Is Jesus necessary?

[brooksieb]

I don't think Richard Dawkins is out trying to "convert" anyone like some street corner preacher. I have one of his books and enjoyed it (no surprise there. ) but I am not a "follower" of him any more than I am a "follower" of Stephen King who's books I also enjoy. When asked to speak on TV, etc about his book and views, he does.

What are these double standards you believe him to rely on?

Exactly the one about him saying he won't waste his breath on christians yet he uses every possible way of converting people, he's even resorted to putting advertisements on London buses saying "there probably is no god" or some other slogans like that, he is basically a street corner preacher using the media.

[mpjh]

I think the bible is pretty clear on who can get to heaven. The main point of the bible is a lot of shlak about how you can only be saved through Jesus and for all of the preaching about how forgiving Jesus is, he doesn't really seem to show it that much. I didn't read all nine pages of this topic, so if this has already been said, I'm sorry.

The whole point of posting the poll is to show that, while many believe you must accept Jesus as your savior to get to heaven, many Christians do not believe that is necessary.

[FabledIntegral]

I don't think Richard Dawkins is out trying to "convert" anyone like some street corner preacher.

You obviously don't watch South Park

[OnlyAmbrose]

I don't think Richard Dawkins is out trying to "convert" anyone like some street corner preacher.

You obviously don't watch South Park

I never understood why someone would freeze themselves until my sister got a Wii for Christmas. I don't know what I'm going to do without one when I go back after the holidays

[mpjh]

Oh yes, terribly life in Berkeley with Wii.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the bible is pretty clear on who can get to heaven. The main point of the bible is a lot of shlak about how you can only be saved through Jesus and for all of the preaching about how forgiving Jesus is, he doesn't really seem to show it that much. I didn't read all nine pages of this topic, so if this has already been said, I'm sorry.

The whole point of posting the poll is to show that, while many believe you must accept Jesus as your savior to get to heaven, many Christians do not believe that is necessary.

Some people do believe this. However, far more believe one of two things. That people can know Jesus, but believe he has a differant name, is part of another religion (either by "misunderstanding" that religion or because, perhaps, that culture has come to encorporate Jesus into their religion in some way).

OR, that every person will, at some point, be given a chance to know Jesus ... some during life (perhaps just before death?), some after.

Bottom line ... it is not for us to judge. We are not God. Christ teaches us to love all... the rest is up to God.

[mpjh]

Convenient rationalization, I think. How do you know this is how it works?

[Pedronicus]

Where was the GFY Jesus option?

[Backglass]

I don't think Richard Dawkins is out trying to "convert" anyone like some street corner preacher. I have one of his books and enjoyed it (no surprise there. ) but I am not a "follower" of him any more than I am a "follower" of Stephen King who's books I also enjoy. When asked to speak on TV, etc about his book and views, he does.

What are these double standards you believe him to rely on?

Exactly the one about him saying he won't waste his breath on christians yet he uses every possible way of converting people,

So, one off hand quote is your double standard? That's seems like a pretty thin conclusion to cling to.

he's even resorted to putting advertisements on London buses saying "there probably is no god" or some other slogans like that

He has? I hadn't heard that. Can you show me some proof that he himself has been advertising in this way? Or is this just heresay?

Even if he did..whats wrong with that? I see religious billboards all the time and nobody seems to be up in arms about it (not even me as they are not paid for with public funds).

he is basically a street corner preacher using the media.

Sorry, I already used that line. You have to think up your own.

So, in other words, you've never approached a serious study of subject in your lifetime

So in other words you've never stepped away from your cult and looked at the world objectively in your lifetime

and hence have a need to regurgitate the same, tired old recycled insults you once heard Richard Dawkins use on TV

and hence have a need to regurgitate the same, tired old recycled insults & fairy tales you once heard from your father and minister, rather than actually use your own senses and brain.

Oh, and I have never seen Richard Dawkins on TV. I actually know very little of him, other than the one book I read. Curious. How many of his books have you read being the open minded scholar you claim to be?

Pro Tip: just because you ignore it, doesn't make it not real.

Let me know when you are attending the next Leprechaun convention.

[Napoleon Ier]

He has? I hadn't heard that. Can you show me some proof that he himself has been advertising in this way? Or is this just heresay?

Even if he did..whats wrong with that? I see religious billboards all the time and nobody seems to be up in arms about it (not even me as they are not paid for with public funds).

he is basically a street corner preacher using the media.

Sorry, I already used that line. You have to think up your own.

So, in other words, you've never approached a serious study of subject in your lifetime

So in other words you've never stepped away from your cult and looked at the world objectively in your lifetime

and hence have a need to regurgitate the same, tired old recycled insults you once heard Richard Dawkins use on TV

and hence have a need to regurgitate the same, tired old recycled insults & fairy tales you once heard from your father and minister, rather than actually use your own senses and brain.

Oh, and I have never seen Richard Dawkins on TV. I actually know very little of him, other than the one book I read. Curious. How many of his books have you read being the open minded scholar you claim to be?

Pro Tip: just because you ignore it, doesn't make it not real.

Let me know when you are attending the next Leprechaun convention.

Well, no, actually.

There are some people in this world who like to think. Think, seriously, and for the sake of it. It's an acquired taste, but I thoroughly recommend you try some day. After thinking about things, rather than relying on what preachers or relatives would tell me, I came to rational conclusions.

So frankly, all your tired old leprechaun bullshit old Dicky D's been pumping you full of doesn't work, for the good reason that there perfectly good philosophical justifications for the existence of a Supreme Being.

[mpjh]

Pew asked people what they thought determined whether a person would achieve eternal life. Nearly as many Christians said you could achieve eternal life by just being a good person as said that you had to believe in Jesus.

The Pew poll said:

Pew asked people what they thought determined whether a person would achieve eternal life. Nearly as many Christians said you could achieve eternal life by just being a good person as said that you had to believe in Jesus.

So the central question was whether you had to believe in Jesus to obtain eternal life, and a great many people believed that was not necessary. Encouraging for those of us that think the whole Jesus thing is overblown.

[Backglass]

Well, no, actually.

There are some people in this world who like to think. Think, seriously, and for the sake of it. It's an acquired taste, but I thoroughly recommend you try some day. After thinking about things, rather than relying on what preachers or relatives would tell me, I came to rational conclusions.

So frankly, all your tired old leprechaun bullshit old Dicky D's been pumping you full of doesn't work, for the good reason that there perfectly good philosophical justifications for the existence of a Supreme Being.

Well, yes, actually.

There are some people in this world who trust their eyes and ears and aren't afraid of the dark. Open your eyes, seriously, and use your brain for the sake of it. It's an acquired taste, but I thoroughly recommend you try some day. After thinking about things, rather than relying on what preachers or relatives would tell me, I came to logical conclusions.

So frankly, all your tired old fairy tales of magical beings, gods mating with earth women, angels and demons that your parents force fed you from birth doesn't work for the rational adult, for the good reason that nobody has ever seen, touched, smelled, heard or felt these magical, invisible creatures you cling so dearly too. And yet, you claim to be so sophisticated "whilst" on your knees hoping to telepathically send wishes and thanks to an invisible magic phantasm.

[Napoleon Ier]

That's nice dear, Humean empiricism, I'm prepared to respect that philosophy. Except rather than be willing to rationally debate the matter, you're simply saying "you're brainwahsed and so even trying to argue with you is pointless and anything you say is wrong before you even open your mouth to say it so I win!!!, so I say again:

Be willing to think independently and outside the "sophisticated enlightened atheist" box you're unable to see out of, stop making comments about who may or may not have brainwashed me, because quite apart from being something you have no clue about, it's a rather shallow ad hominem, and then we can have a rational discussion, about empiricism or whatever other philosophical concept you like.

Or we can keep getting you making an ever greater fool of yourself by posting your old bollocks about fairy tales and leprechauns to avoid a serious debate. Your choice, really.

[Backglass]

Or we can keep getting you making an ever greater fool of yourself by posting your old bollocks about fairy tales and leprechauns to avoid a serious debate. Your choice, really.

We ARE debating...and you are losing by the way. You just don't like the fact that I don't play by your rules, hence your constant whines of wanting "serious and rational debate" on the finer points of magical fairys and invisible gods.

And that's your choice. Really.

[Napoleon Ier]

We ARE debating...and you are losing by the way.

Not so much, I'm afraid.

A debate would presuppose a series of rational arguments presented by two or more sides seeking to establish a definite proposition.

Right now, we've only had "omg you believe in fairy tales!!!", followed by me pointing out to you kindly as I could that your whole life had essentially been spent ridiculing a straw-man that a grand total of about 4 guys and a goat in Texas believe in, and that allegorical tales aren't necessarily void of truth by virtue of making use of allegory.

At that point, I was treated to:

Your ignorance is showing

You just don't like the fact that I don't play by your rules, hence your constant whines of wanting "serious and rational debate" on the finer points of magical fairys and invisible gods.

Now, by the "rules" that I and most of the civilized world play by, the former post doesn't really qualify as a proper argument in a debate. So, by all means, go play with in your intellectual sandpit by your own rules if you wish, but no one is going to consider you seriously for a moment, and certainly not mistake your inane and repetitive aspersions "arguments".

So, no, there is no debate. But if there were, you'd be losing.

And that's your choice. Really.

What is? Wanting to have serious debate about metaphysics? Yes, I suppose it is.

As I've already said, it's yours whether or not you want to participate. If not, you can take your asinine remarks and "rules" elsewhere.

[Backglass]

Not so much, I'm afraid.

Of course. You are losing.

A debate would presuppose a series of rational arguments presented by two or more sides seeking to establish a definite proposition.

You mean like falling back on philosophy and ancient texts to prove supernatural beings that no human has EVER seen exist? Yes, very rational.

your whole life had essentially been spent ridiculing a straw-man that a grand total of about 4 guys and a goat in Texas believe in

Yup. Me and four guys don't believe in invisible creatures.

You got me. Ridiculous indeed.

At that point, I was treated to:

Your ignorance is showing

Much nicer than "you lilly-livered muslim-loving moolti-kulchural organic-tea swilling Guardian-reading rubber-stamping half-baked Che Guevara t-shirt wearing leftist minger dhimmi bootlicker?" as you often like to say isn't it.

So, no, there is no debate. But if there were, you'd be losing.

The loser always says that.

As I've already said, it's yours whether or not you want to participate. If not, you can take your asinine remarks and "rules" elsewhere.

Well if you are giving up, fine. I accept your defeat. If not, you can take your asinine remarks and "rules" elsewhere.

[Napoleon Ier]

Huh. Funny, I scanned the entirety of that post for relevant comments about metaphysics, and I couldn't find any. I guess it's your defeat we'll be accepting then, unless there's a surprise comeback argument that isn't based on "Christians believe in certain texts containing allegorical tales and are therefore wrong and stupid" you'd like to share?

[spaceghst44]

Believing in something that you cannot feel, hear, see, smell, taste, or even imagine is called FAITH. That is what religions are based on. To argue that they believe in something of this nature does not win you the argument. It only makes them stronger in their religion for not giving in to your lack of faith.

I am an agnostic, but I still go to church. I do not believe in the bible word for word, but I do believe in and enjoy the bibles moral teachings.

My question to you backglass is how did anything ever get created?

The big bang? Well what created the matter that started the big bang?

Spontaneous Order? Well now you are believing in something that you have no facts on, which is the exact same as believing in religion, which you seem to be bashing.

Seriously, what do you believe created life as we know it?

[Backglass]

Huh. Funny, I scanned the entirety of that post for relevant comments about metaphysics, and I couldn't find any. I guess it's your defeat we'll be accepting then, unless there's a surprise comeback argument that isn't based on "Christians believe in certain texts containing allegorical tales and are therefore wrong and stupid" you'd like to share?

Huh. Funny. I scanned the entirety of your posts for actual proof of these invisible creatures you so desperately need to survive, and couldnt find any, I guess it's your defeat we'll be accepting then, unless there's a surprise comeback argument that isn't based on "Christians believe in certain texts containing allegorical tales and are therefore right and brilliant" you'd like to share?

[mpjh]

How this universe came into existence is not a matter of faith for us that do not believe there is a god and instead rely on science to answer questions. Whether the current matter (and anti-matter) in the universe has always been here or came about by other means is still unanswered. That does not mean that there is no answer, nor does it prove in any way that there is a god. It is just a question that needs more information to resolve.

But this has little to do with the topic of this thread which is the pew poll that found that many, many people do not think a belief in Jesus is necessary to obtain eternal life (if there is an eternal life).

[Backglass]

Believing in something that you cannot feel, hear, see, smell, taste, or even imagine is called FAITH. That is what religions are based on.

Yes. Faith that something exists, where nothing does, based out of fear of certain death. Humans can't fathom that when we die, it's over and must tell themsevles these fantastic tales to be able to sleep at night.

To argue that they believe in something of this nature does not win you the argument. It only makes them stronger in their religion for not giving in to your lack of faith.

LOL. Very twisted logic there, but you are correct. My poking certainly only makes you wish harder for your fairy tale after-world.

I am an agnostic, but I still go to church. I do not believe in the bible word for word, but I do believe in and enjoy the bibles moral teachings.

I do not doubt the bibles moral teachings. There are shelves full of fine moral guides at the local book store, yours included. I only doubt that a magical super-being that no one has ever seen exists.

My question to you backglass is how did anything ever get created? The big bang? Well what created the matter that started the big bang?

Spontaneous Order? Well now you are believing in something that you have no facts on, which is the exact same as believing in religion, which you seem to be bashing.

Seriously, what do you believe created life as we know it?

I believe the universe is infinite and has always been here. I do not believe a "creation" or "big bang" is necessary.

[spaceghst44]

Believing in something that you cannot feel, hear, see, smell, taste, or even imagine is called FAITH. That is what religions are based on.

Yes. Faith that something exists, where nothing does, based out of fear of certain death. Humans can't fathom that when we die, it's over and must tell themsevles these fantastic tales to be able to sleep at night.

To argue that they believe in something of this nature does not win you the argument. It only makes them stronger in their religion for not giving in to your lack of faith.

LOL. Very twisted logic there, but you are correct. My poking certainly only makes you wish harder for your fairy tale after-world.

I am an agnostic, but I still go to church. I do not believe in the bible word for word, but I do believe in and enjoy the bibles moral teachings.

I do not doubt the bibles moral teachings. There are shelves full of fine moral guides at the local book store, yours included. I only doubt that a magical super-being that no one has ever seen exists.

My question to you backglass is how did anything ever get created? The big bang? Well what created the matter that started the big bang?

Spontaneous Order? Well now you are believing in something that you have no facts on, which is the exact same as believing in religion, which you seem to be bashing.

Seriously, what do you believe created life as we know it?

I believe the universe is infinite and has always been here. I do not believe a "creation" or "big bang" is necessary.

So you believe in something that cannot be proven...... interesting. Sounds like a religion to me.

All you do is say that there is no Creator by stating that matter and anti matter has always existed, which solves your beginning of life/time problem, but very crudely and childishly. To think that everything has always existed and that time had no beginning is extremely tiresome. I see no difference in believing in god and believing that time has always been infinite.

It seems to me that the only difference is that you believe in a different kind of fairy tale.

[mpjh]

Backglass makes a good point. An initial "starting point" for the universe is not necessary to explain the universe. It has been posited largely because human experience has been a beginning, middle, and end to most everything. It became necessary to have a god to be the prime mover if there was a beginning to the universe because there was no other explanation available. Now, however, we know that just because a question is not answered doesn't mean it cannot eventually be answered with scientific investigation, and that just because a question is unanswered doesn't prove there is a god.

[PLAYER57832]

Convenient rationalization, I think. How do you know this is how it works?

I don't know ... I believe. I believe because I think it is consistant with the words and actions of Christ.

[PLAYER57832]

Backglass makes a good point. An initial "starting point" for the universe is not necessary to explain the universe. It has been posited largely because human experience has been a beginning, middle, and end to most everything. It became necessary to have a god to be the prime mover if there was a beginning to the universe because there was no other explanation available. Now, however, we know that just because a question is not answered doesn't mean it cannot eventually be answered with scientific investigation, and that just because a question is unanswered doesn't prove there is a god.

True. Human beings have a very hard time conceiving of how there could not be a beginning or end to the Universe. At the same time, though we cannot explain how there could be a time "before".

The real answer probably lies somewhere else ... something completely outside our current ability to understand, and perhaps attainable in the future (or not?).