Logic/Philosophy Day 3

[ANewFace]

Day 3: (this one I'm probably going to get some hate for) Is it worth being an atheist? Since no one can disprove the existence of God, and no one can prove evolution, is it worth the gamble to be an atheist, then God does exist, then you spend eternity in hell?

[Guest]

God doesn't exist, stop worrying.

 

EDIT:

 

[ObeseWalrus]

Day 3: (this one I'm probably going to get some hate for) Is it worth being an atheist? Since no one can disprove the existence of God, and no one can prove evolution, is it worth the gamble to be an atheist, then God does exist, then you spend eternity in hell?

Better to be an agnostic if that's the case, you can't prove that a god exists or not.

[ANewFace]

God doesn't exist, stop worrying.

But you can't prove that, or say that definitely.

[Guest]

But you can't prove that, or say that definitely.

 

You can't prove his existence either.

[Camul]

I'm not gambling. I don't believe in it. I cannot just start believing in something that you don't believe in without any sort of proof or reason.

[Volbet]

Maybe a bit too controversial, but hey, let's give it a shot.

 

Your first major problem, is that atheism is in no way related to biological evolution. Raelians are considered atheists, yet they don't believe in biological evolution.

And there are plenty of theist that accepts the theory of biological evolution.

Second problem, you can never disprove anything, so you are essentially reversing the burden of proof. It is the person that makes a claim that has to prove the truth of the claim.

I.E. the theist or deist (assuming they hold gnostic beliefs) has to prove that a god exists. Atheism is mearly the rejection of the god hypothesis, not a positive claim that a god doesn't exist.

 

Edit: Forgot to answer the question.

Yes, I do think it is worth the gamble. Pascal's wager is inherintly flawed, and therefor I wouldn't consider it a valid argument against non-belief. 

All religions can't be true, but they can all be false. 

 

And hey, if I find myself facing whatever deity might be the right one, I will hope s/he will award me for being sceptical, rather than just following the flock mentality.

[ANewFace]

You can't prove his existence either.

I know that's what I said in the main post. Is it worth the gamble to be an atheist, then God does exist, then spend eternity in hell?

[Guest]

I know that's what I said in the main post. Is it worth the gamble to be an atheist, then God does exist, then spend eternity in hell?

 

But there is no hell  B)

[Ciccioo]

if you don't believe in god, you're not afraid of being punished by it

so yes, it's worth it

[ANewFace]

Maybe a bit too controversial, but hey, let's give it a shot.

 

Your first major problem, is that atheism is in no way related to biological evolution. Raelians are considered atheists, yet they don't believe in biological evolution.

And there are plenty of theist that accepts the theory of biological evolution.

Second problem, you can never disprove anything, so you are essentially reversing the burden of proof. It is the person that makes a claim that has to prove the truth of the claim.

I.E. the theist or deist (assuming they hold gnostic beliefs) has to prove that a god exists. Atheism is mearly the rejection of the god hypothesis, not a positive claim that a god doesn't exist.

I know you can never disprove anything, but the outcome in not believing in God, could be eternity in hell, that's why this situation is different from saying, "You can't disprove anything, so you should believe in everything."

[ANewFace]

But there is no hell  B)

But you can't prove that either.

[Guest]

But you can't prove that either.

 

We are really shitposting right now.

[ANewFace]

I'm not gambling. I don't believe in it. I cannot just start believing in something that you don't believe in without any sort of proof or reason. It would be like trying to convince myself that Santa was real.

There is lots of proof for the existence of God, people choose not to look for it.

[ANewFace]

We are really shitposting right now.

No we are not, don't try to change the subject.

[Dezz]

"if the god exists and you don't believe in him, will you go to hell(or some hell equivalent)"?

 

Well that's like all religions these days "Our god is the right one and if you don't believe in him than you will be punished"... like wtf? It's a lottery and I have to choose the right one?

[Camul]

I know that's what I said in the main post. Is it worth the gamble to be an atheist, then God does exist, then spend eternity in hell?

 

Being a Christian doesn't get you into Heaven. Following the rules, so to speak, does. So you're limiting yourself for your entire life for something that you don't have any proof exists. Wasting the only chance you ever get to live.

[ObeseWalrus]

Maybe a bit too controversial, but hey, let's give it a SNIP.

Wow, Raëlians. Interesting

[Camul]

There is lots of proof for the existence of God, people choose not to look for it.

 

Where is the proof?

[Delusional Phil]

Day 3: (this one I'm probably going to get some hate for) Is it worth being an atheist? Since no one can disprove the existence of God, and no one can prove evolution, is it worth the gamble to be an atheist, then God does exist, then you spend eternity in hell?

@ANewFace : The whole argument between Athesist and Religion is just fucking misconmmunication ... 

 

Most of the people who argue about god exist or not are not scientist , who believed in experiments and make laws for our world , they are the explorer , they want to know how the world works .

 

I've seen Religious people working as a scientist . It's perfectly normal  most scientist are open-minded people anyways , so they will respect you if you have different beliefs ... 

 

And this is why we can't have nice things , cause there are peoplel who want to see the world burst into war ... 

[AlwaysFSX]

and no one can prove evolution

Erm, it's been proven. It doesn't take all that long to see DNA changing between generations to improve traits naturally.

 

But, you know, people like their own little worlds.

[Volbet]

I know you can never disprove anything, but the outcome in not believing in God, could be eternity in hell, that's why this situation is different from saying, "You can't disprove anything, so you should believe in everything."

I edited the post, since I forgot to actually answer the question, sorry.

I do go a bit more into depth in the edit.

 

What you are basically presenting here is Pascal's wager, which is horribly flawed, since it assumes that the person making the wager has the true religion. 

In Pascal's case that would be Roman Catholicism. 

What this fails to account for, is the truth claims made by other religions. 

If I had to follow Pascal's wager, I would have to make a bet on a given religion. Most religions, unfortunatly, make untestable claims, and therefor their truthvalues can't be measured and compared. 

[ANewFace]

Being a Christian doesn't get you into Heaven. Following the rules, so to speak, does. So you're limiting yourself for your entire life for something that you don't have any proof exists. Wasting the only chance you ever get to live.

There is prof of God, and you are correct about following the rules, but to be a Christian you have to follow the rules. And think about it this way, people are atheists, because if their is no God, then their is no one watching you or judging you, so therefore you could do whatever you wanted, but if God does exist, was 90ish years of doing whatever you wanted worth spending eternity in the worst pain and suffering beyond your comprehension? Or is it worth to live those years on earth living a life following God, then spend eternity in Heaven, in the most magnificent place that you couldn't imagine?

[ANewFace]

Erm, it's been proven. It doesn't take all that long to see DNA changing between generations to improve traits naturally.

 

But, you know, people like their own little worlds.

You sir are ignorant

[AlwaysFSX]

You sir are ignorant

Oh I'm the ignorant because I look at logic and facts.  :rolleyes: Alrighty then.