Why is there such a quarrel with Christianity today?

[Septic]

Fine. But why do you guys use the Pascals wager thing so condescendingly?

Non believers tend to roll their eyes at this "but if I'm right" false dichotomy because it's chock full of holey logic (get it?). Due to these holes, it should be readily apparent to the user that it's a poor gambit to try and convince the non believer. It's often trotted out as a "reason" one has for choosing to "believe" due to the undesirable consequences.

It's especially grating to see the Pascal Wager employed and then followed up with refutation of a fear based belief system. No bueno.

The Pascal Wager fallacy has a number of criticisms, many of which are explained here very simply.

 

[volprof]

Non believers tend to roll their eyes at this "but if I'm right" false dichotomy because it's chock full of holey logic (get it?). Due to these holes, it should be readily apparent to the user that it's a poor gambit to try and convince the non believer. It's often trotted out as a "reason" one has for choosing to "believe" due to the undesirable consequences.

It's especially grating to see the Pascal Wager employed and then followed up with refutation of a fear based belief system. No bueno.

The Pascal Wager fallacy has a number of criticisms, many of which are explained here very simply.

Pascal's Wager (aka "Save My Ass, or Else I'll Die and Stay Dead") is one of the least compelling arguments for belief with which I am familiar.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Non believers tend to roll their eyes at this "but if I'm right" false dichotomy because it's chock full of holey logic (get it?). Due to these holes, it should be readily apparent to the user that it's a poor gambit to try and convince the non believer. It's often trotted out as a "reason" one has for choosing to "believe" due to the undesirable consequences.

It's especially grating to see the Pascal Wager employed and then followed up with refutation of a fear based belief system. No bueno.

The Pascal Wager fallacy has a number of criticisms, many of which are explained here very simply.

This. It's given as some mic drop "gotcha" moment, and it's anything but.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

Normally it's a response to someone who has already spoken condescendingly to us. When you use scare tactics against people, you're insulting their intelligents.

Come on man....you have to do better than that.

 

[Vol8188]

Come on man....you have to do better than that.

I clearly meant they were insulting men who work for the company Intel

 

[PKT_VOL]

Pascal's Wager (aka "Save My Ass, or Else I'll Die and Stay Dead") is one of the least compelling arguments for belief with which I am familiar.

Objectively speaking, I disagree. After revelatory experience, I think it's the most persuasive argument.

 

[volprof]

Objectively speaking, I disagree. After revelatory experience, I think it's the most persuasive argument.

Belief out of self-interest? I'm all for morality as essentially just another form of self-interest rather than the objective system of altruism it's often presented as (I'm very Hobbesian and Nietzschean in this regard), but that's not how the Bible portrays real belief. It portrays sincerity in faith as a form of submission and surrender, the ability to love God and others before the self. It doesn't say that you should believe simply because you want to save your ass, although that is presented as a benefit of surrendering the self to God.

 

[Vol8188]

Objectively speaking, I disagree. After revelatory experience, I think it's the most persuasive argument.

Considering the many Christians and Jews who don't believe in hell and the very few times in the bible that eternal torment is mentioned, I think it's the weakest argument.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Belief out of self-interest? I'm all for morality as essentially just another form of self-interest rather than the objective system of altruism it's often presented as (I'm very Hobbesian and Nietzschean in this regard), but that's not how the Bible portrays real belief. It portrays sincerity in faith as a form of submission and surrender, the ability to love God and others before the self. It doesn't say that you should believe simply because you want to save your ass, although that is presented as a benefit of surrendering the self to God.

The key phrase in my post is "objectively speaking"; not subjectively speaking.

I do not find it persuasive personally and find it quite at odds with Abrahamic religions in general. However, after all my prodding of believers, it seems in my experience to come down to revelatory experience or some form (different wording) of Pascal's Wager (most who have never heard of Pascal).

 

[PKT_VOL]

Considering the many Christians and Jews who don't believe in hell and the very few times in the bible that eternal torment is mentioned, I think it's the weakest argument.

Well, if you are a universalist, it wouldn't matter either way.

 

[Vol8188]

Well, if you are a universalist, it wouldn't matter either way.

I don't believe one has to be a universalist not to believe in hell.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I don't believe one has to be a universalist not to believe in hell.

You don't, but it's much more common than annihilationism.

 

[Vol8188]

You don't, but it's much more common than annihilationism.

If I were to ever believe, annihilationism is what I'd find most likely.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Then the second part of your reasoning for Pascal's Wager makes no sense.

Your point is noted but changes nothing for me. People often are confused by things they cannot understand.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Non believers tend to roll their eyes at this "but if I'm right" false dichotomy because it's chock full of holey logic (get it?). Due to these holes, it should be readily apparent to the user that it's a poor gambit to try and convince the non believer. It's often trotted out as a "reason" one has for choosing to "believe" due to the undesirable consequences.

It's especially grating to see the Pascal Wager employed and then followed up with refutation of a fear based belief system. No bueno.

The Pascal Wager fallacy has a number of criticisms, many of which are explained here very simply.

Just because some people call it fallacious, doesnt make it so. I have come to the conclusion that you are right, using the wager to try and sway a non believer is pointless.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If I were to ever believe, annihilationism is what I'd find most likely.

Universalism blends much better with an all-loving God.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Your point is noted but changes nothing for me. People often are confused by things they cannot understand.

It's not about understanding. It was a contradiction. Unless "understanding" requires the suspension of the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Vol8188]

Universalism blends much better with an all-loving God.

Doesn't seem all loving to me. I'm assuming universalism to be popular among Catholics?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Doesn't seem all loving to me. I'm assuming universalism to be popular among Catholics?

Theologically liberal Catholics and Protestants. The more conservative one is theologically, the less likely they are to be universalist.

 

[Vol8188]

Theologically liberal Catholics and Protestants. The more conservative one is theologically, the less likely they are to be universalist.

I could see it working well with the concept of purgatory

 

[Roustabout]

Firstly two consenting adults shouldn't be refused the right to marry. Make a logical argument as to why and then maybe we can talk. I don't see explaining love to children as a problem. Children are very excepting and don't see things the way adults do. Beyond that, using the bible to define marriage as one man one woman, may not be the best idea. Many people in the bible had marriages with multiple partners. Solomon (the wisest man to ever live according to the bible) had so many wives and concubines that he could almost go 3 years without sleeping with the same woman. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole one man one woman thing.

Shouldn't? Ok, that is a claim that you've made but then you ask those who disagree to provide a logical case. The burden is on you since you've made a claim. Should according to what? Why SHOULD the govt acknowledge, protect and endorse any marriage?

The bible does define marriage as one man and women, but does that mean it is a biblical defintion or does the bible simply recognize a correct definition. You know, like, 'Don't murder or don't steal."

The bible is not always prescriptive, but is often descriptive. So, were solomon's marriages benficial or detrimental to his reign?

 

[SuperDave]

Shouldn't? Ok, that is a claim that you've made but then you ask those who disagree to provide a logical case. The burden is on you since you've made a claim. Should according to what? Why SHOULD the govt acknowledge, protect and endorse any marriage?

The bible does define marriage as one man and women, but does that mean it is a biblical defintion or does the bible simply recognize a correct definition. You know, like, 'Don't murder or don't steal."

The bible is not always prescriptive, but is often descriptive. So, were solomon's marriages benficial or detrimental to his reign?

Where in the Bible does it say marriage is between one man and one woman?

 

[apevol]

Where in the Bible does it say marriage is between one man and one woman?

Have you ever had a conversation with roust?

 

[SuperDave]

Have you ever had a conversation with roust?

nope

 

[gobraves101035]

Where in the Bible does it say marriage is between one man and one woman?

Genesis 2:22-24
2 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.