Drange's argument from nonbelief

Originally posted by Penguin
Well no, because [b]if this god is real, then it is not possible to 'leave the company'. Whether you believe in the god or not, it is still real and the penalties for non-belief in it are also real.

Therefore it is unreasonable for such a god, if it exists and if it really does enforce those punishments for non-belief, to not provide adequate evidence ...[text shortened]... gree on the nature of this god and its rules, let alone all the other religions.

--- Penguin.[/b]

"Whether you believe in the god or not, it is still real and the penalties for non-belief in it are also real."

only if you adhere to strict bible guidelines that condemn you to a brimstoney hell for not believing. which is open to interpretation as well.




really, please do not complain how horrible religion is if the only religion you "accept" is the horrible version.

Originally posted by LemonJello

you are under the false assumption that god, if he exists, must jump through hoops to get our attention. that a supreme being, should it exist, should work his schedule to fit our needs.

No, I am under the assumption, for the express purpose of argument, that God is such that it is His design intention that His human creatures be on the ...[text shortened]... te on some intimate level with every worker? Seriously, try sticking to the actual argument....

"His design intention that His human creatures be on the whole in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him."
yes.

"This seems pretty obvious to me: one cannot freely deliberate in any genuine manner about whether or not to relate with X if one does not even think X exists in the first place;"
yet it isn't obvious. one can experience the divine without believing in a divine power.


"Do me a favor and stick to what I actually say...you know, follow the arguments faithfully as opposed to making crap up and attributing it to me."
your whole argument is based on the whining that god doesn't do more to make us believe. you believe that it is god who is lacking, not us. so no, i had a very valid point, and it is your problem if you did not understand.


"Is it the CEO's design intention to relate on some intimate level with every worker?"
is it god's?


why is it that you can only accept a biblical god, one who interferes, one who is insecure or no god at all?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Whether you believe in the god or not, it is still real and the penalties for non-belief in it are also real."

only if you adhere to strict bible guidelines that condemn you to a brimstoney hell for not believing. which is open to interpretation as well.




really, please do not complain how horrible religion is if the only religion you "accept" is the horrible version.

Many many people DO however believe that you need to worship a god or gods to get
into a 'nice' afterlife, and/or avoid a bad one.

So can we point out how horrible those religions are without you complaining that that
is not what you believe?


On that topic.

What DO you believe?


If belief in your god is not required; there is no evidence it exists; and no benefit (and some
cost) to belief in this world...

What's the point in your following your religion or believing in your god?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Amazing how many people hold to the position that belief is something you choose.

i do choose. every day.

so care to elaborate? or like others, you only have in mind the most horrible cases of brainwashing and immediately assume that rjhinds must have been brainwashed, that i must have been brainwashed?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"His design intention that His human creatures be on the whole in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him."
yes.

"This seems pretty obvious to me: one cannot freely deliberate in any genuine manner about whether or not to relate with X if one does not even think X exists in the first place;"
yet it isn't obvious. one can experienc ...[text shortened]... at you can only accept a biblical god, one who interferes, one who is insecure or no god at all?

This is a thread discussing an argument relating to hypothesised gods that require
people to believe in and worship them and punish those that don't.

If your god doesn't do that then this thread is not about your god as these arguments
wouldn't apply to a god that doesn't care if people believe or not, and doesn't punish
people for not believing/worshipping it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i do choose. every day.

so care to elaborate? or like others, you only have in mind the most horrible cases of brainwashing and immediately assume that rjhinds must have been brainwashed, that i must have been brainwashed?

Do you choose daily to believe that the chair you are sitting on will support your weight?

Do you choose every day to believe the sun will rise in the east?

What makes you think that the choice is between beliefs you 'choose' to hold and being brain washed?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Many many people DO however believe that you need to worship a god or gods to get
into a 'nice' afterlife, and/or avoid a bad one.

So can we point out how horrible those religions are without you complaining that that
is not what you believe?


On that topic.

What DO you believe?


If belief in your god is not required, there is no eviden ...[text shortened]... f in this world...

What's the point in your following your religion or believing in your god?

"So can we point out how horrible those religions are without you complaining that that is not what you believe?"

you were having a conversation with me. my stance, my opinion. that is how the conversation works. so yes, the religions that claim a righteous atheist doctor is going to a bad afterlife while a serial murder who repents goes to the good one are insulting.


"If belief in your god is not required"
do you abstain from murdering children because it is required or because it is the decent thing to do. those that believe in god out of fear of punishment are cowards.

"there is no evidence it exists"
not one that you would accept. i am quite content believing despite hard evidence.

"and no benefit"
i find that existence makes more sense to me, feels more right compared to the absolute chaos that happened to spawn the universe as it is today. i choose to believe that someone had a guiding hand in it. god is the security blanket for the soul if you choose to be cynical.

"(and some cost)"
cost that you should be paying anyway. love, compassion, bettering oneself, these are all things that god require of us, things that a human must strive for anyway. worship god? i am thankful to him. but i do not believe he requires worship. what would he need it for?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you choose daily to believe that the chair you are sitting on will support your weight?

Do you choose every day to believe the sun will rise in the east?

What makes you think that the choice is between beliefs you 'choose' to hold and being brain washed?

"Do you choose daily to believe that the chair you are sitting on will support your weight?"
if it creaks, if it wobbles, i will repair it. or change it for another chair. or give up chairs completely and go atheist... uh i mean chairlessist.


"Do you choose every day to believe the sun will rise in the east?"
that i know. it doesn't apply to our discussion.


"What makes you think that the choice is between beliefs you 'choose' to hold and being brain washed"
it isn't. there are many choices to be made, some more important than the others. my belief is one of them. you might choose to eat responsibly so as to not have a heart attack at 40. brain washing comes into question when someone has suffered physical or psychological trauma that conditioned him to always "choose" a certain way.
i am unsure what exactly you are asking by this.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a thread discussing an argument relating to hypothesised gods that require
people to believe in and worship them and punish those that don't.

If your god doesn't do that then this thread is not about your god as these arguments
wouldn't apply to a god that doesn't care if people believe or not, and doesn't punish
people for not believing/worshipping it.

If God exists, God:
wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
...
Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).



and that what i took issue with. the conclusion that god does not exist follows from premises 2 and 3. premises with which i didn't agree. hence me complaining.
change the conclusion to "therefore, god as depicted through 2 and 3 cannot exist", and i will have nothing to complain about, will pack up my stuff and leave, and then you can discuss with rjhinds how you are going to hell for being an atheist.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"So can we point out how horrible those religions are without you complaining that that is not what you believe?"

you were having a conversation with me. my stance, my opinion. that is how the conversation works. so yes, the religions that claim a righteous atheist doctor is going to a bad afterlife while a serial murder who repents goes to the good one ...[text shortened]... god? i am thankful to him. but i do not believe he requires worship. what would he need it for?

"If belief in your god is not required"
do you abstain from murdering children because it is required or because it is the decent thing to do. those that believe in god out of fear of punishment are cowards.

Wahey, we're mixing up a load of separate issues here.

I don't murder children because... Well I don't want to for starters... But I wouldn't do it even
if I did because it's immoral. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with gods.

You cannot derive morality from a god, and so if all it wants is for people to act morally then
belief in the aforementioned god is absolutely not required and of no use to determining how
to live morally. Although knowledge that there is a punishment for behaving immorally and a
reward for acting morally would add EXTRA reason and incentive to be moral; It's sufficient
to realise the benefits of morality from a rational perspective. Nothing else is needed.

So in the case where belief and worship is not required and there is no evidence then
belief is just a waste of time and energy, as well as rationally un-justified.

"there is no evidence it exists"
not one that you would accept. i am quite content believing despite hard evidence.

I can make my own mind up, I don't need you to do it pre-emptively for me.

I don't doubt you are content believing without evidence, that's obvious.

However you said that there was evidence.

What is it?

"and no benefit"
i find that existence makes more sense to me, feels more right compared to the absolute chaos that happened to spawn the universe as it is today. i choose to believe that someone had a guiding hand in it. god is the security blanket for the soul if you choose to be cynical.

I should have said "no NET benefit". My apologies.

It might make 'more sense' to you... But it's wrong. And believing wrong things increases the
likelihood of making wrong decisions based on those beliefs.

"(and some cost)"
cost that you should be paying anyway. love, compassion, bettering oneself, these are all things that god require of us, things that a human must strive for anyway. worship god? i am thankful to him. but i do not believe he requires worship. what would he need it for?

I agree that nothing resembling a god would require worship, and any that did would not
be worthy of worship.

However, none of those are costs of belief. As evinced all to often by a complete lack of all of the
above displayed by many believers.

Those are functions of morality which has nothing to do with gods.

The costs are that you are believing something that isn't rationally justified about the world.
Beliefs which effect your world view and your choices, and corrode your ability to determine
truth from falsity.




However. You have said/implied that your god requires certain behaviours as a price for
entry into a good afterlife, and punishes those that fail to live up to gods standards.

While it might not require belief as a criteria for entry to heaven by itself.
Belief in gods existence is required to believe that your actions are going to be judged by
that god, and to believe it when someone tells them what the rules they need to follow are...

And as such, the argument still holds.

Your god should demonstrate to people it exists. And make clear what it's rules are.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"His design intention that His human creatures be on the whole in a position to freely decide whether or not to relate with Him."
yes.

"This seems pretty obvious to me: one cannot freely deliberate in any genuine manner about whether or not to relate with X if one does not even think X exists in the first place;"
yet it isn't obvious. one can experienc ...[text shortened]... at you can only accept a biblical god, one who interferes, one who is insecure or no god at all?

yet it isn't obvious. one can experience the divine without believing in a divine power.

I didn't claim that one cannot experience the divine without believing in a divine power. I claimed that "one cannot freely deliberate in any genuine manner about whether or not to relate with X if one does not even think X exists in the first place". Again, if you disagree with this, do you have any reasons why you disagree?

your whole argument is based on the whining that god doesn't do more to make us believe. you believe that it is god who is lacking, not us. so no, i had a very valid point, and it is your problem if you did not understand.

Either you just cannot read; or you just cannot do so objectively when it comes to this particular argument. The argument does not purport to show that God does not do enough to make us believe. The argument also does not purport to show that god "is lacking". The argument purports to show that God does not exist. Get with the program!

why is it that you can only accept a biblical god, one who interferes, one who is insecure or no god at all?

Huh? WTF? And why can't you stop beating your wife?

If you cannot entertain this argument objectively, then I suggest you do not entertain it at all.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Do you choose daily to believe that the chair you are sitting on will support your weight?"
if it creaks, if it wobbles, i will repair it. or change it for another chair. or give up chairs completely and go atheist... uh i mean chairlessist.


"Do you choose every day to believe the sun will rise in the east?"
that i know. it doesn't apply to our di ...[text shortened]... tioned him to always "choose" a certain way.
i am unsure what exactly you are asking by this.

"Do you choose every day to believe the sun will rise in the east?"
that i know. it doesn't apply to our discussion.

Good grief. If you know P, then you believe P. That just follows from the basic analysis of knowledge. (Or do you have some analysis of knowledge that does not include belief? 🙄 )

So, his question does indeed apply. Try answering it....

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
If God exists, God:
wants all humans to believe God exists before they die;
can bring about a situation in which all humans believe God exists before they die;
...
Therefore, God does not exist (from 2 and 3).



and that what i took issue with. the conclusion that god does not exist follows from premises 2 and 3. premises with which i didn't ag ...[text shortened]... and leave, and then you can discuss with rjhinds how you are going to hell for being an atheist.

and that what i took issue with. the conclusion that god does not exist follows from premises 2 and 3. premises with which i didn't agree. hence me complaining. change the conclusion to "therefore, god as depicted through 2 and 3 cannot exist", and i will have nothing to complain about, will pack up my stuff and leave

Oh my god....

Originally posted by LemonJello

"Do you choose every day to believe the sun will rise in the east?"
that i know. it doesn't apply to our discussion.

Good grief. If you know P, then you believe P. That just follows from the basic analysis of knowledge. (Or do you have some analysis of knowledge that does not include belief? 🙄 )

So, his question does indeed apply. Try answering it....

no it doesn't. you know or you believe. belief is without knowing. would you like a dictionary?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no it doesn't. you know or you believe. belief is without knowing. would you like a dictionary?

Do you know anything about set theory?


Knowledge is a subset of belief, you can believe things without knowing them,
but you can't know things without believing them.


This definition has been shown to be incomplete, but knowledge is traditionally
defined as being a "Justified, True, Belief".

Belief is very much a part of knowledge.

Think about it, could you claim to KNOW something is true without BELIEVING that
it's true?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief