Hey if everyone is doing it then why not?

[dotoree]

Memeticemetic, If you want to be an ostrich and refuse to investigate the eivdnece and follow it, you're free to do so and lose 10+ years of life on THIS earth to start with (see my health playlist) as well as many other benefits.
There are different concepts in science, some where are right and some which are wrong. Same with Christianity (and I'm not saying my denomination is perfect in all areas. We're not.).
But, the Catholic church is in dire and direct opposition to the Bible on a host of fronts, and there are about 80 prophecies in the Bible speaking of a religious power that will
replace God's laws with man's traditions and speak against God (the Greek also means instead of God). The only power in history that can match these predictions is the Catholic church.

Anachronous Rex, Pasteur's wager is solid and very true. There are so many benefits to Christianity conclusively proven by scientists both Christian and secular. So you can't lose..you get many benefits in this life and and also a great chance at eternity. See my channel for a few videos and references as well. Btw, faking faith will never work. See Matt. 25.

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

[Pascal's] wager is solid and very true.

(Pasteur was a scientist, one of those involved in improving human health )
I see the reasoning behind it, yes, but you also note the problem with it:

Btw, faking faith will never work. See Matt. 25.

Which is exactly why Pascal's Wager falls flat. Now, it's no longer believing in God because better safe than sorry, but devoting our lives to him. What about Thor or Zues? Pascal's wager would have us devote our lives to them as well, because we'd be better safe than sorry. Your god is no different from the other hundreds that humans have made up that demanded obedience.

dotoree, will you convert to Islam because of Pascal's Wager? If Allah does exist, you'd be safer believing in him while you still have the chance. Faking your faith won't work. See Qu'ran 2:8.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Memeticemetic, If you want to be an ostrich and refuse to investigate the eivdnece and follow it, you're free to do so and lose 10+ years of life on THIS earth to start with (see my health playlist) as well as many other benefits.
There are different concepts in science, some where are right and some which are wrong. Same with Christianity (and I'm not saying my denomination is perfect in all areas. We're not.).

I've seen some of your videos and they don't qualify as evidence by even the loosest standards of the word. I don't expect you to understand why since you've had it explained to you ad infinitum in the fabled thread that wouldn't die.http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6201&hilit=honestly You have no idea what kind of lifestyle I lead; for all you know I actually do live by all those principles and am in excellent health. That you equate science and christianity is an insane joke. The key difference is that science is self correcting. We actively seek out where we are wrong and have a methodology by which we can correct ourselves. Not so with your religion.

Now, if you want a place in this forum to spread your nonsense and get it torn to shreds, go back to the above thread or start a new one. You're a member here now so there's nothing stopping you from doing so. It's simply bad etiquette to hijack a thread and derail it by going off on an unrelated tangent. Yes, I recognize the irony that I, too, am contributing to that. So I'll finish by saying: Ratzinger can rot in the imaginary hell in which has so earnestly earned a place in its most vile depths.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Anachronous Rex, Pasteur's wager is solid and very true. There are so many benefits to Christianity conclusively proven by scientists both Christian and secular.

You're mistaken if you think this is what - Pascal - was arguing for. Also, prove it.

So you can't lose..you get many benefits in this life and and also a great chance at eternity. See my channel for a few videos and references as well. Btw, faking faith will never work. See Matt. 25.

Actually you get a statistically irrelevant chance at eternity, given the infinite number possibilities regarding this hypothetical afterlife. For instance, if atheists are the only ones who get to go to heaven, then you've screwed yourself. And if there is a god, and it's your god, do you think he honestly prefers this dishonest, hypocritical, self-interested, cynical, gambit - made in case it might be true - to my sincere unbelief, honestly arrived at, free of duplicity or deceit?

Would that be a moral god?

By the way, I object to this notion proposed by you religious sorts that my beliefs are so malleable. What I believe is an obligate condition that has been forced upon me by what the best evidence suggests (or doesn't.) This idea that I can simply 'choose' to believe something I do not believe, is an insult to me and to the intellect. I do not believe in your god, I cannot make myself believe without evidence - which no one has ever been able to present to me, despite trying quite hard. By definition I could only ever be faking faith.

I have to say dotoree, you give me the terrible impression of someone who has never questioned his own beliefs, much less even listened to the arguments against them.

 

[kenandkids]

@unff:

To bring up Kinsey in a discussion about (abnormal)sexuality is akin to bringing up Freud in a discussion of psychology. Whatever contribution they might have made in the fields have been discredited due to their own shoddy processes and personal hangups. Both used prisoners and disturbed individuals for source work and both had preoccupations with their individual "findings" and assertions.

 

[lrkun]

If Christ existed, and he's in the present, the first thing he'd do, supposing the Bible is correct, is that he'd destroy the religion of Christianity.

 

[dotoree]

That you equate science and christianity is an insane joke. The key difference is that science is self correcting. We actively seek out where we are wrong and have a methodology by which we can correct ourselves. Not so with your religion.

Now, if you want a place in this forum to spread your nonsense and get it torn to shreds, go back to the above thread or start a new one. You're a member here now so there's nothing stopping you from doing so. It's simply bad etiquette to hijack a thread and derail it by going off on an unrelated tangent. Yes, I recognize the irony that I, too, am contributing to that. So I'll finish by saying: Ratzinger can rot in the imaginary hell in which has so earnestly earned a place in its most vile depths.[/quote]
--
Sorry, but you obviously don't know what evidence is. These videos are of course summaries of many peer reviewed articles and some deal with philosphy and accurately understanding some thhings, but there are many incontrovertible evidences in them and MANY more coming as well as links to 100s of articles and even stronger evidence. If these are not accepted as evidence (see the Genesis Conflict series for example), then you must throw out all the so called "evidence" for evolution and much of western civilization to be consistent.

It is only recently that science has caught up to the Bible in some health areas...for 3,000+ years, the Bible had it right. Scientists had to study Adventists (one of the most studied groups in America) and other Christian groups to get started in figuring out many aspects of health and why they were important. You wouldn't know MUCH that you know without the Bible.

It is a historical and indisputable fact admitted even by some secular scholars that Christianity and science were deeply intertwined for all history and that the modern view of them as enemies is a despicable myth.

You are completely wrong that religion is not self correcting. That is yet another myth. If it were not self correcting and progressing, there would not be so many denominations now.

The fabled thread took so long for these reasons...Aronra broke his word to have a discussion between me and him (and I have irrefutable screenshots of this commitment) and more importantly, he refused to let me define what I myself believe, straw manning with ridiculous pejoratives..one of the most despicable and immoral things I have yet encountered in 20 years of debates...even after I cited court definitions, he wouldn't agree (although he near the end started to modify his positions a bit...but in December and January I was extremely busy in giving tests to my university students and grading them and am still doing some final paperwork on that . I have never seen the like of what he tried to perpetrate.

I will go back to that forum very soon, but a lawsuit I started was suddenly dramatically speeded up and I had not expected that. I'm preparing for that a lot and so only have time for some short comments at present. But, I will debate Inferno as soon as I can get some decent free time for sure..since he has agreed to that..or Aronra if he ever decides to honor his commitments.

Bryan

 

[RigelKentaurusA]

Answer my question about converting to Islam.

 

[Memeticemetic]

More bollocks.

Now, if you want a place in this forum to spread your nonsense and get it torn to shreds, go back to the above thread or start a new one. You're a member here now so there's nothing stopping you from doing so. It's simply bad etiquette to hijack a thread and derail it by going off on an unrelated tangent.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Answer my question about converting to Islam.

Of course he has no answer, not that he'll admit that.

It won't stop him from making the same claim about the strength of Pascal's wager again, however.

 

[Gnug215]

Mod note:

dotoree, you're derailing this thread.

You have been warned.

The rest of you, ignore the derailer.

 

[dotoree]

Answer my question about converting to Islam.

Of course he has no answer, not that he'll admit that.

It won't stop him from making the same claim about the strength of Pascal's wager again, however.

--
Last reply here I hope, I really need to spend the tiny time I have in the other forum I started discussing in. MODS, I replied directly to the original topic...others challenged me with other things (such as converting to Islam). I only responded to that. This will be my last response to them, but they demanded I answer a question.

1) The problem of many religions is no problem for Pascal's wager at all.
Here's why:
1) The Bible teaches that God is a righteous and fair judge and doesn't judge people on things they don't know (that would be like me grading you on Korean language ability, very unfair). Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, but He judges on our conscience (Romans 2:12-16) and winks at ignorance (Acts 17:22-30). Have we tried to followed the truth they know? Have we tried to conquer sin? Have we been open to following evidence and not misrepresenting it?

Adventists based on the above verses and others believes there will be many in heaven who never knew Jesus, but followed all the truth they were aware of(some Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, shamanists, even possibly some atheists, etc.). But, many will be lost because they rebelled against evidence and truth that was available to learn and follow. Doing that is dangerous.
Btw, There is no eternal hell. It's only a temporary thing to end all sin and suffering and something that God has absolutely NO pleasure in. It's only the way to end the far worse hell of endless crime, abuse, war, terrorism, etc. See my playlist on hell.
here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=7C4256A5E213CF24

2) Pascal wrote, "I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." THIS is the actual wager..that we get MANY benefits from being a Christian (and science conclusively shows that those who follow Bible principles live ~10 years longer than average, have better marriages on average, are happier, commit fewer crimes, advance human rights more, etc. See: "Why America Needs Religion" by Guenter Lewy, a critic of religion at first, from the University of Massachusetts who documents these things and more. Some studies depend on people claiming that they are Christians. But a Christian who doesn't follow Biblical principles is no more a Christian than someone claiming to be a scientist and refusing to follow the scientific method.

See a few videos on this (and links in notes) here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=21AEF61B66D954E1 esp. watch
"How to live to 100+" by Dan Buettner, head of Blue Zones Research project, on Adventists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8HOrDo8xUM (11:30)

MUCH more than this. But, I'll stop here due to my time and to end the diversions from the main topic as the moderator has advised.
Bryan

 

[dotoree]

MODS, I replied directly to the original topic...others challenged me with other things (such as converting to Islam). I only responded to that. I"ll try to make this my last response to them on these other topics, but they demanded I answer a question, so I will answer a couple in only 1 post. I really need to spend the tiny time I have in the other forum I started discussing in anyway...but must answer a couple things.

"I have to say dotoree, you give me the terrible impression of someone who has never questioned his own beliefs, much less even listened to the arguments against them."
--
Absolutely false. I've been listening to the best atheists and evolutionists for decades. I have no reason to follow fiction. NONE. The shortest I can make it is this. I prefer to follow the weight of evidence. That weight of evidence is SOLIDLY in favor of biogenesis (billions of examples) vs. abiogenesis (not even one case of evolution from inert matter to even the simplest cell). We also have solid evidence that Bible science adds 10+ years to live beyond the average THESE days (that proves Pascal's wager a solid truth). There is so much more evidence than that, but that's for a hopefully soon coming debate as soon as I can carve out a bit of time.

Just in the last couple months, I listened to debates including atheists like Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc. They and 99% of atheists have extremely serious misunderstandings about the Bible's theology (some is due to Christians, esp. Catholics, following man made traditions instead of the Bible such as eternal hell for example, something that Jesus explicitly condemned in Mark 7:5-13 and something the Bible warned would happen. But, some is because of willful ignorance and intentional misrepresentation on the part of atheists.
---

Answer my question about converting to Islam.

Of course he has no answer, not that he'll admit that.

It won't stop him from making the same claim about the strength of Pascal's wager again, however.

--
1) The problem of many religions is no problem for Pascal's wager at all.
Here's why:
1) The Bible teaches that God is a righteous and fair judge and doesn't judge people on things they don't know (that would be like me grading you on Korean language ability, very unfair). Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, but He judges on our conscience (Romans 2:12-16) and winks at ignorance (Acts 17:22-30). Have we tried to follow the truth we know? Have we tried to conquer sin? Have we been open to following evidence and refused to misrepresent it, doing our best to follow the weight of evidence?

Adventists based on the above verses and others believes there will be many in heaven who never knew Jesus, but followed all the truth they were aware of (some Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, shamanists, even possibly some atheists, etc.). But, many will be lost because they rebelled against evidence and truth that was available to learn and follow, used double standards and logical fallacies in order to follow their emotions instead of the facts. Doing that is dangerous.

Btw, There is no eternal hell. It's only a temporary thing to end all sin and suffering and something that God has absolutely NO pleasure in. It's only the way to end the far worse hell of endless crime, abuse, war, terrorism, etc. See my playlist on hell.
here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=7C4256A5E213CF24

2) Pascal wrote, "I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." THIS is the actual wager..that we get MANY benefits from being a Christian (and science conclusively shows that those who follow Bible principles live ~10 years longer than average, have better marriages on average, are happier, commit fewer crimes, advance human rights more, etc. See: "Why America Needs Religion" by Guenter Lewy, a critic of religion at first, from the University of Massachusetts who documents these things and more. Some studies depend on people claiming that they are Christians. But a Christian who doesn't follow Biblical principles is no more a Christian than someone claiming to be a scientist and refusing to follow the scientific method.

See a few videos on this (and links in notes) here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=21AEF61B66D954E1

esp. watch "How to live to 100+" by Dan Buettner, head of Blue Zones Research project, on Adventists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8HOrDo8xUM (11:30)

Some have spoken above of God as a dictator. This is not even close to true. Even though He is omnipotent, he values the freedom of His created beings so much that he has allowed himself to be put on trial in front of the whole universe. The Cosmic Conflict videos (1st ~20 minutes) here explain that well:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=FF4DF93F306FA0C3

The Notre Dame professor Plantinga explains and has resolved the problem of evil to the satisfaction of most scholars even though God is good and omnipotent (see the video at the end of the same playlist above for a short overview of it).

Many people want to do everything their own way, what they call freedom. But, if we rebelled against science, against education, against history, it would be really foolish and we would only hurt ourselves and hamper our progress or reverse it. It's exactly the same with God. His desire is to empower our intellectual understanding and growth and He gave us minds able to grasp incredible things if we put effort into that. He didn't just give us all the answers. NO good teacher does that. He gave some answers for the best life here on earth (health, happiness, relationships and some others), but wanted us to enjoy the thrill of discovery and reach our highest potential and be proud of what we've discovered.

This is a quote on education and God's desire for our intellectual growth that many atheists need to read:
"True education means more than the pursual of a certain course of study. It means more than a preparation for the life that now is. It has to do with the whole being, and with the whole period of existence possible to man. It is the harmonious development of the physical, the mental, and the spiritual powers. It prepares the student for the joy of service in this world and for the higher joy of wider service in the world to come.

The world has had its great teachers, men of giant intellect and extensive research, men whose utterances have stimulated thought and opened to view vast fields of knowledge; and these men have been honored as guides and benefactors of their race; but there is One who stands higher than they. We can trace the line of the world's teachers as far back as human records extend; but the Light was before them. As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun, so, as far as their teaching is true, do the world's great thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Every gleam of thought, every flash of the intellect, is from the Light of the world.

***(IMPORTANT PARAGAPH)**
Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen. Instead of educated weaklings, institutions of learning may send forth men strong to think and to act, men who are masters and not slaves of circumstances, men who possess breadth of mind, clearness of thought, and the courage of their convictions.
***

MUCH more than this. But, I'll stop here due to my time limits and to end the diversions from the main topic as the moderator has advised.
Bryan

 

[kenandkids]

:facepalm:

 

[Memeticemetic]

:facepalm:

 

[Prolescum]

:facepalm:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

dotoree, as you can't seem to leave well enough alone, I've taken the liberty of starting a new thread for the purpose of discussing what's wrong with the above,
Linksy
Please feel free to continue this there.

Also,
:facepalm:

 

[Gnug215]

Mod note:

...

You acknowledge the error that you've just been warned for, and then continue in the same vein??

Seriously, do you have some fundamental flaw in comprehending normal communication?

Anyway, comprehend this: You're now the lucky owner of a temporary ban lasting a week.

(Yes, I realize that you'll probably be gone for a week before returning anyway, but maybe this will get your attention.)

 

[Gnug215]

P.S. Sorry, Anachronus, that you went through all that trouble just to have me ruin all your fun.

 

[Andiferous]

Now, if you want a place in this forum to spread your nonsense and get it torn to shreds, go back to the above thread or start a new one. You're a member here now so there's nothing stopping you from doing so. It's simply bad etiquette to hijack a thread and derail it by going off on an unrelated tangent. Yes, I recognize the irony that I, too, am contributing to that. So I'll finish by saying: Ratzinger can rot in the imaginary hell in which has so earnestly earned a place in its most vile depths.

I agree but to be fair, this theory is doctoree's domain. I often perceive that various arguments from scientific studies etc. are often used as a kind of 'example' in a debate without clear dilineation and connection to the original thesis, often sending threads on tangents. Similarly, I see Doctoree making oblique connections using examples from religious belief - but in his/her case and without a joint sort of understanding between us, it's harder for us to 'fill in the blanks' of his/her arguments and see the connections.

So maybe it's all about being concise, and for responders, it's not that hard to resist being derailed when it bothers you.