"Why Do Men Reject God?"

Originally posted by Suzianne
Hehe, never fear, my friend, I'm well-versed in GF's methods. I just got out of practice a bit while he was gone. 🙂

Really? I never thought you got in practice.

You ran away crying when I destroyed Pascal's Wager, and accused me
[and also the writer of a site I linked to] of being inspired by the devil.
Which was both comical and disturbing.


I'm curious as to what you think my 'methods' are.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Even though, like GF, you used Wikipedia as your source, I give props for this answer. It's a fair cop. 🙂

Actually I am currently researching Lucid Dreaming and came upon a few West African religions as part of that so I had this info in my notes!

Originally posted by Suzianne
The problem with this answer (you need better sources than Wikipedia, my friend) is that many of these are actually polytheism, with one god as "chief" god. Most of the rest believe that their god is "everything". Not exactly the same as Monotheism. The only one on your list I might accept is Sikhism. And maybe Deism, except deists accept that their God is the Abrahamic God.

Yes many religions have a "Chief god" and minor ddeities but it
comes down to semantics. Couldn't angels, seraphim, cherubim
and saints be classed as minor deities?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes many religions have a "Chief god" and minor ddeities but it
comes down to semantics. Couldn't angels, seraphim, cherubim
and saints be classed as minor deities?

"Couldn't angels, seraphim, cherubim
and saints be classed as minor deities?"
(wolfgang59)

Relevant question: "angels, seraphim, cherubim": classifications of the angelic creation which preceded man in eternity (past), a third of which joined Lucifer (Satan) in his revolt against God (the Father); "saints" description (positionally sanctified or set apart) of human beings who believe in the second member of the Trinity, The Son of God: Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Really? I never thought you got in practice.

You ran away crying when I destroyed Pascal's Wager, and accused me
[and also the writer of a site I linked to] of being inspired by the devil.
Which was both comical and disturbing.


I'm curious as to what you think my 'methods' are.

"You ran away crying when I destroyed Pascal's Wager..."

Pascal's Wager is still alive and well as the representation of an option which you've (presently) rejected.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"You ran away crying when I destroyed Pascal's Wager..."

Pascal's Wager is still alive and well as the representation of an option which you've (presently) rejected.

No pascals wager is an utterly destroyed argument that is logically and mathematically flawed.

It assumes, for starters, that the choice is simply between atheism and Christianity.
Given that there are hundreds if not thousands of god concepts that people have
believed in over the years, let alone all the possible god concepts that people could
believe in. Then this means that right off the bat pascals wager starts with a false dichotomy.

Pascals wager also assumes that there is no cost to believing in gods that don't exist
in the here and now and that there is no benefit to not believing in imaginary gods
in the here and now. Neither of which is true.

Pascals wager also missed out the possibility of a god that only rewards good works
and not belief in which case living a good atheistic life will get you to heaven while a
bad theistic one will get you to hell. There is also the option of a god who only sends
atheists to heaven for passing the test of not believing in stuff for which their is no evidence...

Ect ect.


Pascals Wager is a completely flawed argument.


Now that's not to say that because Pascals Wager is a logically flawed unsound argument that
that means that his conclusion is wrong. That would be the fallacy fallacy.

It does mean however that you can't GET to his conclusion via his argument.

It means his argument is, and has been for centuries, destroyed.


This doesn't stop people from blindly and thoughtlessly restating it.

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Did I say I rejected Woten? I only said I was unfamiliar with it.

Well, do me the favour of reading up on Woden briefly.

Then tell me this. Will you accept Woden into your life and worship him, or will you reject him?

If, as I assume, you will reject him, why so?

Is it because you find him inconvenient and doesn't fit with your lifestyle?

If not, why do you assume that people reject your version of God for these reasons?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Yes many religions have a "Chief god" and minor ddeities but it
comes down to semantics. Couldn't angels, seraphim, cherubim
and saints be classed as minor deities?

No. Definitely not.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Pascals Wager is a completely flawed argument.

I agree, but for vastly different reasons.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Well, do me the favour of reading up on Woden briefly.

Then tell me this. Will you accept Woden into your life and worship him, or will you reject him?

If, as I assume, you will reject him, why so?

Is it because you find him inconvenient and doesn't fit with your lifestyle?

If not, why do you assume that people reject your version of God for these reasons?

No. I reject Woden because I do not believe in him.

I've never heard an atheist cop to this reason yet, though. All they can say is "I'm not rejecting him, I just don't believe in him." Which is not the same thing at all.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Actually I am currently researching Lucid Dreaming and came upon a few West African religions as part of that so I had this info in my notes!

As part of taking those notes, you must have consulted Wikipedia, because I found that same precise sentence on a Wikipedia page I had looked at just that morning.

Actually I just looked again, and it wasn't the precise sentence. The page I was thinking of (Monotheism, under the sub-heading 'Indigenous African religion' ) says:

The Himba people of Namibia are monotheistic and worship the god Mukuru.

The Igbo people are monotheistic and worship the god Chukwu.

So there's another one for you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You think ALL deists believe in the Abrahamic god?

And sure while busy at work I spent 3 minutes on wikipedia, and
succeeded in finding MORE than one example of something you were
challenging someone to find but one example of...

How does that look bad for me again?

Also, who are you to define what other people view as god?
If a person thin ...[text shortened]... od...
How are you defining monotheism (the belief in a single god) so that they don't qualify?

Really? I wasn't aware I was actually 'challenging' anyone to anything.

Does it look bad for you? I wasn't saying it did.

Did I say that Sikhism or the two African religions do not qualify? Yes, I do say that Pantheism does not qualify. Believing everything is god is not the same (at all) as believing in one god. Last I checked, the number of objects in the universe does not equal one.

Oh, and back to your first question.

You think ALL deists believe in the Abrahamic god?

On the topic of Deism, Wikipedia says: Deism gained prominence in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment—especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States—among intellectuals raised as Christians who believed in one god, but found fault with organized religion and did not believe in supernatural events such as miracles, the inerrancy of scriptures, or the Trinity.

Now, to me, "raised as Christians" says that yes, the Deists did believe God was the Abrahamic God, they just had a problem with the details. Although, as I've come to learn, this is only original Deism, and "Modern Deism" could mean practically anything.

Originally posted by Suzianne
I agree, but for vastly different reasons.

I know, and it baffles me why you can't agree for the same reasons.

As I pointed out the fact that it's a flawed argument does not in and of itself
mean that you couldn't make a good argument. Just that this one isn't a good
argument.

I don't quite understand why you can't agree that it's totally logically flawed and
is not a valid argument on those grounds, even if you have other grounds to
dislike it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No pascals wager is an utterly destroyed argument that is logically and mathematically flawed.

It assumes, for starters, that the choice is simply between atheism and Christianity.
Given that there are hundreds if not thousands of god concepts that people have
believed in over the years, let alone all the possible god concepts that people could
b ...[text shortened]... centuries, destroyed.


This doesn't stop people from blindly and thoughtlessly restating it.

The only way you could possibly assume you "destroyed" Pascal's Wager is to misunderstand its underpinnings in the first place... which, using your sketch of a response here, proves to be the case.

In your first sentence, you've already missed the boat. Following that, it's just so much rubbish and double-speak to reduce it to gibberish--- not worth even considering.

But this is par for course with your thinking, from what I've seen: growls and huffs multiplied exponentially to one big puff. You really should polish up your game and try again later.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only way you could possibly assume you "destroyed" Pascal's Wager is to misunderstand its underpinnings in the first place... which, using your sketch of a response here, proves to be the case.

In your first sentence, you've already missed the boat. Following that, it's just so much rubbish and double-speak to reduce it to gibberish--- not worth ev ...[text shortened]... plied exponentially to one big puff. You really should polish up your game and try again later.

Just so you know and don't waste your time.

I'm pretty much ignoring you as I think you're an irrational moron.

So if you want an argument bother someone who cares.

If you don't care if I respond to you then go right ahead.