Why it's not a "safe bet" to believe in God

[Sosa]

http://www.alternet.org/belief/149920/why_it%27s_not_a_%27safe_bet%27_to_believe_in_god/


The idea that you should believe in God "just in case" trivializes both faith and reality, and concedes your argument before it's begun.

[Political_Chucky]

Prolly should be in religion, but another good argument.

[Sosa]

oops, meant to post this in religion....if a mod can move this for me I would appreciate it

[Widerstand]

That'll show them Phelps.:sneaky:

[¿Que?]

Considering how many religions there are on earth, the chances of being wrong are great indeed. Safe bet is atheism.

[hatzel]

Considering how many religions there are on earth, the chances of being wrong are great indeed. Safe bet is atheism.

Unless, of course, you haven't fallen out of Christian preconceptions, in which case there is no guarantee that you even have any such concept as a 'right' and 'wrong' religion :)

[Che a chara]

I don't think you don't need to follow or belong to a certain religion to believe in God. I believe in God/a creator and don't put myself into a category.... Christianity probably as this is what I was brought up on, but i'm not what you would call a practicing christian and to tell the truth I don't have a lot of knowledge on Christianity/religion or know a lot about the foundation and the intricacies of Christianity and even the Catholic faith I was born into.

I'm not even sure i have an opinion on a heaven or hell ..... just that we were 'put here'... beyond that, i'm not even worried on.

[Black Sheep]

Pascal's wager is moronic to begin with.

You can't "choose" to believe anything based on self-interest, you can only be a hypocrit about it.It's basically 1984's double-think.

[blake 3:17]

Pascal's wager is moronic to begin with.


And Anselm was a big dope too. Get off it.

[Black Sheep]

And Anselm was a big dope too. Get off it.
Who?
Was a what?

[Thug Lessons]

Who?
Was a what?

He's talking about the guy that came up with the ontological argument for God's existence, and presumably saying that it's extremely played-out to refute him or any theist argument.

[¿Que?]

Unless, of course, you haven't fallen out of Christian preconceptions, in which case there is no guarantee that you even have any such concept as a 'right' and 'wrong' religion :)
What do you mean? Christians are aware of other religions, of course they think theirs is correct.

[ComradeMan]

Wasn't this argument slightly demolished in a sense by Marcus Aurelius? To simplify it-

Premise: we cannot neither prove nor disprove the existence of "God"-

Therefore:-

a) if "God" exists and we:

i) believe then we are okay
ii) don't believe we have problems perhaps but, adding a Judaeo-Christian slant to it, an omniscient and forgiving God would surely understand the reason why and this would be part of the divine plan.

b) if "God" does not exist and we
i) believe then well, no harm is done really- much like the tooth mouse or Santa Claus!
ii) disbelieve then there was nothing in the first place anyway!
:thumbup:

Of course we could get into the argument of what it means to "believe" in "God" in the first place. There is, perhaps, an argument that a righteous atheist is actually a believer because through his or her actions which are righteous and "good" he or she actually confirms "God" whereas the unrighteous "believer" actually negates the truth of the "divine word" through his or her "bad" actions.
:confused:

[Revolution starts with U]

Isn't that kinda like speaking for other people tho?

[ComradeMan]

Isn't that kinda like speaking for other people tho?

Isn't that what Marx also did for the proletariat? ;)

[hatzel]

What do you mean? Christians are aware of other religions, of course they think theirs is correct.

Christians do, yes...that's the point...I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Hindus (and others) who go in for all that "all thoughts come from some divine source, and therefore all religions, as divine creations placed into the heads of mankind, must be correct, and merely represent fragments of the greater truth" :) Hence, the concept of their being a single 'right' religion, though widespread in Christianity, particularly supported by all that Protestant sola fide stuff (I know it's about something slightly different, but to me the suggesting that one can achieve salvation merely by acknowledge Jesus as the saviour of mankind, irrespective of ones actions, can easily be flipped, to support the idea that you can't even achieve salvation, irrespective of your actions, if you don't accept Jesus as the saviour of mankind), is hardly a universal element of religious faith. It just seems like it if you've been raised in a Christian society, and therefore have only one point of reference when it comes to addressing religion, that being Christianity. I'm sure that people raised in a society with a different preeminent religion would have a very different understanding of what religion entails, not least when it comes to idea of 'right' and 'wrong' religion :)

[¿Que?]

Christians do, yes...that's the point...I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Hindus (and others) who go in for all that "all thoughts come from some divine source, and therefore all religions, as divine creations placed into the heads of mankind, must be correct, and merely represent fragments of the greater truth" :)
This is a good point. I mean, maybe if all religions had that as a common element, then you'd have a pretty strong case. But they're not. The concrete reality is that even if that were a valid reason, I would still have to choose between that reason, the religion that says it's correct, and atheism. So that's two for god and one for atheism, the problem is, the better argument is less splintered. One argument for atheism is less splintered than two arguments for god (one a pantheistic type of thing, and the other which negates all other forms of religion).

[ComradeMan]

Christians do, yes...that's the point...I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Hindus (and others) who go in for all that "all thoughts come from some divine source, and therefore all religions, as divine creations placed into the heads of mankind, must be correct, and merely represent fragments of the greater truth" :) Hence, the concept of their being a single 'right' religion, though widespread in Christianity, particularly supported by all that Protestant sola fide stuff (I know it's about something slightly different, but to me the suggesting that one can achieve salvation merely by acknowledge Jesus as the saviour of mankind, irrespective of ones actions, can easily be flipped, to support the idea that you can't even achieve salvation, irrespective of your actions, if you don't accept Jesus as the saviour of mankind), is hardly a universal element of religious faith. It just seems like it if you've been raised in a Christian society, and therefore have only one point of reference when it comes to addressing religion, that being Christianity. I'm sure that people raised in a society with a different preeminent religion would have a very different understanding of what religion entails, not least when it comes to idea of 'right' and 'wrong' religion :)


Krims, I think the point about Jesus, that has largely been missed, is that "accepting" means "doing as" not just paying lip service- if you catch me. Otherwis see Thomas à Kempis.

[hatzel]

Tell that to Mr Luther...I never did much like him :rolleyes:

[ComradeMan]

Tell that to Mr Luther...I never did much like him :rolleyes:

Hence the point about "doing as".... ;)