Well Pascal's wager does a poor job of factoring in more than one God type for the most part so it doesn't really work as far as I am concerned.

That's a thought experiment.

You don't believe in one God, never mind two.

Logically, good is better than evil. If an evil god is doing something bad, it's only bad because there is a law that god is breaking. It can only be breaking a law if there is a law. So if there is an evil god, and he is breaking the law, then he can only be breaking God's law. Which means if an evil god exists, then God exists.

Additionally, if there is a supreme evil god, who made laws to break, if this evil god exists, why would he allow good?


Then if there is no situation that would make it good, it is objectively evil.


Because of Jesus

Ok, I disagree. I feel that the bible supports God through history, and prophecy, while the koran has some clear untruths in them, and lacks prophecy.

Jesus existed, and died, and rose again for you. That alone makes God unique to every other belief that exists.

Seems a bit unfair to say those are christian acts. That looks more like a christian group did bad things. Quite frankly, there are extremists among all various groups, muslims, agnostics, atheists, etc.

Let's be real, the largest most charitable group is which group? You shouldn't look to the newsworthy groups that do stupid stuff as an example of the whole.

They are not Christian acts in your mind, but they most certainly are in the minds of those who carry them out.

Either way, you've made this claim:



That claim is blatantly untrue.  There are so many things to be afraid of from Christians, from murdering people they disagree with, to removing the basic rights of people who's lifestyles they find uncomfortable.

Some of the most wonderful people I have ever met in my life are people of faith, Christian or otherwise.  That doesn't negate the fact that I am terrified by what would happen if large numbers of those same people were in charge.

Yes, some Christians quietly go about their lives serving others and doing wonderful things (alongside people of no faith as well it should be pointed out).  Others spread hate and fear from the front of their churches, on the streets, and in the newspapers.

You don't get away with making claims that I don't need to be worried, because I do worry - greatly - about the things the religious will do because they believe God tells them it is right.

So, yes, let's be real here.  The fact that large numbers of the religious feel guilted into giving 10% of their income each month into carpeting their sanctuaries and adding amazing coffee areas to their foyers (the church our family attends blew their entire yearly budget on this exact thing last year, and it's not uncommon at all for churches to do these things) doesn't cover up the fact that many of those same types of people would jump up and down for joy if the rights of gays to marry were totally removed from them.  That's a reason to worry.

So? Belief something is christian doesn't make it christian. Just as belief that you can jump from an airplane without a parachute and live doesn't mean you will survive. Just believing something doesn't make it so.

But that statement is just as valid, and perhaps more so with every single other group that exists.

Example. you shouldn't be afraid of atheists, because they are just ________, But yet there are bad atheists that attract attention. And the same with muslims, and agnostics, and .....etc.


Sure, and if you fly, you might crash too. (It happens) But still we fly. Why, because it's more realistic that you will get to your location safely.

And that is the realism I refer to. You can worry about anything you want, it's just unlikely to occur. So rare as a matter of fact, that I'm sure there will be millions more helped before any one of your worries happen.

You gave a one off example to discredit the idea that christians are also the largest most charitable group.

That's like saying seat belts don't work, because your uncle died while wearing a seat belt, so seat belts don't save lives.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:28, Tue 14 Jan 2014.

In reply to Pyrrho (msg # 321):

Yeah, Pascal's wager isn't really something that actually convinces people to change their beliefs, in my experience.  Rather, it's something that believers point to try to change minds, even though it's not the thing that changed their mind.  It's more of an after-the-fact rationalization, rather than a real cause for conversion.  I'm not sure that anyone here will put too much effort into defending it, really.

In reply to Trust in the Lord & Dolous(msgs # 325-#327):

I think you've both made some valid points, and have also both overstepped a bit.  I agree with Dolous that TitL's original statement was a bit absurd, implying that christians never did anything wrong, which is pretty obviously not true.  I agree with TitL that it's not fair to paint an entire religion (or any other group) with the brush of the most extreme members.  I also agree with him that the vast majority of christians (and non-christians too) are usually fine, peaceful people.  But I agree with Dolous that at times those fine, peaceful friendly people push laws that aren't all that friendly.  Though, I blame that just on human nature, rather than on christianity.

I think an important point of divergence here is that TitL doesn't view people who do "bad things" because of their beliefs as "real christians," so doesn't include them in his statement about christians.  Whereas Dolous and I accept that there are good christians and bad ones, and consider any statement about "christians" to include both.  So while we all might agree that there'd be something to worry about if the Westboro Baptists moved in next door, TitL wouldn't view them as christians, whereas Dolous and I would.  As usually is the case, it seems that our disagreement comes down to using the same word to mean different things.  What TitL means by "christian" isn't the same thing that Dolous or I mean by the term.

This, I think, highlights some of our differing assumptions.  You say logically good is better than evil.  I would argue that we call things good when we think positively of them, and call them evil when we think negatively of them.  Which is slightly different.

More importantly, you assert that something is only bad if it's breaking some law, and that there can only be a law if there is a good god.  I disagree with both of those.  I don't think a "law" is required for something to be bad or good, and I don't think a good god is required to make a law.  A while back I asked you if you thought it would be wrong to rape a child for fun if God told you to do it.  You said, no, if God said to do that, it would still be evil.  Which is great, because we both agree on that.  But the question is, what would be evil about it, in your view?  You had said that it would be wrong because it caused suffering and pain, if I recall correctly.  Notice that you didn't appeal to any law or the opinion of any god to say that.  You were able to decide that if God said "rape kids for fun," that He'd be evil for saying that, without requiring some other god to make a "no raping kids" rule.  So, I would say that by the example of your own reasoning in answering that question (reasoning I agree with, by the way), you've demonstrated that the reasoning you've used in the above quote is wrong.  An evil god could exist, without require some different god to exist.  So your logic here fails, as you have demonstrated with your previous answer.  So we need a bit more to answer the question.

Lastly, even with the problematic logic, you didn't fully answer the question.  Your conclusion was that a good god exists.  But you didn't yet specify how you could tell which was good, and which was evil.  If one says "Do X!" and another says "Don't do X!" and both are claiming to be good, how do you know which is correct?



Perhaps or the same reason that a supreme good god, who made laws to follow, would allow evil?  In order to be truly evil there would need to be free will, or something like that, I guess.  It's a legitimate question, but it works both ways.  If "he wants you to have free will!" is a good reason for a good god to allow evil, then it also seems like a fine reason for an evil god for allowing good.

But if that doesn't satisfy, perhaps he's just a capricious god?  Maybe he wants to confuse us?  Perhaps he needs the glimmer of hope in order to cause true pain and suffering?  Take your pick, really.  As you mention, this is a thought experiment, and this isn't a crucial aspect of it.


As I've pointed out many times now, we're using the word "objectively" differently, and had probably best avoid it to keep from confusing one another.  If that's what you consider objective to mean (that Tycho thinks it's wrong in all cases), then that's great, and it's "objective" in that sense.  When I talk about it being subjective, I mean something very different than that, but I've been trying to avoid those terms, since I know it only adds to the confusion.

Interestingly, I also consider murdering captive women and children to be wrong in all cases.  Which, from what you're saying here, makes it objectively evil.  And yet you tell me that when God tells you to murder captive women and children, then it's not evil to do it.  Which gets to the heart of two points I'm trying to make:
1.  People can and do disagree about what they view as "evil."
2.  Because of your acceptance that everything that God does is good, you can't tell if God is actually good or evil.  You can literally defend the murder of helpless women and children as being "good," just because He told you to do it.  When you reach the point where you're defending murder of kids as good, I think it's pretty clear that you've thrown the ability to tell good from evil out the window, and are purely down to "just following orders."




You'll need to explain that a bit more?  You mean because of what Jesus said was good or evil?  How do you know that he's right about that?  If Jesus said "raping children for fun is good" would you know it was true because he said it?  If not, that implies that Jesus saying something doesn't automatically make it so, so you need more than just his say-so to judge it.  But what?



Good, good!  But the counter is "Oh, so since Allah doesn't behave how you want him to, he can't exist?  Since he doesn't give you the prophecy you want, he can't be real?" ;) (real question, by the way, though with a grin)
But more seriously, now you're not using the "by definition" you mentioned before.  Here you're arguing why Allah isn't worthy of worship, which you can't do if we accept him as worthy of worship "by definition."  But if we don't do that for Allah, it seems that we also shouldn't do it for God.  Here you seem to have changed to arguing that God is worthy of worship because of what the bible says.  Which means, it would seem, looking at the bible, and evaluating God's worthiness based on what the bible says.  I would argue, then, that looking at bits where it says He orders the murder of children and thinking "hmm, doesn't seem like the kind of chap I'd like to worship, really" makes a lot of sense.

I feel like you're trying to have it both ways here.  On the one hand, you want to say God is good by assumption, so we can't judge Him negatively for anything He is said to have done.  But on the other hand, you want to use what other deities are said to have done in order to judge them.  You've got one standard for your god, and a different one for all the others.  And that type of reasoning is what blocks you off from ever knowing if you're wrong.  If a muslim does the same thing (holds Allah to one standard, and God to another), he'll never convert because he's made Allah always right by assumption in his mind, and God is "bad" by nature of simply not being Allah.  That kind of trap, where once you're inside a belief system you can't get out, is something I think most religions aim for, and is what I think is most important to avoid.

Well it's been fun, but I seem to have hit my entertainment limit with this topic. I'll recharge the batteries and revisit it another time perhaps, though likely with a different person.  Cheers.

Well thanks for your time. You add a lot and have given me plenty to think about.

As a note, since we're diverging into a second topic (theism vs. a different theism), I'm going to revive one of th eolder threads and move THAT part of the discussion there.

This thread is for atheism vs. theism.

If one considers Theism the attempt to describe the face and character of the infinite.  Them why would the Faith of the Empty Throne [atheism] not be a Theism.

While we all disagree about the boundaries of theism and atheism, I think almost anyone would agree that they can't overlap.

Even if you define atheism as a faith (which most atheists do not, but some do), it's still not a belief in the existence of someone, so it's not a theism.

I have never heard the term "Faith of the Empty Throne" before. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate?

   It is human nature when looking into Chaos to see things and a major "thing" to see is a face.  The problem with looking at and into the Infinite is it appears to be that same chaos.

   The point of atheism is that it is founded on the idea that the "face" isn't really there.  But the problem is that position is as much based on Faith as is any other religion.

   What I call the Faith of the Empty Throne is simply creating the Image of the Atheist Faith in the same source of power, but without the humanity/compassion/choice.
   This often comes up when I argue that the Freedom of religion clause protects The Atheist Faith as much as any other.

   I love this position since it gets into whether or not the universe has any infinite dimensions and the nature of faith when speaking about the unprovable.

In reply to C-h Freese (msg # 337):

Have to admit I'm struggling to parse that a bit, C-h Freese.  The part I think I get the best is:

A lot of people (even some atheists) will agree with you that atheism is based as much on faith as any religion.  But many others (myself included) will disagree, and tell you that there is a difference between saying "I'm absolutely sure there is no face!" and "nothing I've seen convinces me that there is a face there."  The former is more of a faith-based position, the latter not so much.

The part I'm particularly struggling to understand is this:

What do you mean by the "creating the Image of the Atheist Faith"?  What do you mean by "same source of power"?  Are you saying that atheists have no humanity, compassion, or choice?  You might need to elaborate a bit further for me.

In reply to Tycho (msg # 338):


The nature of Faith is as much the issue as anything.
 Due to our finite, and limited nature, there are many things in this world that at the base can not be either proven or disproven.  But.. STILL need to have some position taken in ones life to feel some consistency.
  That is Faith.

   Free will, is making a choice. and living with that choice in your life.


   Faith, is making a free will choice in the face of unprovability.  Even a choice of believing, not believing, or even abstaining until proof.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:46, Sat 01 Apr 2017.

In reply to katisara (msg # 336):

As I said just a bit ago on OOC, I have been very active on-line in certain circles debating politics from a Libertarian and Constitutional position.

The phrase "Faith of the Empty Throne", was something I used when some Atheists would express disdain for the idea of constitutional restrictions on Federal and Lately [14th amendment] State governments regulation of Religions.

  A throne is a symbol of power whether occupied or not. Often times Atheists will laugh at the idea of the Satirical Religions founded by Other Atheists as proof of the ridiculousness of the ideas of protecting Religion.  But my position against both those Atheists, other Christians, or any one else, is that it actually is proof of it's utility since These Religions represent establishments and organizations that represent Faiths based on their particular view of Gods.  Recognising their priests, pastors, and ministers, gives their [the Atheist] churches the power, they deserve to rule their own Faith, and stand for it against government interference.

P.S. reply to Tycho (msg # 338):
  And the question of humanity and compassion, it is a statement on the nature of "perceived" motivation from the Prime Mover.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:30, Sat 01 Apr 2017.

To a very limited degree I agree with you. There are some 'atheist' 'religions' that exist explicitly to provide benefits for atheists, such as easy marriages, etc. There are also organizations like humanist societies which I think should benefit from many of the protections of religions.

However, there's a pretty significant difference between a religion and atheism. Most notably, a religion tries to determine what is right for the adherent (or for everyone) based on faith. An atheist tries to determine what is factual based on empirical testing. I think it is a very dangerous mistake to put empirical testing and fact-based beliefs on the level with faith. "Facts" are not something which need to be protected as an individual choice. They need to be recognized as objective.

  But that is the Problem God's existence can be neither Proven or Disproven, Religion is not Faith, but Religion and it's establishment is based on faith.

  A given Atheist's Faith in only empirical testing Is a faith based on their belief in the Prime Movement.  Since as all Logicians know Assumptions are NOT based on logic, logical process is based on assumptions and the Faith in those Assumptions.

  Is there a difference between Religion and Atheism, yes Atheism is a Faith, just as Christianity is a Faith.  United Church Of Christ is a Religion; which thankfully for me is gentle with heresy. It is easier for me as a member or and established religious group to claim religious based Conscientious objector status [not that i would, I have been known to only semi-humorously comment about ending up in "Hotel Valhala" during Militia discussions] as a member of a group.  This does not prevent another not a member from claiming, successfully such status but the proof would not engage from membership, but more the content of their life and possibly ability to convince a judge..
This message was last edited by the player at 00:52, Sun 02 Apr 2017.

I guess to me "faith" means a bit more than just "belief."  I wouldn't use "faith" to describe something you can't strictly prove, but which most people feel is pretty reasonable to believe and likely to be true.  "Faith" almost has to involve belief in something that someone else considers unlikely or impossible.

It doesn't take "faith" to bet on the favored team, for example, and it isn't really "faith" if you believe it's going to be sunny in San Diego tomorrow.  Those are just things you believe because they seem likely to be true.  Backing the underdog "takes faith" precisely because they are the underdog.  When someone talks about their faith, it sort of implies that they're saying "I know not everyone believes this, but *I* do."

That's why I'd not really view atheism as a faith.  When I think of atheism, I think of people who don't accept what other people take on faith.  Admittedly, this does put their belief in a bit of a minority, but it's more an issue of what they *don't* believe than what they *do*.  As mentioned earlier, there certainly are atheists who do have strong beliefs that no religion could possibly be true, and that could be described as faith, but I don't really consider them representative.

Put another way, if you tell me that you've got magical powers that let you fly, teleport, and shoot fireballs out of your eyes, but you're simply not going to show me, I can't prove for certain that you're telling the truth or not, but I wouldn't use "faith" to describe the position of not believing you.

I draw less of a distinction between religious beliefs and other beliefs. To me, belief is an emotional commitment to an unproven conjecture or its opposite, or an imbalance in the evidence in favor of a side. And I'm not limiting this to scientific evidence. Because we each weigh different kinds of evidence differently, we're likely to believe differently even with the same evidence.

Faith is a synonym for trust, and I tend to limit it to that. I trust God, but of course I have to believe in God before I can trust him. Only in that sense do I see faith based on belief.

In reply to hakootoko (msg # 344):

The things that jumped out to me there were "emotional commitment" and "synonym for trust."  Those are how I would describe faith, whereas belief doesn't necessarily imply them (ie, faith is a type of belief, but not all belief is faith).

If you think it's going to rain tomorrow, you "believe" that it is, but that doesn't mean that you want it to rain, or that you feel any sort of commitment to your position.  It's just your best guess at something uncertain.  Once you start having that emotional commitment to your view, though, it becomes something more.  If part of your reason for believing it will rain tomorrow is that you want it to rain tomorrow, that starts to sound more like faith.

The "synonym for trust" part I felt lined up well with what I was saying about belief in the face of competing evidence or views.  You only need to have trust in something if there's reason to doubt in the first place.  Trust is what gets you past the doubt.  When you call someone trustworthy, you're basically saying that you believed they'll do the right thing in cases where you think other people might not.  When we say someone has faith in something, we're kind of saying "they trust that X is true, even though Y".

The idea that an atheist has faith in only empirical testing.  Empirical testing is merely the best process for understanding our universe that we currently have. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it, and if someone were to devise an even better way to understand our world then it would make sense to shift towards that.

Over the past several years I've basically come to the conclusion that faith was the term I used to fill in the gaps of a lack of understanding in my religious beliefs.

Couldn't quite get how a loving God could torture human beings for all of eternity?  Faith!

That sort of thing.

At the end of the day I had to admit to myself that a universe with a God in it, and a universe with no God in it, basically looked identical in all ways, but that the one without God in it didn't require me to fill in my gaps with 'Faith'. I could simply leave those gaps as they were and either hope that one day we might find better answers or admit that the answers were unknowable.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:14, Thu 06 Apr 2017.