A defence of my atheistic certainty...

Originally posted by Agerg
...that [b]YOUR god does not exist.

Consider the following thought experiment:

Suppose you're making your way home with a friend, he[hidden]or she if you like[/hidden]has the last £20 between you both (half of which is yours)[hidden]or the equivalent in another currency[/hidden]and it will cost you this for a cab ride home (otherwise it's a 10 mi his is evidence only for some sort of god (not necessarily yours)[/b]

You really had me going there: I figured with all of the probabilities piling up on one another, making the outcome less and less likely, you were talking about the sheer impossibility of life forming on the planet via accidental means.

My bad.

Originally posted by Agerg
...that [b]YOUR god does not exist.

Consider the following thought experiment:

[i]Suppose you're making your way home with a friend, he[hidden]or she if you like[/hidden]has the last £20 between you both (half of which is yours)[hidden]or the equivalent in another currency[/hidden]and it will cost you this for a cab ride home (otherwise it's a 10 mi ...[text shortened]... his is evidence only for some sort of god (not necessarily yours)[/b]

from a cynical point of view:

the thing is that you don't lose when you gamble on god. at most you don't win, but since you are non-existent, you won't notice that.

religion requires you first to believe in a higher power. yes some people find that hard, but in this thread we aren't discussing how from a scientific point of view, believing in something unproven is not allowed. we are talking your claim that believing in something might make you lose.

lose what? you are required to adhere to a moral set of standards, standards that you were required to adhere to anyway by the society you live in. you are required to hope that there is something out there waiting after death. what is the harm in that?
you already pay the "20 pounds" (i am assuming that is a metaphor for the "extra" a religious person has to pay), you just don't attach one extra meaning. you are just doing it for society while we believe that in addition, god gets happy if we are good.


"you chose correctly one god out of potentially infinitely many different gods that could be formulated"
if there is to be god, there is only one god. i am certain of that. i am also certain that if that supreme being is benevolent, he wouldn't care if you chose to name him allah or brahma or jesus. i am also certain that a supreme being wouldn't care if you eat pork or not.
as such, there is no "correct" religion. some religions are stupid ofc (god is laughing his godly posterior at scientology), however if one lives his life in according to doing "good" (with all that implies : good to society, good to you, good to others, good to nature) the manner by which he lives a full life is not that important (be it christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, hindu, etc).

Originally posted by Rajk999
Im sure there is intelligent life out there in some remote galaxy quite likely more advanced than us. But I cannot prove that. Neither do I know for sure why I say that or what are the variables involved in proving that Im right.

There are people who would say thats impossible. But they dont have proof either.

Can I use your logic to prove that they are wrong?

I don't see where my response should have prompted this one, again I don't claim certainty that some sort of god or gods doesn't exist, I claim certainty that your god doesn't exist. What this means is that instead of saying (with X denoting the set of all potential gods):

I'm certain that for all x in X, x does not exist
I'm instead saying
I'm certain that for x_{Rajk999} in X, x_{Rajk999} doesn't exist.

As googlefudge suggests, if you claimed the existence of a race of 1ft tall green coloured creatures that walk on 7 legs, have 3 ears, and have invented the microwave exists then I can justifiably be certain you're wrong about this, on the other hand if you say there exists life elsewhere (whatever it may be), then I cannot be certain you are wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You really had me going there: I figured with all of the probabilities piling up on one another, making the outcome less and less likely, you were talking about the sheer impossibility of life forming on the planet via accidental means.

My bad.

Suppose you throw a cup of coffee to the floor and it makes a splatter. What is the probability its configuration (down to each and every molecule) would take the form it does after it settles? Or to put it another way how many different coffee splatters does your floor permit? (hint: lots of them!)

Do we then conclude "God" plays a part in directing the flow of coffee when people have an accident? or is it instead the case that in spite of its improbability, the fact it took some particular form isn't interesting to us? (since we know it would come to rest making *some sort* of splatter) We know it would have been different had you thrown it in a different way and leave it at that

The same is true of our universe, i.e. the probability argument here doesn't apply since no one, before the universe existed, specified to us in detail what the universe would be like now - which is what would have to have happened for us to be surprised at this one. To put it another way we're looking here at the winning lottery ticket after it's been drawn (so to speak) instead of looking at it before the draw.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
from a cynical point of view:

the thing is that you don't lose when you gamble on god. at most you don't win, but since you are non-existent, you won't notice that.

religion requires you first to believe in a higher power. yes some people find that hard, but in this thread we aren't discussing how from a scientific point of view, believing in someth not that important (be it christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, hindu, etc).

The losing money aspect was to merely add some weight of importance to the gamble itself as it was a statement about what one may or may not lose if they subscribe to a god (and it's not necessarily true that you don't lose anyway because there may be some gods that not only dislike tigers, but they also dislike humans that worship the "wrong" god (whichever god that may be)).

But anyway, as I was saying before the bracket, my reason for introducing the loss element is because if someone gives you a free lottery ticket you're probably less inclined to dwell deeply on the chances you'll lose - I just wanted to give such thoughts a higher priority. The thrust of my point, as I spelt out in my last response to Rajk999 is not that I'm certain no gods exist, but that I'm certain a theist's guess that some particular god (out of infinitely many of them potentially) is wrong. In just the same way (well more actually) that I'd be certain, getting back to the OP argument, the number 000010827600193 is the wrong choice (even though one of the 1000,000,000,000,000 numbers must be a winner)

Originally posted by Agerg
The losing money aspect was to merely add some weight of importance to the gamble itself as it was a statement about what one may or may not lose if they subscribe to a god (and it's not necessarily true that you don't lose anyway because there may be some gods that not only dislike tigers, but they also dislike humans that worship the "wrong" god (whichever g ...[text shortened]... he wrong choice (even though one of the 1000,000,000,000,000 numbers must be a winner)

that is the thing: you generalize one view. it is a mistake many atheists make when it comes to bashing religion(not that i believe you necessarily bash religion in this case).

they take some of the most extreme views religious people have, then ridicule them(like no blood transfusions, yec, etc). only there are some theists that don't subscribe to that view.

so the right thing to do is mention how certain religious views are right or wrong, not religion in general.

so back to the subject at hand, there is no "right" god. there is only god. people only worship him in different ways. so it is not a gamble about choosing the right god but a gamble that there is or isn't a god at all. and this gamble you don't collect on until you die. i submit the idea that religions are custom made ways in which to worship god and that a supreme being that exists beyond our understanding is not going to hold a grudge because you didn't pick his favourite church (because he has no favourite church)


a decent human already lives in according with the major directives of most religions. so believing in god is not going to make him pay and additional "price"

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
a decent human already lives in according with the major directives of most religions. so believing in god is not going to make him pay and additional "price"

Nor is it going to provide any additional benefit (if your type of god exists). After all a good god would not send people to hell merely for not believing in him.

But it is nonsensical to pretend that there is zero effect on your life when you believe in God. There clearly is an effect, and whether or not that effect is positive or negative would vary from person to person and for each case would be highly debatable. People like you that seem to be saying "I have nothing to loose" are deliberately ignoring the obvious.
It must be noted that you do not go around believing in fairies or father Christmas even though the same lottery argument can be used for them.