ok i didnt read all the posts (actully i just read the first and last page) but i can say one thing (ok maybe 2 or 3)

1:
have you ever heard of blaise pascal ? he said that i quate "if god does not exist, it doesnt matter if i believe. if god does exist, then i had better be a beleiver.
if i were a betting man, id say beleif is the safer bet !."

2:
Just come to where i am and id take you to a Church were you cannot deny that god exists,
how you ask, Simple have you ever read the bible ?
if so you may recall that jesus said (i dont know exactly where it is but i can find out if you want to) that unless he goes away he cannot send the comfiter , AKA the Holy Spirit / Holy Ghost , and when you are baptised in the spirit, the spirit can reviell things to you about another ones life ,example that he has cancer, and also also you can get prayed for and be COMPLETELY healed, the churches webiste is http://www.ihop.za.org/

3:
how can the univers come from nothing, its just gotta be created.

1:
have you ever heard of blaise pascal ? he said that i quate "if god does not exist, it doesnt matter if i believe. if god does exist, then i had better be a beleiver.
if i were a betting man, id say beleif is the safer bet !."

Maybe some people don't want to go through life betting on the 'safe bet'.

I, for one, admire them for that.

 

1:
have you ever heard of blaise pascal ? he said that i quate "if god does not exist, it doesnt matter if i believe. if god does exist, then i had better be a beleiver.
if i were a betting man, id say beleif is the safer bet !."

Not Pascal's wager again. It's a horrible argument, for multiple reasons; among others:

• You're making the assumption that there's either no god at all, or the christian god. False dichotomy. What if there's another god who would get really mad at you for worshipping the nonexistent christian god and would actually prefer you'd not worship at all?
• Believing out of safety is hardly noble. If you're only behaving good out of fear for hell, you're not a good person.
• It is not possible to just start believing what you previously thought were bollocks.

  
  2:
  Just come to where i am and id take you to a Church were you cannot deny that god exists,
  how you ask, Simple have you ever read the bible ?
  if so you may recall that jesus said (i dont know exactly where it is but i can find out if you want to) that unless he goes away he cannot send the comfiter , AKA the Holy Spirit / Holy Ghost , and when you are baptised in the spirit, the spirit can  reviell things to you about another ones life ,example that he has cancer, and also also you can get prayed for and be COMPLETELY healed, the churches webiste is http://www.ihop.za.org/
  

  
  Sure. There are many things to be said about this, but for some reason, it feels futile.
  
  

  
  3:
  
  
  how can the univers come from nothing, its just gotta be created.
  

  
  That argument is also becoming very old. Read the thread.
  
  
  In short, assuming the universe indeed needs a creator, this does not need to be the christian god. It could be any god. The existence of the universe in no way implies the existence of the christian god, merely some godlike creature (still assuming a creator is necessary).
  
  
  
  Again, read the thread.

'ryan20fun' said:

1:
have you ever heard of blaise pascal ? he said that i quate "if god does not exist, it doesnt matter if i believe. if god does exist, then i had better be a beleiver.
if i were a betting man, id say beleif is the safer bet !."

Not Pascal's wager again. It's a horrible argument, for multiple reasons; among others:

• You're making the assumption that there's either no god at all, or the christian god. False dichotomy. What if there's another god who would get really mad at you for worshipping the nonexistent christian god and would actually prefer you'd not worship at all?
• Believing out of safety is hardly noble. If you're only behaving good out of fear for hell, you're not a good person.
• It is not possible to just start believing what you previously thought were bollocks

Bearing in mind that it isn't the right reason to believe, it isn't a horrible argument. It's not a good argument, but it's not horrible.

If there is another god, your odds are still better to believe in any god because they go from 0% to a 1:N chance where N is the number of possible Gods. Worst case scenario is that you end up with the same chance, best case scenario is that you are right.

If there is another god, your odds are still better to believe in any god because they go from 0% to a 1:N chance where N is the number of possible Gods. Worst case scenario is that you end up with the same chance, best case scenario is that you are right.

Not really. Few religions have the same sort of restrictions that Christians do for the afterlife.

'way2lazy2care' said:

If there is another god, your odds are still better to believe in any god because they go from 0% to a 1:N chance where N is the number of possible Gods. Worst case scenario is that you end up with the same chance, best case scenario is that you are right.

Not really. Few religions have the same sort of restrictions that Christians do for the afterlife.

What Christianism say about the "afterlife" anyway? I mean based on Jesus' teachings, not the XYZ dogma some high priests made up some centuries after his crossing. Jesus specifically said 'this is the God of the living, not of the dead' when asked about afterlife and what would happen then. After his crossing, the gospels clearly say that he told his students that David and all the prophets died, but they would have 'everlasting life'. It doesn't seem that the guy was much preoccupied with metaphycis and the 'afterlife' either but focused on what we do in this world.

(*) yes, that "virgin" Mary who wasn't necessarily a virgin. She was called an "almah", which means either "young woman" or "virgin", with the former use being more common. This was originally translated as "virgin" and the concept stuck with the christians. However, the official jewish translation is indeed "young woman".

This christian fascination with virginity never ceases to amaze me, especially since the original text may not even have been meant to read that way.

Given the fact that not being a virgin was likely to get you stoned, I think it's a pretty safe bet both applied to her. The latter is especially safe considering:

Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

What's the deal here? I don't get it.

It's more interesting to stir things up by nit-picking.

'SamLowry' said:

'ryan20fun' said:

1:
have you ever heard of blaise pascal ? he said that i quate "if god does not exist, it doesnt matter if i believe. if god does exist, then i had better be a beleiver.
if i were a betting man, id say beleif is the safer bet !."

Not Pascal's wager again. It's a horrible argument, for multiple reasons; among others:

• You're making the assumption that there's either no god at all, or the christian god. False dichotomy. What if there's another god who would get really mad at you for worshipping the nonexistent christian god and would actually prefer you'd not worship at all?
• Believing out of safety is hardly noble. If you're only behaving good out of fear for hell, you're not a good person.
• It is not possible to just start believing what you previously thought were bollocks

Bearing in mind that it isn't the right reason to believe, it isn't a horrible argument. It's not a good argument, but it's not horrible.

If there is another god, your odds are still better to believe in any god because they go from 0% to a 1:N chance where N is the number of possible Gods. Worst case scenario is that you end up with the same chance, best case scenario is that you are right.

What about the first bullet point of SamLowry's post? Believing in the Christian God can actually cause you to be in a worse position in the after-life (if an after-life exists), if there is a non-Christian God who prefers atheists over Christians. The scenario is certainly plausible (well, it's at least as plausible as the existence of a Christian God).

'Fiddler' said:

(*) yes, that "virgin" Mary who wasn't necessarily a virgin. She was called an "almah", which means either "young woman" or "virgin", with the former use being more common. This was originally translated as "virgin" and the concept stuck with the christians. However, the official jewish translation is indeed "young woman".

This christian fascination with virginity never ceases to amaze me, especially since the original text may not even have been meant to read that way.

Given the fact that not being a virgin was likely to get you stoned, I think it's a pretty safe bet both applied to her. The latter is especially safe considering:

Luk 1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Machaira, just to get things clear here...do you believe that Mary got pregnant with Jesus without actually having sex with Joseph? Like, no man involved, just Mary? Or that, at the time Jesus' birth was announced, she really didn't have sex with him, but had later, normally, as any married couple is supposed to have?

I don't know. I believe in Jesus and believe he was a singularity in human history, but geez, the whole dogma about a 'miraculous conception and birth' seems totally bizzare to me, and my mind just refuses to deal with it. I believe he was born like everyone else, an extraordinary person yes, even a perfect one, as much perfect as one can be, but still not a violation of biological laws...