Why It's Not a 'Safe Bet' to Believe In God

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are some extremely educated Christian scholars.

There are indeed but nonsense, no matter how well articulated, or how well hidden beneath layers of psuedo-philosophical waffle, remains nonsense.

(And those whose only qualifications are in theology, that really doesn't count as education.)

Quote

The problem is that they get drowned out by a lot of the idiots that manage to get themselves on television and wander around handing out tracts.

That is a problem, sure. The other one would be that no-one has ever managed to come up with an intellectually sound argument for faith (never mind any specific brand of faith) that would stand up even if it wasn't drowned out by the crazies.

Have you read Summa Theologica?

Is it going to offer anything more than rip-off of Aristotle and the ludicrous first cause argument?

Somehow I doubt it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Have you read Summa Theologica?

Is it going to offer anything more than rip-off of Aristotle and the ludicrous first cause argument?

Somehow I doubt it.

Why don't you go read the whole thing (it's a really easy read if you do it in English, and even in Latin it's not that bad) and come back and we can chat about it all you like. It's pretty famous, and if you want to make arguments like this, should probably be in your repertoire of information, if only to know what the other side's got.

[jakee 1,254]

Ok, I've read the bits relating to the existance of God.

Apart from raising begging the question to an art form I have absolutely no idea what you thought I would find in there that is either new or remotely valid.

Five different ways of stating the first cause argument still leaves you lumbered with nothing better than the first cause argument. Well articulated nonsense.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

I never said it was new. It was written around 1265.

That said, I asked you to read the WHOLE thing before I would discuss it with you so we are speaking from the same frame of reference. Non-Christians are so fond of accusing Christians of cherry-picking the Bible, and non-Christians often make the same mistake with other works. A book needs to be read in its whole and then excerpted, particularly when dealing with logic, as arguments build on, refer back, and add to the others.

Saying you've read "the bits relating to the existance [sic] of God." and concluding that you've gotten everything out of the Summa that you can is like reading half the prologue of Romeo and Juliet and saying you know the whole story because you've figured out you're in Verona.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I never said it was new. It was written around 1265.

New to me. As in, something I hadn't encountered before.

Quote

That said, I asked you to read the WHOLE thing

Honestly, what's the point? Given that up until that point (Part 1, Q 2, article 3) the work consistently uses scriptural quotes as the basis of its factual statements (honestly no better than 'It's true because it says it's true') and given that the argument for the existence of God is so utterly pathetic what possible reason could I have for expecting anything better from the rest of it? The rest of the work is just going to regard the proof of God's existence as a fait accompli and move on to questions of specifically Christian theology using the same broken logic to build on broken foundations.

Unless you can honestly tell me differently I really have no wish to spend several hours of my time being hit in the face with that particular stupid stick.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[virgin-burner 1]

dude, it's what religious nutter so all sunday afternoon, other people have a nice extended wank over some internet-porn, others are lucky enough to actually shag.. and some like to discuss falsely translated scripture that is ancient,, probably an older version of grimm's fairy-tales.

in a thousand years from now, people will pray to rapunzel, and snowwhite will FINALLY be the solution to the worlds problems. while the believers of little red riding hood will be their next big enemies in the far east!

it's simple..

“Some may never live, but the crazy never die.”
-Hunter S. Thompson
"No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try."
-Yoda

[Nightingale 0]

No, it really doesn't consider God's existence as a "fait accompli" and move on.

It specifically addresses the following:


1. The Nature and Extent of Sacred Doctrine
2. The Existence of God
3. On the Simplicity of God
4. The Perfection of God
5. Of Goodness in General
6. The Goodness of God
7. The Infinity of God
8. The Existence of God in Things
9. The Immutability of God
10. The Eternity of God
11. The Unity of God
12. How God Is Known by Us

And that's just the first 12 sections, and most of them return to the premise of section 2 and go more in depth. You haven't even scratched the surface, and you started in the middle.

And no, he doesn't use scripture as the basis. He uses LOGIC as the basis, and scripture as part of the explanation. There's a huge difference.

As for why you should read it, because your opponents are, and it is always a good idea to know what those arguing the other side know, whether you agree or not.

So, just like I'm not going to discuss the finer points of characterization of Romeo and Juliet with someone who's never seen or read the play, I'm not going to further discuss the Summa with you until you've read it. So, if you'd like to continue this, in the words of Lewis Carroll: "Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

And no, he doesn't use scripture as the basis. He uses LOGIC as the basis, and scripture as part of the explanation. There's a huge difference.

You're wrong. Plainly and simply wrong. The absolute truth of scripture is assumed absolutely, and that assumption underlies everything he's written so far.

There is what passes for logic piled on top of that, but both the logic and the foundations are broken.

Quote

No, it really doesn't consider God's existence as a "fait accompli" and move on.

The very next section, on god's simplicity "Now it has been already proved that God is the First Mover"




Look, I've studied my share of classical philosophy (mostly Greek) and there's a reason it's got such a bad rep - as far as the nature of the universe or divinity goes, none of the individual arguments taken at face value are worth the paper they're written on.

Sure, they're useful and interesting for tracing the development of methods of thinking and all that jazz, but the only one of the bunch that has any actual merit is early Plato's Socrates demonstrating that any conclusions drawn on the subject are bound to be false. But since that didn't even stop later Plato from making a tit of himself attempting to draw actual conclusions then why should it have stopped Aquinas from doing likewise?

To an afficionado of ancient thought, it may well be interesting. To someone who thinks theology is a genuine subject, it may well be interesting. To someone looking for a coherent argument, it's piffle.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

And no, he doesn't use scripture as the basis. He uses LOGIC as the basis, and scripture as part of the explanation. There's a huge difference.

You're wrong. Plainly and simply wrong. The absolute truth of scripture is assumed absolutely, and that assumption underlies everything he's written so far.

There is what passes for logic piled on top of that, but both the logic and the foundations are broken.

And you're arguing what's in it when you haven't read it.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

And you're arguing what's in it when you haven't read it.

When he's done it about 20 times in the first ten sections what possible reason do I have for thinking he's going to stop doing it for the rest? Hell, the ten articles under the heading "The nature and extent of sacred doctrine" do not even raise the question of whether sacred doctrine is, in fact, sacred. What more do you want?

But anyway, if you like, I will concede that I can only state for certain that relating to the parts I have actually read you are plainly and simply wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

None of this requires religion or belief in any diety...

I would be willing to bet that most criminals are not atheists.

[skygypsie 2]

The Bible is sorta like that.

---------------------------------------------------
I tend to agree, but then again most everything is left up to individual interpretations & opinions!

If a person's religious, non-religious, spiritual, or non-spiritual points of view brings comfort to some, & doesn't inflict discomfort to any of those with contrary points of view....why is it so readily chastized ?

Why does it matter so much with the non believers ?

I'm no Bilble thumper...I'm fairly ignorant to it, but I appreciate what I have read !

Nor am I of a "spiritually" sound character.

I'm just curious how affected those who disagree, speak out so strongly & protest against those that do

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Yes...and then a resounding 'no'. Most modern translations go back to the sinaiticus. The Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the Sinaiticus by about a thousand years (if I remember correctly. Feel free to research.) and the precision is in the 98% range. Most of that is just human error and no skullduggery.

I think you are mixing up some things here. The Dead Sea scrolls are Old Testament texts along with some Essene writings and parts of what we know as Apocraphal writings. They generally date from about 100 years before Christ to 100 years after, or thereabouts. Sinaiticus is one early New Testament Manuscript. It was written probably in the 300s. Translators look at the entire textual history including both Sinaiticus and other early texts. Sinaiticus is considered one of the big early three, along with Alexandrinus and Vaticanus.

I'm not sure what to make of your 98% comment. I don't know what you are measuring that against.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Your post adequately makes my point. People almost never become believers through intellectual debate. God requires obedience and faith. You must surrender your ego to God to receive the evidence your require.

i've had a good talk with god abd she assures me she doesn't exist. you do believe me right?

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

So, just like I'm not going to discuss the finer points of characterization of Romeo and Juliet with someone who's never seen or read the play,

romeo and juliet is fiction... same as the bible

(look we agree)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[Meso 38]

Quote

People almost never become believers through intellectual debate. God requires obedience and faith. You must surrender your ego to God to receive the evidence your require.

Actually, not true. While granted, chances are you won't become a believer through intellectual debate (who'd have figured with Christian's excellent strong points in making their case), most become religious not because of 'surrendering to God'.

You'll see that in most cases religion is passed down from the parent to the child when they are young and naive.

The way people become believers is typically the same way children become believers, they get so scared that Christians may be right that they are willing to go out on a limb and be religious in the hopes that they don't burn in this hell of fire for eternity and then the church brainwashing can be begin, because it just makes the thought of death that little bit easier.

God doesn't require obedience and faith as much as he requires naivety and fear.

On the other end of the spectrum you have reality, the non-believer world. While God preys on ignorance and naivety of small children to build up his faith, the non-believers on the other hand just want people to examine both sides. Considering most churches tell you to avoid anything that may 'lead you astray', how convenient- the ignorant will never see the truth if they're forbidden from looking. And you'll find most people who turn from Christian to non-believer did so after breaking the taboos of their religion and actually considering something else is possible and actually just looking.

The more I think about the way religion works, the more disgusting it really becomes. And despite these oppressive, anti-exploration, keep your eyes ahead and don't look elsewhere tactics- Atheists are usually the ones called closed minded- oh the irony.

[Coreece 189]

Quote

What others required to receive theirs was to seek it AND find someone who knew how to explain it.

This is certainly true in my case, but it did require the faith to actually seek and attentively listen to the explanation. It was then through the application/obedience of what was learned that I started to see that personal evidence within my life.

Quote

Assuming that the experiences of others will be identical to yours is the height of ego

I would say that the height of ego/pride would be the belief that one could completely know or totally reject the idea of God strictly based on our flawed finite human reasoning.

A close second would be feeling that if someone doesn't have the ability to address you in an intellectually superior manner, they are not worthy of consideration.

Quote

believers almost never adequately debate those who require intellectual debate

There is a difference between intellectual debate/honest inquiry and an intellectual mocking session.

I have no problem taking the time to explain my beliefs to those who genuinely care or pose intellectually provocative questions/statements, but even then I can only go so far debating an invisible entity using our flawed human reasoning, let alone with someone who doesn't even want to try.

I do however have a problem wasting the time to address people who constantly make copy/paste posts and make ignorant assumptions or continually say things like:

"a bit of logical thought for those who can't think for themselves"

"we know better than to believe in the religious crap that is pushed down our throats by brain dead 'believers'..."

"back to you to justify your peculiar form of madness.."

"that is because, as you mentioned, they're morons.."

"you're just another looney"

"if someone calls you out on your psychosis, they'll get their one warning."

"yup, you must definitely be his biggest failure.."

Futhermore w/r/t the OP, The idea of the "Safe bet" is found nowhere in scripture and in no church doctrine, and though I have heard of this concept, I've never used that as an argument. It's a stupid idea that is pobably used by those that would rather just assume to be Athiest but can't lie to themselves enough to get the idea of God out of their head.

Quote

...and makes the believers come off as morons because they appear to fail to understand what they profess to believe.

Many times questions are not only bred from complete ignorance but intentionlly designed to stump an individual. In most cases it isn't worth the time building up the context to properly explain the dilema. These people aren't interested in answers as much as they are in making you look like an ass. If they really cared, they would've first educated themselves with the basics and then sought the proper venue to satisfy their curiosity, not an internet forum.

Here is an example to illustrate my point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Quote

There are some extremely educated Christian scholars. The problem is that they get drowned out by a lot of the idiots that manage to get themselves on television.

Yes, Some do it just to make money, some do it to intentionally deceive and turn people off, and some people are just misguided but mean well.

If anyone really wants to know, they can always find a Church with a highly educated Christian scholar who will steer them in the right direction.

Quote

...and wander around handing out tracts. Those folks may reach some people, but when faced with an intellectual, they're clueless, and when questioned in front of others, can do far more harm than good because they lack the simple ability to articulate their beliefs.

Christianity appeals to all walks of life - The rich, the poor, the young, the old, the educated, the uneducated, the stupid, the mentally handicapped, and little children. Not everyone is going to explain things in a manner worthy of your attention, but everyone of them is free to express what God has done in their life to the ability God has given them.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

i've had a good talk with god abd she assures me she doesn't exist. you do believe me right?

Ahh, that sentence makes no sense to me. I do not understand what you are saying.

I am a counselor. My question to you is, do you have some factor in your life, over which you have no control, and it is causing you a major discomfort such as, anger, fear, depression or guilt?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

I don't care much for religion either. I prefer a personal relationship with my Heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. It is a love relationship.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

that's a lot of old shit from a lot of douchebags..

and they didnt even get the scripture translated right. the "virgin mary" was just a "young woman". pretty much everything is obsolete from there.

again, you like calling people names, and you think you're somewhat better than others.. that doesnt make you a "christian", quite the opposite in fact.

i can live with that, obviously, you still have the urge to convert people. there's a saying that goes something like "sweep before your own door before you complain about your neighbours". i think that applies in your case..

The above statements are not correct.

Ephesians 4:11
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Evangelism is not my forte'. You sought me out. I have no vested interest in your conversion.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

i've had a good talk with god abd she assures me she doesn't exist. you do believe me right?

Ahh, that sentence makes no sense to me. I do not understand what you are saying.

Quote

i'm saying you might as well believe me - i have talked to god after all...

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[RonD1120 58]

And, the answer to my question is?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[freethefly 6]

The ultimate question: Will the real God please stand up?

Eastern Intrigue
By Todd Rundgren
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXAsitu-lJo
As the sun rises in the east
As the wind blows the fog across the sea
As the hand of Man creeps across the face of the world
Caught in a web of glamors
Persian perfume and oriental eyes
Yogi in knots and Sufi wise
Master sublime and swami high
Throw in some Voodoo on the side
And a dash of the old Kung Fu
Lord you got me strung out on eastern intrigue
Lord you got me strung out on eastern intrigue
Chapter six and verse eleven
If you wanna get to heaven
You've got to ask the Man who owns the Property
Ya gotta dance your dance
And do your act
And get His Big Attention that's a natural born fact
I'm on my knees, one question please
Will the real God please stand up?

Jesus and Moses, Mohamed, and Sri Krishna
Steiner, Gurdjief, Blavatsky, and Buddha,
Guru Maharaji, Reverend Sun Myung Moon

On the banks of the Holy Nile
As the palm tree sways at the base of the sphinx
'Neath a crescent desert moon many thousands
Younger than ours
In fact, forget about time completely
Think of it in the abstract please
Think of the swaying tropic trees
One of your many destinies
Like having a hot peyote tea
In the palace of Fu Manchu
Lord you got me strung out on eastern intrigue
Sell your wife and pawn your heater
Buy the new Bhagavad Gita
Do the pranayama 'til your spine gets sore
I'll tell you for free
'Cause God told me
We checked it with the Pope and so we all agree
I'm on my knees, one question please
Will the real God please sit down?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Yes...and then a resounding 'no'. Most modern translations go back to the sinaiticus. The Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date the Sinaiticus by about a thousand years (if I remember correctly. Feel free to research.) and the precision is in the 98% range. Most of that is just human error and no skullduggery.

I think you are mixing up some things here. The Dead Sea scrolls are Old Testament texts along with some Essene writings and parts of what we know as Apocraphal writings. They generally date from about 100 years before Christ to 100 years after, or thereabouts. Sinaiticus is one early New Testament Manuscript. It was written probably in the 300s. Translators look at the entire textual history including both Sinaiticus and other early texts. Sinaiticus is considered one of the big early three, along with Alexandrinus and Vaticanus.

I'm not sure what to make of your 98% comment. I don't know what you are measuring that against.

Agreed. I think the NIV relies heavily on Sinaiticus and others. It's explained in the introduction. I haven't read the modern translations straight through in a while.

I take some issue with the whole area of apocryphal writings since they were all apocryphal or Torah until the Council of Nicea (with later adjustments). That is when men decided what was the 'word of god'...then changed their minds a few times. My understanding on the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they matched later copies of the books from later (where such artifacts coincided) with great accuracy (98% sticks in my head). Early transcribers were very fastidious about accuracy.

In the King James era, however, unified church and state weighed heavily on the translation. Witness: there is no James in the historical writings. Yeshua's (Jesus's) brother was named Yakob (Jacob). The priests who translated the documents decided to re-name the brother after King James. There are a wealth of other examples that make it clear the translations went downhill...starting at least at the Council.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[skygypsie 2]

The more I think about the way religion works, the more disgusting it really becomes. And despite these oppressive, anti-exploration, keep your eyes ahead and don't look elsewhere tactics- Atheists are usually the ones called closed minded- oh the irony.
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------

You hit the nail on the head !

That's exactly why I; & probably most 'believers',
commit to being "spiritual"...but not religious !

I was 'raised' Catholic.
If that's what you want to call it !

We were forced to go to Mass & Catechism, or we would be subjected to domestic punishment.

I dabbled in the born again Christianity, until I was told my young son would go to hell if he did not accept Christ as his personal saviour.

The exterior drive to accept, or be accepted in the organized religions were not acceptable, nor comforting !

My spiritual confirmation of my God was made when the 1st words to my son & daughter in law; from my 3 year old grandson, after being pronounced clinically dead, revived, on total life support & upon waking from a 13 day coma..."Don't cry Mommy, God made me all better...he told me when I was sleeping "

I no longer need proof or confirmation...my greatest prayer was answered, my God was validated, despite what the dr's prepared us for !