Which is better, believing in a god or not?
0
burning_bush wrote...
haha.. thats interesting. This is the first time I have sen or heard of Pascals Wager. Thanks
i scanned this thread and was surprised i saw no mention of it.
the link was a bit heavy, so here it is simplified:
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you will go to hell."
0
"If you believe in God and turn out to be incorrect, you have lost nothing -- but if you don't believe in God and turn out to be correct, nothing will happen."
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
I like this narrowing system of discussion.The reason why we judge people based on their deeds is because intent usually cannot always be proven. Intent does matter. But intent vs. deed can lead to a whole 'nother thread.
All this time you've been saying, "But a God CAN exist, if he's just malevolent". Not only can my proof work both ways, but you should've come to this conclusion already: A benevolent God logically doesn't exist. A malevolent God, regardless of whether he exists or not, I should not follow him. At that point, you might as well say God doesn't exist.
No, all this time I've been saying that any God can exist, benevolent or not, but whether someone chooses to worship him has more aspects than malevolent vs benevolent.
What other aspect matters? The "malevolent" deserve to die, and the "benevolent" deserve to prosper.
What are you trying to say right now? So far, I haven't changed my thoughts. You?
And that "Pascal's Wager" was mentioned, and I think I've said by believing in God you limit yourself. You limit yourself to some divine being that half-assedly sometimes answers your prayers regardless of what they are, and even when he does, they seem a bit too coincidental.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
What other aspect matters? The "malevolent" deserve to die, and the "benevolent" deserve to prosper.What are you trying to say right now? So far, I haven't changed my thoughts. You?
And that "Pascal's Wager" was mentioned, and I think I've said by believing in God you limit yourself. You limit yourself to some divine being that half-assedly sometimes answers your prayers regardless of what they are, and even when he does, they seem a bit too coincidental.
As I said, what the God in question has to offer you, and what you'll have to sacrifice in order to please that God, for instance. But also, this part of the argument seems to have swayed away from the subject of belief, and is now about worship, which is irrelevant.
I'm just trying to say that a lot of people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, regardless if he is benevolent or not. I haven't changed my thoughts either on this either.
Lastly: I agree, religion limits you, the same way any strong conviction towards something that ultimately has no truth limits you, but that doesn't mean the limits matter, or that they limit you in a bad way.
0
Who knows really. All I can do is hold true to my own beliefs and hope for the best. That's why its called faith right.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
And that "Pascal's Wager" was mentioned, and I think I've said by believing in God you limit yourself. You limit yourself to some divine being that half-assedly sometimes answers your prayers regardless of what they are, and even when he does, they seem a bit too coincidental.
… so I guess you can say God is like the jolly big fat guy in a red suit who didn’t bring me anything last year.. I guess I wasn’t nice enough…
0
Personally, I believe Religion is a very beneficial contribution to society. As others have stated, it it a form of control, to an extent. It gives fear to those who don't do what is "Morally" correct. If you defy God, you go to hell. I, myself, am an Atheist. I don't believe in any God, however I respect the benefits that society has been given by religion.
Without it, could you imagine how society may have formed? I'm not sure even it would be possible. Religion is what binds people to their morals, and allows other to live peacefully. Especially back in the olden days. Nowadays we do admittedly have a better police force, to enforce rules. If no one had Faith back during the early 1400s then not much would've stopped people from going crazy on a large scale. Sure it could still happen to us, what would happen without morals if even the law enforcement realized they had little to gain by following morals.
I'm just repeating myself time and again, but I believe religion is a very strong and beneficial form of control. It's unfortunate that it looks like it's time is coming to an end. Believe in God is fading on a large scale compared to how it was. If it continues increasing at this rate, it's possible that society could be threatened as a whole. Or maybe the morals we've been taught may linger on even without religion. Either way, the existence of religion helped influence culture to what it is.
On an individual scale believing in religion can help one lead a better life, not in fear or what may be in store. Thinking better of others, even. Someone like myself may be more apathetic towards life. I believe after death is just nothing. I will cease. Doesn't give me much to hope for, except to enjoy what I can. Someone like me is much more likely to do something wrong, knowing there is no Heaven waiting. I do admittedly fear death more than someone who is religious though, but I do sometimes wish I could've had faith in a god.
Without it, could you imagine how society may have formed? I'm not sure even it would be possible. Religion is what binds people to their morals, and allows other to live peacefully. Especially back in the olden days. Nowadays we do admittedly have a better police force, to enforce rules. If no one had Faith back during the early 1400s then not much would've stopped people from going crazy on a large scale. Sure it could still happen to us, what would happen without morals if even the law enforcement realized they had little to gain by following morals.
I'm just repeating myself time and again, but I believe religion is a very strong and beneficial form of control. It's unfortunate that it looks like it's time is coming to an end. Believe in God is fading on a large scale compared to how it was. If it continues increasing at this rate, it's possible that society could be threatened as a whole. Or maybe the morals we've been taught may linger on even without religion. Either way, the existence of religion helped influence culture to what it is.
On an individual scale believing in religion can help one lead a better life, not in fear or what may be in store. Thinking better of others, even. Someone like myself may be more apathetic towards life. I believe after death is just nothing. I will cease. Doesn't give me much to hope for, except to enjoy what I can. Someone like me is much more likely to do something wrong, knowing there is no Heaven waiting. I do admittedly fear death more than someone who is religious though, but I do sometimes wish I could've had faith in a god.
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
What other aspect matters? The "malevolent" deserve to die, and the "benevolent" deserve to prosper.What are you trying to say right now? So far, I haven't changed my thoughts. You?
And that "Pascal's Wager" was mentioned, and I think I've said by believing in God you limit yourself. You limit yourself to some divine being that half-assedly sometimes answers your prayers regardless of what they are, and even when he does, they seem a bit too coincidental.
I'm just trying to say that a lot of people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, regardless if he is benevolent or not. I haven't changed my thoughts either on this either.
And that makes it right? Just because people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, that justifies it? This is something we both understand, but I do not accept, mainly because there are good and bad people in this world.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
I'm just trying to say that a lot of people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, regardless if he is benevolent or not. I haven't changed my thoughts either on this either.And that makes it right? Just because people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, that justifies it? This is something we both understand, but I do not accept, mainly because there are good and bad people in this world.
Right and wrong is irrelevant, you should know this by now. It is simply my belief that most people are greedy bastards by nature and will simply choose the way that gives them the biggest personal benefit, regardless of the consequences. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just saying that humanity in general suck, and that I accept how it is, even if I don't like it.
0
Chlor wrote...
Right and wrong is irrelevant, you should know this by now. It is simply my belief that most people are greedy bastards by nature and will simply choose the way that gives them the biggest personal benefit, regardless of the consequences. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just saying that humanity in general suck, and that I accept how it is, even if I don't like it.People are always more concerned with what benefits them. It is human nature, and it tends to be something that we automatically turn back to.
If you go the path of right or wrong there will always be arguments to support either case as it depends on your perspective.
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
I'm just trying to say that a lot of people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, regardless if he is benevolent or not. I haven't changed my thoughts either on this either.And that makes it right? Just because people will most likely follow the God who can offer the best reward, that justifies it? This is something we both understand, but I do not accept, mainly because there are good and bad people in this world.
Right and wrong is irrelevant, you should know this by now. It is simply my belief that most people are greedy bastards by nature and will simply choose the way that gives them the biggest personal benefit, regardless of the consequences. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just saying that humanity in general suck, and that I accept how it is, even if I don't like it.
If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ACCEPT IT.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ACCEPT IT.Accepting that something is in a current state doesn't not necessarily mean doing nothing about it.
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ACCEPT IT.Accepting that something is in a current state doesn't not necessarily mean doing nothing about it.
Heh, if you're doing something about it, then that means you don't accept it.
0
It totally depends on you, people will always need something to believe, atheists at the very least believe in themselves.
I'm also a Roman Catholic and fiercely believe in God (though I will not try to preach you, nor am I an exemplary Christian), however I do not go to Church, since the Church is a HUMAN institution, that seldom commits itself to what we call the will of God (they have so much money, yet they want to have more, so helping the needy isn't a priority).
If one does not believe in someone, or something, most likely that person will lose his/her reason to live, that's why it's always important to believe in something, and strive to be a better person for the benefit of all.
I'm also a Roman Catholic and fiercely believe in God (though I will not try to preach you, nor am I an exemplary Christian), however I do not go to Church, since the Church is a HUMAN institution, that seldom commits itself to what we call the will of God (they have so much money, yet they want to have more, so helping the needy isn't a priority).
If one does not believe in someone, or something, most likely that person will lose his/her reason to live, that's why it's always important to believe in something, and strive to be a better person for the benefit of all.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ACCEPT IT.Accepting that something is in a current state doesn't not necessarily mean doing nothing about it.
Heh, if you're doing something about it, then that means you don't accept it.
Oh man, stop splitting hairs, I know that you know what I mean. I shouldn't have used "accept" though, that's my bad. Change that to acknowledge, and it should work better.
0
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ACCEPT IT.Accepting that something is in a current state doesn't not necessarily mean doing nothing about it.
Heh, if you're doing something about it, then that means you don't accept it.
Oh man, stop splitting hairs, I know that you know what I mean. I shouldn't have used "accept" though, that's my bad. Change that to acknowledge, and it should work better.
Well, the real question is, if you you don't accept it, why let others as well? Do you think you're wrong? Then you'd be a walking contradiction.
0
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
Chlor wrote...
NeoStriker wrote...
If you don't like it, THEN CHANGE IT. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T ACCEPT IT.Accepting that something is in a current state doesn't not necessarily mean doing nothing about it.
Heh, if you're doing something about it, then that means you don't accept it.
Oh man, stop splitting hairs, I know that you know what I mean. I shouldn't have used "accept" though, that's my bad. Change that to acknowledge, and it should work better.
Well, the real question is, if you you don't accept it, why let others as well? Do you think you're wrong? Then you'd be a walking contradiction.
Who said I have the right to judge their ways? Or you? Or anyone? It's that way of thinking that brings conflict. They think that they're right, I think that I'm right and as long as neither of us forces our own opinion on the other, or do anything to hurt one other because of what we think, why should any of us even care about subjective bullshit (right vs. wrong) that in the end means nothing?
That being said, I'll preach my thoughts to those who choose to listen, and if they think I make a good point that's good, if they don't, well fuck them, not my problem.
Edit: And while I don't think I am wrong, I can't possibly be 100% sure that I'm right, if I were, I'd be a narrow-minded fool.
0
To me, just believe what you wanted to believe.
Forcing ideals to others would only create the sparks of war.
Seek deep inside your heart whether you had faith or not, and if that's your decision, no one could blame you but yourself.
Forcing ideals to others would only create the sparks of war.
Seek deep inside your heart whether you had faith or not, and if that's your decision, no one could blame you but yourself.
0
What I think is more important than believing in God, is believing in treating other people with kindness and respect. I definitely believe in an (undefinable to me anyway) "higher power", but I also feel that religion for the most part exists to help regulate how people treat one another (though this may often backfire - take any religious extremists for example). So technically if you have the foundation that treating other people kindly and with respect is a good thing, you don't necessarily *need* to believe in God or religion. Whether you want to or not, is entirely up to you, for some people, believing in God and faith gives them comfort, especially in their desperate times of need.