What if we're all wrong!

140 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - If the atheist are wrong

Jo - If the atheist are wrong, they will know.

That conclusion seems to require the hidden postulate if atheists are wrong, then your mythology is accurate: a controversial postulate.

Interesting how you've ruled out every potential competing mythology with a single hidden postulate. Perhaps some self reflection is in order as to why you would do such a thing.

Jo's picture
@ Nyarlathotep

@ Nyarlathotep

If there is no God and a person ceases to exists at death, then none of the theist will have a chance to know they were wrong.
Or said another, if there is no life after death, those who believe there is will never know it.

No hidden postulates. Just lumping all theists together with the common end of being wrong and not having a chance to know they were wrong.

If atheists are wrong and God exists, there is the assumed meeting of, or knowing about him after death, and so the refutations of there atheism.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Jo - No hidden postulates.

Jo - No hidden postulates.

A couple of sentences later you appealed to an assumption that you didn't include originally:

Jo - ...there is the assumed meeting of, or knowing about [god] after death...

That was a hidden postulate.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "The overwhelming evidence

Jo "The overwhelming evidence indicates to me that there is a God."

Yet you can demonstrate none? Something doesn't add up with your claim.

Jo's picture
@ Sheldon

@ Sheldon

Are you claiming that if God exists he can be demonstrated in whatever way you are implying?

Sheldon's picture
Jo "How can I provide

Jo "How can I provide evidence of true love that would convince a skeptic"

There is overwhelming objective evidence. What on earth are you talking about?

Jo "if the theist are wrong they will never know."

Really? I don't think you've thought that through remotely. Hell is as likely to await the vast majority of theists as it is atheists, i only disbelieve one version of one deity more than them. Those seem piss poor odds to me. Doubly so when they clearly haven't a shred of objective evidence for theirs, and make the same subjective claims as all other theists.

You're kidding yourself if you think Pascal's wager is a sound reason to believe.

NewSkeptic's picture
@ Jo,

@ Jo,

"The cruel irony is that if the theist are wrong they will never know. They just die and it is over with. They are never confronted with their misjudgement. If the atheist are wrong, they will know."

...or, what if the Christian is wrong about the God he/she/zhe chooses. Ever consider what happens to Christians if it turns out Islam is correct? You'll be wrong and you'll know it.

on the other side, it's really hard for an atheist to be wrong when all they are saying is evidence presented is not sufficient for them to believe in a god.

LogicFTW's picture
Hah, in this fantasy land

Hah, in this fantasy land where there is a god, I predict there will be 2 lines into heaven:
An express line for atheist, where the gate keeper simply asks, why did you not believe in god, and the atheist says 2 magical words: "no evidence" and then is let in. (Because this is the reasonable approach.)

And then a long long slow line for all the religious folks. Okay what particular religion do you believe in, why do you think you deserve to be here, now we must consider your religion you so fervently subscribed too despite total lack of evidence, what did this religion do? "Oh.. ohhhh dear," yeah sorry you need to join that line over there that leads to down stairs.

Jo's picture
@ Logic FTW

@ Logic FTW

When the atheist says no evidence when trying to enter heaven they may be asked this question.
See that Jo guy over there? He is not nearly as smarted, educated or experienced as you.
Yet he was able to perceive the evidence and come up with the right answer.
So why couldn't you perceive the evidence and come up with the right answer?

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "So why couldn't you

@Jo Re: "So why couldn't you perceive the evidence and come up with the right answer?"

My answer to your god: "Well, gee, god, maybe because the brain YOU gave me isn't quite as perfect as you claim to be?"

Or, maybe this: "You are supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, right? Yet the best thing you could come up with to relay your "Perfect Message" was to use a book full of a hodge-podge of insanely vague, cryptic, and often contradicting stories written by barely-educated humans thousands of years before the advent of modern technology? The same book that was translated across multiple languages with varying interpretations and edited countless times by those in power who had personal and/or national agendas, therefore spurring thousands of different sects all claiming to be correct in YOUR NAME while also condemning all the others who do not interpret your "Perfect Message" the same as they do. But you are going to stand there and blame ME for not believing in you??? Ooooooo-kaaaaaaay....."

Or, the most obvious answer: "Why the hell you asking ME??? You are already suppose to know this shit, remember?"

LogicFTW's picture
He is not nearly as smarted,

He is not nearly as smarted, educated or experienced as you.

Who says I am smarter more educated or experienced then you are? Especially considering if you out live me by decades? Certainly if we are sitting at the pearly gates it would seem you were the "smarter" more educated and experienced one in at least that arena.

But what is this "evidence" you say you have perceived?

 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

In Spirit's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"So why couldn't you perceive the evidence and come up with the right answer?"

Would this answer be acceptable to you or your God...

In Spirit..." Let me get this straight. There are tens of thousands of religions. They all claim to be speaking the truth of God. Many of them believe in what they preach. Others are manipulating and deceiving people for their own desires. I've been raised by an alcoholic who would test me, deceive me, lie to me, beat me and break his promises. I have met many liars and deceivers and Jo and You God want me to put my trust in people when it comes to YOU? I think not. It confuses me. I feel like i'm alone in a jungle of vipers, not knowing who is the viper and who is not. So if there is truly anything out there, it is YOUR responsibility to make contact."

Is this acceptable Jo? And what if the answer is nothing compared to the God you believe in?
If your God responds I would tell it I have no intention of walking alongside someone who condones murder whenever He asks of it.
So far, no response from that God or any God.

How do you know if your evidence is from the written God or another God? Maybe another God is trying to reach out to you but you keep giving credit to the God of the Book.
Every religion has what they claim evidence of their God. Who has it right?

Jo's picture
@ New Skeptic

@ New Skeptic

That is why it is important to get it right and not just go with whatever religion is popular in our circles.

Tin-Man's picture
@Jo Re: "That is why it is

@Jo Re: "That is why it is important to get it right and not just go with whatever religion is popular in our circles."

...*wiping tears of laughter from eyes*... Woooo.... *deeep breath*... *quick exhale*... Oh, my! Sorry for the delayed response. Had to get control over that fit of laughter first. Mercy me! Wow! Anyway...

Soooo, let me see if I have this right. Countless numbers of different religions across the globe. Within Christianity ALONE there are several thousand different sects/denominations ALL claiming to be the TRUE followers of your god, while at the same time condemning all the other sects that interpret the same book differently. But YOU know for an absolute FACT you chose the "right one"?.... *blank stare*.... *corner of left eye starting to twitch*...

Edit to add: By the way, I have to ask. Are you trying to take over my position here as comic relief? Because you certainly seem to have a natural talent for it. I'm not jealous or upset, mind you. A little competition is a good thing in my book... *thumbs up*...

Jo's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

I think your claims of it being to difficult for you to figure out are hollow. You can do it.
Stop making excuses that there are just to many sects or interpretations for you to figure it out.
Start by giving up the cynicism.

Jo's picture
@ New Skeptic

@ New Skeptic

My previous comments were for theists but I forgot to respond to your "evidence presented is not sufficient for them to believe in God".

My suggestion is that instead of sitting back and waiting on someone to present sufficient evidence for you to believe. Go out and dig out the rock for yourself. Instead of asking others to supply all the answers in a way that is acceptable to you.

Stop the retreat into a lack of faith and of making no claims. That is a position of weakness. It is a flimsy excuse to justify your inaction for not doing the hard work to answer the hard questions. Stop the equivocation of claiming lack of faith when you really mean you do not believe.

It is easy to say how others are wrong. The hard thing is to come up with the right answers yourself. In most any sport that I am marginally familiar with, I can tell you what the coach and players should have done. But it is another thing to get out on the field and win the game yourself.

It is easy to say what is not true. It is more courageous, difficult and proactive to say what is true. Openly, honestly and transparently say what is the truth. Go out and get it and then enlighten the rest of us.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Jo

@ Jo

It is easy to say what is not true. It is more courageous, difficult and proactive to say what is true. Openly, honestly and transparently say what is the truth. Go out and get it and then enlighten the rest of us.

We have all tried Jo, but it seems your "search for Truth" is as illusory as your god.
You have tried to "logic " your god into existence and failed
You failed in your history of your faith (and cherry picked authors) That is dishonest Jo.
You have demonstrated a total lack of morals in your defences of misogyny, genocide and racism.
attempts to use discredited apologetics to contradict the written text of your own 'holy book' is dishonest.

To then say, and assert without any evidence whatsoever that your particular sect/ belief whatever is the 'right way" and that you are living in 'truth" is just topsy turvy land. Or an outright lie.

Nearly everyone you have corresponded with on this site has demonstrated your amorality, dishonesty and lack of knowledge (where you haven't managed it yourself) .

Given the ignorance, lack of morals and sheer inability to research any topic, realise and disavow your errors; why should anyone give anything you write any credence?

Get off my lawn's picture
@Jo uttered thusly: "My

@Jo uttered thusly: "My suggestion is that instead of sitting back and waiting on someone to present sufficient evidence for you to believe. Go out and dig out the rock for yourself. Instead of asking others to supply all the answers in a way that is acceptable to you.

Stop the retreat into a lack of faith and of making no claims."

Well, I tried. I was brought up in a home where there were no questions asked whether there is a god or not, and was in practice given no real alternatives to believing in this Jesus dude. However, I must be fair and say that my parents were quite liberal and would accept any belief or disbelief on my part. It's just that I was never presented with any alternatives. Already as a young boy I felt that there was something strange going on with this story about Jesus and his ghostly father. I tried reading the bible in an effort to strengthen my faith, but it just didn't turn out that way. All the improbable and impossible bible stories just made it weird. And all the biblical contradictions just made it even worse.

In practice, it was only after attending university that I was exposed to alternative ways of thinking. And after studying physics and mathematics, and reading up on evolution theory, paleontology, and geology, I decided that the evidence did not point toward stupid supertitious shit. And I realized that I actually had been a disbeliever all along. But all this time I thought it was MY fault that I couldn't wholeheartedly believe in the fairy tales. I wanted to believe, but couldn't. And it was not because I didn't try. So you can shut up with your shit about not trying to "find answers". The evidence just isn't supporting theism. If this god of yours really is all-knowing and all-powerful and wanted me to believe in him/her/it, he/she/it would have presented me with evidence good enough to convince me. But this just didn't happen. And the only logical conclusion is that IF there is a god, he/she/it cannot/refuses to present me with the necessary evidence. So far. I have done my part. It is now the hypothetical deity's move. But I'm not really counting on it to happen.

Tin-Man's picture
@GOML Re: "If this god of

@GOML Re: "If this god of yours really is all-knowing and all-powerful and wanted me to believe in him/her/it, he/she/it would have presented me with evidence good enough to convince me. But this just didn't happen. And the only logical conclusion is that IF there is a god, he/she/it cannot/refuses to present me with the necessary evidence."

BINGO!... *clapping enthusiastically*... Give that man a cigar!

Get off my lawn's picture
But, but, but, (*cough cough*

But, but, but, (*cough cough*) I don't smoke!

However, I have to give credits where credit is due - this argument is adapted from one presented by Matt Dillahunty, from somewhere on the youtubes.

Tin-Man's picture
@GOML Re: "But, but, but, (

@GOML Re: "But, but, but, (*cough cough*) I don't smoke!"

Oh, damn. My bad, dude. I should have told you it is one of those candy bubblegum cigars. By the way, how the hell did you get that thing lit???... *staring in open astonishment*...

Get off my lawn's picture
Acetylene torch.https://www
Jo's picture
@ Tin-man

@ Tin-man

If you close your eyes and claim you do not see, whose fault is your blindness?

You are rigging the question to get the answer you want.

You require "to be presented with the necessary evidence" as if you are the one who makes the rules in the universe.

Jo's picture
@ Get off my lawn

@ Get off my lawn

We had a lot of the same experiences in our childhood and youth. In my youth, I also came to some of the same conclusions as you did, and for some of the same reasons. I had some addition reasons also. However, I slowly began to understand that I was not being objective. When I turned the same bright light of skepticism on my beliefs at that time, I found them flawed and empty.

I do not understand what you mean about wanting to believe but not being able to. Can we decide what we want to believe or not believe? I thought it was up to us.

Could it be that you are misunderstanding the Bible, God, and what evidence there should be. Maybe God already went first and is continuing to "make his move"?

It seems irrational to me to require God to "present you with evidence good enough to convince me", so that you then can believe. It is a common argument that atheists make. It goes something like this. I will have faith in God when enough evidence is supplied to me so that faith is not longer required. You are wanting to know (as in proven or as a fact) when it is not possible either way.

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

"I do not understand what you mean about wanting to believe but not being able to. Can we decide what we want to believe or not believe? I thought it was up to us."

Truth

This is what gets in the way of a person who actually cares if what they believe is true or not. Personally, I will not accept any lies, first I must weigh it to determine if it is true.

Jo, are you comfortable believing in a lie? Would you not prefer to believe in something that is actually true?

Jo's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

I agree.
"Truth
This is what gets in the way of a person who actually cares if what they believe is true or not. Personally, I will not accept any lies, first I must weigh it to determine if it is true."

I am not comfortable believing in a lie. I would prefer to believe in something that is actually true. That is why I beleive what I do.

But we are not talking about something that can be proven or disproven. You would not say you beleive 1+1=2, you know it. It would be a lie to beleive otherwise. Is that how belief in God works? You are so confident in your "lack of faith" that you think it is a fact.

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

If you cannot determine whether your deity is true or not, and rely mainly on faith, then what is the difference believing in a dude sitting on a cloud and a giant ginormous invisible bunny rabbit? Both are equally wild stretches of the imagination and neither can be disproved.

By your standards, either may be true, or not. But you chose the dude on a cloud. So please explain why you chose the cloud dude? And why you reject the ginormous invisible bunny rabbit?

Tin-Man's picture
@David

@David

Ahem... Uh, helloooooo...! It is the Ginormous Invisible BLUE Universe-Creating Bunny (Carrots Be Unto Him), thank you very much. Shame on your blasphemy... *tsk-tsk-tsk*...

David Killens's picture
Fark, how can I attain

Fark, how can I attain atonement for my horrible sin? I have already covered myself in maple syrup and rolled in carrot shavings, covering myself in all things orange and crunchy.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ David Killens

@ David Killens

Re: Jo; let me clear a few things up: If we read Jo's posts we can distill his comments to the following (not in chronological order). Makes it easier to wade through the guff he surrounds the true meaning of any post.

Jo believes in a god that he cannot evidence
In a Jesus figure that has no foundation
In a god that he cannot 'logic' into existence
In a god that he hast to have 'faith' (*not evidence) to believe it exists
Jo needs an inaccurate multi authored book to avoid killing people
Jo approves of misogyny, infanticide, racism and genocide when it is in his book...yes the one that is his moral compass.
Jo has no understanding of history of his religion.

Jo tells us he wants to "live in truth"providing it meets his confirmation bias
Jo tells us his unfounded belief is truth.
Jo tells lies and misrepresents other people
Jo does not "live in truth"
Jo lives in make believe where fact and lie interchange

Jo represents christians on this page, yet disagrees with the other one.

Jo is a great advertisement for atheism.

David, just tick the boxes that apply,

I am sure Jo will respond...with another lie, sorry, I mean "apologetic".

What did Jo say he wants to do, oh, now I remember, such a river of terminological inexactitudes has flowed in his posts I cannot always remember that bit; I think he said he wanted to "live in truth". I think it was a lie.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.