If you believe in God and he doesn't exist, then you have lost nothing when you die (it's just "lights out").

On the other hand, if you deny the existance of God and he does in fact exist (in whatever form), then you have some "splaining to do" when you kick the bucket.

Put your chips wherever you feel comfortable. I've already placed my bet!

Does god like gamblers?

I really like the music too, Ted Neely rocks.

Your questions have been bantered about for many, many years. Judas still had free will, just as Jesus did when he was tempted by Satan and resisted. I also wonder if by committing suicide, he was damned to hell (not a very comforting thought, given one of my family members did the same thing). At the time we were told God considers one's state of mind, but I don't see that anywhere in the Bible.

Anyway. I like JC Superstar, too.

Not really, but he loves witty metaphors...

I don't personally care what anyone believes but you are holding up the game so place your bet dammit!

But is that a genuine belief? Being God, one would think that He could see through such a scheme.

ok seriously your best bet is to just admit that you don't know the answers, and hope that god will accept that.

agnostic ftw

My logic is that if there is a god, she/it made my brain in such a way that I questioned her/its existence due to lack of evidence.

I'd rather not know if there is a god or not. Knowing all the answers is so boring.

So would you say for instance that people who don't believe in Zeus are 'ignorant', that people who don't believe in the existence of fairies are ignorant?

Being ignorant means "lacking education or knowledge", being unaware or uninformed. What knowledge am I lacking because I don't believe in the supernatural or any gods? What information am I lacking or unaware of that makes me ignorant?

You say both the religious and Atheistic "dogmatically believe". So you're saying that if there is no way of disproving an assertion then one should accept or entertain the possibility until it can be unequivocally proven?

If that's the case I'm going to assert that I am god, I am your god, and that unless you send me $1,000,000,000 by the end of the week I'm going to destroy the entire world by means of giant octopus

Are you going to attach any validity to my claim? Because according to your reasoning you should look seriously into this as until proven not to be truth it's a possibility. OR are you going to use logic, evidence and reasoning to assess the truth or validity of my claim and dismiss it for the untruth it is? If you choose the latter then your claim that to be an Atheist is ignorant doesn't hold water.

The burden of proof is on the person making a claim. If I walked up to you and told you I could fly using only my arms, it wouldn't be up to you to provide proof I could not fly but rather you'd likely say, "Show me then, prove it".

If we were to believe, or at least say, "well maybe" to everything that can't be unproven then where is our basis for reality?

I can say with the same certainty that I can say there's no fairies, or no celestial teapot, that there is no god. Is there any way to prove there's no celestial teapot? No. It doesn't mean however that we can't say with certainty there's no teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars.

I don't believe in god, I'm comfortable saying there is no god. Does that make me ignorant? I'm not sure it does. If you can come up with a good argument, some facts (Not proof but facts), some evidence of a god that I am ignorant of or am ignoring then I'd be pleased to hear.

I don't claim to know as an absolute certainty that there are no gods but within the realms of reason and logic and all the methods that are acceptable to me and to most people I'm comfortable in saying there is no god.

Now watch hear the whole quote in it's context.

Feynman was "an avowed Atheist". Would you describe him as ignorant also?

The quote you provided above is basically echoing my personal views. We haven't got any proof of how life started on earth, we have very good evidence for some theories, but no proven theory. We have increasing knowledge of the natural world and science is making constant progress and maybe at some point man's origin will be a proven scientific fact.


In Viking times when there was no understanding of how thunder was caused or lightening, the people of their time attributed them to 'gods' such as Thor. We've since filled the gaps in understanding previously filled with gods, with science.

The same is true today and this is what Faynman understood, it's okay not to know something. There's no need to fill that void of knowledge or understanding with something unproven, with no evidence just for the sake of having an answer.

What if you've "Thrown in" with the wrong god? You could end up dying and meeting a really pissed off Allah. You could end up meeting a really ticked of Zeus.

Also, hedging your bets is not an attribute I'd suggest any god would take as valid or salvation.

I'd suggest that an intelligent, moral, truly great god (I assume you attribute these things to your god even though the bibles tales indicate differently but that's a separate discussion) would value more someone who's intelligently, diligently come to a genuine conclusion, be it for or against him, rather than someone merely hedging their bets.

Not true.

Off hand I can't think of a single religion that doesn't request or require some form of abstinence or reigning in of instinctive and/or harmless behaviours and often these go beyond the boundaries of society.

If you are a Methodist and there is no god, you've lost out by never experiencing beer.

If you are in one of the anti-pork gangs and there is no Yaweh, you've lived your entire life without a single bacon sandwich.

This before we get into the barbarities and brutalities that are perpetrated in the name of gods.

Picture a martyr, crushed to a bloody, splintered pulp, bones mashed, organs that were always meant to be on the inside now suddenly and painfully on the outside. After a prolonged and agonised death when it's just lights out has that martyr lost nothing?

Imagine a woman who is murdered by her family because she brings them dishonour for not following the words of a god that does not exist. Nothing lost there?

A religious zealot causes a massive explosion in the name of their god, killing the pre-requisite number of infidels. It's lights out for all of them. I think you can guess what my rhetorical question would be there.

Pascal's Wager falls apart under the slightest scrutiny and even if it didn't, then as has been pointed out before, an omniscient being would be aware of it. Unless that being is a Catholic then my assumption would be that looking for loopholes in the grand cosmic plan will be frowned upon.

For one it's a false dichotomy. It's mainly used by Christians and other monotheists as it excludes a whole host of other beliefs and theories.

It also relies on the god you're siding with being dumb enough to not see through your obvious insincerity.

Or know how to look things up on Wikipedia...

Lol. If god started looking into stuff like this he'd realise he was a figment of his own imagination anyway. Hang on...

You raise an interesting point though, this stuff is easily available to everyone due to the internet. It's a whole lot easier to study and research your beliefs yet people seem to come up with the same tired 'arguments' like they've never really been bothered whether what they believe is true or now.

*goes to wiki to look up Pascals wager*

An agnostic is one who neither believes nor disbelieves in god, correct?

A theist is one who believes in god, right?

And finally, an atheist is one who does not believe in god.

Since theism and atheism are opposites by being those who believe and who do not believe (as opposed to those who believe and those who disbelieve), since agnostics "neither believe nor disbelieve", they are technically atheists.
(In this context, those who disbelieve would be strong atheists, and those who simply do not believe are weak atheists maybe?)

By the way, whats up with that ad in the side of the page, with the "Reasons why god exists"? Has anyone clicked on it yet?

I'm comfortable with the following explanation...

An implicit atheist has given little or no consideration regarding the existence of deities; such an individual would be described as implicitly without a belief in gods. Explicit atheists are composed of two groups: the strong/positive variety (who explicitly deny the existence of deities), and the weak/negative (who explicitly eschew belief in gods, but do not necessarily deny the possibility of their existence).


All of us are born implicit Atheists. I'd put myself in the strong Atheists category as I was raised religious, saw flaws in the concept of god and then looked into my disbelief in god on an intellectual level.

Someone who evokes Pascals wager as a reason for belief or supposed belief is, IMO, still an atheist albeit in the 'weak' category. Someone who just doesn't believe in a god as they've never really thought about it or are sitting on the fence somewhat still fall into the Atheist category.

Oh geez, this thread is already long underway, and I only just saw it, and I have to go to work. I will end up reiterating points I've made previously, I think, but I will respond eventually, when I have time. :)

*makes note to come back to this thread*

Uhh no there not. Agnostic has nothing to do with believing or disbelieving, agnostic is the view that you can never know the answer to questions like "Is there a god".

That really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I don't believe that certain questions have answers, obviously I am not going to believe anyone who comes along and tries to give me answers (unless they have some DAMN good proof!).

I only said athiests are ignorant because they are making the assertion that deities do not exist, an assertion that I believe is impossible to know.

Many, many assertions are made that aren't true. I can say that there is no celestial teapot but I can't provide absolute proof of that. And there never will be any good proof of that.

Just because something cannot be proven wrong does not mean that through applying logic and reason that whatever is being asserted is false is 'ignorant'.

Are you ignorant because you don't believe in unicorns? (That is assuming you don't) or are you agnostic towards unicorns as well?

The (IMO) agnostic's motto was recently displayed across a series of buses:



I'm not too worried about whether there is a god(s) or not. I'm not even worried about finding proof either way.

I agree that atheists are a tad foolish in making a claim based upon no proof. "I'm confident there is no god" is more correct than "there is no god." Unless you are dyslexic, in which case you are correct to say "there is a dog."