6footninja
Smash Ace
Some people are just headstrong. Not a bad thing, but going your whole life believing in something out of fear...I mean, then were just another Christian.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
How Can Anyone Believe in God?
- Thread starter RDK
- Start date
- Status
cF=)
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,909
No, that's called Pascal's wager and is used as a 'logical' reason to believe in God. However, why would I fear hell if you don't have any proof of its existence? My religion could assert that when you die, your body is transported to a land of candy and joy, even if you murdered, *****, or killed during your lifetime. Who's right in that case?
Thank you CF, I was having trouble believing that at the age of 15 I had thought of something no one else had, I was looking for the technical term for it.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
Pascal's wager has much credibility because Christianity actually has a long, detailed history accompanying it. I am not imply that makes it automatically true, but in accordance with this "wager", the chances of Christians being correct is far greater than your religion that features the land of candy and joy.
While Pascal's wager is a rather impure reason to live a religion, it does bring to light how Atheists won't have a leg to stand on in the afterlife. "Ho man, I was POSITIVE this place didn't exist."
To be completely honest though, I think I'm too stubborn of a person to just believe in God in the vague hope that I will actually end up going to heaven. If I don't believe in something, I'm not going to turn around and half-a$$ believe because it just might be true. That's kind of like cheating.
Again, the means defeat the purpose. Why go through all that trouble and leave a veritable plothole (for all intents and purposes) in the story of the ark if God could have just whisked Noah and the animals off the face of the Earth while the flood was happening? Or just selectively kill off all the rest of the human race?
No, and no. Pascal's Wager is not at all a valid or logical argument.
For one, it makes the mistake of assuming there is only one religion to choose from, as if somehow christianity is the only option for a theist.
Second, it makes the false assumption that you gain nothing from being atheist. This is not the case, and ignores the enormous amount of time, energy, and invariably money spent on organized religion.
Thirdly, it is scientifically backwards. We choose our beliefs not on the basis of what will potentially benefit us in the future, but what is the truth. There is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate the outrageous claims of organized religion (but more specifically christianity) and thus no reason to believe in it.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
It was presented with a Christian background, but I believe it could be applied to any number of religions.
The time, energy, and money spent on organized religion leads people to be more productive and better with their lives. That means more time, energy, and money to use on other things. I know for a fact that if I were not Christian, I would be far less than what I am today. This is not to say that Atheists cannot match Christians in lifestyle at all, but you cannot make the claim that religion is nothing more than a black hole for the aforementioned elements.
I do believe I already mentioned that. We should never believe in a religion on basis of this gamble. It is merely a proposition that Atheism is a riskier choice than having a good religion. As for having zero evidence, I suppose my life was all just imagined. Leader taught me "do A, B, and C to be happy". I did those things. Guess what? I'm happy. They are EXTREMELY good guessers.
You seem to have some basic misconception on how this whole belief matter works. There is no such thing as a belief's "likelihood" of being correct. It is either true or it is not. There are no gray areas, there are no percentage probabilities.
You seem to find christianity "likely" to be true, and other religions (presumably) unlikely. What could possibly have caused this inference in your mind? We base our decisions on what to believe in evidence. Without evidence you're just making stuff up.
And lastly, as for your insinuation that there is evidence for god on the basis that your religious leaders were correct in making you happy, you're being quite absurd. You could rent a cheap hooker and be happy, that doesn't mean everything that comes out of her mouth is the truth.
You seem to find christianity "likely" to be true, and other religions (presumably) unlikely. What could possibly have caused this inference in your mind? We base our decisions on what to believe in evidence. Without evidence you're just making stuff up.
And lastly, as for your insinuation that there is evidence for god on the basis that your religious leaders were correct in making you happy, you're being quite absurd. You could rent a cheap hooker and be happy, that doesn't mean everything that comes out of her mouth is the truth.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
You're right. I never implied otherwise. However, it takes time to understand deep concepts, especially with religion. It takes research and analysis. I am not suggesting percentage probabilities; I am suggesting degrees of comprehension.
Again, it comes with varying degrees of evidence. Someone may assume that some guy committed a crime; evidence is brought to light that further convicts him, but later, different evidence suggests it wasn't him. Either the guy is a criminal or he's not. However, everyone's understanding is still incomplete. It's not that they're guessing. It's the same for me and my religion. I'm not gambling on my religion. I am gaining further light and knowledge about it.
I didn't want to go into a detailed description here and now. I was merely making a point. First off, your counter analogy doesn't even match because I was referring to one's wisdom and trustworthiness about a given topic. You're referring to a hooker granting you moments of pleasure (quite different from happiness, I might add). She never claimed to know anything except about being a hooker.
The point is that, from the sound of it, you are not too fond of the Christian lifestyle. I am. I've lived it for 24 years. I even served as a missionary for 2 years in South Korea. For me, everything adds up. I'm not going to sit here and debate about it because it would take far too long, and you already have a predetermined answer for everything anyway, so I could never convince you. The bottom line is that just as I cannot convince you that Christianity makes sense, you cannot convince me there is "zero evidence" because I've actually lived it this whole time, and I know it's true. So, we are at an impasse.
The only problem is that what you refer to evidence may not be evidence in the eyes of someone who hasn't lived a Christian lifestyle for 24 years. Just like how a new Buddhist isn't going to understand the level of meditation that a full-fledged Buddhist monk has attained.
So saying that your prayers being answered and that you've seen the work of God in people's lives aren't solid or valid evidence toward's God's existence. They're more like faith principles applied to everyday living.
Again, you have to take most of what Christians say about this with a grain of salt. I could turn around and do the exact same thing and say "My prayers have been answered all throughout my life, so that means the Great Leprechaun in the Sky must be real."
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
This is a golden response, and you are 100% correct. This is a major reason I backed out of many of my religious debates online. A couple years ago, I was VERY adamant about defending my religion online. I felt I could reason about it with people (reference scriptures, reference science, etc.). It wasn't until later I realized that it is a fruitless battle because not everyone's logic coincides. What works for one person doesn't work for another. I mean, look at the smash casuals vs competitive debates! That debate isn't even religious, but competitives cannot convince casuals of anything despite delivering concrete real world evidence. So, if normal everyday literal stuff cannot be proven, how can religion?
So, take it how you want. I have 100% in my beliefs. No, I have no "proof" that will sweep you off your feet, but I have enough satisfactory evidence for me that prevents any of you from attempting to reason me to be wrong.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Be careful Buzz, your impressive confidence is like a steaming pile of chum in shark (troll?) infested waters.
What are the drawbacks in not taking action? What are the drawbacks in taking action? What's the best option when we are in doubt?
The logical conclusion is to simply err on the side of hope when in doubt. In religious terms, that hope is faith, however unwavering it may be. Buzz is an excellent example of this, and it's really impressive.
Sure it is. We're using the same ideas in preventing global warming.AltF4Warrior said:
What are the drawbacks in not taking action? What are the drawbacks in taking action? What's the best option when we are in doubt?
The logical conclusion is to simply err on the side of hope when in doubt. In religious terms, that hope is faith, however unwavering it may be. Buzz is an excellent example of this, and it's really impressive.
But there's no such thing as Global Warming. At least not how lunatics like Al Gore present it to be.
Do we really need to go into this discussion? The Earth's climate shifts every few hundred years. Look it up.
Not too long ago, people were scared that there was going to be another ice age, and now look at us.
RDK, don't say stuff like that, you're just going to derail this into a global warming debate.
But one last thing to Buzz:
Evidence is evidence. It is not relative. If you find something that could potentially mean different things to different people: it is not evidence toward your belief. There is no such thing as "personal evidence".
For example: Suppose we are trying to test the Heliocentric Theory. A piece of evidence in favor of this theory is apparent motion of planets in the night sky. Their odd motion is explained perfectly in a Heliocentric solar system. This of course does not prove the theory (which cannot in fact be done), but certainly disproves other rival theories. (Geocentrism for example)
However, if your evidence in favor of Geocentrism is that "you have given it a lot of thought and it just makes sense to you" or that "it makes you feel good" these do not constitute evidence at all. They in no way substantiate a theory nor do they contradict rival theories. No matter how 'convinced' you may have made yourself, it is not a valid or rational justification for believing in anything.
And going into a debate, stating your beliefs, and saying "I'm 100% sure of myself, and you cannot ever change me" does not make you anything but ignorant. No matter how well you worded it. It's just a cop-out, an easy way to get out of the fact that you're accepting that what you believe in doesn't make sense, but you choose to believe in it anyway. If your beliefs made sense, if you had any real reason for believing in it, then it would not be difficult to just tell us why and we would all understand.
But one last thing to Buzz:
Evidence is evidence. It is not relative. If you find something that could potentially mean different things to different people: it is not evidence toward your belief. There is no such thing as "personal evidence".
For example: Suppose we are trying to test the Heliocentric Theory. A piece of evidence in favor of this theory is apparent motion of planets in the night sky. Their odd motion is explained perfectly in a Heliocentric solar system. This of course does not prove the theory (which cannot in fact be done), but certainly disproves other rival theories. (Geocentrism for example)
However, if your evidence in favor of Geocentrism is that "you have given it a lot of thought and it just makes sense to you" or that "it makes you feel good" these do not constitute evidence at all. They in no way substantiate a theory nor do they contradict rival theories. No matter how 'convinced' you may have made yourself, it is not a valid or rational justification for believing in anything.
And going into a debate, stating your beliefs, and saying "I'm 100% sure of myself, and you cannot ever change me" does not make you anything but ignorant. No matter how well you worded it. It's just a cop-out, an easy way to get out of the fact that you're accepting that what you believe in doesn't make sense, but you choose to believe in it anyway. If your beliefs made sense, if you had any real reason for believing in it, then it would not be difficult to just tell us why and we would all understand.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Oooh, wrong again! Prove to me with evidence that the colour blue is the same for everyone. It's not a cop-out in metaphysical debates.AltF4Warrior said:
Honestly. There should be a rule that states the following books being banned from specific citation in religious debates:
Science textbooks
The Bible, or any other religious text
I can't believe you just came in and not only misunderstood my assertion, but brought up a pointless philosophical brain teaser like the inverted spectrum theory.
There is no such thing as relative evidence. If your 'evidence' winds up being relative to you, then it's not evidence at all!
The inverted spectrum theory is a philosophical theory because it is incapable of being refuted. this is because by its very nature, any 'evidence' pertaining to it are relative to the person doing the observation and not to anyone else. Thus this 'evidence' is not evidence in a scientific sense at all.
And what?! Science textbooks be banned from religious debates, lol? I think that's pretty telling, Del. Forget the truth, you want your truth.
I suppose I shouldn't be allowed to disprove young earth christians by mentioning radio carbon dating, or distant galaxy light delay. Because both of those are in science textbooks.
EDIT: *sigh* Caturdayz, don't go saying things like 'we can prove science'. It's not true and makes for a good strawman argument on the other side.
There is no such thing as relative evidence. If your 'evidence' winds up being relative to you, then it's not evidence at all!
The inverted spectrum theory is a philosophical theory because it is incapable of being refuted. this is because by its very nature, any 'evidence' pertaining to it are relative to the person doing the observation and not to anyone else. Thus this 'evidence' is not evidence in a scientific sense at all.
And what?! Science textbooks be banned from religious debates, lol? I think that's pretty telling, Del. Forget the truth, you want your truth.
I suppose I shouldn't be allowed to disprove young earth christians by mentioning radio carbon dating, or distant galaxy light delay. Because both of those are in science textbooks.
EDIT: *sigh* Caturdayz, don't go saying things like 'we can prove science'. It's not true and makes for a good strawman argument on the other side.
D
Deleted member
Guest
Nah, I just think this debate should be more philosophical discussion, rather than the whole "burden of proof" garbage that stalls and prevents any fruitful debating.
The thing is, science textbooks have no opinions on God. When you look through them, they will NEVER state a stance on God's existence.
Alt, it's not very telling at all, as I already said banning the Bible is just as important as a science textbook..
However, if you feel it is important to disprove some crazy young earth Christian, then by all means go ahead. Because that is decisive evidence. But as for the rest of the more sensible religions, science texts simply don't prove or disprove anything metaphysical. Neither does the Bible. So they are rendered meaningless.
I don't want truth, I'm not going to find it.
Evidence CAN be relative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
The thing is, science textbooks have no opinions on God. When you look through them, they will NEVER state a stance on God's existence.
Alt, it's not very telling at all, as I already said banning the Bible is just as important as a science textbook..
However, if you feel it is important to disprove some crazy young earth Christian, then by all means go ahead. Because that is decisive evidence. But as for the rest of the more sensible religions, science texts simply don't prove or disprove anything metaphysical. Neither does the Bible. So they are rendered meaningless.
I don't want truth, I'm not going to find it.
Evidence CAN be relative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
See? Wouldn't it just be better to ban it all together?AltF4Warrior said:
That link points to the Wikipedia article for "Empirical". I don't see how that shows anything regarding 'relative evidence'.
The concept of evidence having to be absolute is tantamount to the necessity for it to be repeatable. Evidence must be repeatable, and it is impossible for someone else to reproduce your findings if the results were dependent entirely on YOU.
The concept of evidence having to be absolute is tantamount to the necessity for it to be repeatable. Evidence must be repeatable, and it is impossible for someone else to reproduce your findings if the results were dependent entirely on YOU.
D
Deleted member
Guest
But Alt, Buzz fits your requirements for concept of evidence. He's not repeating or spreading his evidence. Now, a proselyte may be fallacious in your eyes, but all Buzz is doing is expressing that he believes undoubtedly.
He's not throwing any wild claims out there, he's not raving about, and he's certainly not presenting his evidence as decisive in the general sense, only that it is decisive to him. Saying that it is not decisive is fallacious because you have no idea of knowing it isn't. It is up to Buzz to either express his belief, or further propagate a lie that he's spreading.(The latter in the extremely rare chance that Buzz is in fact lying) If he believes, let him - just don't say he doesn't have evidence.
Decisive is the term that is relative, and that's where we are (yet again) debating semantics.
He's not throwing any wild claims out there, he's not raving about, and he's certainly not presenting his evidence as decisive in the general sense, only that it is decisive to him. Saying that it is not decisive is fallacious because you have no idea of knowing it isn't. It is up to Buzz to either express his belief, or further propagate a lie that he's spreading.(The latter in the extremely rare chance that Buzz is in fact lying) If he believes, let him - just don't say he doesn't have evidence.
Decisive is the term that is relative, and that's where we are (yet again) debating semantics.
And I need to refute your statement...why?
It's just a pet peeve of mine more than anything, Del. You see a lot of people try to pass things off as "just my opinion" or "just my belief" in place of an actual argument. Every one of my beliefs has a good reason behind it, and I can tell you exactly why I believe in it as opposed to other rival beliefs. I wouldn't believe in something without reason to.
I understand that Buzz is probably just sick of arguing if it's the case that he used to do so fervently, in which case I may have been harsh on him. But it irks me when people come to the debate hall and try to hide behind cop-outs like "it's just my belief".
I understand that Buzz is probably just sick of arguing if it's the case that he used to do so fervently, in which case I may have been harsh on him. But it irks me when people come to the debate hall and try to hide behind cop-outs like "it's just my belief".
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
But I didn't hide behind a cop-out. We are discussing "How Can Anyone Believe in God?" We are not discussing "Come Prove God Exists". I shared with everyone how when you live a certain lifestyle and really do some heavy research, the truth becomes evident on a personal level. I can throw words at you, but I cannot throw my life at you. You simply cannot know what I know because you have not had my experiences. That is why I refuse to enter the prove/disprove God debates anymore.
Have you viewed the competitive vs casual debates revolving around smash? Competitive players cannot convince casual players of anything despite presenting real world evidence. It's not even a religious/spiritual debate! It is pure science! If logic fails under such circumstances, why would it magically succeed in an area as complicated as God and religion? Sorry, I will not humor anyone anymore with public debates on my personal beliefs for everyone to rip on. We just have to agree to disagree on these things. That doesn't make me "wrong".
I do agree that this debate will truly get us nowhere, we can have argue for years and never come to a conclusion. None of us will truly know until the day we die what really happens to us. Buzz, I respect you as a person (and especially as a smasher XD), but I am just going to have to agree to disagree.
Ehh, after being away from my computer for a while I think I was definitely being too harsh. Buzz isn't trying to be very adamant about his beliefs, but rather just saying that "I believe it, and I'm not trying to push it on you. I could only show you in my shoes." Which I respect.
In the debate hall I may seem like the resident Atheist troll, but in real life I hardly talk about religion at all. It's not something I feel should be forced upon people. Nothing bugs me more than people who try to peddle their religion like people selling magazine subscriptions. (I'm looking at you, Jehovah's Witnesses)
In the debate hall I may seem like the resident Atheist troll, but in real life I hardly talk about religion at all. It's not something I feel should be forced upon people. Nothing bugs me more than people who try to peddle their religion like people selling magazine subscriptions. (I'm looking at you, Jehovah's Witnesses)
And they very well shouldn't. God's existence isn't something that can be proved or even speculated about with any accuracy, so it should be left OUT of science textbooks.
Science is making educated guesses based on tangible variables we can test and trial. God doesn't fall under that category. At least not yet.
Or those a$$holes that run around trying to tell people that existence is determined by magical dinosaurs roaming the universe enforcing gravity (I'm looking at you, Digital Watches).
snex
Smash Master
buzz, how do you reconcile the fact that people of other religions have the exact same personal convictions about them as you do about yours? how can this not cause you to pause and think that maybe "personal convictions" just arent enough to justify a conclusion?
all of your examples seem to be of the form of: "a believer told me that if i did x, y, and z, i would be happy. i did those things and im happy, therefore a, b, and c are true too." do you not see the problem here? imagine that i told you i had a magic rock that could keep tigers away, and that i would sell you the rock for $5. since $5 isnt that much, you decide to buy the rock from me. and lo and behold, no tigers ever come near you! does that mean my claims about the rock are actually true? of course not. similarly, you following (some of) the ideas of jesus and those ideas working does not imply that jesus was magic.
all of your examples seem to be of the form of: "a believer told me that if i did x, y, and z, i would be happy. i did those things and im happy, therefore a, b, and c are true too." do you not see the problem here? imagine that i told you i had a magic rock that could keep tigers away, and that i would sell you the rock for $5. since $5 isnt that much, you decide to buy the rock from me. and lo and behold, no tigers ever come near you! does that mean my claims about the rock are actually true? of course not. similarly, you following (some of) the ideas of jesus and those ideas working does not imply that jesus was magic.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
First off, I don't feel others are as secure in their religion as I am in mine. That's just my opinion, but when I have discussions with people about religion, generally, they have their doubts or do not follow it whole-heartedly, so I feel I DO have an edge in terms of "personal conviction". I see the point you are making, but there is just so much more to it than "what I believe".
Also, I'm not going to get into the discussion outlined in your second paragraph. As I mentioned already, I was throwing out one microscopic sample representing bigger things going on in my life that further enlighten me about the truth. Again, I know what point you are making, but you are nitpicking and reading too deeply into one thing I said.
snex
Smash Master
by that standard, i can just as easily say that YOU arent as secure in your theism as i am in my atheism, and therefore my personal experience trumps yours. if you arent convinced that others are just as secure or even moreso than you are about their differing faiths, all you have to do is look to the muslim world where people regularly SACRIFICE THEMSELVES (you know, just like jesus did?) to advance what they think islam is.
none of your experiences, no matter how profound they may be, could possibly inform you about the events that happened 2000 years ago on the opposite side of the world. it is a complete non-sequitur.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 10,479
IWontGetOverTheDam
Smash Lord
Does it really matter if God exists? People should treat each other with respect, whether because God says so or because it's the right thing to do.
Well... I agree but i don't know what world you live in, because it definately isn't this one.
IWontGetOverTheDam
Smash Lord
I didn't necessarily say that is how people do act, I said it's how they should act. Unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in, and some people find it necessary to spread hate because of trivial things such as different faiths.
snex
Smash Master
if faith is a valid way to form beliefs, then you have no foundation upon which to criticize faiths that require treating other people without respect for whatever reason.
you cant have your cake and eat it too.
6footninja
Smash Ace
Ok, here it comes.
- According to the bible it is human nature to sin.
The Bible also teaches that there is no sin in heaven.
But, if its human nature to sin, and theres no sin in heaven, what is it like when we go there?
Because If human nature is sin, and heaven is free of it, the only way is to be deprived of....free will.
Heaven can't have free will, for free will causes sin. If there is a heaven, (which I doubt), then we would lose free will, thus it would not be us in heaven, but somone else. Like a robot.
I know im attacking you with this out of nowhere, but this had to come up and I saw how you were taking the X factor out of the arguments, I figured id do the same with yours.
straight8
Banned via Warnings
Wow, way to complicate things..
The point of being a christian is saying no to your selfish nature and yes to God. If you read the bible and are going to use stuff about it to make your arguments, read the whole thing. The bible talks about being dead to sin and how your sinful nature dies. When you become a christian, you start the process of killing your nature as a human: namely, starving it. If you continually say yes to God and no to your nature, your nature will die, and that is how you will be in heaven: free of something in the back of your mind lusting or trying to lie for you.
When you get to heaven (if you die before you are a mature christian), God kills your nature on the spot. Your nature can't survive in the presence of God, he is too great.
And that's how you have a choice: say no to sinful nature and go to heaven, or ignore God and go to hell. Simple and painful choice.
snex
Smash Master
what a great example of why christianity is bull****. thanks straight8.
doom dragon 105
Smash Lord
If a God can be proven then it isn't a God.
is a quote that i will believe. im not the most religious person out there im Catholic and don't go to church i curse and sin like everyone else. i am a freshman in0 a public Miami high school. im a virgin and i have never EVER have taken drugs so i am pretty coherent about the corrupt world we live on. i have a world history teacher in my school ( Varela ) who has opened up my mind to many things including religion. The Romans were the first who doubted their Gods ( pegan) then they doubted their Christian gods so a writer tried to prove god my disproving it and he couldn't disprove him so he must be their.... if u belive that great but if you dont what can i tell you. i have never doubted Gods existence more than i do 2day but i have never belived he was there more.
****snake and pit are broken****
is a quote that i will believe. im not the most religious person out there im Catholic and don't go to church i curse and sin like everyone else. i am a freshman in0 a public Miami high school. im a virgin and i have never EVER have taken drugs so i am pretty coherent about the corrupt world we live on. i have a world history teacher in my school ( Varela ) who has opened up my mind to many things including religion. The Romans were the first who doubted their Gods ( pegan) then they doubted their Christian gods so a writer tried to prove god my disproving it and he couldn't disprove him so he must be their.... if u belive that great but if you dont what can i tell you. i have never doubted Gods existence more than i do 2day but i have never belived he was there more.
****snake and pit are broken****
doom dragon 105
Smash Lord
smartest thing anyone has ever said on this message board
now.....
If a God can be proven then it isn't a God.
is a quote that i will believe. im not the most religious person out there im Catholic and don't go to church i curse and sin like everyone else. i am a freshman in0 a public Miami high school. im a virgin and i have never EVER have taken drugs so i am pretty coherent about the corrupt world we live on. i have a world history teacher in my school ( Varela ) who has opened up my mind to many things including religion. The Romans were the first who doubted their Gods ( pegan) then they doubted their Christian gods so a writer tried to prove god my disproving it and he couldn't disprove him so he must be their.... if u belive that great but if you dont what can i tell you. i have never doubted Gods existence more than i do 2day but i have never belived he was there more.
****snake and pit are broken****
__________________
- Status