GOD EXISTS

gcomeau wrote:You do realize you just provided an illustration of how religion is very like a con game... right?

No, it's not, It's not like you'll have to pay, you'll be dead, right? so what's the problem? Or Worst (or perhaps best) case, I'm right & you'll owe me, maybe I can get you some kind of "work/release" form hell to pay me back, win/win . I'm sure anyone currently in Hell would be more than glad to go a billion $ in debt for a few centuries out of there. Just trying to offer some possible future help.

Wow. Respectfully, just me here, but is not this a good example of much to do about nothing? What I am trying to politely say is that all of this discussion is bouncing off me. Respectfully. HB of CJ (old coot) Agnostic ... which means I do not know if there is a God.

gcomeau wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:I challenge every Atheist to this:
$1 billion US dollars, or the current equivalent purchasing power, that there is an afterlife, to be paid in 1000 Earth years, between us, not transferable or inheritable, if I'm wrong I'll owe anyone who takes me up on it in 1000 years, if I'm right anyone who take me up on it will owe me in 1000 years. is there any Atheist with enough conviction in his beliefs to take me up on this challenge?

You do realize you just provided an illustration of how religion is very like a con game... right?

Since the victim of the con is an atheist, he's got no moral qualm to stop him from doing the guy a bad turn.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:You do realize you just provided an illustration of how religion is very like a con game... right?

No, it's not, It's not like you'll have to pay, you'll be dead, right? so what's the problem? Or Worst (or perhaps best) case, I'm right & you'll owe me, maybe I can get you some kind of "work/release" form hell to pay me back, win/win . I'm sure anyone currently in Hell would be more than glad to go a billion $ in debt for a few centuries out of there. Just trying to offer some possible future help.

Yes, it is. You believe in the afterlife, so you don't believe that the other guy will be really dead. So from your point of view, it IS a con game.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:You do realize you just provided an illustration of how religion is very like a con game... right?

No, it's not, It's not like you'll have to pay, you'll be dead, right? so what's the problem? Or Worst (or perhaps best) case, I'm right & you'll owe me, maybe I can get you some kind of "Work/release" form hell to pay me back, win/win .

Yeah... because if someone offered you a bet where if you lost you would have to pay out but if you won you couldn't collect you would *totally* think that was legit and not a con and take that bet right?


I'll take your bet if you'll take mine.


My bet: We will have true AI within my lifetime. If I win you have to pay me a billion dollars. If I lose you can try to collect a billion dollars from my corpse at my funeral.


Deal?

Cthia, you do realize, don't you,
that those are Christian teachings.

We Jews have different ideas about these subjects.
Very different!

I note that the quote from Ezekiel says what the Creator
will do Himself, not by an agent.

HTM

cthia wrote:
That is one of the main differences between the Old and the New Testament. In my teachings, during the Old Testament, man was descendent from Adam and as a result of that, man had the 'inherent' excuse of being weak of the flesh. Just blame it on Adam. But with the New Testament comes a new covenant (contract).

Romans 8:2-4
…2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.…

If interested, the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel contain these promises.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
26"Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27"I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28"You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.…

gcomeau wrote:Yeah... because if someone offered you a bet where if you lost you would have to pay out but if you won you couldn't collect you would *totally* think that was legit and not a con and take that bet right?

No - not the same thing - from your point of view you'll never have to pay out so it costs you nothing. Unless you believe you will. Do you?

peke wrote:

gcomeau wrote:You do realize you just provided an illustration of how religion is very like a con game... right?

Since the victim of the con is an atheist, he's got no moral qualm to stop him from doing the guy a bad turn.

Reminded me of the "Kissing Hank's Ass" story.

(Which, if you've never read it, go google it. Seriously, do it now!!!!It's a laugh riot while really effectively illustrating the religious con involved in offering people an afterlife.)

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yeah... because if someone offered you a bet where if you lost you would have to pay out but if you won you couldn't collect you would *totally* think that was legit and not a con and take that bet right?

No - not the same thing - from your point of view you'll never have to pay out so it costs you nothing. Unless you believe you will. Do you?

Nope, quite certain I'll never have to pay out.

But also certain I can never collect BECAUSE WHEN I'M RIGHT WE'RE BOTH DEAD.

So what's the point in the bet?


But like I said, I'll take your bet if you'll take mine.

HB of CJ wrote:Wow. Respectfully, just me here, but is not this a good example of much to do about nothing? What I am trying to politely say is that all of this discussion is bouncing off me. Respectfully. HB of CJ (old coot) Agnostic ... which means I do not know if there is a God.

Agnostic means you believe that definitive knowledge of God's existence or non-existence is unattainable due to the manner in which God is defined.

This has, note, nothing to do with whether you do or do not believe God exist. I am an Agnostic (you cannot prove or disprove supernatural hypotheses so definitive knowledge of the proposition is unattainable).

I am also an atheist. (I don't believe such an entity actually exists)



If all you want to say is that you don't know something the word for that is "ignorant". It is not a philosophical position that warrants an "-ism".

(And no, that is not me calling you ignorant as an insult)

After several daze of consideration,
it occurs to me that the two statements
marked with %-% and %%-%%
contradict each other.

%-% seems to say that Christians imposed the Blue Laws.
%%-%% states plainly that those Blue-Law Imposers
were **not** Christians.

In the %%-%% case, the rule of those B-L I's
would be evidence that the America which accepted them
and their Blue Laws, was %%not%% a Christian Country
after all, but rather a country in which the majority
of voters, elected officials, and judges,
falsely pretended to be Christian.

Have I understood you correctly?
If so, are you sure that you want to say that?

Howard T. Map-addict

MAD-4A wrote:

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Do you wish to bring those Blue Laws back, MAD-4A?

No, they're a violation of free-will.
Just proof that %this is a Christian country% - or
we wouldn't have had them in the first place.

{snip intervening HTM statement/MAD-4A reply}

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:And what did those Blue Laws show
about Christian tolerance for others?

A group claiming to be Christian (like the other
groups claiming to be Christian & worship Jesus, a Jew,
but then spewing hate against Jews - which you know
about) %%they are no more Christian%% than Buddha was.

{snip to eopost - htm}