That's a really, really bad argument. Because if you are just going with "playing the odds" take on the religion then why worship Christian God when you could go for any of the other religions? Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity so why not that? There's lots of religions with pantheons and worshiping a lot of gods at the same time would get you better chances of being right purely by luck than a monotheistic religion. In fact, why not go for one of those cooky new age religions that are cool with orgies and drugs because that gives you a better reward than some of the tougher religions as it is easier not to break the rules. Kinda like, why pay 5€ for a lottery ticket when the reward is 10'000€ when you could buy a ticket with the potential reward of 100'000€ that's on sale for the same price? It's not like your chances of winning are any different?
Heck, if the only argument you have for your religion is "it could be the right one, I dunno?" then you have a very weak argument.
Oh for fuck's sake Pascal's Wager?
So you believe in a God dumb enough not to see through the fact that we'd be worshipping it (or going through the motions of worship) because of some probabilistic notion and not because we actually do believe?
Uh, the ancient Greeks had eternal afterlife punishments too. Likely early Greek Christian converts borrowed the concept as it's foreign to Judaism.That's a really, really bad argument. Because if you are just going with "playing the odds" take on the religion then why worship Christian God when you could go for any of the other religions? Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity so why not that? There's lots of religions with pantheons and worshiping a lot of gods at the same time would get you better chances of being right purely by luck than a monotheistic religion. In fact, why not go for one of those cooky new age religions that are cool with orgies and drugs because that gives you a better reward than some of the tougher religions as it is easier not to break the rules. Kinda like, why pay 5€ for a lottery ticket when the reward is 10'000€ when you could buy a ticket with the potential reward of 100'000€ that's on sale for the same price? It's not like your chances of winning are any different?
Heck, if the only argument you have for your religion is "it could be the right one, I dunno?" then you have a very weak argument.
But Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell. Christianity is more likely than Islam because Christianity is older, more similar to Judaism, does not merge the monotheistic God with the pagan moon diety Allah, and does not have the far fetched story of a prophet memorizizing all the Quranic verses recited to him by an angel before writing them down.
So not worshipping the Christian God has a far greater loss than the other gods.
Islam is unlikely because Mohammed had to memorise the verses. Christianity suffers from no such credibility problems, such as:
holding a criminal trial at passover
a roman governor being bullied by the locals into executing someone he doesn't want to
a man so famous he was going to spark a revolution needing to be identified by one of his followers
etc etc
And that's not touching the wedding at Cana, the loaves and the fishes, the resurrection of lazaraus, the resurrection, the astronomical events otherwise unreported.
Yes I know which is more likely.
Uh, the ancient Greeks had eternal afterlife punishments too. Likely early Greek Christian converts borrowed the concept as it's foreign to Judaism.That's a really, really bad argument. Because if you are just going with "playing the odds" take on the religion then why worship Christian God when you could go for any of the other religions? Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity so why not that? There's lots of religions with pantheons and worshiping a lot of gods at the same time would get you better chances of being right purely by luck than a monotheistic religion. In fact, why not go for one of those cooky new age religions that are cool with orgies and drugs because that gives you a better reward than some of the tougher religions as it is easier not to break the rules. Kinda like, why pay 5€ for a lottery ticket when the reward is 10'000€ when you could buy a ticket with the potential reward of 100'000€ that's on sale for the same price? It's not like your chances of winning are any different?
Heck, if the only argument you have for your religion is "it could be the right one, I dunno?" then you have a very weak argument.
But Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell. Christianity is more likely than Islam because Christianity is older, more similar to Judaism, does not merge the monotheistic God with the pagan moon diety Allah, and does not have the far fetched story of a prophet memorizizing all the Quranic verses recited to him by an angel before writing them down.
So not worshipping the Christian God has a far greater loss than the other gods.
Here again Jacob demonstrates that his faith is incredibly weak, I have a lot of Catholics in my family and they are very defensive of their faith and believe in it strongly but it's not the threat of hell that keeps them there and they don't use it on other people-and this doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in hell. They just believe all that stuff about Jesus and his ministry as told via the RCC, I don't bloody understand why but it's not the threat of hell. I understand that.
True faith and devotion can't come from argumentum ad baculum, merely compliance and for compliance the threat has to be credible. The threat of hell is only credible if you uncritically accept the whole package offered in hell-believing religions.
Yeah but to accept your argument about hell being a problem I first have to believe what you do and accept that it's a problem, I don't.Uh, the ancient Greeks had eternal afterlife punishments too. Likely early Greek Christian converts borrowed the concept as it's foreign to Judaism.That's a really, really bad argument. Because if you are just going with "playing the odds" take on the religion then why worship Christian God when you could go for any of the other religions? Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity so why not that? There's lots of religions with pantheons and worshiping a lot of gods at the same time would get you better chances of being right purely by luck than a monotheistic religion. In fact, why not go for one of those cooky new age religions that are cool with orgies and drugs because that gives you a better reward than some of the tougher religions as it is easier not to break the rules. Kinda like, why pay 5€ for a lottery ticket when the reward is 10'000€ when you could buy a ticket with the potential reward of 100'000€ that's on sale for the same price? It's not like your chances of winning are any different?
Heck, if the only argument you have for your religion is "it could be the right one, I dunno?" then you have a very weak argument.
But Christianity and Islam are the only religions where non believers get damned to hell. Christianity is more likely than Islam because Christianity is older, more similar to Judaism, does not merge the monotheistic God with the pagan moon diety Allah, and does not have the far fetched story of a prophet memorizizing all the Quranic verses recited to him by an angel before writing them down.
So not worshipping the Christian God has a far greater loss than the other gods.
Here again Jacob demonstrates that his faith is incredibly weak, I have a lot of Catholics in my family and they are very defensive of their faith and believe in it strongly but it's not the threat of hell that keeps them there and they don't use it on other people-and this doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in hell. They just believe all that stuff about Jesus and his ministry as told via the RCC, I don't bloody understand why but it's not the threat of hell. I understand that.
True faith and devotion can't come from argumentum ad baculum, merely compliance and for compliance the threat has to be credible. The threat of hell is only credible if you uncritically accept the whole package offered in hell-believing religions.
But the Greeks didn’t believe that people of other religions would go to Tartarus. And I am warning you s about Hell so that you don’t end up there not because of weak faith.
Pretty sure Zoroastrianism has eternal punishment too.
The citation of Thallus is laughable. Julius Africanus reports reading Thallus but no one else ever did. Wonder why that is?
Passover - no business, including legal trials would be conducted over passover. They would have been committing sacrilege by holding the trial
Romans - You know they had conquered the province. In doing so they had been surrounded by Judaens in greater numbers, trained and armed. Pontius Pilate had the only soldiers in the province.
Yet he was famous, certainly didn't require the treachery of his comrade. Especially as he had apparently debated many of the people personally who wanted him killed, and no one could identify the man who stormed the temple? I'm sure the pigeon sellers and moneylenders could have identified him.
Yes miracles are more likely than a good (and if accepted divinely inspired) memory.
I see that Jakey-boy hasn't said a thing about my supposition that God only cares about a species twenty billion light-years away. Clearly this means that he's having serious doubts about whether he's been wrong all this time.
One way to counter the wager is to replace Pascal's Judeo-Christian God with a perverse god that punishes those who believe in him without evidence, and rewards those who don't. Note that this doesn't even presuppose that the Bible and other holy texts are not divinely inspired: this god could have authored them to serve as a test of credulity. Importantly, because Pascal's Wager can only work if you improve the prior probability of any one god's existence over the others (which generally doesn't happen in any theological argument) this wager is exactly as valid as Pascal's original formulation.
This theoretical belief system presents a win/win scenario for atheists and a lose/lose scenario for those who believe in God. Since the two contrasting ideas of a specific god are logically equivalent in likelihood, atheism is shown to have the greatest potential for gain, completely negating and effectively reversing Pascal's argument. Remember, this is equally empirically provable as Pascal's Wager, and so we now have to factor in a 50:50 chance of Pascal's Wager being true or this one being true.
The wager assumes that there is a self-evident reason for rewarding blind faith. Why is the faith of a believer better than the personal courage of the disbeliever that leads an outstanding life? Why does a deity prefer blind faith over evidence based submission?
The real argument goes in the opposite direction: God exists (I assume) and I cannot see him, therefore he has to have a reason not to show himself. Therefore, there has to be something for me if I play along.
Here's the thing, it's not the grudging acceptance of a victim of crime handing his wallet to a mugger or the confused mental state of someone with Stockholm syndrome that gets you through the pearly gates according to that schema, it's true dedication and love. Even if it were true (it's not) I couldn't respect a being asking for my love on those terms I'd always secretly or openly hate them. No deal, you don't get love by showing me the instruments of torture!I see that Jakey-boy hasn't said a thing about my supposition that God only cares about a species twenty billion light-years away. Clearly this means that he's having serious doubts about whether he's been wrong all this time.
Because of that is true, then I have nothing to lose. But if Christianity is true, and you don’t accept it, then you have eternity to lose.
Cited Thallus but not the astronomical events cited only by Africanus or repeated from Africanus.
Corrupt or not they were certain to give the appearance of righteousness which a trial over Passover would have destroyed. After all aren't they the 'whited sepulchers' ? That just makes it more unlikely.
Pilate would have always had soldiers with him.
No answer to the identification of such a famous man requiring treachery, rather than an unhappy pigeon seller.
Again inifinite fish is much more likely than continuous oral history. Although you don't seem to have realised that may create some problems for your religion.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wagerQuoteOne way to counter the wager is to replace Pascal's Judeo-Christian God with a perverse god that punishes those who believe in him without evidence, and rewards those who don't. Note that this doesn't even presuppose that the Bible and other holy texts are not divinely inspired: this god could have authored them to serve as a test of credulity. Importantly, because Pascal's Wager can only work if you improve the prior probability of any one god's existence over the others (which generally doesn't happen in any theological argument) this wager is exactly as valid as Pascal's original formulation.
In this case:
Belief in God + God exists = infinite punishment.
Belief in God + God doesn't exist = insignificant loss.
Disbelief in God + God exists = infinite reward.
Disbelief in God + God doesn't exist = insignificant gain.QuoteThis theoretical belief system presents a win/win scenario for atheists and a lose/lose scenario for those who believe in God. Since the two contrasting ideas of a specific god are logically equivalent in likelihood, atheism is shown to have the greatest potential for gain, completely negating and effectively reversing Pascal's argument. Remember, this is equally empirically provable as Pascal's Wager, and so we now have to factor in a 50:50 chance of Pascal's Wager being true or this one being true.
The wager assumes that there is a self-evident reason for rewarding blind faith. Why is the faith of a believer better than the personal courage of the disbeliever that leads an outstanding life? Why does a deity prefer blind faith over evidence based submission?
The real argument goes in the opposite direction: God exists (I assume) and I cannot see him, therefore he has to have a reason not to show himself. Therefore, there has to be something for me if I play along.
Here's the thing, it's not the grudging acceptance of a victim of crime handing his wallet to a mugger or the confused mental state of someone with Stockholm syndrome that gets you through the pearly gates according to that schema, it's true dedication and love. Even if it were true (it's not) I couldn't respect a being asking for my love on those terms I'd always secretly or openly hate them. No deal, you don't get love by showing me the instruments of torture!I see that Jakey-boy hasn't said a thing about my supposition that God only cares about a species twenty billion light-years away. Clearly this means that he's having serious doubts about whether he's been wrong all this time.
Because of that is true, then I have nothing to lose. But if Christianity is true, and you don’t accept it, then you have eternity to lose.
So you believe in a God dumb enough not to see through the fact that we'd be worshipping it (or going through the motions of worship) because of some probabilistic notion and not because we actually do believe?
He will see that you wish to be saved and will eventually make you believe once he answers your prayers.
“Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you.” Mathew 7:7
Go and read the entire article, that's hardly the only counter-argument.
And why would a god be so vain as to desire worship?
Hey Jacob, direct question if a mum sets her kids on fire for not praising her is she right to do so or a psychotic bitch?Go and read the entire article, that's hardly the only counter-argument.
And why would a god be so vain as to desire worship?
Because he created us making him our master and we owe him praise for creating us and sending his son to die for our sins.
Matthew 25:31-46 New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
God Exists | God Doesn't Exist | |
Vote Democrat | Eternal Reward | Maybe lost money but helped others |
Vote Republican | Eternal Punishment | Maybe saved some money but hurt others |
Go and read the entire article, that's hardly the only counter-argument.
And why would a god be so vain as to desire worship?
Because he created us making him our master and we owe him praise for creating us and sending his son to die for our sins.
Hey Jacob, direct question if a mum sets her kids on fire for not praising her is she right to do so or a psychotic bitch?Go and read the entire article, that's hardly the only counter-argument.
And why would a god be so vain as to desire worship?
Because he created us making him our master and we owe him praise for creating us and sending his son to die for our sins.
But Jacob, in the bible Jesus clearly says that if you go to Heaven or Hell is determined by whether or not you help others when they need it, not by what you believed:QuoteMatthew 25:31-46 New International Version (NIV)
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Come on Jacob, you going to tell me the Good Samaritan went to hell? Cause he wasn't a Christian or even a Jew.
Since Jesus said that the afterlife is about whether or not you feed the hungry, welcome the stranger and care for the sick, that brings politics into it. In the modern world the most effective way to feed the hungry and care for the sick is with big centralized government programs supported by the democrats, while the republicans oppose these programs. Likewise the democrats welcome strangers into the US and try to help them, while republicans want to build walls and throw children in prison camps.
This suggests that Pascal's wager has it wrong, and should really look like this:
God Exists God Doesn't Exist Vote Democrat Eternal Reward Maybe lost money but helped others Vote Republican Eternal Punishment Maybe saved some money but hurt others
So even if you don't care about helping other people, shouldn't you vote democratic anyway Jacob, just to be on the safe side? Because if Jesus is God and the bible is his word, then people who vote for Trump are going to hell.
People who vote Democrat support killing babies.
Tbe old "hidden minor creator clause" ooh, you most creative and clever debater. Truly, we are truly overwhelmed by your massive powers of debate.Hey Jacob, direct question if a mum sets her kids on fire for not praising her is she right to do so or a psychotic bitch?Go and read the entire article, that's hardly the only counter-argument.
And why would a god be so vain as to desire worship?
Because he created us making him our master and we owe him praise for creating us and sending his son to die for our sins.
She is not right to do so because she is only a minor creator. God is the creator of humanity and the entire universe.
1. It is true that salvation comes from faith and good works.
Private charities are a more effective way of helping the poor.
And the sick will still be taken care of under Trumpcare.
In fact Trump is doing a better job taking care of the poor because the unemployment rate is low, the economy is doing well, and he is trying to preserve American industries and keep jobs in America.
2. Strangers are welcome if they come here LEGALLY, either by legal immigration or legal asylum status. Not enforcing the immigration laws makes it worse for America's poor because the illegal immigrants take their jobs.
People who vote Democrat support killing babies.
Exactly.
1. It is true that salvation comes from faith and good works.
No it doesn't. Good works alone. God doesn't care about faith.
QuotePrivate charities are a more effective way of helping the poor.
Private charities are far less helpful to the poor because they don't have anywhere near the budget government programs do. At any rate:
DIRECT QUESTION: How much of your income to you give to charity?
Because even if that's all true, you will still go to hell unless it's a lot.
QuoteAnd the sick will still be taken care of under Trumpcare.
False: The CBO studied it and found that 26 500 people will die every year if Trumpcare is passed.
QuoteIn fact Trump is doing a better job taking care of the poor because the unemployment rate is low, the economy is doing well, and he is trying to preserve American industries and keep jobs in America.
He also is starting a trade war that will destroy the world's economy, and countries that are far more socialist then the US (Ie Norway) have far less poverty then the US.
Quote2. Strangers are welcome if they come here LEGALLY, either by legal immigration or legal asylum status. Not enforcing the immigration laws makes it worse for America's poor because the illegal immigrants take their jobs.
The bible says nothing about legal or illegal. Please show me where if you don't believe me. Only that you must welcome the stranger. Trying to find excuses to not do so like "That DREAMER was brought here illegally when he was a year old, so kick him out!" will not impress God and you will go to hell for it. And of course you have all the things republicans are doing to not welcome legal strangers like Trump's Muslim ban. If you support the ban you will go to hell.
People who vote Democrat support killing babies.
Exactly.
Jacob doesn't seem to have responded to me re: "Creating beings and giving them free will to do as they will and then torturing them if they don't do as you say" being an asshole thing to do.
Jacob, direct question: Is that an asshole thing to do? If not, why?
This does raise one very important question. If Sky Wizard is so butthurt because I'm spending an hour a week singing songs about how he's just the bee's knees, he could always just tell me himself. I'm sure you're going to say next that he sent you to do exactly that, in which case I would counter that if you are the best he can do, then that's just pathetic and if anything says that he's not worth worshipping even if he does exist (which he very much doesn't).
Not that it's not a stupid idea in the first place for his all-powerful self to outsource such an oh-so important duty, but you can't deny that standards have really been slipping as of late. 2000 years ago, his man could walk on water, raise the dead and generate infinite fish and bread. Today, his guy obsesses over his second cousin's towel wearing ways and still in this day and age thinks that national governments should be one guy's personal property. A compelling case, you most certainly do not make, my denim loving, testicle hating, totalitarianism advocating friend.
This does raise one very important question. If Sky Wizard is so butthurt because I'm spending an hour a week singing songs about how he's just the bee's knees, he could always just tell me himself. I'm sure you're going to say next that he sent you to do exactly that, in which case I would counter that if you are the best he can do, then that's just pathetic and if anything says that he's not worth worshipping even if he does exist (which he very much doesn't).
Not that it's not a stupid idea in the first place for his all-powerful self to outsource such an oh-so important duty, but you can't deny that standards have really been slipping as of late. 2000 years ago, his man could walk on water, raise the dead and generate infinite fish and bread. Today, his guy obsesses over his second cousin's towel wearing ways and still in this day and age thinks that national governments should be one guy's personal property. A compelling case, you most certainly do not make, my denim loving, testicle hating, totalitarianism advocating friend.
He sent me to tell you just as he sends angels and prophets to do his bidding. He works in mysterious ways.
Frankly if all the embodiment of a thousand billion galaxies can be bothered with is one sexually repressed, manipulative, uninspiring, intellectually dishonest, democracy hating pissant he can't be that fussed about what we do or don't think of himThis does raise one very important question. If Sky Wizard is so butthurt because I'm spending an hour a week singing songs about how he's just the bee's knees, he could always just tell me himself. I'm sure you're going to say next that he sent you to do exactly that, in which case I would counter that if you are the best he can do, then that's just pathetic and if anything says that he's not worth worshipping even if he does exist (which he very much doesn't).
Not that it's not a stupid idea in the first place for his all-powerful self to outsource such an oh-so important duty, but you can't deny that standards have really been slipping as of late. 2000 years ago, his man could walk on water, raise the dead and generate infinite fish and bread. Today, his guy obsesses over his second cousin's towel wearing ways and still in this day and age thinks that national governments should be one guy's personal property. A compelling case, you most certainly do not make, my denim loving, testicle hating, totalitarianism advocating friend.
He sent me to tell you just as he sends angels and prophets to do his bidding. He works in mysterious ways.
Frankly if all the embodiment of a thousand billion galaxies can be bothered with is one sexually repressed, manipulative, uninspiring, intellectually dishonest, democracy hating pissant he can't be that fussed about what we do or don't think of himThis does raise one very important question. If Sky Wizard is so butthurt because I'm spending an hour a week singing songs about how he's just the bee's knees, he could always just tell me himself. I'm sure you're going to say next that he sent you to do exactly that, in which case I would counter that if you are the best he can do, then that's just pathetic and if anything says that he's not worth worshipping even if he does exist (which he very much doesn't).
Not that it's not a stupid idea in the first place for his all-powerful self to outsource such an oh-so important duty, but you can't deny that standards have really been slipping as of late. 2000 years ago, his man could walk on water, raise the dead and generate infinite fish and bread. Today, his guy obsesses over his second cousin's towel wearing ways and still in this day and age thinks that national governments should be one guy's personal property. A compelling case, you most certainly do not make, my denim loving, testicle hating, totalitarianism advocating friend.
He sent me to tell you just as he sends angels and prophets to do his bidding. He works in mysterious ways.
As art said, this Jesus fella is getting sloppy. Back in the day we get reports of cured lepers, shimmying on water and going for a stroll after being, scourged, stabbed, stapled and killed. Also, free nibbles and vino, mate that'll get me into a boring town meeting or an art show that's pretentious! Now all we have accoring to you is...you.
Hey Jacob, there's an expression "Their is one thing all your bad relationships have in common: You."
If every single girl you date turns out to be a bitch, maybe they aren't, maybe the asshole is actually you and you're projecting that onto them.
You're trying to convert a bunch of people but no-one is biting. If everyone else fails to convert, maybe that isn't because everyone else is wicked, maybe that means you're the problem.
You are a sinner too, the the greatest sin is pride. And nothing marks a prideful person more then proclaiming "I must be right about everything, so if you don't agree you must be evil."
Jacob can I put it to you that this is probably the worst place to convert people on the web outside PZ Myers or Richard Dawkins blog. Unlike those spaces we aren't exclusively atheist but most of us have been exposed to almost every variety of bad religious arguments, FSTDT being a clearinghouse for such. We're all well acquainted with the bible, many of us were raised Christian and some, like myself, were raised Catholic.
Your problem isn't that we've never got the message, it's that we've all been guffawing at messages like yours for years now. Maybe you need an audience that's more gullible, also you'd be in more like minded company.
1 Don't believe in God.
2 Believe organized religion is a racket.
3 Find biblical morality inconsistant and lacking.
4 I respect that all the ritualism of Catholicism brings comfort to a lot of people and can be quite beautiful but I can live without it.
5 The RCC's stance on abortion and contraception is stupid, sexist and evil.
6 Their enabling of pedophile rapists is just plain evil.
1 Don't believe in God.
2 Believe organized religion is a racket.
3 Find biblical morality inconsistant and lacking.
4 I respect that all the ritualism of Catholicism brings comfort to a lot of people and can be quite beautiful but I can live without it.
5 The RCC's stance on abortion and contraception is stupid, sexist and evil.
6 Their enabling of pedophile rapists is just plain evil.
But if you were raised to believe in God and the Bible, what made you not believe in God?
The fact that there is no evidence for God.1 Don't believe in God.
2 Believe organized religion is a racket.
3 Find biblical morality inconsistant and lacking.
4 I respect that all the ritualism of Catholicism brings comfort to a lot of people and can be quite beautiful but I can live without it.
5 The RCC's stance on abortion and contraception is stupid, sexist and evil.
6 Their enabling of pedophile rapists is just plain evil.
But if you were raised to believe in God and the Bible, what made you not believe in God?