First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
What if God was a skeptic?
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/26/08 , edited 9/26/08

dmitsuki wrote:
Lol, if you believe in God for the soul purpose of personal gain, say hello to hell.

Well, then many Muslims and Christians are going to hell.
The reason why most people believe in Judeo-Christian God is because:
1. promise of a reward in heaven
2. fear of punishment in hell

Judeo-Christian-Islam goes on a reward/punishment mentality. Without the promise of rewards in the afterlife to convert the poor masses, Christianity wouldn't have survived past the 1st century.


dmitsuki wrote:
Also, your speaking of a specific God, who made a bible that never told people to be skeptical.

Pascal never did specifically say the Abrahamic God. As for Pascal's Wager - he said that 'it is safer to believe...' And most of the brimestone-hell fires come from medieval Christianity.


dmitsuki wrote:
If your NOT speaking of the exact same God Pascal's was, then whatever your saying is irrelevant.

The main post of the post was meant to express the fact that there are thousands of different personal God(s) with different characteristics.

Posted 9/26/08

Intranetusa wrote:

Well, according to that idea then most Muslims and Christians are going to hell.
The reason why most people believe in Judeo-Christian God is because:
1. promise of a reward in heaven
2. fear of punishment in hell

Judeo-Christian-Islam goes on a reward/punishment mentality. Without the promise of rewards in the afterlife to convert the poor masses, Christianity wouldn't have survived past the 1st century.

That's right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's against the point of Judeo-Christian blablaba to believe in God, just so you can profit. You will still go to hell, which is a big part of the point.



Pascal never did specifically say the Abrahamic God. And if you read Pascal's Wager - he said that 'it is safer to believe...' And most of the brimestone-hell fires come from medieval Christianity.
Not every God makes you worship him, or you get eternal punishment if you don't. There's really only one God that does that.



You're missing the point.The post was meant to express the fact that there are thousands of different personal God(s) with different characteristics.

But for this to make any sense they all have to want to be worshiped or they will all have to give you eternal punishment or this makes no sense. In a lot of religions, God's don't send you to hell because you don't believe in them, in fact, if you don't worship them the effects are much more immediate. But yeah, the point is, the only God I can think of that gives you hell if you don't worship him is, well, the one that Christians, Protestants, Johava Witness's, Jews, blablabalba worship, because he's the only one really who...is..well the ONLY, ALMIGHTY God.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/26/08 , edited 9/26/08

dmitsuki wrote:
Judeo-Christian-Islam goes on a reward/punishment mentality. Without the promise of rewards in the afterlife to convert the poor masses, Christianity wouldn't have survived past the 1st century.
That's right, but that doesn't change the fact that it's against the point of Judeo-Christian blablaba to believe in God, just so you can profit. You will still go to hell, which is a big part of the point.

Then the most moral person in the world would be an Atheist who does good deeds...people who have nothing to benefit from doing good deeds since they don't believe in heaven. It'd be ironic that the people who don't believe in heaven are the only ones who end up going to heaven.


dmitsuki wrote:
Not every God makes you worship him, or you get eternal punishment if you don't. There's really only one God that does that.

Not exactly. The Greek and Roman God(s) also punished people in Tartarus for committing evils.
Same for Hindu God(s). So the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God isn't the only one to hand out eternal punishment.


dmitsuki wrote:
But for this to make any sense they all have to want to be worshiped or they will all have to give you eternal punishment or this makes no sense. In a lot of religions, ...the point is, the only God I can think of that gives you hell if you don't worship him is, well, the one that Christians...

Pascal isn't saying that the eternal punishment is 100% confirmed. If he did, then it wouldn't be a wager.
He is bringing up the "possibility" of eternal punishment, along with possibilities that nothing will happen. Which means he is addressing more than just the Judeo-Christian God.

^Along with the paragraph above of how the God(s) of other religions also punish bad people.



Posted 9/27/08

Intranetusa wrote:


Then the most moral person in the world would be an Atheist who does good deeds...people who have nothing to benefit from doing good deeds since they don't believe in heaven. It'd be ironic that the people who don't believe in heaven are the only ones who end up going to heaven.

No, because Atheist don't believe in God, and there are people who worship and love God for reasons besides a ticket into heaven. Seriously, go to a church sometime.



Not exactly. The Greek and Roman God(s) also punished people in Tartarus for committing evils.
Same for Hindu God(s). So the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God isn't the only one to hand out eternal punishment.
I said being eternally punished for denying there existence, God's such as the Greek and Roman Gods, "Directly interacted with society", so its impossible to deny there existence. (Of course, we know they didn't, but people thought they did.) All those Gods like Zues and Thor, were not God's who punished people for denying there existence, and hell, you could even technically kill them.




Pascal isn't saying that the eternal punishment is 100% confirmed. If he did, then it wouldn't be a wager.
He is bringing up the "possibility" of eternal punishment, along with possibilities that nothing will happen. Which means he is addressing more than just the Judeo-Christian God.
^Along with the paragraph above of how the God(s) of other religions also punish bad people.

All Pascal is saying is "Hey, what do you got to lose?" Which, is wrong, because you will still burn for that mentality.

Last time I checked, Christianity was a lot of bad things, but a capitalism wasn't one of them.

805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/27/08 , edited 9/28/08

dmitsuki wrote:
No, because Atheist don't believe in God, and there are people who worship and love God for reasons besides a ticket into heaven.

Even Christians debate faith vs works. Plenty of Christians believe that being a person who lives a good life but doesn't believe in Jesus will still go to heaven.


dmitsuki wrote:
Seriously, go to a church sometime.

And you should look into a religion other than Protestant Christianity.


dmitsuki wrote:
I said being eternally punished for denying there existence, God's such as the Greek and Roman Gods, "Directly interacted with society", so its impossible to deny there existence. (Of course, we know they didn't, but people thought they did.) All those Gods like Zues and Thor, were not God's who punished people for denying there existence, and hell, you could even technically kill them.

Only certain branches of Christianity requires faith as the sole or main method to salvation. So you can say that not even the Christian God would punish people for denying his existence. (certainly not for Judaism)

As for killing the Greek Gods, sure their mortal forms can die - but Jesus got killed too...so there's many ways you can see it.


dmitsuki wrote:
All Pascal is saying is "Hey, what do you got to lose?" Which, is wrong, because you will still burn for that mentality. Last time I checked, Christianity was a lot of bad things, but a capitalism wasn't one of them.

What does capitalism have to do with it?
One of the main reason why the common people followed Jesus was because he promised a happy afterlife. People followed him because they were poor and starving, or was unhappy with their life on earth.

If people will burn in hell for wanting to go to heaven - well, that would mean heaven is a very exclusive place...


Based on the only faith gives you salvation idea + reward/punishment leasd you to hell idea:
All the people of the non-Abrahamic religions are going to hell- the Buddhists, Daoists, Shintoist, Confucianists, Hindus, etc. Even for the Abrahamic religion, Jews and Muslims will go to hell too. For the Christian-Anrahamic religion, those who want to go to heaven and avoid hell will go to hell too. So .000000001% of the population maybe?
Posted 9/28/08

Intranetusa wrote:
Even Christians debate faith vs works. Plenty of Christians believe that being a person who lives a good life but doesn't believe in Jesus will still go to heaven.

There's nothing to "debate" It says in the bible what will happen if you don't have faith. "He who denies me in front of his friends will be denied in front of my father. "



And you should look into a religion other than Protestant Christianity.

For this particular discussion, most other religions don't matter. Why would we bring up pagan religion's when there gods never ask to be worshiped, rather they would force the people to worship or bring horrible luck and misfortune upon them. There's not many religions that go "I am God, I exist, but I won't tell you this, I'll just let you decide that for yourself, and if you don't think I'm real, then you will burn in hell." Now, if I'm wrong, I'm all for being corrected.


Intranetusa wrote:
Only certain branches of Christianity requires faith as the sole or main method to salvation. So you can say that not even the Christian God would punish people for denying his existence. (certainly not for Judaism)

As for killing the Greek Gods, sure their mortal forms can die - but Jesus got killed too...so there's many ways you can see it.
I don't remember faith ever in any branch of Christianity where faith is the sole method of salvation. But, if you want to go ahead and think that fine. I mean all you have to do is believe God is real, then go out rape women, kill people, eat babies, but as long as you believe in God you will be saved...lulz.

Jesus wasn't "God" He was a person, not immortal, just some dude. If you manifest something as mortal, of course it can die, or it wouldn't be a mortal.


Intranetusa wrote:
What does capitalism have to do with it?
One of the main reason why the common people followed Jesus was because he promised a happy afterlife. People followed him because they were poor and starving, or was unhappy with their life on earth.

If people will burn in hell for wanting to go to heaven - well, that would mean heaven is a very exclusive place...
I don't get why its a hard concept to understand that yeah you want to get into heaven but your supposed to love and worship God, and thank him. Not just get into heaven. If you JUST don't want to suffer and could give a shit about God, Jesus, and all that jazz, then you wouldn't be going there anyway.


Based on the only faith gives you salvation idea + reward/punishment leasd you to hell idea:
All the people of the non-Abrahamic religions are going to hell- the Buddhists, Daoists, Shintoist, Confucianists, Hindus, etc. Even for the Abrahamic religion, Jews and Muslims will go to hell too. For the Christian-Anrahamic religion, those who want to go to heaven and avoid hell will go to hell too. So .000000001% of the population maybe?

To get into heaven you can't have sin. Not worshiping God is a sin. Having another God before God is a sin. How the hell are people who worship other things, other Gods, money, there selves, going to get into heaven then, if they are full of sin and never repented?


The only reason I'm using this God, is because he's the only one who applies. Say there was a Buddhist, and there was a non Buddhist. If the Buddhist lives a good life, free from temptation, he will get sent to Nirvana after he dies. The non Buddhist? If he lives a good life, without temptation, he will also be sent to Nirvana, but if he lives a bad life, he will go to hell. Now, how does Pascals wager apply here? It's not safer to just believe in anything, just live a good life by morals like you would anyway.

"Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics."

He is obviously talking about a Christian God, what other gods could apply to this? He is saying, that even though there may be no God, believing in him, worshiping him, and loving him, could lead you to heaven. If he doesn't exist, you didn't lose anything.

" If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.... "

This can't apply to all gods, they were humans with to much powers basically, they were not almighty, they could kill each other, and some even had GREATER beings then them (The Titans were Mightier then the Gods, and Chronos ATE Gods, his son Zues killed him, and Zues had parts, he even had sex with little boys with them.)

Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/28/08 , edited 9/28/08

tweety_cool wrote:

Well, People define God as something completely out of logic. No wonder That Guy who's sitting in heaven is illogical.


But no one will say that God simultaneously exists and doesn't exist, or is good and evil at the same time. People will only say it when it's convenient. God cannot be partly logical and partly illogical. And if God was illogical, the human mind would be unable to comprehend His being. But we all know what He's like.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/28/08

dmitsuki wrote:
Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.


And that's the greatest fault in his entire argument. You can't reduce the entire argument to an 'either or' guess, because you can't assume the Christian God is the only god you can bet on. It is equally likely that Zeus or Thor or Susanoo exists as well, and there is no solid evidence that God exists. You just going around in circles and using semantics to avoid the point.

P.S. Anselm is a philosophical moron. And Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, or else the Jews would be worshipping him as Lord and Savior too.


Posted 9/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.


And that's the greatest fault in his entire argument. You can't reduce the entire argument to an 'either or' guess, because you can't assume the Christian God is the only god you can bet on. It is equally likely that Zeus or Thor or Susanoo exists as well, and there is no solid evidence that God exists. You just going around in circles and using semantics to avoid the point.

P.S. Anselm is a philosophical moron. And Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, or else the Jews would be worshipping him as Lord and Savior too.




Yeah, a Christian God is just as likely to exist as almost all the other Gods, but sense he was French, he probably viewed other religions as barbaric or ignorant.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 9/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

Well, People define God as something completely out of logic. No wonder That Guy who's sitting in heaven is illogical.


But no one will say that God simultaneously exists and doesn't exist, or is good and evil at the same time. People will only say it when it's convenient. God cannot be partly logical and partly illogical. And if God was illogical, the human mind would be unable to comprehend His being. But we all know what He's like.


To be honest, I don't know what God is like. Believing/not believing in God is placing a bet by itself. A bet that I don't even care if I lose.
805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / United States of...
Offline
Posted 9/28/08

dmitsuki wrote:
There's nothing to "debate" It says in the bible what will happen if you don't have faith. "He who denies me in front of his friends will be denied in front of my father. "

Nothing to debate? The bible says a lot of things - it also says the world is a flat quadrilateral, stone people who work on Sundays, and kill children who disobey their parents. And Jesus said he did not come to do away with the laws of the old.

Many branches of Christianity are open to the idea that living a good life will grant a person salvation.
It is generally the hard lined Christian denominations who literally interpret the bible, and believe that faith is the only way to salvation.


dmitsuki wrote:
For this particular discussion, most other religions don't matter. Why would we bring up pagan religion's when there gods never ask to be worshiped, rather they would force the people to worship or bring horrible luck and misfortune upon them. There's not many religions that go "I am God, I exist, but I won't tell you this, I'll just let you decide that for yourself, and if you don't think I'm real, then you will burn in hell." Now, if I'm wrong, I'm all for being corrected.

It does matter because Pascal's idea makes room for a broader range of God(s) because the wager isn't meant to be backed by religious doctrines of Christianity. The wager is an appeal to reason, not doctrine.
Pagan Gods DO ask to be worshipped. That's the main point of animal, food, etc sacrifices and money offerings. And they didn't force anyone to worship them either. It's actual similar to Judeo-Christian God - people pray to the Pagan Gods for advice, and offer sacrifices.

ie. Cain and Abel sacrificing lambs and offering produce vs Greeks sacrificing bulls and offering wine


dmitsuki wrote:
I don't remember faith ever in any branch of Christianity where faith is the sole method of salvation. But, if you want to go ahead and think that fine. I mean all you have to do is believe God is real, then go out rape women, kill people, eat babies, but as long as you believe in God you will be saved...lulz.

The point is some branches consider faith as a 'necessary' requirement to salvation, while others do not.

For the faith requirement point of view: A criminal who goes around murdering and raping, but later repents and worships Jesus goes to heaven whereas a Buddhist monk who spent his entire life helping others will still go to hell because he didn't worship Jesus. This point of view just plain sucks, IMO.


dmitsuki wrote:
Jesus wasn't "God" He was a person, not immortal, just some dude. If you manifest something as mortal, of course it can die, or it wouldn't be a mortal.

Jesus is considered a part of God in the Holy trinity. But yeh, and the Greek God(s) were immortal too - but when they often took the form of mortals - these physical forms can die, etc.


dmitsuki wrote:
I don't get why its a hard concept to understand that yeah you want to get into heaven but your supposed to love and worship God, and thank him. Not just get into heaven. If you JUST don't want to suffer and could give a shit about God, Jesus, and all that jazz, then you wouldn't be going there anyway.

It's not a hard concept. It's just a concept that is full of circular reasoning.

Yeh worship God- the point is "Which God?" Some Christian denominations that focus on faith as a necessity means that GOOD PEOPLE who don't worship Jesus, or have never heard of Jesus, will still go to hell.


dmitsuki wrote:
To get into heaven you can't have sin. Not worshiping God is a sin. Having another God before God is a sin. How the hell are people who worship other things, other Gods, money, there selves, going to get into heaven then, if they are full of sin and never repented?

Jesus said 'he who has not sinned, cast the first stone' - which pretty much means that everyone has sinned. And the original sin idea from Adam and Eve need not apply.

As for not worshiping God is a sin? That type of God must be a cruel and vain God if he demands worship and threatens punishment to non-worshipers.

Babies who die before being baptized also go to purgatory and hell...and those living on deserted islands with no concept of Jesus will still go to hell.


dmitsuki wrote:
The only reason I'm using this God, is because he's the only one who applies. Say there was a Buddhist, and there was a non Buddhist. If the Buddhist lives a good life, free from temptation, he will get sent to Nirvana after he dies. The non Buddhist? If he lives a good life, without temptation, he will also be sent to Nirvana, but if he lives a bad life, he will go to hell. Now, how does Pascals wager apply here? It's not safer to just believe in anything, just live a good life by morals like you would anyway....

Buddhism doesn't have hell - it's just a cycle of rebirth for people who live bad lives. Living a good life - true for Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and various branches of Christianity.

dmitsuki wrote:
He is obviously talking about a Christian God, what other gods could apply to this? He is saying, that even though there may be no God, believing in him, worshiping him, and loving him, could lead you to heaven. If he doesn't exist, you didn't lose anything.

The problem is that Pascal's Wager focuses on reason. It is not focusing on religious doctrine. If it was focused on religious ideology, then yes, you'd be right in that it only applies to a specific version of the Judeo-Christian God. But since Pascal's Wager is applied to reason, the horizon broadens to include other possibilities.


dmitsuki wrote:
" If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is.... "
This can't apply to all gods, they were humans with to much powers basically, they were not almighty, they could kill each other, and some even had GREATER beings then them (The Titans were Mightier then the Gods, and Chronos ATE Gods, his son Zues killed him, and Zues had parts, he even had sex with little boys with them.)

Technically, the greatest Gods in the ancient Greek religion is Gaia, mother Earth and Uranus. From them spawned the Titans and Chronus/Saturn, and the cyclops, giants, etc From Chronus spawned the Greek Gods such as Zeus, etc
In a sense, this is like the father creating the first angel (which in some
Even for the Judeo-Christian-Islam religion, you can also say they are just humans with powers. The Abrahamic God experiences human emotions such as love, jealously, wrath/anger, etc (God himself said that 'I am a jealous God...have no idols before me.." and killed humans he didn't like or disagreed with him.)


dmitsuki wrote:
Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.

This is what makes Pascal's Wager flawed. He tries to apply it to the realm of reason, but it is full of holes. The God he describes isn't particularly omnipotent or omniscient. And a God that is vain certainly doesn't fight the criteria of almighty.

In the end, Pascal's Wager is just a 'failed' attempt to promote the worship of the Abrahamic God through reason.
Posted 9/28/08

Intranetusa wrote:
This is what makes Pascal's Wager flawed. He tries to apply it to the realm of reason, but it is full of holes. The God he describes isn't particularly omnipotent or omniscient. And a God that is vain certainly doesn't fight the criteria of almighty.

In the end, Pascal's Wager is just a 'failed' attempt to promote the worship of the Abrahamic God through reason.


Because I refuse to read that much , and noticed this in particular, I'm just going to say YEAH I've been saying it was a flawed wager sense forever ago.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/28/08 , edited 9/28/08

dmitsuki wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.


And that's the greatest fault in his entire argument. You can't reduce the entire argument to an 'either or' guess, because you can't assume the Christian God is the only god you can bet on. It is equally likely that Zeus or Thor or Susanoo exists as well, and there is no solid evidence that God exists. You just going around in circles and using semantics to avoid the point.

P.S. Anselm is a philosophical moron. And Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, or else the Jews would be worshipping him as Lord and Savior too.




Yeah, a Christian God is just as likely to exist as almost all the other Gods, but sense he was French, he probably viewed other religions as barbaric or ignorant.


So the legitimacy of his argument is ruined by his social and religious upbringing. That's not an excuse. He's still absolutely wrong, and not for the reasons you have been saying.
Posted 9/28/08

leviathan343 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.


And that's the greatest fault in his entire argument. You can't reduce the entire argument to an 'either or' guess, because you can't assume the Christian God is the only god you can bet on. It is equally likely that Zeus or Thor or Susanoo exists as well, and there is no solid evidence that God exists. You just going around in circles and using semantics to avoid the point.

P.S. Anselm is a philosophical moron. And Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, or else the Jews would be worshipping him as Lord and Savior too.




Yeah, a Christian God is just as likely to exist as almost all the other Gods, but sense he was French, he probably viewed other religions as barbaric or ignorant.


So the legitimacy of his argument is ruined by his social and religious upbringing. That's not an excuse. He's still absolutely wrong, and not for the reasons you have been saying.


Excuse? I said he was wrong from the beginning lol.........................
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 9/29/08

dmitsuki wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:
Throughout the whole wager, he describes a particular, almighty, omniscient, God, in which you will be punished if you do not believe in him.


And that's the greatest fault in his entire argument. You can't reduce the entire argument to an 'either or' guess, because you can't assume the Christian God is the only god you can bet on. It is equally likely that Zeus or Thor or Susanoo exists as well, and there is no solid evidence that God exists. You just going around in circles and using semantics to avoid the point.

P.S. Anselm is a philosophical moron. And Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, or else the Jews would be worshipping him as Lord and Savior too.




Yeah, a Christian God is just as likely to exist as almost all the other Gods, but sense he was French, he probably viewed other religions as barbaric or ignorant.


So the legitimacy of his argument is ruined by his social and religious upbringing. That's not an excuse. He's still absolutely wrong, and not for the reasons you have been saying.


Excuse? I said he was wrong from the beginning lol.........................


I apologize.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.