Neil List

Just out of interest - has there ever been a case on this forum of one of these long argumentative threads ending in a poster stating that they were changing their position?

rhutchin

I don’t really see how the violation would occur unless you intend to ignore the Biblical context an equate “hating father/mother” with “cursing father/mother.” Is that how you got the violation?

I think a person needs to look at all those risks.

rhutchin

Not really. the Bible is freely available and anyone reading it is able to see the logic of accepting what it says.

The problem seems to be that you object to God giving you control over the distribution of that information. However, it seems to me that you actually want that control. What exactly is your complaint? Aren't you getting what you want?

rhutchin

If a society decides that it wants to be ruled by God, then that decision requires that it impose the death penalty for homosexuals & blasphemers, and then follow the prescribed legal system for carrying out that punishment.

I am an advocate for a society ruled by God.

JPD

And draw the conclusion that not one position can be demonstrated to be any more or less valid than any other position, unless you subscribe to one of them, in which case you will probably incline towards that one in preference to the others. In one respect it depends on where you were born. This God feller really needs to ensure that his message gets through clearly - he can't be that bothered about what people think since they (within each religion) draw all manner of conclusions (not infrequently contradictory) from the texts. This is the quandry that you are in. We're not concerned since you have consistently failed to show why or how a risk exists. Good luck!

One can read a bible wherever they are - potentially - but they can also, equally, be exposed to the other texts which tell a different story.

So what would be the point exactly when:

(a) The risk cannot be traced to anything but words
(b) Those words may say different things to different people within the same religion. Some sects will ignore them all together. Some will interpret them literally.
(c) Some of those words appear in other texts but the nature of the text fundamentally differs.

Its always fun watching Christians and Muslims - sometimes they regard each other's future homes as hell. At others they get all warm and fuzzy at interfaith gatherings. Websites (designed by what appear to be indoctrinated children who are a bit simple, but turn out, embarassingly, to be mature adults) inform the visitor that we are "all looking at the same God from different perspectives." So just run that by me again - you're all looking at the same God but you're all - during moments of lesser empathy and understanding - looking at the same God responsible for sending you all to hell? And that this monotheism worships a trinity? Great arguments.

rhutchin

I would think that the null hypothesis (some form of it) is always inherently understood to exist.

I think the risk can be demonstrated because a person can acknowledge two things: (1) death is certain and (2) no one knows what happens after a person dies. Because testing is difficult (impossible), it is difficult (impossible) to throw out a hypothesis about that which happens after death. If you cannot provide definite proof of that which happens after death, then you cannot do away with risk.

God will not stick you in hell for having asked obvious and reasonable questions and not accepting the poor quality arguments of his followers. God will deny you entry into heaven if you have sinned.

Aren’t you choosing what you believe? Are you claiming that there are forces at work that are causing you to believe that which you believe or are, at least, influencing you to believe that which you believe. In what sense do you not choose to believe what you want?

JPD

Until I have evidence - and one would need evidence to make a decision as apparently critical as this - that there is a risk - I have to assume that risk doesn't exist. Would you look seriously at an argument that said that there are rabbits with lazer beam eyes that will burn you if you don't believe that they exist on the basis that someone has written that they do (and for which no evidence really exists)? Create an infinite number of potential hazards and spend your life trying to work out whether they are something you should seriously consider. When you have formed an infinite variety in your mind and evaluated and discounted them all, come back and build on your argument that we should take your position on the Bible seriously. What, the Bible is all you need? What, that many people can't be wrong? What will you do if they all are? The problem is that, because you believe one record, you discount the others. Now that is interesting - why would you do that?

Oh you know this do you? There is no evidence that Biblegod exists but you manage to pin all manner of attributes on it nonetheless. Absolutely remarkable!

These forces appear to be nothing more than products of the mind. As far as I can tell I have decided what to believe but it is an interesting question. If there was a fantastically intelligent and complex (so complex that it couldn't be detected?) entity influencing me, it is quite possible that it could do so and make me think that the beliefs were my own.

Angra Mainyu

Thanks for finally answering that question.

Incidentally, do you think that blasphemers should be executed by means of stoning, as the God of your interpretation of the Bible would have said, if He existed?

Anyway, I will point out that you do not have proof of God’s existence, but you claim that He exists, and go on to advocate for the execution of millions of people, based on their sexuality or what they say about the alleged God.

Johnny Skeptic

And if you had been a friend of Pascal's, you probably would have agreed with him that only Roman Catholics will got to heaven. In addition, if you had been a friend of John Calvin's, you probably would have agreed with his endorsement of killing Christians who did not agree with his religious teachings, in which case, if the Bible is true, since it says that murderers will go to hell, you and Calvin will go to hell.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality, there is not any credible evidence that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves. As is true of practically every thread that you start or participate in, it always gets back to Pascal's Wager. I embarrass you on that issue every time that we discuss it. There is good evidence that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. In your opinion, how many reasonably provable errors and contradictions would it take to discredit the Bible?

Angra Mainyu

I don’t think any number of them would do, because the fact is that the wager would make no sense even if there were no contradictions and no errors that could be proven by means other than the lack of proofs of its claims.

For example, I’ll write the following text, with no contradictions and no errors that could be proven in any way but by pointing to the lack of proof of the claims.

Text: :devil3:

“The Goddess created the world. She commands that those who want to have eternal life, should advocate for adopting the following law:
Anyone who advocates for the killing of gay people on Biblical grounds, either directly or by making those killings legal, should be put in prison for the rest of her or his life”. :devil3:

Should we consider that wager as well? :devil1:

Of course, the wager never makes any sense, not only because there are as many distinct religions as one wants to invent, but also because it’s impossible to actually believe because of a bet. I already pointed that out in my replies to rhutchin in this thread and the other, and explained that carefully, but he doesn’t seem to have changed his views.