Personally, I would reply "yes" to the question "Do you believe the Christian God does not exist?", but "no" both to the question "Do you believe in any kind of god?" and "Do you believe that there is no god of any kind?"
Originally posted by knightmeister Christianity says that it is possible to know the truth except it's not in the way that many Atheists would like. The Atheist position seems to be " prove this to me and I will have faith in it" whereas Christ says "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open to you , let me make my home in you and you will know the truth" So what is to s ...[text shortened]... n 'knows' his wife (ie intimacy) , not in the sense of knowing that 23x5= 115)
But I think that your worldview is denigrating to humanity, and it runs contrary to the vast majority of my philosophical views. Since I don't think I stand in need of redemption or salvation, why ought I pursue your lifestyle and commitments, even as an experiment?
Originally posted by bbarr But I think that your worldview is denigrating to humanity, and it runs contrary to the vast majority of my philosophical views. Since I don't think I stand in need of redemption or salvation, why ought I pursue your lifestyle and commitments, even as an experiment?
Reason 1:
Before Al Gore, people didn't think they stood in need of the ability to play chess and debate the existence of God with people around the globe from the comfort of their homes at any hour of the day. They probably had no reason to believe it was even possible. But for his courageous knocking on the door of truth, we would still be without the Internets. Sure, people laughed at him then, chastising him with "Oh Al, that will never work. Why would people pay a subscription fee to argue and bicker with fools?", but I think we are now thankful that he opened his heart to the experiment. Imagine how much greater than the Internets heaven will be! Just follow Al's example and try the pudding. After all, Christianity says that's where the proof is.
Reason 2:
A respected scientist named Pascal calculated that it is the rational decision if you want to minimize your expected bodily torment. You would prefer less torment to more, wouldn't you? And you are rational, are you not? Well, since Pascal already did the grunt work, you can go ahead and skip the experiment stage and jump right to the believing! Q. E. F'n D.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Reason 1:
Before Al Gore, people didn't think they stood in need of the ability to play chess and debate the existence of God with people around the globe from the comfort of their homes at any hour of the day. They probably had no reason to believe it was even possible. But for his courageous knocking on the door of truth, we would still be witho ...[text shortened]... can go ahead and skip the experiment stage and jump right to the believing! Q. E. F'n D.
16 edits?
As much as anyone, I respect Gore's tireless service to humanity. His recent victory over the Vorbach insurgency is a case in point. There were the naysayers, of course; "But Al", they said "nobody has been able to upload our Omega virus to the Vorbach mainframe". But Gore wasn't dissuaded. "Chances be damned!" He cried, "I'll storm their phase nests alone if I have to." I'm sure you're familiar with the end of this story. Suffice it to say that the Vorbach Mandarins will think twice next time around.
I'm unfamiliar with Pascal's calculations. It sounds like Pascal is claiming we have decisive prudential reasons to believe, or that the only smart bet is to believe. Is that right? I don't have me the sort of book learnin' that you rocket scientist people have, but I know gambling. What are the odds on this wager?
Originally posted by knightmeister Christianity says that it is possible to know the truth except it's not in the way that many Atheists would like. The Atheist position seems to be " prove this to me and I will have faith in it" whereas Christ says "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open to you , let me make my home in you and you will know the truth" So what is to s ...[text shortened]... n 'knows' his wife (ie intimacy) , not in the sense of knowing that 23x5= 115)
It's impossible to have blind faith and objectivity towards a process at the same time. That's why atheists cannot deal with christianity (or any other religion).
Originally posted by knightmeister Christianity says that it is possible to know the truth except it's not in the way that many Atheists would like. The Atheist position seems to be " prove this to me and I will have faith in it" whereas Christ says "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be open to you , let me make my home in you and you will know the truth" So what is to s ...[text shortened]... n 'knows' his wife (ie intimacy) , not in the sense of knowing that 23x5= 115)
But I have tried it.
What I havent tried is Islaam, budhism, hinduism, and whatever else is out there. Now how many Christians have seeked into these other religions? Why not?
I tell you that the truth is in smoking cirtain herbs, seek and you will find. What is the harm in trying?
If I must lie to myself and basically become a fool just for a small chance of finding the truth, as the Christians ask me to do, then I will decline. Show me that the likelyhood of finding the truth through Christianity is high enough and I will consider it worth the downside to try but otherwise, from a gamblers perspective it is not worth the risk.
Originally posted by twhitehead But I have tried it.
What I havent tried is Islaam, budhism, hinduism, and whatever else is out there. Now how many Christians have seeked into these other religions? Why not?
I tell you that the truth is in smoking cirtain herbs, seek and you will find. What is the harm in trying?
If I must lie to myself and basically become a fool just for a small ch ...[text shortened]... t worth the downside to try but otherwise, from a gamblers perspective it is not worth the risk.
26 May '06 00:20
The proof is in the pudding?
Back to Top