason that god exists?
>Then he should have no problem in reproducing the results that led him to
>this conclusion based on objective reality.
I always love this kind of response. Reproducing the results? If god appeared
before me, and I am found to be perfectly sane, not under the influence of any
foreign substance, am in full control of all my faculties, and his presence
before me is sufficient reason for *me* to determine he exists, I gotta ask ya,
first, why should I *care* to prove it to you?, and second, how do *I*
reproduce such results?
>>Would you tell him that he must be wrong because you have not seen it?
>If he could offer no evedence, then yes. I have yet to see any evedence as to
>a God's existance.
Gee. Then that's your choice, huh? Is there no one or no thing which you
believe to exist, without having personally seen proof? Have you personally
seen evidence of Caesar's existence? How about Plato? Or Moses? Or
Cleopatra? Ah, but you've heard about people who have seen evidence? Oh, and
people talk of the things they have created, which many have seen? Is that
foolish of you? Or, would that be rational of you? Is this consistent? Do
you apply one rule to the existence of god and another to the existence of
alleged historical figures? Is it easier and more palatable to believe in the
potential fantasy of history, than of religion?
Seriously, you say you would tell another individual that he must be wrong
simply because you have not experienced what he has. That is arrogance and
self-righteousness. It is one thing to require whatever proof for yourself,
but quite another to declare that another is wrong simply because you weren't
with him at a crucial moment. If my neighbor tells me he has met an alien, I
have a choice to believe, disbelieve, or be skeptical. To outrightly
disbelieve him is just as illogical as outrightly believing him. I needn't
believe him nor disbelieve him. I have neither seen proof of the alien, nor
have I seen proof the alien could not have visited him. It would be irrational
for me to judge according to what I do not know, right? It would be irrational
for me to tell him he was wrong to believe what he said he saw, simply because
I did not.
>>If evidence is your standard, and one has experienced evidence of god's
existence, is that not
>>use of reason?
>It sounds as if you're speaking of hallucination.
That's convenient for you to refer to that. However, it's a very fallible
assumption. You have judged as hallucination one's "experienced evidence of
god's existence" without questioning what kind of evidence. That's a rather
broad and baseless assumption. And hardly rational.
> In cases without objective evedence, hallucination is the simplist, most
reasonable explanation.
Again, if I witnessed god's presence before me, by what criteria would you deem
my experience as hallucination? Can a thing only be real if it can be
presented to you? If I saw a beautiful stone at the beach, but the tide washed
it away before I could reach it, would that stone not be real simply because I
could not show it to you? Would you claim my sighting the stone as
hallucination? If not, what makes my sight of the stone different from my
sight of god, other than that one doesn't make for as interesting a debate?
>>If I may be so bold as to make as broad a generalization of god as have you,
>>I could argue that if god exists, it's possible that god wants us to question
and
>>explore his existence, rather than accept him on blind faith. Now, I
recognize
>>that this is a bit of a leap, but certainly no more than yours.
>Mine wasn't a leap, it was based on observed facts of reality.
Observed facts? Please outline those observed facts, I guess I missed 'em.
>>What sort of proof of god do you seek that would satisfy you?
>If he exists, and if he is omnipotent, then he should have no problem in
>making himself known.
This is classic avoidance of the question. Please, give one or two examples of
what kind of proof you would accept. I promise not to attack them.
It's important to be specific about kinds of proof, if it is proof that you
truly seek. *IF* you truly seek proof, be a man (or woman) and state what
proof you want. Don't stand behind vaguaries. Keep in mind, if god exists, he
may not be omnipotent. Not to mention, he may just be waiting for you to
decide on what you want him to show you.
>I have not been conditioned to recognize any God. I am a godless, ungodly
>soul, and a souless being.
You may disbelieve in the existence of god, but you do accept (like it or not)
a standard definition of god. If you were truly godless, you'd certainly not
bother hitting the "shift" key when you type his first initial. This is a sure
sign of conditioning. Don't fear it, acknowledge it, only then can you deal
with it.
>>(I'm still wondering who brainwashed you so efficiently as to cause you to
have
>> only this perception of what god must be like if he exists. I suppose even
>>non-believers have that irrational need to put a face on that which may be
>>beyond man's present awareness and mental capacity.)
>Exept that my conclusions are well within man's present awareness and mental
>capacity, as they are deducted on observed facts of reality by the use man's
>faculty of reason.
Your conclusions are based on someone else's religion, nothing more.
<<snip>>
>To be quite serious, I don't even think you know what it is I was arguing.
Trust me, I know.
<<snip>>
>As I will again state, all my analysis assumed was that a "God" (or gods)
>created mankind. Or created the means by which mankind was created, and
>doesn't now object to the existance of man's faculty of reason. Assuming
>this, the analysis is correct.
Your analysis assumed a bit more than you realize. This happens when
conditioning is so efficient that one doesn't even recognize he has been
conditioned.
Dagnytgrt
>>>follow the "logic" of atheism.
>>I was unaware atheism had any logic.
>Hmmm. Anyone atheists care to answer to this?
To me, the logic of atheist is the "reasoning" behind logic....i cannot
experience any reality of a god. - a=there is no evidence to convice me of god,
b= I don't accept that for which I have no proof or reasonable indication of
its reality. therefore, a+b=c: there is no god
Reigncloud: simple syllogism.....i understand it's unimportant to you that I
accept your belief, but do you understand it makes no sense for this mind in
this physical body to *believe*?
BTW...i find the original post quite interesting, and the subsequent posts of
you both quite loquacious. Thanks for the first "god chat" I've found between 2
differing types of "rationality". (I am assuming, Reign, you do *believe* -
what did your mama teach you anyway? <G>)
Sally Milo