In which Religion where you Brought Up?And What are you Right Now?

zenje

Another choice The weak atheist position - One who finds the evidence for the existence of god not convincing, but does not assert there is no god.
I thought that was agnostic? ???

andy

Peace splatter,

Peace Andy,

There is other choices - no belief in god, which is the absence of a belief in god. This means you neither assert that you believe in god or you do not believe in god.

Honestly I don't really understand what you are talking about. IMHO, that is not a choice. That is what happens when one is irrational.

Another choice The weak atheist position - One who finds the evidence for the existence of god not convincing, but does not assert there is no god.

Weak atheist? well bro, I am not interested in playing word game. That is for me atheist.

Another choice One who find the concept of god meaningless, hence any talk about god is meaningless.

Well, my question remains the same Do you have good reasons for disbelieving in God? If you do, then please explain here.

If God didn't exist, nothing would happen to believers and disbelievers. And if God exists, disbelievers will have "big trouble" while believers will have "big rewards".

Do you have good reasons to choose "risky" path with possible regretful consequences while you can choose "safe" path with possible immense rewards?

This is what traditionally called a Pascal's wager for believing in God.

You can see the problems with such a wager here
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_wager

Could you explain to me with your own words? As far as I am concerned, I don't see any problem with what you call pascals wager. It clearly shows that disbelieving in God is irrational.

Well, just tell me if you have good reasons for disbelieving in God.

splatter

Peace Andy,

Honestly I don't really understand what you are talking about. IMHO, that is not a choice. That is what happens when one is irrational.

I don't know what is your conception of irrational. To me, one is irrational when one has a belief that is not justified.

Suppose consider a person who finds that both evidence for and against the existence of god are unconvincing. Since he finds either evidence unconvincing, he neither believe nor disbelieve in god. This is what I meant having an absence of belief in god.

Weak atheist? well bro, I am not interested in playing word game. That is for me atheist

This not a word game. Are you saying that being a weak atheist is irrational? A weak atheist is one who finds the evidence for god is unconvincing, but has no good reasons there is no god.

Compare this with the strong atheist position who finds the evidence for god is unconvincing, and also have good reasons that there is no god.

Well, my question remains the same Do you have good reasons for disbelieving in God? If you do, then please explain here.

To explain so, requires you to define what god is. And the onus is on you to prove it's existence. If you can't prove his existence, then to me you're having an irrational belief, pascal wager or not.

splatter

Zenje I thought that was agnostic?

There are several degress of agnoticism. I think the weak atheist position falls under agnosticism too.

andy

Peace splatter,

Peace Andy,

I don't know what is your conception of irrational. To me, one is irrational when one has a belief that is not justified.

We have two choices

Believe in God
Disbelieve in God

If God didn't exist, nothing would happen to believers and disbelievers. And if God exists, disbelievers will have "big trouble" while believers will have "big rewards".

Do you have good reasons to choose "risky" path with possible regretful consequences while you can choose "safe" path with possible immense rewards?

Prove that disbelieve in God is rational!

Suppose consider a person who finds that both evidence for and against the existence of god are unconvincing. Since he finds either evidence unconvincing, he neither believe nor disbelieve in god. This is what I meant having an absence of belief in god.

That is why he is irrational. He chooses to disbelieve in God.

This not a word game. Are you saying that being a weak atheist is irrational? A weak atheist is one who finds the evidence for god is unconvincing, but has no good reasons there is no god.

Why don't you just give good reasons for disbelieving in God?

Compare this with the strong atheist position who finds the evidence for god is unconvincing, and also have good reasons that there is no god.

Why don't you just give good reasons for disbelieving in God?

To explain so, requires you to define what god is. And the onus is on you to prove it's existence. If you can't prove his existence, then to me you're having an irrational belief, pascal wager or not.

I don't have to prove anything to you. The only thing I need to tell you is

if you disbelieve in God, you will go to hell forever
if you believe in God, you will go to paradise

Show me your good reasons to disbelieve in God!

This is how the game works! Got it?

phoenix1

peace Andy,
you are failing to understand that if we believe in God (whatever the hell "God" is) just because it's the "safe" thing to do, doesn't mean we actually really believe in God. It's not a true belief.
BTW, I like the athiest's wager much better (not an athiest myself though)

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager
I believe doing good things is serving God. So even if athiests deny the existence of a large super human being sitting in the clouds, they still serve God.
God is just a word. You can call the same force, energy, being, etc whatever you want. It's not words or even actions that count, it's what people truly believe that does.

Elena

Peace Andy

let's take this paragraph of yours

without punishment and reward, everything just doesn't make sense. Just imagine a constitution in a country says "Theft is forbidden" but there is no law enforcement. Does that make sense?

the underlined part reminds me the way I am training my dog she is learning how to obey out of reward or absence of reward, what could be the equivalent of punishment. If she obeys the order, she gets a reward, if she doesn't obey, no reward.

But humans go beyond that. Don't you know anybody that acts out of goodness, that don't steal as in your example of theft, not because there is a law and punishment but because of righteousness? or nobody that believe in the existence of God with conviction and this push him to act righteously?

Besides, to enter in your two options proposal, one would have to uphold the same concepts you have, a similar concept of God as yours, an idea of heaven and hell as yours, etc.

Believing because it is convenient in case there was a hypothetical future reward looks to me hypocrital, selfish and coward, really, it looks to me even silly. Forgive if you find some part of the post disrespectful.

andy

Peace phoenix1,

peace Andy,
you are failing to understand that if we believe in God (whatever the hell "God" is) just because it's the "safe" thing to do, doesn't mean we actually really believe in God. It's not a true belief.

First of all, I am not based my belief on wager. I already said that, right? That is only to prove that disbelieving in God is irrational. How can you fail to grasp that?

BTW, I like the athiest's wager much better (not an athiest myself though)

It is better to live your life as if there are no gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager
I believe doing good things is serving God. So even if athiests deny the existence of a large super human being sitting in the clouds, they still serve God.

That is not how the game works bro.

1418 The example of those who reject their Lord is that their works are like ashes, on which the wind blows strongly on a stormy day, they cannot get anything of what they earned. Such is the farthest misguidance.

The thing is He has shown His signs and rejecting His signs has consequences.

andy

Peace Elena,

Peace Andy

let's take this paragraph of yours

without punishment and reward, everything just doesn't make sense. Just imagine a constitution in a country says "Theft is forbidden" but there is no law enforcement. Does that make sense?

the underlined part reminds me the way I am training my dog she is learning how to obey out of reward or absence of reward, what could be the equivalent of punishment. If she obeys the order, she gets a reward, if she doesn't obey, no reward.

But humans go beyond that. Don't you know anybody that acts out of goodness, that don't steal as in your example of theft, not because there is a law and punishment but because of righteousness? or nobody that believe in the existence of God with conviction and this push him to act righteously?

I know that. But you fail to understand that without punishments and rewards, everything just doesn't make sense. I have given you a simple example in my previous post. Using my example, you are proposing that the country should not enforce the law. Just mention in the constitution that "theft is forbidden". Does that make sense? Hellooooooooooooo ...Yes or no?

And if that doesn't make sense in the similitude in this world, then how can it make sense that God neither punishes nor rewards? How can you fail to grasp that very simple concept?

Besides, to enter in your two options proposal, one would have to uphold the same concepts you have, a similar concept of God as yours, an idea of heaven and hell as yours, etc.

Believing because it is convenient in case there was a hypothetical future reward looks to me hypocrital, selfish and coward, really, it looks to me even silly. Forgive if you find some part of the post disrespectful.

Please see my reply to phoenix1. That is to prove that disbelieving in God is irrational.

I have explained to you that sincere doesn't mean hoping NOTHING. You didn't address this and only emotionally post your feelings without arguments. See this
http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=6563.msg101293#msg101293

Just want to bring up one of many things not addressed in your post.

316 The ones who Say "Our Lord, we believe, so forgive us our sins, and spare us the retribution of the Fire."

Are you saying those who pray to be saved from the fire are hypocrites?

I want to add another one.

6611 And Allah gives an example for those who have chosen to be graced with belief The wife of Pharaoh when she said, "My Lord! Build for me a mansion in the Paradise, and save me from Pharaoh and his doings, and save me from the oppressors."

According to Elena, those who pray like that are "hypocrital, selfish and coward, really, it looks to me even silly".

splatter

We have two choices

Believe in God
Disbelieve in God

If God didn't exist, nothing would happen to believers and disbelievers. And if God exists, disbelievers will have "big trouble" while believers will have "big rewards".

Do you have good reasons to choose "risky" path with possible regretful consequences while you can choose "safe" path with possible immense rewards?

I have listed other choices, but you choose not to accept it without any reason. To you a belief in god, is an either-or proposition. This is fallacy of the excluded middle.

Your pascal wager is based on the unproven assumption that god rewards belief and a judeo-christian-islamic god. Why do one have to accept these assumptions? The pascal wager can be used from any gods, from allah to zeus. How can you be sure that you choose the pascal wager for the correct god/gods?

If a pascal wager is a good reason to believe in god then in the same vein, the atheist wager as presented by phoenix1 will also constitute a good reason not to believe in god.

That is why he is irrational. He chooses to disbelieve in God.

Neither believe nor disbelieve in god is not the same as disbelieve in god.

Why don't you just give good reasons for disbelieving in God?

I have never said I disbelieve in god. Why do I have to give reasons for it when I did not make a claim. Neither do I claim that I believe in god.

I don't have to prove anything to you. The only thing I need to tell you is

if you disbelieve in God, you will go to hell forever
if you believe in God, you will go to paradise

Show me your good reasons to disbelieve in God!

This is how the game works! Got it?

The pascal wager again and I have already address this in the first part of the post.

phoenix1

peace Andy,
I believe not believing in God is irrational, but not for the same reason as you.

andy

I have listed other choices, but you choose not to accept it without any reason. To you a belief in god, is an either-or proposition. This is fallacy of the excluded middle.

4216 And those who debate about God, after they had been answered, their argument is nullified at their Lord. They have incurred a wrath, and will have a severe retribution.

Your pascal wager is based on the unproven assumption that god rewards belief and a judeo-christian-islamic god. Why do one have to accept these assumptions? The pascal wager can be used from any gods, from allah to zeus. How can you be sure that you choose the pascal wager for the correct god/gods?

Continue waiting; for I will wait along with you

If a pascal wager is a good reason to believe in god then in the same vein, the atheist wager as presented by phoenix1 will also constitute a good reason not to believe in god.

1418 The example of those who reject their Lord is that their works are like ashes, on which the wind blows strongly on a stormy day, they cannot get anything of what they earned. Such is the farthest misguidance.

Neither believe nor disbelieve in god is not the same as disbelieve in god.

2255 And those who have rejected will remain to be in doubt from it until the Hour comes to them suddenly, or the retribution will come to them on a Day which will stand still.
2256 The sovereignty on that Day is to God, He will judge between them. So as for those who have believed and did good works, they are in the gardens of Paradise.
2257 And those who rejected and disbelieved Our revelations, those will have a humiliating retribution.

Why don't you just give good reasons for disbelieving in God?

I have never said I disbelieve in god. Why do I have to give reasons for it when I did not make a claim. Neither do I claim that I believe in god.

2255 And those who have rejected will remain to be in doubt from it until the Hour comes to them suddenly, or the retribution will come to them on a Day which will stand still.
2256 The sovereignty on that Day is to God, He will judge between them. So as for those who have believed and did good works, they are in the gardens of Paradise.
2257 And those who rejected and disbelieved Our revelations, those will have a humiliating retribution.

I don't have to prove anything to you. The only thing I need to tell you is

if you disbelieve in God, you will go to hell forever
if you believe in God, you will go to paradise

Show me your good reasons to disbelieve in God!

This is how the game works! Got it?

The pascal wager again and I have already address this in the first part of the post.

Continue waiting; for I will wait along with you

andy

Peace phoenix1,

peace Andy,
I believe not believing in God is irrational, but not for the same reason as you.

Could you share your illustration why disbelieving in God is irrational?

I believe there are many ways to illustrate and I would be really glad if you could share how you illustrate it. Thanks.

splatter