[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
if everything is meaningless and w/o purpose, then why expend such great effort seeking 'truth' that doesnt actually exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing about atheism which implies "everything is meaningless and without purpose." And besides, do most believers really find meaning in life only to serve the inexplicable wishes of some "god" (whatever that is)? I doubt it.

Well it depends how you define 'meaninglessness'. atheistic evolution actually expressly asserts that 'everything is w/o purpose. i'd say true meaning is such that ultimately has genuine and absolute moral implications, both in the present and afterlife, in a world where human life is 'really' valuable in created in the image of an allperfect Intelligent Designer. As for believers who serve God, His wishes are not inexplicable. And yes, true meaning and good can be found only in Him, as St. Augustine eloquently explained a millenium and a half ago.

[ QUOTE ]
question 4) what are some of the flaws that you agnostic's see with pascal's wager. wasnt he one of the great scientists of the past millenium?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here are just a few of the flaws:

1. Wagering on one religion may damn you to hell according to a number of others. Where do you place your bet?

This is clearly not a flaw. You wager on the most likely religion. If there is even a 1% chance Christianity is true (and this is higher than all other reasonable alternatives), it would be incredibly foolish not to believe, thereby risking eternity in hell.

2. An omniscient "god" may know you are simply hedging your bets, and punish you anyway.

Not a flaw. As for God's judgment on such matters, I cannot speak for Him. All we can do is make the best of the knowledge He reveals to us. God is merciful.

3. "God" may reward in afterlife only those who rigorously use their god-given reason by rejecting religion; i.e. the "best" wager is to be an atheist.

No flaw. This is simply foolish. God will reward those who deny Him, incorrectly refusing to believe? Childish...

4. Any "god" who tortures unbelievers probably can't be trusted to honor his end of the wager.

Also not a flaw. Who are you to speak for God? If God is truly real and cannot tolerate imperfection, it is not 'immoral' of Him to exclude these sinful, wicked abominous (my word) people from His presene. 'Will the thing formed say to the potter, 'why have you made me like this'' i find the combination of arrogance and igorance on the part of atheistic posters on this forum to be astounding. where are the Socrates's who 'know b/c they do not know'??

5. Since the concept of "god" is incoherent, no meaningful wager can be posed.

Not a flaw. The concept of 'God' is not incoherent. Because we cannot understand Him perfectly, doesn't make the concept of Him absurd. You need to stop reading such psychobabble. As shown above, you know little about Pascal's wager; yet this doesnt make his ideas 'incoherent'.

That Pascal was great scientist is irrelevant; that logical fallacy is known as the argument from authority.

Ill grant this to some extent. However, he was clearly overall a far greater intellect than most all who post on this forum. In my view, that is worth something. It especially tells me not to give credence to pitiful attempts (not just yours, blues) by posters here who honestly believe they can dismantle his argument with a thoughtless post such as this one.

[ QUOTE ]
question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since ID isn't science, many theists also vehemently oppose it being taught in a science class. The reasons for atheists and theists are probably the same, namely that some people care about the quality of education.

How is the theory of evolution any more science than ID? They are both competing philosophical systems in the end. Where is this great scientific evidence for evolution. ive read some of the 'talkorigins' site, and find it quite lacking. tell me what to read, please! in the end, though, atheists have no legitimately defensible reason for valuing education. it would be just as rational for them to value a lack of education and promote 'religious fairy tales' (in their view) over and against evolutionary truth.

[ QUOTE ]
many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I care about the issue, and I don't have any children, nor ever plan to.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly. you have no legitimate reason to care. you could rationally care just as greatly about causing people to disbelieve in evolution (even if you know it to be true)