Pascal's Wager again

[Zzyzx]

.
In one of the threads a member indicated that philosophical arguments, including Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing.

Blaise Pascal actually wrote (but did not publish) "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."

He did NOT use this as an argument that God exists. Instead, his argument is that whether God exists or not one should "bet" on existence. Betting is not argument for existence " but a gamble on what is (admittedly to Pascal) unknown.

I maintain that his proposal is faulty even in that:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods. Thus, it cannot be determined which of the proposed gods to worship. In other words, first pick one of the gods (with less than 1/10 percent chance of being right), then decide whether to bet for or against. Or, repeat this thousands of times . . .

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all). In fact, however, some (at least) of the gods are said to require "true belief" (much more than just a bet) and most religions add all sorts of conditions to be followed by worshipers.


The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 70:

I refer folks to the thread, Korah's comments in it, and all such as that for a fuller context and how I ellipsiated right there in the middle of what he has to allow...

...but you'll have to keep changing ... your mind so that they will keep finding you entertaining and not just another boring partisan.

Again, I note the gist, context, and threadly record of what Korah's presented, while I present my own take on a particular aspect of it...


I reject the notion that one should change their mind, or they're "another boring partisan". On the contrary, I can respect one who thinks they have the best of it, such that there's nothing I, nor we, can do to change 'em. Granted, they risk the observer's wrath if they don't change the stuff it is the observer thinks they need to do 'em some of it.


One ain't a partisan 'cause they don't change their mind, they're a partisan if they imply one must change their mind in order not to be one. That's your partisan right there. Or, we're all partisans, in that we think the part of it we're proud if is the part we all need to be proud of.


Keep on rockin' bruder arian. If your mind gets changed, I have the most ut in faith and confidence you'll fess to it. Where we fail to convince you, it shouldn't be immediately assumed you had something to do with it. (While noting if we convince the observer, you might take that "hit" to your credibility, and verse vice)

[OnceConvinced]

arian, you're not for the faint of heart.
Two hours after apparently deciding "once convinced" was never a Christian, on a different thread you address him as "almost persuaded", I guess, to your beliefs. Not that this makes any difference on whether you should be banned, but at least I wanted to clarify that you changed your mind on whether "once convinced" was worth taking seriously.

He explained that he was a Christian for 30 years.
He then left, lost faith in an organization that didn't support him,

Nope. I lost faith in God and the bible. One day realised I could not longer deny the fact I no longer believed so decided to stop going to church because of it. I decided to stop praying. I saw no point. It was never a matter of losing faith in any organisation. The organisation was always supportive of me. I lost faith in the bible. I lost faith in God. Simple as that.

and he felt the reason was two fold; the church and the Bible.

As I told you there are almost a hundred reasons why I lost my faith. Many of it is bible related. Some of it is church related, but really only when it came to what I was seeing missing in churches and in people who claimed to be Christians.

I asked if he considered the possibility that maybe he was reading and understanding the Bible from a religious denominational perspective?

That would be kind of difficult as I went through many denominations during the time I was a Christian. Most of them held similar beliefs, but there were differences when it came to certain focuses. However I learnt to compare claims made by leaders with that of the bible. So the bible was the benchmark.

I presented the possibility that maybe the Denomination wasn't Christian according to Bible definition?

And I don't see any of the churches I went to as not being true Christian churches.

Anyways, we can all learn from these debates, and defining what 'Christian is?' is a good OP, but for now, I'd say; Take Pascal's wager, but please try to at least find the One True God, who (considering all the Power and creative ability that He has) should by all means be REAL, .. not the figment of Religious interpretation.

I completely reject Pascall's Wager. As far as I can see it is way too flawed. There is just no way to determine who the one true god if there is even a god at all. Even if it could be proven there were gods, if I chose the god of the bible I could be incurring the wrath of some greater god. But I just wouldn't want to waste any more time on any of this. It all just seems like pure fantasy to me now. You might as well tell me to go in search of the one true Fairy King or the one true Goblin King.

If there is really a god then it's up to him now to make himself known... and no, sending a human spokesperson is not gonna cut it. I've heard enough from people claiming to be speaking on God's behalf, especially when they keep coming up with conflicting messages. It has to be God himself. If he exists and wants a relationship with me, then the ball's in his court. And if he loves me as much as he claims, I don't see why he wouldn't want to make himself obvious to me.

[arian]

From Post 70:

I refer folks to the thread, Korah's comments in it, and all such as that for a fuller context and how I ellipsiated right there in the middle of what he has to allow...

...but you'll have to keep changing ... your mind so that they will keep finding you entertaining and not just another boring partisan.

Again, I note the gist, context, and threadly record of what Korah's presented, while I present my own take on a particular aspect of it...


I reject the notion that one should change their mind, or they're "another boring partisan". On the contrary, I can respect one who thinks they have the best of it, such that there's nothing I, nor we, can do to change 'em. Granted, they risk the observer's wrath if they don't change the stuff it is the observer thinks they need to do 'em some of it.

Why thank you Joey, I know there is no way I could've put it quite like that myself, and I agree that there is nothing more boring and annoying then someone who keeps changing their mind, like a stick in the ocean being tossed to and fro by the waves, never knowing if or when it will reach the shore (see what they stand on?). I don't know what gave Korah the idea that I was like that? Maybe I still have problems clarifying myself!?

One ain't a partisan 'cause they don't change their mind, they're a partisan if they imply one must change their mind in order not to be one. That's your partisan right there. Or, we're all partisans, in that we think the part of it we're proud if is the part we all need to be proud of.

Beautifully said, like a Picasso painting. This is actually my biggest fear with religions, which is why I fight against any religious ideologies because the hidden purpose is almost always that 'must' in there. Like this gay marriage victory, there is a lot of that 'must' hidden in there, only the shit didn't hit the fan yet. I know a lot of straight atheists that voted for it just to tee off the Religious Christians who protest against it, but brother, they will regret the day they did vote for it. No different than Communism, it sounded all so utopian, almost dreamy until people saw the equality and all that 'brotherhood' being forced down their throats.

Keep on rockin' bruder arian. If your mind gets changed, I have the most ut in faith and confidence you'll fess to it. Where we fail to convince you, it shouldn't be immediately assumed you had something to do with it. (While noting if we convince the observer, you might take that "hit" to your credibility, and verse vice)

Thanks again Joey, and of course I will confess to have learned something new, and that's all I ask and wish from everyone else here too. I have been wrong about a lot of things, and most of it was because of religion. It wasn't easy for me to confess that I have become an atheist (don't believe in the reality, or have any use for the gods the theists worship, force down peoples throats and go out so proudly to kill for.)
As I keep saying, my sword is absolutes, like in absolute truths. And Jesus never 'forced' truth down anyone's throat, but it did reveal our sins which made them harder to swallow.

Take care bruder Joey!

[arian]

arian, you're not for the faint of heart.
Two hours after apparently deciding "once convinced" was never a Christian, on a different thread you address him as "almost persuaded", I guess, to your beliefs. Not that this makes any difference on whether you should be banned, but at least I wanted to clarify that you changed your mind on whether "once convinced" was worth taking seriously.

He explained that he was a Christian for 30 years.
He then left, lost faith in an organization that didn't support him,

Nope. I lost faith in God and the bible. One day realised I could not longer deny the fact I no longer believed so decided to stop going to church because of it. I decided to stop praying. I saw no point. It was never a matter of losing faith in any organisation. The organisation was always supportive of me. I lost faith in the bible. I lost faith in God. Simple as that.

Thanks again OnceConvinced.
If a religious 'organization' presents the Bible in a bad light, the members will almost always blame the Bible, or God. Like;
"Jesus taught us to switch from 'eye-for-an-eye', to 'turn the other cheek!' So why are you sending us young ones off to war?"

"Well, .. the Bible isn't very clear on that?" Or, "You have to take Jesus words with a grain of salt! Can't get too literal on him. Just listen to us and you'll be fine, we'll stand in judgment if we were wrong, so don't worry! Your job is to be a good sheep, pay your tithes and offerings, and keep sending your pretty boys to quire."

and he felt the reason was two fold; the church and the Bible.

As I told you there are almost a hundred reasons why I lost my faith. Many of it is bible related. Some of it is church related, but really only when it came to what I was seeing missing in churches and in people who claimed to be Christians.

May I ask if you believe it was the Bibles/Gods/Christs fault for people not being able to be good Christians?

I asked if he considered the possibility that maybe he was reading and understanding the Bible from a religious denominational perspective?

That would be kind of difficult as I went through many denominations during the time I was a Christian. Most of them held similar beliefs, but there were differences when it came to certain focuses. However I learnt to compare claims made by leaders with that of the bible. So the bible was the benchmark.

If the 'Bible was your benchmark', .. I asked if you could show me which parts in the Bible made you leave the religious organization that supported you, or made you not believe in god/gods, .. but so far you haven't provided any scripture?

I presented the possibility that maybe the Denomination wasn't Christian according to Bible definition?

And I don't see any of the churches I went to as not being true Christian churches.

True Christian church is defined by the 'Christian Religions theology' which you can go and get a degree in from Schools of Divinity and Trinity Colleges. I mean this right there should make you wonder (if you already left), and tremble (if you are still in these organization) because deities are demons.

As I asked you many times, was the god you worshipped in the organization a Deity who 'divined' to mediums in the Church from the 'supernatural realm'? because if they did, they were not the One True Church whose God is One.

Anyways, we can all learn from these debates, and defining what 'Christian is?' is a good OP, but for now, I'd say; Take Pascal's wager, but please try to at least find the One True God, who (considering all the Power and creative ability that He has) should by all means be REAL, .. not the figment of Religious interpretation.

I completely reject Pascall's Wager. As far as I can see it is way too flawed. There is just no way to determine who the one true god if there is even a god at all. Even if it could be proven there were gods, if I chose the god of the bible I could be incurring the wrath of some greater god.

Obviously every religious denomination has the 'One True God', so your confusion is justified.
You said: "If it could be proven that there were gods?" May I suggest you look up in Wikipedia 'gods', and yes, these are all gods, they exist exactly like the religious people (monks, priests, self proclaimed holy men) designed them to be. No one can actually deny that gods exist, they can play dumb and say they don't, but come on, look around you, .. tens of thousands of gods and billions of worshipers, why, because gods don't exist?
Or go to one of those Lady Gaga, any Heavy Metal or Miley Cyrus concerts and you will also see that Lucifer exists too, and he is very much worshipped.

Acts 7:40
saying to Aaron, Make us gods to go before us; as for this Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.

Idolatry at Lystra

Acts 14:8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mothers womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, Stand up straight on your feet! And he leaped and walked.

11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men! 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.

14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. 18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.

So there is no question to the fact that there are gods, but we must be careful not waste 30 years worshiping these useless gods. We must find the One True God, the Only One Possible, the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am" in whose image we were created in.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle"I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying"a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

But I just wouldn't want to waste any more time on any of this. It all just seems like pure fantasy to me now. You might as well tell me to go in search of the one true Fairy King or the one true Goblin King.

I never suggested you keep wasting any more time on useless gods, or some Deities (demons) who divine to mediums.
As for your search for the 'Fairy king', .. it has ended. We in this country have both a Fairy King and a Fairy Queen, and if you looked closely we now have a 'Fairy Land' with a 'fairy flag' raised over it.

If there is really a god then it's up to him now to make himself known... and no, sending a human spokesperson is not gonna cut it. I've heard enough from people claiming to be speaking on God's behalf, especially when they keep coming up with conflicting messages. It has to be God himself. If he exists and wants a relationship with me, then the ball's in his court. And if he loves me as much as he claims, I don't see why he wouldn't want to make himself obvious to me.

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

1 John 4:12
No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us.

God is Spirit/Mind just as I have explained many times over. Just as you cannot see my mind (which is who I really am, the body is only my tent) but you can know me if you hear my voice which is what I use, my vocal cords to make myself known, the same way God uses His creation to make Himself known. Like in the case of Moses, God used a Fiery Angel that appeared in a burning bush to speak through. He can use thunder as His voice-box, or yes, .. His Son Word, .. Gods Word who he is, but I guess you can only accept some religious idol to speak to you, like that would change anything?

Gods people settled at the foot of Gods mountain, heard God speak to Moses through thunder and lightning, and they trembled in fear. When God started to speak to them personally, they were so afraid that they begged Moses to ask God to speak to him only.

Look, if you were a Christian, even if it was one of the religious denominations, you should have learned all this, and what I tell you, the non-religious part should make sense to you. But hey, if you prefer billions of years ago stories as your creator, or accept having been created in the image of apes, that's your prerogative. I don't waste my time debating for or against religions and their gods, I proclaim to you what has been revealed to me which I can observe in the here and now, in science, and philosophy which is the search for the truth.

See, I have also learned another thing, that there is no such thing as "Undeniable evidence", I mean as we can see, people can deny their own Creator which is really hard to deny, and instead accept being formed in the image of monkeys.

[H.sapiens]

.
In one of the threads a member indicated that philosophical arguments, including Pascal's Wager, rule out the possibility of God not existing.

Blaise Pascal actually wrote (but did not publish) "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists."

He did NOT use this as an argument that God exists. Instead, his argument is that whether God exists or not one should "bet" on existence. Betting is not argument for existence " but a gamble on what is (admittedly to Pascal) unknown.

I maintain that his proposal is faulty even in that:

1) The wager assumes a singular god (to bet on or against) when thousands of gods have been proposed, some of whom are said to require exclusive right to be worshiped and condemn worshipers of competing gods. Thus, it cannot be determined which of the proposed gods to worship. In other words, first pick one of the gods (with less than 1/10 percent chance of being right), then decide whether to bet for or against. Or, repeat this thousands of times . . .

2) There is no assurance that any god requires belief (or betting) by humans " and could require exactly the opposite " (disapproval of gullibility or naivete). Who knows such thing beyond speculation and opinion (ancient or modern)?

3) "Lose nothing" is incorrect unless ALL that is required by the god is betting / wagering that it exists (without "putting up" or "anteing" anything at all). In fact, however, some (at least) of the gods are said to require "true belief" (much more than just a bet) and most religions add all sorts of conditions to be followed by worshipers.


The argument may sound compelling in church when assumptions are made about which god to believe exists and what the god requires of believers.

Question for debate: Is the argument compelling or convincing in debate?

True prophets, saints and believers don't have to use Pascal's Wager idea. They already know God exists.

No, religionists have knowledge of nothing, they only have belief ... a rather weak and inadequate substitute for knowledge.

[OnceConvinced]

May I ask if you believe it was the Bibles/Gods/Christs fault for people not being able to be good Christians?

No I dont believe its Gods fault. Remember I no longer believe in God so I would never blame God for anything. Even as a Christian I did not believe it was Gods fault.

If the 'Bible was your benchmark', .. I asked if you could show me which parts in the Bible made you leave the religious organization that supported you, or made you not believe in god/gods, .. but so far you haven't provided any scripture?

I am not listing scriptures because there are way too many and it would take this subject way off track. All you need to know is that I used the bible as my benchmark, not what pastors or other people said. I see no point in getting into a big debate on individual scriptures and what exactly they are saying.

As I asked you many times, was the god you worshipped in the organization a Deity who 'divined' to mediums in the Church from the 'supernatural realm'? because if they did, they were not the One True Church whose God is One.

There were no mediums in any churches I attended.

Anyways, we can all learn from these debates, and defining what 'Christian is?' is a good OP, but for now, I'd say; Take Pascal's wager, but please try to at least find the One True God, who (considering all the Power and creative ability that He has) should by all means be REAL, .. not the figment of Religious interpretation.

I completely reject Pascall's Wager. As far as I can see it is way too flawed. There is just no way to determine who the one true god if there is even a god at all. Even if it could be proven there were gods, if I chose the god of the bible I could be incurring the wrath of some greater god.

Obviously every religious denomination has the 'One True God', so your confusion is justified.

There is no confusion. Why would you think there is confusion? I equally reject all concepts of Gods. None can be shown to exist in reality. I see no advantage in taking any one God concept seriously.

You said: "If it could be proven that there were gods?" May I suggest you look up in Wikipedia 'gods', and yes, these are all gods, they exist exactly like the religious people (monks, priests, self proclaimed holy men) designed them to be. No one can actually deny that gods exist, they can play dumb and say they don't, but come on, look around you, .. tens of thousands of gods and billions of worshipers, why, because gods don't exist?

Just because people believe or have believed in those gods does not make them real. You can also look up Wikepedia and find out about almost every character from every TV show, movie or book too.

Humans have been known to believe in crazy stuff. That is not evidence that their beliefs are true. Just evidence that humans have over active imaginations. Humans can be very deluded. The fact is there is no convincing evidence that any god exists.

Or go to one of those Lady Gaga, any Heavy Metal or Miley Cyrus concerts and you will also see that Lucifer exists too, and he is very much worshipped

Oh you can just see that satanic energy oozing from Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus!

I have been to rock concerts but have seen no evidence of any evil supernatural being. Lucifer is simply just another made up character. There is no convincing evidence he/it exists.

So there is no question to the fact that there are gods,

You use ancient bible stories as proof of Gods? Seriously? I see it as proof of fallible human beings who didnt understand the way the world worked so conjured up an imaginary god to explain things they didnt understand. Thats just human nature. Its the way many of us a wired as a result of evolution.

but we must be careful not waste 30 years worshiping these useless gods.

Nor would we want to waste any more precious years investigating any other useless gods.

I'm glad that you realize that the 30 years I spent worshiping Jesus was a waste of time. I intend to waste no further time chasing a fantasy.

We must find the One True God, the Only One Possible, the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am" in whose image we were created in.

Why should there be only one true God? And what if that one true god is really Allah? Imagine how furious Allah would be with me if I worshipped Jesus?

]

God is Spirit/Mind just as I have explained many times over.

You can make up anything you want about a god. Doesnt make your god real.

Look, if you were a Christian, even if it was one of the religious denominations, you should have learned all this,

I learnt a lot of stuff and believed a lot of what you believe. The big difference is that I no longer believe any of it. To me its all religious nonsense now. Things change. I look at things completely differently these days.

and what I tell you, the non-religious part should make sense to you. But hey, if you prefer billions of years ago stories as your creator

What "billions of years ago" stories" I have no interest in such stories. I look at what we know as fact and I see it to be true. I look at REALITY! I would never rely on ancient books or stories for my knowledge of the universe. I did enough of that when I was a Christian studying the bible. I learnt my lesson about taking ancient stories seriously.

, or accept having been created in the image of apes,

Its quite obvious we are apes. I dont know why any rational person would deny that. However we were not created to be in the image of anything. Its simple evolution and evolution makes way more sense than some all powerful all knowing being going abracadabra and creating everything.

that's your prerogative.

It seems like the only rational explanation to me, but even then it doesnt matter. I dont really care how we got here. It has no bearing on the enjoyment of my life. However we got here it was amazing whether by abiogenesis or by magic. I just see no reason to believe it was some supernatural being that did it especially when there is absolutely no convincing evidence of this beings existence. Science proves evolution is true. Science doesn't prove God is real.

See, I have also learned another thing, that there is no such thing as "Undeniable evidence", I mean as we can see, people can deny their own Creator which is really hard to deny,

Isnt it funny that you see it as hard to deny but others see it as hard to prove? This should be a lesson that we all see things completely differently. What may seem obvious to one is not obvious to another. Of course a god would realise this. The fact that the bible god doesnt realise this, is proof that he doesnt exist and that the bible was written by fallible man who believed everyone should see things their way.

and instead accept being formed in the image of monkeys.

You really do need to learn a little bit more about evolutions, because clearly you dont understand it. This comment here makes that quite obvious. For one thing evolution does not teach us that we are formed in any image. That is a creationist way of thinking. You need to put aside that way of thinking if you wish to understand evolution. Secondly, as Im sure youve been told many times, we are not evolved from monkeys. That is just a silly argument that Christians use and when they use it they show their profound ignorance when it comes to evolution. Its no wonder they continue to grasp hold of their fantasies that they were created by magic.

[arian]

May I ask if you believe it was the Bibles/Gods/Christs fault for people not being able to be good Christians?

No I dont believe its Gods fault. Remember I no longer believe in God so I would never blame God for anything. Even as a Christian I did not believe it was Gods fault.

May I ask: "What is your reason to debate here on a Christian and Religious Forum?
Now you did mention you lost faith in God and the Church that supported you, .. you no longer believe in God, but you won't tell me which of the tens of thousands of gods you believed in, .. sooo why are you debating Pascals wager?

Pascal just said, that if you don't believe in God, (whatever the reason, .. because I sure can't figure out why you did, and why you now don't) so why not believe? What do you have to loose?

If the 'Bible was your benchmark', .. I asked if you could show me which parts in the Bible made you leave the religious organization that supported you, or made you not believe in god/gods, .. but so far you haven't provided any scripture?

I am not listing scriptures because there are way too many and it would take this subject way off track. All you need to know is that I used the bible as my benchmark, not what pastors or other people said. I see no point in getting into a big debate on individual scriptures and what exactly they are saying.

I understand my friend, you rather not talk about it. So we go round and around in circles, so here is where I get off. I have all the respect for you so don't take it personal please?

But just to let you know as to why I keep asking you where you found fault that you no longer believe is right here in Genesis

The Temptation and Fall of Man

Genesis 3:3 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, Has God indeed said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

You see how the Word of God can be twisted? This is why I asked?

Take care OnceConvinced.

Oh one more thing

and instead accept being formed in the image of monkeys.

You really do need to learn a little bit more about evolutions, because clearly you dont understand it. This comment here makes that quite obvious. For one thing evolution does not teach us that we are formed in any image. That is a creationist way of thinking.

Oh yes, like the homosexuals, they want to remove father and mother from all documents so it would not discriminate them. Very touchy about wording, and so are Evolutionists, no words like 'created' or 'formed', but I say: look into the mirror, and then look at you parents, then finally look at the apes.
Now ask yourself: "which image was I formed in?"

Well, unless you now believe you evolved from your mothers womb? But still, you can see that you are in the image of your mom and dad (these words like mom and dad, as thousands of other words will no longer be legal to use, so it is still a privilege for me to use it!) and not an apes, right?

You need to put aside that way of thinking if you wish to understand evolution.

Yes, .. that's exactly what the homosexuals are telling people, to put aside God, Jesus Christ and the Bible and our Christian way of thinking to understand homosexuality.
But I say nay! I will not change the world to fit you in, just as I wouldn't change the world to fit any other sin in, like murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc..

Secondly, as Im sure youve been told many times, we are not evolved from monkeys. That is just a silly argument that Christians use and when they use it they show their profound ignorance when it comes to evolution. Its no wonder they continue to grasp hold of their fantasies that they were created by magic.

So where do you think you evolved from if not from monkeys? Were you always human? Did you ever walk on all fours? were you always hairless or with teeny tiny hair like you are now, or did you evolve out of all the monkey hair?

Oh well, but i really am getting tired of teaching Evolutionist about their magical, long, long time ago evolution fairytales. "We didn't evolve from monkeys arian! We evolved from chimp-like monkeys, that's why we are still apes. If we evolved from stork-like birds, we would label ourselves birds, not apes."

OK, this is going nowhere, so I'll just let myself out from "Pascal's wager and let those who don't believe in either God or the Bible any longer to debate it, .. lol

I still love you my friend, Agape love, not that rainbow Eros love, OK! Just to make sure since I can't even express my joy, or being gay anymore.

[arian]

[Replying to post 76 by OnceConvinced]

Oh yeah, just one more thing:

Oh you can just see that satanic energy oozing from Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YjcsmB4lUg

[OnceConvinced]

May I ask: "What is your reason to debate here on a Christian and Religious Forum?

Firstly I started out here hoping that I might be able to believe again and that Christians would be able to help me answer some of my questions. However all it did was cement my disbelief.

I also enjoy debating religion and this is the main reason I do it now. I also have a desire to educate and to expose lies and fantasies that Christians in particular make about their religion. I hope to even make them think about what they believe. Challenge them and try to shake them out of their delusions. I was in it for over 30 years of my life, and I do not want others to waste their time and energies on it. I care.

Now you did mention you lost faith in God and the Church that supported you,

I never lost any faith in any church. Im not quite sure why you keep insisting upon that. A church was simply a place to go to fellowship, to worship and to learn. As they are human organisations they will always be fallible. You can only put so much faith in humans.

.. you no longer believe in God, but you won't tell me which of the tens of thousands of gods you believed in, .. sooo why are you debating Pascals wager?

I thought it was quite obvious what god I believed in. I call myself a former Christian. I have that as one of my user groups. Therefore my God was the god of the bible of which I believed Jesus and the holy spirit are part of.

I am debating this topic because I see Pacal's Wager as a ridiculously flawed piece of logic and I wish to expose that.

Pascal just said, that if you don't believe in God, (whatever the reason, .. because I sure can't figure out why you did, and why you now don't) so why not believe? What do you have to loose?

Have I not already explained this to you? By worshipping one god I might be angering a lot of other gods. I also do not wish to waste any more of my time on religious fantasies when I have already wasted over 30 years of my time on one. What I would have to lose is a lot of time, a lot of effort not to mention having to buy into a whole lot of religious nonsense that can have a negative psychological impact on a person. I have better things to do with my time than worshiping or following some seemingly imaginary god. Give me a real god, one that has been proven to exist and then maybe I might consider THAT particular god. No more religious fantasies please. They are a terrible waste of time.

If the 'Bible was your benchmark', .. I asked if you could show me which parts in the Bible made you leave the religious organization that supported you, or made you not believe in god/gods, .. but so far you haven't provided any scripture?

I am not listing scriptures because there are way too many and it would take this subject way off track. All you need to know is that I used the bible as my benchmark, not what pastors or other people said. I see no point in getting into a big debate on individual scriptures and what exactly they are saying.

I understand my friend, you rather not talk about it.

Nope its not that I dont want to talk about it. Its just that its a huge topic that would take up too much time here and would take this topic off course. You will see me bring up many such scriptures on other threads. As the topics come up I debate them then.

So we go round and around in circles, so here is where I get off. I have all the respect for you so don't take it personal please?

Respect? Since when have you shown an ounce of respect towards me in this thread? You have twisted much of what I've said. You've ignored answers I have given you and then asked the same questions again. Read further on and you will see a very mocking tone in your posts. There is no respect there, but I don't take it personally. I have come to expect that from many Christians who visit these boards.

Anyway, what led me to lose my faith in the bible is only one part of this discussion we are having. However the topic of this thread is Pascals Wager. Im not sure why you need to know what made me lose my faith in the bible when the topic is about Pascals Wager.

Genesis 3:3 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, Has God indeed said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said to the serpent, We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.

4 Then the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

You see how the Word of God can be twisted? This is why I asked?

Interesting that you use a bible just so story which Christians have already twisted to make your point. But Im not seeing why a twisting of an old bible story is relevant to what we have been discussing. If you really want to talk about this story, how about we talk about the serpent. This serpent was never supposed to portray Satan. It was simply a talking snake. Christians claim its Satan masquerading as a snake, but its not Satan at all. But if it is really Satan, then I completely lose faith in the bible god right away, because why would God go and curse all snakes when snakes were not to blame for this deception? It would make God an irrational idiotic fool to do that. I just cant believe that a god would be so stupid. So I have no choice but to reject at least the Christian take on this story. If you want to say its just a talking snake, well I have to reject that too. Snakes dont talk. So either way you look at it, its a fictional story. It just cant possibly be true, so therefore cant be considered Gods word.

Take care OnceConvinced.

Oh one more thing

Hey you lied! You said you were getting off!

and instead accept being formed in the image of monkeys.

You really do need to learn a little bit more about evolutions, because clearly you dont understand it. This comment here makes that quite obvious. For one thing evolution does not teach us that we are formed in any image. That is a creationist way of thinking.

Oh yes, like the homosexuals, they want to remove father and mother from all documents so it would not discriminate them. Very touchy about wording, and so are Evolutionists, no words like 'created' or 'formed', but
"

If you did not mean it in a creationists sense, then fine, but it very much seemed that way. Evolution however does not require anything to be formed in any image. What forms is just a natural outcome of the environment in which its in.

I say: look into the mirror, and then look at you parents, then finally look at the apes.
Now ask yourself: "which image was I formed in?

What apes? You need to specify exactly what type of ape were looking at.

Even if we were talking about gorillas or orang-utans, I would be amazed at the similarities, especially when it comes to behaviour and instinct. Just watch a few documentaries and youll see just how similar we are. When you really consider it, when we get down to our basic instincts we very much are like gorillas and chimpanzees.

There is definitely many features very similar. Clearly we come from the same ancestry. Thats should be quite obvious to anyone. Is it really so shameful to admit that we might come from similar ancestors? Would that make you insecure as a human being? Are you that arrogant that you need to put yourself above every other living creature or creature that has ever lived, on this planet? Perhaps you arent as special as what you think you are? Perhaps all we are is highly evolved animals and thats the fact of the matter? Perhaps its just something you need to get over?

You need to put aside that way of thinking if you wish to understand evolution.

Yes, .. that's exactly what the homosexuals are telling people, to put aside God, Jesus Christ and the Bible and our Christian way of thinking to understand homosexuality.

I've never once heard homosexuals saying anything like that. Sounds like a religious fantasy to me. There may be some, but most just want equal rights and an acknowledgement they were born that way.

Have you even made even an ounce of effort to try to understand where homosexuals are coming from or are you just putting on your bible blinders and simply scoffing at them and condemning them? Is that your way of loving and respecting people? If so I want nothing of your so-called love and respect.

But I say nay! I will not change the world to fit you in, just as I wouldn't change the world to fit any other sin in, like murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc..

You sure do go off on tangents don't you? Bringing up stuff that has no relevance to the discussion. Fine, you keep your warped ideas about evolution then. Just dont expect to gain any respect from anyone who understands it even a LITTLE. Reality speaks louder than the bible to most rational people.

Secondly, as Im sure youve been told many times, we are not evolved from monkeys. That is just a silly argument that Christians use and when they use it they show their profound ignorance when it comes to evolution. Its no wonder they continue to grasp hold of their fantasies that they were created by magic.

So where do you think you evolved from if not from monkeys? Were you always human? Did you ever walk on all fours? were you always hairless or with teeny tiny hair like you are now, or did you evolve out of all the monkey hair?

If you actually did some basic reading on these questions youd easily have your answers. Im not willing to waste my time on someone who has no interest in trying to understand it. You stick with your stories of super powered beings with magic powers. I will go with what I can see in reality.

Oh well, but i really am getting tired of teaching Evolutionist about their magical, long, long time ago evolution fairy tales.

Magical long time ago fairy tales? What like stories of a super powered being saying abracadabra and creating things? There is no magic involved in evolution. What we have today is the inevitable outcome of a very long journey. But clearly you have no interest in even trying to understand it. Im guessing because deep down you know that if you really did come to understand it, it would make more sense than magical super powered beings saying abracadabra or let there be light. I think you are AFRAID to try to understand it. That is why you mock it and deliberately misrepresent it.

"We didn't evolve from monkeys arian! We evolved from chimp-like monkeys, that's why we are still apes. If we evolved from stork-like birds, we would label ourselves birds, not apes."

Only a Christian would say something absurd like that. Definitely not any self-respecting evolutionist.

OK, this is going nowhere,

No, especially not when one has no desire to make any effort to understand scientific fact.

I still love you my friend,

You dont even know me, so you can hardly claim to love me. Any such claims you make are worthless. Clearly you have no love for me or you wouldnt be trying to make a mockery of my comments. You would not be trying to twist and turn them like you have.

Agape love, not that rainbow Eros love, OK! Just to make sure since I can't even express my joy, or being gay anymore.

You can be as gay as you like, just as long as you dont try to insist on loving me. Youll soon find out I wont be quite so civil towards you as I am now.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 76 by OnceConvinced]

Oh yeah, just one more thing:

Oh you can just see that satanic energy oozing from Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YjcsmB4lUg

Christian fantasies?

Been there, done that. The Illuminati, Freemasonry, 666, all that nonsense. Used to take it seriously. Now I don't. There's nothing satanic going on here. The devil is simply a made up entity. The crap that people do can all be explained perfectly well by evolution and mental illnesses.