Sweet Spot between Atheism and Theism

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

I enjoy you as a chew stick however, so don't leave like you did last time, almost in tears because Smelly reprimanded you. Everyone on here thinks your a fucking joke by the way

weirdo android

You are the christard and the chew stick. There's no other possible use for christards. What do you think you are here for - It's certainly not for you knowledge or brains. That's for sure.

Know you place.

Oh, and stop that weirdo shit. Gonna get caught.

[Davin]

Man, I would think that idiots like Looser66 would like to have less evidence that they're idiots out of embarrassment. But it looks like Looser66 is way too stupid to realize how stupid it looks.

[Andrew66]

hertz vanrental wrote

The babble isn't a book. It's a collection of writings that were considered good enough to win a popularity, not an accuracy, contest. We don't even know what the popular criteria were

You see, you dumb twat, and this is an important consideration that you fail to grasp, there is no independent verification of the contents of the babble. .

Two mistakes here - please please please enroll in college so I don't have to keep correcting you.

1) The general criteria whereby the Church selected the gospels and writings which made it into the cannon were based on the criterion that the writings stemmed from eye witnessed testimony.

2) That you say there is no independent verification - that is slight of hand bull shit. Firstly you fucking moron, the bible is not a single source - it is not a book written by one author, but rather a collection of independent works by independant authors. So the different "books" (each independent sources) within the bible (a collection remember, idiot) can assist in verification to one another.

I've made this point before - asleep at class again Hurtz?

Oh ya Your Your Your Band Band Band (I have used these terms completely correctly - it is you that misunderstand and have poor grammar!!) Very poor in fact - I just don't bother correcting you like you do for me (what a looser, spends time trying to correct my grammar, and my grammar is perfect to start with!!).

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Two mistakes here - please please please enroll in college so I don't have to keep correcting you.

1) The general criteria whereby the Church selected the gospels and writings which made it into the cannon were based on the criterion that the writings stemmed from eye witnessed testimony.

2) That you say there is no independent verification - that is slight of hand bull shit. Firstly you fucking moron, the bible is not a single source - it is not a book written by one author, but rather a collection of independent works by independant authors. So the different "books" (each independent sources) within the bible (a collection remember, idiot) can assist in verification to one another.

If you knew anything more about the buybull Andrew, you might have invoked some ancillary historical support from eg Josephus or Tacitus but perhaps you do not. So basic *sigh*

Andrew, I'm curious; what do you make of the Gnostic gospels?

[hertz vanrental]

The Judge wrote

If you knew anything more about the buybull Andrew, you might have invoked some ancillary historical support from eg Josephus or Tacitus but perhaps you do not. So basic *sigh*

Andrew, I'm curious; what do you make of the Gnostic gospels?

If android tries that Tacitus and Josephus shit on me, I'm gonna ram it down his throat so fuckin' far, he'll have to shove his toothbrush up his ass to clean his teeth.

It will be fun but, I'll also have to put up with his piss-poor logic and bad-ass grammar.

What a fuckin' joke android is.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

Andrew, you might have invoked some ancillary historical support from eg Josephus or Tacitus

Thank you Judge! There you go Hurtz, note the Judge's comment above - he is the Judge after all - I win as usual!!!

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

Thank you Judge! There you go Hurtz, note the Judge's comment above - he is the Judge after all - I win as usual!!!

What are you on, you weird cunt?

You are like a pigeon playing chess ffs.

[Davin]

Oh yay! Looser66 won! Here's your trophy!

[ghoulslime]

Andrew66 wrote

Not sure what you want me to say.

If you are an Atheist, you most likely have no belief in an afterlife - but if you reflect on the subject you would likely conclude that it is more correct to say you are not convinced that there is an afterlife, but there could of course possibly be one - who knows?

So just in case there maybe is an afterlife, is there anything worth doing or preparing for this possibility - and is there anyone in charge of who goes where and why?

The only hint we have at answering the above otherwise wide open and impossible questions is to turn to organized religion.

So why not play Pascal's wager - in light of the above why is that illogical to do so?

The Atheist will state - I can't play Pascal's wager, because in order to enter a hypothesized Christian heaven, Christianity demands I have an actual belief in God and the risen Lord. I cannot believe, I'm not wired to have faith in something which is not proven.

So what I'm saying is - I bet you its ok just to Hope in God's existence, and Hope in the risen Lord. Hope is the absolutely bare minimal level of belief - so it can get you into the club.

Pascal's wager therefore comes into play for the Atheist!

So play for Heaven's sake - "WHAT IN THE HELL HAVE YOU GO TO LOOSE"!

I am an atheist, but not because I want to be. That’s just where the evidence happens to follow. In truth, like most of my fellow humans, I wish there were something beyond this mortal existence. There is simply no evidence of this. Religion is little more than organized wishful thinking.
By the way atheism defines what I am not - I do not believe in gods. That’s it! I am a secular humanist. I choose to be good for goodness sake. This is what I choose to be, until I find a more enlightening and moral path. Christianity is not that.

Frankly, I find it genuinely amusing when Christians think they can frighten me into believing in the god of the Bible. If the monstrous deity of the Old Testament were real, why would anyone want to follow such a wicked being anyway? What sort of hideous monster would burn any sentient creature forever in fire, for any reason? I don’t need to threaten my rabbits with torture if they don’t love me. I am truly nice to them, and love follows.

If have often thought that when modern Christianity was being invented in the two Councils of Nicaea, the wickedness of the Old Testament God should have been scoured away from the texts. They should have made a softer and fluffier god. If Christianity were more moral, I wouldn’t have much criticism of it, aside from it being a silly distraction from the gravity of life.

(Just to be perfectly honest and fair, I find that many Christians are better people than many atheists. Most Buddhists are much kinder and moral than most atheists. Atheism does not provide any moral guidance. One must find that somewhere else. And of course, Islam is pure evil.

Sadly, many of my fellow atheists have decided that they should empower Muslims in the West, to undermine Christianity. And that makes these atheists evil. And that makes them my enemies. It is for this reason, that I no longer make fun of Christianity or Christians. It makes me side politically with the Christians. If the bullets ever start flying, I will be on the side of the Christians. How strange it is that I find myself here! You and I might be passing each other ammo one day. But I digress!)

Sadly, this short, beautiful mortal existence is all we have. I understand your earnest to win the souls of atheists. I suspect that in real life, you are a good person. I simply don’t believe that your god is any more real than any other gods that people have invented.

As for Pascal’s Wager, it is a fallacious argument. Regardless of your sincere belief in your religion and your desire to help “save” the fallen atheists, it is still a fallacious argument.

Choosing one god over all of the other gods, and placing my bets on THAT god, would surely piss off the other gods, if they turned out to be real. If I choose Protestantism, the Catholic god damns me to hell. If I choose a generic Christian god, and ignore the Christian denominations, how regretful both you and I will be when we find out that the evil moon god Allah is the only god, and Mohammed the warlord and pedophile is his prophet.

The biggest downside to Pascal’s Wager is this: I only have one life to live. This is not a dress rehearsal. If I bet on your god, and dedicate my life to a leprechaun folly, I have lost EVERYTHING.

I do not begrudge you your happiness or your religion. If it makes you a better person, then power to you. If it makes you a happier person, then who am I to deny you this? Just don’t expect me to sell my soul to the leprechauns for the promise of rainbow gold.

[dogpet]

ghoulslime wrote: "Sadly, many of my fellow atheists have decided that they should empower Muslims in the West, to undermine Christianity. And that makes these atheists evil. And that makes them my enemies."

Who do you mean by that ghoulslime?

[Smellyoldgit]

He's probably been on the Leprechaun Ale.
For the record, this western atheist wouldn't empower jizzlam, christ-insanity, veridicanjism or any other fairy-tale based nonsense above established secular law.

[Kinich Ahau]

Myself? I'd be shooting at both sides.

[hertz vanrental]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Myself? I'd be shooting at both sides.

Whilst ..

android wouldn't know who to shoot because he so dumb and, in any case, he'd miss because he's so fuckin' useless. In the end, he'd get bored, play with the gun trigger and accidentally blow his own head off.

ebor would shoot and kill anyone that hadn't bought at least one copy of his wanky books and would then claim that they are still conscious.

jerrypong would send out his 'pretend' 'secretary' to do his bidding and would then write some bull shit in an attempt to justify his action.

Atheists would try and convince both sides that their belief in a god was illogical but would be forced to stand back in dismay as each side killed one another in the name of their particular 'lard' and be horrified at mortality rate of innocent bystanders.

christards and jizlamists would suffer appalling casualties but, none-the-less, will believe their cause is well worth the fight. Both sides will claim victory.

[dogpet]

Smellyoldgit wrote

He's probably been on the Leprechaun Ale.
For the record, this western atheist wouldn't empower jizzlam, christ-insanity, veridicanjism or any other fairy-tale based nonsense above established secular law.

It tickles me that the Leprechaun's favourite tipple is brewed by protestants.

[Smellyoldgit]

Bushmills