Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(I'm starting this thread in response to another thread. I don't know the exact rules on doing this so I'll vaguely reference it, but it should be clear which one it is)
On another thread a point has been made that since Jesus told an individual that he need to sell all his belongings and give to the poor, if any christian even owns a tv they are living in perpetual sin. And that it couldn't hurt their chances of getting to heaven.
Lets assume this is true. Does this mean mean that if all atheist lived by Jesus words it wouldn't hurt? Let me explain, using the said account of Jesus, maybe this wouldn't inspire an atheist to truly give all of his belongings but what if this scripture inspired them to give a donation to a homeless shelter? Or donate clothes? Or maybe give money to refugees in Syria?
If you are an atheist that believes in humanism, does this prove that living by christ's standards, even if you can't fully live up to it, is it better for you and humanity? Does this prove that living as a christian is the best for the world?
I don't believe the answer to those questions is yes. I believe humans can do good to humans for the sake of humanity. But if an atheist makes a point that christian don't live up to christs standards, what is the point that you're making? That christs standards are supreme? Or that we're all just selfish, and this proves that Jesus words aren't worth noting? Or something else? I just don't understand the point that is being made
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 10:45 am (This post was last modified: April 5, 2016 at 10:46 am by robvalue.)
Well, my point would be that Christ is held up as being a figure of supreme importance (even God, often), and he hands out a bunch of rules. Then the same people holding him up like this go and ignore those rules. Doesn't make sense to me. It appears to be a total contradiction.
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 11:08 am
If I were to say that to someone, it would be because they are advocating that I should live by rules that they are ignoring. It's merely pointing out hypocrisy. It would be like someone trying to tell me I should be a vegan while we're out having burgers. It's not that I think I'd be better off a vegan. It's that you are sitting in front of me eating ground beef, so clearly it's not THAT important to you, so why do you think it should be for me?
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 6:20 pm
(April 5, 2016 at 11:08 am)BlackBird Wrote: If I were to say that to someone, it would be because they are advocating that I should live by rules that they are ignoring. It's merely pointing out hypocrisy. It would be like someone trying to tell me I should be a vegan while we're out having burgers. It's not that I think I'd be better off a vegan. It's that you are sitting in front of me eating ground beef, so clearly it's not THAT important to you, so why do you think it should be for me?
What if a doctor told you specifically that you need to be a vegan for health reasons specific to you? Would that doctor eating meat or allowing other patients to eat meat mean that his advice to you is invalid? So couldn't a moral guide do the same? Of course there are overall health standards that couldn't hurt for any of us just like there are overall moral standards that couldn't hurt for all of us
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 6:21 pm
(April 5, 2016 at 10:45 am)robvalue Wrote: Well, my point would be that Christ is held up as being a figure of supreme importance (even God, often), and he hands out a bunch of rules. Then the same people holding him up like this go and ignore those rules. Doesn't make sense to me. It appears to be a total contradiction.
I agree that its a total contradiction, but that alone doesn't invalidate the benefits of Jesus teachings does it?
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 6:51 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2016 at 6:52 pm by ApeNotKillApe.)
Jesus is no standard for morality, his demand is total subservience in exchange for rescue from damnation; give away your possessions, abandon your family, give no thought for the morrow, follow me and love no one else more than me. Jesus' "teachings" are a collection of impractical ideas about pacifism and charity spoken by one who was convinced that the world was soon to end.
CS Lewis (a Christian apologist, mind you) put down the idea of Christ as a moral figure thus:
Quote:
We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toes and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men’s toes and stealing other men’s money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhesitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was the God whose laws are broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unprejudiced readers. Christ says that He is “humble and meek” and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 6:53 pm
I'm not sure I understand this correctly but i'll give it a shot. The wager is to hedge your bet right? Why not follow those things just in case? I guess I would say there is no bet to be made in the first place so no reason to hedge it.
It can also be entirely selfish to be charitable. "I do it because it makes me feel fuzzy warm goodness!" Or "I do it to feel superior to you!" Or "I do it for tax purposes."
Pascal's wager makes no sense to me. I could go through all the motions until I die. However, I would not believe in God the whole time so when I got to the pearly gates I would be turned away.
I can't control my beliefs. My beliefs are a result of evidence and reason.
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 8:16 pm
I'm not a bible scholar. Can you give me a list of the jesus rules/laws/teachings that complies with the wager? I'll give a better response once I know them.
Next, why do I need a fantasy figure to give me direction in my life? To give me morals? To make an ultimate reward threat? Who knows, I may be living by many of his rules now and don't know it. Even once I know the rules I doubt it will change my behavior. The reward is living your life as you see fit, not living by a set of rules to get a prize that does not exist.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
RE: A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager
April 5, 2016 at 8:21 pm (This post was last modified: April 6, 2016 at 3:31 am by robvalue.)
(April 5, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Won2blv Wrote:
(April 5, 2016 at 11:08 am)BlackBird Wrote: If I were to say that to someone, it would be because they are advocating that I should live by rules that they are ignoring. It's merely pointing out hypocrisy. It would be like someone trying to tell me I should be a vegan while we're out having burgers. It's not that I think I'd be better off a vegan. It's that you are sitting in front of me eating ground beef, so clearly it's not THAT important to you, so why do you think it should be for me?
What if a doctor told you specifically that you need to be a vegan for health reasons specific to you? Would that doctor eating meat or allowing other patients to eat meat mean that his advice to you is invalid? So couldn't a moral guide do the same? Of course there are overall health standards that couldn't hurt for any of us just like there are overall moral standards that couldn't hurt for all of us
Then he/she will tell me this in a nice cozy examination room, and I will consider the advice. It's a totally different situation. It's not about whether the thing in question is good/bad. It's about how the idea is presented.
Moderator Notice Duplicate post deleted by Robvalue, which was caught by the spam filter.
