@Jai
You invoke Pascal's Wager, and yet you chose a religion that doesn't promote eternal suffering after death for non-believer. Choosing Christianity or Islam makes much more sense if you think Pascal's Wager is a valid argument (wich is not, and the fact that there are mutually exlusive faiths that condemns you to the same level of eternal suffering/happiness is a good counter-argument to it).

All things in life require faith...it just depends on what you put your faith in

I disagree, i don't think anything should require faith and i don't think faith is required for anything.

Edited 12/27/2015 01:30:59

Believing is a win-win. If you believe there is an afterlife, then you were right the whole time. If you believe and there is no afterlife, there will be no chance for atheists to say "I told you so."

Beliving is not a win-win. If there is no afterlife and everything your religion tells you is bullshit, then you would have wasted your only life in a delusion, refrained to develop it to its full potential by an irrational fear of the after life. And if there is an after-life, then you still have pick the right doctrine out of the tens of thousands of different religions there has been through the years, so you would most likely loose anyway. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument.

I do believe in evolution. And I would be shocked to find out I have a child.

You can take it as a hypothetical then. :-) But I imagine you wouldn't, considering your first answer. Well, great! I'm glad for you. (Sincerely, not sarcastically.)

Alright, I guess my next question would be: Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)? (This is moving more towards my main concerns with the OP and Col's reply (even if he isn't himself American; again, the attitude is rather common in the US).)

Believing is a win-win. If you believe there is an afterlife, then you were right the whole time. If you believe and there is no afterlife, there will be no chance for atheists to say "I told you so."

This assumes that having false beliefs about gods/religion has no real-world consequences. But we know, clearly, that this is false. Having false beliefs about gods/religions *does* have consequences for the believer. For example, some false beliefs about the afterlife are not only lethal to the believer, but to the innocent people within their blast radius.

@wct

well said. Exept for the "false belief" part. Since most religious beliefs (certainly about the after-life) are unfalsifiable, i'd say "faith-based beliefs" rather than "false beliefs". But i'm just being picky

Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)? (This is moving more towards my main concerns with the OP and Col's reply (even if he isn't himself American; again, the attitude is rather common in the US).)

I don't assume the person who doesn't believe in evolution is stupid, I assume they have looked at the facts and have come to a different conclusion then me. Science is not religion and is not absolute. I do however hope that they've come to their conclusions through looking at evidence, not just doing it because they don't like the people saying that the thing is real.

yet you chose a religion that doesn't promote eternal suffering after death for non-believer

Another misconception about Hinduism my friend. A disbelief in God and a rejection of his laws does carry tangible consequences past this life: namely you continue on the endless cycles of life-and-death, as well as suffering the karmic consequences of your sins in the next life.

irrational fear of the after life

Just because you believe in God and that moral/spiritual/physical consequences exist past this one life, doesn't mean you fear what happens after your death. I am quite at peace with death to a level I never was before I turned to God.

Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)?

No. This goes back to my question about whether you want to thought police the world. Even if the answer to your question is yes, then what??! Do you want to send people to indoctrination camps? Do you want to remove churches, and temples and synagogues? Do you want to ban inciting God in the public sphere? Do you want to criminally or civilly punish those who don't believe in evolution, climate change, or vaccines? If you're concerned with the stupidity of the US voting public you may want to look at the secondary and post-secondary education in this country. We've spent billions in dollars (at the behest of progressives and liberals) to no avail as our test scores continue to plateau or see only moderate gains. We focused so much public attention to the gender gap in math, that we ignored the more dangerous gender gap in reading where males have ALWAYS underpreformed females (with little attention or resources thrown at the problem). The answer to a low educated voting class is not more progressiveness. Trust me...I'm on the front lines of this problem in my legislative district: one of the richest and most educated in the US who's voter participation in the last local elections was 15%.

Edited 12/27/2015 02:05:23

but why do you absolutely need to have a supernatural being in you explanation of the world?

Maybe I don't have an answer to that, except that theoretically the stakes are infinite costly for not believing in the Divine. Pascal's Wager is my only semi-valid counter.

Pascal's Wager works both ways. First of all, there are the *other* religions that attempt to use it, e.g. Islam. If you don't believe in Allah, you'll get an infinite cost as well. According to many depictions, it's actually *worse* than the Christian hell -- or, some variants of one are worse than some variants of the other.

So why don't you believe in Allah? And wait, aren't you Hindu anyway? Does your sect try to use Pascal-ish wagers? Sincerely curious.

Finally, there's also a possibility that there *is* a god, but one who intentionally left this universe without *any* good evidence of his/its existence, and who will only reward atheists with infinite benefit, and punish theists with infinite cost, for believing without good reasons.

Pascal's Wager is equally valid for this hypothetical god; so you should be an atheist, just to be on the safe side of *this* wager! Or maybe there is *no* god, but just coincidentally (not intentionally), atheists go to metaphorical 'heaven' and theists go to 'hell'. Again, the wager is just as valid.

This just shows the invalidity of Pascal's Wager; what can prove anything proves nothing.

@Jai
I never said disbelieving doesn't have consequences in the after-life, but being re-incarnated into a lower form of life after a temporary period in suffering is hardly the same thing as ETERNAL suffering. The major argument of Pascal was this notion of infinity and eternity. Quite logically the christian punishment for not believing is the worst punishment there is.
Also, in Hinduism, are you punished for not believing, or are you punished for not following hindu morals? Because in christianity, you can be the most caring and loving person, if you don't believe in Jesus, you will suffer eternity in Hell. On the other hand, you can be the most depicable person, if you recognize Jesus as your saviour, then you are saved and won't go to hell(according to some branch of christianism anyway). Is there an equivalent to that in Hinduism?

Edited 12/27/2015 02:17:38

Since most religious beliefs (certainly about the after-life) are unfalsifiable, i'd say "faith-based beliefs" rather than "false beliefs". But i'm just being picky

Normally I do focus on 'faith based beliefs', so I'm not disagreeing with you on that general point. However, Pascal's Wager depends on the distinction between true beliefs and false beliefs, not merely unfalsifiable beliefs.

Here's an easy way to convert from faith-based beliefs to false beliefs: Most faith based beliefs are mutually contradictory on multiple points. Since at most one mutually contradictory belief can be true, all the others must be false. So most mutually contradictory faith-based beliefs *are* false beliefs also.

No. This goes back to my question about whether you want to thought police the world. Even if the answer to your question is yes, then what??! Do you want to send people to indoctrination camps? Do you want to remove churches, and temples and synagogues? Do you want to ban inciting God in the public sphere? Do you want to criminally or civilly punish those who don't believe in evolution, climate change, or vaccines?

Everytime there is a debate on religion, i see this strawman pop up. You must realize that criticizing, ridiculing and even insulting religion or religious people does not imply that you advocate for religious thoughts to be criminalized. Exercizing your right to free speech, even if it is offensive, does not contradict freedom of religion. In fact, thoughts crimes are the trade mark of religion, not secularism. We have already established that if you don't think that the God of the Bible exist, then you shall be punished with eternal suffering. Not believing in God is therefore the ultimate thought crime. another famous thought crime:
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart, and adultery is a crime worthy of capital punishment in the Bible. And it goes on and on

I assume they have looked at the facts and have come to a different conclusion then me.

I'm curious why you would assume that, especially about a topic like evolution in the US, where many people are not even *exposed* to the facts, and where there is an active disinformation campaign against it.

I do however hope that they've come to their conclusions through looking at evidence, not just doing it because they don't like the people saying that the thing is real.

I'm afraid this is a hope in vain, and also doesn't consider the possibility that they are 'just doing it' not because they don't like the people saying it, but because they are specifically taught/indoctrinated the *opposite* of the facts and evidence. Have you *seen* the anti-evolution propaganda?

Critical thinking is a skill and usually requires at least some study and practice. And it's not really taught in the US public education system, except perhaps to some degree as a side-effect of other courses like science, math, etc.

Another thing, humans have inborn, innate biases in our thinking -- ironically because evolution favours 'good enough' but cheap instead of 'very good' but costly. So, without exposure to critical thinking/reason/rationality/whatever you want to call it, people are at a disadvantage when confronting *facts* that are nevertheless *counter-intuitive*, such as evolution, relativity, global climate change, etc. They are even worse off when faced with *disinformation* of the kind religions wallow in.

If you're not taking this into account when discussing the 'controversies' over evolution, etc., then you yourself are going to be succumbing to such innate human biases (e.g. reasoning based on filtered/incomplete information). I'm not immune to such biases either of course. Part of critical thinking is not just critically examining ideas 'out there', but even more importantly examining our *own* ideas, biases and misconceptions. Again, it's a skill that needs to be practiced with regularity.

Do you consider it problematic that so many of the US voting public *do* have such egregiously wrong beliefs about the real world (anti-evolution is only one example, there's also anti-climate-change, anti-vaccine, and many others)?

No. This goes back to my question about whether you want to thought police the world.

Do you understand that this is a non-sequitur? And an ad hominem at that. Those are fallacies, by the way. Here's a link to help you in your 'study' and 'practice': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

For you, here's a more focused question: Do you agree that *beliefs* can have *real-world* consequences? Let's start at the basics and see if we can go anywhere from there.

If you're concerned with the stupidity of the US voting public you may want to look at the secondary and post-secondary education in this country.

Do you think I *haven't* looked at it?

We've spent billions in dollars (at the behest of progressives and liberals) to no avail as our test scores continue to plateau or see only moderate gains.

Are you referring to No Child Left Behind? Is Bush a progressive or liberal? News to me.

The answer to a low educated voting class is not more progressiveness.

Hahahahaha! Remember those innate biases and disinformation campaigns I wrote about a couple posts ago? You may want to do a bit of introspection and independent research.

The US education system is not suffering from 'too much progressiveness', it's suffering from too much backwards, religiously tainted, racially and economically segregated, conservative politics and educational philosophy.

The US is so far right, your 'left' is right-wing in most other modern Western countries.

You want to know how to do education? Look at progressive Finland. Hold teachers up like doctors and lawyers, rather than glorified baby-sitters. Focus on *teaching* first, and the *testing* will follow, *not* the other way around.

Trust me...

Why should I? You don't seem well-informed on the topic.

Edited 12/27/2015 07:48:40

it's suffering from too much backwards, religiously tainted, racially and economically segregated, conservative politics and educational philosophy

I'm genuinely curious if you have any evidence of this?? Also another question: How much money do you want the federal government to spend on primary and secondary education? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? 3 trillion? Just tell me when I get close. Liberals have had their way with education standards and rules for multiple decades now and they haven't produced any tangible beneficial results. Not to mention that liberal-progressives have dominated almost all the universities in the US so that they've become echo-chambers of the same recycled liberal arguments: "72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative". You guys have failed to make America educated. Don't trust me. It's not like I single-handedly forced my board of education to raise standards for history and social studies, instituted a mandatory civics exam, or achieved 80% voter registration within my graduating class. By the way its not like you offered any reason why we should trust your views.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

WCT and Hitchslap posted way too many times for me to coherently and successfully make any counter points so I'll leave the discussion here.


Also I may as well here address the red state-blue state knowledge gap myth that liberals assume when arguing. The classic line of this argument is: liberal voters are far more informed and smarter about politics/political history that redneck, dumb-ass, religious believing, conservatives.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/editorial-red-knowledge-blue-knowledge/

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/2339-republicans-more-informed-than-democrats-according-to-pew-research

^Read up on those if you were able to learn that skill in your high school :)


Lastly note again that WCT and Hitchslap together posted 8 consecutive times...I'm not going to respond to this thread 8 consecutive times.

Edited 12/27/2015 04:15:11

Beliving is not a win-win. If there is no afterlife and everything your religion tells you is bullshit, then you would have wasted your only life in a delusion, refrained to develop it to its full potential by an irrational fear of the after life. And if there is an after-life, then you still have pick the right doctrine out of the tens of thousands of different religions there has been through the years, so you would most likely loose anyway. Pascal's Wager is not a good argument.

You would have wasted your life in delusion, but you wouldn't know that when you're dead. And you don't have to pick a religion to believe in an afterlife.

This assumes that having false beliefs about gods/religion has no real-world consequences. But we know, clearly, that this is false. Having false beliefs about gods/religions *does* have consequences for the believer. For example, some false beliefs about the afterlife are not only lethal to the believer, but to the innocent people within their blast radius.

Okay, you're not responding to what I even said, you're just bashing the actions of religious nutcases, who are either right about there being an afterlife, or are wrong, but won't here "I told you so" after they die.

Still a win-win.

This assumes that having false beliefs about gods/religion has no real-world consequences. But we know, clearly, that this is false. Having false beliefs about gods/religions *does* have consequences for the believer. For example, some false beliefs about the afterlife are not only lethal to the believer, but to the innocent people within their blast radius.

Okay, you're not responding to what I even said, you're just bashing the actions of religious nutcases, who are either right about there being an afterlife, or are wrong, but won't here "I told you so" after they die.

Still a win-win.

Before I go into depth in response, I just want to clarify what it seems like you're saying in the part I bolded.

Are you saying that the 9/11 hijackers 'won' when they killed themselves? Why? Because they didn't hear "I told you so," from an atheist?

Do their *lives* in this world have no value?!?!?!?!?!!

Because that's what it appears you are saying: Their human lives are less valuable than not hearing "I told you so," from an atheist. I don't want to put words in your mouth though, especially such ... abhorrent ones.

Edited 12/27/2015 05:18:06

Those terrorists died doing what they wanted, and if there is life after death, then they are right in thinking that they aren't "dead." If there is no afterlife, then they don't know they were wrong. You're overthinking this, I think.

Do their *lives* in this world have no value?!?!?!?!?!!

Actually, the value of human life is entirely subjective. In the case of the terrorists, their lives do/did not mean much to them, as there surely is an afterlife waiting for them when they pass. If there isn't, they won't know it.

So yes, the hijackers were in a win-win situation when it comes to our little topic of believing or not believing. So is every single person who believes in an afterlife when they pass.

Progressives don't control public education. Progressives aren't blocking sex education. Progressives aren't teaching the Flintstones as a documentary, The week after 9/11 my geography teacher made her 7th graders each come up with attack plans to invade the middle east. (Some how a bunch of 12 years came to the same conclusion as Bush and invaded random shit on the map.) Texas spends MILLIONS a year on high school football stadiums. The Tea Party has slashed budgets and cut hours and you blame progessives? Lay off the glenn beck man.

it's suffering from too much backwards, religiously tainted, racially and economically segregated, conservative politics and educational philosophy

I'm genuinely curious if you have any evidence of this??

Again, let's get down to basics. Which parts do you disagree with?

'Backwards'? Have you heard of No Child Left Behind? Do you agree that it is largely backwards in terms of educational philosophy (testing over teaching)?

'Religiously tainted'? You've heard of the Creationism and Intelligent Design movements, right? Do you agree that they have tainted education in the US with religious dogma? (They have largely been defeated in recent years, but only after a long and drawn out battle. And there are still regular occurrences of teachers and school boards dabbling in it.)

'Racially and economically segregated'? Do you really find this a controversial claim? You've heard of the term 'inner city schools', right?

'Conservative politics'? Do you really think Bush is not conservative? And he's just one example, though he was a primary champion of NCLB, so he's a biggy.

Tell me what you disagree with and I'll dig up some references.

Also another question: How much money do you want the federal government to spend on primary and secondary education? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? 3 trillion?

What part of 'backwards' do you need clarified? You don't *add* funding to a *backwards* system. You install a system that *isn't* backwards, and you fund *that*.

Just tell me when I get close.

You're out in left field as far as I can tell.

Liberals have had their way with education standards and rules for multiple decades now and they haven't produced any tangible beneficial results.

Like, WTF?! Do you realize that NCLB was Bush's baby, and has been in place from 2001/2002 to 2015? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

What 'decades' are you referring to?

Not to mention that liberal-progressives have dominated almost all the universities in the US so that they've become echo-chambers of the same recycled liberal arguments: "72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative". You guys have failed to make America educated.

Eh, what?! It's a bit *late* to educate the *voting public* after they've left the *public education system*! It's the elementary and secondary schools that are the main failure, dude! Indeed, when it comes to post-secondary, many of the US's universities are top-notch. But how many people can actually afford to go to university, much less qualify for it?! Hint: *Not* the majority of the US voting public.

The failure of the US education system is a failure of state and federal *politics*, not post-secondary academic institutions. Failure to set good standards, failure to fund, failure to separate church and state.

Don't trust me.

Roger.

By the way its not like you offered any reason why we should trust your views.

Nor did I ever ask you to "trust me". You *did*, on the other hand.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

What is this supposed to show?

Remember: The US 'left' is considered right-of-center by most other modern countries in the West. The fact that academics in the US are largely on the US 'left' doesn't surprise me or shock me. It tells me that they are more in touch with reality than the typical US politico.

Most top scientists are atheists, too, BTW.

WCT and Hitchslap posted way too many times for me to coherently and successfully make any counter points so I'll leave the discussion here.

To quote Monty Python, "Run away! Run away!"

What can I say? It takes more words to debunk an erroneous claim than the claim itself. If you don't want long responses debunking erroneous claims, don't make erroneous claims.

Also I may as well here address the red state-blue state knowledge gap myth that liberals assume when arguing. The classic line of this argument is: liberal voters are far more informed and smarter about politics/political history that redneck, dumb-ass, religious believing, conservatives.

Nice straw man. That's another fallacy, BTW. Better study it quick, we'll be implementing a standardized test next week.

You still don't understand. Your 'left' is to the right of me (and most of the modern West). Quite a bit to the right of me, actually. Your 'right' is off the deep end for me, BTW, just for comparison. I don't think that *only* the US right fosters ignorance. There's lots of ignorance on the left, too. But that just makes my point more salient: There's a *lot* of ignorance in the *general* US voting public. After all, not only was W. elected once, but he was *re*-elected. That just blew my mind when that happened.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/22/science-say-gop-voters-better-informed-open-minded/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/6/editorial-red-knowledge-blue-knowledge/

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/2339-republicans-more-informed-than-democrats-according-to-pew-research

^Read up on those if you were able to learn that skill in your high school :)

I don't see the point. They wouldn't counter anything I've said. If you disagree, quote something from them and show how it counters something I've said (also quoted).

Lastly note again that WCT and Hitchslap together posted 8 consecutive times...I'm not going to respond to this thread 8 consecutive times.

So do it all in one post like I just did for this reply. Stop making up reasons why you conveniently can't reply to our questions and arguments. Particularly our questions.

Actually, I don't really care if you reply or don't. Go ahead and make up excuses if you want. The result will be the same anyway. If you don't respond, that just shows you can't respond cogently. If you do respond, I'm pretty sure it won't be cogent, so that again just shows you can't respond cogently. (The ideal outcome, in my eyes, would be if you *do* respond cogently. Go for it! I'm just not expecting much, but I would love to be surprised!)

Edited 12/27/2015 07:13:51