You might as well believe in a religion....

[Seriphyn]

...because you've got nothing to lose!

Let me explain.

If you do believe in a religion, you'll either....

-cease to exist
or
-go to heaven

if you DON'T, however, you'll either...

-cease to exist
or
-burn in hell for the rest of eternity (thats forever)

ps. its impossible to imagine how its like not to exist

[Magpie]

Ah but by that reasoning you might choose the wrong religion and go to hell anyway.

And most people would rather believe what they believe because they do, not because of the consequences.

I'm sure plenty of people both atheist and religious will attack your reasoning in a few minutes.

[Seriphyn]

it not exactly MY reasoning. i've taken long course RS for GCSE, it was my teacher's opinion, but I agree with it.

and there's not exactly a 'wrong' religion. they are all compassionate, but I suppose you could say that you could be a non-religious compassionate person.....

[Zweee]

Yea ive had this discussion many times, thing is you cant just say "oh, today i will start believing in god"

Besides, im of the mind that if your a good kind person who never does anything wrong, but you dont believe in god, why should you burn in hell? What did you do thats so wrong, not believe... well... thats a bit harsh if you ask me.

[Seriphyn]

thats what fundamentalists (ie. pentecostals) think. you don't know god, you'll burn in hell.

ok, so you know god, but your the most evil person in the world! you don't know god, you live in a country where religion is banned, but your the most nicest person in the world!

[Magpie]

heh, I do RS at A2 I outrank you :P

Yes from an outside point of view there is no "wrong" religion but many religions claim that they are the one true faith and any other is wrong.

If you're willing to believe that there can be no "wrong" choice, then why not move out of the idea of hell as a whole?

And as for Zwee, Paul the apostle said the same thing when he was Greece, although he saw it as simply following God without knowing that you were doing it, some churches accept this as true while others as I said above believe that their way is the only real one.

Also if a belief in God will get you into a pleasant afterlife, then surely it must be actual belief coming from the heart? Not simply a way of hedging your bets for the afterlife.

[EMiNoiR]

One thing you miss is the actual concept of 'belief'. You can't really choose what you believe and what you don't. You either deep down believe something is true or you don't. Christianity says to get into heaven you really have to believe in it, and jesus, and accept the way into your heart. Therefore just saying "i think i'll be a christian as a backup" won't exactly work.
For your plan to work, you'd have to be genuinely convinced by one religion. So it could still work, if you went around and got a representative to plead his case to you until you're really convinced, not if you picked one out of a hat.
The bottom line is, if you don't really believe in what you're doing, you're wasting your time. This can also be applied to other things in life.

end transmission.

[GorillaBearBear]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that God would know if you were only doing it to get on his good sides, being omniscient and all.

[Lionel]

The original statement is actually a form of Pascal's wager. Basically, Blaise Pascal said you might as well believe in God, or else you'll definitely go to hell.

In fact, in other places (my RS lesson in 4th year!) I heard that someone else asked Pascal this, and he replied that there is a special place in hell for people who believe just to go to heaven.

And yes, sadly those people who do not believe will end up in hell. Hell is a place which is not stereotypical; it's a place where you are not in contact or connection with God. That is the definition of hell, and it is the worst place conceivable(See 2 Thess 2).

John the Apostle wrote: "God gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him may not perish but have eternal life" (John 3v16). It is virtually as simple as that. I won't go into it much more here, unless prompted :)

And I agree very much with Magpie and Eminoir. Belief is personal, and works out in your life in faith. You don't have faith in a chair by knowing it can support your weight; you have faith by actually standing on it with your whole weight and letting it support your weight.

[C T M]

thats what fundamentalists (ie. pentecostals) think. you don't know god, you'll burn in hell.

ok, so you know god, but your the most evil person in the world! you don't know god, you live in a country where religion is banned, but your the most nicest person in the world!

The thing is, that

1) If you loved God and wanted to follow his commands, you're unlikely to be "the most evil person in the world" - 'knowing' God exists isnt enough, you have to believe that Jesus died for you. There is a passage in the bible that says something like "even the demons believe [that God exists], and shudder"

2) "Nice person" is also a very relative term. Even the nicest person in the world will have done some very wrong things, or thought some really bad thoughts. And even one small sin is enough to get you into hell - because God is perfect, and has perfect standards, which only Jesus lived up to. It may seem unfair to you, but who are you to question God's judgement... if you believe in Him that is?

As for people learning about Pascal's Wager, I kind of thought of that idea before I'd even heard of Pascal's Wager... except my idea had reasons why it would be 'safer' to be a Christian (though I suppose it would also work for being a Muslim), eg other religions that believe in re-incarnation would give you another life to try to get to 'heaven' or whatever.

[killsteel]

*sigh*

how many times have I heard this? I've already worked out you get about a 75% chance of getting into heaven just if you're an agnostic....

Free Heaven - You don't need to work to get in ;)

[Contro]

Yes, all I think is that the afterlife is based on the "You think, therefore you are" principle.

If you believe you are bad and you believe in hell, you wind up there.

If you think there is nothing, you cease to exist.

If you think there is a heaven, you wind up there.

I am also agnostic, and its actually more like 82 percent chance/

[Paradigm^]

Everyone's only been approaching this from the religious side, which is interesting. I shall now play Devil's Advocate, then.

The other logical argument is: if you believe in God, but there turns out to be no God - you've wasted your life being restricted by the bounds of whatever religion you choose to follow. You've missed out on so much! Sex, drugs, rocknroll - and just because you believed in a God who's now turned out not to exist. Whoops, you've just wasted your life, and you're not going to get another stab at it, because there's no-one there to reincarnate you!

This post is just a look at the "other side" of things, I'm not suggesting God doesn't exist, so no offence to believers!

[grooveBiscuit]

Personally I don't believe that missing out on those things is a big deal.

I have seen too many lives screwed up by sex, money, drugs, excessive alcohol etc etc, that being restricted from them doesn't cause me a problem. I believe that God has asked me to stay away from those things for good reason.

If I die and I discover there is no God then:

1. I won't be disappointed because then they're will probably be nothing and I'll just cease to exist so I won't care

2. If I'm happy with the way I'm living my life just now I don't see how I'd be dissappointed about missing out on those other things, as long as I've lived a happy life - nothing else will matter.

[Paradigm^]

I can't argue with that. My point was that religion has certain rules and boundaries which you may not cross (e.g. sex before marriage in some religions); by "subscribing" (for want of a better word) to that religion, you miss out on the stuff outside the boundaries. If it turns out that God doesn't exist, you've needlessly missed out.

I'm religious myself, but I like to see the flipside of things.

[Tik]

Douglas Adams, an atheist, once said on the matter: "If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and that there is a God, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would choose not to worship him anyway." And I tend to agree with him.

If you have to subscribe to a particular religion to become one with God (something I dont believe, but anyway...) and that you call yourself a Christian just in case God might exist, and it worked, I wouldn't choose to worship this God either. But since I dont believe any one organised religion is the correct route, I have nothing to fear from this particular outcome. And if it does turn out that you have to worship a particular religion to get into heaven, the same applies - I wouldn't worship Him.

[Curlz]

I don't think you can make yourself believe in something (well at least i can't anywayz). I mean, yeah, i could go to church every sunday and read the bible and do all the good things a Christian would do, but it wouldn't neccesarily make me believe it. So would that mean that i was a Christian or not? I would be doing those things just in case there was a God, not because i actually believe there is one, so i guess thats a no.

[Lionel]

Tik---that brings us to a very important point: if you'll pardon the strength with which I say this, we must worship God.

According to the Christian religion, we were created solely for God's glory, and our purpose is to be in a relationship with him. If we do not, we're denying our purpose...and incidentally, I'd like to bring up a very important other point.

Christians share their religion out of love for the people of the world as well as being commanded to.

It is extremely selfish for a Christian not to tell others of the joy of eternal life with God in heaven; we can't keep this privilege to ourselves. Because we didn't deserve to hear the saving message of hope either, we have been loved enough by other people that we were told about it. And in a similar way, we therefore want to express the same love to others by sharing this prospect of hope with them.

Now, we don't always do this properly. We can be brash and insensitive, and sometimes too argumentative. Often the love doesn't seem to be evident, and we forget that living and loving is also important alongside proclaiming the gospel of Christ. I am personally sorry for every one of those times, for every insensitive Christian. The motivation, ultimately is and should be love. Please just believe that, even if you don't believe what we say.

[Tik]

I believe in God, I just dont believe we need to subscribe to any one religion to be with Him. But if it was the case that, yes, only Christianity is true and everyone else is denied God, I might not want to worship Him anyway. Why? What about other people who are just as kind, considerate, and loving as the good Christian? What about all the people who lived before Christianity, they wouldn't even have a chance. What about those people who have mental disabilities - they wouldn't be able to understand God or the organised religion. What about people of other religions - are they to be denied God because their traditions are different? What about life on other planets (life which is bound to exist somewhere - I doubt they have our religions)? Etc.

I just dont think God would be so petty, so heartless, and so.....inhumane to do this. But if He was, I wouldn't like to worship Him. I sincerly hope that this is not the case.

[Furnie]

Firstly I would like to point out a quote from Terry Prachet which was probably made by thinking about this.

This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..."

This sort of behavour is likly to anoy what ever power is above (if there is one) and they won't be happy with somebody spreading round word that people should belive in them just to get the best out of them.

On a different note I do some thing else. I belive that there is some higher power. However none of these supposed powers of the major religions have ever shown me something to make me belive, I can not relate to somebody If I don't know that they are there. However when I die. I hopefullly get to find out who I should have been worshiping, I will be sorry that I didn't worship when I was allive, but I'll have an excuse that I didn't want to upset the god by denying him (or she or it) completly by worshiping somebody else

[Sniperco]

my motto is if god wanted you to have a relgeon he would come and tell you himself

Sniperco

[Lionel]

Sniper...is that a very clever joke?

One of the major points of Christianity is that Jesus Christ, who came to this earth, is God. And he did come and tell us; his word is recorded in the Bible. And in the Old Testament, he constantly showed his form, though no-one ever actually saw God except Adam and Eve.

[maxxy_p]

I think Sniperco meant, he/she hasn't seen any proof of God, such as a voice out of the clouds or whatever; all we have to rely on is the Bible (or other Holy book, depending on which religion), and the word of other people. This personally isn't good enough proof for me either (without trying to be offensive about it). I would believe if I saw concrete proof. Otherwise, in my books, everything's guesswork. How do you KNOW for definite that Jesus was the Son of God? Surely it's possible he was just a trickster whose tricks got exaggerated over the centuries?

[Lionel]

Well, that's an argument that it's almost impossible to argue against. People can say "yes, but you can never prove that Jesus was the Son of God/God exists/Jesus rose again after dying/the apostles existed because you weren't there. You get into a horrible situation of not being able to prove anything by that. At some point you have to put your faith in something (or the belief that there is nothing); you can permanently point to the fact that I can't prove it definitely because it was 2000 years ago, but looking at the evidence, and God speaking to me through his word and by his Spirit, and knowing how much I've changed, I believe Jesus was the Son of God. I really don't want to get into an argument about the fallibility of the Bible at the moment, because I'm going to start a whole thread about it in a few days.

[Nightraven]

I believe in "None of the above". Why? Because I made a theory. Yes, and it explained everything easily. Therefore, you could argue that I'm a prophet, which gives my theory/belief just as much precendence as any other religion.

[DarkTrojan]

Matthew 7:21-23:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

[Paradigm^]

I think Sniperco meant, he/she hasn't seen any proof of God, such as a voice out of the clouds or whatever; all we have to rely on is the Bible (or other Holy book, depending on which religion), and the word of other people. This personally isn't good enough proof for me either (without trying to be offensive about it). I would believe if I saw concrete proof. Otherwise, in my books, everything's guesswork. How do you KNOW for definite that Jesus was the Son of God? Surely it's possible he was just a trickster whose tricks got exaggerated over the centuries?

That's why it's called faith. You can't prove it's true, but you believe in it nevertheless. That's what faith is, and there is no argument against it. That's why it's so powerful, because faith is unquestioning belief. Faith is the very opposite of scientific method: where scientific method relies on proof to say something is true, faith only asks you to believe it's true, no proof required.

[icelizarrd]

...

And yes, sadly those people who do not believe will end up in hell. Hell is a place which is not stereotypical; it's a place where you are not in contact or connection with God. That is the definition of hell, and it is the worst place conceivable(See 2 Thess 2).

...

Alright, apologies to all for sidetracking the subject a bit...

I looked up 2 Thessalonians 2, and didn't see anything that seemed to be defining hell to me... could you maybe quote it more specifically for me to see?

At any rate though, this got me thinking -- aren't the people who don't believe in God (i.e., non-Christians) already out of contact with God? And therefore they're already experiencing this form of hell? And, if said non-Christians are happy with their life now (which is subject to another debate entirely, but lets assume for now that they are), then doesn't it mean non-Christians have nothing to lose by disbelieving in God?

Admittedly, they would still stand to gain eternal life and happiness, presumbably, but I'm just saying they wouldn't necessarily be losing anything, other than an oppertunity.

[maxxy_p]

I realise this is offtopic, but would like to explore this further. To SarChasm:

People used to believe the Earth was flat. They had no proof, but it seemed that this must be true. Then it was proved otherwise. The word of the Bible was also always taken literally. A couple of hundred years ago, everyone in Europe at least would have believed that God created the world in 7 days, he made Eve out of Adam's rib, etc. Nowadays, this viewpoint is held far less - people tend to say "Oh, I believe in God, I just don't take the whole Bible literally"; this is (at least partially) because of Darwin's theory, which is widely conceived as pretty much proof. Christianity has retreated from its previous stance, as otherwise it would be made a mockery of. If the Pope still told the world he thought God drove the Sun across the sky in a fiery chariot every day, would we have the same respect for him?

Christians (and other religions too, I just can't think of any non-Christian specific examples atm... other than currently Muslim terrorists of course), used to think that God wanted them to force their religion on other people. They went on the Crusades in order to regain what they believed was the Holy Land from infidels, and to enforce Christianity on everyone. They killed lots of people, and wanted everyone else to submit to their religion. And they did all this in the belief that God supported them in it; that he was on their side. Faith can be a dangerous thing. Without proof, we are relying on our instincts and on what we want to believe. If you truly believe something, you're even likely to ignore subsequent proof, as it would completely throw out your viewpoint.

I'm not suggesting that modern Christians are anything like this, but what makes you believe your faith is any more justified than the Crusaders did at the time?

I'm genuinely puzzled :S

[Lionel]

I'd like to write my answer to your post, maxxy_p, but first, could you clarify a few points, please?

Nowadays, this viewpoint is held far less - people tend to say "Oh, I believe in God, I just don't take the whole Bible literally"; this is (at least partially) because of Darwin's theory, which is widely conceived as pretty much proof.Eh? Proof of what? And Darwin's theory is just that...a theory. I'm not saying it's wrong; it's probably pretty good.

Faith can be a dangerous thing. Without proof, we are relying on our instincts and on what we want to believe. If you truly believe something, you're even likely to ignore subsequent proof, as it would completely throw out your viewpoint.I accept the last point that people can become obsessed to the point of ignoring facts, but I'm not sure I get the first point. It is generally accepted that you basically can't prove the existence of God from a human point of view just by looking at the earth in a totally empirical way. Christians would say you need God's Holy Spirit to help you understand. And you don't have to rely on what you want to believe either! Sometimes I hear Christians say that they don't really want to believe Christianity...because it gets hard! But usually we do.

[maxxy_p]

First point: I was trying to say that the Bible contains some ideas that have since been disproved by scientists, such as stating the world/universe were created in 7 days, and all animals were created then. Most people nowadays don't believe this, as Darwin and company have pretty much proved evolution has taken place, meaning for starters that God can't have created all animals at the same time. Type thing. You (hopefully) get the idea. Now, people in previous centuries DID believe in 7-day-creation, and everything else the Bible said. But they were disproved... so how do you know that God won't be disproved as well? How is belief in God any more reasonable now than belief in 7-day-creation was a couple of centuries ago?

Second point: Yeah that was a bit of a poor point actually. It did make sense to me, honest...

[DarkTrojan]

First point: I was trying to say that the Bible contains some ideas that have since been disproved by scientists, such as stating the world/universe were created in 7 days, and all animals were created then.7 of our days, maybe.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.Also you're saying that the whole bible is disproved because one part of it is disproved. By that standard Darwin's theories are disproved because parts of it have been disproved. In fact, large, fundamental parts of it have been disproved.

[maxxy_p]

How does the scale of time make any difference? Supposing it was a thousand years (or whatever), animals weren't all created within this period of time. There have been hundreds of millions of years between different species coming into existance; e.g. dinosaurs were alive 200-odd million years ago, whereas later species such as the modern horse only came into existance within the last million years or so. To class this all as one day in God's eyes is just messing around, distorting the original point behind 7-day creation theory. The theory clearly isn't correct, even when changing the scale of time.

Evolution has meant species have evolved into other species, and I don't see how God creating them sits with this. Evolution is a natural process; the only way I can see of still believing He created animals despite this is by saying "Ah, but you see, God isn't an actual person, He's the very force behind nature", and if you say that, you're in the realms of bullshit.

I'm not saying the fact that one part of the Bible is wrong means that all other parts are wrong; I'm saying it means we should question them. Especially as it's has no proof, whereas Darwin's theories do. I would also like to know what parts of Darwin's theories have been disproved, and how.

[/digresson]

[pebble_rebel]

your point on 7 of our days...... ruined \/

god, according to the good book, created the sun and the moon first (or something like that, either way-before the animals) therefore the day night cycle would be exactly the same (bar a few minuted, due to earths orbit around the sun being slightly out of sync) . point over.... continue

[A.I.E.E.E.]

I would have to agree with Sniperco. If God is all-loving and all-forgiving, then surely he would give us a sign of some sort. If he didn't, then he'd be a bit of a cruel fellow. The majority of atheists (I'm sure) choose not to follow a religion because there is no evidence, save in a book, which has probably become exaggerated over the years, that God actually exists and takes a hand in events down here.
Occasionally people say that God speaks to them, and how do we treat them? Badly, to put it bluntly. The same thing would have happened 2000 years ago, with Jesus, and sometime later with Muhammed (sp?). Similarly earlier with whoever founded Judaism, and all the prophets in between. Except back then people couldn't use Science to argue against them, and their "miracles" would have seemed a lot more convincing. Because these "prophets" and Son-of-God have arrived and become pretty well-established, we no longer believe people, not en-masse anyway, that they are somehow related to God or get messages from him.
Since the days of early Christian missionaries etc. I can't think of many (serious) "miracles" that have occured. If we're not allowed to enter heaven because we're not Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever, even though we've led a perfectly good life, then God's one cruel bugger. He expects us to believe a 2000+ year old book, with no serious evidence, save that one of the protagonists (Jesus) existed, which people who follow can't even agree on.
Until I get some evidence, then I'm not wasting my time with religion.

That rambled a lot.

[Lionel]

How does the scale of time make any difference? Supposing it was a thousand years (or whatever), animals weren't all created within this period of time. There have been hundreds of millions of years between different species coming into existance; e.g. dinosaurs were alive 200-odd million years ago, whereas later species such as the modern horse only came into existance within the last million years or so. To class this all as one day in God's eyes is just messing around, distorting the original point behind 7-day creation theory. The theory clearly isn't correct, even when changing the scale of time.Well, yes, I agree that in fact, you can't say that God shrunk time to fit into seven days; at least, it's very unlikely. From what we see of God's character in the Bible, he is a truth-teller and doesn't tend to give "false evidence". If the evidence on the earth is reliable, and seems to point to millions of years, then that's most likely what happened. But it doesn't disprove any parts of the Bible.

Evolution has meant species have evolved into other species, and I don't see how God creating them sits with this. Evolution is a natural process; the only way I can see of still believing He created animals despite this is by saying "Ah, but you see, God isn't an actual person, He's the very force behind nature", and if you say that, you're in the realms of bullshit.It's actually very difficult to prove that species evolve into other species. To do this you need information to enter the system in a way that isn't really likely; the genetic information contained in a bacterium simply isn't enough to create a human being. Biologists (I studied it in my first year at University) have a lot of trouble showing that developing the extreme complexity, especially at larger scales; okay, a bacterium sometimes absorbs DNA from other sources. But on larger scales it stops being so easy. Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible, and I don't think Christians can categorically state that evolution is impossible, unless they were evolutionary biologists. But we have to look at the evidence, and not just the conclusion you want to reach. You cannot just say "Evolution has meant species have evolved into other species", because no biologist would be able to categorically say that's the truth. It looks likely to them, possibly, but you can't force it on someone else unless you show them the evidence.

And please don't say that God being the very force behind nature is bullshit. That's not particularly well thought out, and it tends to be the most likely way we'll agree. God created nature; he created physical laws, and he created the stuff which obeys these laws. It's a beatiful and wonderful way to create an environment for humans to live in, the idea of speciation. I agree that the idea that God isn't an entity is pretty rubbish, but he still created the world!

I'm not saying the fact that one part of the Bible is wrong means that all other parts are wrong; I'm saying it means we should question them. Especially as it's has no proof, whereas Darwin's theories do.Woah, what proof does Darwin's theory have? Why do they call it a theory? Because there isn't proof. And the Bible does have a fair bit of evidence to support it. There are other documents that speak of the same sort of things that the Bible does; ancient documents from other empires that discuss the events.

If God is all-loving and all-forgiving, then surely he would give us a sign of some sort. If he didn't, then he'd be a bit of a cruel fellow. The majority of atheists (I'm sure) choose not to follow a religion because there is no evidence, save in a book, which has probably become exaggerated over the years, that God actually exists and takes a hand in events down here.God did give us a sign, Jesus Christ. And if 2000 years ago is not enough compared with the "evidence" of things several million years old that people assume to be true, then Christians know that there is "evidence" today as well; when you accept Christ as your Lord genuinely and in faith, recognizing that there is no way to save yourself, then God's Holy Spirit comes into you, to help you know God and understand him. You could almost say I'm evidence. I'm a "sign".

Who says the book's probably become exaggerated over the years? We still have the texts written from a couple of decades after his death. These were written by people who were being persecuted, attacked, executed, tortured and flogged for just believing in these things. Why on earth would people die for a lie that they'd made up? Why on earth would many hundreds of thousands of people independently (i.e. not at the same time) choose to die rather than acknowledge other man-created gods as their masters?

Why should miracles seem less convincing now that we have science? Can today's science explain how Jesus cured leprosy with a touch, or gave sight to the blind, or turned water into wine, or took a dead girl's hand and woke her up? People knew what leprosy, blindness, water and death were back then. You can't convince someone by science tricks that what looks like water is just some cunning wine disguise. Especially when random slaves went and drew the water. And if those guys didn't know how science could be used to fake miracles, how could Jesus (if he was just a man) know how to fake miracles?

Evidence? I am evidence, and my changed life is. And so is and are the lives of all the other Christians who are truly Christians in the world today. We're not perfect, we're not totally restored, but we're changed. And it's a work in progress.

[Dr-Electro]

I'm not seeing any real debate here, just discussion. Grab a handrail or buckle your seatbelt. We are moving.

[Dr-Electro]

Yes, there are plenty of other threads to post in. Of course, reason can't overcome faith and faith can't overcome scientific evidence.

Move along, nothing to see here. Not really. There are plenty of people who still want to take part in discussions like this one.

Am I a self-made man or do I continue to exist by the grace of God alone? Did I acquire my knowledge and technical skills by learning and practice or are they a gift from God? Will I see eternity in Heaven or Hell or will I merely cease to exist? These questions will probably be answered when you die, but nobody alive actually knows the answers.

So, you must ask yourself whether you ascribe to any religion at all or trust the evidence of your own two eyes as long as they can see what science has to say?

[flamelitface]

Woah, what proof does Darwin's theory have? Why do they call it a theory? Because there isn't proof. And the Bible does have a fair bit of evidence to support it. There are other documents that speak of the same sort of things that the Bible does; ancient documents from other empires that discuss the events.




If there isn't proof, it's called a philosophy, a theory is, according to the Oxford Paperback Dictionary:

"A set of idea formulated (by reasoning from known facts) to explain something, Darwin's theory of evolution "

Quite a coincidence that the dictionary gives us an example of a theory which is the same one we're discussing......

And the Bible may have some evidence, but it all has a likely chance of being wrong. The proof isn't very solid, it appears, two people may have seen the same illusion or even been told the same story and they have both written it down, one in historical documents, and one in the bible.

[reno]

The original statement is actually a form of Pascal's wager. Basically, Blaise Pascal said you might as well believe in God, or else you'll definitely go to hell.

ah, close, but not quite. that all depends on whether or not god exists and whether or not you believe in him. for example, if you don't believe in god and he does exist, you go to hell. if you believe in god and he does exist, you go to heaven. whether you believe or not, and he doesn't exist, then nothing happens.

in a nutshell, it's an argument as to why it's more logical to believe in god, than not believe. (and no, the 4-cell matrix doesn't account for the possibilities of other religions being correct, and other gods not liking your worship of a particular other god). if you don't believe, either nothing happens, or you go to hell.

link: http://www.lclark.edu/~jay/Pascal.pdf

[killsteel]

*Sigh* Why does no-one ever listen to me?

Not all religions say you go to hell if you don't belive. Like I've already said many times, and once before in this thread...

"You get about a 75% chance of getting into heaven just if you're an agnostic"

[bittersweet]

I am 100% atheist, for me there is no god and I hate this 'you might as well believe' argument because so far no-one has actually been able to give me a solid reason for believing in god, and all the rest of my beliefs (so i like to think anyway) are founded on things that I have demonstrated to myself.

I wouldn't ask someone who had never been outside to believe that the sky was blue because they've got nothing to lose by not doing so, I would expect them to find their own good solid reasons for doing so (eg, seeing the sky!)

I'm not saying that people who believe in God are wrong, just that I'm yet to be swayed by any argument for his existence.

[thunderdevil]

Me, I am no religion not to say I am an aethiest though.
If I was a religion it would have to be buddhism.
Seeking enlightenment and helping is the only true path towards our own heaven...
I also believe in reincarnation and ghosts.
Ghosts are those forgotten souls still with tasks left to do before reaching peace and coming again to the world of the living.
If there was reincarnation then I would believe in nothing...
this because what of the CIRCLE of life everything comes back to what it once was...

[Discus]

I disagree with you (Mr thread starter).
If you believe in religion, 99% of the people that believe in your religion will be going to hell anyway because they shagged someone at some point in their lives, which in all religions is the worst possible sin (don't question that; it's true. At least in Muslims and Xtians its 100% true).

If you believe in some form of wicca or witchcraft (or 'higher science' as I like to call it), well, really good stuff could happen instead. Don't ask what, it'll just be really greuut.

I however believe jack sh*t.
SOME OF US actually want to do productive things with their life, not sitting around desperately trying to concieve happens when you die, and going insane and committing the odd terrorist attack or something.

[SickBoY]

Whywhywhywhy do some people need to resort to religion to tell right from wrong? You shouldn't need a book to tell you that it's wrong to kill people, or sleep with their wives or any of that stuff, and you shouldn't need a promise of eternal happiness in heaven to sort out that we should all be nice and help and love oneanother. I hate the fact that those are often called "christian values". I call that stuff common sence, and I belive that this planet works best if we try to live by it.

I'm not saying it's wrong to belive. If people can find strenght in whatever god to live their lives the best way they can I salute them, as long as their choices are their own. I've talked to enough people who where brought up in religous homes and have just tagged along until they actually lifted their heads one day and thought it through, at wich point they lost all faith (no less than four of my closest friends have mums or dads who are priests, and they all share that story). The thing is that their faith in god was something they where taught and not something they had ever reflected over themselves. "It's not meant to be taken literally" is NOT a good enough answer to the thousands of questions that come up as you try make sence of it all.


ok, that was the steam out...

[Lionel]

I'm only going to point out one thing...(since I've posted far too much already answering the second paragraph)...

No matter what you might think about the seven-day creation or whether God perhaps decided to use a longer time period or whatever, and no matter what you think about Adam being one person or perhaps more than one, Christians will agree that sin (the inherent rejection of God by human beings, making themselves the rulers of their lives) entered the world at one specific point. In fact, the Bible states that the fruit of the tree led to the "knowledge of good and evil" (Genesis 2v16--17, Genesis 3v5); the ability to discern between good and evil. Interestingly, God forbids eating it because of his protection for them (God is not just a spoilsport), and knows that when they do they will not be able to cope with the ability to discern good and evil; they will choose evil.

So with our inherent sinfulness comes also something "useful", and one of God's characteristics; to be able to judge moral rightness and wrongness. That's the reason Christians would give that humans know the difference between right and wrong; our potential ability to choose wrong is based on knowing the difference.

But this is slightly off topic. Just wanted to provide an answer to "whywhywhywhy"!

[reno]

*Sigh* Why does no-one ever listen to me?

Not all religions say you go to hell if you don't belive. Like I've already said many times, and once before in this thread...

"You get about a 75% chance of getting into heaven just if you're an agnostic"

you're using Pascal's wager as the thread-starter. that's pretty much what we're basing our replies on. and no, according to the wager, you get a 50% chance of nothing happening, 25% chance of going to heaven, and 25% chance of going to hell. it leaves the faultless assumption that A) either god exists (50%) or B) god doesn't exist (50%), which are, as well all know, the only two possible situations. it just so happens that if this particular god does exist, either something very good or very bad can happen.

y'know, when you think about it, everything comes down to a 50/50 chance: "either it will or it won't."

[reno]

Me, I am no religion not to say I am an aethiest though.
If I was a religion it would have to be buddhism.
Seeking enlightenment and helping is the only true path towards our own heaven...
I also believe in reincarnation and ghosts.
Ghosts are those forgotten souls still with tasks left to do before reaching peace and coming again to the world of the living.
If there was reincarnation then I would believe in nothing...
this because what of the CIRCLE of life everything comes back to what it once was...

um... how can you believe in reincarnation and ghosts, yet believe in buddhism? they aren't compatible in the slightest.

[flamelitface]

He said that if he did choose a religion it would be buddhism, he didn't say he was a buddhist, also many religious people don't stick to guidelines strictly. But in the guidance of buddhism, I would have to agree that ghosts is out of sync with the religion

[Scribbly]

Comment for first post:

So the only reason you 'believe' in something is to make sure you're not screwed when heavens exists? Very silly...

Or are you scared that if god appears to exist that's he's gonna appear and kick all non-good-believers (whoever they may be, there's plenty of religions to choose from) to pieces? I wouldn't want to believe in a god like that anyhows...

C'mon, this is nonsense.

If I had to choose a religion, it'd be like buddhism or something like that (just a religion where you concentrate on your 'inner power' or something like that and do karate n stuff).

[GungHo]

If I had to choose a religion, it'd be like buduism or something like that (just a religion where you concentrate on your 'inner power' or something like that and do karate n stuff).

I'm gonna laugh at you now. :p The rest made good sense tho, and buddhism is quite the great religion. I'm one myself. :)
And ghosts are in fact a part of buddhism - Your forefather's, and such. And reincarnation is a very major part of it.

[Dr-Electro]

I'm gonna laugh at you now. :p The rest made good sense tho, and buddhism is quite the great religion. I'm one myself. :)
And ghosts are in fact a part of buddhism - Your forefather's, and such. And reincarnation is a very major part of it.

What? You're a great religion? Now I get to laugh. It just read directly into my laughter zone.

Where I am, my current stage of life, religion is much like casual Friday: comforting and comfortable but not overly strict or restrictive. God is there. God is watching. God is having a great laugh at our shenanigans. Wearing fuzzy slippers 120 feet long and sipping a favorite drink.

[GungHo]

*ping* ...?