I remember coming up with Pascal's Wager when I was in my twenties, even though I'd never realized that Pascal thought it up first!
At the time, I couldn't think of an adequate response to it. Fortunately, I learned. Here's my favourite refutations of the Wager:
1. Bertrand Russell response - "But Sir, you didn't give us enough evidence!"
2. The "Which God?" response - Pascal was assuming Yahweh in his argument. But, if god is really, ummmm, Thor, then Pascal's bet fails no matter what you bet on. If you choose to believe in Yahweh, or not, you still lose and go to Thor's hell.
3. The "Worst God!" response - It's better to believe in the god with the worst Hell since the Hell of all other gods will be less severe. Paradoxically, this means believing in a god that is able to dream up the most Evil Hell - not a trait I would want in a 'loving' god.
4. The "Atheist Heaven" response - If I discover, after death, that god exists and it asks why I never believed, I would explain that my logic and reasoning abilities must have come from god and I must have been expected to use them. Using them to the full extent possible showed that god must be improbable. Wouldn't god make heaven available to those who used all the abilities that god gave us and decided god wasn't there? Heaven must be for atheists!
I remember coming up with Pascal's Wager when I was in my twenties, even though I'd never realized that Pascal thought it up first!
At the time, I couldn't think of an adequate response to it. Fortunately, I learned. Here's my favourite refutations of the Wager:
1. Bertrand Russell response - "But Sir, you didn't give us enough evidence!"
2. The "Which God?" response - Pascal was assuming Yahweh in his argument. But, if god is really, ummmm, Thor, then Pascal's bet fails no matter what you bet on. If you choose to believe in Yahweh, or not, you still lose and go to Thor's hell.
3. The "Worst God!" response - It's better to believe in the god with the worst Hell since the Hell of all other gods will be less severe. Paradoxically, this means believing in a god that is able to dream up the most Evil Hell - not a trait I would want in a 'loving' god.
4. The "Atheist Heaven" response - If I discover, after death, that god exists and it asks why I never believed, I would explain that my logic and reasoning abilities must have come from god and I must have been expected to use them. Using them to the full extent possible showed that god must be improbable. Wouldn't god make heaven available to those who used all the abilities that god gave us and decided god wasn't there? Heaven must be for atheists!
I don't understand how any modern woman can buy into the teachings of the Bible. It's so obvious, the book was written by men; specifically men who believed that women were inferior. And I'm not even talking about the Old Testament here. This one is from Ephesians:
5:22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Yeah, I know it goes on to say that men should love their wives even as Christ loved the church, but love is not equality. You can love your pet or your big screen TV, but you don't think of them as equals.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
I don't understand how any modern woman can buy into the teachings of the Bible. It's so obvious, the book was written by men; specifically men who believed that women were inferior. And I'm not even talking about the Old Testament here. This one is from Ephesians:
5:22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 5:23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
Yeah, I know it goes on to say that men should love their wives even as Christ loved the church, but love is not equality. You can love your pet or your big screen TV, but you don't think of them as equals.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
Hatred is many things. But in very general terms it is attention targeted at an idea, an objet or person, with intent to do damage. The foundation of which is usually pain, past or current. Hate features ignorance of all other angle on or concern about its target. It fuels focused imagination and eventually actions to resolve itself.
The picture above was taken in Montreal, Quebec, a few weeks ago during an annual yet impromptu march against police violence. Hatred is often but not always mutual. And it is sometimes caused not by directly by pain, where the object of hate is unrelated to its subject, as in the case of acute mental illness. Or when hatred is directed towards a symbol, an image that incorporates what the subject feels. To hate is to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility, always with a reason. Hatred is not evil, it is a syndrome of many emotions, attitudes, views, intentions, and it burns everything it touches. Hatred is animal.
Hatred is many things. But in very general terms it is attention targeted at an idea, an objet or person, with intent to do damage. The foundation of which is usually pain, past or current. Hate features ignorance of all other angle on or concern about its target. It fuels focused imagination and eventually actions to resolve itself.
The picture above was taken in Montreal, Quebec, a few weeks ago during an annual yet impromptu march against police violence. Hatred is often but not always mutual. And it is sometimes caused not by directly by pain, where the object of hate is unrelated to its subject, as in the case of acute mental illness. Or when hatred is directed towards a symbol, an image that incorporates what the subject feels. To hate is to feel intense dislike, or extreme aversion or hostility, always with a reason. Hatred is not evil, it is a syndrome of many emotions, attitudes, views, intentions, and it burns everything it touches. Hatred is animal.
"Religious beliefs were probarly created by uncertainity, which after each retelling of the stories of it slowly vanished.
People were acceptable to the claims of it because of the vunrability of the child brain."
The poor English is rather amusing. I am so glad that the claims found people acceptable. I stayed quiet about this find because the writer is Danish, and I would not even attempt to express such a complex thought in Danish.
Don’t scoff, I have seen equally poor English from Americans.
I'd agree that uncertainties prompted the invention of religions. However, religious institutions rely upon instilling even greater fears than they help, or profess to help fears that they deliberately instilled. I know that these sound like the same thing, but they are not.
The first is, "Don't be afraid, God loves you." The second is, "Don't be afraid of God's threatened punishments for your sins because God will love you if you worship him." That is, thou must love and obey He who threatens punishment. Negatively parental, isn't it?
The persistent vulnerability of childish brains in adults who have not outgrown fears permits institutions that sell idiotic notions in order to prosper.
"Religious beliefs were probarly created by uncertainity, which after each retelling of the stories of it slowly vanished.
People were acceptable to the claims of it because of the vunrability of the child brain."
The poor English is rather amusing. I am so glad that the claims found people acceptable. I stayed quiet about this find because the writer is Danish, and I would not even attempt to express such a complex thought in Danish.
Don’t scoff, I have seen equally poor English from Americans.
I'd agree that uncertainties prompted the invention of religions. However, religious institutions rely upon instilling even greater fears than they help, or profess to help fears that they deliberately instilled. I know that these sound like the same thing, but they are not.
The first is, "Don't be afraid, God loves you." The second is, "Don't be afraid of God's threatened punishments for your sins because God will love you if you worship him." That is, thou must love and obey He who threatens punishment. Negatively parental, isn't it?
The persistent vulnerability of childish brains in adults who have not outgrown fears permits institutions that sell idiotic notions in order to prosper.
A prayer has the same effect as a lucky horseshoe. Statistically none. No effect whatsoever. It does however stimulate the imagination into creating excuses when a demonstration of the effect of prayers (or horseshoes) fails miserably.
The above video is somewhat "not exciting" to watch but it's arguments are rock solid.
A prayer has the same effect as a lucky horseshoe. Statistically none. No effect whatsoever. It does however stimulate the imagination into creating excuses when a demonstration of the effect of prayers (or horseshoes) fails miserably.
The above video is somewhat "not exciting" to watch but it's arguments are rock solid.
I have not checked to see whether this has already been posted elsewhere. Excuse me if I have duplicated it.
Anyway, for any of you who have had the misfortune of watching a video by a soporific* YECer who calls himself NephilimFree, then this video should amuse you. It is a brilliant take-off and the double entendres at the end are hilarious. It opens with something that the “Creepy Cretinous Creationist” actually said.
* I'm serious, if it were not that his videos would give me nightmares, Nephy would be perfect for curing insomnia.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
