Theology

[Bogtrotter07]

I get all that. But I think you can infer that all of those quotes assume that the people who don't hold the required faith CHOSE to do so. I think all of those Popes would agree that the ignorant (those who have never been exposed to the faith) are not heretics.

Purgatory, limbo, and the rape and often enslavement of all new civilizations since that time seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[Cackalacky]

Lol. Well I think that's the point of Pascal's wager. It's that you don't have anything to lose by assuming there is.

...which is highly illogical.

 

[gkIrish]

Purgatory, limbo, and the rape and often enslavement of all new civilizations since that time seem to indicate otherwise.

Ok well about today's world? I don't think there's one theologian that would argue that the ignorant are condemned.

 

[greyhammer90]

Lol. Well I think that's the point of Pascal's wager. It's that you don't have anything to lose by assuming there is.

You didn't lose anything by sending my text message but I bet you didn't do that anyway.

"But what're the odds" you say. Same odds I would say that an invisible being (and keep in mind this being supposedly knows the and understands the very nature of the cosmos on such a scale that it would cause even the most knowledgeable creature imaginable to curl up in a ball and cry) cares about whether you jerk it before a shower.

"What are the costs of believing in God?" - If you actually follow a religious dogma, huge! In time, effort, money, the cost is staggering.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Assume then, that you are in a state of complete religious ignorance, (and remember the question here is not if religion is right but if it is logical under this theory) would you be any more logical for giving up 1/7 of every week to prayer, being told that you can't have sex with anyone you want, being blackmailed into giving your income, and countless other tiresome and menial tasks in the name of a God that you've never seen any real existence of? Just because a man in a white frock (who is the one benefiting from all this by the way) said "if you don't do this there is a chance that this God will punish you."

Doesn't seem very logical to me.

You're demanding empirical evidence of the supernatural. The scientific method is useful for many things, but it's singularly unhelpful in this discussion.

This gets back to the dogmatic nature of belief in theism v. materialism. Both philosophies start from unfalisable first principles, which means both are held by faith.

 

[Emcee77]

Nietzche, one of the only philosopher's to offer a coherent alternative to theism, referred to Christianity as the Peasant Revolt, because it thoroughly undermined the moral justifications of the powerful over the powerless. And it really did. You think the Church is "anti-woman"? Only by the extreme egalitarian standards of modern liberalism. No institution has done more to improve the lot of the fairer sex, since most pagan cultures were brutal towards women.

The Magna Carta? The Peace of Westphalia? The Declaration of Independence? Hell, unless you're a hardcore Progressive with a very short memory (and a poor understanding of history), the entire edifice of modern liberal democracy is inconceivable without Christianity.

So, at worst, it's a golden ladder that helped us reach our current heights, but can now be safely discarded. At best, it's the very foundation of Western civilization, and we're courting a 2nd dark age by throwing it out.

Right, nicely put. People get sidetracked by historical events like the atrocities of the Crusades or the Inquisition or by the intolerance and bigotry of some modern Christians, and I don't want to minimize those things, but the reality is that if you look at the big picture Christianity has brought society a long way. That doesn't mean it's perfect in all it's man-made details, but the core of it is something we have to find a way to preserve.

 

[greyhammer90]

You're demanding empirical evidence of the supernatural. The scientific method is useful for many things, but it's singularly unhelpful in this discussion.

This gets back to the dogmatic nature of belief in theism v. materialism. Both philosophies start from unfalisable first principles, which means both are held by faith.

Once again, I'm not arguing religion. I'm arguing that this attempt to paint religion as a logical endeavor by using this "you can't win if you don't play" argument is fruitless.

Or to put it another way. Not saying that God doesn't exist or that Christianity isn't true. But if you do believe that you are acting illogically. Which is fine. Faith is fine. (Although vastly overrated IMO). But I'm only discussing gk's attempts to make Christianity a logical thing to follow, because to me it inherently isn't

 

[gkIrish]

You didn't lose anything by sending my text message but I bet you didn't do that anyway.

"But what're the odds" you say. Same odds I would say that an invisible being (and keep in mind this being supposedly knows the and understands the very nature of the cosmos on such a scale that it would cause even the most knowledgeable creature imaginable to curl up in a ball and cry) cares about whether you jerk it before a shower.

"What are the costs of believing in God?" - If you actually follow a religious dogma, huge! In time, effort, money, the cost is staggering.

FWIW I'm actually an "agnostic theist" so a lot of what I'm spewing in this thread is because I like to provoke people to explain their positions.

But anyway, I don't think your post is responsive to mine. I made the point that the belief in the Christian god is almost entirely for the purpose of salvation after death. And because no one knows what happens after we die---could be nothing at all or we might go to heaven, etc.--there is value to believing in God simply because failing to do so MAY damn you for the rest of eternity.

And I do lose something by texting my mom as another poster pointed out. I don't lose anything by believing in God. I do lose something if I go to Church every week. But I can also choose not to do so (thereby decreasing my odds for salvation). It's all a trade-off.

In your wizard example, unlike what happens after death, I know a whole lot about life and know that there is no evidence of wizards existing. So I really have no reason to text my mom.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"But what're the odds" you say. Same odds I would say that an invisible being (and keep in mind this being supposedly knows the and understands the very nature of the cosmos on such a scale that it would cause even the most knowledgeable creature imaginable to curl up in a ball and cry) cares about whether you jerk it before a shower.

God purportedly cares because He created you as a god, in his own image and likeness. Thus, your sexuality, by which you are capable of helping him create other gods, is a sacred thing; so by "jerk[ing] it before a shower", you are acting like a beast and debasing yourself.

But of course, from a secular liberal perspective which only asks "who has been harmed by this action", it sounds absurd.

"What are the costs of believing in God?" - If you actually follow a religious dogma, huge! In time, effort, money, the cost is staggering.

And for a materialist, who believes himself no better than a beast, the cost is staggering; you're asked to moderate some of your basic instincts, and you receive nothing in return. But for those who believe they are more than just matter, that they in fact have a soul, the cost is small, and the reward infinite-- meaning, purpose, eternal life, etc.

 

[Emcee77]

Assume then, that you are in a state of complete religious ignorance, (and remember the question here is not if religion is right but if it is logical under this theory) would you be any more logical for giving up 1/7 of every week to prayer, being told that you can't have sex with anyone you want, being blackmailed into giving your income, and countless other tiresome and menial tasks in the name of a God that you've never seen any real existence of? Just because a man in a white frock (who is the one benefiting from all this by the way) said "if you don't do this there is a chance that this God will punish you."

Doesn't seem very logical to me.

Well that's fair enough. I always thought of Pascal's Wager as a way for an indoctrinated Christian to help himself quiet nagging doubts. I suppose I agree that it's not likely to be a persuasive argument to someone who is hearing about Christianity for the first time.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't understand. Are you saying that members of one religion are more intelligent than another? My point is this (not going to use accurate figures):

30% of the members of any one religion are "intelligent/educated, etc." and therefore more likely to be right about their God.

If there are 1,000 Christians, 800 Muslims, 700 Hindus, and 100 Jews, a greater amount of people (300 Christians) whose opinion I would trust more than someone else's believe in the Christian God. Therefore, I should be a Christian from a strictly odds/logic perspective.

Logical arguments cannot proceed from an indefensible premise (assumption).

 

[Old Man Mike]

.... intellectual nightmare, but as long as it stays friendly, no harm no foul. One SHOULD admit however that attempting to comment upon the world's deepest never-definitively-answered questions on a football site is a bit whacky. The fact that the discussion has proceeded this far without uncivil name-calling might itself be proof of Spirituality at least if not Divinity.

To reiterate: these quests are not answerable by "logic" or physical science. Thomas Aquinas spent his vast energies and time trying in the Summa Theologica and admittedly failed. He instead had a mystical experience, stated that his chain-of-reasoning was a Babel which could never reach Heaven, and retired to a satisfying life of Faith and Prayer, and Love Poetry to God. So, no one's going to "prove" anything to anyone this day.

The thought process of a person who wishes to banter in a serious fashion about this, however, should begin with that person answering a few theoretical questions about their Ontology. The first one is: do I care whether I live in a Universe which has Purpose or not? If no, then stop here and go get a beer. If yes, then: do I believe that this Universe DOES exist for some purpose? The answer to this is a Faith statement either way. My answer is "yes, I do".

What purpose? For that I have to read and observe people of substance. Upon doing that I have semi-solidified my Ontology around the concept of Love. The Universe for me then becomes a stage within which I have purpose in my choice of Loving vs being Self-oriented. This is again a Faith choice, for which I have, in my opinion, a lot of soft evidence through my reading and observation. Others apparently differ.

I have used the word "choice" twice in the last paragraph, despite the fact that in this thread several people deny the possibility of that in any substantive sense of the word --- i.e. they deny Free Will. As an aside, I always feel at touch of the bizarre when talking to a person who is argumentative about there being no Free Will ... if they really believe that, why are they arguing? Oh, because they have no choice in the matter. Strange world to live in, is it not? It is a profoundly why bother world. It also has, at base, no legitimacy to ever "blame" anyone, as there never was choice in anything. I cannot help feeling that in such a case I would be talking to a robot, and in that case, since the robot's world is impenetrable to freedom of any development towards the future, why should I then bother?

But let's let the believers that they are robots rest in their automaton non-beliefs, and speak to those [of every other stripe] who believe that they DO have choice. What's that choice "good for"? Having purposeful lives, of course. Living lives with meaning rather than meaninglessness.

As said, the meaning for me is the application of Free Will to do loving acts rather than selfish ones. I find that "message" precisely embodied in the New Testament gospel stories [and almost nowhere else in the Bible]. Those Gospel stories seem to me to be opening the Doors of my Perception to a life of Giving rather than the animal life of Getting. Those writings and the words coming from a certain featured Man therein, seem not purposelessly animalistic, or worse rigidly mechanical, but counter-intuitively communion-oriented, mystically-sharing, and fully-loving.

My Ontology, based on "experiences" though not scientific ones, sees a Creator/ Primary Quantum Observer of the Universe, Who brought Order [a Communing, a Joining] out of the Chaos, giving "Words of Creation" [Laws of action and Change founded upon the Quantum Indeterminism which allows Willful Freedom] to allow that Universe to proceed to a point where beings of substantial qualities can exert Freedom of Will to Choose between difficult options.

My decisions, when proper ones, transmit Love both to others and God in the ways of the Spirit. At my Death, I will go to my Creator "carrying" with me what I hope to be a substantial Love Present which is the fruit of my life.

.... enough..... the kids in the classroom are all asleep.

....oh well. Go Irish. Keep choosing freely to do the hard things in recruiting to "do it according to Love."

 

[greyhammer90]

God purportedly cares because He created you as a god, in his own image and likeness. Thus, your sexuality, by which you are capable of helping him create other gods, is a sacred thing; so by "jerk[ing] it before a shower", you are acting like a beast and debasing yourself.

But of course, from a secular liberal perspective which only asks "who has been harmed by this action", it sounds absurd.



And for a materialist, who believes himself no better than a beast, the cost is staggering; you're asked to moderate some of your basic instincts, and you receive nothing in return. But for those who believe they are more than just matter, that they in fact have a soul, the cost is small, and the reward infinite-- meaning, purpose, eternal life, etc.

Go back up and read my response to you. I'm not arguing theism. I'm arguing logic. As soon as you start with "but Christians choose to think of it as..." you've lost my point and moved away from what I'm arguing.

I'm talking about if Christianity is logical from a state of nature perspective. I don't think it is.

 

[gkIrish]

Logical arguments cannot proceed from an indefensible premise (assumption).

I think I'm still confused but what is the assumption? That X amount of people are intelligent (i.e. have a certain IQ)? Because that's not really an assumption. I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm sure there is an even distribution of people with a certain IQ across the human population...

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Nietzche, one of the only philosopher's to offer a coherent alternative to theism, referred to Christianity as the Peasant Revolt, because it thoroughly undermined the moral justifications of the powerful over the powerless. And it really did. You think the Church is "anti-woman"? Only by the extreme egalitarian standards of modern liberalism. No institution has done more to improve the lot of the fairer sex, since most pagan cultures were brutal towards women.

The Magna Carta? The Peace of Westphalia? The Declaration of Independence? Hell, unless you're a hardcore Progressive with a very short memory (and a poor understanding of history), the entire edifice of modern liberal democracy is inconceivable without Christianity.

So, at worst, it's a golden ladder that helped us reach our current heights, but can now be safely discarded. At best, it's the very foundation of Western civilization, and we're courting a 2nd dark age by throwing it out.

In your last quote we were in such agreement. I see where our views turn. It really is on the stuff of lesser importance. We are both interested in what is most right and moral. You obviously have a high standard I can only hope to achieve some day.

Interpretation and context of history is where we differ. I think your examples of why the Catholic Church may take credit for modern democracy, and remember Calvinists and Cromwellian English take the same credit, are not quite founded on clear causality.

In other word in the case of the Totalitarian excesses of the one dominant power emerging in Europe from the Dark Ages, none of these would have been necessary. The were all in response to a lack of basic freedoms, and coincidentally, look who was in charge.

The best case I can make for this is a young brilliant priest, and I find your posts brilliant too, Whiskey, who maintained that the alliance between the Pope and GEO III the Hapsburg ruler of England we rebelled against conspired and allied, to build the National Seminary at Maynooth, in Ireland, was to keep Irish priest away from the revolutionary ideas stirring up in France. He maintains it was because of the great number of heretics in France. I asked him in that case, why the Pope didn't spend a little money on the Seminaries in France and issue a few edicts for priests about training with heretics.

You see, there are multiple interpretations. The answers are not clear, and they should be clear. So, for me the argument about women's rights are not about contraception, or sexuality. The early celebrants of the mass were predominantly those in charge of the household. The women. Not the men. The defilement of the story of the Magdalene. Thousand of years of ignorance and hatred, which I bought hook line and sinker. I was taught that there was an unclean element of women by their nature. I was taught this by priests and nuns. In my elementary school in the Diocese of Toledo, in the early to late 1960's. I can tell you now with four daughters, that my views have changed. All authority was anti-woman. Not just Catholic authority. But it was, and is caught in a situation where it still is.

In stark contrast, I believe that through the Gospels contained in the New Testament and other writings from the time, Jesus openly and fully accepted women, and treated them as equals, and did so without sexual, moral, or social hang ups. I believe there was a strong attempt to suppress that, especially as seen with the Magdalene, who was a wealthy woman, an heiress from a village along the coast which was known to have made fishing an industry. I believe she was a fine moral woman, that put Jesus' word first, and humbled herself. I believe her transformation into a prostitute was a willful, immoral, act perpetrated to present a revisionist history but those in power and authority.

 

[Cackalacky]

I think I'm still confused but what is the assumption? That X amount of people are intelligent (i.e. have a certain IQ)? Because that's not really an assumption. I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm sure there is an even distribution of people with a certain IQ across the human population...

Assuming there is a god.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Go back up and read my response to you. I'm not arguing theism. I'm arguing logic. As soon as you start with "but Christians choose to think of it as..." you've lost my point and moved away from what I'm arguing.

I'm talking about if Christianity is logical from a state of nature perspective. I don't think it is.

I guess we need to define "Christianity" and "logical" then. Christianity is a big messy concept. If you're not interested in debating theism, then which philosophical tenets are you addressing?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Mike, Cack, and Buster, you guys are much closer that I think you think.

Mike, a problem with your question about living in a universe with purpose is that it is subjectively based. Purpose for who? What kind of purpose(?) and do you think we can discover(?) and correctly interpret that(?) is what need come first.

For me, purpose has to be internally determined. The only question is what purpose I attribute, not whether I do, or what I think the purpose of God or the universe is.

My answer, and I have heard it in this thread is "to love."

I have read and done papers on the Summa Theologica. I could picture him in a simple room in the tower with only his straw bed and writing utensils, and a chamber pot, laboring at this until he threw his hands up in madness and frustration. Because he wrote around but didn't discuss the absolutely most important thing.

Did you know he died in that room shortly after the confession you referenced? And that many monks were required to bring his body out of that tower chamber? And that they had to take the entry door out to create enough room to allow the body to pass?

 

[Cackalacky]

.... intellectual nightmare, but as long as it stays friendly, no harm no foul. One SHOULD admit however that attempting to comment upon the world's deepest never-definitively-answered questions on a football site is a bit whacky. The fact that the discussion has proceeded this far without uncivil name-calling might itself be proof of Spirituality at least if not Divinity.

To reiterate: these quests are not answerable by "logic" or physical science. Thomas Aquinas spent his vast energies and time trying in the Summa Theologica and admittedly failed. He instead had a mystical experience, stated that his chain-of-reasoning was a Babel which could never reach Heaven, and retired to a satisfying life of Faith and Prayer, and Love Poetry to God. So, no one's going to "prove" anything to anyone this day.

The thought process of a person who wishes to banter in a serious fashion about this, however, should begin with that person answering a few theoretical questions about their Ontology. The first one is: do I care whether I live in a Universe which has Purpose or not? If no, then stop here and go get a beer. If yes, then: do I believe that this Universe DOES exist for some purpose? The answer to this is a Faith statement either way. My answer is "yes, I do".

What purpose? For that I have to read and observe people of substance. Upon doing that I have semi-solidified my Ontology around the concept of Love. The Universe for me then becomes a stage within which I have purpose in my choice of Loving vs being Self-oriented. This is again a Faith choice, for which I have, in my opinion, a lot of soft evidence through my reading and observation. Others apparently differ.

I have used the word "choice" twice in the last paragraph, despite the fact that in this thread several people deny the possibility of that in any substantive sense of the word --- i.e. they deny Free Will. As an aside, I always feel at touch of the bizarre when talking to a person who is argumentative about there being no Free Will ... if they really believe that, why are they arguing? Oh, because they have no choice in the matter. Strange world to live in, is it not? It is a profoundly why bother world. It also has, at base, no legitimacy to ever "blame" anyone, as there never was choice in anything. I cannot help feeling that in such a case I would be talking to a robot, and in that case, since the robot's world is impenetrable to freedom of any development towards the future, why should I then bother?

But let's let the believers that they are robots rest in their automaton non-beliefs, and speak to those [of every other stripe] who believe that they DO have choice. What's that choice "good for"? Having purposeful lives, of course. Living lives with meaning rather than meaninglessness.

As said, the meaning for me is the application of Free Will to do loving acts rather than selfish ones. I find that "message" precisely embodied in the New Testament gospel stories [and almost nowhere else in the Bible]. Those Gospel stories seem to me to be opening the Doors of my Perception to a life of Giving rather than the animal life of Getting. Those writings and the words coming from a certain featured Man therein, seem not purposelessly animalistic, or worse rigidly mechanical, but counter-intuitively communion-oriented, mystically-sharing, and fully-loving.

My Ontology, based on "experiences" though not scientific ones, sees a Creator/ Primary Quantum Observer of the Universe, Who brought Order [a Communing, a Joining] out of the Chaos, giving "Words of Creation" [Laws of action and Change founded upon the Quantum Indeterminism which allows Willful Freedom] to allow that Universe to proceed to a point where beings of substantial qualities can exert Freedom of Will to Choose between difficult options.

My decisions, when proper ones, transmit Love both to others and God in the ways of the Spirit. At my Death, I will go to my Creator "carrying" with me what I hope to be a substantial Love Present which is the fruit of my life.

.... enough..... the kids in the classroom are all asleep.

....oh well. Go Irish. Keep choosing freely to do the hard things in recruiting to "do it according to Love."

As this was an obvious jab at me I will only respond by saying that you should at least watch Sam Harris' video I posted. It does a much better job at explaining what Free Will means and the repercussions of a lack thereof than I can. It is very thought provoking and definitely outside of most people's comfort zone. Its actually quite a beautiful concept. with significant implication, but I will go back to being a purposeless robot.

 

[gkIrish]

Assuming there is a god.

There is no need to assume there is a God. Acknowledge that anything is possible (not an assumption). Therefore, if it's possible that there is a God and that non-belief could have bad consequences, it's logical to believe.

 

[IrishLax]

I really wish I had more time to contribute to this thread. It is a shockingly mature conversation right now.

Instead of contributing my own input, I would just encourage everyone to read the posts by Buster, Greyhammer, and Whiskey. A lot of intelligence on display.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You see, there are multiple interpretations. The answers are not clear, and they should be clear. So, for me the argument about women's rights are not about contraception, or sexuality. The early celebrants of the mass were predominantly those in charge of the household. The women. Not the men. The defilement of the story of the Magdalene. Thousand of years of ignorance and hatred, which I bought hook line and sinker. I was taught that there was an unclean element of women by their nature. I was taught this by priests and nuns. In my elementary school in the Diocese of Toledo, in the early to late 1960's.

I spent 20 years in Catholic schools of very different flavors-- poor, pre-dominantly Hispanic Diocesan grade school, wealthy Jesuit all-boy high school, and ND-- and I have never encountered this sentiment. But that's purely anecdotal.

I can tell you now with four daughters, that my views have changed. All authority was anti-woman. Not just Catholic authority. But it was, and is caught in a situation where it still is.

My response would, again, be that CS Lewis quote I referenced in my first post:

“I believe in political equality. But there are two opposite reasons for being a democrat. You may think all men so good that they deserve a share in the government of the commonwealth, and so wise that the commonwealth needs their advice. That is, in my opinion, the false, romantic doctrine of democracy. On the other hand, you may believe fallen men to be so wicked that not one of them can be trusted with any irresponsible power over his fellows.

That I believe to be the true ground of democracy. I do not believe that God created an egalitarian world. I believe the authority of parent over child, husband over wife, learned over simple to have been as much a part of the original plan as the authority of man over beast. I believe that if we had not fallen...patriarchal monarchy would be the sole lawful government. But since we have learned sin, we have found, as Lord Acton says, that 'all power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' The only remedy has been to take away the powers and substitute a legal fiction of equality. The authority of father and husband has been rightly abolished on the legal plane, not because this authority is in itself bad (on the contrary, it is, I hold, divine in origin), but because fathers and husbands are bad. Theocracy has been rightly abolished not because it is bad that learned priests should govern ignorant laymen, but because priests are wicked men like the rest of us. Even the authority of man over beast has had to be interfered with because it is constantly abused.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory

I think your issues with the Church (and authority in general) are not due to bad doctrine, but to the fallen nature of Man.

In stark contrast, I believe that through the Gospels contained in the New Testament and other writings from the time, Jesus openly and fully accepted women, and treated them as equals, and did so without sexual, moral, or social hang ups.

And yet he didn't call any women to Apostleship.

I believe there was a strong attempt to suppress that, especially as seen with the Magdalene, who was a wealthy woman, an heiress from a village along the coast which was known to have made fishing an industry. I believe she was a fine moral woman, that put Jesus' word first, and humbled herself. I believe her transformation into a prostitute was a willful, immoral, act perpetrated to present a revisionist history but those in power and authority.

Where have you read this? I was under the impression that very little is known of the historical Magdelene.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

While we are discussing sexuality... Do animals masturbate?

Whenever someone says you're acting like a "beast" or "base animal instincts" that's the first question that pops into my head.

 

[Cackalacky]

There is no need to assume there is a God. Acknowledge that anything is possible (not an assumption). Therefore, if it's possible that there is a God and that non-belief could have bad consequences, it's logical to believe.

We are disconnected here. I will stop and you can go back to greyhammer's post #97. Probably a good start to get back on track.

 

[Emcee77]

There's no question that the Church has been and remains a patriarchal institution, and that's unacceptable to feminists. I mean, Whiskey has twice quoted C.S. Lewis as saying that it was a part of the original plan for husbands to exercise authority over wives. That's a hideously retrograde, deal-breaking, ear-closing viewpoint to many people today.

But Whiskey's basic point was that, in relative terms, the spirit of the Church is egalitarian--to a fault, if you ask Nietzsche. And I think that's right. It's not going to satisfy most feminists, but it provides a possible basis for them to stick with the Church, rather than reject it.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

While we are discussing sexuality... Do animals masturbate?

Whenever someone says you're acting like a "beast" or "base animal instincts" that's the first question that pops into my head.

Some do. Bonobos are famous for it.

Male dolphins engage in rape, etc.

 

[Emcee77]

While we are discussing sexuality... Do animals masturbate?

Whenever someone says you're acting like a "beast" or "base animal instincts" that's the first question that pops into my head.

They do.

 

[greyhammer90]

I guess we need to define "Christianity" and "logical" then. Christianity is a big messy concept. If you're not interested in debating theism, then which philosophical tenets are you addressing?

Hang on. I've got class and I can't goof off during this one. Tax consequences for gains from property are a bitch. I'll come back in a few hours and continue the discussion.

 

[Rack Em]

While we are discussing sexuality... Do animals masturbate?

Whenever someone says you're acting like a "beast" or "base animal instincts" that's the first question that pops into my head.

Go to a zoo and sit in the primeape house. Apes are like college bros.

 

[gkIrish]

We are disconnected here. I will stop and you can go back to greyhammer's post #97. Probably a good start to get back on track.

Forget Christianity. Let's just talk about a God of any sort.

Perhaps I haven't made this clear but my argument is not that it's inherently worthwhile for every single person to believe in God.

My argument is that it's logical to believe in God IF the costs of doing so do not outweigh the (odds that God exists x the benefit to believing in God). It's basically a purely mathematical analysis. Therefore, every person is different. I might personally place an extremely high value of the benefit of eternal salvation (if it does exist) and associate little cost with going to Church once per week. Someone else might not care about what happens to them after death. Therefore, it's not logical for them to believe in God.

No assumptions are needed at all. If the left side of the equation < the right side, then it's logical, by definition.