(03-02-2010 09:24 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  In the last two responses to me you have insulted the school I have attended so I'm guessing there is some motive behind it other than being a total amateurish *******.

I didn't create the god myth...therefore in turn...it is not my place to prove that he doesn't exist. It is Christianity's burden of proof I'm afraid. I am not required to fall under some type of 'required faith bill' that apparently exists in your mind.

Just like if I ran around claiming that elephants really fly on hover boards when we are not looking. You would expect me to prove it...and you would think it was absurd if I said, "Oh yeah, you don't believe me? Prove me wrong!"

You're right. The burden of proof is on the Christians to prove God exists. However, you said there is no God emphatically and that he's a myth. Using the same argument, doesn't that burden of proof lie with you? ...and if you have no proof, isn't that you using "faith" that he doesn't exist?

This is an argument that'll never be answered. I'm just trying to get you libs to understand that your argument isn't anymore provable than Christians' argument. I do believe in God. I'm also not one to proselytize you. You don't believe in God, I really could give a rat's ass. ...however, aren't you libs trying to do the same?

Where do the libertarians fall?

I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

(03-02-2010 09:47 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  Where do the libertarians fall?

I'm socially moderate/liberal, fiscally conservative. Why do you think I don't get involved in most social debates, unless someone is trashing Christianity? I could give a rat's ass if someone's not a Christian. Not my problem. When they trash it? Damn right I'm speaking up.

(03-02-2010 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

I came to this same conclusion. I was raised Christian, and wholeheartedly believe in God, etc.. Either in a time of doubt, or personal Devil's Advocate, my logical side came out and quickly eased my mind. I don't see belief in God as a safety net, but logically, it fits better anyone can "logically" disprove God's existence.

(03-02-2010 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

Dawkins: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

(03-02-2010 10:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dawkins: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

F--k Dawkins. How many people are out there dying for God, aside from Muzzies, who worship a false God (Conjecture on my part, I know)? It isn't Christians. This is NOT the crusade era. Christians and Jews want to live and let live. Sure, they are sometimes judgmental, but who the f--k isn't? Are you not?

(03-02-2010 09:24 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 09:15 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 09:10 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  No, there obviously is no 'faith' needed in Atheism. You see, based on your own assumption that there is a god you then assume that it takes 'faith' to understand that it is all myth.

Really? You know for a fact there is no God? Or you have faith there is no God. If you "know", then I'll be waiting on your proof.


....waiting......

I'm not an evangelical Christian, but I do know it's ALL faith without proof. Maybe Troy didn't teach you that.

In the last two responses to me you have insulted the school I have attended so I'm guessing there is some motive behind it other than being a total amateurish *******.

I didn't create the god myth...therefore in turn...it is not my place to prove that he doesn't exist. It is Christianity's burden of proof I'm afraid. I am not required to fall under some type of 'required faith bill' that apparently exists in your mind.

Just like if I ran around claiming that elephants really fly on hover boards when we are not looking. You would expect me to prove it...and you would think it was absurd if I said, "Oh yeah, you don't believe me? Prove me wrong!"

Paul the Trojan of Troy.....GT Swagger wrote "Atheism ... check. That's a simple exercise in logic and science. "

The assertion is Atheism is an exercise in logic and science. Simple statement and easy for a 5th grader to understand. My question remains, science? Okay what scientific studies have proved Atheism? The scientific method being of testing and observing. I do not want to hear someones belief or opinion I want to see scientific evidence.

(03-02-2010 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

If you believe, you have to Believe with a capital B.

Cause any all knowing, all seeing god is going to know damn well that you took Pascal's Wager, and send you down to hell with the atheists, agnostics and Mormons.

(03-02-2010 10:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Dawkins: "Suppose we grant that there is indeed some small chance that God exists. Nevertheless, it could be said that you will lead a better, fuller life if you bet on his not existing, than if you bet on his existing and therefore squander your precious time on worshipping him, sacrificing to him, fighting and dying for him, etc."

"God allows me to live for something higher than myself. I live knowing that there is something better beyond my time on Earth. My life is not meaningless in the grand scheme of time. I am not just a random collection of atoms living out my mortal coil with no purpose." - No one in particular, but billions of people like me.

(03-02-2010 11:31 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(03-02-2010 09:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I've always liked the Pascal's Wager approach, formulated (but perhaps not first) by Blaise Pascal, French mathematician and philosopher.

There are two possibilities with God--He exists or He doesn't.
There are two possibilities for you--you believe that He exists or you don't.

If you believe God exists, and He does exist, fine and dandy.
If you believe God exists, and He doesn't exist, you're wrong but not really hurt.
If you believe God does not exist, and He doesn't exist, again, fine and dandy.
But what if you believe God does not exist, and He does exist? Now you have a big problem.

Now given that there's only one really bad bet, and given that I can't prove that God exists and you can't prove that He doesn't, what is the smart bet?

If you believe, you have to Believe with a capital B.

Cause any all knowing, all seeing god is going to know damn well that you took Pascal's Wager, and send you down to hell with the atheists, agnostics and Mormons.

HEY!!!

Suppose there is a God, but he has provided no certain evidence for what he is like, even for whether he exists. He expects us to recognize this fact, punishing those who presume to know about Him when they really do not while rewarding those who frankly admit their ignorance. So only the agnostics are saved!!!


But I agree about the atheists and Mormons. Sorry Steve.

Suppose all of you agnostics and atheists are wrong? Not proselytizing, just saying.


...oh, and I won't expect you to be subservient, pay taxes, convert, and I damn sure won't behead you. ....just sayin'. Hell, I may not even make it there. I'm not exactly the perfect Christian.

Suppose you're wrong?

It's just those damned arrogant no-it-all atheists gonna burn. I admit my ignorance. Gotta count for something. Maybe an occasional iced tea?

(03-03-2010 12:26 AM)Paul M Wrote:  It's just those damned arrogant no-it-all atheists gonna burn. I admit my ignorance. Gotta count for something. Maybe an occasional iced tea?

Dude, if you don't believe, I really could care less. I'm not a Muslim. You are free to believe whatever it is you believe in. ....just like any other country that's majority Christian.

(03-03-2010 12:19 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Suppose all of you agnostics and atheists are wrong? Not proselytizing, just saying.


...oh, and I won't expect you to be subservient, pay taxes, convert, and I damn sure won't behead you. ....just sayin'. Hell, I may not even make it there. I'm not exactly the perfect Christian.

Suppose you're wrong?

If I am wrong, I still expect a god to differentiate between those true believers and those who take Pascal's Wager, or those who live a hypocritical religious life.

If I am wrong, I still am 100% positive that 99% of those true believers have sinned in some way shape or form that should exclude them from eternal life, as described in their book of choice.

If I am wrong, I still expect a loving god to understand and welcome me through the pearly gates, because while I am not a believer I have still lived (to now) a fair, honest and hardworking life regardless of past, present or future transgressions.

It's probably everyone through the gates, some obvious company excluded. I don't know the criteria for exclusion, but so far in my life, I am pretty sure it ain't going to be me.....

So, I do not believe a higher power would be judgmental and vindictive, regardless of the books of the Abrahamic religions.

Just me saying so. Not speaking for anyone else.

(03-03-2010 12:40 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  It's probably everyone through the gates, some obvious company excluded.

There are texts to suggest that. Jesus even.

I have no clue how this descended to where it is from where it began, but it sounds religious. But since ya'll was talking about Heaven and stuff, I figured I'd put in my two cents on Christianity, mainly stirred by Stanley's statement of "It's probably everyone through the gates, some obvious company excluded. I don't know the criteria for exclusion, but so far in my life, I am pretty sure it ain't going to be me....."

The following is my response briefly summed to its foundation:

Quote:For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

John 3:16-18

I treat this as step one to considering yourself a Christian. Where it goes from there is a long and complicated position for me, which I also have not fully worked out myself. Only Christians (those who accepted Christ as Savior) may enter Heaven. Only an individual truly knows if he's honestly and fully accepted Christ as his Savior.

Sorry, felt obligated to share. Carry on.

(03-03-2010 12:19 AM)Rebel Wrote:  Suppose all of you agnostics and atheists are wrong? Not proselytizing, just saying.


...oh, and I won't expect you to be subservient, pay taxes, convert, and I damn sure won't behead you. ....just sayin'. Hell, I may not even make it there. I'm not exactly the perfect Christian.

Suppose you're wrong?

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

Bonus Points (all by Jefferson as well):

"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a Censor – over each other."

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. "

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. "

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”"

"Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live."

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

What framework/methodology/pattern of reasoning shall we use to evaluate the potential existence of God?

Why are atheists so angry with God?