This is silly. Actually, many Christians will work extra hard to point out the errors of others calling themselves Christian so as to demonstrate that Christianity, itself, is not really an impediment to logic (as some non-believers like to assert).
If you wander in and make illogical statements supported poorly by a lack of evidence, we really don’t want you on “our side.”
Yes Bob I am a new poster. I happen to be occupied at the moment on this thread and so researching 10 years of your posts, while potentially interesting and enlightening is really not in the cards right now. But you did say in one of your replies that you were Christian and then you are arguing from the point of a nonbeliever. That doesn’t come across too logical either. But anyhow, we respectfully disagree on the strength of Pascal’s Wager in terms of its solid support of Christian theology. Also, you say it can only influence the agnostic to come to faith. I disagree that a person without any belief could not encounter any influence (such as P’sW) that could turn them 180 degrees.
It doesn’t appear that is what was happening.
The main problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it works for just about any religion if all other religions are excluded from the wager. The Wager only works within the framework of the religion, and which religion doesn’t really matter.
Pascal’s wager is a joke of an argument that can only work if someone is mostly already a believer in that particular religion. It’s trivially easy to poke full of holes, especially for someone who doesn’t buy the underlying assumptions that it’s based on.
Truly sorry to hear that. Re-read Pascal’s Wager and maybe the gospel of John?
I disagree. Religions outside of Christianity muddy the waters, but it is a powerful argument differentiating atheism and Christianity.
You clearly don’t get the reference:
[QUOTE=Steven Roberts]
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.”
[/QUOTE]
You deny all gods but yours; Fear Itself denies them all. That’s just one god’s worth of difference.
How many religions did you seriously look into before you settled on your particular sect of Christianity?
No. I don’t think so, Czar. Other religions have a series of tennets and rules. Christianity delivers a message that God requires one’s faith in him to avoid oblivion. Do you have solid evidence any other religion has that as its basis?
No, it’s a worthless argument. One can use it just as effectively to argue for any religion, or for atheism for that matter. After all, if the One True God of the universe admired skepticism, perhaps he sends believers to Hell and atheists to Heaven; therefore disbelieving in him costs you nothing while getting you into Heaven if it’s true. That “logic” is just as good as that for the standard wager.
A key part of logical reasoning is being able to start from some set of assumptions and proceed from there.
When dealing with emotionally charged topics, such as religion, some degree of empathy is required to understand not only one’s own assumptions (faith, in this case) but also the starting assumptions of other people.
Most, if not all, Christians would agree empathy is a virtue.
I suggest employing some more empathy.
You are beginning with YOUR assumptions and asking others to come to YOUR conclusions by ignoring THEIR assumptions. That makes no sense. You argue as though you are reasoning logically but fall back on “of course you should accept it - it’s what I believe”. Again, it’s what Intelligent Design proponents do, and it’s frustrating that many don’t understand just how poor an argument it is.
That doesn’t even describe all of Christianity. Certainly, Roman Cathoilcs have a series of tenets (I hate spelling Nazis, but this one stood out) and rules. As do Episcopals (otherwise, why the tension between them and the Church of England) and Southern Baptists (homosexuality is a hot button with them, regardless of faith in God). That’s just off the top of my head.
In short, what tomndebb said above about some Christians and logic.
The old “Christianity is unique” canard. Which sect of Christianity do you follow?
Oh I got it the first time. Fortunately I don’t deny the only one that matters, the one and only God.
The only one that matters according to you. But your opinion on the matter has no more basis in reality than that of some ragged homeless guy on a corner screaming that we must all worship the Great Divine Aardvark who will come and devour the unbelievers on the Day of Reckoning.
The god of which sect?
Dude, that is really warping Pascal’s message in the extreme. You claim it is worthless because it cannot be much of a comfort to an unyielding unbeliever. It cannot argue the case for other religions which lack the specific characteristics of Christian theology that influenced the genesis of the Wager itself.
You present a hypothetical concept to consider that what if God rather admired skepticism. To what extreme? There may even be people of faith who have a small measure of skepticism. He could never send a believer to oblivion because the believer paid God respect with faith and trust, while the unbeliever rejects him. God doesn’t send the rejector away; the rejector makes his own choice and God allows him that free will to choose that fate.
Which means it’s worthless. It only “works” by assuming its own correctness beforehand.
To any extreme, since it’s all made up in the first place. There’s no facts, no evidence to base the wager on in the first place; so any assumption is as good as any other.
More baseless claims.
Christianity, the only one that conveys the literally easiest path to eternity, faith in him, which is more than a sign of respect and recognizing ones humility, it is honoring God’s truth and acknowledgement of his power to deliver on his promise. God who conveys love and implores humans to love and forgive each other, to do to others what you would want done to you.
Beyond the element of faith, and perhaps of some interest to unbelievers, there are so many excellent benefits emanating from what Jesus conveys that if just practiced by everybody even without an element of faith would still be of great benefit to humanity. No, not the failures of humanity to follow those virtues, but actually following them. Keeping egocentricism in check and really embracing the do unto other’s theme. We all come up short, but imagine a world where we all did that infinitely better?
You didn’t even answer which sect of Christianity.
And of course your description of Christianity has little to do with reality.
According to you. To me, Christianity is history’s greatest single evil. It has spread misery and suffering and despair and tyranny and death across the world for centuries, and continues to do so. If I could make one change to history to make the world better, eliminating Christianity would be it.
That’s the opinion of this unbeliever.