November 17, 2009


The philosophical definitions of people's various stances on the existence of God:

Athiest: There is no god.
Theist: There must be a god.
Agnostic: We cannot know if god exists.

Concurrently, if you are an atheist, you must PROVE that god does not exist. The same thing goes for Theists. This has the interesting implication of poking a giant hole in Pascal's Wager: If there isn't a god and you don't go to church, you cease to exist. On the other hand, if there is a god and you don't go to church, you get sent to hell. Therefore its better to believe in god "just in case." Philosophers don't give a crap about that - philosophers only care about which point of view has a set of logical reasons that can be proved.

Following this logic, I think a huge number of people are actually Agnostics that either choose to believe in Atheism or choose to believe in Theism for their own personal reasons, and yet their logical reasoning is exactly the same. What's the point of this?

We are no longer arguing about the existence of god. We are instead arguing about which point of view is more beneficial to humanity in general?

No comments:

Post a Comment