Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe. [Archive]

David Sklansky

11-14-2005, 10:34 AM

The thread about whether athiests would take an absolution "freeroll" offer, and their replies that they wouldn't, got me to thinking.

Many of the atheists replied that if God was good, he would reward their rationality. Which reminded me of the argument against Pascal's wager pointing out that perhaps God sends non believers instead of believers to heaven.

I have always regarded that argument a little silly as I'm sure most thiests do. Logically correct, but silly. But it just dawned on me that the concepts involved are analagous to something I have written about regarding crime and punishment.

I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

DougShrapnel

11-14-2005, 11:11 AM

If we wish to examine this furthur, we can see that the reason why people are able to get past the apparent short-sightedness of God. Is that faith in God allows "evil" people to change thier belief about the correctness of robbing banks or rapping women. So what does that say about or crimianl system. It states in obvious terms that the criminal system should be designed to allow very bad people to change thier beliefs.

chezlaw

11-14-2005, 01:45 PM

I think you may have missed the strength of the refutation. Its exactly the right refutation because its so insanely unlikely that the rational end up in heaven.

insanely unlikely * infinite reward is exactly the right balance for the proposed upside.

chez

imported_luckyme

11-14-2005, 01:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every viewpoint has a slant. Two that seem essentially deep rooted in people and show up in almost every undertaking from the smallest daily chore to the biggest decisions are the 'intent/motivation matters' and "results/outcome matter" views.

To a fair degree this plays out in the theist/atheist debates. Daddydvo's deathbed thread is an example. You can divide the people into those, like daddydvo, who argue that it's important THAT you believe, and a lot of others who say it's important WHY you believe.

Your agument appears to depend on 'intent' being higher valued than the act when it comes to assigning 'badness'. A lot of religion is built on the opposite premise as many theist comments on this forum illustrate.

Although a lot would be more attracted one way or the other, I'm not claiming that all individual people on either side of the debate are innately 'intent based' or 'result based' but that a lot of their arguments are.

There are other filters to run arguments and positions through, I just find this theme to be a useful one also.

luckyme

bluesbassman

11-14-2005, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The thread about whether athiests would take an absolution "freeroll" offer, and their replies that they wouldn't, got me to thinking.

Many of the atheists replied that if God was good, he would reward their rationality. Which reminded me of the argument against Pascal's wager pointing out that perhaps God sends non believers instead of believers to heaven.

I have always regarded that argument a little silly as I'm sure most thiests do. Logically correct, but silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the argument is logically correct, then how is it "silly?" I can only think of one possible sense: since the concept of "god" (as well as "heaven" or "hell") is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless, then it's futile to attempt to maximize a cost function by adopting a particular belief system.

[ QUOTE ]

But it just dawned on me that the concepts involved are analagous to something I have written about regarding crime and punishment.

I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just one of the multitude of ways the Christian "god" is a hopeless morass of contradictions. But posing this question is perhaps a little silly.

bluesbassman

11-14-2005, 02:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to mention another point in my first reply...

I disagree that the hypothetical person who refrains from, say raping, only due to fear of going to jail, is "worse" than an actual rapist.

The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.

Lestat

11-14-2005, 02:30 PM

The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.


Please expound on this, because it doesn't make sense to me if you flip it around.

If person A does a good deed out of no other reason than wanting to help someone, and person B does a good deed mainly because of some perceived gain, does this not make person A morally superior to person B?

I fail to see how an act based on fear of personal repurcussions can ever be morally superior to an act based on one's own rationality.

How can those who believe in God and base their actions mainly out of fear for their perceived repurcussions of non-belief, be morally superior to those who simply base their actions on what is rational to them?

[Edit:] Hold off. Many flaws above. I wrote too hastily. But perhaps you can see what I'm getting at anyway.

NotReady

11-14-2005, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're beginning to see that motive is an important ingredient in moral judgments.

PrayingMantis

11-14-2005, 04:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that "concepts" are something that bother any god too much. That's also why it is usally a bit easier to be a god than a human being, although there are some exceptions.

IronUnkind

11-14-2005, 08:12 PM

BluffTHIS!

11-15-2005, 02:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you're beginning to see that motive is an important ingredient in moral judgments.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice comment NR.

And one thing is for sure, despite my more lenient views, non-believers are a favorite to predominate in hell.

RJT

11-15-2005, 02:34 AM

Not sure if this belongs here or under bigdaddy’s thread (or neither).

We start with 3 sets of folk.

1) Those who believe ( I include those who say they believe) .
2) Those who say a God makes no sense.
3) Those who say it cannot be determined therefore, I abstain from belief or non belief.

1) These folk will be judged fairly by God on the sincerity of their belief. God is omniscient. He knows.

2) There is nothing in Science that says a creator God is impossible. These folk have no rights. They relinquished their right to a trial (whether the trial is fair or not really becomes moot) when they chose that God does not exist. No rational thought can lead to any certain conclusion that God does not exist. They are not justified in coming to that conclusion. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of God. They do not recognize any Supreme Authority. The simply then do not participate in the Kingdom of God. A Kingdom which they decided does not even exist.

3) These are the folk with whom we are most concerned. How can a just God judge them harshly for using their “God given” brain? So long as they are decent folk, I don’t think God will be too hard on them. But, as far as participating in the Kingdom of God, I am not quite sure. There are a few complications with these folk.

Regarding why being decent is necessary - If one chooses to be selfish (not decent) and take the attitude that might makes right, then really what one is doing is choosing the Law of Nature. He is following the rule of the animal. He does indeed make a choice after all. He really chooses Man is God. He chooses no God.
He really belongs to group #2.

To the decent folk, why should they be awarded a prize simply for being decent? What is their intent? I think they do actually make a choice too. Again they choose Man is God. They are kind to others so that society works. They do unto others because that is how they expect others to do unto them. If all act accordingly, then the system works. It is Man’s system, though, that they are interested in. They have no interest in God. If they have no interest in God, that is they allowed for the possibility of God, yet decided not to seek Him - why do they wish to partake in His Kingdom after the fact?

If in the back of their mind they think maybe God. Then these folk just might ask for absolution at the last minute before Gettysburg. They might say, even only conditionally “If God exists then I believe“. They allow for God’s saving Grace. Perhaps a just God decides this is a Baptism of Desire that Bluff spoke of. And a just God absolves them of their omission of not knowing Him prior. He accepts them into His Kingdom.

To those who have no such last minute opportunity, yet allow for the possibility of God. This is the hard one. I think the onus is on themselves. Did they make an attempt? Did they seek and not find? What were the circumstances of not finding? This is where a just God must find justly for/against them. He is omniscient. He knows.

Footnote: When I speak of God in the basic form of Creator only, I do not mean to imply that is enough. Once one decides that a creator God is possible, then the onus is on the person to look for evidence. I think rare is the case of one who seeks and does not find it. If one so desires a relationship with God, God graces that person with the gift of Faith. That is how it works. That is how some have given witness to how it works. That is how I believe He works.

bluesbassman

11-15-2005, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

2) There is nothing in Science that says a Flying Spaghetti Monster is impossible. These folk have no rights. They relinquished their right to a trial (whether the trial is fair or not really becomes moot) when they chose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. No rational thought can lead to any certain conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. They are not justified in coming to that conclusion. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. They do not recognize any Supreme Noodle. The simply then do not participate in the Kingdom of Pasta. A Kingdom which they decided does not even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT

11-15-2005, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) There is nothing in Science that says a Flying Spaghetti Monster is impossible. These folk have no rights. They relinquished their right to a trial (whether the trial is fair or not really becomes moot) when they chose that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. No rational thought can lead to any certain conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. They are not justified in coming to that conclusion. Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. They do not recognize any Supreme Noodle. The simply then do not participate in the Kingdom of Pasta. A Kingdom which they decided does not even exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so if the FSM is God then don't complain that you wanted to eat "spaghetti marinara" for eternity instead of "linguini diabolo" when/if He serves up His menu. Eat the diabolo or go without pasta at that time.

David Sklansky

11-15-2005, 01:52 PM

I'm wondering if people are getting my, not explicitly stated point. Namely that God is more likely to reward those who do right while doubting his existence than those who only do right because thay believe he will punish them if they don't.

I see no reaon for it to be farfetched that if there is a God he is mildly disgusted by the typical worshipper much the same way I am mildly disgusted by the typical fan who hasn't studied my stuff. He could easily be way more anxious to meet Steven Hawking or Watson and Crick (who actually appreciate his work) than txaq007.

imported_luckyme

11-15-2005, 02:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Namely that God is more likely to reward those who do right while doubting his existence than those who only do right because thay believe he will punish them if they don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be one leg on which those who state versions of "christianity is immoral" build their case. It's a natural reaction to the teenager who apoligizes to you because they realize they did something wrong and the teenager that apologizes to you because his dad said he'd be grounded until he does. That second teenager just doesn't seem a better person. Variations of this play a part in those non-theists that aren't just concerned with lack of evidence.

RJT

11-15-2005, 02:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm wondering if people are getting my, not explicitly stated point. Namely that God is more likely to reward those who do right while doubting his existence than those who only do right because thay believe he will punish them if they don't.

I see no reaon for it to be farfetched that if there is a God he is mildly disgusted by the typical worshipper much the same way I am mildly disgusted by the typical fan who hasn't studied my stuff. He could easily be way more anxious to meet Steven Hawking or Watson and Crick (who actually appreciate his work) than txaq007.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am hoping that is the way it works, too. I certainly would much rather hang with the likes of Hawking et al for eternity than some of the fascist Christians many of us dread. I think Jesus in fact showed this to be the case. He hung with the disenfranchised (not to equate them to atheists) quite often.

In regard to your actual point: I think I agreed with it in saying for both scenarios, “God is omniscient. He knows.”

imported_luckyme

11-15-2005, 02:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
2) Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's just the 'prove a negative' silliness. "If you can't prove me wrong, than anything I can imagine and claim must be treated as true". That has Zero use as evidence for anything and FSM ends up as valid. I don't think god takes kindly to those who equate their belief in him on the strength of the negative proof of the FSM.

Hmmmm...I'm pretty sure you don't think that way in any other area of your life. I have two neighbour that may or may not have a cat. You are allowed to spend a day in each house searching for clues. By your 'reasoning' you would have no justification to decide that the lack of evidence in a house is a indicator of 'lack of cat', even if not total.
If god gave us the power to reason, I suspect he'd prefer we made some use of it and reward us for it.

"leap of faith" is one thing.
"plunge of logic" is another.

jstoc

11-15-2005, 02:58 PM

My thoughts on the subject are that all human beings are all equally capable of commiting "evil" acts. Whether one actually does or does not commit said acts, is irrelevant, as I believe laws and punishment are the only thing that restrains man from acting immoral. Being that we are all capable of commiting these "evil" acts, then we are all equal, none morally superior to the other.

The point of Christianity is that God wants us to recognize that we are all fallen, corrupt and incapable of doing what is good. Therefore salvation is given to those who recognize this inherent fallen nature, and repent, realizing that they are incapable of doing what is right without God.

imported_luckyme

11-15-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe laws and punishment are the only thing that restrains man from acting immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does not the evidence point to social issues such as peer pressure, the desire to be accepted, the desire to be repected, etc being a much stronger influence than any 'outside' threat of punishment? For both good and bad morals.

jstoc

11-15-2005, 03:18 PM

Does not the evidence point to social issues such as peer pressure, the desire to be accepted, the desire to be repected, etc being a much stronger influence than any 'outside' threat of punishment? For both good and bad morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are important points that I failed to put in, I agree that they play a strong role, although I must admit I am not entirely sure that play a role as great as laws and punishment which restrict freedom and or entertain in the minds of would be criminals the idea of death in response to their illegal actions. I think they are at least equal.

BTW, When you say evidence, what research are you referring to?

RJT

11-15-2005, 06:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It is not evidence for a lack of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that's just the 'prove a negative' silliness. "If you can't prove me wrong, than anything I can imagine and claim must be treated as true". That has Zero use as evidence for anything and FSM ends up as valid. I don't think god takes kindly to those who equate their belief in him on the strength of the negative proof of the FSM.

Hmmmm...I'm pretty sure you don't think that way in any other area of your life. I have two neighbour that may or may not have a cat. You are allowed to spend a day in each house searching for clues. By your 'reasoning' you would have no justification to decide that the lack of evidence in a house is a indicator of 'lack of cat', even if not total.
If god gave us the power to reason, I suspect he'd prefer we made some use of it and reward us for it.

"leap of faith" is one thing.
"plunge of logic" is another.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comments are in the context of: if God then what does he expect? That is the discussion.

Regarding the power of reason, my only point here is that one cannot reason there is no God. This is not to say that one can/can’t reason there is God.

11-15-2005, 06:23 PM

IronUnkind

11-15-2005, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reaon for it to be farfetched that if there is a God he is mildly disgusted by the typical worshipper much the same way I am mildly disgusted by the typical fan who hasn't studied my stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think about the person who has studied your stuff, and then attributes it to Ken Warren?

RJT

11-15-2005, 07:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2)I have two neighbours that may or may not have a cat. You are allowed to spend a day in each house searching for clues. By your 'reasoning' you would have no justification to decide that the lack of evidence in a house is a indicator of 'lack of cat', even if not total.

[/ QUOTE ]

My comments are in the context of: if God then what does he expect? That is the discussion.

Regarding the power of reason, my only point here is that one cannot reason there is no God. This is not to say that one can/can’t reason there is God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really really like the whole "lack of cat" scenario. So if you use Believer logic, some believers will be convinced the house MUST have a cat, others will say its a dog, and still others will say there must be a monkey. Each will be convinced they know which animal there is and YOU cannot disprove that said animal is hiding somewhere in the house.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure your point, gorv. I have already stated that luckyme has misinterpreted what I said. (Or I wasn't clear to begin with.) Yeah, looking for the cat is a great idea. I just don't see the relevance.

Besides, those who read T. S. Elliot are certainly going to have a better handle on how to look for the cat and are better apt to see any clues if there is indeed a friggin’ cat in the house than those who don’t.

11-15-2005, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Once one decides that a creator God is possible, then the onus is on the person to look for evidence. I think rare is the case of one who seeks and does not find it. If one so desires a relationship with God, God graces that person with the gift of Faith. That is how it works. That is how some have given witness to how it works. That is how I believe He works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay and I am here to witness that it has not worked that way for me personally. I have spent a great deal of time--I venture to say as much or more than most of these easy-to-please believers--looking for a higher power.
The fact that I have not come across the judeo-Christian god only throws you a curveball if you accept that I am telling the truth.
I am but that wont change your story because your story believes only the "witnessing" that tells you what you want to hear.

-g

RJT

11-15-2005, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once one decides that a creator God is possible, then the onus is on the person to look for evidence. I think rare is the case of one who seeks and does not find it. If one so desires a relationship with God, God graces that person with the gift of Faith. That is how it works. That is how some have given witness to how it works. That is how I believe He works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay and I am here to witness that it has not worked that way for me personally. I have spent a great deal of time--I venture to say as much or more than most of these easy-to-please believers--looking for a higher power.
The fact that I have not come across the judeo-Christian god only throws you a curveball if you accept that I am telling the truth.
I am but that wont change your story because your story believes only the "witnessing" that tells you what you want to hear.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying you are wrong. Simply, I am saying that is how I understand it, how I understand others accounts, i.e. works I have read as well as talking with some Christians who I respect, and how it has worked for me. I certainly can’t call you a liar if you are saying that you have given it a go - have studied (not only literally studied) it as much as the next guy - and “nothing happened” so to speak.

“The fact that I have not come across the judeo-Christian god…” I am not quite sure what you mean here. This leads me to believe we are talking two different things.

RJT

11-15-2005, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once one decides that a creator God is possible, then the onus is on the person to look for evidence. I think rare is the case of one who seeks and does not find it. If one so desires a relationship with God, God graces that person with the gift of Faith. That is how it works. That is how some have given witness to how it works. That is how I believe He works.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay and I am here to witness that it has not worked that way for me personally. I have spent a great deal of time--I venture to say as much or more than most of these easy-to-please believers--looking for a higher power.
The fact that I have not come across the judeo-Christian god only throws you a curveball if you accept that I am telling the truth.
I am but that wont change your story because your story believes only the "witnessing" that tells you what you want to hear.

-g

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not saying you are wrong. Simply, I am saying that is how I understand it, how I understand others accounts, i.e. works I have read as well as talking with some Christians who I respect, and how it has worked for me. I certainly can’t call you a liar if you are saying that you have given it a go - have studied (not only literally studied) it as much as the next guy - and “nothing happened” so to speak.

“The fact that I have not come across the judeo-Christian god…” I am not quite sure what you mean here. This leads me to believe we are talking two different things.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes we are probably talking two different things. I say my desire to find answers and to seek is as intense and sustained as many. Am I picking up the King James bible and studying specifically? No. However, I went to Hebrew School as a youth, I've been to the Holy Land of Israel and I've done as much self-questioning as I know how. Believe me, I never purposefuly rejected God's advances.
However, I probably didnt seek God exactly as you would prescribe--ie. picking up the King James Bible, saying I accept Jesus into my life, and then leaving my brain on the floor.

g

BluffTHIS!

11-15-2005, 09:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reaon for it to be farfetched that if there is a God he is mildly disgusted by the typical worshipper much the same way I am mildly disgusted by the typical fan who hasn't studied my stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

"So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."
-Rev. 3:16

RJT

11-15-2005, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I probably didnt seek God exactly as you would prescribe--ie. picking up the King James Bible, saying I accept Jesus into my life, and then leaving my brain on the floor.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your brain won’t do you any good with your head up Buddha’s a.. anyway. I can insult as well as the next guy.

Sorry for the hi-jack, OP.

11-15-2005, 09:42 PM

[quote Your brain won’t do you any good with your head up Buddha’s a.. anyway. I can insult as well as the next guy.

Sorry for the hi-jack, OP.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I bother putting my head up Buddha's ass? I know as much about Buddha as I do Jesus. Never met either of them. Both fictional as far as I'm concerned.
Just happen to like meditation. Sorry for the perceived insult--i've always talked a lot of smack but dont mean much of it. I know i am full of bs.

RJT

11-15-2005, 09:47 PM

No problem.

IronUnkind

11-15-2005, 09:51 PM

But such an atheist -- who felt this would be a good reason for disbelief -- would likely be possessed of an unsophisticated mind. In which case, I'd tend to discount their ability to evaluate the evidence, as well.

Peter666

11-15-2005, 09:53 PM

Meh, I don't think so. If the non believer was smart, he would be using his power of will to dominate over the weaker moral people of society for his own advantage. This would necessarily lead to some evil but "necessary" actions in his mind.

If the non believer was dumb, chances are he doesn't have any excuse for any of his actions good or bad and does not enter heaven based on this dumb factor alone. There is no "reason" for him to enter heaven.

On the other hand, the dumb believer has the excuse of belief to give some sort of justification for heaven, and hopefully humility as well. His excuse for his actions is that he is dumb and recognizes it and asks God during life to let him in anyway whereas it is too late for the dumb non-believer to ask.

IronUnkind

11-15-2005, 09:57 PM

Atheists are kinda cute sometimes.

IronUnkind

11-15-2005, 10:06 PM

Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiments and the Milgram Experiment. C.F. Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men for Holocaust comparisons.

David Sklansky

11-15-2005, 11:08 PM

"What do you think about the person who has studied your stuff, and then attributes it to Ken Warren?"

Not nearly as annoyed with him as the non studyer. Especially if, (as in the case with your analogy), I know he will eventually find out the truth.

11-15-2005, 11:58 PM

I just think it's highly comical when people who DO NOT believe in God mention him and heaven.

Am I missing something? If someone doesn't believe in God or heaven, then nobody goes to heaven. Because in their mind, it doesn't exist, nor does God.

In other words, if a non-beliver had a dream or premonition about a dead family member making it to heaven, they should scoff at it. For they would not believe in it at all. They can't say "Well my uncle believed in God, so I guess it's possible for HIM to go to Heaven."

lol.

EDIT: I don't believe in Jargamagook's, and therefore, if someone told me about an encounter they had with a Jargamagook, I'd scoff. Because I'm saying it right now, I do not believe in Jargamagooks!

imported_luckyme

11-16-2005, 01:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in Jargamagook's, and therefore, if someone told me about an encounter they had with a Jargamagook, I'd scoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm..what's to scoff at? The experience is very likely real (at least there's no reason to think people are lying). The experience doesn't have to have an external counterpart or there doesn't have to be an external cause at all.
That a different subject than challenging any logical claims made for a belief in Jargma, FSM or a personalassistant diety.

imported_luckyme

11-16-2005, 02:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But such an atheist -- who felt this would be a good reason for disbelief -- would likely be possessed of an unsophisticated mind. In which case, I'd tend to discount their ability to evaluate the evidence, as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever the subject, the default approach is one of disbelief, it does not require a reason.
a) I'll believe anything until disproven.
b) I'll wait for evidence before believing anything.
Sure it's not as simple as a/b but religion is about the only subject that people who normally use a b approach switch to a. The concept that atheists/agnostics are doing anything 'strange' by wanting evidence is simply misdirection, not always ingenuous.

IronUnkind

11-16-2005, 03:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever the subject, the default approach is one of disbelief, it does not require a reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am dubious of the effectiveness of the hermeneutics of suspicion, particularly with respect to this question. The rationalist, I contend, must play by his own rules. Neutrality, then, is necessarily a virtue. A robust skepticism, on the other hand, is just as tendencious as a thoroughgoing credulity.

The burden of proof gambit bears the distinct aroma of an avoidance mechanism. I think it is fair to say, though, that theists have been quite willing to pick up the gauntlet. And I will concede that some atheists have offered substantial critiques of this positions. It is a wonder that discussions ever begin, considering the willingness to hide behind Occam's Razor. But I digress.

My original comment was in response to the scenario where an hypothetical atheist had already offered a partial reason for his disbelief, one that is easily debunked.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure it's not as simple as a/b but religion is about the only subject that people who normally use a b approach switch to a.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with your categories, but the incongruity that you perceive is due in part to the nature of the question, the answer to which is fundamental to our understanding of our world and ourselves. The idea that one must remain loyal to a particular epistemology is fostered, I think, by a foolish consistency and the Western obsession with unity.

IronUnkind

11-16-2005, 04:23 AM

Somehow you've conned me into casting you as God in my analogy. I guess that means Mat is Jesus and Mason is...I don't know....Emperor Palpatine?

11-16-2005, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]

The burden of proof gambit bears the distinct aroma of an avoidance mechanism. I think it is fair to say, though, that theists have been quite willing to pick up the gauntlet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange this... I feel that religion is an avoidance mechanism. The truth of the human condition is not pretty. The only things that theist are hiding behind is, always, belief (aka a suspension of reason).

11-16-2005, 04:58 AM

I'm an atheist, but the bible has always intrigued me.

As I understand it, the original question revolves around if God will allow a potential 'evil' man who acts 'good' into heaven merely because he acts like a believes should.

And the answer is that he doesn't.

Matthew chapter 5&6 have some pretty nice quotes from Jesus on who gets to come into heaven. And just acting the belief isn't enough. You have to mean&believe for the right reasons.

So the guy who believes and acts like he does simply because he doesn't want to go to 'hell'. Well...he'll end up right next to me and a whole lot of other atheists (mind you, if this happens...we'll all feel really silly).

11-16-2005, 05:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
...(mind you, if this happens...we'll all feel really silly).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist also and I would rather you didn't speak on my behalf.

I would not feel sorry if I was eternally damned. If such a god existed (inconceivable to me that the world, as it is, could be a result of any consciousness.. let alone the idea of eternal damnation) I would at the very least have the satisfaction to not have given in to, or satisfied, a tyrant. This attitude, in fact, gives meaning to my life in an otherwise meaningless experience.

11-16-2005, 06:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...(mind you, if this happens...we'll all feel really silly).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am an atheist also and I would rather you didn't speak on my behalf.

I would not feel sorry if I was eternally damned. If such a god existed (inconceivable to me that the world, as it is, could be a result of any consciousness.. let alone the idea of eternal damnation) I would at the very least have the satisfaction to not have given in to, or satisfied, a tyrant. This attitude, in fact, gives meaning to my life in an otherwise meaningless experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be plain obvious that the last line of my note was intended as nothing but humoruous.

But you did get too pad your 'god is a tyrant' post, which I suspect was the true intention of your note anyway.

IronUnkind

11-16-2005, 07:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The truth of the human condition is not pretty.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a Keats fan, are you?

11-16-2005, 07:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It should be plain obvious that the last line of my note was intended as nothing but humoruous.

But you did get too pad your 'god is a tyrant' post, which I suspect was the true intention of your note anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like all my posts abouth theism are humourous also, by definition. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

As regarding the intention, I really was concerned about the misrepresentation, but if it gave me the opportunity to be militant.... why not? It is sorely needed.

11-16-2005, 07:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not a Keats fan, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not particularly. OTOH, very much a fan of my own observations. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chezlaw

11-16-2005, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I am dubious of the effectiveness of the hermeneutics of suspicion, particularly with respect to this question. The rationalist, I contend, must play by his own rules. Neutrality, then, is necessarily a virtue. A robust skepticism, on the other hand, is just as tendencious as a thoroughgoing credulity.

The burden of proof gambit bears the distinct aroma of an avoidance mechanism. I think it is fair to say, though, that theists have been quite willing to pick up the gauntlet. And I will concede that some atheists have offered substantial critiques of this positions. It is a wonder that discussions ever begin, considering the willingness to hide behind Occam's Razor. But I digress.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you have hold of the key to the whole religon/intellignece debate. Its not to do with Ockham's razor (which is about which set of beliefs to chose) but purely to do with whether any belief about god should be chosen at all.

Skeptics (I count myself in here) have no belief about god because its their nature not to form beliefs without a reason. Its not a choice or an avoidance mechanism either, they are incapable of believing something without a reason.

Credulous people (is their a word like skeptic for them) have to form a belief about anything they consider, even if there is no reason for it. This is not a choice either.

I assume most people fall between the two extremes.

DS tries to link this to intelligence but its not clear to me he is doing much more than recognising that those he thinks most intelligent are people like him (skeptics) who also happen to be very good at the things he considers most interesting.

chez

IronUnkind

11-16-2005, 11:11 AM

I only brought up Occam's Razor because part of the classical atheist position has been the denial of burden of proof with the attendant appeal to this principle. Even if I were to concede that the burden of proof was upon the theist, I would hope that the atheist would not allow themselves to merely sit back and refute. I would not expect someone who self-identified as an agnostic to avoid the actual discussion.

My use of the term "avoidance mechanism," incidentally, was just a bit of rhetoric. I doubt that most atheists are somewhere twisting their moustaches and trying to avoid the question. But though they have the purest of motives, it just so happens that talk of burden of proof tends to stifle the dialogue.

[ QUOTE ]
Skeptics (I count myself in here) have no belief about god because its their nature not to form beliefs without a reason. Its not a choice or an avoidance mechanism either, they are incapable of believing something without a reason.

Credulous people (is their a word like skeptic for them) have to form a belief about anything they consider, even if there is no reason for it. This is not a choice either.

I assume most people fall between the two extremes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

11-16-2005, 11:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in Jargamagook's, and therefore, if someone told me about an encounter they had with a Jargamagook, I'd scoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm..what's to scoff at? The experience is very likely real (at least there's no reason to think people are lying). The experience doesn't have to have an external counterpart or there doesn't have to be an external cause at all.
That a different subject than challenging any logical claims made for a belief in Jargma, FSM or a personalassistant diety.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then explain to me why non-believers scoff at others' experiences with God?

RJT

11-16-2005, 11:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Skeptics (I count myself in here) have no belief about god because it’s their nature not to form beliefs without a reason. It’s not a choice or an avoidance mechanism either, they are incapable of believing something without a reason…

Credulous people (is there a word like skeptic for them) have to form a belief about anything they consider, even if there is no reason for it. This is not a choice either.

DS tries to link this to intelligence but its not clear to me he is doing much more than recognizing that those he thinks most intelligent are people like him (skeptics) who also happen to be very good at the things he considers most interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

This is how I see it, too. My problem in trying to analyze David’s scenario, of geniuses/their thinking on religion, is twofold. 1)I don’t hang with any atheists (not by choice - I simply don’t know many, actually two guys I play poker with are, but they aren’t too good at hold ‘em so I doubt DS would want me to use them to represent his ilk.) 2) Any intelligent folk I know are of my same Faith.

So, I have been relying on DS (since he is more intelligent than I). My tentativeness here is that I know (he readily admits) that he has not studied the matter to the same degree…

I do agree with him regarding the probability of X religion being true and all of that – which is his real point anyway. I am simply curious to whether geniuses come to their atheism as you suggest – because they are skeptics; or if by a more deductive approach which seems to be suggested by many here.

RJT

p.s. The closest antonyms I could find for skeptic, cynic, pessimist, non-believer are: optimist, idealist, believer, advocate.

chezlaw

11-16-2005, 11:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

Its only when you start to believe in god that you can assign a strength to the belief. That's what credulists (I like it) do. Their response to a question is to form a belief about the answer and then give it some strength. As a skeptic I receive the question, try to understand it in terms of what difference the possible different answers make to how I understand the world, and when I fail to see any difference between any of the answers (as I do with the god question) I simply fail to form a belief of any strength.

chez

11-16-2005, 12:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

Its only when you start to believe in god that you can assign a strength to the belief. That's what credulists (I like it) do. Their response to a question is to form a belief about the answer and then give it some strength. As a skeptic I receive the question, try to understand it in terms of what difference the possible different answers make to how I understand the world, and when I fail to see any difference between any of the answers (as I do with the god question) I simply fail to form a belief of any strength.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

I think your answer is a bit disengenuous. You have formed a belief and given it weight. You're telling me that you don't believe that the chance of a Judeo/Christian God actually existing is relatively LOW? Or any other particular denomination's notion of a particular deity?
Perhaps I am misreading your answer, but to say you have given NO weight to any particular position regarding a god's likeliness seems like a misleading statement.
Now, if you said you don't completely rule out a god's existence, that would be one thing. But how can you give equal weight to all of them, including the possibility of no god's existence?
To use the Unicorn analogy, saying you have no position on unicorns is misleading. Your position on Unicorns, or bigfoot, or Jim Morisson (I assume) is that they are UNLIKLEY to exist.
No?
-g

chezlaw

11-16-2005, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps this is a semantic issue. I say that the position of curious neutrality is best on most topics. Skeptics tend to overemphasize the unlikelihood of a proposition, while credulists (is this a neologism?) tend to overemphasize its likelihood.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

Its only when you start to believe in god that you can assign a strength to the belief. That's what credulists (I like it) do. Their response to a question is to form a belief about the answer and then give it some strength. As a skeptic I receive the question, try to understand it in terms of what difference the possible different answers make to how I understand the world, and when I fail to see any difference between any of the answers (as I do with the god question) I simply fail to form a belief of any strength.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,

I think your answer is a bit disengenuous. You have formed a belief and given it weight. You're telling me that you don't believe that the chance of a Judeo/Christian God actually existing is relatively LOW? Or any other particular denomination's notion of a particular deity?
Perhaps I am misreading your answer, but to say you have given NO weight to any particular position regarding a god's likeliness seems like a misleading statement.
Now, if you said you don't completely rule out a god's existence, that would be one thing. But how can you give equal weight to all of them, including the possibility of no god's existence?
To use the Unicorn analogy, saying you have no position on unicorns is misleading. Your position on Unicorns, or bigfoot, or Jim Morisson (I assume) is that they are UNLIKLEY to exist.
No?
-g

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi -g, I'm not being deliberately disingenuous, I think its actually very simple. That doesn't mean its obvious and, of course, I could be completely wrong.

Skeptics have no belief about the existence of god because they have no handle on the concept (no different understanding of the world with or without god). It then follows that talk of gods nature is meaningless. Religon is not right/wrong about god, it is actually independent of god (If it wasn't true that nothing about religon is in any way dependent on the existence of god then as religon exists we would have a handle on god.)

So ask me about christianity and I say it is meaningless with respect to god but is actually about the idea of god that credulist have created.

The main reason this could all be wrong is that god is not necessarily a metaphysical concept - it could be that god provides evidence of his existence. Some religous people insist they have such evidence and hence have a handle on god. I think they are wrong, they only believe the evidence is in anyway credible because they have already formed a credulous belief about god. This would explain why so few skeptical people (who are in general very impressed by evidence) find the evidence anything but risable.

chez

11-16-2005, 02:01 PM

Chez,
I've read your reply like 3 times and I think I see what you mean. My brain hurts though.

-g

NotReady

11-16-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Skeptics have no belief about the existence of god because they have no handle on the concept

It then follows that talk of gods nature is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two contradictory?

chezlaw

11-16-2005, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Skeptics have no belief about the existence of god because they have no handle on the concept

It then follows that talk of gods nature is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two contradictory?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont see how. Anyone who can talk meaningfully about god must have some handle on the concept of god.

Unless you're suggesting that just saying that 'talking about god is meaningless' is about god, which it isn't.

chez

NotReady

11-16-2005, 03:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you're suggesting that just saying that 'talking about god is meaningless' is about god, which it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is.

chezlaw

11-16-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unless you're suggesting that just saying that 'talking about god is meaningless' is about god, which it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is.

[/ QUOTE ]
But it isn't, its about meaning. God is just a placeholder in this argument, replace it with 'udvig' if you like.

'talking about udvig is meaningless unless you have some conception of udvig.'

chez

NotReady

11-16-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]

'talking about udvig is meaningless unless you have some conception of udvig.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

IronUnkind

11-17-2005, 03:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic':

1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion.
2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion.

I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me.

chezlaw

11-17-2005, 08:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree a bit here, don't think its semantics. Skeptics don't underestimate the likelyhood of a position in the sense I think you mean. It's not that I think god is less likely than you do, rather I can see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) in god at all and so do not assign any likelyhood.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is precisely what I mean when I say it is semantic. There are two acceptable definitions of 'skeptic':

1. One who tends to disbelieve a notion.
2. One who tends to withhold judgment on a notion.

I was critiquing the skeptic position on the basis of the first definition. You are saying that the second definition is more apt. In general, I feel that you are being too lenient on most people who identify themselves as 'skeptic' or 'rationalist' or 'bright.' The ones I respect most tend to fall into your definition, and in this case, I feel that the believer and the 'skeptic' are at epistemological loggerheads....BUT....some of the people whom we characterize as skeptics -- James Randi, Earl Doherty, Richard Lewontin, etc. -- tend to fit the first definition. It is a prejudicial bias, for instance, that leads Doherty to the wild conclusion that Jesus never lived, evidence be damned. This is the brand of 'skepticism' which troubles me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, definitely the second. Believing something isn't the case is the same type of thing as believing that something is the case (although you could offer a probabilistic argument that more things are false than true).

chez

chezlaw

11-17-2005, 09:42 AM

wanted to edit but 2+2 went funny on me and now its too late.

It is the second definition that I mean by skeptical but in this thread I am not simply talikng about withholding judgement.

Its not like a unicorn which I could withhold judgement about but where I know what unicorn means - a unicorn is a horse with a horn and I understand the concepts of horse and animal with horn.

'god' is nothing like that. 'god' is the answer given to some questions like 'why am I here?' or 'what caused the universe' but I don't understand anything about the answers by sticking the word 'god' in.

So any idea of 'god' is a product of the mind and independent of anything that is being understood. A skeptical mind (this is what I mean by skeptical) doesn't form beliefs about whether such ideas are true or false.

chez

11-17-2005, 10:50 AM

Who says he doesn't??

IronUnkind

11-17-2005, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So any idea of 'god' is a product of the mind and independent of anything that is being understood. A skeptical mind (this is what I mean by skeptical) doesn't form beliefs about whether such ideas are true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different than say 'time,' which seems to exist in apriority within the mind?

Shandrax

11-18-2005, 07:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the way people are brought up. Your mom tells you "if you do that, I am going to beat you up" and that's why you don't do it. All of this forms the character so that "good" people don't even waste time on thinking about crime because they know about the punishment. It happens in the subcontience. They know that behaving according to the rules will not be punished, so they don't even take the risk of trusting their own "better" judgement.

People who think they could get away with crime have probably managed to escape the punishment of their parents too often when they were kids. Just an idea...

A very easy example would be a redlight with a camera. I bet that people (who know about it) respect the redlight with camera much more than one without camera, simply because they know that they can't get away with "crime".

chezlaw

11-18-2005, 08:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So any idea of 'god' is a product of the mind and independent of anything that is being understood. A skeptical mind (this is what I mean by skeptical) doesn't form beliefs about whether such ideas are true or false.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this any different than say 'time,' which seems to exist in apriority within the mind?

[/ QUOTE ]
The nature of time is a toughie but I think the bit you mean is a necessary part of the way we perceive the world. Thats a different type of concept to one about something that created the world so that we could perceive it, no belief in such an entity is required for the perception.

chez

11-18-2005, 08:54 AM

Hiya chezlaw,

[ QUOTE ]
The nature of time is a toughie

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Time is a measure of change. The unit of time is a quantum change in the universe. No changes, no time, everything frozen, including time measurements instruments. No one, nothing, possibly aware of the passage of time. Time is truly meaningless ouside changes. Most people think time has to do with endurance. It is the reverse.

Got it? (it is a derived measure).

chezlaw

11-18-2005, 09:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hiya chezlaw,

[ QUOTE ]
The nature of time is a toughie

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Time is a measure of change. The unit of time is a quantum change in the universe. No changes, no time, everything frozen, including time measurements instruments. No one, nothing, possibly aware of the passage of time. Time is truly meaningless ouside changes. Most people think time has to do with endurance. It is the reverse.

Got it? (it is a derived measure).

[/ QUOTE ]
I was trying to make clear that what I was saying about credulous beliefs has nothing to do with an apriori concept of time - which is, I think, a tough issue.

A possible problem with what you say (maybe another topic)is that without some concept of time you wouldn't be able to perceive the change that you are using to define time.

chez