Dominant Force in West Today According to Dennis Prager is Fear of Left

This is the background about the fighting behind the far right factions.Nick Fuentes and Charlie Kirk are white nationalists that disagree on how vile they should be.How Donald Trump Jr. Landed Smack in the Middle of a Right-Wing Civil WarHere is a look at both of these fine white boys.
Nick Fuentes - RationalWiki
Charlie Kirk - RationalWikiEdited by Admin, : Rerender to create links with titles.Edited by Admin, : Rerendering again, this time to title the first link. For some reason the 2nd and 3rd links are not titling.

No one cares what you "heard". Provide data and sources. What you heard is irrelevant and when what you herd is looked at it is usually shown to be incorrect or extremely misleading.
So how about providing actual figures and sources?

But you have no evidence other than your feelings and what does that actually mean?

I have never had a belief in hell and I seem to be doing quite fine.
Many religions do not have a hell or other form of punishment in the afterlife. Therefore they have no need of a savior from it.
See what I did there.So the premise of your religion is. There was a dude that created all including a heaven and hell, then he sent his "son" down to one part of his creation in order to save people from going to the really bad place he created and he that is sending people to.
He sounds kind of incompetent and/or weak to me. Or maybe just a tad confused?

So your god dude isn't omnipotent or omniscient?

No one has ever been able to present any actual evidence of the existence of the Jesus Christ character.
All they present as evidence is stories no factual data.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

What is it? How does it correlate with the christian hell? When you talk about the christian hell what are you talking about? Is it the hell of the bible or the one contrived by theologians and apologists?
Can you describe this hell?

So you have no idea if there is a buddhist hell?
Curious why you did not respond to my other questions.

So you know nothing about a Buddhist hell. If you did you would be able to talk about it.

There is no buddhist hell. There is Naraka, but that is nothing like the christian hell.
Do you know anything about the christian hell?

Buddhism does not have sins.

quote:

---

here are a few differing Buddhist views on sin. American Zen author Brad Warner states that in Buddhism there is no concept of sin at all.[1][2] The Buddha Dharma Education Association also expressly states "The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism."[3] Zen student and author Barbara O'Brien has said that "Buddhism has no concept of sin."[4][5] Walpola Rahula also disagreed with the notion of sin, saying "In fact there is no 'sin' in Buddhism, as sin is understood in some religions."

---

Buddhist views on sin - Wikipedia
You really should read before you spew.

So you agree they do not believe in sin
Therefore, what you said in the previous post Was not correct.The rest of your post is just an attempt to shoe horn buddhism into chrstianity. Buddhism is nothing like christianity no matter how hard you try to make it so.
Have you even looked into what Naraka actually is?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Why is your ignorance relevant? Most religions have creation myths. So what? Your ignorance proves nothing.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

All these years and still you resort to Pascal's Wager? This line of argument has been destroyed many times here, but again you go with it. I won't waste my time with the rest of the flaws in your post.Here is a quick takedown concerning the wager. This guy can discuss it much more eloquently than I can. But basically, you want us to live a lie, so that you feel better about your religion? AS I state regularly, the hubris of the religious never ceases to amaze me.

quote:

---

An argument often used by religious people is that they have nothing to lose by believing in God and that Atheists are risking eternity in Hell for no gain. This is known as Pascal’s Wager. On the face of it, it is quite convincing but it falls apart once you seriously examine it.
The argument basically is you have 2 choices. Either believe in God or don’t. There are only 2 results. Either God exists or he/it doesn’t.
If you believe and God exists, you gain eternal reward.
If you don’t believe and God does exist, you face eternal torment.
If you believe and God does not exist, then you had wasted your time going to church etc.
If you don’t believe and God does not exist, then you have saved yourself time and effort.
The conclusion usually is that the risks of not believing outweigh the benefits and it’s safer to believe in God.
However, there are several problems. First of all, this wager does not in itself prove God exists. It merely says it is safer to presume he/it does. Secondly, it presumes you can force yourself to believe something you believe to be false. I fail to see how living a lie is the preferable option. Surely God could see through this dishonesty (and possibly punish you for it). A similar criticism is that if we are all designed by God, we are therefore designed so as not to believe in God. Atheists can hardly be blamed for being what God designed them.
Also, which God should we worship? There are thousands of religions each with their own God. What if we choose the wrong one? After all each religion believes that only its members are rewarded in the afterlife. Imagine if a Christian dies but is greeted by Muhammad (or Zeus or Odin etc) in the afterlife. Despite being very religious they are condemned to Hell because they choose the wrong religion. What if a Catholic dies and finds that the Presbyterians were right. Or a Baptist dies and finds the Mormons were right. The laws of probability say we have only one in several thousand chance of guessing the correct religion. Maybe God would forgive you for not choosing the right religion, but if he/it would do that surely he/it would forgive you for having no religion at all?
Instead let me replace this with what is known as the Atheist’s Wager. This states that you should live a good life and be a nice person, but leave religion alone. If God is loving and kind, he will forgive you for not believing in him and reward you in the afterlife. If God punishes you despite having been a good person all your life then god is unjust and you shouldn’t worship him.

---

The Flaws Of Pascal’s Wager – Whistling In The WindEdited by Theodoric, : subtitle

Do you really not understand basic logic and reason? This argument does not fall apart if we don't "know" it is a lie. It is that the person believes it is a lie.
So you think your god dude would rather someone think they are living a lie and not really believe, but pretend they believe?
I know, logic and reason is tough for you fundies. Deflection and strawman again. At least you are consistent. My interest, research and support of the mythicist position has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager.
You call mythicist evidence as sketchy? The whole premise of the argument is that there is no evidence.
You may be able to make some sort of argument that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence(I disagree with this argument somewhat), but absence of evidence is evidence of nothing. You have no evidence so do not attack me because I agree there is no evidence but go to a reasonable explanation.