Bitcoin Forum

A few weeks ago ,I had a long debate with an Atheist friend, a debate about the existence of God. we have been trying to ignore such a debate for a while but it had to take place.

since i can not prove that there is a God , simply because you can't close your eyes and expect to see the light ! but i finally won the debate and opened my friend's eyes.

so after a long debate that led to no way. I had to ask my friend a simple question, and this goes to all the Atheists.

Since death is certain,what is the risk that each of us is taking now ? who is risking more ?

when we die, there are 2 possible scenarios

1- (there is no God) That's the end, , no judgment, no saving,no hell fire, no heaven.
2- (there IS God) resurrection will happen, judgement will happen, disbelievers will go to hell fire.


To me as a believe am risking nothing, i will be good with both scenario mentioned above, it's either heaven or nothing ! so i am not risking anything !
To my Atheist friend, he is good if scenario number one happen, but he sure as hell won't be good if it turns out that there is a God, its either hell or nothing!

so the certain fact here that Atheists are taking a great risk for almost no reward.

now as an Atheists i want you to explain to me why would you be taking a big risk even if it has a 1% chance of failure?


 

Problem with your logic is that you don't know which one of the 3000+ Gods to believe.  You are probably wrong picking your God in which case you will burn in hell (if there is a God that created hell for people so that he can watch them suffer for eternity :-) )

Another option is that there is a God and nothing happens after you die, i.e. simulation is over and the atoms in your body are recycled to create something else.

So there could be two different options:

1. There is no God, i.e. nothing happens after you die.
2. There is God, nothing happens after you die.  God does not give a fuck about this insignificant planet in the middle of nowhere.

I am pretty sure God concept was invented by insecure, ignorant people to make themselves feel better.  So I would not worry about these childish stories.  Pick option #1 and enjoy your life.  You only got one life to live.

Ah yes, this is like Pascal's Wager

Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist, proposed a way to win this wager. He postulated the idea that God might reward those who have an honest disbelief in God and actually punish those who have faith in God blindly. He reasoned that the Supreme Being would surely value honesty and logical reasoning, and see no value in blindly following others' beliefs.

A responsible member of the human race, an atheist philanthropist that helps millions of people live better lives but refuse to believe in a sky fairy or worse yet believes in the wrong one because of what his parents taught him will burn in hell.

A pedophile (priest in extreme cases), murder, rapist, career criminal is welcomed with open arms into magic land if he believes in the sky daddy and just says I'm sorry.

By your logic why not go out and do all the hookers and blow you can, rape every women you desire to fuck and have a good old time and then just say sorry later on...

Your binary options are just too limiting when there are dozens of reasons to reject dogma created to drain wealth and control the masses.

You either believe in the magical pink unicorn or not.

But if you don't believe you will get raped for eternity in a lake of human phlegm.

You have nothing to lose if you believe in the magical pink unicorn.

Except that you have to give money to the Church of the pink unicorn and listen to your pink unicorn priest and live your life according to the dictates of the pink unicorn bible.



Are you convinced yet?

/s


Your friend is not very sharp. In fact, I bet you made him up just to "win" this internet argument.

Prove to me that this friend is real, can't be as hard as proving that god is real. But these are two things that don't exist.

The argumentative atheist who got converted by this dumb argument.
And also proof for god.

Indeed it does sound suspicious. And if you and I are correct, he is a liar.


God, no.

The concept of believing in God is the same, it's only that different people imagine God to be something different from the others, but we are not here to argue about this. but for the sake of your argument, even if i had 1 in 3000+ chance to be saved from a something that has the smallest chance of happening, why risk it for no reward?''

why not pick option 2, enjoy your life, live once and maybe twice ! how does believing in God keep you from enjoying your life?



Athiets also blindly follow other's beliefs, unless you are the FIRST person to believe in something then you are simply following someone else.



I do not want to debate about whether a believer who does no good deeds will go to heaven or not, but if there is God, what makes you think he cares more about the good souls than those who believe in Him, God's logic does not have to fit into ours, if you had to judge you will chose the good atheist over the bad believer, but God might have a different prospective of judging things, and if this has a 1% chance of happening you are still risking , so why not be a believer and a good person? not trying to make you believe in God i just need a reasonable reason for the risk you taking !



you are too naive to believe that God and Church are even related, I have never been to any church before. you see you are mixing religion with God. to believe in God you do not have to follow a religion also you can still be a member of the church and believe there is no God. your logic here does not make sense, i am only disusing consequences of believing or disbelieving in God, not even whether he exist or not

you bet what? a horse? i dare you ! send me a pm, we could very likely arrange a meeting the 3 of us and have a little debate, plus i am not trying to win any  argument here, if turns out to be a God i could care less if you or anybody else burns in hell fire so why would I try to win an argument ? i am not even trying to convince anybody to believe in God, i am simply asking a question that non of you have answered, WHAT IF YOU WERE WRONG? i need to understand the logic of taking such a risk when believing in God takes nothing but a moment of deep thinking, it requires no church nor priest.

and no my friend did not go " hallelujah , God forgive me for not believing you in you and now I do". shit like that did not happened,probably will never happen !  i did not say it, you came up with it ! i said i opened his eyes ! not converted him ! he just started to consider the consequences of option no.2,  unless you have a proper reason to take that risk then it does not seem like smartest thing to do.


and if i am not a liar then what are you ? i'll be so nice and allow you to call yourself whatever that lets you sleep at night.

this is not competition nor a debate that i have to win, thinking that i would lie about something like this is really childish, i am not sure if this is the results of not believing in God or pure naivety from the two of you !, again i'd like to believe it's no 2.

the comment above you, said he BET , so if you want to bet too, let's make this official, set the prize and suggest the way you see fit for proof.

Because the real odds of it happening are more or less about as likely as person solving the next BTC block mining with a pencil and paper and 3rd grade math skills.

If the odds were even remotely close to 1% you would have an actual point.

well anything above 0 counts. talk about solving the next block

https://bsod.pw/?address=LXfbiVroAdifcm4dWcT3gX79Gap2hahC21

i just found a litecoin block with a useless L3 in less than a week, what are the odds?  ;D ;D probably much lower than the existence of God . so i have an actual point :D .
 

People win the powerball too, unfortunately you are more likely to win the powerball back to back to back or find 10 LTC blocks in a day with an old L3 than you are to solve the next BTC block with pencil and paper and 3rd grade math skills...

And no anything above 0 doesn't count, there is technically a non zero chance I will have an orgy with Taylor Swift, Scarlett Johansen, Ivanka Trump, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Sofia Vergara and 2 pounds of blow while on a private yacht in the south of France.

anything above 0 does count, that is basic math that i do not intend to argue about  ;D . this is going no where. Mods  feel free to delete the topic  ;D thanks

What kind of God would leave his existence so arbitrary in so much of the world for so much of history?  What kind of god would chose one people at one time in history for all of his communication and then disappear like a deadbeat dad.   Certainly not an all loving, all powerful god. 

If this is all there is to god, and he is real, then he is not what he claims to be.    If I am wrong, and he is what he claims to be, he will forgive me for using the brain he gave me to figure out that there is not enough evidence to believe in god. 

Always with those is there god or not debates I would like to ask like some people here before, how do you know that the God that you believe in i the true god? I mean, if we take Christianity for example, then sorry if I'm wrong, but I'm quite sure that following another religion with completely different traditions and beliefs is also considered as not being a true believer and not going to heaven? But what always amazes me that how can people be so ignorant to believe that among 7 billion people and who knows how many religions, they are the ones who are definitely 100% right. Why is it so hard to accept that some people believe in something else and some people believe in science and not a god like entity at all? Maybe whatever they believe in is right for them and as they don't believe in heaven or hell, these things won't ever exist for them. I would really like to think that whatever a person believes in that will be their reality. So there is not only one truth, but there are personal truths.

I mean, I definitely do believe in something, not in god, no. But that there is something much bigger than us. Do I believe in heaven or hell? No. Whether you're religious or not I think people still want to do good and not only because they have this possibility to go to heaven, but because in their nature they are not bad just because they don't have faith in such things.

Also, with all the heaven and hell topic, what actually makes me rather sad is the fact that if god is so god and non-judgemental and what not, how is it possible that he wants to separate families for the whole eternity? I mean, I had this schoolmate who turned religious at some point and he was seriously devastated because his parents were not religious meaning that they would never get to heaven. So, he would go to heaven, yet a lot of people he cares about would burn in hell? Sounds lovely. In my opinion, not a very nice thought to have for the rest of your life.

Science does not have room for personal truths, it only deals with absolute truth. Either something is true, or it is not. There is no false dichotomy.

By saying that there are personal truths rather than absolute truth, there would no possibility for someone to experience something that convinces them that their "personal truths" were false all along.

It depends on which God you choose to believe in.

Do you enjoy killing gays or infidels? Stoning women for adultery?

If yes, then you might enjoy your life and believe in God (Yahweh, Allah, Jesus etc).

If you don't, then your God will punish you severely and you will burn in hell for not obeying what he told you must do or else.

Now, I would recommend you pick Sun as your God.  We know what Sun is, and it does not ask you to kill anyone.  Without Sun there would be no life here on Earth.

Dogs are also good Gods.  They love you no matter what, will put their lives on the line to save you, are always there, you can see and touch them, they are real.  Unlike the Gods people invented.

This is the gamble of Pascal, French Mathematician. I will reply with a question: Is your believe come from your unknown afraid of after death? Is it believing or just saying?

I'm amazed anyone is convinced by Pascal's Wager; it's so binary. Hajek's objective is a rejection of this binary choice by introducing additional Gods into the story.

f you believe in God A, God B may damn you after death because God A is fictitious. God B may not punish a non-believer as hard as a false-worshiper.

You are right, actually Alan Hajek's proposal sounds very logical and reasonable. I agree with this. Pascal's wager is forcing us into a false dichotomy.

No offense but you and your friend aren't very smart if you both concluded that you won that argument based on what you've told us, though I would actually be surprised if this argument actually happened in the first place. The fact that you think there's only one of two possible outcomes -- and chose the most ridiculous one -- is incredibly naive. There's so many flaws to your logic that I could spend hours debunking it but I'll go with the most silliest: Have you ever thought that there might be a god that hates stupidity and that any people who follow any religion or believes in any gods will go straight to hell? Maybe he sends anyone who believes in heaven straight to hell or non-existence. Maybe god is actually satan and all do-gooders and religious people go to hell whist non-believers or satanists get to live forever.

You're basically saying we should believe in god just because. Should we believe in unicorns as well just in case there's a unicorn god? I personally can't fake a belief in something I know almost certainly doesn't exist -- or at least there's no evidence for -- and I'm sure god would be able to see past my fake belief if I even tried to cheat myself into heaven. Could -- or would -- you believe that the earth is flat if it would get you a place in heaven? You've better, because that's what the bible thinks -- or certainly alludes to, so just to be safe I'd like to see you make the case for flat earth -- and remember, believing the earth is round may get you sent to hell so it's best to believe in flat earth just in case.

I'm personally not going to be bullied into believing in a god just because of the threat of eternal damnation. If god want's to send me to hell for that then so be it and there's nothing that I can do to change that but I think if there was a god then getting into heaven wouldn't be as easy as merely just believing in him so I'm probably screwed either way. In the meantime I'll just stick to being a good person without living my life in fear that I'm going to be punished when I die, and that's why I usually find atheists are far more moral people than religious ones because when they do good it's not for any reward but because they think it's the right thing to do.

Are you or are you not lying about the "conversation you had with the friend and what he said." I would just like to know. No ducking and dodging please.

This thread should have ended here. Not to mention the fact that you can't force yourself to believe  in something.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.

I can't force myself to believe in something. It is impossible. Either something truly miraculous has to happen to me or it doesn't. If it does, I change my whole worldview instantly. If it doesn't, talking for hours about it surely isn't going to help. I realize this about "religious debates", they are just for light chitchat. I enjoy talking about it myself, but I know it is just for fun, nothing serious.

How can words change anything? My worldview will always remain the same I start out with.

Mind-blowing experiences change worldview, not words.

Possibly the biggest miraculous happening that happened to you, is that you can look inward, and say, "I am," or "I exist."

8)

Cogito, ergo sum.

I have an opinion that such discussions are limited hopelessly by the grammar, as might have been discussions about math in an Indian tribe whose set of words for numbers were "one, two and many."

The central question is whether the universe, or the local subset of it if one wishes, is intelligence/consciousness rich or intelligence/conscious poor. There is no need to limit this to biological creatures, it's an abstract discussion. If it is
"poor" there is a question where that is caused a speed of light limit on communications.

In the first case, there would be massive sentience; in the second, something like oasis of sentience in vast deserts. But these things have had billions of years to develop, there have been several generations of stars.

Today it is popular to ask when we may create super-AI, but the above indicates it's likely been around a very long time. Somewhere, perhaps not here. Whatever one wishes to call such a thing. Charles Stross used a phraseology "weakly God-like."

Clearly this is a different, more detailed and more nuanced look at the matter than monotheism would argue, but it argues neither for or against monotheism. However, I can't fathom why any one would waste time worrying or debating the existence or not of a god, when the existence of sentience outside and beyond humans had implications that at least partly address that question.

Why? Because it's not just going to be a few ET types. It will be the entire range of life, such as what we have here, plus the things that are yet to be developed here but pretty much certain, such as AI and super AI. And given the known age of the universe and the star systems, that AI will have been developed not for fifty or one hundred years but millions or billions of years.

I am intrigued, please continue.

If one leaned toward the unproven view that the Universe (or the local area) was rich in sentience, and ways were know to allow distant communication, given the prior note about certainty of rapid AI development. This seems to render virtually all God-concepts quaint and obsolete, as well as concepts of atheism. The latter tend to be reactionary against perceived fallacies in God-concepts, forming an "A and not-A" pair.

In the unproven view that the Universe was sparse in sentience, without distant communications, there would exist spheres of knowable and findable sentience around certain stars. The size of the sphere would be the limit of the speed of light times the time that race had communications capability. Bubbles here and there, essentially.

Non of this really has anything to do with ET, it explores God-concepts. It does not destroy concepts of Christianity or Islam but dwarfs them with a reality far vaster and richer. I say "nothing to do with ET" because we're strictly looking at whether other consciousness exist and it's implications. A sentience could for example have converted 10% of the silicon on a planet's surface to logic gates and "be the planet." What IQ would that thing have? Obviously that's a ridiculous question. It wouldn't even be life as we think of it. Any calculation of its capability, done by comparison of the number of logic gates with that of the human mind, would show it trillions of times more capable. Most would have no problem with a "weakly God like" designation, but none would understand or comprehend such a thing.

Although in the next millennia the human race certainly will be looking at these questions and may find some off-Earth sentience, ridiculously advanced AI will be forever an enigma. We're no more capable of understanding it than a cockroach is capable of understanding us. Envision a local area with millions of such, that would be the sentience-rich universe concept.

In conclusion, I have some difficulty taking the currently discussed God-concept duality seriously.

In the world there's good and bad, as there are bad atheist, I know there are good and righteous atheist people as well, so are Christians, they can do horrible things even when not supposed to, every rule has it's exceptions, but things happen, everyone will be judged based on their actions not words.