Posted on 09/01/2009 9:14:22 AM PDT by GL of Sector 2814
"And not just atheists," said Bill Donohue during an August 31st Fox News interview. "Im talking about people who are disaffected Catholics and Protestants who are mutineers within their own religion, trying to change things." It wasn't just "militant, dogmatic" atheists and "disaffected" Christians that the Catholic League president complained about either. Donohue also had a few choice words for magicians Penn & Teller whose Showtime series, Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!, just ran an episode on the history of the Catholic Church. "This was the most Nazi-like assault, Donohue said. The most unrelenting half an hour of bashing Ive ever seen.
Bill Donohue made his comments on the Fox Network show Fox & Friends. He appeared there in order to promote his new book, Secular Sabotage: How Liberals Are Destroying Religion and Culture in America.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Yours didn't either, although I expect there was more to it on Wikipedia or wherever you went to get it.
But then it is not particularly difficult or complicated, is it? I can not go to the store by golfing. I can avoid the store by watching TV. I can even avoid the store by going to church. How I avoid the store doesn't change that I wasn't there.
The claims of scripture regarding God and Jesus Christ are accurate or they are not. You may choose not believe them. You may decide not to find out what they are. You may choose to believe in Krishna. It doesnt matter, and that is what you seem to be trying to sweep aside with a detour from the last paragraph of my post. The logic is not refuted by adding deity variants and assuming equality of possibility. The refutation ignores the reality that the evidence in favor of scripture can be examined, even if you choose not to. Simon Greenleaf, thankfully, chose to examine the evidence.
When you stand before God I expect you will be free to explain the refutation of Pascals wager in your own defense. At that point you will have nothing to loose.
Since I have already discussed the first two I may as well address the last two. Richard Dawkins argument is, frankly, both silly and stupid, in essence arguing that one can throw away ones life for God to essentially have no reward at the end. His own contempt for christianity is obvious in his quote.
While others experience may be different, and could be discussed, my own experience has been that the times when I am living for God are the times that my life has been the most pleasurable.
The last (4th) of the many refutations is the assumption that one can choose belief. I dont even need to discuss this one since you have made a conscious choice not to believe, and you know it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.