Isn't any form of the application of Pascal's wager' a sure way not to end up in Heaven since it implies you believe for the wrong reasons? That is from a statistical perspective instead of having just faith?
Quite correct spurious. As a matter of fact, as memory serves, I figured this out in a matter of minutes in my teenage years when the argument was used on me. I find it surprising and somewhat amusing that theists haven't discarded Pascal's wager as any reason to support faith.
I think most theists have in it's crudest form. A more sophisticated version (this may be what Sandy means) is that we HOPE for better things (e.g. salvation, union with God, joy, peace, enlightenment etc.) through practicing belief. If I didn't think it beneficial, I wouldn't ever have bothered. The same applies to committing to anything long-term. It sounds like Sandy is saying she doesn't want to do anything that risks that long term goal.
An 'each way' version of Pascals Wager? God will understand as long as you backed one of the three major religions? Maybe God would understand that with three major religions differing so much, some of us didnt bet, and let us in too! Pascals Wager's odds can be lengthened to accomodate the atheist! Woot!
It's not about 'God understanding' (I do hate this judicial concept of God), so much as is it better to believe because having such belief in God is more likely to be beneficial (in this life and the next) than not believing. For instance the evidence seems to show that religious people survive traumas better (e.g. Auschwitz), and are also generally healthier than non-religious people. There is also the question of attaining your own version of 'nirvana' - much more likely if you have a belief in such. You might argue the atheists version: "A god may exist who will reward disbelief or punish belief. In the absence of clear knowledge of what if anything will benefit us hereafter it is better to concentrate on improving conditions here." However, there is a debate to be had as to whether religious people are MORE motivated, not less than non- religious people, to improve conditions here (e.g. Christian Aid etc.)!
Apart from Jihad and sectarian violence, etc. Feel free to present that evidence. I don't recall 'Atheist' being awarded a coloured triangle. A study says religious types live longer than non-religious people. But the top end of the benefit is the same as the bottom end of 'regular exercise'. Simply having a focus can extend life span, an experiment in a retirement home showed significant improvement of longevity when some old folks were given plants to look after, over those that weren't. Religion is not somehow special in this regard, any focus will do. "God Hates Fags" is religiously inspired Nirvana? Please. I can think of dozens of secular charities, that don't mention religion, so I don't think the point holds. If religious bodies do give money to charity, well, they damned well should anyway, having grifted their fortunes via tithing, and being exempt from taxation.
Most sectarian violence is between peoples of different cultures - not just different religions. It's how we create aliens of other people who are different from us! Jews were exterminated by the Nazis because of their race, not their religion. Many were atheists or agnostics. There's a good general article here that discusses the work of Aaron Antonovsky and subsequent authors on holocaust survivors. Several studies have shown a link. Research at Colorado University by Rogers et. al. (reported here) has shown about 7-8 years difference in longevity. It's not explicable just as 'having a focus'. It may be many factors, so far it's not been fully explained. I see you have a very narrow view on what constitutes spirituality. Some churches are homophobic just as some atheists are homophobic. Many theists (such as myself) are not. Homophobia has very little to do with finding nirvana, and even less to do with Pascal's wager! I think you are getting off the topic... Like I say - it's another debate. However, I bet even in secular charities you will find an above average % of people motivated by their faith.
Irish troubles. 3,000 killed using religion as a separator. Same culture, european, Irish, just different governments. Iraq, same culture, same nationality, different religions. Got numbers for that claim? No link? Merely think religion helped. Please try harder. It has been proven to be just down to focus, you just want to find some scientific proof of mysticism. We haven't even discussed that. We are talking about Religion. The point being that Churches are a coherent group of individuals, bound by a common belief. Atheists are not. While it is convenient to lump atheists together as a group for arguments sake, that is a fallacious tactic. You cannot fairly group people together for something they don't believe in. You started by introducing 'Nirvana', I just questioned whether the concept of inner peace sat alongside 'Hate' on a placard! You bet? Another wager?
Go ahead and mock me all you want. I don't care. Even Jesus was mocked. My faith is so strong it will sustain your and everyone else's slander. I don't worship God because I have to. I worship/obey His Word because I WANT to. When you're born-again you have a new spirit--the Holy Spirit comes to live inside you. Non-believers cannot understand this.
It's funny, because plenty of people that met Jesus weren't convinced, and didn't follow him, yet stories about the mythical man compel people some 2,000 years later! So yes, some mocking is in order because you are gullible. I doubt Jesus actually existed though, too much is borrowed from previous mythology, and similar themes pop up in other mythologies. There are only so many good stories,.... Anyway 'Sandy' if you had been brought up in an Islamic environment, do you think you would have found Christianity?
Tiassa, you have no clue. That is not a Christian's worst nightmare. Christian's worst nightmare: The Christian dies, and finds himself shackled to the pearly gates, naked, bent over, legs splayed. A huge black man wearing a turban and sporting a massive erection walks up to our unfortunate Christian, his orange sized balls aswinging. The Christian asks "Who the hell are you?!" The black man smiles, and replies "Oh, I'm God. And I just happen to be gay!"
Yes. He calls no matter where you are no matter where/how you were raised. He sends His people to witness to you. You accept. Or not.
I wonder why your benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent god ignores millions of children who grow up in Muslim countries, never revealing his truth to them? Indeed, one wonders how such a benevolent and omnipotent god could ignore the thousands of children that were ripped from their mothers' arms in the 2004 tsunami, but that is, perhaps, another thread.
Then your god is either not benevolent, since it leaves so many children to suffer; or it isn't omnipotent, since it is powerless to change their conditions (or it may simply be ignorant rather than omniscient of their conditions). Either way, yours is a flawed god and somebody within your cult is lying to you.
Can you priovide any sort of link to this alleged 'proof' that the correlation between greater longevity and religious belief is solely down to 'having a focus' phlogistician? I note your reluctance to cite your sources! If you are interested, there's a detailed analysis of the factors by Lehtsaar and Noor as to whether and how religion helps people survive following political repression. Weak atheists perhaps not, however strong atheism is a belief - that God does NOT exist. Under avowedly atheist political regimes (i.e that actively repress religion) e.g. Cuba and the Soviet Union, homosexuality was severely persecuted. In Russia it was illegal until 1993, (see http://www.gay.ru/) and it still is in Cuba. I regret some conservative churches preach that homosexuality is a sin, but many more churches and religions do not. Moreover, when atheists do get themselves organised into "a coherent group of individuals", it appears they are just as capable of intolerance towards minorities. No, it doesn't! Your own 'Hate' of religion may be blinding you to the fact that all great religious teachers preached and practiced love, forgiveness, kindness etc. even towards their 'enemies'. Pascal's wager can be interpreted as the probablility of attaining the state of consciousness known as 'Nirvana' or the 'Kingdom of Heaven', or 'Sahaj samadhi' through choice and the practice of a belief, not as a result of being 'sent there' by a judicial God. As in the original wager, it may be more likely to be beneficial in the end to believe, than not.
Here's a distillation of the research; http://seniorliving.about.com/od/lifetransitionsaging/a/longevity.htm So it is merely the gregarious nature of church meetings that is causing the effect, nothing mystic. I don't recognise that term. Atheism, is merely a lack of belief in god, the term has been hijacked, and 'strong atheism' an apologetic term. I don't apologise. The term should be 'antitheist'. There is no such term as 'strong theist' is there? You either believe, or you don't. You are fallaciously convolving atheism with the political stance on homosexuality. There is no atheist agenda. You did not demonstrate a coherent group of atheists. They were a coherent political movement, who happen to not believe in God. You don't refer to them as a 'coherent group of people who don't believe in fairies'. Somehow, lack of belief in god is singled out, to suit your agenda. I only hate religion when the religious try to make me live by their rules, by trying to make them law, and not personal beleifs. Then they have a fight. If they were truly pious, and enlightened, and eager to please god, they shouldn't need laws, but instead, seek to make everyone act like them. Fred Phelps a teacher of love and kindness, or just not on your list of 'great preachers'? Please, you cannot start excluding people because thet don't fit into your blinkered view! What a load of apologetic bullshit.
He gave us free choice. Most of us abused it/messed up. Most children have parents who messed up first. Most of those people probably should not have even had children. I think if you can't afford them, don't have them and expect society/government to take care of/raise them. Being a born-again Christian isn't a cult. It's a priviledge and an honor.
