Mageth

I know those things.

Why did you contradict yourself in the last two sentences?

If I depend on my intellect and reasoning ability, then I am not in any way depending on faith.

Barefoot Bree

*checks self* Nope, no fear here. No denial, either. Eternal torment DOES NOT EXIST. It is, as Mageth keeps telling you, simply a superstition, which should have died out along with the priests who first thought it up as a means to control those bronze-age goatherders.

I laugh at that fear, and pity all the time and anguish wasted through lifetimes trying to please a nonexistent god and avoid his nonexistent "punishment".

[derail] - am I the only one who giggles at this thread title every time? I know it meant the thread was renamed, but it kinda fits the concept, too, ya know? [/derail]

Wayne Delia

As I've mentioned many times, I can disprove the claim that the Judeo/Christian God exists. 1 John 4:8 ("God is love"), 1 Corinthians 13:4 ("Love is not jealous"), and Exodus 20:5 ("I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God"), taken together, logically disprove God's existence.

Couple of problems here. First of all, the source documents containing these claims are found in the Bible, and if they are assumed to be true simply by virtue of being in the Bible, then the three verses mentioned above disprove the existence of the Judeo/Christian God "Yahweh". Second, men have written of many other "gods" over several thousand years, and of the corresponding requirements of all those non-Christian gods. Do you accept those claims as valid? If not, then on what basis do you figure we ought to accept the Bible claims as valid?

Those claims, quite frequently, contradict themselves. For example, Mark 6:8-9 logically contradicts Matthew 10:9-10; both passages describe the same man you are talking about, and there are two contradictory assertions in the same speech given by Jesus. (If you are unable to spot the two contradictions, just take my word for it; it will be embarrassing for you to have me explain it to you.)

That's another illustration of a huge, fundamental Biblical contradiction. Mark 8:12 reads "He [Jesus] sighed deeply and said, 'Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.'" The author of Matthew says pretty much the same thing, with a single exception not noted in Mark: "He [Jesus] answered, 'A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.'" However, the author of John gives many references to Jesus having a problem controlling his showing off, such as John 10:32, which reads "but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?'"

You really have to stop making such simplistic, generalized comments about the Bible: they are too easily refuted, and make you look as if you don't know what you are talking about.

Collecting contradictory historical documents into any volume does not resolve the contradictions; rather, it makes the contradictions easier to spot.

The mistake you continue to make involves characterizing the analysis as "rational" when it is easily demonstrated to be irrational. That's because it's based on a superstition.

That's "Trekker", thank you very much. The difference there is that people do suffer because the Christians are "a little off," because many vocal Christians attempt to have their beliefs legislated so they can force non-Christians to share their beliefs.

Yes indeed. Otherwise, we'd be a society of people cowering in fear of any arbitrary superstition that floats through our transom.

Since the threat of eternal damnation hasn't been established, that risk is remarkably small - if there's any risk at all.

WMD

MRM

I think it's even worse for Christians - because even if you agree with this wager and consider all ancient myths as possible, than it makes more sense to worship all non-jealous gods, and that would exclude the christian god

Example - lets take Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Allah and the christian god. Lets assume that Odin, Zeus and Jupiter won't punish you for worshipping additional gods ( at least so far I don't know about any punishment from them for doing so ) , but Allah and the christian god would.

Than you have a 60% change for reward if you worship Odin, Jupiter and Zeus at the same time, but only a 20% chance if you worship one of the jealous gods.

So anyone who take this wager serious must become a polytheist and make a list of non - jealous gods and worship all of them ...

Mageth

And you need to wake up and smell the roses.

It takes no faith to not fear a superstition. Just a rational approach to superstition. If there's nothing to it, then it's irrational to fear it. No faith needed.

And I'm probably the least religious man you've talked to. Though it's unclear to me what you mean by calling me "very religious".

If you mean what the Bible says, in James IIRC, that I do things like "visit the widows and fatherless and live unblemished before the world" (to paraphrase what is identified as being "true religion before God", or something like that), then I suppose I'm at least somewhat religious.

(As an aside, I've never quite understood the apparent need of some to label atheists as "having great faith" or as being "very religious". They say it like it's an insult, and yet that is supposedly what they are. :huh: )

Sauron

Really?

How about your rejection of Islamic hell? Is that "irrational" and "emotional"? Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black here....

Wayne Delia

Please stop trying to paraphrase other people's arguments. {Edited} JPD said nothing of the sort. Death does not "choose"; death simply "is". And what it is, is the cessation of all biological processes required to support life.

Have you forgotten about "God Z" so soon? That's an option in which nonbelief guarantees hope of escape from eternal torment.

Seems like you're not considering all the possible choices.

WMD

Sauron

It's his attempt at sarcasm.

Although he still can't explain why he doesn't subscribe to other superstitions, like broken mirrors. He just wants everyone to subscribe to his own superstition, without explaining how that isn't just a case of special pleading for his pet beliefs while ignoring/rejecting all other such beliefs.

Wayne Delia

That's a very typical, and very poor, apologetic response to being refuted.

Apologist: "Assertion X."
Skeptic: "Refutation of Assertion X; further, note that no support is given for Assertion X."
Apologist: "You haven't succeded in getting me to accept comprehend why it's refuted."

Assertion X is refuted; you're just on the outside, looking in.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Yet another very poor apologetic technique. You've completely ignored the refutation of your position. I don't blame you; that's a normal human reaction. It's the famous "Ostrich Head in the Sand Defense" apologetic technique. But the whopper you're using here is very transparent. It's common for apologists to attempt to characterize their opponents as having "faith" in something, and to <edited> equivocate that it's identical to religious faith. Having established a common <edited> ground of "faith", an attempt is made to persuade the skeptic to accept the particular religious faith of the apologist. It doesn't work, for the same reasons you were unable to defend your argument: nobody is willing to presuppose the same superstitions you live your life by.

WMD