Woody wrote:Perhaps it is the Lord that you seek

I just need someone who can made good Russian tea cakes. Is this Jesus guy a good chef?

I don't believe so, but I hear he's an awesome bartender. And He only needs running water.

Historical Jesus would make a good band name

Logically speaking, whether there is or is not a god, you are better off believing in god. A philosopher, I think it was Jung, came up with A 4-celled matrix to explain this. It went something like this:

Scenerio 1 - You believe in God. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- Oh Well.
Scenerio 2 - You believe in God. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Yay, eternal life.
Scenerio 3 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Oh crap.
Scenerio 4 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- You (and everyone) are dirt.

So if you are a believer, you at least have the possibility of something good happening.

Who knew Jung was such a simpleton

TheDude24 wrote:Logically speaking, whether there is or is not a god, you are better off believing in god. A philosopher, I think it was Jung, came up with A 4-celled matrix to explain this. It went something like this:

Scenerio 1 - You believe in God. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- Oh Well.
Scenerio 2 - You believe in God. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Yay, eternal life.
Scenerio 3 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Oh crap.
Scenerio 4 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- You (and everyone) are dirt.

So if you are a believer, you at least have the possibility of something good happening.

Assuming, of course, that God requires His creations to believe in him in order to be eligible for eternal life or whatever.

Personally, I want nothing to do with a God that won't deign to make His requirements clear to me personally.

jerseyhoya wrote:Pascal's Wager FTW!

Thank you! I knew I was misremembering.

TheDude24 wrote:Logically speaking, whether there is or is not a god, you are better off believing in god. A philosopher, I think it was Jung, came up with A 4-celled matrix to explain this. It went something like this:

Scenerio 1 - You believe in God. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- Oh Well.
Scenerio 2 - You believe in God. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Yay, eternal life.
Scenerio 3 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is a God. Outcome- Oh crap.
Scenerio 4 - You're an atheist. Reality- There is no God. Outcome- You (and everyone) are dirt.

So if you are a believer, you at least have the possibility of something good happening.

pretty lame sir. it posits you believe 'just in case' like you're pulling a fast one on the old dude

I always find it confusing that Christians worship a Jew and Jews don't think that the guy the Christians are worshipping was really all that big of a deal. It all just makes my brain hurt.

I tend to believe that religions evolved in communities in order to:
1) control the masses (if we assume that most religions teach people to "be good, or else"; I suppose this is debatable). I call this the Santa theory
2) explain shit that people didn't understand. "Fuck man, I don't know, it was probably God that did it"

Pascal doesn't account for the "price" of being religious. Maybe it's still an "oh well" and perhaps (as has been empirically studied) there is a tangible benefit to being a spiritual person, but being religious isn't free. A devout person gives up a hell of a lot, even if they aren't an ascetic.

The Jesus was a Jew thing is dumb, imo, because it relies on that whole non-sensical Culture/Religion/"You're a Jew if your Mom is a Jew I don't care what you say" bs. Religion-wise, Jesus wasn't a Jew anymore than Marilyn Manson is a devout Christian.

Well, yeah, I see Dawkins's point when he said this

I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't. Pascal's Wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God.

link

So Pascal's Wager perhaps can't make someone believe, but it is something to ponder. Maybe it is only mere reassurance for those that already do believe.

kruker wrote:Pascal doesn't account for the "price" of being religious. Maybe it's still an "oh well" and perhaps (as has been empirically studied) there is a tangible benefit to being a spiritual person, but being religious isn't free. A devout person gives up a hell of a lot, even if they aren't an ascetic.

Well, it depends on what you think is necessary for salvation. If believing that Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins is all that is needed, and you can go around sleeping with many women and drinking and whatnot, I don't think you're giving up much of anything.

Houshphandzadeh wrote:The Jesus was a Jew thing is dumb, imo, because it relies on that whole non-sensical Culture/Religion/"You're a Jew if your Mom is a Jew I don't care what you say" bs. Religion-wise, Jesus wasn't a Jew anymore than Marilyn Manson is a devout Christian.

This is good information to know.

But wait, what religion was he then

A Christian

That's the same thing as asking- What religion is God?

good point

TheDude24 wrote:That's the same thing as asking- What religion is God?

Well?

TheDude24 wrote:That's the same thing as asking- What religion is God?

muslim


it's really the same god for each religion. they just follow different arbitrary rules.

i will say that muhhamad was more of an asshole than jesus though. i think there's a pretty significant difference there, and even though jesus's followers piss me off royally, the whole of the islamic religion is off its rocker.