Apparently I'm a Heretic?

[dark]

Well I have became really confused. I found I can't stand ignorant Christians, I hate them. When I ask them a question of their belief of their book, they point at the book and say, because it says it in there. A circle argument doesn't work, you can't say green is green because it looks green. Or maybe you can for that, but you get the point (I hope). Heresy is the view that is different than the orthodoxy, which is the majority, so, since I do not believe their beliefs I am a heretic, atleast us heretics band together, atleast they find me, since I am the idiot sticking my head out telling everyone else, "Hey look at me, I don't believe what you are saying, etc etc." My new friend which I think is an IxTP, or maybe an INxP, I know he is IxxP, probably just INTP, any how, we converse during class, while others talk about this or that biblically, we speak of how their logic is stupid, well I talk of logic, and he tells me opinions I think are valid and he is like, "No way I am not saying that out loud," so idiotic me raises my hand, the teacher smiles since he knows I am going to say something that will probably upset about 75% of the class, and I usually do, but I don't care since I don't see harm in bringing up a new idea that seems interesting. The brain functions oddly, and I am wondering, why do some people refuse to think, s;osrjf(anger) why wont they just think, maybe their small little world view, just maybe, it isn't correct. Hell if I had lived my entire life living a lie, because in the past I was mislead, and someone comes to me and shows me how that view was wrong, and can prove their point, I would thank them for opening my eyes, that way I could look past my dellusions and hope to see the real world. But no when I try to help others I am called a heretic, but no one has balls to even give me a rational explination of anything, and they don't have the balls to call me out on something if I am dead wrong. To me I am just trying to be helpful, but to them, they see me as "evil" (anger builds again), and this is all I want to say at this moment...

*btw this really has nothing to do with religion... just happens to be a moment I was thinking of.

 

[Jesse]

Christian school? Sucks to be you.

 

[dark]

Not a Christian school, just to damn many of them. O I don't want to hear about evolution because the bible says this, etc.

 

[dark]

It's like they are a plague around here. Haha.

 

[Jesse]

Just don't forget that many parts of the world are not as religious.

 

[dark]

What?!? So there is hope for humanity? Why the hell did I have to be born here?

 

[Trebuchet]

I've felt much the same, but I am frequently reminded that not all Christians believe the same things. The ones you are talking about sound like born-again fundamentalists, which are the majority in my area, too. They drive me crazy. On the other hand, I have Quaker and Anglican friends, and members of other Christian sects, and they aren't annoying at all. In fact, they are insightful and like to discuss religion (or any other topic) with a rational approach.

You might enjoy reading some very thoughtfully written articles by Brian Elroy McKinley, at his website. He is a former fundamentalist and very smart guy. His writings are not anti-Christian, so much as they are anti-stupid, and he backs up his arguments with biblical references. Here's a link to one of his articles, How to Fight the Religious Right. You may find a few tools for better argument there.

Apologies to Mr. Elroy if I have misrepresented him in any way.

 

[ApostateAbe]

A "heretic" is a Christian whose beliefs are too misaligned with the established Christian mainstream to be considered a saved child of God. A heretic is going to hell and doesn't know it. You seem more like an infidel to me, which means you are going to hell and you know it.

 

[The Gopher]

I've felt much the same, but I am frequently reminded that not all Christians believe the same things. The ones you are talking about sound like born-again fundamentalists, which are the majority in my area, too. They drive me crazy. On the other hand, I have Quaker and Anglican friends, and members of other Christian sects, and they aren't annoying at all. In fact, they are insightful and like to discuss religion (or any other topic) with a rational approach.

yeah the "out there" ones get all the attention like catholics and other heretics.

 

[dark]

Haha thanks ApostateAbe, anyone else want to join me, I'm throwing a part the first century down there.

But on another note, the idea of heaven was unappealing to me, hell seemed better, atleast I didn't have to praise some egotistic tyrannt and tell them how great they are if I went to hell. Seriously it was logical, I could spend eternaty either being a dumbass that is like "gee golly batman, you are so awesome." or I could just not exist, I like not existing better. And NTs would have it much better in hell since you are supposed to feel all these negative emotions and all, hey guess what, we wont feel them, I think, seems like I manuvered out of that one, shew close.

 

[Cognisant]

Imo if you really want to spite them, develop your own beliefs.

Don't just say there is no god, tell them why you don't need one.

 

[The Gopher]

But on another note, the idea of heaven was unappealing to me, hell seemed better, atleast I didn't have to praise some egotistic tyrannt and tell them how great they are if I went to hell. Seriously it was logical, I could spend eternaty either being a dumbass that is like "gee golly batman, you are so awesome." or I could just not exist, I like not existing better. And NTs would have it much better in hell since you are supposed to feel all these negative emotions and all, hey guess what, we wont feel them, I think, seems like I manuvered out of that one, shew close.

Well I think the whole idea of heaven is(correct me if I am wrong) you are made perfect so you would like it. Oh and I am sure you will be happy in hell for eternity as in never ending with no chance of changing your mind when you get there.

 

[Cognisant]

Gopher, write properly please, I have no idea what your point was.

Well I think the whole idea of heaven is(correct me if I am wrong) you are made perfect so you would like it.

So are you saying dark is made-perfect or made-imperfect?
And define what you mean by perfect while you're at it.

Oh and I am sure you will be happy in hell for eternity as in never ending with no chance of changing your mind when you get there.

Soo, that was sarcasm? (I can't hear the tone of your voice)

Now I'm guessing (because all I can do is guess) that your sentiment was something along the lines of "ha ha dark, you don't like heaven because you're imperfect, and you're probably not going to like hell either" which is surely wrong because I'd never thought you'd be that fucking infantile.

I dunno, maybe it's a joke or something, I just can't tell.

 

[Thoughtful]

Ooh, The Gopher's comment makes me wonder, If you're already in heaven, can you choose to go to hell? or maybe just visit on holiday?

 

[The Gopher]

whoa big confusion here *look at mess* well in blue edit: or not.

Gopher, write properly please, I have no idea what your point was.

I can see that.

So are you saying dark is made-perfect or made-imperfect?
And define what you mean by perfect while you're at it.

made perfect if he is going to heaven already imperfect if going to hell.
You have a dictionary?

Soo, that was sarcasm? (I can't hear the tone of your voice)

Now I'm guessing (because all I can do is guess) that your sentiment was something along the lines of "ha ha dark, you don't like heaven because you're imperfect, and you're probably not going to like hell either" which is surely wrong because I'd never thought you'd be that fucking infantile.

I dunno, maybe it's a joke or something, I just can't tell.

Dark humour not everyone gets it. What I am trying to get across is that is is silly to say your going to like a place you know so little about except that it is said to be bad to say the least.

Edit: and you would like heaven if you were converted.

Ooh, The Gopher's comment makes me wonder, If you're already in heaven, can you choose to go to hell? or maybe just visit on holiday?

If you enter heaven you become perfect thus not wanting to go to hell.(I am only guessing here)

 

[Words]

Dark.

I don't understand why you care about this. People have different ways of interpreting and dealing with reality. Truth isn't important to many, and it doesn't matter to them if they're living an illusion or an imitation of reality. They enjoy their cave and they enjoy the shadows they perceive(Plato *grin). Perhaps it's their way of simplification and their way of dealing with a complexity they are naturally disinclined towards. Regardless, They like it and they will continue to value things out of the things themselves. People will value things like 'tradition' and other forms of values.

But is it ok to die for an imitation even if you so value the imitation? But would you know and accept your ignorance? It's pretty hard when you are stuck and 'attached' to your fake stuff already. Also, it's difficult when your naturally burdened by the complexity. Maybe we can put it this way: "Most people are born purblind and most likely will remain living this way."

 

[EditorOne]

You can't explain smart to stupid.

The other side of that is smart can't understand stupid.

You need to work on not letting annoyances like the existence of enthusiastically illogical fundamentalists rise to the level of a principle to which you object. Once it gets to the level of a principle, you can't let go. We know. We do that too. So step back, step back twice, step that third step away, and see all this for what it is in the cosmic scale of things: They are irrelevant. Do not let them take up your time or upset your mojo.

Just say "Meh?" and move along. Nothing to see here.

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

I don't know about you.

But i have a VIP seat in hell.

 

[dark]

I guess this thread was really posted out of my frustration of hearing the christians completely (and I mean completely) disregard the educational material, and didn't even do the work because they didn't believe in it (because my preacher says this, and this guy says the opposite, that was their arguement) and they got away with it... I am like WTF I get pummeled with glares for saying I am an atheist and ignored, yet I still do the work, haha. Btw the work was over creation spirituality, the guy we were reading was Matthew Fox, which is very interesting, seems like I was the only person supporting the exiled priest.

If I remember right, Plato also states that when someone gets out of the cave, and sees what is real, and after seeing all this, they shouldn't stay there and keep it all to themselves, they should climb back down, pass all the people, get back to the prision, chain their self up right along with eveyone else, and start whispering to the guy next to hisself, hoping he could show someone else the way out. I know that isn't entirely correct but that is what I gathered from class. Although I am in no way saying I have climbed out of the hole, hell I could still be sitting in the shadows and only think I am climbing out, haha. I would like to think I am trying to climb out.

 

[Words]

I would like to think I am trying to climb out.

I'd like to think that there are many 'caves' (in ourselves), and that one of these caves' represents the understanding of those who lack understanding. (what is 'true understanding', or what is 'true light', not the imitating understanding of another imitation.)

I think intention towards internal progress is enough to qualify as 'climbing out' (or rather 'crawling out').

 

[dark]

Oh forgot, why would I like heaven if all the cool people aren't going to be there? The people in the Bible are sort of lame, God seems like a boring talk, Jesus, and I couldn't stand spending eternity doing the same thing over and over again, praising some overworshiped ego maniac would be hell. Unless that ego maniac was me.

 

[dark]

Ah guess I forgot to mention my reason for this post since it got side tracked to religion, I am merely questioning the purpose behind he average human when they refuse to see truth. Guess I became to side tracked myself on my own annoyances in examples. But really it may not even be the truth, guess I should state it as, why do are people unable to see someone else's side? And when they are shown the other side, they become rigid and don't or can't see others points as a learning experience. The human mind is just messed up most the time.

 

[The Gopher]

INTJs

 

[EvilScientist Trainee]

Huh... About the heaven/hell thing.

Selfishness is a considered a sin by the church, right? If it is, many people that follow religion mainly to have a granted place in heaven are thinking in a selfish way, aren't they?

*Arrives in hell *

-Uh, wait, this is very wrong. I went to church every sunday, never cursed, scolded every of those who followed mundane laws, just to go to heaven. Now i'm in hell?

If that proves to be true, God is quite cool.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Haha thanks ApostateAbe, anyone else want to join me, I'm throwing a part the first century down there.

But on another note, the idea of heaven was unappealing to me, hell seemed better, atleast I didn't have to praise some egotistic tyrannt and tell them how great they are if I went to hell. Seriously it was logical, I could spend eternaty either being a dumbass that is like "gee golly batman, you are so awesome." or I could just not exist, I like not existing better. And NTs would have it much better in hell since you are supposed to feel all these negative emotions and all, hey guess what, we wont feel them, I think, seems like I manuvered out of that one, shew close.

It is surprising to me how often I have seen and heard atheists say that hell is better than heaven, and maybe I am surprised only because I have interpreted hell very literally. Whatever your antipathy and your rebellious spirit may be, I can guarantee you that you would change your mind about the costs and benefits of heaven within the first two seconds of maximum pain within a lake of fire. When I was a kid, hell was illustrated by images of screaming disembodied heads on a background of flames, and that is what they would teach children would happen to everyone who isn't saved. That was the interpretation of hell, with very good exegetical backing. I suppose it must give a feel of empowerment to claim, "Hey, maybe hell isn't so bad, cuz that is where all the cool and smart people are." I'd hate to see anyone test such a Herculean power of will by putting their hands on a hot stove. For me, the empowering thing is the obvious and demonstrable reality that it is an evolutionary delusion, that the eternal misery versus an eternal reward thing fits very well with what we may expect as a maximization of the carrot-and-stick motivational mechanism of an ideology that will adapt any way it can to survive. I see the demonstration of that principle on a routine basis, every time anyone says, "Do you really want to take such a chance with eternity? Isn't Jesus a safer bet?" Every time I hear that point, it is a wonderful open door to enlightenment about what heaven and hell are all about.

 

[Anthile]

I'd like to believe that everyone goes where he should be, measured by the standards of what he believes in.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I'd like to believe that everyone goes where he should be, measured by the standards of what he believes in.

I'd like to believe the truth. There is a bunch of people who prefer to believe whatever they wish were true about reality--accepting wishful thinking as an ideal--but I hope serious thinkers can dodge that.

 

[Thoughtful]

Aww... but Abe, you gotta have something realistic to shoot for man! Them big things you INTPs always think about would require an act of god to solve! no man could do it himself! you gotta stop worrying about it. After all, if god wanted to fix it he would, you can't do anything about it so why make a fuss? We're much better off settling down with god fearing woman, raising god fearing kids, so that when we die unaccomplished old fools we can go to that big happy American pie in the sky.

I do disagree with the way textbooks today are written these days. If I were writing the texts, I'd have them start like this:

Spoiler

In the beginning, the universe was created. this has made a lot of people very unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move...

 

[Anthile]

I'd like to believe the truth. There is a bunch of people who prefer to believe whatever they wish were true about reality--accepting wishful thinking as an ideal--but I hope serious thinkers can dodge that.

But the truth is always either awfully mundane or mundanely awful.

 

[dark]

AHHHH I AM ON FIRE AHHHH PUT ME OUT!!!!

No I don't think the lake of fire hell is the correct image, I always heard people talking about it, but when I listened to them read passages refering to hell, it reminded me of hades, of course there could be some fire, but that is where we cook our dinners. I can't say what hell is well because I haven't been there, also can't say the same about heaven. For all we know, heaven was the lie and hell is actually a cool place. I don't believe in either. Actaully I fear the common idea of what I see as slavery in heaven more than I do the constant what ever bad thing in hell. Hell could only be bad to me if I were to be made to worship forever in slavery. If I wasn't required to be a slave in heaven, sign me up, as long as I don't have to wear some white fluffy outfit.

My view on a god. If I was all powerful, a god, I would actaully give everything in existence powers like mine, of course I would leave some out so they wouldn't change things like physics and all, but I would make them all really powerful people. Hording power like that is childish, it would be really interesting to sit on my throne in heaven and watch the little earthlings deal with the magical powers, see how they reacted, see who did what and what sides people would take, then if it got to out of control, I could just come down and fix everything, if you do not allow everything, such as take away just one thing, you are on the road to taking everything, which is pretty much what has happened to us. So I can not truely say I can believe in a good god, an evil one yes, IF there is a god, they are evil, or well chaotic or blind and stupid.

 

[EditorOne]

"If I remember right, Plato also states that when someone gets out of the cave, and sees what is real, and after seeing all this, they shouldn't stay there and keep it all to themselves, they should climb back down, pass all the people, get back to the prision, chain their self up right along with eveyone else, and start whispering to the guy next to hisself, hoping he could show someone else the way out."

Well, I don't remember that, but it sounds about like Plato. But here's the thing. If you do go back down in the cave, chain yourself to the unknowing, whisper the truth to them, and get nowhere, then by all means unchain yourself again and move along, figuratively speaking. Those people are happy in the darkness. You are not. There's some mutually exclusive stuff going on here that means you want to walk in the light. So just do it. (Whether they succeed or fail in the artificial world of your school is, or probably should be, irrelevant to you. Work on that. :-) )

 

[warryer]

@thoughtful:

Now if we could just invent that improbability drive to discover the true nature of heaven and hell and make our decision accordingly.

I would rather be an inquisitive heretic than a blind follower.

Sometimes dark there comes a point where you are wasting your energy trying to battle something. Especially with people who refuse to see any other way. When it gets to that point you are usually battling against there ego and, as we know, the ego is never wrong .

Be thankful that you have been gifted with the capacity to see multiple angles. Not many people are able (or willing) to see beyond themselves.

 

[Lobstrich]

I'd love to attend at a christian school or a school where christianity is the majority of peoples beliefs.

I like to be a minority. I love the conflict it creates, to be agains the flow.
Not just for the sake of being an ass though. I believe that conflict creates creativeness. And conflict would without a doubt be present if I, as a strong atheist. Attended such a school as yours.

Yet, here in Denmark. People are somewhat more informed than the general public in the US (Assuming you're American) Atheism is the majority, we've realised the bible is nothing more than a random book. Which I find boring. I WANT alot of religious people against me.

Talking about being informed, and the US. I wondered about Obama today.
Thought it was funny that the opposition of Obama make him out as a Communist. But here in Denmark, he's hardly a liberal.
Free healthcare is very normal over here, not really such a big deal. Yet we only consider out current government as Liberals.

Another case of the general public of the US being misinformed?

(A little notice though; This post wasn't intended to be offensive, in case you take it as such. But it is common knowledge that the 'general public' of the US is, somewhat.. Lacking)

 

[Puffy]

All I would say is if you're in pursuit of 'truth' good for ya, but try not to close too many doors in the process. I will be honest that I have little experienced this Christian fundamentalism which I hear is fairly widespread in the states. I am not a fundamentalist, but I am a Christian, and for me and a few of my friends discovering Christianity was our 'coming out of the cave', to use your metaphor. I'm just saying sometimes the answer is what was under your nose the whole time. I had a fairly unpleasant experience of a faith school in my younger years and would have never expected myself.

 

[Jennywocky]

It is surprising to me how often I have seen and heard atheists say that hell is better than heaven, and maybe I am surprised only because I have interpreted hell very literally. Whatever your antipathy and your rebellious spirit may be, I can guarantee you that you would change your mind about the costs and benefits of heaven within the first two seconds of maximum pain within a lake of fire. When I was a kid, hell was illustrated by images of screaming disembodied heads on a background of flames, and that is what they would teach children would happen to everyone who isn't saved. That was the interpretation of hell, with very good exegetical backing. I suppose it must give a feel of empowerment to claim, "Hey, maybe hell isn't so bad, cuz that is where all the cool and smart people are." I'd hate to see anyone test such a Herculean power of will by putting their hands on a hot stove. For me, the empowering thing is the obvious and demonstrable reality that it is an evolutionary delusion, that the eternal misery versus an eternal reward thing fits very well with what we may expect as a maximization of the carrot-and-stick motivational mechanism of an ideology that will adapt any way it can to survive. I see the demonstration of that principle on a routine basis, every time anyone says, "Do you really want to take such a chance with eternity? Isn't Jesus a safer bet?" Every time I hear that point, it is a wonderful open door to enlightenment about what heaven and hell are all about.

Pascal's Wager is a crappy way to decide what a person will commit the rest of her life too.

Anything worth living for is worth living FOR a positive... not living AGAINST a negative.

The Hell argument, I've made before; when people say they'd rather burn in hell for eternity, I just kind of roll my eyes. They're not really thinking about what that would feel like, realistically; they'd last all of ten seconds, then go mad... which might be a blessing in disguise.

Then again, there's no evidence anyone is going to burn anywhere.

Another case of the general public of the US being misinformed?

(A little notice though; This post wasn't intended to be offensive, in case you take it as such. But it is common knowledge that the 'general public' of the US is, somewhat.. Lacking)

I doubt anyone who has lived here long enough would disagree with you.

Today is Election Day here.
...I'm already just wanting to scream and beat my head on the wall.

There's a lot of irrationality flying around, and a lot of entrenched views only out to protect a way of life and hiding heads in the sand rather than looking at necessary changes and bucking up.

 

[Anthile]

The reason why atheists talk so lapidary about hell is simply because they don't believe. No question, getting tortured for all eternity would suck horribly but to 'us' it's a threat as irreal as getting reborn as a caterpillar or not ending up in Aaru or Helgafjell. It just has no impact on me.
Since pretty much every religion comes down to "don't be a dick" plus arbitrary rules, I don't think there is too much I can do anyway.

 

[SpaceYeti]

All I would say is if you're in pursuit of 'truth' good for ya, but try not to close too many doors in the process. I will be honest that I have little experienced this Christian fundamentalism which I hear is fairly widespread in the states. I am not a fundamentalist, but I am a Christian, and for me and a few of my friends discovering Christianity was our 'coming out of the cave', to use your metaphor. I'm just saying sometimes the answer is what was under your nose the whole time. I had a fairly unpleasant experience of a faith school in my younger years and would have never expected myself.

I've always been curious how a religion could be an "answer" for some people, especially given the varied sorts of religions. I mean, which question does it answer, exactly, and how do you know it's correct?

 

[Jennywocky]

Since pretty much every religion comes down to "don't be a dick" plus arbitrary rules, I don't think there is too much I can do anyway.

....ooooo nice.

[Insert religion name here] Religion 101
1. Don't be a dick.
2. See Rule #1.

 

[SQ_Minion]

This isn't precisely related to the discussion of hand, but I've noticed that most atheists are more dickish, hateful, and obstinate than members of [insert disliked religion here]. Fundamentalist Christians are annoying, yes, but not as much (in my experience) as "fundamentalist" atheists. Fundamentalist atheists, if I may draw a conclusion based on my experience, are more homogeneous than most religious people--their opinions are more identical. I find the irony of this delicious, but when pointing out said irony to atheists I am always attacked in the same way (yet more irony!)

 

[dark]

Oh yes I know the United States has a big majority of idiots who are very much uninformed, like my immediate family... or the people down the road. I am not a "dick" type atheist, I don't even consider myself to be an atheist, even though I know logically I am. I am more in search for knowledge, but it pisses me off when "Fundamental Christians" get in my way. As an ENTP that is my main goal, if I can't use you to gain more knowledge, good bye. I know that sounds like being a "dick" atheist, I guess, but wow some people think they are the only people in the world (glances at the Chrisitians sitting on the other side of the room), but this is in no means meaning they are bad people, my best friend in high school was a Jehovahs Witness, very interesting conversations there.

The only problem with being an unbeliever in the states is this: they are uninformed of the rest of the world, so they think "EVERYONE" else are christians, but when I ask them how other religions would feel to their one sided arguments I get the full wrath of the godly people, that or blown off. I desperately try to seek out others who don't believe, or atleast ones that are intelligent and can have a normal conversation with me about anything... I just really hate it when everything is always have to do with well, god let us have that, but if it is negative, oh they did it to themselves, because god wanted them to have good stuff, etc. I am sure everyone knows what kind of people I am talking about. It may seem fun to live in a conflict zone like this, but it isn't that great for an extrovert, no one really wants to hear my Ne anymore, wtf who am I supposed to tell now? So I started writting things on the back pages of my notebooks, have about 50 pages of ideas of just random philosophies written, which is a lot for someone who usually just tells everyone things. Plus I never got the reason for writting things, unlike other ENTPs I actually remember things, every conversation I have had I can almost recall word for word, so when I tell people things it is like writting it down forever. But I have found about 10 people that have joined me in my crusade of ideas, well they atleast listen, and actually seem enthusiastic about listening to them. Seems like I acquire followers where ever I go, damn hope I am not becoming an ENFJ.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I have found it's far easier to be persuasive by putting others at ease, by allowing them to think (based on what I do and say) that I'm not a threat and might even be an ally or a fellow, and by being nice.

I've managed to assist quite a few otherwise stubborn people into seeing alternatives by being a friend rather than an enemy.

Dave

 

[Deridaburi]

Think about it in terms of Pascals Gambit:

"God is, or He is not"
A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. It is not optional.
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. (...) 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. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

 

[Anthile]

....ooooo nice.

[Insert religion name here] Religion 101
1. Don't be a dick.
2. See Rule #1.

I can't tell if you make fun of my statement or not...

 

[echoplex]

Think about it in terms of Pascals Gambit:

"God is, or He is not"
A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. It is not optional.
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. (...) 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. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

I doubt there is any scenario where you'd 'gain all'. Consider this: If this god is truly all-knowing, or even just knows alot about you, he would know you are simply playing a game to avoid hell and increase your 'odds' of heaven. He would know you are no genuine believer and so your wager would not impress him. Heck, even by just hanging around religious people you can usually tell which ones are only in it out of fear. I doubt this god would miss that.

If there is any 'game' this god would want you to play, I imagine one of the requirements for winning would be to avoid playing the Pascal game.

And while I'm in this thread, it's equally silly to suggest this god would be stupid enough to create humans and then create a heaven for them they would find boring, unless you believe this god to be evil. It's like, yeah I know everything about you, now let me get you this birthday present you'll probably hate, because you're my friend!

(I'm mostly just ranting, and it's possible I've misunderstood your post and/or others' posts )

 

[dark]

@ echoplex haha made me smile, the last part was funny.

 

[Deridaburi]

I doubt there is any scenario where you'd 'gain all'. Consider this: If this god is truly all-knowing, or even just knows alot about you, he would know you are simply playing a game to avoid hell and increase your 'odds' of heaven. He would know you are no genuine believer and so your wager would not impress him. Heck, even by just hanging around religious people you can usually tell which ones are only in it out of fear. I doubt this god would miss that.

If there is any 'game' this god would want you to play, I imagine one of the requirements for winning would be to avoid playing the Pascal game.

I'm not sure if it was clear that those were not my words. I should have quoted the entire thing.

Anyways I think the point of Pascals Gambit is that it is worth it to fully believe in God because believing has "infinitely" more reward than not believing. I don't think he is suggesting that you should pretent or "play a game", if that makes sense. What do you really lose by believing in God even if there is no god?

 

[Anthile]

What do you really lose by believing in God even if there is no god?

Integrity.

 

[Deridaburi]

Integrity.

Integrity
1: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2: an unimpaired condition : soundness
3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

Please prove this wrong, I'd like to hear it. How do you lose your integrity exactly?

 

[echoplex]

I'm not sure if it was clear that those were not my words. I should have quoted the entire thing.

Anyways I think the point of Pascals Gambit is that it is worth it to fully believe in God because believing has "infinitely" more reward than not believing. I don't think he is suggesting that you should pretent or "play a game", if that makes sense. What do you really lose by believing in God even if there is no god?

Ah, okay. My apologies.

My main point was simply that I think believing to avoid hell is silly because it would not convince a competent god that you are a 'true' believer and he would see right through the charade anyway. If I were to go further, I might also say such belief would likely not be as rewarding 'in this lifetime' as one born from things like love, hope, or even curiosity.

To me, it is only 'worth it' to believe if it's a genuine belief to begin with. For instance, if someone, for whatever reason, feels convinced of the presence of a god(s), even if they're wrong, I think it's worthwhile for them because they are being honest with themselves. Actually I think my problem with this idea is that it's too focused on 'rewards' and not on one's honest impression of the truth. Also I don't really think a god would reward 'rewards-based' thinking like that. Then again I've never met the guy and am no authority on this. (though I'd say it depends on how you frame the 'reward' concept; for example some would say knowing god is the reward itself. I view that differently than someone trying to get something from god, so to speak)

To your last sentence, I'd say that what you lose depends on the nature of your beliefs. It seems that many who believe end up ruling out competing explanations regarding the origin of the universe/life because they seem in conflict with their beliefs about god. When you consider that, throughout one's lifetime, they may have the chance to learn new things (as they are discovered) about reality, you have to wonder if a belief in god could reduce their openness to such new information. Though, I wouldn't assume all believers to think that way, esp. when you consider how many different god-concepts there are, so yeah I think it's possible to lose nothing but also possible to lose something.

The issue of integrity is interesting. I'm not sure what I think but I don't think it's cut-and-dry. I think most of it comes down to intellectual honesty, but then you get down to the distinction of knowledge and faith and things get tricky. I think you have to really define those two things before you can discuss honesty this way. What do we know, what do we know we know, how well do we know it, etc...I'd be curious what others think.

 

[Deridaburi]

My main point was simply that I think believing to avoid hell is silly because it would not convince a competent god that you are a 'true' believer and he would see right through the charade anyway. If I were to go further, I might also say such belief would likely not be as rewarding 'in this lifetime' as one born from things like love, hope, or even curiosity.

I agree completely with you. One misconception that I think is common, is that people don't know that believing in God is focused love and hope. And the fact that a lot of "Christians" don't focus on those things is what probably leads a lot of people to think that it isn't.

To me, it is only 'worth it' to believe if it's a genuine belief to begin with. For instance, if someone, for whatever reason, feels convinced of the presence of a god(s), even if they're wrong, I think it's worthwhile for them because they are being honest with themselves. Actually I think my problem with this idea is that it's too focused on 'rewards' and not on one's honest impression of the truth. Also I don't really think a god would reward 'rewards-based' thinking like that. Then again I've never met the guy and am no authority on this. (though I'd say it depends on how you frame the 'reward' concept; for example some would say knowing god is the reward itself. I view that differently than someone trying to get something from god, so to speak)

Again I completely agree with you. I don't think this way personally, I guess I thought that because a lot of people are reward based that if people thought about it in that way that they would see the worth in God. However now I realize how foolish that was, because even if they did think about it that way they would never truly see how amazing God is.

To your last sentence, I'd say that what you lose depends on the nature of your beliefs. It seems that many who believe end up ruling out competing explanations regarding the origin of the universe/life because they seem in conflict with their beliefs about god. When you consider that, throughout one's lifetime, they may have the chance to learn new things (as they are discovered) about reality, you have to wonder if a belief in god could reduce their openness to such new information. Though, I wouldn't assume all believers to think that way, esp. when you consider how many different god-concepts there are, so yeah I think it's possible to lose nothing but also possible to lose something.

I agree, there are people who get so close minded that nothing you say could ever allow them to see a new idea as possibly true because it conflicts with a presupposition that they have.

The issue of integrity is interesting. I'm not sure what I think but I don't think it's cut-and-dry. I think most of it comes down to intellectual honesty, but then you get down to the distinction of knowledge and faith and things get tricky. I think you have to really define those two things before you can discuss honesty this way. What do we know, what do we know we know, how well do we know it, etc...I'd be curious what others think.

I'm not sure what you're asking. In regards to the distinction of knowledge and faith. I see knowledge as an accumulation of ideas that one can perceive to be true. I see faith as belief in something one cannot prove to be true or false.