If I am wrong (verse, creation, Creator, atheists)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will take pascals wager and makes posts on forums like this pretending it is their own idea/question.
Pascals wagers fails on many many levels, and therefore so does your loose plagiarism of it.
Firstly, you can be wrong about many things. For all you know you could be wrong about absolutely everything. The question you should be asking is therefore is there any REASON to think you might be wrong... and on the subject of god I see no reason to think I am wrong that there is no evidence, argument data or reasons to support believing it.
Second, pascals wager assumes that there is only two choices. There is not. There are all the gods thought of so far, and all the ones not yet thought of, that could be the wrong ones.
Third, the question actually misses out the fact that it is safer to believe in no gods than get the wrong one. check it out in the different religious for example. Gods tend to be more jealous of you believing in a false god than they are angry at you believing in none. Look at Christianity for example. The bible says non belief is bad. But FALSE believe is one of the 10 commandments.
Fourth the question assumes god is an idiot. If you only believe in that god as a "safe bet just in case" do you not think said god will know that and treat you accordingly? Which is worse, not believing in god for very good intellectual reasons like the complete lack of evidence.... or faking it in the hope of lying to and tricking that god?
So no. I will stick to the facts, not debating odds and paybacks. Right now I know of no facts, no evidence, no arguments, no data, no reasons to lend ANY credence to the idea there is such an entity, so I am not going to pretend there is "just in case". I may as well be leaving food at the end of my garden "just in case" there are fairys and they spoil my crops/plants for me not feeding them. I also may as well put tin foil on my head "just in case" there are UFOs scanning my brain, as Ive nothing to lose if they aren't, but a lot to lose if they are.
In fact if you were to act like this "just in case" in all areas of your life, you'd end up a blithering committed patient.
Ilene probably has a very good idea of others hearts. Everyday I see those who want to instill fear in the hearts of others. Fear of death because of a hell they need to be afraid of. Fear of getting it wrong. Even I had that fear as a child and I was not brought up in a religious home but I got that message loud and clear. Fear of hell, fear of getting it wrong and I imagine an awful lot of children grow up with that message.
Christianity thrives because of fear, and fear mongering.
Imagine a love that says that G-d will reconcile all people in the end. That we are all G-d children and we have a place with him.
That is how it ought to be.
You are absolutely right, Jazzymom about children being raised with the threat of God's eternal anger looming over them. In the real world, we call that child abuse. But in religion - they say who are we to question God. How convenient for religion to forbid people from "questioning God" by asking legitimate questions. What a sham! Does the word EXTORTION ring any bells? Sheesh! Thank God for his Spirit - without which we would be at the mercy of religious terrorists.
Let me tell you a secret: every time you see someone lump everyone in one basket, like Ilene did, you can pretty much guarantee the claim is inaccurate. There is practically no way it could apply to everyone. You THINK she is correct, but I KNOW she is not. I happen to be one of those people she targeted by her comment, so I KNOW whether or not it is correct. You can only guess, and you guessed wrong.
Somewhere in the Bible it says that we will be held accountable if we teach that which is not true. But what of those who believe the false teaching and apply it to their lives?
Personally, I try to be careful about what I tell others about God, Christ and the consequences of not choosing Christ in this life. But what if I am wrong about my view that to say no to God and Christ in this lifeModerator cut: edit
What if the UR folk are right?
If my teaching has caused some to turn away from God out of rejecting Him. Rejecting a God who would cast those who say no thanks into a very bad place. What will be their (those who said no to God) fate? Well UR theology says they will be fine in the end-being reconcilled to God and all.
So I was wrong. Hey, no harm no fowl.
**********
Now let's say that one teaches that UR is true and if one says no thanks to Christ in this life, Moderator cut: Per Sticky, "hell" has been suspended temporarily All will be fine in time, regardless.
So due to UR teaching some will say: I can put off saying yes to Christ in this life (or at this time), because in the end I will be fine. No pressing need to become "saved" before I die. So the person dies before saying yes to Jesus.
Now what if UR theology is wrong. What will be the fate of those who failed to say yes to Christ in this life, because of what a UR person told them was the truth of the matter?
Makes me shudder to think.
***************
Now the questions to consider:
What do you think God will say to the ET guy for being wrong and teaching other so?
What do you think God will say to the UR guy for being wrong and teaching others so?
Food for thought.
Quote:
But to tell the truth, not many, if any UR types here are addressing the point of the OP. Why is that?
Hi Mr5150,
Actually you have been given very many good answers already. Dewdrop in post #2 really summed it up well - you are not going to convince an unbeliever either way until something changes their viewpoint. But here is the full answer to your question. I hope you will think about this. What you have presented is really just a variant of Pascal's wager (Nozzferrahhtoo above pointed this out too) - you have just modified it to suit ET vs UR.
Pascal's wager rests on a logical fallacy. Let me explain why. On the surface your argument sounds logical. Essentially you are saying:
"If I'm wrong, hey no big deal, but if I'm right, there is a huge negative outcome you will suffer"
This is essentially a "wager" - hedging your bets - and choosing your "belief" based on the worst possible outcome. However the logical fallacy is that there are only two outcomes and that there is not some other negative aspect that results because of your belief. You have given these 2 outcomes as the only possibility:
1. ET is true, therefore you better believe in ET
2. UR is true, therefore no big deal, no harm in preaching ET
First of all "no harm in preaching ET" is a bit of an understatement. Certainly there is harm in preaching ET if ET is not true. Secondly we should not be trying to understand what is true and factual based on some sort of "hedging of bets" to "play it safe". Thirdly, there are worse outcomes that could reverse your "wager". You have given two outcomes, but here are some other possibilities:
3. Maybe there is no God at all. In this case the spread of the doctrine of ET has caused much needless harm, fear, and torment in the world.
4. But it could be worse than that: Perhaps Allah is the real God and both ETers and URers are going to hell because they "hedged the wrong bet". In that case we should all become Muslim "just in case".
5. But it could be even worse than that: Perhaps God will treat people in the afterlife based on how they think God treats others in this life. So in that case ETers would go to the eternal hell they thought everyone else would be going to; Judged according to how you judged others. In that case we should all believe God is kind and torments no one "just in case".
6. But it could be even worse than that. Perhaps God is exactly like how the Westboro Baptist Church describes Him, and so anyone who was not part of the WBC is going to hell. So instead of fighting about ET vs UR, we all should have joined the WBC "just in case".
etc. etc. etc.
So you can see there are many more possible outcomes than the 2 you originally gave, so your hedging of bets does not cover all the cases. In fact it is impossible to "cover all your bases". And it would be silly to assume God wants us to "cover all our bases" - it would be very insincere on our part to try to "get to heaven" by "covering our bases".
Instead perhaps we should concern ourself with trying to determine the truth and loving our neigbour.
So no. I will stick to the facts, not debating odds and paybacks. Right now I know of no facts, no evidence, no arguments, no data, no reasons to lend ANY credence to the idea there is such an entity, so I am not going to pretend there is "just in case". I may as well be leaving food at the end of my garden "just in case" there are fairys and they spoil my crops/plants for me not feeding them. I also may as well put tin foil on my head "just in case" there are UFOs scanning my brain, as Ive nothing to lose if they aren't, but a lot to lose if they are.
In fact if you were to act like this "just in case" in all areas of your life, you'd end up a blithering committed patient.
I think what you said is very interesting. I didn't realize until I started participating in this forum how impossible it is to just CHOOSE to believe something that you simply don't. It makes me see atheists in a new light. I guess I used to think they were just being stubborn or thinking they could outsmart others, or something like that. But now I can see that for some, trying to believe in God would be like me trying to believe in that fairy or that UFO. I just DON'T and I have no motivation to start believing it. If someone continually threatened me with spoiled crops and brain scans, I'm sure I would laugh. That's why the threat of burning forever doesn't motivate people to believe in God, and even if it did, the belief would most likely be based on fear and the "just in case" mentality, not on a change of heart based on love and faith in the person of God.
So, I don't think the doctrine of ET has ever changed a single heart for the better, but maybe it's changed some people's behavior for the better. I think UR changes hearts for the better when they see that the true character of God is 100% love, 100% holy, 100% just.
I think what you said is very interesting. I didn't realize until I started participating in this forum how impossible it is to just CHOOSE to believe something that you simply don't. It makes me see atheists in a new light. I guess I used to think they were just being stubborn or thinking they could outsmart others, or something like that. But now I can see that for some, trying to believe in God would be like me trying to believe in that fairy or that UFO.
I am glad we were able to place ourselves in a clearer light on here for you, though I do not actually call myself „atheist“ ever, I certainly relate to what you are saying and speak as one of them for this reply. I guess everyone else would call me atheist anyway, but it just is not a term I myself identify with for many reasons.
It is actually worse than us simply “trying to believe in that UFO”. The problem for us is not just that, but that the people who believe in things like gods actually disbelieve in UFOs and Fairies for the same reasons we disbelieve in their gods.
In other words there simply is no reason known to them to lend any credence to the notion that UFOs and fairies really are out there. So they simply dismiss the idea as unsubstantiated and preposterous.
Yet when we apply the exact same reasoning to their claims, many of them get angry… and when we suggest that they apply the reasoning they are using about everything else to this claim too they get even angrier.... which essentially is them saying that they deserve some kind of special treatment, when in fact all atheists want is equality… and that their ideas be treated equally to any other.
And if I say the same things to them that they say to me they get even angrier. They say "Well can you prove there is NO god?" and I say "Well can you prove there is NO fairies?" but somehow asking such a question is ONLY legitimate and not insulting when they do it, not me.
And I think that is an important thing everyone should learn about atheism in general... it really is equality they are asking for, nothing else. They want the ideas of theists to be treated like any other idea that anyone else comes up with... the problem is that if we do that then we realise there is no reason to treat the ideas of theists with any more credence than UFOs, Fairies, or the guy sitting in the asylum who thinks he is Napoleon reincarnated.... and they do not like that.
I think what you said is very interesting. I didn't realize until I started participating in this forum how impossible it is to just CHOOSE to believe something that you simply don't. It makes me see atheists in a new light. I guess I used to think they were just being stubborn or thinking they could outsmart others, or something like that. But now I can see that for some, trying to believe in God would be like me trying to believe in that fairy or that UFO. I just DON'T and I have no motivation to start believing it. If someone continually threatened me with spoiled crops and brain scans, I'm sure I would laugh. That's why the threat of burning forever doesn't motivate people to believe in God, and even if it did, the belief would most likely be based on fear and the "just in case" mentality, not on a change of heart based on love and faith in the person of God.
So, I don't think the doctrine of ET has ever changed a single heart for the better, but maybe it's changed some people's behavior for the better. I think UR changes hearts for the better when they see that the true character of God is 100% love, 100% holy, 100% just.
(and to you too Nozzferrahhtoo)
It is another logical fallacy to think that we can simply "choose" to "believe" in something and actually sincerely mean it.
If you disagree with me then please "choose" to "believe" in the flying spaghetti monster and sincerely mean it.
Or "choose" to "believe" the sky is really green and sincerely mean it.
When it comes to God I simply believe He exists because that is what I see - everywhere. I see evidence throughout creation - everywhere. Others will say and explain that the evidence I see is not really proving there is a creator God - that is fine, they see it differently, I can not convince them otherwise.
This is somewhat analogous to belief in UR or eternal torment. People believe in UR because they have studied the evidence and realize that eternal torment cannot be true. Others will say eternal torment has to be true. It is difficult to convince anyone otherwise until they can see things differently.
Regardless, we should not be "wagering" ie. weighing the odds/probabilities/outcomes to determine the truth.
If you disagree with me then please "choose" to "believe" in the flying spaghetti monster and sincerely mean it.
Or "choose" to "believe" the sky is really green and sincerely mean it.
I agree with you and BHFT about 98% but there is something else that is important to understand about faith… in some ways it actually is “choosing” to believe, but maybe not as a choice, but something that happens.
I see faith as a kind of confirmation bias. I even define faith different to the dictionary in that I define it as “the willingness to assume to be true, that which you want to show is true”. The bible even agrees with me in a sense when it tells the reader to “Seek and you shall find”. Of course you will.
What I mean by this is that if you start, just as a project, viewing the world on the assumption that there is a god… almost everything that you see will become evidence for god. This is what happens when you assume your conclusion before fitting the evidence to it. Suddenly even the smallest coincidences are evidence for god, every piece of beauty or love you witness is evidence for god, any “good” you see performed is god working through the perpetrator of the “good” action.
It is massively dangerous to accept evidence that is only evidence if you first take the conclusion for granted. Yet read the next post above mine that you wrote right now and tell me this is not exactly what I just described???
A group of people who do this all the time are the 23ists, the people who think the number 23 controls everything. So many of them are there, there is even a Jim Carey film on them. Quite a poor one, I do not recommend renting it.
However try it sometime, you will find it appears true. You will find the number 23 everywhere, or 32 which is 23 backwards, or some multiple of 23 or 32, or some number like 15683 that if you add the digits 1+5+6+8+3 you will get 23.
You will find 23 EVERYWHERE and since you have assumed 23 controls everything, you have “proven” in by first assuming your conclusion then seeking the evidence. The 23ist will tell you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 23ist-legoman
When it comes to 23 I simply believe it because that is what I see - everywhere. I see evidence throughout creation - everywhere. Others will say and explain that the evidence I see is not really proving there is a 23 controler - that is fine, they see it differently, I can not convince them otherwise.
What the 23ists don’t realise is it works for every other number too, especially prime numbers. They have proven nothing, they simply assumed their conclusion first and fit the evidence to it.
So in a sense you can choose to believe something, because you can very easily, without even realise it, select the evidence that supports your conclusions.
The question any theists, non theist or anyone else should ask themselves… on the subject of god and every other subject in life…. Is whether anything they believe is only supported if you first assume what you believe before fitting the evidence.
If I could disseminate that one small thing to the minds of all the humans on the planet, the planet would be a very different place in the morning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman
If you disagree with me then please "choose" to "believe" in the flying spaghetti monster and sincerely mean it.
Or "choose" to "believe" the sky is really green and sincerely mean it.
So no you can not choose to believe something and mean it, you are correct. But you can choose to believe it and then very easily end up becoming convinced of it. "Seek and you will find". Quite. It would be a true miracle if you didnt.
It is massively dangerous to accept evidence that is only evidence if you first take the conclusion for granted. Yet read the next post above mine that you wrote right now and tell me this is not exactly what I just described???
But to be fair atheists do the same thing, only the conclusion they have taken for granted is that there is no God. Therefore they see the world around us is not evidence of anything. (The world just popped into existence, or it just always existed, etc. etc. etc. I don't want to turn this into a debate about God's existence - every thread in the R&P forum is already about that! LOL)
Anyway you are right in that people will simply see what they want to see. Just like the number 23 people. Or the 1111 crowd. Or the UFO believers. Everyone will always try to confirm what they think is right. Sometimes it is dangerous in that it leads to dangerous or harmful behavior. We see examples of this from all facets and beliefs.
Cheers...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(and 
