Quake3World

Fender wrote:

Massive Quasars wrote:For those of you who would say yes, but haven't because you don't want to be piled on for it, I'll throw down for you.

Seems like these results are somewhat skewed.

And that's the reason why a poll would be interesting. The folks that want to say yes, but are afraid to might actually vote anonymously.

k, go.

i would go with a straight yes, no, poll and stay consistent with this shitty hypothetical

but that's me

yeah, i never read the initial post. removed.

I'm not afraid to answer yes or no, I just don't have an answer. I'm not even veering in one direction or another. I am standing perfectly centered between the two. If there was a third option for not knowing, I would choose that one.

SplishSplash wrote:I think I'm going to say yes.

If there is a God, he won't be offended, and if there isn't, who cares.

If there is a hell, those who takes Pascal's wager will still end up there.

mjrpes wrote:I'm not afraid to answer yes or no, I just don't have an answer. I'm not even veering in one direction or another. I am standing perfectly centered between the two. If there was a third option for not knowing, I would choose that one.

if you had to bet, wich answer would you choose?

I'd be rather partial to the Atheist's wager:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

Grudge wrote:

SplishSplash wrote:I think I'm going to say yes.

If there is a God, he won't be offended, and if there isn't, who cares.

If there is a hell, those who takes Pascal's wager will still end up there.

Also Pascals wager is flawed because he doesn't take into account the amount of lifetime wasted appeasing a possibly irrelevant deity.

Grudge wrote:I'd be rather partial to the Atheist's wager:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

that's something that's always bugged me about the best-selling monotheistic products. i had religious arguments with my catholic parents as a child where i'd say that i didn't believe - but because i try to be a good person and to do the right thing, god wouldn't give me much shit if it turned out that the bible was right and the logic of my pre-teen mind was wrong. they said that wasn't the deal, you had to believe or the magic didn't work. muslims and jews are no different, if you don't talk to their invisible friend then you're fucked come judgement day.

i can see the necessity of that caveat in a religious system - without it, you might get mixed up and go to the wrong heaven because you accidentally did all the right things for more than one faith.

I voted yes, as I said on page 1
as I explained why on page 1
since I have spent the last 4 hours after golf sitting in a bar watching NASCAR, I feel lubricated and brave enough to spout this shit.
If the right answer is no, then it won't make any difference!!

bah

digital trickery and heretical nonsense

i had a chat about a similar question today with a colleague at work. She had been watching some history documentary and noted the narrator highlighted every culture known across time had some form of religion.

She suggested this level of behaviour and belief could not truly be a social phenomena, nor an indication that all those people were weak and needed a crutch, but that perhaps ethnographic data was reasonable evidence that "God" (without defining that word) does reasonably exist.

interesting thought.

not really

S@M wrote:She suggested this level of behaviour and belief could not truly be a social phenomena, nor an indication that all those people were weak and needed a crutch, but that perhaps ethnographic data was reasonable evidence that "God" (without defining that word) does reasonably exist.

Why not? All that etnographical data says is that human cultures has historically had a tendency to invent supernatural explanations for phenomenon beyond their current level of knowledge. It says nothing about the cause for this tendency.

A simple evolutionary explanation seems much more reasonable than a non-verifiable supernatural one to me.

S@M wrote:She suggested this level of behaviour and belief could not truly be a social phenomena, nor an indication that all those people were weak and needed a crutch, but that perhaps ethnographic data was reasonable evidence that "God" (without defining that word) does reasonably exist.

interesting thought.

That's not the same as God in the bible. And it's certainly no resonable evidence for it's existence. This is just an 'everyone believes it so it must be true' argument in disguise. Almost every "god" prohibits any other god to be true. So why does every culture learn about god(s) in different ways? Why do they exclude eachother? If there were god(s) that would somehow cause this, this would be an idiotic way of making yourself present.

If you're talking about a "god" that lies at the fundament of the fundament of the fundament of the fundament of the fundament of the universe, thats totally useless you could just as well say there is no god.

it says nothing about invention either - the modern approach to observation is to describe complex belief systems and make assumptions about them. Its an ipso facto assumption though, so I think she may have a point.

I guess even if its invention that we'd have to wonder what it is based on - why invent something so extreme, so...absurd?

not sure on your last sentence, are you referring to evolution of human kind away from a religious basis of belief? or evolution more generally?

Inventing something extreme and absurd to answer unanswerable questions is a human trait. Just look at the cargo cults (in The God Delusion) who believe that the marching and dressing up as colonists is a way of making god send the cargo. They devise an entire religion around these nonsensical rituals (they even build a fake landing strip, complete with dummy airplanes, a watchtower and headphones made of wood after the colonists have left). How would you interpret this?

S@M wrote:I guess even if its invention that we'd have to wonder what it is based on - why invent something so extreme, so...absurd?

Why indeed. Something being absurd is still no argument for it's existance though.

I meant evolution in the Darwinian sense. Believing there is some kind of "meaning" to one's existance may have a "cultural/social" edge in the survival game, by creating stable societies that have a larger chance of survival compared to ones without these kinds of beliefs.

This doesn't infer that there has to be any actual substance behind the belief though, the advantages can be had regardless of the "truth", as long as most of the members of the society subscribes to the belief. See patriotism and nationalism for alternative, non-religious alternatives.

alternative alternatives :icon32:

heh, sorry about the tautology

oh, and the bad grammar

ah thanks Grudge, I see what your saying.

JB wrote:bah

digital trickery and heretical nonsense

Any proof of that claim? Thats like me plugging my ears and going la la la la JB doesnt exist, la la la la.

Iccy wrote:Thats like me plugging my ears and going la la la la JB doesnt exist, la la la la.

i don't think it's working, maybe if i wish really hard at the same time a bus will swerve onto the pavement and hit him

Dont worry, its taken care of. I know a guy ...

http://www.youaredamned.com/