Magdlyn

Or, IMO, much more. The god of the Bible is small-minded and petty.

Chili

Good point and religion just a vehicle towards understanding.

Godless Wonder

What? No it won't. That's dishonest and unethical. Not mine. I will say, "I don't know."

Vivisector

Good point, but I think it will ultimately end up working against you. It goes far toward explaining why humans seem to have needed God/Gods - to explain what was otherwise inexplicable. The same compulsion to make sense of things could have also led to the notion of an afterlife with eternal reward/punishment as a response to observed injustices.

Others like to think of other belief systems as the most logical choice. Some others would say that they have concluded on the basis of rational consideration that their particular system is the most logical choice. So the proposition isn't one of Christianity vs. Nothing, it's Christianity vs. all belief systems, past and present as well as no belief system. As far as logical choice and opportunity for eternal paradise, you would need to demonstrate that there is a choice; i.e., that there is an opportunity for eternity in paradise.

True, but as another contributor has noted, science (as opposed to religion or direct revelation) is helping to narrow the gaps. And its only in these gaps that God(s) - particularly yours, but not only yours - are considered to be actively influencing events.

We are born atheist - with no belief in your God, his God, or her God. This is the default position. The burden of proof isn't on one to prove that your God, his God or her God doesn't exist (which would be difficult in any case and highly dependent on definitions). Rather, the burden of proof is on the believer to demonstrate evidence sufficient to overturn the default position. And even if one managed to do that, it wouldn't necessarily eliminate the possibility of his God or her God.

Cheers,

V.

Mathetes

Somehow "proof that the Bible is true" changed into "I don't really know, but it is possible that the Bible might not be false".

funinspace

Neorask,
Just as you suggest that there is no way to prove no god, I would say that one cannot as well "prove" that <fill in the blank> god exists or a particular canon is truth. Proof/prove is a very strong and exacting word, and people will argue accordingly towards that word. I would make sure this is the word you really intend. As another has already pointed out, you use the word "logic" in the choice of post existence options. How is this logic verses emotional appeal or desire? Anywho, Allah offers us males harems in his paradise, so wouldn't that be more "logical" (or more properly appealing) to choose vice Christianities vague afterlife offerings? Just a few thoughts as you get going...sounds like quite an effort if taken seriously and fully.

Dean Anderson

I referred to the God of Christianity (Omnimax) as opposed to the God of the Hebrew Bible (small-minded and petty, as you say).

They are two rather different concepts of God...

PoodleLovinPessimist

It is indeed. Sadly, I lose the pool. Who had Pascal's Wager?

PoodleLovinPessimist

It's never a good start to insult people whom you're attempting to persuade. Whatever happened to christian humility.

The use of the word "deceived" here is not justified.

Ipse dixit (so you say). This statement needs a hell of a lot more support.

You're begging the question. You're presuming supernaturalism.

Your use of the word "must" is an overstatement. Yes, we like to have answers, and yes, we sometimes do indeed make up answers. But we can also say, "I don't know."

As you describe it, the faculty of mind of making up an answer with no evidence whatsoever is called by only one name: "fantasy".

Science fiction and explicitly religious allegory are a poor starting point for convincing a bunch of philosophically inclined atheists of anything.

And, of course, it was absolutely impossible to even discuss the "correct" state of affairs without having taken the red pill.

Zoom... that was fast. I think you missed a couple of steps.

Pascal's Wager. There are more holes in this argument than in a prairie dog village.

I'll skip the metaphysical quibbles and agree.

God is what nobody knows about, and nobody can possible understand.

What god? I don't see any god.

There are a lot of potential converts out there. Focus on the stupid, gullible and fearful, and you'll have a lot more success.

Opens with an insult, closes with an insult.

What is it with christians and self-imposed martyrdom? One reason I'll never be an xian (even if I did become some sort of theist) is that I have absolutely no desire for suffering.

Nope. I recommend instead that you start a new thread each day.

BTW: I'm no closer to understanding your "logic" and "reasoning methods". I suggest you stick with canonical logic, the logic that everyone else uses.

lpetrich

neorask's main argument was that all-too-familiar load of merde de taureau, Pascal's Wager.

One can concoct versions of Pascal's Wager for many other creeds. An Islamic version would go:

If you accept Islam and Islam is true, you will get to live like a sultan after you die, and if you are male, you will get a harem of pretty ladies.

If you accept Islam and Islam is false, you won't lose anything.

The same if you reject Islam and Islam is false, of course.

But if you reject Islam and Islam is true, you will be tormented forever and ever and ever in Hell. You will be chained in place, burned in superhot fire, beaten with hooked metal rods, and have filthy boiling water poured down your throat. And each time your skin gets burned off, you will get new skin.

For my part, I'd prefer to go to whatever realm that my fellow Internet Infidels will go to.