Angra Mainyu

But sinners should be punished, should they not?
So, either they believe, or they get punished (perhaps killed, though your position in that regard is ambiguous).

So, either you’re a Bible believer or a blasphemer… what was the punishment for blasphemers? :eviltail:

It’s weird to me that you keep defending the wager. In this very thread, it’s insurmountable flaws have been explained, time and again. To the problem JPD just mentioned again (i.e., it refers to only one god), one could add (again) that it’s simply not possible to wager in that manner.

In other words, if I don’t believe in Biblegod, Qurangod, Zeus, Shiva, or Santa, one simply cannot choose to believe in any of those entities “just in case”, as a form of wager.

djrafikie

Rhutchin,you never answer my questions, you never reply to my comments.

I am flattered that you find my point of view so well presented that you feel the challenge is beyond you.

Roger Pearse

Is this apparently interminable thread in the right forum? We know that the bible condemns unnatural vice, and that the Christians won't recede from that. The sodomites and those promoting sodomy know it too -- indeed it is precisely for that reason that some of these people chose sodomy as a shibboleth -- which is why they want it banned, and why they orchestrate attacks on Christians when they have the power. We all know this. So what is this thread doing here?

All it apparently consists of is people jeering that Christians don't conform to the new shibboleth of sodomy. Yes, well, we all know that they don't conform to societal values. So what's the point of all this?

Quite why anyone should conform to what our immoral and self-indulgent masters demand we adopt, I'm not sure. Since when did the selfish generation ("if it feels good, do it" -- "don't think, only feel") become moral arbiters? Since they got the power to control the media agenda?

Quite why atheism now means adopting a hideous vice I'm not sure either. Are all you atheists really condemning Darwin and Huxley and Ingersoll and all the other 19th century atheists who proclaimed that atheism was just as moral as Christianity and certainly did not endorse this? Surely we would need to explain to everyone why we think that they were wrong to conform to the values of their age, while we are right to conform to those of ours?

Lots of lack of thinking going on here, it seems to me. Should we accept any question in the terms in which the Great and Powerful choose to present it to us? This I doubt. Let's look at things for themselves, nor for the outward appearance, not for the adjectives, and the spin; but as things really are. What are we being asked to accept, by whom, why; and why should we?

But ... do we have to see all this in this forum? Moderator?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic

But risk assessment cannot possibly have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not a man is able to love a human, or a God. Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. No man can accept a commit like that based soley upon risk assessment. Such a commitment is only possible if the man who makes the commitment believes that the being who requires the commitment has good character. There is good evidence that God does not have good character. Pascal tried to bait skeptics into comparing Christianity to other religions. However, even if God were to show up in person and threaten me himself, I would not be able to love him unless he first answered some questions to my satisfaction. If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him. Obviously, risk assessement would have nothing to do with it, and yet God has committed numerous atrocities against mankind that are much worse than lying is.

God deliberately withholds food from people who starve to death, including some of his most devout and faithful followers. James says that if a man refuses to give food to hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This means that God is vain, that he is a hypocrite, and that he is not compassionate. If feeding hungry people is a worthy goal, it is a worthy goal for humans and for God. In addition, God destroys lots of food supplies with hurricanes and locusts. God kills people with hurricanes. From a Christian perspective, there is no such thing as a natural disaster. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. God provides information to some people who he knows will reject it, and withholds information from some people who he knows will accept it. Do you deny this? God injures and kills innocent animals. No particular person can ever ask God for a specific tangible necessity of life and be assured that he will receive it. If God does not exist, the only consistent benefits that anyone could ever be assured that they would receive would be subjective spiritual benefits.

If God exists, if he were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? The correct answer is, not any differently at all. No being who helps people AND kills people is mentally competent. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prison or death.

If God wishes to impose impossible conditions upon skeptics, that is his choice, but decent people do not have any choice in the matter. God's character is the fundamental issue, not the character of humans. No belief system is any better than the foundation upon which it is built. The foundation of the Bible is the supposed good character and perfection of God. If the foundation is faulty, then the entire Bible is a fraud. God should not ask people to love him when he treats them so badly, and frequently breaks his own rules. No matter what arguments you use against humans, I will bring up God's poor character. A web definition for the word "atrocity" is "The quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane." God most certainly fits that definition.

Do you believe that people who have cancer should ask God to heal them? If they do ask God to heal them of cancer, would you be surprised if God healed some of them? Do you believe that amputees should ask God for new limbs? If they do ask God for new limbs, would you be surprised if he gave some of them new limbs? I am curious why God discriminates against amputees, and why in the 1st century he discriminated against people who lived in China who all died without having the opportunity to hear the Gospel message because God deliberately withheld it from them. God couldn’t really be very concerned how many people get to hear the Gospel message, and yet Jesus supposedly made spreading the Gospel message a priority. From what we know about God, it is not likely that Jesus made spreading the Gospel message a priority.

If God distributes tangible benefits, he frequently distributes them to people who are not in greatest need, including to some evil people who never become Christians, and frequently withholds them from people who are in greatest need, including some of his most devout and faithful followers. This suggests that there is not a reasonably provable correlation between receiving tangible benefits from God and what a person's worldview and character are. If that is true, then no one should ever expect God to provide them with a tangible benefit based upon their prayers and/or their good character. Of course, the best conclusion is that all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. That is to be expected if God does not exist. If he does not exist, it is also to be expected that many animals would enjoy more tangible benefits than some of his most devout and faithful followers do.

Amaleq13

Given that the Bible condemns it as an unnatural vice, we also know that sexuality is biological in origin, therefore natural by definition, so the Bible is simply wrong.

Your obvious personal distaste certainly notwithstanding, homosexuals no more choose to be attracted to members of the same sex than heterosexuals choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. Do you choose to like women, Roger?

I don't consider rational thought to be an immoral and self-indulgent master but I understand why you might wish to characterize it as such.

Consider it taken under consideration.

Johnny Skeptic

But does God condemn homosexuality? Do you assume that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves? If so, why. Regarding "unnatural", the first two definitions in the Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary for the word "natural" are as follows:

1 : based on an inherent sense of right and wrong <natural justice>

2 a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

Johnny: In fact, homosexuality is quite common in nature, so you are obviously wrong that homosexuality is not natural.

Millions of liberal Christians have in fact receded from that, for example, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Episcopalians.

I am not sure why you consider God to be a moral being.

From a secular viewpoint, there is nothing morally wrong with doing something if it does not harm yourself or someone else. Many homosexuals do not harm themselves or anyone esle.

There is not a necessary correlation between the acceptance of homosexuality and atheism. Many non-atheists accept homosexuality, including many agnostics and liberal Christians. I am an agnostic. Now what religious and secular evidence do you have that homosexuality is a hideous vice?

The issue is not THAT Darwin, Huxley, and Ingersoll opposed homosexuality, if such was the case, but WHY they opposed it. If they were alive today, I believe that they would have supported homosexuality. For about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the vast majority of Christians endorsed colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. Now you need to explain to everyone why you believe those Christians were wrong to confirm to the values of their age, while today's Christians are right to conform to those of their own.

Then why do you insist on adding to it?

What things do you suggest that we look at, God killing people, including babies, with hurricanes, not to mention innocent animals, and God providing information to some people who he knows will reject it, whyile deliberately withholding information from some people who he knows will accept it if they are aware of it? Will you embarrass yourself by claiming that God is not able to do anything more than he has done to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell?

Skeptics are most certainly trying to find the truth as much as Christians are. I am not aware of any skeptic in the world who would not like to know for certain whether or not there is at least one being in the universe who is able to instantly create a universe. If the God of the Bible exists, most skeptics would want to know about it. I certainly do. This is just plain old common sense. Any mentally competent man would want to know whether or not a being exists who is able to send him to heaven or hell. If the God of the Bible exists, it is his obvious intention to withhold information regarding his existence and will from some people who would accept the information if they were aware of it.

rhutchin

Well, of course not. Risk assessment does exactly what it says; it assesses risk. What a person does, or is able to do, with that assessment is his choice. Again, you prove that you do not have a clue what the Wager is all about.

Johnny Skeptic

You are wrong. If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to choose to love him, and yet you claim that it is possible for decent people to adandon their principles and morals and choose to love a God who has committed numerous atrocities that are much worse than lying is. You obviously do not have a clue what principles and morals are about. The Wager only works on people who are willing to abandon their principles and morals.

rhutchin

Of course. I suspect that you also agree. The person who murders, steals, lies should be punished, should he not? The issue here seems to be what to punish and not whether to punish.

The death penalty.

I have not really been defending the Wager; I have been trying to explain it.

If you want to use the Wager, then you would first evaluate belief in Biblegod, Qurangod, Zeus, OR Shiva etc. each separately against nonbelief. Among those that are determined to be preferable to nonbelief, you could then compare any two and go through the analysis of the Wager. That would tell which god one should believe as a result of a logical analysis. However, that process would not determine which of the gods is the true God, so a person runs the risk of believing in a false god. The Wager can elimnate nonbelief as a rational alternative, but it cannot identify the god a person should believe.

rhutchin

Of course, this has nothing to do with the Wager or risk assessment. The Wager uses information that is known and does not evaluate whether that information is true; it presumes nothing about the information. It takes the information, grinds it through logic, and spits out a result. The Wager cares nothing for the person; it deals with the information that it is given and cares not who gives it that information. Once again, Johnny Skeptic provides us proof that he is clueless about the Wager (maybe he has never even read the Pensees).