Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

dude you completely describe Christianity in the way YOU see it. And half the time I roll my eyes about how wrong you are from MY perspective or anyone else's.

If you you didn't you'd be living a life like Jesus and feeding the poor and certainly wouldn't be arguing with people on the internet.

Its all fucking hogwash and everyone defines it all however they please. So yall should sotp arguing about it. Say what you will about Athiests, but at least they can all agree in the same thing, there is no god, end of the conversation.

Just relax nobody is persecuting anyone here and you're not going to change anyone's opinions about religion by yelling at them about how they are wrong on the internet.

Walking away > Trying to get people to stop yelling on the internet

[Dragonsblood1987]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What contradictions? Again, if you read the Bible in the apostolic tradition, then contradictions do not exist. I hate to just say, "Read the Catechism," but that sounds like what is in order here. If you take the Bible alone, you can infer all kinds of messed up stuff. That's why every non-Protestant believes that there is both a Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that must go hand-in-hand in order to achieve any kind of spiritual enlightenment from Christianity. The Bible alone can be anything to anyone. If pick up Shakespeare without any context of his era, or any teacher to help guide your reading and explain how certain passages are to be understood, then you'd be lost and think it gibberish nonsense. And you'd be justified in thinking so.

there are lots of contradictions in the bible.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What contradictions? Again, if you read the Bible in the apostolic tradition, then contradictions do not exist. I hate to just say, "Read the Catechism," but that sounds like what is in order here. If you take the Bible alone, you can infer all kinds of messed up stuff. That's why every non-Protestant believes that there is both a Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition that must go hand-in-hand in order to achieve any kind of spiritual enlightenment from Christianity. The Bible alone can be anything to anyone. If pick up Shakespeare without any context of his era, or any teacher to help guide your reading and explain how certain passages are to be understood, then you'd be lost and think it gibberish nonsense. And you'd be justified in thinking so.

And your way of deciding how to interpret the bible is the correct way because?

[DeruIsLove]

Gotta say I laughed at Fadetree's implication that the sadistic death camp bitch queen Mother Theresa was "righteous". [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Walking away > Trying to get people to stop yelling on the internet

hey everyone it just got a hell of a lot quieter on the internet!

[Malice_Mizer]

It's a hell of a lot easier to tear down a house than it is to build one, isn't it?

[Archalen]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See: Pascal's Wager

"Pascal's Wager is an argument in apologetic philosophy which was devised by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). It posits that humans all bet with their lives either that God exists or not. Given the possibility that God actually does exist and assuming an infinite gain or loss associated with belief or unbelief in said God (as represented by an eternity in heaven or hell), a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.)."

You gotta serve somebody, buddy! Either your impermanent, limited sensory experience of reality, or the very Cause and essence of reality itself. Either your own "being" or the very underlying nature of "To Be."

"There are many problems with the reasoning in Pascal's Wager, as well as the unsavoury theological assumptions it makes. Like most arguments for the existence of God, it seems more about reassuring existing believers than converting non-believers. This is because in order to convince a non-believer, a theological argument must both prove that the god it argues for is the One True God and disprove all other possibilities. People lacking a belief can see the potential for multiple gods existing, in fact an infinite number, but believers are constrained by their existing view that there is their god or no god. Only in this latter case does the reasoning behind Pascal's Wager make any sense.
In Bayesian terms, this can be stated as saying non-believers attribute uniform prior probabilities to the existence of any particular god; all equal, and all infinitesimal. Pascal's Wager alone cannot update these probabilities as the reasoning applies only to the One True God out of an infinite number of possible gods. Without any further information to whittle this down, the odds of inadvertently worshiping the wrong god is a practical certainty. Only when the probability of a particular god existing increases does Pascal's Wager become useful, i.e., if one god could be assigned even a mere 1% chance of being the One True God, Pascal's Wager would present a clear benefit. Hence for anyone constrained by a bias towards a particular god, the Wager is far more clear cut and supportive of their belief."

Look ma I can copy pasta.

[DeruIsLove]

God: "welcome to heaven"
Human: "but I'm an atheist"
God: "I have humanity the gift of free will. You used it and weren't a selfish bigot in the process."

Whatscal's Wager?

[Malice_Mizer]

But this is a discussion of whether or not God exists. Pascal's Wager is flawed, to be sure, but as a general assessment of the worth of disbelief, I think it serves its purpose.

Unconditional and eternal damnation is sketchy theology not worth much attention, anyway.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But this is a discussion of whether or not God exists. Pascal's Wager is flawed, to be sure, but as a general assessment of the worth of disbelief, I think it serves its purpose.

Unconditional and eternal damnation is sketchy theology not worth much attention, anyway.

Now you're getting back to the original point that you attempted to marginalize. (Most) non-believers don't disbelieve for themselves in the sense that the act of disbelieving provides any benefit. They do so because they live in a world run by those who believe in all of those contradictory things that have just been discussed whom do directly effect the non-believers. Whether it's human rights, environmental conservation (too many Christians don't care if they destroy the earth that they've been given by Godto use and abuse), education or a plethora of other real issues.