Ask an atheist

[masterdrenin]

What if you're just plain agnostic? not athiest or theist...
I think that's what I am.


What's funny is that I don't even care about the label....
I just search for truth wherever I can. I don't want to be labeled really.

 

[Sucumbio]

Then what's the point of believing ... Just because of Pascal's wager?

Yep.

I doubt you would qualify as a practicing Catholic.

Ok, this will hopefully clarify. These are cited from a wiki on the Sacraments ... there are seven.

preface: The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are, the Church teaches, "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."

Though not every individual has to receive every sacrament, the Church affirms that, for believers as a whole, the sacraments are necessary for salvation, as the modes of grace divinely instituted by Christ Himself. Through each of them Christ bestows that sacrament's particular grace, such as incorporation into Christ and the Church, forgiveness of sins, or consecration for a particular service.

1.) Baptism (done)

2.) Confirmation (not done)

3.) Eucharist aka Holy Communion (done, while Episcopal or at other Protestant mass. It is technically inappropriate and not allowed to do so during Catholic Mass if you're not first a "Confirmed" Catholic.)

4.) Penance and Reconciliation aka Confession of Sins (not done, only awarded to those who are Confirmed.)

5.) Anointing of the Sick aka The Last Rites (not done, I'm not on my death bed, and if I were, having not been Confirmed, nor Confessed, I would not qualify for this sacrament to be performed.)

6.) Holy Orders (not done, but this one in particular is reserved for those who wish to become ordained as priests and the like.)

7.) Matrimony (not done, I was married by my local Justice of the Peace, if I'd wanted to be married in the Catholic Church, both myself and my wife would have to have been first confirmed, and she'd have actually needed to have been baptized before THAT, as she's not even been baptized.)

So as you can see out of possible 5 cause we do not count being on my death bed and not counting the one just for qualifying priests, I've accomplished 2. This leaves Confession and Matrimony, which first requires Confirmation.

I may one day become Confirmed Catholic, but I doubt it. My wife is strongly against the Catholic Church, and I respect her values. She'd never go in for a Catholic Mass wedding, so that sacrament is pretty much out no matter what.

What this means, is that when I die, I will go to Purgatory. There, I will be cleansed, scrubbed clean, before ascension to Heaven. How long a stay in purgatory depends on how many of these sacraments I missed out on, how pure a life I led while on Earth, and how many pray for my soul after I die.

I do pray the Hail Mary because I believe it's the right thing to do. It's a gesture of Love. I pray the Lord's prayer more infrequently, it's almost as rhetorical as the national anthem, lol so I think he's heard it enough ... but yeah. A practicing Catholic, no. I'm not even really Catholic, I was baptized Episcopalian and technically speaking that's still my official denomination, but I have made a personal choice to accept the Catholics as the real(er) deal, which is a debate I don't want to sully this thread with (Protestant vs Catholic). Some folks would be kept up at night worrying about the fate of their souls, or mine, in this situation. But I'm ok with Purgatory. I'll be surrounded by everyone else who's in my boat. Every child that dies before the sacraments. Every non-Christian (Buddhists, etc.)... Atheists (at least the ones who still live good and moral lives). Every Protestant. Every Cafeteria-Catholic, ones who are Confirmed, but either never go to Confession, or take Communion before Confessing, or go to Church once/year for xmas or easter, etc etc. Yeah, Purgatory's huge and most of the world's populous ends up there. In fact many people who would expect to go to Hell, actually and technically would go to Purgatory, but they don't need to know that

 

[rvkevin]

What if you're just plain agnostic? not athiest or theist...
I think that's what I am.

By that, do you mean that you think the question is unanswerable? That it is impossible to determine whether a god does or does not exist? If so, I would consider that a subset of atheism, since you don't believe in a god. If you don't hold the statement "A god or gods exists" to be true, then you are an atheist.

 

[gm jack]

Unless instead they hold "a god or gods may or may not exist", which would make you an agnostic.

 

[jivegamer]

Unless instead they hold "a god or gods may or may not exist", which would make you an agnostic.

Exactly! I really feel like one should be able to describe oneself as a "true' agnostic. I know Gnostic-Agnostic is what you know and atheist-theist is what you believe, but what if you don't know what you believe? That's a true agnostic, and that's what i feel like I am. Wishy-washy? Perhaps. Honest? No doubt

 

[rvkevin]

Unless instead they hold "a god or gods may or may not exist", which would make you an agnostic.

The issue I have with saying "a god or gods may or may not exist" is that it covers anything that is logically possible, which makes it a relatively useless statement/position. I can say something may or may not be true about any statement that is not a tautology or contradiction. Its pretty much a non-answer to the question "Do you believe the claim, 'a god or gods exists,' to be true?"

"Let’s look at Scientology a little bit. One of the more wacky aspects of Scientology is that of Xenu who is an evil alien dictator of the Galactic Confederacy who threw humans into a volcano and then nuked it 75 millions of years ago. Here is the funny thing about this story. As bizarre as it is, every part of it is possible. What I mean by that is that nothing about this story violates any of the laws of physics as we know them nor does this story contain magic of any kind or anything necessarily supernatural. This story as unlikely as it is and as fanciful as it is, is entirely contained within the natural world and our laws of physics. Even the Scientology idea that humans can learn how to use superpowers isn’t necessarily supernatural. In fact, the only thing in the Scientology story, which MAY even come close to supernatural, would be the idea of Thetans and even that idea really makes more sense than the Christian concept of the soul."

The question is, do you believe the claim to be true? If yes, you believe, and are a theist. If otherwise, you lack belief, and are therefore an atheist (in a local sense). Saying it may or may not be true does nothing to change the fact that you currently don't hold the claim to be true, and therefore are an agnostic atheist.

Short version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLaRXYai19A&feature=player_embedded

 

[Melomaniacal]

How long does it take to understand the difference between agnostic and atheist?
...seriously.

 

[jivegamer]

The issue I have with saying "a god or gods may or may not exist" is that it covers anything that is logically possible, which makes it a relatively useless statement/position. I can say something may or may not be true about any statement that is not a tautology or contradiction. Its pretty much a non-answer to the question "Do you believe the claim, 'a god or gods exists,' to be true?"

"Let’s look at Scientology a little bit. One of the more wacky aspects of Scientology is that of Xenu who is an evil alien dictator of the Galactic Confederacy who threw humans into a volcano and then nuked it 75 millions of years ago. Here is the funny thing about this story. As bizarre as it is, every part of it is possible. What I mean by that is that nothing about this story violates any of the laws of physics as we know them nor does this story contain magic of any kind or anything necessarily supernatural. This story as unlikely as it is and as fanciful as it is, is entirely contained within the natural world and our laws of physics. Even the Scientology idea that humans can learn how to use superpowers isn’t necessarily supernatural. In fact, the only thing in the Scientology story, which MAY even come close to supernatural, would be the idea of Thetans and even that idea really makes more sense than the Christian concept of the soul."

The question is, do you believe the claim to be true? If yes, you believe, and are a theist. If otherwise, you lack belief, and are therefore an atheist (in a local sense). Saying it may or may not be true does nothing to change the fact that you currently don't hold the claim to be true, and therefore are an agnostic atheist.

Your point is...well taken. I think that actually clarified quite a bit for me. I am certainly an Agnostic atheist then. Scientology is awfully tempting though...

click here for all of the answers...

 

[Sucumbio]

I just use dictionary.com anytime I'm confused with a word's meaning.


a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

—Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.


ag·nos·tic
[ag-nos-tik]
–noun
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.


-------------


I don't try to add more to that. By placing other words in front of the original (or in the case of this thread, one in front of the other), you give it an extended meaning and it tends to confuse people. It's enough to simply accept that an atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." and an agnostic is "a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."

If neither of those words alone is accurate enough to describe oneself, then that's cool, I suppose, but I tend to think it -should- be enough in this particular case of words.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

How long does it take to understand the difference between agnostic and atheist?
...seriously.

I know, it blows my mind how much people care about this. <.<

 

[rvkevin]

If neither of those words alone is accurate enough to describe oneself, then that's cool, I suppose, but I tend to think it -should- be enough in this particular case of words.

That's fine, but some people in the thread have equated atheism to mean the belief that the claim, "There are no gods" to be true, which is not the case, which sparked this divergence off topic. Moving along...

"Then what's the point of believing ... Just because of Pascal's wager?"
Yep.

Just to let you know, Pascal's Wager Fails in Every Way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaMjUeuaJ0k)

Unless you're this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&feature=PlayList&p=7B6A61765F6DCF7B&index=0

 

[Sucumbio]

Just to let you know, Pascal's Wager Fails in Every Way (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaMjUeuaJ0k)

Nice find, I'll address his concerns:

1.) "False Dichotomy" (or False Dilemma). This "involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."

I do not see this to be the case (that there are other options.) You either believe God Exists (the God of Abraham) or you do not believe He exists. Maybe isn't a choice, see. It's maybe! You haven't chosen yet.

I would need to hear why he thinks Pascal's Wager is a False Dilemma to argue it further, but so far it doesn't fit. Or perhaps you can speak to it yourself...

2.) "Ignores other religions." Of course it does! There's no point in saying "there's one true god and his name is YWHW" if you're not also saying that any other gods that people are believing in are False Gods. That's one of the biggest points in Christian Theology. It's not Pascal's Wager that ignores other religions, it's Christianity.

3.) "Makes the claim it costs nothing." OMG this guy is so bitter! I never did bring this point up for fear of labeling atheists, but he's forced the issue. Why is it that atheists tend to come off as angry towards God? If you don't believe in God, there's no being angry at him. You can be angry at the -people- who believe, you can be mad at being interrupted at dinner time by door-to-door bible salesmen, but he just comes off as terribly bitter. He actually thinks that by believing in God you're wasting your time or money which is SO precious. He (or again, you) really needs to elaborate on this point, because I want to give it a fair shot before writing it off as simple bitterness.

4.) "... doesn't mean you've avoided the hell of another one." Ugh, see point 2. God promises that by believing in him and only him your soul is safe for that belief. This means the punishments that may occur for this belief by some other God, like... I dunno, Bane or whatever, are not to be feared.

5.) "presumes belief is subject to will, which in turn presumes God will be ok with it since you're just doing it to 'cover your ***'"

wrong and wrong! It's no presumption. God granted us Free Will in our creation, which includes the will to believe or not believe in his existence. I'm not even sure what he meant by this, is he trying to say that humans Don't have free will to believe what they believe? Is he trying to say that we're victims of our parent's or society's beliefs and that we're incapable of thinking outside of the box?

The ONLY thing this guy brings up that's half convincing is the covering your *** bit. Yes, that does seem strange, as if God can't tell you only believed in him while on Earth to err on the side of caution. It even begs the question of how firm or true that belief is. Why, you may even be an atheist deep down inside, but proclaim your faith just so people see you as religious, and so you can lie to yourself over time, in some veiled attempt to convince yourself.

Well to this I say: Purgatory's gonna be packed. I know that believing in God because it's the "safe" choice seems weak and cowardly, but Pascal's Wager is really only to get passed the hurdle... "why believe." It wasn't enough for him to abandon reason to believe, he had to add the extra "and you should do it just in case, anyway." A tad preachy, yes, but its what he needed to sleep at night, apparently. I tend to foster this same sentiment. There may be no evidence, but just in case, go for it, because as your commentator points out, you only have one life (and subsequently one soul) and if its up for grabs you probably want to ensure it goes where it's supposed to be going when you die.

What Pascal forgot is that even people who don't believe in God, like atheists, aren't automatically doomed for Hell. It's about how you live your life. It just so happens that my personal choice to change from atheist to believer came at a time when I feared the outcome of death, and so I was looking for answers to such questions.

Unless you're this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&feature=PlayList&p=7B6A61765F6DCF7B&index=0

Heh, silly man. Him not you. In fact this guy's thesis "If you die and don't believe in God you're going to Hell, if you do you're going to Heaven" is EXACTLY the kind of inaccuracy in discussions that Dre. was referring to. If he knew his dogma, he'd know his thesis is false which in turn has led him to the false conclusion: I need to believe in All Religions, just to be safe.

 

[_Keno_]

I was talking today, and just thought of a question I might ask here.

If Christianity is false, and was created, then what person or group created it, when, and for what purpose? If Christianity is false, then it must, like all things, have a beginning or creation point. Cited sources would be nice, too.

Ex. One theory is that it was created at the council of Nicaea (by Constantine and others) in order to control govt better.

 

[Sucumbio]

I was talking today, and just thought of a question I might ask here.

If Christianity is false, and was created, then what person or group created it, when, and for what purpose? If Christianity is false, then it must, like all things, have a beginning or creation point. Cited sources would be nice, too.

Ex. One theory is that it was created at the council of Nicaea (by Constantine and others) in order to control govt better.

...

Um, I'm not even sure what you're really asking, tbh, sorry : /

"Early Christianity may be divided into two distinct phases: the apostolic period, when the first apostles were alive and led the Church, and the post-apostolic period, when an early episcopal structure developed, and persecution was periodically intense. The Roman persecution of Christians ended in AD 313 under the reign of Constantine the Great, and in 325 he prompted the First Council of Nicaea." -source

 

[john!]

"I know God doesn't exist" (atheist, 99% confident there is no god)"
Gnostic atheism. I know there is no god.
"I am very sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 95% confident there is no god)"
Strong atheism. I believe there is no god.
"I am fairly sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 80% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am pretty sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 60% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am somewhat sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 40% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am a bit sure God doesn't exist" (atheist, 20% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.
"I am not sure if God exists or doesn't exist" (agnostic, 0% confident there is no god)"
Agnostic atheism.

"does it change from belief to nonbelief?"

Yes, its whatever your threshold for holding to know or believe a claim. If something is 99.99999999 (Whatever your threshold is) certain, you will claim to know it (I know the sun will rise tomorrow). If you are certain, but not as certain (For example, 95%), you will claim to believe it (I believe a particular move in Chess is the best one). When you get into the lower confidence levels, you will not claim to believe them. The best example would be flipping a fair coin. I know I have a 50-50 chance of heads, but I would never claim to believe the statement "I will flip heads", even though I have a %50 chance of being correct. Now if that coin had two heads, I would claim to know the statement "I will flip heads" to be true.

You're playing word games. You can't set arbitrary boundaries to what defines "I know", "I believe" and "I don't know but still think", or whatever your version of agnostic atheism is.

If an atheist is 99% sure there is no God, he does not know that God doesn't exist. Knowledge (in philosophy) means you must think something is true, it must actually be true, and you must have proof. The possibility of him being wrong, and his lack of proof, means he does NOT know, he still believes. Similarly, an atheist who is only 20% confident still believes, although their belief is slight. What differentiates a 20% sure atheist from a 40% atheist? Nothing more than the amount of belief they have. Only the 0% confident (which you labeled as agnostic atheist using your definition of atheist, but is actually a pure agnostic using my definition) lacks belief. You can't just set the "belief threshold" at some random number between 80 and 95 percent... it doesn't work that way...

 

[rvkevin]

"False Dichotomy" (or False Dilemma). This "involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options."

I do not see this to be the case (that there are other options.) You either believe God Exists (the God of Abraham) or you do not believe He exists. Maybe isn't a choice, see. It's maybe! You haven't chosen yet.

There are more versions of gods than just the God of Abraham, therefore a false dichotomy. Pascal's wager assumes that either atheism is correct or Christianity is correct, therefore a false dichotomy. If you were to apply your conception of Pascal's wager in the same fashion to every other conceivable version of a deity, it would probably be better to believe in those deity than to not believe, however, doing so would result in contradictory conclusions (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&feature=PlayList&p=7B6A61765F6DCF7B&index=0), so it can't be valid.

"Ignores other religions." Of course it does! There's no point in saying "there's one true god and his name is YWHW" if you're not also saying that any other gods that people are believing in are False Gods. That's one of the biggest points in Christian Theology. It's not Pascal's Wager that ignores other religions, it's Christianity.

This relates to point one. What you say only applies under the assumption that Christianity is correct. You must also consider what would happen if other religions were also correct. If you don't, then you need to rely on special pleading to apply it to a specific religion.

"Makes the claim it costs nothing."

This is under the assumption that atheism is correct. Therefore, time spent practicing and money spent for tithing for something that doesn’t exist would qualify as being wasted.

"... doesn't mean you've avoided the hell of another one." Ugh, see point 2. God promises that by believing in him and only him your soul is safe for that belief. This means the punishments that may occur for this belief by some other God, like... I dunno, Bane or whatever, are not to be feared.

This is not under the assumption that Christianity is correct. If Islam or some other religion is correct, then you are just as likely to land in hell than an atheist and you should then have an incentive to convert to this religion. Essentially, this means that you should convert to the religion that has the biggest stick.

5.) "presumes belief is subject to will, which in turn presumes God will be ok with it since you're just doing it to 'cover your ***'"

He's saying beliefs are not subject to free will. If you disagree with this, try to convince yourself that you can fly without the aid of modern technology. @1:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YIBCkOpOIA

I know that believing in God because it's the "safe" choice seems weak and cowardly, but Pascal's Wager is really only to get passed the hurdle... "why believe." It wasn't enough for him to abandon reason to believe, he had to add the extra "and you should do it just in case, anyway." A tad preachy, yes, but its what he needed to sleep at night, apparently. I tend to foster this same sentiment. There may be no evidence, but just in case, go for it, because as your commentator points out, you only have one life (and subsequently one soul) and if its up for grabs you probably want to ensure it goes where it's supposed to be going when you die.

Again this is under the assumption that Christianity is correct. Some religions have the "Do not have any other gods before me" statute and if you violate that statute, you will be punished. If that religion is the correct one, and Christianity is false, then you would be punished for believing in Yahweh. However, atheists would not have any other gods, so they would not be punished based on this statute.

Pascal's wager is an analysis of the options and tries to find the Nash equilibrium. The problem is that it doesn't take into account all of the options available and incorrectly quantifies payoffs for some of the options. To go through these points under the assumption that either atheism or Christianity is correct is to bypass the original point that Pascal's wager is a false dilemma.

What Pascal forgot is that even people who don't believe in God, like atheists, aren't automatically doomed for Hell. It's about how you live your life.

A good percentage would disagree with you, but that is not the point. The point is that in order to make the wager, you would need to consider every version of a deity in order to see which belief pays off the most.

The possibility of him being wrong, and his lack of proof, means he does NOT know, he still believes. Similarly, an atheist who is only 20% confident still believes, although their belief is slight.

He still believes? What do they believe?

Answer: To say that they are 20% confidence does not mean that they believe the claim "There is no god or gods" to be true, it means that they evaluated the claim to have a 20% chance of being true.

 

[_Keno_]

...

Um, I'm not even sure what you're really asking, tbh, sorry

In more simple terms, I'm asking how the average atheist believes that Christianity came into existence. Like WHO MADE UP THE IDEA TO MAKE A NEW RELIGION OUT OF JUDAISM.

It should be common sense that if Christianity was not created by God/Jesus/Disciples, that it had to come from somewhere.

I was just using the council as an example of a common theory.

 

[rvkevin]

In more simple terms, I'm asking how the average atheist believes that Christianity came into existence.

In short, a similar way other religions came into being. They all can't be true, so we know there is a natural process for creating a new religion.

 

[_Keno_]

In short, a similar way other religions came into being. They all can't be true, so we know there is a natural process for creating a new religion.

And what way would that be? I doubt there is only one general way, and I also doubt that most of them occur through a natural process.

Arguing philosophy never gets anyone anywhere, but historical evidence seems to me like one of the only ways to prove or disprove anything. I just want to see what atheists' takes are on the origin of Christianity. Seems like nobody really has one...what a weak point..

 

[rvkevin]

And what way would that be? I doubt there is only one general way, and I also doubt that most of them occur through a natural process.

People are very superstitious in nature and are very bad at establishing cause and effect. In this episode (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDi2NlsA4nI), Derren Brown recreates Skinner's pigeon experiment using people to show that people form a false conclusion between cause and effect. If you look at basic tribal religions you will find superstitious practices. One time they did a dance, they had a great catch, other times, they associate a bad harvest to the actions of an individual. They continue to perform the actions that give good results and ban the actions that they associate with poor results. After all, religion is mostly organized superstition.

This does not even include the formation of religion from the human intent for it to be used as a control mechanism/personal benefit. If you look at most caste systems, the religious figures tended to be at the top, which would be an incentive to claim divine powers. Even today, people exploit superstitious beliefs for monetary profit.

 

[_Keno_]

Christianity popped up pretty quickly, its not like it evolved from tribal superstition. I would say that your second paragraph is a much more likely explanation. My question is who did it, how, and why?

 

[gm jack]

Well, the fact is started as a cult of Jesus's followers, who followed Judaism would be a very good start.

Seriously, did it not occur that it branched off from Judaism?

 

[rvkevin]

Christianity popped up pretty quickly, its not like it evolved from tribal superstition. I would say that your second paragraph is a much more likely explanation. My question is who did it, how, and why?

I never said from tribal superstition. I highly doubt that it would have been formed from another belief system, considering most systems claim to be infallible and insist on punishing those who say otherwise. This does not mean that it was not formed like tribal superstition. I think its plausible that any belief based on prophecy or miracle could have started in a similar way, an incorrect establishment of cause and effect.

As for who, to find the originator of a religion would be as worthwhile as trying to find the originator of a myth or rumor. I don't see the point. Even if you did find who the originator was, there would always be people claiming the originator had divine intuition, so it would do nothing in terms of falsifying the claims of the religion. How is simple enough, find a group of gullible people and you have the start of a cult, as long as you have enough power, you can silence dissenters and force conversions, which is the start of propagating the story. For the why, well, there is always the liar, lunatic or Lord scenario.

 

[Fatmanonice]

What if you're just plain agnostic? not athiest or theist...
I think that's what I am.


What's funny is that I don't even care about the label....
I just search for truth wherever I can. I don't want to be labeled really.

That's the thing, there's no such thing as just "plain agnostic" because you either lean more towards the theist side or atheist side. I used to ask the same thing but when you get into the nitty gritty of it, agnostic simply means "not knowing." Well, not knowing what? Obviously, you're going to have some sort of bias given you're past experiences and train of thought.

 

[_Keno_]

Seriously, did it not occur that it branched off from Judaism?

Well, that would be a logical conclusion, if you believe Jesus existed at all.

 

[Sucumbio]

There are more versions of gods than just the God of Abraham, therefore a false dichotomy. Pascal's wager assumes that either atheism is correct or Christianity is correct, therefore a false dichotomy. If you were to apply your conception of Pascal's wager in the same fashion to every other conceivable version of a deity, it would probably be better to believe in those deity than to not believe, however, doing so would result in contradictory conclusions (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqJpZOljjG8&feature=PlayList&p=7B6A61765F6DCF7B&index=0), so it can't be valid.

I see what you're saying, but my difficulty is removing myself from the situation in order to have an objective viewpoint. Because I personally believe there is only one true God, there's no choice involved regarding other gods. This may not even fit under Pascal's Wager any longer, as his premise seems to badger the point home. Like I said, it wasn't enough for him to suppose Faith was all you needed, he had to go the extra step and add "and you'd better do it just in case!" Which, though I technically fell under (it's been years since I arrived at the conclusion so it's not like I still ask myself this question every day or have to justify it to myself anymore) I don't even seem to fall under it any more.

What you say only applies under the assumption that Christianity is correct.

Yes, again, this is going to be true for me, and it's not something I can't do... I have already decided for myself ages ago that Christianity was the right choice for me, and in so doing, I've decided that there's only 1 God, the God of Abraham. This means regardless of what may be true for others, as in maybe Islam is correct, or maybe Bane is correct, lol whatever ... it's moot to me because I don't hold that truth.

He's saying beliefs are not subject to free will. If you disagree with this, try to convince yourself that you can fly without the aid of modern technology. @1:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YIBCkOpOIA

LOL that's silly. There's little comparing spiritual belief to the belief you can fly without modern technology helping you out. At least in my mind. But we've had this discussion

 

[jivegamer]

Ah Hitchens, you smooth talker 8) .

...Pascal's wager also lies on the presumption of a judgmental god as well. What if god doesn't hand out rewards or punishments? What if we have a deistic god or even an active god with no real agenda? It seems hard to believe to most theists, but we have to measure the full realm of what's possible in order to make convincing arguments one way or another.

 

[rvkevin]

LOL that's silly. There's little comparing spiritual belief to the belief you can fly without modern technology helping you out. At least in my mind. But we've had this discussion

What counts as a spiritual belief? There are people that go into battle believing they can't be harmed because they are protected by spirits. Would that count as a spiritual belief and could you will yourself to believe that you will be safe from bullets in the heat of battle? I could not will myself to believe a spiritual belief anymore than any other belief.

 

[Sucumbio]

What counts as a spiritual belief?

This is a highly subjective area... it could be anything really, ranging from superstitions to dogma to rituals. Depends on the person, though.

There are people that go into battle believing they can't be harmed because they are protected by spirits. Would that count as a spiritual belief

Yes.

and could you will yourself to believe that you will be safe from bullets in the heat of battle?

Not exactly. I could equip body armor and then ride into battle believing I'd be saf(er) from bullets.

I could receive an anointment and prayer from a priest before riding into battle and believe I was safer than if I'd gone into battle without one...

 

[Melomaniacal]

I could receive an anointment and prayer from a priest before riding into battle and believe I was safer than if I'd gone into battle without one...

Placebo effect?

 

[SwastikaPyle]

LOL that's silly. There's little comparing spiritual belief to the belief you can fly without modern technology helping you out. At least in my mind. But we've had this discussion

Why is that so much sillier than a cosmic Jew reviving himself from the dead after declaring me forgiven for sins that I haven't even committed yet...oh jeez I can't even go on.

 

[Sucumbio]

Placebo effect?

Probably, lol.

It's funny but you can do studies and gauge the effectiveness of combatants who believe and get so-anointed vs ones who believe and don't. Same was within sports teams... ones who say a prayer before game, ones who don't... etc. But I suppose at that point it IS boiling down to mere superstition... oh what twisted webs of logical fallacy we Christians weave

Why is that so much sillier than a cosmic Jew reviving himself from the dead after declaring me forgiven for sins that I haven't even committed yet...oh jeez I can't even go on.

LOL well when you put it -that- way of course it seems silly.

Instead look at it respectfully.

Jesus was resurrected, he didn't do it himself, his father God did it for him.

Jesus didn't forgive you for your personal sins before you committed them... Jesus died on the cross to allow the gates of heaven to be open for all the souls of the dead that had been lost in limbo. This results from the absolution of original Sin, the reason we were all in limbo after death before his crucifixion to begin with.

What was the original Sin? Eve at that darn apple. Ticked God off something fierce. So much so he closed heaven's gate to ALL. Everyone who died from the time forward until Jesus was crucified, dies and was buried, then rose again... everyone's soul, was in limbo, without the ability to return to heaven (which some argue is what the soul's .. sole purpose is, heh).

But I know you don't believe in these bedtime stories, so it's all good. What I find dismaying is how quickly you'll dismiss an idea without knowing exactly what it is you're referring to.

This was Dre.'s point, though he may have been able to make it clearer, *shrug*

 

[PassWurD]

Oh man, now he has a temper problem. This God fellow doesn't seem very nice.

 

[rvkevin]

Jesus was resurrected, he didn't do it himself, his father God did it for him.

If I walk into an empty tomb, resurrection isn't the first thing to come to mind.

What was the original Sin? Eve at that darn apple. Ticked God off something fierce. So much so he closed heaven's gate to ALL. Everyone who died from the time forward until Jesus was crucified, dies and was buried, then rose again... everyone's soul, was in limbo, without the ability to return to heaven (which some argue is what the soul's .. sole purpose is, heh).

Evolution. And there's no evidence for a soul.

What I find dismaying is how quickly you'll dismiss an idea without knowing exactly what it is you're referring to.

Well when you look at the consequences for accepting a believe and see what other junk you would have to accept, people tend to be a little more reserved.

 

[Falconv1.0]

How long does it take to understand the difference between agnostic and atheist?
...seriously.

Never doubt the ignorance of the masses, it saves one a lot of head aches.

 

[SwastikaPyle]

Probably, lol.

It's funny but you can do studies and gauge the effectiveness of combatants who believe and get so-anointed vs ones who believe and don't. Same was within sports teams... ones who say a prayer before game, ones who don't... etc. But I suppose at that point it IS boiling down to mere superstition... oh what twisted webs of logical fallacy we Christians weave



LOL well when you put it -that- way of course it seems silly.

Instead look at it respectfully.

Jesus was resurrected, he didn't do it himself, his father God did it for him.

Jesus didn't forgive you for your personal sins before you committed them... Jesus died on the cross to allow the gates of heaven to be open for all the souls of the dead that had been lost in limbo. This results from the absolution of original Sin, the reason we were all in limbo after death before his crucifixion to begin with.

What was the original Sin? Eve at that darn apple. Ticked God off something fierce. So much so he closed heaven's gate to ALL. Everyone who died from the time forward until Jesus was crucified, dies and was buried, then rose again... everyone's soul, was in limbo, without the ability to return to heaven (which some argue is what the soul's .. sole purpose is, heh).

What makes you think I didn't know any of that?

You say potato, I say potahto.

Dude, I don't want to be 'that' guy, because this thread has been relatively peaceful and tranquil up to this point and I didn't want to disturb that, but you seriously have the worst freaking arguments in this thread. You snidely dismiss half of the things we post, usually the things you are too clueless to answer, than try and play it off as though we're the ones giving you a hard time and making bad arguments. That reply up above was a great example.

LOL that's silly. There's little comparing spiritual belief to the belief you can fly without modern technology helping you out. At least in my mind. But we've had this discussion

You didn't refute his argument at all, you dismissed it and said, "Well it's not right because I don't think so." Do you have any idea how frustrating and juvenile it is to debate with someone like this? Someone who won't accept or even look at the evidence we display in front of them? It's like they aren't even interested in having a stimulating discussion, they just want to 'win,' like it's some schoolyard fight and everyone's watching.

:Niiiice. Yeah lets go there, why not. You got it. In fact, if I don't exist, then none of you do either!:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9731508#post9731508

That's a quote from you earlier in the thread, which you have deleted from existence now, as it links back to nothing. I'd be ashamed to. It would make me look like a 5th grader, if I'd written something like that.

I deliberately misinterpreted it and made fun of them and mocked them! Hahaha, victory!

It's like an online Bill O'.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Thank you Swastika, thank you so much.

Sucumbio, I see you having a very luxurious job on Fox one day.

 

[rvkevin]

You didn't refute his argument at all, you dismissed it and said, "Well it's not right because I don't think so." Do you have any idea how frustrating and juvenile it is to debate with someone like this? Someone who won't accept or even look at the evidence we display in front of them?

Isn't this the basis of religion?

It's like an online Bill O'.

Not Fox, but its too ironic for an African-American to advocate a minority group to submit to the will of the majority: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU&feature=related

And Reilly dodges all of Dawkin's points: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FARDDcdFaQ
And then calls him a fascist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTPj6Hndyk

I don't know if I should be laughing or crying.

 

[Sucumbio]

If I walk into an empty tomb, resurrection isn't the first thing to come to mind.

more like weekend at bernies, they snatched the body up and paraded the corpse around for others to see and just made it look like he was risen (not trying to be sarcastic, actually).

Evolution. And there's no evidence for a soul.

Oh pish, we been through the evidence thing

Well when you look at the consequences for accepting a believe and see what other junk you would have to accept, people tend to be a little more reserved.

True, as I said I was originally atheist and pretty much felt exactly as the atheists in this thread. I would even go so far as to say I was a skeptic.. it was very difficult to not outright call people "brainwashed" if you will, but this changed over time.

What makes you think I didn't know any of that?

your comment...

Dude, I don't want to be 'that' guy, because this thread has been relatively peaceful and tranquil up to this point and I didn't want to disturb that, but you seriously have the worst freaking arguments in this thread. You snidely dismiss half of the things we post, usually the things you are too clueless to answer, than try and play it off as though we're the ones giving you a hard time and making bad arguments. That reply up above was a great example.

No need to be bitter I obviously struck a nerve, I apologize.

You didn't refute his argument at all, you dismissed it and said, "Well it's not right because I don't think so." Do you have any idea how frustrating and juvenile it is to debate with someone like this? Someone who won't accept or even look at the evidence we display in front of them? It's like they aren't even interested in having a stimulating discussion, they just want to 'win,' like it's some schoolyard fight and everyone's watching.

No REALLY. I apologize... >.>;

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?p=9731508#post9731508

That's a quote from you earlier in the thread, which you have deleted from existence now, as it links back to nothing. I'd be ashamed to. It would make me look like a 5th grader, if I'd written something like that.

lolwut? I deleted no post. Never have... edit! Sure, for grammar's sake...

?

I deliberately misinterpreted it and made fun of them and mocked them! Hahaha, victory!

It's like an online Bill O'.

YOU think I'M like Bill O'Reilly? Wow... hahahaha <- he'll be laughing forever (sorry to steal that but I seen it on these boards ages ago and I always wondered when it'd be just the right time for it)

Thank you Swastika, thank you so much.

Sucumbio, I see you having a very luxurious job on Fox one day.

You're both right, you have me all figured out. ? Well, I guess my work is done...

BTW I have no idea what you're even talking about. I actually gave props where it's due. There's literally 3 maybe 5 people in this whole thread that even came close to debating, rv, me, acrostic, dark... noise or something lol. The rest of you (on both sides) teetered around debate and fell victim to arguments over semantics (seriously, tho? c'mon guys, its a dictionary, use one.)

rv proposed absolutely convincing arguments which I more than owned up to, and fully acknowledged as plausible.

I've obviously outworn my welcome here, which is a shame, because I actually learned something from rv ... and now subsequently, you. bye!

 

[Falconv1.0]

Sucumbio, he has laid out very easy to understand points and you haven't even refuted them in your posts, you've pretty much continued to ignore them and just keep saying random **** that elaborates on the fact that you're a christian.

Is anyone else not getting Swastika's point, seriously?