Atheists are wrong

[Guest 2smart4u]

And anyone too stupid not to know it will burn with them when they die !!

Pascal gets it, why don't you ?

[Guest Guest]

I's agree does Ath...afe...athistsss...Those fulks whoes dun not be bleevin in god be juss igniant...nuff said.

[Guest Guest]

And anyone too stupid not to know it  will burn with them when they die !!

Pascal gets it, why don't you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anyone who is stupid enough to imagine that a superior being would think like that . . . well, lucky for him that such a being wouldn't think like that.

[Guest 2smart4u]

And anyone too stupid not to know it  will burn with them when they die !!

Pascal gets it, why don't you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another "2smart4u" ?? I'm flattered.

[Guest Guest]

And anyone too stupid not to know it  will burn with them when they die !!

Pascal gets it, why don't you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh you sad silly individual.

[Autonomous]

And anyone too stupid not to know it  will burn with them when they die !!

Pascal gets it, why don't you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is impressively trollish even by the high standards you've set for yourself. Only one exclamation point is needed, however.

From Pensees:God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist.

No it isn't. That is a whopper of an assumption.

It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist.

Not really. Anything starts with a 50/50 chance of existing if we are being incredibly generous. Factual evidence would increase the likelihood, yet each logically improbable characteristic would decrease it.

Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.

Two assumptions here. First off, is faith a simple choice? There was a time in my life when I desperately wanted to believe. I wasn't capable of it. Second, why should we assume that nothing is lost by choosing a life of faith? Shouldn't some evidence be presented to show this?

Finally, Pascal's Wager says nothing on which God is the correct one. What if following the wrong God is worse than not believing at all? If Allah exists but your God doesn't, you're still screwed. From what I understand of Islam, you'd be more screwed than I would.

We discussed this not too long ago. Is your advanced age causing senility already?

[Autonomous]

And anyone too stupid not to know it  will burn with them when they die !!

Pascal gets it, why don't you ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One more thing-my old pastor used to say that anyone using their faith to denigrate others is obviously more concerned with being right than righteous.

[Bryan]

Another "2smart4u" ??  I'm flattered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

KOTW has a policy regarding the impersonation of other posters, IIRC. If my recollection is accurate, somebody's getting banned over this.

[Strife767]

[Guest Paul]

Two assumptions here. First off, is faith a simple choice? There was a time in my life when I desperately wanted to believe. I wasn't capable of it. Second, why should we assume that nothing is lost by choosing a life of faith? Shouldn't some evidence be presented to show this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a suggestion, change your definition of Faith and see what happens: Define Faith as acting for good in every phase of your life and in the world even though you have no guarantee of the results. Examples: pursue the career you always wanted, ask the girl out even though you're not sure she'll say yes, call the relative you haven't spoken to in ten years. All of these acts of Faith are choices.

I believe strongly that what we now call "traditional" religion in our culture distorts Faith completely. Merely choosing to believe what we wish to believe serves no good purpose, but choosing to act to bring about the good does; and besides the only absolutely sure way not to bring what we desire into reality is not to try. Again I recommend Paul Tillich's little book called (as I recall it) The Dynamics of Faith.

[Strife767]

KOTW has a policy regarding the impersonation of other posters, IIRC.  If my recollection is accurate, somebody's getting banned over this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Considering 2dim's track record, forgive me for not being immediately inclined to believing him.

2. Ban who, exactly? Even if it was an impersonator, it would be another anonymous poster. There's nothing to ban, except possibly an IP address, and I'm not even sure that's possible on this board.

[Autonomous]

Another "2smart4u" ??  I'm flattered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So do you disagree with the actual post?

[Guest DingoDave]

Paul wrote:

"As a suggestion, change your definition of Faith and see what happens"

I know we've discussed this before, but what's wrong with defining the word faith, as 'a reasonable trust'?

In my opinion, various religious leaders have unfairly and dishonestly hijacked the word to suit their own nefarious purposes.

[Guest Guest]

Paul wrote:

I know we've discussed this before, but what's wrong with defining the word faith, as 'a reasonable trust'?

In my opinion, various religious leaders have unfairly and dishonestly hijacked the word to suit their own nefarious purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can define any word any way you like. It seems to me that Paul was suggesting a different way of looking at things. Did you consider it? Maybe you'll find it useful.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Paul wrote:

I know we've discussed this before, but what's wrong with defining the word faith, as 'a reasonable trust'?

In my opinion, various religious leaders have unfairly and dishonestly hijacked the word to suit their own nefarious purposes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rectum remarks.

[Guest Keith-Marshall,Mo]

"Rectum Remarks" ?

I see your new tag line is even less clever than the rest. How long will you beat this one into the ground?

[Guest DingoDave]

Guest wrote:

You can define any word any way you like. It seems to me that Paul was suggesting a different way of looking at things. Did you consider it? Maybe you'll find it useful.

It certainly is useful, and I wasn't criticising it. I just wanted to throw the very simplest definition I could think of into the pot for consideration.

[Guest Paul]

Guest wrote:

It certainly is useful, and I wasn't criticising it. I just wanted to throw the very simplest definition I could think of into the pot for consideration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough, but for me Faith changed my life. I describe myself as a born-again Humanist, and it is because I learned to think about Faith in the way I suggested to you a few days ago. Guest's response to you on July 30 was spot-on.

It's an invitation, not a dogmatic assertion of what must be. If you decide to join me, let me know.

[Strife767]

"Rectum Remarks" ?

    I see your new tag line is even less clever than the rest. How long will you beat this one into the ground?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's actually an old one...try searching the forum for the phrase.

Sad, isn't it?

[Guest Guest]

As a suggestion, change your definition of Faith and see what happens: Define Faith as acting for good in every phase of your life and in the world even though you have no guarantee of the results. Examples: pursue the career you always wanted, ask the girl out even though you're not sure she'll say yes, call the relative you haven't spoken to in ten years. All of these acts of Faith are choices.

I believe strongly that what we now call "traditional" religion in our culture distorts Faith completely. Merely choosing to believe what we wish to believe serves no good purpose, but choosing to act to bring about the good does; and besides the only absolutely sure way not to bring what we desire into reality is not to try. Again I recommend Paul Tillich's little book called (as I recall it) The Dynamics of Faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So now we're supposed to change the definitions to suit our purposes? Your examples aren't even examples of Faith according to your definitions.

[Guest Paul]

So now we're supposed to change the definitions to suit our purposes? Your examples aren't even examples of Faith according to your definitions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Standard dictionaries use words like trust, loyalty, confidence and reliance to define faith. When we act with trust, confidence and reliance that acting for good will bring about the good, that is Faith. When we add loyalty, we express Faith's human dimension. It's not changing the definition. It's looking at Faith other than as a mere belief. It is the creative force of action in our lives. I capitalize it because it is one of the great creative forces in life, when properly understood and properly applied. But when misused or misunderstood, it's like anything else: it no longer serves the good.

If Faith is good, why is it good? Demonstrably, merely believing things to be true (even when they are obviously not true) is not good and does not bring about the good; just the opposite. Yet that is how faith has been distorted and misused by and within some religions. That's the point I'm making, and has been made by others, including the Christian theologian Paul Tillich in his little book The Dynamics of Faith. Read it, then let's talk.

[Guest Guest_Paul_*]

So now we're supposed to change the definitions to suit our purposes? Your examples aren't even examples of Faith according to your definitions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes they are:

QUOTE(Paul @ Jul 27 2007, 05:28 PM)

As a suggestion, change your definition of Faith and see what happens: Define Faith as acting for good in every phase of your life and in the world even though you have no guarantee of the results. Examples: pursue the career you always wanted, ask the girl out even though you're not sure she'll say yes, call the relative you haven't spoken to in ten years. All of these acts of Faith are choices.

____

Pursuing a career, asking the girl out and calling the estranged relative are all acts seeking the good with no guarantee of the result. By his definition thay are acts of faith. Why not?

[Guest Charlie Horse]

So now we're supposed to change the definitions to suit our purposes? Your examples aren't even examples of Faith according to your definitions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Words are constantly evolving in their meaning. A word like faith can reach into thought, emotion, action, experience and sensation all at the same time. Over time, it can be distilled down to thought and nothing more. That's what happens to faith when we think of it as nothing more than a belief unsupported by evidence.

We can then take that word and breathe life back into it, not so much by changing the definition as though we were calling a horse a chicken, but by observing that a word like this can mean several things. I've read Tillich's book and it makes a lot of sense. Faith is what moves mountains in a miraculous way. Reduced to real-life terms, that best describes what happens when we act to bring what is possible into reality. The more difficult the challenge, the greater the miracle.

We don't do that just by believing that something is true. Faith may start with a belief that something is possible (a cure for cancer, for example, perhaps with little or no evidence to back up the belief), but it only becomes creative when we act on it. That is when life opens like a blooming flower, and we begin to realize our fuller potential as human beings or, if you want to put it this way, to serve God.

[Guest Guest]

Fair enough, but for me Faith changed my life. I describe myself as a born-again Humanist, and it is because I learned to think about Faith in the way I suggested to you a few days ago. Guest's response to you on July 30 was spot-on.

It's an invitation, not a dogmatic assertion of what must be. If you decide to join me, let me know.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you trying to force people to think like you? No thanks! You have proven to be an idiot...We don't want that!

[Guest DingoDave]

Guest wrote:

Are you trying to force people to think like you? No thanks! You have proven to be an idiot...We don't want that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There must be something wrong with your reading comprehension Guest.

Paul wasn't demanding that anybody agree with him. He was just offering food for thought, and an alternative way of looking at a familiar, and much abused word.

I personally happen to think that he made a very strong point, but he's certainly not going to try to have me burned at the stake if I happened to disagree with him.

What do they teach you people in school over in the U.S. that seems to make so many of you so absolutely clueless?