Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[ClearwaterVol]

I don't argue with non Christians, it's almost a waste of time. I would rather live a life of believing and when I die and be right, than living a life of non believing and die and be wrong and go to hell for eternity. I'm proudly saved by the grace of Jesus Christ and I'll tell the whole world. My name is written in the book of life and I know where I'm going when I die. I wish every non believer had the joy and peace that gods children has.

First, aren't you duty bound to argue with me? Second, I'm not sure why you think non believers are not at peace. I've no worries about my my ever lasting life. There is peace knowing that i am living my life to the fullest here. Religion is a crutch for those that can't accept finality.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

First, aren't you duty bound to argue with me? Second, I'm not sure why you think non believers are not at peace. I've no worries about my my ever lasting life. There is peace knowing that i am living my life to the fullest here. Religion is a crutch for those that can't accept finality.

Why do non believers think that us believers feel the way we do because of fear? I fear absolutely nothing in regards to an afterlife. I have no worries about my ever lasting life. I am living my life to the fullest here while practicing my religion. There is immense peace in doing that.

Your last sentence is pure stupidity.

 

[MercyPercy]

Why do non believers think that us believers feel the way we do because of fear? I fear absolutely nothing in regards to an afterlife. I have no worries about my ever lasting life. I am living my life to the fullest here while practicing my religion. There is immense peace in doing that.

Your last sentence is pure stupidity.

Perhaps because the person Clear responded to directly with his post participated in Pascal's Wager, which in itself is a position of fear, not faith.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Perhaps because the person Clear responded to directly with his post participated in Pascal's Wager, which in itself is a position of fear, not faith.

Right.

 

[MercyPercy]

Right.

Do you disagree it's Pascal's Wager, or do you disagree that it's a position of fear rather than faith?

I've seen some of the more eloquent and well respected believers on here make a similar argument against Pascal's Wager, so I would find it interesting if you didn't agree.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Do you disagree it's Pascal's Wager, or do you disagree that it's a position of fear rather than faith?

I've seen some of the more eloquent and well respected believers on here make a similar argument against Pascal's Wager, so I would find it interesting if you didn't agree.

I disagree about the position of fear personally.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I disagree about the position of fear personally.

I don't believe all Christians believe out of fear, but what gobraves posted I believe was classic Pascal's Wager, which is a position of fear.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Perhaps because the person Clear responded to directly with his post participated in Pascal's Wager, which in itself is a position of fear, not faith.

I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation Mercy. The wager is based on the premise that the existence of God can not be proven, so given the potential outcomes for belief or disbelief, the decision to "believe" is simply the more rational decision.

 

[MercyPercy]

I disagree about the position of fear personally.

You do not find, "I choose to believe in god because on the off chance that, however unlikely, it ends up being true, I won't go to hell," a position of fear?

 

[trevols81]

I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation Mercy. The wager is based on the premise that the existence of God can not be proven, so given the potential outcomes for belief or disbelief, the decision to "believe" is simply the more rational decision.

More rational based on what? There are infinite ideas about what happens to us after we die. The chance to go to heaven is but one of many, my friend.

 

[gcbvol]

I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation Mercy. The wager is based on the premise that the existence of God can not be proven, so given the potential outcomes for belief or disbelief, the decision to "believe" is simply the more rational decision.

Almost sounds agnostic lite.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Why is that believers feel non believers live in some sort of constant worry about the end game? I try to live a life of meaning because that's all I've got. I'm not worried about what will happen after i die because i believe that my life simply ends.

 

[MercyPercy]

I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation Mercy. The wager is based on the premise that the existence of God can not be proven, so given the potential outcomes for belief or disbelief, the decision to "believe" is simply the more rational decision.

The position is rooted in fear of damnation rather than faith in god. The decision to believe is based on the infinite gain if one is right, and infinite punishment if one is wrong and chooses not to believe. I don't know, so I'm going to go with it just in case. I have a hard time believing a supposed all knowing god couldn't see through such a motive.

Do you personally find pascal's wager a sincere method of belief?

 

[trevols81]

Almost sounds agnostic lite.

Hedging bets is not agnostic, gcb.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

More rational based on what? There are infinite ideas about what happens to us after we die. The chance to go to heaven is but one of many, my friend.

More rational... period. The premise applies to any wager. For example, I may not win anything at all during this wager, but if I choose option A I might win a new Aston Martin or if I choose option B I might win a used 1979 Pacer. Option A is the rational decision.

The position is rooted in fear of damnation rather than faith in god. The decision to believe is based on the infinite gain if one is right, and infinite punishment if one is wrong. I don't know, so I'm going to go with it just in case. I have a hard time believing a supposed all knowing god couldn't see through such a motive.

Do you personally find pascal's wager a sincere method of belief?

I think you're right about the bold above, but that's just my opinion. Faith is not the same as hedging a bet.

 

[gcbvol]

Hedging bets is not agnostic, gcb.

Oh, agreed. I was speaking more to the definition provided for Pascal's wager. It sounded as if the wager was sprung from an agnostic base.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Oh, agreed. I was speaking more to the definition provided for Pascal's wager. It sounded as if the wager was sprung from an agnostic base.

:yes:

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I think that's a bit of a misrepresentation Mercy. The wager is based on the premise that the existence of God can not be proven, so given the potential outcomes for belief or disbelief, the decision to "believe" is simply the more rational decision.

Wait, so you can't prove God exists, which in turn means you can't prove whether said reward/punishment is real or not, and you conclude from those two facts that the "rational" decision is to believe it's all true? That's like saying I can't prove there is a murderer hiding outside my house and I can't prove he has a knife with intent to murder me, so given the potential outcome the rational thing to do is never leave the house.

Also it makes the assumption that your only 2 choices are that the Christian God is real or he is not. You can make the same wager with Allah and Islam, with Yahweh and Judaism, etc.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Wait, so you can't prove God exists, which in turn means you can't prove whether said reward/punishment is real or not, and you conclude from those two facts that the "rational" decision is to believe it's all true? That's like saying I can't prove there is a murderer hiding outside my house and I can't prove he has a knife with intent to murder me, so given the potential outcome the rational thing to do is never leave the house.

Also it makes the assumption that your only 2 choices are that the Christian God is real or he is not. You can make the same wager with Allah and Islam, with Yahweh and Judaism, etc.

No. It's not saying anything like that at all. Pascal's wager is based on all known outcomes. Either God exists or not. Your scenario above has numerous potential outcomes and is a better example of paranoia.

 

[trevols81]

More rational... period. The premise applies to any wager. For example, I may not win anything at all during this wager, but if I choose option A I might win a new Aston Martin or if I choose option B I might win a used 1979 Pacer. Option A is the rational decision.

You typed wager and I did not note that with my response. Wager denotes there are only a few options to conclude with and my belief is that this life ends with many options. You still don't know if option A is the rational choice but I guess faith intercedes.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

No. It's not saying anything like that at all. Pascal's wager is based on all known outcomes. Either God exists or not.. Your scenario above has numerous potential outcomes and is a better example of paranoia.

But it's not "all known outcomes". It's outcomes limited to one religion being assumed true, and makes the assumption that all the others are false.

So why is it "rational" to go with God exists for the Christian God, but then reject that Allah exists for the Islam version? You have the same choices.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

You typed wager and I did not note that with my response. Wager denotes there are only a few options to conclude with and my belief is that this life ends with many options. You still don't know if option A is the rational choice but I guess faith intercedes.

Correct... because we were discussing Pascal's wager.

But it's not "all known outcomes". It's outcomes limited to one religion being assumed true, and makes the assumption that all the others are false.

So why is it "rational" to go with God exists for the Christian God, but then reject that Allah exists for the Islam version? You have the same choices.

If you don't understand the premise of Pascal's wager then it's probably best that you not post about it.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Correct... because we were discussing Pascal's wager.



If you don't understand the premise of Pascal's wager then it's probably best that you not post about it.

In other word, you can't answer a simple question.

I understand the premise fine; I also understand the logical fallacies involved. Do you?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

In other word, you can't answer a simple question.

No. In other words you apparently don't know what you're talking about, so I have little interest in participating in a conversation that will go no where.

 

[SuperDave]

God is too evil for my liking. And the whole worshiping out of fear.. well.. its either that or you like worshiping an evil god. If you can read and you can understand what you are reading then you know god is evil. The bible doesn't hide it.. doesn't even try to hide it. It's amazing how many people worship such an evil entity.