Atheists: does God exist?

[McBell]

Atheists, rely on sight so they do not believe in God because they cannot see God. Those who believe in God have Faith in God. Even though we cannot see God our Faith gives us the power to believe in God and God gives us his love and answers our prayers because our Faith is true. Faith is the power to believing and obeying God. If you do not have Faith you do not know God. 1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of FAITH. lay hold on eternal life, and has professed a good profession before many witness. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is God, and he is a rewarder of them that seek him.

Nice little sermon.
What does it have to do with the thread topic?

 

[Trailblazer]

When religious people talk about knowledge of God, they generally mean knowledge in the sense of familiarity with a person, place or thing, rather than awareness of facts pertaining to it

And that is knowledge, by definition.

knowledge;
1. facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.

knowledge means - Google Search

 

[Trailblazer]

Bible has many truth but it is mixed with lies. Innovations and fabrications snuck into it. Find another version (e.g. Quran) that would be more accurate IMO. However interpretations can vary and words could be taken out of context.

I could not agree with you more.

 

[BrightShadow]

Everyone is a hypocrite, you , me, and every one else to some degree or another.
I have never claimed otherwise.
Nor do I have a huge problem with it.
You n the other hand seem to be all manner of obsesses with it.
Wonder why...


We ARE all hypocrites to some degree.
Again, what your problem is with is beyond me.


No idea what this is supposed to mean.


There is no objective morality outside the individual.
And even then it is rare.


One, I am not interested in sermons.
Two, sermons are against forum rules.

You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you!

 

[McBell]

You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you!

I asked three questions total of you:

1) Are you claiming that god believers are to teach their children about god?​

​

2) What if, and I understand that most theists cannot possibly conceive the possibility, you chose the wrong god and are in effect guilty of all the above?​

​

3) Seems to me that theists are the ones who should apply pascals wager even more so than atheists.​

Or is it your opinion that the One True God prefers those who actively worship, praise, etc a wrong god over one that worships, praises, etc. no god?​

Post #465​

You have not answered any of them.
Thus why your responses did not even make it to replies and ended up being sermons.

 

[ppp]

Perhaps not. But what qualifies you to make that judgement?

What qualifications do you think I need to not find you credible? What qualifications does anyone need to not find you credible.

 

[ppp]

There is no objective morality outside the individual.
And even then it is rare.

Not rare. Non existent

 

[Kfox]

Atheists, rely on sight so they do not believe in God because they cannot see God. Those who believe in God have Faith in God. Even though we cannot see God our Faith gives us the power to believe in God and God gives us his love and answers our prayers because our Faith is true. Faith is the power to believing and obeying God. If you do not have Faith you do not know God. 1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of FAITH. lay hold on eternal life, and has professed a good profession before many witness. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is God, and he is a rewarder of them that seek him.

The problem with faith is that there is no means of establishing the truth. The faith that you have that your God is real; all others are fake is the exact same faith the other guy has that his God is real, all others are fake; yours included. And you can't provide evidence, reason, or logic to make your case; if you could it wouldn't be faith, it would be proof. That's why I prefer reason, logic, and evidence as a means of establishing what I believe.

 

[F1fan]

Not responding to all your comments.
Fruitless!

Only because your claims can't be defended.

All I have to say - if your begin with a wrong premise - you will end up with a wrong conclusion.

This is true, and premises HAVE to be true. They can't be assumptions, they can't be beliefs.

If not believing in the fact that there is a God makes sense to you then that is your prerogative.

False. Look at your language here. We don't BELIEVE in facts, we acknowledge that they are true. E only believe in ideas because we are not certain about them, they aren't facts. We believe in ghosts, the Tooth Fairy, God, that OJ didn't kill his ex wife, etc. It is not a fact that a God exists. God is a huge set of ideas that many people believe is true. Theists do not agree what God exists, and that's because it isn't known to exist, nor has properties that are observed and described. So as a premise "God exists" is not valid.

Stick with that notion if you like. Whatever floats your boat and wherever your boat takes you!

My boat is truth, and sound thinking.

However, if the sole purpose of a creator is to see what the creations do (whether they believe or not - whether they follow guidelines laid out by him or not) without any empirical evidence of his existence - then you are failing that test (if you don't believe).

Believing doesn't make the conclusion true. Nothing you write here is true. Did you know the Hawaiian Islands were created by gods? Look it up, it's a very interesting story. Many ancient cultures invented gods to explain how things came to be. In reality it was volcanos that formed the islnads, but the creation story is still valued and honored as historic lore.

There is nothing wrong in all that you wrote via the eye of an Atheist. But an Atheist is not the one who will be judging you!

Judging me? Why? If my conclusions and arguments are flawed then judge them. I am not my thinking.

If there is not even a tiny bone left in your body telling you there could be a God out there then my post was not meant for you. You have (then) successfully sealed your inner inclination to discover God.

This is an emotional appeal. Are you not aware that you are trying to make this sort of invalid appeal to emotions instead of providing evidence that your version of God exists in reality? This tactic is what ctreates believers, because their emotions have been expoited and manipulated with shame. This is why critical thinking skill is so important to teach children, so they aren't duped. Do you think the 9-11 hijackers were critical thinkers who were pursuing goals in their life? No. They were manipulated from a young age to believe in a religious framework that led them to commit mass murder, as they died.

Only thing I can tell you - when you judge a religion - don't go by its practitioners' behavior or the history of its followers (what war they fought and who was right and who was wrong) - BUT go by its primary doctrine!

Sorry, "by their fruits you shall know them". What's the point of a religion, or its doctrine, if it doesn't work? You seem to be making excuses. Religions don't do anything. Doctrines don't do anything. It's all about the people and how they live.

Truth is given in a need to know basis. Entire truth (picture) is not given. It was not necessary to provide all information to pass the test.

Then most Christians need to know more because they are not wise people. If Christianity offered a path that helped me be a better person I might follow it. But it is a shallow and superficial framework that allows the worst of the person to justify their flaws. That's why the KKK claims to be a Christian organization while being totally contrary to what Jesus taught. Catholics and Lutherans who worked in Nazi concentration camps would work all day and then go home and celebrate Christmas eve with their family. How does that happen? Have you ever even asked yourself how this can happen?

 

[F1fan]

Atheists, rely on sight so they do not believe in God because they cannot see God.

Which is it? If God can be seen my mortals then what is the problem with atheists relying on sight?

Those who believe in God have Faith in God.

All belief is uncertain. So how can a person invest faith in some being not known to exist? Atheists are honest in this. They don't assume any gods exist that faith can be invested.

Even though we cannot see God our Faith gives us the power to believe in God and God gives us his love and answers our prayers because our Faith is true.

Faith as defined as an irrational belief in ideas that lack evidence.

Faith is the power to believing and obeying God.

Yet what believers obey is rules set by their leadership's interpretation of the Bible, not God.

If you do not have Faith you do not know God.

Faith is the suspension of reason, so knowledge is irrelevant. Faith is a condition where a believer has been emotionally manipulated willfully.

1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of FAITH. lay hold on eternal life, and has professed a good profession before many witness. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is God, and he is a rewarder of them that seek him.

None of those texts are factual.

 

[BrightShadow]

1) Are you claiming that god believers are to teach their children about god?

First, a God believer needs to figure out (with certainty) he has found the true God - then Yes! He must teach his children what he learnt.
If the "god believer" inherited his belief system - then he should research and confirm before passing it on.

2) What if, and I understand that most theists cannot possibly conceive the possibility, you chose the wrong god and are in effect guilty of all the above?

Many people (born into a religion) realize their path is not true but they stick it out for cultural or other reasons and secretly live a non-religious life. These individuals (adamantly) don't research other religions either because they are afraid to leave their original one because of the controversy they have to deal with - so how can they adopt another one? These folks are disingenuous! They are insincere to themselves. Only the brave seek, find and adopt something new -when they realize it is the truth.

So, Yes! If you have landed on a wrong religion from birth or by other means and realize it could be wrong then you could be guilty of almost all of the above! If your original religion's core teaching consists of a single entity God - then IMO your position may stand out from someone who has multiple deities or no deity at all!
Remember - only the truth can set you free! So, if it not "truth" then how can it set you free?

3) Seems to me that theists are the ones who should apply pascals wager even more so than atheists.Or is it your opinion that the One True God prefers those who actively worship, praise, etc a wrong god over one that worships, praises, etc. no god?

Pascal wager is not an honest approach - it is just a "life jacket" and it could work if it actually pops open when needed and in a correct setting.
Finding the truth is the name of the game. You win when you do!
So, let the hunt begin!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just waiting for believers to see this thread and post their beliefs about how they "know" God exists. That "knowledge" will last until atheists start asking quesions about this "knowledge".

Actually no. I came into the thread top see the reasons atheists would give.

 

[BrightShadow]

Only because your claims can't be defended.

Truth is its own defense!
Those who have eyes can recognize truth at first sight. So, truth prevails with or without defense!

My boat is truth, and sound thinking.

Your boat is faulty and thus sinking.

Did you know the Hawaiian Islands were created by gods?

Everything was created by God! (not gods)

Is it your position that things were created by itself?
You like to use the word "acknowledge" instead of the word "believe".
Ok. So, go and look into a mirror and say - I "acknowledge" things came into existence from nothing.
Now come back and write - how smart do you feel after that announcement?

I say - everything was created by God - you say everything came into existence from nothing! If a monkey could talk - even a monkey will say your position makes no sense.
How can something come out of nothing?

If my conclusions and arguments are flawed then judge them.

Your argument and conclusions are not sentient beings! You are! You are asking to judge the gun and not you (the shooter)!

Anyhow, what I meant in my statement there was - when it will be apparent that God is real - your non-belief and non-participation in God's command could be questioned! At that point screaming "proof" "proof" "proof" won't help - it will simply be - "poof" and you are done!

This is an emotional appeal. Are you not aware that you are trying to make this sort of invalid appeal to emotions instead of providing evidence that your version of God exists in reality?

It was just an acknowledgement that it is fruitless to spend time trying to make an ostrich or a penguin fly because they lost their ability to fly millions of years ago!

Evidence? Evidence is everywhere!
Are you asking for empirical evidence? Verifiable evidence? Observable evidence?
Didn't you read what I said in my last post?
Let me put it again for you...
"If the sole purpose of the creator is to see what the creations do without any empirical evidence of his existence - then you are failing that test (if you don't believe)".

This is why critical thinking skill is so important to teach children, so they aren't duped.

You call it duped - I called it saved.

Do you think the 9-11 hijackers were critical thinkers who were pursuing goals in their life? No. They were manipulated from a young age to believe in a religious framework that led them to commit mass murder, as they died.

You want to use extreme and politically motivated and manupulated and isolated cases as your proof against religion? Well! let me get my history books and dig out the names of some of your favorite Atheists...
Here is a link.... Check them out! Memorize the names!

Atheist Murderers – most dangerous people in history? – apologetyka.org
Did Hitler made the top of your list? So, Atheism can produce the worse of the worst! These folks can be hypocrites and their moral compass could be recharged with revenge and hate and they don't have any fear of repercussion or punishment coming to them from any god because they don't believe in one!

Sorry, "by their fruits you shall know them". What's the point of a religion, or its doctrine, if it doesn't work? You seem to be making excuses. Religions don't do anything. Doctrines don't do anything. It's all about the people and how they live.

Ok! Lets try again with an example.... Do you judge a country by the deeds of an isolated citizen or by its constitution? If a citizen comes to your country and rapes someone - do you immediately think the rapist's country allows and encourages rape? or do you check their constitution first before coming to that crazy conclusion about the entire country? You need to look at the constitution and laws that govern that nation (not the people nor their culture) to judge the country as a whole because within that same country - you can have multiple cultures!

Then most Christians need to know more because they are not wise people. If Christianity offered a path that helped me be a better person I might follow it. But it is a shallow and superficial framework that allows the worst of the person to justify their flaws. That's why the KKK claims to be a Christian organization while being totally contrary to what Jesus taught. Catholics and Lutherans who worked in Nazi concentration camps would work all day and then go home and celebrate Christmas eve with their family. How does that happen? Have you ever even asked yourself how this can happen?

I am not Christian. I am not promoting Christianity. Finding the true God - is your Job.
Do research and seek, seek and seek or don't!

 

[McBell]

First, a God believer needs to figure out (with certainty) he has found the true God - then Yes! He must teach his children what he learnt.
If the "god believer" inherited his belief system - then he should research and confirm before passing it on.

What percentage of monotheists do you guesstimate are certain that the god they worship is the One True God?
Personally I would guestimate that 100% of monotheists are certain the god they worship, praise, etc. is the One True God.

Many people (born into a religion) realize their path is not true but they stick it out for cultural or other reasons and secretly live a non-religious life. These individuals (adamantly) don't research other religions either because they are afraid to leave their original one because of the controversy they have to deal with - so how can they adopt another one? These folks are disingenuous! They are insincere to themselves. Only the brave seek, find and adopt something new -when they realize it is the truth.

This, imo, is a valid point.

So, Yes! If you have landed on a wrong religion from birth or by other means and realize it could be wrong then you could be guilty of almost all of the above! If your original religion's core teaching consists of a single entity God - then IMO your position may stand out from someone who has multiple deities or no deity at all!
Remember - only the truth can set you free! So, if it not "truth" then how can it set you free?

Another valid point, imo.

Now all you need to do is prove which one of the thousands of religions belongs to the One True God.

Pascal wager is not an honest approach - it is just a "life jacket" and it could work if it actually pops open when needed and in a correct setting.
Finding the truth is the name of the game. You win when you do!
So, let the hunt begin!

Is it your opinion that there is only one religious "truth" that everyone must 'find'?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheists, rely on sight so they do not believe in God because they cannot see God. Those who believe in God have Faith in God. Even though we cannot see God our Faith gives us the power to believe in God and God gives us his love and answers our prayers because our Faith is true. Faith is the power to believing and obeying God. If you do not have Faith you do not know God. 1 Timothy 6:12 Fight the good fight of FAITH. lay hold on eternal life, and has professed a good profession before many witness. Hebrews 11:6 But without Faith it is impossible to please God; for he that comes to God must believe that he is God, and he is a rewarder of them that seek him.

Here's a question for you.

Let's say that some guy believes A to be true "on faith".
You believe that B is true "on faith" instead.

Both of you can't be correct. At least one of you is incorrect.
If the basis for the beliefs are "faith", then how do you go about to resolve this conflict of belief?
How can we determine which one of you, if any, is correct and which one is wrong?

 

[F1fan]

Truth is its own defense!

Yet you can't defend your religious beliefs as being true or truth. It's a claim, nothing more. All religions claim to be truth, yet they aren't consistent.

Those who have eyes can recognize truth at first sight. So, truth prevails with or without defense!

Critical thinking skill is the "seeing" that you refer to here, not actual vision. This is why evidence based reasoning is valid, and faith isn't.

Everything was created by God! (not gods)

This isn't a factual claim. And tell that to to native Hawaiians whose lore includes the islands were created by numerous gods. You have your myth, they have theirs. None are fact based.

Is it your position that things were created by itself?

I don't use this sort of tricky language. Everything that exists has come about as order, which is matter behaving via the physical laws. This is 7th grade science.

You like to use the word "acknowledge" instead of the word "believe".

Yes, proper word use is important in understanding and communication. You are like many theists who use sloppy language to help justify irrational belieifs.

Ok. So, go and look into a mirror and say - I "acknowledge" things came into existence from nothing.
Now come back and write - how smart do you feel after that announcement?

This illustrates that theists not only have sloppy language, but also flawed framing of ideas. Science isn't about some dogma to accept on faith. Rational minds defer to what exprts in science report, not preists and their tradtion of belief. You have adopted some bad habits.

I say - everything was created by God -

Yes, that is a common belief that has no evidence. It is an idea you and other theists have adopted due to social influence.

you say everything came into existence from nothing! If a monkey could talk - even a monkey will say your position makes no sense.
How can something come out of nothing?

False characterization. Get science right. I defer to what science states. Why? Because the sciences follow evidence to valid conclusions about how things are.

Your argument and conclusions are not sentient beings! You are! You are asking to judge the gun and not you (the shooter)!

Ideas are judged when they are the topic. If someone has committed a crime the person is judged. Get the context correct.

Anyhow, what I meant in my statement there was - when it will be apparent that God is real - your non-belief and non-participation in God's command could be questioned! At that point screaming "proof" "proof" "proof" won't help - it will simply be - "poof" and you are done!

Sorry, we sentient beings have brains capable of making sound judgments about truth. And what determines truth versus false is evidence. Frankly there is no evidence that any of the many thousands of gods exists, including your version, and no rational mind can conclude they do. Humans are emotional and social beings and they are easily convinced that false ideas are true due to the social pressure to conform to norms. This is why religion is still prevalent and geographical. Notice how religions are tied to culture around the world.

It was just an acknowledgement that it is fruitless to spend time trying to make an ostrich or a penguin fly because they lost their ability to fly millions of years ago!

First time you mentioned this, so irrelevant.

Evidence? Evidence is everywhere!
Are you asking for empirical evidence? Verifiable evidence? Observable evidence?
Didn't you read what I said in my last post?
Let me put it again for you...
"If the sole purpose of the creator is to see what the creations do without any empirical evidence of his existence - then you are failing that test (if you don't believe)".

Irrelevant. Sound reasoning is not swayed by emotional appeals, and relies on evidence to make valid conclusions. Notice all the words in your posts and none offer evidence that any God exists. If you believe a God exists, and does things, then it's on you to demonstrate you are correct. Otherwise we throw out your claim.

You call it duped - I called it saved.

Who told you being saved is a real thing? What makes them correct? Did you ask for evidence? Why did you conform to your religious beliefs when there isn't a factual basis for them? Did you fall into the trap of pascal's wager?

You want to use extreme and politically motivated and manupulated and isolated cases as your proof against religion? Well! let me get my history books and dig out the names of some of your favorite Atheists...

Doesn't is suck that the ideals of religion try to ignore how they fail to make bad people good? The fact is being religious doesn't guarantee moral people, or attitudes, or societies. Theists try to promote this, but it is the facts and reasoning that reveal religion often fails to make bad people behave well.

Here is a link.... Check them out! Memorize the names!

Atheist Murderers – most dangerous people in history? – apologetyka.org
Did Hitler made the top of your list?

Hitler was Catholic.

So, Atheism can produce the worse of the worst! These folks can be hypocrites and their moral compass could be recharged with revenge and hate and they don't have any fear of repercussion or punishment coming to them from any god because they don't believe in one!

Your link is highly biased, so not a credible source. By your reaction here you would think that most all crimes should be non-religious people, but that's not the case. We should ideally see almost no crimes committed by theists. It should be very rare that a theist crosses the line of morals and ethics. But in reality we see most criminals claim some religious affiliation. And as we know, Catholics and Lutherans commited the Holocaust, and that is inexcusable. It's fair to ask Christians how their religion failed.

Ok! Lets try again with an example.... Do you judge a country by the deeds of an isolated citizen or by its constitution? If a citizen comes to your country and rapes someone - do you immediately think the rapist's country allows and encourages rape? or do you check their constitution first before coming to that crazy conclusion about the entire country? You need to look at the constitution and laws that govern that nation (not the people nor their culture) to judge the country as a whole because within that same country - you can have multiple cultures!

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. If you want to talk about national attitudes, that is a complex issue. Racism in the USA was once vastly more prevalent than it is today. Since the Civil War the USA has become more accepting of diversity.

I am not Christian. I am not promoting Christianity. Finding the true God - is your Job.
Do research and seek, seek and seek or don't!

Odd that you noted that you refer to yourself as "saved". That's a Christian concept. Having an identity crisis?

And I have gone through my process of being exposed to Christianity, and the many claims it has. I was around 10 or 11 when I had serious doubts about what I was being told of the Christians in my life. The claims did not add up. All through my life I asked questions, and the answers were evasive, and begged more questions. If this religion was the truth then my answers could be answered. They weren't. I later understood that theists rely on social pressure and conformity, not a reasoned conclusion, not a sound truth. I was one of the rare people who was not gullible and did not need to confrom to what those around me believed. That is a rare freedom.

 

[Trailblazer]

Remember - only the truth can set you free! So, if it not "truth" then how can it set you free?

I agree, although I would not put it that way - "Set you free." Free from what?

So how does a person such as @McBell know if a religion is the "truth?"

 

[BrightShadow]

Yet you can't defend your religious beliefs as being true or truth. It's a claim, nothing more. All religions claim to be truth, yet they aren't consistent.

Critical thinking skill is the "seeing" that you refer to here, not actual vision. This is why evidence based reasoning is valid, and faith isn't.

This isn't a factual claim. And tell that to to native Hawaiians whose lore includes the islands were created by numerous gods. You have your myth, they have theirs. None are fact based.

I don't use this sort of tricky language. Everything that exists has come about as order, which is matter behaving via the physical laws. This is 7th grade science.

Yes, proper word use is important in understanding and communication. You are like many theists who use sloppy language to help justify irrational belieifs.

This illustrates that theists not only have sloppy language, but also flawed framing of ideas. Science isn't about some dogma to accept on faith. Rational minds defer to what exprts in science report, not preists and their tradtion of belief. You have adopted some bad habits.

Yes, that is a common belief that has no evidence. It is an idea you and other theists have adopted due to social influence.

False characterization. Get science right. I defer to what science states. Why? Because the sciences follow evidence to valid conclusions about how things are.

Ideas are judged when they are the topic. If someone has committed a crime the person is judged. Get the context correct.

Sorry, we sentient beings have brains capable of making sound judgments about truth. And what determines truth versus false is evidence. Frankly there is no evidence that any of the many thousands of gods exists, including your version, and no rational mind can conclude they do. Humans are emotional and social beings and they are easily convinced that false ideas are true due to the social pressure to conform to norms. This is why religion is still prevalent and geographical. Notice how religions are tied to culture around the world.

First time you mentioned this, so irrelevant.

Irrelevant. Sound reasoning is not swayed by emotional appeals, and relies on evidence to make valid conclusions. Notice all the words in your posts and none offer evidence that any God exists. If you believe a God exists, and does things, then it's on you to demonstrate you are correct. Otherwise we throw out your claim.

Who told you being saved is a real thing? What makes them correct? Did you ask for evidence? Why did you conform to your religious beliefs when there isn't a factual basis for them? Did you fall into the trap of pascal's wager?

Doesn't is suck that the ideals of religion try to ignore how they fail to make bad people good? The fact is being religious doesn't guarantee moral people, or attitudes, or societies. Theists try to promote this, but it is the facts and reasoning that reveal religion often fails to make bad people behave well.

Hitler was Catholic.

Your link is highly biased, so not a credible source. By your reaction here you would think that most all crimes should be non-religious people, but that's not the case. We should ideally see almost no crimes committed by theists. It should be very rare that a theist crosses the line of morals and ethics. But in reality we see most criminals claim some religious affiliation. And as we know, Catholics and Lutherans commited the Holocaust, and that is inexcusable. It's fair to ask Christians how their religion failed.

Individuals are held accountable for their crimes. If you want to talk about national attitudes, that is a complex issue. Racism in the USA was once vastly more prevalent than it is today. Since the Civil War the USA has become more accepting of diversity.

Odd that you noted that you refer to yourself as "saved". That's a Christian concept. Having an identity crisis?

And I have gone through my process of being exposed to Christianity, and the many claims it has. I was around 10 or 11 when I had serious doubts about what I was being told of the Christians in my life. The claims did not add up. All through my life I asked questions, and the answers were evasive, and begged more questions. If this religion was the truth then my answers could be answered. They weren't. I later understood that theists rely on social pressure and conformity, not a reasoned conclusion, not a sound truth. I was one of the rare people who was not gullible and did not need to confrom to what those around me believed. That is a rare freedom.

I am not here to try and teach a Penguin how to fly.

You made it very clear that you only acknowledge what you can see or experience with your own eyes or what could be proven with verifiable data. You do not accept testimonies of other eyewitnesses from our time or from the past - unless those testimonies can be verified with modern tools that you currently possess.

However judgements can be made based on testimonies of witnesses. Even in our modern court systems - if 20 people say they witnessed a crime but there is no other physical evidence - would a Judge deny their testimonies and set the criminal free
You decide what is acceptable to you.

A bunch of information have come from the testimonies of the people from our past. Some religion (e.g. Islam) even claim they have God's words. It is not hard to sort through the information and figure out if it is acceptable or not - rather than flatly dismissing everything. Of course cultural diffusion and other innovations may have tainted many religions from its outer layers to its finer points but yet it is possible to sort through all that for those who have not forgone their open-mindedness.

I am quite certain you have not done your research. What I hear is - total dismissal of anything and everything related to "any belief system" because something here or there doesn't add up.

Good thing is - you haven't forgotten how to swim!

 

[BrightShadow]

I agree, although I would not put it that way - "Set you free." Free from what?

Free from punishment!
Most folks from most religions believe they were sent here on earth for learning experience or as a test or to recognize the Creator and be grateful to the Creator.
While all those could be true - you also have to make sure you are free from punishment when you fail.

In my opinion - God knows everything. God knows what we will do or not do. So, it is pointless to send us here to see what we do!
So, I believe - God sent us here to show the Angels what we do (with our free-will).
So, on the judgment day - if the Angels demand -the "failed ones" could be punished!

So how does a person such as @McBell know if a religion is the "truth?"

Use his open-mindedness and search through all the confusions, cultural diffusions, false infusions and any possible contamination.
And then the "truth" will reveal itself!

 

[Link]

Pascal wager is not an honest approach - it is just a "life jacket" and it could work if it actually pops open when needed and in a correct setting.

I disagree, it's mathematically a reasonable logical way to live. You talk about setting for truth, pascal wager, is that a person should seek the truth and not avoid it, because of the risks of hell as punishment if he avoids seeking truth and missing the reward of paradise. He says whatever loss occurs in this life searching truth even if you don't and if heaven and hell are not real and there is no true religion, pales in comparison if there is a true religion and consequences and reward one misses out on.

He does not say to deceive oneself or emotionally pressure yourself to believe. This is a false straw person of his argument. The true argument in it's origin is about developing a toolkit. He assumes Christianity is true, but uses it as the variable, to prove the general case of his argument with an example. Of course he picked the one he believed in, but says, he could've used other scenarios but will only be using the one he believes is true for the argument as an example.

I disagree with some of his toolkit, but over all, his argument is a sound and reasonable argument.

Placing your bet on no hell and no paradise forever, is irrational. The only time a person should assume that, is if they are SURE there is no consequences to their lifestyle and there is no hell. Otherwise, it's a very bad bet to bet on this world and sell the next.