SX and Paradise Lost = Satanic ??

[Kenneth R.]

Statler Waldorf, if he had a philosophical position on religion, would likely be the coin flip scenario known as Pascal's Wager.

Edit---Just to elaborate:

Pascal (yeah, the same famous Pascal) theorized that believing in God is like flipping a coin since you can't really know if he's real. You flip a coin at the furthest reaches of the universe. (You aren't there.) This is symbolizing the notion that either God exists or God doesn't exist. Since God, according to Pascal, is an infinite being, far removed from our existence, you can't travel there to see the outcome. So you have to bet. Logic says you cannot choose. But since the bet is on your life (assuming again that IF God exists, there is either eternal punishment or eternal happiness), you HAVE to choose. There are then four possibilities.

1. God does exist, and I bet for God (believed in him.) Then you win, you get eternal salvation and happiness.
2. God does not exist, and I bet for God. You lose, but the loss is negligible since when you die, nothing happens. You lived a good life.
3. God does not exist, and I bet against God. You win, but winnings are no different than situation 2. Maybe you saved a bit more time not worshipping, but you also lived a good life.
4. God does exist, and I bet against God. You lose, and God punishes you for eternity. This is the big lose position.

Pascal then concludes that the benefits outweigh the losses for believing in God.

The issue with this argument is that it relies on assuming several things- that God rewards and punishes based on belief, that it does not really count as earnest belief, and that an Atheist could argue position 4 is just as good as position 1. Most of all though, the biggest counter argument to the Wager is that it requires you bet on the RIGHT God. By logic, you should pick the meanest, most vengeful god of all- since failing nicer ones won't matter as much since they will forgive you if you didn't believe in them. This has the effect of assuming most people fail and are in whatever damnation is real.

 

[Wander]

Statler Waldorf, if he had a philosophical position on religion, would likely be the coin flip scenario known as Pascal's Wager.

Edit---Just to elaborate:

Pascal (yeah, the same famous Pascal) theorized that believing in God is like flipping a coin since you can't really know if he's real. You flip a coin at the furthest reaches of the universe. (You aren't there.) This is symbolizing the notion that either God exists or God doesn't exist. Since God, according to Pascal, is an infinite being, far removed from our existence, you can't travel there to see the outcome. So you have to bet. Logic says you cannot choose. But since the bet is on your life (assuming again that IF God exists, there is either eternal punishment or eternal happiness), you HAVE to choose. There are then four possibilities.

1. God does exist, and I bet for God (believed in him.) Then you win, you get eternal salvation and happiness.
2. God does not exist, and I bet for God. You lose, but the loss is negligible since when you die, nothing happens. You lived a good life.
3. God does not exist, and I bet against God. You win, but winnings are no different than situation 2. Maybe you saved a bit more time not worshipping, but you also lived a good life.
4. God does exist, and I bet against God. You lose, and God punishes you for eternity. This is the big lose position.

Pascal then concludes that the benefits outweigh the losses for believing in God.

The issue with this argument is that it relies on assuming several things- that God rewards and punishes based on belief, that it does not really count as earnest belief, and that an Atheist could argue position 4 is just as good as position 1. Most of all though, the biggest counter argument to the Wager is that it requires you bet on the RIGHT God. By logic, you should pick the meanest, most vengeful god of all- since failing nicer ones won't matter as much since they will forgive you if you didn't believe in them. This has the effect of assuming most people fail and are in whatever damnation is real.

Yeah, to say the truth, I think that Pascal's gambling theory is bullshit. I have no idea why a God, if he existed, would want to punish people for not believing in him. Seems like a mean asshole to me. "HAHAH n00bs! You should have believed in my existance even when there was no proof about it! Hahahhaa!" "WTF man, that's not fair"

I think he should rather be like "Good job atheists! You didn't just believe blindly in something even though other people did. This shows that you are the best of people! I will reward you for this!" "Thanks dude, that sounds reasonable!"

 

[Kenneth R.]

Actually, your argument doesn't make sense. God would reward believers whether he was good or evil.

Benevolent god: I reward you for spreading word of me and my good deeds, and therefore giving more people a chance at salvation.
Evil god: I reward you for spreading word of me, increasing my fame and diminishing the fame of other gods. Thus, you help me become more influential.

While blind belief may be shunned, earnest belief won't be. This was already addressed in possible counter arguments above.


As some have said, albeit in different context, mankind wants to shape the nature of God to his image. We want a God that's nice and easy to please, always handing out freebies to us for no effort at all. That'd be ideal, to a lot of people. Unfortunately, philosophy doesn't simply appeal to the fantasies of the lazy.

 

[Wander]

Actually, your argument doesn't make sense. God would reward believers whether he was good or evil.

Benevolent god: I reward you for spreading word of me and my good deeds, and therefore giving more people a chance at salvation.
Evil god: I reward you for spreading word of me, increasing my fame and diminishing the fame of other gods. Thus, you help me become more influential.

While blind belief may be shunned, earnest belief won't be. This was already addressed in possible counter arguments above.


As some have said, albeit in different context, mankind wants to shape the nature of God to his image. We want a God that's nice and easy to please, always handing out freebies to us for no effort at all. That'd be ideal, to a lot of people. Unfortunately, philosophy doesn't simply appeal to the fantasies of the lazy.

Yeah... But I wasn't being very serious there.

But why would God care wether people believed in him or not anyway? That's really stupid in my opinion. He is supposed to be fucking almighty and omnious and blah blah blah. Does it give him pleasure when people worship him? Again, I say that this kind of God seems like a mean asshole anyway.

I can't really explain it the way I want, but to put things short:

The whole concept of God doesn't make sense to me and neither do I find anything supporting God's existance.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Here's another argument and some refutes:

Descartes Meditations on First Philosophy-

1. If I am dreaming/deceived, my beliefs are false.
Seems straight forward. When we dream, we have thoughts. We know upon waking that the dream thoughts are just fantasy. We know that movies, however real they appear, are fantasy. But Descartes argues that we rely too heavily on our 5 senses, all of which can be fooled. Optical illusions, auditory phenomena, etcetera. A virtual reality machine sophisticated enough could be constructed to completely fool the mind (think Truman Show or The Matrix). Descartes says then, we can't consider our senses good enough to create a foundation for what we know is true.
2. I am, I exist.
Since we can't rely on senses, the outside world is full of doubt. We can only truly know our thoughts. But our thoughts are often about external things, and these thoughts can either be true or false. So then, since I can't be certain of anything, I suppose that for now, nothing exists. Then I don't exist either, right? No, I do exist. For even if I am being completely deceived by an elaborate device or god, I am still existing to be deceived. So I must definitely exist.
3. God Exists.
I exist. (See 2). This idea must have a cause. And nothing comes from nothing. (Law of conservation, law of thermodynamics, etc). Descartes notes that in order to make a table, you must have enough wood. In order to make a glass, you must have enough sand. In order to make anything, you must necessarily have all the components that exist in the finished product, at the very least. He applied this concept with what he called the two kinds of reality, objective and physical. While I can have the idea of unicorns, a unicorn has the objective reality of a horse and a narwal or other horned animal. The idea, as we know it, has never had a physical existence, but the components of it have. It didn't come from nowhere. Then we see that no idea comes from nowhere. So the idea of God as an infinite being cannot have come from nowhere. Descartes wonders if it came from himself, but he is imperfect. What of his parents? No, that's recursive. Perhaps God is imperfect. That doesn't make sense, so he concludes the idea can only come from an infinite God. Another angle is that the universe, in order to be made, must come from something with as much or more objective reality. Descartes concludes that the only possible entity with that much reality is God, who conveniently also is said to have created the universe.
4., 5., and 6. concern mind & body, true & false.

5. has since been utterly defeated.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Yeah... But I wasn't being very serious there.

But why would God care wether people believed in him or not anyway? That's really stupid in my opinion. He is supposed to be fucking almighty and omnious and blah blah blah. Does it give him pleasure when people worship him? Again, I say that this kind of God seems like a mean asshole anyway.

I can't really explain it the way I want, but to put things short:

The whole concept of God doesn't make sense to me and neither do I find anything supporting God's existance.

You seem to think I'm defending God with these arguments. I'm not. These aren't even my arguments. I'm just showing for example some better-thought-out positions than those Statler Waldorf has presented, to show that Christians are not the blind faith bigots that they seem to be reputed to be.

Your opinion, like I said, is respected, but philosophy isn't about opinion. It's about logic and possibility. I never expressed my opinion about any of these positions. You can't really respond to a philosophical platform with "I disagree!" without saying, via logic and evidence/premise/conclusion, why. You are entitled to disagree, certainly, but simply disagreeing isn't philosophy.

So, why would God want people to worship him? Again, humans should understand this easily since we want God so badly to be like us. Wouldn't it be great if a lot of people thought you were awesome? The reasons God would want believers are because

1. He deserves it. Doesn't matter what religion you pick, the ruling God(s) did some amazing stuff.
2. He's all powerful. Power is absolute. This forks two ways: the intimidation way, and the awe way.
3. Believers please the God, his work is recognized and appreciated.
4. Believers are God's street team. They create more believers.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Gods presence is non existent in any form, we cant even find "God particles?"... so what is this suggesting ? another dimension ? a parallel plane ? an invisible looking glass ? a two way mirror? yet it is obsurd to think or question that their may be life elsewhere in this infinate universe ? ...... shameless !

1. Yes. (This cryptic yes would be a very long post.)
2. I do think there's life elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Eternal Dragon]

I'm just wondering...
1) What people define a god as?
2) If a mortal gains power, at what point does he become a god? Maybe if we discover a way to regenerate cells and live forever?
3) And if a mortal has the ability to create life, then does that add to one's godliness?

I don't care about petty religion arguments since nobody will ever prove or disprove anything. But I think my questions could uncover some interesting answers i think.

People often look above too much imo. We should just concentrate on being godlike ourselves in hope that we can achieve something in this world. Wow, what a revelation. God is..... us. That makes so much sense its ridiculous. I guess that's just like the saying "You are what you eat". Meaning that we are defined by our actions.

Anyway, back to those questions I asked.......

 

[Kenneth R.]

1. Infinite, Omnipotent, Omniscient.[In the context of our universe. This is important to one of my later arguments. So far I haven't presented any of my own positions. I'm setting the stage.] Omnibenevolent is a plus but not a requirement.
2. See 1. Not possible for a mortal. Even if you could become immortal, you couldn't know everything or be anywhere at once.
3. No. See 1. All requisites must be present.

God is us is very Satanism/Objectivism. Check out those philosophies.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Well kind of looks like I have become the easy target for everyone to bash on here, but that's ok, I am not thin skinned by any means. I would just like to sincerely apologize for hurting anyone on here or making them or their views feel inferior, that was certainly not my intention. When my friends and I debate religion and politics it is far more rough 'n tumble than this forum, so I am sorry if some of those debate tactics found their way into my posts. I don't post on here very often because this is a very high school clicky atmosphere that it's easy to get ganged up on in, but it's still fun to throw my two cents in on occasion. For the record I was not trying to ignore anyone's questions, I just have other obligations besides this website and do not have the time to spend on here to answer all the questions asked. If any of you would like you can re-ask any questions and I would try my best to answer them for you. Thanks and sorry again.


Ethan

 

[Kenneth R.]

Well yeah, definitely. No hard feelings, but they are right when they say you can't just present conclusion without the rest to back it up. That's what I've been trying to do.

 

[razoredge]

Well kind of looks like I have become the easy target for everyone to bash on here, but that's ok, I am not thin skinned by any means. I would just like to sincerely apologize for hurting anyone on here or making them or their views feel inferior, that was certainly not my intention. When my friends and I debate religion and politics it is far more rough 'n tumble than this forum, so I am sorry if some of those debate tactics found their way into my posts. I don't post on here very often because this is a very high school clicky atmosphere that it's easy to get ganged up on in, but it's still fun to throw my two cents in on occasion. For the record I was not trying to ignore anyone's questions, I just have other obligations besides this website and do not have the time to spend on here to answer all the questions asked. If any of you would like you can re-ask any questions and I would try my best to answer them for you. Thanks and sorry again.

would ya listen to this... "easy target, hurt people, thin skined, me and my friends are more ruff and tumble, ganged up on"....

is there any room left inside there ?

 

[DoomsdayZach]

Well kind of looks like I have become the easy target for everyone to bash on here, but that's ok, I am not thin skinned by any means. I would just like to sincerely apologize for hurting anyone on here or making them or their views feel inferior, that was certainly not my intention. When my friends and I debate religion and politics it is far more rough 'n tumble than this forum, so I am sorry if some of those debate tactics found their way into my posts. I don't post on here very often because this is a very high school clicky atmosphere that it's easy to get ganged up on in, but it's still fun to throw my two cents in on occasion. For the record I was not trying to ignore anyone's questions, I just have other obligations besides this website and do not have the time to spend on here to answer all the questions asked. If any of you would like you can re-ask any questions and I would try my best to answer them for you. Thanks and sorry again.


Ethan

You didn't. I still feel strongly in my beliefs. You don't understand that your arguments hold absolutely no weight because you don't back them up, and you come off as a prick because when, for example, i DID back up every single thing i posted, you blatantly ignore it and say that i have done nothing. If your tactics for debating with your friends is blatantly ignoring everything they say and elevating yourself above them, i can't see how that would even be interesting to take part in.

 

[noble savage]

Statler Waldorf, if he had a philosophical position on religion, would likely be the coin flip scenario known as Pascal's Wager.

Edit---Just to elaborate:

Pascal (yeah, the same famous Pascal) theorized that believing in God is like flipping a coin since you can't really know if he's real. You flip a coin at the furthest reaches of the universe. (You aren't there.) This is symbolizing the notion that either God exists or God doesn't exist. Since God, according to Pascal, is an infinite being, far removed from our existence, you can't travel there to see the outcome. So you have to bet. Logic says you cannot choose. But since the bet is on your life (assuming again that IF God exists, there is either eternal punishment or eternal happiness), you HAVE to choose. There are then four possibilities.

1. God does exist, and I bet for God (believed in him.) Then you win, you get eternal salvation and happiness.
2. God does not exist, and I bet for God. You lose, but the loss is negligible since when you die, nothing happens. You lived a good life.
3. God does not exist, and I bet against God. You win, but winnings are no different than situation 2. Maybe you saved a bit more time not worshipping, but you also lived a good life.
4. God does exist, and I bet against God. You lose, and God punishes you for eternity. This is the big lose position.

Pascal then concludes that the benefits outweigh the losses for believing in God.

The issue with this argument is that it relies on assuming several things- that God rewards and punishes based on belief, that it does not really count as earnest belief, and that an Atheist could argue position 4 is just as good as position 1. Most of all though, the biggest counter argument to the Wager is that it requires you bet on the RIGHT God. By logic, you should pick the meanest, most vengeful god of all- since failing nicer ones won't matter as much since they will forgive you if you didn't believe in them. This has the effect of assuming most people fail and are in whatever damnation is real.

I heard an interesting argument against Pascals wager that had to do with choosing not only the right god, but the right division within the main religion itself. Take this chart of all the major world religions:

Now, not only are there these main sects, they can be still divided more. Christianity for example (Since it's the biggest and has a lot of divisions.) can be split up into:

Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal etc. Most of these resulted from a disagreement over how scripture should be interpreted. Would it be fair to say that, because of how one sect chooses to follow scripture, another will disagree and then profess that they have the correct interpretation?

The same certainly holds true for Islam. The Sunni (Canto, please correct me if I'm wrong. I always get mixed up on the differences.) claim that the only true way to god is by being directly descended from Muhammad and the Shiite claim that the opposite is true.

 

[razoredge]

there is some interesting bits as this in the Jehova Witnesses. I dont have exact details but it amounts to: first heaven is going to be a kingdom here on earth, I believe it is a second coming of Christ or along those lines, only those of true faith will be resurected and they wait ? I'm not sure where now... spiritually. In order to be a believer of true faith you must bare witness to the Lord in life, thus the going around to peoples homes to establish more followers, they have to do this. If Im not mistaken for some reason the Jews will not be allowed into this heaven and I believe that amounts to their denial of Jesus as son of God and ignoring the new testiment. So I imagine this would apply to other beliefs that do not follow both books.

such heavy burdens we are brought to carry by these books when we really just need to get through life... and in todays world no less... in my eyes its not hard to see all the scepticism

so as Ken mentioned in his Pascals thing, when worried about after life those that choose #1 have less to loose. Myself I just hope the whole thing ends. Then I question what ending could mean, it could mean many things.... with my luck it will be that astranaut floating out into oblivion scenerio, with eyes held open by tooth picks and mind fully alert............ geeze !

 

[Statler Waldorf]

would ya listen to this... "easy target, hurt people, thin skined, me and my friends are more ruff and tumble, ganged up on"....

is there any room left inside there ?

Obviously you don't hear many apologies.....grow up this isn't high school anymore. I apologized, so I feel good, whether or not you accept it or not.

 

[Statler Waldorf]

You didn't. I still feel strongly in my beliefs. You don't understand that your arguments hold absolutely no weight because you don't back them up, and you come off as a prick because when, for example, i DID back up every single thing i posted, you blatantly ignore it and say that i have done nothing. If your tactics for debating with your friends is blatantly ignoring everything they say and elevating yourself above them, i can't see how that would even be interesting to take part in.

Actually they are far better at presenting their arguments than anything I have seen on this forum. I do not ignore their questions because I have more time and I am not on vacation when debating them like I was with you guys so I have some material to reference. Obviously you don't know how hard it is to answer questions on a fast forum like this when four different guys are all posting them becuase you were one of the group of four. So if you could cut me some slack that would be great, if not, then I don't think I am the one coming across as a prick. Enough said....

 

[Statler Waldorf]

Ok here's a quick example of the uphill battle I face on this forum. Several threads reference Richard Dawkins, a reknown mind in the scientific community no doubt but someone who has only 'earned' honorary doctorates never completed his actual doctorate from Oxford. I reference Dr. William Dembski in one of my posts, who has a Ph.D in both Mathmatics and Philosophy, and degrees in psychology, statistics, and theology. Behold, I get flamed for using a reference that cannot be valid. Ludicrous. This is the problem with debates today, sources are always considered invalid or biast if they come up with conclusions that differ from your point of view; even if they are far more educated than the sources used by your side of the argument.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I heard an interesting argument against Pascals wager that had to do with choosing not only the right god, but the right division within the main religion itself. Take this chart of all the major world religions:

Now, not only are there these main sects, they can be still divided more. Christianity for example (Since it's the biggest and has a lot of divisions.) can be split up into:

Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal etc. Most of these resulted from a disagreement over how scripture should be interpreted. Would it be fair to say that, because of how one sect chooses to follow scripture, another will disagree and then profess that they have the correct interpretation?

The same certainly holds true for Islam. The Sunni (Canto, please correct me if I'm wrong. I always get mixed up on the differences.) claim that the only true way to god is by being directly descended from Muhammad and the Shiite claim that the opposite is true.

The Sunni and Shiite mainly branch about which is the true line of successors from Muhammad. Consider it like a Christian dispute of Who's the real pope? Which also did happen, by the way.

 

[Alteredmindeath]

it would be great if SX did a satanic album, they are more than capable. The new album fucking rocks I must say, the riffs are so good for the brain, and Russels vocals are better than ever.