What If You're Wrong

[Subduction Zone]

I don't deny objective. I just haven't seen compelling evidence for it.

Are you trying to deny the real world?

 

[Audie]

T

Throw all these questions away

Maybe there is no right and/or wrong at all

Throw my q away
A yay ayay yay
Throw my q away

 

[Subduction Zone]

YES!!

That was just about exactly my reaction to Pascal's Wager when I was introduced to it several centuries (oh, wait, decades) ago. Wouldn't an omniscient God know that I didn't really believe, but was faking it so as not to fall victim to Pascal's "logic?"

The God that almost all theists believe in is a human construct. I am not saying that all Gods are impossible, but the human made ones clearly are. And those Gods that they make up have the same flaws that they do. They could be fooled so their God can be fooled as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

Even if you believe that a belief in an afterlife has had a strong positive effect on your experiences during this life:
(a) you cannot know how your experiences in this life would have been different if you had not believed in an afterlife, and
(b) even if you had to sacrifice some of what you could have done in this life because you didn't believe in an afterlife, you might get a better return in the end, if there isn't an afterlife.

You are absolutely right, as it cuts both ways....
So what it really boils down to is whether there is a God and an afterlife, or not.

Then of course another factor to consider is what I would have given up by believing.
I do not know many believers who give up enjoying this life just because they believe in an afterlife, I would say most believers live this life to its fullest. Granted, serious believers might give up more of their time because they want to, not because they have to. I think those believers will be better off in the end, and many of them are very happy doing God's work; so what have they sacrificed, some transitory things that this material world has to offer?

 

[Trailblazer]

But if god IS exclusionary and you failed to believe in him you'd be screwed.

I don't care because if God is exclusionary I would rather be in hell with the atheists than in heaven with the Christians.

 

[Audie]

Dear Audie

I must confess that I did not understand much of what you said to me there (I am of simple and straight-forward wording), though I sense that if I had, it would have saddened me.

Therefore I’m concerned that I may have upset you first? If so; this was not my intention.

I laughed when I read what you wrote, not because you seem ridiculous to me (I have no idea who you are or what you stand for), but because I literary cannot imagine regretting the way I live - even if there is no God. And yes, my alternative to living as I do now would be to live as I used to: an ambitious, self-centred, “successful” but - in my view - terrible life.

Why does this upset you...? And, if it does not, why address me as you do...?

I could be wrong and your response be not an unkind one (like I said, I did not fully understand it). If so, feel free to ignore my question.

Humbly
Hermit

Concernth thyself not. No upset here. Im good if you are.
See ya nect time.

 

[Audie]

You are absolutely right, as it cuts both ways....
So what it really boils down to is whether there is a God and an afterlife, or not.

Then of course another factor to consider is what I would have given up by believing.
I do not know many believers who give up enjoying this life just because they believe in an afterlife, I would say most believers live this life to its fullest. Granted, serious believers might give up more of their time because they want to, not because they have to. I think those believers will be better off in the end, and many of them are very happy doing God's work; so what have they sacrificed, some transitory things that this material world has to offer?

True, there is, or is not.

Whether this is a trivial question is another matter.

 

[blü 2]

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

Dawkins' answer is, 'We could all be wrong' which includes 'I could be wrong', no?

He then makes the perfectly valid point that faith in the supernatural is cultural, not intellectual.

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

But were we 'invited' by some external entity?

Or were we born because humans have one goal in common with all living things, to survive long enough to breed?

 

[Bear Wild]

they try to disprove the concept of an omni-God. But God maybe is different from the one concept they just disproved.
Personally, I prefer the concept of God's great but restricted power.

So what restrictions does god have? You prefer this concept so please explain,

 

[Bear Wild]

And after i die i am dead

Interestingly this is hard for people to accept but for those that understand it is the only way for life to progress and allow others to live. It took me a long time to finally understand this but occurred when I felt an intimate connection with then natural world recognizing that life dies so that life lives.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you trying to deny the real world?

No, I do believe in it. I just haven't seen evidence for it.
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
"...
Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]

..."

I am a skeptic and I don't believe in knowledge, truth and evidence like some people do. I believe differently.

 

[thomas t]

Hypothetically, if it can ever be proven that no god exists what would your take be...

actually, I think I am now in the happy position to say that the things I'm doing also make sense from a secular point of view.

So I would keep doing these things and then die.

Thomas

 

[thomas t]

If he is afraid of his own creation, perhaps making them in his own image wasn't such a great idea.

It's just not pleasant to come to an environment in which people want to kill.

A close contact of mine once told me this story: when she went on holiday to a country in which women dress up conservatively... all men stared at her breasts. After the third day it really got on her nerves. I think God feels the same when half (or so) of mankind wants to kill him!

Man reacting like this certainly is not God's fault, I think. Even if man is in His image.

 

[thomas t]

The God that almost all theists believe in is a human construct. I am not saying that all Gods are impossible, but the human made ones clearly are. And those Gods that they make up have the same flaws that they do. They could be fooled so their God can be fooled as well.

but the Biblical one is not fooled, Subduc. I don't think that the Bible God is a construct or impossible and I don't think He has flaws.

 

[thomas t]

So what restrictions does god have? You prefer this concept so please explain,

thanks for asking.
While the Bible is clear that nothing is impossible for God (Matthew 19:26)... it might also be possible for God to restrict himself, I think.
And that's what he did for creation, I suppose. I suppose he cannot construct the square triangle, because one of the creation rules for this creation is saying that triangles have three and not four corners.

 

[thomas t]

Dawkins' answer is, 'We could all be wrong' which includes 'I could be wrong', no?

yeah and what then?

But were we 'invited' by some external entity?

Or were we born because humans have one goal in common with all living things, to survive long enough to breed?

At univerisity (I think God I had the opportunity to be there) I occasionally was invited by X to Y's party. Many other people were.
But still, if I broke a glass I would go to Y and not to X.
And if the party was great I would go to Y, too, for the sake of praising it. Not to X. Maybe I would thank both of them.

 

[ChristineM]

I do not know how you can be so certain, but I am sure you think the same about me, since I am as certain as you are of what I believe.

No point in discussing reality and falsifiable evidence again

 

[ChristineM]

Interestingly this is hard for people to accept but for those that understand it is the only way for life to progress and allow others to live. It took me a long time to finally understand this but occurred when I felt an intimate connection with then natural world recognizing that life dies so that life lives.

In this way we are all made of dead things.

 

[viole]

Here is a popular video featuring Richard Dawkins which has almost 60 000 likes:

I know, many atheists here don't agree with Richard Dawkins.

Anyway, since thousands of Youtube likes speak a clear language, I thought I could make it a thread.

Whan asked what if he is wrong with the Christian God, he replied we could all be wrong about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for instance. Or about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea.

In my opinion, that didn't answer the question.

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Please note there was a quite similar thread recently: why is it important to "Believe"..?, it was focused more on salvation, if I understood it right.

Well, his reply has the power to completely defuse the question. Which is usually a question repackaging Pascal’s wager.

for, we could ask the Christian back: what if you are wrong about Allah? Or what if God sends theists to hell, and atheists to heaven? Who can say? If I made my children in my image, I would be proud if they did not believe in things without evidence, so we could make a case that God is hiding to test exactly that.

The Christian has two possible answers:

1) then I will go to Hell
2) i am not wrong

the same possibilities that the atheist has.

so, it is an opening that offers no positional advantage, if I may use a chess analogy.

ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

Skepticism is okay, but if you dis-believe in God it's like saying you want to kill Him. Religion has an important role in nature, God is Heaven, Heaven is nature but doesnt "exclude" science, only "apprehension," the nature of temptation.