God's Not Dead (2)

[Lance]

There have been a lot of ads on TV lately for God's Not Dead (2), a sequel to (duh) God's Not Dead from 2014.

I have not seen these movies and probably won't, but for full disclosure, I would describe myself as agnostic, not atheist. I will always remain open to evidence if any should ever come up.

But there was a very profound quote in one of the ads. I could see how someone of could easily be swayed. And I will admit I thought about it for a brief moment.

I would rather stand with God and be judged by the world than to stand with the world and be judged by God.

I don't find it persuasive but it is thought provoking.

[Arneb]

Interesting indeed. In essence, it's a variation of Blaise Pascal's bet: If you don't believe in God and he exists, you lose eternity. If you do believe in him and he doesn't exist, you lose some inconsequential peculiarities (less sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, more moral qualms about your moral failings) of a life that is deeply insignificant anyway.So, the smart thing is to believe in God simply as a result of a risk analysis.

In my mind, the argument self-destroys, as the cold cost-benefit analysis runs counter to the very belief it wants to promote.

[Lance]

What about belief in a god that wants you to be stoned and having sex all the time?

[Arneb]

[Thundering voice out of the heavens]Yeah, right[/Thundering voice out of the heavens]

[tubeswell]

God, and gods in general, live(s) within human cultural frameworks. So therefore the concepts of god and gods are at least real.

The entity itself (or entities themselves) are reifications of human culture, which encompasses language, thought, syntax, semantics and meaning - all of which are interpretive - within various interactive cultural frameworks of communicative action.

There is no evidence that God, or for that matter gods in general, exist outside these frameworks.

Explaining the heretofore unexplained is the domain of science, which is also an artefact of human culture.

[Enzo]

No offense, but I don't find that thought provoking, I find it, well, sophomoric. Might as well believe, if you are wrong, god will be there, if you are right, it didn't matter. That whole argument presupposes the existence of god at some level to make it relevant. At best clever sloganeering.

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy. That sort of thing.

Further, if there winds up being an omniscient god, then he is already aware you took a "belief of convenience" to satisfy the situation. He'd know you were not sincere. Can't hide from god, presuming he exists. Or she.

As for me, I don;t know what to call it. I am not agnostic, because I don;t think the question is open. I don't think there is anything like god or spirits. On the other hand I don't consider myself atheist, because TO ME that term means someone who proclaims the absence of god. A there is no god activist, so to speak.