Christian/Religious MGTOW is it possible?!

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

Keymaster: One of the best and most valuable piece of advice my father ever gave me was to never discuss politics or religion with anyone. When I asked him why, he said the topics are too vast, impossible to grasp fully with any oversight, and based on a belief system. Nobody “knows”.

With humble apologies, this is exactly why we need to discuss these issues because no one does know (except for politics, I can tell you exactly what the correct position is on any given issue). If all we talk about is the weather, hunting, fishing, sports and how best to grow our retirement savings then we will never touch on the issue most important to us. I’ve never cared whether someone agreed with me 100% on my views of a higher being, quite the opposite – I’ve always engaged those who didn’t have the same beliefs as I did to challenge my own beliefs, else how the f~~~ would I have learned anything different that could expose the fallacies in my belief system? If I’m wrong I want to know, but in all my interactions no one has ever led me off my reservation of disbelief. But your father’s admonition is absolutely correct with respect to the people you work with – horrible idea to discuss these topics with people you work with and could get you fired. Everyone outside of work is fair game, though, otherwise what the f~~~ is the point of life if you can’t test its boundaries??

 

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

Well, you just agreed with me whether or not you realized it, in a manner. You are saying that because human beings do not know whether or not God exists is sufficient to declare that their belief in an un-proven existence of God is therefore unjustified. Correct?

Yes. I realize our views aren’t that different and agree with many of your points.

 

you are saying that because no one can prove God exists that he doesn’t exist

No, I don’t know whether God does or doesn’t exist. I am saying that belief in his existence or non-existence is unjustified/irrational/illusionary because there’s no sufficient evidence in support of either stance.

 

@keymaster

I appreciate that we can have this debate without somebody shutting it down as soon as it becomes a little heated.

[…Spectator 1165]

Damn Key, your Dad sounds really cool. Wish I could say the same. Old: hey man, heat it up. it’s Sunday night and everybody (cept’ me and my crew) is off tomorrow. In a blinding fit of astute atheistic sanity the other night GoneGalt said: AND NOT ONE F~~~ WAS GIVEN. that’s right man! NOT ONE. Cheers from me, a nice decatur of Don Julio and my companion for the evening good ‘ol what’s her name :/

 

[KeymasterKeymaster]

I appreciate that we can have this debate without somebody shutting it down as soon as it becomes a little heated.

Gentlemen by all means have the debate! Last thing we want is a goddam echo chamber where thumb each other up all the time. If we cared about “likes”. I can go to Facebook for that and tell women any bulls~~~ they want to hear. No problem. Just be civil and thanks.

While here, thanks to those of you who took the time to welcome new member introductions with a quick hello.
When you arrive at the airport, it’s nice when someone is there to meet you and give you a ride.

Appreciated back. Cheers.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[…Spectator 1165]

Thanks Key! I’m on FB right now talking to my fans (yawn). Front page is looking great. Merch already? Good for you man.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Whether or not there is a God, you can not go God’s way and go your own way at the same time, in my opinion, even if you convince yourself that God’s way and your way are the same.

Going your own way means using your mind and your gut to choose to do what you think is best for you. This, I believe, is in fundamental opposition to any system of belief or action wherein you submit your will to that of someone else… including marriage, religion and active duty military, among others.

Ultimately we all must submit some degree of freedom and autonomy to exist within the context of society, so don’t think I’m not aware of this… but in the above three cases, at least, you are not giving up some things in order to receive others, your will is literally no longer your own and I can not conceive of any practical definition of the phrase “going your own way” in which this is possible.

[…Spectator 1165]

+1 and high five for that very smart and well said s~~~ doc!

[RoyDalParticipant]

Pascal’s Wager

The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.

2 .A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.

3. You must wager (it is not optional).

4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.

5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.

6. But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.

Plagiarized from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager#The_wager

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Hi RoyDal…

I can’t tell if you’re promoting Pascal’s Wager as a viable solution for the God Problem or if you’re simply outlining it for reference but I have to say that I always thought Pascal’s Wager was, if you’ll pardon my bluntness, a crock of s~~~.

While it seems all tidy and logical at first glance, it fails to consider one VERY important factor… IF there is a God and your ONLY REASON for believing in Him is to attempt to avoid the punishment of eternal damnation, He’s gonna know and He’s not gonna to fall for it.

In effect, Pascal’s Wager is also the Church’s wager… that in situations where a person is too intelligent to believe the hogwash of religion outright, you appeal to their fear that the *chance* that they may be wrong will cost them eternal suffering and essentially scare them into believing.

I can and will speak for God here and say “Belief in Me born out of fear of the consequences of disbelief is not true belief. FAIL. I am God and I know the contents of your heart. You thought you could outwit me and now you will burn. Straight to hell with you, Mr. Smartypants.”

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

So RoyDal, you wager without hesitation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists because there potentially are a beer volcano and stripper factory to gain?

[Anonymous 43]

May I step in without peddling my faith. The church has apparently (in my opinion) catered to the gynocentric mindset. Most of those so called “men of faith” follow each others manjinas like lost dogs. The origins???? well I sure don’t know! however, “logically” I look at the chicken and the egg and have to answerer “logically” that they both came into existence sanctimoniously, and perhaps a 65 billion years old planet came about much the same way.

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

Wandersmann: where is this beer volcano you speak of, sounds heavenly!?

Yeah, I never agreed with Pascal’s Wager although I did have to learn the Pascal programming language in college. This link provides as good as explanation as any why I do not accept the premise behind PW:

https://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2012/05/06/the-flaws-of-pascals-wager/

“However, there are several problems. First of all, this wager does not in itself prove God exists. It merely says it is safer to presume he/it does. Secondly, it presumes you can force yourself to believe something you believe to be false. I fail to see how living a lie is the preferable option. Surely God could see through this dishonesty (and possibly punish you for it). A similar criticism is that if we are all designed by God, we are therefore designed so as not to believe in God. Atheists can hardly be blamed for being what God designed them.

Also, which God should we worship? There are thousands of religions each with their own God. What if we choose the wrong one? After all each religion believes that only its members are rewarded in the afterlife. Imagine if a Christian dies but is greeted by Muhammad (or Zeus or Odin etc) in the afterlife. Despite being very religious they are condemned to Hell because they choose the wrong religion. What if a Catholic dies and finds that the Presbyterians were right. Or a Baptist dies and finds the Mormons were right. The laws of probability say we have only one in several thousand chance of guessing the correct religion. Maybe God would forgive you for not choosing the right religion, but if he/it would do that surely he/it would forgive you for having no religion at all??”

————————————-

Anyway, I had a brilliant friend at work who later went on to head up an entire department concerned with computing at IBM, who was as much a Renaissance man as I’ve ever known – his interests were essentially everything and he never stopped questioning his own beliefs. He was once an atheist as well but he had one of those ‘come to Jesus’ moments that proved to him the existence of a supreme being, yet he also knew that while he could relate this to me it would be pointless to convince me of something of that magnitude based on his experience – I simply would have to experience it myself. We would talk about anything – we even discussed a scifi short story written tongue-in-cheek about the physics involved and the aftermath if Clark Kent or Superman ever ejaculated in Lois Lane and discussed the merits of the author’s argument. Update: I believe this is the story we were discussing – everything’s on the net!

MAN OF STEEL, WOMAN OF KLEENEX: http://www.astro.umd.edu/~avondale/extra/Humor/SexAndLove/SupermanAndSex.html

Then one day he decided to see if he could use an apparently logical argument to get me to admit the existence of God – it had never failed him before. First he said “Will you agree that anything is possible” and I said that’s ridiculous because that presupposes you have proof that it is – do you? I’m not sure who he had convinced before but he said no one had ever asked him before and no, he didn’t have proof. He later told me that it didn’t invalidate his own personal understanding of God due to his experience but from then on he stopped using his logical argument.

Thanks for chiming in all, I hope no toes have been stepped on as that is certainly not my intent. 🙂

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

MAN OF STEEL, WOMAN OF KLEENEX: there’s a much more readable format of the story here; it is one of the funniest things I have ever read:

http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html

 

[Anonymous 43]

@GoneGault, don’t worry about stepping on anybody’s toes, If you’re not wearing steel toe s~~~-kickers in MGTOW, you better go get some.

[TYEParticipant 291]

Thanks for all the post everyone, and advice! I have recently decided not to use the term Christian…religious perhaps, but not Christian. I have similar beliefs as KeyMaster I just can’t believe in some man in the sky excuse my language, but I think it’s bull s~~~. I would rather view GOD in a more practical way such as “natural order”, or maybe even a outside source that manipulated our creation. Christianity to me is more of a “good way to live”, and the bible is just a book of morals. I don’t believe Jesus was my “savior” a hippie with some good ideas?! Yes. I believe more so in the ideals of a man like Gandi, and I would hate to twist any religion up to suit my ideals on life, because that would make me very similar to a no good feminist. I don’t consider myself an Atheist humans don’t have the answers, and I doubt we ever will…and i’m perfectly ok with not knowing. I will seek the answers for my questions, and if I don’t find all the answers so be it the chase is a good enough thrill.

[In Which We ServeParticipant 111]

I think Keymaster set out his religious views very well, and they are pretty much the same as mine. I believe in God as the power that turns the planets in their courses, the force (as Dylan Thomas put it) ‘that through the green fuse drives the flower’, the never ending cycle of birth, death and rebirth. I don’t believe I can ‘talk’ to that power or that He (or It) has a particular concern or plan for my life, or indeed any kind of personality, though personality is of Him because personality is part of created humanity. And yet I draw great strength and inspiration from this power and see it incarnate in the moral example of Jesus. I don’t believe I’ll float up into the sky on a cloud when I die; my body will be destroyed and my consciousness will, in all likelihood, be extinguished, but the energy and power that formed me from the dust will remain, and be transmuted into some other form. It can’t be destroyed.

I think when religion and MGTOW clashes is when you think of God as the ‘invisible sky fairy’ who watches our every move and punishes us eternally for, say, eating meat on Friday or something. That’s an idol, and MGTOW men should be VERY wary of idolatry. Idolatry, especially towards women, is what’s got a lot of us here into trouble.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

You cannot prove God exists through a logical/mathematical/emotional argument because the nature of the argument(s) themselves are limited.  Therefore it limits the answer.  Which limits God.  Not making him God.

With that being said you cannot prove a negative, so to prove God does not exist is folly.

As to the thread question?  Is it possible but improbable.

[WandersmannParticipant 27]

You cannot prove God exists through a logical/mathematical/emotional argument because the nature of the argument(s) themselves are limited.  Therefore it limits the answer.  Which limits God.  Not making him God.

 

A personal God clearly is “limited” in that it has specific attributes (e.g. mercifulness) and thus not others (e.g. mercilessness). If you want to describe all things then I’d call that “ultimate reality” or “the absolute” rather than “God” since that term is ambiguous.

 

With that being said you cannot prove a negative, so to prove God does not exist is folly.

Actually you can prove a negative (e.g. no water in a specific bucket). A specific concept of God could be disproved if for example it included that God created the earth 6000 years ago. However, most concepts of personal gods are quite ambiguous or adjusted when necessary to prevent that and allow for convenient interpretation.

[rainydaykidParticipant 42]

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. You cannot logically tell me to prove god doesn’t exist, you have to prove to me that he does. I’m a chemist at college, and I have looked at the evidence, I’ve taken geology courses, physics, chemistry, biology.

 

I might be a tad biased, as I was raised in an extremely abusive and controlling household. My parents tried to force me to believe that every word of the bible was literally true, and not ask questions, just believe. I could never do it, especially not when vast amounts of scientific evidence pointed to the exact opposite, as well as religious studies.

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

Wandersmann: “Also it’s wrong to say that you cannot prove a negative. For example you could prove that there’s no water in a specific bucket.”

You’re misunderstanding what ‘cannot prove a negative’ actually means. Fully stated, the real meaning of it is “you cannot prove a generic negative”, meaning you cannot prove that a specific condition does not exist anywhere in the universe. In your example you certainly could prove that there wasn’t any water in a specific bucket but it would be impossible for you to prove that no bucket in the universe holds water (the ‘generic condition’, or that of any bucket not holding water). Your observation of a specific condition does not inform us as to the condition of every other bucket in the universe.

Another example: I claim that the classical leprechauns of Irish lore do not exist. Can I prove they do not? No, I cannot prove the negative. Even worse, since they are ‘magical’ I cannot prove they don’t exist anywhere under any condition – they could be simply making themselves invisible and undetectable. I can prove that no one has yet themselves proved that they do exist, but that’s meaningless, since they could exist but no one yet has proof that they do. Consider the coelacanth – a fish considered to have gone extinct 66 million years ago but was ‘discovered’ in 1938 and which are still extant – they were extinct until they were not extinct. You could not prove they were extinct before then, it was simply your best judgement on the facts then before you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Discovery

p.s. I cannot tell you how much fun it is to discuss things like this that women would simply have zero interest in messing with.

[Author]

Posts