(09-25-2014 09:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

There are two primary problems with Pascal's Wager.

First, it merely assumes that, if there is a god, that god would prefer that you worship the wrong god instead of no god.

More importantly, Pascal's Wager is only a reason to hold a belief, not a reason supporting the belief itself. Reasons to hold a belief are insufficient to actually generate a true belief. If I promised you that I would give you $1 million dollars if, after a year, you truly believed that Obama was the greatest president in American history, that benefit would not be enough to make you believe it. You would have a reason to hold the belief, but no reason for the belief itself.

(09-26-2014 12:17 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 12:07 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Are you kidding me? I don't have to prove Muhammed existed nor do I think he was a prophet if he did.
There is limited evidence Jesus existed.

Using your strange logic, we now have to totally throw out almost all modern day accepted historical people from antiquity.
'
Aristotle, Buddha, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammad, ect.

If you want to be one of the few people on the planet still screaming these people never even existed, then be my guest.

What strange logic? I never claimed anyone did or did not exist.
There is limited evidence Jesus existed,

(09-26-2014 12:20 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 12:08 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Don't forget Zeus.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Do you even know who Zeus was? He was not a human being you idiot.

Historians do NOT accept him as having been a real person. He is a mythological figure.

Step away from the keyboard my friend.

You made my day thank you!

(09-26-2014 12:28 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  What strange logic? I never claimed anyone did or did not exist.
There is limited evidence Jesus existed,

Then we are back to saying this about almost anyone who lived in antiquity.

We have an accepted history of antiquity by scholars who have nothing to do with religion.

You can accept that or reject it.

How can one expect to have such lofty evidential proof of a poor man who lived in a tiny province 2000 years ago?

(09-26-2014 12:30 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 12:20 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 12:08 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Don't forget Zeus.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

Do you even know who Zeus was? He was not a human being you idiot.

Historians do NOT accept him as having been a real person. He is a mythological figure.

Step away from the keyboard my friend.

You made my day thank you!

I'm still lmao too.

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

Owl 69/70/75 [b Wrote:pid='11167533' dateline='1411699422']

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

This complete bullcrap. Purely from a historical standpoint, and not a religous one, a jewish man named Jesus existed and was executed for his radical teachings. All across the US and the world for that matter theyre are secular universities with religious studies departments that have at least one scholar devoted to studying the historical Jesus.

Going up to a biblical historian and telling them Jesus didnt exist would be like going up to a civil war historian and telling them Robert E Lee was a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(09-25-2014 08:13 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 12:59 PM)ken d Wrote:  Posting topics like this one is childish behavior. You don't have to reach 35 to realize that.

That is totally absurd.

Where did we come from is the eternal question of all mankind.

Men much older and much wiser will be still discussing this topic for centurys long after we are dead and gone.

Whether it is an eternal question is beside the point. It doesn't change the fact that this is a troll thread. The title of the thread is pure fabrication, meant to provoke people who don't share your beliefs. You don't "consistently" hear "many atheists" ask anything of the sort. Throwing red meat to a subset of Christians is not adult behavior, no matter how you slice it.

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  This is a non sequitur.

It follows perfectly. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it isn't. You do not get to pick and choose what passages you will follow based on how comfortable they make you. There either was a burning bush, or there wasn't. Adam and Eve existed, or Adam and Eve never existed.

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  And this question (or others like it) are just another of the "less intelligent questions I consistently hear most Atheists ask."

If even ONE thing in the Bible is fake, or a parable, or a story, then the Bible is horribly flawed in myriad ways and direct, literal biblical interpretation is, by and large, ridiculous. Again, if anything in the Bible is not the actual word of God, then anything can be questioned including the infallibility of Jesus and his resurrection.

That is sort of a big thing, no?

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Do either you or I really get to determine who God is and how He would or wouldn't relate to us if He does exist, based upon your own "leap of faith" because of some scripture references from the Old Testament, proving Him to be something He is not, because you want to read it that way?

I simply quoted a passage. I was told that women on their period were unclean. Not really sure how else I was supposed to read it......

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Your example is either very immature thinking on your part, intellectual dishonesty, or _______. (You fill in the blank for me if it's not one of the first two things, okay?)

There's no need to assume condescension, unless it's really important to you.

Remember, my comments are specifically in regards to posters who, in paraphrase, say if it is in the Bible, then I believe it.

(09-26-2014 12:22 AM)jh Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 09:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

There are two primary problems with Pascal's Wager.

First, it merely assumes that, if there is a god, that god would prefer that you worship the wrong god instead of no god.

More importantly, Pascal's Wager is only a reason to hold a belief, not a reason supporting the belief itself. Reasons to hold a belief are insufficient to actually generate a true belief. If I promised you that I would give you $1 million dollars if, after a year, you truly believed that Obama was the greatest president in American history, that benefit would not be enough to make you believe it. You would have a reason to hold the belief, but no reason for the belief itself.

There are lots of problems with the fallacy that is Pascal's Wager. First of all it presumes the validity of unstated, and unproven, premises. For example, it presumes that there is a negative consequence for not believing that God exists. It also presumes that there is a desirable reward for believing. And, it presumes that it is possible to choose to believe something that one actually does not, in fact, believe, (your argument) for the sole purpose of "earning" that desirable reward.

It also presumes that God does possess only the good traits that most Christians would ascribe to him. It presumes that God loves us. It presumes that God gave us the ability to reason, and the free will to use that reason. Then it presumes that if we employ that reason and arrive in good faith at an incorrect conclusion, he will damn us to hell for all eternity.

Frankly, I think it would be more reasonable to assume that a truly loving God would reward a person who lived a good life but did not believe he existed before he would reward someone who only "behaved" out of fear of God's retribution.

In short, Pascal's Wager is nothing more than simplistic nonsense.

(09-25-2014 11:46 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:36 PM)G-Man Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

There is very little evidence that anyone existed more than fifteen hundred years ago...

However, you actually believing what exists today as Millions of Christians, is the result of some great conspiracy theory? Actually, that's pretty comical. Do you also think the World Trade Center was an inside job? There's more evidence for that than that Jesus existed, right?

Millions of people believe Muhammad is the most recent prophet as well. Should I believe them as well?

Depends on where you live, I suppose. Some places you might want to, if you want to keep your head. No worries about that here in the USA, though. Never will happen here.

Oh wait, never mind.

(09-26-2014 12:07 AM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:50 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:46 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  Millions of people believe Muhammad is the most recent prophet as well. Should I believe them as well?

That's not what you posted,

You would have to argue first that Mohammad never existed or that there is "little proof of" him.

Now you just leaped to proving he was a prophet of God. Which is of course stupid because no one can tangibly prove anything in the sense that we understand and use the term.

Belief in such things is based on faith, not "proof". Which is the whole point.

Are you kidding me? I don't have to prove Muhammed existed nor do I think he was a prophet if he did.
There is limited evidence Jesus existed.

Especially since no one can find where his grave anywhere.

(09-26-2014 10:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  This is a non sequitur.

It follows perfectly. Either the Bible is the Word of God, or it isn't. You do not get to pick and choose what passages you will follow based on how comfortable they make you. There either was a burning bush, or there wasn't. Adam and Eve existed, or Adam and Eve never existed.

You're not being intelligent about this. Show me a COLLECTION of scriptures from spanning thousands of years and cultural influences, then put them together into a single writing, and then let me decide why you have to believe exactly like me about that they must all be perfectly be inerrant or else I get to dismiss all of them as having any credibility. Again, you're just not arguing intelligently, if you really think this way.

Or-- let's go ahead and argue in the same way you want to make it an "all or nothing" issue: Either you can prove God exists OR you can prove He doesn't. Which is it, Stanley? It follows "Perfectly" that you have to be able to either do one or the other... So, prove to me He doesn't exist or else prove to me that He does. Why? Just because I say it has to be that way, I suppose (if I were Lord Stanley, that is)...

(09-26-2014 10:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  And this question (or others like it) are just another of the "less intelligent questions I consistently hear most Atheists ask."

If even ONE thing in the Bible is fake, or a parable, or a story, then the Bible is horribly flawed in myriad ways and direct, literal biblical interpretation is, by and large, ridiculous. Again, if anything in the Bible is not the actual word of God, then anything can be questioned including the infallibility of Jesus and his resurrection.

That is sort of a big thing, no?

It's actually a "big thing" that you really think ALL people claiming to be Christians have to think and believe in the exact way you want to stereotype any Christian to be bound up in some legalistic way of having to view every word in the Old and New Testaments as having to be literally true.

As if the sun could stand still?

You sound like you've never visited with any one claiming to be a Christian who wasn't some fundamentalist, "King James is the only Bible that's correct" type of guy. I guess you also think every Muslim believes that beheading people who don't agree with them is the only thing a Muslim can believe? You think it must be that way, or there's some big problem with all of Islam? I suggest you broaden your horizons a little about what you "claim" Christianity teaches.

For example, the people who followed Christ and were his Disciples weren't hung up on literal interpretations of the old Testament. On the other hand, the people Jesus called Vipers were pretty hung up about it. I guess you think Christ wasn't a Christian because he wasn't hung up on not keeping the Sabbath?

(09-26-2014 10:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Do either you or I really get to determine who God is and how He would or wouldn't relate to us if He does exist, based upon your own "leap of faith" because of some scripture references from the Old Testament, proving Him to be something He is not, because you want to read it that way?

I simply quoted a passage. I was told that women on their period were unclean. Not really sure how else I was supposed to read it......

Then find out what Christ actually said, instead of being intellectually lazy, because it fits how you want to stereotype Christianity. Christians actually believe Christ is/was God incarnate, and so that what He said, clarified exactly what the "Old Testament" really teaches (so you don't have to misinterpret, misunderstand or misrepresent it to me). For example, the "Old Testament" said anyone caught in Adultery had to be stoned. You say we have to take that literally. Yet, I don't see Christ saying we have to take that literally. In fact, what I see is actually see something quite different. Maybe you could see it too, if you'd not just cherry-pick "passages" you "simply quoted", and find out what Christ really taught, and what Christians are really supposed to believe about old testament laws and commandments.

(09-26-2014 10:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 07:46 PM)G-Man Wrote:  Your example is either very immature thinking on your part, intellectual dishonesty, or _______. (You fill in the blank for me if it's not one of the first two things, okay?)

There's no need to assume condescension, unless it's really important to you.

Remember, my comments are specifically in regards to posters who, in paraphrase, say if it is in the Bible, then I believe it.

I'm not assuming.

(09-26-2014 05:06 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I guess you think Christ wasn't a Christian because he wasn't hung up on not keeping the Sabbath?

No, I think Christ wasn't a Christian because Jesus was a Jew.

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

Owl 69/70/75 [b Wrote:pid='11167533' dateline='1411699422']

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

First of all, we have millions of people around the world believing in a mythical person. Ironic how that many people can be wrong. You talk about Mohammed, even though he wasn't the Messiah he still was a very human person. Even in the Koran Mohammed makes reference to this "mythical" Jesus. In the Koran it also says to "listen to the people of the book" (Bible).

Josephus, a leading Jewish historian makes reference to Jesus in his historical accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

(09-26-2014 05:37 PM)jh Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 05:06 PM)G-Man Wrote:  I guess you think Christ wasn't a Christian because he wasn't hung up on not keeping the Sabbath?

No, I think Christ wasn't a Christian because Jesus was a Jew.

Yes he was a Jew. A Messianic Jew. A Jew who by definition believed in Christ. Because He said He was the Christ.

Which makes him a Christian.

You dispute this?

(09-26-2014 07:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

Owl 69/70/75 [b Wrote:pid='11167533' dateline='1411699422']

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

First of all, we have millions of people around the world believing in a mythical person. Ironic how that many people can be wrong. You talk about Mohammed, even though he wasn't the Messiah he still was a very human person. Even in the Koran Mohammed makes reference to this "mythical" Jesus. In the Koran it also says to "listen to the people of the book" (Bible).

Josephus, a leading Jewish historian makes reference to Jesus in his historical accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Where did I say he never existed? I actually do believe he existed as strange as that may sound.
Yes, Muslims believe in the God of Abraham as well, and Jesus is one of their most important prophets.

"There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred. "

This is a ridiculous statement that was made. Josephus was 50+ years after the fact. While I do assume Jesus did exist, there remains little evidence he actually did.

(09-26-2014 07:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

Owl 69/70/75 [b Wrote:pid='11167533' dateline='1411699422']

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

First of all, we have millions of people around the world believing in a mythical person. Ironic how that many people can be wrong. You talk about Mohammed, even though he wasn't the Messiah he still was a very human person. Even in the Koran Mohammed makes reference to this "mythical" Jesus. In the Koran it also says to "listen to the people of the book" (Bible).

Josephus, a leading Jewish historian makes reference to Jesus in his historical accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Majority believing in something doesnt equal fact, this coming from someone who based on historical records believes in the historical Jesus the same way I believe in evolution.

(09-26-2014 11:50 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(09-26-2014 07:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-25-2014 11:17 PM)gobluebigjon Wrote:  

Owl 69/70/75 [b Wrote:pid='11167533' dateline='1411699422']

(09-24-2014 08:08 PM)G-Man Wrote:  ...is the question, "Who Created God?"

Answer: God.


Here's the way I work through it in three steps.

First, Pascal's Wager. There either is a God or there isn't, and I may believe in Him or not. If there is and I do, that's great. If there isn't, doesn't really matter whether I believe or not, although I do believe that following a moral code makes for a happier and more rewarding life. But if there is and I don't--oops, we have a problem. So the only bad outcome is there is and I don't. So the smart bet is that there is a God. And that's the way I bet.

Second, I look at all the precise complexity of the universe. Did this happen at random, or was there a guiding hand, a Creator? Seems to me that the Creator makes far more sense.

Third, so which God? The various gods may in fact be different manifestations of the same God to different cultures. But there's one thing those other gods don't have--the Resurrection. It happened or it didn't. If it did, then this is pretty much a slam dunk. So the question is whether it did. And there are numerous arguments from a textual-critical standpoint that it did. There is more documentation of a higher quality and reliability to support the Resurrection that there is for virtually any other event in ancient history, many of which we take for granted as having occurred.

That gets me there. May not get you there, but it gets me there.

There is very little evidence that Jesus actually existed. This is comical.

First of all, we have millions of people around the world believing in a mythical person. Ironic how that many people can be wrong. You talk about Mohammed, even though he wasn't the Messiah he still was a very human person. Even in the Koran Mohammed makes reference to this "mythical" Jesus. In the Koran it also says to "listen to the people of the book" (Bible).

Josephus, a leading Jewish historian makes reference to Jesus in his historical accounts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Majority believing in something doesnt equal fact, this coming from someone who based on historical records believes in the historical Jesus the same way I believe in evolution.

I am having trouble with the equating of the historical evidence for Jesus and the evidence for evolution. Perhaps you could explain that to me. I don't get it.

Read this article and every time they use the word dark substitute God?

Quote:Now scientists think that even this extravagant census of the universe might be as out-of-date as the five-planet cosmos that Galileo inherited from the ancients. Astronomers have compiled evidence that what we've always thought of as the actual universe—me, you, this magazine, planets, stars, galaxies, all the matter in space—represents a mere 4 percent of what’s actually out there. The rest they call, for want of a better word, dark: 23 percent is something they call dark matter, and 73 percent is something even more mysterious, which they call dark energy.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...tIJvpiz.99