NationStates Jolt Archive

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
Pascal's Wager is inherently flawed. Shall I explain it, or shall I simply post a link?

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

I'm getting this weird sense of deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu. It's as if we've had this discussion before. How very odd.

I'm getting this weird sense of deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu deja vu. It's as if we've had this discussion before. How very odd.
You must be mistaken! That cannot be true. Just not. No way. Never. Ever.

You my friend, are an idiot. Buddists are beleiveers in reincarnation, IIRC.

Actually, every religion beleives in an afterlife, aside from Atheists/agonists.

Riiiggghhhtttt. But if I go to the wrong church, I just get God madder and madder each week.

But When I go into the third life, I will live for centuries.

Have the hope of centuries in the third life.

To my knowledge, most atheists support transhumanism to avoid death. I'm not one of them, however, and I really don't have an opinion on whether God exists or what happens after death.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.


Atheists don't necessarily want to just disappear when they die. That is just their belief. Christians don't want to go to hell, but they believe they will go there when they die.

Also, I would personally say that oblivion is a better option than living forever. After a few million years of eternal existence, I would just get tired, man.

And an atheist would probably argue that they won't believe in god to "cover their bases" because they want to make the most of the time they have.

hmmm eat well, stay fit, waste time on sunday, you still die. got plan C?

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Your posting here to convert Nationstaters into Christanity?!

You Jeova-witnesses are getting weirder and weirder! :eek:

I'll be happy when I cease to exist so I don't have to share existence with people like you.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"


Pascal was a moron. Also, I personally can't just suddenly decide I believe in something 'just in case'. If God was happy that I chose to believe in him on the off-chance he happened to exist, I wouldn't want to worship him, since it would clearly make God a worthless being.

And just because you're offering an afterlife you can't say for sure exists doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly think "What a fool I've been, waiting for proof! Curse my logical mind, I wish I trusted an organisation that claimed the world was flat and the sun orbited the Earth, because they CAN'T be wrong!!! Erm....". Sorry.

Your posting here to convert Nationstaters into Christanity?!

You Jeova-witnesses are getting weirder and weirder! :eek:

I'm not a Jehovas-Witness I'm a Catholic.

And how is this attacking anyone? There is all sorts of Christian-bashing on this board, so why don't I get a say?

Yeah, I'll just change my beliefs because the universal fear of death breaks my mind. No, thank you. You want to cower behind your delusions of immortality, fine, but don't expect me to join you just because you say the heavenly harps sound pretty.

Because God, If she/he/it exists, wouldn't be stupid.

If you follow and act in the name of Christianity out of fear of damnation rather than love or devotion, then you are worshipping for the wrong reasons. Don't you think you'll be judged on that when you stand before your creator? Think about it.

Now, I do believe according to your philosophy, God gave us free will, and I don't believe that She/He/It would want us to waste it on something as useless and corrupt as organised religion.

Pascal was a moron. Also, I personally can't just suddenly decide I believe in something 'just in case'. If God was happy that I chose to believe in him on the off-chance he happened to exist, I wouldn't want to worship him, since it would clearly make God a worthless being.

And just because you're offering an afterlife you can't say for sure exists doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly think "What a fool I've been, waiting for proof! Curse my logical mind, I wish I trusted an organisation that claimed the world was flat and the sun orbited the Earth, because they CAN'T be wrong!!! Erm....". Sorry.


I don't know of anyone who thinks the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth :)

I'm not a Jehovas-Witness I'm a Catholic.

And how is this attacking anyone? There is all sorts of Christian-bashing on this board, so why don't I get a say?

People bash you because you bash them. If you calmly made your point without insulting anyone or using ridiculously emotive language, I doubt that there would be much christian bashing.

I don't know of anyone who thinks the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth :)

I do. Defensor Fidei, et al.

I'm not a Jehovas-Witness I'm a Catholic.

And how is this attacking anyone? There is all sorts of Christian-bashing on this board, so why don't I get a say?

He may have been joking, Commando. And the point here is that it's another attempt at conversion, which is what pisses everyone off about Christianity. We don't care if you believe in God, or heaven, or any other damned thing you want to, mate, but don't tell me it must be true unless you have some proof to back it up with, and don't expect us to suddenly convert when confronted with something so flawed and basic as Pascal's Wager. We've all thought of it before, and we've all realised it's bull.

People bash you because you bash them. If you calmly made your point without insulting anyone or using ridiculously emotive language, I doubt that there would be much christian bashing.

Bull. Shit. There is Christian-bashing on these forums regardless of the presence of any Christians who bash others.

geez darlin'
what if i choose the wrong SECT of christianity and have to sit through hell fire and brimstone sermons that go on for hours PLUS have to tithe and do work for the church then when i die i STILL go to hell because i chose wrong and should have become a catholic? that would suck eh?

eat, stay healthy, fast, tithe, sacrifice, don't sin, don't be gay, kill the jews/muslims/heritics/gays, sacrifice some more, die. You go up to heaven and figure out that the Hindu's were right, get reincarnated as a dung beetle, get steped on.

....got plan D? :(

actually i'm a christian, but everyone has to agnoloedge the possibility of being wrong and other being right

but commando, do you tithe? do you love yor neighbor? have you sold all your belongings, donated the money to the poor and lived as jesus did?

if not, you may want a plan c ;)

geez darlin'
what if i choose the wrong SECT of christianity and have to sit through hell fire and brimstone sermons that go on for hours PLUS have to tithe and do work for the church then when i die i STILL go to hell because i chose wrong and should have become a catholic? that would suck eh?


Any denomination is fine.

Any denomination is fine.

Ah, but how do you know?

IQ before this thread: 128
IQ after this thread: 108


Crazy Christian: Priceless

I do. Defensor Fidei, et al.

Really? Do you have any proof? I'm just curious because you and Defensor are really the only people I know who think this.

"Eat right, exercise, be heathy, still die, Got a plan B?"
"Eat right, exercise, be heathy, waste time on sunday and listen to boring rules, still die, Got a plan C?"
"Eat right, exercise, be heathy, still die. Just get over the fact that wasted 13 years of our life obeying silly rules (no meat on friday, being a cannible (kidding! But that is a gross ritual, even though it is just wine + bread))"

Bull. Shit. There is Christian-bashing on these forums regardless of the presence of any Christians who bash others.

Sure. However, I think there are more threads bashing atheism than christianity.

Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
That, to me, is about as convincing as an argument that states "If you have to either shoot yourself of your beloved spouse, shoot what you love most in the world, since you'll still be alive." I do not understand what you are exactly trying to say. I don't want to go into oblivion when I die, per se, but that is what believe happens. Death is all part of the cycle of life, and the only afterlife of an organism is other organisms using the dead matter to feed themselves.

You my friend, are an idiot. Buddists are beleiveers in reincarnation, IIRC.
Actually, that is really Hindu influences on Buddhist sects. Buddhism in its purest form is a philosophy, not a religion, and reincarantion is not a fundamental Buddhist principle, though it is quite common.

Actually, every religion beleives in an afterlife, aside from Atheists/agonists.
Though I can not think of any off the top of my head, I am pretty sure there are some religions without an afterlife. Though, granted, a large majority do.

To my knowledge, most atheists support transhumanism to avoid death.
I'm not sure what that is, but it sounds like those are the cowardly atheists.

Any denomination is fine.

Commando, you've read the works of Almighty Chick. You've seen what HE has to say about people in the wrong denomination. Also, take a look at what Queen Mary did to Protestants, what her brother and sister did to Catholics, what the Catholic church did to EVERYONE, what the Irish continue to do to each other......... Not a lot of people agree that any denomination is fine. And if belonging to any Christian group is OK, what's wrong with all the others? And why not just leave the atheists be?

Ah, but how do you know?

Its my honest opinion. Its also possible that the Jews might get into heaven since they had an old covenant with God, and even atheists/other religions might if they live Christ-like lives and God since he is very merciful might allow them heaven. Its all possible. However the only way I think gives you a close to 100% chance is a Christian denomination.

Sure. However, I think there are more threads bashing atheism than christianity.

Okay. I'm doubtful. Prove it. Show me thread counts.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die."

huh...you're right...I never thought about that before. ever. But now that you mention it... i don't wanna just die like that and then that was it. I think I'm gonna convert to...what was it? Ah, whichever religion promises most for the afterlife.
[/sarcasm]

Really? Do you have any proof? I'm just curious because you and Defensor are really the only people I know who think this.

I don't think that the sun orbits around the earth. I was just saying that Defensor Fidei thought so.

I was just saying that Defensor Fidei thought so.
Defensor Fidei was just a troll. He was bored and posted what he did for shits and giggles.

Okay. I'm doubtful. Prove it. Show me thread counts.

I couldn't give you a thread count, that's just the general impression that I've got.

I don't think that the sun orbits around the earth. I was just saying that Defensor Fidei thought so.

Oh. I don't know if Defensors serious though.

Really? Do you have any proof? I'm just curious because you and Defensor are really the only people I know who think this.

please tell me you know about the church's history of branding scientists as "heretics".

but you can count me on that list too. From the perspective of the earth, the sun orbits US.

you see, it's all relative, if thow objects are spinning around each orther, from each's prespective, the other is orbiting it.

the whole issue is hooey

I don't know of anyone who thinks the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth :)
Really, now? Did you know that the church refused to admit Gaeleeo (Shut up, spelling-nazis) was right until 1997?

Do the people here who proudly claim to be ... agnostics, ... really want to just vanish when you die?
FOOL! Agnostics believe that you cannot know if there is an afterlife or not - we DONT believe that you simply vanish.

AND STOP EVANGELIZING

Really, now? Did you know that the church refused to admit Gaeleeo (Shut up, spelling-nazis) was right until 1997?

Yup.

you see, it's all relative, if thow objects are spinning around each orther, from each's prespective, the other is orbiting it.

the whole issue is hooey
They aren't spinning around each other per se, so you have a bit of a problem.

I've lost all respect for Commando2

I don't know of anyone who thinks the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth :)


The Pope, until proven wrong. The entire Catholic church, until proven wrong. The church was so convinced that it it discredited Copernicus and restricted Galileo. Since they were so sure about this, and turned out to be so hopelessly wrong, what's to say the same isn't true about everything else?

Really, now? Did you know that the church refused to admit Gaeleeo (Shut up, spelling-nazis) was right until 1997?
Err, would you like a pleasant and friendly correction?
If not, don't read the spoiler box.

Galileo was his name. :)

Oh. I don't know if Defensors serious though.
Well, at the time he sure seemed to be. Unless he was somebody imitating a Catholic to try to discredit them, which is a possibility...

The Pope, until proven wrong. The entire Catholic church, untilthis, and turned out to be so hopelessly wrong, what's to say the same proven wrong. The church was so convinced that it it discredited Copernicus and restricted Galileo. Since they were so sure about isn't true about everything else?

Thats a good point. However you have got to look at the Middle Ages Church itself. Corruption, selling of inulgences, anti-semetism, Inquistition, ect. It is much more reformed now and not concerned with secular matters.

Well, at the time he sure seemed to be. Unless he was somebody imitating a Catholic to try to discredit them, which is a possibility...

He probably was serious. A Catholic Jack Chick type I guess.

Flat Earth Society (http://www.flat-earth.org/)


These people think the earth is flat.


My favorite part of the FAQ :p

19. What is the "Springfield Effect"?
The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world.

20. Does Idaho exist
No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).

21. What about North Dakota?
That doesn't exist either.

22. Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?
Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven.

This FAQ was compiled by Lee Harvey Oswald Smith, KSC EMF, Chairperson dei gratia, Flat Earth Society, with the assistance of members of the Society and independent researchers; last updated: 43 Cfn 3163

Really, now? Did you know that the church refused to admit Gaeleeo (Shut up, spelling-nazis) was right until 1997?
Err. No.

The Church formally apologised for the treatment of Galileo. It accepted what he said a long time ago.

Hey Commando, agnostics don't simply belive you stop existing at the end of your life - we belive it's impossible to know of the existance of a divine being or afterlife.

And don't start evangelizing to me; for an agnostic I live a very moral life

Thats a good point. However you have got to look at the Middle Ages Church itself. Corruption, selling of inulgences, anti-semetism, Inquistition, ect. It is much more reformed now and not concerned with secular matters.


Oh good. Well, that changes everything. Apart from the actual doctrine. Which is, if you think about it, the nature of the church.

And it still imposes itself on matters outside it's jurisdiction. The Church has a stance on all forms opf scientific discovery, and those that don't fit the religious viewpoint are simple discounted as wrong. Until, perhaps, four hundred years later when the realise EVERYONE knows it's true, and so they have to accept they were wrong.

I think perhaps all your post points out is that now the Church has no power to deal with these things, so it's helpless to stop them. When it DID have power, it abused it thoroughly. So forgive me for not trusting the Pope with my eternal soul. I'd rather just cease to be.

.


Actually, that is really Hindu influences on Buddhist sects. Buddhism in its purest form is a philosophy, not a religion, and reincarantion is not a fundamental Buddhist principle, though it is quite common.

what sect of buddhism doesnt believe in reincarnation?

Err. No.

The Church formally apologised for the treatment of Galileo. It accepted what he said a long time ago.


You're right. IT was actually 1992 when Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.

The Pope, until proven wrong. The entire Catholic church, until proven wrong.

Well at least they changed their opinion (granted, there was significant resistance, but that was more politically motivated rather then anything else)

The church was so convinced that it it discredited Copernicus and restricted Galileo. Since they were so sure about this, and turned out to be so hopelessly wrong, what's to say the same isn't true about everything else?

You may as well not believe anything I say [or anyone for that matter], I've got less then 100% in exams and tests. So how do you knnow whatever I say from now on is wrong?

So forgive me for not trusting the Pope with my eternal soul.
And forgive me, Commando2 for not having the arrogance that God exists and I *must* convert all the evil atheist/agnostic/nonbelievers

(and on how atheists are evil: you sounds just like my mother)

Hey Commando, agnostics don't simply belive you stop existing at the end of your life - we belive it's impossible to know of the existance of a divine being or afterlife.

And don't start evangelizing to me; for an agnostic I live a very moral life

I never said you didn't. Just from the agnostics I've encountered they really were 99% atheist anyway.

And forgive me, Commando2 for not having the arrogance that God exists and I *must* convert all the evil atheist/agnostic/nonbelievers

(and on how atheists are evil: you sounds just like my mother)

When did I say atheists were evil?

When did I say atheists were evil?
Uhh . . . sorry - momentary outburst *emarrased*

Well at least they changed their opinion (granted, there was significant resistance, but that was more politically motivated rather then anything else)

Yes, but it took 350 years, and even then they weren't willing to say he wasn't a heretic. Even though they accept he's right. Go figure.

You may as well not believe anything I say [or anyone for that matter], I've got less then 100% in exams and tests. So how do you knnow whatever I say from now on is wrong?

All well and good. I'll assume that you both believe the sun orbits the Earth and that you're always wrong. Works fine for me.

Really? Do you have any proof? I'm just curious because you and Defensor are really the only people I know who think this.

I KNOW! I KNOW!

The Christian church! But not any more, because they changed their ideas when they were proven wrong! Surely you should know that? ;)

(and on how atheists are evil: you sounds just like my mother)


Dude, you may have issues. :D

Oh good. Well, that changes everything. Apart from the actual doctrine. Which is, if you think about it, the nature of the church.

And it still imposes itself on matters outside it's jurisdiction. The Church has a stance on all forms opf scientific discovery, and those that don't fit the religious viewpoint are simple discounted as wrong. Until, perhaps, four hundred years later when the realise EVERYONE knows it's true, and so they have to accept they were wrong.

I think perhaps all your post points out is that now the Church has no power to deal with these things, so it's helpless to stop them. When it DID have power, it abused it thoroughly. So forgive me for not trusting the Pope with my eternal soul. I'd rather just cease to be.

Doctrine has changed a bit with Vatican II. And the Church accepts evolution (personally I'm a creationist though) and the Big Bang. So it is more open these days. And some of the Midieval Popes weren't the nicest people, and abused their position, but that doesn't mean the church has to suffer their abuses forever.

I couldn't give you a thread count, that's just the general impression that I've got.

Then why the hell would I believe you? Proof! I need proof! I can't just assume it's so because some random person says it, you know. ;)

Yes, but it took 350 years, and even then they weren't willing to say he wasn't a heretic. Even though they accept he's right. Go figure.

Like I said a political decision.



All well and good. I'll assume that you both believe the sun orbits the Earth and that you're always wrong. Works fine for me.

:confused:

I'm an agnostic. And it is completely illogical to assume the world is flat. You can see the earth's shadow on the moon and observe the curvature of the surface if you watch ships sailing out of port.

Doctrine has changed a bit with Vatican II. And the Church accepts evolution (personally I'm a creationist though) and the Big Bang. So it is more open these days. And some of the Midieval Popes weren't the nicest people, and abused their position, but that doesn't mean the church has to suffer their abuses forever.

No, but it does open the possiblity of the church being wrong, since it's got something of a poor record. And when you acept that it CAN be wrong, and then you see the lack of proof or basis for any of the things it espouses as truth, and the edit job it's done on the Bible, and the frankly criminal exclusion of the other 4 Gospels of the New Testament, it starts to make the whole thing seem very shakey. Which makes it very hard to believe.

No, but it does open the possiblity of the church being wrong, since it's got something of a poor record. And when you acept that it CAN be wrong, and then you see the lack of proof or basis for any of the things it espouses as truth, and the edit job it's done on the Bible, and the frankly criminal exclusion of the other 4 Gospels of the New Testament, it starts to make the whole thing seem very shakey. Which makes it very hard to believe.

Edit job? Care to explain?

I'm an agnostic. And it is completely illogical to assume the world is flat. You can see the earth's shadow on the moon and observe the curvature of the surface if you watch ships sailing out of port.


Well exactly. We've good reason to believe the world is round, and yet the church refused to accept it, discredited and persecuted two good men simply for disagreeing with them. Creatonist theory, and indeed God himself, are completely unfounded. The Church says we shouldn't believe in things which are true, until it's proven wrong about the whole thing when it finally admits it was in the wrong. Then it says we SHOULD believe in a bunch of unlikely stories, with no proof, backup or even grounding in the world of possibility.

Religions which believe in glass houses shouldn't throw stones at steel mills.

Well then, if I had to chose a religion just for the afterlife, I would choose Islam. And watch Commando2 playing his harp, while I :fluffle:

Still, why the hostility? Why is the part that says it is ok to kill an adulterous spouse wrong (that exists right? Or some other silly law could go herer) but not the part that heaven is exclusive?

Edit job? Care to explain?

The War in Heaven. The Story of the Nephilim. The entire contence of the Apocrypha. All the stuff in the Bible that the Church decided it didn't want to recognise. Edit job.

Back to the original topic of Pascal's Wager, here's a nice page about some of its shortcomings. mind you, there are others as well.
http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv

Oh, and don't say I didn't warn you about the curse. Beware the curse!

The War in Heaven. The Story of the Nephilim. The entire contence of the Apocrypha. All the stuff in the Bible that the Church decided it didn't want to recognise. Edit job.

It goes farther than that. The Church didn't even include any of the sutras either. ;)

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Trying to lure people to a religion that has little or no proof of an afterlife with one irrelavent quote.....good job dumbass.

Back to the original topic of Pascal's Wager, here's a nice page about some of its shortcomings. mind you, there are others as well.
http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv

Oh, and don't say I didn't warn you about the curse. Beware the curse!

What about a curse?

What about a curse?
Did you read the page til the end?
You'll find out then.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Yes ... it's called Islam. Something Pascal didn't factor in his little wager. Since I have obtained the Truth through Islam, why would I want to convert to Christianity?

It makes no sense. Pascal's wager makes no sense. You make no sense.

http://www.jhuger.com/pascal.mv

Awesome!

What about a curse?

Oh thats creepy. But I didn't trace it. And it is the beast who hands it out.

Oh thats creepy. But I didn't trace it. And it is the beast who hands it out.

I think you may have missed the point, ever so slightly....

Did you read the page til the end?
You'll find out then.

I looked at it but I didn't trace it! And anyhow it is THE beast who will force everyone to wear his mark. Not just anyone can hand it out.

Awesome!
Mwahahaha...
Rev. Jim. Huber's Wager. Worth $5 for eternal salvation?
:)

I looked at it but I didn't trace it! And anyhow it is THE beast who will force everyone to wear his mark. Not just anyone can hand it out.
But how do you *know*? There's always the chance that your eternal soul will be damned for not donating that $5...

Anyway, the rest of the page is more important.

Mwahahaha...
Rev. Jim. Huber's Wager. Worth $5 for eternal salvation?
:)

Thats a mean thing he does at the end and I doubt God approves.

But how do you *know*? There's always the chance that your eternal soul will be damned for not donating that $5...

Anyway, the rest of the page is more important.

He just made up that religion of his though. Seriously I have more to worry about from Jack Chicks claims about the Church being the harlot of babylon than I do of his false religion being true.

He just made up that religion of his though. Seriously I have more to worry about from Jack Chicks claims about the Church being the harlot of babylon than I do of his false religion being true.

Which is SURPRISINGLY similar to how the average Atheist feels about organised religions in general....

He just made up that religion of his though. Seriously I have more to worry about from Jack Chicks claims about the Church being the harlot of babylon than I do of his false religion being true.
The thing is, there's a possibility it is...

Anyway, enough with that bit. it doesn't really matter. He refuted Pascal's Wager.

Suppose I decided that Pascal is right, that I should "get religion" just in case. Which one should I choose? On a worldwide basis, roughly equal numbers of people are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Hindu, each having roughly one billion adherents. Another billion have some religion other than one of the big four. The remaining billion or so have no religion. None of the religions call to me. I have no basis for choosing one over the other. When I knelt and prayed for guidance God told me he didn't exist.
That's one of the biggest arguments right there.

He just made up that religion of his though. Seriously I have more to worry about from Jack Chicks claims about the Church being the harlot of babylon than I do of his false religion being true.


Dude, you've missed what he was doing with that whole thing. You're close, though. Keep thinking about it, you'll get there in the end.

Thats a mean thing he does at the end and I doubt God approves.
Well send him 5 dollars then and you can ask him when you die ;)

Then why the hell would I believe you? Proof! I need proof! I can't just assume it's so because some random person says it, you know. ;)

Nah, I wasn't asking you to beleive me, i was just stating my opinion. We both have a general impression about the forum and neither viewpoint can be proved entirely satisfactorily. In such a situation, I find it's best to 'agree to disagree'.

Why do atheists say 'hell'? They don't believe in hell. Hell describes a place. When atheists say "Why in the hell...", they're mentioning a place they don't believe in.

Just something to think about.

Why do atheists say 'hell'? They don't believe in hell. Hell describes a place. When atheists say "Why in the hell...", they're mentioning a place they don't believe in.

Just something to think about.
I don't really think it's any different than talking about the boogeyman and such. It is an interesting point though... Why?
Anybody else have ideas?

I don't really think it's any different than talking about the boogeyman and such. It is an interesting point though... Why?
Anybody else have ideas?


Social pressures in the development of language. When people say 'Hell', they aren't thinking about hell. Like when I say 'Fuck', I don't actually think about the physical action.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is....and for my next trick, I shall alter reality by the magical power of my beliefs!

In order to cause a hundred billion dollars to appear in your hands, you must take off all of your clothing and run through the streets as you shout "I have seen the Green Mongoose!" repeatedly. If you don't, the Green Mongoose will nibble off your genitals and force you to live on the Big, Red Toadstool of Punishment for fifty years. The choice is yours!

If more people believed your logic, I could make the Big Bucks as a door-to-door salesman.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Yes I do.

When I'm dead, I'm dead, gone, done with it, finito, finale, end of story.

Why do you need something else?

Does anyone wish to refute the good Rev. Jim's points?
And no, I don't mean the one with the curse, as that seems to be a bit out there for the moment.
Anyone at all?

Yes I do.

When I'm dead, I'm dead, gone, done with it, finito, finale, end of story.

Why do you need something else?I'm drawing a blank. I guess some people just aren't satisfied with their lot. Sounds kind of sad when you stop to think about it. I think they need to eat more egg rolls. That would make them feel better.

I'm drawing a blank. I guess some people just aren't satisfied with their lot. Sounds kind of sad when you stop to think about it. I think they need to eat more egg rolls. That would make them feel better.
Egg rolls and some nice consensual sex. Which unfortunately, seems to be forbidden until marriage in many religions. I never did get the "pleasure is evil" thing, myself.

Anyway, I'm getting waaaay off-topic, as I am prone to, so I'll shut up now.

Egg rolls and some nice consensual sex. Which unfortunately, seems to be forbidden until marriage in many religions. I never did get the "pleasure is evil" thing, myself.

Anyway, I'm getting waaaay off-topic, as I am prone to, so I'll shut up now.


Always with the consensual sex. Why not just go and enjoy a sermon about how God will punish you for doing, well, pretty much anything? So much more fun than the loving caresses of a nubile naked woman. I think I may have just joined the wrong side, you know. :(

The good Rev. Jim is still waiting!
I see nobody has even attempted to refute his first point:

Suppose I decided that Pascal is right, that I should "get religion" just in case. Which one should I choose? On a worldwide basis, roughly equal numbers of people are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Hindu, each having roughly one billion adherents. Another billion have some religion other than one of the big four. The remaining billion or so have no religion. None of the religions call to me. I have no basis for choosing one over the other. When I knelt and prayed for guidance God told me he didn't exist.

Care to take a shot? Step right up, take a chance! Try your luck! Flex your mental muscles and see if you can beat him!

Dude, we've won already. Leave it be. Rev. Jim has done his Good Works. Everyone admits Pascal was, essentially, being a bit of a twat that day. Never mind.

Dude, we've won already. Leave it be. Rev. Jim has done his Good Works. Everyone admits Pascal was, essentially, being a bit of a twat that day. Never mind.
Just making a final stab, hoping somebody would take a bite at it...
:(
Oh well.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
Coward.

Dude, we've won already. Leave it be. Rev. Jim has done his Good Works. Everyone admits Pascal was, essentially, being a bit of a twat that day. Never mind.Oh, I've seen this movie before. They'll just bring it up again like it's an original idea, and we'll go through the same thing all over again. The more we beat them over the head with it, the longer it will be before they do so.

Oh, I've seen this movie before. They'll just bring it up again like it's an original idea, and we'll go through the same thing all over again. The more we beat them over the head with it, the longer it will be before they do so.

Not really. It's probably already developed on at least one other thread, completely independently. What we should really ask is this:

Does Pascal's wager appear periodically on Nationstates because of God, or because of Chaos Theory?

Discuss.

Not really. It's probably already developed on at least one other thread, completely independently. What we should really ask is this:

Does Pascal's wager appear periodically on Nationstates because of God, or because of Chaos Theory?

Discuss.That's deep ;)

Fucking Christians. Always trying to convert us all. Fuckers.

But here's your answer: http://albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank.php

also, god has this huge flaw. I can live my life the most morally correctly and as ethically as i can, but i'm still going to go to hell.
On the other hand, the child molester/murderer/serial rapist can still go to heaven, because they have redeemed themselves. No. That's not right. Not at all. Go kill yourself. Then you can be with Jesus.

Fucking Christians. Always trying to convert us all. Fuckers.
-snip-
Go kill yourself. Then you can be with Jesus.
Please refrain from flaming, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.

Please refrain from flaming, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.


Let's try that again. to you, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And to Christians, GO KILL YOURSELF.

that is all.

Fucking Christians. Always trying to convert us all. Fuckers.

But here's your answer: http://albinoblacksheep.com/text/hank.php

also, god has this huge flaw. I can live my life the most morally correctly and as ethically as i can, but i'm still going to go to hell.
On the other hand, the child molester/murderer/serial rapist can still go to heaven, because they have redeemed themselves. No. That's not right. Not at all. Go kill yourself. Then you can be with Jesus.


Tad over the top there. I know where you're coming from, but chill out a bit. They might be wrong (in my opinion, and most logical ones too), but they aren't total scum.

Let's try that again. to you, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And to Christians, GO KILL YOURSELF.

that is all.
Excuse me!
I do agree with your viewpoint that Christians shouldn't be trying to convert us, but flaming is against forum rules, and I was compelled to notify you, in case you did not know that already.
Excuse me if I in some way offended you.

Excuse me!
I do agree with your viewpoint that Christians shouldn't be trying to convert us, but flaming is against forum rules, and I was compelled to notify you, in case you did not know that already.
Excuse me if I in some way offended you.

Well...since i was like 7, until now, im 17, christians have always said something to the effect that i wasn't good enough and i was going to hell. so i have a damn good reason to be pissed. my bad for flaming. just pissed off.

and christianity is probably one of the worst religions out there. Read Deepak Chopra. learn.
And to christians, the same message. GO KILL YOURSELF

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"

why does the fact that i will eventually die mean that i need a plan B? i eat well and stay fit to improve the condition of my body, not to render myself immortal, so why would i need an alternate plan to acheive that?

even if you believe in an afterlife, eating well and staying fit will not keep your body from dying, and doing those things will only benefit your body, so does that mean that nobody should bother to care for their physical body? should we all just be fat slobs since we can't take our bodies with us after death?


What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.

it's not a matter of wanting or not wanting. i don't "want" to lack the ability to fly by flapping my wings, but that is the natural state that all humans exist in. it doesn't make me especially sad to know that i will one day die, because i live my life as fully as possible and embrace the time i have.

is a play worthless because it has an ending? is a book meaningless because it has a final chapter? why should we regard life as less meaningful or beautiful simply because it is finite? shouldn't we see it as all the more precious and meaningful because it is ours so briefly?

if you knew you would never die then there would be no point in striving, in excelling, in pushing yourself to become more than what you currently are; if you knew you had eternity to perfect your golf swing, what would be the motivation to go practice it today?

So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing."

please give one objective reason why Christianity (as opposed to Judaism, Islam, or any other faith that promises an afterlife) should be the one faith an atheist/agnostic embraces if he/she wishes to believe in eternal life.


But can the atheist make the same arguement? No.

actually, the atheist/agnostic has a far more compelling argument to convince religious persons to follow the atheist/agnostic belief system; if the atheist/agnostic is right, you have only one life and only one chance to experience the universe. if you choose not to embrace it fully then you miss your only chance at Being. in my belief system, a person who fails to embrace an agnostic view of the universe will never be able to fully experience their own life...i would rather risk suffering in a torture dimension for all eternity than risk missing my one chance at experiencing this life of mine.

but then, i love LIFE, and not death. i look to this world for my pleasure, my learning, my growth, my happiness, my love, and my values...i find what i need to sustain myself in this world, and do not need the promise of any other world to give my existence meaning and value.


An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
Pascal's Wager has been proven a falacy more times than i can count. it is a very, very boring "argument" to try. please read a book.

Let's try that again. to you, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And to Christians, GO KILL YOURSELF.

that is all.

There's no need for profanity. Be still.

Anyhow, what the thread creator has exhibited is the raw nature of the theist. He has revealed you to the nature of religious belief in general: the negation of reason, the fear of nonexistance, the anti-intellectualism, and most of all the fear of punishment.

Christianity in any form, like Islam and any other religion placing emphasis on life after death, is entrapping its believers within a wall of ignorance and fear. We must help them escape from their cages. Do not hateful words upon them, but help to heal their minds in hopes that they might turn their eyes toward logic and see a brighter, healthier future.

Let's try that again. to you, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And to Christians, GO KILL YOURSELF.

that is all.
How very flaming . . . please dont

Hypocrites. And isn't that what Jesus said to the Pharisees (in Matthew)?

If I were Christian, I would be so severly embarassed (sp? lol) and ashamed to know that there are people out there who actually believe that they are good by "saving" people through any means necessary, including fear? These "Christians," openly use fear as a weapon to convert poeple to a faith which declares "And you shall lie down, and no one shall terrify you." And in multiple places in the Bible that God forgives sinners, especially those who have reason not believe in Him. Come off it.

Their backwards logic of "plan B" doesn't make sense. Just because someone doesn't believe in heaven doesn't mean they won't go there. And you know what the best part is? Not anywhere is there a description of heaven. Nowhere. Oh sure, it is the perfect place that you live in eternally, but what is it like? Is it just as you like it, personally you? Is there a standard of what it is like there? Do you get to visit other dead relatives? How about liviing relatives? Why can't you visit them?..

..God that felt good. Let off some steam there...

nah man. you have to believe in christianity to go to heaven. st. peter doesn't want to let anyone else in.

Christianity in any form, like Islam and any other religion placing emphasis on life after death, is entrapping its believers within a wall of ignorance and fear. We must help them escape from their cages. Do not hateful words upon them, but help to heal their minds in hopes that they might turn their eyes toward logic and see a brighter, healthier future.


No. Leave them be. Let them have their beliefs. It's not exactly nice to confront your mortality, and so those who wish to hide from it should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, it's just cruel. Leave them alone, unless they try to say that you are in some way wrong for not believing exactly as they do. Then you may tear apart their flimsy belief structures and expose them to the horrifying truth that, in terms of everything, they are so amazingly insignificant and unimportant that nothing they can ever hope to do will be known of within about ten thousand years, and they are truly, helplessly, hopelessly alone. OK?

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do..I'm agnostic, It took me more years than you've been on this planet to reconcile myself to this fact. I'm not sure what, if anything comes after death, but I'm sure my actions during this life will have more impact on that event than my embracing any one religion.So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.So hedge my bets? Preaching that kind of bullshit is one of the things that convinced me that Christianity doesn't have it locked. At least in the form you practice it.
So what I have to lose is my self respect and my free will. Tangible things that I believe have more importance in the outcome than my 'embracing Christianity'.

No. Leave them be. Let them have their beliefs. It's not exactly nice to confront your mortality, and so those who wish to hide from it should be allowed to do so. Otherwise, it's just cruel. Leave them alone, unless they try to say that you are in some way wrong for not believing exactly as they do. Then you may tear apart their flimsy belief structures and expose them to the horrifying truth that, in terms of everything, they are so amazingly insignificant and unimportant that nothing they can ever hope to do will be known of within about ten thousand years, and they are truly, helplessly, hopelessly alone. OK?
i "leave them alone" in the same way i would leave a drug addict alone. it is their choice, but sometimes they reach out for help, or at least try to learn about alternatives to their current path. i pity them, and i work every day to build a world where people will not have to turn to things like drug addiction and religion to get through their lives. i will make every effort to help the people who seek to change, but i will never try to force any person to let go of their addiction if they are not ready and willing to try.

i "leave them alone" in the same way i would leave a drug addict alone. it is their choice, but sometimes they reach out for help, or at least try to learn about alternatives to their current path. i pity them, and i work every day to build a world where people will not have to turn to things like drug addiction and religion to get through their lives. i will make every effort to help the people who seek to change, but i will never try to force any person to let go of their addiction if they are not ready and willing to try.


Fine by me. I just don't think it's fair to attack the Christians unless they have a go at you first. Pity them, and leave them alone, until they do something stupid. Then savage them to teach them a lesson. If your beliefs are no more reasonable than saying the moon is made of Skittles, then you probably shouldn't argue with anyone. So it's a good lesson for them to learn, but only teach it if they can't work it out themselves.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

Not one that I have any reason to believe will work, but then neither does anyone else on the planet.

And don't even start with that ridiculous wager, please.

Here is a quote for the Christians, remind you of anyone? There is only one religion.

O COMPANION OF MY THRONE!
Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed. Live then the days of thy life, that are less than a fleeting moment, with thy mind stainless, thy heart unsullied, thy thoughts pure, and thy nature sanctified, so that, free and content, thou mayest put away this mortal frame, and repair unto the mystic paradise and abide in the eternal kingdom for evermore.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

We are all already dead. Thats right dead. This here is the afterlife.

It is a place of beauty, just take a look at the sunrise, the massive landscapes. It is a place of love, everyone has love, love from friends and family they might not always realise it though. It is a place of pleasure, a good meal, the company of another, not just physically. It is a place of fighting and drinking. . . ah turns out the Vikings were right all along then.

On a more serious note, I don't believe there is an afterlife, the existence of one would make this life pointless due to the length of time we spend here being infinately small in comparison (also the complete lack of any evidence supporting an afterlife, but when has that stopped anyone before)

Has anyone actually taken a look at the web site on the first post? its disgusting. so much was i disgusted by it that i showed it to my friends, some of whom are christians. .. they shortly confessed a deep desire to cause pain to the sites creators. TheWayOfTheMaster is a con which seems to be based on pascal's wager as a way to get people to buy their tapes and books, nice going guys.

BTW Completly agree with you bottle.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Atheists should just bend over to your religon's political rhetoric for your own sake of self-gratification? Just because we don't believe in this intolerant and arrogant notion of a monotheistic god, it doesn't mean that some part of us doesn't exist after all our metabolic processes cease.

As I see it, there is nothing that prevents death entirely and after death we will either exist or cease to exist. If we cease to exist there is no choice in the matter and there is no reason to complain or promote some monotheistic political system that spits out the same intolerant rhetoric merely to alleviate the fear of what lies beyond. If some remnants of our existance remains beyond death, who is to say that since one would be devoid of their physical senses, one would even be able to acknowledge let alone enjoy "paradise" or suffer "damnation" at the hands of some mythological icon who still may or may not exist.

Beyond that, if your personal deity has anythign to say on the subject then perhaps she would like to come down and say it for herself. Unless, of course, you believe that you are so important to the universe that your deity couldn't say it without you.

Your posting here to convert Nationstaters into Christanity?!

You Jeova-witnesses are getting weirder and weirder! :eek:Beats the hell out of knocking on doors in the frigid weather. :D

Ever notice how the JWs do most of their door-knocking in the spring and summer?

As for Commando2... following the teachings of Christianity to hedge your bets in an afterlife doesn't really make you an honest Christian, now does it? I can see St. Peter ROFLHAO at the Pearly gates when so-minded "Christians" show up. Eh, that is if there really was a heaven.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

My choice is based on logic and evidence, not fear. I'm not going to start believing something I know isn't true just because it sounds nicer.

Fine by me. I just don't think it's fair to attack the Christians unless they have a go at you first.

it may or may not be "fair" to make a first strike, that's debatable. what's for certain is that simply attacking them isn't going to change anything, and will most likely strengthen their determination to cling to their beliefs; it's like how telling a 4 year old not to touch something is the surest way to get them to touch it...telling people they cannot do something will only increase their determination to do it anyway.

Pity them, and leave them alone, until they do something stupid.

in my personal opinion, believing that any human being can comprehend the existence or nature of a "higher being" constitutes something extremely stupid.


Then savage them to teach them a lesson. If your beliefs are no more reasonable than saying the moon is made of Skittles, then you probably shouldn't argue with anyone. So it's a good lesson for them to learn, but only teach it if they can't work it out themselves.
wait, let's back up to the part about the moon not being made of Skittles. you were just kidding about that, right? RIGHT?!

The good Rev. Jim is still waiting!
I see nobody has even attempted to refute his first point:



Care to take a shot? Step right up, take a chance! Try your luck! Flex your mental muscles and see if you can beat him!

I take it that Rev. Jim is saying that the different religions are esentialy opposed to each other. The oppisition is compeletly man made it was not the intent of the Creator. You see this in the sprititual teachings of each of the Prophets; they are almost identical. So Rev. Jim is basing his comments on what the followers, who have changed the intent of the religion, are saying and not on what the Messenger Himself has said. Whether anyone believes this or not is up them, but let us refrain from the personal mean comments.
If you chose to be atheist that is fine by me. One of the purposes of religion is to improve the moral standards of humankind; hopefully atheists will also find some higher level of tolerance for those some atheists consider to be inferior. Perhaps...turning the other cheek.

"The Reality of the divine Religions is one, because the Reality is one and cannot be two. All the prophets are united in their message, and unshaken. They are like the sun; in different seasons they ascend from different rising points on the horizon. Therefore every ancient prophet gave the glad tidings of the future, and every future has accepted the past."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)

Not really. It's probably already developed on at least one other thread, completely independently. What we should really ask is this:

Does Pascal's wager appear periodically on Nationstates because of God, or because of Chaos Theory?

Discuss.

Well, it usually appears as the last ditch attempt of fundamentalists trying to justify why the non-believer should stop cutting the foundations out from beneath blind faith.

So - I guess it's a survival characteristic, for fundamentalists.

Ironically... Pascal provides evidence of Evolution in Christianity. :)

it may or may not be "fair" to make a first strike, that's debatable. what's for certain is that simply attacking them isn't going to change anything, and will most likely strengthen their determination to cling to their beliefs; it's like how telling a 4 year old not to touch something is the surest way to get them to touch it...telling people they cannot do something will only increase their determination to do it anyway.

I simply disagree with doing anything to anyone who's not causing you any harm, that's all. Sorry. Leave them alone until they start bothering you by starting evangelising threads. Hint. Hint.

in my personal opinion, believing that any human being can comprehend the existence or nature of a "higher being" constitutes something extremely stupid.

Everyone has the right to be stupid. As long as they don't insist I have to be stupid too.

wait, let's back up to the part about the moon not being made of Skittles. you were just kidding about that, right? RIGHT?!

I se no reason why believing in the Luna Skittles is more likely to be untrue than believing in a universal force. My family have believed in small multi-coloured sugar-based products forming the basis of all creation for years. Except Uncle Henry. He believed it was all anchovy-stuffed olives. But he was a bit of a weirdo.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

i'm not going to just vanish when i die, i believe im going to reincarnate. but i dont rub it all in your face and tell you its the only true belief because i dont really have any idea what happens after i die any better than you do, and vice versa. i mean, its not like we've ever been dead before, right?

Well, it usually appears as the last ditch attempt of fundamentalists trying to justify why the non-believer should stop cutting the foundations out from beneath blind faith.

So - I guess it's a survival characteristic, for fundamentalists.

Ironically... Pascal provides evidence of Evolution in Christianity. :)

Intriguing. I think we should start monitoring the various stages of evolution in religious debates on these forums, and then look into this further. We could even start looking at the survival rates of those participating in them, and how they develop symbiotic relationships with other members. Creationists adjusting themselves to survive better in Evolutionist-filled threads, and visa-versa. And then we use it to prove Creationists wrong, once and for all.

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
It's not so much as wanting to have one's existence ended but accepting that the universe isn't always like one would want it to be.

And if you waste your life serving a cause that is meaningless because you will never get the reward, maybe even kill yourself (and others) on behalf of that cause - what do you have? You wasted the only life you'll ever have for a dream that won't come true?

I cannot see the winning in that.

Intriguing. I think we should start monitoring the various stages of evolution in religious debates on these forums, and then look into this further. We could even start looking at the survival rates of those participating in them, and how they develop symbiotic relationships with other members. Creationists adjusting themselves to survive better in Evolutionist-filled threads, and visa-versa. And then we use it to prove Creationists wrong, once and for all.

Devious AND evil...

I LIKE the way you think! :)

Intriguing. I think we should start monitoring the various stages of evolution in religious debates on these forums, and then look into this further. We could even start looking at the survival rates of those participating in them, and how they develop symbiotic relationships with other members. Creationists adjusting themselves to survive better in Evolutionist-filled threads, and visa-versa. And then we use it to prove Creationists wrong, once and for all.
Unfortunately, that would constitute more social Darwinism than Darwinism, but it was a good idea.

I checked the link and, frankly, I'm concerned for Kirk Cameron. Ah well, I suppose mediocre actors can always find work on the CBN.

Let me make a point here, and consider it if you will:
One of the things that Christianity tries to do is denounce other religions. I'm not saying it to attack Christians, I'm saying it because history has shown it to be true. Now, Christianity, which tries to convert "non-believers" and show them the "right" way so that they will have "salvation" by denouncing the beliefs of other religions, has a few major flaws:
1. It attempts to convert others through the offer of a nebulous reward after death,in the form of heaven, when most religions offer the exact same thing,
2. It denounces anything that does not agree with its dogmatic views, most of which are accepted through bibliolatry, or taking the Bible too literally, and
3. It is divided internally, which would not be a problem if they were in some form of agreement, but they only agree in the proper "holy boook".
Now another thing I wanted to say was that Christianity, which denounces all other religions, was at its creation, entirely dependent on the existence other religions. If not for Judaism and Zoroastrianism, Christianity would never have existed.
Another point is that the only religion that attempt to convert "non-believers" to their religion are Christianity and Islam. (There may be others, but I only know of Christianity and Islam trying to convert others.) This is not a prevalent thing in religion. So how can you explain that? A reflection of dangerous times during the foundation of these major world religions? An expansion of Western philosophy?
Just my two cents.

I'm not a Jehovas-Witness I'm a Catholic.

That little quiz at the beginning of the site about the Ten Commandments assumes that it will get its effect because people will actually care about the Commandments and what they say. Converting people takes more than a quiz like something that someone at Seventeen magazine could come up with. Those assume that people are pliable enough and assuming enough to believe whatever you tell them. You must get inside each person's head, confront their belief on its own level and in its own way. Convincing a cannibal to stop eating his brothers will take more than Catholic rhetoric; you must show the cons of cannibalism and the pros of stopping such a practice. Yelling to Indonesian rebels that they should stop fighting because God commands it will get you shot; you must teach them that their belief system doesn't support it. And trying to convert atheists to Catholicism with rants, out-of-place quotes, and "MAD CAPS LOCK" as I call it will get you nowhere; you must use the logic that they use to disprove God to bring them around to your side.

I learned this when I was a Catholic. You should, too.

That will stop the Christian-bashing threads.

That will garner you respect.

That will gain you the converts you so feverently wish for.

'Til next time, stay cool. :cool:

Actually, those faiths' drive to convert people to their faith goes hand in hand with monotheist societes' drive to conquer other people in the physical world. Unlike Rome, which integrated other people by including their faiths and leaders in it's society, christian or islamic societies integrate those they submit by making them forsake their customs of old, killing their elites and re-educating them into followers of their society's prevalent faith (and usually, into obedient lowest-level workers).

Basically, monotheist religions are "predatory", unlike other religions which only vegetate, and don't actively seek to expand their sphere of influence other than by population growth. That is why Christianity and Islam are so much more agressive than other faiths, and why some of their faithful are so murderous and evil.

Another point is that the only religion that attempt to convert "non-believers" to their religion are Christianity and Islam. (There may be others, but I only know of Christianity and Islam trying to convert others.) This is not a prevalent thing in religion. So how can you explain that? A reflection of dangerous times during the foundation of these major world religions? An expansion of Western philosophy?
Yes, Christianity and Islam are pretty much the only significant proselytising religions.

If you devote your entire life to a religion and you are wrong, you have wasted all chance you could have had to learn and experience life to its fullest potential. In that sense you have gained nothing, whereas those who have gone through life with an accepting mind and an adventurous nature have gained everything.

I am not going to waste my only chance at life on something that I can only muster a little half-assed faith for.

I would like to propose an inverse question to you:

Why not give up your faith for awhile? Why not step away from it and examine your life and the world around you. If you seriously make the separation from those views (a very difficult task), emmerse yourself in things that are foreign to you, and you still come back to Christianity, your faith will be stronger than ever and you will have gained knowledge and experience that you would have never gained previously.

If you devote your entire life to a religion and you are wrong, you have wasted all chance you could have had to learn and experience life to its fullest potential. In that sense you have gained nothing, whereas those who have gone through life with an accepting mind and an adventurous nature have gained everything.

I am not going to waste my only chance at life on something that I can only muster a little half-assed faith for.

I would like to propose an inverse question to you:

Why not give up your faith for awhile? Why not step away from it and examine your life and the world around you. If you seriously make the separation from those views (a very difficult task), emmerse yourself in things that are foreign to you, and you still come back to Christianity, your faith will be stronger than ever and you will have gained knowledge and experience that you would have never gained previously.


Favorite post here.

At first I was dissapointed at Commando's post, having seen previous posts by him and knowing this was certainly something that he was liable to do.

But, I was more dissapointed at seeing the new people flak him down, as moderate he was being over the course of the thead.

I don't agree with any religion, as it requires you to lead a biased life, but surely we can be more rational about this.

First - what is wrong with just ceasing to exist when you die? You can't feel it, so it won't be bad, per se...

Also, Heaven is perfect, right? Humans can't handle that. We NEED conflict, even soemthing basic, to keep us interested in life. Ths, heaven is a lounge where humanity suffers, if not as much as in Hell. I doubt that is possible.

Favorite post here.

At first I was dissapointed at Commando's post, having seen previous posts by him and knowing this was certainly something that he was liable to do.

But, I was more dissapointed at seeing the new people flak him down, as moderate he was being over the course of the thead.

I don't agree with any religion, as it requires you to lead a biased life, but surely we can be more rational about this.

I agree with you completely.

I haven't read any of this thread after the first page, but I have no doubt that Commando received a great deal of flak for his post. While I didn't agree with his arguments, one principle I try to maintain is that anyone's views on this are just as valid as yours or mine. The existence of a God is far beyond our power of reason.

It is amazing all of the individuals who point out that Christianity imposes its faith on others, but once someone expresses Christian views, they turn the tables and vehemently insist that the Christian views are wrong.

I realize everyone has already bashed Pascal's Wager, but I can't resist the urge to make an analogy.

Pascal's Wager is like writing something completely random in response to an essay question on a test. Yes, you could possibly be right, but the chances are so pathetically low of that actually happening that writing said essay would be a waste of time.

Let's try that again. to you, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And to Christians, GO KILL YOURSELF.

that is all.

No I'll pass thanks.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
Good for you ;)

No I'll pass thanks.

Commando2, I responded to your initial post with respect and you ignored it while responding to the idiot who obviously had nothing to contribute. I hope you did not dismiss my post altogether.

You're right. IT was actually 1992 when Pope John Paul II gave an address on behalf of the Catholic Church in which he admitted that errors had been made by the theological advisors in the case of Galileo. He declared the Galileo case closed, but he did not admit that the Church was wrong to convict Galileo on a charge of heresy because of his belief that the Earth rotates round the sun.
Yes, but it took 350 years, and even then they weren't willing to say he wasn't a heretic. Even though they accept he's right. Go figure.


Forgive me, but aren't those contradictory?

My understanding is that, in 1992, the Church acknowledged that Galileo was right. They had pardoned him (i.e. laid the matter to rest without admitting fault) earlier in the century.

Incidentally, flat earth beliefs have never been part of Christian doctrine...

Also, Heaven is perfect, right? Humans can't handle that. We NEED conflict, even soemthing basic, to keep us interested in life. Ths, heaven is a lounge where humanity suffers, if not as much as in Hell. I doubt that is possible.
I remember thinking the same thing at one point. Except that it was in relation to a utopia, not heaven, but I believe they're analogous here. If you want an interesting rendering of hell, I highly recommend Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit.

Pascal's Wager is like writing something completely random in response to an essay question on a test. Yes, you could possibly be right, but the chances are so pathetically low of that actually happening that writing said essay would be a waste of time.
Very good analogy! I think that's the best concise argument against Pascal's wager yet!

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Actually, I do wish to vanish when I die. Because that is what will happen.

And I don't buy the whole "we loose nothing" part. You loose a great deal of your livelihood being a slave to something that is an illusion.

P.S. Though I don't agree with the content, that's a bitchin' site!

Pascal's Wager is like writing something completely random in response to an essay question on a test. Yes, you could possibly be right, but the chances are so pathetically low of that actually happening that writing said essay would be a waste of time.
i actually really like that analogy...hope you don't mind if i use it in the future when Pascal's Wager rears its ugly head (as surely it will).

i also dig your name.

Incidentally, flat earth beliefs have never been part of Christian doctrine...

Galileo was never condemned for non flat-earth-ness. They couldn't take the whole "Earth revolving around the sun" thing; the Church at the time pointed out the Joshua-making-the-sun-stop Bible stuff as proof that the sun revolved around the earth, thus concluding Galileo was a heretic.

Galileo was never condemned for non flat-earth-ness. They couldn't take the whole "Earth revolving around the sun" thing; the Church at the time pointed out the Joshua-making-the-sun-stop Bible stuff as proof that the sun revolved around the earth, thus concluding Galileo was a heretic.

Yes, I know; but some people seemed to think that he was in earlier posts and I was replying to that. Given that flat earth-ness is readily falsifiable, a Church decision that was based on it would have been unreasonable and indicative that the Church was generally wrong. Heliocentricism, with the scientific knowledge of the day, nicely explained some observations which geocentricism couldn't, but the evidence for it wasn't overwhelming. With the evidence we have now, of course, it is overwhelming (ignoring the relativity issue).

Actually, I do wish to vanish when I die. Because that is what will happen.


How does that make sense? You like the idea because it's true?

That said, the initial post was a troll. Suggesting that you should believe in something because it's nice doesn't make sense - reality is not determined by what we believe.

The reverse situation is a question I'm sometimes asked: "As a Christian, why do you want unbelievers to go to Hell?" I don't. I hate the idea. But that doesn't mean it isn't true... (Before anyone picks up on it, I'll add that I'm aware that I may be wrong and it may therefore not be true, but that doesn't alter the fact that my liking it or not has no effect of the situation.)

If I were Christian, I would be so severly embarassed (sp? lol) and ashamed to know that there are people out there who actually believe that they are good by "saving" people through any means necessary, including fear?


Believe they are good? What makes you think that? Yes, a lot of evangelism embarasses me (yes, I think that's how you spell it ;)) but that doesn't mean that the motivation is wrong (although obviously if it's so tactless that it turns people off from Christianity then it's a bad thing). I'm not comfortable exangelising, but view it as a very unpleasant duty. Then again, I am comfortable discussing my beliefs and those of others in the abstract. Maybe I'm just doublethinkful.


Their backwards logic of "plan B" doesn't make sense. Just because someone doesn't believe in heaven doesn't mean they won't go there.

Very true... unless certain beliefs are part of the entry requirements.

Believe they are good? What makes you think that? Yes, a lot of evangelism embarasses me (yes, I think that's how you spell it ;)) but that doesn't mean that the motivation is wrong (although obviously if it's so tactless that it turns people off from Christianity then it's a bad thing). I'm not comfortable exangelising, but view it as a very unpleasant duty. Then again, I am comfortable discussing my beliefs and those of others in the abstract. Maybe I'm just doublethinkful.

The motivation is right in their eyes, but the actions wrong, if the person doesn't want to hear it, and has so indicated. You (Not you specifically, perse, but evangelists as a whole) think you are saving "us". So did the crusaders, and the inquisitors. Was their motivation right? Pehaps. That is debatable. Was what they did good? No. They killed in teh name of spreading their religion, or persecuted others for not believing.

Very true... unless certain beliefs are part of the entry requirements.
*cough*evangelicals!*cough*

The good Rev. Jim is still waiting!
I see nobody has even attempted to refute his first point:

Originally Posted by Rev. Jim Huber
Suppose I decided that Pascal is right, that I should "get religion" just in case. Which one should I choose? On a worldwide basis, roughly equal numbers of people are Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, and Hindu, each having roughly one billion adherents. Another billion have some religion other than one of the big four. The remaining billion or so have no religion. None of the religions call to me. I have no basis for choosing one over the other. When I knelt and prayed for guidance God told me he didn't exist.

Care to take a shot? Step right up, take a chance! Try your luck! Flex your mental muscles and see if you can beat him!


All right, I'll have a go if you really want(!). (I presume that quote is accurate - I haven't actually looked at the site.)

1) To judge between different religions, you have to look for the semblance of truth. Religion deals with things that can't be proven, therefore you can't be certain of your choice. You can, however, look to see if a given religion is self-consistent, and whether those who founded it really seemed to know what they were talking about, whether they had powers above the norm, and so on.

2) If God does not exist, He can not say so, by definition. However, I presume that was a joke.


This doesn't mean I accept Pascal's wager as valid. It has a flaw specifically when applied to Christianity, which I'm surprised hasn't been raised more. It assumes that it is possible to literally choose what you believe.

If Pascal had suggested that you should do your best to live a perfect life on the basis that you might therefore find favour with God, even if you didn't believe in Him, then it would have made sense. However, that wouldn't make you a Christian, so it wouldn't help you if Christianity actually is right.

The fact that I am a Christian doesn't prevent me from seeing this.

Pascal's wager only has one use (unless you count being annoying towards unbelievers as a use): it serves to help believers, either by making them feel smug, or by helping them focus their beliefs. It can never produce belief in the first place.


Incidentally, I didn't intend to get into all these philosophical debates when I chose my nation name; it just seemed like a nice name at the time. :D

No one knows if there is an afterlife, so we should just focus on making life better for future generations.
Step 1: Kill Bush and exile Kerry.

*cough*evangelicals!*cough*

Yes, I am evangelical.

That doesn't alter the fact that I'm sincere.

Also, it doesn't alter the fact that my statement is true. Note the word "unless".

No one knows if there is an afterlife, so we should just focus on making life better for future generations.
Yes! But converting to clean-burning fuel is an even better idea than the whole assassination/exile thing! We need to put more research into antimatter for a more economical fuel; clean, unlimited, and 100% energy conversion. (We have actually been able to produce anti-hydrogen atoms! Does that not just strike you dumb?!?) We need to find out more practical ways of mass producing methanol. We need to convert to hydrogen fuel in automobiles. Most of all, we need to stop fecking burning fossil fuels!

Yes, I am evangelical.

That doesn't alter the fact that I'm sincere.

Also, it doesn't alter the fact that my statement is true. Note the word "unless".
Oh, really? I didn't know that, it actually wasn't in reference to you. It was purely referencing:Very true... unless certain beliefs are part of the entry requirements.
Do you believe that faith in Christ is necessary to get into heaven? Because that is the evangelical belief that I'm primarily against.

The motivation is right in their eyes, but the actions wrong, if the person doesn't want to hear it, and has so indicated.


I actually agree with you. If someone is unwilling to hear (assuming that they're not wanting to convert me in response), then to pursue the matter would make matters worse, therefore it would be wrong to do so, as I said. I don't ram my beliefs down people's throats, but I'll more than happily express them, especially if a debate's underway. My problem is making people aware of what I believe so that they can ask me if they want, without annoying them by telling them.

You (Not you specifically, perse, but evangelists as a whole) think you are saving "us". So did the crusaders, and the inquisitors. Was their motivation right? Pehaps. That is debatable. Was what they did good? No. They killed in teh name of spreading their religion, or persecuted others for not believing.

Indeed. I think that their motivation was right, but their actions wrong. Just because I'm a believer doesn't mean I agree with everything every believer has ever done.

I can say why their actions were logically wrong too, if you want: if someone is going to be condemned by God for their beliefs, then killing them ensures their damnation, whereas if they were left alive then they would get other changes to repent in the future, prior to their death.

Hmmm. Commando still same. Not learning. Still has the nerve to call people who thinks he's nuts intolerant when he rants about all athiests, muslims, pro-choicers, gays and liberals will burn in hell or ought to be shot. (presumably to hurry them on the way.
*sigh*

Atheists don't necessarily want to just disappear when they die. That is just their belief. Christians don't want to go to hell, but they believe they will go there when they die.

Also, I would personally say that oblivion is a better option than living forever. After a few million years of eternal existence, I would just get tired, man.

And an atheist would probably argue that they won't believe in god to "cover their bases" because they want to make the most of the time they have.
Christians do not believe that they are going to Hell.
Where did that come from?
:confused:

Oh, really? I didn't know that, it actually wasn't in reference to you. It was purely referencing:
Originally Posted by Wherefore
Very true... unless certain beliefs are part of the entry requirements.

I am in the broad sense that I believe that I have a duty to evangelise, yes. And yes, I realise you were addressing my comment, rather than me. I assumed that you thought that I believed it, so point taken.

Do you believe that faith in Christ is necessary to get into heaven? Because that is the evangelical belief that I'm primarily against.
Yes, I do. I hate the idea - I know full well that belief in Christ does not make you a better person - but it isn't up to me. It's up to God. The entry requirements are whatever he sets them to be. If Jesus taught the truth then believing in Him and allowing him to atone for your sins is necessary for salvation. If He didn't teach the truth then of course it's an irrelevance.

Nah, I wasn't asking you to beleive me, i was just stating my opinion. We both have a general impression about the forum and neither viewpoint can be proved entirely satisfactorily. In such a situation, I find it's best to 'agree to disagree'.

Indeed. I believe that there are more Christian-bashing threads than Atheist-bashing ones, though I've seen plenty of both. However, it wouldn't be surprising if those were the ones I noticed more. I'm biased. :)

That said, no matter which side starts a given thread, each will end up bashing the other...

Hello,

I'm gonna die someday, that's just the way of it. We're all gonna die. Might as well have fun while you're alive. To be honest, human activity probably isn't that important in the grand sceme of things, not that anything else is.

You know those books about dinosaurs that have coloured bands showing the various ages of prehistory? Jurassic, ended for whatever reason, etc. That's gonna be us.

Some child of the future, of some unknown species, will one day be reading about how humans once ruled the world, but became extinct by being narrow minded and gun happy.

So yeah anyway, life's really fun, you might as well enjoy it, rather than make sacrifices on the offchance of there being something afterwards that will be good or bad depending on your actions in life.

"In return for a lifetime of servititude, you are granted eternal life"

Yippee

Just from the agnostics I've encountered they really were 99% atheist anyway.

Is that how you've found it to be? I've met more people who claim to be atheists who were actually agnostics. Granted, they lived like atheists, but I can't really see a distinctive way in which agnostics could live in view of their beliefs. They were people who couldn't see proof one way or the other and had decided to work on the assumption of atheism rather than theism. In the literal sense, I'm an agnostic - I don't believe it can be proved one way or the other. I've merely decided that, on balance, I believe that Christianity offers the most plausible explanation, and therefore live my life on that basis.

Indeed. I believe that there are more Christian-bashing threads than Atheist-bashing ones, though I've seen plenty of both. However, it wouldn't be surprising if those were the ones I noticed more. I'm biased. :)

That said, no matter which side starts a given thread, each will end up bashing the other...

I'll not disagree, simply because there are so many more athiests and agnostics on NS compared to the general populace. I haven't actually counted but I think it's pretty close. But we catch it everyday from every direction in real life. And I think people like Commando are more virulent than the Christian bashers, though I also might be biased.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

that would be assuming that christianity is 'right'.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Ahh ha your kidding. Sure, why don't i go all out and become a fundamentalist, i'll start being a discriminating christian who hates everyone who doesn't beleive in what he says. ANd why is it I can't apply it to buddhism, reincarnation, or just vanish, I'm happy with just vanishing.

I have a quote for you:
"If you die and nothing happens, what are you gonna do? Complain to head office?"

"The idea of an incarnation of God is absurd: why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants, and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? . . Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dung-hill croaking and squeaking "for our sakes was the world created."" - Julian the Apostate

I'll not disagree, simply because there are so many more athiests and agnostics on NS compared to the general populace.
That's a very interesting statement. Why do you think that is?
But we catch it everyday from every direction in real life. And I think people like Commando are more virulent than the Christian bashers, though I also might be biased.
Believe me, so do we. Then again, we're hardly likely to notice what our own "side" is doing that's unreasonable (unless we're participating, in which case we're less likely to think it's unreasonable), but we'll notice what the virulent people on the other "side" do, because they'll probably target us as individuals at some point...

that would be assuming that christianity is 'right'.

Come now, the whole point is "if it's wrong then we haven't lost anything.

There are plenty of flaws in that argument but that isn't one of them.

I'm gonna die someday, that's just the way of it. We're all gonna die. Might as well have fun while you're alive. To be honest, human activity probably isn't that important in the grand sceme of things, not that anything else is.
Indeed! Hedonism, to an extent, is a good concept to keep in mind.

You know those books about dinosaurs that have coloured bands showing the various ages of prehistory? Jurassic, ended for whatever reason, etc. That's gonna be us.
Well, we are currently in the Quaternary Period, in the Caenozoic Era.

Come now, the whole point is "if it's wrong then we haven't lost anything.

There are plenty of flaws in that argument but that isn't one of them.
Exactly. Pascal's Gambit is not to prove Christianity, but is a proselytising argument.

Just a thought; doesn't the pascal idea of following christianity "just in case" go against the whole faith thing just a touch? I thought the idea was to actually believe it.

That's a very interesting statement. Why do you think that is?

Believe me, so do we. Then again, we're hardly likely to notice what our own "side" is doing that's unreasonable (unless we're participating, in which case we're less likely to think it's unreasonable), but we'll notice what the virulent people on the other "side" do, because they'll probably target us as individuals at some point...

Very true.

Just a thought; doesn't the pascal idea of following christianity "just in case" go against the whole faith thing just a touch? I thought the idea was to actually believe it.

Yes. It doesn't make sense because of that. This was a point I tried to make in post 158.

Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.

Acutally, it doesn't bother me. I've accepted that when I die, that's the end of me & I'm quite happy with that.

I can't wait until the downfall of organized religion. It's extremely obsolete, and it has been for centuries. It's also counterproductive- There's thousands, if not millions, of people dying because the church doesn't like stem cell research to help cure diseases.

But that's another topic. I'll try to stick to this one.

Personally, before I had heard of the whole Pascal thing, I had realized the exact same thing in my own mind. However, once I saw atheists' arguments against it, my own logic (which is by far the most dominant part of my personality and perspective) quickly realized that the argument is absolute crap...

or at least partial crap. Except that, however you look at it, there's some crap in it, and then if you combine all the views, some of the crap overlaps...

So it's actually more than 100% crap.

I realize I haven't made any argument whatsoever. Sorry.

That argument is completely untrue. Athiests ENJOY life and live it to its fullest. People who are devoted to religion conform to all sorts of crap, and waste their life away, hoping to be saved at the end. Life is certain, what happens afterwards is not. I'd live out my life doing what I want with it and enjoying it, rather than ascribing to beliefs that make other's lives a living hell, along with my own, and hoping that in the end I'll be rewarded. Besides, even if we are wrong, Hell is where the party's at!

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.

I can't see any rational basis for you to assume that I am not comfortable with the idea of simply ceasing to exist when I die. If death is the absolute end, there is literally nothing for me to be afraid of.



So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Several others have explained the fallacy of Pascal's wager -- that it functions, if at all, only if you put it in a binary equation: that the options are only either that there is no God or that the Christian God is the correct assumption. Include all the diverse and incompatible definitions of concepts of Gods out there, and the odds greatly favor betting against any particular one of them. If, upon our deaths, discover that the One True God is the vengeful God Bumbalumba of the Narowi tribesmen, I, an atheist, am guilty only of impiety, while the Christian is guilty of idolatry, and probably of sending missionaries to lure the faithful Narowi to eternal damnation with your cult's lies.

Furthermore, if I believe in a God who does not exist and model my behavior on His Church's resultingly false doctrines, I plainly have lost something in this life: if Yaweh doesn't really exist to command His Chosen People to keep a kosher kitchen, then the Jews have lost out in the only life they'll have, never experiencing the delights of bacon, shrimp, cheeseburgers, etc. If Muhammad did not factually report that Allah forbids consumption of alcohol, Muslims have lost something in this life. If there isn't really a God demanding that His priests and nuns be celibate, millions of Catholic clerics have sacrificed a good thing of this life... for nothing. Since at least some of these religious beliefs are wrong (since they contradict one another), we can see that betting on a false God's existence does have a price in this life.


And that's without even starting on the list of positive evils one might be enticed into doing in the name of being on the winning side of an absurd bet.

Commando, you speak as though belief governs fact. Fact: You don't know what happens when you die. You can hope certain things, you can believe certain things. You can hope and believe really really hard. That won't change the way things are. If there is a God, you might be swept up in the rapture and you can be as smug as you like up there with a cloud for your pillow. But if there ain't a God, or if it turns out you been rooting for the wrong team, well, is belief alone going to keep you from being sucked screaming into the void?

So why don't you can all the horseshit about how your little bedtime stories let you sleep so much easier. Fear only motivates the timid. But if fear's the motor under your hood, far be it for me to knock success.

Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.
Indeed, i do want to life a fulfilled, good life here and not comply to morale views i do not share in order to rack up goodwill for a afterlife i know nothing about. Yes, i want to just drop dead and vanish once my life span is at its end.

If you think about it, that argument boils down to this:

"If, by chance, there just so happens to be an all-powerful being who would torture me for eternity if I don't beleive in his existence, then I would be much better off if I beleived in him. I'd better beleive in such an entity's existence, just in case."

The funny thing is, you can justify anything and everything simply by replacing the words "beleive in his existence" with whatever you want to justify. Say, for instance, that you wanted to justify murdering anyone who says the word "chair":

"If, by chance, there just so happens to be an all-powerful being who would torture me for eternity if I don't murder everyone who says the word 'chair', then I would be much better off if I murdered everyone who says the word 'chair'. I'd better do so, just in case."

The logical flaw is that you're beginning from an accepted starting point (the existence of a supreme being who wants you to believe in him/kill those who say "chair"/eat dog food) which is infinitely improbable, and any such argument is pretty much void because of that.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

I have been an atheist for a long time, and this quote does'nt in any way make me want to suddenly embrace Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. I am quite capable of living a good life, and being a good person (I hope), without constantly panicking about what will happen to me after I die.

Do I want to vanish when I die?, it doe'nt matter what I want, death is the end of existance. I don't believe in heaven or hell, or reincarnation, or any other existance after death. As far as I am concerned, its just like a light being switched off, game over screen etc. I won't go anywhere, or do anything after death, my existance is over. Its only human fear of death, and arrogance that we are superior beings and must deserve to go on in another form after death that keeps the heaven, hell, reincarnation etc myths alive. I personally don't fear death, and don't care about vanishing, as its only a natural end to life.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Actually the Atheists (though I am not one of them) will have won saved time from not going to church, but I do believe they are still far behind.

If you think about it, that argument boils down to this:

"If, by chance, there just so happens to be an all-powerful being who would torture me for eternity if I don't beleive in his existence, then I would be much better off if I beleived in him. I'd better beleive in such an entity's existence, just in case."

The funny thing is, you can justify anything and everything simply by replacing the words "beleive in his existence" with whatever you want to justify. Say, for instance, that you wanted to justify murdering anyone who says the word "chair":

"If, by chance, there just so happens to be an all-powerful being who would torture me for eternity if I don't murder everyone who says the word 'chair', then I would be much better off if I murdered everyone who says the word 'chair'. I'd better do so, just in case."

The logical flaw is that you're beginning from an accepted starting point (the existence of a supreme being who wants you to believe in him/kill those who say "chair"/eat dog food) which is infinitely improbable, and any such argument is pretty much void because of that.
zounds, another splendid and new way to phrase the deconstruction of Pascal's Myth! hope you won't mind if i add your post to my growing collection of refutations for that famous falacy...you wrapped it up very neatly.

Originally Posted by Commando2
Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.

Firstly Buddists believe in reincarnation, once we die in this life our soul is reborn in another form so that we may learn a new lesson, a new part of ourselves, then after learning and understanding all, we go to nirvana, which is the ultimate heaven (you didnt think christians had the only one?).
then again, all organised religion is just a means to control people. i mean the pope, some old, crumpling polish man in the tiniest country holds so much power, too much.

after long periods of time spent on getting poorer citizens in south america to use contraception (to prevent spread of STDs, control family sizes, etc.), the pope comes and simply says that contraception is agiainst catholosim, and poof there goes all the hard work.

everyone has different beliefs and thats fine, i dont think there is one right way, if one believes something it is true to them and thats what matters.

organised religion is still not true spirituality, waking up early on saturday or sunday and giving the donations indiscretely asked for, does not make someone a good person or closer to god. to quote someone i assume you, commando, beleive in, jesus said god is in everyone of us. its not a man and hes not sitting up in the clouds watching your every move.

zounds, another splendid and new way to phrase the deconstruction of Pascal's Myth!

Pascal's Myth? In what way is it a myth? It is a wager, a proposition. Your beliefs may tell you that some of its postulates are myths, but that doesn't make it a myth itself, unless you're implying that he didn't actually say it. ;)

Yes, I'm a pedant. I'm sorry.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Yes, I want to just vanish when I die. I don't give two shits whether you believe that or not.

In addition, since I find your idea of heaven to be the equivalent of a labotomy and endentured servitude, even if I am wrong and you right I am still free and clear. I will take an eternity of torture over one of abject stupidity any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com
Sorry, dyings part of my Plan A

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
I'm sure someone has already said this, but like a lazy cyber sheep farmer, I will not read through all the posts:

Guarantee me an afterworld, and I'll go for it. Otherwise, admit you're making this stuff up and get off my doorstep.

IQ before this thread: 128
IQ after this thread: 108


Crazy Christian: Priceless
LMAO! :p

As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
The gret thing about the choices of Atheism is you KNOW what will happen. Either way, you end up with nothing. That's a great big load off our mind as we don't have to agonize over death, asking ourselves if we did the right choice. Should I have gone with Bouddhism instead of Islam? who cares? I'm into the void either way.

Now, with that question answered once and for all, we can put our mind to the important stuff like saving the world and ending genocide.

Excuse the rearranging of these quotes:


after long periods of time spent on getting poorer citizens in south america to use contraception (to prevent spread of STDs, control family sizes, etc.), the pope comes and simply says that contraception is agiainst catholosim, and poof there goes all the hard work.
...
everyone has different beliefs and thats fine


Those two comments are mutually exclusive. The Pope believes what he says. South American catholics believe that what he says is right. If he's wrong and they believe him, that's a serious issue.

i dont think there is one right way, if one believes something it is true to them and thats what matters.

If something is "true to me" then that fact helps me, but it's not really enough. I want to believe whatever happens to be true, especially if I'm going to live my life by it. There may not be one "right way" in the sense of a precise way to live out all the details of my life, but there must, by definition, be only one Truth, in the sense of the way things are.


organised religion is still not true spirituality, waking up early on saturday or sunday and giving the donations indiscretely asked for, does not make someone a good person or closer to god.

No one should claim that religion is spirituality. Religion is the way you act. It doesn't change the way you are. Faith brings you closer to God. I go to church for my own benefit, and I give donations because I want to, not because of any compulsion, nor because I think I will benefit from it.

The gret thing about the choices of Atheism is you KNOW what will happen. Either way, you end up with nothing. That's a great big load off our mind as we don't have to agonize over death, asking ourselves if we did the right choice. Should I have gone with Bouddhism instead of Islam? who cares? I'm into the void either way.
Yup. That's faith.

"Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do.

You think wrong. I don't want to die right now but I don't have a fear of it and don't care that I will. What's there to fear? Death is not existing.

I find living for eternity a hell of a lot scarier.

I'm sure someone has already said this, but like a lazy cyber sheep farmer, I will not read through all the posts:

Guarantee me an afterworld, and I'll go for it. Otherwise, admit you're making this stuff up and get off my doorstep.

There are two ways to answer this. I think the first one replies to the way you meant it:

1)
You say that you won't go for anything that can't be proven. That is your decision. To say that anything that can't be proven is made up (let alone made up by the people telling it) is nonsense. I can't prove that Australia exists. (See post about flat earthers if you ever do read all the way through this thread.) I've never been there, and I have only indirect evidence of its existence. I always work on the assumption that it does though, and will argue with anyone who disagrees. ;)

2)
We do guarantee it. That's what we're preaching. That's the point. :D

You think wrong. I don't want to die right now but I don't have a fear of it and don't care that I will. What's there to fear? Death is not existing.

I find living for eternity a hell of a lot scarier.

Um... Regardless of the faults of Pascal's Wager, that's actually the point. :D

There are two ways to answer this. I think the first one replies to the way you meant it:

1)
You say that you won't go for anything that can't be proven. That is your decision. To say that anything that can't be proven is made up (let alone made up by the people telling it) is nonsense. I can't prove that Australia exists. (See post about flat earthers if you ever do read all the way through this thread.) I've never been there, and I have only indirect evidence of its existence. I always work on the assumption that it does though, and will argue with anyone who disagrees. ;)

??? just because you personally have not yet been to Australia doesn't mean you can't prove it exists. you very easily can prove it exists: go there. if you wish to prove that there is an afterlife, or if you wish people to consider your personal opinion worhty of consideration, you must first die and experience the afterlife. however, since there is currently no way to return after death, you might have a spot of trouble with that.*

*note: so-called "near-death" experiences are worthless, because they never involve full brain death. instead, they usually simply consist of respiratory failure, something that has not been used to measure the beginning or end of human life in many years.

2)
We do guarantee it. That's what we're preaching. That's the point. :D
i think he meant "give me some reason to believe that your guarantee of the afterlife is worth a hill of beans."

i can guarantee that you will turn into an invisible butterfly with a 12-foot wingspan when you die, after all, but very few people are going to just leap at the chance to take my word for it.

Yup. That's faith.
indeed. chosing to make an assertion about unknowables based purely on personal desire is wishful thinking, nothing greater, and it's just as silly for an atheist to do it as for a religious person to do it.

I got a question for the starter of the thread. Do you think if someone converts to christianity, soley for the purpose of covering their asses, that its gonna work?

Pascal's theory is a load of bull crap.

If God exists, why do people assume hell exists? God's existance is the only given from the fact that he exists.

And thus so, if God exists, that does NOT mean anything beyond that. No hell, no heaven, not anything.

I should believe in God because I'm afraid of hell? Shove it up your ass, Pascal.

Christian as I am, I do have to agree that fear of damnation is entirely the wrong reason to believe anything.

Also, just a note, God's existence can necessarily mean that Heaven and Hell exist, as Hell is often defined simply as separation from God and Heaven as union with Him.

Anywho, the theology of it doesn't matter. Bottom line is that I must say this thread was in poor taste. There are far better media for exposure to Christianity than an internet forum, and far better approaches than scolding and trying to incite fear.

[EDIT] And as an afterthought, I think that those of you who are discussing getting the "right religion" are really missing the point of the whole thing, and have a flawed understanding of how organized religion works. I don't know anyone who actually believes that those whose faith differs from their own are automatically going to Hell, from the most devout of Catholics to the most free-spirited of non-denominationals who denounce organization. There are even specific Biblical pointing out the foolishness of such thinking. I don't know where the perception came from in the first place.

[EDIT again] By that, I mean that I know personally. Apparently the starter of this thread feels differently, but from my personal experience, I would say that that philosophy is most certainly not held by the majority.

Christian as I am, I do have to agree that fear of damnation is entirely the wrong reason to believe anything.

Also, just a note, God's existence can necessarily mean that Heaven and Hell exist, as Hell is often defined simply as separation from God and Heaven as union with Him.

Anywho, the theology of it doesn't matter. Bottom line is that I must say this thread was in poor taste. There are far better media for exposure to Christianity than an internet forum, and far better approaches than scolding and trying to incite fear.
amen!

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

You seriously want atheists to believe in God for THAT reason? By your logic, we should all become Christians/Muslims/Jews/Buddhist/Hinduists/every other religion-ists just so we have a better chance at having something after death. :rolleyes:

I like this quote a lot better:
"Religion is the opium of the masses"

Unbelief begets suffering.

??? just because you personally have not yet been to Australia doesn't mean you can't prove it exists. you very easily can prove it exists: go there. if you wish to prove that there is an afterlife, or if you wish people to consider your personal opinion worhty of consideration, you must first die and experience the afterlife. however, since there is currently no way to return after death, you might have a spot of trouble with that.*
I might be able to prove it to my satisfaction, but could I prove it to anyone else's satisfaction?

Seriously, I was using a ludicrous example from a link earlier in the thread to make a point whilst being as ludicrous as the post I was replying to: just because I can't prove something doesn't mean that I don't believe it, and it doesn't even mean that there's no case for it.


*note: so-called "near-death" experiences are worthless, because they never involve full brain death. instead, they usually simply consist of respiratory failure, something that has not been used to measure the beginning or end of human life in many years.

Yes, and presumably anything which can be reversed was not death? Yet, you say there is *currently* no way to return. How might there be a way?

i think he meant "give me some reason to believe that your guarantee of the afterlife is worth a hill of beans."

i can guarantee that you will turn into an invisible butterfly with a 12-foot wingspan when you die, after all, but very few people are going to just leap at the chance to take my word for it.

My comment was flippant. I knew full well what he meant.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.
1. i will proudly admit that i am agnostic only because i know that no one else knows, i'll admit that i don't know. you don't know any more about what's going to happen to you when you die than anyone else. your best guess involves following a tradition of people who don't know mine is not offering a guess and seeing where the evidence points.
2. buddhists believe in reincarnation...
3. pascal's wager does not take into account the variety of religions, for instance if the hindhus are right, then it doesn't matter whether you woshipped brahmin and vishnu and shiva, if you were an asshole, you get reborn poorly and if you were nice, you get a better place. you're often an asshole... furthermore, what if you are worshiping the wrong god and pissing it off even more? you don't know you've picked the right god.

I like this quote a lot better:
"Religion is the opium of the masses"

Said, I believe, by Marx, whose works were the basis for a set of beliefs and way of living (a religion in the literal sense) that led to more suffering and execution of dissidents (and random sections of the population) than any other.

Said, I believe, by Marx, whose works were the basis for a set of beliefs and way of living (a religion in the literal sense) that led to more suffering and execution of dissidents (and random sections of the population) than any other.

Except that capitalism has caused far more deaths than communism. However, I don't want to turn this into a capitalism/communism discussion.

"Eat well. Stay fit. You still die. Got a plan B?"
www.wayofthemaster.com

What do you think of that? Do the people here who proudly claim to be atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, ect. really want to just vanish when you die? No, I don't think you do. So why not convert to Christianity? As Pascal said, "If we are right we win all, and if we are wrong we lose nothing." But can the atheist make the same arguement? No. An atheists would go "If we are right we win nothing, and if we are wrong we lose all." So, which is the better of the two options? I think Pascal's choice is.

Actually, it's precisely the other way round. If there is a God, He must be forgiving and will so forgive atheists for disbelieving, so they don't lose. If however, you spend your life trying to live religiously as your first priority, rather than enjoying life, and you are wrong, then you have wasted your life. Anyway, there are more reasons that atheists don't become Christians other than not believing in God.

Yup. That's faith.
No, not really. It is scientitic observation of the physical world, and deduction that thought has been proven to be a chemo-electrical occurence, so cessation of the chemo-electrical reactions in the central nervous system would obviously end that specific consciousness. People always try to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religionist, but the only ones who claim that have a religion, and are just flat out wrong. Atheism is taking everything as one observes it. Since we can explain natural phenomena through science, and are constantly expanding knowledge, atheism no longer takes any faither at all.

I find living for eternity a hell of a lot scarier.
Myself as well. I can not imagine the insanity that would result form immortality. It would be like a version of Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit, except the insanity would probably take longer to set in in heaven.

Unbelief begets suffering.
Disbelief--unbelief is not a word. And you're wrong, as I do not suffer at all from my agnostic atheism. I think that, being a physiolater, I suffer less.

Actually, it's precisely the other way round. If there is a God, He must be forgiving and will so forgive atheists for disbelieving, so they don't lose.
Says who? The Judaeo-Christian Jehova is not forgiving. Need I mention Sodom and Gomorrah?

No, not really. It is scientitic observation of the physical world, and deduction that thought has been proven to be a chemo-electrical occurence, so cessation of the chemo-electrical reactions in the central nervous system would obviously end that specific consciousness. People always try to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religionist, but the only ones who claim that have a religion, and are just flat out wrong. Atheism is taking everything as one observes it. Since we can explain natural phenomena through science, and are constantly expanding knowledge, atheism no longer takes any faither at all.


Myself as well. I can not imagine the insanity that would result form immortality. It would be like a version of Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit, except the insanity would probably take longer to set in in heaven.


Disbelief--unbelief is not a word. And you're wrong, as I do not suffer at all from my agnostic atheism. I think that, being a physiolater, I suffer less.


Says who? The Judaeo-Christian Jehova is not forgiving. Need I mention Sodom and Gomorrah?

What about 'to err is human, to forgive divine'? Just as there are examples in the Bible of God punishing people, there are also examples of Him forgiving people. If He is God, then He should be consitant. Punishing someone who will not repeat whatever crime they commited again either way is not logical. The only reasons humans do it is beacause we can't tell if someone will sin again, and because we carry resentment, a flaw in us. Does God carry grudges?

What about 'to err is human, to forgive divine'?
Proverbs do not prove Jehova's forgiving nature, so sorry to say.

Just as there are examples in the Bible of God punishing people, there are also examples of Him forgiving people. If He is God, then He should be consitant.
That is true. That's why the Christian God has DID. The Jewish God is fine, though, since he doesn't completely change from one testament to the next.

I have a good quote for you too. It is from Denis Diderot.

"No man shall know freedom until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last king".

I have a good quote for you too. It is from Denis Diderot.

"No man shall know freedom until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last king".
I LOVE that quote. I need to start using it more often.

I have a good quote for you too. It is from Denis Diderot.

"No man shall know freedom until the last priest is strangled with the entrails of the last king".

Can you actually explain that quote? Or is it just random rhetoric.

Says who? The Judaeo-Christian Jehova is not forgiving. Need I mention Sodom and Gomorrah?

Nice try. Four words "Pre-Crucifixtion, Old Covenent". Go research.

Can you actually explain that quote? Or is it just random rhetoric.
Freedom can not exist until monarchies and organised religion are eradicated.

Nice try. Four words "Pre-Crucifixtion, Old Covenent". Go research.
Oh, I know. I just like saying that because most Christians don't actually have reason that God apparently changes so drastically between the Testaments.

Oh, I know. I just like saying that because most Christians don't actually have reason that God apparently changes so drastically between the Testaments.

Its quite simple rearly. God does not change, the circumstances do. He changes them. He sent his son to break the sin=death cycle. Before that, sin and death were inseperable. God had the right to kill anyone at any time because there was no way out. But Jesus changed that. Death was no longer perminant. Spritiual death was no longer a certiaty.

What about 'to err is human, to forgive divine'? Just as there are examples in the Bible of God punishing people, there are also examples of Him forgiving people. If He is God, then He should be consitant. Punishing someone who will not repeat whatever crime they commited again either way is not logical. The only reasons humans do it is beacause we can't tell if someone will sin again, and because we carry resentment, a flaw in us. Does God carry grudges?

Do you think he does? You say He's inconsistent as portrayed in the bible. Is that why you don't believe in Him? God (taken by definition to be the creator of the world) doesn't inherently have to be forgiving.

The reason Christianity is quite complicated, and why such a grand drama was needed, was to make it possible for God to be both merciful and just.

Another point: punishment is not just to prevent the criminal from doing it again, but also to ensure that others are deterred, and to vindicate the law that said they were wrong to do it, plus a couple of other things.

Freedom can not exist until monarchies and organised religion are eradicated.

Why not? I am part of an organised religion and I am a subject to an organised monarchy and I am free.

No, not really. It is scientitic observation of the physical world, and deduction that thought has been proven to be a chemo-electrical occurence, so cessation of the chemo-electrical reactions in the central nervous system would obviously end that specific consciousness. People always try to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religionist, but the only ones who claim that have a religion, and are just flat out wrong. Atheism is taking everything as one observes it. Since we can explain natural phenomena through science, and are constantly expanding knowledge, atheism no longer takes any faither at all.
No; the scientific thing to say would have been, "I don't KNOW."

Its quite simple rearly. God does not change, the circumstances do. He changes them. He sent his son to break the sin=death cycle. Before that, sin and death were inseperable. God had the right to kill anyone at any time because there was no way out. But Jesus changed that. Death was no longer perminant. Spritiual death was no longer a certiaty.
Precisely. Isn't it so pathetic that most Christians do not actually realise that basis of Christology?

What about 'to err is human, to forgive divine'?
Proverbs do not prove Jehova's forgiving nature, so sorry to say.
Actually, in this case, they do. God does not have to be a real person for the quality of forgiveness to be derived from things he says, or are said about him. Basic Characterization 101.

Why not? I am part of an organised religion and I am a subject to an organised monarchy and I am free.
Are you? Are you sure?

And figurehead monarchies like Britain's don't really count, though it would be better to be without.

No; the scientific thing to say would have been, "I don't KNOW."
Really? That's quite interesting, because in a purely scientific setting, the exitence of a deity would not even come up. It wouldn't occur to a purely logical being that there is higher intelligence governing everything, because that is not condusive to either science or logic. In fact it impedes it.

Actually, in this case, they do. God does not have to be a real person for the quality of forgiveness to be derived from things he says, or are said about him. Basic Characterization 101.
Yes, but the fact is that proverbs can not support the idology of any religion. It's terribly theology to do that. Unless the proverbs are an active part of the religion, in which it is acceptable. But show me where that is quoth in the Bible, and I will shut up about it.

Precisely. Isn't it so pathetic that most Christians do not actually realise that basis of Christology?

I'm sorry, what are you getting at? That I am wrong or that most Christians do not understand what I said?

Are you? Are you sure?

And figurehead monarchies like Britain's don't really count, though it would be better to be without.


Well what are your critera for being "Free"

Yes, but the fact is that proverbs can not support the idology of any religion. It's terribly theology to do that. Unless the proverbs are an active part of the religion, in which it is acceptable. But show me where that is quoth in the Bible, and I will shut up about it.
The idiom was actually coined by Alexander Pope, but the characterization of divine forgiveness it portrays is out of the Bible:
Colossians 3:12-13
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive."

I'm sorry, what are you getting at? That I am wrong or that most Christians do not understand what I said?
That most Christians don't know what you said.

Well what are your critera for being "Free"
I can not think of a good way to put this literally, so I'll use an analogy. If you've read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, do you consider the members of that society to be free?

The idiom was actually coined by Alexander Pope, but the characterization of divine forgiveness it portrays is out of the Bible:
Colossians 3:12-13
"Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive."
If you say so. My Christology is mostly limited to what I've learned while arguing against Christians.

Really? That's quite interesting, because in a purely scientific setting, the exitence of a deity would not even come up. It wouldn't occur to a purely logical being that there is higher intelligence governing everything, because that is not condusive to either science or logic. In fact it impedes it.
Darn good thing humans are not purely logical beings. :D

I can not think of a good way to put this literally, so I'll use an analogy. If you've read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, do you consider the members of that society to be free?


I have read parts of it. Is it the one where there are those people which are geneticly predestined by the level of intellegence they have?

I don't know if discussion of the Galileo issue was finished (I didn't read the whole thread), but the Church did not call Galileo a heretic for preaching that the sun was the center of the universe. It called him a heretic for making a personal interpretation of the parts of the Bible that seem to agree with this. At the same time, the Pope and the Jesuit priests/scientists happened to believe that the earth was the center of the universe because (as Aristotle argued) if the earth were moving around the sun, we would notice parallax shift in the star's positions. In the 1600s we did not have the instruments to measure this movement, so even secular scientists at this time did not completely agree with Galileo.
This was really a simplified version of what happened. I am an atheist, but I do not think the Catholic Church has ever been anti-science. Here is my source (http://www.central.dtcc.edu/~bob/GalileoAffair.html).

In response to Commando2 who said:
But can atheists make the same argument? No.

I will borrow this rebuttal from Napolean Buonaparte (not the historical person, but a Nation States member). It is my favorite argument against of Pascal's wager.
Or conversely, consider Charles Fahringer's (my) gambit. Humans were created in labs by Alien Monsters from the planet Xob. We don't realize this because the Alien Monsters from the planet Xob are all-powerful masters of time and space and they designed the earth to seem as if it is "natural" (that is, resulting from causes other than Aliens) and designed our minds not to be able to comprehend this completely. Thus we can't actually tell for certain that we come from Aliens; but that is exactly the type of thing that aliens would do to us. So anyways, three years into the earth's existence the Alien Monsters sent an alien prophet to tell us all of this, and tell us that there would be a human named Jesus many years later who would try to convince us that he is god. The point of our existence, according to this alien prophet, is to disbelieve Jesus. The Aliens will be returning at some unspecified time in the future (maybe today!) and if anyone doesn't disbelieve Jesus (just one person) all of humanity will suffer absolute, infinite pain. But if no one believes in Jesus, we will all enjoy pure, infinite hapiness.

Do you think he does? You say He's inconsistent as portrayed in the bible. Is that why you don't believe in Him? God (taken by definition to be the creator of the world) doesn't inherently have to be forgiving.

The reason Christianity is quite complicated, and why such a grand drama was needed, was to make it possible for God to be both merciful and just.

Another point: punishment is not just to prevent the criminal from doing it again, but also to ensure that others are deterred, and to vindicate the law that said they were wrong to do it, plus a couple of other things.
*
Right, going through your points one at a time.
First of all, the reason I don't believe in God is irrelevant at this time, but I will say has more to do with philosophy than inconsistancies in the Bible.
Second, God does have to be inherently forgiving, at leat in the end. If He gave us free will, that means that anyone can inventually become good, and so confining them to Hell for all eterninity would not be as good as kindly explaining to them the errors of their ways. If God is God then He can make someone repent without needing to punish them, unless He is malicious. If on the other hand, we don't have free will, then He can't punish us. It would be like punishing micro-organisms for spreading disease.
Thirdly, oh this is great! Lets hear this again:
'The reason Christianity is quite complicated, and why such a grand drama was needed, was to make it possible for God to be both merciful and just.'
You have just admitted that Christianity made up God. From their own mouths they shall condemn themselves! The reason that Christianity is so complicated is because every time over the centuries their preachings have been proved false they've changed them.
Last of all, I strongly contest that punishment is to 'vindicate' the law. That's not punishment that's revenge. Also, how many people have repented their sins because they were 'deterred' by the punishments of God upon others? How would they know about them?

Darn good thing humans are not purely logical beings. :D
Hear, hear! However, that does not mean that atheists require any type of faith, which was what I was arguing. Logic is antithetical to faith. No insult to religions, but religion is a primarily emotional concept, not intellectual. Though I guess Kabbalists kind of go around that some, since inside their faith they exercise their mind a lot.

I have read parts of it. Is it the one where there are those people which are geneticly predestined by the level of intellegence they have?
That is part of it, but I was specifically referring to the mass inundating of propaganda. Monarchy can be related to physical imprisonment, and organised religion psychological imprisonment.

Hear, hear! However, that does not mean that atheists require any type of faith, which was what I was arguing.
I agree! However, that one person who made the statement I responded to admirably demonstrated faith in his belief.

Hear, hear! However, that does not mean that atheists require any type of faith, which was what I was arguing. Logic is antithetical to faith. No insult to religions, but religion is a primarily emotional concept, not intellectual. Though I guess Kabbalists kind of go around that some, since inside their faith they exercise their mind a lot.


Athiesim does require faith for a simple reason. Faith is being certian about what you cannot prove for certianty. Athieism is being certian about the non-existance of God. Since you cannot prove that God does not exist for certiantiy then it is faith (You cannot prove God does exist for certianty either, thats why Christianity is faith)


That is part of it, but I was specifically referring to the mass inundating of propaganda. Monarchy can be related to physical imprisonment, and organised religion psychological imprisonment.

How exactly is religion psycological imprisonment? I am not forced to believe these things.

Athiesim does require faith for a simple reason. Faith is being certian about what you cannot prove for certianty. Athieism is being certian about the non-existance of God. Since you cannot prove that God does not exist for certiantiy then it is faith (You cannot prove God does exist for certianty either, thats why Christianity is faith)
Christ Jesus! I just went over this!

How exactly is religion psycological imprisonment? I am not forced to believe these things.
Propaganda, my friend. Propaganda. Note that I only mentioned organised religion, personalised religion does not include the propaganda that orangised religion does.

please tell me you know about the church's history of branding scientists as "heretics".

but you can count me on that list too. From the perspective of the earth, the sun orbits US.

you see, it's all relative, if thow objects are spinning around each orther, from each's prespective, the other is orbiting it.

the whole issue is hooey
Just because someone considers themselves a Christian doesn't mean that they will always follow Commandments and live as Jesus had. I believe that many Christians of the old church had the wrong idea with certain things, which is why there are so many sects of Christianity. Threatening people with religious dogma certainly was not intended by Jesus, who was actually trying to do away with Jewish dogma that had no relevence with God's rule (such as the idea of blessing food before eating it).

Some people take word for word literally what the Bible says. Others believe in the messages and morals within the teachings of Jesus Christ more over the specifics. I tend to agree with this secong idea.

As far as the Earth and Sun are consered, they orbit each other, due to the gravitaional force of attraction between them. Obviosly, the Sun has a larger impact on the Earth because the Sun is vastly more massive, causing a more notable orbit of the Earth about the Sun.

Here is what I referred to in regards to atheism and faith:
Yup. That's faith.
No, not really. It is scientitic observation of the physical world, and deduction that thought has been proven to be a chemo-electrical occurence, so cessation of the chemo-electrical reactions in the central nervous system would obviously end that specific consciousness. People always try to say that it takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a religionist, but the only ones who claim that have a religion, and are just flat out wrong. Atheism is taking everything as one observes it. Since we can explain natural phenomena through science, and are constantly expanding knowledge, atheism no longer takes any faither at all.

Christ Jesus! I just went over this!


You have no idea how often I have to repeat myself. So go on, explain away my point

Here is what I referred to in regards to atheism and faith:
Here's a clue: the day bottle and I agree on anything, there must be some truth to it. ;-)

You have no idea how often I have to repeat myself. So go on, explain away my point
Sorry, I should have just re-posted. I have to repeat myself a lot too, so I understand. I was just being obnoxious. And blasphemed. Because it's fun! :p

Here's a clue: the day bottle and I agree on anything, there must be some truth to it. ;-)
If you had said that a while ago, I would've agreed. But Bottle's been acting weird lately...