Religion a Figment of Human Imagination...........

[wxtornado]

I don't see where that thought was mentioned in Libby's response. :shrug:

First, it's not our call as human beings on this earth. It's God's choice - who He accepts - into His Kingdom of Heaven.

Secondly, we are not going to find out where we're headed next until after our demise.

So, what's the beef?

My beef is, why is your god telling me how to raise my children, when he had to drown his?

 

[Larry Gude]

Now see...

Well, at least it give us hope. What do you have?

If believers are wrong what have we lost? Nothing. But if we are right what have you lost?

...I find that fascinating.

Someone quoted Pascal's wager in context of this, but, Pascal's wager, per Pascal, argues that that his point wasn't to believe for the sake of not being wrong, but to believe honestly and sincerely. So, you have nothing to lose by considering being a believer BUT if you do not sincerely believe, if you're just trying to cover your bets, then you and your God will know and it doesn't count.

So, the flip side of Pascal's wager, the inverse would be the necessity of reaching the point of honest faith, honestly believing because He is going to know anyway. So, it really doesn't matter if one claims to be a believer nor if one claims to not be a believer because He is going to sort all of this out when the time comes anyway.

So, does someone who does not believe, but claims to have more to lose than someone who claims to not believe, but actually does?

Point being, what we tell each other can't matter more than what's inside of us. Right?

 

[This_person]

...I find that fascinating.

Someone quoted Pascal's wager in context of this, but, Pascal's wager, per Pascal, argues that that his point wasn't to believe for the sake of not being wrong, but to believe honestly and sincerely. So, you have nothing to lose by considering being a believer BUT if you do not sincerely believe, if you're just trying to cover your bets, then you and your God will know and it doesn't count.

So, the flip side of Pascal's wager, the inverse would be the necessity of reaching the point of honest faith, honestly believing because He is going to know anyway. So, it really doesn't matter if one claims to be a believer nor if one claims to not be a believer because He is going to sort all of this out when the time comes anyway.

So, does someone who does not believe, but claims to have more to lose than someone who claims to not believe, but actually does?

Point being, what we tell each other can't matter more than what's inside of us. Right?

This is a cousin to the point I tried to make a few times.... believers believe and act the way they do because they actually do want to glorify their diety - not because of perceived rewards or punishments. If you don't actually believe, in your heart as well as your mind, you might as well give up the game.

 

[wxtornado]

...I find that fascinating.

Someone quoted Pascal's wager in context of this, but, Pascal's wager, per Pascal, argues that that his point wasn't to believe for the sake of not being wrong, but to believe honestly and sincerely. So, you have nothing to lose by considering being a believer BUT if you do not sincerely believe, if you're just trying to cover your bets, then you and your God will know and it doesn't count.

So, the flip side of Pascal's wager, the inverse would be the necessity of reaching the point of honest faith, honestly believing because He is going to know anyway. So, it really doesn't matter if one claims to be a believer nor if one claims to not be a believer because He is going to sort all of this out when the time comes anyway.

So, does someone who does not believe, but claims to have more to lose than someone who claims to not believe, but actually does?

Point being, what we tell each other can't matter more than what's inside of us. Right?

This, and there are so many other things wrong with a Pascal's Wager argument.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

This, and there are so many other things wrong with a Pascal's Wager argument.

...not wrong with a Pascal's argument per se, more so wrong in how we popularly view it, yes? I mean, we use it, I think, in a more literal sense, an absolute sense "Better CYA! What have you got to lose?" which was not his intent. Would you agree?

 

[itsbob]

Being saved means a lot more than saying you believe in Him. As for me, yes, I believe there are consequences to actions and beliefs.You often bring the discussion to money. You realize that God has no need for your money, but churches do, right? $100 bills would mean nothing, except the loss to your offspring for what they could have done with it helping themselves and others - maybe through a church donation!

So a church needs my money,


Why does ANYone need a church?

Can't you find everything you need in a bible, read in a quiet room, prayed for and about in private, even in a dark closet?

Why do you need a priest, pastor or minister to tell you what the truth is, when all you have to do is pray to find answers?

Why do you need a bunch of people to interpret the bible for you?

Read and pray in private, in solitude.

I think it would mean more coming from a person alone in cave, than enmasse, by rote memorization in an adorned church.

 

[wxtornado]

...not wrong with a Pascal's argument per se, more so wrong in how we popularly view it, yes? I mean, we use it, I think, in a more literal sense, an absolute sense "Better CYA! What have you got to lose?" which was not his intent. Would you agree?

Well yes, not the Wager itself, but the context in which the theists use it is hopelessly flawed. The argument itself is weak because it presumes A) That you "pick" the right God (what if Christianity ISN'T right but ISLAM is? You're just as "screwed" as I am), B) You "pick" the right approach to that God (like, the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is a very wide gulf), and C) That God finds nobility in you making a bet at all since you're doing it to cover your ass (maybe the REAL God wants you to push away all texts and scriptuals and recognize him through rationality, since those are the tools he gave you to understand nature), and on and on....

 

[Xaquin44]

So a church needs my money,


Why does ANYone need a church?

Can't you find everything you need in a bible, read in a quiet room, prayed for and about in private, even in a dark closet?

Why do you need a priest, pastor or minister to tell you what the truth is, when all you have to do is pray to find answers?

Why do you need a bunch of people to interpret the bible for you?

Read and pray in private, in solitude.

I think it would mean more coming from a person alone in cave, than enmasse, by rote memorization in an adorned church.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

Jesus told me not to go to church, so I don't.

 

[PsyOps]

...I find that fascinating.

Someone quoted Pascal's wager in context of this, but, Pascal's wager, per Pascal, argues that that his point wasn't to believe for the sake of not being wrong, but to believe honestly and sincerely. So, you have nothing to lose by considering being a believer BUT if you do not sincerely believe, if you're just trying to cover your bets, then you and your God will know and it doesn't count.

So, the flip side of Pascal's wager, the inverse would be the necessity of reaching the point of honest faith, honestly believing because He is going to know anyway. So, it really doesn't matter if one claims to be a believer nor if one claims to not be a believer because He is going to sort all of this out when the time comes anyway.

So, does someone who does not believe, but claims to have more to lose than someone who claims to not believe, but actually does?

Point being, what we tell each other can't matter more than what's inside of us. Right?

This is answered in this Bible verse…

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast… Ephesians 2:8-9

Pascal’s contention was... devoid of any ability to reason with such a concept of faith, just do good so that God will have favor on you, just in case there is a God.

I certainly don’t propose anyone try to believe for the sake of covering their ‘bets”. That’s not even possible. But, for the sake of this discussion, one does have to ask the obvious question “what if…” and make a decision. For many that’s where it begins; then they grow from there. My belief didn’t come in some big evangelical moment where I “saw the light”. I had doubts going in; lots of them. But as I kept reading, listening, observing the world around me, and certain events that occurred in my life my faith and belief developed without a doubt.

I believe there is a spirit that compels us to believe. I don’t claim to understand why it hits some and not others. So, from this angle, the entire concept of “what if” is moot. You have to have honest faith to “cover your bets”. There is no glazing over this any other way.

 

[PsyOps]

Pascal's wager, yet again.

Actually, my question doesn't quite fit into the prism of Pascal's wager. Pascal relied on two things:

1) It is impossible to rationally discuss the concept of God thus be fully convinced of your faith

so...

2) Why not do the things that would fit within the conditions of faith just in case.

I don't propose such a thing at all. God knows your heart and can't be duped by merely doing things that you construe as good in order to win your way into heaven.

 

[Larry Gude]

Not as I...

Pascal’s contention was... devoid of any ability to reason with such a concept of faith, just do good so that God will have favor on you, just in case there is a God.

...read it. Pascal himself said you can't just fake it; God will not have favor on you just for putting on a good show.

That's why it's a bad analogy. 'Swiftboating' is getting distorted from it's accurate defintion just as Pascal's term has been.

 

[PsyOps]

how about a lifetime worth of enjoying the precious few moments we have. an understanding that this is all we got and all we are going to get makes a person very humble. In an instant, for absolutely no reason it can all be gone. if you are a believer its like the end of the sopranos, an unfulfilling totality, everything goes to black and you dont even get a last glimpse of love, life, or happiness, just blackness.
if you are not wrapped up in the afterlife you have lived life fully with the understanding this is all you got and when it ends its ok for it to be over. there isn't a need for an explanation or answers as none will come.

Does this assume Christians are not enjoying their lives? If so, how so? My belief in God actually gives me peace. I know that’s cliché but it’s true. My belief also helps me realize that when it is all gone in an instant that it’s not over.

I’m not quite sure how you conclude that if you’re a believer it’s like “an unfulfilling totality, everything goes to black and you dont even get a last glimpse of love, life, or happiness, just blackness.” Can you explain this? It’s actually just the opposite.

And believers are not wrapped up in the afterlife. That is the gift. It’s what we have to look forward to, but certainly we are living our lives just like anyone else; loving and making a difference and trying to make the best of every moment. We’re not just a bunch of mindless zombies aimlessly walking around waiting for the end.

besides, if you are right and there is a 'god' who passes judgment on us at the end, i would think he is pretty understanding.

I can’t pass such judgment on you or anyone else. It will be between you and God. I do know that if you haven’t accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior, it’s not going to look good. Those are the rules. I didn’t make them so you will have to take that up with God. The Bible is quite clear about what happens to those that don’t believe. So it’s an equal “understanding”. Understand God’s rules and he will be understanding. I think that sounds pretty fair.

 

[PsyOps]

not as I read it. Pascal himself said you can't just fake it; God will not have favor on you just for putting on a good show.

That's why it's a bad analogy. 'Swiftboating' is getting distorted from it's accurate defintion just as Pascal's term has been.

It seems Pascal’s entire philosophical spectrum revolved around the inability to come to any real conclusions that required reason. So, I don’t have one clue about Pascal’s heart. His “wager” was a philosophical one that poses the question rather than gives any answers.

I think it’s fair to ask the philosophical question “what if” though. This is where faith begins for a lot of believers.

All I want to know is... did you listen to my latest song? What'd you think? :shrug:

 

[This_person]

So a church needs my money,


Why does ANYone need a church?

:shrug: Why does anyone need a Mercedes vs a Ford Focus? Why do people need the $300 bottle of wine vs the $3 bottle? Why do people gather together at movie theaters when they could just imagine a good movie?

They do, they choose to, so what's the problem?

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes...

It seems Pascal’s entire philosophical spectrum revolved around the inability to come to any real conclusions that required reason. So, I don’t have one clue about Pascal’s heart. His “wager” was a philosophical one that poses the question rather than gives any answers.

I think it’s fair to ask the philosophical question “what if” though. This is where faith begins for a lot of believers.

All I want to know is... did you listen to my latest song? What'd you think? :shrug:

...I listened to the song. The level of aggression and expression of rage was startling. It is a tour de force, a wall of sound symbolizing all that is wrong with out world today; Not enough families enjoying parks.



Nice playing.

 

[Larry Gude]

Ok...

It seems Pascal’s entire philosophical spectrum revolved around the inability to come to any real conclusions that required reason. So, I don’t have one clue about Pascal’s heart. His “wager” was a philosophical one that poses the question rather than gives any answers.

I think it’s fair to ask the philosophical question “what if” though. This is where faith begins for a lot of believers.

All I want to know is... did you listen to my latest song? What'd you think? :shrug:

...we're going in circles, here, oddly enough.

Pascal DID, rationally enough, ask "What if?" and what he came up with is the analysis of religion and reason and he, as I understand him, was totally comfortable with the idea that you can't reason yourself into a matter of faith AND, furthermore, it is not proper to simply lay claim to faith so as to CYA.

What I am saying is that his words and his argument has been diluted over the years in conflict of what I see as his intent and Pascal's wager has become a "You can't know, so, why not?" expression of reason which is precisely what he was saying to shouldn't do.

So;

A "Do you believe in God?"

B "Well, it doesn't make sense to me rationally"

A "Well, you could be in big trouble if you don't believe and there turns out to be God."

B "Well, in that case, I guess I may as well go ahead and believe, just in case. What have I got to lose by professing faith?"

A "Doesn't work that way."


If he then goes on to explore and then truly believe, fine, but that is a different argument and popular lexicon has decided it does work that way and that you can CYA.

 

[itsbob]

:shrug: Why does anyone need a Mercedes vs a Ford Focus? Why do people need the $300 bottle of wine vs the $3 bottle? Why do people gather together at movie theaters when they could just imagine a good movie?

They do, they choose to, so what's the problem?

SO you agree, just as someone doesn't NEED a $300 bottle of wine.. or NEED a Mercedes, niether do they NEED a church.

 

[PsyOps]

...I listened to the song. The level of aggression and expression of rage was startling. It is a tour de force, a wall of sound symbolizing all that is wrong with out world today; Not enough families enjoying parks.



Nice playing.

You see, you just don't understand jazz. I'll try to tone it down for you next time.

 

[PsyOps]

...we're going in circles, here, oddly enough.

Pascal DID, rationally enough, ask "What if?" and what he came up with is the analysis of religion and reason and he, as I understand him, was totally comfortable with the idea that you can't reason yourself into a matter of faith AND, furthermore, it is not proper to simply lay claim to faith so as to CYA.

What I am saying is that his words and his argument has been diluted over the years in conflict of what I see as his intent and Pascal's wager has become a "You can't know, so, why not?" expression of reason which is precisely what he was saying to shouldn't do.

So;

A "Do you believe in God?"

B "Well, it doesn't make sense to me rationally"

A "Well, you could be in big trouble if you don't believe and there turns out to be God."

B "Well, in that case, I guess I may as well go ahead and believe, just in case. What have I got to lose by professing faith?"

A "Doesn't work that way."


If he then goes on to explore and then truly believe, fine, but that is a different argument and popular lexicon has decided it does work that way and that you can CYA.

I'm simply going to ARGUE that Pascal asked (as you even pointed out) "just in case..." not "what if...".

 

[Larry Gude]

Maybe...

You see, you just don't understand jazz. I'll try to tone it down for you next time.

...it was my interpretation?