The Evil One

I agree entirely with the first two sentences, disagree entirely wioth the third, and fail to see what exactly I have faith in that I cannot see, given that this was in response to a long post in which I demonstrated that "death is the end" is based on what we see, which as you have conceded does not require faith to believe.

ETA: of course on reflection this is disingenuous of me. I know full well that you think that not believing in an invisible, intangible, undetectable-by-any-means portion of a human being which survives death in another dimension (which is also invisible, intangible and undetectable-by-any-means) requires as much faith as believing these things does.

You're wrong, of course. It takes absolutely zero faith to not believe in that for which there is no evidence.

Johnny Skeptic

In part Vivo's opening post, he said:

I have asked rhutchin in this thread, and in other threads and forums, why anyone should pay and attention to what the Bible says about anything. He always ends up with Pascal's Wager. I have handily refuted Pascal's Wager on a number of occasions, most recently in my post #111 at this forum in the thread on God's mercy and compassion. Since rhutchin always ends up with Pascal's Wager, which he has aptly proven on a number of occasions that he does not understand, I suggest that he start a new thread at this forum about Pascal's Wager, that is, if he wishes to embarrass himself more than he already has.

Pascal naively assumed that choosing the most logical worldview involves nothing more than a comparison of worldviews, when in fact, it involves much more than just that. Even if everyone agreed that the risks that the Bible mentions are more likely true than the risks from all other sources, it all gets down to God's character. Jesus required that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. Rhutchin will admit that he would not be able to love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind if he believed that God told lies. That is proof that risk assessment is not a factor regarding the acceptance of a God, in other words, that choice is not involved. Since God has committed many atrocities against mankind that are much worse than lying is, decent people have no choice but to reject him.

Jon Barleycorn

No - I think it can safely be agreed that actually no intelligent people agree with you - as is witnessed every day on these boards!

I notice you didn't answer my last point so here it is for you again :

" if you truly believe that homosexuals are to suffer for all eternity anyway, it seems to me to be the height of pettyness, (& perhaps spite) to then advocate their execution ... why not just let them just be happy for the short time that they are here for? After all, in your mind, you are going to enjoy heaven for all eternity whilst they burn, & yet even so you seek to even speed their suffering" - So why is that?

Angra Mainyu

I don’t know why you’d keep making arguments such as that one.

How about my example, on post #404?

“8422423 light years from Earth, there’s a planet 84% the size of Earth, where orange and blue aliens live. They’re considerable more advanced than we are, have an average life-span of 893 of their years, and they speak a single language in the whole planet”.

Now, if I said that I think those aliens do not exist, would you argue that I have great faith because of that?

It doesn’t take any faith to believe that those aliens aren’t real, and it doesn’t take any faith to believe that entities such as Christian souls aren’t real, either.

ETA:

Btw, and in order to prevent arguments such as “compare the evidence of those aliens vs. the evidence of the soul”, etc., I'd like to clarify: my response is merely a rebuttal to the argument that we need faith or great faith to believe in the non-existence of entities. That clearly isn’t the case, under any usual understanding of the word “faith”.

If the argument is that there’s evidence of the existence of these disembodied conscious beings who live eternally on another plane of existence, well, that’s a different issue, and I would ask you to present the evidence.

In any case, the rebuttal to the “faith” argument would still work.

Johnny Skeptic

The issue of faith is quite embarrassing for Christians. Jesus scolded Thomas for wanting firsthand tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet, in the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Now on the one hand, Jesus scolded Thomas for wanting firsthand tangible evidence, and on the other hand, he provided people with firsthand tangible evidence and encouraged them to accept him based upon the very same kind of evidence that he scolded Thomas for wanting.

Awmte

While he's doing that, would rhutchin state his position on the execution of gays and blasphemers? Preferably without lengthy circumlocutions and segues into unrelated tangents. A simple yes or no will suffice.

I ask this in all seriousness because I am still in the dark about his actual position (and I've read pretty much the entire thread).

Thanks

Johnny Skeptic

I can help you out here. I know rhutchin quite well. I have debated him for over a year at three different forums. I have made replies to his arguments over 200 times, most of which I have as Microsoft Word files. Rhutchin is a Calvinist, an inerrantist, and a big fan of Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager is rhutchin's favorite argument. Rhutchin calls the Wager "risk assessment". It is rhutchin's position that the only sensisble approach is to do everything that the Bible says because the risks of punishment that the Bible states are greater than from any other source. Of course, Pascal's Wager is a fraud. Rhutchin has been told this many times.

It doesn't bother rhutchin at all that Pascal said that only Roman Catholics will go to heaven, and that Calvin endorsed the murder of Christians who disagreed with his religious teachings. I do not doubt that if rhutchin has known Calvin, he would have agreed with him. In addition, I do not doubt that if rhutchin has been an Old Testament Jew, he would have approved of having his own mother put to death for working on the Sabbath Day. Further, I do not doubt that if rhutchin had been raised as a Muslim in Syria, he would be a Muslim terrorist today. It is interesting to note how little interest God has in choosing the elect (predestination) from Muslim countries, or is it humans who decide who gets to hear which religious views? Intelligent and logical people believe that the latter is the case.

Jon Barleycorn

Have a look again at post 254 where Rhutchin says :

"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."

I think that pretty much answers your question. I did ask him who gets to decide exactly who the blasphemers are - & how he would feel if Calvinism was then declared as blasphemy in this "society ruled by god" but he declined to answer!

Awmte

The thing is he seems to be pretty equivocal the rest of the time. I get the impression that he is advocating a strict adherence to OT laws, while at the same time emphasizing a more temperate penalty (more in line with contemporary ethics) for these supposed “crimes”.

If one has strong convictions, one should have the intestinal fortitude to explicitly state these convictions, even if they inconvenience one.

Just my 2 shekel.

Awmte

rhutchin

Seems like a pretty logical position to me.

Yes, but no one has been able to explain how it is that the Wager is a fraud. The normal argument presented on IIDB has been to say that the Wager does not do what it never claimed to do, so somehow this makes it a fraud. It always seemed like weird reasoning to me.