I am looking to find an atheist!

[growingjudy]

An atheist is someone that reveiwed all the proofs that there is a God and disproved them. Otherwise you might be an agnostic. Come on atheists I want to hear how you figure you are sure you are one.

[INFERNO]

There's also mono- and polyatheism and agnosticism. So to be an atheist, one does not need to review every single belief there is. Also, what if some guy in his basement makes some belief and gets 15 followers. Technically then, I wouldn't have reviewed his belief because I wouldn't know it even exists, so then I may not be an atheist?

You won't necessarily be an agnostic because the philosophy for atheism and agnosticism is different.

[Oblivion]

An atheist is one who does not believe in any god because they believe there is no proof of one. They don't necessarily have to prove every religion wrong, just basically believe in evolution, the big bang, etc.

Agnosticism is just the thought that there might not be a god. It's possible to be a Christian agnostic, or an atheist agnostic or any other religious agnostic.

I am agnostic atheist for instance, because i thoroughly believe that there is only a very minute chance that any god exists. I firmly believe in the science theories regarding how we got here, but I realize there is a possibility we are wrong, thus making me agnostic whilst an atheist.

[Sage]

Isn't this really nothing more than semantics?

[growingjudy]

How can they beleve there is no proof of God if they didn't go through the proofs. Just beleiving in a big bang without looking into anything is not an atheist

[INFERNO]

How can they beleve there is no proof of God if they didn't go through the proofs. Just beleiving in a big bang without looking into anything is not an atheist

For monoatheism, the atheist usually would have reviewed the belief and concluded that they disbelieve. However, for polyatheism, you generally find that there are specific reasons for disbelieving the beliefs that were examined and some global reasons for all theistic beliefs.

[growingjudy]

To tell you the truth I don't know what you are talking about. I'm a little kid, and you are a wise proffesor. I am just looking for truth and life and interesting things about how things work. I am fasinated how I grow and how everything else grows. I see a God.

[INFERNO]

To tell you the truth I don't know what you are talking about. I'm a little kid, and you are a wise proffesor. I am just looking for truth and life and interesting things about how things work. I am fasinated how I grow and how everything else grows. I see a God.

Monoatheism is the disbelief of a specific theistic belief, god or goddess. So, this could be disbelieving in Christianity. Polyatheism is the disbelief in all theistic beliefs, gods and goddesses. When you flip through a dictionary, usually the definition that is given is for polyatheism, not monoatheism.

For polyatheism, it is not required for the polyatheist to examine every single belief in order to disbelieve it. They may have reviewed a few, and for the remaining ones, they give more general reasons for why they disbelieve in those.

It's great that you're interested in how things work, however, believing in a God will not get you those explanations. Science explains how things work. You can believe in god and still use science, that is perfectly fine. However, you'll run into a problem when you use your god to try to examine science and vice-versa.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

It isn't up to atheists to "prove" god doesn't exist. Until you can put forth any valid evidence or arguments to support the belief, we don't have it. Simple as that. Atheism says nothing about the big bang, evolution, etc. Atheism is just a stance on the "god question"

Believe in god? No. *BAM* that's an atheist.

[Death]

I agree. I think that you always need to prove the existance of something before the need to disprove it. Consequentely, since there's no real evidence for the exitsace of God, we should assume that there's no such thing.

[antimonic]

In all honesty, there is not certain answer as to whether he exists or not. There is always a counter argument to whether he exists or not, for example:

Where did those first/ that original substance, that produced the big bang eventually, come from? some would say God provided it.

New research indicated that antimatter formed the original activation energy, so that anwered question one. but where did the antimatter come from? energy can not be produced from nothing, so what was it? again, some would argue god, though so far this evidence is non-falsifiable.

It all routes down to personal belief, if you believe in a God, then believe in a God, if not, then dont.

On a lighter note, there are attempts to disprove certain theories (being scientific here, no theory is proved, you merely provide refuting evidence for all other theories [Karl Popper, 1959]) relating to god, and some attempt to use mathematics to explain certain phenomena - such as the film PI.

I think pythagoras also said that if you believe in God, live your life believing and being a good person, when you die there are two options, he exists or he doesnt. If he does and you believed and where a good person, eternal bliss awaits. if he doesnt, then you share the same fate as everyone else.

Or you can live your life believing he doesnt exist and go and live a "devilish" life. Then when you die, same two possibilities, if he exists, you burn for all eternity, if he doesnt, than you dont.

So he concluded, surely its better to believe and play it safe? hehehe

http://www.artmusicdance.com/vaspi/proof.htm this is an interesting read, There is also the argument that for God to be Scientifically refuted, there woud have to be something manipulatable (such as the basis of the scientific method, to manipulate a quantifiable variable). Since no essence of God ca be quantifiable, can the notion be scientifically disproved? it is a problem of non-falsifiability (Like some freudian psychodynamic theories of psychology, cant be proved or disproved)

Geuss its therefore down to pure choice and opinion what you believe.

[Death]

So you're agnostic then?

[antimonic]

No, im saying "there is the argument." its impersonal, im contributing to the thread impersonally.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

1. Where did those first/ that original substance, that produced the big bang eventually, come from? some would say God provided it.

2. Or you can live your life believing he doesnt exist and go and live a "devilish" life. Then when you die, same two possibilities, if he exists, you burn for all eternity, if he doesnt, than you dont.

3. So he concluded, surely its better to believe and play it safe? hehehe

4. Guess its therefore down to pure choice and opinion what you believe.

1. Some could say, then what "provided" God? Infinite regression, then you posit magic. Not gonna cut it.

2. That's Pascal's Wager, made hundreds of years ago, and refuted since the time it was created.

3. No, its better to take the most rational stance on the issue based on evidence.

4. No, its not down to pure "choice". I can't "choose" to believe in fairies and pixies, since no matter how much I may FORCE myself to "choose" I still can't truly believe in something I know can't exist since it blatantly contradicts all known evidence on the issue. You should CONSTANTLY evaluate what you believe, and why. I make an effort to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things. God and religions happens to fall under false.

[antimonic]

1. Some could say, then what "provided" God? Infinite regression, then you posit magic. Not gonna cut it.

Thats the point im trying to make, that there are always going to be questions, and always going to be possibilites as to the answers. try READING my posts and not picking out certain things and being all high and mighty. I'm speaking hypothetically, not certainly.

2. That's Pascal's Wager, made hundreds of years ago, and refuted since the time it was created.

so what if it was refuted? i didnt say it was the COMPLETE ABSOLUTE TRUTH IT MUST BE TRUE WE SHOULD ALL DO THIS, all i said was "this was said on the matter" because its related to the thread and serves some amusing relevance.

4. No, its not down to pure "choice". I can't "choose" to believe in fairies and pixies, since no matter how much I may FORCE myself to "choose" I still can't truly believe in something I know can't exist since it blatantly contradicts all known evidence on the issue. You should CONSTANTLY evaluate what you believe, and why. I make an effort to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things. God and religions happens to fall under false.

You believe God and Religion to be false, but thats not exactly the global acceptance is it? if it was so easy to put religion and God down as bollocks than why do religion and the concept of God still exist? its more complicated than "no evidence therefore doesnt exist therefore all that stemmed from it is error carried forward" as you seem to claim

You dont Have to believe anything, there is no knife at your neck telling you to believe. People can choose what they believe or disbelieve for whatever reason, an individual can still believe something even if evidence is brought forward refuting it all, its their personal choice and opinion.

Some people believe because they choose to believe, they LIKE the idea that they are being watched over and that there is something to look forward to when they die. they LIKE believing in an almighty spiritual entity no matter what the religion. They LIKE believing in a God regardless of evidence put forward to refute or support. Just like you seem to LIKE not believing in God.

And by all means, if you want to believe in pixies and fairies because that makes you happy then go for it, if you dont want to because you think its ludacris and there is no evidence etc then thats your opinion and belief.

[Sage]

Or you can live your life believing he doesnt exist and go and live a "devilish" life. Then when you die, same two possibilities, if he exists, you burn for all eternity, if he doesnt, than you dont.

That doesn't take into account any religion aside from Christianity. What may be a sin in one religion may be just fine in another.

[antimonic]

That doesn't take into account any religion aside from Christianity. What may be a sin in one religion may be just fine in another.

So take it up with pascal? im just passing on what he said, not condoning it.

[Sage]

So take it up with pascal? im just passing on what he said, not condoning it.

I may as well add then that it's a waste of your own time to post an opinion on the debates forum, written entirely by someone else, whom you neither condone nor condemn.

[Sapphire]

That doesn't take into account any religion aside from Christianity. What may be a sin in one religion may be just fine in another.
Actually it seems to work well for a number of religions simultaneously.
For example: Christianity, Judaism and Islam all state that murder is wrong and they all view adultery and pre-marital sex as sinful.

EDIT
What's wrong with contributing while being impartial in a debate?

[antimonic]

I may as well add then that it's a waste of your own time to post an opinion on the debates forum, written entirely by someone else, whom you neither condone nor condemn.

Its not an opinion, its a suggestion :D It was relevant to the topic and is something i thought may interest the op, aswell as others. If thats a waste of time then ah well, a mod can delete that post (and all that follows for that matter).

I was unaware that the stating a view meant you had to either condone or oppose it and that there is no middle ground. Why dont you relax and stop being so black and white :P if your taking this to heart you should really take a chill pill and do something relaxing, like go swimming! :yeah:

[Sage]

Actually it seems to work well for a number of religions simultaneously.
For example: Christianity, Judaism and Islam all state that murder is wrong and they all view adultery and pre-marital sex as sinful.


Bahá'í, Buddhism, Jainism, Herrocy, Gnosticism, Eygiptionism, Satanism (LaVeyan and Theistic), (Neo)Paganism, Voodoo, Shinto, Taoism, Rastafarianism, Confusianism, Jedi...

And all their denominations. The point I was making against Pascal's Wager was that it is a false dichotomy, since it only addresses Christianity and Atheism. You do have a point however, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all make a few common statements, but even if such is the case, Pascal's Wager is still not addressing the thousands of other faiths out there.


What's wrong with contributing while being impartial in a debate?

It's a cop-out. By being impartial to a statement you make, no one can argue against you.

[antimonic]

It's a cop-out. By being impartial to a statement you make, no one can argue against you.

Since we're speaking of good debating, why dont you stop being a hissy pissy little girl by knit picking and instead make post addressing entirety of points, not just small sentances that when alone, have a meaning seperate to the general gist.

The point i was trying to make (which i shall put in laymans terms so that you my understand) is that there will always be questions on both sides of the argument (for and against the notion of Gods exitence). Any argument has a counter argument (e.g. "why does God not smite me down for blaspheming?" - "God will not judge you in this life, only in the next based on your actions in this") or for the other side ("God placed Adam and Eve on this earth" "Darwins theory refutes this concept").

Im not "copping out" because im not avoiding responsibility for anything by stating pascals wager? all i said was "this was said by this person" i was not trying to start a debate, or arguing a side in a debate, i was presenting information, that was not my own, on the subject at hand.

Understand yet?

And if its a waste of my own time posting something then surely your wasting your time replying? who is the mroe foolish, the fool or the fool who follows? :yummy:

[lamboman43]

Since we're speaking of good debating, why dont you stop being a hissy pissy little girl by knit picking and instead make post addressing entirety of points, not just small sentances that when alone, have a meaning seperate to the general gist.

The point i was trying to make (which i shall put in laymans terms so that you my understand) is that there will always be questions on both sides of the argument (for and against the notion of Gods exitence). Any argument has a counter argument (e.g. "why does God not smite me down for blaspheming?" - "God will not judge you in this life, only in the next based on your actions in this") or for the other side ("God placed Adam and Eve on this earth" "Darwins theory refutes this concept").

Im not "copping out" because im not avoiding responsibility for anything by stating pascals wager? all i said was "this was said by this person" i was not trying to start a debate, or arguing a side in a debate, i was presenting information, that was not my own, on the subject at hand.

Understand yet?

And if its a waste of my own time posting something then surely your wasting your time replying? who is the mroe foolish, the fool or the fool who follows? :yummy:

Do you really need to call him a hissy pissy little girl? You dont need to be rude.

[antimonic]

And he was not rude by saying that i am wasting my time by posting? An eye for an eye

[Sage]

Since we're speaking of good debating, why dont you stop being a hissy pissy little girl by knit picking and instead make post addressing entirety of points, not just small sentances that when alone, have a meaning seperate to the general gist.

You posted Pascal's Wager and I clearly refuted it. I thought we were done with that by now.

The point i was trying to make (which i shall put in laymans terms so that you my understand)

Thanks, man, I was afraid I might be too stupid, hurhurhur. [/sarcasm]

is that there will always be questions on both sides of the argument (for and against the notion of Gods exitence).Any argument has a counter argument (e.g. "why does God not smite me down for blaspheming?" - "God will not judge you in this life, only in the next based on your actions in this") or for the other side ("God placed Adam and Eve on this earth" "Darwins theory refutes this concept").

I was pretty sure it went without saying that every point can have a counter point.

Im not "copping out" because im not avoiding responsibility

Cop out = Avoiding responsibility. And yes, you are. Let's say I post a view I completely disagree with and somebody shoots me down in the argument. Would it not be avoiding responsibility to say "Don't argue with me, that's not my view, I'm just sayin'." ?

i was not trying to start a debate, or arguing a side in a debate,

Welcome to Ramblings of the Wise.

Understand yet?

No, I'm too stupid. [/sarcasm]

who is the mroe foolish, the fool or the fool who follows? :yummy:

Excuse me for a few minutes as I pick my nose and giggle feverishly as I spin in my office chair.

And he was not rude by saying that i am wasting my time by posting? An eye for an eye

Point: Eye for an eye.

Counterpoint: An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.

Getting back on the topic at hand, I stand by my first claim that this whole debate revolves around semantics and so isn't addressing an actual issue.

[antimonic]

Thanks, man, I was afraid I might be too stupid

Well, i have always thought honesty is golden :D

Cop out = Avoiding responsibility. And yes, you are.

avoiding responsibility for what? you say im not taking sides so its useless, then im avoiding responsibility for stating someone elses famous sided gambit? heres an idea, make up your mind as to what im doing! lol

Welcome to Ramblings of the Wise.

Really? this isnt "take the blame for someone elses statements"? wow i'm so shocked! :lol:

No, I'm too stupid. [/sarcasm]

I really do admire your honesty!

Excuse me for a few minutes as I pick my nose and giggle feverishly as I spin in my office chair.

Well, theres honesty, then theres this lol

Counterpoint: An eye for an eye leaves us all blind.

Thanks ghandi!! i geuss we should all bend over and take things as they are given to us with no form of retaliation.............oh im sorry, you didnt actually initially say this did you? it must be a waste of your time posting this, and therefore a waste of my time addressing it.

Getting back on the topic at hand, I stand by my first claim that this whole debate revolves around semantics and so isn't addressing an actual issue.

Then why are you bothering? is this not a "waste of time?"

[Sage]

Alrighty bud. I tried to steer this back on topic but clearly you're not listening. Bother me privately if you have an issue. Otherwise, I've nothing more to add to this debate.

[Sapphire]

Bahá'í, Buddhism, Jainism, Herrocy, Gnosticism, Eygiptionism, Satanism (LaVeyan and Theistic), (Neo)Paganism, Voodoo, Shinto, Taoism, Rastafarianism, Confusianism, Jedi...

And all their denominations. The point I was making against Pascal's Wager was that it is a false dichotomy, since it only addresses Christianity and Atheism. You do have a point however, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all make a few common statements, but even if such is the case, Pascal's Wager is still not addressing the thousands of other faiths out there.

It's a cop-out. By being impartial to a statement you make, no one can argue against you.
I never said that it accounts for all religions and neither did Pascal. But seeing as you are challenging it's application to other religions I have had a look at them. There are none that have been mentioned here that justify and promote the unnecessary injuring or killing of another. They all teach and promote respect and love for all living beings. As such, they all share a basic moral code and as such will frown upon the same types of behaviours.

Obviously the world can't have been created by one Deity after it was created by another so logically there can only be one which actually exists.

This is where Pascal's wager comes into play. It states that there are two possible outcomes with regards to the existence of a Deity - He does v He doesn't.
A Rasta believes in the existence of God. The Rasta lives a good and productive life (i.e. compassionate) and upon dying there are two possible options: God exists v God doesn't exist. If He exists then the Rasta will be rewarded for believing and living morally. If a Deity exists, but not the one that the Rasta had followed they will not be punished because they have lived a morally good life and had faith. If no Deity exists then the Rasta won't be any worse off.
This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist.

As a foot note to my main point I feel compelled to say this:
Contributing to a debate from an impersonal view is the best way to go about it as it ensures that the individual reviews arguments clearly and without their personal biases clouding things for them.

[INFERNO]

And he was not rude by saying that i am wasting my time by posting? An eye for an eye

If he says something rude, then does it seem mature to respond with something also rude? Point out that what was said was rude or just ignore it and move on. You don't battle immaturity with immaturity as the chain of immaturity progresses. You put a stop to it using maturity.

Pascal's Wager can be applied to various other religions aside from christianity because the wager is based on whether or not you believe in a god (or presumably also goddess), which could include all religions. Thus, a large argument against this wager is whether or not you believe in the proper god, that is, if you meet a god, then is it the one you've been worshipping or not. If yes, then lucky you, if not, then see whatever happens.

[antimonic]

Pascal's Wager can be applied to various other religions aside from christianity because the wager is based on whether or not you believe in a god (or presumably also goddess), which could include all religions. Thus, a large argument against this wager is whether or not you believe in the proper god, that is, if you meet a god, then is it the one you've been worshipping or not. If yes, then lucky you, if not, then see whatever happens.

This is what saphire said in the post just above yours:

"A Rasta believes in the existence of God. The Rasta lives a good and productive life (i.e. compassionate) and upon dying there are two possible options: God exists v God doesn't exist. If He exists then the Rasta will be rewarded for believing and living morally. If a Deity exists, but not the one that the Rasta had followed they will not be punished because they have lived a morally good life and had faith. If no Deity exists then the Rasta won't be any worse off.
This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist."

this refutes the argument you stated, and it was in the post right above yours, didnt you see it?

[INFERNO]

This is what saphire said in the post just above yours:

"A Rasta believes in the existence of God. The Rasta lives a good and productive life (i.e. compassionate) and upon dying there are two possible options: God exists v God doesn't exist. If He exists then the Rasta will be rewarded for believing and living morally. If a Deity exists, but not the one that the Rasta had followed they will not be punished because they have lived a morally good life and had faith. If no Deity exists then the Rasta won't be any worse off.
This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist."

this refutes the argument you stated, and it was in the post right above yours, didnt you see it?

Yes, I did in fact see it. However, if you read carefully, you'll realize that my argument is based on a different premise than Sapphire's is. Mine allows Pascal's Wager to encompass numerous religions, whereas Sapphire's does NOT. So, does an argument based on premise A refute another argument based on premise B where premise A and premise B are different? No. Read carefully next time before you start making statements of someone's argument being refuted.

[Death]

Well, i have always thought honesty is golden :D

I really do admire your honesty!


It's called sarcasm. As in what was said wasn't meant. Now lets get back on topic.

[The Batman]

It's called sarcasm. As in what was said wasn't meant. Now lets get back on topic.

No one was off topic but you.

[Death]

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to contradict you there:

And he was not rude by saying that i am wasting my time by posting? An eye for an eye

Also, you may want to read the post where Deschain has been quoting everything that antimonic has said and responding to it; it was all off-topic. this was also true the other way round afterwards so please don't say it was just me.

[The Batman]

They got back on topic and was talking about religion. There was no need for you to post at all or even "try" and contradict what I said. Now you stay on topic.

[Death]

I too, was going to get back on topic afterwards. Respectfully, by going by what you've said, that must mean that no-one was off-topic (assuming that I too start talking relgion which I am). So, for the on-topic, religious debate:

The way I see it, you don't need to disprove anything to be athiest. You can do it of course, but the mere disbelief is athiesm in itself. I'm athiest becuase I find it illogical to think that a book written thousands of years ago must be true just because we are taught it is (no offense meant).

[The Batman]

I didn't ask for a response to it and just because you posted something religious afterwards it doesn't change it. Final warning and not just to you to anyone. Any more off topic posts will be disciplined. So do not respond to this in anyway because I'll consider it off topic even if your saying, "ok ok I'll do it". Now back on topic and keep on it.

[antimonic]

I really dont understand hw you cant see it, You said this:

"a large argument against this wager is whether or not you believe in the proper god, that is, if you meet a god, then is it the one you've been worshipping or not. If yes, then lucky you, if not, then see whatever happens."

Right after Saphire had said this:

"A Rasta believes in the existence of God. The Rasta lives a good and productive life (i.e. compassionate) and upon dying there are two possible options: God exists v God doesn't exist. If He exists then the Rasta will be rewarded for believing and living morally. If a Deity exists, but not the one that the Rasta had followed they will not be punished because they have lived a morally good life and had faith. If no Deity exists then the Rasta won't be any worse off.
This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist.

To address the first point inferno made, which was regarding the possibility if the God existing not being your God, Saphire had explained (in the post right before it) how:

"Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist."

Showing how it is NOT an argument against the wager as if someone who believes in a God (and therefore lives his life morally etc. . .) than when they die and A God exists, even if not compliant with the specific religion they follow, they will still go to heaven as they did however comply with the moral values and lived a good life according to their religion - which saphire showed is generally the same for MULTIPLE religions.

This was further illustrated with an example, the rastafarian. It has nothing to do with luck but following the lifestyle that MULTIPLE religions condone.

But then you said "if you read carefully, you'll realize that my argument is based on a different premise than Sapphire's is. Mine allows Pascal's Wager to encompass numerous religions, whereas Sapphire's does NOT.

But, did saphire not already state that:

"This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist."

Surely that shows how it DOES take into account multiple religions? it doesnt diffrentiate between religions, only in the lifestyle, as in "This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: "living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist"

I dont see two diffrent premises? you must be severely mistaken, However if this doesnt make sense to you please say so again and i'll try explain it again, just more slowly hehehe

[INFERNO]

I really dont understand hw you cant see it, You said this:

"a large argument against this wager is whether or not you believe in the proper god, that is, if you meet a god, then is it the one you've been worshipping or not. If yes, then lucky you, if not, then see whatever happens."

Right after Saphire had said this:

"A Rasta believes in the existence of God. The Rasta lives a good and productive life (i.e. compassionate) and upon dying there are two possible options: God exists v God doesn't exist. If He exists then the Rasta will be rewarded for believing and living morally. If a Deity exists, but not the one that the Rasta had followed they will not be punished because they have lived a morally good life and had faith. If no Deity exists then the Rasta won't be any worse off.
This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist.

To address the first point inferno made, which was regarding the possibility if the God existing not being your God, Saphire had explained (in the post right before it) how:

"Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist."

Showing how it is NOT an argument against the wager as if someone who believes in a God (and therefore lives his life morally etc. . .) than when they die and A God exists, even if not compliant with the specific religion they follow, they will still go to heaven as they did however comply with the moral values and lived a good life according to their religion - which saphire showed is generally the same for MULTIPLE religions.

This was further illustrated with an example, the rastafarian. It has nothing to do with luck but following the lifestyle that MULTIPLE religions condone.

But then you said "if you read carefully, you'll realize that my argument is based on a different premise than Sapphire's is. Mine allows Pascal's Wager to encompass numerous religions, whereas Sapphire's does NOT.

But, did saphire not already state that:

"This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist."

Surely that shows how it DOES take into account multiple religions? it doesnt diffrentiate between religions, only in the lifestyle, as in "This will work with every faith mentioned so far as Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: "living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist"

I dont see two diffrent premises? you must be severely mistaken, However if this doesnt make sense to you please say so again and i'll try explain it again, just more slowly hehehe

No need to patronize me by "i'll explain more slowly". You're smart, yes, but that nonsense is unnecessary. So quit with it. Your post is based on what Sapphire said, just for whatever reason you repeat it over and over again.

Pascal did not differentiate between religions. He differentiated between the way an individual lives: living morally as if He exists against living immorally as if He didn't exist.

Pascal's Wager is based not on how whether you live morally or not, but whether or not you believe in god's existence and consequently, live according to whatever the religion dictates. It's based on belief of the religion. What if you made up your own god and his "rules" involved constantly contradicting yourself? If you adhere to it, you violate it. If you don't adhere, well, you simply don't adhere.

[antimonic]

Im repeating it "over and over again" because it doesnt seem to be sinking into you lol your stating things as arguments that have already been addressed!

"What if you made up your own god and his "rules" involved constantly contradicting yourself? If you adhere to it, you violate it. If you don't adhere, well, you simply don't adhere."

Religion can be argued to be a set of beliefs that attempt to help the individual become a better person and/or make the world a better place, and in doing so, you get your place in heaven. This is generally (as saphire stated earlier) the general message most religions share. Which is why if you believed in Allah, but it turns out that Budhism was correct, the fact aht you lived to better yourself and to better the world (like charity etc) then you will still be accepted into heaven, as budhism also tries to promote these values.

I geuss in that case a religion that has a guideline of constantly contradicting thyself, well, i dont really see how its beneficial to themself or to others around them. So i wouldnt say it could follow the same wager as the other religions.

Also i say "guidelines" because in religion (to quote pirates of the carribean) "they arent really rules, more like guidelines." For example if a non muslim lives well believes in God etc, eats pork and non-halal meat all their lives and when they die its Allah who is the benevolent one, the non-muslim will not be denied admission to heaven purely on the basis that he ate pork and non-halal meat. He'll be admitted because of the good he did in his time on earth.

[Sapphire]

Pascal's Wager is based not on how whether you live morally or not, but whether or not you believe in god's existence and consequently, live according to whatever the religion dictates. It's based on belief of the religion. What if you made up your own god and his "rules" involved constantly contradicting yourself? If you adhere to it, you violate it. If you don't adhere, well, you simply don't adhere.
Pascal's wager doesn't specifiy a single religion. He talks about "God", "religion" and "faith" but doesn't state that these refer to one singular religion. It could very easily be applied in the way I have outlined as many (if not all) religions share the basic guidelines of showing compassion to those around you.

A religion that contradicts itself? Do you mean, for example, one which preaches vengence and then contradicts that with preaching tolerance?

Religion isn't a way of dictating how someone lives. It is a way of guiding people in a way that benefits themselves, the people around them and the world as a whole. Even if a religion tells you to do different contradictory things it doesn't mean that you have to do it. You won't be damned for following some of these teachings but not others.

[INFERNO]

Im repeating it "over and over again" because it doesnt seem to be sinking into you lol your stating things as arguments that have already been addressed!

"What if you made up your own god and his "rules" involved constantly contradicting yourself? If you adhere to it, you violate it. If you don't adhere, well, you simply don't adhere."

Religion can be argued to be a set of beliefs that attempt to help the individual become a better person and/or make the world a better place, and in doing so, you get your place in heaven. This is generally (as saphire stated earlier) the general message most religions share. Which is why if you believed in Allah, but it turns out that Budhism was correct, the fact aht you lived to better yourself and to better the world (like charity etc) then you will still be accepted into heaven, as budhism also tries to promote these values.

I geuss in that case a religion that has a guideline of constantly contradicting thyself, well, i dont really see how its beneficial to themself or to others around them. So i wouldnt say it could follow the same wager as the other religions.

Also i say "guidelines" because in religion (to quote pirates of the carribean) "they arent really rules, more like guidelines." For example if a non muslim lives well believes in God etc, eats pork and non-halal meat all their lives and when they die its Allah who is the benevolent one, the non-muslim will not be denied admission to heaven purely on the basis that he ate pork and non-halal meat. He'll be admitted because of the good he did in his time on earth.

Once again, cut your persistent bullshit with the personal comments. If you want to explain it effectively, then repeating it over and over in essentially the same wording isn't the way to do it. If someone doesn't understand something once, saying it to them the exact same way 10 times likely won't make them understand.

According to your definition of religion that you gave, something like Christianity could be argued as not being a religion. It has its own sets of beliefs, however, does it make the world a better place or make the person better? Condemning people to some land of eternal torment and pain doesn't seem to make the world nor the person any better.

For your example with the non-muslim, if they violate their religion, then that doesn't seem to be living a morally correct life as if your god existed. I understand that the person would have done whatever to help the world out in some way, however, as stated before, Pascal's Wager gives the choice of you living a morally correct life as though your god exists. Violating the beliefs of the religion seems to go against this, unless there is some weighting, in terms of doing activity A generates more "goodness" than activity B, assuming you do both for the same amount of time and/or to the same amount of people. If this is the case with your example, then explain it.

A religion that contradicts itself? Do you mean, for example, one which preaches vengence and then contradicts that with preaching tolerance?

Religion isn't a way of dictating how someone lives. It is a way of guiding people in a way that benefits themselves, the people around them and the world as a whole. Even if a religion tells you to do different contradictory things it doesn't mean that you have to do it. You won't be damned for following some of these teachings but not others.

I guess almost any example would fit for the contradicting religion. I didn't have a specific example of what the religion would encompass, just some religion that constantly contradicted its beliefs. If you want to use the vengence example, I suppose that may be suitable.

The problem I'm having is you stated that Pascal's Wager gives a choice of living your life morally as though your god existed. Not following the outlined beliefs is going against the religion which certainly would be immoral according to your religion. Or, as mentioned above, is there some ranking where activity A > activity B, or you do 1 bad thing but 2 good things, so you're in a "good standing"?

Suppose you belief in a certain religion, regardless if it contradicts itself or not. Let's now suppose that, from the time you begin being religious for that religion, you violate every single belief it has for your entire life up until the day you die. Presumably, you'd have your ticket punched to "hell". But, now let's suppose that while you're violating every single belief, you're helping out others once again for your entire life up until the day you die. In simple terms, you've done negative things and positive things, each of the same amount. The question becomes, does it put you in a neutral standing or does one outweigh the other even though they were done for the same amount, to the same people and had the same effect on the world and/or oneself? This is what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around because Pascal's Wager involves you living morally as though your god exists. Violating all of the religions beliefs makes you immoral if your god exists. You still believe in whatever the religion is just you're immoral in its eyes.

[antimonic]

It seems i have to repeat it however many times because you keep asking questions or making reference to things that have already been addressed! and each time i just have to spell it out more and more, its not bullshit, its answering your questions (which have already been answered :P)

"According to your definition of religion that you gave, something like Christianity could be argued as not being a religion. It has its own sets of beliefs, however, does it make the world a better place or make the person better? Condemning people to some land of eternal torment and pain doesn't seem to make the world nor the person any better."

Christianity promotes charity, has charities set up, feeds the poor and hungry in alot of places. It promotes goodwill and peace on earth, defines charity as "eternal love towards all human beings" and much more. . . these are things that try to better the individual by; making them more kinder, more generous, more loving etc. . . and therefore bettering the world due to the fact that they are giving to chairty and so are helping those in need, their money is (or even they themselves sometimes are) helping build houses and shelters for those less fortunate. These are basic examples of how christianity aims to help the individual promote goodwill and peace on earth.

The religion doesnt condemn them, it states that GOD condemns whoever to eternal damnation. Plus the religions afterlife isnt as simple as heaven and hell, they have heaven, purgatory (where you sort of like pay a sentance for a while, THEN go to heaven lol) and hell etc. God would only condemn the "unrepentable" - so those who live their lives doing horrible things and feel no remorse etc. . .



"For your example with the non-muslim, if they violate their religion, then that doesn't seem to be living a morally correct life as if your god existed. I understand that the person would have done whatever to help the world out in some way, however, as stated before, Pascal's Wager gives the choice of you living a morally correct life as though your god exists. Violating the beliefs of the religion seems to go against this, unless there is some weighting, in terms of doing activity A generates more "goodness" than activity B, assuming you do both for the same amount of time and/or to the same amount of people. If this is the case with your example, then explain it."

I think you may have misunderstood, the non-muslim lives their life as a devout whatever and follows the rules of THEIR religion, and when they die its Allah who looks over them and appears to be the creator. They wont be condemned to hell purely because they ate pork all their life. In a muslims eyes, a christian who eats pork all the time and non-halal meat the muslim is no better a person than the christian just ecause the christian is not following the muslims religion beliefs. This is also who a large number of religions promote the saying "it doesnt matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith" (faith being in a religion of choice).

"unless there is some weighting, in terms of doing activity A generates more "goodness" than activity B, assuming you do both for the same amount of time and/or to the same amount of people. If this is the case with your example, then explain it."

To put bluntly, yes lol Religion promotes morals, and yes there are somethings that are morally worse than others. just like in the justice system, stealing an apple does not result in the same prison sentance as stealing a playstation 3. Other things are taken into account, like moral reasoning. Long story short, stealing ps3 worse because it was probably stolen for greediness or whatever. But the apple may have been stolen because they were hungry (these are just hypothetical examples). So yes there is a a sort of rating scale even with "goodness" as you put it.

Example is giving an apple to a millionaire is still an act of kindness and generosity, however its BETTER to give it to a hungry poor guy. So yeah there is a heirarchy sort of.

In terms of the after life, if you are a muslim but eat pork all your life, but also have spent your life giving large amounts to charity, looks after his family and friends, is a morally good person, he is not going to be denied heaven just because he ate pork all his lief, the good he did greatly outweighs the bad (morally).

As a foot note, there are many confounding factors to take into accunt when sinning, for example a muslim eating pork for survival is not a sin in islam. A muslim eating pork because they WANT to go against the religion is worse than a muslim eating pork because they know no better. Sins and "goodness" are not judged loosely, many things are taken into account. The are majorly based on basic moral values which the religions also promote.

[Sapphire]

It seems i have to repeat it however many times because you keep asking questions or making reference to things that have already been addressed! and each time i just have to spell it out more and more, its not bullshit, its answering your questions (which have already been answered :P)

"According to your definition of religion that you gave, something like Christianity could be argued as not being a religion. It has its own sets of beliefs, however, does it make the world a better place or make the person better? Condemning people to some land of eternal torment and pain doesn't seem to make the world nor the person any better."

Christianity promotes charity, has charities set up, feeds the poor and hungry in alot of places. It promotes goodwill and peace on earth, defines charity as "eternal love towards all human beings" and much more. . . these are things that try to better the individual by; making them more kinder, more generous, more loving etc. . . and therefore bettering the world due to the fact that they are giving to chairty and so are helping those in need, their money is (or even they themselves sometimes are) helping build houses and shelters for those less fortunate. These are basic examples of how christianity aims to help the individual promote goodwill and peace on earth.

The religion doesnt condemn them, it states that GOD condemns whoever to eternal damnation. Plus the religions afterlife isnt as simple as heaven and hell, they have heaven, purgatory (where you sort of like pay a sentance for a while, THEN go to heaven lol) and hell etc. God would only condemn the "unrepentable" - so those who live their lives doing horrible things and feel no remorse etc. . .



"For your example with the non-muslim, if they violate their religion, then that doesn't seem to be living a morally correct life as if your god existed. I understand that the person would have done whatever to help the world out in some way, however, as stated before, Pascal's Wager gives the choice of you living a morally correct life as though your god exists. Violating the beliefs of the religion seems to go against this, unless there is some weighting, in terms of doing activity A generates more "goodness" than activity B, assuming you do both for the same amount of time and/or to the same amount of people. If this is the case with your example, then explain it."

I think you may have misunderstood, the non-muslim lives their life as a devout whatever and follows the rules of THEIR religion, and when they die its Allah who looks over them and appears to be the creator. They wont be condemned to hell purely because they ate pork all their life. In a muslims eyes, a christian who eats pork all the time and non-halal meat the muslim is no better a person than the christian just ecause the christian is not following the muslims religion beliefs. This is also who a large number of religions promote the saying "it doesnt matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith" (faith being in a religion of choice).

"unless there is some weighting, in terms of doing activity A generates more "goodness" than activity B, assuming you do both for the same amount of time and/or to the same amount of people. If this is the case with your example, then explain it."

To put bluntly, yes lol Religion promotes morals, and yes there are somethings that are morally worse than others. just like in the justice system, stealing an apple does not result in the same prison sentance as stealing a playstation 3. Other things are taken into account, like moral reasoning. Long story short, stealing ps3 worse because it was probably stolen for greediness or whatever. But the apple may have been stolen because they were hungry (these are just hypothetical examples). So yes there is a a sort of rating scale even with "goodness" as you put it.

Example is giving an apple to a millionaire is still an act of kindness and generosity, however its BETTER to give it to a hungry poor guy. So yeah there is a heirarchy sort of.

In terms of the after life, if you are a muslim but eat pork all your life, but also have spent your life giving large amounts to charity, looks after his family and friends, is a morally good person, he is not going to be denied heaven just because he ate pork all his lief, the good he did greatly outweighs the bad (morally).

As a foot note, there are many confounding factors to take into accunt when sinning, for example a muslim eating pork for survival is not a sin in islam. A muslim eating pork because they WANT to go against the religion is worse than a muslim eating pork because they know no better. Sins and "goodness" are not judged loosely, many things are taken into account. The are majorly based on basic moral values which the religions also promote.
I agree a lot with this ^
Antimonic has said a lot of the things I wanted to say upon reading Inferno's post.

I would formulate a paragraph or two of my own but I really cannot be bothered trying to wrap my head around your bad grammar and round-about explanations right now.

[INFERNO]

It seems i have to repeat it however many times because you keep asking questions or making reference to things that have already been addressed! and each time i just have to spell it out more and more, its not bullshit, its answering your questions (which have already been answered :P)

I didn't say your explanations were bullshit. I said your personal comments were bullshit, such as your persistent crap of "I'll explain it more slowly, hehehe".


Christianity promotes charity, has charities set up, feeds the poor and hungry in alot of places. It promotes goodwill and peace on earth, defines charity as "eternal love towards all human beings" and much more. . . these are things that try to better the individual by; making them more kinder, more generous, more loving etc. . . and therefore bettering the world due to the fact that they are giving to chairty and so are helping those in need, their money is (or even they themselves sometimes are) helping build houses and shelters for those less fortunate. These are basic examples of how christianity aims to help the individual promote goodwill and peace on earth.

The religion doesnt condemn them, it states that GOD condemns whoever to eternal damnation. Plus the religions afterlife isnt as simple as heaven and hell, they have heaven, purgatory (where you sort of like pay a sentance for a while, THEN go to heaven lol) and hell etc. God would only condemn the "unrepentable" - so those who live their lives doing horrible things and feel no remorse etc. . .

True, christianity does do those things. However, it also teaches its followers to condemn homosexuals, non-believers, and anyone else who violates their set of beliefs to hell. The religion does condemn them, as it is a set of beliefs, hence, a religion. Their god is part of their religion, so explaining it as though they're separate makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it goes against the definition of religion that you gave:


Religion can be argued to be a set of beliefs that attempt to help the individual become a better person and/or make the world a better place, and in doing so, you get your place in heaven. This is generally (as saphire stated earlier) the general message most religions share. Which is why if you believed in Allah, but it turns out that Budhism was correct, the fact aht you lived to better yourself and to better the world (like charity etc) then you will still be accepted into heaven, as budhism also tries to promote these values.

By condemning others, preaching/forcing your beliefs to others, that is GOOD in the eyes of that religion, so you can punch your ticket to heaven.


I think you may have misunderstood, the non-muslim lives their life as a devout whatever and follows the rules of THEIR religion, and when they die its Allah who looks over them and appears to be the creator. They wont be condemned to hell purely because they ate pork all their life. In a muslims eyes, a christian who eats pork all the time and non-halal meat the muslim is no better a person than the christian just ecause the christian is not following the muslims religion beliefs. This is also who a large number of religions promote the saying "it doesnt matter what you have faith in, just that you have faith" (faith being in a religion of choice).

I understand very well what you've said and I agree with all of this.

To put bluntly, yes lol Religion promotes morals, and yes there are somethings that are morally worse than others. just like in the justice system, stealing an apple does not result in the same prison sentance as stealing a playstation 3. Other things are taken into account, like moral reasoning. Long story short, stealing ps3 worse because it was probably stolen for greediness or whatever. But the apple may have been stolen because they were hungry (these are just hypothetical examples). So yes there is a a sort of rating scale even with "goodness" as you put it.

You addressed the issue of their being a "goodness" scale but you then completely ignored the other question:

But, now let's suppose that while you're violating every single belief, you're helping out others once again for your entire life up until the day you die. In simple terms, you've done negative things and positive things, each of the same amount. The question becomes, does it put you in a neutral standing or does one outweigh the other even though they were done for the same amount, to the same people and had the same effect on the world and/or oneself?

The one you answered was doing one bad thing/violation but all good ones you did do. That's not my question. Mine is, assuming both are equal, then what happens?


Example is giving an apple to a millionaire is still an act of kindness and generosity, however its BETTER to give it to a hungry poor guy. So yeah there is a heirarchy sort of.

So would this mean that doing something bad to a millionaire is less negative than doing the same thing to the hungry poor guy? If it's better to do good deeds for the hungry poor guy, then is it better to do negative things to the hungry poor guy or to the millionaire?


As a foot note, there are many confounding factors to take into accunt when sinning, for example a muslim eating pork for survival is not a sin in islam. A muslim eating pork because they WANT to go against the religion is worse than a muslim eating pork because they know no better. Sins and "goodness" are not judged loosely, many things are taken into account. The are majorly based on basic moral values which the religions also promote.

I am aware of this, however, if they violate the values that the religion promotes or do blasphemous acts, then they will have committed a very large sin. To me it makes no sense that you go to your little heaven place despite the fact you've violated every single belief and moral the religion promotes. But you got into heaven because you helped some random people. You clearly were going against the religion, so instead of being punished, you're rewarded? That's akin to saying a kid constantly breaks the rules of the school (i.e. all the rules), but instead of being expelled, they help a few other kids out so the kid is off the hook. That is completely illogical to me.

[antimonic]

True, christianity does do those things. However, it also teaches its followers to condemn homosexuals, non-believers, and anyone else who violates their set of beliefs to hell. The religion does condemn them, as it is a set of beliefs, hence, a religion.

Christianity does not condemn homosexuals nor does it teach anyone to condemn them, the individual condemns homosexuality. The bible states that judgement is to be done by God and God alone. Individuals who misinterpret things written in the bible condemn homosexuality, not the religion itself. if it were true that christianity condemned homosexuality then you wouldnt have gay priest's or vicars :D

Their god is part of their religion, so explaining it as though they're separate makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it goes against the definition of religion that you gave:

Its actually very easy to speak as if God and religion are seperate, in the sense that if judgement is down to God alone, then no HUMAN may judge. which is what quite afew religions state (such as christianity, its written in the bible that only God may judge).

And it doesnt contradict my definition, my definition didnt mention God, i spoke of RELIGION, which does not HAVE to include a God figure.

By condemning others, preaching/forcing your beliefs to others, that is GOOD in the eyes of that religion, so you can punch your ticket to heaven.

Again, no religion states that the followers have to FORCE its beliefs on anyone, thats the choice of the individual, not a requirement of the religion.

The religion does not condemn others, God condemns people as he supposedly knows all about the individual so can make an accurate judgement (more accurate than an individual).

You addressed the issue of their being a "goodness" scale but you then completely ignored the other question:

Well, you didnt ask ME the question, it was in reply to a quote from Saphire, if you want me to reply to something (as i have been doing) then ask me it? thats how it usually works :yeah:

So would this mean that doing something bad to a millionaire is less negative than doing the same thing to the hungry poor guy? If it's better to do good deeds for the hungry poor guy, then is it better to do negative things to the hungry poor guy or to the millionaire?

Well, stealing from a millionaire is not worse than stealing from a poor hungry guy. I mean, its not rocket science which is judged to be worse in some scenario's lol, its all about morals. It is morally wrong to steal from someone, but MORE morally wrong to steal from those worse off from you. So from there you can tell which is the bigger sin.

I am aware of this, however, if they violate the values that the religion promotes or do blasphemous acts, then they will have committed a very large sin.

Again, its more complicated than that, there are too many confounding variables to take into account, like my example with eating pork for survival. In this case yes it is going against something the religion tries to teach, but it is not a sin. The intention was not to intentionally violate a teaching, but purely to survive. However eating JUST to violate a religious teaching is a diffrent story. And an individual who does things on that scale more then any good they do (morally) will probably not get into heaven.


To me it makes no sense that you go to your little heaven place despite the fact you've violated every single belief and moral the religion promotes. But you got into heaven because you helped some random people. You clearly were going against the religion, so instead of being punished, you're rewarded?

Where did you get that from? lol its been said repeatedly that it is not as simple as that. Helping "random people" as you put it does not make up for violating every single belief the religion promotes (assuming the religion promotes kindness and generosity like most religions do [goodwill and peace on earth]). So if someone violates it all by not having good morals but he does some charity work, it is safe to assume he isnt going to heaven lol.

That's akin to saying a kid constantly breaks the rules of the school (i.e. all the rules), but instead of being expelled, they help a few other kids out so the kid is off the hook. That is completely illogical to me.

Lol sorry but AWFUL example. Where did you get that they help afew kids out instead? what is that supposed to be a metaphor for? lol no wonder you say its illogical :P

with regards to religion, I've explained how if a "kid constantly breaks the rules of the school" then he WILL be expelled (if a man sins all the time, safe to assume he WILL go to hell).

But religion is more complicated than a kid misbehaving and being expelled, if a man commits a sin but not with the intention to sin (like the muslim who eats pork to survive, so he is sinning but only to survive) then it is different to a kid who regardless of why he broke all those rules, will still get expelled.

[INFERNO]

Christianity does not condemn homosexuals nor does it teach anyone to condemn them, the individual condemns homosexuality. The bible states that judgement is to be done by God and God alone. Individuals who misinterpret things written in the bible condemn homosexuality, not the religion itself. if it were true that christianity condemned homosexuality then you wouldnt have gay priest's or vicars :D

So, I wouldn't be able to find a single biblical passage condemning homosexuals? So something like this:

If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)

would not be considered Christianity's set of beliefs condemning homosexuals?

Both the religion and the individual condemns, unless you can refute the fact that the bible says such things.



Its actually very easy to speak as if God and religion are seperate, in the sense that if judgement is down to God alone, then no HUMAN may judge. which is what quite afew religions state (such as christianity, its written in the bible that only God may judge).

But their god is part of their religion, you cannot have their god without their religion because without their religion, then their god doesn't exist. Their religion defines their god, so speaking of them separately as you have done makes absolutely no sense.


And it doesnt contradict my definition, my definition didnt mention God, i spoke of RELIGION, which does not HAVE to include a God figure.

True, you didn't mention a god figure. But, you mentioned a specific set of beliefs. God is among those specific set of beliefs, as is heaven and hell (for christians). As for the contradiction, see my above response.


Again, no religion states that the followers have to FORCE its beliefs on anyone, thats the choice of the individual, not a requirement of the religion.

Really? So there's nothing in the christian bible saying that one should preach to someone else or a group of someones? So something like this:

But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils (Matthew 10:6-8).

Where preaching that heaven is at hand would seem like forcing, as would be "casting out devils" and such. It is BOTH the choice of the individual and something the religion promotes.


The religion does not condemn others, God condemns people as he supposedly knows all about the individual so can make an accurate judgement (more accurate than an individual).

But the god is part of the religion, and as explained above, you cannot have a god without having the religion that goes along with it. The god condemns so the religion, which supports the existence of the god must also condemn indirectly.


Well, you didnt ask ME the question, it was in reply to a quote from Saphire, if you want me to reply to something (as i have been doing) then ask me it? thats how it usually works

No, how it works is you respond to a post. I don't have to address it to you as though it's a formal banquet. If I make a point although not addressed to you, you still can address it. Now, address it.


Well, stealing from a millionaire is not worse than stealing from a poor hungry guy. I mean, its not rocket science which is judged to be worse in some scenario's lol, its all about morals. It is morally wrong to steal from someone, but MORE morally wrong to steal from those worse off from you. So from there you can tell which is the bigger sin.


Where did you get that from? lol its been said repeatedly that it is not as simple as that. Helping "random people" as you put it does not make up for violating every single belief the religion promotes (assuming the religion promotes kindness and generosity like most religions do [goodwill and peace on earth]). So if someone violates it all by not having good morals but he does some charity work, it is safe to assume he isnt going to heaven lol.

No idea, I got it from some guy on VT forums with the username of antimonic. Couldn't have been you at all, after all, you didn't say:

if you are a muslim but eat pork all your life, but also have spent your life giving large amounts to charity, looks after his family and friends, is a morally good person, he is not going to be denied heaven

In that example, you clearly showed, doing charity work and such in a way repents you sinning all your life by eating pork. But now, you turn the tables and say the opposite. So, I simply used your statement, applied that to an example using the same reasoning, and lo' and behold, you contradict yourself. :yeah::yeah:



Lol sorry but AWFUL example. Where did you get that they help afew kids out instead? what is that supposed to be a metaphor for? lol no wonder you say its illogical :P

Huh? It was an example, the same as your example with the muslim and non-muslim. It's not a metaphor for anything. It's a hypothetical example, just as yours were, so I don't see where you have trouble wrapping your head around.


with regards to religion, I've explained how if a "kid constantly breaks the rules of the school" then he WILL be expelled (if a man sins all the time, safe to assume he WILL go to hell).
But religion is more complicated than a kid misbehaving and being expelled, if a man commits a sin but not with the intention to sin (like the muslim who eats pork to survive, so he is sinning but only to survive) then it is different to a kid who regardless of why he broke all those rules, will still get expelled.

Expulsion from school and not getting into heaven can be analagies to one another. Granted, one is a bit simpler, however, at the basic level, both involve adhering to a certain set of rules. What I find rather hilarious though that just above, you say the man who sins will go to hell, yet now you say he may not, whereas the kid just gets expelled, even if he didn't intend to break the rules. Religion is very similar to a school's rules, so my example, the one which you fail to understand for whatever reason, holds.

[antimonic]

"So, I wouldn't be able to find a single biblical passage condemning homosexuals? So something like this:
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
would not be considered Christianity's set of beliefs condemning homosexuals?
Both the religion and the individual condemns, unless you can refute the fact that the bible says such things."

"But their god is part of their religion, you cannot have their god without their religion because without their religion, then their god doesn't exist. Their religion defines their god, so speaking of them separately as you have done makes absolutely no sense."

Last i checked, that was a passage in the bible, not a set belief? lol The bible is there to be interpretted, it can be argued that that passage has nothing to do with homosexuality as a lifestyle but instead it regards having a relationship with both a man and a woman.

The bible's is there to be interpretted, SOME christians interpret it diffrently to others (hence the diffrent forms of religions), some do not condmen homosexuality at all.

Since some condemn homosexuality, and some dont, and all have the same God, does God condemn AND not-condmen homosexuality? Thus supporting my explanation of how to speak of God and the religion diffrently. It is not God interpretting the passages, it is man, HENCE all the diffrent churches in christianity. It is not "Gods diffrent interpretations" But mans.

"Really? So there's nothing in the christian bible saying that one should preach to someone else or a group of someones? So something like this:
But rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils (Matthew 10:6-8).
Where preaching that heaven is at hand would seem like forcing, as would be "casting out devils" and such. It is BOTH the choice of the individual and something the religion promotes."

Lol again, interpretation. Definition of PREACHING is "to proclaim or make known by sermon" and the bible uses the phrase "PREACHING THAT HEAVEN" not "FORCING THE CONCEPT OF IT ONTO OTHERS" Preaching is diffrent to forcing beliefs onto someone. And as for "casting out devils" i think that quite obviously refers to exorcisms, "casting" out devils from people? Seems very obvious to me :yummy:

"But the god is part of the religion, and as explained above, you cannot have a god without having the religion that goes along with it. The god condemns so the religion, which supports the existence of the god must also condemn indirectly."

Again, the God condemns, so the religion tries to teach people to NOT get condemned by God. MAN condemning indicates that MAN has the power to send people to hell, which isnt very true now is it :P

"No, how it works is you respond to a post. I don't have to address it to you as though it's a formal banquet. If I make a point although not addressed to you, you still can address it. Now, address it."

I respond to a post not addressed to me? if you want me to REPLY to something, i have to first have the message or the question ADDRESSED to me lol it really is that simple. If you would like me to answer something, ask me it, thats how it has been working so far :D



No idea, I got it from some guy on VT forums with the username of antimonic.
Really?! i LOVE that guy!! :yes:

"In that example, you clearly showed, doing charity work and such in a way repents you sinning all your life by eating pork. But now, you turn the tables and say the opposite. So, I simply used your statement, applied that to an example using the same reasoning, and lo' and behold, you contradict yourself. :yeah::yeah:"

I turn the tables and say the opposite? wow, looks like you're having a hard time understanding again :P Allow me to explain AGAIN:

Eating pork all your life for a muslim is not "breaking all the rules" it is breaking A rule. Now, as stated again and again and again (and again? lol) If you spend your life eating pork (which is NOT breaking ALL the rules, just one) BUT you spend most of your life doing good things and charity, then MORALLY you will not be denied heaven because you didnt follow ONE teaching (one that doesnt result in breaking of many other teachings, like for example if you commit pre-meditated murder, you killed someone + devastated many lives including your own + It isnt making the world a better place + not spreading peace etc) whereas eating pork affects one person, the porker lol

"Huh? It was an example, the same as your example with the muslim and non-muslim. It's not a metaphor for anything. It's a hypothetical example, just as yours were, so I don't see where you have trouble wrapping your head around."

Ah you see the diffrence is, my example MADE SENSE lol fact that you couldnt explain what a bit was a metaphor was SHOWS that it was a crappy example that made NO sense, not even to you lol :yummy:


"Expulsion from school and not getting into heaven can be analagies to one another. Granted, one is a bit simpler, however, at the basic level, both involve adhering to a certain set of rules. What I find rather hilarious though that just above, you say the man who sins will go to hell, yet now you say he may not, whereas the kid just gets expelled, even if he didn't intend to break the rules. Religion is very similar to a school's rules, so my example, the one which you fail to understand for whatever reason, holds."


I said a man who sins will go to hell? again, You must not be understanding the things said, maybe too many syllables, i dunno lol

I have always said, that if someone sins all their life (like eating pork for a muslim) BUT spends a LARGER majority of their life doing good, spreading peace, doing their bit for mankind (like a shitload of charity maybe) then he will get into heaven. If a child pulls the fire alarm for no reason, no matter how good his track record or the number of times he was in the school fair helping out, he WILL be excluded, so in that sense, he's buggered lol same goes for not only pulling fire alarm, instead he breaks "ALL THE RULES" (AS YOU SAID) he will STILL be expelled.

its not hard lol I will explain it again however should you display yet AGAIN that you didnt understand something :yeah:

[INFERNO]

Last i checked, that was a passage in the bible, not a set belief? lol The bible is there to be interpretted, it can be argued that that passage has nothing to do with homosexuality as a lifestyle but instead it regards having a relationship with both a man and a woman.

You really aren't understanding this are you. Yes it is a passage from the main book of their religion. At the simplest level, it can be considered a belief.


The bible's is there to be interpretted, SOME christians interpret it diffrently to others (hence the diffrent forms of religions), some do not condmen homosexuality at all.

Your point is? It is still part of the religion regardless if the followers of the religion adhere to it or not.


Since some condemn homosexuality, and some dont, and all have the same God, does God condemn AND not-condmen homosexuality? Thus supporting my explanation of how to speak of God and the religion diffrently. It is not God interpretting the passages, it is man, HENCE all the diffrent churches in christianity. It is not "Gods diffrent interpretations" But mans.

Their god does condemn homosexuality, pick up the bible and look through it, you'll find passage(s) showing that. The reason some followers don't condemn homosexuality is because they don't adhere to it literally 100%. But, regardless if they do or do not, it is still in the religion. This in no way supports your argument.


Again, the God condemns, so the religion tries to teach people to NOT get condemned by God. MAN condemning indicates that MAN has the power to send people to hell, which isnt very true now is it :P

The religion's followers can tell others that they're going to hell, however, they cannot put them in hell.


I respond to a post not addressed to me? if you want me to REPLY to something, i have to first have the message or the question ADDRESSED to me lol it really is that simple. If you would like me to answer something, ask me it, thats how it has been working so far :D

Last time I asked you to address it and yet again you haven't. Quit doddling, either answer it or don't but don't play little games.


I turn the tables and say the opposite? wow, looks like you're having a hard time understanding again :P Allow me to explain AGAIN:

OK, let me do the same to you in very simple terms so perhaps you can understand it. You said before that if the muslim constantly sins yet helps out others, then they're safe to heaven. But, in your next post you say the opposite. I've shown it to you already, read it because you appear to not have read it and not have understood it at all.


Eating pork all your life for a muslim is not "breaking all the rules" it is breaking A rule. Now, as stated again and again and again (and again? lol) If you spend your life eating pork (which is NOT breaking ALL the rules, just one) BUT you spend most of your life doing good things and charity, then MORALLY you will not be denied heaven because you didnt follow ONE teaching (one that doesnt result in breaking of many other teachings, like for example if you commit pre-meditated murder, you killed someone + devastated many lives including your own + It isnt making the world a better place + not spreading peace etc) whereas eating pork affects one person, the porker lol

OK, I made one thing grammatically incorrect, my mistake. But, read my post again, you haven't followed what I've said.


Ah you see the diffrence is, my example MADE SENSE lol fact that you couldnt explain what a bit was a metaphor was SHOWS that it was a crappy example that made NO sense, not even to you lol :yummy:

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? I give a simple example, I know what a metaphor is but there is no need to go about and analyze what it is a metaphor for. It's simply about kids breaking the school rules, that's it, nothing hard to wrap your head around.


I said a man who sins will go to hell? again, You must not be understanding the things said, maybe too many syllables, i dunno lol

You must not be reading what you write:

if a man sins all the time, safe to assume he WILL go to hell :yeah::yeah::yeah:, I hope that is simple enough for even you to understand.

[antimonic]

You really aren't understanding this are you. Yes it is a passage from the main book of their religion. At the simplest level, it can be considered a belief.

Lol at the SIMPLEST level it is a passage in the bible. It is there to be interpretted by the reader how they want to interpret it. You obviously interpret it diffrently than lets say a gay priest, but thats also partly because YOU are simple :D



Your point is? It is still part of the religion regardless if the followers of the religion adhere to it or not.

Well if its a passage in a book open to interpretation its not really adhering then is it? Your simplicity never fails to amuse me lol

Their god does condemn homosexuality, pick up the bible and look through it, you'll find passage(s) showing that.

(again, youll find passages that are open to interpretation, but dont spread it around, apparently its a SECRET)

The reason some followers don't condemn homosexuality is because they don't adhere to it literally 100%. But, regardless if they do or do not, it is still in the religion. This in no way supports your argument.

Adhere to a passage open to interpretation, right :P

The religion's followers can tell others that they're going to hell, however, they cannot put them in hell.

WOW, Im so shocked at your ability. . . .to. . . .rephrase one of my sentances!!!

Last time I asked you to address it and yet again you haven't. Quit doddling, either answer it or don't but don't play little games.

But these games are ever so fun! :yes:

You said before that if the muslim constantly sins yet helps out others, then they're safe to heaven. But, in your next post you say the opposite.

Actually, i did say "if a man sins all the time, safe to assume he WILL go to hell" but, i dunno, just MAYBE theres a diffrence between the two statements? like PERHAPS one speaks about a man who only sins all the time, and the other speaks of a man who sins constantly but who does more good than he does sin? I dunno i thought the diffrence was obvious but yeah, your simplicity could account for this :P

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? I give a simple example, I know what a metaphor is but there is no need to go about and analyze what it is a metaphor for. It's simply about kids breaking the school rules, that's it, nothing hard to wrap your head around.

Lol thats exactly what it needed, ANALYSIS in order to understand it, cos it made no sense. I feel sorry for your englih teachers :P

:yeah::yeah::yeah:, I hope that is simple enough for even you to understand.

lol it really wasnt, try speaking coherently, that usually works in ENGLISH speaking debates :yeah:

[Sapphire]

You really aren't understanding this are you. Yes it is a passage from the main book of their religion. At the simplest level, it can be considered a belief.

Your point is? It is still part of the religion regardless if the followers of the religion adhere to it or not.

Their god does condemn homosexuality, pick up the bible and look through it, you'll find passage(s) showing that. The reason some followers don't condemn homosexuality is because they don't adhere to it literally 100%. But, regardless if they do or do not, it is still in the religion. This in no way supports your argument.Did you learn nothing in your English lessons? Every sentence that is written down is subject to interpretation. English Literature is centered entirely around this concept so how is it that you fail to be able to employ it with regards to one of the most widely read books in the world?

Last time I asked you to address it and yet again you haven't. Quit doddling, either answer it or don't but don't play little games.It wasn't for him to address. You put it to me and so I will address it.
But, now let's suppose that while you're violating every single belief, you're helping out others once again for your entire life up until the day you die. In simple terms, you've done negative things and positive things, each of the same amount. The question becomes, does it put you in a neutral standing or does one outweigh the other even though they were done for the same amount, to the same people and had the same effect on the world and/or oneself?That is for God to decide then, isn't it?
The Catholics believe in the existence of purgatory where you pay for sins you have committed and then go to heaven. Obviously this is very applicable for the above scenario because if they are deemed by God not to be so essentially horrible and sinful to warrant eternity in hell then they would enter purgatory. After paying off their debt as it were, they would be able to join Him in heaven.

Maybe now you'll stop hounding antimonic for not addressing something you didn't even put to him.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? I give a simple example, I know what a metaphor is but there is no need to go about and analyze what it is a metaphor for. It's simply about kids breaking the school rules, that's it, nothing hard to wrap your head around.If you use an example or metaphor then you have to expect people to analyse it in order to understand how it relates to the topic. Otherwise what is the point because I could give an example on how drinking milk makes my bones stronger and it be equally valid as the examples which directly relate with God, heaven and hell.

[INFERNO]

Did you learn nothing in your English lessons? Every sentence that is written down is subject to interpretation. English Literature is centered entirely around this concept so how is it that you fail to be able to employ it with regards to one of the most widely read books in the world?

The bible is claimed to be written in the word of their god and their god is supposedly perfect, etc..., it presumably would give the impression that one should follow something rather literally when it is written in such a simple form. All literature is open to interpretation, it's a constant variable so to speak, so no purpose in pointing it out.

But you must be correct, along with antimonic, I learned absolutely nothing in my English class. Most of what I've written must be grammatically incorrect, spelled incorrectly, be absolute garbage (although it's still understandable as it appears to get responses regarding its content), etc... . So yes, let's go along with the assumption that I know absolutely nothing so perhaps you could continue explaining the fundamentals of literature to me? Thanks, that would be wonderful. Perhaps you could even do this for other topics, what do you say? Share your infinite wisdom and intellect with someone like me.


It wasn't for him to address. You put it to me and so I will address it.
That is for God to decide then, isn't it?

At first, it was addressed to you. However, twice I asked him to address it and twice he danced away.


The Catholics believe in the existence of purgatory where you pay for sins you have committed and then go to heaven. Obviously this is very applicable for the above scenario because if they are deemed by God not to be so essentially horrible and sinful to warrant eternity in hell then they would enter purgatory. After paying off their debt as it were, they would be able to join Him in heaven.




Maybe now you'll stop hounding antimonic for not addressing something you didn't even put to him.

At first I didn't address it to him, however, TWICE I asked him to address it and TWICE he danced away from it. I don't need to copy and paste what I asked you and address it to him, I simply need to tell him to address it. However apparently that appears to be too complex for him to do.


If you use an example or metaphor then you have to expect people to analyse it in order to understand how it relates to the topic. Otherwise what is the point because I could give an example on how drinking milk makes my bones stronger and it be equally valid as the examples which directly relate with God, heaven and hell.

It's quite obvious what the metaphor was for. I don't see why he had to whine about me not defining something so obvious and not address it. I'm quite sure he knows what the metaphor was for, but since he requires it to be spelled out for him, it's a metaphor for a follower of a religion adhering to their religious beliefs. Hopefully now that it's spelled out, he can address it instead of playing these mindless games.



Lol at the SIMPLEST level it is a passage in the bible. It is there to be interpretted by the reader how they want to interpret it. You obviously interpret it diffrently than lets say a gay priest, but thats also partly because YOU are simple

I've said it over and over again. QUIT WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS. Is it really that difficult to do? Respond to the post without such immature bullshit, plain and simple.


Adhere to a passage open to interpretation, right

So let's just not adhere to anything written down especially if they are rules.


But these games are ever so fun!

Don't worry, Sapphire answered it, no need to strain yourself anymore on it.




Lol thats exactly what it needed, ANALYSIS in order to understand it, cos it made no sense. I feel sorry for your englih teachers

I feel sorry for the fact that you cannot spell the word English properly.


lol it really wasnt, try speaking coherently, that usually works in ENGLISH speaking debates

Exactly where was it so incoherent for you?

[The Batman]

This has been going on long enough :locked:
If the OP wants it reopened he can pm me.