Cyberstrike wrote:Operation Ravage wrote:I make no apologies for erasing holidays.
I hate to tell you this but Christianity stole Christmas from
the Pagan Romans due to Constantine wanting to convert Pagan Romans to Christianity.
And Easter is actually the Germanic holiday to worship Ostara.
But anyway, it seems Blackout and others are going for Pascal's Wager, with usually attribute a 50/50 shot that Christianity's deity exists, and that it's better to believe in that given deity than risk that hell. But I must say, there is a risk, for if you are wrong, wouldn't Odin be really pissed once you hit the afterlife?
Minor joke, but it goes to show that there are near infinitessimal possibilities, infinite attributed heavens and hells, including deities who might reward the use of rational thought over blind belief. With the factoring in of time, money, ect. many churches want from their followers for threat of hellfire, of with each damn each of us here at least a thousand times over, to remain on the fence and not to give in to unsubstantiated threats is well worth it. To live as is to be seen.
That is essentially weak atheism, or 'atheistic agnosticism' (as uposed to 'theistic agnosticism')-- the lack of any belief in a deity. Not 'belief in the lack of a god' but lack of belief in either way. The English language really needs revision in such demographic labels, because atheism goes all the way from strictly secular Carl Marks to spiritually enclined Buddhism. It's more a tag line than anything... anyway...
Making foregone conclusions also insults us who search for and respect what we call 'truth' at all costs. I don't speack for everyone, but I'd rather be miserable and face reality as it is than wallow in an ignorant bliss. What is truth is not necessarily what we want or think it to be (and the fact that something is not what we want can very well gives credence to it's reality).
On an aside, for the falsity of 'proof by numbers,' I again refer to the great philosopher Nietzsche:
68
Morality and success.— It is not only the witnesses of a deed who often measure its moral or immoral nature by its success. No, the author of a deed does so, too. For motives and intentions are seldom sufficiently clear and simple, and sometimes even memory seems to be dimmed by the success of a deed, so that one attributes false motives to his deed, or treats inessential motives as essential. Often it is success that gives to a deed the full, honest lustre of a good conscience; failure lays the shadow of an uneasy conscience upon the most estimable action. This leads to the politician's well-known practice of thinking: "Just grant me success; with it I will bring all honest souls to my side—and make myself honest in my own sight."
In a similar way, success can take the place of more substantial arguments. Even now, many educated people think that the victory of Christianity over Greek philosophy is a proof of the greater truth of the former—although in this case it is only that something more crude and violent has triumphed over something more spiritual and delicate. We can determine which of them has the greater truth by noting that the awakening sciences have carried on point for point with the philosophy of Epicurus, but have rejected Christianity point for point.
Then I would have lost nothing being no different from anyone else. I would have no regrets becoming a baptized disciple of Christ because my end would be no different from someone who totally disbelieves in God. My life would be lived free of guilt from all the bad decisions I made (because I can actually apologize and strive to not make them again), all the bad things I've done (because I don't put myself in those situations), and I would have at least lived knowing (or believing) in a higher power than myself and that God has the best things in mind (although I'm hardheaded).
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
