Do you believe in God,Heaven or Hell?

[DavidH]

Originally Posted by DavidH

Do you really not give a **** about anyone else's point of view?

Originally Posted by StomperCrawler

I think you should consider Blaise Pascal's famous wager and get yourself some aspirational faith. Maybe then you could get past this "I can't choose to believe" bologna.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/0...nal-faith.html

I'll take that as a 'no'.

From your article: "He knew that people cannot change their beliefs at will. We can’t muscle our mind into believing something we take to be false, not even when the upside is an eternity of happiness."

You have already conceded that belief in not a conscious choice. Own it and move on. Your theology is morally bankrupt. This is not news, and deserves to be mocked whenever this religion of yours is touted as a source of morality and goodness.

Belief does not makes things true, be it a million dollars in the bank or some sort of eternal sycophantic fantasy.

What is glaringly obvious to me is your inability to demonstrate that your beliefs are an accurate description of reality. I expect that to continue.

[DavidH]

[DavidH]

[Rotare]

Found online, this some what clarifies the flaw in Pascal's wager:

Perhaps the core of the Wager is that it assumes a human being has the ability to believe something by an act of will: not just to say one believes it but to actually, sincerely, believe it to be true. This is known as doxastic voluntarism; it is probable that most people lack the ability to do this deliberately. Beliefs are often involuntary; at the very least you possess an involuntary belief that you experience the world. Further, you have an involuntary belief that someone, somewhere, at some point in time, typed these very words. Similarly, it is difficult to believe things you know to be untrue. Consider how you would respond if someone told you to believe that the earth rested upon the back of a giant turtle. Even if you were inclined to, it is doubtful whether you really could genuinely believe it. Pascal attempted to "solve" this problem by saying that a nonbeliever should associate with believers, attend religious services, etc. until this inspires belief in them—essentially "fake it 'til you make it." The effectiveness of this is highly questionable though.

Freedom of action, however, is significantly different. This is something that people have considerably more free will to exert — so someone is free to worship God without believing. The question, therefore, is whether God has the ability to detect such a ruse or such belief in belief, or whether God would be happy to have people "fake" their beliefs in such a way.

Pascal's Wager must, at the very least, make one of the following assumptions:
That doxastic voluntarism is possible.
That God doesn't care (or doesn't notice) if you "fake it".

One of those is known to be wrong, the other is theologically questionable.

A more pragmatic and sensible version called the Agnostic Atheism Wager:

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe, when there is a significant lack of evidence of any one god's existence.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by lunatick

Basic human instinct IS NOT MOLESTING CHILDREN

I was speaking of the more basic instinct of poking your pecker in a portal.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by StomperCrawler

I think you should consider Blaise Pascal's famous wager and get yourself some aspirational faith. Maybe then you could get past this "I can't choose to believe" bologna.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/01/0...nal-faith.html

If you're going to fake it till you make it, you might as well pick a religion at random. If you don't believe in any of them, they are all equally relevant.

[Scrap]

Originally Posted by lunatick

Basic human instinct IS NOT MOLESTING CHILDREN

Actually, what nowadays are considered as children used to be thought of as adults.
For an example girls were considered ready for marriage, ie adult life, when they started menstruating. That is in the region of 10 to 12 years old.
The same is true for all the other mammals on this planet.

We however have decided that this is not proper and have randomly selected a number to represent the instant in which we suddenly change from children to adults.

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Scrap

For an example girls were considered ready for marriage, ie adult life, when they started menstruating. That is in the region of 10 to 12 years old.

Sometimes younger than that.

Girls could be betrothed and even married at a very young age, but the marriage wouldn't be consummated before the onset of puberty.

[Scrap]

Child molesting by modern standards.

[Acrozier]

A grateful follower of Christ my Lord and savior!!!

[Scrap]

So do you have any proof that your beliefs are founded in any more reality then any other religion?

[Duuuuuuuude]

Originally Posted by Scrap

Child molesting by more civilized standards.

Fixed it.

Once we decided that we could stop treating women like cattle and allow them educations and jobs, the need to marry them off so soon declined. Less progressive cultures still do it though.

[DavidH]

Originally Posted by Scrap

Actually, what nowadays are considered as children used to be thought of as adults.
For an example girls were considered ready for marriage, ie adult life, when they started menstruating. That is in the region of 10 to 12 years old.
The same is true for all the other mammals on this planet.

We however have decided that this is not proper and have randomly selected a number to represent the instant in which we suddenly change from children to adults.

Random? Did your legislators put some numbers on a wheel and give it a spin?

Are you suggesting that the age of consent should be in the 10-12 year old range?

[Scrap]

Originally Posted by DavidH

Random? Did your legislators put some numbers on a wheel and give it a spin?

Might as well have. Every person is different. Some are mentally ready to be adults way before they reach that randomly selected age. Some get there way later. Some never.

Are you suggesting that the age of consent should be in the 10-12 year old range?

Where did I say that? I just pointed out what other animals do. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if some people would be mentally ready to be adults even at such an early age.

Where I live the who-you-can-have-sex-with boundary is a bit fuzzy. Now the legal limit is 16. But if you are younger you can do it with everything up to 16 years old. If you are older then everything 16 or over is considered legal. At 16 you can pick what ever you want. BUT ( <= that is a big but BTW) there is such a thing as "mental age" thrown in the mix too. Only if the two persons are of comparable mental age is it legal. I have no clue as to how this mental age is calculated so I have always kept to girls/women who are about the same age as me.

What is really twisted about all this is that people under 18 cannot watch themselves having sex. That would be concidered child pornography and as such illegal. If you have cctv at your house and just happen to make out with your girlfriend in shot then it is illegal for anyone to watch that footage. Even for yourself. Imagine the court case on that.

But we have several different ages when we are considered to be old enough for different things.
At 15 you are accountable for your actions in front of the law. Before that it's your parents or guardian.
At 18 you can have a driving licence and you can buy mild alcohol.
At 21 you can get a licence to drive semi trucks and you can get the good stuff at the off licence.
You used to be able to buy tobacco at the age of 16 but that got changed to 18.


Enough about this sex thing and more proof of which religion is the correct one. And why all the others are false.