Ah the great problem of neither provable nor disprovable. Why add unnecessary complications to our lives? One can be happy without religion.
And don't bring up some crap about how I will be saved from the fiery abyss of hell. One only believes this because they are religious, and if this is the case then they are in the right.
On the other hand, if one does not believe this then they are still in the right.
We are always right ourselves, and others are always wrong, whatever our beliefs.
I agree with you aperson. One can be happy without religion, without belief in any god or any kind of afterlife, but i would like to make one comparison here : one could have lived a very happy life believing that the world was flat. What difference would have made to some people knowing that the world was geospherical ? I'll answer it myself : none really. But finding out that the world was not actually flat, and exploring the unknown, trying to find the answers has led to such progress for humanity. Where i'm going with this is that knowing wheather or not there is a god and what it expects from us is of crucial importance. If there is a god and an afterlife, and god expects us to do certain things, then i wouldn't wanna be the one pissing him of. You know what i mean ?
Eretiq wrote:... Where i'm going with this is that knowing wheather or not there is a god and what it expects from us is of crucial importance. If there is a god and an afterlife, and god expects us to do certain things, then i wouldn't wanna be the one pissing him of. You know what i mean ?
That pretty much amounts to Pascal's Wager (though in fact Pascal proposed 3 distinct wagers, this particular postulate ((essentially that the potential gain for believing in god - specifically the Christian God - sufficiently outweighed any potential loss as to render disbelief untenable)) has become singularly identified in the public mind). Less known outside logic disciplines is that Pascal's Wager proceeds from an illicit premise via at least 3 classic formal logical fallacies; false dichotomy, undistributed middle, and begging the question. While it presents to the unsophisticated a plausible argument, and has great currency among religious apologists, especially those of the Christian bent, when examined critically Pascal's Wager is revealed to constitute an absurdity.
If you think you have all the answers, and that you would rather take the chance that you will not be held accountable for your actions. It is a big risk to be taking.
Eretiq wrote:Also Raul, what do you say to the "miracles" performed by our current day magicians (see one of my previous posts, and i can't imagine you haven't seen some for yourself). Thank "Allah/God" (notice the irony) they're not claiming that God spoke to them in their dreams and told them that we should all jump head first into the first dry fountain. Now let us all analyze what we would have :
1. Person performing miracles (things that 99,9% of the population can't explain/understand)
2. Person claiming that God is telling us through them what we should actually be doing.
1 + 2 = Profet.
Add to that the claim that he is the son of God, and then who could beat that. I mean who could prove they are not and since they can perform miracles and God "speaks to them", why should we not blindly believe too ?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The Hour will not be established till there is a war between two groups among whom there will be a great number of casualties, though the claims (or religion) of both of them will be one and the same.
And the Hour will not be established till there appear about thirty liars, all of whom will be claiming to be the messengers of Allah. "
Raul-7 wrote:Eretiq wrote:Also Raul, what do you say to the "miracles" performed by our current day magicians (see one of my previous posts, and i can't imagine you haven't seen some for yourself). Thank "Allah/God" (notice the irony) they're not claiming that God spoke to them in their dreams and told them that we should all jump head first into the first dry fountain. Now let us all analyze what we would have :
1. Person performing miracles (things that 99,9% of the population can't explain/understand)
2. Person claiming that God is telling us through them what we should actually be doing.
1 + 2 = Profet.
Add to that the claim that he is the son of God, and then who could beat that. I mean who could prove they are not and since they can perform miracles and God "speaks to them", why should we not blindly believe too ?
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "The Hour will not be established till there is a war between two groups among whom there will be a great number of casualties, though the claims (or religion) of both of them will be one and the same.
And the Hour will not be established till there appear about thirty liars, all of whom will be claiming to be the messengers of Allah. "
Also if you believe in God, he gives power to whom he wills to test man.
Also these event can be explained by the presence of Jinn.
And Allah knows best
Why might it be that, when confronted by arguments against faith, religionists most typically respond not with arguments for faith but rather default to declarations of faith?
timberlandko wrote:Why might it be that, when confronted by arguments against faith, religionists most typically respond not with arguments for faith but rather default to declarations of faith?
If what we know of a religion is true. It is logical to presume the rest of it will also be true.
I.e. if you read a book and 80% is true, then the rest by comparison must be equally true.
While safely may be assumed such was not your intent, Abid, your response serves well to validate my observation. I believe it equally safe to assume you have no idea why such might be so; absurdity appears to be the entire inventory of your rhetorical toolkit.
The absurdity of Pascal's argument can be seen in the following: Approach an individual who has placed his bet on the Christian doctrine for the prospect of an eternal heaven and tell him that you have received a Revelation from a new God that offers Her believers joys that make the Christian Heaven look like a torture chamber. The logic of your enticement is grossly absurd, but it is the same as Pascal's. If the individfual accepts Pascal's reasoning, he has equal reason to accept yours.
I was thinking the same thing. If you only believe in a god because you're afraid of what might happen because you don't believe in that god, won't that god know that and see through your motivation and doubt that true belief?
But on the other hand, if the thought of what might happen if you dare not to believe scares you enough into believing in that god- isn't that a sign that you might really believe?
(I don't know, I'm asking - I don't believe because I'm scared of anything- I believe because I just do).
Eretiq wrote:I agree with you aperson. One can be happy without religion, without belief in any god or any kind of afterlife, but i would like to make one comparison here : one could have lived a very happy life believing that the world was flat. What difference would have made to some people knowing that the world was geospherical ? I'll answer it myself : none really. But finding out that the world was not actually flat, and exploring the unknown, trying to find the answers has led to such progress for humanity. Where i'm going with this is that knowing wheather or not there is a god and what it expects from us is of crucial importance. If there is a god and an afterlife, and god expects us to do certain things, then i wouldn't wanna be the one pissing him of. You know what i mean ?
The difference is that there is a lot more evidence to support a non flat Earth. Sure, one can choose to believe it or not, but there is great stacks of evidence. Religion doesn't have nearly as much evidence.
Also, believing in a flat Earth would have a lot more immediate effects than believing in, Islam, say. I can guess right now that anyone who believes in a flat Earth would be at least a bit of a social outcast (there are about 800 online members, a lot of which are opposing the idea). Sure, they can get together and feel part of group but then they would only get more of the social-outcastedness from other flat Earth believers.
aperson, i can't believe you missed my point. You said that one can live a very happy life without needing any religion/god and yes, that's true, but one can live a very happy life in the jungle and eating bananas for that matter, just like they could back then when thinking the Earth was flat. The idea is that living a happy life is meaningless IF THERE IS ineed a god and an afterlife, and you're not doing what you're supposed to be doing. Do you have enough EVIDENCE to prove there is no god ? Also, i'm not betting on any of the two options and i'm not seeing where i ever said anything about gambling. This is no gambling matter. I do not suppoer Pascal's argument and i don't see where i said i do. I will not believe in god just because it would be the safest bet. I'm just saying that it's crucial for us to KNOW the truth.
Raul, until you will be able to provide any logical argument, even quotes from your holly book that actually address what i'm asking, i will ignore everything you say. Also, i really can't believe you didn't get my point even if i made it so simple. Let me clarify again. What is your beloved profet:
1. Person performing miracles (Things that 99.9% of the population can't explain)
2. Person claiming that God speaks to them and tells them through him what it is that we are expected of.
Seeing any pattern there Raul ?
If not, let me make it even clearer for you : if one of the current day magicians would start claiming god speaks to them and saying that the final word of god is being given to him, what would make them different from your precious profet. Let me tell you : NOTHING. Also, i would like to say that current day magicians are able to pull of "miracles" a lot more impressive then your profet did.
"If what we know of a religion is true. It is logical to presume the rest of it will also be true."
Abid, what exactly is it that you KNOW of your religion as being true, appart from the fact that there is a book that claims to contain the final word of god.
Hey !rockpile... if a few thousand years ago a "magician" turned into a "prophet" and started up the Christian religion, just imagine what you could do if you took "magician" lesson and started up your Church?.
Wish I wasn't so old, can imagine myself being a bloody good prophet. ("now" one thinks to one's self...wonder if there is a popular God's out there, in need of a crafty old sod happy to be a short term prophet and ready to cut a few corners, to benefit his "believers" ).
Abid wrote:timberlandko wrote:While safely may be assumed such was not your intent, Abid, your response serves well to validate my observation. I believe it equally safe to assume you have no idea why such might be so; absurdity appears to be the entire inventory of your rhetorical toolkit.
You crack me up!!!!
DITTO!!!!
I honestly believe you're trying hard as you can; apparently, you've entered this particular battle of wits unarmed.
Listen carefully, Abid - they're not laughing
with you ....
timberlandko wrote:Abid wrote:timberlandko wrote:While safely may be assumed such was not your intent, Abid, your response serves well to validate my observation. I believe it equally safe to assume you have no idea why such might be so; absurdity appears to be the entire inventory of your rhetorical toolkit.
You crack me up!!!!
DITTO!!!!
I honestly believe you're trying hard as you can; apparently, you've entered this particular battle of wits unarmed.
Listen carefully, Abid - they're not laughing
with you ....
Like that really matters. Mock all you want, but who will see who will be laughing on a Day when the disbeliever will say "If only I were dust!"
Don't worry Abid, ignore them.
But Allah is mocking them and drawing them on as they wander blindly in their excessive insolence. (Surat al-Baqara, 15)
One wishing one's proposition to be met with respect rather than ridicule should strive to avoid presenting that proposition in ridiculous manner. There well may be something to be said for your proposition, Raul, but neither you nor your coreligionists on these boards so far have said anything which speaks well for that proposition; you and your cohorts consistently offer declaration of faith in lieu of argument for faith. By the evidence, the only logical conclusion is that you and kind bring to this and similar discussions all that you have.
