I say I am an Agnostic, but

[Ditocoaf]

not in the sense that I don't think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Not that I buy into it... but it's a thought.

Heh. I love pascal's wager, for its interesting implications... and its a good place to start a train of thought. Thanks for the opening, Ink. I've been keeping myself from getting into religious discussion for a while now, because that's one of the main things I think about, and I know I could waste hours here debating what is undebatable. But I figure I should make at least one post (and follow-up to any responses), just for fun. Here goes...

Pascal's wager...
I'd hardly get into heaven for following Christianity, if it turns out the Muslims are right. And if the Shinto is right, being Jewish isn't gonna help me one bit. There are so many varying beliefs, that in fact no matter what I believe, the odds are almost infinitely against my achieving eternal happiness. I'm going to hell no matter what--unless organized religion is a bunch of BS put on by people pretending to know what's unknowable. It's actually quite a liberating chain of thought.

But that one phrase deserves repeating-- it's UNKNOWABLE. That doesn't mean I think you're stupid if you believe in a higher power. I think there very well could be such a thing. I just think that, from a purely scientific standpoint, its impossible to prove something that claims to be unprovable. So with all these different beliefs out there, its possible that one of them is right. It's also probable that most of them are wrong, but maybe all of them have a hint of truth to them. But also, maybe, they're all completely off.

I say, let what's apparent stand out: Some things seem inherently right or wrong to all mentally healthy people. Many people feel a spiritual presence--maybe truth, may be just psychological, but it has power to change people. Things like whether Jesus was born to a virgin 2000 years ago, or whether Mohamed had a better phone connection to God than Moses did, is ridiculous to argue, because it's all infinitely less important, and just as unprovable, as the existence of some sort of god in the first place. So how about this simple proposal: in the realm of what can have no evidence or logic, we all believe what feels true to us, and nobody starts saying dumb stuff like: "agree with my gut feeling/upbringing or you'll go to hell".

I am not atheist, and I do not look down on religious people; I respect them more than most atheists, because to me atheism seems to be claiming to deny the possibility of something which inherently can't be proved wrong. You could say it's infinitely improbable, but to just say "it's all impossible and false, period" is doing the same thing as religious fanatics. I'm an agnostic, for lack of a better word. Who I do despise, however, are people who try to impose their religious beliefs on others. Anyone who tries to make it necessary to believe something that has no evidence. The thing in my signature is almost like my life motto. It's complex, but that's because I tried to make it precise.

I am now open to any counter-argument/questioning. Or you can let this thread die. It would probably be healthier for my sanity. This place certainly has enough religious topics to last a lifetime.

[Neoteny]

I have a perhaps not so simple set of questions.

"It should never be made necessary to believe something without empirical evidence or explicit logic."

Using the above statement, why lend any credence to religious perspectives when their entire system is based on the unknowable? Surely if it is unknowable, they are just as in the dark as everyone else. My perspective is this: there is no evidence or credible logic that indicates that any sort of god or other supernatural being is necessary, much less existing. Why do you allow for so much (by your level of agnosticism on the topic) based on the expressions of humans which are notoriously unreliable when there is no evidence requiring the positing of such?

[Ditocoaf]

I have a perhaps not so simple set of questions.

"It should never be made necessary to believe something without empirical evidence or explicit logic."

Using the above statement, why lend any credence to religious perspectives when their entire system is based on the unknowable? Surely if it is unknowable, they are just as in the dark as everyone else. My perspective is this: there is no evidence or credible logic that indicates that any sort of god or other supernatural being is necessary, much less existing. Why do you allow for so much (by your level of agnosticism on the topic) based on the expressions of humans which are notoriously unreliable when there is no evidence requiring the positing of such?

I simply feel that they are free to believe such if they wish, as long as they don't use it to justify harmful actions that would otherwise be unjustifiable. I really couldn't complain if someone wanted to believe that their pet dog was the source of all happiness in the world; it's their business... unless they demanded that I go to their house every day and worship the thing. Similarly, if they decided that all cats must be killed in deference to the animal's wishes, then I would also object.

Basic belief in spiritualism is acceptable to me. I could even admit that there's rough "evidence" in the form of a "feeling". It's not enough to declare scientific certainty, but as long as it's not made necessary to believe, then I say that they can feel free to believe in something spiritual.

Belief in a Creator is something I can respect, but that I'll chose to ignore because small amounts of evidence mean low probability. I'm not going to dispute people if they want to feel that way; there's obviously a strong feeling associated with the belief. On the other hand, belief that that Creator is ___, did ___, or wants ___, seems completely ridiculous to me-- especially when it's made part of mandatory ceremonies, or declared necessary for happiness.

[Neoteny]

I have a perhaps not so simple set of questions.

"It should never be made necessary to believe something without empirical evidence or explicit logic."

Using the above statement, why lend any credence to religious perspectives when their entire system is based on the unknowable? Surely if it is unknowable, they are just as in the dark as everyone else. My perspective is this: there is no evidence or credible logic that indicates that any sort of god or other supernatural being is necessary, much less existing. Why do you allow for so much (by your level of agnosticism on the topic) based on the expressions of humans which are notoriously unreliable when there is no evidence requiring the positing of such?

I simply feel that they are free to believe such if they wish, as long as they don't use it to justify harmful actions that would otherwise be unjustifiable. I really couldn't complain if someone wanted to believe that their pet dog was the source of all happiness in the world; it's their business... unless they demanded that I go to their house every day and worship the thing. Similarly, if they decided that all cats must be killed in deference to the animal's wishes, then I would also object.

Basic belief in spiritualism is acceptable to me. I could even admit that there's rough "evidence" in the form of a "feeling". It's not enough to declare scientific certainty, but as long as it's not made necessary to believe, then I say that they can feel free to believe in something spiritual.

Belief in a Creator is something I can respect, but that I'll chose to ignore because small amounts of evidence mean low probability. I'm not going to dispute people if they want to feel that way; there's obviously a strong feeling associated with the belief. On the other hand, belief that that Creator is ___, did ___, or wants ___, seems completely ridiculous to me-- especially when it's made part of mandatory ceremonies, or declared necessary for happiness.

Really? Someone worshiping their dog wouldn't worry you? How about if they started convincing (not forcing) everyone else around you to start worshiping the canine? Is that not deserving of ridicule at the very least, and I would imagine extreme alarm? I agree, these people should be allowed to worship whatever they please, but that belief is surely not deserving of any more respect than that.

[Juan_Bottom]

Damn you NEOTENY!!! Every post that I go into, I find it unneccisary to say anything, because you've already said it.

So allow me to just add this, and please no one take offence. I am an Atheist, and RESPECT the right of anyone to worship, whatever. But, seriously, I do take away 10 IQ points from someone when they argue the existence of a Spagetti Monster. Do you guys do the same to Atheists?

[MeDeFe]

I just think that, from a purely scientific standpoint, its impossible to prove something that claims to be unprovable.

I've thought about this, and I don't get it. Maybe this universe was created and maybe the creator is something that cannot be perceived in any way. But why buy into the notion without questioning it at all? Because some religious people claim that the god they worship is unprovable by scientific means does not make it true. Especially if that god supposedly interacts with this universe, in that case it's more or less a given that the god can be perceived and analysed like anything else in this universe. The usualy cop-out is that the god is outside but is acting through some sort of "channel" to influence events, I say: so what? Then we can still analyse these channels and maybe derive some knowledge about whatever's using them.

As I see it this notion of "unknowability" is just a something humans have tacked on to the idea of god to make it immune to critical questioning. Why should it be impossible to examine something that exists?

[Gregrios]

not in the sense that I don't think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Not that I buy into it... but it's a thought.

Heh. I love pascal's wager, for its interesting implications... and its a good place to start a train of thought. Thanks for the opening, Ink. I've been keeping myself from getting into religious discussion for a while now, because that's one of the main things I think about, and I know I could waste hours here debating what is undebatable. But I figure I should make at least one post (and follow-up to any responses), just for fun. Here goes...

Pascal's wager...
I'd hardly get into heaven for following Christianity, if it turns out the Muslims are right. And if the Shinto is right, being Jewish isn't gonna help me one bit. There are so many varying beliefs, that in fact no matter what I believe, the odds are almost infinitely against my achieving eternal happiness. I'm going to hell no matter what--unless organized religion is a bunch of BS put on by people pretending to know what's unknowable. It's actually quite a liberating chain of thought.

But that one phrase deserves repeating-- it's UNKNOWABLE. That doesn't mean I think you're stupid if you believe in a higher power. I think there very well could be such a thing. I just think that, from a purely scientific standpoint, its impossible to prove something that claims to be unprovable. So with all these different beliefs out there, its possible that one of them is right. It's also probable that most of them are wrong, but maybe all of them have a hint of truth to them. But also, maybe, they're all completely off.

I say, let what's apparent stand out: Some things seem inherently right or wrong to all mentally healthy people. Many people feel a spiritual presence--maybe truth, may be just psychological, but it has power to change people. Things like whether Jesus was born to a virgin 2000 years ago, or whether Mohamed had a better phone connection to God than Moses did, is ridiculous to argue, because it's all infinitely less important, and just as unprovable, as the existence of some sort of god in the first place. So how about this simple proposal: in the realm of what can have no evidence or logic, we all believe what feels true to us, and nobody starts saying dumb stuff like: "agree with my gut feeling/upbringing or you'll go to hell".

I am not atheist, and I do not look down on religious people; I respect them more than most atheists, because to me atheism seems to be claiming to deny the possibility of something which inherently can't be proved wrong. You could say it's infinitely improbable, but to just say "it's all impossible and false, period" is doing the same thing as religious fanatics. I'm an agnostic, for lack of a better word. Who I do despise, however, are people who try to impose their religious beliefs on others. Anyone who tries to make it necessary to believe something that has no evidence. The thing in my signature is almost like my life motto. It's complex, but that's because I tried to make it precise.

I am now open to any counter-argument/questioning. Or you can let this thread die. It would probably be healthier for my sanity. This place certainly has enough religious topics to last a lifetime.

I could be wrong, but doesn't a Gnostic beleive that ALL religions stem from one almighty God?

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'd hardly get into heaven for following Christianity, if it turns out the Muslims are right. And if the Shinto is right, being Jewish isn't gonna help me one bit. There are so many varying beliefs, that in fact no matter what I believe, the odds are almost infinitely against my achieving eternal happiness. I'm going to hell no matter what--unless organized religion is a bunch of BS put on by people pretending to know what's unknowable. It's actually quite a liberating chain of thought.

This relies on the basic assumption that all religions are equally reasonable and verifiable. The claims of Mormonism, for instance, have been proven more or less scientifically false through genetics and archaeology. You're not playing the lottery.

Furthermore, you're taking an overly-simplistic view on the concept of salvation. At least according to Catholics, the only way to be damned is by consciously and knowingly rejecting the truth of Christianity.

In short, this idea isn't really valid. Furthermore, it seems intellectually dishonest to deny a concept just because other schools of thought threaten you with a negative afterlife.

I just think that, from a purely scientific standpoint, its impossible to prove something that claims to be unprovable.

There is no way to empirically prove the existence of an immaterial being. That would be a ridiculous claim. But why limit yourself to science?

So with all these different beliefs out there, its possible that one of them is right. It's also probable that most of them are wrong, but maybe all of them have a hint of truth to them. But also, maybe, they're all completely off.

Well then why not do what I've done and look into a great number of them, examine their claims and witnesses, and choose the one which makes credible claims?

we all believe what feels true to us, and nobody starts saying dumb stuff like: "agree with my gut feeling/upbringing or you'll go to hell".

I'm not Catholic because my gut feeling tells me to be Catholic. I'm Catholic because, after a few months of agnosticism, I re-examined religion and reasoned out that Catholicism is the religion which is the most credible historically, philosophically, and even scientifically. My reason led the way, my gut feeling came along for the ride. Furthermore, I am certainly not sending anyone to Hell.

"It should never be made necessary to believe something without empirical evidence or explicit logic."

How do you get to that statement? Existence itself defies explicit logic. I seem to remember "The Agnostic Thread" from several months ago arriving at that conclusion.

Really? Someone worshiping their dog wouldn't worry you? How about if they started convincing (not forcing) everyone else around you to start worshiping the canine? Is that not deserving of ridicule at the very least, and I would imagine extreme alarm? I agree, these people should be allowed to worship whatever they please, but that belief is surely not deserving of any more respect than that.

As a relativist I defy you to tell me why you should "respect" anything more than anything else

[The1exile]

to me atheism seems to be claiming to deny the possibility of something which inherently can't be proved wrong.

Well, that's pretty much what I subscribe to. Like many high profile atheists have said, "I'm agnostic about the existence of <name of deity here> in the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of the elephant in the next room". If someone told you that they could fly, and they just refused to prove it, then I definitely wouldn't respect you less for just not believing on the grounds it just does not happen.

You could say it's infinitely improbable, but to just say "it's all impossible and false, period" is doing the same thing as religious fanatics.

For most people, including atheists, I think we consider "impossible" to usually mean "infinitely improbable" or at least "very very very very very very very unlikely". I don't know about false; it seems more like a misplaced synonym in this context. Again, though, you have to take the meaning of the statement in terms of people actually talking about it - it's impossible for that guy in the above paragraph to fly? No, it's just infinitely improbable - that's just semantics and they (in my opinion) are not worth basing opinions/beliefs on.

I'm an agnostic, for lack of a better word. Who I do despise, however, are people who try to impose their religious beliefs on others. Anyone who tries to make it necessary to believe something that has no evidence.

Good! That, I think, is a solidly rational view to take.

[protectedbygold]

not in the sense that I don't think about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Not that I buy into it... but it's a thought.

Heh. I love pascal's wager, for its interesting implications... and its a good place to start a train of thought. Thanks for the opening, Ink. I've been keeping myself from getting into religious discussion for a while now, because that's one of the main things I think about, and I know I could waste hours here debating what is undebatable. But I figure I should make at least one post (and follow-up to any responses), just for fun. Here goes...

Pascal's wager...
I'd hardly get into heaven for following Christianity, if it turns out the Muslims are right. And if the Shinto is right, being Jewish isn't gonna help me one bit. There are so many varying beliefs, that in fact no matter what I believe, the odds are almost infinitely against my achieving eternal happiness. I'm going to hell no matter what--unless organized religion is a bunch of BS put on by people pretending to know what's unknowable. It's actually quite a liberating chain of thought.

But that one phrase deserves repeating-- it's UNKNOWABLE. That doesn't mean I think you're stupid if you believe in a higher power. I think there very well could be such a thing. I just think that, from a purely scientific standpoint, its impossible to prove something that claims to be unprovable. So with all these different beliefs out there, its possible that one of them is right. It's also probable that most of them are wrong, but maybe all of them have a hint of truth to them. But also, maybe, they're all completely off.

I say, let what's apparent stand out: Some things seem inherently right or wrong to all mentally healthy people. Many people feel a spiritual presence--maybe truth, may be just psychological, but it has power to change people. Things like whether Jesus was born to a virgin 2000 years ago, or whether Mohamed had a better phone connection to God than Moses did, is ridiculous to argue, because it's all infinitely less important, and just as unprovable, as the existence of some sort of god in the first place. So how about this simple proposal: in the realm of what can have no evidence or logic, we all believe what feels true to us, and nobody starts saying dumb stuff like: "agree with my gut feeling/upbringing or you'll go to hell".

I am not atheist, and I do not look down on religious people; I respect them more than most atheists, because to me atheism seems to be claiming to deny the possibility of something which inherently can't be proved wrong. You could say it's infinitely improbable, but to just say "it's all impossible and false, period" is doing the same thing as religious fanatics. I'm an agnostic, for lack of a better word. Who I do despise, however, are people who try to impose their religious beliefs on others. Anyone who tries to make it necessary to believe something that has no evidence. The thing in my signature is almost like my life motto. It's complex, but that's because I tried to make it precise.

I am now open to any counter-argument/questioning. Or you can let this thread die. It would probably be healthier for my sanity. This place certainly has enough religious topics to last a lifetime.

You said it better than I did. I have many of these same thoughts rolling around in my head. Religious people are not to be feared or mocked. It does no damage to consider things from their perspective even if we don't necessarily agree with them. A very good post, Ditocoaf

[The1exile]

Furthermore, you're taking an overly-simplistic view on the concept of salvation. At least according to Catholics, the only way to be damned is by consciously and knowingly rejecting the truth of Christianity.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Eccl ... ulla_salus

[OnlyAmbrose]

Furthermore, you're taking an overly-simplistic view on the concept of salvation. At least according to Catholics, the only way to be damned is by consciously and knowingly rejecting the truth of Christianity.

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_Eccl ... ulla_salus

Certainly. Salvation only happens through Jesus Christ, and the Church is His body. That doesn't mean that Jesus Christ won't save you just because you've never heard the Gospel.

[The1exile]

Maybe we have different definitions of "salvation", but I understand it to mean being saved (latin "salve"). if the only way to be saved is through the Church, then how is Jesus going to save you if you don't follow the church?

(FWIW, I consider myself a christian atheist)

[OnlyAmbrose]

Maybe we have different definitions of "salvation", but I understand it to mean being saved (latin "salve"). if the only way to be saved is through the Church, then how is Jesus going to save you if you don't follow the church?

(FWIW, I consider myself a christian atheist)

I'll summarize quickly so as not to derail the thread...

Basically, scripture says that Christ and his laws are in the hearts of all men. If someone is never sufficiently exposed to the Gospel, God, being just, will not hold them responsible for not being Christian. He will, however, hold them responsible for the degree to which they follow Christ (and by extension Christ's church) in their hearts.

If you have any more questions to this end, feel free to PM me, but it's kinda off from the original topic, and we don't want this thread getting totally derailed just one page into it!

[Snorri1234]

This relies on the basic assumption that all religions are equally reasonable and verifiable.

And with the major ones that's true. There is nothing more unreasonable with the Islam than with christianity for example.

Furthermore, you're taking an overly-simplistic view on the concept of salvation. At least according to Catholics, the only way to be damned is by consciously and knowingly rejecting the truth of Christianity.

I never get this. Does that mean you are only damned if you know that Christianity is the truth but reject it?

In short, this idea isn't really valid. Furthermore, it seems intellectually dishonest to deny a concept just because other schools of thought threaten you with a negative afterlife.

Except that the very issue is about the threat of a negative afterlife, so it's perfectly reasonable to dissmiss the issue on this.

So with all these different beliefs out there, its possible that one of them is right. It's also probable that most of them are wrong, but maybe all of them have a hint of truth to them. But also, maybe, they're all completely off.

Well then why not do what I've done and look into a great number of them, examine their claims and witnesses, and choose the one which makes credible claims?

I like to know why you have choosen catholicism as opposed to Islam for example. What were your reasons?
Because to me it seems rather silly to take one over the other (not counting a few silly exceptions).

Furthermore, I am certainly not sending anyone to Hell.

Nope, your everloving and perfect God is doing that.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I never get this. Does that mean you are only damned if you know that Christianity is the truth but reject it?

Only God knows your heart, so only God will know what causes you not to be Christian.

I like to know why you have choosen catholicism as opposed to Islam for example. What were your reasons?
Because to me it seems rather silly to take one over the other (not counting a few silly exceptions).

School starts soon, so I'll have to summarize and elaborate when I get back.

In summary, it's not so much negative evidence about other religions (though there is plenty) so much as the positive evidence for Christianity. There is compelling historical evidence for the Gospels, and I judge the eyewitnesses as reliable sources. 11 of the 12 disciples were brutally martyred (we have secular evidence to that effect), but none of them renounced or denied what they had seen (the Resurrection, etc). As an interesting side note, the one apostle who WASN'T killed, John, was the only one who stayed with Jesus as he died on the cross.

More later.

[Snorri1234]

I never get this. Does that mean you are only damned if you know that Christianity is the truth but reject it?

Only God knows your heart, so only God will know what causes you not to be Christian.

Neither do I understand this. What are you saying by this? Shit, I know God is allknowing and stuff, but is there any other meaning to it?

I like to know why you have choosen catholicism as opposed to Islam for example. What were your reasons?
Because to me it seems rather silly to take one over the other (not counting a few silly exceptions).

School starts soon, so I'll have to summarize and elaborate when I get back.

In summary, it's not so much negative evidence about other religions (though there is plenty) so much as the positive evidence for Christianity. There is compelling historical evidence for the Gospels, and I judge the eyewitnesses as reliable sources. 11 of the 12 disciples were brutally martyred (we have secular evidence to that effect), but none of them renounced or denied what they had seen (the Resurrection, etc). As an interesting side note, the one apostle who WASN'T killed, John, was the only one who stayed with Jesus as he died on the cross.

More later.

So when people die for their beliefs that lends automatic credibility to that belief?

[suggs]

I wrote a long thread about Pascals wager some time ago.
It was pretty dull then, and I doubt its improved with age.
The main problem with the wager is: its a false dichotomy.
In other words, it gives you 2 outcomes. But in fact there are more than 2 outcomes when it comes to religious belief. And this changes the whole probability calculus (which is what Pascals Wager is).

Pascal says you can believe in God. Or you can not believe in God. If you believe n God, and he exists, then YAY! Heaven awaits. If you believe and he doesn't exist, who cares - you've lost nothing, you'll never know anyway.
BUT: If you don't believe, and he DOES exist, then THE SHIT HAS REALLY HIT THE FAN. You're going to hell.
So you may as well believe, its safer.

Where it goes wrong is in the first line. What if you believe in the Christian God, but Allah exists? Or you are a Muslim, and the Hindu Gods in fact rule the Heavens.
A common factor of all religions seems to be the God of each hates believers of other faiths more than just non believers, so you are really in the shit now!

Don't get bogged down in the specifics of the faiths here, btw. Pascals Wager is a LOGICAL/PROBABILITY calculus, not a theological or empirical study.
You ca use the Olympus Gods if you find that more Politically Correct.

The point of it all is that it shows that it is, in fact, much MORE RISKY to believe in God. You're better off not believing.

If I was any good at maths, I would draw up the calculus - but I'm sure you guys understand.

Cool idea from Pascal - but its conjuring trick, whereby he forces 2 cards on you, when in fact, there is the whole pack to choose from.

[tzor]

I've thought about this, and I don't get it. Maybe this universe was created and maybe the creator is something that cannot be perceived in any way. But why buy into the notion without questioning it at all? Because some religious people claim that the god they worship is unprovable by scientific means does not make it true. Especially if that god supposedly interacts with this universe, in that case it's more or less a given that the god can be perceived and analysed like anything else in this universe. The usualy cop-out is that the god is outside but is acting through some sort of "channel" to influence events, I say: so what? Then we can still analyse these channels and maybe derive some knowledge about whatever's using them.

There are two things to consider here. Saying that "unprovable by scientific means" is sort of like saying that the existance of life on Aphpa Centuri is "unprovable by scientific means" because we simply cannot observe or perform any reliable experments on Alpha Centuri. It's almost like the current idea in astronomy about multiple intersecting universes ipacting the acceleration rate of the universe. It's difficult to scientifically prove anything you can't observe. If God is beyong space and time how are you going to measure or even observe him?

Now if God interacts in the universe you might be able to observe Him or perhaps not. We are still yelling at each other about whether we can observe ourselves in the global temperatures of our own planet and we know what we are doing!

From a religious perspective there are a lot of people who assign attributes to God. For those who follow the Bible, especially the New Testament there are a number of attributes that should have a higher priority. God is love, and God cannot decieve or be deceived. The latter is important. If God cannot deceive it means that he can't cheat either. Therefore everything he does has to be within the laws of the universe that exist all around us.

[MeDeFe]

You forgot the word "yet" at the end of the second sentence.

[heavycola]

I am not theist, and I do not look down on atheists; I respect them more than most theists, because to me theism seems to be a belief in the existence of something which inherently can't be proved. You could say it's infinitely improbable, but to just say "it's all possible and true, period" is doing the same thing as atheists.

[Haggis_McMutton]

I think that we, as humans, make all decisions based on probability (mostly unconscious).
A meteor might hit my car while I`m driving it tomorrow, but i consider this unlikely, so I`ll drive it anyway.
I`m not saying it`s impossible for me to suffer major injury in the process of driving, but hiding in my basement because i can`t be sure doesn't seem very reasonable.

I view the whole god issue similarly. I`m not saying he doesn't exist, just that in my opinion it is extremely unlikely that he does. Therefore until i see some compelling evidence i will believe he is imaginary and act accordingly.


About Pascal`s Wager, i find it almost funny. I mean to me it seems wrong on almost every level(maybe except grammar )
The multiple gods have already been mentioned.

Also, it seems to assume that one can simply choose to believe something or another based on reward. I mean sure, give me 100 grand and i`ll write poems about my unwavering belief in Hank/FSM/Invisible Unicorn, but i won't really believe it.

Also, what kind of god encourages this kind of "bet hedging" and dishonesty over actual truth seeking, no matter what conclusion that process might lead you to.

Furthermore it states that there is no cost associated with believing, no negative side-effects....

[Snorri1234]

Also, it seems to assume that one can simply choose to believe something or another based on reward. I mean sure, give me 100 grand and i`ll write poems about my unwavering belief in Hank/FSM/Invisible Unicorn, but i won't really believe it.

Word. According to most beliefs you can't get into heaven/walhalla/paradise without really believing.

[tzor]

You forgot the word "yet" at the end of the second sentence.

There is a good reason why there is no "yet" there. When we start to speculate on what we may be able to observe measure and prove in the future we enter the realm of pure fiction. The idea of going to another star is within the realm of plausable fiction, but what about going to parallel universes? What about leaving the universe all together? Again this is pure speculation. Science deals with the here and now. What we can currently observe and predict. The rest is fiction.

[Neoteny]

Damn you NEOTENY!!! Every post that I go into, I find it unneccisary to say anything, because you've already said it.

So allow me to just add this, and please no one take offence. I am an Atheist, and RESPECT the right of anyone to worship, whatever. But, seriously, I do take away 10 IQ points from someone when they argue the existence of a Spagetti Monster. Do you guys do the same to Atheists?

I can't help that I'm fucking awesome. It's just what I do.