How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[manhunter098]

Well I have to say that in the case of god being an omniscient being that we do loose our free will. Since that means there is only going to be one path for us to follow instead of many. Basically the ability for a being to know everything past present and future doesnt cause us to loose our free will, but rather it means we never had it in the first place.

 

[AltF4]

Begging the question....

You have not proven that there's anything inherent in knowing the outcome that removes free choice.You're just acting like it's assumed.

It's really pretty simple. In order to have Free Will, there must be options.

Imagine a world where everything happens deterministically, much like a video game. Everything that happens in this world is is determined strictly according to the state of the world previously, and progresses in a well defined manner.

Certainly no creatures or objects in this world can be said to have Free Will. They have no choice about what to do, their actions are determined entirely by the laws of the world. Everything in this world have no options. Given a particular state of the world, there is only one possible way for the world to end up later. Thus there is no choice involved at all, everything just progresses in a boring deterministic fashion.

Makes sense, yes? In order to make choices, there must be options.

Well, if there exists an omniscient being, then there are no options. This being already knows the state of the universe and all of its future states. In other words: it already knows what the creatures and objects in the universe will do. There are no options. A creature in this world has no choice about what to do. Their future is already determined and they cannot change it.

Get it?

 

[RDK]

Like Alt eloquently stated, free will is virtuall impossible when talking in the restraints of a universe orchestrated by God. The free will that Peeze totes is just the ability to act within a set, if not an incredibly large one, of actions predetermined by God. You can't act outside of how God intended you to, since he was the one who mapped out what you're able to do anyway.

If you think of reality as points existing in all predetermined spaces throughout the history and future of spacetime, a thing like free will becomes ludicrously impossible.

 

[Deleted member]

Alt - what do you have to say about God's influence on free will only affecting macrocosms? Say God has fated you to die on the corner of Elm and Oak at 5 PM tomorrow as you walk out of the store with a drink in hand.

Did he fate only the macrocosm (the event of you dying) or did he also fate you choosing lemonade instead of root beer? (microcosm)?

I often wonder if the two can mix. In this style, I don't see why not.

 

[RDK]

Ok, I guess I just don't know anything. I am also wondering why you say "It's not how the bible says god judges."

Are you a christian? Have you read the bible as much as I have? Do you go through studies on it? Have you gone to college for it? I personally think my opinion about what the bible says matters a lot more since I actually read it and study it.

But that's what you're not understanding. I was just like you--I've been in your position. I've been raised in a protestant Christian home since birth. I know the ropes when it comes to what a Christian should believe. My parents made me go to church every Sunday, and I've been to countless seminaries. I've talked with pastors, and none of them were ever convincing in the slightest, especially in my later years when I began to realize that stock Christian arguments were ridiculous when stacked up against science.

Alt - what do you have to say about God's influence on free will only affecting macrocosms? Say God has fated you to die on the corner of Elm and Oak at 5 PM tomorrow as you walk out of the store with a drink in hand.

Did he fate only the macrocosm (the event of you dying) or did he also fate you choosing lemonade instead of root beer? (microcosm)?

I often wonder if the two can mix. In this style, I don't see why not.

I would assume the act of you choosing is negligible if he's able to fate macrocosms. Which would, in that case, be irrelevant anyway, because isn't the whole point of an omnipotent God to fate every and all macrocosms?

 

[MojoMan]

This is how someone can believe in god. They were raised from birth to believe in God, and they were surrounded by people that believe in god. And the people teaching you to believe in God were taught from birth to believe in God.

 

[GhostAnime]

I often wonder if the two can mix. In this style, I don't see why not.

how can they mix? god supposedly knows everything.. that means he knew where he'd die, when he'd die, and how he'd die.

 

[blazedaces]

Ok, I guess I just don't know anything. I am also wondering why you say "It's not how the bible says god judges."

Are you a christian? Have you read the bible as much as I have? Do you go through studies on it? Have you gone to college for it? I personally think my opinion about what the bible says matters a lot more since I actually read it and study it.

Anyway, i'm done debating here. It was an interesting experience, but there are way too many atheists here. This debate would be much better if there weren't 10 people ganging up on one. I clearly can't 'take the heat'.

I forgot to respond to this the other day, but I feel it needs some kind of response even if you never come to the thread and read it...

No one in here is credible. Since I don't know you personally, I'm going to say I don't believe a word coming out of your mouth. You could be lying about all you've said. I don't even have much of a reason to believe you're christian. But I don't care. Everyone in the debate hall is, as delorted said, just an avatar. The only way to convince me or anyone in the debate hall is to provide evidence that supports your statement (like a quote from the bible stating god judges in this manner).

The burden of proof is on you since, first of all, you were the first person to posit the idea that god judges in this manner, which contradicts the common belief and to be quite frank, what people have already quoted from the bible in this thread to show.

-blazed

 

[Peeze]

well, imagine a man who didnt have to do any research and hard work to cure a disease. imagine he had a magic wand that could simply poof away any disease he wanted. what would you think of this man if he refused to use the magic wand? i know what i would think... i would think he was an evil sadistic ******* who didnt care that he was personally allowing people to die. hell, im the biggest ******* i know, and *i* would use the wand without hesitation. and thats just wiping out diseases, mind you. thats not to mention floods, fires, tornadoes, and all other problems we have living on this planet. the ONLY excuse anybody who has a magic wand to remove these things has for not using that magic wand is that he does not exist.

Ooh analogies! My turn:

Imagine, if you will, walking into a forest and coming upon a house. As you inspect the house, you see that it is in disorder. The windows are broken, the roof has serious damage, the wooden porch is full of holes, the door is hanging on one hinge, and the plumbing does not work.
In the face of all these defects, would you conclude that no intelligent designer could possibly have designed that house? Would the disorder convince you that only chance could have produced the house?

 

[snex]

Ooh analogies! My turn:

Imagine, if you will, walking into a forest and coming upon a house. As you inspect the house, you see that it is in disorder. The windows are broken, the roof has serious damage, the wooden porch is full of holes, the door is hanging on one hinge, and the plumbing does not work.
In the face of all these defects, would you conclude that no intelligent designer could possibly have designed that house? Would the disorder convince you that only chance could have produced the house?

that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. false analogies are dishonest.

 

[Peeze]

Because it makes sense? You talk about a magic wand but refute my analogy?

 

[snex]

Because it makes sense? You talk about a magic wand but refute my analogy?

your analogy does not make sense, and it is just an attempt to evade dealing with mine. it is the kind of crap ignorant creationists spew, and it is not even worthy of a reply. my analogy is a perfect match to how god behaves and how you rationalize it away, when a human who behaved that way would be regarded as evil by everybody else.

 

[Peeze]

My analogy makes perfect sense i invite you to find a defect in it if you can.
Fine i'll answer your analgoy but you wont like it and say it nonsense but here goes(please read the whole thing before replying)

Adam and eve chose the course of independence from God and chose to follow satan by eating the fruit. In effect, they said: “We do not need god as our Ruler. We can decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong.” True, God could have put the first rebellious pair to death immediately after they misused their free will. But that would not have settled the question regarding God’s right to rule over humans. Since the first pair wanted independence from God, the question must be answered: Could that course result in a happy, successful life? The only way to find out was to let our first parents and their offspring go their own way, since that was their choice. Time would demonstrate whether humans were created to be successful in ruling themselves independent of their Creator.

The Bible writer Jeremiah knew what the result would be. He wrote “I well know, O God, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23,*24) He knew that humans must have the guidance of God’s heavenly wisdom. Why? Simply because God did not create humans to be successful apart from his guidance.
The results of thousands of years of human rule show beyond any doubt that it is not in humans to direct their own affairs apart from their Creator. Having tried it, they have only themselves to blame for the catastrophic results. The Bible makes this clear: “The Rock [God], perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he. They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own.”
However instead of leaving humans to fend for themselves he sent his son not just a a ransom to buy back humans from bondage to sin, but also to preach the means (magic wand) by which he will rid the earth permanantly of all wicked-gods kingdom.

But thats all based on the bible which you believe is mumbo jumbo contradictory reasoning. Since you obviously reason better with analogies i put it this way(i said this earlier in this thread):

Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claims that the teacher’s way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will they not believe that their fellow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. But suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem. The teacher in our illustration knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class.

 

[RDK]

Your analogy is ridiculous in the sense that it's not even comparable to "looking at creation and logically stating that an intelligent designer created it". For one, we already know that houses don't come out of nowhere. People build them. Your analogy assumes that we know God exists too.

 

[Peeze]

It assumes nothing, i simply ask does a disorderly house indicate the lack of a designer? Applying that to earth, human suffering does not disprove an intelligent designer.

 

[EC_Joey]

It assumes nothing, i simply ask does a disorderly house indicate the lack of a designer? Applying that to earth, human suffering does not disprove an intelligent designer.

It assumes nothing? By definition, a house with windows, a roof, a porch, a door, and plumbing is man-made, meaning it had to have someone construct it. Human beings don't follow this definition, unless you already assume God made man. This poor analogy only informs us of what you believe, it doesn't prove anything.

 

[AltF4]

It assumes nothing, i simply ask does a disorderly house indicate the lack of a designer? Applying that to earth, human suffering does not disprove an intelligent designer.

Human suffering does not disprove a designer, yes. It disproves an omnipotent and benevolent designer.

If you saw a disorderly house, it would be nonsense to suppose that it was being kept by a "master housekeeper" with infinite cleaning abilities.

And now you're telling me that our planet, filled with pain, suffering, and injustice, is being taken care of by an all-loving and omnipotent being? What nonsense. He must either:

1) Not exist at all.
2) Not be perfectly benevolent.
3) Not be omnipotent.




EDIT: Everyone loves XKCD:

 

[snex]

peeze your reply doesnt address the point of my analogy at all.

if YOU had the magic wand to get rid of disease, YOU would use it, wouldnt you? and wouldnt you also call anyone that refused to use it evil?

christians claim that morality is absolute. if it is evil for a man with a magic wand to not use it to remove disease, then it is just as evil for god to make the same decision. if you disagree, you are a moral relativist and therefore christianity is false. no matter how you answer, christianity falls.

 

[EC_Joey]

Everyone loves XKCD

This is what happens to me when people post in these threads spouting things about the Bible and how science is wrong:

 

[RDK]

That should be the new mandatory signature for all senior Debate Hallers.

 

[blazedaces]

This is what happens to me when people post in these threads spouting things about the Bible and how science is wrong:

I couldn't stop laughing! Nice one.

And RDK, I concur.

-blazed

 

[Grandeza]

Well, if there exists an omniscient being, then there are no options. This being already knows the state of the universe and all of its future states. In other words: it already knows what the creatures and objects in the universe will do. There are no options. A creature in this world has no choice about what to do. Their future is already determined and they cannot change it.

Get it?

Who says god necessarily knows the future states of the universe. Perhaps a higher deity knows everything that happens as it happens.

 

[blazedaces]

Who says god necessarily knows the future states of the universe. Perhaps a higher deity knows everything that happens as it happens.

Look up the word omniscient.
-blazed

 

[Grandeza]

Look up the word omniscient.
-blazed

Wow I feel like a dumb ***. I really gotta think these things through before i post.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Seeing that this thread is more than 100 pages, i wont bother reading any of it. Besides, I'm sure it's just filled with people saying "You're wrong, you're stupid for believing what you believe".

I can't say I want to take a side in this argument, though I am atheist. But in response to the TS, I'd have to say that you're missing the point of religion. Religion, also known as "faith" or "belief" is not based on "proof" or any sort of empirical logic, hence it is known as "believing".

But before I begin explaining things, I must ask one question. What parts of the Bible can be interpreted literally, what parts figuratively? Should we take passages such as those that make God seem like some sort of sick, sadistic tyrant figuratively or literally? People would say figuratively of course. But when it comes to passages that make God a near-perfect virtous entity, people take these passages literally. So is what distinguishes "literal" and "figurative" how it impacts your religion's reputation? Yes, this is how people usually distinguish the difference between figurative and literal. (And if you say "all of the bible is to be taken literally", you are a complete moron that doesn't even understand the workings of your own religion)

I'm not against this, so let's take "The law of the LORD is perfect" [Psalms 19:7] for it's literal meaning. Why not? It praises the LORD's word. So for now, I'll assume that this is passage is true and should be taken by its definition. (this is only so i have literal evidence that theist beliefs claim that god is omnipotent, but if you already believe god is omnipotent just disregard this part)

If anyone were to mix the two, religion and pragmatism, then pragmatism and logic would almost surely overcome religion. For example, let's look at religion as if it were a science and we could relate to it with logical steps. So we're given the quote from before, "The law of the LORD is perfect". It's widely accepted as true and besides, all theists know that their god is perfect and all, but lets take this piece of literal evidence into thought anyway.

Alright, if we were to mix the two, science and religion we can easily prove that god's omnipotence is nonexistent. Observe the following:

"The law of the LORD is perfect"

The creator of this "law" must be perfect to create something perfect.

Perfection is free from flaws

Weakness is a flaw

Perfection is free from weakness

God is perfect therefore he is free from weakness making him all powerful and omnipotent.

(that may have been unnecesary (it's also a possible verbal fallacy), but it's important to base his "omnipotence" off of someting, but if you already "know" that god is omnipotent, then disregard the previous arguments. let's continue)

If god is omnipotent, he has the power to do anything. ANYTHING.

God can create heavy stones.

God can lift heavy stones.

But can god create a stone so heavy? that he himself cannot lift?

Here is an obvious paradox that comes with omnipotence. omnipotence, following logical guidelines and limits is impossible.

Without omnipotence, what is God?

This brings us back to my main point. Religion should never be mixed with any sort of logic or scientific reasoning.

The point of faith is to give people hope and allow them to believe, no matter how dire the consequences, and im sure this is very helpful in many situations. How some people don't realize the difference still puzzles me. Religion/faith is a whole different subject itself and destroys itself when mixed with pragmatic rationality. Faith is what it is about.

I'm not saying there is no god, I'm not saying there is. Its all based on belief. If you choose to believe in God, God exists. If you choose not to, God does not. You cannot use logic to prove or disprove religion because that is contradictory itself. Belief does not have to be based on evidence or proof (which is why people say "if god were to just show himself, there would be no point to religion" because these people understand the difference) if god were to show himself or stop all the atrocities in the world, religion would cease to exist, and there would be no point in faith or hope anymore. That is why it's called faith, it requires no evidence, no proof, but you can still come to the conclusion that your life has meaning and happiness. Doesn't that seem like a much happier existence, to believe and be happy rather than sulk around and waiting for everything to be proven? That, TS, is how anyone can believe in God.

I AM SURE THERE ARE SEVERAL MISTAKES IN THIS POST, BUT IF YOU HAVE READ ANY OF WHAT I WROTE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE MAIN POINT OF BEHIND IT.

 

[Chaco]

Seeing that this thread is more than 100 pages, i wont bother reading any of it. Besides, I'm sure it's just filled with people saying "You're wrong".

I can't say I want to take a side in this argument, though I am atheist. But in response to the TS, I'd have to say that you're missing the point of religion. Religion, also known as "faith" or "belief" is not based on "proof" or any sort of empirical logic, hence it is known as "believing".

But before I begin explaining things, I must ask one question. What parts of the Bible can be interpreted literally, what parts figuratively? Should we take passages such as those that make God seem like some sort of sick, sadistic tyrant figuratively or literally? People would say figuratively of course. But when it comes to passages that make God a near-perfect virtous entity, people take these passages literally. So is what distinguishes "literal" and "figurative" how it impacts your religion's reputation? Yes, this is how people usually distinguish the difference between figurative and literal. (And if you say "all of the bible is to be taken literally", you are a complete moron that doesn't even understand the workings of your own religion)

I'm not against this, so let's take "The law of the LORD is perfect" [Psalms 19:7] for it's literal meaning. Why not? It praises the LORD's word. So for now, I'll assume that this is passage is true and should be taken by its definition. (this is only so i have literal evidence that theist beliefs claim that god is omnipotent, but if you already believe god is omnipotent just disregard this part)

If anyone were to mix the two, religion and pragmatism, then pragmatism and logic would almost surely overcome religion. For example, let's look at religion as if it were a science and we could relate to it with logical steps. So we're given the quote from before, "The law of the LORD is perfect". It's widely accepted as true and besides, all theists know that their god is perfect and all, but lets take this piece of literal evidence into thought anyway.

Alright, if we were to mix the two, science and religion we can easily prove that god's omnipotence is nonexistent. Observe the following:

"The law of the LORD is perfect"

The creator of this "law" must be perfect to create something perfect.

Perfection is free from flaws

Weakness is a flaw

Perfection is free from weakness

God is perfect therefore he is free from weakness making him all powerful and omnipotent.

(that may have been unnecesary (it's also a possible verbal fallacy), but it's important to base his "omnipotence" off of someting, but if you already "know" that god is omnipotent, then disregard the previous arguments. let's continue)

If god is omnipotent, he has the power to do anything. ANYTHING.

God can create heavy stones.

God can lift heavy stones.

But can god create a stone so heavy? that he himself cannot lift?

Here is an obvious paradox that comes with omnipotence. omnipotence, following logical guidelines and limits is impossible.

Without omnipotence, what is God?

This brings us back to my main point. Religion should never be mixed with any sort of logic or scientific reasoning.

The point of faith is to give people hope and allow them to believe, no matter how dire the consequences, and im sure this is very helpful in many situations. How some people don't realize the difference still puzzles me. Religion/faith is a whole different subject itself and destroys itself when mixed with pragmatic rationality. Faith is what it is about.

I'm not saying there is no god, I'm not saying there is. Its all based on belief. If you choose to believe in God, God exists. If you choose not to, God does not. You cannot use logic to prove or disprove religion because that is contradictory itself. Belief does not have to be based on evidence or proof (which is why people say "if god were to just show himself, there would be no point to religion" because these people understand the difference) if god were to show himself or stop all the atrocities in the world, religion would cease to exist, and there would be no point in faith or hope anymore. That is why it's called faith, it requires no evidence, no proof, but you can still come to the conclusion that your life has meaning and happiness. Doesn't that seem like a much happier existence, to believe and be happy rather than sulk around and waiting for everything to be proven? That, TS, is how anyone can believe in God.

I AM SURE THERE ARE SEVERAL MISTAKES IN THIS POST, BUT IF YOU HAVE READ ANY OF WHAT I WROTE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE MAIN POINT OF BEHIND IT.

*claps*

Thank you, one of the many points I have been trying to get across.

 

[marthanoob]

Perfection is free from flaws

Weakness is a flaw

Perfection is free from weakness

God is perfect therefore he is free from weakness making him all powerful and omnipotent.

I have a problem with this as well.

If the Christian God is so perfect, why does he have emotion? Would that not be a blatant weakness?

He is so obviously modeled after humans and to appeal to the human mind that it seems almost ridiculous for anyone to believe he exists.

 

[Chaco]

I have a problem with this as well.

If the Christian God is so perfect, why does he have emotion? Would that not be a blatant weakness?

He is so obviously modeled after humans and to appeal to the human mind that it seems almost ridiculous for anyone to believe he exists.

Could we not be modeled after his mind?

And emotion is only a weakness if you see it as one, it can also be seen as a strength.

 

[fkacyan]

Could we not be modeled after his mind?

And emotion is only a weakness if you see it as one, it can also be seen as a strength.

Thus God is murderous, merciful, kind, and sadistic all at the same time?

Yet another paradox.

You're falling into the trap of arguing religion by logic. That's not possible.

 

[riboflavinbob]

I have a problem with this as well.

If the Christian God is so perfect, why does he have emotion? Would that not be a blatant weakness?

He is so obviously modeled after humans and to appeal to the human mind that it seems almost ridiculous for anyone to believe he exists.

That wasn't the point of my post. And it seems you're not understanding that religion is free from the rules of logic because of my given points. It doesn't matter if God's perfection or imperfection is self-contradictory or whatever. People believe that he exists, so he does. No matter how illogical the existence of God exists, people can still believe.

 

[Byronman]

Seeing that this thread is more than 100 pages, i wont bother reading any of it. Besides, I'm sure it's just filled with people saying "You're wrong, you're stupid for believing what you believe".

I can't say I want to take a side in this argument, though I am atheist. But in response to the TS, I'd have to say that you're missing the point of religion. Religion, also known as "faith" or "belief" is not based on "proof" or any sort of empirical logic, hence it is known as "believing".

But before I begin explaining things, I must ask one question. What parts of the Bible can be interpreted literally, what parts figuratively? Should we take passages such as those that make God seem like some sort of sick, sadistic tyrant figuratively or literally? People would say figuratively of course. But when it comes to passages that make God a near-perfect virtous entity, people take these passages literally. So is what distinguishes "literal" and "figurative" how it impacts your religion's reputation? Yes, this is how people usually distinguish the difference between figurative and literal. (And if you say "all of the bible is to be taken literally", you are a complete moron that doesn't even understand the workings of your own religion)

I'm not against this, so let's take "The law of the LORD is perfect" [Psalms 19:7] for it's literal meaning. Why not? It praises the LORD's word. So for now, I'll assume that this is passage is true and should be taken by its definition. (this is only so i have literal evidence that theist beliefs claim that god is omnipotent, but if you already believe god is omnipotent just disregard this part)

If anyone were to mix the two, religion and pragmatism, then pragmatism and logic would almost surely overcome religion. For example, let's look at religion as if it were a science and we could relate to it with logical steps. So we're given the quote from before, "The law of the LORD is perfect". It's widely accepted as true and besides, all theists know that their god is perfect and all, but lets take this piece of literal evidence into thought anyway.

Alright, if we were to mix the two, science and religion we can easily prove that god's omnipotence is nonexistent. Observe the following:

"The law of the LORD is perfect"

The creator of this "law" must be perfect to create something perfect.

Perfection is free from flaws

Weakness is a flaw

Perfection is free from weakness

God is perfect therefore he is free from weakness making him all powerful and omnipotent.

(that may have been unnecesary (it's also a possible verbal fallacy), but it's important to base his "omnipotence" off of someting, but if you already "know" that god is omnipotent, then disregard the previous arguments. let's continue)

If god is omnipotent, he has the power to do anything. ANYTHING.

God can create heavy stones.

God can lift heavy stones.

But can god create a stone so heavy? that he himself cannot lift?

Here is an obvious paradox that comes with omnipotence. omnipotence, following logical guidelines and limits is impossible.

Without omnipotence, what is God?

This brings us back to my main point. Religion should never be mixed with any sort of logic or scientific reasoning.

The point of faith is to give people hope and allow them to believe, no matter how dire the consequences, and im sure this is very helpful in many situations. How some people don't realize the difference still puzzles me. Religion/faith is a whole different subject itself and destroys itself when mixed with pragmatic rationality. Faith is what it is about.

I'm not saying there is no god, I'm not saying there is. Its all based on belief. If you choose to believe in God, God exists. If you choose not to, God does not. You cannot use logic to prove or disprove religion because that is contradictory itself. Belief does not have to be based on evidence or proof (which is why people say "if god were to just show himself, there would be no point to religion" because these people understand the difference) if god were to show himself or stop all the atrocities in the world, religion would cease to exist, and there would be no point in faith or hope anymore. That is why it's called faith, it requires no evidence, no proof, but you can still come to the conclusion that your life has meaning and happiness. Doesn't that seem like a much happier existence, to believe and be happy rather than sulk around and waiting for everything to be proven? That, TS, is how anyone can believe in God.

I AM SURE THERE ARE SEVERAL MISTAKES IN THIS POST, BUT IF YOU HAVE READ ANY OF WHAT I WROTE, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE MAIN POINT OF BEHIND IT.

Amazing argument. This makes a lot of sense. So this is what you were trying to explain to me earlier...

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

I noticed this up there:

"If you choose to believe in God, God exists. If you choose not to, God does not. "

If you are an atheist you believe there is no afterlife. If atheists are right, then when the atheist dies and when the Christian dies, there is nothing for them anymore. They both 'win' when they die, I guess.

If the Christian (or any other group that believes in an afterlife) is right and there is an afterlife, then when the atheist dies he goes to hell (a place of eternal suffering), and when the Christian dies he goes to heaven (aka Paradise). In this case, the atheist 'loses' and the Christian 'wins' when the die.

So what's the point of not chancing your faith with anything at all? (i.e. being an atheist)

 

[Byronman]

Because if he just converted to a religion he still wouldn't believe it and would be lying to himself. Thus when he died he would then go to hell anyway for forsaking God.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

I think by 'converted' you mean 'pretend to practice'.

 

[Byronman]

Right sorry. Understand now?

 

[riboflavinbob]

I noticed this up there:

"If you choose to believe in God, God exists. If you choose not to, God does not. "

If you are an atheist you believe there is no afterlife. If atheists are right, then when the atheist dies and when the Christian dies, there is nothing for them anymore. They both 'win' when they die, I guess.

If the Christian (or any other group that believes in an afterlife) is right and there is an afterlife, then when the atheist dies he goes to hell (a place of eternal suffering), and when the Christian dies he goes to heaven (aka Paradise). In this case, the atheist 'loses' and the Christian 'wins' when the die.

So what's the point of not chancing your faith with anything at all? (i.e. being an atheist)

Some people don't care about "winning" or "losing". If one follows their own moral judgement based on logic, while thinking about the good of those around him or her, it's always a "winning" situation anyway. It's only those who lack morals, misuse logic, or are obsessed with religion to the point of violence who truly "lose". If some are happy the way they are, there's no point in converting.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

Well, not really. The only thing that's stopping the said atheist in that situation is himself.

EDIT: about the above post, you're still talking about earthly life.

People require incentive to be good people because of original sin brought in by Adam and Eve. But I'm still talking about the subject of the thread: Why should anyone believe in God? Because its a big payout if you do, frankly. And if you don't think the payout exists, then you're just gonna end up in the same place the Christian does: under the ground. And if it does exist and you still think as an atheist, then it is only the beginning of 'reaping what you sow'.

 

[Byronman]

Requiring incentive to be good is sad to the point where it cancels the deed itself. You should want to do good just to help people and for the sake of being good. If you are only in it for the payout then you shouldn't even be a Christian in the first place.

Also, the original sin was canceled with the death of Jesus on the cross so there goes that argument.

 

[JediKnightLuigi]

You may want to edit your post...

Duly noted, Byronman.

 

[riboflavinbob]

Well, not really. The only thing that's stopping the said atheist in that situation is himself.

EDIT: about the above post, you're still talking about earthly life. Albert Einstein wasn't a theologian that I know of, I think of him more as the guy who discovered the theory of relativity.

People require incentive to be good people because of original sin brought in by Adam and Eve. But I'm still talking about the subject of the thread: Why should anyone believe in God? Because its a big payout if you do, frankly. And if you don't think the payout exists, then you're just gonna end up in the same place the Christian does: under the ground. And if it does exist and you still think as an atheist, then it is only the beginning of 'reaping what you sow'

PAYOUT? So that's what religion is about... payout. Alright, I won't even consider writing anything long to respond to this post.