The Anguish of Semi Believers.

[David Sklansky]

First of all there is nothing wrong with mentally assigning a probability that something has already happened. You can technically define what it means to say "I think there is a 97% chance OJ killed Nicole". Or if you want to be less precise, you can say something like "I think there is probably life on other planets." Exactly how these statements should be interpreted is a technical mathematical question. But everybody instinctively knows what I mean.

It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category. By which I mean that whether they admit it or nor most people are not 100% certain one way or the other. Just like any other question. Almost all people deep down think that God is either highly unlikely, somewhat unlikely, possible but not probable, likely, or highly likely. Many will not mind admitting which camp they are in.

But things change when we are talking about not just the existence of God, but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity, unless you fully believe or at least rate the existence of such a God highly likely.

In the above situation, the people who rate the chances that such a God exists anywhere from somewhat unlikely to somewhat likely, deserve a lot of empathy. Think about their situation. Non believers aren't worried and believers have their ducks in a row. But what about the others? Surely there are many of them, just like as there are many who aren't sure about lots of other issues. But in the other cases there is no torment associated with their uncertainty. Here someone who thinks the punishing God is somewhat likely has to believe he is somewhat likely to go to hell. Imagine being one of them.

Of course many of them, once they believe somewhat, will claim a full belief, Pascal Wager style, that they don't actually have. At the same time though, they fear that God, if there is one, will not be fooled. Pretty tough place to be psychologically. I wonder how many people are in that boat. Including posters on this forum.

On the other hand, semi believers have a liker chance of becoming full believers than atheists do (self evident no?). So, if God is real, and he is vengeful, they can console themselves that their chances of rotting in hell forever are less than an atheists.

Every dark cloud has a silver lining : )

[hurlyburly]

I'll take the fires of Hell rather than supplicate myself to a god that would punish me for not believing in him after giving me the free will to do so.

True atheists are the safest of all, since mentally we are capable if accepting the existence of whoever shows up. It's the semi-faithful who are in big trouble when dad comes home.

[BluffTHIS!]

David you make an excellent point. And even under my more generally lenient view of God's justice and mercy in which sincere non-believers are not necessarily doomed to eternal punishment, these types of people in the middle are in fact the most likely to suffer such a fate if my or similar views are true. This is because whereas an atheist can fall under the sincerely doesn't believe category, those in the middle have some idea that the existence of God and even a certain religion might be true, but then fail to at the very least search for answers so that they can whole-heartedly go one way or the other. These types of people in fact are the ones who are more likely not to embrace religion because of its moral demands, rather because of not buying the tenets of a particular religion. This is particularly true since there are so many religious belief systems among which to choose.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category. By which I mean that whether they admit it or nor most people are not 100% certain one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 100% certain. And I know other folks who are also certain. A person knows when they are filled with God's Spirit, as the scripture says happens to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that God is God.

[ QUOTE ]
but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity,

[/ QUOTE ]

Eternal punishment in hell? This error in Christian doctrine perpetuated by the RCC and accepted by the other sects, is responsible for so many people misunderstanding God.

You die once the natural death that we all know and understand. This is the first death. You may be in hell for a while. And at the end of this age:

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Not eternal. First death. Second death. Our merciful God has no interest in punishing you for eternity. And, a just God also must insist that you not spend eternity with Him if you reject Him for the 20-30-40-60-90 years He gives you breath to breathe.

[mosquito]

Semi-believers also have the option of
not taking the subject very seriously.

Perhaps it just does not matter, or is
not worth the bother to some who say
"maybe".

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And at the end of this age:

Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Not eternal. First death. Second death. Our merciful God has no interest in punishing you for eternity. And, a just God also must insist that you not spend eternity with Him if you reject Him for the 20-30-40-60-90 years He gives you breath to breathe.

[/ QUOTE ]

But by your quotation from Revelation, hell and those in it, are cast into the lake of fire, and no further provision is made for them. So how does this make it not eternal? And it is only your view of what constitutes the actions of a just God that you are stating here, not what they necessarily are. In fact God's justice is more likely to punish eternally, while His mercy is not. And if what you believe is not that God merely anihilates from existence those sent to hell rather than punishing them eternally, but that they are rehabilitated in hell and thus ALL are eventually saved, then you have no true basis in scripture for that view. You then have merely made an idol of your own understanding.

[Cyrus]

You're on hold. Please hold.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
You then have merely made an idol of your own understanding.

[/ QUOTE ]

3Cor45:19 And the pot shall call the kettle black.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Ain't it neat how we try to see in others the very things that ensnare us? God's pretty smart. Yup.

[Jordan Olsommer]

I like semi-believing because you have two ways to win: your belief could turn out to be correct after all, or you could just get everybody to leave you alone and take it down without a fight.

I think you might enjoy Dan's Prayer for the Unflinching Agnostic (http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/agnostic_prayer.html)

The other articles on the site are good reading too.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of god does fall into a different catagory namely metaphysics. Many silly people think metaphysical questions are essentially meaningless and hence probabilities do not apply.

Unlike the question of OJ which is not metaphysical.


chez

[NLSoldier]

I am in an upper division college religion class right now which is being taught by a catholic priest, and he has pretty much told us that the modern position of the catholic/christian church is not nearly the same as the traditional "if you arent catholic you go to hell." he has even implied that no one goes to hell. he used hitler as an example of someone who he would like to think is in hell but probably is not. anyways, im not sure if this is relevant but im drunk and felt like sharing /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[snappo]

nice post.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
he used hitler as an example of someone who he would like to think is in hell but probably is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he is this lenient in his views, then he obviously must think no one is in hell, and thus is not really orthodox in his theology, like so many liberal catholic college teachers.

[Darryl_P]

There is no theoretical limit on how deeply you can think about the issue (barring a mathematical-type proof), and if you were to think about it for an infinite amount of time, chances are your current probability estimate would move around a lot, hitting most points on the spectrum.

Assuming you know this, and also that you will never hit zero or 100, what rationale is there to stop your thinking at any particular point, other than perhaps what you mention, ie. that the middle points are the least comforting?

What I'm suggesting, then, is to continue thinking more and more deeply until you get to a point in the comfort zone. Maybe you won't get there in this lifetime, but it's still worth a try considering what the stakes are, no?

[Georgia Avenue]

Jordan: Astonishing. GG.

All: Scarily, I guess I now officially agree with the David. In fact, couldn't you say that this constitutes a proof for the invalidity of this belief?


See:

1. One must believe 100% to go to heaven
2. 100% belief in anything is impossible
3. No belief is possible, nobody goes to heaven


This is partially why I believe that doubt is not a sin, and is in fact necessary. I also believe that non-believers (and probably everyone else) can go to heaven. This allows me to question and explore my faith, rather than whapping dogmatically on my bible every time someone challenges my ideas. Aren’t I great? Yaaaay, me!

[RJT]

The one “sin of omission” you have here, though, is that, I think, you might have, unintentionally, let it dangle like some participles do or like that one card in Omaha (that I can’t always get away from playing, when I know I shouldn’t continue with it, in our weekly home game of limit Omaha - yeah, limit Omaha – and you think you get exasperated at times here on the forum? – btw, we play dealer’s choice: limit hold ‘em, limit Omaha, limit 3 card Omaha which we call Greek). That is, I think so long as it is understood that no definite (final or conclusive) statements are being made relative to these probabilities, then “there is nothing wrong…” But that is not your main point, I know. I just thought I would preface my post and at the same time take the opportunity to vent about limit Omaha.


NLSoldier anecdote shows that many modern day Catholics do not understand Hell as fire and/or ice. I, personally, view it somewhat akin to the absence of God – probably like being an atheist for eternity, I say jokingly – while Heaven would be an eternal “time” with God.

Side note: The other day, I went back and perused some old post here. I stumbled upon your post of a hypothetical religion eventually labeled Sklanskyanity. (Wonder where that name came from? If you really want to brand it, I suggest that a more catchy name needs penned. Not with indifference to the surname from which it came, but because it is too dang hard to spell. Although, I do like how it sounds when spoken – reminds me of the word insanity – and an allusion to both the “mad professor” and some people’s view of religion)

Well, the fact is that Sklanskyanity is not unlike how many (myself included) view Christianity. Aside from the obvious omission of not footnoting Jesus as some of the sources of these ideas (lol) you aren’t too far off. Change your opposition to God being omnipotent and we could sneak in the Holy Spirit as part of Skalanskyanity. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned as the Messiah is a technicality.

I hope you are sitting down: You are Christian, David.

End of side note.

But anyway, your basic point is valid. The best why I have found to avoid (ignore?) this angst is to look at the whole process (and life) as a journey. I chose to journey towards (with) God as opposed to nowhere or somewhere else.

[BeerMoney]

I agree with this post 100%, and this is how I've always felt.

Above average IQ's think alike.

[andyfox]

I think many semi-believers/semi-non-believers indeed just don't take the subject too seriously. I'm probably in that camp. I'm too busy worrying about my dentist appointment, the guy who check-raised me on the turn, and whether I should take the freeway or the side streets to avoid traffic. If I end up in heaven or in hell or in New Jersey after I die, well, . . . .

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all there is nothing wrong with mentally assigning a probability that something has already happened. You can technically define what it means to say "I think there is a 97% chance OJ killed Nicole". Or if you want to be less precise, you can say something like "I think there is probably life on other planets." Exactly how these statements should be interpreted is a technical mathematical question. But everybody instinctively knows what I mean.

It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category. By which I mean that whether they admit it or nor most people are not 100% certain one way or the other. Just like any other question. Almost all people deep down think that God is either highly unlikely, somewhat unlikely, possible but not probable, likely, or highly likely. Many will not mind admitting which camp they are in.

But things change when we are talking about not just the existence of God, but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity, unless you fully believe or at least rate the existence of such a God highly likely.

In the above situation, the people who rate the chances that such a God exists anywhere from somewhat unlikely to somewhat likely, deserve a lot of empathy. Think about their situation. Non believers aren't worried and believers have their ducks in a row. But what about the others? Surely there are many of them, just like as there are many who aren't sure about lots of other issues. But in the other cases there is no torment associated with their uncertainty. Here someone who thinks the punishing God is somewhat likely has to believe he is somewhat likely to go to hell. Imagine being one of them.

Of course many of them, once they believe somewhat, will claim a full belief, Pascal Wager style, that they don't actually have. At the same time though, they fear that God, if there is one, will not be fooled. Pretty tough place to be psychologically. I wonder how many people are in that boat. Including posters on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the problem with the God who rewards or punishes based on true belief:

Can you force yourself to truly believe in anything? If you can't, then those who are given the ability to truly believe will be rewarded, and those who cannot will be punished. The point of this exercise escapes as God already knows who is a "true believer" and who isn't (at least, any conception of God who is all powerful/all knowing).

So, why would an all knowing God punish/reward people after they die for things that that God already knew would happen? Answer: the binary idea of a punishment or a reward coming when you die is as childish as a belief in Santa Claus. Our understanding of existence and God is limited, to say the least. To say that we know God's standards of judgement of human souls and we live our lives according to them is laughable. Anyone who claims to know God's decisions and motivations is a charlatan.

The God I believe in is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. When tragedies happen and they upset me, it serves to remind me of how flawed my conception of existence is.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If I end up ... in hell or in New Jersey after I die, well, . . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

You won’t be able to tell know which one you are in anyway.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a 97% chance OJ killed Nicole".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there is probably life on other planets

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. The difference is that the concept of God is not well defined, while the concept of OJ killing Nicole is. While one might quibble a little about exactly what life is, the second question if clear enough. However God is in a completely different category

When you talk about the probability of God existing, are you refereeing to

1) The God of a particular person at a particular time, yours in three years, the popes yesterday, another posters when he is replying to this post.
2) The documented concept of God as portrayed in a particular religion.
3) The probability of God existing derived by taking the integral of the probability of God existing over a range of concepts of God.

This could be over all current religions.
All official religions present past and future.
All religions that could be possible, including ones that for one reason or another never happened.
All concepts of God currently held by humans that believe in God.
All concepts of God held by living humans that believe in God, during their life.
All the concepts of God held by all humans living dead and yet to live that have do or will believe in God at some point.
All the concepts of God that a human could have, including ones that for one reason or another never happened.

Note that when you are considering all Gods, this could range from the kind old man that watches over you night and day, whatever created the universe with no further assumptions made, to a lump of rock.

“What is the probability that God exists” THIS QESTION IS MEANINGLESS.

When two people discus this question they will almost always have different understandings of what the question means.

Still there are plenty of people who think the question makes sense and will give answers to it. You argue that people who give answers between the extremes of 0% and 100% are more disturbed on account of their belief in their answer to the question than those that are sure of their answer.

This makes sense. If you are unsure of something you consider important, then it is natural to experience emotions that will encourage you to rectify your feeling of uncertainty.

[chezlaw]

Its not just that different people have different views about god but that no-one has any real idea what they mean by god (or by eternal, divine, heaven, hell etc).

When someone claims to believe in god its not obvious that they mean anything at all. Belief in a religon is different but doesn't require any real beliefs about god, rather religon encourages you not to even think about it and just accept some interpretation of the words in a book.

And those who aren't sure don't need empathy because its empirically clear that most are not troubled in any way.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
But things change when we are talking about not just the existence of God, but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity, unless you fully believe or at least rate the existence of such a God highly likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Instead of asking, “Does God exist …, Would God do this ...” why not ask

“What is the likelihood that our consciousness continuing after we are dead? If it does continue, to what extent does our actions while we are alive affect its predicament in this afterlife.

This gets to the core points independently of the confusing God concept.

In general its much less confusing to ask questions in such a way that the God word is missing.

[John Cole]

Just for the record, I know--not believe--that God doesn't exist in the same way--and for the same reasons (almost)--that I know neither Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

[hurlyburly]

Your post made me think of Bill the Butcher threatening Tweed after he kills Monk, so I looked for a direct quote, only to find it's from Revelations 3:15-16:

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will vomit you out of my mouth."

Couldn't put it in context, went into a dangerous laughing fit when I read 3:11:

"I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast..."

I didn't know I was quoting the bible...

[David Sklansky]

"Well, the fact is that Sklanskyanity is not unlike how many (myself included) view Christianity. Aside from the obvious omission of not footnoting Jesus as some of the sources of these ideas (lol) you aren’t too far off. Change your opposition to God being omnipotent and we could sneak in the Holy Spirit as part of Skalanskyanity. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned as the Messiah is a technicality."

Sklanskians are allowed to believe in Jesus and The Holy Spirit. The part about God not being omnipotent refers only to the ability to see the future since everything else is silly, logically speaking if he can. (Because that would entail seeing his OWN future and you run into building boulders he cant lift paradoxes unless God himself doesn't have free will.)

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, the fact is that Sklanskyanity is not unlike how many (myself included) view Christianity. Aside from the obvious omission of not footnoting Jesus as some of the sources of these ideas (lol) you aren’t too far off. Change your opposition to God being omnipotent and we could sneak in the Holy Spirit as part of Skalanskyanity. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned as the Messiah is a technicality."

Sklanskians are allowed to believe in Jesus and The Holy Spirit. The part about God not being omnipotent refers only to the ability to see the future since everything else is silly, logically speaking if he can. (Because that would entail seeing his OWN future and you run into building boulders he cant lift paradoxes unless God himself doesn't have free will.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand can someone catch me up?

[David Sklansky]

Do you realize how silly you and chezlaw sound? Are you snowden's cousins? Everybody else knows what I am talking about. Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence. Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how silly you and chezlaw sound? Are you snowden's cousins? Everybody else knows what I am talking about. Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence. Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you read what I said (or at least meant to say). The point about god being a metaphysical concept is that some silly people with very high sat scoring potential think it is meaningless and hence you cannot assign probabilities to it.

The other point is that people who say they have some degree of belief in god have no real conception of what god means and hence are wrong about their certainty of belief.

Nothing about needing to define god. This was not the pedantry issue that you used to guess sat scores in a previous thread.

chez

[scalf]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif it's a jelly do-nut:

actually it does not really matter if you are aware of yourself as soul; and your relationship to g*d;

just as it does not really matter if you know or understand the laws (or principles) of physics..

however.... lol

the laws of spirit and laws of physics are still there; and will affect you; you just will be ignorant as to why certain phenomena occur:

if you know f = ma then you will be better able to invent a machine that will go faster;

if you know as soul; you have caused every action in your life;....

but being ignorant of key principles alone do not damn you; it just makes life harder..

jmho

gl

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being English I don't understand SAT scores so I don't know how big an insult that is, it may well be a compliment /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Can you translate maths SAT scores into (UK) maths degree equivilents.

chez

[ QUOTE ]
...a hypothetical religion eventually labeled Sklanskyanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

In another forum, Sklansky has written that he is "surprisingly strong" and that he could easily handle a basketball court full of 30 determined 5 year old marauders trained to attack him en masse.

All we need to do is to garble this to "inhumanly strong," forget to transmit the part about the kids being 5, and lose sight of the fact that this was originally a hypothetical question, and it sounds like we have the making of a great religion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[RJT]

SATs (scholastic aptitude test) are standardized test used for college admissions. One gets scored on verbal and math parts. 800 on both or 1600 is a perfect score. So, anything over 700 on the math part (either, too) is pretty good when considered in and of itself. How it translates into other areas was obviously the point - so take it with a cup of coffee, or tea in your case. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You can convert the numbers to Sterling from here.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
SATs (scholastic aptitude test) are standardized test used for college admissions. One gets scored on verbal and math parts. 800 on both or 1600 is a perfect score. So, anything over 700 on the math part (either, too) is pretty good when considered in and of itself. How it translates into other areas was obviously the point - so take it with a cup of coffee, or tea in your case. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You can convert the numbers to Sterling from here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, so 700+ isn't bad - thanks David

I suppose once he reads my last post he will realise I hadn't made the mistake he thought I made and will downgrade my score - oh well it was nice whilst it lasted.

chez

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how silly you and chezlaw sound?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess anyone who discusses a topic like religion should expect to sound silly to someone who disagrees with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody else knows what I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]
They know what they would mean if they used your words, maybe.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence.


[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt it, however everyone who does define God, is likely to end up with different things. Which is why the word is not well formed.

I have no problem with people being certain that God exists.

What is dodgy is assigning probabilities to God existing. Where God is being used as some sort of unassigned variable. Once you start claiming your using probability theory you have to follow the rules.

[ QUOTE ]
DS Original post. Exactly how these statements should be interpreted is a technical mathematical question. But everybody instinctively knows what I mean.

It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category.


[/ QUOTE ]

The point is the technical mathematical question of how to interpret the God question is non trivial. Instinctive understanding will probably be wrong unlike the OJ & Nicole question.

You could define set of possible interpretation of God, and a function that gives the probability that a given interpretation of God as being true. The sum of all probabilities must equal exactly one. So how many interpretations of God do you have? What is the chance that any specified one of them is correct? Are you sure the set of interpretations is complete?

Is that what you are talking about? Looks like a huge can of worms to me.

Personally I think anyone who believes in God, would be well advised to claim probability theory can not be applied to the existence of God. You know God exists that’s all that’s important.

[ QUOTE ]
Two more guys who got seven hundred something on their math SAT.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being English I don’t have much idea what a SAT is. Perhaps you should reword your insult, or compliment or whatever so I can appreciate it properly.


Edit: Thanks RJT. so 700+ is good then. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[RJT]

Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but he meant it this way: even though you might have gotten, for example, over 700 on SAT it doesn’t mean diddly. My words not his.

I can’t help you about your updated post as I only read my own posts. - Just kidding, of course.

But, your post reminds me of the old joke:

I never make mistakes.
Oh, actually I have made one in my life - The time I thought I was wrong (but actually I wasn’t wrong).

I ruined the joke with my delivery. See the thread regarding comedians and high IQ for reference what that might mean - lol.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Just for the record, I know--not believe--that God doesn't exist in the same way--and for the same reasons (almost)--that I know neither Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You know? Prove it.

Sklansky, you said "It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category."
It's not silly, and it should be in a different category than "The chance OJ killed Nicole".
You can give a probability( although I don't know how you could accurately do this) of O.J. killing Nicole, because those two people exist, first of all, and there's evidence, testimony,etc.

The probability of the invisible man is something you can't analyze. There's no proof that such a being exists.
Giving a probability for something that there's not a shred of evidence for is like giving odds on the existence of a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.


Anyways, I don't know why I respond to these, no one ever gets it anyway. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif Sad.
Shooby

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Don’t mean to burst your bubble, but he meant it this way: even though you might have gotten, for example, over 700 on SAT it doesn’t mean diddly. My words not his.

I can’t help you about your updated post as I only read my own posts. - Just kidding, of course.

But, your post reminds me of the old joke:

I never make mistakes.
Oh, actually I have made one in my life - The time I thought I was wrong (but actually I wasn’t wrong).

I ruined the joke with my delivery. See the thread regarding comedians and high IQ for reference what that might mean - lol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that's what he meant, your words are almost treason and violate the first principle of Sklanskyanity. Next you will be saying that DS believes IQ test results don't mean diddly.

Anyway too late. My Sklanskyanity rating of '700 something' is on my cv to stay.

chez

[baggins]

mr. Sklansky, I hear what you're saying. and if this version of God were the only God we were debating about, I would think this an issue worth more consideration.

However, I don't think this God you are talking about exists. the God I believe in loves you (yes, you, David), and wants to have a personal relationship with you. He wants very much to give you a life more abundant than you could imagine - not just in 'eternity' but here and now.

and He doesn't punish people in some fiery pit to be tortured by some little red devil with a pitchfork and horns. He simply wants you to spend your life, and ever after, with Him. he gives you that option. if you choose not to take it, or not to put your Faith in Him, then you have chosen an eternity of separation from Him. you can call this 'Hell' if you want. but it's not a punishment for anything. it's your choice. the bible says 'the wage of sin is death.' not eternal punishment. we are all sinners, eventually going to die the physical death which is appointed to all humans...

anyway, from your stance, it must seem like this doubters' dilemma is a very horrible thing. (doubt, by the way, doesn't mean that you don't believe) and i'm sure it is a real problem for a lot of people. but, there is more to it. and simply acknowledging that God may exist is just barely a starting point. if you want some more certainty one way or another, at least pursue it and do some research.

[David Sklansky]

This thread seems to be bringing a different kind of Christian out of the woodwork. They don't believe in an eternal hell and seem to think that just being good is enough to give you a nice shot at heaven.

You could almost say these folks are Jewish except that they believe Jesus showed up to get everybody back in line, but not much more than that.

You claim that semi-believers are in a worse state than either non-believers or whole-hearted believers.

Yet isn't the capacity to entertain the two (or more) sides of a concept the mark of an intelligent man? And wouldn't the entertainment of such a concept in different perspectives be preferable to a rigid and unchanging viewpoint?

[ QUOTE ]

Yet isn't the capacity to entertain the two (or more) sides of a concept the mark of an intelligent man? And wouldn't the entertainment of such a concept in different perspectives be preferable to a rigid and unchanging viewpoint?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to a God who demands 100% belief.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take the fires of Hell rather than supplicate myself to a god that would punish me for not believing in him after giving me the free will to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope everybody who actually read this line realizes how incredibly stupid it is.

[ QUOTE ]
True atheists are the safest of all, since mentally we are capable if accepting the existence of whoever shows up.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely contraty to what you just said, and is just as ridiculous.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope everybody who actually read this line realizes how incredibly stupid it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah the new Sklanskianity, refutation by sillyness.

If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

chez

[John Cole]

Why should I?

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel the need to exaggerate their point to the extent of utter irrationality, instead of just saying what they mean in the first place? Is it because they don't think their position is valid stated truthfully? If the OP had said "I despise the thought that God would give us free will, then punish us for using it to not choose him," I could accept that statement. I might still attempt to refute it, but I would at least accept the rationality of it. But the statement he made was ridiculous.

If the OP did, in fact, mean what you contend he did, then he (and everybody else who employs that tactic) needs to start saying what they mean.

So now I want to know. To the OP: did you mean precisely what you said?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel the need to exaggerate their point to the extent of utter irrationality, instead of just saying what they mean in the first place? Is it because they don't think their position is valid stated truthfully? If the OP had said "I despise the thought that God would give us free will, then punish us for using it to not choose him," I could accept that statement. I might still attempt to refute it, but I would at least accept the rationality of it. But the statement he made was ridiculous.

If the OP did, in fact, mean what you contend he did, then he (and everybody else who employs that tactic) needs to start saying what they mean.

So now I want to know. To the OP: did you mean precisely what you said?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you just change [ QUOTE ]
I'll take the fires of Hell

[/ QUOTE ] to [ QUOTE ]
I'll take the risk of the fires of Hell

[/ QUOTE ] then I agree with it and it also what I took his statement to mean - maybe it wasn't clear or maybe it wasn't what he meant, unambiguous language is tough.


chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you think about what his saying instead of taking it so literally you might see it's not so silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do people feel the need to exaggerate their point to the extent of utter irrationality, instead of just saying what they mean in the first place? Is it because they don't think their position is valid stated truthfully? If the OP had said "I despise the thought that God would give us free will, then punish us for using it to not choose him," I could accept that statement. I might still attempt to refute it, but I would at least accept the rationality of it. But the statement he made was ridiculous.

If the OP did, in fact, mean what you contend he did, then he (and everybody else who employs that tactic) needs to start saying what they mean.

So now I want to know. To the OP: did you mean precisely what you said?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you just change [ QUOTE ]
I'll take the fires of Hell

[/ QUOTE ] to [ QUOTE ]
I'll take the risk of the fires of Hell

[/ QUOTE ] then I agree with it and it also what I took his statement to mean - maybe it wasn't clear or maybe it wasn't what he meant, unambiguous language is tough.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez, you were probably right about the +700 thing. It probably was meant in the context of “another 700+ over analyzing something, instead of discussing the main point” ( I hadn’t really read all the context.) But, here you might have gotten it right.

I, too, am not sure how the OP meant his statement - literally or rhetorically. But, I do like your, interpreting it rhetorically, view. (Not saying I agree with it or your new version of it.)

[andyfox]

A civilization's version of god or the origins of the universe nearly always reflects the people's life/historical experiences and the natural environment. It thus seems much more likely that those people invented their idea of god than that that actual God created those people.

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should I?

[/ QUOTE ][Prove God doesn't exist.]

So others may benefit and learn from your wisdom.

In fact, I'll go you one better. Prove it to me and I'll become an atheist.

[hurlyburly]

Why is what I said stupid? Because you believe in Hell? I haven't murderered anyone, practiced unethical behavior, or done anything that should deserve eternal pain and suffering. So if using my free will to decide that there's nothing out there is enough to keep me from a happy afterlife, I'm OK with that.

Not sure how my statement of atheism is contrary, please explain. I don't believe in a creator/god figure at all on any level, so if miracles start occurring, something that convinces me I'm wrong, then I'll have no choice in the matter, will I? You need to be right. Otherwise you're a victim of a massive hoax.

[hurlyburly]

It has to be rhetorical, I don't in hell.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should I?

[/ QUOTE ][Prove God doesn't exist.]

So others may benefit and learn from your wisdom.

In fact, I'll go you one better. Prove it to me and I'll become an atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can bag two of us for sure with such proof Cole, and probably even the rest of the religious posters here as well. By all means start a new thread and show your proof. I'll even kick you back for my lifetime 30% of what I now tithe and would save if I become an atheist by virtue of your proof.

[John Cole]

If I can assert, along with Descartes, I think; I am, then I can equally assert I think; I know God does not exist. (Of course, you can do likewise, and I do not deny this.)

Pay up.

[BluffTHIS!]

That won't cut it. You have to prove it to others, not just say it is proved to yourself because of your own individual thought process.

[John Cole]

So, I guess I'm not in for a financial windfall? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
But things change when we are talking about not just the existence of God, but rather the existence of a God who will reward, or even perhaps punish you for eternity, unless you fully believe or at least rate the existence of such a God highly likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature- is sin! And notice that all this means that the foundation of belief and all reflection on its origin is likewise excluded as sinful. What is wanted are blindness and intoxication and an eternal song over the waves in which reason has drowned."

from Nietzsche's Daybreak

[The Dude]

Nietzsche was wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Nietzsche was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah? Read these series of threads and tell me there aren't a bunch of Christians swimming on the waves in which reason has drowned.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
...tell me there aren't a bunch of Christians...

[/ QUOTE ]
The vast majority of Christians get a lot of theological things wrong. Just because the majority of Christians think/behave a certain way doesn't make that the correct Christian perspective.

[KeysrSoze]

Yes it does. A belief system is defined by the majority of its believers.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody else knows what I am talking about. Everybody else understands that it is neccesary to Define "God" before they place a degree of certainty on his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The wording of your first post in this thread seems to indicate you don't understand this. I don't assign a probability that "god" exists because I consider the concept meaningless.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes it does. A belief system is defined by the majority of its believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition of Belief System: (from dictionary.com)

[ QUOTE ]

belief system
noun
Definition: faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christianity is a religion.