What if . . .

[pood]

Oh, I see. In his profile he is now a data believer rather than a bible believer. Dollars to donuts he’d argue, if he ever got around to making a plain claim not adorned with weasel words and hair-splitting, that the data shows the bible is true and Jay Hovah is god.

 

[DBT]

Quite nasty after His promotion from a tribal godling to a universal
God, somewhat mellowed out by new testament times, but still rough around the edges.

 

[pood]

Quite nasty after His promotion from a tribal godling to a universal
God, somewhat mellowed out by new testament times, but still rough around the edges.

He mellowed out because he finally got laid by the mother of Jesus.

 

[DBT]

Being two thousand years, He may be building up quite a head of steam by now...who knows what could happen.

 

[pood]

Being two thousand years, He may be building up quite a head of steam by now...who knows what could happen.

If the currently dormant supervolcano in Yellowstone goes off with catastrophic consequences, we’ll know why.

 

[DBT]

Blame it on God;

"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11

Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos
3:6)

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? "
(Lamentations 3:38)

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Pascal's Wager is the most boring argument to ever exist.

 

[DLH]

Pascal's Wager is the most boring argument to ever exist.

Okay. I've never paid much attention to it myself. On the other hand, just because the argument is boring, which is subjective, and perhaps only as "boring" (what is that? Simple, tedious, over-complicated, mundane?) doesn't mean it isn't a good argument.

He believed in hell, which is a pagan unscriptural concept. That changes the argument considerably. Also, most of the alleged "life-defining" morality heaped upon the apostate fundamentalists for millennia were, it seems, pulled out of the asses of the fake apostate Christians, much like the religious nonsense the Pharisees practiced during the time of Jesus. The Devil was always in the details. There are all sorts of cultural aspects that unnecessarily complicate it.

 

[steve_bank]

DLH, what do you mean by data as a belief? Is the bible data?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Pascal's Wager is the most boring argument to ever exist.

Okay. I've never paid much attention to it myself. On the other hand, just because the argument is boring, which is subjective, and perhaps only as "boring" (what is that? Simple, tedious, over-complicated, mundane?) doesn't mean it isn't a good argument.

He believed in hell, which is a pagan unscriptural concept. That changes the argument considerably. Also, most of the alleged "life-defining" morality heaped upon the apostate fundamentalists for millennia were, it seems, pulled out of the asses of the fake apostate Christians, much like the religious nonsense the Pharisees practiced during the time of Jesus. The Devil was always in the details. There are all sorts of cultural aspects that unnecessarily complicate it.

How boring it is may be subjective (though people continuously using such a discredited argument could be considered the boring aspect).
Pascal's Wager is itself objectively a bad argument, not a good one.

 

[DLH]

DLH, what do you mean by data as a belief? Is the bible data?

Fundamentalist militant atheist ideologues (FMAI's) hate to be wrong. Theists are humble so they can appreciate being wrong. It's a learning process. FMAI's have no humility so being wrong has no learning involved. That's why, I think, they are such ideologues and willfully ignorant. They want to learn whatever appeases their ideology. Their world view becomes what they are and they see learning as its destruction. Self destruction. That's also why they never answer questions. If you want to make sure that an atheist will shut his ignorant pie hole then ask him a simple question.

What do you think I mean by data? Where did I even use the word?

 

[pood]

DLH, what do you mean by data as a belief? Is the bible data?

Fundamentalist militant atheist ideologues (FMAI's) hate to be wrong. Theists are humble so they can appreciate being wrong. It's a learning process. FMAI's have no humility so being wrong has no learning involved. That's why, I think, they are such ideologues and willfully ignorant. They want to learn whatever appeases their ideology. Their world view becomes what they are and they see learning as its destruction. Self destruction. That's also why they never answer questions. If you want to make sure that an atheist will shut his ignorant pie hole then ask him a simple question.

What do you think I mean by data? Where did I even use the word?

The word “data” is in your “basic beliefs” listing, which was formerly “bible believer.”

Also, every word you wrote above, in small type for some reason (embarrassed by it?) applies as if you were writing it while looking into a mirror, especially the “wilfullly ignorant” part. Your ignorance of elementary science itself is appalling.

 

[pood]

What do you think I mean by data? Where did I even use the word?

 

[steve_bank]

DLH, what do you mean by data as a belief? Is the bible data?

Fundamentalist militant atheist ideologues (FMAI's) hate to be wrong. Theists are humble so they can appreciate being wrong. It's a learning process. FMAI's have no humility so being wrong has no learning involved. That's why, I think, they are such ideologues and willfully ignorant. They want to learn whatever appeases their ideology. Their world view becomes what they are and they see learning as its destruction. Self destruction. That's also why they never answer questions. If you want to make sure that an atheist will shut his ignorant pie hole then ask him a simple question.

What do you think I mean by data? Where did I even use the word?

You went from bible believer to data as your beliefs. What do you men by that?

I have no idea what you mean.

Christians are humble? Some are some are mot as anyone is or is not. Part the social tribal attributes of the Abraham god is to be humbled by a \;higher power'. Bellef in god is supposed to keep us in check.

For someone in the tree Archaic faiths god is absolute truth with no debate.

No one argues science is omniscient, history says otherwise. Relativity and quantum mechanics were major revisions to what was the orthodox views of what constitutes reality.

As to ignorance I know how your computer works don to the mosfets in your computer's processor. I know how the video display yu are looking at works. What do you know?

A true theist can not allow for being wrong about faith. That a few ancient lines s in the gospels by unknown authors claim Jesus was executed and rose form the dead is the essential truth of Christianity. Without tat there is no Christianity, the belief in a life after death.

I ask what you mean and you say what do you think i think it means. Is that there best you can do?

Your use of the word atheist is simplistic, which is what Christians do. Atheist is an amorous ill defined image to focus hate and anger on. As you do.

The religious are humble? Israeli conservative Jews. Muslims in Sauoi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran are far from humble.

American Evangelical, Baptists, and the Catholic leadership are far from humble.

Observed collective actions, in other words observed data, speak the truth of the religious. Violent, prejudiced and self righteous.

 

[steve_bank]

Looking on the net Pascal's Wager says there is nothing to loose if you believe in god and god does not exist. If you o not believe in god and got exist you lose. So it is best to believe in god.

Unless I am missing something.

 

[pood]

Looking on the net Pascal's Wager says there is nothing to loose if you believe in god and god does not exist. If you o not believe in god and got exist you lose. So it is best to believe in god.

Unless I am missing something.

That’s pretty much it, but also in his writings Pascal addressed the problem of people who can’t believe the unbelievable. He basically counseled that they should brainwash themselves into believing.

Blaise Pascal, of course, was the founder of probability theory, but also a Roman Catholic, which blinded him to the elementary probabilistic flaw in his wager — which god? He assumed a false dichotomy, that the only choice was between the Roman Catholic god and no god at all. Raymond D. Bradley has a nice essay on this which should still be in the Secular Web Library, The Rivalry Between Religions.

 

[DLH]

Looking on the net Pascal's Wager says there is nothing to loose if you believe in god and god does not exist.

If you o not believe in god and got exist you lose. So it is best to believe in god.

Unless I am missing something.

Would that be more accurate from the cultural perspective in the time he existed than today? Especially given that hell had been adopted by the apostate church from the pagans by then?

In other words, you have a choice, according to the Bible, whether to accept or reject God. Both are acceptable. What do you lose if you choose? If you choose to reject then you lose the possible everlasting life, if you choose to accept you lose everlasting destruction. There isn't a hell where the immortal soul is tormented forever as Pascal probably believed.

The unbeliever thinks when we die that's it. We're worm food. The Bible agrees but with the possible exception for a resurrection into life everlasting. Sin = death. The meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

Pretending to believe to get a ticket to heaven is just silly.

 

[DLH]

You went from bible believer to data as your beliefs. What do you men by that?

I have no idea what you mean.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said I went from Bible believer to anything. I am a Bible believer. I have been since, as an atheist at 27 I became one after actually studying the Bible in order to debunk it.

For someone in the tree Archaic faiths god is absolute truth with no debate.

Nonsense. That is how you might perceive it because that is likely how it is presented, but that doesn't mean much. For example, the Bible says not to trust it, to test it and the Hebrew word Israel means to grapple, contend, wrestle, with God.

No one argues science is omniscient, history says otherwise.

What does that even mean? No one argues science is omniscient? You've checked? History disagrees with you on that? Is English a second language to you?

Relativity and quantum mechanics were major revisions to what was the orthodox views of what constitutes reality.

Oh, okay. That's good.

As to ignorance I know how your computer works don to the mosfets in your computer's processor. I know how the video display yu are looking at works. What do you know?

I know that you say you know how it works.

A true theist can not allow for being wrong about faith.

Oh, okay. I must not be a true theist then.

That a few ancient lines s in the gospels by unknown authors claim Jesus was executed and rose form the dead is the essential truth of Christianity. Without tat there is no Christianity, the belief in a life after death.

Resurrection. That is the closest thing I can recall you saying that made sense or was accurate in any way. But then my memory is not so good.

I ask what you mean and you say what do you think i think it means. Is that there best you can do?

I'm not an ideologue. To argue with you is only a waste of time. It doesn't matter.

If you're asking what I think the Bible means, here. Read this.

I don't care what you think (and I use the term loosely) about the Bible but what puzzles me is why you would appear to care what I think of it.

Your use of the word atheist is simplistic, which is what Christians do.

Oh, okay.

Atheist is an amorous ill defined image to focus hate and anger on. As you do.

What I do, that is, my philosophy is that ideology - religion vs. religion and irreligion, politics vs politics - will destroy most and all I can really do is sit back and marvel at them doing that. Which is fine with me. Let them have at it. Let them destroy each other.

The religious are humble? Israeli conservative Jews. Muslims in Sauoi Arabia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran are far from humble.

American Evangelical, Baptists, and the Catholic leadership are far from humble.

Observed collective actions, in other words observed data, speak the truth of the religious. Violent, prejudiced and self righteous.

Great. Fantastic.

 

[DLH]

What do you think I mean by data? Where did I even use the word?

View attachment 49716

I don't know what that is. That isn't my avatar. That isn't what I have for beliefs.

 

[TomC]

What do you think I mean by data? Where did I even use the word?

View attachment 49716

I don't know what that is. That isn't my avatar. That isn't what I have for beliefs.

They were quite recently. I'm looking for a word that isn't "dishonesty" to describe this post.

Oh, here's one. "Bible Believer".
Tom