Flaws about Pascal's Wager.

[Deathraider]

Introduction:

My argument is the Pascal Wager isn't a strong argument.

The Wager reasoning is as follows:

1. God either exist or doesn't exist.

2. If God exist and you believe him, then you get infinite reward. If God exist and you don't believe him, you are infinitely punished.

3. If God doesn't exist and you don't believe in him, then you gain nothing. If God doesn't exist and you believe him, then you lose nothing.

4. Therefore, it's wise to believe in God.

First Flaw:

On premise one, Pascal treats it as a binary choice. In reality, there are many different religion with their own deity/deities. This is the Argument from inconsistent revelations. This is the flaw of most theological arguments. They state their God exist and why you should follow their religion, but fail to prove why their particular religion is correct.

Second Flaw:

Pascal failed to take into account that the Judeo-Christian God also disapproves of lying. If you are "believing" out of fear, I'm sure he'll be even more unhappy then someone being skeptical.

Third Flaw:

Belief isn't a choice. If I swap out God for a purple dragon that judges if you are good or not according to it's standard, it is as follow:

1. Purple dragon either exist or doesn't exist.

2. If Purple dragon exist and you believe him, then you get infinite reward. If Purple dragon exist and you don't believe him, you are infinitely punished.

3. If Purple dragon doesn't exist and you don't believe in him, then you gain nothing. If Purple dragon doesn't exist and you believe him, then you lose nothing.

4. Therefore, it's wise to believe in Purple dragon.

Belief isn't a choice. If it was so, then we would believe in a God just for convenience. But it's like trying to ask me to believe if 2+2=3. You can't choose what you believe in.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Pascal's Wager isn't a strong argument because Pascal treats it as a binary choice, it relies on false belief, and Belief isn't really a choice. I'd also like to state that a God probably wouldn't mind if you didn't believe he didn't exist. Good Day!

[katthewolf]

So belief is like... an inclination or something? Interesting how belief is not necessarily a choice.

[Deathraider]

Let me ask you to believe that you are immortal. Can you choose to believe that?

[katthewolf]

I suppose you're right. I do choose to believe that i'm mortal because significant evidence suggests i'm going to die. Hmmm...

[Anonymous]

Lol I've never heard of that, i almost thought you were talking about Pascals triangle 😂😂

[Deathraider]

Same guy, but he became more philosophical later in his life.

[Opinion Owner]

Wow I didn't know that!

[Walrus_au]

For a mathematician he made a poor philosopher.

[ladsin]

Yuh. It's a false dichotomy, and belief isn't a simple choice 👍

[jacquesvol]

You SHOULD believe in Hank!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaFZQBb2srM&t=23s

[jacquesvol]

https://i.imgur.com/gUrk5An.jpg

[Walrus_au]

The assumption that acting like you believe carries no cost is also false.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Pascals Wager doesn't make any sense.

Because to repent/change, you have to really believe.

Ie, if some stranger tells you to get rid of your anger, you'll probably flip them off.

If your mother, whom you believe, love and trusts ask you to, because you know she has your best interest at heart, tells you this, you are more moved to do it.

Gods are our spiritual parents, our lives on earth are like the 20's / golden age we experience - where we are discovering ourselves, evils and goods.

20yr olds are stubborn, we are young, powerful, obnoxious, rude, relentless etc.

Our spirit is the same.

Back in heaven before, billions of years ago, we were like children, but our spirits started to mature and develop into their own.

We started becoming angry, violent, rebellious, as Gods intended, then They set up the law symbolized by the Garden of Eden situation (wasnt literally a tree you ate from and turned evil lol, symbolism -)

Which was the time in which the Gods started defining a law in heaven.

Of course we broke this, hence original sin, and were born to the earth to gain full understanding and control of what we really are.

We are gods as well.

But look at how we treat each other even stripped of our godly statuses.

Imagine how that past life was like being in constant celestial turmoil.

What made heaven uncomfortable then, is what makes the world uncomfortable now -us lol.

Your spirit is the same as it was before, so if you were an angry god then, you're an angry person now.

So.

Thats why if you dont believe, it just means you hated The God's ruling in heaven anyway, which is why some theists disregard parts of God's ruling, some atheists do to - but then some theists are cool with it, some atheists are cool with it, but just need some easy proof or connections here and there.

Hell doesn't make sense if you dont understand what happened in the past.

A lot churches dont teach this because their followers would rebel as they did before once they started understanding the truth hidden in the prophetic parables of the Bible.

You really think a tree with some tasty fruit and a couple eating it started all this?

"I will open my mouth in parables..

I will speak things hidden

since the creation of the world."

Matthew 13:35

The entire Bible is a poem, with connected verses explaining what each parable really means.

Lol but this was the conspiracy in the churches Ezekial spoke of.

The church leaders dont want us to know; theyll lose their $$$

[Deathraider]

I just don't think he exist. There hasn't been anything to show he does.

I mean if he thinks it's bad not to think something exist, that's a him problem. It's not like we're purging people because of it. I know why, it's just not a good why.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

I totally get that - like I've noticed that atheists dont have a problem with proof. God is easily provable, I may do a myTake on it, because weve had a lot of atheists get baptized saying, "Wow, how did people miss this?" Its literally so plain you'd facepalm yourself lol

Anyway, I was baptized after studying the parables, but my atheistic struggle was never proof - it was God's administration.

*If God loves us sooo much, why send ys the hell for trivial things? Why put us on this earth to suffer? Why did God let me be raped? Why did God even create darkness and Satan to tempt us?

Lucifer was the first one to speak out on this things, not directly to God, but to us, since we are family to him as well. It was never God on one side, Satan on the other, Lucifer is the son of the Gods, like we all are.

He felt God was wrong, made his points and we who also disagreed with God followed as well.

We are the same on the earth.

Continues...

[dancing_in_nebulas]

continued...

Some people dont think God did anything wrong, so they believe very passionately.

But its not just atheists who dont agree - lol some atheists naturally understand what happened with that, but just need proof.

Not all theists agree with God inwardly, which is why the believers took the lead in killing God's prophets, and even Christ lol

The atheists could care less if a man claims ro be God, the believers challenged God - like they did already in heaven.

I know pastors who HATE God, and use it only as a means for $$ and power lol

So, your perception is pretty toned down compared to them.

Its okay to question and explore. Hell... Gods already stated how if the theists got so scared of their church leaders as to not speak up, They would use the unbelievers to do it.

Lo and behold, 2018, 45% drop in theism but increase in agnosticism.

Agnosticism is like a catalyst to spiritual discovery.

[Deathraider]

One thing to mention, you realise what atheism just means, right? And you realise what agnosticism means, right?

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Yes I know what they mean lol

[Deathraider]

Well give out the definition.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Atheism - lack of / disbelief in God or gods.

Agnosticism - claims neither faith nor disbelief.

Lol I dont get why people ask this, there's an online dictionary lol

[Deathraider]

You see, atheist can be agnostic. Agnostic atheist is one who lacks a belief in God and doesn't claim to know.

Atheist is simply anyone who lacks a belief in God it's that simple.

laughingsquid.com/.../...sticism-pablo-stanley.jpg

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Yes deathraider, Im the one who told you about that in another conversation, stating that you're too inquisitive to be a mere atheist lol

I was agnostic atheist for a long ass time.

you're preaching to the choir kiddo.

Ironic pun there lol

[Deathraider]

Being inquisitive made me question theism in the first hand. What do you mean I'm too inquisitive to be an atheist?

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Atheists make unproved claims.

Like saying there is no God, spiritual world etc.

Where is the proof?

Or from your Big Bang myTake - "The initial universe would have had no effect on the Big Bang and thereafter."

but

"We dont know what the initial universe was like."

If we dont know what was the initial universe, we can't claim a cause or effect on the present one. Its plausible the initial universe could have even spurrned the big bang to happen, hence your "our universe could have been a result of the death of another " which is an initial circumstance. Not all theists are stupid, some are really sharp and will catch that.

Atheists are like theists in blurting out claims but failing to prove them.

Agnostics, theists or atheists, moreso explain factually.

Lol atheists are not logical - the agnostic atheists & theists are the ones inquiring and dissecting things, because we actually like exploring and piecing things together.

[dancing_in_nebulas]

Lol I made this atheist guy explain evolutinary theory to me (I studed evolutionary biology collegiate level,) and he said "things just change into things."

So I asked him why or how that diaproves God or creationism.

God created everything right? By that logic, would mean God created the evolutionary mechanism as well.

He just stared at me.

Lol but agnostics are more inquisitive and often have knowledge rather than opinion.

Atheists are also judgmental and talk down on others like theists do.

They will call you stupid, laugh at you, rip your Bible, then end up storming off in anger when you pick at their atheistic holes like that.

Or they blurt out a bunch of info, use big words to sound intelligent lol

Same thing church leaders do. They try to attack the ones who are dumbed down.

As I said, you are too inquisitive. you'll pick up on it in no time.

[Deathraider]

Okay, so I though I made this clear in clearing misconceptions of atheist, but anyone who simply LACKS a belief in God is an atheist by definition. A lack of a belief is not a belief of a lack of.

It actually brings us to physics. It has to do with the fact that the Big Bang is the beginning of space time.

I am agnostic. I'm an agnostic atheist.

[oddwaffle]

Yeah the wager is false because the 2nd and 3rd arguments are very weak if not plainly false.

For example, the 2nd argument is weak or even false because you don't have any evidence to back it up. The reverse of the 2nd argument could be true! Maybe God is twisted and punish you for believing instead! So if you replace God with Super Evil Begin then you get a nasty surprise. You simply do not have 1st hand accounts on the results.

The 3rd argument is also false because he didn't count the opportunity costs of belief. That means there is a lost by believing. Supposed that you wanted to do something hugely beneficial to the public - for example, promotes vaccination. Then some dude in a bath robe told you that God doesn't want you do it. Your belief prevents you from creating a situation to help people. That's a huge loss.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Pascal isn't making the reader choose a religion - he's making the reader make a choice between Theism and Atheism. The particular flavor of religion one might pick is irrelevant.

Also, here's a link to part of Pensées, the book from which Blaise Pascal's Wager comes from. Check out section 233, paragraph 11, sentence 13. It says "If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing".

Pascal isn't playing on fear - it doesn't come into play where there is nothing to lose by being wrong. He's trying to make the case that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God. He was a well known Apologist, after all.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees.iv.html

[Deathraider]

Well question, If I told you this magical purple dragon is going to torture you after death unless if you believed it, then would you believe it? According to Pascal, you should. But you probably wouldn't truthfully believe. That's because belief isn't a choice. You can't make me believe 2+2=3.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

No, Pascal doesn't say anything about that. Being tortured after death if you don't believe isn't part of the Wager.

With your 2+2=3 example, you're using a logical argument to reason within an illogical framework. If you didn't *already believe* that 2+2=4, it would be very easy to make you believe otherwise. You believe 2+2=4 because you can see it with your own eyes; it's self evident. No other thing we're discussing here is, so it's not a suitable analogy.

[Deathraider]

Well can you choose to believe something. If so I'd like to ask you to believe that the Earth was created last Thursday with all of it's history implanted in. You could 'believe', but you won't believe. And I said if you swap out God for my imaginary dragon, it comes to the conclusion you should believe my dragon.

My point is, Pascal's Wager isn't a valid argument because it contain these flaws. Good Day!

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I think if you actually read the Wager, you'd think otherwise. There's a lot more to it than what has been posted here; it covers several pages in his book. He address many, if not all, of the objections you've listed above.

As for getting me to believe the Earth was created last Thursday; it's not impossible. It'd be very difficult, true, but not impossible. I'd have to ask you how anyone comes to any religion. For most of us, it's implanted in our heads by our parents. For a lot of people, though, they're brought to it and chose to believe. Are people who come to a religion later in life just faking it? Highly doubtful.

[Deathraider]

Well the human brain finds these things appealing. But appealing doesn't mean true. The truth isn't about being appealing, it's being correct.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

We can never know (while we're alive, anyway) what's correct in terms of faith. If it's about being correct, then we all lose.

[Deathraider]

Well believing because you're trying to avoid a fate isn't true belief.

[Pamina]

I think the second flaw is the crucial one. There's a difference between wishful thinking and actually believing. If I actually believe in something, it's regardless of whether it benefits me or even harms me. I believe in it because that's what I actually think is reality.

[TsubasaCorrupted]

Pascal's wager is a stupidly common trend among Christians, with an emphasis on stupid. You might as well throw a dart at a board listing all 10,500+ religions out there with hundreds of thousands of deities, and just go with it. Your odds are the same.

[Warmapplecrumble]

God is just a human term created by law enforcers.

What police, cctv, army, military can't do to masses God and media do. They are the strongest form of keeping people in fear.

[y_tho]

Great myTake bro. Yeah, Pascal's wager fails because anyone who "believes" solely out of fear has no actual faith.

[KnightCross]

Blaise Pascal: triggering atheists since 1600 even after death :D :D

[jacquesvol]

@KnightCross not at all

[karahiri]

hmm... so really, at the heart of this is... is belief a choice? in the back of my head, i always thought belief was a choice... i'm not sure now lol.

[ladsin]

How would belief be a choice. I can't choose to believe (for example) that babies come from the stork. I can say that I believe that, but I don't actually see enough evidence I believe. That's the same scenario I see with Pascal's wager. You don't see enough evidence to believe, but you see some value in pretending that you do.

[karahiri]

@ladsin isn't the point of belief to... accept regardless of evidence?

The second flaw- if one can believe out of fear, doesn't that imply there's... some kind of choice happening?

[ladsin]

1.) no, my beliefs are almost solely based on evidence, and if someone can show me a belief that I have that isn't evidentially supported, or worse goes against evidence... then I will be forced to drop that belief.
You seem to be thinking more of "faith" which is colloquially defined as something like "believing without evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary."
2.) You can say that you believe anything, the truth of whether or not you. Relieve it is a separate issue though.

[karahiri]

@ladsin you're right, i was thinking of belief as faith. I thought that was how the word was being used in this example since it's about religion... but i still think that you can choose to believe in something. Even if there is evidence to the contrary... people can choose to overlook that evidence, ignore it, claim it to be false, etc.

[ladsin]

Oh sure, but I think that requires a certain amount of self deception. It's like someone still choosing to believe that the sun circles about the earth. In this day and age that's nearly impossible and requires a certain amount of reality denial.

[ladsin]

That's why if you saw my answer to the question I said belief isn't a simple choice.

[karahiri]

@ladsin i don't think it's that impossible. I'm reminded of... doctors who are religious but don't believe in evolution. Lol. Clearly, they're people of science... but even though there's evidence suggesting that human beings evolved over thousands of years, they ignore this information or choose not to think about it since it goes against genesis.

[ladsin]

Sure, which is why creationist organizations force them to sign confessions of faith that they'll never go against biblical teachings. That's intellectual dishonesty, and honestly, if you have to sign something swearing you'll need go against it... well I think your belief in it can't be all that strong lol.

Additionally it's typically people who have doctorates in other fields than life science that can still try and deny evolution. Like engineers for example.

[karahiri]

@ladsin ah... i didn't know about the signed confessions bit. That's disturbing 😐. Makes sense about engineering, being removed from biology and all... but I've observed this dissonance in my classmates too, we're essentially in life sciences.

[ladsin]

Hmm. What do you study?
And yeah, you tend to see it more in classes, but by the time they've received enough information to have a bachelors at least, or some graduate degree in life sciences the percentage drops to like 1%

[karahiri]

@ladsin we study medicine. And there is a group of fairly religious monotheists who kind of... avoid the subject entirely lol

[ladsin]

What kind? That's fun.

[karahiri]

@ladsin allopathic medicine, just regular med school lol

[ladsin]

👍✌️

[Cadet_Cora]

Had no idea what you were talking about at first. Never heard of this before.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Yeah, only a fool like you would post such crap because you're nothing but a Satanist. 'Atheists' and Satanists share in common their hatred for God and do all they can to try to disprove Him.

The Bible already says you can't serve 2 masters. Even you will love one and hate the other or cling to one and despite the other.

Therefore if you're not Christian, you serve Satan.

You evil serve Jesus or you serve Satan.

[Deathraider]

No. I really am not a satanist. Also, let me ask you for a second, what makes your God supposedly all good and Satan evil?

Yeah, I don't serve a master.

Nah. I don't serve either.

False dichotomy. I don't think either exist.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Okay but you cling to Satan tho because you're against Jesus.

[Deathraider]

I don't think Jesus is a person. Am I immoral for lacking a belief?

[hise-DepartmenT]

The Bible already proved there's no such thing as an atheist.

It say 'The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.'

That means that is what they are saying in their heart as in living as if there's no God. It doesn't mean they think there's no God but living as if there's none.

[Deathraider]

And why should you take the bible's word for it?

Look, if I didn't like the Christian God, but still think he exist, then technically I would still be a Christian. In that scenario, I would still think that he exist. But in reality, I don't.

There just isn't evidence so far.

[hise-DepartmenT]

No you wouldn't. To be Christian, means you follow the teachings.

If Satan exists and Christianity is real, Satan knows the Bible is true. Doesn't mean he follows it.

[Deathraider]

But explain why you don't think I lack a belief in a god.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Explain why you don't think I lack a belief in you're not an atheist.

[Deathraider]

Oh, I do think you do lack a belief I'm an atheist. But I'm asking why you think that one bible verse shows that my side doesn't exist.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Because Christianity is about worshiping God in the name of God, Jesus and Holy Ghost. It's about having a daily relationship with God, not some ritualistic event that Buddhists do and other religions are about hatred and force conversion or death. Christianity doesn't force. It offers. When people tell homosexuals to repent, it's not hate like they think. They rage because we live in a society that wants to follow their own ways. that's why you have atheists. They don't want to adhere to teachings/ways. They only want to be in control of their own life. They have no moral compass to guide them. Sure, you can be good but to what avail? You, as an atheist, believe afterlife is non-existent. It's pointless to even tell you anything because your mindset is nothing is good and nothing is evil because of a law but it's just human nature and not something you can choose or fall into.

There. You got my fucking answer. You happy?

[Deathraider]

Look, an atheist simply means a person that lack a belief in a god. It makes no claim about political opinions, spirituality, morality, etc. Atheism is only about one thing: Theism. That's it.

I don't have a reason to think it exist, or any universal judgement exist. I believe I should be doing good services, not to go to heaven, just because I'm helping people.

Well I've seen a ton of "hate conversion" from Christians like the typical "Burn in hell". And I've met other people that have other religion that honestly couldn't care less about your belief.

Well it was nice dealing with your comment.

[hise-DepartmenT]

And you fail to point out the arrogant atheists who mock people just because they have no moral codes.

That's why I can never become atheistic in my views. I can never grasp how a person can just be good for themselves to help other for their own sake and another can do evil to others for their own sake and both goes unnoticed as if life never mattered.

[Deathraider]

Mock people? I mean I'm not doing an ad hominem attack, I'm attacking the arguments put forth.

If you're a good humble person, you do not crave these things to do good.

[hise-DepartmenT]

The ones who use pink unicorns and spaghetti monster comparisons to God.

[Deathraider]

Oh, you misinterpret why we use it. You see, you need to understand what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is.

[hise-DepartmenT]

It's sacrilegious to use God in a mockery form though. You should consider their feelings and approve it in a more mature way.

[hise-DepartmenT]

approach it, not approve it.

[Deathraider]

Am I mocking if I point out bad arguments?

[hise-DepartmenT]

Yes when you compare God to spaghetti monster or pink unicorn. It's sacrilegious and shows contempt to ridicule the other person.

You can use another possibility. You have to present a case where it's impossible for God to be present there. Not resort to a potential case of what about unicorns, etc.

[Deathraider]

Well it's demonstrating what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is.

[hise-DepartmenT]

By using sacrilegious examples, which is immoral.

You need to provide other examples how God alone can't exist. Not how pink unicorns can't exist.

[Deathraider]

Well this is what I mean by an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Suppose for a second that I said that a unicorn existed. Obviously you'd want to come over and see it. So you come over and you say, "I don't see your unicorn anywhere."
I claim, "Ah, but this unicorn is invisible. You cannot observe it."
You ask, "What if we used infrared to try to detect it?"
I claim, "But it doesn't let out heat."
You ask, "Maybe if we put sand on the ground, we could see it's track."
I say, "No. You see, this dragon is constantly flying."
You ask, "Maybe is we used our hands, we could feel around to see if it's there."
I say, "But this dragon manifests itself in another dimension."
That's what an unfalsifiable hypothesis is. When someone ask for a way to verify it and you say they can't do any test to show it exist. And this is applicable to anything. Like alien conspiracy, government cover ups, religion. As long as someone makes a hypothesis that can't be tested, then this is applicable.

[Deathraider]

Think about this. If the dragon had all of these qualities, how would I have been able to know it exist in the first place?

[hise-DepartmenT]

Okay, dude, you're a person who has to see to believe. Yet you don't see your brain but believe it exists.

Keep saying sacrilegious things in terms of God. God doesn't work on the same scale as a potential invisible dragon or unicorn, so using that as examples fails.

You think like a secular man. I think like a spiritual man. You think life ends at death. I think life extends after death.

Won't come to any conclusions and won't keep BSing this stuff. PM me if you want to explain it but don't add it on the boards.

[Deathraider]

We can prove a brain exist. MRI, autopsy, etc. So we know beyond a reasonable doubt that humans have brains.

Well the idea of God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Any way I try to devise of detecting that ends shows an absence would be nullified by the person proposing the idea.

Nothing so far shows that someone live after death. As far as we know, every thought, emotion, etc in the brain has to do with chemical and electrical processes. And these cease once someone dies. Is there something beyond that? As far as the evidence goes, we'd have to conclude no.

Well this kind of discussion is fine on my post.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Sure, whatever.

They cease after death because you think like a secular man.

I like like a Godly man.

So if God can be seen with a MRI scan, you'd believe Him?

Well guess what. I don't care if you'd believe Him that way only because it's not faith.

Say God is unfalsifiable hypothesis but not being a God is also unfalsifiable hypothesis too.

[Deathraider]

Well what evidence is there to suggest otherwise?

If we could observe God beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes. I mean if we observe him, obviously the first step is to send it to other labs to see if they get the same results.

Yeah, except here's the thing. The default position is that there isn't evidence for God. And according to the burden of proof, the idea of God should be proven, otherwise the logical conclusion is that this idea isn't true.

Look, the sword can go both ways. I mean replace the word God with my hypothetical unicorn.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Burden of proof is on the 'atheist' too and I will prove it if you like.

There's physical evidence and spiritual evidence.

You have no moral compass.

If you do evil, you feel you only answer to yourself or to the government but nobody else. So if you're not caught in life, you feel you got away with it.

Secular people are not like Christian people. Quit suggesting they are.

[hise-DepartmenT]

There's not evidence against God either. Evidence isn't proof either.

[Deathraider]

Except here's the think, atheism is just the lack of a belief in God or gods. So we're not putting forth a claim. We're skeptical of the claim.

Go on.

I do. What makes you think I can't?

No, I mean good people don't do bad even if nobody is watching them. I don't harm people because I don't like harming people.

You realize the difference between secularism and atheism?

Yeah, I never claimed there was no God, I'm demonstrating that the burden of proof is on someone that asserts a claim. I lack a claim, I'm just taking down bad arguments.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Why would a woman seeking extramarital sex want a baby? It would be more evidence to prove to her husband she cheated.

[Deathraider]

Look, I'm no expert on relationships.

[hise-DepartmenT]

@Deathraider
strangenotions.com/.../

But if you didn't an immoral deed or something you felt was wrong, you'd not hold yourself accountable and you'd only have to answer to the government's account but if you died never getting caught, you wouldn't be held accountable assuming you believe as an 'atheist' there's no afterlife.

[hise-DepartmenT]

If you did an immoral deed, not if you didn't.

[hise-DepartmenT]

“If you claim that Yahweh exists, it’s not my duty to disprove Yahweh. [….] But most intellectually-inclined atheists I know do not merely “lack” a belief in God – as, say, my dog lacks a belief in God. Atheists like to avoid the burden of proof during debates, so they say they merely “lack” a belief in God. But this is not what their writings usually suggest. No, most intellectual atheists positively believe that God does not exist. In fact, most of them will say – at least to other atheists – that it’s “obvious” there is no God, or that they “know” – as well as we can “know” anything – that God does not exist.

Thus, if the atheist wants to defend what he really believes, then he, too, has a burden of proof. He should give reasons for why he thinks that God almost certainly doesn’t exist.”

[hise-DepartmenT]

Error #1: The burden of proof falls with theists, and not with atheists.
Error #2: Christian Beliefs are either scientifically-evaluable or non-provable / non-falsifiable.
Error #3: Extraordinary claims logically require extraordinary evidence.
Error #4: Religious claims should be held to a higher burden of proof than other claims.

[Deathraider]

Yeah, but think about it. Does the universe owe us and cater our need of justice? What suggests it?

Look, I'm not a gnostic atheist. Most atheist are actually agnostic.

Well if someone wrote a book on why the idea of the illuminati is absurd, you'd think it's reasonable. The lack of evidence, the fact that the people proposing this is moving the goal post, it's unfalsifiability.

But if someone wrote that the idea that God is absurd, you have an outcry, even though it lacks evidence, the people proposing this is moving the goal post, and it's unfalsifiable.

[Deathraider]

Atheism is the lack of a belief in God/gods. So no, we're not making a claim.

Well you can't use anecdotal evidence. Anyone could provide anecdotal evidence that contradict your's.

They still require evidence. I mean the idea of the Mysterium Cosmographium seems so logical at the time. But we found out later Kepler was wrong about that.

I never said you were held to higher standard. Still just the same standard.

[hise-DepartmenT]

You require evidence by claiming there's no God. Read the reasoning on the 4 errors on burden of proof.

You say agnostic and Gnostic as if I'm supposed to know the difference. You're an acclaimed atheist, I don't need the subgroups of 'atheists' like you don't need the subgroups of Christianity but if it helps you, I'm 7th Day Adventist, not Pentecostal.

You fail to fathom that God works beyond the laws of logic. Doesn't mean illogical, just outside those laws.

Matters not. If you broke a personal moral conviction of yours, you'd have no accountability to it except for yourself and if illegal and the government had no proof, it's the same as being held to same standards as if you were good.

You can use the incentive analogy all you want but there is standard protocols for good and evil and it's rewards and punishments. It doesn't mean you're doing it to get a reward or avoid punishment. It's just the natural result for the natural choice. It's not random behavior as atheists think.

[Deathraider]

I did. Made a response on it already.

static.neatorama.com/.../...cism-pablo-stanley.jpg
That is what the differences are.

So what evidence is there that a logic defying god exist?

People don't need that kind of fear to be good. A good person isn't good out of fear.

Good and evil aren't definite things. It's subjective. But most of us have empathy. And why would you claim it's a natural result? I'd like to see your evidence.

[hise-DepartmenT]

What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist? See? You're not holding yourself to the burden of proof too because you've been ingrained it's only on theists and why do claims to God need special evidence but claims to other things don't?

A good person is not a saved person. Why can't you get that concept? Even so though. If you're good or evil, how the hell would it happen if you were not caught on earth? It wouldn't because there's no ultimate moral authority to atheists.

If you want me to respect you as an atheist, then respect me as a theist. Atheism and theism are both religious belief systems. It doesn't have to be based upon God's existence or non-existence. The rule says especially God/gods, not exclusively God/gods. There's always an exception to a rule but you suddenly then rule exceptions never apply to atheists.

If you break a moral conviction actively doing it, not thinking it, goes 5 years and not repented over, then you die, who would you answer to for doing it?

[Deathraider]

"What evidence do you have that God doesn't exist? See? You're not holding yourself to the burden of proof too because you've been ingrained it's only on theists and why do claims to God need special evidence but claims to other things don't?"
I'm not claiming knowledge. I don't have a reason to think you are right, therefore because of the lack of reason, I don't think you are right. It's that simple.

So you need someone to tell you what's right to help people?

Except here's a few things. Atheism is only talking about the position on one thing: Theism. I mean a Buddhist is an atheist. A spiritual person can be an atheist. I just lack a belief, which isn't the same a be;lief of a lack of.

No one. But I wouldn't want to go around doing immoral thing. Look, as far as we know, there isn't evidence for a universal justice system. But should someone need this just to act good?

[hise-DepartmenT]

By claiming to lack belief is not a fact, therefore it's a belief. It may be true that you lack but it's also true you rejected the belief. Therefore, you're clinging to the opposing view of theism and that henceforth is a religious belief.

I think you lack understanding in ultimate moral authority. If you were a police officer and you failed to arrest your daughter for speeding but arrested a man you didn't like much, you're acting upon moral codes in different ways: punish the guilty but look out for family. You're not holding them accountable equally. Ultimate moral authority does that. If you did as you pleases, empathy or not, it doesn't matter why you're good or evil because there is no standard protocol to separate the two.

[Deathraider]

Yes. We define an atheist as: "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods." So it is a fact that atheism isn't a belief. It can be, but not necessarily as shown above.

I don't do as I please. I sacrifice my time to help people, even though I could be doing other stuff, not because I want to just have fun and please myself, but because it's helping people.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Atheism is as much of a religious belief as any kind of “theism,” mono, poly or what have you. There is no empirical proof of the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being. Any assertion for or against it is a belief regarding religion, and therefore a religious belief.

You can do as you please tho since you could get away with it.

No matter what you say, an evil man can rape 50 kids and murder 30 people and torture his family and another man can feed the hungry, clothe the naked and it's all in vain because if they're not caught on earth, it won't matter in the end. It's not remembered if no afterlife. There's no penile code for the deeds, rather good or evil.

Good and evil needs rewards and punishments, whether you say it shouldn't be an incentive to do good to get rewarded or to abstain from evil to avoid punishment. Without an ultimate moral authority, it's all in vain if Earth didn't know about it.

[Deathraider]

But atheism isn't an assertion. It's the lack of one.

I can, but I don't. People have empathy. They won't murder each other if there isn't anyone watching.

But would the man doing good deed care? No. He does good things because it's good, not because he craves a reward.

I doubt that. I mean if this is our only life, then wouldn't you think that people would be more wise about their choices, perhaps not living their days like there's always another.

Also you need to remember atheism is only about theism, not describing anything else.

[hise-DepartmenT]

Whatever.

You won't acknowledge what if you're wrong scenarios.

You don't get it and never will. It is a position. You decided to rejected theism. An 'atheist' is an 'atheist', only because they rejected theism. I'm a theist because I reject 'atheism'. I place quotes on 'atheism' and 'atheists' because I'm not sure they exist. You don't understand the concept that atheists have a religious mindset more so than everybody else and never will see it so I'm done with the everybody is religious thing. I proved it. You don't accept it.

Empathy in vain because it doesn't matter. You may be remembered by your children and others if you die first a morally sound man but there's no pay off for it. You could have been evil and remembered but if you weren't caught, no suffering. I can argue you aren't moral because you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as you Savior.

If this was only life, people would kill themselves and be miserable more too. Nothing to look forward to.

[Deathraider]

"You won't acknowledge what if you're wrong scenarios."
I do. And my response was that if that was the case, then the more I know. But until the evidence is there, we shouldn't regarded as true.

"You don't get it and never will. It is a position. You decided to rejected theism. An 'atheist' is an 'atheist', only because they rejected theism. I'm a theist because I reject 'atheism'. I place quotes on 'atheism' and 'atheists' because I'm not sure they exist. You don't understand the concept that atheists have a religious mindset more so than everybody else and never will see it so I'm done with the everybody is religious thing. I proved it. You don't accept it."
We lack a belief. It's not the same as claiming that theism is wrong. You're making a black and white thinking fallacy.

[Deathraider]

"Empathy in vain because it doesn't matter. You may be remembered by your children and others if you die first a morally sound man but there's no pay off for it. You could have been evil and remembered but if you weren't caught, no suffering. I can argue you aren't moral because you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as you Savior."
Yeah, but you know what, life isn't fair. But that isn't a reason why people should just kill people.

"If this was only life, people would kill themselves and be miserable more too. Nothing to look forward to." I disagree. I mean if this is the only life, then you would want to make the most out of it.

[hise-DepartmenT]

The evidence isn't there that there isn't a God. Why should we take your position by default? There you go with placing only theists with the burden of proofs. maybe we shouldn't regard there isn't a God as true either.

You do realize burden of proofs is on 'atheists' too, right?

I'm a black and white thinker, not a gray area thinker. You either are or you are not. You rejected theism, so you made a decision to believe against theism, which is a religious belief.

[hise-DepartmenT]

@Deathraider
The most out of life would be a hopeless existence. What's an existence if it has to end?

It doesn't matter if they killed or not though. You can keep your moral dignity that you didn't do wrong but even if a person did wrong, they'd have nobody to hold them responsible for their choices.

No matter what you say, there's no ultimate moral authority and there should be and I think there is.

[Deathraider]

The evidence that there isn't a unicorn isn't there. So why should we take the default stance that unicorns don't exist? You see, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof. Since you're asserting a claim and I'm criticizing it, the burden of proof is on you.
Except only on gnostic atheist, not agnostic atheist.
Which that thinking is fallacious. I simply do not think theism is correct. Doesn't mean I'm on the side that claim they know there isn't a god, but I don't accept theism because of the lack of evidence.
You choose what existence is. I mean I want to study the cosmos. Some people want to be artist. The meaning of life is subjective.
But why must it be the case that the universe has to hold them accountable?
But morality itself depends on who you ask. This is why political arguments will never end. Everyone has a view on certain topic. But when discussing about whether it exist and it's nature, something that isn't about opinion, you need to provide proof for it's existence.

[hise-DepartmenT]

You asserted a claim that there's no God. Why should be accept your claim and accept that you're right?

Yet you accept atheism when there's a lack of evidence.

You also need proof of it's non-existence if you claim it doesn't exist like you do.

Burden of proof fallacy. It's not only on theists. You saw 4 hard irrefutable examples.

[Deathraider]

I didn't assert the claim. I said as far as we know, there isn't evidence support theism. That's why I don't think theism is right.

Atheism is the lack of belief in theism, so yeah.

Except I didn't. I'm just criticizing your arguments.

Except in this case, this is your attempt to shift the burden of proof, when I'm not even claiming knowledge about it.

[hise-DepartmenT]

There's not evidence to support atheism, yet you think it's right.

Okay, final answer. There's physical evidence and there's spiritual evidence. God works beyond the laws of logic and physical. That's why you'll never believe in God because He requires you have faith, which you don't. Maybe that's how God intended who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell. Whoever needs evidence and who is willing to accept on faith.

But go ahead. Use sacrilegious examples to help your case if that's what you want. Use a pink unicorn or spaghetti monster mockery that didn't create the universe.

You don't believe in God and never will because believing in God requires faith, not evidence. Sometimes people gain so much worldly knowledge and listen to lie, that they forget God is above logic.

[John_Doesnt]

Gambling is for suckers.

[Anonymous]

Yes, "Pascal's Wager" is a crock of shit...