'Called Home. Gone to Be with Their Lord. In a Better Place.'

[MineralMan]

All those euphemisms are being used by fellow Christians to minimize the deaths of the church-goers in Sutherland Springs, TX.

As if dying in a hail of .223 bullets is some sort of reward or a "good thing in the end."

"Welcome to Glory, Sinners!" That's the message being delivered. Paul, in his Letter to the Romans, told the early Christians that they were all sinners, "worthy of death." That message is at the core of Christianity, in which faith no human being is good. All are evil. All are "worthy of death."

So, if you're puzzled by people who want to say that "They've gone to the Lord," or some other euphemistic way of nullifying the violence and mayhem of a mass shooting, keep Paul's words in mind. They're the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, which believes that everyone is "worthy of death," and is only redeemed by belief.

And so it goes...

[RKP5637]

1. In the christian religion, there are always a rationalizations for everything that happens. And

if all other rationalizations fail, there is always what they told me when I questioned their BS as a little kid, "God works in mysterious ways!" FFS!!!

[MineralMan]

2. Yup. It's all a freaking mystery, isn't it?

"Beyond human understanding." Well, I understand what bullets do to humans pretty well. I do understand that, and I also know that there's another human pulling the trigger, in most cases.

That's fairly easy to understand. No mystery there.

[trotsky]

3. Uh oh, now you're going to be accused of religious intolerance.

We aren't allowed to question or criticize religious beliefs like that, you know.

[MineralMan]

4. It's no secret. That is the oft-stated doctrine

of Christianity. Every Christian knows it. It's the core of that religion's beliefs.

Am I criticizing? No, not really. I'm just describing the source of all those dismissive euphemisms, just in case someone wasn't aware of what engenders them.

[trotsky]

7. Well yeah but you can't talk about it *like that*, you see.

Only with admiration at what a wonderful religion it is.

[yallerdawg]

8. That is ridiculous.

The core of religion's belief is not, "We are all sinners and evil."

Not "criticizing?"

[trotsky]

10. Ridiculous?

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

[msongs]

29. the lord murdered those people and jesus did nothing to stop it. "shall not perish" LOL nt

[MineralMan]

11. I beg to differ with you.

Were it not for the doctrine that says that all humans are sinful and bound for eternal punishment for that, there would have been no need for a Savior to act as a sacrificial offering to appease an angry, vengeful deity.

"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. No man comes to the Father but by me."

And there is that core doctrine. It is indeed the core of Christianity.

[yallerdawg]

12. See. Now you're adding in the true core of Christianity.

Redemption and eternal peace.

Forgiveness.

Love.

Hate the sin and love the sinner.

You skipped all that.

[Lordquinton]

16. No, he covered all that

You forgot the footnotes attached to all those statements.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is used to discriminate and hurt people like LGBTQIA folks.

The redemption comes in only because in your stories god made us all damned, unless we declare our love for him, like an abusive parent.

Forgiveness so something none of us did.

Love, but very conditionally.

You are speaking from a very privileged position, and it's very obvious.

[MineralMan]

17. "They're in a better place now."

"You'll see them again in Heaven."

You want more? There's your redemption and eternal peace. I didn't add it in later. It's expressed in every one of those useless euphemisms. I don't find any comfort in those words at all. But, they're easy to say and then walk away from the horror, aren't they?

[Mariana]

26. Redemption and forgiveness.

Who needs redemption and forgiveness? Why do they need it?

[yallerdawg]

30. You'll have to ask them.

They believe they come up short everyday, and could have done more and been more selfless.

Been more Christian.

Would you take that away?

[trotsky]

32. "They believe they come up short everyday"

Why do they believe this?

[yallerdawg]

33. You don't believe this?

You don't believe you could be a better person?

You don't believe you have made mistakes?

You don't believe you have ever hurt others?

You don't believe in redemption and forgiveness? Regardless of the source?

[trotsky]

35. The question is, should everyone believe it?

Should the single mom who works 3 jobs to provide for her children, who goes without food so her kids can eat more, who has no adult relationships because she has no time for them, feel like she isn't adequate?

The core message of Christianity is that yes, she should still feel inadequate and sinful and not worthy.

I think that's harmful.

Maybe you don't.

[yallerdawg]

38. You have a twisted concept of the core message of Christianity.

One more time:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[trotsky]

39. You agree that the core message is that of CONDITIONAL love.

"whosoever believeth in him"

And you don't see a problem with that.

Mmmmkay.

[yallerdawg]

40. The sacrifice is unconditional.

The offer is simple.

It's also a take it or leave it proposition - free will!

What you gain or lose is entirely up to you.

If you choose faithless skepticism - that's your choice.

[trotsky]

44. What a free choice!

"CHOOSE to accept my sacrifice... OR SUFFER ETERNALLY."

Gosh, what a wonderful, loving choice. No, really. It's really weird that anyone would have a problem with it. Clearly those of us who choose "faithless skepticism" must have something wrong with us. Are we stupid? Evil? Both? What do you think?

I mean, it couldn't possibly be because we have a legitimate concern with this whole setup, could it?

[yallerdawg]

63. If you believe there is no afterlife...

what do you care what the "duped" fall for?

"Faithless skepticism" is merely an observation. It is not my condemnation.

[trotsky]

66. I care because it's a fucking horrible idea.

It causes people to think others who aren't like them need to be "saved." Or in the past, just slaughtered because they're doomed either way.

It's a terrible, no good, rotten, nasty, putrid, anti-social, and ANTI-HUMAN idea that is directly responsible for a bunch of bad shit.

But no, it's us evil "faithless skeptics" who are the real danger, speaking our opinions about that idea on the Internet. FFS.

[Mariana]

43. Stop cherry picking out of the book, please.

Why did God feel the need give his only begotten son in the first place? Why was everyone going to perish? Because everyone is a sinner and evil.

[yallerdawg]

47. We all perish. Inarguable.

We all come up short by any moral standard we hold dear. Inarguable.

Is this all there is? That is the mystery that has been filled in our hearts since the dawn of humanity.

Listen or not.

Believe it or not.

[trotsky]

48. You have said in the past that you are not a Christian.

But you are advocating quite intensely for its message.

So why aren't you a Christian, if you find its message so true?

[yallerdawg]

50. I just think many here have a distorted view of true Christianity.

Would I have to be gay to argue if people repeatedly say homosexuality is a choice?

[trotsky]

51. You aren't a Christian. Who are you to define Christianity?

You are no more an authority than anyone else. You don't get to decide who has a "distorted" view of the religion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. "True Christianity"

Right. We were all born atheists. None of us know anything about Christianity at all. We were never Christians. Evar. Please, sage teacher, learn us in the ways of the True Christianity.

[yallerdawg]

61. You condemn and disparage believers...

and this is a foundation for true insight?

Oh, right. Shoot the messenger.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. No, really. Tell us more.

I want to hear what this "True Christianity" is.

[Mariana]

71. Many believers should be disparaged and condemned.

You may declare that they aren't practicing True Christianity (as defined by you), but that is irrelevant. They genuinely believe they are practicing True Christianity and are doing God's will when they do harm to others, and when they support and finance individuals and organizations who do harm to others. How can you prove that they are wrong? They can find plenty of support in the book for their interpretation of True Christianity, just like you can find for your interpretation.

[yallerdawg]

96. Do you believe ISIS and Al-Qaeda...

are representative of Islam?

Westboro Baptist Church is not representaive of Chritianity.

Billions of people practice these faiths and harm no one.

[guillaumeb]

105. Good luck in your debate. eom

[yallerdawg]

110. Thank you!

I'm sure you are quite familiar with it!

[marylandblue]

95. Yallerdawg, you are not a Christian? You sound like a Christian.

[yallerdawg]

97. I want to defend faith and people of faith.

Many, many Democrats like us practice a variety of faiths.

At a time when we need to grow the Party, I hate to see another thread being pulled to tear us apart.

I understand Christianity. I understand faith.

No one needs to be any particular thing to be tolerant, empathetic and understanding.

[Mariana]

49. The book clearly says that we DON'T all perish.

John 3 : 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

[yallerdawg]

52. NOW you have nailed the core soul of Christianity.

It's not our shortcomings.

It's our effort to be better!

[yallerdawg]

57. Let me "cherry pick" another.

Luke 5:31, 32 And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

[Mariana]

72. And the book clearly says that is everyone.

The whole reason Christianity exists is because everyone is a sinner and evil. Why do you keep pretending this idea isn't central to the religion?

[yallerdawg]

73. Christianity exists because we want to be better!

And we want to have a vacuum filled - a mystery solved.

Human nature abhors a vacuum.

You keep highlighting the problem, and glossing over the solution.

The solution IS the core foundation of Christianity!

[trotsky]

74. But the problem only exists because Christianity says it is one.

Odd, that.

And again I have to wonder why, if you're so in love with the "solution" Christianity provides us, why aren't you a Christian? I guess you aren't convinced by it either. You're a faithless skeptic just like the rest of us.

[yallerdawg]

77. You have this insistence on labeling people.

I don't know what purpose it serves.

Unless it's to go from a generic to an ad hominem attack!

[trotsky]

79. And you have this insistence on changing the topic when you can't defend your position.

Tell you what, you explain to me why you aren't convinced by Christianity's wonderful message, and I'll apologize for whatever you deem is the "ad hominem attack" I made on you.

[yallerdawg]

82. You just ask the same thing over and over.

I can't help it if you don't like - or understand - the answer.

"Faith is a gift some of us have yet to receive."

[trotsky]

84. Yeah, I'm pretty stupid. Thanks.

Could you please direct me to the post where you answered that question? I'll do my very best to read it again and see if my feeble brain can attempt to discern your answer.

[yallerdawg]

86. Try Post 82.

Pretty much answers everything.


"Can you feel it, see it, hear it today
If you can't, then it doesn't matter anyway."

[trotsky]

88. I ask the same question because you won't answer it.

You claim you've answered it, but won't tell me where so I can go back and try to comprehend your answer.

Oh well, I tried.

[guillaumeb]

107. One can observe a certain pattern and similarity to your posts.

And a certain circularity.

[Act_of_Reparation]

114. That's a broad brush statement.

But then I can only define "brush" for myself. Of course, the brush cannot be measured by humans. You understand there's a difference between science and faith in the brush, right? In any event, we all have the legal right to associate with brushes of whatever broadness we choose. Except atheists in Boston.

[trotsky]

117. Yeah, I often repeat the question when someone refuses to answer it.

You got me, g-man. Well done. It's all part of my evil atheist agenda to further a discussion. Fuck, now I'm busted. I would have gotten away with it if not for your meddling!

[Glorfindel]

55. Here's pretty much what the Bible says about such a woman

1 Timothy Chapter 5, Vs 3-13
3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.

4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.

5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.

6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.

7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.

10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

[trotsky]

67. Ah, such a message of love.

So strange that anyone would have a problem with it!

[Mariana]

34. They believe that because the core of Christianity

is that everyone is a sinner and evil.

All have sinned. No one is ever good enough, no matter what they do. Their good deeds are like filthy rags, as far as God is concerned. Sunday school teacher says that. Preacher says that. The Bible says that. it's not the least bit surprising they feel that way, they've been taught it all their lives, most of them. Grovel and beg forgiveness, over and over again.

You think this is a good and positive thing?

[yallerdawg]

36. Not the core.

They don't aspire to be sinners and evil.

They aspire to be better people and better Christians.

I would say THAT is a good and positive thing!

[trotsky]

37. Yes, the core.

But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith inh Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. -- Romans 3:21-23

[yallerdawg]

42. That is called an observation.

I bet most of us would agree it is conceptually factual.

The core of Christian faith has to do with "What next?"

[trotsky]

45. So here we are.

"most of us would agree it is conceptually factual"

You agree that the basic assumption in Christianity is that we are defective, faulty, unworthy creatures who need redemption.

Took awhile but glad to see you finally confirm what everyone else has said on this thread. Thanks.

[yallerdawg]

58. Assumption and observation, yes.

The core of Christianity - no.

Nice try, though.

[trotsky]

68. But without that assumption, what *you* call the core is utterly meaningless and unnecessary.

Nice try indeed, but you'll have to do better.

[Voltaire2]

131. you do know that this doctrine applies to new born babies, right?

This sinful state is either "original" or "ancestral" depending on which major branch of ancient christianity your particular faith descends from.

So how is this "sinful state" conceptually factual when applied to babies?

[yallerdawg]

137. Another assumption and observation - with a solution!

In the religions it was a worry, they had and have a fix.

THAT redemption and salvation - not the sin - is what it is all about!

[Voltaire2]

139. well there is always word salad as an argument.

[Mariana]

41. Sometimes it's a good and positive thing, I suppose.

There are lots of ideas out there about what makes a "better Christian", Dawg. Some of them are pretty horrible. People aspiring to be "better Christians" have worked day and night to prevent marriage equality, for example. Today, many who are aspiring to be "better Christians" are working day and night to deny women's reproductive rights. There are plenty of examples of Christianity inspiring people to do awful things.

You think this is a good and positive thing?

[marylandblue]

31. I think the only core belief of Christianity is that the world is saved through Jesus

Other than that, I've seen Christians take all sorts of positions on other issues like original sin, the nature of hell, who gets into heaven, the divinity of Jesus and so on. Yallerdawg doesn't seem to be taking the typical right wing evangelical positions we mostly hear about.

[Mariana]

53. The core belief is that the world needs to be saved, I think.

Otherwise, there's no point to the Jesus story at all.

[marylandblue]

54. Yes, but lots of variation on the details

and not always consistent with the Bible.

[guillaumeb]

99. So you have defined the core of Christianity?

And if I were to define the core of atheism, what would be your response?

[MineralMan]

100. Oh, by all means.

Give it a try. There is no core.

[guillaumeb]

101. And you feel at all qualified to define what billions believe?

How interesting.

[MineralMan]

103. You offered. Please proceed.

Define away.

[guillaumeb]

104. No, I am content to accept that you are the official "definer"

of what constitutes Christianity, and would not dare to dispute your previous contention that there is no core to atheism.

[MineralMan]

106. OK then.

[guillaumeb]

108. A far better answer than your "definition" of Christianity. eom

[trotsky]

116. You should direct that same post at your friend yallerdawg.

Because that's what he is doing.

[yallerdawg]

138. Is it back to all about me?

[trotsky]

141. In this case, yes.

Because you are defining Christianity for everyone, and your good friend gil says that no one should do that. Seems to be a bit of a double standard that he won't call you out on it.

[Still Blue in PDX]

46. If I remember correctly, Romans 3:23: All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.

Ephesians 2:8-9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

Here's the deal as I learned it back in my days with Coral Ridge's Evangelism Explosion.

1. God wants us to be perfect. (Roman's sumpin' sumpin')

2. No one can be perfect. (Romans 3:23)

3. God sent Jesus to "pay the penalty" for our sins. (John 3:16)

4. We accept Jesus's gift of salvation through faith. (Eph. 2:8-9)

5. I forget the 5th point. It's been a couple of decades since I've been in church.

[Pope George Ringo II]

9. Marketing 101

You have a need you didn't know you had. We call it "original sin." But our product can fix that. And for a low payment of just 10% of your income, we can provide you peace of mind that this problem will never bother you again. But wait, there's more...

[monmouth4]

5. Those poor babies who had just started their lives. My heart breaks..n/t

[Pope George Ringo II]

6. "In a better place" has always been particularly frightening

If you really believe your afterlife is all that and a bag of chips, you're never truly living. You're just waiting to die.

[yallerdawg]

25. No, belief in an afterlife means you're not afraid of or dreading death.

It has nothing to do with how you live your life!

[wcmagumba]

56. Excuse meeee....

Non believer here...not afraid of death....oh, and I live a good life too, golden rule and everything...

[Act_of_Reparation]

69. Which is why people who believe in an afterlife spend more on end of life medical treatment...

...than those who do not.

FASCINATING.

[yallerdawg]

78. Or maybe they have been more richly rewarded in this life...

and can spend more on medical treatment than those who have not been?

CONFUSING?

[dhol82]

109. Oh, FFS!

You really believe in the ‘if I pray hard enough to Jesus I will be rewarded with millions?’

Go play with Bakker and Robertson.
Or that idiot from Houston who wouldn’t let people into his church during the floods.

[Act_of_Reparation]

113. That would be a confusing conclusion.

Given atheists tend to be wealthier on average than their Christian counterparts.

[yallerdawg]

124. There are a lot fewer atheists...

which always skews the numbers.

It's like when atheists suggest the religious are more likely to commit crimes we should ignore they have greater wealth and more privileged lives than the rest of us? Very unlikely to be robbing the nearest convenience store?

I'm pretty sure atheists take affordable end-of-life treatments just like everybody else!

[Act_of_Reparation]

125. Yes, it always skews the numbers.

Unless the numbers are, you know, per capita.

[yallerdawg]

127. Per capita?

A high level of religious coping was also associated with less use of end-of-life planning strategies, including do-not-resuscitate orders, living wills, and appointment of a health care power of attorney.

It is not entirely clear why terminally ill patients who report relying more on their religion would choose more life-prolonging medical interventions.

But researchers say these patients may be less likely to believe their doctors when they are told there is no hope.

"There may be a sense that it is really not in the hands of the doctors to decide when to give up," study researcher Holly G. Prigerson, PhD, of Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute tells WebMD. "Refusing some of these very aggressive medical interventions may be seen as giving up on the possibility that God might intervene."

https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20090317/religions-impact-on-end-of-life-care#1

[Act_of_Reparation]

128. Thanks!

It's not often you find an opponent willing to present evidence against their own case. You're a whizz-bang debater, my friend. Would you by any chance be a lawyer?

[yallerdawg]

129. If this is what you want to hang your hat on...

The study included 345 advanced cancer patients treated between January 2003 and August 2007 at medical facilities across the country.

[Act_of_Reparation]

130. In your expert opinion...

1. 345 test subjects is, for a medical study: _______________

A. A lot

B. A little

C. DERP!

[Voltaire2]

132. you left out :crickets:

[trotsky]

119. Wow, WTF dude.

Are you a Joel Osteen fan or something? Disgusting.

[yallerdawg]

13. What would be the secular, godless message to these people suffering?

"Oops. Shit happens?"

[Act_of_Reparation]

14. So secular, godless people can't comfort anyone?

Noted.

[yallerdawg]

22. All I see here is...

disparagement of religious belief and rabid criticism of the expression of belief ( "thoughts and prayers" ).

Fortunately, I reside in a Big Tent!

[Act_of_Reparation]

24. That's great.

Maybe when you've finished with your self-congratulatory back slapping we can discuss the ethics of giving false hope, which is what this thread is really about.

[MineralMan]

15. It would be, "What a horrible thing to have happened!"

"I can't possibly understand how you must feel about your loss. I'm going to continue my work to help make it far more difficult for someone to do what happened here. Such a horror should never occur again."

How's that?

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. We are to believe that's not good enough.

Some seem to believe human beings are so gelatinous in their constitution that they would simply fall to pieces without the promise of a rosy hereafter.

[MineralMan]

21. Apparently so.

What I realize is that there is no way for me to comfort someone I don't know and who has lost a loved one to senseless violence. There are no comforting words that could possibly adequate, including those religious euphemisms.

I can, however, work to make it more difficult for someone to do what that shooter did. That is actually doing something, despite its failure to change what happened. People will, and need to, grieve senseless loss of life. There's no shortcut for that. I can't offer one, because there is no instant fix.

I have no euphemisms to offer someone who is grieving.

[Lordquinton]

18. No that's the theistic response

Except they spell it "God's will"

[MineralMan]

20. Bingo!

[pandr32]

28. How 'bout let's speak out for the victims

...and do everything in our power to fight the gun lobby and the gun nuts who are complicit. Let's make sure they never forget those who died--making sure their deaths account for something. We must fight in the memory of the innocent.

[longship]

23. An appropriate Vonnegut allusion, from Slaughterhouse Five.

I increasingly love Vonnegut's treatment of religion. Likewise, I believe that religion deserves only ridicule.

Witness Bokononism in Cat's Cradle, my favorite Vonnegut book which puts religion into total perspective. (Risking mixed metaphor with another favorite author, Douglas Adams.)

Zaphod; he's just this guy! So was Vonnegut.

Thoughts and prayers do nothing while one takes no action.

I apologize for this post.

[blueinredohio]

27. My dad never went to church but my mom did so when he died

I said please don't let them pray him into heaven

[The_Casual_Observer]

60. The only way they can justify these senseless murders. The fact is they are simply dead

No heaven no nothing. Robbed of whatever short time they had to inhabit this green earth. That's all.

[MineralMan]

62. That's my opinion, as well.

We get one pass through this life. If it's cut short, that's it. I'm always hoping that my life will have been of some value. That would be the best possible outcome. Once I'm dead, it won't matter to me, because there won't be a me any longer.

[yallerdawg]

64. You hope.

[MineralMan]

70. Nope. It's not a matter of hope.

I completely accept my time on this planet as all there is. I didn't care before I was born, and won't care after I die. I didn't exist before and I won't after.

There is only an "I" while I'm alive.

Sounds like you're the one who is hopeful. Good luck with that. Just in case, though, live well while you can.

[Mariana]

75. I think Yallerdawg is implying

that you better hope death is just the end for you. You better hope you don't go to hell and get tortured for eternity, because that's what will happen to you if Christianity is true.

[yallerdawg]

80. That IS the wager, isn't it?

The source of many death bed conversions, I'm sure.

It's never too late - until it is.

[trotsky]

81. You're not a Christian.

So obviously you're not scared by Pascal's Wager. Why do you think anyone else should be, then?

[yallerdawg]

83. As a gambler...

I would say the odds are a lot worse if you eliminate 3 out of 4 options.

That is not what I'd call a good bet.

[trotsky]

85. Prove to me that there are only 4 options.

I'll bet a sizable wager that you can't.

[yallerdawg]

87. From wiki:

If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven: thus an infinite gain.

If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in hell forever: thus an infinite loss.

If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded: thus an insignificant loss.

If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life: thus an insignificant gain.

[trotsky]

89. From me:

Which god?

[yallerdawg]

90. Silly wabbit.

The one referenced by Pascal - that you specified.

The Christian God.

[trotsky]

91. How do you know Pascal picked the right god?

What if Pascal was wrong about god?

What if the god can see thru the ruse of someone believing just to beat the wager?

What if the god lets ANYONE into heaven, regardless of what they believe?

I know, you think I'm very stupid, as you made quite clear, so I'm sure these questions are silly to you. I mean, what intelligent person could read Pascal's Wager and not instantly fall on their knees to worship the Christian god? Clearly everyone who hasn't become a Christian is monumentally stupid, right?

[yallerdawg]

92. I don't understand why you keep repeating something I have never said.

Faith is not a matter of "stupid" and "smart."

It is something you have - or you don't.

[trotsky]

93. So, no response to any of the questions?

Changing the subject again, instead. Quite telling. Even to this dumb guy.

[yallerdawg]

94. Do you have me on "ignore?"

[trotsky]

118. I bet you wish I did.

You're squirming.

[Mariana]

112. Trotsky has a valid question, and I wish you would answer it.

What if you picked the wrong god? You spent your life believing in and worshiping a god, and it doesn't exist. But another god, one you never believed in and didn't worship, does exist, and it's not real happy with you. Now what?

[yallerdawg]

121. You want to use philosophical quibbling as a distraction.

Blaise Pascal is speaking specifically about the one Christian God.

This is like arguing with 'the gungeon.'

"Let's ban assault weapons." Response: "Define assault weapon."

Just distraction and obfuscation related to semantics.

Not the purely binary bet of our personal choice and our personal response to that choice.

[Mariana]

122. You brought up "the wager" in this thread.

That makes it a subject for discussion. Now you don't want to discuss it?

I think Pascal's Wager is invoked mostly to make Christians feel better about themselves and their religion. By leaving out the important possibilities of different gods, and the fact that belief isn't strictly voluntary, Pascal's Wager not useful at all for persuasion. I wonder why you would bring it up in a conversation with a nonbeliever, as you did. What were you trying to accomplish with that?

[yallerdawg]

123. I pointed out in this thread...

that the first two commenters were betting (hoping) on something they have no evidence of.

Someone else declared it Pascal's Wager.

I narrowed it down to just what Pascal was referring to.

Most of life, as nuanced as we think it is, involves binary choices. Yes/no, on/off, etc.

Pascal was just pointing this out in regards to faith and disbelief, and the consequences.

It doesn't have to be about anything else!

[Mariana]

111. No, it really isn't the wager.

The wager is a false dichotomy. Suppose there's an afterlife AND Christianity is false. The wager doesn't account for that possibility, so it is fundamentally flawed.

The wager also doesn't account for people who simply don't believe. What are they supposed to do? Does it count if they pretend to believe?

[Act_of_Reparation]

115. If you actually sit down and do the math...

...the atheist position is statistically safer. You don't run the risk of pissing off the real god(s) by worshipping the wrong god(s).

[trotsky]

120. Relevant quote

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Voltaire2]

133. so do you believe that there is eternal damnation for unbelievers?

[yallerdawg]

134. You'll find out.

It is unknown now since no one has "reliable" ever reported back.

Place your bet and take your chances.

It is a kind of 'dreadful freedom' isn't it?

[Voltaire2]

135. yet another person of faith unwilling to state what they believe.

[yallerdawg]

136. I am not here to proselytize or save your soul.

What I believe is irrelevant when all that matters is what you believe.

It's not on me.

It's on you.

[Mariana]

140. Most who believe that aren't honest enough to say it outright

They hint around at it, often with little happy emoticons or other indications of their glee at the idea, but refuse to answer direct questions. I don't understand why. If eternal torture of unbelievers is good and just, then why shouldn't Christians experience pleasure when they think about it? What's wrong with saying so?

The above is a general statement about some believers, not all. I don't know what Yallerdawg's reason is for refusing to answer simple straightforward questions about his beliefs.

[MineralMan]

102. I'm not a betting man.

Pascal's wager is one I don't consider as worthwhile.

[redstatebluegirl]

76. This is one of the reasons I left organized religion years ago.

None of it makes sense to me.

[guillaumeb]

98. Prayers are, in my view, intended as a comfort for the survivors. eom

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

126. Prayer is a form of meditation, I think.

It focuses the mind and maybe offers some comfort to the person who's praying. It won't create tangible results but it can make people feel better, and if people want to pray that their loved one is in "a better place" I'm not going to object to it. The belief that the deceased is in heaven or whatever, and prayers and funerals are always for the survivors.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. People who can so casually dismis death scare me quite a bit.

Not the kind of folks I want to be around. I'd like to live. I'd like the people around me to have a vested interest in living too.