SeCKSiiMiNh
i'm a fireball in bed
be a dear a post up some bible passages which contain the words "stone" "blood on heads" "kill"
thanks
love you
bye
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Does God exist? (12 Viewers)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
thanks
love you
bye
Karlmarx
Member
Although Pascal's wager begins a good point, it too, is flawed.
"If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything." - Simplified for our religious adversaries..
How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?
God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven?
How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?
If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.
Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.
Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.
It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?
It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.
Are the cons to this, famous wager.
However, the Atheists wager makes more sense:
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."
And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!
'Thanks too : Pascal's Wager'
Just my two cents on Pascal's Wager.
"If you believe, and God exists, you gain everything. If you disbelieve, and God exists, you lose everything." - Simplified for our religious adversaries..
How do you know which God to believe in? There are plenty to choose from, and if you pick the wrong one, you could be in big trouble (e.g. what if you choose Jesus, but get to heaven only to come face-to-trunk with Ganesh?). This is known as the "Avoiding the wrong Hell problem". If a dozen people of different religions came to you with Pascal's Wager, how could you possibly choose between them? After all, many religions are quite specific that they are the One True Religion, and not any others. Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the light. None shall come to the Father except through me." [emphasis added] and no doubt most other religions make similar claims. If a Christian considers the Wager as strong support for his faith, surely he must accept that it is equally valid for all other religions when presented to himself?
God is not stupid. Won't He know that you're just trying to get a free ride into Heaven?
How can you sincerely believe in a God simply out of convenience?
If there is no God, you have still lost something. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing the various devotional rituals, attending Churches, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavours and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your Good News.
Can you get away with just sort of generally believing in a Supreme Being, without specifically believing in one particular Deity? Probably not - God will still know what you're up to. Also, many Gods are quite particular about how they should be worshipped. Many born-again Christians will tell you that the only way to Heaven is through accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour - nothing more and nothing less. General-Deity-Belief and being nice simply won't do. Many people believe that all the different religions are merely alternative routes to the same destination. Nice and tolerant (if a little warm'n'fuzzy) though this may be, there is no valid reason to accept this stance over the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist position : if the fundies are right, then the un-Saved liberal theists are in just as much trouble as the nonbelievers.
Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it (for example, see if you can choose to truly believe that Australia does not exist). Most atheists disbelieve simply because they know of no compelling evidence to suggest that any sort of god exists. If you want an atheist to believe, show her some good evidence, don't just say it's in her best interests to believe even if there is no god. A person cannot choose to sincerely believe in something, just because it is pragmatic to do so. Sure, you could say all the right prayers and attend church regularly, but that is not the same thing as actually believing, and any God worth his salt would obviously see straight through that.
It is quite insulting. It amounts to a thinly veiled threat, little better than saying "Believe in my God or He'll send you to Hell" (in fact, this is often the form it is presented in). Also, the theist making this threat assumes that the atheist believes there is a Hell or a God to send her there in the first place. If you don't believe in Hell anyway, it's not a scary thing to be threatened with - a bit like saying "If you don't start believing in unicorns, one will trample you to death while you're sleeping." Who would be worried by that?
It is often self-refuting, depending on the person's description of God. If you believe that God will forgive anyone for anything, or judge people purely on how they lived their life and not what they believed, or that everyone gets to Heaven regardless (unless maybe they were genocidal cannibal serial killers), then the Wager is meaningless. You might as well say "Believe in God, or you'll... erm... go to Heaven anyway." In such a case, it doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the person believes or not.
Are the cons to this, famous wager.
However, the Atheists wager makes more sense:
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."
And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!
'Thanks too : Pascal's Wager'
Just my two cents on Pascal's Wager.
Yes, our human observations. But have you met anyone who is not a human?
This priori truth and reality you refer to may be independant of our experiences and observations. But then you must concede that this reality is forever unknown because we can only apprehend things with our sense in observation. It's not practical to use metaphysics. It is mere speculation. It is redundant.
You just contradicted yourself: reason is flawed. there is a reason metaphysics exists. therefore metaphysics proves everything.
SeCKSiiMiNh
i'm a fireball in bed
Karlmarx
Member
'It is the onus of the Theist to provide the atheist with evidence.' And, rightfully so.
You should have evidence, if you can believe in something. If faith is not evidence, which it is not, i truly feel bad for you.
Karlmarx
Member
We have owned every single theist that has ventured here. I was also -Hey- and Paradoxial.
SeCKSiiMiNh
i'm a fireball in bed
lol you forgot ironWe have owned every single theist that has ventured here. I was also -Hey- and Paradoxial.
bella4edward
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 44
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
but faith does not need evidence, which is why it's callled faith
Karlmarx
Member
but then, how can religious people justify themselves? There is no real means.
Karlmarx
Member
haha, but i did, to an extent. I provided reason, as to why, number 1, faith is not an argument for the existence of God, and two, you, 'religious people' are far behind me in this argument. What's your main argument?
I have faith, so it must be true.
I have faith that invisible, flying elephants are flying around the sky. I believe it to be true, so it is.
Bah. I can see how that 'might' work, but fundamentally, it doesn't. Sorry. kthx to your Faith argument.
SeCKSiiMiNh
i'm a fireball in bed
i was under the impression that you were leaving.
christains... persistent bunch.
you're new here, so you probably haven't seen the article that i posted a while back.
have fun: Boy Killed By Stray Bullet While In Church With Family on New Year’s Eve ? JONATHAN TURLEY
please tell me that your faith is now shaken
bella4edward
Member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 44
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2009
that is what religion is about - faith
whereas science is about - evidence and logic
religious - spiritual
non-religious - scientific
which is why religious people don't feel the need to justify themselves
and non-religious people do - hence they turn to science
Karlmarx
Member
and not to forget your arrogance. Your god? Thereby, making everyone else's god wrong, or untrue? Great story Hansel.
'Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'
There you go, prick. Tell that to 1 billion Muslims.
Karlmarx
Member
But, you do feel the need to justify yourselves. look at the 1000 pages...
But you cant. You just have faith. A lack of anything tangible, or true. There is, no real means, for a religious person, to justify themselves to a atheist. So;
Atheist = Win
Theist = Win (If there is a God, and IF i was a dick in real life, which i'm not. I just cant stand this stupid 'My faith leads me to be correct' bullshit.
supercalamari
you've got the love
This thread is giving me a migraine. Go on.
dude why do u have so much hate in your heart? its our choice we have reasons why we believe. Stray bullets yeah fair enough sad story. God isn't gonna make everything easy for us. he tests us to make us stronger to see the extent of our faith. You bet your ass I'm persistent its what Christians are supposed to spread the word. One day you'll understand and i really hope for your sake its not too late
SeCKSiiMiNh
i'm a fireball in bed
then explain the mary mackillop crap.
on another note, what are you views regarding homosexuals.