Argument to satisfy atheistic and theistic sensibilities

[ILOVEJESUS]

Are you for real?? I mean you sound like you are here for a wind up son.

[Smellyoldgit]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

Are you for real?? I mean you sound like you are here for a wind up son.

Andrew is in need of a reality fix ..
"afterlife" = death
... then he should check out "bonfire fuel" or "worm food" - once he understands, then he can fuck off.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Davin

Firstly I'm in agreement with you that there is no compelling evidence that a God (i.e. personal creator of our universe who offers us a means to afterlife salvation) of any sort exists, and it thereby takes a leap of faith to believe (or even just hope) that any sort of God exists.

For the sake of argument (assuming God's existence), the basis of determining the qualities of God comes from another leap of faith that such God revealed himself to humanity.

You are now leaning on bullshit to the power of two.

Andrew66 wrote

So we (as a best guess) turn our attention to the reveared historical documents where claims about God, based on alleged revelations from God (written as non-fiction) have been recorded throughout history.

And now you're into bulshit to the power of three.

The farther away you get from evidence, the more bullshit you create. Right now, the foundation, ground floor and second floor of your argument is non-existent. Don't build more floors on nothing and expect to be taken seriously.

Andrew66 wrote

[Argument from authority and popularity (fallacies)]

Andrew66 wrote

Both Islam and Christianity state that a condition of having favor with God - such as to inherit a desirable afterlife - is a Belief in such God. I am not aware of any teachings (accept the holy scriptures of Davin with the Raving Atheist Forum), which ever suggest a God would favor individuals who were Atheists.

Of course religions wouldn't support an idea people not in the religion are better off than they, that's like Burger King telling all their customers to eat at McDonald's because the food is better.

Also, the word you need to use is "except" not "accept." Unless you accept my holy scripture as true.

Andrew66 wrote

So in Summary

1) A belief in God's existence - based on the writings of reveared religious historical documents with high impact factor yields -> desirable afterlife.2) A disbelief in God existence - based on the writings of reveared religious historical docuemtns with high impact factor -> no desirable afterlife.
3) A mere hope that God exists - based on the writings of reveared religious historical docuements with high impact factor -> maybe desirable afterlife.

Only for a few relatively young and recent religions.

Andrew66 wrote

That's why I'd like to look into the original Hebrew and Greek words of the Torah and new Testiment documents (reveared documents with high impact factor) which have been translated in English to match the term "believe" to see if Hope may be within the scope of those words.

Why these religions in particular? There are religions that are both older and lasted longer and there are religions that are newer and growing faster.

In the end, you can't rule out that there might be a god that will punish you for hoping and/or believing in a god or gods that made some people write a bunch of bullshit as a test to ensure that no gullible people make it to the afterlife.

[Erik]

Andrew66 wrote

So in Summary

1) A belief in God's existence - based on the writings of reveared religious historical documents with high impact factor yields -> desirable afterlife.
2) A disbelief in God existence - based on the writings of reveared religious historical docuemtns with high impact factor -> no desirable afterlife.
3) A mere hope that God exists - based on the writings of reveared religious historical docuements with high impact factor -> maybe desirable afterlife.

Good grief -- will Pascal's Wager never go away?

Andrew, if I were trying to convince you to completely subject your intellect to my set of unproven beliefs, and I told you that if you believed I would give you a jelly donut but if you didn't believe I would slap your wrist, what is the likelihood you would subject your intellect to my set of uproven beliefs? Pretty much zip.

That's why, to get the result I want, I need to ratchet up the stakes, so let's try this: if you believe, your reward is a used 1986 Ford Explorer and if you don't, your punishment is that you have to play for the 2013 Houston Astros. Still not enough? OK, how's this: if you believe, you get eternal bliss and if you don't, you get eternal torture. Now we're talkin'! That's why this whole discussion isn't really honest: the purported rewards and punishments are much more likely to have been the result of rigging the system rather than real investigation or rational thought.

What you call revered religious historical documents are simply a smoke screen to hide this plain fact: you can control people by playing on their fears and superstitions and nothing is as effective as religion.

[Davin]

Erik wrote

Good grief -- will Pascal's Wager never go away?

I doubt it.

[Andrew66]

You are now leaning on bullshit to the power of two.

Davin wrote

And now you're into bulshit to the power of three.

The farther away you get from evidence, the more bullshit you create. Right now, the foundation, ground floor and second floor of your argument is non-existent. Don't build more floors on nothing and expect to be taken seriously..

I agree, religious folks take typically 3 orders of unsubstantiated faith to get to their belief system. First belief God exists, then God revieled himself, and third a selection must occur as to which revelations are valid. If you read my posts from the beginiing I concede the irrationality of religion from a rationale standpoint.

But if one is going to HOPE in God nonetheless, the trinity or tiple jump of faith (or bullshit to the power of three as you call it) is all humans have to HOPE for if there is any claimed chance for an afterlife - thats why I think people (and so many, billions) take the position.

Davin wrote

Why these religions in particular? There are religions that are both older and lasted longer and there are religions that are newer and growing faster..

.

As I said, impact factor based essentially on numbers of followers acrued. A fourth leap of faith, that the optimal religion would have such impact in its teachings such as to captivate and convince large numbers of people.

Davin wrote

In the end, you can't rule out that there might be a god that will punish you for hoping and/or believing in a god or gods that made some people write a bunch of bullshit as a test to ensure that no gullible people make it to the afterlife..

.

True! If that is correct than you are on the correct path!! Do you HOPE it to be true?

[Andrew66]

Erik wrote

That's why this whole discussion isn't really honest: the purported rewards and punishments are much more likely to have been the result of rigging the system rather than real investigation or rational thought.

What you call revered religious historical documents are simply a smoke screen to hide this plain fact: you can control people by playing on their fears and superstitions and nothing is as effective as religion.

I agree, if I understand you - that a reason certain religions may have had such a tremendously large impact factor is because the stories and promisses (or threats) they teach have a strong memetic (or reproducing) quality. This point was well discussed in Dawkin's book the God Delusion in explaining why Christianity (which proports a fear of hell, promise of heaven) has flourished, survived and remains taught to so many.

I'm not arguing anymore that belief in religion is rationale! All I'm saying is why not HOPE? If nothing else, it dimishes the sting and fear of death.

[psychodiva]

Andrew66 wrote

2) I actually do understand what Atheism is. .

so why keep capitalising it then?

[psychodiva]

other than that- the bullshit is the same as all the other crap that theists / idiots / religious twats* have posted on here - so no- no meaningful and respectful dialogue is possible until you take your fingers out of your ears (or arse- whichever is closest to your mouth) and start 'debating' with some facts that you yourself haven't invented

*rhymes with CAT

[ILOVEJESUS]

Still don't see why or how we can all hope for the same God, and what the purpose of hoping for a God has, over hoping for a 12 inch willy to base itself firmly in Andrews bum bum!? So Spartacus blood and sands!

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

I agree, religious folks take typically 3 orders of unsubstantiated faith to get to their belief system. First belief God exists, then God revieled himself, and third a selection must occur as to which revelations are valid. If you read my posts from the beginiing I concede the irrationality of religion from a rationale standpoint.

But if one is going to HOPE in God nonetheless, the trinity or tiple jump of faith (or bullshit to the power of three as you call it) is all humans have to HOPE for if there is any claimed chance for an afterlife - thats why I think people (and so many, billions) take the position.

Doesn't matter, it's bullshit. Bullshit it worthless.

Andrew66 wrote

As I said, impact factor based essentially on numbers of followers acrued. A fourth leap of faith, that the optimal religion would have such impact in its teachings such as to captivate and convince large numbers of people.

Argument ad populum. You're not going to win over anyone here by using fallacies, and it just makes you look crazy to use fallacies, knowing that they're fallacies and still act like your statements are useful.

Andrew66 wrote

True! If that is correct than you are on the correct path!! Do you HOPE it to be true?

I don't hope for anything.

[ILOVEJESUS]

I hope they create a new season of Spartacus blood and sands!

[psychodiva]

you like that? never got the attraction myself

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

You're not going to win over anyone here by using fallacies, and it just makes you look crazy to use fallacies, knowing that they're fallacies and still act like your statements are useful.

I think you are arguing with a straw man, I am not trying to "win over anyone" (in so far as to promote that a belief in God is a rationale prosepct).

I am arguing that the existence in God (plus a promissed afterlife) to a rationally minded person cannot be believed, but only hoped for.

If you cannot rule out a God's (plus promissed afterlife's) existence with 100% certainty, than you should have no quarrel with a man for just hoping God's existence to be true, can you?

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

I think you are arguing with a straw man, I am not trying to "win over anyone" (in so far as to promote that a belief in God is a rationale prosepct).

You keep using the word "rationale." I thought the first one or two times it was just a typo, but now it seems that you're really just using the wrong word. The word you should be using in this context is "rational" not "rationale." If you're not here to persuade anyone, then why the fuck are you here presenting this shit?

You came here and presented your beliefs unsolicited, and now are acting like you're not here to persuade anyone. Either you're ignorant or dishonest. Ignorant in that you think that going around preaching your ideas to people who never asked you to shows that you do want to change people's minds or you want to change people's minds and you just lied to me.

Andrew66 wrote

I am arguing that the existence in God (plus a promissed afterlife) to a rationally minded person cannot be believed, but only hoped for.

If you cannot rule out a God's (plus promissed afterlife's) existence with 100% certainty, than you should have no quarrel with a man for just hoping God's existence to be true, can you?

If you cannot rule out a god's (plus promised punishment of people for hoping/believing in a god or gods), existence with 100% certainty, then you should not be telling people to take that risk.

I don't give a fuck what a person believes in, if they keep it to themselves it doesn't bother me at all. If I asked about what they believe then I also wouldn't care. If the person merely hoped or even believed in a god or gods, I have no quarrel with him/her, that's not what's happening here though, is it? No. What is happening is that you're trying to convince other people that merely hoping in a god or gods so that one doesn't go to hell is a rational position. It's not. And you're not going to convince any one that it is a rational position if you keep using fallacies.