Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: 1 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12
[#] Thu Apr 29 2021 11:01:13 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

They're the ones with picket signs making girls cross through protest
lines to get abortions, too. 

That is cruel to both the mother and the baby. It's better to just bomb the clinic and go home.

[#] Thu Apr 29 2021 15:29:28 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jesus Christ... 

First off, I've framed it, intentionally vaguely from a THEISTIC perspective as open to NON-Christian interpretation. 

As well as pointing out, a number of times, that the best description of me would be a "Secular Protestant". 

I think I've also explicitly said that the way I am framing it tends to upset Christians as much as atheists, because it doesn't reflect their specific doctrines, dogmas and beliefs. 

I'm approaching it from a *secular* philosophical view. 


Let me be absolutely *specific* 

The wager is... 

Deny intelligent creation and a chain of awareness that includes the consciousness existing after physical death - is the Atheist bet. Period. If you're an Atheist, this is the wager you've bet at Pascal's table. 

IF you are right - the payout is that you don't get ANYTHING. Literally. Your payout is not existing to know you won. This isn't framed from a CHRISTIAN perspective, or a theist perspective. It is the wager. 

If you think there is some OTHER "less Christian" way to frame it - go right ahead. You guys keep saying I'm framing this a certain way - but you haven't offered any alternative framing. 

And the ALTERNATE wager is "Betting on Intelligent Design and a chain of awareness that includes consciousness after physical death." 

As I've said, there are lots of *numbers* you can place your bet on, on this side of the table, as opposed to the singular bet on the OTHER end of the table - Atheists have ONE unified bet. It is ALL a single space on your end of the table, a black "00" that you place your bet on, and win, you'll never know you won - but *by definition* if you LOSE - you do find THAT out. 

Pascal's wager is a bet for or against God. You lose and Theism wins. It isn't about Christianity vs. Atheism - it is about Intelligent Creation and an Afterlife vs. Atheism and a random, meaningless universe. 

It is like you guys aren't actually reading my posts. 

But, Atheists generally seem more fixated on being angrily ANTI-Christian than in not believing in CREATION - so I'm honestly not surprised that you've fixated on Christianity. It is what just what Atheists do, in my experience. 

 

Thu Apr 29 2021 10:20:16 EDT from darknetuser
Your response is, perhaps unintentionally - a red herring. I'm
talking about traditional Abrahamic Christian perspectives here
because that has been where the conversation has centered around -

and it becomes unwieldy to discuss every possibility proposed by
every spiritual tradition here in this conversation. It ties up and

side-tracks the conversation. If we WANT to evolve it in that
direction - I suppose that is fine... but I've already discussed
those possibilities in broad and vague language in my expansion of

why engaging in Pascal's Wager with a bet AGAINST "God" is a bad
idea. 


I think you are cheating here.

You frame the wager from a Christian point of view in order to portray it as the only reasonable course of action which it is only within an Abrahamic frame. Then somebody suggests that the wage stops being attractive when such assumptions are not taken and you say such things are out of the conversation's scope.

It could be argued that by betting on Abraham's God you are just condemmning yourself to more suffering by postponing trascendence if it turns there is any truth to Buddhism, for example.

 



[#] Thu Apr 29 2021 15:50:42 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Here are the payouts: 

Atheist: Bet Against God: 

Win: You get nothing, and you never know. You know nothing. You are nothing. 

Lose: You live eternity knowing you lost, at the very LEAST - and at the worst, you live eternity knowing you lost, and suffering tremendous unending torment for losing. 

Theist: Bet For God: 

Lose: You get nothing, and you never know. You know nothing. You are nothing. 

Win: 

A: Betting on God was all it took. You live eternity in happiness and peace and bliss. Atheists have to empty your chamber-pot. You fill it every 5 minutes - for all of eternity - it is no inconvenience for you. It is terrible for the atheists. 

B: You bet on the wrong God. You live eternity in the same suffering and torment as atheists - but at least you're aware that you weren't an idiot who made the WORST bet... you made the worst WINNING bet. You placed show, not dead last. 

C: It is some other spiritual tradition. Not what you expected. You're on a ferry crossing the river Styx, or a warrior in Valhalla, or you've risen to a higher cosmic consciousness - or you came back a dung beetle, or a bodhisattva or achieved Nirvana. In any case - you still had the winning bet, and having the losing bet - even if it gets the Atheist a do-over - obviously doesn't elevate or advance their spiritualism. They still lost Pascal's Wager if you won it. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

That pretty much sums it up. 

I'm a skeptic. I've never had a vision or revelation of God. He has never spoke to me, Jesus has never spoke to me. Southern Baptists tell me that is a big part of being born again - the spiritual awakening of being "filled with the Holy Spirit," and receiving your "calling".  It might be so powerful it causes you to speak in tongues, I hear. Even when I was a kid, and I'd pray, God never answered back. I have no PERSONAL evidence of God. 

But from a purely logical perspective - I see much more evidence supporting the claims of theists than of atheists, including credible scientific evidence - as mentioned above. Enough that a bet against CREATION on Pascal's Wager remains a fool's bet to take. I'm WAY more skeptical of atheism than just about ANY theistic tradition. Of those who may have it wrong, I think it is clear atheists have it the *wrongest*. And if they don't, it doesn't matter, anyhow. Atheism has no value proposition - unless you want to behave amorally and assure yourself it doesn't matter because you get one shot, there is nothing after, and you might as well make the most of it. 

I'd bet against God if I were a rapist or serial killer or just a terrible person. The only way to win is if there is no accountability afterwards, in that case. 

But otherwise - Atheism has no appeal. 

 




Thu Apr 29 2021 15:29:28 EDT from ParanoidDelusions



And the ALTERNATE wager is "Betting on Intelligent Design and a chain of awareness that includes consciousness after physical death." 

As I've said, there are lots of *numbers* you can place your bet on, on this side of the table, as opposed to the singular bet on the OTHER end of the table - Atheists have ONE unified bet. It is ALL a single space on your end of the table, a black "00" that you place your bet on, and win, you'll never know you won - but *by definition* if you LOSE - you do find THAT out. 

Pascal's wager is a bet for or against God. You lose and Theism wins. It isn't about Christianity vs. Atheism - it is about Intelligent Creation and an Afterlife vs. Atheism and a random, meaningless universe. 

It is like you guys aren't actually reading my posts. 

But, Atheists generally seem more fixated on being angrily ANTI-Christian than in not believing in CREATION - so I'm honestly not surprised that you've fixated on Christianity. It is what just what Atheists do, in my experience. 

 

Thu Apr 29 2021 10:20:16 EDT from darknetuser
Your response is, perhaps unintentionally - a red herring. I'm
talking about traditional Abrahamic Christian perspectives here
because that has been where the conversation has centered around -

and it becomes unwieldy to discuss every possibility proposed by
every spiritual tradition here in this conversation. It ties up and

side-tracks the conversation. If we WANT to evolve it in that
direction - I suppose that is fine... but I've already discussed
those possibilities in broad and vague language in my expansion of

why engaging in Pascal's Wager with a bet AGAINST "God" is a bad
idea. 


I think you are cheating here.

You frame the wager from a Christian point of view in order to portray it as the only reasonable course of action which it is only within an Abrahamic frame. Then somebody suggests that the wage stops being attractive when such assumptions are not taken and you say such things are out of the conversation's scope.

It could be argued that by betting on Abraham's God you are just condemmning yourself to more suffering by postponing trascendence if it turns there is any truth to Buddhism, for example.

 



 



[#] Thu Apr 29 2021 16:22:33 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I do always wonder what it is that the Atheist does that they're so invested in a world where this is IT and there is nothing after. I think this is why Atheism has such a strong base among LGBTs. It is actually a sort of reverse acknowledgment of the anti-gay doctrines of the Christian church. If you deny God exists, then you don't have to feel shame or guilt or concern about your sexual orientation. That is the investment... "I want to live this life the way I want to, and this religion says that will cause me to go to hell, so I deny that religion's God." 

I kind of understand that response. Really, it isn't JUST LGBT members. A lot of Atheists are hedonists and swingers, too. There are lifestyle-orientations that make it desirable to have a particular God *not* exist. But it is mostly the lifestyle orientation that is framing the Atheism... Atheism is the enabler. The orientation is likely what made the individual seek out the ideology. People seek out an existential framing of reality in the philosophy that most positively affirms who they are. 


Which isn't saying this is why all atheists reject theism - or that those who reject theism based on their lifestyle orientations are necessarily making a mistake. 


This is really the ONLY benefit of Atheism as framed by Pascal's Wager though - framed as an almost Machiavellian scenario. 


IF belief in God prevents you from fully enjoying an ultimately meaningless life that you only get one shot at... If you do not do things that would reward you personally because of your faith in God, and there is no God... no *anything*, hereafter... 


Then you would have been better off with "Do what thou will, and let this be the whole of the law."  You can even discard the "and if it harms no others," part - in that case. Do what thou will, because there is nothing after your done doing what you will - at all. 

In this singular case - betting against God on Pascal's wager makes sense. 










[#] Thu Apr 29 2021 21:01:26 EDT from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

ParanoidDelusions, How do you explain priests/ministers molesting children or having affairs?

 

The only reason why people believe in what they believe is because their parents told them to believe the nonsense.  Atheists decided to break free.  Sure some people join other religions but the most part people that believe in a heaven and hell do so because mom, dad and the church put fear in them to control them.

Santa Claus is watching.... God is watching.

Be good or rot in hell.



[#] Thu Apr 29 2021 22:13:47 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

How do you explain atheists molesting children or having affairs? 

That is a non-sequitur. Humans doing shitty things that humans do has no relevance to this conversation. 

Atheists don't "break free". They replace one dogmatic set of unsupported beliefs with the polar opposite set of dogmatic and unsupported beliefs - and then take every chance to evangelize to everyone around them that they have "broken free," and that anyone else who hasn't broken free still suffers the "yoke of superstitious belief." 

 Belief in Santa, God, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster has MORE chance of a meaningful payoff under the rules of Pascal's Wager than *atheism*. It is a simple statement that really exists separate of the Christian church - no matter HOW badly you want to draw the conversation in that direction - where it is more comfortable for you to mount a defense of Atheism. 




 

Thu Apr 29 2021 21:01:26 EDT from zooer

ParanoidDelusions, How do you explain priests/ministers molesting children or having affairs?

 

The only reason why people believe in what they believe is because their parents told them to believe the nonsense.  Atheists decided to break free.  Sure some people join other religions but the most part people that believe in a heaven and hell do so because mom, dad and the church put fear in them to control them.

Santa Claus is watching.... God is watching.

Be good or rot in hell.



 



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 06:42:55 EDT from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

 

Thu Apr 29 2021 10:13:47 PM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

How do you explain atheists molesting children or having affairs? 

That is a non-sequitur. Humans doing shitty things that humans do has no relevance to this conversation. 


It is not non-sequitur, follow your statements.

  

Thu Apr 29 2021 04:22:33 PM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

I do always wonder what it is that the Atheist does that they're so invested in a world where this is IT and there is nothing after. I think this is why Atheism has such a strong base among LGBTs. It is actually a sort of reverse acknowledgment of the anti-gay doctrines of the Christian church. If you deny God exists, then you don't have to feel shame or guilt or concern about your sexual orientation. That is the investment... "I want to live this life the way I want to, and this religion says that will cause me to go to hell, so I deny that religion's God." 


 Now, according to what you wrote, gays are atheists so they don't have to worry about hell.  if priest believe in hell how come they molest children and have affairs? 

 



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 09:49:28 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Most of my LGBT friends do believe in a God, just dont subscribe to most organized 'religions'. 

For me to, they are radically different things. 



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 11:12:53 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

No. According to your strawman interpretation of what I said gays are atheists so they don't have to worry about hell, and priests believe in hell so they shouldn't molest children. 

What I said and how you parsed it through your own biases have no relation to one another. 


The Church of Satanism is now actually an ATHEIST organization - and one of their primary missions is LGBT advocacy. Look it up. It isn't that they worship Satan - (They don't, they don't believe in him...) it isn't that they don't believe in God, either. It is that they want to OFFEND Christians and oppose Christianity - as a whole, instead of the particular denominations and congregations that have planted their flag on the hill of homosexuality. 

THAT is what I said, it is what I've been saying - and your biases make you incapable of reading what I'm saying with comprehension on this topic, so when I say that, you hear me say, 


"All gays are atheists so they can justify buggering each other, and good people are Christians, even though some priests bugger children." 

Which... isn't even in the BALLPARK. 

Care to circle the floor for another waltz of this dance, or are you ready to change the tempo? 



Fri Apr 30 2021 06:42:55 EDT from zooer

 

Thu Apr 29 2021 10:13:47 PM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

How do you explain atheists molesting children or having affairs? 

That is a non-sequitur. Humans doing shitty things that humans do has no relevance to this conversation. 


It is not non-sequitur, follow your statements.

  

Thu Apr 29 2021 04:22:33 PM EDT from ParanoidDelusions

I do always wonder what it is that the Atheist does that they're so invested in a world where this is IT and there is nothing after. I think this is why Atheism has such a strong base among LGBTs. It is actually a sort of reverse acknowledgment of the anti-gay doctrines of the Christian church. If you deny God exists, then you don't have to feel shame or guilt or concern about your sexual orientation. That is the investment... "I want to live this life the way I want to, and this religion says that will cause me to go to hell, so I deny that religion's God." 


 Now, according to what you wrote, gays are atheists so they don't have to worry about hell.  if priest believe in hell how come they molest children and have affairs? 

 



 



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 11:14:46 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Fair enough. I'm probably with them on that. 

Personally, I don't think the singular focus among modern Christians on LGBT lifestyles and abortion have any actual biblical foundation for being their consuming issues. 

Corinthians makes it pretty clear that they should be worrying about their OWN behaviors - not the behaviors of anyone outside of their church. But - that one is way more difficult to apply personally in their lives than pointing their fingers at other people and screaming, "DIRTY SINNERS!" 

 

Fri Apr 30 2021 09:49:28 EDT from Nurb432

Most of my LGBT friends do believe in a God, just dont subscribe to most organized 'religions'. 

For me to, they are radically different things. 



 



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 11:53:31 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Jesus Christ... 

Yes.

Everything else: No.

[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 11:54:54 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Atheists don't "break free". They replace one dogmatic set of
unsupported beliefs with the polar opposite set of dogmatic and

This is correct. Atheism is a religion, not the absence of religion.

[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 16:45:53 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I've had atheists go on to argue that I'm an idiot because "atheist" literally means "without religion". 

Exactly the same way Antifa means "Anti-fascist". 

 

Fri Apr 30 2021 11:54:54 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar
Atheists don't "break free". They replace one dogmatic set of
unsupported beliefs with the polar opposite set of dogmatic and

This is correct. Atheism is a religion, not the absence of religion.

 



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 17:04:05 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Do you consider science a religion?



[#] Fri Apr 30 2021 21:44:25 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And that was not a trick question.   I dont consider it a religion, due to 'scientific method'.  Even if you 'prove' a wrong theory, the process was followed.   Religion, does not have that.

Many ( not all, i fully realize ) Atheists are the same way,  in that you cant use scientific method for 'belief in a deity'.   So for them its not a religion based on non-belief, just a fact based on current scientific understanding and practice.  But, they would have to be wiling to accept new theories if they are 'proven'.  



[#] Sat May 01 2021 00:19:23 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

This is why I'm kind of bullish on the vaccine OR the virus seriously thinning the herd. 


The 80/20 thing means that the 80% that has zero net contribution to humanity is what... about 5.5 billion people. That is too much dead weight for the other  2.5 billion people on the planet to carry. 

 

Fri Apr 30 2021 17:42:06 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar
And as long as people keep buying it, they'll keep doing it.
Think of all the things people are paying monthly for now that they could own forever not too long ago.

 



[#] Sat May 01 2021 00:32:28 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'd call that an agnostic. They're skeptics because they don't believe there is compelling evidence - the ones of this ilk are usually pretty reasonable. They don't generally try to evangelize. 

But - yes, science HAS become a religion. 

The learned and practiced hold sacred knowledge that they believe the unwashed masses cannot understand. They tell us that we must accept their interpretation of things and that if we do not, we are unclean, deplorable, superstitious, a threat to society. The masses hang on the edicts of those who are learned - The Reverend Fauci and his fellow initiates. World leaders tell us that their opinions are *settled* and *irrefutable*. There is corruption and collusion between the Church of Science and the State to manipulate and control society - for its own good and well being of course. 

Celebrity Scientists like failed aerospace engineer Bill Nye and Neil Tyson Degrasse are presented as expert authorities in gender studies, in climate science - as inarguable experts who must be trusted in whatever they claim. 


Then they say things like "if a plane loses engine power, it can glide, but if a helicopter loses engine power, it drops like a rock," and they don't really get called on it - it doesn't affect their credibility - because the unwashed masses really ARE ignorant. 

Settled and irrefutable science is NOT the scientific method. 

We are told that we can't use isolated weather conditions like a blizzard as evidence disproving global climate alarmism. But then California, a State that has always suffered periods of droughts and extreme forest fires - burns ONE year and we are told that this is clear PROOF of global climate change and we must act immediately. Those of us who understand the TRUE scientific method understand that a hypothesis that has no condition of falsifiability is NOT a real scientific hypothesis. 

If all the ice in the arctic melting and all the ice in the arctic growing, if no hurricanes or too many hurricanes or weaker hurricanes or stronger hurricanes all prove an imminent ecological collapse - then there is no condition where the hypothesis can be falsified. "The weather changed can ONLY be evidence OF catastrophic AGCC," never falsification of it.  So Sayeth the High Prophets of the Church of Academic Science. Bless the Trinity of Nye, Degrasse and Hawking. It even has saints. 


Yes... science can be a real thing, and be a practiced religion, at the same time - and it is. 






Fri Apr 30 2021 21:44:25 EDT from Nurb432

And that was not a trick question.   I dont consider it a religion, due to 'scientific method'.  Even if you 'prove' a wrong theory, the process was followed.   Religion, does not have that.

Many ( not all, i fully realize ) Atheists are the same way,  in that you cant use scientific method for 'belief in a deity'.   So for them its not a religion based on non-belief, just a fact based on current scientific understanding and practice.  But, they would have to be wiling to accept new theories if they are 'proven'.  



 



[#] Sat May 01 2021 00:39:40 EDT from ParanoidDelusions

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And again... I think that science is wrong. They've actually set up the test for intelligent design. 

I've said it already in this conversation. 

Heliocentric orbit was used by Atheists almost immediately as a proof that the Bible is wrong - the Earth is not the center of the universe - it isn't even in a solar system that is special or unique - and that the more evidence that we are not special, the more the belief in God is *falsified*. 

And they're right. 

But then - if we start to find out that there is some sort of condition that means in the vastness of the entire universe, we are almost certainly the ONLY intelligent, sentient life to ever arise over billions of years - if we don't find any other current life, or evidence of other advanced, sentient life that didn't make it - some failed ruins of an ancient society - even something just like primitive cavemen who had the beginnings of social constructs like organized, ceremonial burial... 


If we're the only thing to ever contemplate what it means to BE in the entire universe. 


That makes us something exceedingly unique and rare and precious... and special. 

And that is evidence of a planned creation. Scientific evidence. It isn't a silver bullet - but it skews the conclusion that way. 

And right now, organized academic science is making EVERY excuse as to why it APPEARS to be just this that they can - but no evidence is turning up supporting their hypotheses and theories on that. 


I mean... they can't even really find microbes and SIMPLE life anywhere else. 

So... the same skepticism that creates genuine skepticism about the belief in God - * should* create genuine skepticism about the DISBELIEF on him. Frankly - neither side has strong evidence of their claims at this point. 


But we do have the vast silence and absence of ANY other life anywhere in the universe by any methods we are capable of observing it with. And that leans the credibility to the hypothesis *of* an Intelligent design. 


If you're using science, anyhow. 

 



[#] Sat May 01 2021 01:42:55 EDT from arabella

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't care what any of y'all believe.

I absolutely will defend your right to believe it. 

I am atheist.

I am what most people would call Transgender. (My definition of myself is at variance with that)

This thing with Pascal, and gambling...

It seems to me there are for too many outcomes for the religious, to convince me that I'm wrong.

I am unable to understand the need of the religious to believe they will exist after death, in whatever form that takes.

That I think the need for further existence is a vanity should be irrelevant to you, in exactly the same way that your belief I'm damned is irrelevant to me.

I'm not an evangelical atheist, I keep my unbelief (mostly) to myself.

"Mostly" because I'm not ashamed  of it, and will talk about in a relevant setting, but I don't tend to start those conversations.



[#] Sat May 01 2021 07:26:32 EDT from Nurb432

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I see the point, but to me Agnostics are people that dont have the balls to make a decision. 



Go to page: 1 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12