Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Chick-Fil-A catching heat for being anti-gay

[h/t Mark]

The owner of Chick-Fil-A, Samuel Truett Cathy, is catching heat from the left for being anti-gay. What is his crime? Matthew Shaffer explains:

"But the dirt that activists have dug up on Cathy isn’t really that incriminating, even from a pro-gay-rights perspective. His top sin, according to the agitprop flyers produced by getequal.org, is financial support for the National Christian Foundation and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Also among Cathy’s anathema affiliations is Campus Crusade for Christ. (When you think Campus Crusade for Christ, you think homophobia, right? Me neither.) There is no evidence that Chik-fil-A has funded groups that are primarily devoted to opposing same-sex marriage, such as the National Organization for Marriage (which is not to imply that such a donation would demonstrate anti-gay animus).

Judging by the arguments put forth on lefty blogs, there are three additional justifications for singling out Chick-fil-A for protests: The first is a local Chick-fil-A catering for a Pennsylvania Family Institute marriage retreat which, at which, PFI president Michael Greer says, “At no time . . . was the subject of same-sex marriage discussed or presented” (despite what was erroneously reported elsewhere). The second is relatively small donations to the group Focus on the Family (which, despite its reputation among bien pensants, actually devotes most of its funds to charitable efforts outside of the culture war, as David French has pointed out). And the third is Chick-fil-A’s ties to WinShape, a charity with dozens of projects, one of which is a marriage retreat limited to legally married, opposite-sex couples.

So the facts show Cathy to be a generous philanthropist who devotes millions to uncontroversial education charity; who gives some thousands more to Christian groups; who admits that for theological reasons he opposes the legal institution of same-sex marriage, but isn’t preoccupied by it; and who doesn’t exclude from his charity socially conservative groups. Reasonable people can disagree with WinShape’s requirements for couples on its marriage retreats and dislike aspects of Focus on the Family’s research and advocacy. But no reasonable person can see proof of frothing anti-gay bigotry in Samuel Truett Cathy’s donations, especially when his own words convey “love and respect” for same-sex-marriage advocates.

Activists are obviously welcome to protest and withdraw their patronage from any business, especially one whose political advocacy they disagree with. That’s democracy. But if we really want to “stop the hate” — and we should stop hate where it actually exists — we should look elsewhere than Chick-fil-A and the aged philanthropist at its head."

Read the full story here. 

Should same-sex marriage be legal? Michael Brown and Eric Smaw debate!

Friday, May 27, 2011

Why Paul Ryan should run

With the news of Paul Ryan not running for President, Republicans have to wonder who we have to run for us. Well, since Mitch Daniels' family won't let him come out to play, we're only left with a few good candidates. First though, we have to ask what will be the theme or driving force for this next Presidential election? Will social issues be the main attraction, or will it be about entitlement reform and the budget? I think it will be the latter.

So who is running that can contend with the opponents on the budget? The "tea parties" have excellent candidates. Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain will probably do quite well, considering they are tea party rock stars. Then on the libertarian side there is Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Even so, these candidates don't seem to as Jonah Goldberg puts it, "...right now no one appears equipped to defend the GOP House budget, written by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, which will likely define both the presidential and congressional elections in 2012." 1 I agree. Goldberg goes on to say:

"The Democrat-run Senate hasn't passed a budget in more than 750 days, and Democratic leader Harry Reid says it would be "foolish" to try. That's because the Democrats don't want to muddy their attacks on Ryan's idea of "premium support," whereby the poor get more generous vouchers than the middle class or the wealthy to pay for Medicare coverage. By the way, the "radical" concept of premium support is not so radical. It has deep bipartisan roots, with endorsements from such Democrats as former Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana and former Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

The president's counterproposal, splashed out in a rambling partisan attack in April, essentially reintroduces the whole "death panels" debate, albeit at a macroeconomic level, by empowering 15 presidentially appointed members of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to take the blame for throwing grandma off a cliff.

Regardless, by rights, the 2012 presidential contest should be a choice between those two approaches, plus the parties' wildly divergent views on spending and taxes. But no wonk on a white horse seems to be riding to the rescue." 2

Paul Ryan is the man for the job. Mitt Romney? He's not because he has the "Romneycare" albatross. Newt Gingrich, already going into the race with baggage, now has even more baggage after insulting Ryan's budget plan. Should Paul Ryan come to our rescue? Yes, he should. As Goldberg mentions in his article, it is a lot to ask of Ryan. He has a wife, kids, and he would have to get his campaign organized and funded quickly. There is still time. Further, I think he would do excellent in his debates with President Obama.

What do you think?


1. Goldberg, Jonah. "Run, Paul Ryan, Run." Townhall.com 5/25/2011

2. ibid. 

Read the full article by clicking here.

Checkout Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity videos. 

Episode 1

Episode 2

Progressive Revolutions Revealed

Dinesh D'Souza gives a 3 part talk titled, "Progressive Revolutions Revealed."


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Aftermath of Harold Camping's prediction.

It seems that all of us Christians are still around after Harold Camping's prediction of the rapture taking place May 21, 2012. Did I buy his prediction? Nope. Why? Mostly because Jesus informs us in, *clears throat*, the Bible that not one person will know the day of His return. Anywho, the following links provide information regarding the aftermath of Camping's predictions. 

Silly me...it was a "spiritual" meaning!

Chew on this

Why are Christians weak in public?

Wintery Knight has wrote an excellent post titled "Why won't Christians defend their faith in public?" I can't say more except that you should go read it now. Now! :) 

Click here to read the post.

Wednesday, May 18, 2011

Do we really need Windows 8 so soon?

I've read that Microsoft is working speedily on Windows 8. I have to ask, why? With many users and businesses just now migrating to Windows 7 and many users and businesses still not migrating to Windows 7, it's hard to imagine why Microsoft would be working so feverishly on Windows 8 unless it's going to be a dramatic difference from Windows 7. Honestly, I don't see how 7 could be improved that much. Mark Kaelin recently wrote on this subject. 

Here is an excerpt:

"I am sensing a significant amount of upgrade fatigue, especially in small businesses. To overcome that reluctance to yet another upgrade to the Windows operating system, Microsoft will have to do something noteworthy with Windows 8 — something I have yet to see in any of the leaked photo galleries." 

I agree with Kaelin. Home users, yes, grow weary from operating system upgrades, however, businesses suffer from operating system upgrades. Most businesses are Windows based with their technology. When Microsoft releases a new operating system, the older Windows operating systems are tossed to the side when it comes to compatibility with new software, which hurts businesses. It's true that Microsoft will support the older OSes for a period of time with security updates, but businesses also need to know that their operating systems will be compatible with new software. 

When a business migrates all of its workstations, servers, etc. to a new operating system, there is significant cost. With Microsoft planning on releasing Windows 8 hot on Windows 7's heels, one wonders if, as Kalin said, Microsoft is playing with fire. In order for me to personally upgrade my system to 8, I'll have to be blown away by its features. I'm satisfied with 7. Businesses are satisfied with 7 too. With the economy in the state that it's in, it's hard to imagine any business going through another upgrade just to stay current.

What, 8, will you offer us? 

Related content

Is there a market for Windows 8 or is Microsoft playing with fire?

What would it take for me to be an atheist

There are a few answers I would give to the question, but one stands out to the most and that is I would need a sufficient reason to not subscribe to the moral argument for God's existence. I have read rebuttals to the moral argument, listened to debates over it, and I haven't read or heard one sufficient defeater for the argument. Have there been times I've heard a rebuttal that seemed like a good defeater? Of course. Utilitarianism is probably the closest to providing a non-theist answer for morality and it's still lacking in substance. For example, we should praise good motives and seek good character because of their intrinsic value, not because such acts would maximize utility as utilitarianism explains. Utilitarianism does not give a sufficient reason for good being good and for bad being bad. 

What about evolution? I'm sure evolution can explain the seemingly objectivity to morality, right? Wrong. At first, the naturalist's answer for morality can seem to be a defeater for the moral argument for God. One might say that it even crushes the moral argument, but it doesn't. Kin selection and reciprocal altruism can only give examples of low-end morality as I point out here, here, and here, but they cannot explain high-end morality, which is objective. What's interesting is, given naturalism, all of our beliefs (not just moral beliefs) are the result of evolution and social conditioning. So, following the evolutionary account honestly would lead you to be skeptical about knowledge in general. This is self-defeating. 

There are other theories such as social contract theories. I've only heard one debater go that route, Shelly Kagan, in a debate with William Lane Craig. I find the social contract theory wanting as well because, like utilitarianism, it reduces to morality as, I understand, what's best for the general public (the "general will" for Rousseau), but that does not explain why rape is wrong except that it's unfashionable or why helping a man whose vehicle is broke down on the side of the highway is good. Why are those actions bad and good? The social contract theory reduces morality to arbitrary decisions thus not answering what makes good good and bad bad. 

We all know objective moral values and duties exist. We encounter them everyday. No, I don't mean you see 'justice' hanging on the back of a car or 'love' walking down the street; what I mean is we act out objective moral values and duties everyday. When you say, "He shouldn't have done that," or "She ought to have done this," you are making objective moral statements. We do this everyday. Declaring actions good and bad is a part of us; we cannot escape this. God as described by Christianity is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.Why do I think this? There is sufficient reason for thinking so. 

Morality flows from God's nature. God wills something because He is good. God's own nature is the standard of goodness. His commandments for us are expressions of his nature. As William Lane Craig said, "Our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God." There is no dilemma as stated by the Euthyphro Dilemma.

So, in order for me to give up Christianity, I would need a sufficient reason to believe that objective moral values and duties are not grounded in Jehovah God. I did not argue for the following reasons because I'm not familiar enough to do so, but I would need sufficient reason to believe that Jesus of Nazareth was not resurrected by God and that our universe is not eternal. I'm not comfortable with arguing the evidence for the resurrection and a finite universe, however I do know where to point you to others who have argued the points quite well. 

I've been a Christian for three years. I grew up not caring about "ultimate" issues in life, regarded objective meaning as pointless, and really liked nihilistic philosophy (obviously). What's interesting about my conversion story is I can say I converted to Christianity while I was in college. Why that is interesting is because most people say they were de-converted in college. I was converted because of my college experience. I couldn't get away from the moral argument for God. I considered other views, but my questions were not satisfied. I had to yield to the evidence given to me.

Read answers others gave to the question here

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

What would it take for you to be an atheist?

I asked some friends of mine (Christians of various backgrounds) what would make them take the atheist worldview over the Christian worldview to see what kind of answers I would get and I must say, I've been given very good answers.

The Christians I asked have come to Christianity in different ways and so, have different backgrounds. Some are philosophical, some practical, and others simply religious. While their answers may vary, they all have something in common, which is, they're all devout. I didn't ask those that are flaky because I didn't want to give you, the reader, a flaky answer. I didn't think that would be of benefit to you.

Mark, an every-now-and-then contributor to this blog, answered with the following:

"I have to look at it in a different manner, so how about a long answer in, the start would be not taking responsibility for personal actions, and in doing so, placing the blame on God. I have done that in the past, and I know many others who have done the same thing. And it is easy to do. Instead of taking the responsibility, it is easier to place blame. But the bottom line is always responsibility. To God, Family, Friends, and those who need to see God and Jesus through us.

I have a friend in Michigan who walked out on her husband of 25 years. When I asked what was up, she felt she was owed more then she has. She felt like her husband just didn't care, and he wasn't making the changes that she was saying he needed to make. Lose weight, be more attentive to her emotionally and physically. Like that is simple, knowing what a woman wants! When he didn't do as she demanded, she left him, filed for divorce. She felt that God had failed her, because she wasn't getting what she needed. She had switched churches joined a choir, and in her mind, was doubting her belief in God. So, she started talking to me, asking me questions, and I had simple answers for her. They kept going back to what she wanted, and expected from God.

She joined the choir, and started having an affair with a married guy, who had cheated on his wife before. She started to say, she didn't believe in God anymore. Yet she continues to go through the motions. She has lost her faith, and her belief, yet she continues to play the game, cause that is what is expected from her, and if she were to stop, others would question why.

So, what was her cause of losing belief? Not accepting responsibility for her actions, not bending and allowing change in the later years of her life and marriage. But she is happy sexually, and that is all that matters to her.

As for my own life, not accepting responsibility and moving forward, instead of allowing life to happen to me, and just taking it. Not using my faith to correct things in my life. Will I ever say, there is no God? No, God is very real to me, and for not accepting the responsibility for my actions. I should have done more with the free schooling that I had gotten, I should have used my time more wisely, and I forgot, God does hold us to be accountable. We do owe God answers for what we do with our life. Not just for our sins, habitual and otherwise, but for what we have done with our time, with our faith, with the things that God has given us, talents and abilities that are for God's use and praise.

Have I felt alone, and felt that God has abandoned me? SURE HAVE, but I also remember at those times that God never forgets us, and to use the old saying, if you feel that God isn't there, who moved? God never leaves us, is always waiting for us to make up our mind, and to seek HIM, to seek the purpose HE has for us. And at 50 years old, I still feel that way, and I was baptised in 1972, so I have, at times, child like faith, and at times I feel like I will never get the forgiveness. The spiritual battle that rages takes prisoners, and tortues them.

And as I am sure I have run around the topic, and not given a straight answer, remember, When the devil reminds you of your past, remind him of his future!"

Wes Widner of Reason to Stand answered my question with the following:

"I've often been asked this question by non-Christians, especially ones who subscribe to the theory of falsifiablity.

My standard answer is that in order for me to lose my confidence in Christianity, two things would need to happen:

1. Sufficient defeaters would need to be posed for the core tenets of Christianity. Specifically the tenets of a. God's existence and b. the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. Better answers would need to be provided that are able to stand on their own merit. I asked a question on Quora recently about the positive arguments for atheism (http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-best-positive-case-for-atheism) and, instead, got nothing but negative arguments for atheism based on the supposed absurdity of theism.

Thinking about it some more, I'm inclined to include the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in point 1. I simply don't see how any form of nihilism could present a sufficient defeater for the philosophical problem of   'the other'."

Brennon of Thinking God's Thoughts followed up on Widner's response.

"I'd largely agree with Wes. I'd add that a sufficient defeater would not only have to be strong enough to tear down all of the traditional arguments for God, but also to overcome our properly basic knowledge of God. It would have to be shown that the Holy Spirit's testimony with our spirit that we are children of God is somehow not real."

and then Wes added to Brennon's answer. 

"Yes, in order for me to convert to an atheistic worldview (ie. atheism, Buddhism, pantheism) I would need to have a good case for why I should think that non-theism should be seen as a properly basic epistemological state." 

A friend of mine named Craig gives his answer to the question.

"The easy answer here is to say that nothing could make me an atheist. That was my first instinct. After all, Christianity isn't a religion; it's a relationship. It's not just a simple belief in God; it's a relationship with God. Christians talk to God, and He talks to them. We see His daily intervention in our lives (or we should). How could we cease believing in a God that we interact with daily any more than I could stop believing in my wife, who I also talk to and interact with daily? On the face of it, it seems absurd.

After giving it more thought, however, I remembered the ill-spoken words of Simon Peter: "Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death." (Luke 22:33) Yet before the night was over, the threat of simple embarrassment was enough to persuade Peter to curse and declare that he did not know Jesus. Similarly, after being cast into prison, John the Baptist sent messengers to ask Jesus "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" (Matthew 11:3) This was Jesus' cousin! John had baptized Him, witnessed the Holy Spirit descending on Him, and heard the very voice of God the Father affirm Jesus' identity, yet here, John still has doubts. If these two men, much exalted by God in other passages of Scripture, men who stood in the very presence of Jesus, witnessed His miracles, and heard Him teach personally could be swayed and made to doubt, what manner of hubris would it be on my part to declare that nothing could make me an atheist?

What would it take? I don't know. Sadly, my study of scripture leads me to conclude that it wouldn't take as much as I'd hope it would. Given that our souls are eternally secure at the point of salvation, Satan's next goal is to ruin the testimony and effectiveness of every born again believer. Rather than pridefully declare that we cannot be swayed, I believe our best strategy is to not be ignorant of Satan's devices and prepare ourselves for them. Consider every potential attack as an area in which you are weak. For example, we know that Satan will appeal to the intellect, suggesting that there must be a logical, natural explanation for everything in the universe and that any so-called miracle can be explained away using the laws of nature. We should study these so-called "logical, natural explanations", and in doing so, we will see that they are often woefully inadequate theories spun to give comfort to those seeking to escape the reality of the existence of an all-powerful, just God.

When it comes to Satan's attacks, there is, as the writer of Ecclesiastes says, nothing new under the sun. Satan uses the same tactics today that he did thousands of years ago. This isn't because Satan is so stupid that he can't come up with something new, it's that we're so prideful that he doesn't have to. We keep falling for the same old stuff! Guarding ourselves against his tried-and-true methods is the best defense against being overcome by any heresy, be it that of atheism or otherwise."

Finally, Wintery Knight, of the blog Wintery Knight gave me his answer.

"An eternal universe."

What are your thoughts?

I plan on asking more people the question and, with their permission, I'll post the answers in a new post.

I answered the question here

Friday, May 6, 2011

UPDATE: Trinity Discussion

Renz responded to me last week, but I forgot to post it here on my blog. In case you didn't read my post, "Trinity Discussion" here it is. 

I've been having a discussion on the Trinity with a oneness fellow at the UPC fan page on Facebook. It's been an interesting conversation to say the least, also very polite, which is odd these days. I explained that the Trinity is not illogical, gave biblical references and I was waiting for his reasoning on why I failed in my delivery and why I was wrong for thinking so. He doesn't give me the answer I was expecting. I was expecting the usual grammar errors for this word or for this context, but no he gives me a new rebuttal. His response was that person is not used in the Bible in reference to God. This surprised me. 

His words:

"This my question.....Where in the bible you read the word person, if we talking about God? Not about person explaining the trinity because i am sure that no biblical ref about that.Heb.1:3 that is the only verse in the bible states that Jesus is the express image of His [God] person." 

I thought OK, why does that matter? 

My response:
"Ok Renz, I see your point. You want person to be in the bible, word for word. I assume, for you to hold the Trinity as a true doctrine you would have to be able to read in the Bible, "God has three persons."

I ask though, what doctrines are so clearly, word-for-word detailed in the bible? I assume you hold that God is omniscient. What verse says, "God is omniscient," or "God is omnipresent." I'm sure you also hold that God is omnipotent. Where in the bible do you find, "God is omnipotent." These are attributes of God that we find described in the Bible in different ways than just plainly saying so.

The Trinity is described in the bible the same way that God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence is described. I have given you biblical references and explanations of the Trinity, the same way you would give verses and explanations describing God's other attributes. I have wonder if you've read my responses. The one time person is used in the bible explaining God's attributes, it actually does defend the Trinity doctrine.

Therefore, just because the word 'person' isn't in the bible more as in "Father is a person, Son is a person, and Holy Spirit is a person," doesn't mean the doctrine isn't true. If that logic was followed, then the most beautiful attributes and doctrine of God that we (me and you) hold wouldn't exist. You will have to find some other reason to not hold the Trinity doctrine as true." 
I'm eager to read his response because if that is the only reason he has to not hold the Trinity as true, then he has serious problems with other doctrine. 
This was Renz's response to me.
"My ans.
1. No, you gave numerous ref.but it is not prove your point.
For you what's the meaning of;
Trinity and Person, can you give a ref from dictionary.
I response and gave the only verse in the bible about person not persons of God.

2. I understand all part of your post, that's why i said thanks for having trinity doctrine
because this strengthens proven that the oneness doctrine is real and true
according to the scripture."
I wanted to ask how did my scriptural references not prove my point, but according to this response and his previous responses I know I wouldn't have been given a clear explanation. Then, he insults me to finish off his response. Thanks Renz. 
I replied with 
"Renz, I've given you the definition of Trinity and person in my other responses. I've given you the scriptural explanation for the Trinity, a logical explanation, and why your argument is invalid; that's about all I can give you. Read over my responses again sometime. I know for me, I need to read over things a few times to understand it better.

I'm going to let you have the last word Renz. It's been a pleasure talking with you on this subject that is dear to both of us. It's been beneficial to me, hopefully it has for you as well.

Maybe we'll talk again sometime?" 
I let him have the last word. How could I have continued the discussion? To read the full discussion, you can click here. Our discussion is on page 5.  

If you read the entire discussion, feel free to give me constructive criticism here on the blog or there at the discussion forum.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Five bad arguments for theism

Last week, I wrote a post about five bad arguments against theism. Today, I'll cover five bad arguments for theism. The arguments I'm covering are mainly from the street theists. The theists most atheists encounter in their daily lives, you know, the ones that simply say, "Hey, religion helps me," or the famous, "Ya gotta' have faith," like the song by George Michael (or that's what I think of every time I hear someone say that). The problem with that kind of approach is not that folks shouldn't say those things to non-theists. The problem occurs when you use those statements as reasons for proof of God's existence. Not once did I take, "ya just gotta have faith" as a valid reason for believing in God when I wasn't a Christian. To me, it was a cop-out. 

So here are, in my opinion, the top five bad arguments for theism. 

1. Ya Gotta' Have Faith 

I'm never quite sure if the person that uses this reasoning for his belief truly believes you just got to have faith or if he simply doesn't have good reason for his holding theism. If the former, then he doesn't have a proper understanding of faith. If the latter, then the person probably doesn't care about reason and probably thinks it's wrong to have reasonable faith. Telling an unbeliever that you just need faith is foolish. Does the person expect the conversation to go like this: "Sir, how do you know God exists?" she asks the theist. "Well, you must have faith, that's how you know," he answers. "Oh, wow! I never thought of it like that before! Sir, count me in the theist camp!" she exclaims. 

That is not how it goes. In reality, she would dismiss him entirely and most likely theism all together. I did. Growing up, that's all I heard was that I just needed faith and then I would know God exists. Faith is not blind. Faith is not wishing. Faith is actually rational and reasonable. I know I use Greg Koukl's resources a lot, but hey, they're great resources! Check out the following resources to properly understand faith.

2. Theism Helps Me

This reasoning shoots you in the foot. When you talk to unbeliever about Christianity or theism in general, you don't want to use the phrase, "Well, it helps me," I know the phrase is meant to show the benefits of theism and not "shove" theism down the throat of your listener, but the reasoning has many faults. 

A) You slip into relativism. 

When you say, "It helps me," you're actually slipping into a "true for me, not for you" argument without realizing it. You're not arguing for God at all, you're actually proving the relativist's point of "if it helps you, great. It doesn't help me, so I don't need it." 

B) You make theism a crutch 

The "It helps me" reasoning makes theism a crutch instead of a truth finally acknowledged, which is great ammunition for those that say religion is the opiate of the masses. It's for the weak and the downtrodden and not for the strong they say and you're telling them, unknowingly, that they're correct in thinking that. Theism is not a crutch at all. My life would be much easier if wasn't a theist, however, I can't ignore the evidence for it. 

Using this reasoning will not get you anywhere with a clear thinking atheist or skeptic. Honestly, it won't get you anywhere with me either. If this is all you have for your belief in God, what will you do when it's not "helping" you anymore? When I'm at my darkest, at my lowest, knowing Jesus' resurrection actually happened is a great asset to my discipleship. It's not a crutch or blind faith; it's knowledge that is beneficial to my life. If all I had was blind faith and a crutch, then I wouldn't be a Christian. What would be the point?


3. You'll Go To Hell 

So since he won't believe you about the existence of God, then you sentence him to hell? That's classy. If the non-theist isn't going to believe in God, how do you expect him to believe in hell? If he doesn't hear you when you're telling him about God, he is not going to hear you when you tell him about hell. Further, even if you do manage to scare him enough into believing a hell exists, what happens when the fear wears off (it will)? Please don't use this argument. It will not stick. 

Also, the non-theist probably already has a low-view of God, hell will only strengthen that low-view. Using hell will not convert the thinking atheist. Hell won't even stick on the emotionally driven atheist. This is a bad argument. 

4. Prove God Doesn't Exist

This is another bad argument for theism. Why? The reason is because God isn't falsifiable. He can't be tested in a lab or studied under a microscope. This is scratching frantically at the bottom of the idea bucket to try and show the atheist how dumb she is when actually she isn't. The atheist knows she can't prove God doesn't exist and she isn't trying. She wants good reason for believing in God (there are good reasons, this isn't a good reason) and she wants to be taken seriously. Using this argument is not taking her seriously. Throw it away theist! Throw it away!

5. Pascal's Wager

I know some may disagree with me on this, but I have to list Pascal's Wager. If you're unfamiliar with the argument, it goes like this: a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal also stated that even though some are unable to believe, they should live as if they did believe, which may lead them to belief. At the time, his wager was groundbreaking, but it's not without problems. 

I've heard some atheists and skeptics say that if they lived their life as though God did exist, somehow manage to find that He doesn't, what about all of the wasted time put into belief in God? I know it's not a strong case against Pascal's wager, however I can't help myself from understanding the rebuttal. This is a problem, because if God doesn't exist, then you could have lived your life the way you wanted instead of the way God wanted. 

There are also other problems with the wager, e.g., argument from inconsistent revelations, assumption that one can choose belief, and others. It should be said, in Pascal's defense, he was not trying to prove God's existence by his wager philosophy. 

Those are the top five bad arguments for theism, in my opinion, and I hope that I've put a stone in your shoe with this post. There are good reasons for believing in God. You don't have to resort your belief to one of the five mentioned above. Faith is not blind, God is not a crutch, fear of hell does not produce a firm foundation, trying to get someone to falsify God will not cause them to hold theism as true, and Pascal's Wager only brings criticism. You may ask now, what are the good reasons? Click here to learn.