Best arguments for and against religion?

[Anonymous No.17901355]

Live in a pseudo-catholic household (only really celebrate holidays and don't care for the rest) and never really thought of myself as religions but recently getting into philosophy is swayinge to catholicism.
What are the best arguments for both atheism and theism (doesn't have to be specifically catholicism) ao i can choosw for myself, feel like i'm toen between two worlds and agnosticism feels like a form of "cowardice"

[Anonymous No.17901413]

>>17901355
Best argument for atheism? A five minute conversation with the average religious believer.
Best argument for theism? A five minute conversation with the average atheist.

[Anonymous No.17901450]

>>17901355
>agnosticism feels like a form of "cowardice"
Why? If you end up having no good reason to either positively affirm or deny the existence of god, then the best option is to suspend judgement.

>On this question, the pronouncements of highly learned men are so varied and so much at odds with each other that inevitably they strongly suggest that the explanation is human ignorance, and that the Academics have been wise to withhold assent on matters of such uncertainty; for what can be more degrading than rash judgement, and what can be so rash and unworthy of the serious and sustained attention of a philosopher, as either to hold a false opinion or to defend without hesitation propositions inadequately examined and grasped?
—Cicero, The Nature of the Gods

[Anonymous No.17901456]

[Anonymous No.17901483]

>>17901355
Not exactly an argument, but a reason to not be reserved about believing in and living for Jesus Christ is the abundance of anecdotal evidence for Jesus Christ, which are the testimonies of people who proclaim they have been set free from sin's heavy chains of slavery and spiritual blindness and now have new life in Christ, meaning they can now draw near to the divine without guilt and shame and know the living God for themselves, if they so choose.
Following that Biblical literature clearly showcases a dividing line between having belief in God situated in the mind and belief in God situated in the heart, which means that if people love what is innocent, pure and righteous, that even if they don't know of the Gospel, in their hearts such people love the form of God, and therefore believe in God in their hearts, even if they are utterly ignorant and naive. Belief in God in the heart therefore translates to loving God and what God is about. If the pure love God's form before hearing the word of the Gospel, such will find themselves at home through the formal belief and acknowledgement of the Gospel when it comes to them.
Such doctrine or philosophy brings forth the view that in the domain of the heart there is no neutrality, so nobody can have an excuse. If life is what we make of it, making the best out of life, ie conforming to God's nature (and the implications that follow) is what He requires, nothing less than that. So it's reasonable to think that those who are on the narrow path are extremely few.

[Anonymous No.17901494]

>>17901413
This

We can never have any kind of knowledge whether a God exists, people who try to prove it one way or the other are just coping. I'm not a member of any church because they all push their weird conservative agendas, but you could say I believe in God for the aesthetic(?). If you go to a funeral for example, it's a nice idea that there is an afterlife etc. Guess you could say I'm a closer christian, because I don't want to encourage the politics that comes with it.

[Anonymous No.17901513]

>>17901494
>We can never have any kind of knowledge whether a God exists
That statement is just as loaded as a denial or affirmation.

>weird conservative agendas
>I believe in God for the aesthetic
You seem very confused.

[Anonymous No.17901543]

>>17901513
>That statement is just as loaded as a denial or affirmation.
I would say that comes with the definition. If it's something we can have knowledge about, it's not God.

>You seem very confused.
Aesthetic as in the literature, music and the idea of a God. Opposing same sex marriage etc. because some dudes wrote a book couple thousand years ago is insane.

[Anonymous No.17901613]

>>17901543
Not that anon but positively denying the possibility of knowledge is a step above merely saying that it appears you don’t have access to it - a crucial distinction for the ancient sceptics.
>Opposing same sex marriage etc. because some dudes wrote a book couple thousand years ago is insane.
Is it any stranger than being for gay marriage because of books and moral paradigms written more recently? I’m atheist homo btw.

[Anonymous No.17901629]

>>17901543
>If it's something we can have knowledge about, it's not God.
Just read more, it's obviously more nuanced than your 2 second take.

>because some dudes wrote a book couple thousand years ago is insane
Once again, just read more because the mere fact that it was opined and written at some time in the past is not the reason that it is bad.

Clearly you are confused, at least you admit you don't have knowledge. Don't make statements about what is and is not, if that is the case.

[Anonymous No.17901683]

>>17901613
>positively denying the possibility of knowledge is a step above merely saying that it appears you don’t have access to it
I guess if you believe that there are no limits for human knowledge? Fine, I'll rephrase. I can't fathom how we could ever have knowledge about a transcendent being, so trying to prove the existence of such being seems like a waste of time.

>Is it any stranger than being for gay marriage because of books and moral paradigms written more recently?
I think you need strong arguments when you're telling other people what they are or aren't allowed to do. I don't think appealing to tradition is a valid argument.

[Anonymous No.17901713]

>>17901629
>Just read more, it's obviously more nuanced than your 2 second take.
Maybe we have a different definition of knowledge. If you believe that we can gain knowledge of something through mystical experience, then fine.

>Once again, just read more because the mere fact that it was opined and written at some time in the past is not the reason that it is bad.
I know that's not the reason it's bad. That's the argument people use to oppose same sex marriage though.

[Anonymous No.17901786]

>>17901683
>I guess if you believe that there are no limits for human knowledge?
I think you’re confused. The point of the sceptic position is that I do not know whether or not there are limits to human knowledge. It’s not a proviso that in the future our knowledge *will* be better. It’s saying that, properly speaking, I can only account for what I see here and now, with my own mind and my own senses.
>I think you need strong arguments when you're telling other people what they are or aren't allowed to do. I don't think appealing to tradition is a valid argument.
Well you have to consider that Christianity is an entire life philosophy with its own vision of human existence, which gay marriage is not a part of. Also, appeal to tradition makes sense if you accept the general truth of Christianity, which includes the claim that the Bible is a source of divine revelation. There’s giant tomes of literature by Catholics on the ‘theology of the body’, all kinds of complex philosophical shit on the Christian vision of sexuality and human relationships. I don’t agree with it, since I don’t accept the truth of the Christian religion, but you’re being reductive. Or do you take some illiterate soccer mum wailing about the Bible to nonbelievers as the best representative of Christian thought?

[Anonymous No.17901817]

>>17901786
>I think you’re confused. The point of the sceptic position is that I do not know whether or not there are limits to human knowledge.
I'm not describing a skeptic position, I believe there are limits to human knowledge. It's fine to have unjustifiable beliefs, we all have them. I think it's a problem when we start telling other people how they should live their lives based on our unjustified beliefs those people don't hold.

For example I think it's silly to try to prove the existance of a transcendent being, but I wouldn't make it illegal to try to prove such a thing.

[Anonymous No.17901872]

>>17901817
Christians think they’re in possession of an extremely important moral and spiritual truth - one that has all kinds of implications for individual conduct and social organisation. It makes sense for them to mount resistance to social changes which contradict it - like for instance predatory capitalism. This is tempered by the fact that in the West we live in pluralistic societies that tolerate the existence of multiple belief systems and don’t privilege one over another. The existence of gay marriage has a strong liberal justification. Once it becomes seen as a right there’s little you can do, inside a liberal democratic framework, to prevent it. But I think Christians should be allowed, for instance, to refuse to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, etc. But how long can liberalism sustain irreconcilable differences? How long can different world views tolerate each other? Do meat eaters have the right to kill animals for meat? What is a right? What does pluralism cover? And so on and so on

[Anonymous No.17901992]

>>17901872
I don't think we disagree on anything. I'm not pretending like I have some secret knowledge about the true nature of what good is. My problem with religions aren't the beliefs themselves, it's that people force those beliefs on others.

[Anonymous No.17902172]

You can’t “choose” if you really thought Christ died to give you a life without end you wouldn’t be weighing up whether or not to follow his teachings like they were options for a healthcare plan.
There’s really no such thing as an intellectually backed Faith that will save your plummeting credit with nonbelievers.
One of the things the bible absolutely guarantees you in express terms is that some people will despise you for your faith.

[Anonymous No.17902561]

>>17901992
>My problem with medicine isn't the beliefs themselves, it's that doctors force those beliefs on others
christians think they have the truth, so it makes sense they try to illuminate others. sounds like you need to read about theory of mind if you want to get anywhere

[Anonymous No.17902566]

>What are the best arguments for both atheism
No evidence, problem of evil
>and theism
None lol

[Anonymous No.17902571]

>>17902561
Except that medicine cures diseases, whereas religion rapes kids and kills people

[Anonymous No.17902589]

>>17902561
You and the doctor share the belief that being healthy is good.

[Anonymous No.17902599]

>>17902589
And you’re healthy as well, so you do too

[Anonymous No.17902613]

>>17902571
medical errors are the third leading cause of death in america. i dont think religious errors are even in the top 100.
>>17902589
it's never safe to make assumptions. i don't care one way or the other for transient things

[Anonymous No.17902614]

>>17902599
Yes? The doctor isn't forcing anything on anyone, we all agree that being healthy is good. But we all don't agree that whatever the bible says is good.

[Anonymous No.17902626]

>>17902613
>Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in america
https://www.healthline.com/health/leading-causes-of-death

[Anonymous No.17902631]

>>17902614
What is good in this sense not to be a pseud? Why is being healthy good

[Anonymous No.17902635]

>>17902631
Being healthy is good because everyone wants to be healthy. You can pretend on the internet that's not the case but that doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.17902640]

>>17902613
Medical errors involve a person who’s already sick, needs help and then has a doctor try to help them, with the thing that ends their life being usually a human mistake. Religion, on the other hand, is purely about power, and causes its suffering in the pursuit of that power. The two are completely incomparable. One is death caused by the inability to help someone, while trying to help someone, the other is caused by the religious’ inability to act civilized and having their fucktarded, animalistic urges towards power and control override everything

[Anonymous No.17902641]

>>17902626
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28186008/
>>17902635
>being a christain is good because everyone wants to go to heaven. you can pretend on the internet that's not the case but that doesn't change anything.
study theory of mind would you?

[Anonymous No.17902650]

>>17902641
Health is actually real, whereas heaven is just a bullshit fantasy

[Anonymous No.17902659]

>>17902640
youre trying to deny tangible reality, yet reinforce your own conspiratorial beliefs. you lack perception if you verily don't see how the inverse could be applied to what you've said.
>>17902650
cachinnating vociferously rn

[Anonymous No.17902664]

I'll just leave this here

[Anonymous No.17902668]

>>17902659
And you use 5 dollar words thinking it will make anyone thing you’re not a giant retard

[Anonymous No.17902680]

>>17901355
>God the Father in human form
That image is blasphemous OP. Delete it.

[Anonymous No.17902681]

>>17902668
you simply cannot explain your viewpoint without assuming other people hold said viewpoint. you aren't ready for any meaningful discourse

[Anonymous No.17902685]

>>17902681
Not with pseudo intellectual bullshitters like you, no

[Anonymous No.17902689]

>>17902685
why do you feel that way

[Anonymous No.17902697]

>>17901355
>for
argument from contingency
fine tuning argument (the good versions)
cosmological arguments
immateriality of the mind (if used correctly)

>against
problem of evil
plurality of religious beliefs
and probably an ad hominem argument against typical religious believers

[Anonymous No.17902702]

>>17902697
these are just arguments about a God though, if you want to decide between Islam and Christianity (the main options for a non-Jewish theist) then it comes down to historical research.

[Anonymous No.17902735]

>>17901450
>Why? If you end up having no good reason to either positively affirm or deny the existence of god, then the best option is to suspend judgement.
Agnosticism are a religious fence sitters! No one likes them, because they’re like a meat eater who’s part of PETA or the “politically undecided people” who just wait to bandwagon jump whatever side wins.

[Anonymous No.17902760]

>>17902689
Because you obviously can’t explain what you believe in a simple manner, but more importantly in your own words. You borrow complex words and concepts, hoping that they will sound profound so that no one will ever question the actual assumptions your beliefs are based on. Complexity is just a force shield to protect your faulty ideas from being tested, and most people look right through it, which results in this kind of vague jargon making the person who uses it look even dumber. This is also the case with gurus like Deepak Chopra and Jordan Peterson, who package their half baked ideas into clever sounding language, to deflect from having to explain the major flaws with their ideas

[Anonymous No.17902770]

>>17902735
People seethe at fencesitting because it’s the best option

[Anonymous No.17902774]

>>17901450
Based
Fuck dogmatic cunts.

[Anonymous No.17902785]

>>17902770
No, it’s the most cowardly option, that demands no dedication, but also offers nothing worthwhile in return

[Anonymous No.17902789]

>>17902760
>you says to me religion forces people to do stuff
>i says to you medicine does the same
>you says to me being healthy is good
>i says to you health of mind is what religion offers
>you says to me religion kills
>i says to you the data
>you ignore the data and says to me religion is fantasy
i told you to study theory of mind as it describes a concept you clearly lack. you cannot comprehend that someone would believe heaven and the bible are truth. that means you cannot comprehend seeing things as they do. you lack perception and will even deny reality when it disagrees with you. read a book one of these days

[Anonymous No.17902791]

>>17902664
>If God is supremely good, then he has the desire to eliminate evil
Nope, not if the greater good is a free will universe (which necessitates the existence of evil).
God doesnt condone evil but its potential existence is necessary for free will beings to exist (and free will is of greater value than the negative ramifications of evil).

[Anonymous No.17902803]

>>17901450
In the end agnosticism says nothing at all on the topic, its absolutely worthless.

[Anonymous No.17902809]

>>17902791
>Nope, not if the greater good is a free will universe (which necessitates the existence of evil).
Do people in heaven have free will?

[Anonymous No.17902831]

>>17902809
Yes, between multiple goods.

[Anonymous No.17902851]

I've always been an atheist growing up. But I've become more open to the idea that maybe there is something bigger than us out there. After all a lot of people have come to believe that alien life is not unfeasible and we've also grow accustomed to the idea that maybe we need to look beyond a single universe. So in my mind it wouldn't be too big a stretch to assume that there might be a life form on a grander multiverse scale. But please don't preach me the bible. That's a bit too dry for me, I prefer a more scientific approach.

[Anonymous No.17902853]

>>17902803
It intelligently lays down the arguments of both sides and then suspend judgement. The real worthlessness is taking sides when both sides have good arguments and counter arguments.

[Anonymous No.17902872]

>>17902831
And why can’t that be the case here on earth? Isn’t God all powerful? Can’t he simply will away all bad options? Then we wouldn’t need anyone going to hell

[Anonymous No.17902873]

>>17902664
>>17902791
God has the desire to eliminate actual evil, but not the potential for evil (since free will necessitates it).

And God doesnt desire to instantaneously eliminate actual evil, but to eliminate it over time through the free will beings who choose to do God's will.
God doesnt directly eliminate actualized evil, he uses the free will beings who have chosen to do his will.

[Anonymous No.17902882]

>>17902851
You can believe in something beyond yourself without feeling the need to impose an absolute power structure onto the world. In fact, many religions old and new do, and the failure of monotheism stems almost entirely from its inability to change when necessary, which is intrinsic to its very doctrine

[Anonymous No.17902885]

define god

>the fundemental metaphysical nature of things that is responsible for all that you see around
almost impossible not to believe this. all atheists believe this. even brute facts are basically this. meaningless to call it god
>an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being responsible for all that is around
not only contradictory but there is no reason to believe this. plus there is reason to believe that those who believe this are projecting their own desires
>divine order
this doesnt imply intelligent design (since intelligence requires order too and if that order can exist without being created, why cant the order of the universe?) but if youre willing to call the order itself god, so be it. lots of evidence for what we might call order
>immaterial substance within us all
"hard problem of consciousness" validates this but doesnt neccesitate it. plus why call it god
>its a metaphor meant to explains epileptic seizures or psychedelic trips
likely. lots of evidence that would suggest this is the origin of most religions. now wether you think those things are actual gateways to percieving underlying realities or just trips or episodes are up to you. either way, doesnt directly point to a personal god. many people who believe in the former say that personal deities are the only way for the brain to comprehend the reality that the drug is showing you, but that the reality is much more complex and incomrehensible

[Anonymous No.17902892]

>>17902873
>And God doesnt desire to instantaneously eliminate actual evil, but to eliminate it over time through the free will beings who choose to do God's will.
That makes no sense at all. He doesn’t wait when it comes to punishing people when they do wrong, to let them find the right way, so why does he wait to reward them? Furthermore, God is supposed to be perfectly good, so is he just going to wait for extra people to be tortured forever before doing anything about it?

None of this makes any sense. It only makes sense in light of the cultish tendencies of Christianity, where the end goal is obedience, and not relieving suffering. The former always takes precedence over the latter, not just in Christianity but in monotheism in general, which exposes it as just a badly disguised system of power

[Anonymous No.17902895]

>>17902791
>>17902873
Free will argument doesn't apply to predators and historic climatic catastrophes. Mother nature is a brutal fucking bitch.

[Anonymous No.17902898]

>>17902872
your physical body and life are tests of your will. you're basically asking why does soccer have rules, winners, or losers. which would of course be to determine who's fittest. which parallels with testing will to see where the cards fall. they're both confined parts of a larger system.

[Anonymous No.17902899]

>>17901355
Best argument for
>God is real
Best argument against
>I want to do what I want in defiance of God

[Anonymous No.17902904]

>>17902898
>your physical body and life are tests of your will.
Which is completely unnecessary if God is both all powerful, and perfectly good. He’s also all knowing, so he already knows the results in advance. A test is completely unnecessary

[Anonymous No.17902913]

>>17901355
For
>You explain everything with God
Against
>You don't explain everything with God

[Anonymous No.17902917]

>>17902904
the tests allow the participants luxuries unavailable in said ethereal lands. god knows the outcome, your will doesn't.

[Anonymous No.17902918]

>>17902913
>>You don't explain anything with God
Fify

[Anonymous No.17902922]

>>17902917
That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. Why would God perform a test on something he already knows the results of in advance? Or are you admitting that all of this is just a giant cope on your part?

[Anonymous No.17902925]

>>17902664
The problem with this argument is that it only disproves the idea of an omnibenevolent God according to Christian morals. If I believe power itself is inherently good, then God (by being omnipotent) is also by its definition omnibenevolent.

[Anonymous No.17902927]

>>17902892
>He doesn’t wait when it comes to punishing people when they do wrong
Of course he does, thats why no one is instantaneously sent to hell.

[Anonymous No.17902929]

>>17902925
>If I believe power itself is inherently good, then God (by being omnipotent) is also by its definition omnibenevolent.
So if someone were to kill you and genocide everyone you know and love, they would be good, according to you?

[Anonymous No.17902931]

>>17902882
>without feeling the need to impose an absolute power structure onto the world
True but does a god need to have power over the world? There are multiple believes as to what a god could look like. When I say that I don't find it unfeasible that there could be something bigger out there I'm not going as far as to say that this bigger life form would decide who gets cancer and who doesn't. That's the problem with most theists and atheists alike, they try to delve into detail where there is none. It is backwards to first define what elements you want to see and then look for them. Look first process the information second.

[Anonymous No.17902934]

>>17902927
That’s not what happens in the Bible. In the Bible, sinners get punished immediately, so what changed?

[Anonymous No.17902938]

>>17902922
god allows the test to be performed. your will accepts participation in the test. god would perform the test to let your will actualize itself and experience what it wants to experience. logic is an overgrown emotion after all

[Anonymous No.17902939]

>>17902931
>True but does a god need to have power over the world?
No but his representatives usually do

[Anonymous No.17902940]

>>17902929
Committing genocide per se has nothing to do with power (for example, one with power could use it for genocide or for world peacce). Power is good, the actions resulting from use of said power are merely neutral from an objective standpoint.

[Anonymous No.17902942]

>>17902938
>god allows the test to be performed.
Which, as I’ve just explained, is completely unnecessary. Stating your position again doesn’t explain it

[Anonymous No.17902947]

>>17902940
>Committing genocide per se has nothing to do with power
Imagine unironically believing this, holy shit. You think that someone going to your house, and the house of everyone you know, and murdering them against their will has nothing to do with an exercise of power? You’re either a troll, extremely dishonest, or just incredibly stupid

[Anonymous No.17902953]

>>17902942
think of god as an usher at a carnival and less as a scientist trying to learn from experiments in what i've said.

[Anonymous No.17902956]

>>17902947
It is an exercise of power, I never stated it wasn't. But I don't think genocide or murder are wrong. You can yell at me as much as you want, it's just your subjective instincts lashing out at me for rejecting your silly moralistic paradigm.

[Anonymous No.17902960]

>>17902953
>think of god as an usher at a carnival
Why should I? That’s not how he’s described in any holy text

[Anonymous No.17902964]

>>17902956
>But I don't think genocide or murder are wrong.
Oh okay, can I murder you then, and genocide everyone you know? I’m in need of some real estate

[Anonymous No.17902967]

>>17902895
We are also in a universe of natural evolution. Such events are unfortunate, but not evil.

[Anonymous No.17902972]

>>17902964
You can try, it's your decision.

[Anonymous No.17902978]

>>17902960
theism as stated in ops message is merely the belief in 'a supreme being', it doesn't have to purely relate with organized belief systems.

[Anonymous No.17902979]

>>17902972
That’s not the question. Would take offense to someone stabbing you in your chest?

[Anonymous No.17902985]

>>17902967
All of which is unnecessary in a universe run by an all powerful and omnibenevolent god

[Anonymous No.17902991]

>>17902978
That would be just deism then, not theism. Theism involves knowing that supreme being’s will, and basing your laws onto it.

[Anonymous No.17902994]

>>17902967
Where do you draw the line between "unfortunate" and evil?

[Anonymous No.17902997]

>>17902979
Yes, but it's not really relevant to the discussion. That's only a subjective perception of good or bad (for my body, for my ego).

[Anonymous No.17902999]

>>17902853
The agnostic claims it is right to suspend judgment and it is wrong to be either an atheist or a theist. This position needs to be justified as well, its not particularly convincing.

[Anonymous No.17903004]

>>17902994
Willfull intent

[Anonymous No.17903009]

>>17902999
They don't deny or affirm any position. There is no justification of that position but a description or journal entries of other arguments.
Some things can't be clarified due to limitation of language.

[Anonymous No.17903015]

>>17902991
not even the original definition of the word states that. what i've stated perfectly aligns within ops confines

[Anonymous No.17903016]

>>17903009
They affirm that not holding a position is right, and that holding a position is wrong.

[Anonymous No.17903018]

>>17903004
So the pain of animals doesn't even matters? Is it okay and not evil to abuse animals?

[Anonymous No.17903019]

We have bacteria inside our guts, we get viruses, there are plenty of parasitic life forms. Even our body is made up of cells, which in turn are made up of smaller elements.

I'm not opposed to being either a parasite inside a god, or one of his multiple sustaining/energy holding elements.

Has anyone ever described a god that isn't separate from us before? I want to pick that belief.

[Anonymous No.17903029]

>>17902664
What if we deserve it?
I get that you can throw up the hypothetical of some kid with cancer, but maybe the kid was evil and deserved it, or maybe the parents deserved it and the kid was able to be at peace despite his affliction.

[Anonymous No.17903030]

>>17903016
>that holding a position is wrong.
No, they don't affirm or deny any position.
And again the limits of language will not allow them to say otherwise.

[Anonymous No.17903050]

>>17902785
You’re inserting value judgements where they shouldn’t be. If I said, “ok, do you believe that there is a man named John who is my neighbour”, you can’t say “I don’t know” because it would be cowardly? Or what if you were sitting on a fence between two houses that were both on fire and you weren’t sure which one was gonna get put out by the fire brigade first and the fence was the safest place to wait.. or what if there was a scientific dispute and you had no emotional attachment to either side nor the knowledge or expertise you were just waiting to see which one turned out to be true..

[Anonymous No.17903053]

>>17903030
There are two meanings of 'agnosticism'.
One is a psychological state.
The other is a proposition.
Agnosticism can be a psychological state, but it is also a proposition.
You seem to think it can only be a psychological state, but its both.

[Anonymous No.17903059]

>>17902803
Why is it worthless? It is simply stating the person’s observation that they can’t see any criterion for deciding between the various claims. It seems an honest enough observation. Why do we *need* to assent to beliefs we don’t find satisfactory?

[Anonymous No.17903068]

>>17903053
Yes you're right. I have been mixing the Skepticism with other schools. But for Sckeptics like Sextus, it is merely a psychological state.

[Anonymous No.17903231]

>>17903029
>What if we deserve it?
For fuckups that God caused and could’ve easily prevented? Why was there a talking snake in the tree of knowledge to begin with? Why was it placed there by an entity who knew in advance what would result from it? Why does that very entity demand we pay the price for this easily preventable fuckup he caused, knew the results of in advance, could’ve easily prevented, then didn’t and then transmitted the blame onto beings that can’t challenge him? What are we supposed to learn from this, might makes right? You can be as immoral as you want, as long as you have impunity? That’s not a very hopeful message, is it?

[Anonymous No.17903245]

>>17903059
>a rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule
-attack on the agnostic imperative
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatic-belief-god/

Agnostic strategy: Risk a loss of truth and a loss of a vital good for the certainty of avoiding error.

Theistic strategy: Risk error for a chance at truth and a vital good.

[Anonymous No.17903259]

>>17903245
>Truth
How do you know what is truth? Just because a book said so then it is a truth?
>>Vital good
No, everything is permitted if you're a believer. And history proves this.

[Anonymous No.17903268]

>>17903245
>Theistic strategy: Risk error for a chance at truth and a vital good.
Not if you pick the wrong religion

[Anonymous No.17903275]

>>17903245
Thanks for the Stanford wiki article I’ll read it in a sec. My gut response to your calculation though is that suspension of belief or agnosticism (perhaps) leaves you more open to the possibility of being convinced by emerging evidence. Your scepticism can change from the ‘I see no means of distinguishing the veracity of different claims about God’ to ‘it appears to me that such and such god is real’. Whereas becoming invested in a particular dogma makes you resistant to competing truth claims. This is assuming the same ‘equal playing field’ scenario proposed by the sceptics (since we’re arguing about the preferability of choosing a dogma in general, rather than the truthfulness of one specific dogma).

[Anonymous No.17903314]

>>17903275
Its William James’s Will to Believe Argument which refutes
Cliffords rule:
>it is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence
(This evidentialism is what agnostics are really claiming)

[Anonymous No.17903379]

>>17902925
Based impersonal God

[Anonymous No.17904718]

>>17901355
For: Read the Bible.
Against: Don't read the Bible.

[Anonymous No.17904839]

>>17904718
>For: Read the Quran.
>Against: Don't read the Quran.

Etc., etc., etc.

[Anonymous No.17905706]

>>17901355
P1 God is perfect (because fuck you, that why)
P2 Perfect being can only be in perfect shape
P3 Sphere is perfect
P4 Spheres are real (we live in a sphere)
C1 God is a sphere
C2 God is real

[Anonymous No.17906130]

>>17902873
>uses the free will beings
Kind doesn't make it free will then right