Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I think she mena HELL.
I know, I was just being obnoxious.
I think she mena HELL.
Please define what does and what doesn't require interpretation in the bible? We await your answer all aquiver.
Pascal's wager is absurd.
Why do you say that? It is the only logical reason there is to believe in anything of fantasy....which is simply because it does no harm to believe in fantasy, given normal people who can separate fact from fiction.
And on the off chance, fantasy becomes reality is icing on the cake.
What's so absurd about believing in Santa Claus, unless in the situation that the belief would cause harm? You aren't a scrooge are you?
It's not a logical reason, and that's his point. The Wager assumes too much about the nature of a god or an afterlife.
I suppose you are right, but there is nothing wrong with believing in fantasy so long as the belief is not immoral. And, if the fantasy is proven true, then that person who believed is "one-up." That is the essence of Pascal's Wager that is the only argument to believe in God, or any myth.
I am defining immoral here from the utilitarian point of view.
There is no proving of the fantasy as truth. And who says what is immoral? The question is, does it negatively affect people. And in this case, yes, it does.
No proving of the fantasy as truth? Don't you dream of future innovations and how they can improve people's lives? Things like the automobile were things of fantasy before someone had a dream of something better than horse drawn buggy. How do those fantastic ideas become reality?
You can't prove fantasy as truth without a dream, hope, and faith that what you believe is true...
It is possible to prove anything, once the evidence uncovered. Does that mean there are pink elephants? No, just like there is no God, but I'm talking about fantasy and believing in myth. That is not harmful unless the person is not able to separate fact from fiction. And if that person can't, like some Christians, it has the potential to be deadly, but only in the wrong hands like the KKK, Hilter, and Isalmic terrorists. The fact of the matter is that most Christians and most non-Christians are the same when it comes to a moral compass.
You are a scrooge. lol You would have all the fun sucked out of life if this is what you think...
The reason I say this, is if 'There is no proving of the fantasy as truth' then what is the point of "reaching towards the stars"?
Ah, well, you got me there, I admit.
Does believing in something that does not exist negatively affect people? In all cases, no. How one responds to that belief is another matter entirely, and that is why I bring in the character of the person to my statement.
Are atheists afraid of theists? Hmmm....
Well, I guess that's a way of looking at it.
I'm not going to copy-and-paste from Biblequotes.com like you do.
1) some atheists say here (and elsewhere) say atheism is not a belief. Do you disagree with them?*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
*************
M*W: You bring up a good point. Atheists are for the most part independent in their belief. Theists, however, have a desire to belong to a group. That seems to be co-dependent to me.
*************1) some atheists say here (and elsewhere) say atheism is not a belief. Do you disagree with them?
2) what do you mean by legitimate belief
3) what makes you think theists are afraid of atheism? are there theists here who you think are afraid of atheism?
*************And again. Many atheists think that atheism is a lack of belief. Generally people group around things they have in common not around things they lack in common. There are exceptions, but i wonder if you have noticed that a number of atheists think atheism is not a belief and in fact that you are misusing the term.
According to Phlogistan you should be called an anti-theist because you believe there is no God or are no gods. This is different from a mere lack. I would include you in the category 'atheists' but it seems a number of atheists consider this incorrect. In fact Phlogistan said there are very few who make the 'error' you are making.M*W: Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religion. I believe that no gods exist. I don't believe in theism. I am specifically an anti-christian.
Simon Anders
you believe there is no God or are no gods
swarm,A lack of belief in gods doesn't imply one believes no gods exist.
I believe that no gods exist.
my emphasis. 'it' referring to atheism.I would consider that it is a belief, but certainly not a religion
*************
M*W: If theists believe that atheism is not a legitimate belief, why do they seem so afraid of it?
You misunderstand the difference between censorship and asking for supporting evidence.We're not afraid of atheists in the least which is why we don't try to censor them as they do with us.
No, we don't allow preaching simply because it is merely that: preaching a point of view with no evidentiary support - i.e. opinion rather than fact.Many atheists forums don't allow preaching because they're afraid of the truth.
Proud of swearing? Evidence?So we don't need to censor them even though they're proud of swearing and hating God.
Because atheists try to provide factual supprt and Christians don't?After all, there's a reason that the words of atheists aren't considered to be preaching and the words of Christians are.
Simply false...That shows that even atheists know they're not telling the truth.