I would rather have a gun
The “gun” is your mind and your capacity for rational thought. You shouldn’t load it with blanks just so you can feel more comfortable with the chambers being full. The life you know you have NOW needs the loaded gun, not some imagined life that you think may exist after you die, the life for you which you have zero evidence.
If one carries an empty gun in the belief that it is loaded, it may do one more harm than good. Of course you could get lucky, but it is a gamble. Mostly, I’d rather know the truth about my weapons.
What harm could it do? It’s a gamble I’m willing to take. If effect’s my life none beside the few min.s I send talking with you guys and others about(which would last longer if I said no god).
The “gun” is your mind and your capacity for rational thought. You shouldn’t load it with blanks just so you can feel more comfortable with the chambers being full. The life you know you have NOW needs the loaded gun, not some imagined life that you think may exist after you die, the life for you which you have zero evidence.
And that is you logic. Like the other person said, it’s a gamble, I put nothing down and have a chance to win everything and lose nothing seems to me a rational thought. As far as evidence, you can’t 100% prove or 100% disprove god, you can get close. So I have two picks and one of them doesn’t make sense(until science can recreate it) then the one left, however improbable, is what I believe.
Alright this is getting boring. Everyone’s rational belief works different this is what mine believes. So just make a closing ague and try to leave no questions
What harm could it do? It’s a gamble I’m willing to take. If effect’s my life none beside the few min.s I send talking with you guys and others about(which would last longer if I said no god).
This talk of gamble is actually an empty boast, because you do nothing at all about it, not even spending a few minutes – unless it is to argue that there is this belief in your mind that causes you to take no action at all, and to make no other decisions at all. What gamble is that? What kind of wimpy God do you think you can placate by doing absolutely nothing in terms of action or at least in terms of guiding some other thoughts?
What harm could it do? It’s a gamble I’m willing to take.
For food for thought, you might read George H. Smith’s 1976 talk, “How to defend Atheism,” especially, if you want to get to the point, the last portion in which he offers his own counter or challenge to “Pascal’s Wager.”
And that is you logic.
Alright this is getting boring.
No, that is logic, not ‘my’ logic.
However, you want to believe what you want to believe so logic has no place in an argument against you.
That being the case, I suggest you believe in the giant purple space goat… His promised rewards are much greater than God’s. He is a better gamble.
*sigh*
I must once again point out that Tarskyte is the one Lord Of The Gods and it’s hazardous to provoke him by believing in *any* false deity.
This talk of gamble is actually an empty boast, because you do nothing at all about it, not even spending a few minutes – unless it is to argue that there is this belief in your mind that causes you to take no action at all, and to make no other decisions at all. What gamble is that? What kind of wimpy God do you think you can placate by doing absolutely nothing in terms of action or at least in terms of guiding some other thoughts?
I guess the whole don’t leave questions escaped you.
I live by my natural morals and I believe those are morals that my God supports.
RationalBiker, I hold different morals and beliefs in life(much as everyone else) so it is natural our thoughts and logic will cross and to quote with a few changes( for lack of a better way of putting it) however, you want to believe what you want to believe so my logic has no place in an argument against your logic.
Agree to disagree?
…so my logic has no place in an argument against your logic.
Agree to disagree?
no way man haha. i mean yeah, if you’re getting 5 (or 100. or a god) when putting 2 and 2 together, i will agree to disagree about being study partners.
Caesar, I don’t know why you would start a thread on a forum and ask questions when you have your own brand of logic and listen to inner voices that you call God. A discussion thread makes no sense unless one assumes objectivity, which you’re denying.
Alright this is getting boring. Everyone’s rational belief works different this is what mine believes. So just make a closing ague and try to leave no questions
Just read the damn forum rules. Right now, you just wasted my time, since I assumed your posts had something to do with Objectivism, as per those rules, and I read one of them. So, as we stand now, you already stole several minutes of my time, by ignoring the rules. You should stop now, this is not the place for your closing arguments.
Agree to disagree?
Our disagreement is a fact so it doesn’t require agreement.
And my imaginary god is still better than your imaginary god - he told me so.
That being the case, I suggest you believe in the giant purple space goat… His promised rewards are much greater than God’s. He is a better gamble.
I made curry outy of your giant purple goat.
You will now worship that cat down the street from me..the one with the ripped ear and no tail…
or you will suffer for all eternity. You will wail and gnash your teeth before the tailless cat down the street.
*sigh*
I must once again point out that Tarskyte is the one Lord Of The Gods and it’s hazardous to provoke him by believing in *any* false deity.
Haha, and I thank you, Steve, for introducing me to LGT that day in chat!
I made curry outy of your giant purple goat.
You will now worship that cat down the street from me..the one with the ripped ear and no tail…
or you will suffer for all eternity. You will wail and gnash your teeth before the tailless cat down the street.
At least that’s what the Giant Purple Space Goat wanted you to think… 
But soon you will know is mighty, mauve… er.. might?!
I have to believe in a God or the Big Bang and the Big Bang is irrationality. So one remains, now it doesn’t make 100% reason but more reason then the Big Bang so just pick neither because one side is fully reasonable.
Well, there’s actual empirical evidence out there for the Big Bang.
Well, there’s actual empirical evidence out there for the Big Bang.
Uh-oh.
Well, there’s actual empirical evidence out there for the Big Bang.
Is there? Eric Lerner would disagree - http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
Can the universe be non-existent? I mean…the universe is what? The embodiment of all things that exist. So whatever was here before all of these galaxies, for instance, gasses, or waves, or light or whatever the hell is part of the universe, just not developed into what we know as the universe. How could the thing that is the embodiment of all that exists not be existent at any point in time. The universe has always been here, and always will, the question is in what form it is in at any point in time.
Frankly I don’t know what the most supported theory is on this right now, I haven’t covered the big bang and like theories since my high school text book, although I would like to know.
Is there? Eric Lerner would disagree - http://bigbangneverhappened.org/
I actually have the book. There’s a lot of interesting stuff in there, and I have no trouble with the idea that *maybe* just *maybe* electromagnetism has some effects at interstellar and intergalactic distances. At the very least, he’s not one of those nutters who claim that stars don’t work off off nuclear fusion.
electromagnetism has some effects at interstellar and intergalactic distances
Whoa…whaaa!?
Man I have some catching up to do on this topic…