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

Hello Andy,

So you quote verses. Is it relevant to the issue at hand? Isn't the issue is about the belief in god based on the pascal wager? You did not answer the criticisms on the pascal wager and evade them by quoting verses.

Best wishes and happy waiting.

We have two choices

1. Believe in God
2. 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.

Zenje I thought that was agnostic?

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

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.

It is better if you post your journey to "free-thinking humanist atheist" on the site. There might be others who want to know as well. Just post the link here in this thread to inform me.

If I may suggest, you should reconsider your rejection of God.

We have two choices

1. Believe in God
2. Disbelieve in God

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.

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.

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

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

Andy last but not least, it is even much more illogical to disbelieve in God.

Peace,

Why is it more illogical to disbelieve in god? I am curious of your reason for saying this.

Sunni > La Veyan satanism > atheism > agnostic theism (god alone)

http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

You scored as agnosticism.

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe.

agnosticism

88%

Islam

71%

atheism

67%

Satanism

58%

Buddhism

50%

Paganism

46%

Christianity

13%

Judaism

4%

Hinduism

0%

Fairly accurate depiction of me.

My take on this is being Gay is wrong in every way of this world. First leave God out of it. As said above being gay is wrrong because it goes against nature its self. And if you believe it is natural, then look at it this way. If all gays were put on an island by themselves would they survive, the answer is no. The reason they would not survive is because it is wrong and goes against humanity and Gods will. This is a sin, but like all others can be frogiven and overcome. Like all sins this is satin talking you into going against the will of God and Allah.

Sincerely, Larry/Abuja

Peace,

Ok, let's say as you suggest we leave God out of it. You claim that if all gays were put in an island by themselves they would not survive. The reason you give is it is wrong because it is against humanity and God wills.

How does being gay goes against humanity? Also, you said to leave god out of it, but now you justify that one of the reason being gay is wrong is because its against god's will.

IN SUPPORT OF AHMED BAGHAT I VIL RESIGN AND APPEAL ALL FELLOW MEMBERS TO DO THE SAME. IF AB IS NOT UNBANNED WITHIN 48 HOURS, I WILL DELETE MY ACCOUNT.

Hello Marlboro, are you condoning AB's actions? The very actions that caused him to be banned for 7 days? Sorry Marlboro, I do not condone rudeness and disrespect, and I will not heed your call for others to resign.

If you want to delete your account, it's up to you. Nobody can stop you.

cheers

Peace,

Ahmed, dont worry Im not offended by your opinion. I admit that I sometimes can be ignorant of the Quran since Im not finished examining it yet. So Im not offended by your opinion. And yes, I think youre full of yourself and also extremly rude. You really need to work on your way of communicating with people. And as a direct and honest person I will tell you that you bring a very negative vibe to this forum ( I dont know how others think about this, but thats just my opinion). And no, Im not only talking about your postings on this topic directed to me but about all your other postings in general. Youre really rude and need to work on your skills of how to communicate with people. Saying peace and then in an unfriendly manner continue your reply is not a polite and respectful way of communication. This is not the purpose of saying peace at the beginning. You begin with peace as this is your goal in your whole post and conduct. Youve got a very aggressive and sarcastic approach that you tend to disguise. Please be conscious of the way youre communicating and work on improving it. The way you will respond to this will show your maturity.

To stay ontopic, I may have reacted on this subject without fully understanding what shirk is really about. So I did some research and found out that my theory about shirk wasnt really correct. My understanding of shirk was that God took offence of people making partners with Him. I was wrong. God never claimed to have any emotions and ofcourse He prohibited idolworshipping for our own good, like all the other rules He made for our own good. Believing in another system besides Gods perfect system means living a lie. People who ignore Gods system are far from the Truth. Thats why idolworshipping is a harmful deed. Its like living in an illusion.

It says "God forgiveth not 'SHIRK', but forgiveth anything else according to His
Will" - (448-116).

The above verse is because I thought God could forgive the Pharaoh because he believed in the existence of Him right after he died. But I realise that God says it didnt matter now, because he had lived a lie his whole life. He found out about the truth right when he died. Living according to the Truth, and by thus believing in Allah as one and only Rabb, determines your choices in life. All of your choices in life are formed through your knowledge and beliefs. If the beliefs are wrong, you will make also the wrong decisions, and so will not fully develop and prepare your Self/nafs for the Next Life. So believing in the Truth in the last minute of your life has no purpose, as you cant make any decisions anymore to form his Self/nafs in the right way. It is discovering the spoon while you already ate the soup. To late to change his life and therefore his Self/nafs to be prepared for Paradise in the Afterlife.

peace

Heart

Peace Heart,

I agree and support your opinion. His agressive, sarcastic, "holier than you" and "I am right, so you must be wrong" attitude repulses me. I've learnt to ignore his postings. His trademark is spewing quranic verses in big blue letters, and anyone who disagree with his views will be given a dose of rude or sarcastic or "I am more intelligent" or "you are an enemy of islam" remarks. It's not about obeying god anymore; it's about obeying AB.

Peace Xawl,

Like you, I'm from S'pore and branded a murtad. Nice to see you here.

;D

I'm new to this God Alone thingy and have spend weeks reading this forum. I don't see any tyrannical minds but opposing views. And I think it's healthy to have such views. Also, I'm interested to read such views but maybe that's just me.

Peace Splatter

I'm interested to know what you would expect a Just God to do with those who have raped, killed and plundered while oppressing and humiliating others all in the name of carnal desires...

In my opinion as to what is the nature of heaven and hell, we only seem to know that they are unlike anything we as humans have ever experienced... therefore, any theories could be good possibilities as to what the nature might be, but could only be that -until the Appointed Time.

Peace All

peace soul2squeeze,

They should be punished but torture is not one of them.

As for the nature of heaven and hell, I have to agree with you. I only have a problem with torture for mere disbelief in the concept of physical hell. It's either I reject this concept of hell or accept it and be patient to its seemingly unfairness. I'm more inclined to align with the former.

Peace,

Fair enough, Joe

Peace

I find it hard to accept the doctrine of being tortured eternally and at the same the same time upholding justice and compassion.

You're not explaining how it is unjust. Why would the reverse, union with God, be just?

Should the one who sought such union and the one in opposition have the very same outcomes for all their labour?

Joe

Peace,

Joe, I agree that one who sought a union should not have the very same outcome for their labour. But I do not agree that one who do not sought such union should be tortured. I will never torture anyone. And I expect a compassionate God not too either.

Thanks arnoldyasin, I look forward to the article.

Peace Joe and arnoldyasin,

I have no qualms if god commands mankind to truth, honesty, equality, justice. One of the main reasons I return to Islam is when I realise, after reading free-minds and other liberal and progressive muslim literature, that God wants us to uphold these values.

As to the reasons why I consider heaven/hell to be allegorical or symbolic - I find it hard to accept the doctrine of being tortured eternally and at the same the same time upholding justice and compassion.

And as to what these allegories mean, I have to thank arnoldyasin in his post for planting the seeds of understanding.

Peace

When mankind is promised to eat of the fruit they produce how is that childishness?

You call these conditions allegories, explain what you mean.

Joe

Peace,

I think you miss the point. I question the act of God putting disbelievers in eternal hell. I find it repulsive. Just like when I find it repulsive when a dictator puts his subjects in prison and torture them for not accepting his authority.

I am new and still learning, so for what I meant by heaven and hell as allegories I can only forward you to other forums members who has written on it. For example,

http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=3784.msg48468#msg48468

I think immunodistruction in people with AIDS is more complicated than referring it to a virus. This is a serious problem because lot of money and time of scientists are wasted without solving it......and people are dying now as I am writing this. Please elaborate your views. Peace!

I'm skeptical that HIV causes AIDS.

Currently there are two main oppositions to this

1. HIV does not exist
2. HIV is a harmless, passenger virus.

Here's an informational video that summarises the opposition camps - The Other Side of Aids
http//video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6100849606222443259&q=other+side+of+aids&pr=goog-sl

More Info - VirusMyth http//www.virusmyth.net/aids/

now please tell me, are you questioning God or not by the above?

If you were to ask me, I question God because I do no take any knowledge blindly. If a book say so-and-so, I will not accept it just because it says so-and-so.

This does not mean I reject God. I merely question because I want to understand.