How can you prove that the belief or non-belief in the dragon is going to affect the longterm placement of a soul?
Now, how are you going prove that belief or non-belief in god is going to affect the longterm placement of a soul? Because you read it in the bible? I can write a book that makes belief in the dragon much more appealing.
Are you sure that belief in an invisible dragon is not essential to salvation?
Besides, the point WiredGuy is making is that there is no more compelling evidence for God or the truth of Christianity than there is for an invisible dragon. how do you know God exists? How do you know Jesus is God? Have you ever seen God? Have you heard His voice audibly? What does He look like? If you’re going to point to the Bible, may I suggest there are other religious texts that have just as mcuh evidence behind them? If you are going to point out the Empty Tomb, bear in mind that nobody knows where Jesus was buried. The place identified as the Holy Sepulchre was picked by the empress Helena, mother of Constantine, during a vision she had in Jerusalem. How can you take the word of someone who wasn’t even a Baptist? 
If you point to Jesus talking to Mary Magdalene and the apostles after his resurrection, bear in mind that there other resurrected deities like Osiris, Tammuz, and Mithras, in other religions. It’s hardly unique to Christianity.
The question remains: how do you know?
Frankly, you’re missing out because the true revelation of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, is in the Holy Q’uran
as spoken through the Prophet, may He be blessed.
Good, this thread could use some hijacking before it ends up in the Pit (where it belonged from the first save for the good humour of the resident infidels).
And I don’t think you should get partial credit since Pascal at least tried to couch his in the language of mathematics (infinite gains vs 0) - he didn’t even bring sadistic hells into it.
But if you’ve been on the board long enough, you should know better then to bring up Pascal’s wager. Not only does it trivialize belief (which is fine by me), but it ignores the fact that one can easily hypothesize infinite deities with infinite motives to counteract the infinite gain.
And since Pascal was playing with infinities, it is worth noting that if he was wrong, and this life is all there is, then any finite amount of pleasure measured against the ultimate nothing gains infinite worth.
But his problem was thinking that there was just one possible god, and that saying the mass, taking the holy water, and eating the host (do you do these by the way?) would change the deity’s mind about allowing your destruction. As if God should care about killing us because of a decision we made with our infintesimal knowledge (compared to his, if he/she/it/all did exist).
Have you ever read Pascal’s actual essay? Translated if you can’t read French? How about the hundreds of rebuttals?
Why even start this? If it is the basis for your faith, perhaps you should rethink it.
No Kyber,
It is not a basis for my faith. And I have read parts of it but when he started getting into the math it kind of lost me. I just use it as more of common sense approach to none believers.
You and someone else mentioned “pleasure” (that you would miss out on if you believed in God) just curious what pleasure or pleasures do you think you would miss out on if you followed God’s word and plan for you?
I am going to lunch but I’ll be back in a little bit.
I’m pretty sure that any heaven organized along Fundamentalist lines would lack libraries, live theater, and blowjobs. However, there should be plenty of monster truck rallies.
I don’t think your god approves of wild sex orgies 
Consider it time wasted.
I do not consider going to church pleasurable.
I do not consider tithing pleasurable.
I do not consider (usually) Bible study to be pleasurable (there are times when it can be entertaining though).
There things I could better do in that time.
I do not consider having to worry about going against God’s whims (and trying to determine them, with every sect having a different opinion) pleasurable.
Depending on the branch of Christianity, I would perforce have to miss out on sciences I enjoy, arts, foods or drinks, forms of dancing, or entertaining sexual practices.
I also find intellectual dishonesty unpleasurable.
Hm. Getting into specifics might be worth an IMHO thread…
absolutely. maybe i’ll see you in the marinating pan someday…
Let’s leave the Victoria’s Secret catalog out of this.
While I am not an atheist (there’s less work involved in being an agnostic), I think “godless” or “faithless” are rather pejorative, much as “childless” is when applied to those who’ve decided not to have kids. If you choose not to nail yourself to the cross in such matters, you’re not necessarily bereft of something.
“Wretched heathen” suits me fine.
Now there’s an image - a tall brunette in a slinky red satin dress, stiletto heels. Can I buy a vowel?
I’m generally comfortable with “pagan”*
([Middle English from Late Latin pgnus, from Latin country-dweller, civilian, from pgus, country, rural district; see pag- in Indo-European Roots.] )*,
or *“heathen” ***
(from Old English hthen, heathen, “savage” (< “one inhabiting uncultivated land”); )
or even “dog of an infidel” if you smile while you say it.
Good suggestion, K. From now on, I’m going with “infidel.” Has a nice ring to it, and it works no matter whose religion or atheism I find silly and dogmatic. Thanks!
I like “wretched heathen”.
But, like pagan, it’s not that accurate. Both were originally used to refer to non-Christians. But non-Christians who had their own religion, not atheists.
If it’s to mirror “fundies”, I’m ok with “atheis” or “agnos”.
Or how 'bout just “the damned” :).
*Originally posted by Kyberneticist *
Well, of course you don’t since you don’t believe in God. But if you did you would.(as long as the spirit of God was in the church of course).
This I can understand but when you have faith and give to God with a cheerful heart he will reward you many times over. That seems pretty pleasurable to me. Heck of a return I’d say.
There again if you don’t believe God I can see you not enjoying this but if you did you would love Bible study.
But once you have God’s spirit in your heart and read his word this is easier.
I don’t think you would miss out on the science you enjoy. You might even have more appreciation for the work God did making the planet and us.
God never said nothing about not dancing or not drinking those are man made. He did say not to get drunk because he was just trying to look out for you. I mean who likes a hang over, throwing up or acting like a idiot.
And you can have lots of entertaining sexual pratices in the confines of a marriage that would not include jealously, hurt and STD’s.
You would also have the people and the assurance of something better for an eternity after this little 80 year life span here on earth. That seems alot more pleasurable than any of the things you mention being unpleasurable.
I am not sure if you are directing this at me but if you are I don’t know how intellectual I am but I am not dishonest.
I think “God-fearing” is a wonderfully insulting term for a Christian. It implies that the person is a Christian because he is afraid of the supposed consequences of not being Christian.
Various and sundry:
I’m with you, tracer. But my interpretation was why anyone would believe in a God they had to fear?!
And whoever talked about the multitude of deities to believe in, at one point someone described the bodhisatva (certainly misspelled) as a deity that would save even those who actively denied his existance and desired not to be saved. Subsequent reading suggested that this interpretaion left something to be desired. But MAN, there’s a God I could believe in (or not, as the case may be.)
My preferred christian reference is “Jesus Freak.” Most often, however, instead of calling names, I am simply content to observe that a belief in a particular God is no different than believing in any other supernatural entity or occurrance. Alien abduction. Magic. Fortune telling. Fairies.
One time the missus and I attended a church we had previously belonged to. They requested that we write up and wear name tags (and we no longer had our permanent ones.) The lovely Mrs. D wrote on hers “HERETIC”.
I am amazed that none of the poster so far have addressed Wildest Bill’s real issue. What he did was express a dislike for the labels being used about Christians in other threads in this forum, he just tried to use a humorous way to do it. What I heard him saying is that he is offended with these labels (correct me if I am wrong Wildest Bill), to him they are derogatory.
Is it correct that posters are allowed to use derogatory labels about Christians because the majority of people on these boards hold Christians in contempt? Should we not treat religious beliefs with the same respect as other personal choices?
Yes, I think that Wildest Bill posted to the correct forum since I see this as a GD issue. If we are not allowed to use derogatory labels for race, gender or sexual orientation then why are we allowed to use them for Christians?
Yes, I noticed that Bill’s real problem was the nasty nicknames given to Christians.
No, it’s not true that no one responded. I did. I was the first response, and my response was in essence," gee, Bill I can see that you’re bothered by rude silly nicknames. Will you now stop using them when referring to political folks you disagree with?" (specific quote “so if they agree to that, would you start calling the man “Al Gore”?”
Which he has ignored.
deb2world, If any group of people deserve a derogatory label its the Christians. More pain and suffering has been caused by Christians in the name of Jesus Christ than any other group in history. Christians used to burn Athiests at the stake, if the worst I do to them is call them a fundie then they are getting off pretty damn easy.
Dinsdale wrote:
I thought “heretic” officially meant someone who claimed to be a follower of a particular religion but in fact was not.
Bill’s had several opportunities to correct our interpretation of his question, and has not done so. That leads me to believe that the other posters and I are correct to respond to the literal words of the OP. What I find hysterical here is that we infidels turn out to think that the attempted slurs on our lack of belief/disbelief are perfectly accurate and not at all offensive. From this, I deduce that religion induces political correctness.
FWIW, I very much dislike the term “fundies.” It appears mean-spirited and demeaning to me. I also suspect that the claim that it just takes too long to type “fundamentalists” is a post-hoc rationalization. C’mon, people, stop pickin’ on the delusionals!