For Christians.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK. There is no necessity unless you see one. If that which you have discarded is the truth, then you have discarded the truth. If you believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.

Alf
False.

You assume that the bible is true so anyone who discard the bible discards the truth and anyone who want to seek the truth will seek the bible.

You forgot to show that this premise is true before you jumped to that conclusion.

...

All of these indicate that the bible is NOT the truth.

Try again.

You keep wanting to insert me into the equation. Forget that I exist or what I might believe.

If you actually believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it. That necessity is imposed on you by your belief (unless you really don’t believe what you claim to believe). It has nothing to do with me or what I might be able to convince you to believe.

Disclaimer: I use you only as an example. I make no claim, implied or otherwise, that you would want to adhere to any one truth or all truths.

[Stephen T-B]

"The person is said to be a soul (or spirit) that inhabits a physical body of flesh and bone. That physical body will die one day at which time the true person (his soul or spirit) departs and stands before God." rhutchin.

Frankly there's not much point quoting the Bible is support of this assertion, since in my view much of what's written in the Bible is simply by someone using his imagination. And my imagination is as good as anyone else's.

But the quotes actually fail because they don't address the issue: can a soul add one and one? If it can't, what is it going to be able to make of anything which happens to it, including standing before the Great Judge with blood dripping from his finger ends?

[rhutchin]

"The person is said to be a soul (or spirit) that inhabits a physical body of flesh and bone. That physical body will die one day at which time the true person (his soul or spirit) departs and stands before God." rhutchin.

Frankly there's not much point quoting the Bible is support of this assertion, since in my view much of what's written in the Bible is simply by someone using his imagination. And my imagination is as good as anyone else's.

But the quotes actually fail because they don't address the issue: can a soul add one and one? If it can't, what is it going to be able to make of anything which happens to it, including standing before the Great Judge with blood dripping from his finger ends?

What really matters is whether the Bible is telling us the truth regardless whether you think it is not. After all, you could be wrong.

You want to know whether a soul can add one and one. Presumably, you want to know what the Bible says about this but you ask this right after you said there's not much point quoting the Bible to you. What is a person to do with you?

[Stephen T-B]

"What really matters is whether the Bible is telling us the truth regardless whether you think it is not. After all, you could be wrong." (rhutchin)

I could be.
Or you might be.
Who knows?
Faith tells you that the Bible contains God's truth.
I don't have that faith.
If God wanted me to know God's truth, perhaps he should have equipped me with the wherewithall to have faith.
He apparently didn't. And your explanation (if I may predict it) is that I am not one of the Elect.
That being the case, the Bible's truth is not universal: it is only recognised by the elect, which at a generous estimate is about .5 of the human race.
One might therefore ask, what is the point of imparting the Truth if 99.5% of human bengs are prevented from recognising?
Is this the action of an all-loving deity? Or one that is addicted to punishing, and sets up a system which provides him with the excuse for inflicting all the punishment he requires?

But this is all a bit of a side issue.
You tell me if a soul can add one and one; I am pretty sure the Bible can't tell you, so it may be something you must work out for yourself?
Or is that not allowed in your religion?

[John A. Broussard]

What really matters is whether the Bible is telling us the truth regardless whether you think it is not. After all, you could be wrong.

It's of course possible that bible may be wrong when it claims that a man can make the sun stand still, that a rabbit chews its cud, that a bat is a form of bird, that the earth is flat, that....on and on.

[Wayne Delia]

When I use the term, “Biblical God,� I always mean the true and living God.
Your argument is invalid, then, for the same reason Pascal's Wager is invalid: you haven't established your premise as true.

That does not work here because you don’t have that same mindset.
Nor would it work for any non-Christian, either.

So, for you, I should have said, “The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the ‘[The True and Living] God is not’ side of the argument.�
You've already said that in post 439, which I refuted in Post #452. Why are you repeating it as if it wasn't refuted? Here's the refutation in post #452 once again:


The notion of other gods gets subsumed into the “[The Biblical] God is not� side of the argument.
No, absolutely not. If Allah exists, then according to your assumption here, there would be a huge penalty (on "[The Biblical] God is not" side) for Christians. But in the original form of Pascal's Wager, there's no penalty at all if "[The Biblical] God is not" side happens to be true. Your paraphrase here is a clear contradiction. Don't you give these issues any thought at all?

(You didn't bother to respond to that.)

The Wager leads one to conclude that he should believe in the true and living God rather than not believing.
No. The Wager is obvious: it entices one to conclude that he should believe in the Roman Catholic God, which Pascal has implicitly presumed is the "true and living God" rather than not believing. Pascal, just as you are doing, is assuming that his preferred God concept is the actual "true and living God" without establishing it.

Then the person encounters the separate problem of identifying the true and living God.
"THEN"? You've got the cart before the horse. First, one identifies the "true and living God," THEN one applies Pascal's Wager, silly. To do so in reverse would seriously beg the question. The reason you don't do that (and why Pascal didn't do that, either) is because you can't.

If we apply this to WMD, then it is in his interest to appeal to the true and living God for help to protect his children, but then he is faced with the task of identifying that true and living God.
Wrong. (I'm getting the honest impression that everything you say is wrong, and you're incapable of bringing yourself to admit it, even when you are clearly refuted such as I cited above.) As you yourself conceded, it makes no sense to appeal to any deity in which a person does not believe. So, obviously, the existence and identity must be established before applying Pascal's Wager. Claiming it's my "task" is simply begging your debate opponent to make your case for you, which is a very poor debate strategy.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

I do not have to provide a reason for a person to believe one way or the other. I do not have to provide a reason for a person to believe any truth.
Then you can not reasonably expect anyone to accept your claim that something is the truth, if you cannot or will not establish it - especially in the case of the Bible, where it appears only to masquerade as the "truth".

Truth stands on its own.
But if it's completely hidden, completely unexplained, or demonstrably false, what the hell good is it?

That which the Bible tells us would be true even if we had no Bible to tell us what truth is.
That's demonstrably wrong, and it's clear nobody takes that seriously. For example, in Mark 4:31, Jesus identifes mustard seeds as the smallest seeds that are in the earth. That's obviously wrong. Orchid seeds are uniformly smaller than mustard seeds (meaning an orchid seed at the same stage of development is uniformly smaller than a mustard seed). The common apologetic is that Jesus didn't use that as an example because the disciples were entirely ignorant of orchids, since they were not indiginous to the Middle East region. But that would violate your standard above: truth is truth (that orchid seeds are uniformly smaller than mustard seeds) regardless whether the disciples were aware of it. It then appears that either Jesus was wrong about the relative size of mustard seeds, or was lying about it in order to accommodate the ignorance of the disciples. Either way, Jesus has screwed the pooch on your claim that the Bible is true.

There is only one reason for you to believe what the Bible says and that is because you have come to the conclusion that you will believe what the Bible says and you have basically done it all on your own.
That's a poorly worded and poorly argued justification, complicated greatly by the fact that the Bible contains many errors and contradictions. Again, a common apologetic is that the apologist does not agree that a certain error of fact or contradiction is legitimate, for whatever excuse or alibi. But your standard above: the truth is the truth, and it stands on its own - is immune to the apologist's ignorance or intellectual dishonesty.

That was my point. You would ask this question of any and all belief systems.
And that's your agenda for Pascal's Wager: generalize God to a possibility, not a certainty; get the opponent to admit a possibility exists of an unevidenced, unsupported God, then make the leap of faith with "Say, buddy, this is the God which I presume exists, why not share my faith?" You are being asked to justify the leap of faith, which you cannot do. Meanwhile, you yourself are unwilling to "ask this question of any and all belief systems" due to your laziness and poor time management skills. You even relied on a Christian web site to provide you with the conclusion that Christianity is the one true religion. That, incidentally, is like asking a life insurance salesman how much and what kind of life insurance you need, and hearing him respond "You need a lot; coincidentally, I'm selling the kind you need."

You can determine those impacts but they cannot be scientifically verified through an empirical test.
Then the validity of the impacts is, therefore, equally undetermined. It's nothing more than speculation. Your religion posits an afterlife in either heaven or hell, which you cannot verify scientifically; another religion posits that souls get recycled through reincarnation. Wouldn't that make all these different religions equally unsupported?

That just makes it all the more difficult for you because it is that religion that is telling you the truth that you should be concerned about but everyone is claiming to tell you the truth. You are left with sorting everything out.
I don't bother to do that, because there is a virtually inexhaustible number of crackpot theories, not all of them of a religious fantasy nature. We only have a finite amount of time in our lives, not all of which we are willing to devote to examining every crackpot theory that comes down the pike. You said as much yourself, when you didn't want to spend a lot of time researching any religions other than the one you prefer. After a while, we all develop a "bullshit threshold," and if any proposition doesn't overcome the "bullshit threshold," we discard it without wasting too much time on it.

For example: suppose there's a claim that there's a planet larger than Pluto orbiting the sun at a distance greater than Pluto. Ridiculous? Probably not, but I'll leave that investigation to astronomers who have access to powerful equipment, testable propositions, and reliable, repeatable, verifiable test procedures. But if someone claims that the new planet not only exists, but is inhabited with aliens who are guiding our thoughts by beaming gamma radiation into our brains - just not in any way that science can detect - then that claim will fail the "bullshit threshold." In a very similar way (essentially, in the same way) your claims fail to clear the "bullshit threshold."

OK. A person can be named John and people call him Jack. That is not what is in view here.
You have GOT to stop trying to make analogies. When they're not wrong, they're ridiculous.

Whatever determines your system of values and how you behave.
You used that as the definition of "belief", but you do not show any connection at all.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Regardless what you think about God, the problem is that you are accountable to Him and have no power to hold Him accountable to you (the presumption here is that He is the true and living God).
But what I think about God is that He is merely the central character in someone else's religious fantasy. It would be stupid to suggest that regardless, this character regarded as mythical has any kind of authority over me, while the character's existence and authority cannot or will not be demonstrated. It's also a dangerous precedent to set: you would therefore be subject to the authority of pretty much any mythical character who is described to be more powerful than you are. If you don't agree, then your line of reasoning is refuted here.

You have been dealt the hand and you have to play the cards you get.
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em.

Just because you don’t like it doesn’t change anything.
It's not so much a case of "I don't like it" but rather that I'm disinterested. You're claiming I should be vitally interested without establishing it as the actual hand I'm holding.

Only if that which the Bible says is not truth.
Parts of the Bible can be demonstrated to be false; parts of the Bible are trivially true or trivially probably true (i.e. who begat who, or the geographic location of a nation's capitol). And parts of the Bible are so false that even people who sincerely believe in the Bible aren't willing to test them out, such as the abilities Jesus promised people would have in Mark 16:17-18.

The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the Bible is true but for you to prove that the Bible is false (particulary where it says that God is a true and living God and you are accountable to him for your behavior).
You completely misunderstand the burden of proof, but that's a good thing. Sure, I do need to disprove whatever crazy-ass claim you come up with. The problem for you is that I claim you owe me ten thousand dollars. The problem for you is not to have me prove my claim, but for you to prove that my claim is false, particularly where it says that you owe me ten thousand dollars. You cannot disprove that, so either pay up - or retract your argument here which depends on assuming it is true unless and until someone else disproves it.

Here's another difficulty you'll need to deal with: I actually can prove that the Bible is false. Totally false. Completely false. So false that you will feel foolish for ever having believed that the Bible is true. I have irrefutable disproof of the Bible. Now, it's your turn to prove I don't have this disproof. So, unless you can disprove my claim of having disproof of the Bible, you're forced to concede the Bible is disproved. If you think about it, you'll realize why it's a bad idea of you to accept the "true, unless proven false" line of reasoning - it can bite you in the ass.

WMD

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Again the problem you face is to determine who among all the possible gods (Biblical God, Allah, Shiva, etc) is the true and living God.
That's not my problem; that's not anyone's problem but yours. If you can't do that, then there's certainly no need to accept your speculation as necessarily correct.

Then, you have to worship the true and living God exactly as He has prescribed in His holy books.
What if the "true and living God" hasn't yet been discovered, and has a nature not described in any holy books at all? Would you presume to stand before such a God and tell Him He doesn't exist because man hasn't yet written a comic book about Him?

If you worship a false god (one who does not exist), it does you no good.
It does us no good to not have an objective criteria on how to determine the validity of any god in general. You're just begging for a "special pleading" exception for your God, simply because you already believe in your God.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

OK. There is no necessity unless you see one. If that which you have discarded is the truth, then you have discarded the truth.
Duh. But if the truth can't be established as the truth, and for all intents and purposes appears to our perception as being false, then what the hell use is it?

If you believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.
What's wrong, then, with defining truth as that which most closely corresponds and correlates with our perception of reality? The objection you would probably have is that the Bible does not score very high on that scale of correlation with reality.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

It all hinges on what the truth is.
But in your ill-advised and ultimately embarrasingly comical farce about my children, you required a presupposition that your God was the "true and living God" who would provide 100% protection of my kids that I could not provide, while sweeping under the carpet the fact that your God cannot or will not provide 100% protection to people who call out to Him for help, as evidenced by the death, pain, and suffering inflicted by Hurricane Katrina. What you're pushing ain't true.

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! No truth-handler, you! Bah! I deride your truth-handling ability!" (Sideshow Bob, on The Simpsons)

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

True if you mean, "...god means different things to different people." We need to distinguish between that living entity known as God and the perceptions of people of a concept known as god. "God" cannot be different things but "god" can be anything a person wants it to be.
Lucky for you, you happen to be the president of the fan club for the God whom you think is the one true God... or so you think. That you cannot establish it as fact comes as no suprise, but serves as mild comic relief.

WMD

[DMC]

What really matters is whether the Bible is telling us the truth regardless whether you think it is not. After all, you could be wrong.

The same would go for anything anyone has ever and could ever write down or speak. The Bible deserves no special consideration in this sense.

[Wayne Delia]

There is no living entity known as God but you are right in saying that people have different concepts of God. Concepts are all they do have. If God was a living entity you wouldn't need faith.
Well, God is the true and living God, certainly, but only for very restrictive, totally twisted, and completely fucked definitions of the terms "true" and "living".

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god one should believe in.
Sure it does. It's the Roman Catholic God, which Pascal happened to believe in, and he assumed that he was correct in that belief, just as you assume you're correct in the belief that some other form of the Christian God is the one true God.

Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to believe in the true and living God rather than not believe.
I thought you just claimed that "Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god to believe in." If that was the case, then it shouldn't matter whether the god believed in was the one true god or not.

Can one lose by believing. The answer is, No. One cannot lose by believing in the true and living God. What would one lose?
Time. Money donated to the operation of the church. Intellectual integrity. Personal honesty. Mental health.

In short, one can lose many things of great personal value which might seem foreign to someone who is already hopelessly God-soaked.

If Pascal assumes an afterlife then the presumption of the afterlife is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

The sound logical argument is generally of that nature. The valid logical argument depends on the establishment of the premises, which Pascal didn't do, you didn't do... and nobody in history has ever done.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

The problem for the person who decide to go with Pascal's Wager is then that it doesn't help him one bit to figure out which god to worship and if he worships the wrong one - which is the most likely outcome since there are tens of thousands of false gods and only one who is the true god, so the odds are really more than 10000 to 1 against that he will end up in hell together with the guy who chose to not follow Pascal's Wager. In other words, the wager didn't help him one bit. It is utterly useless.
Yes - it is useless precisely because the burden of proof is shifted: "it's up to you to determine which one is the right one to worship." What if my investigation leads to the conclusion that there is no evidence for any gods, and the idea of worshipping any of them is bullshit? Theists generally do not accept that conclusion as valid. Tough shit for them.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

The assumption is that God rewards belief. You have previously stated that it is behaviour rather than belief that is taken into account by God so what importance could belief have?
That's actually a very good observation. rhutchin even went so far as to alter John 3:18 so that it no longer said "the unbeliever is already condemned for his unbelief" but was rather altered to say "the unbeliever is already condemned [for his sins] for his unbelief." rhutchin's honesty and consistency isn't among his strong points.

How is belief based on the expectation of reward valid? I understand that Calvinists hold belief to be something that cannot be chosen as it is God that makes the decision to accept some individuals and reject others.
It's a "pious lie," sort of an application of the Amway slogan "Fake it 'till you make it." (My wife and I have very close friends who were once neck-deep in Amway, who tried to recruit us on the selling point that only 1% of couples in Amway get divorced. A few years later, they got divorced, while my wife and I are still very happily married.) Paul occasionally took that recruiting stance in his Epistles, employing the "pious lie" to get someone to believe, until what he thought was actual belief replaced the temporary belief-acting, and one would then not be inclined to demand evidence based on a bait-and-switch false advertising.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

LOL!!! :rolling:

Too bad WMD, I have a letter written by an anonymous person (whom I've never met), and it says I'm the one true owner.

Not only that, but I'll sell it to rhutchin for $9,000. Now, if he really believes in Pascals wager he'll pay me, because he'll need to do that which "imposes the least costs" on him.
While I repudiate your claim as blasphemy and untruth, in the Christmas spirit, I am willing to reduce my offer to $8,500. Believe me, this is a bargain for the true ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge!

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We the rest of us here can expect a very detailed review of every other religious Holy Book to be posted by you, showing why those books are false?
Ahhhh... no. rhutchin's claimed much earlier that he's pressed for time, so to make the process quicker, he eliminated considering all other religions because they didn't fall in line with Christianity.


The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Qu'ran] is true but for you to prove that the [Qu'ran] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Book of Mormon] is true but for you to prove that the [Book of Mormon] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Vedas] is true but for you to prove that the [Vedas] is false
The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the [Upanishads] is true but for you to prove that the [Upanishads] is false

Without first disproving all other scripture, you can't declare the Bible to be the truth.
He doesn't have to, according to him. He took a quick look at a Christian web site which claimed to have examined all other holy books, and the Christian web site somehow came to the conclusion that Christianity is the true religion, therefore the Bible is true. (As Dave Barry says, "I am not making this up.")

I look forward to reading your review of every other holy book ever written.
Wish in one hand, and shit in the other, and see which gets filled first. :)

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

To paraphrase rhutchin:
Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which [lottery ticket] one should [buy]. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to [buy a lottery ticket] rather than not [buy one].

Can one lose by [purchasing a ticket]? The answer is, No. One cannot lose by [buying a lottery ticket]. What would one lose?
That's a very accurate analogy to Pascal's Wager. Christian apologists who are not too terribly concerned with intellectual honesty and integrity will equivocate "very low cost compared to the huge potential reward" with "no cost at all," hoping that their audience won't bother to criticize that leap.

If Pascal assumes [a cash prize] then the presumption of the [prize] is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

I really hope this illistrates just how idiotic Pascals Wager really is. It's like assuming you have a 50% chance of wining the lottery because "either you win or you don't."
Actually, Pascal's Wager doesn't assume there's a 50/50 chance of God existing, but many ignorant Christian apologists are willing to conclude that when their other arguments are shredded.

Here's my objection, though, to the analogy: The lottery prize can be demonstrated to exist, by independent accounting firms. The methodology used to select a winner and award the prize can be demonstrated. The "prize" in Pascal's wager - eternal salvation - and the method needed to be awarded the prize - God permitting eternal salvation based on a person's "ticket price" (belief, or faith) - both cannot be shown to exist.

But apart from that, Pascal's Wager is perfectly sound, logical, valid, and I still hold out hope of selling the Brooklyn Bridge to rhutchin using that reasoning.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Looks good to me except for the end.
What you are saying "looks good" to you is the analogy between reaching heaven and winning the lottery. Does it say anything about Christianity when the lottery is considered to be "a tax on stupid people?" Further, even being the "stupid people tax," lotteries actually award demonstrable prizes, whereas the prize in Christianity is not demonstrable. So, apparently, Christianity is "a tax on even stupider people."

You would not have a 50% chance of winning the lottery -- you are guaranteed to win if you purchase the real lottery ticket and not a counterfeit.
"It is left up to the individual to determine which is the winning ticket (or which is the winning combination of numbers)." See how ridiculous that method sounds when it's compared with what Christianity requires?

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Absolutely and totally amazing!

After all this discussion of Pascal's Wager, after having it actually printed and presented to you, you still haven't the least idea of what it's all about.

Phew!
Well, it sounds as if it is vaguely supporting Christianity, and rhutchin's really pressed for time, so it's up to everyone else to disprove it, whatever it is. :)

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god one should believe in.

Wayne Delia
Sure it does. It's the Roman Catholic God, which Pascal happened to believe in, and he assumed that he was correct in that belief, just as you assume you're correct in the belief that some other form of the Christian God is the one true God.

Not really. As you also state, Pascal assumed he was correct as I do. Pascal’s Wager only leads to the logical conclusion that one should believe in God. It does not identify that god from among the many available.

rhutchin
Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to believe in the true and living God rather than not believe.

Wayne Delia
I thought you just claimed that "Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god to believe in." If that was the case, then it shouldn't matter whether the god believed in was the one true god or not.

Of course it matters. You have the true and living God and you have false gods. There is no advantage to believing in a god that does not exist. The advantage accrues to the one believing in the true and living God.

rhutchin
Can one lose by believing. The answer is, No. One cannot lose by believing in the true and living God. What would one lose?

Wayne Delia
Time. Money donated to the operation of the church. Intellectual integrity. Personal honesty. Mental health.

In short, one can lose many things of great personal value which might seem foreign to someone who is already hopelessly God-soaked.

I guess time and money. However, that would depend on what the person gave up. Perhaps no loss for most people. The person would not lose personal honesty or mental health any more than in any other endeavor. Many people actually improve in those areas.

rhutchin
If Pascal assumes an afterlife then the presumption of the afterlife is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

Wayne Delia
The sound logical argument is generally of that nature. The valid logical argument depends on the establishment of the premises, which Pascal didn't do, you didn't do... and nobody in history has ever done.

I think you mean it depends on establishing the certainty of the premises. In this case, Pascal’s Wager assumes uncertainty in the premises. It is this uncertainty that is key to the conclusion that is reached.

[Wayne Delia]

Not me. You have to do it. It's your life that is at stake. Choose wrong and you lose your life.
Aside from misunderstanding the burden of proof (No, wait! That's a good thing! It's up to you to disprove you owe me $10,000, or else pay up, sucker!), you are faced with the possiblility of making a wrong choice. Curiously, you have chosen to tie your wagon to the religion that rejects you as a member because you were disqualified by the list of Biblical criteria you posted yourself. The only possible strategy there is that you're holding out hope that God will overlook your admitted sins because you're grovelling and boot-licking.

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
What really matters is whether the Bible is telling us the truth regardless whether you think it is not. After all, you could be wrong.

DMC
The same would go for anything anyone has ever and could ever write down or speak. The Bible deserves no special consideration in this sense.

Almost. The distinction is what each says and how that impacts you. The Bible says that you are accountable to the true and living God for your behavior and you will be judged for that behavior after your physical body dies. This is unique among all the other writings that have been written. This means that you should give special consideration to the Bible.

[Wayne Delia]

That's exactly the point. It fails to address the issue of which god to believe in. How many times do you have to be told this?We both agree on that point. What we seem to disagree on is what this has to do with Pascal’s Wager.
What it has to do with Pascal's Wager is obvious. It's been pointed out to you several times, but since it is a fatal flaw in Pascal's Wager, you are forced to sweep it under the carpet. If there are other possible gods to believe in, which have eternal punishments for Christians who believe in the Christian God, then they must be considered and factored in to the decision matrix. Pascal doesn't do that, so you're screwed if the one true god turns out to be Allah instead of Yahweh - even though Pascal's Wager says everything will be OK for the Christian if he believes. It turns out Pascal is either lying, incorrect, or disingenuous.

WMD

[John A. Broussard]

Almost. The distinction is what each says and how that impacts you. The Bible says that you are accountable to the true and living God for your behavior and you will be judged for that behavior after your physical body dies. This is unique among all the other writings that have been written. This means that you should give special consideration to the Bible.

"This is unique among all the other writings that have been written."

And you have examined all the other writings that have been written to be sure that this statement is true.

You are such a joy, rhutchin!

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
True if you mean, "...god means different things to different people." We need to distinguish between that living entity known as God and the perceptions of people of a concept known as god. "God" cannot be different things but "god" can be anything a person wants it to be.

Wayne Delia
Lucky for you, you happen to be the president of the fan club for the God whom you think is the one true God... or so you think. That you cannot establish it as fact comes as no surprise, but serves as mild comic relief.

Of course, my inability to establish it to your satisfaction does not detract from its truth. Comic relief works if you are right but not if you are wrong. You cannot establish your belief as truth either.

[rhutchin]

"This is unique among all the other writings that have been written."

And you have examined all the other writings that have been written to be sure that this statement is true.

You are such a joy, rhutchin!

Like they say, cream rises to the top. One need examine only those writings that have stood the test of time.

Thank you for the compliment.

[rhutchin]

John A. Broussard
That's exactly the point. It fails to address the issue of which god to believe in. How many times do you have to be told this?

rhutchin
We both agree on that point. What we seem to disagree on is what this has to do with Pascal’s Wager.

Wayne Delia
What it has to do with Pascal's Wager is obvious. It's been pointed out to you several times, but since it is a fatal flaw in Pascal's Wager, you are forced to sweep it under the carpet. If there are other possible gods to believe in, which have eternal punishments for Christians who believe in the Christian God, then they must be considered and factored in to the decision matrix. Pascal doesn't do that, so you're screwed if the one true god turns out to be Allah instead of Yahweh - even though Pascal's Wager says everything will be OK for the Christian if he believes. It turns out Pascal is either lying, incorrect, or disingenuous.

It is not a fatal flaw since the Wager was never meant to address the issue. The Wager leads one to the conclusion that he should believe in the true and living God. The Wager does not identify that God among the many gods in which one may believe.

If we were to extend the Wager, then it would be logical for one to search for the true and living God.

[Wayne Delia]

Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life).
You've GOT to be kidding. Aren't you familiar with Christianity at all? "Concern about an afterlife" - the human inherent avoidance of a threat of hell, assuming that threat is taken seriously (I certainly don't take it seriously) - is based on a particular pattern of behavior in this life, which would obviously affect one's enjoyment of this world. Particularly if one enjoys cheeseburgers, then sin is necessary for enjoyment, since the Old Testament says that one cannot eat milk and cheese products together; in fact, it's included in one of the versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34, if I remember correctly). But since that particular sin is so enjoyable, it's pretty much ignored as a sin, even by Christians.

Again, the Wager does not guarantee that either God exist or that the fruit of one’s belief in God is an afterlife.
There is no guarantee of God's existance, because that is not asserted. But there certainly is an assumption that the fruit of belief in God is salvation. It begs for belief on the off-chance that God exists, and the rationale used to establish that is an infinite reward for those who believe. It's relatively straightforward, but your poor paraphrasing of Pascal's Wager in order to avoid having to admit you're wrong makes it look like you have a reading comprehension problem.

It merely says that the rational person would choose to believe in God because he loses nothing by not believing and potentially gains an afterlife by believing.
You've contradicted yourself. In your previous sentence, you said that Pascal's Wager does not assume an afterlife in paradise for belief. Now, you're claiming the actual reward for belief will be the afterlife in paradise, assuming it actually exists. Can't have it both ways.

Implicit in the definition of “belief in God� is that one cannot believe as a hypocrite.
But implicit in Pascal's Wager is that one should believe in God on the basis of personal self-interest through maximizing the expected value of personal reward. That's the whole basis of the argument.

The belief must be founded in integrity, sincerity, and honesty or else it is not belief.
Which, of course, is specified nowhere in Pascal's Wager; in fact, it is directly contradicted. But feel free to pretend it is part of Pascal's Wager by force-fitting it directly in there; you've done worse with the Bible.


There is no flaw here, only ignorance about what belief is.
Belief, evidently, is defined to mean whatever it needs to mean in order for you to avoid having to admit you're wrong.

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It all hinges on what the truth is.

Wayne Delia
But in your ill-advised and ultimately embarrasingly comical farce about my children, you required a presupposition that your God was the "true and living God" who would provide 100% protection of my kids that I could not provide, while sweeping under the carpet the fact that your God cannot or will not provide 100% protection to people who call out to Him for help, as evidenced by the death, pain, and suffering inflicted by Hurricane Katrina. What you're pushing ain't true.

"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth! No truth-handler, you! Bah! I deride your truth-handling ability!" (Sideshow Bob, on The Simpsons)

We all make assumptions. You assume that nothing can be done to protect your children when you are not able. Maybe those whom God did not help during Katrina were pretenders like you used to be. You could not fool God and they could not.

[Wayne Delia]

The person is said to be a soul (or spirit) that inhabits a physical body of flesh and bone.
There's just the tiny little problem that nobody can establish that this is necessarily true, or anything more than mythical. And who are these people who are "saying" that a person is a soul inhabiting a physical body? Turns out they're bullshit artists who have been bullshitted themselves by someone else.

That physical body will die one day at which time the true person (his soul or spirit) departs and stands before God.
You switch between contradictory positions so often that it's really amusing. Earlier, you said that the story of Lazarus being resurrected by Jesus in the Gospels indicated that people do not actually stand before God on the "one day" that they die; if Lazarus had done so, he'd be either in heaven or hell, and thus unavailable to be resurrected. You need to keep notes on what position you're taking, because we have a better recollection of your own contradictory arguments than you have.

The person who has sinned is said to have a spirit that is dead (metaphorically) and unable to enter heaven.
So, based on your sin of breaking the Ninth Commandment, we can conclude about you that ________________. (fill in the blank.) You've already admitted it's your pride that prohibits you from acknowledging, apologizing, and repenting for your sin.

The person who has been forgiven of their sin is said to have a spirit that has been given life and is qualified to enter heaven.
How does one get forgiven of their sin? It's according to whether a person believes in Jesus, which you very recently said had nothing to do with it at all. In any case, Jesus must be pretty damn gullible for Him to forgive sins you continue to commit and refuse to apologize for.

This passage kinda describes what will happen but the Bible does not give us a lot of information about this.
Well, the previous chapter in the same book kinda describes women as needing to be silent in churches, to listen with submissiveness and to receive instruction from their husbands at home. We don't pay much attention to that either.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

OK, Russell says that if you have a belief that is not really belief, then you run afoul of God.
Assuming God is someone who can detect insincere belief, and not reward it. That's the assumption Pascal failed to make; rather, he assumed God was gullible and would not object to belief based on expectation of personal gain.

That’s like saying that the wrong house key will not unlock your house.
Pascal, in the Pensee's, analogously says that any key will unlock this particular house (where the key is "belief", however motivated, even if by expectation of personal gain.)

That’s not a flaw in the key; it’s the wrong key.
Correct. But Pascal argues that a wrong key should be used in favor of no key, and that "wrong key" is analogous to belief based on maximizing a potential reward.

Screwball belief does not produce a flaw in Pascal’s Wager.
I understand your urgency to defend "screwball beliefs," because as beliefs go, yours is pretty high up on the screwball scale. You even believe in a religion which rejects you according to a list of criteria you posted from the Bible. But Pascal encourages a "screwball belief" based on a higher expected value of reward, and thus is a fatal flaw.

One could posit that automobiles have an engine, a body, and tires. Someone comes along and says that the automobile is flawed if tires are made out of jello and not rubber. That‘s not a tire and it does not mean that an automobile is flawed if someone insists on putting jello tires on it. Russell’s argument is flawed and not Pascal’s Wager.
You've now got the two arguments reversed. Bertrand Russell's argument is in favor of honest, sincere belief being acceptable, while Pascal's Wager attempts to persuade that an insincere, adopted belief based on personal greed is acceptable.

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. Either you're way out of your league, or you have some sort of attention deficit problem that is prohibiting you from keeping track of the actual argument.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

All the time. That is basically where my conversations with JWs, Mormons, and others end up. Kinda like having three doors. The JW picks door #1; the Mormon picks door #2; the Christian picks door #3. Only one door is the door that opens into heaven.
No wonder all three of you are so screwed up. There's no door for the Muslim to pick; no doors corresponding to all other defined religions; no door corresponding to religions not yet defined or discovered; and no guarantee there's necessarily something behind at least one of the doors.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

I'm game, but what happens when we go to settlement?
You will be sued for breach of contract if you don't buy it from me, although I am willing to lower my price to $8,250 and that's as low as I can go for the Brooklyn Bridge. (Of course, it's up to you to disprove that I actually have such a contract with you.)

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Then again, you could be wrong.
As could you, but that never seems to stop you from making all sorts of wacky-ass assertions. You're all over the place.

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life).

Wayne Delia
You've GOT to be kidding. Aren't you familiar with Christianity at all? "Concern about an afterlife" - the human inherent avoidance of a threat of hell, assuming that threat is taken seriously (I certainly don't take it seriously) - is based on a particular pattern of behavior in this life, which would obviously affect one's enjoyment of this world. Particularly if one enjoys cheeseburgers, then sin is necessary for enjoyment, since the Old Testament says that one cannot eat milk and cheese products together; in fact, it's included in one of the versions of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34, if I remember correctly). But since that particular sin is so enjoyable, it's pretty much ignored as a sin, even by Christians.

You need to read the whole Bible. If you pretended to be a Christian long ago, why would you live as a Jew?

rhutchin
Again, the Wager does not guarantee that either God exist or that the fruit of one’s belief in God is an afterlife.

Wayne Delia
There is no guarantee of God's existence, because that is not asserted. But there certainly is an assumption that the fruit of belief in God is salvation. It begs for belief on the off-chance that God exists, and the rationale used to establish that is an infinite reward for those who believe. It's relatively straightforward, but your poor paraphrasing of Pascal's Wager in order to avoid having to admit you're wrong makes it look like you have a reading comprehension problem.

The Wager flows from the uncertainty that is present. If one is uncertain what to believe, the Wager leads to the logical conclusion that one should believe in the true and living God.

rhutchin
It merely says that the rational person would choose to believe in God because he loses nothing by not believing and potentially gains an afterlife by believing.

Wayne Delia
You've contradicted yourself. In your previous sentence, you said that Pascal's Wager does not assume an afterlife in paradise for belief. Now, you're claiming the actual reward for belief will be the afterlife in paradise, assuming it actually exists. Can't have it both ways.

If I said that Pascal's Wager does not assume an afterlife in paradise for belief, I was wrong. I should have said that the fruit of one’s belief in God is an afterlife but the Wager does not guarantee this.

rhutchin
Implicit in the definition of “belief in God� is that one cannot believe as a hypocrite.

Wayne Delia
But implicit in Pascal's Wager is that one should believe in God on the basis of personal self-interest through maximizing the expected value of personal reward. That's the whole basis of the argument.

Exactly. So, now the quibble is the definition of belief and whether one’s behavior should be consistent with that belief. You seem to be saying that one can claim to believe and then behave as if they do not believe and that is still belief. Perhaps that was the extent of your belief when you once pretended to be a Christian. That is not how I would define belief.

rhutchin
The belief must be founded in integrity, sincerity, and honesty or else it is not belief.

Wayne Delia
Which, of course, is specified nowhere in Pascal's Wager; in fact, it is directly contradicted. But feel free to pretend it is part of Pascal's Wager by force-fitting it directly in there; you've done worse with the Bible.

Language is funny that way. If someone tells you that they own the Brooklyn Bridge and cannot show you the deed, are they telling you the truth? This must be why you got so screwed up with Christianity earlier in your life. You never understood the meanings of basic terms and concepts and ended up pretending to be what you thought a Christian was. Now you bring that same mindset into a discussion of belief and Pascal’s Wager.

rhutchin
There is no flaw here, only ignorance about what belief is.

Wayne Delia
Belief, evidently, is defined to mean whatever it needs to mean in order for you to avoid having to admit you're wrong.

It seems that you have no idea what the term means.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Then again, you could be wrong.

Wayne Delia
As could you, but that never seems to stop you from making all sorts of wacky-ass assertions. You're all over the place.

Except that you cannot prove your position. In the face of such uncertainty, Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that you should accept my position and believe in the true and living God.

[Wayne Delia]

You keep wanting to insert me into the equation. Forget that I exist or what I might believe.
But you're the one making the assertion in favor of your God. It's easily refuted, of course, but it's nothing more than a strawman argument on our part unless there actually is a weak, wacked-out Christian apologist making those arguments. For example, for me to say out of the blue that Christians think everything Jesus says is bullshit because He spoke in parables exclusively would be a baseless strawman argument. But for you to actually make that assertion validates my argument, which is no longer a strawman. Someone - you, in fact - actually holds that refuted position, and is even clueless as to why it was refuted, and clueless of the logical implications of claiming the powers Jesus promised in Mark 16:17-18 don't work because Jesus was speaking in a parable.

If you actually believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.
But the burden of proof is on you to establish that your particular wacky-ass claim is the truth. There are literally thousands of other people, many of them with serious psychological problems for which they are institutionalized, who are convinced that their hallucinations are the truth, and that they need to convince others that they are telling the truth. A mental patient claims he is Napoleon Bonaparte; it is not incumbent on us to assume he's telling the truth unless we can disprove it.

That necessity is imposed on you by your belief (unless you really don’t believe what you claim to believe). It has nothing to do with me or what I might be able to convince you to believe.
I suppose that is your only available exit strategy: Your argument has been decimated, so you're now trying to distance yourself as far as possible from that disaster.

Disclaimer: I use you only as an example. I make no claim, implied or otherwise, that you would want to adhere to any one truth or all truths.
Physician, heal thyself! Fix up your own dishonesty before alluding to the dishonesty of others.

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I'm game, but what happens when we go to settlement?

Wayne Delia
You will be sued for breach of contract if you don't buy it from me, although I am willing to lower my price to $8,250 and that's as low as I can go for the Brooklyn Bridge. (Of course, it's up to you to disprove that I actually have such a contract with you.)

What breach of contract? It is at settlement that a contract is signed (although we can have a gentleman's agreement before settlement). We have a contract when we both sign on the dotted line.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
All the time. That is basically where my conversations with JWs, Mormons, and others end up. Kinda like having three doors. The JW picks door #1; the Mormon picks door #2; the Christian picks door #3. Only one door is the door that opens into heaven.

Wayne Delia
No wonder all three of you are so screwed up. There's no door for the Muslim to pick; no doors corresponding to all other defined religions; no door corresponding to religions not yet defined or discovered; and no guarantee there's necessarily something behind at least one of the doors.

It was an analogy. You just didn’t get it. You would have understood it if you had ever really been a Christian and not just a pretend Christian. Of course, if you had ever been a real Christian, you would not be so messed up now.

[Wayne Delia]

What really matters is whether the Bible is telling us the truth regardless whether you think it is not.
We can demonstrate that the Bible is wrong in several different testable matters. For example, humans cannot drink any poisons without harm (such as a pint of concentrated hydrosulfuric acid), regardless of what amount of religious faith they might have. It's not biologically possible for anyone to do so, but Jesus promised that any Christian would be distinguished by being able to do so.

After all, you could be wrong.
So could you; in fact, I often demonstrate that you're wrong. Nothing personal, but lately, everything you post seems to have serious logical flaws.

You want to know whether a soul can add one and one.
It can, and the answer is "twoooooOOOOOOOoooooo..." See, that's a joke, like a soul is a spirit like one of the mean ghosts in Casper the Friendly Ghost cartoons. But unless and until you can demonstrate that a soul is legitimate, I'll continue to make fun of it.

Presumably, you want to know what the Bible says about this but you ask this right after you said there's not much point quoting the Bible to you. What is a person to do with you?
For starters, you could establish the claims with evidence. The Bible is not evidence of the claims in the Bible, which you've been told many times before but have not yet fully understood.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Almost. The distinction is what each says and how that impacts you.
So any fictional account which, if true, impacts people more severely will be more important than the Bible? Are you serious? Bram Stoker's Dracula seems to be more dire and more interesting than the Bible. Ready to believe in vampires?

The Bible says that you are accountable to the true and living God for your behavior and you will be judged for that behavior after your physical body dies.
So what? The Bible says all sorts of bullshit. You don't even believe this claim, since you don't seem too worried about being accountable for breaking the Ninth Commandment, even admitting that your pride prevents you from acknowledging or repenting for doing it.

This is unique among all the other writings that have been written.
Bullshit. A Moslem is accountable to the "true and living God," Allah, for his behavior and he will be judged for that behavior after his physical body dies.

This means that you should give special consideration to the Bible.
Evidently, the Qu'ran doesn't count because you don't personally believe it. That's a textbook example of a "special pleading" logical fallacy.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

"This is unique among all the other writings that have been written."

And you have examined all the other writings that have been written to be sure that this statement is true.
Well, not exactly, but he has found a Christian website which claims to have done so, and the authors reached the conclusion that Christianity was true.

Some of this is so comical I couldn't possibly make it up.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Of course, my inability to establish it to your satisfaction does not detract from its truth.
Rather, what detracts from its truth is the fact that it is flat-out wrong. If you don't think so, then you should be able to drink any poison without harm, as Jesus said would be a distinguishing sign for all Christians. Oops - that's right - you are no longer a Christian, because you were disqualified by the list of Biblical criteria you posted. And you also claimed that the powers Jesus promised didn't work because Jesus was speaking in a parable. Whatever manner Jesus was speaking in, the Bible contains an error, because the Bible contains that passage.

Comic relief works if you are right but not if you are wrong.
You don't have much of a sense of humor, do you? Comic relief works if what is presented is funny. And you've posted some pretty funny stuff, funny in itself and also funny that you cannot understand why it's so wrong. I am reminded of a vaudeville performer who is unaware his pants have fallen down, and he doesn't understand why the audience is hooting with laughter.

You cannot establish your belief as truth either.
Actually, I certainly did establish my belief when the Sox won it all in 2004 - my belief that I would live long enough to see them win the World Series. But pointing to someone else's unsupported belief as an excuse for failing to support your own is a logical fallacy known as "Tu Quoque" - literally translated, "You too!" in that the weaknesses of anyone else's belief has no bearing on whether you support your own belief.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Like they say, cream rises to the top.
Shit floats, too.

One need examine only those writings that have stood the test of time.
That's a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Antiquity, that the older a document is, the more likely it is to be true. By that measure, the Hammurabi Code is more reliable than the Bible, since it is older than the Bible, engraved in a pillar of basalt, and is on display in the Louvre.

Thank you for the compliment.
What makes you think it was a compliment? Seriously, did you think it was a compliment? You are incredibly naive.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

It is not a fatal flaw since the Wager was never meant to address the issue.
It is a fatal flaw BECAUSE it fails to address the issue. It's a "false dichotomy," which is a logical fallacy. It ignores other plausible possibile alternatives, which are at least as plausible as the Christianity alternative.

The Wager leads one to the conclusion that he should believe in the true and living God.
Do you really think Pascal drives for belief in a nebulous, unidentified "true and living God?" He doesn't. He specifies it as the Roman Catholic Christian God. Not all Christians even believe in that version of the Christian God.

The Wager does not identify that God among the many gods in which one may believe.
He does, actually, but it's a cognitive dissonance too damaging to your pride to have to admit it. It's the Roman Catholic God.

If we were to extend the Wager, then it would be logical for one to search for the true and living God.
Pascal didn't extend the Wager, for the exact reason that it would trouble too many simple minds of Christians by forcing them to consider the possibility that they would be eternally condemned by a jealous non-Christian god for believing in Jesus.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We all make assumptions.
Yours are particularly ridiculous.

You assume that nothing can be done to protect your children when you are not able.
Not at all. There are professionals which I've already discussed, such as paramedics in the situation of a medical emergency.

Maybe those whom God did not help during Katrina were pretenders like you used to be. You could not fool God and they could not.
ALL of them? To the extent that New Orleans was hit with a hurricane and no one sincerely called out to God for help? In any case, while I can't provide 100% protection for my children, it's clear God cannot either, and in some cases - such as New Orleans - God provides exactly zero percent protection. So your suggestion that I call out to God for help is transparently dishonest. You cannot say "You're a pretender" along with "You should call out to God for help for your children" if you want to work with the ground rule that God doesn't help anyone asking insincerely. For there to be no protection from God in a highly religious area of the country, especially among the poor of New Orleans, is an argument for God's non-existence on the grounds that a uniform, fairly large subset of Christianity all do not have sufficient faith in God, so why should anyone else?

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
You assume that nothing can be done to protect your children when you are not able.

Wayne Delia
Not at all. There are professionals which I've already discussed, such as paramedics in the situation of a medical emergency.

Paramedics will respond after the medical emergency occurs. The issue here is whether you care enough about your children to ask the true and living God to protect them from an accident. Also, your faith in paramedics may exaggerate the protection that you believe paramedics can provide.

rhutchin
Maybe those whom God did not help during Katrina were pretenders like you used to be. You could not fool God and they could not.

Wayne Delia
ALL of them? To the extent that New Orleans was hit with a hurricane and no one sincerely called out to God for help? In any case, while I can't provide 100% protection for my children, it's clear God cannot either, and in some cases - such as New Orleans - God provides exactly zero percent protection. So your suggestion that I call out to God for help is transparently dishonest. You cannot say "You're a pretender" along with "You should call out to God for help for your children" if you want to work with the ground rule that God doesn't help anyone asking insincerely. For there to be no protection from God in a highly religious area of the country, especially among the poor of New Orleans, is an argument for God's non-existence on the grounds that a uniform, fairly large subset of Christianity all do not have sufficient faith in God, so why should anyone else?

Yep. All of them. However, I suspect that you don’t really have a clue what happened to those in NO who called out to God. You once made up a belief in God that you claimed made you a Christian. You could be making up something equally goofy here.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It is not a fatal flaw since the Wager was never meant to address the issue.

Wayne Delia
It is a fatal flaw BECAUSE it fails to address the issue. It's a "false dichotomy," which is a logical fallacy. It ignores other plausible possibile alternatives, which are at least as plausible as the Christianity alternative.

Let’s see. Physics is flawed because it fails to address issues in chemistry. The issue the Wager addresses is whether one should believe in the true and living God. It leads us to conclude that the logical response is for people to believe. What other plausible alternative is there?

rhutchin
The Wager leads one to the conclusion that he should believe in the true and living God.

Wayne Delia
Do you really think Pascal drives for belief in a nebulous, unidentified "true and living God?" He doesn't. He specifies it as the Roman Catholic Christian God. Not all Christians even believe in that version of the Christian God.

Pascal believed the Roman Catholic Christian God was the true and living God. The Wager leads one to the conclusion that he should believe in the true and living God. If one then agreed with Pascal that the Roman Catholic Christian God was the true and living God, then one would then believe in the Roman Catholic Christian God.

rhutchin
The Wager does not identify that God among the many gods in which one may believe.

Wayne Delia
He does, actually, but it's a cognitive dissonance too damaging to your pride to have to admit it. It's the Roman Catholic God.

Pascal’s identification of the true and living God as the Roman Catholic Christian God is separate from the Wager and has no bearing on the conclusion of the Wager. The Wager takes one to the conclusion that one should belief the true and living God but it does not identify God (Pascal does this, but it is not necessary to the Wager).

rhutchin
If we were to extend the Wager, then it would be logical for one to search for the true and living God.

Wayne Delia
Pascal didn't extend the Wager, for the exact reason that it would trouble too many simple minds of Christians by forcing them to consider the possibility that they would be eternally condemned by a jealous non-Christian god for believing in Jesus.

So? The Wager stands on its own and does not require the extension in order for it to be valid.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
One need examine only those writings that have stood the test of time.

Wayne Delia
That's a logical fallacy known as the Argument from Antiquity, that the older a document is, the more likely it is to be true. By that measure, the Hammurabi Code is more reliable than the Bible, since it is older than the Bible, engraved in a pillar of basalt, and is on display in the Louvre.

To stand the test of time means that the document is more than just an ancient document. It means that the document has gained a reputation that would lead one to give it credence in the area to which it speaks. I did not know that you were not familiar with the term. If I did, I would not have used it.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Of course, my inability to establish it to your satisfaction does not detract from its truth.

Wayne Delia
Rather, what detracts from its truth is the fact that it is flat-out wrong. If you don't think so, then you should be able to drink any poison without harm, as Jesus said would be a distinguishing sign for all Christians. Oops - that's right - you are no longer a Christian, because you were disqualified by the list of Biblical criteria you posted. And you also claimed that the powers Jesus promised didn't work because Jesus was speaking in a parable. Whatever manner Jesus was speaking in, the Bible contains an error, because the Bible contains that passage.

If the Bible were flat out wrong, you would be able to prove it and you cannot. Misreading various passages to create false arguments does not count as proof.

rhutchin
Comic relief works if you are right but not if you are wrong.

Wayne Delia
You don't have much of a sense of humor, do you? Comic relief works if what is presented is funny. And you've posted some pretty funny stuff, funny in itself and also funny that you cannot understand why it's so wrong. I am reminded of a vaudeville performer who is unaware his pants have fallen down, and he doesn't understand why the audience is hooting with laughter.

Of course, you are the one who once pretended to be a Christian (probably for comic relief). You have always been biased against Christianity. Why should you be different, now?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Bible says that you are accountable to the true and living God for your behavior and you will be judged for that behavior after your physical body dies.

Wayne Delia
So what? The Bible says all sorts of bullshit…

Awww. But can you prove that claim? That’s the rub.

rhutchin
This is unique among all the other writings that have been written.

Wayne Delia
Bullshit. A Moslem is accountable to the "true and living God," Allah, for his behavior and he will be judged for that behavior after his physical body dies.

True, if Allah is really true and living God. However, we can distinguish the two books by the unique ways each espouses for one to deal with bad behavior. The Bible is unique from the Qu'ran in this respect.

rhutchin
This means that you should give special consideration to the Bible.

Wayne Delia
Evidently, the Qu'ran doesn't count because you don't personally believe it. That's a textbook example of a "special pleading" logical fallacy.

Because the Bible says things uniquely different from the Qu'ran, it would still be logical to examine the Bible. The two books are uniquely different from each other.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
You keep wanting to insert me into the equation. Forget that I exist or what I might believe.

Wayne Delia
But you're the one making the assertion in favor of your God….

The Bible makes the assertion. Thus, I can be left out and one can go straight to the source.

rhutchin
If you actually believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.

Wayne Delia
But the burden of proof is on you to establish that your particular wacky-ass claim is the truth. There are literally thousands of other people, many of them with serious psychological problems for which they are institutionalized, who are convinced that their hallucinations are the truth, and that they need to convince others that they are telling the truth. A mental patient claims he is Napoleon Bonaparte; it is not incumbent on us to assume he's telling the truth unless we can disprove it.

There is no burden on me to prove the Bible is true. Truth remains truth whether I can prove it or not. Those who do not want to accept the claims of something, that purports to be truth and has a direct impact on the person, have the burden of proving that it is not truth. A person who cannot prove that the Bible is false must accept the possibility that the Bible is true and react to that truth in proportion to the Bible’s direct impact on him.

rhutchin
That necessity is imposed on you by your belief (unless you really don’t believe what you claim to believe). It has nothing to do with me or what I might be able to convince you to believe.

Wayne Delia
I suppose that is your only available exit strategy: Your argument has been decimated, so you're now trying to distance yourself as far as possible from that disaster.

The exit strategy is for people to stick their heads in the sand, as you do, and pretend that the Bible is not true and that they are not accountable for their behavior.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Pascal's Wager does not address the issue of which god one should believe in. Pascal's wager merely leads to the conclusion that it is beneficial for one to believe in the true and living God rather than not believe.

Can one lose by believing. The answer is, No. One cannot lose by believing in the true and living God. What would one lose?

If Pascal assumes an afterlife then the presumption of the afterlife is an integral part of the wager. The wager works from it presumptions. Is that not true in all arguments? The logical argument is always of the nature, "If presumptions a, b, c,...x hold, then conclusion Y results."

JPD
The assumption is that God rewards belief. You have previously stated that it is behaviour rather than belief that is taken into account by God so what importance could belief have? How is belief based on the expectation of reward valid? I understand that Calvinists hold belief to be something that cannot be chosen as it is God that makes the decision to accept some individuals and reject others.

If one true God exists, and if that one true God wants you to believe in his/her/its existence, and if you have identified the one true God from amongst the various models going, then you might potentially gain something. Lot of ifs there - its insubstantial. Simply claiming that you believe in the one true God is bunk. You haven't provided a single sentence that washes thus far. We simply don't believe that you have any idea what it is that you do believe. If you do think that you know what it is that you believe you are doing a terrible job of explaining it. Perhaps you should work it out in your own mind first. As it stands it looks like you are trying to reach an understanding by having us chip away at the crap presented.

I am not sure that there is a difference between belief and behavior. Belief expresses itself through behavior. If a person claims to believe x, then the belief in x will express itself in behavior consistent with x.

Calvinists hold that people choose that which they will believe. Calvinists also say that people choose consistent with their desires and where their desires are corrupt, their choices will be consistent with that corruptness.

I can make the claim that the Biblical God is the true and living God and I can base my belief on that claim. People do that all the time (even you do but in the opposite direction). There is no basis to say that my belief is bunk (you could say that what I believe in is bunk even if you don’t know whether it is really bunk).

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
True if you mean, "...god means different things to different people." We need to distinguish between that living entity known as God and the perceptions of people of a concept known as god. "God" cannot be different things but "god" can be anything a person wants it to be.

JPD
…If God was a living entity you wouldn't need faith.

Not necessarily. There are many people living in china and I have never seen most them but I still believe that they exist. That is faith. People express faith in bankers when they deposit their checks in a bank. The trust that people put in living entities (even nonliving) is done through faith.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Maybe God is not the one inflicting the suffering. Maybe further investigation would discover the involvement of others and determine that those other people were responsible for the suffering of the toddlers.

ThorsHammer
Would this include genetic defects, or natural disasters? Would you blame people on these?

We can trace genetic defects and natural disasters back to Adam/Eve because it was their sin that brought these things into the world that God had previously declared to be very good.

Genetic defects can sometimes be traced to things that people do (using drugs, smoking while pregnant, and other things). Natural disasters are normal natural events that occur in places that result in a disaster. A tornado that occurs in the plains where no one lives would not be called a natural disaster where that same tornado going through a town would be. Natural disasters can be prevented by appeal to God. Sometimes, as in the case of Sodom/Gomorrah, the sins of the people result in disaster even where an appeal for mercy is made to God.

[HRG]

The Wager flows from the uncertainty that is present. If one is uncertain what to believe, the Wager leads to the logical conclusion that one should believe in the true and living God.


Non-sequitur. This assumes that the t.u.l.G. - if he exists at all - will reward belief in himself, even if this belief has no rational basis.

What if the t.u.l.G. has set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists ?

Regards, HRG.

[HRG]

We can trace genetic defects and natural disasters back to Adam/Eve because it was their sin that brought these things into the world that God had previously declared to be very good.

A "very good universe" would be fail-safe and human sin could not influence it. What would you think of a car who breaks down at the first bump in the road ?

In addition, please tell us how the consumption of a fruit by a human being can


Genetic defects can sometimes be traced to things that people do (using drugs, smoking while pregnant, and other things). Natural disasters are normal natural events that occur in places that result in a disaster.

And who decided that tornadoes would be "normal natural events" ?

A tornado that occurs in the plains where no one lives would not be called a natural disaster where that same tornado going through a town would be. Natural disasters can be prevented by appeal to God. Sometimes, as in the case of Sodom/Gomorrah, the sins of the people result in disaster even where an appeal for mercy is made to God.

Come on. In a theist universe, sin is never the prime cause of disaster. The prime cause is the god who has created the causal rule that disaster follows sin; there are no "natural" consequences in a theist universe. A disaster happens because god intended it to happen.

Regards, HRG.

[JPD]

Not necessarily. There are many people living in china and I have never seen most them but I still believe that they exist. That is faith. People express faith in bankers when they deposit their checks in a bank. The trust that people put in living entities (even nonliving) is done through faith.

Clearly there are many people living in China. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence - way beyond any question - that there are many people living in China. Please do not be so naive and foolish as to use this, or anything else like it, as support for your argument because it is totally invalid as an example. Try to learn that there are certain types of arguments that people just don't use unless they are completely desperate. You are completely desperate.

[JPD]

That's actually a very good observation. rhutchin even went so far as to alter John 3:18 so that it no longer said "the unbeliever is already condemned for his unbelief" but was rather altered to say "the unbeliever is already condemned [for his sins] for his unbelief." rhutchin's honesty and consistency isn't among his strong points.

Thank you. On those rare occasions that rhutchin is consistent my chin hits the floor even faster than it does when he has just reversed over his own statement.
He seems to constantly shift his own position according to the prevalent light conditions.

[Wayne Delia]

You need to read the whole Bible.
I've read the entire Bible cover to cover, five times.

If you pretended to be a Christian long ago, why would you live as a Jew?
I was a Christian. You've got to imagine I was only pretending, because you cannot bring yourself to admit you're wrong, and that even as an atheist, I know the Bible better than you do.

The Wager flows from the uncertainty that is present. If one is uncertain what to believe, the Wager leads to the logical conclusion that one should believe in the true and living God.
No mention at all is made of the "true and living God," which the reader is left to determine for himself. Instead, Pascal argues for belief in the God he believes in, which happens to be the Roman Catholic God. You added the extra shit yourself, which you need to do whenever your argument falls apart.

If I said that Pascal's Wager does not assume an afterlife in paradise for belief, I was wrong.
Well, cool! See, it's not too hard to admit you're wrong, is it? You need to take a close look at the rest of your mistakes, though.

I should have said that the fruit of one’s belief in God is an afterlife but the Wager does not guarantee this.
As you pointed out, irrelevantly, the Wager doesn't guarantee God exists. It does, though, rely on the assumption that if God does exist, and a person believes in Him, the person will necessarily gain the infinite reward. If not, the Wager is useless.

Exactly. So, now the quibble is the definition of belief and whether one’s behavior should be consistent with that belief.
The definition of "belief", as I established before, is that it means whatever you need it to mean in order to avoid admitting you're wrong. But you did admit you were wrong on a trivial point, so that's a good start.

You seem to be saying that one can claim to believe and then behave as if they do not believe and that is still belief.
Whether it is or isn't is irrelevant; Pascal's Wager recommends belief even if insincere or based on greed for personal gain.

Perhaps that was the extent of your belief when you once pretended to be a Christian. That is not how I would define belief.
You define belief as whatever it needs to be in order for you to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Language is funny that way. If someone tells you that they own the Brooklyn Bridge and cannot show you the deed, are they telling you the truth?
I'll let you in on a little secret. Most of the time, they don't actually own the bridge. I do, of course. They're just trying to take advantage of your gullibility because you're willing to have "faith" in other scams, like unsupported religious claims. But really, I own the bridge, and my absolute lowest price is $8,000. It's a good deal.

This must be why you got so screwed up with Christianity earlier in your life.
I never said I was screwed up, and of course, you cannot demonstrate I was. I was a firm, sincere believer for about a dozen years, until I realized it was all bullshit.

You never understood the meanings of basic terms and concepts and ended up pretending to be what you thought a Christian was.
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. In fact, it looks like your feelings have been hurt lately, and you're lashing out in retaliation in the same style with which you've been decimated, but you can't show any connection at all.

Now you bring that same mindset into a discussion of belief and Pascal’s Wager.
Pascal's Wager is long since refuted. People are laughing at you for taking it seriously.

It seems that you have no idea what the term means.
Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
Then again, you could be wrong.

Wayne Delia
As could you, but that never seems to stop you from making all sorts of wacky-ass assertions. You're all over the place.

rhutchin
Except that you cannot prove your position.
As I said before, it's funny enough that you're wrong, but even funnier still that you don't realize it. I am reminded of a baby in a carriage who has dropped a scoop of ice cream on the ground, and who cannot understand why the cone is empty.

In the face of such uncertainty, Pascal’s Wager leads to the conclusion that you should accept my position and believe in the true and living God.
Do you understand any of the arguments which refuted that idea?

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

What breach of contract?
The one where you agreed to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me for $7,825, but not a penny less.

It is at settlement that a contract is signed (although we can have a gentleman's agreement before settlement).
Who made up that rule? A contract is signed when it is signed.

We have a contract when we both sign on the dotted line.
We both did. Now it's up to you to prove that you didn't. That's using nothing more than your current line of reasoning.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
All the time. That is basically where my conversations with JWs, Mormons, and others end up. Kinda like having three doors. The JW picks door #1; the Mormon picks door #2; the Christian picks door #3. Only one door is the door that opens into heaven.

Wayne Delia
No wonder all three of you are so screwed up. There's no door for the Muslim to pick; no doors corresponding to all other defined religions; no door corresponding to religions not yet defined or discovered; and no guarantee there's necessarily something behind at least one of the doors.

rhutchin
It was an analogy. You just didn’t get it.
I got it just fine. Since it was one of YOUR analogies, there's an error in there somewhere. I just pointed it out. The original discussion involved how a Muslim's claim would be evaluated and accepted or discarded; your shitty analogy assumed there was only three metaphorical "doors to heaven," and that God or the actual heaven was definitely behind one of those three "doors". I pointed out how incomplete it was in leaving out tens of thousands of other God possibilities, and how it did not necessarily have anything behind any of the doors.

You would have understood it if you had ever really been a Christian and not just a pretend Christian.
Oh, bullshit. Your feelings are hurt because your arguments are crushed so easily.

Of course, if you had ever been a real Christian, you would not be so messed up now.
Just not in any way you can demonstrate. You're a very poor loser.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Paramedics will respond after the medical emergency occurs.
Sure. But the idea is they're more able to prevent my kids from dying as a result of the medical emergency, which I am not capable of providing. That's the difference between first aid and praying to your God - first aid actually works.

The issue here is whether you care enough about your children to ask the true and living God to protect them from an accident.
I care completely for my children, and as a result I would never rely on such an obviously inefficient, ineffective method. No test of that is necessary at all (you'd never get the chance to use my kids in such a test) because Hurricane Katrina provided all the evidence necessary that God either cannot or will not prevent similar out-of-human-control disasters in advance.

Also, your faith in paramedics may exaggerate the protection that you believe paramedics can provide.
Not at all. I've witnessed several incidents personally, and those guys are fuckin' amazing. In fact, in one situation I observed, an argument could be made that a paramedic saved a girl's life by clearing her windpipe. That is a significant difference between their abilities and the empty promises you're unable to establish about your God - I can see the paramedics in action, and their effectiveness can be measured objectively, while your God is noticeably absent.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
Maybe those whom God did not help during Katrina were pretenders like you used to be. You could not fool God and they could not.

Wayne Delia
ALL of them? To the extent that New Orleans was hit with a hurricane and no one sincerely called out to God for help? In any case, while I can't provide 100% protection for my children, it's clear God cannot either, and in some cases - such as New Orleans - God provides exactly zero percent protection. So your suggestion that I call out to God for help is transparently dishonest. You cannot say "You're a pretender" along with "You should call out to God for help for your children" if you want to work with the ground rule that God doesn't help anyone asking insincerely. For there to be no protection from God in a highly religious area of the country, especially among the poor of New Orleans, is an argument for God's non-existence on the grounds that a uniform, fairly large subset of Christianity all do not have sufficient faith in God, so why should anyone else?

rhutchin
Yep. All of them.
OK. A good starting point would be to investigate some of the problems inherent in Christianity which would make every single Christian among several hundred thousand of 'em in a small isolated area to all reject sincere belief. That's never a good marketing point.

However, I suspect that you don’t really have a clue what happened to those in NO who called out to God.
Why would it be unreasonable to assume that among a hundred thousand Christians concentrated in a small geographical area, at least a few of them would call out to God for help?

You once made up a belief in God that you claimed made you a Christian.
So your point is... Christians are basically really fucked up?

You could be making up something equally goofy here.
It's "goofy" to assume at least a few Christians among several hundred thousand in the greater New Orleans area would cry out to God for help? If it's that "goofy", why would you even suggest that I (or anyone else) should try it out?

Look. Your feelings are really hurt, because a lot of what you held as cherished beliefs really got clobbered fairly easily. You even disqualified yourself as a Christian because you couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong over the criteria for what determines a "true Christian." You're reduced to nothing more than aimless snide remarks, and people are laughing at you. Shape up, or ship out.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Let’s see. Physics is flawed because it fails to address issues in chemistry.
Actually, chemistry is a wholly-contained subset of physics, so it certainly does address issues in chemistry. But physics really doesn't have anything to do with Pascal's Wager. If you were trying to use physics vs. chemistry to make one of your typically flawed analogies, here's what's wrong with it: Physics does not fail to address issues in chemistry. To be an analogy to Pascal's failing to account for competing religious beliefs, physics would not only have to ignore issues in chemistry, but would have to assert that the basic chemical principles were necessarily false, since they were different from physics itself. You really don't give these things sufficient thought, and you're looking like you don't have a good grasp on the topics you're discussing.

The issue the Wager addresses is whether one should believe in the true and living God.
Nowhere in the Wager does it say "the true and living God," it's just "God" - specifically, the God that Pascal happened to believe in, which was the Roman Catholic God. The would-be convert is not encouraged to search for "the true and living God," just to accept the RC God.

It leads us to conclude that the logical response is for people to believe.
No. It leads STUPID PEOPLE to conclude that the logical response is for people to believe. The reason people have to be stupid is so that they don't notice that there'd be an eternal punishment if they happen to believe in the wrong God - for starters.

What other plausible alternative is there?
Islam, for one. A Christian who believes in Jesus and Yahweh will end up roasting in the Islamic hell for their incorrect belief. Simply because the Christians thought they were worshipping the "true and living God" will be no help to them. And there are a shitload other religions different from Islam and Christianity, so the matrix gets really complicated, difficult for simple people to understand.

Pascal believed the Roman Catholic Christian God was the true and living God.
Right. And the Wager attempted to persuade people to buy into believing in the RC God, because Pascal could not imagine any other God as the "true and living God." Allowing the substitution of other gods would open the door to Islam and countless other non-Christian religions. Even your idea of God is significantly different than Pascal's preferred God.

The Wager leads one to the conclusion that he should believe in the true and living God.
Previously debunked, as follows: The God specified is the Roman Catholic God, and there's nothing in the Wager which allows free substitution of any god which floats through your transom.

If one then agreed with Pascal that the Roman Catholic Christian God was the true and living God, then one would then believe in the Roman Catholic Christian God.
If one did NOT agree with Pascal, do you think he would have lumped everyone else's different God-beliefs in the "[True and Living] God is not" bucket you wanted to use for all non-Christian gods earlier? Why is it you think you can exclude other people's gods, but Pascal couldn't just as easily exclude your idea of God, even though you think you're right?

Pascal’s identification of the true and living God as the Roman Catholic Christian God is separate from the Wager and has no bearing on the conclusion of the Wager.
Sure it has a bearing! If the God believed in is not the one that might actually exist, and the actual god tends to get jealous or snitty if people believe in something else (I seem to recall Yahweh made the First Commandment specifically outlawing belief in other gods), then the would-be believer is royally screwed, and Pascal's Wager is demonstrably wrong.

The Wager takes one to the conclusion that one should belief the true and living God but it does not identify God (Pascal does this, but it is not necessary to the Wager).
Is that some sort of loophole you inserted so that you don't have to believe in the Roman Catholic God but you can still think that Pascal's Wager can work for you? That's just pathetic.

So? The Wager stands on its own and does not require the extension in order for it to be valid.
Are you really this confused? It's actually quite simple.

Pascal's Wager argues for belief in a certain specific God of the largest denomination of a specific religion called Christianity - either that God, or no god at all. It does not cover the possibility of gods of other religions.

The believer in God is promised an eternal reward for his belief. The believer may very well imagine he believes in the "true and living God."

Suppose, upon death, the believer is confronted with the god of another religion - Allah, for example, the god of Islam. The Qu'ran states that the believer will roast in the Islamic hell.

The believer was promised an eternal reward for his belief, which turned out to be wrong, because Pascal didn't include the extension to the gods of other non-Christian religions.

The Wager is an invalid syllogism on its face, since the premises are not established to be true. Simply calling them true does not make it true, nor does "Believe in whatever god happens to be the true and living god which makes this premise established."

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

To stand the test of time means that the document is more than just an ancient document.
But time only measures age. If there's some other criteria, then the "test of time" won't apply to it.

It means that the document has gained a reputation that would lead one to give it credence in the area to which it speaks.
No religions, then, pass that test. There is no single theology which holds even a simple majority of acceptance among the world's population. Christianity is outnumbered two to one worldwide. If the "Argument from Popularity" and "Argument from Numbers" weren't logical fallacies, you'd be tromped by the simple fact that only about two billion among six billion people on Earth actually "give creedence" to Christianity. Actually, there are at most two billion people affiliated with Christianity; many may not actually accept it, but just happen to be on the rolls of the larger denominations, such as Roman Catholicism.

Furthermore, there are certain documents written in very recent history, perhaps even within the past year or two, which have been peer-reviewed and verified to the extent that the documents are generally accepted, or "given creedence." Time has nothing to do with whether creedence is conceded to a publication.

I did not know that you were not familiar with the term. If I did, I would not have used it.
It turns out you were not as familiar with the term as you thought you were. The "test of time" simply means that something has been around for a long time, proven, unchallenged, unquestioned, unrefuted. If that was the case with Christianity, the entire world would be Christian. For some reason, two out of every three people worldwide do not accept the claims of Christianity, so it is hardly unchallenged or unquestioned. All the Bible has going for it is its antiquity, and there are more documents older and much closer to the source than the Bible. So, your "test of time" (even with your misunderstandings) falls flat on its face. This result was not unexpected.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

If the Bible were flat out wrong, you would be able to prove it and you cannot. Misreading various passages to create false arguments does not count as proof.
Sour grapes. There are plenty of errors and contradictions which have been presented to you, all of which you've ignored. Your ignorance is not my concern.

Of course, you are the one who once pretended to be a Christian (probably for comic relief). You have always been biased against Christianity. Why should you be different, now?
<chuckle> Somebody's got a HUGE case of "sour grapes." Your pride is way too strong for you to overcome. Face it. Your argument is refuted; you've convinced nobody, and my attitude toward Christianity is completely irrelevant to your failure in debate.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
The Bible says that you are accountable to the true and living God for your behavior and you will be judged for that behavior after your physical body dies.

Wayne Delia
So what? The Bible says all sorts of bullshit…

rhutchin
Awww. But can you prove that claim? That’s the rub.
Prove it? Actually, I don't have to. You've already conceded it.

As evidence of my claim, I cited Jesus's promise in Mark 16:17-18 that Christian believers would have the abilities to heal any illness with only prayer and laying on of hands; to drink any poison without harm, and to handle snakes safely. Waaaaay back in Post 218 on Page 11 of this thread, you had the following defense:

One essential is to understand that which one reads. Jesus is reported by the writer of Mark to have said (recorded earlier in Mark) that He (Jesus) always spoke in parables. A careful investigator would not ignore that point as you want to do.
Essentially, your excuse for why the special powers in Mark 16:17-18 don't work was that Jesus was speaking in parables, i.e. Jesus didn't literally mean what He is reported to have said - in that instance, or any other instance in which Jesus is recorded as saying anything at all.

Man, it must hurt to have your own words come back to bite you in the ass. And there you were, trying to be cute by baiting me to try to prove the Bible is bullshit, when you already agreed to that claim in Post 218 when you conceded everything Jesus said was in parables, and parable is equivalent to "not literally meaning what is said," which is my functional operating definition of "bullshit".

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

True, if Allah is really true and living God. However, we can distinguish the two books by the unique ways each espouses for one to deal with bad behavior. The Bible is unique from the Qu'ran in this respect.
You're using the term "unique" incorrectly. "Unique" means (in simple terms) that the described item is one of a kind. But, surely, the Qu'ran is unique in the same sense that the Bible is unique - there is no book quite like it. When did "uniqueness" become a criteria of determining validity? Bram Stoker's Dracula is a unique book as well; is that sufficient to establish that vampires exist? Obviously not, so the same stretch of imagination will not be allowed for the Bible OR the Qu'ran, either.

Because the Bible says things uniquely different from the Qu'ran, it would still be logical to examine the Bible. The two books are uniquely different from each other.
Again, you're misusing the term "unique". What you probably mean, in context, is "distinct". The Bible is distinct from the Qu'ran, which is only to say that there are significant differences between the two books. But the claim that the Bible is valid because it is different from the Qu'ran could also be applied to the Qu'ran itself - valid because it is different from the Bible. Mere disagreement or difference is no indicator of validity. Your transparent agenda is that the Qu'ran is invalid, because it disagrees with the Bible, which you've already presupposed as being valid. That's quite obviously circular reasoning, a very old, tired, and often-refuted logical fallacy.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

The Bible makes the assertion. Thus, I can be left out and one can go straight to the source.
That's one of the most cowardly defenses of the Bible I've ever seen from any Christian apologist: "Hey, I'm not making the claim, it's the Bible. Go argue with the Bible." I've already reviewed the claims in the Bible, and have rejected them because frankly, most of the claims are either trivial or bullshit. Trivial in the sense that text such as "who begat whom" among kings in the ninth century B.C.E. has really no bearing on my concern, and Bullshit in the sense that, as previously demonstrated (and which you conceded), it doesn't literally mean what it says, nor does it have any necessary connection with reality.

There is no burden on me to prove the Bible is true.
Then you can have no reasonable expectation that anyone here should presume the Bible is true based on your say-so. You can't use it as a premise in your arguments without establishing it as true; your arguments would be as invalid as Pascal's Wager, since he didn't bother to show that his premise is true.

Truth remains truth whether I can prove it or not.
Of course. But if you cannot establish any particular proposition is true - such as "God exists" - then there's no necessity to assume it's true, especially when parts of the story are obviously false.

Those who do not want to accept the claims of something, that purports to be truth and has a direct impact on the person, have the burden of proving that it is not truth.
Absolutely! Yes! Of course! My claim is that you owe me ten thousand dollars. I purport it to be the truth. Clearly, it has a direct impact on you, at the very least, a direct impact on your life savings. If there is any reason you won't immediately pay me, it would appear that you do not want to accept the claim that you owe me ten thousand dollars. Therefore, according to your own line of reasoning, the burden is on you to prove that it is not the truth. You might be tempted to point to my "lack of evidence," such as me not having a signed contract or promissory note, as proof that your debt doesn't exist, but I wouldn't recommend you do that, for the simple reason that I could use "lack of evidence" of your God to thereby prove your God doesn't exist. And we couldn't have that, could we? So, anyway, if you can't disprove my claim that you owe me ten thousand dollars, wouldn't that be a legally enforceable debt on your part? If you think about it, you'll see why shifiting the burden of proof as you are trying to do is really a bad idea.

A person who cannot prove that the Bible is false must accept the possibility that the Bible is true and react to that truth in proportion to the Bible’s direct impact on him.
Just as you who cannot prove that you don't owe me ten thousand dollars must accept the possibility that it is true, and react to that truth in proportion to the debt's direct impact on you. The direct impact on you is... guess what.... ten thousand dollars.

Do you still want to stick with allowing the shifting of burden of proof? You've really shot yourself in the foot on this one. Please make the certified check out to the Joseph and Lisa Delia College Fund, and it will be deposited appropriately.

The exit strategy is for people to stick their heads in the sand, as you do, and pretend that the Bible is not true and that they are not accountable for their behavior.
Just as your exit strategy is for you to stick your head in the sand, as you do, and pretend that you don't owe me ten thousand dollars and that you are not accountable for backing out on your debt. If you claim in any way that you don't owe me ten thousand dollars, you would be a demonstrated hypocrite: you're holding a standard (that you don't have to prove the Bible true) which you don't actually believe in (since you won't accept that I don't have to prove you owe me $10,000.)

Game, set, match, tournament.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

I am not sure that there is a difference between belief and behavior.
Actually, there's a huge, significant difference, but it's probably too much for you to understand. I'll use your own behavior as a disproof of your own claim right here.

Belief expresses itself through behavior. If a person claims to believe x, then the belief in x will express itself in behavior consistent with x.
You were once a Christian, until the list of four Bible criteria you posted as to who qualifies as a "true Christian" disqualified you on two of the four counts. You professed to believe in Jesus and to follow His teachings. Yet you broke the Ninth Commandment by claiming that all atheists were thieves; you refused to acknowledge or repent for breaking the Ninth Commandment; and you misrepresented the words of Jesus when trying unsuccessfully to defend yourself.

You claimed "If a person claims to believe x, then the belief in x will express itself in behavior consistent with x." Replacing x with "Christianity", your belief in Christianity was not expressed in behavior consistent with Christianity at all. Normal Christians do not go around breaking any of the Ten Commandments without remorse or repentance. So, using you as a counter example, either your statement is wrong here, or else you are a supreme hypocrite (one who professes to believe something, but does not actually hold that belief).

All that fuss for a single, throwaway insult you were too proud to retract! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Calvinists hold that people choose that which they will believe. Calvinists also say that people choose consistent with their desires and where their desires are corrupt, their choices will be consistent with that corruptness.
Remember when you used to be a Calvinist? That was in the days when you used to be a Christian. You gave that all up because you couldn't bring yourself to admit you were wrong.

I can make the claim that the Biblical God is the true and living God and I can base my belief on that claim.
Others could claim you're full of baloney, especially if you aren't too terribly interested in backing up your claims. All bark and no bite; or as they say in Texas, all hat and no cattle.

People do that all the time (even you do but in the opposite direction).
The huge difference is, I can back up my claims. You can't. If it looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit, feels like bullshit, and tastes like bullshit, then don't step in it. (from an old Cheech & Chong comedy routine)

There is no basis to say that my belief is bunk (you could say that what I believe in is bunk even if you don’t know whether it is really bunk).
Sure, there's a basis. If you don't think it's bunk, then just try to find a Christian with sufficient faith in Jesus that he accepts Jesus's promises in Mark 16:17-18 as being valid, and have him demonstrate those special super-duper magical abilities. Let's start with the poison-drinking. How about a pint of concentrated hydrosulfuric acid? You will most likely find exactly zero volunteers for that test. (You, not being a Christian, wouldn't qualify anyway, much to your relief.) That is a very strong indication that they won't sign up for the test because all of them agree with me that... it... is.... bunk.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We can trace genetic defects and natural disasters back to Adam/Eve <braaaaap>
Uh, no, we can't. Adam and Eve are mythical characters; DNA tracking doesn't work that way, and large-scale natural disasters have nothing to do with the arbitrary behavior of two humans.

because it was their sin that brought these things into the world that God had previously declared to be very good.
I'll call your bluff. Where in the Bible does it say that human sin causes natural disasters? If you can't find any reference, would it hurt you to admit that you occasionally make this shit up out of thin air?

Genetic defects can sometimes be traced to things that people do (using drugs, smoking while pregnant, and other things).
The rest of the time, it's just a very unfortunate mutation which is known to continuously happen as a result of natural evolution. What sins do people commit to result in this kind of punishment, especially if they are not involved in the drugs/smoking/etc lifestyle you described? Suppose a good, law-abiding, God-fearing Christian couple has a baby born with a rare congenital disease. Whose sin caused that, and why didn't God do anything to prevent it? (There is actually a story in the Gospel of John where a blind man is brought before Jesus, and He was asked who had sinned to deserve this blindness - was it the blind man, or his parents? Jesus said neither the blind man nor his parents sinned; rather, God inflicted it intentionally so that He could show off. Reference available on request.)

Natural disasters are normal natural events that occur in places that result in a disaster.
"Normal natural events?" Damn. Just a few sentences ago you said they were caused by human sin. What kind of human sin causes a tornado?

A tornado that occurs in the plains where no one lives would not be called a natural disaster where that same tornado going through a town would be.
That's one of those irrelevant thought experiments, right? Like "If a tree falls in a forest, does it make a noise?" A tornado is a tornado. Let's assume it tears through a town, killing two, injuring 25, and leaving 40 homeless. Exactly whose sins caused that to happen?

Natural disasters can be prevented by appeal to God.
Yes, of course, such as when Hurricane Katrina was prevented by ... uh... well, the people of New Orleans appealed to God and... um.... uh.... never mind. I think that's a fairly bad example, don't you? Clearly, this "personal appeal" doesn't do dick when confronted with a good-sized natural disaster.

Sometimes, as in the case of Sodom/Gomorrah, the sins of the people result in disaster even where an appeal for mercy is made to God.
So it's God intentionally inflicting natural disasters on innocents as well as guilty people? Again, Sodom and Gomorrah is a particularly bad example to use. There were initially four survivors of the shitstorm: Lot, his wife, and his two daughters. God found Lot and his family worthy of being saved, even though previously, Lot offered his two daughters to the unruly mob to be raped in place of Lot's houseguests being raped. Lot's wife looked back at the once-in-a-lifetime shitstorm, and was killed by transfiguration into a pillar of salt, for the single arbitrary offense of looking back. Anyway, Lot's two daughters figured they were the only females left alive, even though the shitstorm only affected the two cities. They got their father drunk, and on successive nights, they had sexual intercourse with him. Hey presto, they became pregnant, and each bore a sort of male hybrid son/brother, each of which grew up to become leaders of nations. And none of that behavior was punished at all! Those sins - offering daughters to be raped, and drunken incest - for some reason God didn't find them offensive enough to cause a natural disaster to wipe out Lot and his daughters.

You can really get in trouble in a debate where you make shit up that's not in the Bible, and where you don't understand the Bible well enough to hold your own in the argument.

WMD

[Alf]

¨
There is no burden on me to prove the Bible is true. Truth remains truth whether I can prove it or not. Those who do not want to accept the claims of something, that purports to be truth and has a direct impact on the person, have the burden of proving that it is not truth. A person who cannot prove that the Bible is false must accept the possibility that the Bible is true and react to that truth in proportion to the Bible’s direct impact on him.

Rhutchin's argument appear to be the following:

What is right is right regardless of whether someone can prove it is right or not. I am right and just because I cannot prove to you that I am right, doesn't mean I am not. Therefore I am right.

I doubt this requires further comments.

¨
The exit strategy is for people to stick their heads in the sand, as you do, and pretend that the Bible is not true and that they are not accountable for their behavior.

You haven't yet proven the bible is true. Show to me that the bible is true and you got a winner.

Alf

[John A. Broussard]

Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life).


Several posts back you made this point, and I neglected to deal with it since the answer is so obvious.

As I gave it more thought, I realized that you simply have no idea what enjoyment of life means and how people can be seriously hampered in that enjoyment by a belief in the afterlife.

I made the mistake of accepting something as self-evident when it isn't, at least not to you and presumably not to a lot of others who believe in an after life.

As a result, I intend to start a new thread on exactly that issue. Perhaps we will both be surprised by the kinds of responses it receives.

[Wayne Delia]

As a result, I intend to start a new thread on exactly that issue. Perhaps we will both be surprised by the kinds of responses it receives.
New threads are a lifesaver thrown to a drowning rhutchin. It gives him an excuse to bail on the current thread.

WMD

[John A. Broussard]

New threads are a lifesaver thrown to a drowning rhutchin. It gives him an excuse to bail on the current thread.

You underestimate him. No matter how many unsupported generalizations he makes, no matter how many times he's called on them, he always comes back.

Have you ever seen that gym dummy you can punch as hard as you possible but it only rolls back up after it's been knocked down.

I hereby predict prophesythat rhutchin will not abandon this thread.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Why would concern about an afterlife affect one’s enjoyment of this world (unless you mean to say that sin is necessary to the enjoyment of life).

John A. Broussard
As I gave it more thought, I realized that you simply have no idea what enjoyment of life means and how people can be seriously hampered in that enjoyment by a belief in the afterlife.

I made the mistake of accepting something as self-evident when it isn't, at least not to you and presumably not to a lot of others who believe in an after life…

As far as I know, I am enjoying life and do not see how my enjoyment of life is being hampered by my belief in God and the idea that I am accountable for my behavior. Obviously, I don't have a clue about what you mean.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
There is no burden on me to prove the Bible is true. Truth remains truth whether I can prove it or not. Those who do not want to accept the claims of something, that purports to be truth and has a direct impact on the person, have the burden of proving that it is not truth. A person who cannot prove that the Bible is false must accept the possibility that the Bible is true and react to that truth in proportion to the Bible’s direct impact on him.

Alf
Rhutchin's argument appear to be the following:

What is right is right regardless of whether someone can prove it is right or not. I am right and just because I cannot prove to you that I am right, doesn't mean I am not. Therefore I am right.

I doubt this requires further comments.

rhutchin
The exit strategy is for people to stick their heads in the sand, as you do, and pretend that the Bible is not true and that they are not accountable for their behavior.

Alf
You haven't yet proven the bible is true. Show to me that the bible is true and you got a winner.

I kinda think that most people would agree that truth is truth regardless of the ability of any individual (theologian, scientist, philosopher, etc) to prove that it is true. It is not the declaration of an individual that makes something true. Truth will be true because it is the truth.

If God, who wrote the Bible (i.e., inspired many men to write of their experiences with Him) cannot prove, to you, that the Bible is true, what could I do? Guess that makes you the loser.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
We can trace genetic defects and natural disasters back to Adam/Eve

Wayne Delia
<braaaaap>
Uh, no, we can't. Adam and Eve are mythical characters; DNA tracking doesn't work that way, and large-scale natural disasters have nothing to do with the arbitrary behavior of two humans.

rhutchin
because it was their sin that brought these things into the world that God had previously declared to be very good.

Wayne Delia
I'll call your bluff. Where in the Bible does it say that human sin causes natural disasters? If you can't find any reference, would it hurt you to admit that you occasionally make this shit up out of thin air?

We can start with the following on the effects of sin--

Deuteronomy 28
15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.
21 The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
24 The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
25 The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.
27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.
30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
31 Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue them.
32 Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day long: and there shall be no might in thine hand.
33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:
34 So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.
35 The LORD shall smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.
36 The LORD shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.
37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.
38 Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather but little in; for the locust shall consume it.
39 Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress them, but shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worms shall eat them.
40 Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olive shall cast his fruit.
41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
42 All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.
43 The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.
44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

Then there is Solomon’s prayer to God--
1 Kings 8
35 When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them:
36 Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance.

We also have, for examples, the ten plagues of Egypt because Pharaoh refused to allow Israel to leave, the sins of Sodom that brought its destruction, and Noah’s flood.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
True, if Allah is really true and living God. However, we can distinguish the two books by the unique ways each espouses for one to deal with bad behavior. The Bible is unique from the Qu'ran in this respect.

Wayne Delia
You're using the term "unique" incorrectly. "Unique" means (in simple terms) that the described item is one of a kind. But, surely, the Qu'ran is unique in the same sense that the Bible is unique - there is no book quite like it. When did "uniqueness" become a criteria of determining validity? Bram Stoker's Dracula is a unique book as well; is that sufficient to establish that vampires exist? Obviously not, so the same stretch of imagination will not be allowed for the Bible OR the Qu'ran, either.

rhutchin
Because the Bible says things uniquely different from the Qu'ran, it would still be logical to examine the Bible. The two books are uniquely different from each other.

Wayne Delia
Again, you're misusing the term "unique". What you probably mean, in context, is "distinct". The Bible is distinct from the Qu'ran, which is only to say that there are significant differences between the two books. But the claim that the Bible is valid because it is different from the Qu'ran could also be applied to the Qu'ran itself - valid because it is different from the Bible. Mere disagreement or difference is no indicator of validity. Your transparent agenda is that the Qu'ran is invalid, because it disagrees with the Bible, which you've already presupposed as being valid. That's quite obviously circular reasoning, a very old, tired, and often-refuted logical fallacy.

“Unique� is the proper term. That uniqueness evidently escaped you during that period in your life when you pretended to be a Christian (and still escapes you now). That is not surprising since it is this uniqueness that is the basis of salvation. You pretended to be a Christian but never understood what being a Christian was all about (and still do not know).

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I am not sure that there is a difference between belief and behavior.

Wayne Delia
Actually, there's a huge, significant difference, but it's probably too much for you to understand. I'll use your own behavior as a disproof of your own claim right here.

rhutchin
Belief expresses itself through behavior. If a person claims to believe x, then the belief in x will express itself in behavior consistent with x.

Wayne Delia
You were once a Christian, until the list of four Bible criteria you posted as to who qualifies as a "true Christian" disqualified you on two of the four counts. You professed to believe in Jesus and to follow His teachings. Yet you broke the Ninth Commandment by claiming that all atheists were thieves; you refused to acknowledge or repent for breaking the Ninth Commandment; and you misrepresented the words of Jesus when trying unsuccessfully to defend yourself.

You claimed "If a person claims to believe x, then the belief in x will express itself in behavior consistent with x." Replacing x with "Christianity", your belief in Christianity was not expressed in behavior consistent with Christianity at all. Normal Christians do not go around breaking any of the Ten Commandments without remorse or repentance. So, using you as a counter example, either your statement is wrong here, or else you are a supreme hypocrite (one who professes to believe something, but does not actually hold that belief).

All that fuss for a single, throwaway insult you were too proud to retract! Tsk, tsk, tsk.

We continue to disagree on this point. However, if it were true that I was wrong, I would have the following promise from God—

1 John 1
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

This is a promise given to all whom God has saved and who sin after God has saved them. Thus, even though I might sin, God has provided a means for me to be forgiven of that sin.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Wager flows from the uncertainty that is present. If one is uncertain what to believe, the Wager leads to the logical conclusion that one should believe in the true and living God.

HRG
Non-sequitur. This assumes that the t.u.l.G. - if he exists at all - will reward belief in himself, even if this belief has no rational basis.

What if the t.u.l.G. has set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists ?

OK. The basis for belief, and that which one must believe, is provided by the Bible. Whatever we assume must be consistent with that which the Bible says (If we have concluded that the Biblical god is the true and living God).

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
We can trace genetic defects and natural disasters back to Adam/Eve because it was their sin that brought these things into the world that God had previously declared to be very good.

HRG
A "very good universe" would be fail-safe and human sin could not influence it. What would you think of a car who breaks down at the first bump in the road ?

In addition, please tell us how the consumption of a fruit by a human being can

I don’t think a "very good universe" would have to be fail-safe. God can create a very good universe and then give the man He creates the freedom to change that universe.

What changed the very good universe was sin. Sin is disobedience to God and is that which God says is disobedience. When God declared, “Thou shalt not eat…,� God defined sin and made it possible for man to choose to sin. When many then chose to sin, he became corrupted and passed that corruption on to his children. That corruption was also passed on to all that God had created by God who, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, said that He would not maintain the universe in its very good state.

rhutchin
…Natural disasters are normal natural events that occur in places that result in a disaster.

HRG
And who decided that tornadoes would be "normal natural events"?

I think that is the way meteorologists would describe them. They are normal consequences of weather systems under specific situations.

rhutchin
A tornado that occurs in the plains where no one lives would not be called a natural disaster where that same tornado going through a town would be. Natural disasters can be prevented by appeal to God. Sometimes, as in the case of Sodom/Gomorrah, the sins of the people result in disaster even where an appeal for mercy is made to God.

HRG
Come on. In a theist universe, sin is never the prime cause of disaster. The prime cause is the god who has created the causal rule that disaster follows sin; there are no "natural" consequences in a theist universe. A disaster happens because god intended it to happen.

OK. If disaster follows sin (and does so consistently), then we might associate sin with disaster in some manner (even if we cannot agree that sin is the “primal cause� of disaster).

[DMC]

I kinda think that most people would agree that truth is truth regardless of the ability of any individual (theologian, scientist, philosopher, etc) to prove that it is true. It is not the declaration of an individual that makes something true. Truth will be true because it is the truth.

If God, who wrote the Bible (i.e., inspired many men to write of their experiences with Him) cannot prove, to you, that the Bible is true, what could I do? Guess that makes you the loser.
err.... If God cannot do something... How does that make anyone the loser besides the one who cannot do something?

You start off in a semi-logical (although redundant) fashion by saying that "truth is truth", however you then descend into "If God who wrote the Bible"...

The last time I checked, there is no book in the Bible named "The book of God". If you credit God with writing the Bible, do you credit Allah with the Qu'ran, or perhaps Charles Darnay with "Tale of Two Cities"?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Not necessarily. There are many people living in china and I have never seen most them but I still believe that they exist. That is faith. People express faith in bankers when they deposit their checks in a bank. The trust that people put in living entities (even nonliving) is done through faith.

JPD
Clearly there are many people living in China. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence - way beyond any question - that there are many people living in China. Please do not be so naive and foolish as to use this, or anything else like it, as support for your argument because it is totally invalid as an example. Try to learn that there are certain types of arguments that people just don't use unless they are completely desperate. You are completely desperate.

Faith is the evidence of things not seen (according to the Bible) which seems to fit what you are saying. We have evidence of people living in China even though we do not see them, thus our faith that they are there.

Similarly, we have evidence of God from the writings of many men over many years and have faith that God exists even though we do not see Him.

Why is faith that God exists desperate when faith that the Chinese exist is not desperate?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I kinda think that most people would agree that truth is truth regardless of the ability of any individual (theologian, scientist, philosopher, etc) to prove that it is true. It is not the declaration of an individual that makes something true. Truth will be true because it is the truth.

If God, who wrote the Bible (i.e., inspired many men to write of their experiences with Him) cannot prove, to you, that the Bible is true, what could I do? Guess that makes you the loser.

DMC
err.... If God cannot do something... How does that make anyone the loser besides the one who cannot do something?

Good point. I should have said something like this, “If you will not be convinced by something that God says, there is nothing I can say that will convince you.�

DMC
You start off in a semi-logical (although redundant) fashion by saying that "truth is truth", however you then descend into "If God who wrote the Bible"...

The last time I checked, there is no book in the Bible named "The book of God". If you credit God with writing the Bible, do you credit Allah with the Qu'ran, or perhaps Charles Darnay with "Tale of Two Cities"?

Yes, we should credit Allah with inspiring Mohammed to write the Qu'ran if Allah is the true and living God.

We can credit Charles Darnay with "Tale of Two Cities" if he is the source of information and instructed Dickens as to that which he should write.

[JPD]

Faith is the evidence of things not seen (according to the Bible) which seems to fit what you are saying. We have evidence of people living in China even though we do not see them, thus our faith that they are there.

Similarly, we have evidence of God from the writings of many men over many years and have faith that God exists even though we do not see Him.

Why is faith that God exists desperate when faith that the Chinese exist is not desperate?

Faith is the "evidence" of things which CANNOT BE seen. There is no possibility of travelling to a place where God can be seen. One can travel to China or watch a programme on China. There one will SEE Chinese people. China doesn't cease to exist just because I'm not there or I'm not looking at it on the television. You really need to find an argument that stands up because at the moment you're scraping the barrel.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
What breach of contract?

Wayne Delia
The one where you agreed to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me for $7,825, but not a penny less.

rhutchin
It is at settlement that a contract is signed (although we can have a gentleman's agreement before settlement).

Wayne Delia
Who made up that rule? A contract is signed when it is signed.

rhutchin
We have a contract when we both sign on the dotted line.

Wayne Delia
We both did. Now it's up to you to prove that you didn't. That's using nothing more than your current line of reasoning.

So, I am to buy the bridge from you without asking you to produce a deed and without going to settlement. Some very special conditions you require to get to your conclusion.

[JPD]

I don’t think a "very good universe" would have to be fail-safe. God can create a very good universe and then give the man He creates the freedom to change that universe.

How can God "give" someone freedom? It is either something they have already or something that they do not. Otherwise it would not be freedom.




What changed the very good universe was sin. Sin is disobedience to God and is that which God says is disobedience. When God declared, “Thou shalt not eat…,� God defined sin and made it possible for man to choose to sin. When many then chose to sin, he became corrupted and passed that corruption on to his children. That corruption was also passed on to all that God had created by God who, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, said that He would not maintain the universe in its very good state.


It doesn't matter how many times I hear this crap, it always makes me groan at the moronic attitude it imbues in its followers. So Adam, who was innocent, and could not have known good or evil, does something that God knows he is going to do. God knows that Adam will do it. Adam can't know that it is wrong since he has no knowledge of good or evil. So God is a pratt for that, and an ever bigger pratt for judging that we are born wrong from the outset. We had nothing to do with it (pretending that this happened for sake of argument). God's pratting pales into insignificance though when the sheer prattiness of the fools who swallow this crap is experienced.


I think that is the way meteorologists would describe them. They are normal consequences of weather systems under specific situations.



OK. If disaster follows sin (and does so consistently), then we might associate sin with disaster in some manner (even if we cannot agree that sin is the “primal cause� of disaster).

If we were very very thick we might yes.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Faith is the evidence of things not seen (according to the Bible) which seems to fit what you are saying. We have evidence of people living in China even though we do not see them, thus our faith that they are there.

Similarly, we have evidence of God from the writings of many men over many years and have faith that God exists even though we do not see Him.

Why is faith that God exists desperate when faith that the Chinese exist is not desperate?

JPD
Faith is the "evidence" of things which CANNOT BE seen. There is no possibility of traveling to a place where God can be seen. One can travel to China or watch a program on China. There one will SEE Chinese people. China doesn't cease to exist just because I'm not there or I'm not looking at it on the television. You really need to find an argument that stands up because at the moment you're scraping the barrel.

We can quibble about the definition of faith. However, we will stand before God one day. I don’t see a real difference between the faith that one expresses in the existence of God and that which one expresses in the existence of the Chinese people as you have described.

[JPD]

So, I am to buy the bridge from you without asking you to produce a deed and without going to settlement. Some very special conditions you require to get to your conclusion.

Whoosh! Hey, what's happened to my hair?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I don’t think a "very good universe" would have to be fail-safe. God can create a very good universe and then give the man He creates the freedom to change that universe.

JPD
How can God "give" someone freedom? It is either something they have already or something that they do not. Otherwise it would not be freedom.

OK, God allows man to choose to do that which he desires and does not intervene to prevent it.

rhutchin
What changed the very good universe was sin. Sin is disobedience to God and is that which God says is disobedience. When God declared, “Thou shalt not eat…,� God defined sin and made it possible for man to choose to sin. When many then chose to sin, he became corrupted and passed that corruption on to his children. That corruption was also passed on to all that God had created by God who, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, said that He would not maintain the universe in its very good state.

JPD
…So Adam, who was innocent, and could not have known good or evil, does something that God knows he is going to do. God knows that Adam will do it. Adam can't know that it is wrong since he has no knowledge of good or evil. So God is a pratt for that, and an ever bigger pratt for judging that we are born wrong from the outset. We had nothing to do with it (pretending that this happened for sake of argument). God's pratting pales into insignificance though when the sheer prattiness of the fools who swallow this crap is experienced.

Adam did know that which God had commanded. Adam did know that God had said, “Thou shalt not eat….� Sin is disobedience to that which God has commanded and does not require that one understand right and wrong.

rhutchin
OK. If disaster follows sin (and does so consistently), then we might associate sin with disaster in some manner (even if we cannot agree that sin is the “primal cause� of disaster).

JPD
If we were very very thick we might yes.

We might be able to discover a casual relationship if not a causal relationship.

[JPD]

We can quibble about the definition of faith. However, we will stand before God one day. I don’t see a real difference between the faith that one expresses in the existence of God and that which one expresses in the existence of the Chinese people as you have described.

You evidently have absolutely no idea what faith is. If you knew what it was you wouldn't be comparing it with China. It shouldn't be that difficult a distinction to recognise but you are struggling here as you do throughout every single other thread you participate in. The fact that your arguments don't work on any level would appear to be a symptom of being one of "the elect".

[JPD]

OK, God allows man to choose to do that which he desires and does not intervene to prevent it.


Nope. You have lost it again. "God allows" negates freedom. There should be no definition here.



Adam did know that which God had commanded. Adam did know that God had said, “Thou shalt not eat….� Sin is disobedience to that which God has commanded and does not require that one understand right and wrong.


How on earth would Adam, who did not know the difference between right and wrong, know that disobedience was wrong, that it was something that he should not do? How would he arrive at that conclusion? He was innocent, remember? He could not have had any appreciation of the situation and would not have been equipped to know whether the decision was the right or the wrong one. Up until the point he picked the apple he was innocent. Even if God had explained what the outcome would be, he, in his innocence, could not have comprehended it.


We might be able to discover a casual relationship if not a causal relationship.

You might be able to discover circulating subsystems in a self-supporting system.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK, God allows man to choose to do that which he desires and does not intervene to prevent it.

JPD
Nope. You have lost it again. "God allows" negates freedom. There should be no definition here.

Well, what is freedom to you? Is it something other than the ability to do that which you desire to do? What exactly do you see God negating?

rhutchin
Adam did know that which God had commanded. Adam did know that God had said, “Thou shalt not eat….� Sin is disobedience to that which God has commanded and does not require that one understand right and wrong.

JPD
How on earth would Adam, who did not know the difference between right and wrong, know that disobedience was wrong, that it was something that he should not do? How would he arrive at that conclusion? He was innocent, remember? He could not have had any appreciation of the situation and would not have been equipped to know whether the decision was the right or the wrong one. Up until the point he picked the apple he was innocent. Even if God had explained what the outcome would be, he, in his innocence, could not have comprehended it.

It seems that you are asking how Adam should have known not to eat the fruit after God said, “Thou shalt not eat….� Is that what you are asking? Are you saying that one needs to comprehend (or understand) certain things about the law in order to obey the law?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK, God allows man to choose to do that which he desires and does not intervene to prevent it.

JPD
Nope. You have lost it again. "God allows" negates freedom. There should be no definition here.

Well, what is freedom to you? Is it something other than the ability to do that which you desire to do? What exactly do you see God negating?

rhutchin
We can quibble about the definition of faith. However, we will stand before God one day. I don’t see a real difference between the faith that one expresses in the existence of God and that which one expresses in the existence of the Chinese people as you have described.

JPD
You evidently have absolutely no idea what faith is. If you knew what it was you wouldn't be comparing it with China. It shouldn't be that difficult a distinction to recognize but you are struggling here as you do throughout every single other thread you participate in. The fact that your arguments don't work on any level would appear to be a symptom of being one of "the elect".

OK. How do you define the term, “faith�? How does your definition distinguish between a person who has faith that the Chinese people exist and a person who has faith that God exists.

[John A. Broussard]

OK. How do you define the term, “faith�? How does your definition distinguish between a person who has faith that the Chinese people exist and a person who has faith that God exists.
I tend to agree with you. Anyone who believes that god exists can also, with equal certainty, believe that the Chinese people don't exist. It's all very simple. One needs only blind oneself to facts.

Since your belief rests on a conviction that the bible is inerrant, and since you won't deal with the flaws, fables, contradictions and outright absurdities in that strange collection of legends, then it's not at all surprising that you will believe what I mentioned in an earlier post:

That a man can make the sun stand still when it isn't even moving, that rabbits chew their cud, that 500,000 species of animals were crowded onto an ark that sailed the universal flood for most of a year, that...

I think you get the point.

[Wayne Delia]

As far as I know, I am enjoying life and do not see how my enjoyment of life is being hampered by my belief in God and the idea that I am accountable for my behavior.
But you do not feel accountable for your behavior. You broke the Ninth Commandment, and admitted your pride is too much for you to overcome. In that respect, you admitted that you were "equal" to how you imagined I was affected by my own pride. Still no acknowledgement, no apologies, no repentance. Clearly, you would enjoy life much less if you had to admit in front of the atheists that you committed a grave sin.

Obviously, I don't have a clue about what you mean.
Evidently, yes.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

I kinda think that most people would agree that truth is truth regardless of the ability of any individual (theologian, scientist, philosopher, etc) to prove that it is true.
Of course. The problem with your argument is that you continue on with an ASSUMPTION that what you believe is true, followed by a CONCLUSION that what you believe is true, and you're frustrated that nobody is willing to grant you that illogical "leap of faith.'

It is not the declaration of an individual that makes something true.
Unless, of course, you make the declaration. That's pretty much exactly what you are doing. "The truth is the truth" doesn't identify exactly that which is the truth, and that's the task in front of you.

Truth will be true because it is the truth.
Sure. The next step is to make a necessary connection between "truth" and "the religious bullshit that you believe." You haven't done that, because frankly, you can't do that.

If God, who wrote the Bible (i.e., inspired many men to write of their experiences with Him) cannot prove, to you, that the Bible is true, what could I do?
You haven't done anything, and your argument fell apart.

Guess that makes you the loser.
Oh yeah? Oh YEAH? Well, that makes you Mister Poopy-Pants!!! (The debate has seemed to take a different turn.)

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We can start with the following on the effects of sin--
Sure, let's do that.

Deuteronomy 28
15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:
This is just a side note semi-unrelated to the claim that the Bible asserts that sin causes natural disasters, but it's relevant enough that I would like an answer from you. You committed a huge sin, breaking the Ninth Commandment. You failed to acknowledge it, apologize for it, or repent for doing it. Aren't you the least bit concerned about any of the curses below being rained down on you?

16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.
17 Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store.
18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.
None of this has any bearing on natural disasters. Therefore, you really didn't need to include it.

19 Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
20 The LORD shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.
Again, nothing about natural disasters, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, or hurricanes. Rather, it describes a cursing and personal destruction which we observe simply does not happen (apart from rare claims of spontaneous human combustion in the National Enquirer).

21 The LORD shall make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.
22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.
Was this your idea of a natural disaster? People get fevers, inflammation, and burning? Fortunately, very few if anyone these days are run through by a sword as an execution. There is only one clear example of a threat of natural disaster.... MILDEW!!! Aaaaaugh!!! (That, too, was sarcasm.)

23 And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.
This is probably a reference to earthquakes, because... well... you know... it mentions the earth... the heaven is brass? What the Fuck?

24 The LORD shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
Powder and dust raining from heaven... "There's something you don't see every day, Chauncey" (a line from an old "Rocky and Bullwinkle" episode). It could be a reference to a tornado, which gets its dark gray color from dirt and dust, but that comes from the ground, not from heaven.

25 The LORD shall cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.
26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away.
The LORD defines a natural disaster as a soldier or citizen being killed in war by enemies? That problem seems to be man-made, rather than a natural disaster.

27 The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
27A And being smited thee by the botch of Egypt, the first of thy male offspring shalt be known as "Son of a Botch." (I made that up myself.) Unless "botch" means something like "uncontrollable sandstorm," it doesn't have much relevance to the argument you're trying - and miserably failing - to make.

28 The LORD shall smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:
29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee.
Clearly, you're misunderstanding the assignment in front of you. We're looking for a claim in the Bible in which natural disasters - ALL natural disasters causing pain, suffering, and death - are the result of sin. What you've got here is just an ancient, anonymous author who is threatening all sorts of individual, personal curses which we know today are all bullshit. Powder and dust doesn't rain from heaven unless it started on earth being erupted from a volcano; wrongdoers are not suddenly and uniformly blinded. As a test of these curses, can you describe which of them you've experienced as a result of you breaking the Ninth Commandment? Have you been struck blind, or mad, or did you get your allocation of "botches"? You can't even address those questions, because you not only got no "botches" as punishment, you still can't bring yourself to admit you did what you clearly, obviously did.

30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.
"There will be no gathering of grapes, because... because... they'll all be gone in the tor-NAAAAA-do!!!" <snicker>

See, I can do the same treatment with the rest of the verses, but the lesson here is that you can't bluff your way through a claim simply by piling on the irrelevent Bible verses. It may have worked on you at one time, but I seem to have a better focus on the topic at hand than you ever did. I'll snip the rest of the Deuteronomy bullshit and focus on your final speculation. [/QUOTE]

Then there is Solomon’s prayer to God--
1 Kings 8
35 When heaven is shut up, and there is no rain, because they have sinned against thee; if they pray toward this place, and confess thy name, and turn from their sin, when thou afflictest them:
36 Then hear thou in heaven, and forgive the sin of thy servants, and of thy people Israel, that thou teach them the good way wherein they should walk, and give rain upon thy land, which thou hast given to thy people for an inheritance.
Lack of rain is a "natural disaster"? Droughts are relatively well understood and, in fact, are predictable. The greater metropolitan Seattle area is quite unlikely to experience a drought of any significant length; similarly, a raincoat salesman in the Sahara Desert is not likely to prosper in his business, no matter who has sinned or not sinned.

We also have, for examples, the ten plagues of Egypt because Pharaoh refused to allow Israel to leave, the sins of Sodom that brought its destruction, and Noah’s flood.
Well, to be fair to Pharoah, there are verses in Exodus which reveal Pharoah did relent and agree to release the Hebrew slaves, but "God hardened Pharoah's heart" (references available on request) for the specific reason that God wasn't done showing off His power. And the fire and brimstone raining down from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah is most certainly an UNNATURAL disaster; we are discussing naturally-occurring disasters such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods. Noah's flood, incidentally, is logistically impossible unless a tremendous amount of water is somehow miraculously supplied, materialized out of nowhere. If it rained from the skies, the heat generated by the change in potential energy of that amount of water would vaporize the earth. We notice that in no occurrance of any flood does any water magically appear from nowhere. Water bursting forth from underground streams would do similar damage to the earth; the tremendous amount of water required would leave a subterranean void which would be crushed by the weight of the water on the earth's crust.

If this is all you got, we'll consider the matter closed and your argument has been clobbered - as usual.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We continue to disagree on this point.
Well, sure we do - it's because I'm right, and you're wrong. No kidding - the Ninth Commandment is often wrongly interpreted that a believer should never lie, but the actual wording implies a believer should never bring false criminal charges against anyone else. That's what you did when you accused me, and all atheists, of being thieves.

However, if it were true that I was wrong, I would have the following promise from God—
You also have the promise from Jesus that as a (former) Christian, you would have the abilities of faith healing, snake handling, and poison drinking - which you dismissed them as bullshit (or, more accurately, you claimed the abilities didn't work because Jesus was telling a "parable".)

1 John 1
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
See why that doesn't apply to you? There's a conditional clause right there up front. "If we confess our sins." One of the strongest complaints against you is that you haven't confessed anything.

If you reserve that confession on the basis that you disagree, and you still think it's OK to call atheists thieves because Jesus called some other people thieves too, we are reminded of Steve Martin's comedy routine where he said his perfect alibi was "I forgot," for example, "I forgot that murder was a crime." God is probably smart enough to know that you just don't want to admit you're wrong in front of the atheists. To confess your sins to God and not even acknowledge you sinned to those whom you've offended is the height of insincerity. You are more concerned with saving your own ass instead of correcting your transgression. You are strengthening an already undeserved stereotype of Christians as being hypocritical jerks who commit all sorts of sins, mumble prayers to their idea of God, and continue to sin all they want.

This is a promise given to all whom God has saved and who sin after God has saved them.
Can't you read? It starts out with "If we confess our sin." You haven't confessed Jack Shit.

Thus, even though I might sin, God has provided a means for me to be forgiven of that sin.
You're not too clear on what that involves. You need to confess your sin, and you can barely bring yourself to discuss it, because it's clear that you're wrong, and your pride will not permit you to admit it in front of the heathen unbelievers.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

OK. The basis for belief, and that which one must believe, is provided by the Bible. Whatever we assume must be consistent with that which the Bible says (If we have concluded that the Biblical god is the true and living God).
You missed the point - AGAIN. The objective is to determine the "true and living God." You start with that as an assumed premise - that the "true and living God" is the Judeo/Christian Yahweh, then you go digging in the Bible for all sorts of information that might bolster that assumption. That's probably the worst method of logical argument that can be constructed.

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Wager flows from the uncertainty that is present. If one is uncertain what to believe, the Wager leads to the logical conclusion that one should believe in the true and living God.

HRG
Non-sequitur. This assumes that the t.u.l.G. - if he exists at all - will reward belief in himself, even if this belief has no rational basis.

What if the t.u.l.G. has set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists ?

rhutchin
OK. The basis for belief, and that which one must believe, is provided by the Bible. Whatever we assume must be consistent with that which the Bible says (If we have concluded that the Biblical god is the true and living God).

Wayne Delia
You missed the point - AGAIN. The objective is to determine the "true and living God." You start with that as an assumed premise - that the "true and living God" is the Judeo/Christian Yahweh, then you go digging in the Bible for all sorts of information that might bolster that assumption. That's probably the worst method of logical argument that can be constructed.

The question raised was whether the true and living God could have set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists.

If one looks at the Biblical god as a potential true and living God, then one would search the Bible to determine the answer to the question raised. One would also do that for all gods. One would search the corresponding holy books to see if the situation posed in the question would be valid under any potential God.

[JPD]

Well, what is freedom to you? Is it something other than the ability to do that which you desire to do? What exactly do you see God negating?

You speak of this as if it is God's decision to give one freedom. Once you start to say that you are free because entity X has granted you freedom it doesn't feel like freedom at all. By its very nature freedom should not be tied to some set of mystical permissions. Taking responsibility for what one does whilst exercising that freedom is a different matter since the effects are understood and one can make amends if necessary.


OK. How do you define the term, “faith�? How does your definition distinguish between a person who has faith that the Chinese people exist and a person who has faith that God exists.

This really shouldn't need to be explained. Obviously faith - belief in the absence of evidence - is not utilised in reference to the Chinese or anyone/anything else that has a demonstrable existence. One does not use faith in this context.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
We continue to disagree on this point.

Wayne Delia
We continue to disagree on this point.
Well, sure we do - it's because I'm right, and you're wrong. No kidding - the Ninth Commandment is often wrongly interpreted that a believer should never lie, but the actual wording implies a believer should never bring false criminal charges against anyone else. That's what you did when you accused me, and all atheists, of being thieves.

We disagree because you think you are right on this issue and I think that I am right. You would like me to be wrong (because that would support your position) but you cannot show how I am wrong (other than to say, You are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong). That’s what some people are doing with the President over the war in Iraq. They continually say, You lied, you lied, you lied, but have no support for that claim. Even Saddam thought he had WMDs (but I guess you could argue that he was crazy and could not know what he had).

rhutchin
However, if it were true that I was wrong, I would have the following promise from God—

Wayne Delia
You also have the promise from Jesus that as a (former) Christian, you would have the abilities of faith healing, snake handling, and poison drinking - which you dismissed them as bullshit (or, more accurately, you claimed the abilities didn't work because Jesus was telling a "parable".)

No, we have the promise that those things would manifest themselves where needed.

One such instance was recorded here.

Acts 28
1 And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.
2 And the barbarous people shewed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold.
3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.

However, it is also true that Christ said that He always spoke in parables, and one would be justified in looking at this as implying more than a superficial reading would reveal.

rhutchin
1 John 1
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Wayne Delia
See why that doesn't apply to you? There's a conditional clause right there up front. "If we confess our sins." One of the strongest complaints against you is that you haven't confessed anything.

If you reserve that confession on the basis that you disagree, and you still think it's OK to call atheists thieves because Jesus called some other people thieves too, we are reminded of Steve Martin's comedy routine where he said his perfect alibi was "I forgot," for example, "I forgot that murder was a crime." God is probably smart enough to know that you just don't want to admit you're wrong in front of the atheists. To confess your sins to God and not even acknowledge you sinned to those whom you've offended is the height of insincerity. You are more concerned with saving your own ass instead of correcting your transgression. You are strengthening an already undeserved stereotype of Christians as being hypocritical jerks who commit all sorts of sins, mumble prayers to their idea of God, and continue to sin all they want.

I would need to be convinced that I had done something wrong in order to confess that wrong. You have not said anything to me that would cause me to think I have done anything wrong in this matter.

rhutchin
This is a promise given to all whom God has saved and who sin after God has saved them.

Wayne Delia
Can't you read? It starts out with "If we confess our sin." You haven't confessed Jack Shit.

What wrong do I have to confess – Your contention that I don’t understand the Bible the way you do?

rhutchin
Thus, even though I might sin, God has provided a means for me to be forgiven of that sin.

Wayne Delia
You're not too clear on what that involves. You need to confess your sin, and you can barely bring yourself to discuss it, because it's clear that you're wrong, and your pride will not permit you to admit it in front of the heathen unbelievers.

If it ever comes to the point where you are able prove that I have purposely misunderstood the Bible on this matter, then I can confess that sin. You are not there.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK, God allows man to choose to do that which he desires and does not intervene to prevent it.

JPD
Nope. You have lost it again. "God allows" negates freedom. There should be no definition here.

rhutchin
Well, what is freedom to you? Is it something other than the ability to do that which you desire to do? What exactly do you see God negating?

JPD
You speak of this as if it is God's decision to give one freedom. Once you start to say that you are free because entity X has granted you freedom it doesn't feel like freedom at all. By its very nature freedom should not be tied to some set of mystical permissions. Taking responsibility for what one does whilst exercising that freedom is a different matter since the effects are understood and one can make amends if necessary.

OK. Still, what is freedom to you? Is it something other than the ability to do that which you desire to do? What exactly do you see God negating?

rhutchin
OK. How do you define the term, “faith�? How does your definition distinguish between a person who has faith that the Chinese people exist and a person who has faith that God exists.

JPD
This really shouldn't need to be explained. Obviously faith - belief in the absence of evidence - is not utilized in reference to the Chinese or anyone/anything else that has a demonstrable existence. One does not use faith in this context.

If there is no evidence, what is there to have faith in? Are you saying that faith is the conviction of the truth of those things that one imagines to be true but has no evidence to suggest that those things are true?

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
We can trace genetic defects and natural disasters back to Adam/Eve because it was their sin that brought these things into the world that God had previously declared to be very good.

HRG
A "very good universe" would be fail-safe and human sin could not influence it. What would you think of a car who breaks down at the first bump in the road ?
I think that there's a strong probability that car was manufactured by General Motors. But for General Motors to blame the car breaking down on the human hitting the bump, and to blame all other car breakdowns on that particular incident of the human hitting the original bump... well, that would be insane for General Motors to do that, but somehow perfectly fine for God to do that with humans.

rhutchin
I don’t think a "very good universe" would have to be fail-safe. God can create a very good universe and then give the man He creates the freedom to change that universe.
It's not freedom if it's prohibited, and God seemed to get His divine knickers in a knot over not a universe-changing action, but a relatively harmless action - eating a particular fruit, one which conveyed the knowledge to tell the difference between good and evil, which isn't a bad skill to have. The apologetic here would be the universe-changing action was disobeying God, but that's not an argument you'd be in a position to advance. You blatantly disobeyed God, even at a time when you were a believer, by breaking the Ninth Commandment. I am unaware of any universe-changing consequences due to your disobedience of God - it was certainly after Hurricane Katrina. If you get onto weather.com, maybe you can find a small typhoon in Asia you could feel guilty for causing.

HRG
In addition, please tell us how the consumption of a fruit by a human being can (remainder is incomplete)

rhutchin
What changed the very good universe was sin. Sin is disobedience to God and is that which God says is disobedience.
Clearly, you contributed to the degradation of the "very good universe" by disobeying the Ninth Commandment, right? Or do you presume to have a better handle on what sin is than God Himself?

When God declared, “Thou shalt not eat…,� God defined sin and made it possible for man to choose to sin.
Just like when God declared "Thou shalt not bear false witness...," right?

When many then chose to sin, he became corrupted and passed that corruption on to his children.
That's what you're being asked to explain, and I note Dr. Gruemm has followed it up with an excellent observation: man, and man's sin, is not nearly powerful enough to create these natural disasters or destroy the universe. Rather, God performs those actions in response to man's sins; it's a case of "Look what you made Me do" on a cosmic scale.

That corruption was also passed on to all that God had created by God who, as a consequence of Adam’s sin, said that He would not maintain the universe in its very good state.
I don't blame you for forgetting what you got hammered with in previous discussions - it was, no doubt, fairly embarrassing to you - but Adam and Eve committed a sin at a time when they could not possibly understand that committing a sin was a bad thing to do. Nor did they have any possibility of understanding what God meant when He threatened them with death, spiritual or actual physical death. It was just a case of God making up His mind that He was going to be pissed off over something that those He was pissed off at really had no control or reasonable responsibility.

rhutchin
…Natural disasters are normal natural events that occur in places that result in a disaster.

HRG
And who decided that tornadoes would be "normal natural events"?

rhutchinI think that is the way meteorologists would describe them. They are normal consequences of weather systems under specific situations.
As hesitant as I am to disagree with HRG, I can accept the term "normal" to describe natural disasters, in the sense that they are not caused by paranormal, supernatural, metaphysical speculated tantrums by a pissed-off God. The amount of damage and devastation, and the frequency of such large-scale storms, are not "normal" but are not extraordinary or impossible. But to make that assertion as you did concedes your entire argument: natural disasters are "normal consequences of weather systems under specific situations" (I would suggest the term "conditions" rather than "situations"), instead of being normal consequences of God's tantrums or man's sins.

OK. If disaster follows sin (and does so consistently), then we might associate sin with disaster in some manner (even if we cannot agree that sin is the “primal cause� of disaster).
Disaster doesn't follow sin on any kind of basis that can be correlated with any positive degree of certainty. For example, what natural disaster did you cause when you broke the Ninth Commandment? I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear you argue that your bearing false witness wasn't a sin because God didn't send any tornadoes or hurricanes as punishment.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
Not necessarily. There are many people living in china and I have never seen most them but I still believe that they exist. That is faith. People express faith in bankers when they deposit their checks in a bank. The trust that people put in living entities (even nonliving) is done through faith.

JPD
Clearly there are many people living in China. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. There is overwhelming evidence - way beyond any question - that there are many people living in China. Please do not be so naive and foolish as to use this, or anything else like it, as support for your argument because it is totally invalid as an example. Try to learn that there are certain types of arguments that people just don't use unless they are completely desperate. You are completely desperate.

rhutchin
Faith is the evidence of things not seen (according to the Bible) which seems to fit what you are saying. We have evidence of people living in China even though we do not see them, thus our faith that they are there.
You ARE kidding, right? Do you honestly think that no people in China have ever been seen? For someone who is suddenly so hyper-skeptical, it's amazing you got suckered into that God-belief. Here's the point you are missing: Chinese people, living in China, can be demonstrated to exist, using a reliable, repeatable testing procedure which does not depend on any preconceived presuppositions. Your God cannot be demonstrated to exist, regardless of how deeply you are able to delude yourself. Thus, "faith" that there are Chinese people living in China is based on an extremely high level of confidence in previous observations, while "faith" that God exists is exactly the kind of wishful thinking you describe - an empty hope, in place of any evidence at all.

Similarly, we have evidence of God from the writings of many men over many years
Wouldn't that be "evidence that some men wrote something" instead of "evidence of God?" To have that apply to your argument, you'd need to establish and state that "Anything written down by any man is necessarily true," which is obviously bullshit. It remains a silent, implied assumption, and it no doubt applies only to stuff which you believe. Anything else, such as non-Christian holy books, would presumably need to be further examined, but the Bible gets a "special pleading" pass.

and have faith that God exists even though we do not see Him.
Which, of course, is functionally equivalent to God not existing. A deity existing, yet being undetectable and having no measurable impact whatsoever in the world, is just as useless as a deity which doesn't exist.

Why is faith that God exists desperate when faith that the Chinese exist is not desperate?
Because... we... can... easily... travel... to... China... and... observe... Chinese... people.

We can't do the same for God, as there are no airline round-trips with heaven as a destination.

Your attempt to equate faith in God with faith that Chinese people exist is, in fact, very desperate.

WMD

[rhutchin]

Oh yeah? Oh YEAH? Well, that makes you Mister Poopy-Pants!!!

The Ultimate WMD.

[rhutchin]

...For example, what natural disaster did you cause when you broke the Ninth Commandment? I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear you argue that your bearing false witness wasn't a sin because God didn't send any tornadoes or hurricanes as punishment.

Sounds like a good argument to me.

[Wayne Delia]

Good point. I should have said something like this, “If you will not be convinced by something that God says, there is nothing I can say that will convince you.�
Speculation on the possible reaction to evidence is no excuse for failing to produce the evidence. You have failed to produce the evidence to establish your belief as valid, so you lost the debate. What's amusing is that you took that opportunity to call other people "losers". Very much an attitude of "sour grapes."

Yes, we should credit Allah with inspiring Mohammed to write the Qu'ran if Allah is the true and living God.
The same condition, of course, applies to Yahweh and Christianity, but you don't stop at that condition. You assume it's true without establishing it. That's why your argument didn't work.

We can credit Charles Darnay with "Tale of Two Cities" if he is the source of information and instructed Dickens as to that which he should write.
Suppose Dickens actually made that claim about the central character of the book, and that it was non-fiction. Would it be a good thing to believe him out of "faith" instead of investigating those claims?

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
What breach of contract?

Wayne Delia
The one where you agreed to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me for $7,825, but not a penny less.

rhutchin
It is at settlement that a contract is signed (although we can have a gentleman's agreement before settlement).

Wayne Delia
Who made up that rule? A contract is signed when it is signed.

rhutchin
We have a contract when we both sign on the dotted line.

Wayne Delia
We both did. Now it's up to you to prove that you didn't. That's using nothing more than your current line of reasoning.

rhutchin
So, I am to buy the bridge from you without asking you to produce a deed and without going to settlement.
Yes. It's good for you to have "faith". "Faith" is the evidence of things not seen, and you're gonna need "faith" because you ain't gonna see any contract from me. You'll need to disprove that I have that contract, just like you suggested that the burden is on atheists to disprove your wacky-ass idea of God.

Some very special conditions you require to get to your conclusion.
Notice how you are using the same special conditions to argue for belief in your God?

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

How can God "give" someone freedom? It is either something they have already or something that they do not. Otherwise it would not be freedom.
"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." (Janis Joplin)

It doesn't matter how many times I hear this crap, it always makes me groan at the moronic attitude it imbues in its followers. So Adam, who was innocent, and could not have known good or evil, does something that God knows he is going to do. God knows that Adam will do it. Adam can't know that it is wrong since he has no knowledge of good or evil. So God is a pratt for that, and an ever bigger pratt for judging that we are born wrong from the outset. We had nothing to do with it (pretending that this happened for sake of argument). God's pratting pales into insignificance though when the sheer prattiness of the fools who swallow this crap is experienced.

"Uh... Praise God!"


WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We can quibble about the definition of faith.
It's hardly a "quibble". It's a significant difference. Your definition of religious faith is essentially "wishful thinking," and your definition of scientific faith is "acceptance based on extremely reliable and plentiful, yet inconvenient, evidence." The religious faith has exactly no evidence to support it, while the scientific faith is supported by verifiable evidence. One claim has plenty of evidence, the other claim has no evidence at all. "Evidence, no evidence." This will come in handy shortly. When cornered with that observation, the very weak Christian apologist will resort to empty death threats, such as the following:

However, we will stand before God one day.
That's a particularly amusing statement, equivalent to "Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass!" God actually has much more to worry about from me than I do from Him. For starters, I actually exist, which puts God at a tremendous physical disadvantage.

I don’t see a real difference between the faith that one expresses in the existence of God and that which one expresses in the existence of the Chinese people as you have described.
Here, I will refer back to my refutation above, summarized as "Evidence, no evidence." That's the difference you haven't noticed. The religious faith in God has no evidence, but the scientific faith in the existence of Chinese people has plenty of evidence - literally, more than a billion pieces of evidence.

[Wayne Delia]

OK, God allows man to choose to do that which he desires and does not intervene to prevent it.
You still haven't gotten over the shock of being completely refuted on a large scale about that "desires drives choices" mess in the free will discussion, have you? I gave two examples of large groups of people who cannot do what they desire: the armed forces, and the prison inmate population. A soldier may desire to stay home instead of going to war; a prisoner may desire to leave the prison and go for a walk in the park. In neither case do their desires drive their actual choices.

Adam did know that which God had commanded. Adam did know that God had said, “Thou shalt not eat….�
But Adam did not know that it was wrong to disobey that commandment. That's the point you're intentionally avoiding.

Sin is disobedience to that which God has commanded and does not require that one understand right and wrong.
So a sin would be a disobedience of "Thou shalt not eat..." or "Thou shalt not bear false witness...", right?

Sins can be committed whether one can tell the difference between right and wrong (such as you, presumably) or one is a sociopath (like Adam and Eve, unable to discern good and evil). The difference is that the punishment of someone like you for breaking the Ninth Commandment would be more reasonable than punishing people who, by design, were unable to understand that what they were doing is wrong.

We might be able to discover a casual relationship if not a causal relationship.
That was the exact terms you used in the argument you got clobbered in. It has been said that an insane person takes the exact same actions using the exact same methods, expecting different results.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

You evidently have absolutely no idea what faith is. If you knew what it was you wouldn't be comparing it with China. It shouldn't be that difficult a distinction to recognise but you are struggling here as you do throughout every single other thread you participate in. The fact that your arguments don't work on any level would appear to be a symptom of being one of "the elect".
It is the height of irony that rhutchin actually disqualified himself from being one of "the elect", in order to avoid acknowledging and repenting for breaking the Ninth Commandment. He posted a list of Biblical criteria to determine a "true Christian," and two of those criteria were that a "true Christian" would not continue to live in sin, and would serve Jesus in their lives. rhutchin continues to refuse to acknowledge, apologize, or repent (continues to live in sin) and does a disservice to Jesus by misrepresenting His words in an attempt to defend himself.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

It seems that you are asking how Adam should have known not to eat the fruit after God said, “Thou shalt not eat….� Is that what you are asking?
Of course not. We are asking what is the point of punishing someone who does not know whether disobedience is wrong - for that matter, whether anything is wrong.

Are you saying that one needs to comprehend (or understand) certain things about the law in order to obey the law?
Well, yes: in order to comply with the law threatening death for the offense of disobedience, one needs to understand the meaning of the term "death", for starters. God did not supply that information to Adam and Eve, leaving them clueless, along with billions of people throughout history arguing whether it meant "spiritual" or "physical" death.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

I tend to agree with you. Anyone who believes that god exists can also, with equal certainty, believe that the Chinese people don't exist. It's all very simple. One needs only blind oneself to facts.

Since your belief rests on a conviction that the bible is inerrant, and since you won't deal with the flaws, fables, contradictions and outright absurdities in that strange collection of legends, then it's not at all surprising that you will believe what I mentioned in an earlier post:

That a man can make the sun stand still when it isn't even moving, that rabbits chew their cud, that 500,000 species of animals were crowded onto an ark that sailed the universal flood for most of a year, that...

I think you get the point.
Excellent points; I was thinking of paraphrasing the standard definition of religious faith as "evidence of things not seen, and the ability to not see evidence of the things that are seen."

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

The question raised was whether the true and living God could have set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists.
Right. There was nothing addressing the actual identity of the "true and living God," and there certainly should be, if that speculation has any validity.

If one looks at the Biblical god as a potential true and living God, then one would search the Bible to determine the answer to the question raised. One would also do that for all gods. One would search the corresponding holy books to see if the situation posed in the question would be valid under any potential God.
What a complete hypocrite you are! You've glommed on to the Biblical God as the "true and living God," but by your own words you admitted you couldn't be bothered to do the same investigation for any of the other religions. Instead, you referenced a Christian website which reached the unsurprising conclusion that Christianity was the correct path, and blindly took their word that all the tens of thousands of other gods, and the unlimited number of potentially undefined or undiscovered gods, were all wrong. It turns out that their methods were just as lazy and intellectually dishonest as your method.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

We disagree because you think you are right on this issue and I think that I am right. You would like me to be wrong (because that would support your position) but you cannot show how I am wrong (other than to say, You are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong).
You have forced yourself to ignore the actual reasons I gave to demonstrate that you are, in fact, wrong. Here are the observable facts:
1) You actually did call atheists "thieves".
2) The Ninth Commandment (Protestant version) prohibits bearing false witness against others.
3) In attempting to defend yourself, you misrepresented the words of Jesus, who called false religious teachers who came before Him "thieves". Clearly, I am not in that group.

Your cognitive dissonance is too great to overcome for you to deal with those facts, so you've gone into denial.

That’s what some people are doing with the President over the war in Iraq. They continually say, You lied, you lied, you lied, but have no support for that claim.
That's a claim that no longer has to be supported, since Bush accepted responsibility for starting the war based on bad information. Haven't you seen the news the past few days? The President actually accepted responsibility for what you claim can't be supported.

Even Saddam thought he had WMDs (but I guess you could argue that he was crazy and could not know what he had).
I suppose that an insanity defense would be an attractive option for you in the current argument.

No, we have the promise that those things would manifest themselves where needed.
Jesus made no such conditional restriction in Mark 16:17-18. Those special abilities were supposed to distinguish Christians as believers, with nothing at all said about "where needed." Even the example you gave in Acts 28 had no such restriction that those abilities would only "manifest themselves where needed."

However, it is also true that Christ said that He always spoke in parables,
No, it's not true, unless your operating definition of "true" is "Blatantly False." Jesus never made that claim at all. It was the anonymous author of Mark in chapter 4, verse 34 - and even that reference makes the disclaimer that Jesus explained everything factually to His disciples. It turns out that Jesus was speaking to His disciples in Mark 16:17-18, so there's reason to believe He evidently meant what he said.

and one would be justified in looking at this as implying more than a superficial reading would reveal.
That's not what you're doing, though: you're looking for any excuse to pretend Jesus didn't mean what He said, so you lumped that together with all of His "parables" to indicate that any parable was not necessarily true in real life - which is equivalent to "bullshit".

I would need to be convinced that I had done something wrong in order to confess that wrong.
You're obviously cornered, and in serious denial, but your comment here brings up a very interesting point involving a topic recently discussed.

Adam and Eve were designed by God to be unable to determine that their disobedience was wrong, just as you are unable to determine that your breaking the Ninth Commandment is wrong. In fact, you are using that as an excuse for what you did. You are unable to be convinced that you deserve to be condemned to hell for your sin.

God did not accept that as an excuse from Adam and Eve, and not only punished them by banishing them from the Garden of Eden, he extended that curse to all of humanity throughout history. It seems a poor strategy to use the same excuse they had at their disposal: "I was unaware that what I did was wrong."

Using the same line of reasoning, I could flagrantly disbelieve in God, and use the same alibi of intentional ignorance you're using: nobody can convince me that disbelieving in God is wrong, so I'm in the clear, just as you are in the clear pretending that breaking the Ninth Commandment doesn't count unless someone can overcome your intentional ignorance.

That's truly a devastating attack on your argument, and pretty much validates everything I've said to describe your pride as an insurmountable obstacle: Evidently, you think you know more about the meaning of sin than anything God Himself has to say about it. Sin doesn't count unless you fully understand that you have done something wrong - but that didn't work for Adam and Eve, so why would you expect it to work for you?

You have not said anything to me that would cause me to think I have done anything wrong in this matter.
My simple assertion that "I am offended" ought to be enough to communicate clearly to anyone that something is wrong. I'm beginning to suspect that your religious preoccupation has turned you into something less than human.

What wrong do I have to confess – Your contention that I don’t understand the Bible the way you do?
It's been clearly explained to you several dozen times what you did. You called atheists "thieves" in a throw-away insult, without any basis of fact, which happened to be a de-facto violation of the Ninth Commandment. You admitted at first you knew of no Biblical justification for that prejudicial and bigoted remark, but later you went quote-mining and found an instance where Jesus called false religious teachers who came before Him "thieves", so you figured that was close enough to "atheists". You also retrieved an obscure reference, in Malachi if I remember correctly, where the prophet called anyone who would not pay tithes to his church "thieves". Failing to comply with a demand of extortion can hardly be considered "thievery".

If it ever comes to the point where you are able prove that I have purposely misunderstood the Bible on this matter, then I can confess that sin. You are not there.
It is a fact that you called atheists "thieves"; that cannot be denied. It is also a fact that the Ninth Commandment prohibits bearing false witness - false criminal charges - against anyone, which you clearly did, in that you cannot support your claim that atheists are "thieves". You are DEPENDING on your misunderstanding of the Bible in order to pretend that you won't be roasted in hell; specifically, that the Ninth Commandment somehow doesn't apply to you for reasons only misunderstood by yourself. In terms of the real-world implications of your actions, "you are not there."

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

If there is no evidence, what is there to have faith in? Are you saying that faith is the conviction of the truth of those things that one imagines to be true but has no evidence to suggest that those things are true?
Yeah, that's pretty much the deal for religious faith: nothing more than wishful thinking.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Wayne Delia
...For example, what natural disaster did you cause when you broke the Ninth Commandment? I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear you argue that your bearing false witness wasn't a sin because God didn't send any tornadoes or hurricanes as punishment.

rhutchin
Sounds like a good argument to me.
It's a completely stupid argument, which is why I said I wouldn't be surprised that you'd buy into it. Anyone committing any sin could justify it on the basis that since God didn't send a tornado or hurricane or earthquake, He doesn't have a problem with it. Your sense of cause-and-effect is completely screwed up.

WMD

[AZSuperman]

Adam and Eve were designed by God to be unable to determine that their disobedience was wrong, just as you are unable to determine that your breaking the Ninth Commandment is wrong. In fact, you are using that as an excuse for what you did. You are unable to be convinced that you deserve to be condemned to hell for your sin.

God did not accept that as an excuse from Adam and Eve, and not only punished them by banishing them from the Garden of Eden, he extended that curse to all of humanity throughout history. It seems a poor strategy to use the same excuse they had at their disposal: "I was unaware that what I did was wrong."

Wow, I actually disagree with WMD about something, other than who has the ownership rights to the London Bridge! (The bridge is in AZ. My handle clearly shows I live in AZ... that's more than enough evidence to prove I am the true and living bridge owner... so rhutchin needs to pay me!)

According to the Genesis story, the knowledge that you sinned is what condemns you... not the act of sinning itself. Check it out.

Adam and Eve walk around naked, and they're not ashamed. (Gen 2:25) They hadn't eaten the fruit yet, they had no knowledge of sin.
Adam and Eve ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of sin)
Adam and Eve then realized being naked was wrong, so they created fig leave aprons to cover themselves (Gen. 3:7)

Being naked wasn't wrong until after they knew better. Eating the fruit wasn't wrong until after they knew better. Unfortunately, knowledge of sin is retroactive to the day of your birth... so they were punished for their sins and cast out of the garden.

That's the obvious conclusion implied by those verses. If Christians want to "save" as many people as possible, they will need to STOP spreading the word (knowledge of sin). If everyone remains ignorant (like God planned), then everyone will make it to heaven.

And if rhutchin remains ignorant of his offense, he can't be punished for it.

[HRG]

The question raised was whether the true and living God could have set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists.

If one looks at the Biblical god as a potential true and living God, then one would search the Bible to determine the answer to the question raised.
[quote]
And that's what the Spartans said to the Persians: IF.
[quote]
One would also do that for all gods. One would search the corresponding holy books to see if the situation posed in the question would be valid under any potential God.

Actually, the puzzle-making God would not inspire any holy book, for to do so would vitiate the puzzle. IOW, you would in vain search the holy books of all faiths taken together. "Potential Gods" are not restricted to the set that people have come up with during the development of mankind.

Regards, HRG.

[HRG]

As hesitant as I am to disagree with HRG, I can accept the term "normal" to describe natural disasters, in the sense that they are not caused by paranormal, supernatural, metaphysical speculated tantrums by a pissed-off God. The amount of damage and devastation, and the frequency of such large-scale storms, are not "normal" but are not extraordinary or impossible.

As hesitant as I am to disagree with Wayne Delia ;), I think you misunderstood my point. I agree that tornadoes etc. are normal events in our universe; but in the theist model, they are only normal because God had decided - when creating the universe - that they would be normal.. In a different universe, they might be as abnormal as a spontaneous water-to-wine transformation in our universe.

IOW, in a theist universe, God is responsible for all natural processes. Similarly, sin can only lead to natural disasters because God has installed a rule about causation - that they would lead to them.

Regards, HRG.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The question raised was whether the true and living God could have set this universe as a puzzle for us, with the correct answer being "There is no reason to believe in the existence of the supernatural", and the reward goes to those who have come to this answer - the weak atheists.

If one looks at the Biblical god as a potential true and living God, then one would search the Bible to determine the answer to the question raised.

HRG
And that's what the Spartans said to the Persians: IF.

OK. The problem is determining whether the Biblical god is actually the true and living God. I don’t have a problem with defining the problem in that manner.

rhutchin
One would also do that for all gods. One would search the corresponding holy books to see if the situation posed in the question would be valid under any potential God.

HRG
Actually, the puzzle-making God would not inspire any holy book, for to do so would vitiate the puzzle. IOW, you would in vain search the holy books of all faiths taken together. "Potential Gods" are not restricted to the set that people have come up with during the development of mankind.

OK. Like the Greeks, you take into account the unknown gods. You are adding a new god to the mix (or more than one) who has not made itself known through prophets. I don't have a problem with that either.

[rhutchin]

...(The bridge is in AZ. My handle clearly shows I live in AZ... that's more than enough evidence to prove I am the true and living bridge owner... so rhutchin needs to pay me!)...

I still maintain that buying a bridge is no different than buying a house. The potential buyer (me) can require that the alleged owner (you) produce a deed and go through legal settlement.

[AZSuperman]

I still maintain that buying a bridge is no different than buying a house. The potential buyer (me) can require that the alleged owner (you) produce a deed and go through legal settlement.
And I mantain that earning eternal life is no different than buying a house. The potential "saved" (me) can require that the alleged creator (God) produce evidence and go through legal settlement.

(Wow that sounds goofy!)

rhutchin, why do you require more proof for a real estate transaction than you do for your God?

[rhutchin]

Wayne Delia
...For example, what natural disaster did you cause when you broke the Ninth Commandment? I wouldn't be surprised in the least to hear you argue that your bearing false witness wasn't a sin because God didn't send any tornadoes or hurricanes as punishment.

rhutchin
Sounds like a good argument to me.

Wayne Delia
It's a completely stupid argument, which is why I said I wouldn't be surprised that you'd buy into it. Anyone committing any sin could justify it on the basis that since God didn't send a tornado or hurricane or earthquake, He doesn't have a problem with it. Your sense of cause-and-effect is completely screwed up.

The Bible suggests a different outcome, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.�

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 Peter 3
16 As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This destruction can occur through tornadoes or hurricanes (but do not have to).

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I still maintain that buying a bridge is no different than buying a house. The potential buyer (me) can require that the alleged owner (you) produce a deed and go through legal settlement.

AZSuperman
And I mantain that earning eternal life is no different than buying a house. The potential "saved" (me) can require that the alleged creator (God) produce evidence and go through legal settlement.

(Wow that sounds goofy!)

rhutchin, why do you require more proof for a real estate transaction than you do for your God?

Sounds good to me. At a legal settlement, when buying a house or a bridge, you can require certain proofs that you will accept.

You can do the same regarding your salvation (and considering the stakes, you have every right to be demanding). The proof that God offers is that which is contained in the Bible. If that is not sufficient for you, then you have the right to reject God’s offer of salvation. Salvation is legally binding on both parties, and you should not sign for something you do not want.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If there is no evidence, what is there to have faith in? Are you saying that faith is the conviction of the truth of those things that one imagines to be true but has no evidence to suggest that those things are true?

Wayne Delia
Yeah, that's pretty much the deal for religious faith: nothing more than wishful thinking.

Not really. Religious faith is derived from the evidence presented in the Bible which consists of the historical accounts of many men over many years who describe their interactions with what they claim is the true and living God.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
We disagree because you think you are right on this issue and I think that I am right. You would like me to be wrong (because that would support your position) but you cannot show how I am wrong (other than to say, You are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong).

Wayne Delia
You have forced yourself to ignore the actual reasons I gave to demonstrate that you are, in fact, wrong. Here are the observable facts:
1) You actually did call atheists "thieves".
2) The Ninth Commandment (Protestant version) prohibits bearing false witness against others.
3) In attempting to defend yourself, you misrepresented the words of Jesus, who called false religious teachers who came before Him "thieves". Clearly, I am not in that group.

Your cognitive dissonance is too great to overcome for you to deal with those facts, so you've gone into denial.

Yep. I maintain that atheists (as well as others) can be classified as thieves in the sense of the word as we find it used in the Bible.

If you claim that atheists are not false religious teachers when they clearly denounce that the Biblical god is the true and living God, what would a false religious teacher be? Surely not just those who profess that one must worship “a� god and ignoring those who profess that one should worship “no� god. What is it that WMD, the High Priest of Atheism, teachers his children?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
It seems that you are asking how Adam should have known not to eat the fruit after God said, “Thou shalt not eat….� Is that what you are asking?

Wayne Delia
Of course not. We are asking what is the point of punishing someone who does not know whether disobedience is wrong - for that matter, whether anything is wrong.

When God gave the command, “Thou shalt not eat...,� He also described a punishment for eating the fruit. Your point that Adam did not know that eating the fruit would be “wrong� seems weak given that Adam knew the command and the punishment for disobedience. That Adam may not have been able to identify, technically, disobedience as “wrong� would not seem to indemnify him that punishment of which he was informed.

rhutchin
Are you saying that one needs to comprehend (or understand) certain things about the law in order to obey the law?

Wayne Delia
Well, yes: in order to comply with the law threatening death for the offense of disobedience, one needs to understand the meaning of the term "death", for starters. God did not supply that information to Adam and Eve, leaving them clueless, along with billions of people throughout history arguing whether it meant "spiritual" or "physical" death.

I think you have a point. If everyone understood the real meaning of death, they would all worship God. Save the argument and offer it up in your defense when you stand before God and give account for your behavior.

[John A. Broussard]

The Bible suggests a different outcome, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.�

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 Peter 3
16 As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This destruction can occur through tornadoes or hurricanes (but do not have to).

So all the people, including toddlers and the unborn who are crippled or bereft of loved ones or killed in tornadoes and hurricanes have brought
"upon themselves swift destruction."

Is that what you are saying?

I look forward to your reply.

[John A. Broussard]

Yep. I maintain that atheists (as well as others) can be classified as thieves in the sense of the word as we find it used in the Bible.


So no matter how kind, generous, helpful an atheist may be he is always, without question a thief.

Would you rather live in a neighborhood consisting of such atheists or among Christians like Jimmy Bakker, Oral Roberts and their ilk?

[Wayne Delia]

Wow, I actually disagree with WMD about something, other than who has the ownership rights to the London Bridge! (The bridge is in AZ. My handle clearly shows I live in AZ... that's more than enough evidence to prove I am the true and living bridge owner... so rhutchin needs to pay me!)
I think that clears up a lot of our competition lately. You're trying to sell him the London Bridge, which is in AZ, and I'm selling him the Brooklyn Bridge, a completely different structure.

According to the Genesis story, the knowledge that you sinned is what condemns you... not the act of sinning itself. Check it out.

Adam and Eve walk around naked, and they're not ashamed. (Gen 2:25) They hadn't eaten the fruit yet, they had no knowledge of sin.
Adam and Eve ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of good and evil (knowledge of sin)
Adam and Eve then realized being naked was wrong, so they created fig leave aprons to cover themselves (Gen. 3:7)

Being naked wasn't wrong until after they knew better. Eating the fruit wasn't wrong until after they knew better. Unfortunately, knowledge of sin is retroactive to the day of your birth... so they were punished for their sins and cast out of the garden.

That's the obvious conclusion implied by those verses. If Christians want to "save" as many people as possible, they will need to STOP spreading the word (knowledge of sin). If everyone remains ignorant (like God planned), then everyone will make it to heaven.

And if rhutchin remains ignorant of his offense, he can't be punished for it.
My first reaction was to say that this analysis would be perfectly consistent if and only if Adam and Eve were booted from the Garden of Eden for being naked and knowing about it, but I see now that wasn't your point. A&E were punished - Adam by being sentenced to a lifetime of hard manual labor toiling the gardens and fields, Eve by unusually strong pain during childbirth. They were also banished, because they had acquired an abilitiy God had for himself, so God kicked them out before they could acquire another ability He had, which would thus render Him irrelevant. The problem with this explanation, though, is that God would be completely and obviously guilty of that which He was condemning in humans, because God knows the difference between good and evil to begin with. There should be nothing wrong with striving to be more like God, even if that goal is unattainable. Paul said something to the effect of "Be ye perfect, as Christ Jesus is perfect," but that contradicts with the Genesis creation story in which Adam, Eve, and all of mankind throughout history were all condemned because A&E dared to try to become more like God.

Regardless, though, you are correct in observing that rhutchin's defensive position is much like the ostrich with his head in the sand.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

As hesitant as I am to disagree with Wayne Delia ;), I think you misunderstood my point. I agree that tornadoes etc. are normal events in our universe; but in the theist model, they are only normal because God had decided - when creating the universe - that they would be normal.. In a different universe, they might be as abnormal as a spontaneous water-to-wine transformation in our universe.

IOW, in a theist universe, God is responsible for all natural processes. Similarly, sin can only lead to natural disasters because God has installed a rule about causation - that they would lead to them.
OK, that clears it up pretty well. I also liked your point about the standard theist claim that man's sin causes natural disasters and all manner of misfortune (natural or otherwise) when it's God actually doing the causing as a result of "Look what you made Me do."

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

OK. The problem is determining whether the Biblical god is actually the true and living God.
That's simple: there are way too many errors of fact, inconsistencies, contradictions, even logical refutations of God's existence in the Bible (i.e. the Problem of Evil, and my so-called Problem of "God is Love" involving 1 John 4:8, 1 Corinthians 13:4, and Exodus 20:5) to ever consider that the Biblical God is anywhere near the "true and living God." You would need to presume He is, then use that presumption as a "special pleading" excuse to dismiss all the errors and contradictions.

I don’t have a problem with defining the problem in that manner.
Just as long as the Bible God isn't eliminated as the "true and living God," which would wreak havoc with all your arguments. But the Yahweh character is fairly quickly disposed of.

OK. Like the Greeks, you take into account the unknown gods. You are adding a new god to the mix (or more than one) who has not made itself known through prophets. I don't have a problem with that either.
Then you won't have a problem with expanding the matrix in Pascal's Wager accordingly, would you? If you "do the math," the odds favoring the Christian God decrease drastically.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

I still maintain that buying a bridge is no different than buying a house. The potential buyer (me) can require that the alleged owner (you) produce a deed and go through legal settlement.
You've missed the point. Buying a bridge is no different than blindly accepting a particular God as the "true and living God" on faith alone. You've just got to make a certain set of assumptions, taken "on faith", for each situation. If you don't mind doing that for your God, why would it matter for you to do the same for a real, tangible, physical piece of property? For you to require me to produce a deed would be the same as if I was to demand that you present evidence of your God - a task which you've recently explicitly ducked.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

The Bible suggests a different outcome, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.�
Howeth, then, shall a man soweth in order to produceth a tornado-eth?

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Have we wandered back into the "False teachers in Jesus's time represent all atheists?" Why didn't the anonymous author of 2 Peter have the balls to say "This will happen to EVERYONE, not just false prophets among the people?"

2 Peter 3
16 As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
We're looking for an assertion of what sins cause what natural disasters, and hopefully an explanation of why the hurricane season, for example, is confined to only a couple of months out of the year, in relatively limited geographical areas.

This destruction can occur through tornadoes or hurricanes (but do not have to).
Frankly, the claims of "Bad things will happen to people who don't believe or don't behave" are a dime a dozen in ancient holy books. The problem is that many of the people who suffered and died in Hurricane Katrina were sincere, devout, honest believers, such as my late fraternity patriarch, Karlem Riess. Rather than admit you were wrong, you dismissed the whole idea with nothing more than "Well, I guess he's out of luck."

So anyway, why do you figure anyone would worship such a bloodthirsty, homicidal maniac as the Judeo/Christian/Mormon God is portrayed, if not out of simple fear?

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Sounds good to me. At a legal settlement, when buying a house or a bridge, you can require certain proofs that you will accept.
Requiring certain proofs that one will not accept would be stupid. It's like saying "I require X, but X won't meet the requirements."

The analogy to blind faith in God is your corresponding blind faith in our claims that we (actually, only I, since AZSuperman is still pulling your leg - he doesn't actually own the London Bridge in AZ just because he lives in AZ) own the bridges we are offering for sale. If you expect anyone to have blind faith in your religious claims based on completely missing evidence and contradictory terms in the descriptions, you should be willing to do the same with our claims about bridge ownership and ability to sell. What gives you the right to demand any evidence at all, if you won't give us any evidence about this God scam you're trying to sell?

You can do the same regarding your salvation (and considering the stakes, you have every right to be demanding).
That's a drastically different position than you previously took. In the Pascal's Wager discussion, you figured we should all blindly assume it's correct, instead of demanding evidence. In particular, you were in no hurry and no urgency to demonstrate it to be true; instead, you tried to shift the burden of proof back to us by challenging us to disprove it. With your back against the wall, and your unwillingness to do the same for our claims of bridge ownership, your tune has changed.

The proof that God offers is that which is contained in the Bible.
No. What's contained in the Bible are the claims themselves, not evidence of the claims. In your current pool of quicksand involving man's sin producing natural disasters, a piece of evidence would be Hurricane Katrina causing a levee-breaking flood which left the houses of "true Christians" undamaged, while their heathen neighbors were demolished. That can't be done, reasoned the ancient anonymous authors, because the authors weren't clever enough to think up a way God could do that sort of thing, so they retreated into "Can't remove the tares without killing some wheat" useless parables for Jesus to spin.

If that is not sufficient for you, then you have the right to reject God’s offer of salvation.
Since there's not even sufficient evidence for God's existence, any such rejection of an offer from a deity that can't even show itself to exist would be pointless. Non-existent Gods can't make offers of any kind, much less offers we no-canna refuse.

Salvation is legally binding on both parties, and you should not sign for something you do not want.
Bullshit. God's "covenants" are completely unilateral and enforced by the principle of "Might makes right." Personally, I am not involved in any bilateral contract with any kind of fictitional deity, and my previous agreement (as a born-again Christian) was nullified due to God failing to fulfill anything He promised to do in the Bible. God's a fraud.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Not really. Religious faith is derived from the evidence presented in the Bible which consists of the historical accounts of many men over many years who describe their interactions with what they claim is the true and living God.
If you're going to insist on mindlessly parrotting Josh McDowell's easily refuted apologetics, you won't find yourself invited to many parties. I am not discounting the existence of religious faith; I am discounting the basis of that religious faith - using arguments you cannot refute.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

Yep. I maintain that atheists (as well as others) can be classified as thieves in the sense of the word as we find it used in the Bible.
What good is your classification, though? In the same discussion, you admitted to being a pedophile, as defined by a hypothetical cult who defines anyone who fails to accept their hypothetical dogma as someone who is damaging to children, therefore labeled a pedophile. You even said you were PROUD to be a pedophile! But your pride in a clearly damaging, derogatory classification (which would get you knifed if you were in prison) is no justification for you doing the same to other law-abiding people in society, such as myself.

If you claim that atheists are not false religious teachers when they clearly denounce that the Biblical god is the true and living God,
A religious teacher teaches religion. Atheism is an absence of theism, and is not a religion in itself. Even if it was a religion, the burden of proof for you would be to establish that it was necessarily wrong in order to claim that those who "teach" atheism are necessarily false religious teachers. Your faith in your own God is useless in that kind of demonstration.

what would a false religious teacher be?
He would have to start by being a teacher and adherent of some sort of religious theology, which right off the bat disqualifies any atheists. (I realize atheists could teach religious theology such as an atheist professor in a college-level comparative religions seminar, but that is a historical overview, rather than an exhortation to adopt a certain set of beliefs.) Whether the theology was false must be demonstrated by those who classify it as false, and when Jesus spoke His parable in John 10:7-10, that demonstration was nothing more than a simple disagreement with whatever it was that Jesus was teaching.

Surely not just those who profess that one must worship “a� god and ignoring those who profess that one should worship “no� god.
Why not? An atheist, professing that one should worship "no" god, is not producing a positive religious teaching in favor of any particular religion. Atheism is not a religion; if you want to take that position, you'll be laughed off the stage with jokes such as "then bald is a hair color." It would be terrific if atheism actually was a religion, but organized legitimate religious organizations strenuously oppose that, because then atheism would be entitled to share from the same pot of money earmarked for religious tax exemptions in the United States.

What is it that WMD, the High Priest of Atheism, teachers his children?
<chuckle> Well, one of the first things I'd teach them is that "teacher" isn't a verb, as you have misused it here. But the general theme would be that I'd teach them to avoid, whenever possible, religious wackos like you, and would show them your posts as evidence that you're not too tightly wrapped.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

When God gave the command, “Thou shalt not eat...,� He also described a punishment for eating the fruit.
God gave no such description, nor did He even give an illustration as an example. He just said "If you eat from the fruit of this tree, the day you eat it you will die." (Genesis 2:17) No further explanation at all. Adam and Eve had never seen any other humans die, since they were the only humans alive, so there was no previous precedent of what the hell God was talking about - waht it implied, and whether it was a spiritual death or an actual physical death. You've really got to stop making up shit that's not in the Bible - also leaving very obvious shit out that IS in the Bible, as you now proceed to do:

Your point that Adam did not know that eating the fruit would be “wrong� seems weak given that Adam knew the command and the punishment for disobedience.
"Seems weak?" Are you kidding? It's explicitly stated in Genesis that Adam and Eve did not receive knowledge of good and evil until after they ate from the aptly-named Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. They didn't even know they were naked (and should therefore be ashamed) until they ate the forbidden fruit. By that time, the disobedience had already been committed. Without knowledge of good and evil, any decision would be morally neutral, regardless of what anyone may have told Adam. He wouldn't have known it was bad to disobey God. As it turned out, of course, the serpent was telling the truth (Adam and Eve did not die, and did gain the knowledge of good and evil which God already had) while God lied about them dying that day they ate the fruit.

That Adam may not have been able to identify, technically, disobedience as “wrong� would not seem to indemnify him that punishment of which he was informed.
That's very much the point I was trying to get you to understand about your own behavior. That you may not have been able to understand, technically, bearing false witness as "wrong" would not seem to indemnify you from the punishment which is described in the Bible. Personally, I couldn't care less about the punishments in the Bible, as long as people aren't ritually stoned for adultery, or rebellious and disobedient children are killed with no due process (as recommended in Deuteronomy), but I gotta figure people like you who break any of the Ten Commandments are on a rocket sled to hell with no return-trip ticket.

I think you have a point.
I think you're about to completely miss it, as usual.

If everyone understood the real meaning of death, they would all worship God.
Bullshit. People DO understand death - it's an observably permanent state of cessation of biological processes. Afterlife empty threats of eternity in torture for not believing a certain theology are a dime a dozen; they only seem to affect those already "God-soaked" in a particular religion. The actual point, which you either intentionally missed or you aren't capable of understanding is that God threatened Adam and Eve with a punishment using an undefined term. We're smarter today than Adam and Eve were back then, and we now know that the biological processes necessary for awareness, cognition, sentience, even pain receptors all stop at death, so the claims of seeing, feeling, or knowing anything after death is simply bullshit.

Save the argument and offer it up in your defense when you stand before God and give account for your behavior.
"Worship my invisible sky-daddy or He'll kick your ass!" You never get sick of using that tired old chestnut, do you? For my response, I will adopt Rick Moen's Strategy: "In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter into Judgement Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own devising, and a serious attitude problem." As I've said before, God has more to fear from me than I have from Him, since at a bare minimum, I exist, and am therefore at a significant physical advantage.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

So no matter how kind, generous, helpful an atheist may be he is always, without question a thief.

Would you rather live in a neighborhood consisting of such atheists or among Christians like Jimmy Bakker, Oral Roberts and their ilk?
Depends on what one is looking for. If it's good looking hookers, definitely go with the televangelists.

;)

WMD

[HRG]

When God gave the command, “Thou shalt not eat...,� He also described a punishment for eating the fruit. Your point that Adam did not know that eating the fruit would be “wrong� seems weak given that Adam knew the command and the punishment for disobedience. That Adam may not have been able to identify, technically, disobedience as “wrong� would not seem to indemnify him that punishment of which he was informed.


So you would say that disobeying Stalin's commands was wrong ? After all, he had announced a punishment for failure to obey. Thus all victims of the NKWD, all inmates of the Gulag only got the punishment which they deserved, right ?

IOW, what is missing in your argument is the right of your God to give commands and punish for their break. Adam couldn't have known that.

Regards, HRG.

[HRG]

OK. The problem is determining whether the Biblical god is actually the true and living God. I don’t have a problem with defining the problem in that manner.

Isn't it the prior problem to determine how many true and living Gods exist ? Could be zero, could be one, two, three .... countable infinity ?

OK. Like the Greeks, you take into account the unknown gods. You are adding a new god to the mix (or more than one) who has not made itself known through prophets. I don't have a problem with that either.

You mean that Allah has made himself known through Mohammed ?

And the puzzle-making God would make sure not to inspire prophets etc.

HRG.

[JPD]

It is the height of irony that rhutchin actually disqualified himself from being one of "the elect", in order to avoid acknowledging and repenting for breaking the Ninth Commandment. He posted a list of Biblical criteria to determine a "true Christian," and two of those criteria were that a "true Christian" would not continue to live in sin, and would serve Jesus in their lives. rhutchin continues to refuse to acknowledge, apologize, or repent (continues to live in sin) and does a disservice to Jesus by misrepresenting His words in an attempt to defend himself.

WMD

Ah, but it all comes down to interpretation, the trapdoor at the base of the brain. The terms 'the truth', 'the true Christian' and 'the elect' all meet up in a bar and decide to go home and sleep with each other. Just before they fall asleep they drink a glass of ten commandments. In the morning they wake up with splitting headaches caused through being used in low grade fundamentalist arguments and in a stupified haze decide to get married.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK. The problem is determining whether the Biblical god is actually the true and living God. I don’t have a problem with defining the problem in that manner.

HRG
Isn't it the prior problem to determine how many true and living Gods exist ? Could be zero, could be one, two, three .... countable infinity ?

That’s interesting. More than one true and living God. I guess the Hindus would go along with that. The Bible says that there is only one. I guess the problem becomes more difficult for those trying to figure out what to do.

rhutchin
OK. Like the Greeks, you take into account the unknown gods. You are adding a new god to the mix (or more than one) who has not made itself known through prophets. I don't have a problem with that either.

HRG
You mean that Allah has made himself known through Mohammed ?

And the puzzle-making God would make sure not to inspire prophets etc.

Yes on Mohammed. Without the Qur'an (as it begins, "In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.") how would one know of Allah?

Seems like the action of your puzzle-making God.

Man certainly has his work cut out for him to identify the true and living God.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
When God gave the command, “Thou shalt not eat...,� He also described a punishment for eating the fruit. Your point that Adam did not know that eating the fruit would be “wrong� seems weak given that Adam knew the command and the punishment for disobedience. That Adam may not have been able to identify, technically, disobedience as “wrong� would not seem to indemnify him that punishment of which he was informed.

HRG
So you would say that disobeying Stalin's commands was wrong ? After all, he had announced a punishment for failure to obey. Thus all victims of the NKWD, all inmates of the Gulag only got the punishment which they deserved, right ?

IOW, what is missing in your argument is the right of your God to give commands and punish for their break. Adam couldn't have known that.

In Stalin’s case (as is the case of all governments) the citizens of the country obey the laws (or dictates) or suffer the punishments. Do they deserve the punishment? Some people think so, and so long as those people are in the position to enforce that which they think, they punish whom they will.

The right of God to give commands and punish is determined by His omnipotence – He has the power to hold people accountable for their behavior and He can punish that behavior as He determines He will. I suspect Adam knew all this. If not, he learned the hard way.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If everyone understood the real meaning of death, they would all worship God.

Wayne Delia
Bullshit. People DO understand death - it's an observably permanent state of cessation of biological processes. Afterlife empty threats of eternity in torture for not believing a certain theology are a dime a dozen; they only seem to affect those already "God-soaked" in a particular religion. The actual point, which you either intentionally missed or you aren't capable of understanding is that God threatened Adam and Eve with a punishment using an undefined term. We're smarter today than Adam and Eve were back then, and we now know that the biological processes necessary for awareness, cognition, sentience, even pain receptors all stop at death, so the claims of seeing, feeling, or knowing anything after death is simply bullshit.

You have identified one thing death can entail. Since you have not experienced the afterlife, your thoughts on that are only your opinion.

Adam might look at you and wonder what happened to the intelligence of man.

rhutchin
Save the argument and offer it up in your defense when you stand before God and give account for your behavior.

Wayne Delia
"Worship my invisible sky-daddy or He'll kick your ass!" You never get sick of using that tired old chestnut, do you? For my response, I will adopt Rick Moen's Strategy: "In the unlikely event of losing Pascal's Wager, I intend to saunter into Judgment Day with a bookshelf full of grievances, a flaming sword of my own devising, and a serious attitude problem." As I've said before, God has more to fear from me than I have from Him, since at a bare minimum, I exist, and am therefore at a significant physical advantage.

So should every man think when they stand before God. It will be interesting to see if you will wuss out when you actually stand before God?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Yep. I maintain that atheists (as well as others) can be classified as thieves in the sense of the word as we find it used in the Bible.

Wayne Delia
What good is your classification, though? In the same discussion, you admitted to being a pedophile, as defined by a hypothetical cult who defines anyone who fails to accept their hypothetical dogma as someone who is damaging to children, therefore labeled a pedophile. You even said you were PROUD to be a pedophile! But your pride in a clearly damaging, derogatory classification (which would get you knifed if you were in prison) is no justification for you doing the same to other law-abiding people in society, such as myself.

So long as God is in control, then my classification is good. When your group who say anyone who explains the gospel to children is a pedophile get in control, it can enforce its rules.

rhutchin
If you claim that atheists are not false religious teachers when they clearly denounce that the Biblical god is the true and living God, what would a false religious teacher be?

Wayne Delia
A religious teacher teaches religion. Atheism is an absence of theism, and is not a religion in itself. Even if it was a religion, the burden of proof for you would be to establish that it was necessarily wrong in order to claim that those who "teach" atheism are necessarily false religious teachers. Your faith in your own God is useless in that kind of demonstration.

[A false religious teacher] would have to start by being a teacher and adherent of some sort of religious theology, which right off the bat disqualifies any atheists. (I realize atheists could teach religious theology such as an atheist professor in a college-level comparative religions seminar, but that is a historical overview, rather than an exhortation to adopt a certain set of beliefs.) Whether the theology was false must be demonstrated by those who classify it as false, and when Jesus spoke His parable in John 10:7-10, that demonstration was nothing more than a simple disagreement with whatever it was that Jesus was teaching.

All people teach by their actions. All parents teach their children. You are the religious teacher of your children (whether you want to admit it or not).

rhutchin
What is it that WMD, the High Priest of Atheism, teachers his children?

Wayne Delia
<chuckle> Well, one of the first things I'd teach them is that "teacher" isn't a verb, as you have misused it here. But the general theme would be that I'd teach them to avoid, whenever possible, religious wackos like you, and would show them your posts as evidence that you're not too tightly wrapped.

Pretty much what one would expect.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Sounds good to me. At a legal settlement, when buying a house or a bridge, you can require certain proofs that you will accept.
Requiring certain proofs that one will not accept would be stupid. It's like saying "I require X, but X won't meet the requirements."

Wayne Delia
The analogy to blind faith in God is your corresponding blind faith in our claims that we (actually, only I, since AZSuperman is still pulling your leg - he doesn't actually own the London Bridge in AZ just because he lives in AZ) own the bridges we are offering for sale. If you expect anyone to have blind faith in your religious claims based on completely missing evidence and contradictory terms in the descriptions, you should be willing to do the same with our claims about bridge ownership and ability to sell. What gives you the right to demand any evidence at all, if you won't give us any evidence about this God scam you're trying to sell?

I don’t expect blind faith. One should base their decision on the available evidence.

rhutchin
You can do the same regarding your salvation (and considering the stakes, you have every right to be demanding).

Wayne Delia
That's a drastically different position than you previously took. In the Pascal's Wager discussion, you figured we should all blindly assume it's correct, instead of demanding evidence. In particular, you were in no hurry and no urgency to demonstrate it to be true; instead, you tried to shift the burden of proof back to us by challenging us to disprove it. With your back against the wall, and your unwillingness to do the same for our claims of bridge ownership, your tune has changed.

The Wager assumes that the stakes are as defined in the Bible. Based on those stakes, one would believe in the Biblical God.

rhutchin
The proof that God offers is that which is contained in the Bible.

Wayne Delia
No. What's contained in the Bible are the claims themselves, not evidence of the claims. In your current pool of quicksand involving man's sin producing natural disasters, a piece of evidence would be Hurricane Katrina causing a levee-breaking flood which left the houses of "true Christians" undamaged, while their heathen neighbors were demolished. That can't be done, reasoned the ancient anonymous authors, because the authors weren't clever enough to think up a way God could do that sort of thing, so they retreated into "Can't remove the tares without killing some wheat" useless parables for Jesus to spin.

Paul also identifies a second source of proof.

Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

rhutchin
Salvation is legally binding on both parties, and you should not sign for something you do not want.

Wayne Delia
Bullshit. God's "covenants" are completely unilateral and enforced by the principle of "Might makes right." Personally, I am not involved in any bilateral contract with any kind of fictitional deity, and my previous agreement (as a born-again Christian) was nullified due to God failing to fulfill anything He promised to do in the Bible. God's a fraud.

God is perfectly willing to let you think what you want.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK. Like the Greeks, you take into account the unknown gods. You are adding a new god to the mix (or more than one) who has not made itself known through prophets. I don't have a problem with that either.

Wayne Delia
Then you won't have a problem with expanding the matrix in Pascal's Wager accordingly, would you? If you "do the math," the odds favoring the Christian God decrease drastically.

The odds on the truth are always 1 and 0, either it is the truth or it is not.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Yep. I maintain that atheists (as well as others) can be classified as thieves in the sense of the word as we find it used in the Bible.

John A. Broussard
So no matter how kind, generous, helpful an atheist may be he is always, without question a thief.

Would you rather live in a neighborhood consisting of such atheists or among Christians like Jimmy Bakker, Oral Roberts and their ilk?

An atheist is kind, generous, helpful in order to advance his agenda which is to destroy people by turning them away from God. Thus, the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thief (unless God changes him).

I am not sure that there is a great difference between atheists and the Jimmy Bakkers of the world. While some atheists may wrap themselves in kindness to advance their cause, others wrap themselves in religion. Even some on this board once pretended to be Christians and wrapped themselves in Christianity.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Bible suggests a different outcome, “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.�

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

2 Peter 3
16 As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

This destruction can occur through tornadoes or hurricanes (but do not have to).

John A. Broussard
So all the people, including toddlers and the unborn who are crippled or bereft of loved ones or killed in tornadoes and hurricanes have brought "upon themselves swift destruction."

Is that what you are saying?

I look forward to your reply.

Many people (especially the weak) suffer from the actions of others. Many killed in Sodom and in the flood of Noah were children. The drunk driver kills and maims the innocent. Many suffer because of the actions of others.

[JPD]

Many people (especially the weak) suffer from the actions of others. Many killed in Sodom and in the flood of Noah were children. The drunk driver kills and maims the innocent. Many suffer because of the actions of others.

Well why would this matter since, according to your beliefs, everyone is born fallen and an uncertain number of those are doomed in any case.

But back to the flood and Sodom - are these not God's decisions to act? Or is it that they are exaggerated natural phenomena recorded at a time when they were poorly understood? Some morons still believe that particular events are punishments from God.

[JPD]

An atheist is kind, generous, helpful in order to advance his agenda which is to destroy people by turning them away from God. Thus, the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thief (unless God changes him).

As opposed to one who chews our ears off and operates under the illusion that he is one of the elect despite having nothing to support his belief and rambles for page after page as if quantity will negate the need for quality. Oh, and constantly inconsistent too. I am kind, generous and helpful because I like the way it makes me and other people around me feel. I don't mention God unless someone else does. At that point I will engage in conversation with them on that very topic. As usual, you are completely off the road and in the ditch.


I am not sure that there is a great difference between atheists and the Jimmy Bakkers of the world. While some atheists may wrap themselves in kindness to advance their cause, others wrap themselves in religion. Even some on this board once pretended to be Christians and wrapped themselves in Christianity.

Does your God like the way you judge others that you know very little about? Does he hold you close and tell you that you are special? How come he won't provide you with incontrovertible evidence that you are on his special list? Ah, what a tewwible shame.

[JPD]

Even some on this board once pretended to be Christians and wrapped themselves in Christianity.

Please sir, please sir! God sir, please sir! Can I have extra love and points and pats if I make it obvious that I think that I know what it is that people I have never met and have hardly spoken to thought at the time that they say they believed the same guff that I do? Oh please sir that would be so good for me sir! Thank you God sir! Oh, I'm so very special. How come people look like they are going to be sick on me when I tell them that I am a true Christian? It must be because they are living a lie and know that my arguments, and their basis, are so beautiful and true that they are blinded by them, and they only pretended to be blinded by the arguments when they thought they believed what I know that they might have done but didn't really feel it even though I don't know them I do know them but I can't feel what they did but I can guess well because it felt nice just like it does now. Ooohhhh, that's just so nice.

[JPD]

The odds on the truth are always 1 and 0, either it is the truth or it is not.

Be sure to let us know the result when God informs you whether you are on his special list or not. Odds are 100% that you will be mightily pissed. On second thoughts I hope you aren't because its bad enough experiencing your godawful arguments here let alone for eternity.

[JPD]

God is perfectly willing to let you think what you want.

Interesting. So the difference between an existent God that doesn't stop you thinking anything that you want to and a non-existent God that doesn't stop you thinking anything that you want to (because he/she/it isn't there) is what exactly? In other words, I hope that you aren't citing this as evidence for God because that would be very silly indeed.

[JPD]

Man certainly has his work cut out for him to identify the true and living God.

They all say "Its me, its me, over here" but the true one is the one that doesn't claim this but that enters you and then you know. Which is what they all do.

I'll need to use a chisel, a notebook, strong shoes, a bra, an aluminium apron, half a side of salmon, several pickles, sellotape + dispenser, cheese and a wig for this little project.

[AZSuperman]

That’s interesting. More than one true and living God. I guess the Hindus would go along with that. The Bible says that there is only one. I guess the problem becomes more difficult for those trying to figure out what to do...

Man certainly has his work cut out for him to identify the true and living God.
You say this, then you admit to doing NO work of your own to determine which god, if any, is the "true and living god."

I guess you're not interested in identifying the true and living god.

[AZSuperman]

You have identified one thing death can entail. Since you have not experienced the afterlife, your thoughts on that are only your opinion.
Unless you're claiming that YOU have experienced the afterlife, your thoughts are also nothing more than opinion.

[AZSuperman]

So long as God is in control, then my classification is good. When your group who say anyone who explains the gospel to children is a pedophile get in control, it can enforce its rules.
Sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me.

Although you're basing your argument on an unproven assumption. Your god may not be in control. There is no evidence that he is in control of anything, in fact there is no evidence that he even exists.

So you're back to "IF" your god is in control... but that's a big, unproven, IF.

All people teach by their actions.
The atheist teaches his kids to treat himself and others with respect. To value the opinions of others, and to respect their views.

The theist teaches his children that they were born evil, and they don't deserve heaven. He tells them the opinions which disagree with his own are not only wrong, but EVIL. Instead of fostering respect and tolerance, he teaches intolerence and hate.
All parents teach their children.
Yup... that's why you're most likely going to live and die as a member of the religion you were born into. It's not a matter of "finding the truth." It's a matter of geography.

You are the religious teacher of your children (whether you want to admit it or not).
In the same way you're the tarot card teacher to your children.

[AZSuperman]

I don’t expect blind faith. One should base their decision on the available evidence.
And as we've shown, the Bible IS NOT evidence. Outside the Bible there is NO EVIDENCE to support the myths described within. Without blind faith, there is no reason to accept the Bible.

(Earlier weren't you saying we should accept the Bible without evidence? Why the 180?)

The Wager assumes that the stakes are as defined in the Bible. Based on those stakes, one would believe in the Biblical God.
That's our point... The Wager is insufficient in the real world. The Bible is NOT the only Holy Book. Yahweh is not the only potential God. In other words, the wager is built upon an assumed, and unverified premise.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
That’s interesting. More than one true and living God. I guess the Hindus would go along with that. The Bible says that there is only one. I guess the problem becomes more difficult for those trying to figure out what to do...

Man certainly has his work cut out for him to identify the true and living God.

AZSuperman
You say this, then you admit to doing NO work of your own to determine which god, if any, is the "true and living god."

I guess you're not interested in identifying the true and living god.

I did not say that I do no work. I don’t do any original research. Other organizations do such research (e.g., Christian Research Institute) and I read the materials provided by these groups. From this, it appears to me that there are no real negative impacts to a person from not following the gods of most other religions.

I am confident that the Biblical God is the true and living God from my reading of the Bible and the information I have on the claims of other religions. I have not read anything from any other religion to persuade me otherwise.

[AZSuperman]

The odds on the truth are always 1 and 0, either it is the truth or it is not.
You must have failed eigth grade math. That's when they teach you odds and ratios.

The odds of truth are based on the number of potential truths.

The odds of winning the lottery are not 1 and 0 because you only have two choices (either your ticket is the winner, or it isn't). The odds are based on the number of tickets sold, or the number of possible number combinations.

Likewise, the odds of the Yahweh being the "true and living god" are not 1 and 0, the odds are based on the number of other potential god's (known and unknown), as well as the possibility of NO GOD.

If you're really having difficultly with this, visit the local middle school and borrow an eigth grade basic math text book... you should gain a basic understanding of ratios and odds that way.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I don’t expect blind faith. One should base their decision on the available evidence.

AZSuperman
And as we've shown, the Bible IS NOT evidence. Outside the Bible there is NO EVIDENCE to support the myths described within. Without blind faith, there is no reason to accept the Bible.

(Earlier weren't you saying we should accept the Bible without evidence? Why the 180?)

The Bible is evidence of the existence of God. It consists of the writings of many men over many years that provide historical accounts of God interacting with the men or others. The Bible provides historical accounts that are evidence for God.

rhutchin
The Wager assumes that the stakes are as defined in the Bible. Based on those stakes, one would believe in the Biblical God.

AZSuperman
That's our point... The Wager is insufficient in the real world. The Bible is NOT the only Holy Book. Yahweh is not the only potential God. In other words, the wager is built upon an assumed, and unverified premise.

The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.

That there are many potential candidates that one needs to sort through to identify the true and living God does not detract from the Wager even though it makes man’s decision more challenging.

[AZSuperman]

I did not say that I do no work. I don’t do any original research. Other organizations do such research (e.g., Christian Research Institute) and I read the materials provided by these groups. From this, it appears to me that there are no real negative impacts to a person from not following the gods of most other religions.
This has been pointed out several times as a bias source.

Would you expect a Christian organization to come to any findings which disagree with Christianity? Of course not.

Would you read a Muslim review of Christianity to determine if it was the correct religion? Of course not. (Although you should try sometime, I think you'd find it enlightening.)

If you really want to learn about a given religion, GO TO THE SOURCE. You want learn about Islam, read works from the people who practice it. If you want to learn about Hinduism, read works from the people who practice it. Same goes for Mormonism, Buddhism, Zoroastism, Judahism, Rastafarian, etc.

There is nothing wrong with reading reviews done by Christianity, the problem comes from using those reviews as your SOLE source of information.

(P.S. There are plenty of other religions which promise unbelievers will receive all the same types of nastiness of the Bible God promises.)

I am confident that the Biblical God is the true and living God from my reading of the Bible and the information I have on the claims of other religions. I have not read anything from any other religion to persuade me otherwise.
I don't believe you've read anything from any other religion... You've only read Christian reviews about other religions. Try getting the information directly from the source before you discount it.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
So long as God is in control, then my classification is good. When your group who say anyone who explains the gospel to children is a pedophile get in control, it can enforce its rules.

AZSuperman
Sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me.

Although you're basing your argument on an unproven assumption. Your god may not be in control. There is no evidence that he is in control of anything, in fact there is no evidence that he even exists.

So you're back to "IF" your god is in control... but that's a big, unproven, IF.

There is the “might makes right’ argument involved. God can hold you accountable for your actions and you cannot do anything about it. However, the only issue is whether you want to get into heaven. If you want to get into heaven, you have to do so by God’s rules. If you have no interest in getting into heaven, then you should be indifferent to God or what He might require of you.

If God is not in control, then you have nothing to worry about. However, if you do not want to get into heaven, you don’t care anyway.

rhutchin
All people teach by their actions.

AZSuperman
The atheist teaches his kids to treat himself and others with respect. To value the opinions of others, and to respect their views.

The theist teaches his children that they were born evil, and they don't deserve heaven. He tells them the opinions which disagree with his own are not only wrong, but EVIL. Instead of fostering respect and tolerance, he teaches intolerence and hate.

How is it intolerance and hate to tell people the truth about heaven and about themselves?

rhutchin
All parents teach their children.

AZSuperman
Yup... that's why you're most likely going to live and die as a member of the religion you were born into. It's not a matter of "finding the truth." It's a matter of geography.

For many people, that is true.

rhutchin
You are the religious teacher of your children (whether you want to admit it or not).

AZSuperman
In the same way you're the tarot card teacher to your children.

No tarot cards involved.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I did not say that I do no work. I don’t do any original research. Other organizations do such research (e.g., Christian Research Institute) and I read the materials provided by these groups. From this, it appears to me that there are no real negative impacts to a person from not following the gods of most other religions.
This has been pointed out several times as a bias source.

AZSuperman
Would you expect a Christian organization to come to any findings which disagree with Christianity? Of course not.

Would you read a Muslim review of Christianity to determine if it was the correct religion? Of course not. (Although you should try sometime, I think you'd find it enlightening.)

If you really want to learn about a given religion, GO TO THE SOURCE. You want learn about Islam, read works from the people who practice it. If you want to learn about Hinduism, read works from the people who practice it. Same goes for Mormonism, Buddhism, Zoroastism, Judahism, Rastafarian, etc.

There is nothing wrong with reading reviews done by Christianity, the problem comes from using those reviews as your SOLE source of information.

(P.S. There are plenty of other religions which promise unbelievers will receive all the same types of nastiness of the Bible God promises.)

I guess I am stuck with the Biblical god for now.

rhutchin
I am confident that the Biblical God is the true and living God from my reading of the Bible and the information I have on the claims of other religions. I have not read anything from any other religion to persuade me otherwise.

AZSuperman
I don't believe you've read anything from any other religion... You've only read Christian reviews about other religions. Try getting the information directly from the source before you discount it.

OK. But why should you care what I believe or whether I may falsely believe? Seems to me that you should be indifferent as to what others believe.

[AZSuperman]

The Bible is evidence of the existence of God. It consists of the writings of many men over many years that provide historical accounts of God interacting with the men or others.[/quote]
The Bible is the CLAIM, not the evidence. How many times do we need to say it before it'll sink in?

You wouldn't accept WMD's claim of ownership to the Brooklyn Bridge, nor my claim of ownership of the London bridge without SUBSTANTIATING evidence.

The Bible has none.

The Bible provides historical accounts that are evidence for God.
None of the historical accounts can be verified, in fact most can be shown to be false.

If the evidence for your God is false... then your God must also be false.

The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.
No, the logical response is "Which God is the true and living God?"

That there are many potential candidates that one needs to sort through to identify the true and living God does not detract from the Wager even though it makes man’s decision more challenging.
It makes the wager effectively useless.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
You have identified one thing death can entail. Since you have not experienced the afterlife, your thoughts on that are only your opinion.

AZSuperman
Unless you're claiming that YOU have experienced the afterlife, your thoughts are also nothing more than opinion.

My source is the Bible, so I guess it is the opinion of the writers of the books contained in the Bible who make the claim that it is what god says.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Bible is evidence of the existence of God.
It consists of the writings of many men over many years that provide historical accounts of God interacting with the men or others.

AZSuperman
The Bible is the CLAIM, not the evidence. How many times do we need to say it before it'll sink in?

You wouldn't accept WMD's claim of ownership to the Brooklyn Bridge, nor my claim of ownership of the London bridge without SUBSTANTIATING evidence.

The Bible has none.

The historical accounts contain substantial information and that information counts as evidence of the claims that are made. For example, the claim that Christ was God was supported by the accounts of His healings. If only the claim was made – Christ is God – the Bible would be a much shorter book.

rhutchin
The Bible provides historical accounts that are evidence for God.

AZSuperman
None of the historical accounts can be verified, in fact most can be shown to be false.

If the evidence for your God is false... then your God must also be false.

OK. I am not aware that most of the accounts can be shown to be false.

rhutchin
The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.

AZSuperman
No, the logical response is "Which God is the true and living God?"

The logical followup question would be, "Which God is the true and living God?"

rhutchin
That there are many potential candidates that one needs to sort through to identify the true and living God does not detract from the Wager even though it makes man’s decision more challenging.

AZSuperman
It makes the wager effectively useless.

The Wager answers the question posed. To those seeking an answer to that question, the Wager is not useless.

[AZSuperman]

rhutchin
So long as God is in control, then my classification is good. When your group who say anyone who explains the gospel to children is a pedophile get in control, it can enforce its rules.

AZSuperman
Sounds a lot like "might makes right" to me.

Although you're basing your argument on an unproven assumption. Your god may not be in control. There is no evidence that he is in control of anything, in fact there is no evidence that he even exists.

So you're back to "IF" your god is in control... but that's a big, unproven, IF.

rhutchin
There is the “might makes right’ argument involved. God can hold you accountable for your actions and you cannot do anything about it.
And since God is unproven, that authority usually gets "delegated" to the people who claim to be doing his work. So might makes right has more to do with the number of followers than with the religion itself.

However, the only issue is whether you want to get into heaven. If you want to get into heaven, you have to do so by God’s rules.
Alright... Which God?

Show me which one is correct, so I know who's rules I'm supposed to follow. Prove this is the correct God, prove the others are false. Do more than declare it, prove it. Provide the same type of evidence you would require before you would agree to purchase my bridge.

If you have no interest in getting into heaven, then you should be indifferent to God or what He might require of you.
I agree.

If God is not in control, then you have nothing to worry about.
Yes I do. I have to worry about religious nuts running around claiming that God is in control and I need to obey him or burn in Hell. Or even worse, religious nuts who go around killing people "in the name of the Lord."

However, if you do not want to get into heaven, you don’t care anyway.
If Heaven could be shown to ACTUALLY exist, and it really was a paradise, then I don't think anyone would intentionally avoid it. We're not concerned with Heaven, because we're not convinced it exists.

rhutchin
All people teach by their actions.

AZSuperman
The atheist teaches his kids to treat himself and others with respect. To value the opinions of others, and to respect their views.

The theist teaches his children that they were born evil, and they don't deserve heaven. He tells them the opinions which disagree with his own are not only wrong, but EVIL. Instead of fostering respect and tolerance, he teaches intolerence and hate.

rhutchin
How is it intolerance and hate to tell people the truth about heaven and about themselves?
You're not telling them the truth, you're telling them what you believe. If it were the truth, you'd be able to back it up with more than a book of fables. Would you consider it intolerant or offensive if you have Muslims going door to door to tell you that you're going to burn in Hell forever? What if some Voodoo witchdoctor moved in next door and brought you what he claimed was a powerful talisman (made of chicken feet, blood, and feathers) and offered it to you as a gift of protection against evil spirits. Would you be offeneded? Would you accept the gift?

rhutchin
All parents teach their children.

AZSuperman
Yup... that's why you're most likely going to live and die as a member of the religion you were born into. It's not a matter of "finding the truth." It's a matter of geography.

rhutchin
For many people, that is true.
I'm glad you agree... In fact, I'd wager that you're a great example. You were probably raised in a Christian house (althougth they may not have been a real religious family) in a Christian community, in a primarily Christian country.

Kind of a crappy way for God to set up the world isn't it? 95% of people will be condemned to burn in Hell because of where they live.

rhutchin
You are the religious teacher of your children (whether you want to admit it or not).

AZSuperman
In the same way you're the tarot card teacher to your children.

rhutchin
No tarot cards involved.
Exactly. For atheists, there are no gods involved.

[AZSuperman]

The historical accounts contain substantial information and that information counts as evidence of the claims that are made. For example, the claim that Christ was God was supported by the accounts of His healings. If only the claim was made – Christ is God – the Bible would be a much shorter book.
As would the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, etc. Almost all religious "scripture" has claims of miracles included.

The claim of the miracle is not verified simply by making the claim.

OK. I am not aware that most of the accounts can be shown to be false.
Most of the Jesus miracles were written prior Jesus being born. Stories of the son of god, son of a virgin, half-man half-god, Osiris performing the same miracles existed for around 2000 years before Jesus.

There is no evidence of any Jewish slaves being held in Egypt. There are no writting concerning any of the Biblcal plagues inflicted by Moses.

In fact, we've found scrolls from people complaining about taxes, but we have not found a single scroll complaining about the death of all fish, crops, livestock, and first born... The plagues would've destroyed Egypt, yet no one wrote so much as one line about it... Not just the leaders, but the residents, NO ONE wrote about it, not even in their own private writings.

The Wager answers the question posed. To those seeking an answer to that question, the Wager is not useless.
Then the question is effectively useless.

[John A. Broussard]

Many people (especially the weak) suffer from the actions of others. Many killed in Sodom and in the flood of Noah were children. The drunk driver kills and maims the innocent. Many suffer because of the actions of others.
So you are agreed that many suffer because of the actions of others (in this case, your god).

Now, the question is, why does your god who is all-powerful and could easily prevent that suffering allow it to happen?

There are two possible explanations.

1. Your god is in fact not all-powerful but, like the drunk in your analogy, can't help but kill and maim the innocent.

or

2. Your god can prevent maiming and killing the innocent but prefers not to and enjoys watching that suffering.

Which explanation do you feel is correct?

I look forward to your answer.

[John A. Broussard]

the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thief

Got it.

All those who don't believe in your god are thieves.

That's simple, straight-forward and unambiguous.

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, to just casually slander people you know little or nothing about?

[Jack the Bodiless]

The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.

That there are many potential candidates that one needs to sort through to identify the true and living God does not detract from the Wager even though it makes man’s decision more challenging.
No, you're missing another premise in your "logic": you have provided no reason why we should worship the "true and living God" even if we COULD identify him/her/it.

The missing premise is that it would be beneficial to do this.

You are projecting Christian doctrine onto the "true and living God" (due to your own inability to imagine the possibility that they aren't synonymous). Why should we assume that the "true and living God" is constrained by the beliefs and conventions of just one religion among thousands?

If the "true and living God" is indifferent to worship, or actively punishes his/her/its worshippers, the Wager again fails.

[Alf]

The historical accounts contain substantial information and that information counts as evidence of the claims that are made. For example, the claim that Christ was God was supported by the accounts of His healings. If only the claim was made – Christ is God – the Bible would be a much shorter book.

But those claims that Jesus ever healed anyone using miracles cannot themselves be substantiated. In fact we know of several "accounts of miraculous healings" from the time and they all point as evidence to the fact that the "miracles" described in the bible was no true miracles at all but was instead just an example of gullible people being fooled by themselves to believe they were healed because they wanted to believe.

We have written accounts of people who claimed to be healed by touching vespasian before he became emperor. Does that mean that Vespasian was a true healer? In fact, those healings is better testified than the biblical ones. At least in those we do have eye-witnesses present who could report it.

In the biblical accounts we have no eye-witnesses, we have anonymous second, third or fourth hand witnesses. Mere heresay.

So if judging by the healings I guess your god lose by a mile.

Of course, by today we recognize that the people who claimed to be healed by vespasian made such claim because they wanted to believe and not that they really were healed by his healing touch. This indicate that the people of that day - especially the uneducated masses - were a gullible lot and they were easily fooled into thinking that someone was a healer. Reports of miracles and miraculous healers were a flooding over at the time.

Jesus being just one more such healer give no reason to even raise an eye-brow. Now, if you could prove that he was a TRUE healer, that unlike the others he did it for real. You might have something going here. Unfortunately you cannot do that.


OK. I am not aware that most of the accounts can be shown to be false.

So you are not aware that for example the gospel of Matthew contradict the gospel of Luke and at least one of them is false?

You are not aware that author of the gospel of Luke was making a false claim when he wrote:


Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes.


This is bluntly false. Augustus never made any such decree ever. The census he later refer to was a census for Judea region only and was done because Judea made the transition from previouusly being an autonomous region controlled by a judean king to become a part of the roman province of Syria, In order for the roman to figure out how many people were in Judea so they could know how much tax to extort from the region, they had to have a census and it was this census Luke refer to.

The first empire wide census took place around 80 AD and it possibly because of this that the author messed up and thought that the Judean census was also an empire wide census. This also indicates that the gospel of luke was written some time after 80 AD when that census took place since otherwise it wouldn't have messed the author up.

He is in other words bluntly wrong in that sentence and the sentence is factually false.

We can list more but I am sure that these two tidbits should convince you that there are factually false statements made in the bible. Something you claimed to be previously unaware of. Consider yourself enlightened!


The logical followup question would be, "Which God is the true and living God?"

The problem is that you split the problem in two where the first part give you a chance p of being right and a chance 1-p of being wrong. Based on the consequences of being wrong you assume that being right is the reasonable path to take (There is a god). Now, the next question - i.e. the followup question is which god is this true god.

Now, assuming you were right in the first question we give probabilities p1, p2, etc to each god and also include a pU which is the chance that some unknown undescribed god is the true god.

There are some 10000 known gods and although you might argue that some of them appear very unlikely - including the christian god - it is hard to rank them since they all appear equally valid. Yes, you can find things about Shiva that make Shiva appear unlikely but as shown above you can also find things about the christian God that makes him unlikely as well, so that sort of evens out. So to simplify things I will assume that all the known gods are equally valid and that the sum is equal to 1 - pU and if there are N such known gods then each of them have a probability equal to (1 - pU)/ N.

Now, we don't know the value for pU but it is a potential bag of many gods. for example it could be a god that is very similar to the christian god except without all the inconsistencies and all the errors. Or perhaps it is a god similar to Shiva but without the errors and inconsistencies with that description etc. So I will presume pU is fairly large. It doesn't really matter how large but a rule of thumb could be "around 50 percent". This is actually unfair since the "potential" is infintiely more than any actual present description so giving them equal chance is a bit wrong, pU should most likely be much higher, but let us go for 1/2 now. This means that the sum of the N probabilities for each god is 1 / 2N and with N being around 10000 that means that the probability that the christian god exist under the condition that there is a true god would then be around 1 / 20000.

Now, this means that the chance you pick the wrong god is 19999/200000 once you have decided to believe in a god and that there really is a god.

Now, we may assume that for some of these wrong gods, you still don't end up in any hell and you might even end up in some heaven even if you believed in the christian god and some other god turned out to be the true god. He might be a nice guy after all, right? So Let us say some of these gods nice and let you in heaven even if you picked the wrong. We can say 99 gods just to pick a number. This means that the chance you end up in heaven is then 100 / 20000 or 1 / 200 given the above.

We can equally that many of them will send you to some hell for believing in the wrong god and so you can end up in hell even if you believe. This is ocntrary to Pascal and that shows why Pascal was wrong, since he ignored this possibility. However, it is very real, since if you believe in a god but you ended up believing in the wrong one, then you end up in hell. If 2000 gods send you to hell for believing in the wrong god then the chance you end up in hell is 1 / 20 given the above.

The chance that nothing happens is thus 1 - 1/200 - 1/20 or 189/200.

Now, let us consider Pascal's wager again. Let us say there is a chance p that you are right and there is a god. Then there is a chance p * 189 / 200 that nothing happens if you decide to believe, there is a chance of p / 20 that you end up in hell even if you believe and there is a chance of p / 200 that you end up in heaven.

However, there is also a chance of (1 - p) that you are wrong and there is no god, in which case nothing happens anyway. Yes, I know afterlife and god is really independent but we play along with Pascal\s faulty assumption here that if there is no god then there is no afterlife either and nothing happens.

The chance that nothing happens is therefore p * 189 / 200 + 1 - p = 1 - p * 11/200
The chance that you end up in hell is p / 20
The chance that you end up in heaven is p / 200.

Now, I have been very generous with you in all these. In actually the estimates are too low and the chance that nothing happens should be much higher than shown here but I choose to err on side of caution.

How is it for the atheist who does not believe? Well, he decide to not believe in any god, so his chance of getting to heaven is only on the chance that one of those 99 gods who allow people to heaven even if he doesn't believe in them. True, you might have some additional gods who only allowed atheists and belivers to heaven but not people who believed in other gods. Let us say that there is 1 such god. Thus, if the atheist is wrong - which is p (same chance that the theist is right) * 100 / 20000 or p / 200. Thus, the chanc e that the atheist get to heaven is exactly the same as the theist! (in fact it is most likely more since if there were 2 such gods instead of 1, the chance that the atheist goes to heaven is higher than for the theist!). The only way that the theist can have a higher chance of getting to heaven is if 1) he happen to believe in the right god OR 2) There are no gods that will allow an atheist in to heaven under any condition. (2) here is actually quite unreasonable and 1 is as shown above very low chance also so there's a very slim chance for that.

So, the chance that the atheist comes to heaven is p/200 or slightly more.
The chance that the atheist comes to hell is similarly p / 20. He must be wrong and there is a god and the gods send him to hell. Here the chance might actually also be more since there could be a god or two that send atheists to hell but not people who believe in the wrong god, so the chance is p/20 or more.
The chance that nothing happens to the atheist is 1 - p (that he is right and the theist is wrong) or that he is wrong but the true god doesn't care about the atheist and doesn't send him either to heaven or hell. This is p / 189 or slghtly less if the other previous were slightly more.

Thus, for the atheist you get exactly the same formulate as for the theist only with minor modifications:

The chance that nothing happens is therefore p * 189 / 200 + 1 - p = 1 - p * 11/200
or slightly less.
The chance that you end up in hell is p / 20 or slightly more.
The chance that you end up in heaven is p / 200 or slightly more.

Now, Pascal wanted you to see that:
For the theist: The chance that nothing happens (the theist is wrong) is 1 - p
For the theist: the chance that you get to heaven (the theist is right) is p.
For the atheist: The chance that nothing happens (the theist is wrong) is 1 - p
For the atheist: the chance that you get to hell (the theist is right) is p.

Thus, since the theist have no risk of getting to hell and have a chance of p of getting to heaven you should be a theist.

However, this is now seen as plainly wrong.
The two are identical and wether or not you believe makes no difference. The only way it would make a difference was the chance that the theist happened to believe in the right god and that god is a god that send unbelivers to hell and that god is the true god.

The chance for that is as shown above very slim. Therefore the conclusion must be that Pascal's wager is completely irrelevant. The believer and the atheist have exactly the same prospects if you consider mere chance.

Also note that the probabilities sinks dramatically if you were to claim that only the true god would allow you in to heaven - in that case the chance you get to heaven is p / 20000. It will again sink even more if you say that the potential undescribed gods is much higher than the 10000 gods. Finally it sinks even more if you actually count the real known gods which is much higher than 10000. I think I heard the number 30000 some place which would make the chance of getting to heaven even lower and the chance that nothing happens or being sent to hell even if you believe even higher.

For example if you say that the number of known gods is 30000 and the number of potential unknown gods is 70000 then if only the true god would allow you to heaven then the chance that you get to heaven as believer is 1 / 100000. If we say that there were 4 gods who would allow atheists in together with people who believed in them but not people who believed in other gods the chance that the atheist get to heaven would be 5 / 100000 and would be 5 times higher than the theist.

Of course if we also assumed that there are 10 gods who would allow anyone in heaven, i.e. if any of them are the true god there is only heaven and we all end up in heaven when we die, then the chance for both to end up in heaven is 11/100000 and 15/100000 respectively for the theist and atheist. If we also assume there are 2 gods who allow theists in to heaven even if they believe in the false god but do not allow atheists (why would they be this way? It doesn't make sense, but we can allow for 2 such wacko gods) then the chances changes to 13/100000 for the theist and 15/100000 for the atheist.

From this analysis it is clear that the chance to get to heaven is slim either way and is about the same for both and if anything it is the atheist who has a slight advantage. Admittedly very slight but it is there.

The conclusion is therefore that Pascal's wager is irrelevant. Whatever you decide to
worship you run just as much risk as the unbeliever of coming to hell and the unbeliever has approximately the same chance as you of getting to heaven.


The Wager answers the question posed. To those seeking an answer to that question, the Wager is not useless.

The problem is that it answers the wrong question. After all, the proposed goal of the wager is to get to heaven. It helps you very little to know "yes, there is a god, but you will most likely end up in hell anyway since you cannot know which god that is". The wager asks the wrong question when it asks "is there a god?" when what you really want to know is "is there a heaven and how do I get there?"

So yes, it is utterly useless.

Alf

[Alf]

The historical accounts contain substantial information and that information counts as evidence of the claims that are made. For example, the claim that Christ was God was supported by the accounts of His healings. If only the claim was made – Christ is God – the Bible would be a much shorter book.

But those claims that Jesus ever healed anyone using miracles cannot themselves be substantiated. In fact we know of several "accounts of miraculous healings" from the time and they all point as evidence to the fact that the "miracles" described in the bible was no true miracles at all but was instead just an example of gullible people being fooled by themselves to believe they were healed because they wanted to believe.

We have written accounts of people who claimed to be healed by touching vespasian before he became emperor. Does that mean that Vespasian was a true healer? In fact, those healings is better testified than the biblical ones. At least in those we do have eye-witnesses present who could report it.

In the biblical accounts we have no eye-witnesses, we have anonymous second, third or fourth hand witnesses. Mere heresay.

So if judging by the healings I guess your god lose by a mile.

Of course, by today we recognize that the people who claimed to be healed by vespasian made such claim because they wanted to believe and not that they really were healed by his healing touch. This indicate that the people of that day - especially the uneducated masses - were a gullible lot and they were easily fooled into thinking that someone was a healer. Reports of miracles and miraculous healers were a flooding over at the time.

Jesus being just one more such healer give no reason to even raise an eye-brow. Now, if you could prove that he was a TRUE healer, that unlike the others he did it for real. You might have something going here. Unfortunately you cannot do that.


OK. I am not aware that most of the accounts can be shown to be false.

So you are not aware that for example the gospel of Matthew contradict the gospel of Luke and at least one of them is false?

You are not aware that author of the gospel of Luke was making a false claim when he wrote:


Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes.


This is bluntly false. Augustus never made any such decree ever. The census he later refer to was a census for Judea region only and was done because Judea made the transition from previouusly being an autonomous region controlled by a judean king to become a part of the roman province of Syria, In order for the roman to figure out how many people were in Judea so they could know how much tax to extort from the region, they had to have a census and it was this census Luke refer to.

The first empire wide census took place around 80 AD and it possibly because of this that the author messed up and thought that the Judean census was also an empire wide census. This also indicates that the gospel of luke was written some time after 80 AD when that census took place since otherwise it wouldn't have messed the author up.

He is in other words bluntly wrong in that sentence and the sentence is factually false.

We can list more but I am sure that these two tidbits should convince you that there are factually false statements made in the bible. Something you claimed to be previously unaware of. Consider yourself enlightened!


The logical followup question would be, "Which God is the true and living God?"

The problem is that you split the problem in two where the first part give you a chance p of being right and a chance 1-p of being wrong. Based on the consequences of being wrong you assume that being right is the reasonable path to take (There is a god). Now, the next question - i.e. the followup question is which god is this true god.

Now, assuming you were right in the first question we give probabilities p1, p2, etc to each god and also include a pU which is the chance that some unknown undescribed god is the true god.

There are some 10000 known gods and although you might argue that some of them appear very unlikely - including the christian god - it is hard to rank them since they all appear equally valid. Yes, you can find things about Shiva that make Shiva appear unlikely but as shown above you can also find things about the christian God that makes him unlikely as well, so that sort of evens out. So to simplify things I will assume that all the known gods are equally valid and that the sum is equal to 1 - pU and if there are N such known gods then each of them have a probability equal to (1 - pU)/ N.

Now, we don't know the value for pU but it is a potential bag of many gods. for example it could be a god that is very similar to the christian god except without all the inconsistencies and all the errors. Or perhaps it is a god similar to Shiva but without the errors and inconsistencies with that description etc. So I will presume pU is fairly large. It doesn't really matter how large but a rule of thumb could be "around 50 percent". This is actually unfair since the "potential" is infintiely more than any actual present description so giving them equal chance is a bit wrong, pU should most likely be much higher, but let us go for 1/2 now. This means that the sum of the N probabilities for each god is 1 / 2N and with N being around 10000 that means that the probability that the christian god exist under the condition that there is a true god would then be around 1 / 20000.

Now, this means that the chance you pick the wrong god is 19999/200000 once you have decided to believe in a god and that there really is a god.

Now, we may assume that for some of these wrong gods, you still don't end up in any hell and you might even end up in some heaven even if you believed in the christian god and some other god turned out to be the true god. He might be a nice guy after all, right? So Let us say some of these gods nice and let you in heaven even if you picked the wrong. We can say 99 gods just to pick a number. This means that the chance you end up in heaven is then 100 / 20000 or 1 / 200 given the above.

We can equally that many of them will send you to some hell for believing in the wrong god and so you can end up in hell even if you believe. This is ocntrary to Pascal and that shows why Pascal was wrong, since he ignored this possibility. However, it is very real, since if you believe in a god but you ended up believing in the wrong one, then you end up in hell. If 2000 gods send you to hell for believing in the wrong god then the chance you end up in hell is 1 / 20 given the above.

The chance that nothing happens is thus 1 - 1/200 - 1/20 or 189/200.

Now, let us consider Pascal's wager again. Let us say there is a chance p that you are right and there is a god. Then there is a chance p * 189 / 200 that nothing happens if you decide to believe, there is a chance of p / 20 that you end up in hell even if you believe and there is a chance of p / 200 that you end up in heaven.

However, there is also a chance of (1 - p) that you are wrong and there is no god, in which case nothing happens anyway. Yes, I know afterlife and god is really independent but we play along with Pascal\s faulty assumption here that if there is no god then there is no afterlife either and nothing happens.

The chance that nothing happens is therefore p * 189 / 200 + 1 - p = 1 - p * 11/200
The chance that you end up in hell is p / 20
The chance that you end up in heaven is p / 200.

Now, I have been very generous with you in all these. In actually the estimates are too low and the chance that nothing happens should be much higher than shown here but I choose to err on side of caution.

How is it for the atheist who does not believe? Well, he decide to not believe in any god, so his chance of getting to heaven is only on the chance that one of those 99 gods who allow people to heaven even if he doesn't believe in them. True, you might have some additional gods who only allowed atheists and belivers to heaven but not people who believed in other gods. Let us say that there is 1 such god. Thus, if the atheist is wrong - which is p (same chance that the theist is right) * 100 / 20000 or p / 200. Thus, the chanc e that the atheist get to heaven is exactly the same as the theist! (in fact it is most likely more since if there were 2 such gods instead of 1, the chance that the atheist goes to heaven is higher than for the theist!). The only way that the theist can have a higher chance of getting to heaven is if 1) he happen to believe in the right god OR 2) There are no gods that will allow an atheist in to heaven under any condition. (2) here is actually quite unreasonable and 1 is as shown above very low chance also so there's a very slim chance for that.

So, the chance that the atheist comes to heaven is p/200 or slightly more.
The chance that the atheist comes to hell is similarly p / 20. He must be wrong and there is a god and the gods send him to hell. Here the chance might actually also be more since there could be a god or two that send atheists to hell but not people who believe in the wrong god, so the chance is p/20 or more.
The chance that nothing happens to the atheist is 1 - p (that he is right and the theist is wrong) or that he is wrong but the true god doesn't care about the atheist and doesn't send him either to heaven or hell. This is p / 189 or slghtly less if the other previous were slightly more.

Thus, for the atheist you get exactly the same formulate as for the theist only with minor modifications:

The chance that nothing happens is therefore p * 189 / 200 + 1 - p = 1 - p * 11/200
or slightly less.
The chance that you end up in hell is p / 20 or slightly more.
The chance that you end up in heaven is p / 200 or slightly more.

Now, Pascal wanted you to see that:
For the theist: The chance that nothing happens (the theist is wrong) is 1 - p
For the theist: the chance that you get to heaven (the theist is right) is p.
For the atheist: The chance that nothing happens (the theist is wrong) is 1 - p
For the atheist: the chance that you get to hell (the theist is right) is p.

Thus, since the theist have no risk of getting to hell and have a chance of p of getting to heaven you should be a theist.

However, this is now seen as plainly wrong.
The two are identical and wether or not you believe makes no difference. The only way it would make a difference was the chance that the theist happened to believe in the right god and that god is a god that send unbelivers to hell and that god is the true god.

The chance for that is as shown above very slim. Therefore the conclusion must be that Pascal's wager is completely irrelevant. The believer and the atheist have exactly the same prospects if you consider mere chance.

Also note that the probabilities sinks dramatically if you were to claim that only the true god would allow you in to heaven - in that case the chance you get to heaven is p / 20000. It will again sink even more if you say that the potential undescribed gods is much higher than the 10000 gods. Finally it sinks even more if you actually count the real known gods which is much higher than 10000. I think I heard the number 30000 some place which would make the chance of getting to heaven even lower and the chance that nothing happens or being sent to hell even if you believe even higher.

For example if you say that the number of known gods is 30000 and the number of potential unknown gods is 70000 then if only the true god would allow you to heaven then the chance that you get to heaven as believer is 1 / 100000. If we say that there were 4 gods who would allow atheists in together with people who believed in them but not people who believed in other gods the chance that the atheist get to heaven would be 5 / 100000 and would be 5 times higher than the theist.

Of course if we also assumed that there are 10 gods who would allow anyone in heaven, i.e. if any of them are the true god there is only heaven and we all end up in heaven when we die, then the chance for both to end up in heaven is 11/100000 and 15/100000 respectively for the theist and atheist. If we also assume there are 2 gods who allow theists in to heaven even if they believe in the false god but do not allow atheists (why would they be this way? It doesn't make sense, but we can allow for 2 such wacko gods) then the chances changes to 13/100000 for the theist and 15/100000 for the atheist.

From this analysis it is clear that the chance to get to heaven is slim either way and is about the same for both and if anything it is the atheist who has a slight advantage. Admittedly very slight but it is there.

The conclusion is therefore that Pascal's wager is irrelevant. Whatever you decide to
worship you run just as much risk as the unbeliever of coming to hell and the unbeliever has approximately the same chance as you of getting to heaven.


The Wager answers the question posed. To those seeking an answer to that question, the Wager is not useless.

The problem is that it answers the wrong question. After all, the proposed goal of the wager is to get to heaven. It helps you very little to know "yes, there is a god, but you will most likely end up in hell anyway since you cannot know which god that is". The wager asks the wrong question when it asks "is there a god?" when what you really want to know is "is there a heaven and how do I get there?"

So yes, it is utterly useless.

Alf

[AZSuperman]

I guess I am stuck with the Biblical god for now.
Wow... I suggest you read some literature from other religions talking about their beliefs, and reviewing Christianity, and this is your response?

You're not stuck with anything. You have the ability to read, and to learn. In fact, the only reason to avoid reading something from a competing faith is because you're not as strong in your faith as you pretend to be. And that's understandable. The Bible presents enormous problems for those who try to defend it. It's internally contradictory, it contradicts observable reality, and it contains stories about talking animals.

If you're not strong enough in your faith that's fine... just say so. But be advised, most of us here were Christian. We researched this faith and others. Most of us know the Bible better than you do. (Evidenced by your comment about not being aware that several Bible stories can be shown to be false.)

So don't feel too bad... you're not stuck with the Bible God. You can always change. :)

OK. But why should you care what I believe or whether I may falsely believe? Seems to me that you should be indifferent as to what others believe.
For the most part, I don't care what anyone else believes. Live and let live, right! I'm constantly amazed at how many people claim to "know" they're in the right church... especially when it turns out that I know more about their faith than they do. But that's just curiosity... It's when you religion starts to encroarch on everyone else that we get really upset. When people push for prayer and Bible study in schools, when churches push to have Biblical creationism taught instead of evolution, when parents refuse medical treatment for their children because they would rather pray, when evangelicals blame natural diseasters on the people afflicted... that's when we take a stand.

[Stephen T-B]

"The right of God to give commands and punish is determined by His omnipotence – He has the power to hold people accountable for their behavior and He can punish that behavior as He determines He will." (rhutchin)
Oh yes...by their beliefs shall ye know them.
rhutchin - you give a great deal away about yourself in these posts.

What do we see?

Well, glaring self-righteousness to begin with; the self-righteousness which convinces the self-righteous that they are the elect.
And vindictiveness. A delight at entertaining the prospect of your fellow creatures being damned for no better reason than because they don't share your particular superstitions.
And a lust for vengeance. This god you worship is of your own creation - Christians choose what sot of a God they want to believe in and worship, and it is noted that the god you choose to believe in and worship punishes with everlasting damnation about 9,999 people out of every 10,000 born.
rhutchin, you are welcome to this demon god of yours; my hope this Christmas time is that you don't succeed in scaring anyone else into bowing down before it.

[John A. Broussard]

OK. But why should you care what I believe or whether I may falsely believe? Seems to me that you should be indifferent as to what others believe.
What you believe, so far as I'm concerned, is your business and no one else's. What you do, if it impinges upon others, is most certainly NOT something to which I would be indifferent.

If you try to keep my children from learning science in science classes, I'm concerned.

If you try to keep condoms away from third world peoples who desperately need them in the fight against AIDS, then I'm concerned.

If you want to censor the films I want to watch, I'm very much concerned.

Much of the above can spring from beliefs. Insofar as they do, then I will oppose those beliefs.

[Wayne Delia]

You have identified one thing death can entail. Since you have not experienced the afterlife, your thoughts on that are only your opinion.
Unless you are asserting you HAVE experienced the afterlife, your thoughts on the same subject are only your opinion - which is prone to the same criticism you're expressing about our "opinions". Assuming you're not one of those woo-woo's who imagines he's died, been to heaven, and brought back to life, we can evaluate our respective opinions based on the evidence we have at hand. Since it's clear that the biological processes necessary for seeing, feeling, sentience, and cognition all cease at the point of death, the most reasonable conclusion is that those functions are no longer possible.

Adam might look at you and wonder what happened to the intelligence of man.
Adam's a myth. I look at people who convince themselves that mythical characters are real, and wonder what happened to the intelligence of man.

So should every man think when they stand before God. It will be interesting to see if you will wuss out when you actually stand before God?
"Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass." I seem to remember you once objected to that encapsulation of Christianity, probably back when you used to be a Christian. Now, with all your arguments refuted, you're depending on it. Pathetic.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

So long as God is in control, then my classification is good.
Your God doesn't exist. You imagine He exists, and that He's in control. People have all sorts of wacky-ass fantasies.

When your group who say anyone who explains the gospel to children is a pedophile get in control, it can enforce its rules.
As far as the hypothetical cult group (it's not "my group" at all, just a hypothetical argument) is concerned, they are in control - and, therefore, you are a pedophile. It's pretty much a moot point, since you agreed to being called a pedophile in that context. Pedophilia is a crime; the hypothetical group who labeled you a pedophile cannot "enforce their rules," as you say, because they aren't in control. Theft, similarly, is a crime, but I am neither imprisoned or convicted of theft on the basis that I am an atheist - mainly because the Christian group cannot "enforce their rules," since they're not in control. Thus, you presuming to label me a thief, along with all other atheists, is pretty much equivalent to the hypothetical cult labeling you a pedophile. As much of a thief as you think atheists are, that's as much of a pedophile as you actually are. Essentially, the claim is empty, offensive, potentially damaging, spiteful, prejudicial, bigoted, condescending, and sanctimonious. (In other words, stereotypical Christian behavior.)

All people teach by their actions. All parents teach their children. You are the religious teacher of your children (whether you want to admit it or not).
That's bullshit, and you know it. One must teach religion in order to be a religious teacher. You still seem to be very confused on the definition of "atheist".

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
All people teach by their actions. All parents teach their children. You are the religious teacher of your children (whether you want to admit it or not).

Wayne Delia
That's bullshit, and you know it. One must teach religion in order to be a religious teacher. You still seem to be very confused on the definition of "atheist".

Religion is the expression of one’s belief system. For many people, this is the expression of a belief in a supernatural entity, but people can believe in anything. You pass on your beliefs to your children, so you pass on your religion to your children.

Given your beliefs, it looks like you are a very religious man.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
So should every man think when they stand before God. It will be interesting to see if you will wuss out when you actually stand before God?

Wayne Delia
"Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass." I seem to remember you once objected to that encapsulation of Christianity, probably back when you used to be a Christian. Now, with all your arguments refuted, you're depending on it. Pathetic.

If you do not worship God, He will merely leave you alone. You must think that you are someone important to have God give any thought to you. You even boast of a prior relationship that you had with God (even though it was only pretense on your part). You are nobody and God will just ignore you and let you be yourself. It will be interesting to see if you will wuss out when you actually stand before God and find out that God does nothing more than shut the door behind Him.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
OK. But why should you care what I believe or whether I may falsely believe? Seems to me that you should be indifferent as to what others believe.

John A. Broussard
What you believe, so far as I'm concerned, is your business and no one else's. What you do, if it impinges upon others, is most certainly NOT something to which I would be indifferent.

If you try to keep my children from learning science in science classes, I'm concerned.

If you try to keep condoms away from third world peoples who desperately need them in the fight against AIDS, then I'm concerned.

If you want to censor the films I want to watch, I'm very much concerned.

Much of the above can spring from beliefs. Insofar as they do, then I will oppose those beliefs.

I get it. When you want to sin, you don’t want other people stopping you. Why should people want the things that spring from your beliefs?

[AZSuperman]

Religion is the expression of one’s belief system. For many people, this is the expression of a belief in a supernatural entity, but people can believe in anything. You pass on your beliefs to your children, so you pass on your religion to your children.

Given your beliefs, it looks like you are a very religious man.

Religion n: (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Obviously, neither of those definitions apply to atheists.

You really shouldn't make up your own definitions for words, it makes it difficlt for you to communicate intelligently. Ideas can only be passed from one person to another if the words used are understood by both. For future posts, if you're going to make up your own definition for a common word - let us know your definition first... so we can respond accordingly.

Atheist don't have a "system of beliefs" in the way religious people do. They simply DON'T believe in God. We are religious teachers to our children in the same way you are a tarot teacher to yours. I'm sure you don't believe in tarot cards (or you think they're evil) so you don't sit down with a deck and show your kids how to use them to tell the future. We don't believe in God (and we think some of his followers are nutcases) so we don't sit down and teach our kids how to pray to an invisible superhero in the sky.

[rhutchin]

"The right of God to give commands and punish is determined by His omnipotence – He has the power to hold people accountable for their behavior and He can punish that behavior as He determines He will." (rhutchin)
Oh yes...by their beliefs shall ye know them.
rhutchin - you give a great deal away about yourself in these posts.

What do we see?

Well, glaring self-righteousness to begin with; the self-righteousness which convinces the self-righteous that they are the elect.
And vindictiveness. A delight at entertaining the prospect of your fellow creatures being damned for no better reason than because they don't share your particular superstitions.
And a lust for vengeance. This god you worship is of your own creation - Christians choose what sot of a God they want to believe in and worship, and it is noted that the god you choose to believe in and worship punishes with everlasting damnation about 9,999 people out of every 10,000 born.
rhutchin, you are welcome to this demon god of yours; my hope this Christmas time is that you don't succeed in scaring anyone else into bowing down before it.

The self-righteous are those who pretend to be saved when they are not.
If I had my way, none would be lost, and all would be saved.
If I some magical words that could convince you to seek forgiveness for your sin, I would use them.
The demon god is the one that you serve. He who's birth we celebrate this Christmas will destroy that demon god in the end.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Religion is the expression of one’s belief system. For many people, this is the expression of a belief in a supernatural entity, but people can believe in anything. You pass on your beliefs to your children, so you pass on your religion to your children.

Given your beliefs, it looks like you are a very religious man.

AZSuperman
Religion n: (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Obviously, neither of those definitions apply to atheists.

You really shouldn't make up your own definitions for words, it makes it difficlt for you to communicate intelligently. Ideas can only be passed from one person to another if the words used are understood by both. For future posts, if you're going to make up your own definition for a common word - let us know your definition first... so we can respond accordingly.

Atheist don't have a "system of beliefs" in the way religious people do. They simply DON'T believe in God. We are religious teachers to our children in the same way you are a tarot teacher to yours. I'm sure you don't believe in tarot cards (or you think they're evil) so you don't sit down with a deck and show your kids how to use them to tell the future. We don't believe in God (and we think some of his followers are nutcases) so we don't sit down and teach our kids how to pray to an invisible superhero in the sky.

My dictionary, “Webster’s New Collegiate,� has some additional definitions that you left out above in order to make your point. Why would you want to leave out those other possible definitions? Could it be because those other definitions are consistent with the point that I made and do not support your view?

[Alf]

If you do not worship God, He will merely leave you alone. You must think that you are someone important to have God give any thought to you. You even boast of a prior relationship that you had with God (even though it was only pretense on your part). You are nobody and God will just ignore you and let you be yourself. It will be interesting to see if you will wuss out when you actually stand before God and find out that God does nothing more than shut the door behind Him.

What will you do when Allah shut the door behind him right in your face?

Or maybe it was Shiva? Hard to tell, since he shut the door so fast.

Alf

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.

That there are many potential candidates that one needs to sort through to identify the true and living God does not detract from the Wager even though it makes man’s decision more challenging.

Jack the Bodiless
No, you're missing another premise in your "logic": you have provided no reason why we should worship the "true and living God" even if we COULD identify him/her/it.

The missing premise is that it would be beneficial to do this.

You are projecting Christian doctrine onto the "true and living God" (due to your own inability to imagine the possibility that they aren't synonymous). Why should we assume that the "true and living God" is constrained by the beliefs and conventions of just one religion among thousands?

If the "true and living God" is indifferent to worship, or actively punishes his/her/its worshippers, the Wager again fails.

Pascal, in describing the Wager, also identified a benefit for believing in God (which in Pascal’s mind as the Biblical god).

It is true that the Wager requires a positive benefit. If there is a negative benefit, then there is no basis for the Wager and one would resign themselves to hopelessness.

[Alf]

I get it. When you want to sin, you don’t want other people stopping you. Why should people want the things that spring from your beliefs?

You have previously said that sinning is going against God's will. Since we haven't heard what God wants we do not know that any of those things he listed there are "sin". It is only some blathering christian who claim it is "sin" as if he has been given the authority to speak on God's behalf.

So, no, it is not that Wayne or anyone else wants to "sin". It is that he wants to do something that makes sense to do and doesn't hurt anyone in doing it except that there is a group of rabid religious nuts who claim that these actions are offending to them and they claim it is "sin". However, to know it is "sin" implies that they must somehow KNOW that it is against the will of God. How do they know this? Ah, then they suddenly mumble something about God and "mysterious ways" and cannot really account for how they know these things. Some of them refer to the bible but the bible also tell us how much money to charge for our daughters when we sell them to slavery and to stone our children if they speak up against the parents. Ah, then these men say that those parts no longer count, because they only applied to ancient jews. Then we might say that perhaps these things that they call "sin" also only applied to the ancient jews but then they suddenly turn around and say they somehow KNOW that it applies to modern times as well because God has an eternal absolute morality and these are sins at all times. Then we might go back to those stoning practices and other silly rituals and then they turn around and claim that those are not eternal. Then we might ask how they know which is which and then again they mumble something about "mysterious ways" and cannot really give a proper account agian and around and around in circles we go.

The point is that you cannot claim that any of those things are "sin" in any way unless you first can give us proof that God really don't like those things and to prove that you essentially have to prove that God exist. It all boils down to the "prove to us that God exist" first and then and only then afterwards you can tell us what God wants and do not want and only then can we figure out what is "sin" and what is not.

As usual the christians are putting the cart before the horse.

Alf

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If you do not worship God, He will merely leave you alone. You must think that you are someone important to have God give any thought to you. You even boast of a prior relationship that you had with God (even though it was only pretense on your part). You are nobody and God will just ignore you and let you be yourself. It will be interesting to see if you will wuss out when you actually stand before God and find out that God does nothing more than shut the door behind Him.

Alf
What will you do when Allah shut the door behind him right in your face?

Or maybe it was Shiva? Hard to tell, since he shut the door so fast.

If the god whom we stand before at judgment is Allah, then I am in trouble. Does Shiva care that people do not worship him?

[Alf]

The self-righteous are those who pretend to be saved when they are not.
If I had my way, none would be lost, and all would be saved.
If I some magical words that could convince you to seek forgiveness for your sin, I would use them.
The demon god is the one that you serve. He who's birth we celebrate this Christmas will destroy that demon god in the end.

So you mean the true god is Mithras? That is the god who's birth we celebrate every christimas.

Check out the history of why we celebrate christmas on december 25th and not any other day.

Darn, christians doesn't even know their own history.

Alf

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thief

John A. Broussard
Got it.

All those who don't believe in your god are thieves.

That's simple, straight-forward and unambiguous.

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, to just casually slander people you know little or nothing about?

Well, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

[John A. Broussard]

rhutchin
the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thief

John A. Broussard
Got it.

All those who don't believe in your god are thieves.

That's simple, straight-forward and unambiguous.

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, to just casually slander people you know little or nothing about?

rhutchin: Well, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

As usual, you haven't answered the question, so I guess that slandering people doesn't bother you a bit. On the basis of your many posts, I'm really not surprised.

[John A. Broussard]

I get it. When you want to sin, you don’t want other people stopping you.

My behavior, whether you want to call it sin or saintliness, is entirely my business, so long as it doesn't harm others.

You apparently do not understand that principle.

As I indicated, I hold to the same standards with regard to your behavior.

If you have problems with that, I refer you to the golden rule.

[Wayne Delia]

I guess I am stuck with the Biblical god for now.
That is the extent of your answer? You claimed you didn't do any in-depth study of your own, so you took the word of a Christian research group biased toward Christianity which came to the conclusion Christianity was right, which by a happy coincidence agreed with what you believed in - and when challenged on that, all you could come up with was this? That is excessive intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

OK. But why should you care what I believe or whether I may falsely believe? Seems to me that you should be indifferent as to what others believe.
For starters, you are assuming your belief is true, and misrepresenting what's in the Bible to put together a "Rube Goldberg" justification (with several key parts missing) for slandering those who don't believe in your God. In fact, you called atheists "thieves". Ordinarily, that kind of slander (libel? I'm not a lawyer, but I know a few good ones!) would invite civil action, but in this case, it's useful to use against you since you are obviously breaking one of the cornerstone laws of your religion, and you cannot bring yourself to admit it. Just on the entertainment value alone, it's worthwhile to "care about what you falsely believe."

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

My source is the Bible, so I guess it is the opinion of the writers of the books contained in the Bible who make the claim that it is what god says.
But, as you say, that's just their "opinion". You discounted our ideas and observations about the cessation of biological processes at death on the basis that they were merely "opinions", so unless you reject the "opinions" of the ancient, anonymous Bible authors, you are a hypocrite.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.

AZSuperman
No, the logical response is "Which God is the true and living God?"

rhutchin
The logical followup question would be, "Which God is the true and living God?"

That's correct. Previously, you've skipped over that decision point in the process, being content to stick with the one you were already stuck with. You didn't bother to establish that God was the "true and living god", much less refute the same claim about anyone else's god. So, what you need to do now is demonstrate your methodology for accepting the Judeo/Christian God and rejecting all others. You won't do that, though, because you are a hypocrite.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
That there are many potential candidates that one needs to sort through to identify the true and living God does not detract from the Wager even though it makes man’s decision more challenging.

AZSuperman
It makes the wager effectively useless.

rhutchin
The Wager answers the question posed. To those seeking an answer to that question, the Wager is not useless.
The actual question is "Should the Christian God be believed, or not?" A key part of the correct answer involves a determination whether the Christian God is the actual "true and living god." For if the Christian God is nothing more than the fraud it appears to be on the surface, yet another god actually exists who punishes false worship of other false gods (such as Allah, in Islam), then the outcome for the Christian believer is not at all what Pascal promised. That's why the logic is invalid. That's already been explained to you, and sweeping it under the carpet doesn't refute it. Christians, and Christian apologists, depend on assuming their own conclusion (the dichotomy of Christian God vs. no god) and, understandably, are very hesitant to consider other gods which are logically possible alternatives, because it undercuts their argument about the exclusive Christian God. That's why it's a logical fallacy.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thiefGot it.

All those who don't believe in your god are thieves.

That's simple, straight-forward and unambiguous.

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, to just casually slander people you know little or nothing about?
rhutchin's assertion above is another example of breaking the Ninth Commandment. It is rare that Christians break it in the manner that it was intended - "thou shalt not bear false witness," meaning "don't raise any false criminal charges." It's all the more ironic that it comes up in a discussion of the existence of the Christian God - the more rhutchin is content to "argue by assumption" and proceed onward as if the Christian God was an established fact, the stronger he seals his own fate of being sent to hell for repeatedly breaking the Ninth Commandment; the less he qualifies as a "true Christian" by his own list of Biblical criteria, since he continues to live in his sinful lifestyle (which, if I remember correctly, was criteria #2 of 4).

But the actual situation is that all of rhutchin's cherished and favorite "arguments", such as Pascal's Wager, have been demolished, and his feelings are hurt badly. So, it could be a case of him assuming his God will forgive a little juvenile lashing out with empty, baseless accusations out of frustration on his part. Since it's expressly forbidden in the Ninth Commandment, I cannot see the logic in such a strategy, but it is handy to point out rhutchin's inherent hypocrisy.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

So you are not aware that for example the gospel of Matthew contradict the gospel of Luke and at least one of them is false?

You are not aware that author of the gospel of Luke was making a false claim when he wrote:Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus to register all the empire for taxes.

This is bluntly false. Augustus never made any such decree ever.
One could argue that he did make such a decree, which was never recorded - but of course there is no reason to take that assertion seriously, considering the meticulous Roman record-keeping that was typical.

The census he later refer to was a census for Judea region only and was done because Judea made the transition from previouusly being an autonomous region controlled by a judean king to become a part of the roman province of Syria, In order for the roman to figure out how many people were in Judea so they could know how much tax to extort from the region, they had to have a census and it was this census Luke refer to.
And therein lies the actual contradiction, one which is far more obvious.

The author of Luke specifies that the census was taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria. It is known that he did not ascend to that position until about the year 6 C.E. But the author of Matthew indicates that Jesus was born during the time of one of the kings named Herod - who died in 4 B.C.E., as recorded by Josephus. The obvious problem is that Jesus could not have been born in "4BCE or earlier" AND "6CE or later" - those time intervals do not intersect, and in fact are distinct by a period of ten years. Either a fundamental piece of the Matthew account or the Luke account must be wrong. Both of them could be wrong, of course, but the point is that both of them cannot be right.

We can list more but I am sure that these two tidbits should convince you that there are factually false statements made in the bible. Something you claimed to be previously unaware of. Consider yourself enlightened!
To be fair, finding false, contradictory, or inconsistent statements in the Bible is like shooting fish in a barrel, with a shotgun, and the fish have been nailed to the bottom of the barrel. I used to propose a challenge that a Christian could open the Bible at random to any two facing pages, and I could find a problematic verse in that random location, and explain why it was problematic.

The problem is that you split the problem in two where the first part give you a chance p of being right and a chance 1-p of being wrong. Based on the consequences of being wrong you assume that being right is the reasonable path to take (There is a god). Now, the next question - i.e. the followup question is which god is this true god.

Now, assuming you were right in the first question we give probabilities p1, p2, etc to each god and also include a pU which is the chance that some unknown undescribed god is the true god.

There are some 10000 known gods and although you might argue that some of them appear very unlikely - including the christian god - it is hard to rank them since they all appear equally valid. Yes, you can find things about Shiva that make Shiva appear unlikely but as shown above you can also find things about the christian God that makes him unlikely as well, so that sort of evens out. So to simplify things I will assume that all the known gods are equally valid and that the sum is equal to 1 - pU and if there are N such known gods then each of them have a probability equal to (1 - pU)/ N.

Now, we don't know the value for pU but it is a potential bag of many gods. for example it could be a god that is very similar to the christian god except without all the inconsistencies and all the errors. Or perhaps it is a god similar to Shiva but without the errors and inconsistencies with that description etc. So I will presume pU is fairly large. It doesn't really matter how large but a rule of thumb could be "around 50 percent". This is actually unfair since the "potential" is infintiely more than any actual present description so giving them equal chance is a bit wrong, pU should most likely be much higher, but let us go for 1/2 now. This means that the sum of the N probabilities for each god is 1 / 2N and with N being around 10000 that means that the probability that the christian god exist under the condition that there is a true god would then be around 1 / 20000.

Now, this means that the chance you pick the wrong god is 19999/200000 once you have decided to believe in a god and that there really is a god.

Now, we may assume that for some of these wrong gods, you still don't end up in any hell and you might even end up in some heaven even if you believed in the christian god and some other god turned out to be the true god. He might be a nice guy after all, right? So Let us say some of these gods nice and let you in heaven even if you picked the wrong. We can say 99 gods just to pick a number. This means that the chance you end up in heaven is then 100 / 20000 or 1 / 200 given the above.

We can equally that many of them will send you to some hell for believing in the wrong god and so you can end up in hell even if you believe. This is ocntrary to Pascal and that shows why Pascal was wrong, since he ignored this possibility. However, it is very real, since if you believe in a god but you ended up believing in the wrong one, then you end up in hell. If 2000 gods send you to hell for believing in the wrong god then the chance you end up in hell is 1 / 20 given the above.

The chance that nothing happens is thus 1 - 1/200 - 1/20 or 189/200.

Now, let us consider Pascal's wager again. Let us say there is a chance p that you are right and there is a god. Then there is a chance p * 189 / 200 that nothing happens if you decide to believe, there is a chance of p / 20 that you end up in hell even if you believe and there is a chance of p / 200 that you end up in heaven.

However, there is also a chance of (1 - p) that you are wrong and there is no god, in which case nothing happens anyway. Yes, I know afterlife and god is really independent but we play along with Pascal\s faulty assumption here that if there is no god then there is no afterlife either and nothing happens.

The chance that nothing happens is therefore p * 189 / 200 + 1 - p = 1 - p * 11/200
The chance that you end up in hell is p / 20
The chance that you end up in heaven is p / 200.

Now, I have been very generous with you in all these. In actually the estimates are too low and the chance that nothing happens should be much higher than shown here but I choose to err on side of caution.
I'm generally not a big fan of assigning probablilties to gods of any kind, because the argument generally takes the form of "number of angels dancing on the head of a pin." But your line of reasoning is sound, and entertaining. As you say, the estimates are too low, and the reason is you have failed to consider all possible gods that have not been identified by humans, of which there is a potentially infinite number. Factor some of those unidentified gods in the mix, and the argument for any specific Christian God evaporates.

WMD

[Wayne Delia]

If the god whom we stand before at judgment is Allah, then I am in trouble.
Face it. If the god which you stand before at judgement is the Christian God, you will be sent to hell in a rocket sled because of your little run-ins with the Ninth Commandment.

WMD

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
If the god whom we stand before at judgment is Allah, then I am in trouble.

Wayne Delia
Face it. If the god which you stand before at judgment is the Christian God, you will be sent to hell in a rocket sled because of your little run-ins with the Ninth Commandment.

Not really. God has given promises to those who He has saved (as opposed to those who pretend that they had saved themselves, like you once did).

These promises include—

If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

And you [God’s elect], being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath [God] quickened together with [Christ], having forgiven you all trespasses.

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The Wager addresses one specific point – Should one believe in the true and living God? The logical response is, Yes.

AZSuperman
No, the logical response is "Which God is the true and living God?"

rhutchin
The logical followup question would be, "Which God is the true and living God?"

Wayne Delia
That's correct. Previously, you've skipped over that decision point in the process, being content to stick with the one you were already stuck with. You didn't bother to establish that God was the "true and living god", much less refute the same claim about anyone else's god. So, what you need to do now is demonstrate your methodology for accepting the Judeo/Christian God and rejecting all others. You won't do that, though, because you are a hypocrite.

I have said already that the proof of the validity of any claim to the title of “True and Living God,� is contained in the writings of the prophets of those gods making that claim. The Bible stands as the proof that the Biblical God is the True and Living God. You who once pretended to believe that claim were always free to stop pretending that you believe that claim. If there is any hypocrisy here, it occurred when you once pretended to be a Christian. Is not a hypocrite defined as one who affects virtues or qualities that he does not have? Who better fits this definition than one who pretends to be a Christian when he is not?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
My source is the Bible, so I guess it is the opinion of the writers of the books contained in the Bible who make the claim that it is what god says.

Wayne Delia
But, as you say, that's just their "opinion". You discounted our ideas and observations about the cessation of biological processes at death on the basis that they were merely "opinions", so unless you reject the "opinions" of the ancient, anonymous Bible authors, you are a hypocrite.

That which I discounted would have had to be your speculations on what happens after the cessation of biological processes at death. The basis for doing that is that I accepted the “opinions� of the writers of the Biblical texts over your “opinions.�

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I get it. When you want to sin, you don’t want other people stopping you.

John A. Broussard
My behavior, whether you want to call it sin or saintliness, is entirely my business, so long as it doesn't harm others.

You apparently do not understand that principle.

As I indicated, I hold to the same standards with regard to your behavior.

If you have problems with that, I refer you to the golden rule.

Hmmm. What do you do that doesn’t harm others (or at least have that potential)? If it doesn’t involve anyone else, perhaps it is not sin.

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
the atheist is, at heart, a thief and always a thief

John A. Broussard
Got it.

All those who don't believe in your god are thieves.

That's simple, straight-forward and unambiguous.

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, to just casually slander people you know little or nothing about?

rhutchin
Well, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

John A. Broussard
As usual, you haven't answered the question, so I guess that slandering people doesn't bother you a bit. On the basis of your many posts, I'm really not surprised.

The truth is the truth. Truth is not slander.

So, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

[AZSuperman]

I have said already that the proof of the validity of any claim to the title of “True and Living God,� is contained in the writings of the prophets of those gods making that claim. The Bible stands as the proof that the Biblical God is the True and Living God. You who once pretended to believe that claim were always free to stop pretending that you believe that claim. If there is any hypocrisy here, it occurred when you once pretended to be a Christian. Is not a hypocrite defined as one who affects virtues or qualities that he does not have? Who better fits this definition than one who pretends to be a Christian when he is not?
rhutchin, when you were a kid, did you believe in Santa Claus? Do you know any kids who believe in Santa? Do they really believe, or are they pretending?

Santa is a great example. What evidence do the kids have, really? They have the words of their parents (prophets), the gifts which magically appear under the tree (miracles), and they even see Santa in the mall (personal experience). When they discover Santa isn't real, will you tell them they were only pretending to believe? When they learn the real explanation will you call them hypocrites?

You have no right to question the integrity of those of us who dared to examine our faith from all angles.

The Bible doesn't stand as proof of God any more than War of the Worlds stands for proof of Martians.

[AZSuperman]

The truth is the truth. Truth is not slander.
"All Atheists are theives" is not the truth. (Or at least you have not established that it is the truth.)

So, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?
People. Humans. Equals. Honest.

Why is it so hard for you to consider people with opposing views as equals?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
The truth is the truth. Truth is not slander.

AZSuperman
"All Atheists are thieves" is not the truth. (Or at least you have not established that it is the truth.)

OK. At least, you would accept an explanation for the description. Would you be able to say the following also, “’All Atheists are thieves’ is not the truth in the Biblical sense as that term is used in the Bible.�

rhutchin
So, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

AZSuperman
People. Humans. Equals. Honest.

Why is it so hard for you to consider people with opposing views as equals?

How about if I used the terms, “People who sin,� or “Fallen humans.�

Are we equals in that we both sin? Are you ever honest against your will (when not forced to be honest and only you and God will know your dishonesty)?

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
I have said already that the proof of the validity of any claim to the title of “True and Living God,� is contained in the writings of the prophets of those gods making that claim. The Bible stands as the proof that the Biblical God is the True and Living God. You who once pretended to believe that claim were always free to stop pretending that you believe that claim. If there is any hypocrisy here, it occurred when you once pretended to be a Christian. Is not a hypocrite defined as one who affects virtues or qualities that he does not have? Who better fits this definition than one who pretends to be a Christian when he is not?

AZSuperman
rhutchin, when you were a kid, did you believe in Santa Claus? Do you know any kids who believe in Santa? Do they really believe, or are they pretending?

Santa is a great example. What evidence do the kids have, really? They have the words of their parents (prophets), the gifts which magically appear under the tree (miracles), and they even see Santa in the mall (personal experience). When they discover Santa isn't real, will you tell them they were only pretending to believe? When they learn the real explanation will you call them hypocrites?

You have no right to question the integrity of those of us who dared to examine our faith from all angles.

The Bible doesn't stand as proof of God any more than War of the Worlds stands for proof of Martians.

I can’t ever remember believing in Santa Clause, but I understand your point.

I think that the analogy (while good) breaks down. A child may believe in Santa Clause because his parents tell him that Santa brings presents and he sees the presents on Christmas morning where none had existed the night before. However, when the child grows up, his parents are probably the ones who tell him that there is no Santa and he then becomes the one providing gifts to children while, perhaps, telling the children that they are from Santa.

In some respects, that mirrors the experience of some people who call themselves Christian. They are told about Christ and that Christ gives the gift of eternal life. Here is the crucial difference. Many people are told that if they do X, then they are a “Christian.� Such people then generally develop the mindset that because they did X to become a “Christian,� they must also do Y (act like a Christian). They then begin to “act� like they think a Christian should act. Some people really get into it. I maintain that people are smart enough to know what they are doing – They pretty much know that they are pretending. The evidence, for most, is that they behave one way when in church or around “church� people and another way when not. Men are susceptible to greater involvement in what they think are “Christian� activities because men tend to be competitive and it becomes like a game. Women do the same but this seems to be because they tend to want a good reputation.

Are such people pretending at being a Christian? Everyone that I have talked to who used to go to church and considered themselves a Christian (with the exception of rabid atheists), has said that they pretty much knew all along that they were doing it because they wanted others to think they were Christians when they had no real sense that they were. They readily admit that they were never really convinced that praying some prayer or getting dunked in water ever made them a Christian even though that is what they were told.

I think those who once called themselves “Christian� were aware that whatever they did to “become� a Christian did not make them a Christian. Somewhere along the line, I would bet that each one got his ego stepped on (he felt that other “Christians� screwed him (when those others were people like him who were also pretending)) and they gave it all up. If one says that he was a “Christian� when he was a child and gave it up when they got older, will also be willing to admit that they might have been a “christian� and were never a “Christian.�

[AZSuperman]

OK. At least, you would accept an explanation for the description. Would you be able to say the following also, “’All Atheists are thieves’ is not the truth in the Biblical sense as that term is used in the Bible.�
I'm not aware of any occurance of the word "theif" or "theives" in the Bible. I'm afraid I'll need you to reference the scripture you're referring to before I can comment.

How about if I used the terms, “People who sin,� or “Fallen humans.�

Are we equals in that we both sin? Are you ever honest against your will (when not forced to be honest and only you and God will know your dishonesty)?
As long as you don't mind me referring to you as a person who sins, or as a fallen human, or even as an infidel (if I choose to use the Qu'ran definition for Christian.)

It's still better not to make value judgments.

[AZSuperman]

I can’t ever remember believing in Santa Clause, but I understand your point.

I think that the analogy (while good) breaks down. A child may believe in Santa Clause because his parents tell him that Santa brings presents and he sees the presents on Christmas morning where none had existed the night before. However, when the child grows up, his parents are probably the ones who tell him that there is no Santa
To put it bluntly: rhutchin, GROW UP! It's time to stop blindly accepting the stories you've been told to believe, and do some research of your own.

Talk to people who say Santa (I mean God) isn't real, ask them to explain how the presents got under the tree (I mean how humans evolved).

Start thinking for yourself.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

...and he then becomes the one providing gifts to children while, perhaps, telling the children that they are from Santa.
Just as people do good, and say they're doing it for God.

In some respects, that mirrors the experience of some people who call themselves Christian. They are told about Christ and that Christ gives the gift of eternal life. Here is the crucial difference. Many people are told that if they do X, then they are a “Christian.� Such people then generally develop the mindset that because they did X to become a “Christian,� they must also do Y (act like a Christian). They then begin to “act� like they think a Christian should act. Some people really get into it.
I don't doubt that those people exist... But it's not for you to determine whether someone on this page was a real Christian or not. I've actually had Christian friends of mine accuse me of "pretending" to be atheist, because I still "act" Christian.

I think those who once called themselves “Christian� were aware that whatever they did to “become� a Christian did not make them a Christian.I think I understand what you're saying.

Your argument boils down to: "If you really believed, you wouldn't have ever left." And you justify the fact they left, you say they must've been pretending to be Christian, but when someone irritated them, they could no longer maintain the facad, and they left. That definately wasn't what happened to me... I'll go into my story later if you're interested.

Let me ask you this:
What would people do if they discovered Christianity was wrong? Don't just say it's not wrong and avoid the question... tell me what you would do if you discovered you were wrong.

[rhutchin]

...
Let me ask you this:
What would people do if they discovered Christianity was wrong? Don't just say it's not wrong and avoid the question... tell me what you would do if you discovered you were wrong.

The only way to prove Christianity is wrong is to die. The promises of Christianity are to the elect and primarily relate to eternal life. I might make claims to the effect that God has favored me in this life because I am obedient to Him, but it is not possible to life my life over again and not obey Him and then compare the results.

[John A. Broussard]

The truth is the truth. Truth is not slander.

So it doesn't bother you at all to call atheists, thieves.

That is truly amazing for someone who keeps touting the virtues of Christianity.

You can, without knowing people simply say, "Those people are thieves."

On the practical side, how do you expect to carry on a rational discussion with people you call thieves?

Or, why have you decided to abandon rational discussion (though I admit that your calling people thieves is not too different from much of your arguments) and are now resorting to name calling?

Could it be that you are unable to even attempt rational discussion?

Since you believe that so many of us are thieves, how can you even continue to associate with us?

Thank you for your sensitive and thoughtful response to my post.

[wyzaard]

I do not have to provide a reason for a person to believe one way or the other. I do not have to provide a reason for a person to believe any truth. Truth stands on its own. That which the Bible tells us would be true even if we had no Bible to tell us what truth is.

But alas, without YOU providing justification for your claim that the bible is truth, your argument from obviousness is vacuous; you have not shown that any such self-standing truth exists or that any such thing could be determined at all, thus... why should anyone believe this to be self-evident?


There is only one reason for you to believe what the Bible says and that is because you have come to the conclusion that you will believe what the Bible says and you have basically done it all on your own.


So... you believe because you believe? Where in the world do you get this circularly solopsistic stuff?


That was my point. You would ask this question of any and all belief systems. You can determine those impacts but they cannot be scientifically verified through an empirical test. That just makes it all the more difficult for you because it is that religion that is telling you the truth that you should be concerned about but everyone is claiming to tell you the truth. You are left with sorting everything out.

Which I have... by rejecting all such meaningless claims off the bat. Why shouldn't I?


OK. A person can be named John and people call him Jack. That is not what is in view here.

According to whose 'view'?


Whatever determines your system of values and how you behave.

Convention is different than belief; by no means is my epistimology any transcendant 'truth'... it's only a tool, no more.

[wyzaard]

Regardless what you think about God, the problem is that you are accountable to Him and have no power to hold Him accountable to you (the presumption here is that He is the true and living God).

What the hell does that mean? Why should I accept YOUR claim that I am accountable to him? Why not the other way around? Your 'problem' isn't one until you show that it is.


You have been dealt the hand and you have to play the cards you get. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t change anything.


Glad to see you're right there with me about how fascistic and illogical this setup appears to operate.


Only if that which the Bible says is not truth. The problem for you is not to have someone prove that the Bible is true but for you to prove that the Bible is false (particulary where it says that God is a true and living God and you are accountable to him for your behavior).

Ummm... I have no such burden; that would rest with the claiment, i.e. you. One cannot disprove any such negative, nor should they.

[wyzaard]

OK. There is no necessity unless you see one. If that which you have discarded is the truth, then you have discarded the truth. If you believe that you should always adhere to the truth, then the necessity is for you to accurately identify truth so that you will not discard it.

Annnnnnd... how is done exactly? Explain, and do justify your explaination, please.

[wyzaard]

It all hinges on what the truth is.

No... it doesn't. Even IF in the infintessimal, unknowable likelyhood that your metaphysic is indeed correct, 'he' still blows big donkey balls... to use the veracular.

[Wayne Delia]

So... you believe because you believe? Where in the world do you get this circularly solopsistic stuff?
From the Circularly Solopsistic Supply Store. Ba-doom ching.

Quite a few matters to take care of around the house; I see that rhutchin's on the ropes, and my points are made, so I'll take a few days off.

Carry on.

WMD

[rhutchin]

No... it doesn't. Even IF in the infintessimal, unknowable likelyhood that your metaphysic is indeed correct, 'he' still blows big donkey balls... to use the veracular.


It looks like this thread has run its course.

[JPD]

I think we would do well to know that in the time this thread has been running several donkeys have had hats and sunglasses placed on their heads for the purposes of boring the photographer's inlaws for several hours when they come around to see the slideshow.

I, for one, am humbled by this.

[JPD]

Not really. God has given promises to those who He has saved (as opposed to those who pretend that they had saved themselves, like you once did).

Having drawn names out of a hat. The saved don't know they are so anyone could be pretending without realising it. Like you for example.


These promises include—


Having missed the point you won't be able to see why such promises are worthless. The people who they apply to do not know themselves that they apply to them. Is hope or faith a particularly wise or informed move? No, its pure guesswork.

[AZSuperman]

...
Let me ask you this:
What would people do if they discovered Christianity was wrong? Don't just say it's not wrong and avoid the question... tell me what you would do if you discovered you were wrong.

The only way to prove Christianity is wrong is to die. The promises of Christianity are to the elect and primarily relate to eternal life. I might make claims to the effect that God has favored me in this life because I am obedient to Him, but it is not possible to life my life over again and not obey Him and then compare the results.
By your same logic, the only way to prove the Qu'ran wrong is to die, and the only way to prove the Book of Mormon wrong is to die, and on and on for every religious book ever written.

If you take your dogmatic blinders off, you will see it's very easy to prove whether the Bible is right or wrong.

Go ahead, move a mountain by command. Jesus says you can. How about a tree, move a tree by commanding it... Hmm, no luck there either? Why don't you drink some poison, Jesus says a real Christian won't die from poison. What about snakes, you should be protected from snakes too. Or we could check something a little easier, lets find one of the four-legged birds mentioned in Leviticus, or one of the four-legged insects. Then again we could try out the cure for leprosy found in Leviticus 14:2-52 (Get two birds. Kill one. Dip the live bird in the blood of the dead one. Sprinkle the blood on the leper seven times, and then let the blood-soaked bird fly off. Next find a lamb and kill it. Wipe some of its blood on the patient's right ear, thumb, and big toe. Sprinkle seven times with oil and wipe some of the oil on his right ear, thumb and big toe. Repeat. Finally kill a couple doves and offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.)

God wouldn't have a cure for leprosy recorded into Holy Scripture unless he knew it was legit... right? (Would you go to a doctor who prescribed the treatment mentioned above?

We can test any of the above... or all of the above. Do you think they will all pass?

[Wayne Delia]

By your same logic, the only way to prove the Qu'ran wrong is to die, and the only way to prove the Book of Mormon wrong is to die, and on and on for every religious book ever written.
Reminds me of an old Warner Brothers cartoon about a circus show, in which Daffy Duck, desperate for audience approval, blows himself up and kills himself in the center ring. While the audience roars its applause, Porky Pig stammers "Wow! What a trick!", and Daffy's ghost, rising towards heaven, replies "Yeah, but I can only do it once."

If you take your dogmatic blinders off, you will see it's very easy to prove whether the Bible is right or wrong.

Go ahead, move a mountain by command. Jesus says you can. How about a tree, move a tree by commanding it... Hmm, no luck there either? Why don't you drink some poison, Jesus says a real Christian won't die from poison. What about snakes, you should be protected from snakes too.
rhutchin already addressed these problems earlier in this thread. The actual reason given why none of the promised abilities work, literally, was "Jesus was speaking in parables." He cited a verse from Mark 4 which indicated Jesus always spoke in parables, and there is a necessary implicit premise that "parables = bullshit." No kidding!

WMD

[Alf]

Well, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

Honest truth searching atheist?

Alf

[John A. Broussard]

It looks like this thread has run its course.
Why do you say that?

Just because you've given up trying to argue rationally and instead have decided to simply call those who do present rational arguments, "thieves," merely means you've lost the argument.

It doesn't mean you can't stick around and keep calling the opposition, thieves.

Think of the comfort you derive by labelling people, thieves.

[Alf]

I have said already that the proof of the validity of any claim to the title of “True and Living God,� is contained in the writings of the prophets of those gods making that claim. The Bible stands as the proof that the Biblical God is the True and Living God. You who once pretended to believe that claim were always free to stop pretending that you believe that claim. If there is any hypocrisy here, it occurred when you once pretended to be a Christian. Is not a hypocrite defined as one who affects virtues or qualities that he does not have? Who better fits this definition than one who pretends to be a Christian when he is not?

Maybe he was a christian at that time but then figured out it was bullshit and ceased being christian?

Yes, I know you will then argue that a TRUE CHRISTIAN (TM) is such that he will never cease to be a christian.

So how do you figure out who is TRUE CHRISTIAN (TM) as opposed to those who are just pretend christians?

Sure, you can say that Wayne obviously was pretend since he is no longer christian but what about present days christians? Are any of them TRUE or just pretend? How do you tell which is which?

What if one day rhutchin figures out that the things he has believed most of his life is basically bullshit and this god appear to be very unlikely and so on. Then will you say that he never was a true christian in the first place?

I hope you will realize that these "definitions in hindsight" are never useful in any way. The guy sitting next to you in church who you were sure of were a good christian all this time could turn out to suddenly just be a pretend christian. You have no way to tell.

How do you define a "true christian" in a way that people can determine NOW if they are or not? If you cannot, then you basically state that nobody can know if they are christian or not until they die. The only thing you can say for sure is if people are not christian but everyone who is christian is only on probation until they die. Including the pope and all the tele evangelists - hmm.... they are probably most definitely just pretend anyway since they are in the business of tricking money from gullible christians more than they are in the business of spreading the gospel - the only people who listen to them are people who already believe anyway so their ability to spread the gospel is effectively nil anyway but they are very good at making money - just look at their luxurious life-style.

So - how can you be sure that you are a TRUE CHRISTIAN (TM)?

Alf

[AZSuperman]

Reminds me of an old Warner Brothers cartoon about a circus show, in which Daffy Duck, desperate for audience approval, blows himself up and kills himself in the center ring. While the audience roars its applause, Porky Pig stammers "Wow! What a trick!", and Daffy's ghost, rising towards heaven, replies "Yeah, but I can only do it once."

:rolling: :angel:

I remember that one!!

rhutchin already addressed these problems earlier in this thread. The actual reason given why none of the promised abilities work, literally, was "Jesus was speaking in parables." He cited a verse from Mark 4 which indicated Jesus always spoke in parables, and there is a necessary implicit premise that "parables = bullshit." No kidding!

WMD
That's why I included proofs from the OT as well. If rhutchin doesn't want to test Jesus, then he can test God. They're pretty simple tests, just locate a four-legged bird or a four-legged insect... or find someone with leprosy and test out God's prescribed cure.

Think of how many converts you could get by curing leprosy using the method from the OT!

[John A. Broussard]

So - how can you be sure that you are a TRUE CHRISTIAN (TM)?

If I remember correctly, rhutchin has already declared that the only true christian is a dead true christian.

I believe it means that someone who thinks he/she is a true christian might revert back at the moment of death.

So, there's no guarantee in this life. You gotta die to be sure.

[Alf]

I don't doubt that those people exist... But it's not for you to determine whether someone on this page was a real Christian or not. I've actually had Christian friends of mine accuse me of "pretending" to be atheist, because I still "act" Christian.

Funny that one. When I was young I started in a school and among my new classmates was a guy who were later to become one of my friends asked me after a couple of weeks if I were christian. The reason why he asked was that he had noticed that I never sweared or cursed or spoke "bad words". I explained to him that I was an atheist and the reason I didn't use such language is because it is religion oriented - in Norway most curse words are related to hell or satan and so on and since I did not believe in any of those things I saw no reason to use those words.

I grew up in the bible belt of Norway and in those parts it was generally only christian fundamentalists who never sweared so he assumed I was christian because of it.

Alf

[wyzaard]

It looks like this thread has run its course.

So has your god, apparently.

[Alf]

If I remember correctly, rhutchin has already declared that the only true christian is a dead true christian.

I believe it means that someone who thinks he/she is a true christian might revert back at the moment of death.

So, there's no guarantee in this life. You gotta die to be sure.

What a horrible way to waste your life. Living through your life never being sure if you get to heaven but you keep on forsaking the good things in life in the hope that Jesus will let you in to heaven and then still not be sure to get to heaven on the day you die.

I pity rhutchin and everyone who thinks like he does.

Alf

[Alf]

So has your god, apparently.

Did he ever start? Non-existing entities tends to have problems starting.

Alf

[rhutchin]

rhutchin
Well, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

Alf
Honest truth searching atheist?

That seems fair enough.

[John A. Broussard]

I pity rhutchin and everyone who thinks like he does.

On the other hand, think of how satisfying it must be to know one is absolutely and totally correct despite all the contradictions in one's beliefs.

It isn't easy to believe in so many impossible things. Even the White Queen drew the line at six of them before breakfast.

Seriously, though, there must be a great deal of smug satisfaction to be drawn from knowing that you and I are going to burn in hell for all of eternity while he'll be sitting on a cloud singing hymns in praise of his god and gloating over the giant roasting going on.

[Wayne Delia]

rhutchin
Well, what would appease your conscience? What would you like to be called?

Alf
Honest truth searching atheist?

rhutchin
That seems fair enough.
That's strange. You started out with the "atheists are thieves" bullshit when you wanted to discount another atheist agreeing with my point, as if it was "loyalty among thieves," when you mangled the cliche' "honor among thieves." At the time, you had no idea if there was any validation for that slander in the Bible. After doing a Biblical word search, you discovered that Jesus referred to someone else as thieves, so you did a frankly comical two-step to try to equate "false religious teachers who came before Jesus" with "current-day atheists." That was pretty funny, but it was obvious you were doing that to avoid admitting you broke the Ninth Commandment.

This is as close as you can get, I suppose, to a genuine apology, but you're clearly contradicting yourself by agreeing that "honest, truth searching" are adjectives applying to an atheist, while also very recently claiming that "thieves" is a good description for all atheists.

WMD

[wyzaard]

Pffft! Logic doesn't apply to him, silly!

[wyzaard]

Did he ever start? Non-existing entities tends to have problems starting.


Good point... unless you see god like that brand of cereal that never did turn the milk the shade of purple the box said it would.

[wyzaard]

Yawn...