digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

The Atheist's Wager

atheistwager.blogspot.com — One atheist's clever answer to Pascal's Wager.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nekitip, on 10/12/2007, -102/+159Pascal is dead for a long time and it's now easy to be smarter than him. Atheism is rational, the thing is that most people do not want to be rational.
    • drewhenson, on 10/12/2007, -151/+80I thought his return wager was sort of funny. He says that atheists are standing up to a corrupt God. However, according to them, God does not exist. I'm not sure how you can deny the existence of something and stand up to it at the same time.
    • Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -47/+132"I'm not sure how you can deny the existence of something and stand up to it at the same time."

      The atheists have no idea either!
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -62/+189@drewhenson & coros,

      "I'm not sure how you can deny the existence of something and stand up to it at the same time."

      He's considering the possibility that atheists are wrong and god and heaven actually exist. He couldn't complete the list of scenarios if he didn't.

      The atheists are right though :-)
    • blobzorz, on 10/12/2007, -142/+22Based on Pascal's theory, he is in heaven. Except its not theory, its fact.
    • sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -19/+60Pascals wager is incredibly flawed. It isn't hard in the least to find options and ideas that he completely forgot or purposely left out.

      That said, pascals wager is now more of a historical argument to theism and by no means should people (like this blogger) waste their time coming up with an argument against it (unless forced/chosen to do so for an academic essay).
    • astrofire, on 10/12/2007, -13/+268"Pascal is dead for a long time and it's now easy to be smarter than him"

      That is a laughable statement considering how intelligent and influential he was. I doubt anyone on Digg in it's entirety is smarter than Pascal was.

      Among his accomplishments:

      -Largely responsible for the adoption of the Scientific Method
      -Worked with Fermat to create the mathematics of probabilities
      -Invented the hydraulic press and the syringe
      -Largely responsible in the adoption of the barometer
    • sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -21/+123Don't digg down astrofire.

      Pascal was a brilliant man. It isn't easier to be smarter than him, but it is easier to know more updated information as he is dead and we are not. Also, we have the internet.
    • abdielou, on 10/12/2007, -49/+69"The fanatical atheists,are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." -Einstein
    • DiscusRapidus, on 10/12/2007, -46/+215Should a God exist, I have faith that he will forgive my superior logical prowess.
    • Sagags, on 10/12/2007, -53/+39Atheist claim that fighting in the world would be over if we had no religion, but from the things I have seen on the internet, if people are not fighting over religion it would just be something else retarded... like OS's or game consoles.. jk

    • OneHine, on 10/12/2007, -10/+39@nekitip

      There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. I am more knowledgeable than Einstein, not because I've personally discovered more than he, but because I've had the good fortune to live in an age where people have accumulated more knowledge than was available to Einstein.

      As for Pascal's Wager, that was particularly stupid and I think most people here can find several flaws without trying. But be honest: we've all made mistakes, it's just that most of ours aren't popularized as an argument for religion. Pascal was a smart guy, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong.
    • fulldecent, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1Homer Simpson reference?
    • rek2005, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18"I thought his return wager was sort of funny. He says that atheists are standing up to a corrupt God. However, according to them, God does not exist. I'm not sure how you can deny the existence of something and stand up to it at the same time."

      His return wager was merely a response to Pascal's Wager. He was saying that Pascal's logic for believing in a god (which he still believes doesn't exist, but for sake of argument...) is flawed because, in his opinion, it is equal to committing treason.
    • skywake, on 10/12/2007, -35/+21the way I see it Atheists are as bad as Christians
      both push their heavily slanted ideals

      why can't we just say "I don't know"?
    • Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Thats nothing but generalizations. Pascal spoke to the concept of religion in general, this just generalizes religion into the belief of part of the theists in this world.

      Its pretty easy to knock down a straw man...
    • MikeD606, on 10/12/2007, -50/+46One problem I have with the article is that all Christians simply "inherited" it from their parents without ever discovering for themselves. Sure most people may start out following their parents (even the author admitted it), but most end up making up their own mind about religion, atheist or not.

      I know I am saved, and I am going to heaven. I wish everyone reading this could feel the same way, but oh well, I'll go back to the gaming section now...
    • artemus, on 10/12/2007, -42/+10Atheism is not rational, or else the whole world would be atheist. considering the fact that atheists comprise only 3 percent of the earth's population, I'd say that's a pretty tall order.
    • Rocketbird, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4@MikeD and Lax

      It's a shame you decided to end your comment the way you did, it's somewhat intolerant. You were right about the blogger's claim that religion is solely inherited. Nearly everybody at one point or another in their lives decides whether or not they want to stick with the religion they were raised as. Yeah, it's the straw man fallacy.
    • TechnoPops, on 10/12/2007, -4/+74skywake,

      > why can't we just say "I don't know"?

      We can. It's called being an agnostic.
    • PresidentSoup, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14@bearowned

      god reads digg?
    • mossrockss, on 10/12/2007, -21/+30This guy obviously doesn't understand the concept of free will. He tries to blame everything on God. Total cop-out if you ask me.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3He had me going until the very end where he seems to address God as if he exists.
    • tinfins, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17This is to the person saying he has more knowledge than Einstein. Einstein believed in something similar to the god Spinoza wrote about. And what knowledge do you have now that is relevant to faith in God that Einstein did not? His faith was based on his incredible understanding of physics and the universe around him, and had nothing to do with Christianity. Perhaps you should speak only about things you know.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -34/+43Buried for being blatantly biased in an annoyingly condescending and elitist.
      The author backed down from an argument at a party because they felt they were so much better than their potential opponent. And don't try to come back at me saying how frustrating it is to try to reason with someone who is religious unless you are blatantly unaware that religious people approach YOU the same way with the same bias. This article/blog post was worthless and divisive and worst of all...incredibly condescending and insanely annoying considering the lack of adequate articles from anything other than atheists on this site. Nitpicking stuff like this will never help the atheist cause. But go ahead and keep acting like you are trying to justify your group's existence by pitting yourself against the Church.
      I personally think atheists should withdraw from all things to do with religion lest they slowly become one by trying to compete with them. Stop attacking, and just turn your back on it all. What's with the obsession with trying to justify your atheist views with articles like this?
    • rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -18/+79program God;
      type
      People = Record
      Faith: string;
      AllowHeaven: Boolean;
      end;

      var
      Person: array[0..6525170264] of People;
      i: Integer;

      begin
      for i:= 0 to 6525170264 do
      if Person[i].Faith = 'Christian' then
      Person[i].AllowHeaven:= True;
      end.

      I'm atheist. But if God exists, thats how it would work according to Pascal.

      (I hope someone gets it before I get dugg down to oblivion)

      EDIT: digg wrecks the indentation, it is not my sloppy coding.
    • skywake, on 10/12/2007, -19/+9@technopops
      "We can. It's called being an agnostic"
      I know, and I am
      ;)

      I am also confused as to why I am being dugg down
      I guess people just don't like being questioned...
    • NickMilne, on 10/12/2007, -26/+46People need to seriously stop "refuting" Pascal's Wager without reading the nine hundred other pensees that accompany it. Pascal wrote OTHER THINGS about this subject, many of them worth considering. The wad who wrote this article gives no indication that he's even aware that a larger body of work exists, quite apart from having made any attempt to study it. All we get is some wiki'd summary alluding vaguely to "game theory" and "probabilistic outcomes" without addressing either in any capacity. What there IS is a lot of BITCHING.

      Pensee 233 out of 923. Establish context; pursue threads; THEN "refute." Find a copy somewhere and check it out. Dover has a fine and affordable translation.

      Maybe today's atheist is too enlightened for that kind of actual effort, though, I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me. Dawkins is on record as refusing to even consider Christian theology because he simply rejects its original basis out of hand. He says this proudly, taking it as the mark of a superior sort of logician. Great job, dingus! Great ***** job.
    • appetite, on 10/12/2007, -10/+47yawn.

      seriously, wars will not end if religion ends. most wars have nothing really to do with religion. they're about money. also, there are plenty of atheist atrocities. pol pot? it's neat to selectively pick your evidence against religion, but it's not being very scientific of you, is it? hypocritical? just a tad.

      it feels obligatory to say this: i'm not religious. i just think the militant atheist line is laughably flawed. face it: you don't know *****. acting smarter based on belief is nothing more than acting. for those of us who can see behind the curtain, it's amusing at times but largely annoying as hell.

      it's fine to debate beliefs, but do it in a manner that doesn't make you look like an ignorant and arrogant ass, please. thanks.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26(preface - I am an agnostic)

      This is not a 'clever answer', its something a freshman would blurt out during the first ten minutes of Philosophy 101 at the local community college.

      Violence and war is a quantifiable historical event. Peace is not.

      This Atheist can in no way determine that there is more or less war on earth because of theism, as it is impossible to quantify all the violence which has been *prevented* by theism.
    • sloof70, on 10/12/2007, -18/+11I know this comment will get dugg down because it is not pro-atheist.

      How is it more rational to be an atheist? Our earliest known accurate accounts of man show that people believed in God. I'm not talking caveman *****, I'm talking a few thousand years before Christ. Since the beginning, we have believed in God because men have said they have seen him and spoken to him directly. It is rational to believe in what people have been believing in for thousands of years. Believing in a new theory (that is also unproven, mind you), is irrational.

      Now I'm not saying being irrational is always bad, I'm just saying that you need to acknowledge the facts.

      Don't you love how a religious topic always gets folks talking?
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11@discusrapidus

      "Should a God exist, I have faith that he will forgive my superior logical prowess."

      If Y=God and X=Universe

      Your (Atheist's) position is:

      X came into existence
      X caused X to come into existence

      My (Theist's) position is:

      X came into existence
      Y caused X to come into existence
      Nothing within X can say anything about how Y came into existence.

      IMHO your position is logically weaker. In my opinion, if you apply Occam's razor, Godel's incompleteness theorem, or Pascal's Wager, the athiest's position is logically equivalent or weaker than the theist's position. It is never stronger.
    • novoxborder17, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1@drewhenson

      @blobzorz


      shut up.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14FTA: "As we can see, an atheist can’t go to heaven (or at least according to Christianity, heaven is gained by faith not works)."

      Actually, according to Catholicism, salvation is not reserved for anyone, nor is it denied to non-believers; You can be a Christian and go to hell and you can be a non-believer and go to heaven. Anyone can go to heaven and it is not people's job to judge whether or not someone else will or will not be heading there.
    • masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11In fact, since it's relevant, I'll post this again:
      http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20936_1.html

      The above is an article written by our current pope, before he was a pope; the article goes into detail about why people continue to believe and the fact that there is salvation outside of the church. Prior to his papacy, Joseph Ratzinger was the official defender and theologian of the Catholic church, and prior to that he was a brilliant scholar. Because of that, I'm confident that he's put way more thought into the concept of religion than any of us, so it's a good idea to start with his articles if you're wondering about religion.
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26@Sloof: I'm pretty agnostic towards a Deistic or Pantheistic god but am atheist towards most of the world's religions.

      "How is it more rational to be an atheist? Our earliest known accurate accounts of man show that people believed in God."
      It was early man's attempt at explaining the universe. They explained lightning as caused by spirits, then Zeus, Odin, then God until electricity was discovered.

      "Since the beginning, we have believed in God because men have said they have seen him and spoken to him directly. It is rational to believe in what people have been believing in for thousands of years."
      It is irrational. Do you believe in using leaches for medical treatment? Do you believe that the Earth is flat?

      "Believing in a new theory (that is also unproven, mind you), is irrational."
      Atheism is not a theory. It is actually the falsification of the God Hypothesis. Theist are claiming that God exist. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Atheist is demanding this proof and found it lacking. Agnostics aren't sure.
    • zeroduck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@aamir2:

      And Z caused Y to come into existence. And ZZ caused Z to come into existence. And ZZZ caused ZZ to come into existence. . . to infinity.

      Either mindset requires you to believe that something "just exists" in the space of infinity. One requires your to believe that a supernatural being, more complicated than anything the world has seen before or since made it all happen--well, I don't see how thats more logical.
    • metacoola, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15My problem with people who use Pascals wager... is that if God is omnipotent/all knowing, wouldn't he know that the only reason your following his faith is to get into heaven, so he wouldn't send you to heaven for following it for the wrong reasons...
      If you believe in the bible, what makes you think you could trick god?

      Well, glad im not religious so i don't have to confuse myself :
    • nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@sishgupta ... "Pascals wager is incredibly flawed."

      Agreed. And a straw man ... far too easy to refute. Pascal's wager is flawed because a person can't choose to believe something simply because believing it maximizes some expected reward (in a probabilistic sense of "expected"). You can only believe something because you believe it is the truth.

    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@zeroduck

      "And Z caused Y to come into existence. And ZZ caused Z to come into existence. And ZZZ caused ZZ to come into existence. . . to infinity."

      Based on Godel's incompleteness theorem and many, many other factors it is completely pointless to say anything about creation of Y or any iterations thereof, so this does not add anything to the debate, this subject is completely off-limits for us humans.

      "Either mindset requires you to believe that something "just exists" in the space of infinity. One requires your to believe that a supernatural being, more complicated than anything the world has seen before or since made it all happen--well, I don't see how thats more logical. "

      Oh I find it to be profoundly flawed logic to state that, the known universe (everything that is) which did not exist, just decided to create itself for no apparent reason, and *it* could! Something that did not exist had the ability to create itself! Based on Occam's razor it is much easier to accept that the known universe had a much more logically consistent beginning.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9The blog author lists off many atrocities that have been done in the name of religion. And it's true that corrupt people have used Christianity for personal gain, to increase their wealth and to amass power. The fallacy of his argument is that the people who came after Christ and distorted his faith somehow made the Messenger and the original message corrupt. I thought atheists were supposed to be masters of logic?

      As a Christian, I am no more responsible for the Spanish Inquisition than as a white American I am responsible for slavery.

      So, if this atheist really believes his own argument, and he's a white American, then he needs to open up his wallet and start paying reparations to black Americans for the actions of his forefathers in this country, lest he be seen as a hypocrite. I believe Native American groups are also looking for financial reparations. Actually, I'm sure there's a whole list of people groups that were harmed during the formation of our nation. This could get quite pricey.

      My belief is that I am responsible for my actions, and my actions alone. I can't control what other people do, and I certainly don't have any power over things that happened in the distant past. It's up to me to interpret the teachings of Christ for myself, and to live accordingly. And I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where Jesus has commanded us to torture or to kill in His name.

      There are also many, many other good things that have been done in Jesus's name; how come atheists never talk about those? What about Compassion International that is feeding starving kids in third world countries?
    • kmk2006, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7"I thought his return wager was sort of funny. He says that atheists are standing up to a corrupt God. However, according to them, God does not exist. I'm not sure how you can deny the existence of something and stand up to it at the same time."

      Worth repeating.
    • mrlyons, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0YOUR SCIENCE IS FLAWED!
    • CthulhuDawn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@abdielou

      "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein
    • EridanMan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@aamir2

      I'm all for the Philosophical concept of truth vs. Truth, and Truth is unknowable, and all that jazz (Agnostic)- but your argument in particular is _THE_ most ridiculous piece of logical fallacy I've ever heard Theists spout (and your not the first).

      Theists love to go on and on about how improbable it is that the universe just arose out of "nothing"... and I agree. However, the only thing more improbable than the universe arising in a simplistic form out of nothing, is the concept of a tremendously complex, organized and intelligent Deity arising out of nothing.

      The 'simplest' explanation for the universe is almost trivial. Infinite. If Infinite (infinite configurations of infinite dimensions) exists, for whatever reason, then the universe we exist in is the logical conclusion, solely because it obviously exists (by definition) in such a way that we - our consciousnesses- could form... whatever these odd phenomenological things are.

      One concept, very simple...
    • StormTrooperVII, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Pascal is dead for a long time and it's now easy to be smarter than him. Atheism is rational, the thing is that most people do not want to be rational."

      Actually, based on one theory that I quite like, you making that statement actually proves that he was smarter than you. The theory is that "Pascal's Wager" was in fact a joke meant to poke fun at the irrationality of those trying to prove God. It's an extremely ridiculous statement and should never have been taken seriously. I think this is a logcal conclusion, based on the fact that given all that Pascal had contributed to science, he would have been smart enough to know how dumb the wager was.
    • captaineuphoria, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4There are like 1000 religions to choose from. Who says that Christ is the savior? Perhaps when you die, you find yourself in hell and realize that it was Mithra all along.

      Pascal's wager is worthless.
    • NickMilne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5StormTrooperVII:

      "The theory is that 'Pascal's Wager' was in fact a joke meant to poke fun at the irrationality of those trying to prove God. It's an extremely ridiculous statement and should never have been taken seriously."

      That's quite a theory, and, like so very much of the "debate" about Pascal's Wager that takes place on the Internet - The People's Republic of Knowledge - it's a theory that would likely only be held by either an absolute imbecile or someone who had never in his life read Pascal's 'Pensees.' Now, I'm not trying to be insulting, here, for there is no shame in either circumstance: not everyone has had the time, the opportunity, or even the inclination to read the 'Pensees.'

      Thankfully, it's easy. Google "Pascal's Pensees" and kill a few hours. Not only will you become equipped to discuss the Wager meaningfully, you will have Learned Something About Philosophy along the way and read one of the great works of metaphysical pondering in the European canon. Then you can move on to Boethius or Aquinas or even Rabelais if you want something lighter.

      It's a course of action I highly recommend. The 'Pensees' are delightful in their brevity and insight, and the sum of the endeavor will both make you smarter and prevent you from saying ill-advised things about certain long-dead Frenchmen.
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@EridanMan


      "Theists love to go on and on about how improbable it is that the universe just arose out of "nothing"... and I agree. However, the only thing more improbable than the universe arising in a simplistic form out of nothing, is the concept of a tremendously complex, organized and intelligent Deity arising out of nothing."

      You are arriving at a conclusion about God's creation from nothing, this is a completely fallacious position. Because you are professing to understand the dynamics of Something that is beyond the laws and axioms of this universe. Let me explain this another way. Lets say you are a game programmer, and you create a game in which a character can only start playing if it is *FooBarred*, no character can play or exist without being Foobarred. Does it mean that you the creator of the game would also have needed to be *Foobarred* to exist? No right? But it would not be surprising to find that the characters in your game, would be quite unable to comprehend existence without being *Foobarred.* This is the way you are reacting here, you are applying axioms and laws of your system (this universe) to a higher level system where they don't belong.

      "The 'simplest' explanation for the universe is almost trivial. Infinite. If Infinite (infinite configurations of infinite dimensions) exists, for whatever reason, then the universe we exist in is the logical conclusion, solely because it obviously exists (by definition) in such a way that we - our consciousnesses- could form... whatever these odd phenomenological things are."

      Just because the universe exists does not mean, you can shrug away the need for explanation about how and why it came to exist. Because it exists it has to have an answer to both how and why.
    • stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@aamir2: I love how you keep saying that Occam's Razor makes it more believable that a god created the universe than that it began on its own or has always existed. The problem with that, dear aamir2, is that Occam says that the simplest explanation is usually correct... so how is it simpler to add god to the equation? Instead of saying "the universe just came into being" you'd have to further ask "where did god come from or who created god?" It's much simpler to postulate that the universe came into being on its own or has always existed than to say "god made it" because YOUR version only leads to many, many more questions and that, my friend, is the antithesis of Occam's Razor. Please try to fully comprehend something before you comment about it.
    • jjesusfreak01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1So, all he is saying is that it is not fair that some people do not get the correct word of God, he does not like it, and to protest, he is going to not become a Christian and go to hell. In otherwords, he is an idiot.

      Christians are ordered by God to spread the word to the endmost reaches of the earth. You dont have to believe everything a denomination says to go to heaven, just the simple truth that Jesus died for your sins, and that your own works cannot overcome your burden of sin. This guy is saying that God isnt fair, and he is just going to sit in the corner and whine about it until he dies and goes to hell. Well, he sure showed Pascal there...
    • plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Evil men will quickly deceive others to accomplish their evil desire even if it means using the name of GOD to do it. Just because people do evil things in the name of God says nothing inherently about the nature of God, but only says something loud and clear about HUMANITY. Which, if following the train of thought of Christianity you find this to REINFORCE Christian beliefs (Biblically). (ie That man was separated from God due to sin.) One of the things that Jesus exposed in the religious people of the time was their hypocrisy. (Funny thing, that the Son of God would EXPOSE the wrong doings of the "religious" instead of reinforcing them.) If using God's name to convince people to commit murder/suicide is not a hypocrisy then I do not know what is.

      "If God only rewards those who follow the “correct” faith and faith is inherited from one’s parents"

      Despite what you guys assume, there are actually atheists that convert to Christianity and Christians that convert to atheism. People aren't as controlled by their parents as you are assuming. Some of you on digg seem to have come from religious backgrounds and yet are atheists. Have you stopped to think that people DO think for themselves about the issue and CHOOSE faith cause obviously you thought for YOURSELF.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2It really doesnt give me alot of faith in his argument when I see

      Crusades: Cristians vs Muslims ...

      Sorry folks, that simplistic view of it is wrong. The Crusades were less about religion and more about land. Muslims were invading Europe .. starting in European colonies in Africa, then through France, and up through the rest of Europe. Even though it was mainly Christians on one side, and Muslims on the other side, it was not much of a religious war, just more of a defense of Europe.

      As for his argument itself, it makes the same mistake that most atheistic arguments make.

      He is comparing atheism to religion. You can't do that, its apples and oranges. Atheism to Theism is the comparison...and Theism and religion are very different. Theism is faith, religion is a set of rules (typically setup to to keep the lower class in line and give wealth to the upper class)

      Religion is a bastardization of faith.

      Frankly, the way I see it, Theism and Atheism aren't really all that different. They both require a leap of faith to explain things.

      As an atheist, you have to believe that nothingness somehow exploded into everything. Where did the first atom come from ? Nobody knows. That same question, where did God come from..cant be answered either...nobody knows. Both Theism and Atheism break down at the singularity of the beginning, and both require you to just accept that you will never really know.
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@stevealford

      I agree that if all other things were equal, the theory with fewer entities, i.e. the Universe just came into existence by itself would be the stronger one based on Occam's Razor. However all other things are NOT equal in the two options because the atheist's position is logically inconsistent, i.e. X created X. Because it is logically inconsistent another theory that has another entity Y creating X and stating nothing can be said about Y's creation because we are part of X has to be preferred over the former because it is logically consistent with simplicity that is the next level up.

    • vertinox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mossrocks"This guy obviously doesn't understand the concept of free will."

      Umm... Yes he does. He says if God does exist, he refuses to follow him because such a god that segregates people based by beliefs of your parents (tribes of Judaism, Christians, and Muslims) is not a god worth following because he is playing cage match fight with humans.

      Therefore he uses his freewill to refuse to believe in such a being and accepts the aspect of if he is wrong, then it is something he stood up for out of his own free will.
    • stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@ aamir2: That's not the atheist's position, it's the big bang proponent's position. Not all atheists buy into the big bang, just like not all christians believe in a literal six day creation. I don't believe that the universe created itself, I believe that the universe IS and that there is no way for us to know for certain one way or another. I know that it may seem silly for an agnostic like myself to be arguing what seems to be the atheist viewpoint, but in reality I'm actually arguing against having a firm belief one way or the other. People have a strong desire to KNOW... so they take something that they believe in and let that belief grow into a certainty in their own mind, then join with like-believers and argue with people who disagree. It's as stupid to say "god made the universe" as it is to say "the universe created itself." Both are religious statements based on belief that comes from observation of the universe influenced by dogmatic religious beliefs. The big bang theory seems like a great theory, but it only holds true when you take current universal expansion and extrapolate it backward billions of years. This is a logical fallacy because the current expansion doesn't demand that it's always been expanding, just that it is NOW. There could have been a state of flux or the expansion may be confined to just the area of the universe that we can see right now and on the whole, it could be contracting for all we REALLY know. So yeah... when it comes to the origin of the universe, your supernatural belief system shapes which religion you choose: christianity, islam, hindu, buddhism, or big bang. Not everyone who doubts the existence of a god or even denies to believe in the possibility is a believer that the universe created itself, e.g. big bang. In my eyes, both are slanted views and anyone who claims that they know for certain that either of them is true is full of ***** because there's no way to prove or disprove either of them. I BEG anyone who wants to discuss microwave background radiation or any aspect of astrophysics to challenge me on this and say the big bang is a certainty... it's not. I also welcome any religious debate with anyone. I try to be open-minded and non-offensive while using texts (the bible for christians) to discuss the points. I was raised strict southern baptist and only after reading the whole bible several times and studying it in great detail did I come to my conclusions on christianity. My problem lies with interpreting the bible literally, otherwise, I'm all for it. Most people who don't know my beliefs think I'm a christian that doesn't push his beliefs on them. I follow the teachings of the bible as if the entire book is a parable and I hate the fact that there are all these denominations that teach is as literal... to take the stories literally is to miss the point entirely.
      /partial rant-discussion
    • stevealford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Also, believing that one species can evolve into another is just as religiously dogmatic as believing that god created them all. Both are faith-based beliefs that are supported by observations and skewed opinion. Neither have real evidence.
    • rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2One blog post on the site and it gets dugg to our front page? Lame.

      "The most likely reason is because it was the faith inherited by their parents."

      Untrue. This is a fallacy. While this may have been true thirty years ago, these days people are less influenced by their parent's faith. More likely, a person's morals and value system — or lack thereof — are built by their parents and whether they believe in God or practice religion is a direct result of those teachings.
    • sophiaperennis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What the author of this over-simplified version of Pascal's Wager is really addressing is more akin to William James' melioristic theism, which is more bound to pragmatism in the moral and religious sense.
  • anidal, on 10/12/2007, -18/+64So basically the article is saying its better to not believe in a God, even if he's real.
    I laughed my head off when it said "should stand up to God".
    • TSCheredar, on 10/12/2007, -29/+12NO I think what its doing is playing with rational logic to PROVE atheism the way people of faith routinely do to PROVE Christianity...
    • ALCx, on 10/12/2007, -24/+12Why? It's obvious that God can change His mind.

      He's also not real, so it doesn't matter.
    • agjimenez, on 10/12/2007, -15/+35Dear Kevin Rose, Please add a "Religion" section so that I may unsubscribe from it.
    • JoshuaGross, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12That's why this is SO flawed. In the event that God exists, you're going to be arrogant and spit in his face?

      Good luck.
    • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15"I laughed my head off when it said "should stand up to God"."
      same here, i laughed as well when he stated 'stand up to a corrupt God" since the concept of God is that He is good. Why is he corrupt? Because religion flows down generation to generation? This is not God's fault. Adhereing to a certain faith only because your parent was a follower of that faith is a terrible reason to be following a religion. Although it's true that most people (probably) do this, it shouldn't be why you're a follower of a religion. Furthermore, remember how they say "guns don't kill people, people kill people", this same concept applies to the wars you've listed. People have common sense, and if their religion stated "kill all people till you're the last one standing" you shouldn't blame the religion, but the fools who followed such an order.
    • grayworg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6@xtrumanx

      The reason the author said they would "stand up to a corrupt god" is because of the given context of the example. It assumes that this god would be unfair to specific people who were raised never knowing in any way of the one correct path. Unless I missed something, I would assume you didn't read the full theism argument.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -11/+16Yes. As a matter of fact, I *would* stand up to God.

      I would rather be eternally damned than to
      be told what to believe based solely on "faith",
      be told who I can love and who I can marry,
      be told what *my* morals are, above my own rational or interests,
      support a god that condones punishment for *thinking* something,
      support a "holy war", or abortion clinic bombers, or fag bashers, racists, or war mongers
      indoctrinated with beliefs based on little more than scraps of paper and myths of creation, when I can see with my own rational mind perfectly viable alternatives.

      I will do more than die to stand up for what I believe in.
      I am not scared of GOD, I am not scared of hell.
    • Amablue, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I laughed my head off when it said "should stand up to God"."

      Hey, it worked in Xenogears.
    • anidal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2rootneg2, to 'stand up to God' implies the assumption that God exists.

      Are you telling me if it is proven (and I'm not saying it will) that God exists, that you'll still be the person opposing religion? Dude, thats not rational, thats suicidal.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12well, first of all it's not suicidal, since I'm already dead; masochistic perhaps...

      That's besides the point, however. I hold no beliefs so firmly that they could not be swayed by sufficient counter evidences, the existence of god(s) included.

      But let me put it to you this way: Supposing you are a Christian (or hindu, jew, etc.) and arrive at the pearly gates to find out "oohhh, sorry the answer was actually 'Allah, Islam'. Sorry infidel, to hell with you." would you be *that* quick to renounce everything you've believed in up till then? just give up and say "oh, ok I guess I should have prayed to Mecca five times a day, and supported those suicide bombers. Damn, maybe I should have done it myself and been here with those 72 virgins right now. Oh well, cast me to the pit!"

      All I know, is that if I die and go to hell for marrying someone the same sex as me, or praying the wrong way, or not killing in His name, or simply for *believing* in the wrong thing with nothing but hearsay to go on; then I will endure that eternity of brimstone knowing that I lived my life on Earth, where it mattered, to the best of my abilities, with integrity and love. I would rather die and go to hell than endure glory, god, harps and halos galore, knowing that, deep down, I betrayed myself and my fellow human beings that might not have made it, in order to get there.
    • anidal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You do realize that you could follow an ideology and still live a life of contribution to your fellow man.To be a theist does not mean betray humanity.
      You can be a Christian and not kill anyone, ~2 billion do it.
      You can be a Muslim and not live a life of hate, ~1.5 billion do it.

      But thats beside the point. Still working under the stated assumption God(s) exist(s): 'Hell' is defined as a place where _noone_ would like to go willingly and all major religions define it as a place of extreme 'damnation'. Willingly placing yourself in a position of 'entering' Hell, with prior knowledge of its existence is in essence, illogical. If, in a similarly hypothetical chain of events, God speaks to all humans from the heavens and says 'Muslims are my people', would you still hold to a philosophy of self-sacrifice? Or is it better to "stand up to God" in the situation.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I never said that I believed in hell; and I never said I didn't believe in hell. I think that it along with heaven is highly unlikely, but that is all. As for God: maybe there is, maybe there isn't; I'm inclined to say that there probably isn't a God that interferes or "cares" about human affairs, and IF there was one, AND that god is willing to send me to eternal damnation for what I thought, believed in and loved, then it's a god a refuse to worship.

      You can't rule out *any* afterlife possibilities until you're dead. Make sure you can own up when it happens.
    • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2@rootneg2
      Dude, you are insane. You're saying you would 'stand up to God'. For what? You do understand the concept of God is that He is always right and good. Thus, if He existed, He was right and you were wrong. It'll be like taking him to court with no grounds but He having so much evidence against you. And you wont just be damned due to your ignorance, but the fact you made yourself ignorant. Otherwise, you would have never had a chance to discover the right religion and wouldn't be fair on you to go to hell.

      And how could you possibly be alright with going to hell? You most certainly can not understand what hell is if you're cool with SPENDING ETERNITY IN HELL.

      Btw, you're scenario about going to hell because Islam happened to be the right religion gave me a bit of a laugh because I happen to be Muslim and that's pretty much what I believe will happen to you, no offence, just my belief :-D

    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I am perfectly well aware of what hell is and what eternity entails. As for "standing up to god" nobody is trying to take "Him" to court, or expecting to change the mind of a god.

      I simply refuse to let *anyone*, gods included, tell me how to think; then to punish me for a thought and claim that *that* is what is just and moral.

      Not even God will be my thought police.
    • Midnightbrewer, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4The person who wrote this is very young. I remember going through a similar phase back when I was 15 and living in the buckle of the Bible Belt. Ah, Oklahoma...

      To summarize:

      1. War is done in the name of religion, but it is not religion's fault. It comes down to the basic human issues of 1) he has more land than me, 2) he has more money than me, 3) I'd better have a war so as to distract people from what a bad job I'm doing in government, and at the same time, sending my critics into battle, thus killing (pardon the pun) two birds with one stone, or 4) the grass is greener on the other guy's side, I'm sure of it.

      2. God cannot, by definition, be corrupt (anyone who says so isn't very smart, aetheist or otherwise); religion is corrupt, because it is created by man, who has the annoying bad habit of subverting things to further his own agenda. A corrupt god implies that there is a standard outside of said god (AKA the creator of the entire universe) that he can be compared to, which is, by definition, impossible. Unless you want to get pantheonic about it.

      3. This article is elitist and guilty of the very divisiveness which it claims to despise and wish the end of. It has very little to do with a deep philosophical discourse and a lot to do with someone venting their hatred and loathing for the institution of religion that they've very obviously not had a very good experience with.

      To the author: don't worry, there is life after high school. I lived through it, so can you. Incidentally, I moved to Japan where one can be a practicing(?) agnostic in a mostly Christian-free environment. It's very refreshing.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't know what you're definition of "young" is, but I'm a graduate student and I think that the author is on solid ground here. Trust me, this does not have to be just "a phase".

      God is only morally infallible because, for you, morality is defined by god. I have my own innate and rationally guided principle of morality that I hold above one based on the existence of some entity whose only evidence is "faith" and which may not even exist. If that god goes against *my* moral sensibilities then, to me, that is an immoral god.
    • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1"If that god goes against *my* moral sensibilities then, to me, that is an immoral god."

      Dude, I don't know why you can't accept this: forget what different religions teach about God, but tell me you accept this: the CONCEPT (I emphasize the word concept as to not get you're atheist panties in a bunch) of God is that He is good and right. Even an atheist can accept this concept, it doesn't mean you have to believe this concept. That means whatever the situation is, whichever side God is on is the good and right side. That's it. That is what the concept of God is. That means if you're in disagreement with God, YOU ARE WRONG. If your morals are opposite of God's, well then you're evil or the very least not good.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3a creator god
      a god of absolute morality
      an omniscient god
      an omnipotent god
      an infinite and eternal god
      a god that is intimately and personally involved with human life on earth

      All of these concepts are not inexorably tied to one another; and most are actually mutually contradictory.


      If you get to the afterlife to find that God (who is always right, according to you, because it is God) demands the sacrifice of unwilling virgins by slow and bloody disembowelment, because the gods require the blood and suffering of an innocent for sustinence, then you would turn around admit that slowly torturing and killing an innocent life is "right" just because a god says so?
    • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1yup, pretty much. I know it sounds sick, first of all you proposed that scenario, not me. Second, right and wrong, good and bad are all subjective. They mean one thing to one person and another thing to someone else. But when you add God to the formula, that means they are not subjective anymore as God is always right and morally good and thus there is a standard of what is good and right i.e. whatever God thinks is good and right IS good and right.

      I'm not saying all religions is are right since they contradict each other in what is good and right thus they can't be all right. Personally, I believe a God which is tortures virgins for the hell of it (as in your scenario) is a fabricated God but hey, that's just my opinion.

      P.S. I just wanted to ask why did you bury my comments? I'm just trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I'm sorry if I assumed wrong and it wasn't you who buried me.
    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@xtrumanx
      we very clearly have a different perspective on the nature of morality. I find that you would condone such a god (if it existed) morally reprehensible and frankly, inhumanly cold-hearted. That being said; it wasn't me with the buries. I only use the bury for comments that have no content relevant to the article, or vehement hate-speech.

    • rootneg2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3oh, and BTW: This is not some random crazy outlandish example that I made up all on my own. Various central and south American religious canons include motifs of feeding the gods with the blood of innocents or nobility such as the Mayans, Aztecs, and Toltecs. There is nothing that rules out these possibilities that would not also rule out any other organized religion.
    • xTRUMANx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I said what I thought I needed to say, so I guess we can say, we agree to disagree. Not much else for me to add to the conversation. And thanks for not burying, digg is usually full of chumps who bury only because they don't share another person's point of view.
  • hamobu, on 10/12/2007, -51/+19The assumption is that Religion causes violence - but there was no lack of violence underd Comunism, and communists were anti-religious atheists.
    • RogerStrong, on 10/12/2007, -27/+13Invalid arguement; communism *was* a religion.

      Any hope of achieving real communism in the Soviet Union died when Stalin came to power. After that it was an empire, with the Communist Party - a very privileged club with a limited membership - as it's monarchy and communism as it's state-sponsored religion.

      The population was kept in line with prophesy that some day the USSR would achieve True Communism (heaven!), but for now they should wait in line, fight in Afghanistan, do as they're told and not ask questions. The folks with the limos and dachas will handle it.
    • moudig, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Your argument is extremely flawed.
      It is totally incorrect to assume that if "A causes B" then "no A causes no B"
    • nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -20/+7I hate people that think True Communism would be great (if it worked somehow). Guess what? If I'm smarter than you, and I have a better job than you, I should get more money than you. That's it.
    • hadees, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13I don't know why hamobu is being dugg down because he is right. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. It has always been that way and it is unlikely it will ever change. People will continue to kill each other under what ever ideology is either available and/or convent. Be that ideology religious, political, or what future ideologies mankind comes up with.
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Communism doesn't cause violence nor does religion. People cause violence, religion/land/political ideology are just justifications.
    • hadees, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And just to clarify my post above what I am getting at is just as flawed to say because religion has been used as an excuse for violence doesn't mean that religion will ALWAYS cause violence. There are religions out there that have harmed absolutely no one.
    • sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@nryenolds
      At a point though, capitalism can degrade the quality of life for people who are disadvantaged by not being smart or talented, or where the jobs for some reason aren't as valued yet it is their calling to do that job for a living.

      What do you say to the single mother where the father has run away but has left 3-4 children behind. This mother is a housewife and did not receive and education past high school, is unable to go back to school due to lack of funds and lack of time due to the kids, and is barely able to afford the necessities of life because min wage is too low and she gets few benefits.

      Or the other jobs like a high school teacher that is IMHO one of the most important jobs out there, where they literally form the future, but is also one of the lowest paid job sectors. A McDonalds manager has the opportunity to make more and do much less.

      Or the athlete who gets paid several billion dollars per year to be the best at hitting a couple of balls for a few hours each day and market their souls to cola and shoe companys.

      The idea at least with communism is that at worst the billionaire doesn't get to ride around in one of his 5 humscalades and instead that money feeds the single mothers family something a more than kraft dinner five nights a week.

      Capitalism is based upon raw greed (a human trait imho), and communism is based upon FORCED total sharing which removes any need for individual progress (a negative).
      IMHO both ideologies are extremely flawed. There is a middle point there which is balanced and is the right path (again, imho).

      At this point in my life I consider myself a socialist.
    • CogitatorX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@nreynolds
      by your logic since I'm larger, stronger and a better fighter than you I should be able to kick your ass and take what you have. Actually, I kind of like that logic.
    • hadees, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@sishgupta,

      "Capitalism is based upon raw greed (a human trait imho), and communism is based upon FORCED total sharing which removes any need for individual progress (a negative)."

      Actually you are wrong. Real Communism is no government and everyone sharing things because they know it is for the greater good. People who followed Marx's philosophy saw it as the end which would be brought about after the founding of a Socialist state. However some of these people started calling them selves communism and eventually that is why today communism is thought of a form of government. The USSR was actually a socialist state. And although you haven't given me any more information I would wager what you actually believe in is Democratic Socialism.
    • sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Didn't know the first part. I never read that far into marxism.
      And yes, quite right about me actually being a democratic socialist. I always leave that part off though, perhaps incorrectly.
    • rogueman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@sishgupta Capitalism isn't so heartless. You took pretty much the worst of it, and still doesn't sound as bad. Why? Well, for one, the baseball player: don't follow sports. It's not capitalism's fault he's stinking rich, is the fault of the masses for obsessing over something trivial. And if it's not trivial, then his millions are earned. Then the single mother: to be honest, i don't really have mush sympathy for her. She made all the wrong choices and now she doesn't have a great life. No big surprise here. The society's responsibility is not let her live in poverty and make sure her kids get an honest chance in life (weather or not they'll take it). I'm not for wasting resources to _straighten_ her life. That's her job and only hers, and would take all the dignity she has left from her to say otherwise.
      Then the billionaires. First, even in capitalism they pay most of the taxes, so you already took 2 of their 5 luxury cars. Then the problem gets a little more complicated, but i'll give it a try: Most of their money don't go into luxury cars (that's the tv stars and sportsmen and britney spears) but in investments. Now who should decide where would these money be best invested? A safe bet would be those who already made them. They're the most qualified and the most interested in successful outcomes.
      Then there is the damage from any mechanism that would take wealth from those who make it and manage it separately. It's obviously not as efficient (an extra layer) but has much worse consequences: lack of motivation for the people, corruption, gets easily distracted). Think about that: socialism doesn't automatically mean better people, so you advocate letting politicians (the politicians of here and now, they won't magically get better) handle all the money. Does it sound safe?
    • hamobu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Communism tried to make everyone equal, and supressed all ethnic, religious, race and class distinction among people. Needless to say, there is no lack of ethnic strife in former communist countries.

      I did not mean to imply that communism was all bad. It was a well thought out idea that did not work for reasons which are beyond comprehension for most people. Some good things that came out of communism:

      1. Communists were a lot of times freedom fighters fighing colonial opression
      2. Strong communist central governments brought about stability and idustrialization to many underdeveloped places. SSSR would boast that they went from peasant society to world power in a single generation, and they were not wrong.
      3. Many places - like Vietnam and China - are able to transition to market economy after realization that communism as economic system does not work.
  • macweirdo42, on 10/12/2007, -14/+130I don't understand why people think that if we abolish religion, suddenly everybody's going to start acting rationally. It's not religion that makes people irrational, it's people's irrationality that leads them to religion. Trust me, there would be no shortage of reasons for everyone to be blowing each other up even without religion. The masses are sheep, blindly led, and there's no cure that has yet been found for that.
    • digitallysick, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20@macweirdo42

      I dugg you up, i agree, i used to think if we didn't have religion maybe the world would be a better place. But stupid people would find someway to destroy society one way or another.
    • kniwshmdcknit, on 10/12/2007, -15/+36It's one less thing.
    • demortes, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4nicely stated.
    • OneHine, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14@macweirdo42

      I'd be surprised if anyone genuinely thought that abolishing religion would suddenly lead to everyone acting rationally. Rather, it seems that if people acted and thought rationally, we'd abolish religion (or at least, the irrational aspects of religions--which accounts for a lot of misery).

      You appear to be making a tu quoque argument, that since people murder and commit terrorism for other reasons besides religion, we should give religion a pass on this. Sorry, but while religion is by no means the only reason people irrationally kill, it is one reason. As such, it should be criticized, insofar as it causes this.

      There is a cure for blindly led sheep, and that's skepticism and logic. We should endeavor to examine the claims of others, as well as our own claims for flaws. Instead of supporting a culture which holds religion above criticism, we need to argue. Unquestioned answers are worse than unanswered questions, after all. Rationality won't solve our problems overnight, but it will give us the tools we need to solve our problems.
    • jrmy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I agree to a point. I do believe it would be possible to develop or find another philosophy for the people to latch onto. For example something like Buddhism.
    • techn0c, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12a well rounded education and ethical guidance may suffice.
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@digitallysick

      Oh my science, you are right!
    • OSDAgent, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4You're wrong in saying that it's people's irrationality that lead them to religion. Some of the most rational people I know are religious, and some of the most irrational and quite pathetic of people I've come across were atheists. Religion or lack of it has nothing to do with irrational behavior - it's the destructive obsession with power that makes people irrational.
    • DearDearDarla, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Religion, Christianity specifically, is an excuse for people to relinquish any responsibility for the ills in the the world -- and their roles in it.

      "It's god's will. God works in mysterious ways. The meek shall inherit the earth." are all justification for looking the other way and doing nothing.

      When a religion causes its followers to fly planes into buildings and/or start a war because "god is on our side" then it becomes a very bad, bad thing.

      The Bible, Koran, etc. need to be shelved in the myth section -- right beside Zeus and Poseidon, and the sooner the better for all of mankind.

    • auxplage, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2There have been in the past and there still are people today who are by no means irrational and believe in God. Belief in God is not irrational. That said, belief in God does not hold up to science or logic, but it is not supposed to. To make belief in God fit into science would be a "category mistake."

      Belief in God is a mode of acceptance not a means of explanation (e.g., science).

      I do not believe in God; however, to dismiss the entire idea in my mind is ridiculous. Something still must said about the select few who actually understand their faith (unlike 99% who do not).
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@macweirdo42

      Yo repeat the same flawed argument again. We are not saying people would start to be immediatelly more tolerant and rational.
      Not indoctrinating kids in their childhood would be a good start though.
    • iainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm sure that our species will be long dead before it manages to completely prove or disprove the existence of a divine creator. Dead as a direct result of the dispute, or dead because we squandered our own precious existence trying to answer the unanswerable.

      God or no god, we kill each other over the most trifling things. Things, folks.

      We need to accept that some of us take great comfort in contemplating the hereafter; trying to live our lives as best we can, in accordance with scriptural example. Sure, it seems irrational, but some people draw hope and great comfort in their belief in salvation. Accept that for what it is and leave them with hope. What, after all, is life without hope?

      Conversely, people of religion need to appreciate that not everyone shares, or wants to share, in your salvation. Imposing your religion, your morality and your laws upon them does not make you right. Eliminating sections of the populace who do not think as you think does not make your way the right way; that argument that can be applied just as easily to atheists.

      As a species, I don't think we've earned to right to ponder the REALLY BIG questions until we've adequately proved we have a grasp of the basics, such as:

      1. How to get along with each other in spite of our differences

      2. How to share (properly)

      3. How to feed, clothe, water and ourselves, so that nobody dies of hunger, cold or thirst

      4. How to utilise technological advances for the good of all

      As a species, we should collectively feel ashamed of ourselves. A small proportion of the world's people live in the 21st Century, with over ninety percent of the planet's wealth; the rest of the world still lives in the Bronze Age.

      We don't appear to be able respect our many differences. Everywhere, there is this crazy desire to homogenise.

      We don't appear to do anything for the common good of Mankind.

      I doubt we'll mature enough as a species to make it to the stars which means we can all resign ourselves to a common belief in Armageddon, when this little rock is consumed by its star.
  • Newportbeachguy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+12I would rather side with the aliens.
    lol
    Just kidding, God's not real

    • Poland, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4Shhh... don't say that, the Christians are out.
  • cyphin6, on 10/12/2007, -16/+6We all know if a God existed he would not force a species to believe in him or he'll send them to hell wheres the reason in that such a supreme being that can create all and destroy all needs someone to believe in him or what we go to hell forever..get real humanity, Religion is man made, it helps people who can't accept the fact that we probably will never know how the Universe was made, or why it exist, most of the human race can't deal with that fact, actually 90 some percent, what does that say about the total human integrity exactly??.
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9There is such thing as a period. It is right next to your overused comma
  • kingkilr, on 10/12/2007, -44/+1Buried for saying Christians caused the holocaust, Hitler was an atheist as was his entire top tier, the hated all religions, jews were just first
    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.
    • DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -13/+20WRONG! Hitler was a catholic, Nazis even wore something on their uniforms that said "God be with us", something like that. So yeah, you're a fool.
    • blobzorz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34He was Orthodox, but that doesnt mean religion caused anything to do with the holocaust. He was just a crazy guy.
    • kniwshmdcknit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45I heard Hitler drank water.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Hitler was RAISED Catholic. He never went to mass or participated in the sacraments as an adult. Big difference there. Christianity was nothing more than a PR tool for him.
    • DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I didn't say his Christianity had anything to do with his atrocities now did I?
    • iDragonFly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1detlev409
      "Christianity was nothing more than a PR tool ...."

      The same can be said about the dangerously powerful right here on Capital Hill.
    • jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If Christians can be blamed for the Holocaust, atheists can be blamed for all murders under Communist regimes.
  • Boing, on 10/12/2007, -22/+8Religon is the root of all evil.
    • demortes, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7religion is evil. without religion there is no thought of (spiritually) good and evil. It's just moral and immoral.
    • CZzyzx41, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Just as I've heard atheists claim that religions are for the weak-minded, anyone who believes in God because of Pascal's Wager is TRULY weak. In fact, I'd argue that they don't believe in God. They're just covering their ass "just in case". That's as bad as the atheists who don't believe in God because believing in something greater than themselves would require them to be accountable for their actions. Not all atheists are this way but I consider those atheists to be the weakest and most lazy of all.
    • OneHine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16@boing

      Religion is the root of *some* evil. There is plenty of evil in this world that has little or nothing to do with religion. Religion is also the root of some good.

      So why not discard the evil bits and keep the good bits?
    • mNu23, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Not really. Religion is just structure, like a building. It will usually offer a decent message, but people corrupt it. Imagine yourself sitting in your house. There's nothing wrong with the structure of your house, but if you're throwing grenades out of the window at people, it looks bad. It's not the facade, it's the dickbrain throwing grenades out of the attic that makes it look bad.

      I'm not saying that all of every religion is good, but there is by far more good in them than they have been credited for. For every "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." there are a dozen, "Treat your neighbor in the way that you would like to be treated."
    • tendonut, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"That's as bad as the atheists who don't believe in God because believing in something greater than themselves would require them to be accountable for their actions"

      Isn't that like..backwards? Wouldn't believing in something greater than themselves allow them to NOT feel accountable for their own actions?

      "I was hitting it with my girlfriend with no precautions and she got pregnant. It couldn't be my irresponsibility, it must be god's will."
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
    • heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Power corrupts, Absolute power is kinda neat
    • doddilus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"That's as bad as the atheists who don't believe in God because believing in something greater than themselves would require them to be accountable for their actions"

      As an atheist I have nothing else to blame my own actions on, so as an atheist I am 100% accountable for my own actions
    • jakesavage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@doddilus (#6177722)
      Accountable to whom and by what measure?
  • soccernamlak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2The problem with his modified theory is that it assumes in theism vs. aetheism that the only possible outcomes are heaven or no heaven, when in reality, different religions believe in different afterlifes. He made the argument that there were too many religions, so Pascal was wrong initially; yet he commits the same error.
    • endersshadow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5He also makes the error in assuming that religion is inherited and all religions share the same interpretation of G-d. Given the level of his discourse, it seems as though he has chosen to imagine G-d as an old man looking down upon us rather than the infinite force and wisdom that many of the world's people see Him as.

      Then again, trying to say an atheist clearly doesn't understand theology on Digg is like trying to tell a puppy not to chew your furniture.
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@enders: No that's your interpretation of God. Most Christians, especially fundamentalist, believe that God is an omniscient omnipotent omni-benevolent personal God as described in the Bible. This version of God can be disproven, your version of God cannot be disproven.
    • endersshadow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0@imperiam: What part of infinite force and wisdom doesn't cover omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and personal? My definition was purposefully broad to include those of other religions besides Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, such as Buddhism and other religions that do not identify a specific god, but do recognize a life force and wisdom. It has nothing to do with proofs (btw, neither can ever be proven or disproven), but it does have everything to do with an understanding of broad theology and what theists actually believe. Unfortunately, there is a ton of rhetoric and oversimplifications that prevail among opponents of religion that are very difficult to overcome. Indeed, such rhetoric and oversimplifications show up in anything controversial, such as politics, so it's hardly a surprise. Worse yet is how this article is an extension of the rhetoric into something the author obviously feels is a clever response to a famous passage. Pensees is one of my favorite books and it's just a shame to see it misrepresented.
  • thetechaddict, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4"Religion is man made" I agree...supposing there is a God, which i believe that there is, I dont think he would want us being all religious.

    From http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html:

    Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the molds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

    • DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23Please, don't give us that mumbo jumbo about Christianity being a "personal relationship" and not a religion. We all know damned well that it's a religion, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3When someone defines himself as a Christian he puts himself in a separate group from those that are not Christian.

      It doesn't matter if you never step foot in a church.

      In your personal version of being a Christian, do you believe a faith in Christ is a requirement for heaven?
    • listrophy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I can't speak for thetechaddict, but in my "personal relationship" of Christianity (specifically, Catholicism), faith in God is most certainly not a prerequisite for heaven. I also cringe at the "Christian Rock" music commercials despite having been around live peer performances of many of those songs. Yes, people like me do exist.

      So why doesn't everybody just get off their "My religion/atheism is obviously the rational answer" soapboxes and get on with living good, decent lives?

      Also, someone said it in another thread, but I also vote for a "religion" topic on digg so I can unsubscribe to it.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ listrophy

      How can you claim to be part of a group, when said group publishes a set of rules that says you specifically can not be a member of their group.

      I propose you are of a different group, who merely uses the same name as Catholics. IANAL, but they might be able to sue you for copyright infringement. I mean, I can't get away with starting a company called Microsoft, could I? And just calling myself a Microsoft employee is a bit pointless, if they don't send me a paycheck, or invite me to office parties.
  • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Pascal most likely did not actually practice his wager. Pascal was most likely himself an atheist, like almost all learned people of his time period. His wager was likely meant to more or less as a joke, suggesting that even people who claim to believe in god did so only to keep from possibly going to hell. It is likely that it would amuse him greatly that people use Pascal's Wager to attempt to convince people to believe in god. Also, I am aware that Pascal never claimed to be an atheist. No one could openly claim atheism then.
  • gfair, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Can someone tell me why there is so much atheism coverage on Digg? It seems constant, yet the topic rarely comes up in any of the papers or news media that I watch, even in tech media, so why here?
    • demortes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Because Digg is a public bookmarking. News = funded by corporations. They don't wish to really anger the masses, which, unfortunately, are religious. Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc. On top of which, "By the act of God," adds fear into peoples minds, which most media is done to put fear into the brain dead. You'll also notice that a lot of techies are Atheist (althought there are those that are not). I have a feeling that this is because, like in Angels and Demons by Dan Brown, most believe that Science and God can not co-exist. Science is absolute, facts, where religion is belief, lacking hard evidence. Since Digg has a different audience than your local nightly news, it tailors to different needs.

      Besides, what's there to report on Atheism? Yes, there are a few outlets, but no massive events. Christians and Catholics who make the news are some who go out and try and make the world a better place, where if an Atheist does it, we don't mention it.

      I kind of rambled, hope I made sense.
    • bubs, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Agreed, it gets kind of old doesn't it?
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -17/+26Because diggers tend to be educated, and educated people tend to be atheists. Yes I'm insulting people who believe in god.
    • detlev409, on 10/12/2007, -12/+10You'll get buried into oblivion for pointing it out, but there is an annoyingly common need for atheist cheer-leading here.

      Just try to post a pro-Christian story and watch what happens. I have no particular inclination to post pro-Christian news, but this barrage of "Yay atheism, OMG we're so smart! Let's pat each other on the back" got old a long time ago. Get out of the circle jerk already, folks, you're more preachy and arrogant than the Baptists at this point.
    • Lordavid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1 @ demortes

      Compare and contrast these headlines (not real): CHRISTIAN MAN SPREADS PEACE WITH GOOD WORKS vs. ATHEIST SPREADS PEACE WITH GOOD WORKS. you just don't see the second one, even if both the christian and the atheist were to help the same orphanage or something, the atheist's story would be covered with no emphasis on the fact that he's atheist. silly media.
    • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@qtitian: Why? Why does your system of understanding let you insult people for their own system of understanding?

      What positive side is there to insults?
    • Koros8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"@qtitian: Why? Why does your system of understanding let you insult people for their own system of understanding?

      What positive side is there to insults?"

      Well, the way I see it is, no God, no accountability. Atheists can hurl whatever insults they want, because they think they do not have to answer to God for whatever crap they say.
    • iainc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Because diggers tend to be educated, and educated people tend to be atheists. Yes I'm insulting people who believe in god."

      @gtitian:

      You're a nasty piece of work, aren't you? Everything is so black and white for you. It must be hard for you to contain your own superiority over other lesser mortals.

      I have friends who believe in God; I have friends who believe in Allah; I have friends who believe in the Hindu pantheon, and I have friends who believe in no deity whatsoever. It doesn't really matter what I believe. I wouldn't dream of insulting any of them as I value their friendship far too much.

      I'd rather live in my world than in yours. Get some humility.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Listen, I have friends who believe in god too, And some of them I even consider smart. well, smart about everything except believing in god. I'm not being a jerk, but you guys are wrong, there isn't a god, that's a fact. If you all want to pretend there's a god, that's fine by me, I play DnD so I understand pretending, but the problem here is that government and politics are actually controlled by people who truly and genuinely think there's an invisible man controlling everything, and that simply WILL not work for those of us living in reality. So, I'll say it again, if you believe in heaven, that's great, now get going there, because I have a lot of Earth to enjoy.
  • patentpending, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9He misses the point of Pascal's wager. Pascal does not propose this wager in order to convince atheists to become Christians by saying there's nothing to lose. Rather, it's a justification of the Christian life in the atheistic worldview that each individual finds their own meaning and fulfillment in life (i.e. God/religion doesn't provide it). The point is: if there is no God, the Christian still found fulfillment and meaning and happiness in life. He hasn't lost anything.
    • BlueSoySauce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2What the author is saying is that the "fulfillment and meaning and happiness in life" still doesn't account for ability of the humans to actually cooperate with each other and engage in important and humane activities rather than simple happiness. Meaning and happiness can be achieved when humans work together instead of fight one another, debate over each other's God's/whether one exists, or waste time praying to a God that won't show himself.
    • jobenly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The guy was arguing that Pascal's wager was oversimplified because it didn't factor in your other options (other religions).

      Then the guy provides his own oversimplification. He assumes that any one of the religions are right but leaves out any combinations. What if Jews, Christians, and Muslims all go to heaven? What if all the Eastern religions are right in some way? What if God doesn't really care as long as you worship some Creative Force and have a good heart? I'm not saying I believe that, but assuming that is the case, atheism is the single worst choice you can make.

      Basically, it's a complicated subject. You can't make a logical case for or against any theist or atheist belief. You always have to oversimplify.
      • Adrael, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0The phrase "atheist belief" is an asinine oxymoron since atheism is precisely the lack of belief in a deity, not a belief in itself.

        It's also incredible easy to make the case for implicit atheism, also known as default or agnostic atheism("there's not a shred of evidence to suggest there is a god, so I don't believe in one") because it is the logical starting position. Just like we start(or at east we're supposed to, until there's some evidence) as non-believers when it comes the Greek gods, the Norse gods, alien abductions, sorcery, Big Foot, leprechauns, etc.

        As for this fear we're supposed to feel wondering if atheism is the "single worst choice", I fail to see the need to fear anything of the sort on the basis of something as pathetic as a "dude, what if it's true?" mentality. Considering there is an infinite number of possibilities(what if eating meat sends you to hell? what if using medicine to prolong your life and treat your ailments is an affront to god? what if the REAL religion is that of another planet and we're doomed choosing any religion, combination of religions or none at all?...) , it's impossible to "hedge your bets", so we're better off believing that only that which we can sense is reality. And I don't just mean things we can touch or see, so don't try to bring up the electron or love, we have evidence of that too(on emotions is a bit more subjective but you get the idea). ^_^.

        One could also make a case for explicit/assertive atheism("there are no gods") but then we have to define the term "god" since you could water it down so much until it bore no resemblance to the god of any religion and we'd get into the boring, murky, nearly-atheistic, practically useless territory of deism. =P
  • obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -10/+14"Stand up to a corrupt God and demand dignity for the entire human race beyond my tribe"

    God isn't corrupt--it's the organized religions that have warped and distorted His message that are corrupt.

    Jesus demanded equality to all people, regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. Jesus taught peace, love. He would NEVER endorse any sort of violent action towards another person.

    So the athiest's wager is fundamentally flawed.
    • LeegleechN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8And yet according to the Bible you still go to hell if you refuse to accept Christ as a savior.
    • Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The only real law Christ put forward was "Love your neighbor as yourself." If you can't accept that, you probably couldn't exist in heaven anyway because you'd screw up the vibe.
    • j10s, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@LeegleechN

      atheists love to resort to that but it comes down to this:

      If during your life you wanted to stay as far away from God as you could, then when you are dead he will pretty much grant that wish. God wants us to love others, God loves us. He does not want us to go to hell but if that is what we choose, and yes we choose it, then God will give it to us.
  • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -25/+10athiests have just as much proof that god doesnt exist as theists do that he does. so all they actually have is FAITH that there is no god. how's that for irony?
    • DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Yeah, atheists have about as much faith that there is no God as you have faith that there is no Easter Bunny. Gimme a break buddy, think before you make a fool of yourself, people on Digg are generally pretty smart, and will see through a poorly thought out argument such as yours.
    • daybreaker, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3how retarded are you? Show me the PROOF there is no god. All you have is your interpretation of the facts. Gravity is still a theory, yet youre claiming there's a PROOF for the non-existence of God?

      Just because science has disproven old religious beliefs, doesnt mean it invalidates ALL of them. You have your faith in the nonexistence of god, and I have my faith in his existence. The only difference between you and me is that I'm not a dick who goesaround going "haha, I'm right and youre a bunch of faith-having fags!" I fully acknowledge that god may not exist. In my personal experience though, I choose to believe he does.

      And it has nothing to do with "Oh gee, I better believe in God, just in case, so I can avoid hell."
    • DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Show me proof that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are not real, daybreak. Go on, do it. Prove to me that there is not, at this very moment, an invisible elf floating above your home. Clearly, the burden of proof is on those who make the POSITIVE claim, about anything.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Yes, you are exactly right about me (an Atheist). I have faith that there is no God, just like I have faith that there isn't a fifty dollar bill sticking out of my nose. I looked closely, all I found was a booger.

      But, I don't see the irony.
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3@darkreign16 and @screennot

      So by mentioning the Easter Bunny and the hypothetical 50 dollar bills, you guys are suggesting that, for something to be true it has to have some proof. That position, my friends, is completely incorrect and flawed. e.g. lets say there is a comet which is on a collision course with Earth in the Year 2207 A.D., no one has observed this comet but it is there and coming right at us. Based on your logic this comet does not exist right now, because no one can prove it exists. Based on same logic the Earth, not too long ago had to be flat, because all observations at that time supported it being flat and no one could prove it was round!

      There are infinite number of truths about this universe which are true but we cannot yet prove to be true, even so they are without a shadow of a doubt TRUE. TRUTH is TRUTH, whether someone can prove it or not, whether 6 billion people believe it or no one does.

      You may also do well to read up on Godel's incompleteness theorem and its application to the subject at hand.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2No, you idiot. I am saying that I need proof to believe it.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Somehow I lost a sentence in my comment.

      I need proof of the comet's existence to believe it. The comet obviously needs no confirmation from me to exist, but neither do the other infinite number of non-existent comets that don't exist.
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@screensnot

      "No, you idiot. I am saying that I need proof to believe it."

      Firstly props for the idiot remark, by using it you automatically come off as being 10 times smarter than me.

      Secondly if your argument is not about proof, that pray tell what it is about. Please explain to this mere mortal what your superior reasoning is. I somehow have a feeling you don't understand the premise of your own argument.
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@screensnot

      "I need proof of the comet's existence to believe it. The comet obviously needs no confirmation from me to exist, but neither do the other infinite number of non-existent comets that don't exist."

      So you are saying:

      "It could very well be true and be proved in the future but I will not believe it based on my criteria of what to believe."

      So you could be wrong and your position could be similar to someone saying the earth is flat a while ago. That is a fair position, but in no way is it a logically stronger position than theism.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ aamir2

      >So you are saying:

      >"It could very well be true and be proved in the future but I will not believe it based on my criteria of what to believe."

      That is exactly what I am saying.

      >So you could be wrong and your position could be similar to someone saying the earth is flat a while ago.
      >That is a fair position, but in no way is it a logically stronger position than theism.

      I don't think of my position as logically stronger, really. To go back to the comet thing again; I ask why choose the comet in 2027, over the 2026 one, or any of the other infinite number of hypothetical comets to believe in? What if by spending all your time looking for the comet in 2027 to come, you fail to see the 2026 comet?
    • aamir2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I don't think of my position as logically stronger, really. To go back to the comet thing again; I ask why choose the comet in 2027, over the 2026 one, or any of the other infinite number of hypothetical comets to believe in? What if by spending all your time looking for the comet in 2027 to come, you fail to see the 2026 comet?"

      Yes there could be an any number of other comets and facts, but none of those would change the truth of the comet2027, something that is, is, proof or no proof does not make nary a difference. A truth is a truth is a truth. Why would I choose that particular truth, because a truth about the creation of universe needs to exist, and because there is a Creator of the universe makes the most logical sense to me.

      Based on Godel's incompleteness theorem, there are truth about any given system (say our universe) which though true cannot (ever) be proven to be true within the axioms of that system (say our universe). So if there are truths even within our universe which can never be proven to be true within the laws of our universe, then how can our mathematical, logical, and evidence based scientific system, be the method of choice to the ultimate question about the creation of the universe, the answer to which lies outside our universe. Clearly if there is answer to the question of creation of the universe, science can NEVER answer it. Hence the search for the answer to that ultimate question can be approached via other methods like spirituality. Scientific evidence based, peer reviewed process is a great (and only) tool to use for scientific advancement, for which it is really important to decide what *we can agree upon.* But it is NOT the tool which determines what is true, because truth is NOT a hostage to proof.
  • bubs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I'm not sure which types of submissions hit the front page more, Apple or Atheism.
    • zachriggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Ubuntu obviously hits the FP more then Apple or Atheism.
    • RyanNumberOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Apple by far.
  • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Pascals wager is universal. It relies on good action to achieve a good end. If you fail to act as a good Christian (anything else is in the atheist category according to Pascal) then you go to hell. In the atheist's wager, the assumption is made that religion creates injustice in and of itself, and this is obviously not true a priori. Justice rests not with Christians or atheists, but according to Pascal the glory of heaven is saved for those who follow the scripture and live as good Christians.

    In short, the Atheist's wager doesn't work.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1No, it isn't for idiots, just the misinformed.

      Let us simplify-

      Do you believe in your evil twin?
      yes
      no

      I'm not sure is not an answer- why? because I'm not sure is the same thing as saying no. Either you believe, or you dont. If you're an agnostic, you don't believe, and that lack of belief is called atheism.
  • Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5Atheism is just as irrational as theism. The only logical conclusion is agnosticism.
    • DarkReign16, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Care to elaborate?
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Ironic that you should claim that in a thread related to Pascal, who proved that agnosticism is impossible. Anything but belief is atheism. In his words, you are embarked.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I'll help you out there. Since it's scientifically impossible to prove that god either exists or does not exist, it's best to simply not attempt to answer the question, hence agnosticism.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3It's not a form. You can't choose the third option. Either you believe in God or you don't. Hence why there are 4 boxes, not 6, in the wagers.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Ok, let me explain it again. I do not believe in god, however, I must admit that I cannot disprove that god exists, it's just a gut-feeling that he doesn't. Since you've got nothing more than a gut feeling yourself, our viewpoints are equally valid. However, as an agnostic I take it one step further and say that even if god parted the clouds and announced his presence in a booming voice and warned me that I'd go to hell for living as I do, I wouldn't really give a *****. So I contend that it might be possible that a supreme being exists, but I don't give a rats ass about him, because I refuse to submit to the will of any other.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Then you're a pissy atheist. Congrats.
    • Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Either you believe in God or you don't."

      I'm not talking about belief, I'm talking about knowing. If someone put a complicated equation on a board that was beyond your understanding and then asked you if you thought it was a true equality you'd be forced into believing it is either true or false? No, you simply wouldn't know. You don't understand it and you have no reason to believe it to be equal or not and so you believe nothing about it because you have no knowledge to base your belief upon.

      You can't know that atheism is correct. So to be an atheist is to be irrational for the exact same reasons the theism is irrational. They believe something to be true when it is, in fact, not knowable.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You've messed up a bit. It is as if someone but a super hard question on the board and asked you if you know how to answer it. Lets say you know how to solve part of the problem, but can't come to the final solution. You can't say "I get it partly, but I'm not sure", you simply don't know the answer. If you don't believe in god, you're an atheist, plain and simple.
    • Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5So agnosticism is just for idiots then?

      What madness has infected the minds of people that they throw off the irrationality of theism and slap on the shackles of an equally irrational atheism?

      It is not binary. There is knowing that something is true, false and having no knowledge or equal parts true evidence and false evidence. There are no forced conclusions. What rubbish is this?
    • Gottschalk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I guess trying to explain agnosticism on digg is like trying to introduce zero to the Romans.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No, it isn't for idiots, just the misinformed.

      Let us simplify-

      Do you believe in your evil twin?
      yes
      no

      I'm not sure is not an answer- why? because I'm not sure is the same thing as saying no. Either you believe, or you dont. If you're an agnostic, you don't believe, and that lack of belief is called atheism.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@ gott- Close, explaining Pascal to atheists is like pulling teeth.
    • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Holy crap! I'm pretty sure I don't have an evil twin, but I GUESS my parents MIGHT have had another kid who was just too damn ***** evil to be kept around and they locked him in the basement.

      There. Next?
    • yarukizero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If you're an agnostic, you don't believe, and that lack of belief is called atheism."

      You seem to be using different definitions of "agnostic" and "atheist" from the rest of us. Or something. I was of the impression that we're talking about a *spectrum* of beliefs, ranging from theist to atheist, with agnostic (and skeptic) resting somewhere in the middle. If you define atheist as "non-theist" then I suppose your way of putting it would be accurate, but I don't think anyone else really looks at it that way. I'm certain that I don't see anyone here treating it that way, which makes bludgeoning your personal interpretation of these words' meanings kind of disingenuous. To the best of my knowledge atheism and agnosticism are two distinct positions.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1No one else does? Really? Ask Pascal.
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Ok, let me explain it again. I do not believe in god, however, I must admit that I cannot disprove that god exists, it's just a gut-feeling that he doesn't. Since you've got nothing more than a gut feeling yourself, our viewpoints are equally valid. However, as an agnostic I take it one step further and say that even if god parted the clouds and announced his presence in a booming voice and warned me that I'd go to hell for living as I do, I wouldn't really give a *****. So I contend that it might be possible that a supreme being exists, but I don't give a rats ass about him, because I refuse to submit to the will of any other."

      We are pretty much the same. The only thing different that I see, is I don't look to my gut for the answer. I looked for proof that he exists, long and hard. Couldn't find it. All I could find was a bunch of different versions of god that were defined by contradictory beliefs, propagated by corrupt conglomerates, preached by hypocrites, and followed by sheep. I finally concluded that there is no god.

      But, I don't know any Atheist that wouldn't change his position if he were presented with undeniable poof. That is what Atheist are asking for. It's not asking a lot, if there really is an all-powerful god.

      So, we are nearly identical. It just seems that I put a little more thought into my answer. While you haven't bothered, or just gave up trying. It's OK to give up on this question, in my book. I think no less of you, and still call you my brother.
    • givemereplay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Screenshot- go check out anselm's ontological argument
      enjoy your faith
    • screensnot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ givemereplay

      I copied the argument from answers.com, then reworded it slightly (my changes are inside the **):

      Argument that proceeds from the idea of a huge wad of cash in my pocket to the reality of huge wad of cash in my pocket. It was first clearly formulated by *St. Screensnot in his Post on digg.com (1969-2107)*; a later famous version is given by *Tom Cruise (after he read the post he dropped Scientology like a hot rock)*. *Screensnot* began with the concept of *huge wad of cash in my pocket* as that than which no *huger wad of cash in my pocket* can be conceived. To think of such a *huge wad of cash in my pocket* as existing only in thought and not also in reality involves a contradiction, since a *huge wad of cash in my pocket* that lacks real existence is not a *huge wad of cash in my pocket* than which none greater can be conceived. A yet greater *huge wad of cash in my pocket* would be one with the further attribute of existence. Thus the unsurpassably *huge wad of cash in my pocket* must exist; otherwise it would not be *an* unsurpassably *huge wad of cash in my pocket*. This *will not be* among the most discussed and contested arguments in the history of thought (because it will shut people up about the stupid ontological argument).

      BTW, I checked just now. There is no huge wad of cash in my pocket.
    • bumb1ebee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I would respect Agnosticism more if they were agnostic about everything else in life instead of selectively applying their agnosticism to the question of God and not, say, Santa Claus, the FSM, or Zeus. If someone asks an agnostic if Santa Claus was real, would he or she say, "there's no proof for or against their existence, so there's no point in attempting to answer the question."?

      And atheism doesn't claim to "know" that there is absolutely no God. Get your facts straight.
    • jakesavage,