A few excerpts from "Rick Warren Squares Off with Atheist Scientist on God's Existence" from the Christian Post:

Warren also defended that Christianity�s benefits to the world far outweighed its evil deeds. He said it was Christians who help abolished slavery, achieve women�s suffrage, lead the civil-rights movement, and drafted the Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, more people have been killed through atheists than all the religious wars put together. Warren pointed, as examples, to the Inquisition and to those that died under atheist leaders such as Mao Zedong, Stalin and Pol Pot. He also highlighted the current suffering in the atheist country of North Korea.

Another excerpt:

�We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble,� he added.

Edit: Warren didn't mention the fact that until the Catholic Church went into action organized charity was almost non-existent....

Not sure what your question is Trent...

ty Slugger!!

I'm not sure what the death tolls related to religious-based killing and non-religious-based killings have to do with the existence of a god.

Hitler used a warped version of Christianity as part of his justification for the murder of six million Jews. Again, I think it's irrelevant to the argument about the existence of a god, but Warren shouldn't be bragging too much about the low death toll of the theistic crowd.

<span>�We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble,� he added.

</span>Pascal's wager is still passing as a valid argument in this day and age?! Oh my friggin head!!

"How should you bet? Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God's existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one's bets; and so on." -infidels.org

Ack, you beat me.

What in the name of science are you talking about?! Soul at risk? What if the muslims are right? Jews? Hindus? Buddhists? And you christians are confusing THEM and putting their "souls" at risk? These are horrible arguments.

Gibberish? Dude, you actually thought pascal's wager was a good argument...and why do I care? Here:

<object height="350" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w4fQA9mt-Mg"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w4fQA9mt-Mg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

LOL at "succint point I just made". Not disagreeing with whether it was succinct or not, it's just funny that you are declaring your own argument to be succint...

Anyway, it's bizarre to me that you are complaining about atheists pushing so hard, especially when you started the thread. Atheists, in the truest sense of the word, have absolutely no interest in convincing anyone of anything. Atheists aren't the ones making an assertion, theists are. The theist says, "there is a God." Atheists merely say, "I am unconvinced by your evidence." No atheist can prove that there is no god, nor does any reasonable atheist have any desire to.

A true atheist does not assert the non-existence of god. A true atheist merely remains unconvinced of the existence of god. And no, that's not what agnosticism means. Agnosticism means you believe that it is impossible to know one way or the other. You can be a theist and an agnostic, and you can be an atheist and an agnostic. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive.

By the way, there is no need to capitalize the 'a' in atheist. It's not a formal designation.

I don't know where the underlined bolded text came from, so I'm going to ignore it. (Oh wait, I thought you were replying to me, but I didn't post the video.)

Sure the OT atheists come out in droves to argue about religion. What's your point? They aren't arguing that there is no god, they are arguing that the evidence for the existence of god is insufficient. There's a huge difference. Christianity also says that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of god, hence the need for faith.

Also, the fact that atheists also conduct wars is proof of absolutely nothing. Of course atheists engage in wars. They do this because they are human beings, which is exactly the same reason that theists engage in wars. The point is not that theists are inferior to atheists; the point is that the belief in god does not prevent wars from happening.

The Apostle Paul wrote that the world would know Christians by their love. That the love of Christ expressed through his followers would be evidence for his existence. If Christians want to prove the existence of their god to a skeptical world, they had better come up with a better argument than "well atheists have wars too."

the bill of rights was written by deists. other christians tried desperately to keep slavery in place as well as to supress women's rights. your premises are completely unfounded and one sided.

you could add up all the lives taken by mao, stalin, and pol pot, and it wont meet the amount of deaths caused by the abrahamic faiths since their beginning.

the bible doesnt say that you should believe in god because it's +ev. it actually says that this particular mindset is a sin.

gg OP

Go Rick Warren Go!

"Another excerpt:

�We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble,� he added."

^

This is what you posted.

You are correct, it is a personal choice so why your original post?

�We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble,� he added."-I posted this quote because it is especially interesting from a poker player's perspective....And people really when they give their negative opinions on spiritual matters never consider this has far reaching implications...

It's like someone steering you to a wrong career without even considering the individual preferences of the person involved...I know of several people who got steered by family and friends to totally inappropriate careers...why? Because of perceived status or for the money or perceived stability of the career...You see it all the time on this site with kids who want to go pro but have family pressures otherwise...

Everyone hears a different drummer Mr. Smith...A lot of players have narcissistic or obsessive compulsive tendencies that will prevent them from acknowledging God...there's a lot of them in the poker world...

If its so boring WillyWoo why are you spending so much time on this post?