Am I an Athiest?

[BK-201]

Huh? I think you need to write more clearly.

You seem to be forgetting what the definition of God is. God has to be omnipotent, omniscient and most importantly for this case, omnibenevolent. Bolded part doesn't make sense. By definition, God is omnibenevolent. A God that eternally tortures your soul is not an omnibenevolent God.

Same argument as dondon. Also your definition of a God is irrelevant in the sense that theoretically such a superpowered entity could exist that would eternally torture your soul. Just because humans throw in the requirement of being omnibenevolent means nothing. Also look to evil deities in other religions, just because some theists attached omnibenevolenceas as a requirement doesn't mean an omnipotent being that tortures your soul because you took Pascal's Wager doesn't exist.

[Chiki]

Also your definition of a God is irrelevant in the sense that theoretically such a superpowered entity could exist that would eternally torture your soul.

That would not be God. I already proved to you that the widely accepted definition for God is one that is omnibenevolent. It's completely irrelevant if there's a superpowered evil entity.

Just because humans throw in the requirement of being omnibenevolent means nothing.

LOL. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Humans are the ones who decide the meanings of terms, or definitions. By definition, a definition (no pun intended) is a man-made construct. This is beyond simple.

Pascal's Wager just doesn't apply on that superpowered entity you two keep mentioning. Pascal's Wager only applies to the omnibenevolent being we call God. That's how Pascal made his argument. It's not God. It's just a creator.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Chiki

[BK-201]

That would not be God. I already proved to you that the widely accepted definition for God is one that is omnibenevolent. It's completely irrelevant if there's a superpowered evil entity.

LOL. I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. Humans are the ones who decide the meanings of terms, or definitions. By definition, a definition (no pun intended) is a man-made construct. This is beyond simple.

Pascal's Wager just doesn't apply on that superpowered entity you two keep mentioning. Pascal's Wager only applies to the omnibenevolent being we call God. That's how Pascal made his argument. It's not God. It's just a creator.

Pascal's Wager is premised on the basis that either there is a God or there is no God. If you believe in God and God exists, you are eternally blessed. If you believe in God and God doesn't exist, nothing happens. If you don't believe in God and God exists, you either lose greatly or nothing happens depending on what you believe happens in the afterlife. If you don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Thus the only rational choice from this point of view is to believe in God.

However if a hypothetical omnipotent being described above exists and tortures you for believing due to taking Pascal's Wager, it doesn't work out. Hence why your definition of God doesn't matter. If there is an omnipotent being, just because humans chose to define it as omnibenevolent does not mean that such a deity is necessarily omnibenevolent. I'm pretty sure most theists also agree God exists but obviously that isn't a compelling reason for the existence of God. I don't see how you're arriving at the conclusion any omnipotent being that might face you in the afterlife has to be omnibenevolent.

And it is completely relevant if such a being exists because you would be facing eternal torture for taking the wager.

[jiodi]

I'm confused as to what a supreme beings actual behavior has to do with being an atheist or not.

Regardless, it's safe to assume that a being of that level of understanding of reality would be far beyond our ability to understand or comprehend. It's the mistake of putting this being into human context.

[Chiki]

Pascal's Wager is premised on the basis that either there is a God or there is no God. If you believe in God and God exists, you are eternally blessed. If you believe in God and God doesn't exist, nothing happens. If you don't believe in God and God exists, you either lose greatly or nothing happens depending on what you believe happens in the afterlife. If you don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, you lose nothing. Thus the only rational choice from this point of view is to believe in God.

However if a hypothetical omnipotent being described above exists and tortures you for believing due to taking Pascal's Wager, it doesn't work out. Hence why your definition of God doesn't matter. If there is an omnipotent being, just because humans chose to define it as omnibenevolent does not mean that such a deity is necessarily omnibenevolent. I'm pretty sure most theists also agree God exists but obviously that isn't a compelling reason for the existence of God. I don't see how you're arriving at the conclusion any omnipotent being that might face you in the afterlife has to be omnibenevolent.

And it is completely relevant if such a being exists because you would be facing eternal torture for taking the wager.

I'm not arriving at the conclusion that "any omnipotent being that might face you in the afterlife has to be omnibenevolent." There could be an evil omnipotent being, and this evil omnipotent being could be such that he tortures everyone. I'll grant that to you, though I'm doubtful that such a being is metaphysically possible. Let's get that out of the way.

The issue here is that you can't say "God is evil." In Pascal's Wager, God by definition is omnibenevolent. Something that is omnibenevolent can't be evil. It's like saying "this chair is not a chair." Or "this sentence is not a sentence." It's a self-contradiction.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Chiki

[BK-201]

I'm not arriving at the conclusion that "any omnipotent being that might face you in the afterlife has to be omnibenevolent." There could be an evil omnipotent being, and this evil omnipotent being could be such that he tortures everyone. I'll grant that to you, though I'm doubtful that such a being is metaphysically possible. Let's get that out of the way.

The issue here is that you can't say "God is evil." God by definition is omnibenevolent. Something that is omnibenevolent can't be evil. It's like saying "this chair is not a chair."

We tend to refer to any omnipotent being in the afterlife as God in the colloquial which is why we used God as a blanket term for it.

[Chiki]

We tend to refer to any omnipotent being in the afterlife as God in the colloquial which is why we used God as a blanket term for it.

No, we don't. Perhaps the world's most well known intellect on religion thinks otherwise.

Yes, I do affirm that God’s being essentially good means that goodness is a property which God could not have lacked. Indeed, on my view God just is the paradigm of goodness in every possible world. This entails that God cannot do evil, since that would be contrary to His very nature.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-able-to-do-evil#ixzz2pe79W7bc

[jiodi]

Oh fine then, be that way. *drifts off into space*

[dondon151]

Eternally torturing someone for believing in God is a lot less controversial than rewarding someone for believing in God due to fear. If a person believes in God and does good things throughout their entire life due to fear, I think it's good to send them to Heaven, regardless of why they did it. Sure, fear isn't as good a reason as other things, but the consequences of those actions due to fear are still good.

Yeah they are. We're talking about theists here. This is the standard accepted definition in contemporary study. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

dictionary.com says:

God

noun

[god] Show IPA

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.

3. ( lowercase ) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.

4. ( often lowercase ) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.

5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

wikipedia says:

" Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. Common among these are omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence."

nowhere does it mention that the aforementioned attributes are necessary properties of a god or gods. a proof by contradiction is also simple. none of the deities in major polytheistic religions are omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. so it is very possible to worship a malevolent god.

if you were to limit the scope of pascal's wager, which is to state that it's better to worship only the judeo-christian god than to worship any other god or no god at all, then i can still challenge that on similar grounds. entertain the possibility that the actual, real god exacts eternal punishment on your soul for worshiping a false (in this case, the judeo-christian) idol but is ambivalent if you abstain from worshiping an idol at all (and, of course, rewards you for being correct). that fits your definition of an omnibenevolent god. under that assumption, it's better to worship nothing than to hedge your bets with any one religion.

actually, a truly omnibenevolent god would not care if you worshiped him at all, thus nullifying the need to make pascal's wager.

Edited January 6, 2014 by dondon151

[Rehab]

By "we" they don't necessarily presume to include you, or any authority figure, they mean "them and whoever else they spoke to and/or heard using such a definition to get that meaning, and henceforth used it as shorthand even though that may not be the technical origin." As BK said, it's a colloquial meaning, and it's one that I have in practice heard many people use offhand.

And frankly, that definition of atheist which has such a narrow definition of "god" looks to me at first glance like it could hypothetically include somebody who believes in Zeus, who is pretty widely referred to as a god, and who even the Greeks consider a huge shitlord.

That makes for a definition of atheist that doesn't really describe atheists very well, in my experience.

[spoiler=regarding the terrible awful very bad Greek, quote, "gods" ]The Greek pantheon religion is really kinda depressing- these people thought you could hypothetically die or be maimed or have your life otherwise ruined at any moment, because one of those awful asses who managed to luck into eternal life and cosmic power could get pissed at you for some petty slight, or just drink themselves smashed in your area, and barf a tidal wave or a war on you or something, and that was your lot. The only thing you could do was pray to them and give them cows and shit, so maybe they'd try and remember to let you alone, but again they're all in arrested development and hate each other like very large children, so praying to one might mean you pissed off a bunch of others, even if you just want to harvest enough crops to have a supply for winter, or cross a river without drowning. You might even get screwed as collateral damage of the gods trying to punish somebody else, or of them fighting each other! Not much feel-good spirituality to go around there.

(This might be considered a downside, jiol, of having gods who're so understandable by humans that they're themselves pretty close to human in temperament: they might be huge, petty assholes. Or so the ancient Greeks might've thought.)

e: late, didn't preview before posting, sow what one reaps etc.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Rehab

[AnonymousSpeed]

Yeah, Greek gods are really...look down upon-able.

[Balcerzak]

Locking because we've been off-topic long enough. To continue to discuss the Drake Equation, Pascal's Wager, the problem of evil, or anything else, you can just make a new thread.