/atheism/ - Atheism

I think it could be an IQ test, and the sheep don't get into heaven.

>>10866

>I was thinking if there was a god he'd probably

You've lost me. If there's a god, how would anyone have any idea what he'd be like? Anybody who proceeds from "there is a god" to making statements about that god's personality is 100% bullshitting unless they back it up with something from facts of reality.

I think if there's a god of the universe, he's a boring tedious fuck, filling most of the universe with emptiness and most of the matter with no life. He's also a dick for allowing atrocities and life forms that depend on making you shit yourself to death.

Also, Pascal's Wager doesn't favor any religion in particular. If anyone ever tries it on you you should go "Shit. You make a good point" and declare yourself an adherent of whatever other religion would piss them off most.

>>10871

God is supposed to be cognizant and as a cognizant being supposedly made in his image I wouldn't like people spreading made up rumors about me. It's simple logic.

Also Pascal's Wager was specifically made for Christianity, just look at it.

>>10876

>God is supposed to be cognizant

Based on what

>and as a cognizant being

Dubious :^)

>supposedly made in his image

Again, just because you assume there is a god doesn't mean it's the one you like out of the thousands of others.

>I wouldn't like people spreading made up rumors about me.

You're assuming you know they're made up rumors. How do you know which ideas about god are right and wrong?

>It's simple

Yes.

>It's simple logic.

No.

> Pascal's Wager was specifically made for Christianity

And it applies to any claim whatsoever about there being negative consequences if you behave a certain way. "Don't eat GMO foods. You'll turn into a mutant." "That sounds pretty suspect." "But just in case it's true, you shouldn't eat GMO foods."

>>10878

>Based on what

The bible and any other bullshit text on gods, look at Thor, Zeus, Rah, etc. All are cognizant.

>Again, just because you assume there is a god doesn't mean it's the one you like out of the thousands of others.

Are you retarded? I never said there was a god. I'm an atheist, you autistic fucktard.

>You're assuming you know they're made up rumors. How do you know which ideas about god are right and wrong?

Because if they weren't made up they wouldn't contradict established facts.

>And it applies to any claim whatsoever about there being negative consequences if you behave a certain way.

Which doesn't change the fact that Pascal made this wager for Christianity, dumbass.

>>10880

>The bible and any other bullshit text on gods, look at Thor, Zeus, Rah, etc. All are cognizant.

What makes you think these descriptions are right? What makes you think universal, impersonal powers are not the real god, or some animal-like being that acts according to certain patterns but lacks self-awareness.

>Are you retarded? I never said there was a god. I'm an atheist, you autistic fucktard.

My original post you replied to began with the premise that there is a god. The point being, even if you assume a god exists, that doesn't mean you can say anything in particular about their characteristics.

>Because if they weren't made up they wouldn't contradict established facts.

What established facts are there about god? How do you know the things people say about god are made up rumors?

>Which doesn't change the fact that Pascal made this wager for Christianity, dumbass.

And that doesn't change the fact that the logic of Pascal's wager applies to any claim that involves negative consequences resulting from certain behavior. The entire point of logic is that the structure of logic is independent from the premises it works from and would always work as long as the premises given are sound. This is logic 101, first 5 minutes of lecture material.

>>10883

>What makes you think these descriptions are right?

That's what god is defined as. Look god is just personification of nature. People made up gods to try to rationalize the world around them while making fallacies in the process. They invented god so I'll base it off their description.

>What makes you think universal, impersonal powers are not the real god, or some animal-like being that acts according to certain patterns but lacks self-awareness.

Sounds liek you're trying to justify some mystical voodoo shit here.

>My original post you replied to began with the premise that there is a god.

No it doesn't, you just have autism.

>The point being, even if you assume a god exists, that doesn't mean you can say anything in particular about their characteristics.

Except the assumption that he exists depends on their description. God isn't defined as some spirit animals running around the cosmos, it's a cognizant creator or the universe.

>How do you know the things people say about god are made up rumors?

Because all creation stories don't coincide with established scientific timelines of the development of the universe.

>And that doesn't change the fact that the logic of Pascal's wager applies to any claim that involves negative consequences resulting from certain behavior.

Still doesn't change the fact that Pascal used the precautionary principle in a very specific way here.

>he entire point of logic is that the structure of logic is independent from the premises it works from and would always work as long as the premises given are sound.

Sure but that's besides the point. You're just under full autist damage control because you misinterpreted what I was saying.

>They invented god so I'll base it off their description.

>Sounds liek you're trying to justify some mystical voodoo shit here.

There are other descriptions of god. Some christians believe in less of a personality that rules the universe even. I know because I've talked to them about it.

>No it doesn't, you just have autism.

See >>10871

> If there's a god

>Except the assumption that he exists depends on their description. God isn't defined as some spirit animals running around the cosmos, it's a cognizant creator or the universe.

So then you're not just assuming that a god exists, you're assuming that a specific god exists, privileging this religion over others for some reason…?

>Because all creation stories don't coincide with established scientific timelines of the development of the universe.

I'm pretty sure we're on completely different pages here. I was under the impression the rumors you mentioned were other ideas about the hypothetical god. You know, stuff that would be called heresy. If you're assuming the God of the Bible, isn't science that contradicts the Bible heresy?

>Still doesn't change the fact that Pascal used the precautionary principle in a very specific way here.

The point is that Pascal's wager isn't a valid argument for his idea of God because it could also be applied to any other (contradicting) scenario where certain behaviors lead to punishment. For instance, believing in other gods who will punish nonbelievers. Just because Pascal came up with the idea (or realistically wrote it down and got credit for it), doesn't mean nobody else gets to use it.

>autist

>damage control

ok bud

>Sure but that's besides the point

>you misinterpreted what I was saying

Which is…? You postulated about what god's personality might be if he existed, and I said that it doesn't really make sense to attribute characteristics to a hypothetical being we don't understand. Then I threw in my interpretation based on the nature of the universe as opposed to how I personally think intelligent beings behave. And I threw in a comment about Pascal's Wager applying to more than just Christianity. You've been arguing that you can draw conclusions about God based on the Christian definition of God, while also saying you think if God exists he would be fundamentally different than the Christian God. Also, you've been arguing that somehow Christianity hold a special place in Pascal's wager just because it was formally argued for Christianity originally. (These have been two separate arguments for the whole thread btw.) Thanks for providing someone to respond to. Brains need exercise too.

>>10889

>See >>10871

>if

>if

>if

That's not the same as there is, at best it's given a universe with a a god….

>So then you're not just assuming that a god exists, you're assuming that a specific god exists, privileging this religion over others for some reason…?

>privileging

go back to fucking tumblr, this is about Pascal's wager. It's not about privilege it's about context.

>I'm pretty sure we're on completely different pages here.

Took you a while to realize.

> I was under the impression the rumors you mentioned were other ideas about the hypothetical god.

Notice how those are also contradicting established scientific timelines. Two branes colliding isn't like being sneezed out a of a celestial worm.

>The point is that Pascal's wager isn't a valid argument for his idea of God because it could also be applied to any other (contradicting) scenario where certain behaviors lead to punishment.

Such as the one I outlined. Idk why you're "privileging" this celestial moonfox over the cognizant god.

> You postulated about what god's personality might be if he existed, and I said that it doesn't really make sense to attribute characteristics to a hypothetical being we don't understand.

No, I said if god is cognizant and all knowing he'll realize he's being defamed with such bullshit.

>Then I threw in my interpretation based on the nature of the universe as opposed to how I personally think intelligent beings behave.

Logic won't vary between cognizant beings, only their emotional responses. Just as with this species we can identify when people are logical and when they are not. Logic isn't a uniquely human attribute, it follows a certain structure. Sure we're the only species we know of that can understand it but that's missing the fact that's it's not our species but certain individuals. So another species can evolve to have these individuals.

>You've been arguing that you can draw conclusions about God based on the Christian definition of God, while also saying you think if God exists he would be fundamentally different than the Christian God.

No you again misinterpret what I've been getting at. Given the definition of god a as cognizant being which isn't unique to Christianity, he wouldn't be happy with people spreading bullshit about him.

>Also, you've been arguing that somehow Christianity hold a special place in Pascal's wager just because it was formally argued for Christianity originally. (These have been two separate arguments for the whole thread btw.) Thanks for providing someone to respond to.

Pascal's wager is specifically about heaven and hell though. Not all gods punish and reward.

>>10891

btw I'm really crucnked right now so sorry if I'm a dick.

>>10891

>go back to fucking tumblr, this is about Pascal's wager. It's not about privilege it's about context.

Son of a bitch, it's like I'm on /pol/ again.

>>10866

The wager assumes that a specific god is the only possible one. This is incorrect. There are infinite possibilities.

Also religions without rewards and punishments are the best.