There have been a large number of threads recently in which the topic always seems to boil down to the existance or non-existance of God. Since this website seems to be devoted to debunking bullshit claims, I think it fitting we apply the same reasoning to a debate that has obviously already started here.
So, if your are a beleiver in any type of god, please share with the class what it is you beleive and what proof you have to back up said beliefs. In the extremely likely event that no one has any proof, solid reasoning will certainly be acceptable.
Atheists have been accused of being fundamentalists and worse than Theists etc. etc. on several threads here, while the whole time we feel like we are just explaining the obvious.
Before anyone sets out to say that it is us that should prove why we don't believe in god, I would like to point out that the burden of proof is always on the person making fantastic claims, as such claims, to be believed, should be backed by fantastic evidence. Since we are not making any such supernatural claims, the burden of proof is not upon us....

God is as good a Hypothesis as any other, let's test it. What reasoning is behind your beleif in the supernatural God? Let's settle this once and for all!

Also, "I have faith" is not acceptable, as it is akin to saying that you beleive just because...

Calling Petter, will probably need ya for this one!

why on earth did you post this?

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. "

- Blaise Pascal

cause it seems all the religious debates are ending up a discussion of whether God exists or not. I am curious why people who come to a bullshit debunking site would think that it does. Just looking for the reasoning behind the belief, I assume there is one....

I am not saying atheism is the only way, just looking for someone to tell me why it isn't.

"If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. "

- Blaise Pascal

So...uh...you believe cause you are scared not to? What type of God do you believe in and why? That isn't really an answer. Also, it is hardly a 50/50 wager, with our knowledge of atoms and the universe, it is more like a billion to one against any deity that has been put forth. This also leaves out the difficulties in which type of God/Gods to worship.......

Pascal's Wager is flawed because, beyond the obvious question it explicitly addresses, it makes several tacit and unsupported assumptions:

It assumes that the reward and penalty for right/wrong is infinite;
It assumes that the choice is between one specific god or no god at all, as opposed to any of a multiplicity of conceivable deities on the one hand, or no god at all on the other;
It assumes that the god in question rewards induced belief that you talk yourself into only to gain reward/escape punishment;
It assumes, at a more basic level, that the god in question specifically rewards belief, as opposed to any of a number of things a deity might take a fancy to rewarding: Critical thinking, say, or line dancing, or eating ketchup with your cereal, sodomising guinea pigs, hamster-juggling, or suicide.In other words, Pascal's Wager is valid if and only if you can first show that either there exists no god at all, or there exists precisely the sort of deity that Pascal believed in: One that rewards believers, punishes unbelievers, accepts selfish, reward-centered sycophantry, etc.

Believers who cite this particular reason to believe, and who also lay claim to humility, may ask themselves how humble they feel they are in believing that they know not only that a deity exists, but also that they can decipher his psychology.

Beyond that, Pascal's Wager is an argument for why you should believe in his god, but not an argument for why his god actually exist -- a somewhat subtle difference, maybe, but an important one. He's just saying that you may as well believe, whether it's true or not. Personally, I like a little more intellectual integrity in my allies and opponents both.

A fool and his faith are soon parted.

as always Petter, well said.

*yawn*

i hate this argument because if an individual's opinion on the matter can be influenced by reason, then it probably already has been.

the only holdouts are the people for whom rationality is not a priority.

you can't reason with the unreasonable.

Let's see, my options are: First there was nothing, and then for no reason nothing exploded, and there was...something.

OR

Some supernatrual being we can't comprehend made everything in some way we don't understand (in a way which could have involved nothing exploding and then becoming something).

Clearly, the top one demands no faith/suspension of disbelief at all.

*yawn*

i hate this argument because if an individual's opinion on the matter can be influenced by reason, then it probably already has been.

the only holdouts are the people for whom rationality is not a priority.

you can't reason with the unreasonable.

Lol, perhaps that is my problem, I have too much FAITH in the power of reason.......

Lol, perhaps that is my problem, I have too much FAITH in the power of reason.......

well, use your brain to attack a new problem. you can't reason with the unreasonable.. so redirect your energy.

towards, for example, how we can prevent the unreasonable from gaining political power, or something.

Let's see, my options are: First there was nothing, and then for no reason nothing exploded, and there was...something.

OR

Some supernatrual being we can't comprehend made everything in some way we don't understand (in a way which could have involved nothing exploding and then becoming something).

Clearly, the top one demands no faith/suspension of disbelief at all.
there could have also always been something.

read more spinoza.

(i tell everyone that, no offense, haha)

How does one argue the logic of faith?

Religious people are happier and better adjusted than non religious people.

Without an external higher authority (god) it is impossible to rationally defend any philosophy that isn't fundamentally hedonistic.

Therefore, the only philosophically defensible approach in a godless world is to believe in god.




(Note, both of my premises are 100% valid, don't bother)