Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Already saved by the only Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Christianity is true if and only if the God of the Old Testament is true.
The God of the Old Testament is false.
Therefore Christianity is false.

We know the God of the Old Testament is false because the evidence tells us it is. To begin with the Old Testament itself is a work of fiction that evolved over time. Sure pieces of it have a basis in poorly remember or greatly embellished historical people and events, but those small pieces don’t make the rest of the book true. Much of the book was borrowed from other religions. Much of the Book of Genesis was borrowed from earlier Mesopotamian religion. This includes The Garden of Eden, Adam, the flat Earth, the concept of heaven and the Flood story. Much of the Book of Proverbs was originally Egyptian. Some of it copied nearly word for word.

The Exodus story simply never happened as written in the Bible. The Jewish people never lived as slaves in Egypt. Therefore they never left Egypt. The story of the young Moses is an adaptation of the story of King Sargon. The parting of the Red Sea has its roots in the Mesopotamian creation myth. The murder of the Egyptian overseer comes from the Egyptian Tale of Sinuhe. Even the Ten Commandments themselves are based on another earlier religion. Their origins are the Laws of Hammurabi.

Most agree the Book of Joshua is not an accurate historical account of the early history of Israel and the archeological record agrees. The conquest never happened. The cities of Ai, Jericho, Gibeon and Hazor were not all even occupied during that period in history. So they could not have been conquered during the same timeframe. The evidence tells us the Israelis didn’t conquer the Canaanites. They were the Canaanites. Their culture grew out of the local population from the remnants left after the Bronze Age collapse.

Yahweh himself is no different than any other theistic god in that he is a construct of the mind of people. He most likely began as a local deity and slowly grew over time into what he is purported to be now by taking on the attributes of other gods. He changed from a god of war into the creator slowly over time. The fact that he was accepted as just one god of many until just a few centuries before the Christian era is well documented in both the archeological record and even in the texts of the Abrahamic cults. He even had a consort.

The God of the Old Testament is not what many wish him to be. Without him, the God of the New Testament is just so much wishful thinking.

Your argument is based that Satan does not exist and started false religions. It also rests on HIS-story, which is the selective acceptance of some history as true and other history as false.

[Whateverist]

SBGTF,

So you think god is so stupid he couldn't see through someone just pretending to believe in order to cover his ass just in case he was real?

But what of it? Apparently God likes his followers to come to Him in submission. Who knows, maybe those who submit without sincere belief get extra points for assuming the position just in case?

[popeyespappy]

Your argument is based that Satan does not exist and started false religions. It also rests on HIS-story, which is the selective acceptance of some history as true and other history as false.

My argument is based on facts. Yours is based on wishful thinking.

[Faith No More]

If an atheist posits that there in some God to defeat Pascal's wager, the atheist has just contradicted them self. So that argument does not defeat Pascal's wager.

A god doesn't have to be posited to defeat the worthless wager. One merely has to point out that the wager works equally well for all gods that see fit to torture someone for disbelief in the afterlife.

Pascal's wager may seem convincing to the believer, but to the non-believer it is just another cringe-worthy failure. If you want us to consider a god's existent, present the evidence for it, not some poorly conceived nonsense that relies on emotional blackmail and fear-mongering.

[Faith No More]

Your argument is based that Satan does not exist and started false religions. It also rests on HIS-story, which is the selective acceptance of some history as true and other history as false.

An unfalsifiable claim that, like Pascal's wager, works equally as well for every other religion.

Try bringing something substantial to the table.

[Esquilax]

Your argument is based that Satan does not exist and started false religions. It also rests on HIS-story, which is the selective acceptance of some history as true and other history as false.

So, as usual, when pushed up against the wall you guys would argue that reality itself must be wrong, rather than you and your erroneous holy book?

Wow, that's a bad sign.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

Your argument is based that Satan does not exist and started false religions. It also rests on HIS-story, which is the selective acceptance of some history as true and other history as false.

An unfalsifiable claim that, like Pascal's wager, works equally as well for every other religion.

Try bringing something substantial to the table.

When an atheist invokes the possibility of God, the atheist has just contradicted their own belief.

[Esquilax]

When an atheist invokes the possibility of God, the atheist has just contradicted their own belief.

Are you even reading the posts others are making?

Aside from the fact that stating that other religions can claim the same thing you just did has no bearing on the truth of their respective gods, you've been told repeatedly that atheism isn't necessarily the position that there is no god, and therefore there's no contradiction.

Now comes the million dollar question: are you ignoring us, are you lying, or are you stupid?

[Lemonvariable72]

Yes they are. Believe in Zeus or he will send you to hades.
But if you believe in Zeus you get to go to heaven.

[Faith No More]

When an atheist invokes the possibility of God, the atheist has just contradicted their own belief.

I can only assume from your response that you did not read what I wrote, you completely ignored, or you didn't get my point.

Do you understand that pointing out an argument works equally for different god is not invoking the possibility of a god? Do you understand that being an atheist doesn't mean denying that god is a possibility?