Why I use "Yahweh" when talking about the Judeo-Christian god

[Phox]

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

wan't me unfortunately - I just found the fucking thing 

[Luna]

wan't me unfortunately - I just found the fucking thing 

Still, perfect.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I know...I first saw it at a Sylvia Browne forum a few years ago, the poster thought it was really Gawd and didn't know about Goatse. 

But you thought to put it here, I didn't, so still WIN.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I know...I first saw it at a Sylvia Browne forum a few years ago, the poster thought it was really Gawd and didn't know about Goatse. 

But you thought to put it here, I didn't, so still WIN.

Those people are the entire reason goatse exists in the first place 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.

[Precious Moments Zalgo]

I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.

I saw something where that was addressed once:

Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout?

I'm sure that most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It proves that atheism is a gamble not worth taking. If the atheist is right, then when he dies he's just dead, and the Christian doesn't fare any worse for being wrong. If the atheist is wrong, however, then he will pay for it by burning in Hell for eternity while the Christian receives eternal bliss in Heaven.
...
A tired objection that skeptics always raise to the Pascal's wager argument is that it only accounts for belief vs. unbelief, and is unhelpful in choosing among religions. So I expanded the payoff chart to account for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.

I saw something where that was addressed once:

Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout?

I'm sure that most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It proves that atheism is a gamble not worth taking. If the atheist is right, then when he dies he's just dead, and the Christian doesn't fare any worse for being wrong. If the atheist is wrong, however, then he will pay for it by burning in Hell for eternity while the Christian receives eternal bliss in Heaven.
...
A tired objection that skeptics always raise to the Pascal's wager argument is that it only accounts for belief vs. unbelief, and is unhelpful in choosing among religions. So I expanded the payoff chart to account for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.

lololol

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.

I saw something where that was addressed once:

Game Theory: Which Faith Gives the Best Payout?

I'm sure that most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager. It proves that atheism is a gamble not worth taking. If the atheist is right, then when he dies he's just dead, and the Christian doesn't fare any worse for being wrong. If the atheist is wrong, however, then he will pay for it by burning in Hell for eternity while the Christian receives eternal bliss in Heaven.
...
A tired objection that skeptics always raise to the Pascal's wager argument is that it only accounts for belief vs. unbelief, and is unhelpful in choosing among religions. So I expanded the payoff chart to account for Christianity, Atheism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Wicca.

Hahahaha that's genius!

[Mangrove]

To the OP:

I got into this at work last year and lost a client over it. I didn't intentionally get into the discussion either but being the person I am, answered the question honestly and opened a whole can o' worms.

Basically, the client (a fairly superstitious Catholic senior citizen) was complaining about political correctness in schools that prevented children having 'Christmas Trees' etc in the schools.

And it was a fair point because, too many people have bought into the notion that a Tree or Menorah etc is 'offensive'. I've never been offended by a Menorah or any other holiday decoration for that matter. I simply don't care.

I explained that I wasn't offended by anyone's religious symbols because I wasn't especially interested in any of them. Then someone asked me if I believed in God and I said:

"Depends what you mean by God. If you're asking me if I believe in a monotheistic God as laid down by the Judeo-Christian faith(s) and related scriptures then, the answer is an absolute, unequivocal NO. I do not believe in that at all. That would therefore, make me an 'atheist' in your point of view."

[record scratch, pin drop, lonely dog barking in distance, cricket sound-effects]

Superstitious Catholic lady then says "WHO do you think created everything?"

Me: "Why does it have to be a WHO?"

Every since then, whenever I see her at the office, she keeps asking me weird questions, like I'm some theological special-needs case. "What did you do for Easter? Do you celebrate Easter? etc" (She's probably like a lot of the Italian Catholics that step-Mang#2 has to put up with. When she was asked if she was Catholic, she said 'no' and they replied 'Then you must be a Buddhist'. No amount of effort could change the discussion. Apparently, non-Catholic=Buddhist in parts of Italy.)

[Kai]

To the OP:

I got into this at work last year and lost a client over it. I didn't intentionally get into the discussion either but being the person I am, answered the question honestly and opened a whole can o' worms.

Basically, the client (a fairly superstitious Catholic senior citizen) was complaining about political correctness in schools that prevented children having 'Christmas Trees' etc in the schools.

And it was a fair point because, too many people have bought into the notion that a Tree or Menorah etc is 'offensive'. I've never been offended by a Menorah or any other holiday decoration for that matter. I simply don't care.

I explained that I wasn't offended by anyone's religious symbols because I wasn't especially interested in any of them. Then someone asked me if I believed in God and I said:

"Depends what you mean by God. If you're asking me if I believe in a monotheistic God as laid down by the Judeo-Christian faith(s) and related scriptures then, the answer is an absolute, unequivocal NO. I do not believe in that at all. That would therefore, make me an 'atheist' in your point of view."

[record scratch, pin drop, lonely dog barking in distance, cricket sound-effects]

Superstitious Catholic lady then says "WHO do you think created everything?"

Me: "Why does it have to be a WHO?"

Every since then, whenever I see her at the office, she keeps asking me weird questions, like I'm some theological special-needs case. "What did you do for Easter? Do you celebrate Easter? etc" (She's probably like a lot of the Italian Catholics that step-Mang#2 has to put up with. When she was asked if she was Catholic, she said 'no' and they replied 'Then you must be a Buddhist'. No amount of effort could change the discussion. Apparently, non-Catholic=Buddhist in parts of Italy.)

That's weird, but not unusual in this day and age. Scientific rationality rubbing elbows with old time religious superstition and all that.

[Triple Zero]

I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.

Indeed. The conclusion is that you should worship the god that does the most horrible things to you.

[Luna]

I've been thinking about this more today, and it reminded me of Pascal's Wager (and the fact that people still use it is ridiculous), because it assumes there are one of two choices. "God" either exists or he doesn't, and therefore the only choices are Christianity or atheism and that Christianity is the safe choice. Ignoring of course, the multitudes of gods that humanity has worshiped, plus the multitude of gods presumably worshiped by other sentient life forms in other parts of the universe, plus the multitudes of hypothetical deities that may not be bothered to reveal themselves at all and yet impose their rules on us, Lawful Good gods, Chaotic evil gods, gods who basically look at us as insects or an amusing but poorly written soap opera. At that point, if there is a single god of some sort, odds are overwhelmingly against you picking the right one and you're probably fucked either way when you die, if they even care or notice you. But anyway, Pascal's Wager is a glaring example of substituting a specific posited deity with a generic and rarely consistent title of God.

Indeed. The conclusion is that you should worship the god that does the most horrible things to you.

If you expand that to the one that does the most horrible things to those around you...  Well, TGRR in his Holy Office as Rain God done blew the windows out of Suu's apartment, so...

[LMNO]

Indeed. The conclusion is that you should worship the god that does the most horrible things to you.

And thus, Hail Eris.  QED.