How it Works0 min ago
Isn't it taking a big risk in not believing in God?
20 Answers
What's the risk? .
..Hell existing and being sent to live in it for life.
We know we all have to die one day, that is fact, but what happens to us after death? No one can prove it, no one has died and come back to tell the tale. Its a big question mark and somewhat worrying. But from the main possibilities of what people think could happen... 1. Nothing 2. Go to Heaven 3. Go to Hell
People who choose to believe in God have nothing to lose after death. If God is real they go to heaven, if God isnt real, nothing will happen and i guess they will just cease to exist.
But people who choose to disbelieve in God have something to lose after death because if God is real they are likely to be sent to Hell for choosing disbelief.
So why disbelieve when there is a risk in being wrong about the existance of God, heaven and hell? Why not be willing to learn about the different religions with an open mind and try hard to learn and understand as much as you can to safeguard your future after death?
..Hell existing and being sent to live in it for life.
We know we all have to die one day, that is fact, but what happens to us after death? No one can prove it, no one has died and come back to tell the tale. Its a big question mark and somewhat worrying. But from the main possibilities of what people think could happen... 1. Nothing 2. Go to Heaven 3. Go to Hell
People who choose to believe in God have nothing to lose after death. If God is real they go to heaven, if God isnt real, nothing will happen and i guess they will just cease to exist.
But people who choose to disbelieve in God have something to lose after death because if God is real they are likely to be sent to Hell for choosing disbelief.
So why disbelieve when there is a risk in being wrong about the existance of God, heaven and hell? Why not be willing to learn about the different religions with an open mind and try hard to learn and understand as much as you can to safeguard your future after death?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sen. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because
we have no idea what God could be like, what he would stand for, or what could possibly constitute deserving hell or heaven.
i might as well believe that the way to get to heaven is to custard pie as many people as possible. Believing in a Biblical version of God does nothing to 'safeguard' the idea of heaven any more than believing in Thor does.
we have no idea what God could be like, what he would stand for, or what could possibly constitute deserving hell or heaven.
i might as well believe that the way to get to heaven is to custard pie as many people as possible. Believing in a Biblical version of God does nothing to 'safeguard' the idea of heaven any more than believing in Thor does.
I'm an atheist and i dont choose to disbelieve i just dont in my heart believe it is real it's a nice thought and i's like to think my grans in a nicer place now, but i cant force myself to believe something i dont, and if i was worried i was taking a risk by not believing i would be a very paranoid person! Just to add my daughter who is 4 is learning lots about religion already at school, and i would never tell her i dont believe in anything because i want her to find her own way and beliefs, i know you didnt mention kids but thought id drop it in!
Sen According to the rules, it's not a foregone conclusion that if you believe in God you end up in heaven. There are provisos, like believing that Jesus was the son of God, and repenting your sins. "Why disbelieve when there is a risk of being wrong". That's the trap the churches set up to scare people and hook them.
Theland You make the point that I can never get past - but I truly don't believe the biblical God was the cause. It would have been something far greater than that.
Theland You make the point that I can never get past - but I truly don't believe the biblical God was the cause. It would have been something far greater than that.
This is a well known argument called 'Pascal's Wager', advanced by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal in the 17th century.
Pascal's wager seems, on the face of it, a reasonable proposition, but in fact, it's flawed in quite a lot of ways.
Belief cannot be engendered through will, any more than an erection can be engendered by mere will (and if you're male and don't believe this last point, command yourself to get an erection this very second...)
Just because an individual determines it makes more sense to believe in God than not, it does not axiomatically follow that it is possible to have that belief.
It also assumes that God will not distinguish between those who believe because the wager seems convincing and therefore wish to aim to stay out of hell, and those who believe genuinely.
It is based on a 'pick and choose' God - where the unpleasant, immoral aspects of the Biblical God are ignored in favour of a nice, fluffy God.
It assumes the Judeo-Christian God is the right one, not some other religion's deity.
It assumes the cost of belief and the cost of non-belief are the same.
It assumes the evidence in favour of God is at least equivalent to the evidence against God.
It assumes atheists are immoral, and that God wouldn't take their actions into account.
If true, the same wager could be applied to contradictory beliefs. Sam Harris, the prominant US atheist, notes "Muslims could use it to support the claim that Jesus was not divine (the Koran states that anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus will wind up in hell); Buddhists could use it to support the doctrine of karma and rebirth; and the editors of TIME could use it to persuade the world that anyone who reads Newsweek is destined for a fiery damnation."
It's a very badly flawed argument.
Pascal's wager seems, on the face of it, a reasonable proposition, but in fact, it's flawed in quite a lot of ways.
Belief cannot be engendered through will, any more than an erection can be engendered by mere will (and if you're male and don't believe this last point, command yourself to get an erection this very second...)
Just because an individual determines it makes more sense to believe in God than not, it does not axiomatically follow that it is possible to have that belief.
It also assumes that God will not distinguish between those who believe because the wager seems convincing and therefore wish to aim to stay out of hell, and those who believe genuinely.
It is based on a 'pick and choose' God - where the unpleasant, immoral aspects of the Biblical God are ignored in favour of a nice, fluffy God.
It assumes the Judeo-Christian God is the right one, not some other religion's deity.
It assumes the cost of belief and the cost of non-belief are the same.
It assumes the evidence in favour of God is at least equivalent to the evidence against God.
It assumes atheists are immoral, and that God wouldn't take their actions into account.
If true, the same wager could be applied to contradictory beliefs. Sam Harris, the prominant US atheist, notes "Muslims could use it to support the claim that Jesus was not divine (the Koran states that anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus will wind up in hell); Buddhists could use it to support the doctrine of karma and rebirth; and the editors of TIME could use it to persuade the world that anyone who reads Newsweek is destined for a fiery damnation."
It's a very badly flawed argument.
waldo has said it all. If you want more, read Dawkins on the subject of Pascal's Wager in The God Delusion.
Theland, you're a very dishonest man. I have answered this 'argument' of yours at least twice. You ignore my answer completely, not even attempting to refute it, and then trot out your argument again when a suitable interval has passed.
How do you justify this behaviour?
Theland, you're a very dishonest man. I have answered this 'argument' of yours at least twice. You ignore my answer completely, not even attempting to refute it, and then trot out your argument again when a suitable interval has passed.
How do you justify this behaviour?
Yes , it is a risk Sen, but surely every decision we make in life has a degree of risk, don't you think?
When I became a Christian I was told that having the gift of eternal life was part of the package, although at that time that bit of information didn't have a great deal of effect on me. Now however I'm thankful, not that I dwell upon the fact as some Christians seem to - just that I'm a little bit nearer than before!
Now, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is the truth that sustains me in times of great uncertainty and sees me through - sometime just hanging on by the skin of my teeth...but still hanging on.
I'm also reminded of the parable - The Rich Man and Lazarus regarding who goes where.....and regret.
When I became a Christian I was told that having the gift of eternal life was part of the package, although at that time that bit of information didn't have a great deal of effect on me. Now however I'm thankful, not that I dwell upon the fact as some Christians seem to - just that I'm a little bit nearer than before!
Now, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is the truth that sustains me in times of great uncertainty and sees me through - sometime just hanging on by the skin of my teeth...but still hanging on.
I'm also reminded of the parable - The Rich Man and Lazarus regarding who goes where.....and regret.
Sorry, Chakka I know I'm probably disappointing you yet again, but for those of us who clearly haven't been paying attention, could we have it just one more time please? As you know, I don't hold in with organised religion, but for me, the biggest question does remain unanswered. I really do need a rational explanation for the birth of the universe since I cannot get my head around how, whatever it was that caused the 'Big Bang', got there in the first place.
What about the risk of surrendering ones rationality to the cause of unreason?
�God� �heaven� �hell� and �the afterlife� are terms widely used in attempts to lend conceptual credibility to creations of the imagination in the mind of those who have precluded that reality alone is simultaneously not enough and too much.
To name something implies that it exists, that it has an identity and that it can be perceived directly or by logical inference from its perceived attributes or effects. Plucking disassociated artifacts from our perceptual experience and combining them into impossible formulations, selected solely on the basis of wishful thinking or to instill paranoia, do not make them real and pinning a name on them does not bring them into existence. Such attempts should not be initiated nor adopted by those who hope thereafter to maintain a rational mind able to distinguish the real from the imagined. Bestowing equal credibility to ones unquestioned beliefs and what one can perceive directly in reality renders oneself incapable of such a distinction.
Invoking the supernatural is nothing less than a disregard of and disrespect for the ability and necessity of the human mind to gain knowledge of and understanding about the nature and reality of existence for the sake of sustaining, promoting and enriching ones own life. Attempting to rewrite reality is as unjustifiable as elevating fiction to the status of fact. Appending a naked emperor of a fantasy realm to existence is tantamount to the glorification of nonexistence. Where nonexistence is worshiped as a god, rationality hath no place to dwell.
�God� �heaven� �hell� and �the afterlife� are terms widely used in attempts to lend conceptual credibility to creations of the imagination in the mind of those who have precluded that reality alone is simultaneously not enough and too much.
To name something implies that it exists, that it has an identity and that it can be perceived directly or by logical inference from its perceived attributes or effects. Plucking disassociated artifacts from our perceptual experience and combining them into impossible formulations, selected solely on the basis of wishful thinking or to instill paranoia, do not make them real and pinning a name on them does not bring them into existence. Such attempts should not be initiated nor adopted by those who hope thereafter to maintain a rational mind able to distinguish the real from the imagined. Bestowing equal credibility to ones unquestioned beliefs and what one can perceive directly in reality renders oneself incapable of such a distinction.
Invoking the supernatural is nothing less than a disregard of and disrespect for the ability and necessity of the human mind to gain knowledge of and understanding about the nature and reality of existence for the sake of sustaining, promoting and enriching ones own life. Attempting to rewrite reality is as unjustifiable as elevating fiction to the status of fact. Appending a naked emperor of a fantasy realm to existence is tantamount to the glorification of nonexistence. Where nonexistence is worshiped as a god, rationality hath no place to dwell.
The God of the Bible is an evil monster and its teaching are full of lies. Those who accept this teaching are supporting evil and falsehood. Like in real life evil people get in control by deceiving the foolish and then claiming all those against them are supporting evil.
I will never support the God of the Bible because this is undoubtedly a manifestation of Satan if there is such an entity. Those who support the Bible are probably going to find themselves in Hell if there is a true loving God. Great irony don't you think.
I will take my chance on defining my morality through consciousness, contemplation, truth and honesty.
I will never support the God of the Bible because this is undoubtedly a manifestation of Satan if there is such an entity. Those who support the Bible are probably going to find themselves in Hell if there is a true loving God. Great irony don't you think.
I will take my chance on defining my morality through consciousness, contemplation, truth and honesty.
naomi, nobody yet has a rational explanation for the origins of the universe, Theland included. Science would say "We don't know, but we're working on it."
Creationists hate not knowing, and invent their own answer. Theland's version is that everything must have a cause, including the universe. He then assumes that that cause is a Creator (which he calls God; other religions give the creator a different name). But his assumption makes no sense, for this reason:
If you apply The Theland Rule to the Creator then the Creator must have had a cause - call it The Creator of the Creator (TCOTC), Applying the Rule again you get TCOTCOTC, and so ad infinitum..... So, far from answering the question, The Theland Rule gets you into an infinite series of Creators, each being the "cause" of the next one!
To get out of this mess the creationists then cheat, by making a second Rule which says "You apply the first Rule only once, until you arrive at the Creator, then you abandon it."
Needless to say this is intellectual knavishness of the most risible sort. If an evolutionist were to make a rule to support his case and then abandon that rule when it started to count against him the cries of derision from the creationists would be heard for miles - and quite right too.
We don't know, naomi. We may not know for another thousand years. Some other creature may have to evolve an intellect far greater than ours for it ever to be understood. Or it may remain a mystery forever.
Creationists hate not knowing, and invent their own answer. Theland's version is that everything must have a cause, including the universe. He then assumes that that cause is a Creator (which he calls God; other religions give the creator a different name). But his assumption makes no sense, for this reason:
If you apply The Theland Rule to the Creator then the Creator must have had a cause - call it The Creator of the Creator (TCOTC), Applying the Rule again you get TCOTCOTC, and so ad infinitum..... So, far from answering the question, The Theland Rule gets you into an infinite series of Creators, each being the "cause" of the next one!
To get out of this mess the creationists then cheat, by making a second Rule which says "You apply the first Rule only once, until you arrive at the Creator, then you abandon it."
Needless to say this is intellectual knavishness of the most risible sort. If an evolutionist were to make a rule to support his case and then abandon that rule when it started to count against him the cries of derision from the creationists would be heard for miles - and quite right too.
We don't know, naomi. We may not know for another thousand years. Some other creature may have to evolve an intellect far greater than ours for it ever to be understood. Or it may remain a mystery forever.
Chakka I never thought I'd say it, but as much as I disappoint you, you have now become a great disappointment to me, since I understood from your post to Theland that you had a rational explanation to offer and I was all ears (or eyes in this case). Sadly, however, your explanation mirrors my thoughts precisely inasmuch as there is no answer - as yet. Got to say it gives me confidence to think that science is working on it - although proof either way would be welcome to me. I would just like to know the truth. Having said that, whatever the truth is, I am absolutely certain that the biblical God isn't even an 'also ran'.
The fear of not believing is no less insidious as . . .
The Fear of Believing!
In my childhood there was a hideous formless monster that pursued me unrelentingly in my dreams. So dreaded was this beast that I dared not to gaze upon it lest I become paralyzed with fear. Thus immobilized and no longer able to continue my attempts to escape, I was certain this giant ogre would inflict the most dreadful harm to my body mind and soul imaginable throughout all eternity.
Having determined that living a life always in fear and with no hope of ever experiencing a moment of liberation from this monster�s irrepressible aggression was without justification, I decided to stop my running and turn to meet this monster face to face so that I would at least in the end be provided with the knowledge of the actual nature of my tormentor.
In the same moment I focused my vision upon the monster that had terrified me so night after night . . . it vanished into the fog of fear driven prevarication from which it had first arose!
The End
The Fear of Believing!
In my childhood there was a hideous formless monster that pursued me unrelentingly in my dreams. So dreaded was this beast that I dared not to gaze upon it lest I become paralyzed with fear. Thus immobilized and no longer able to continue my attempts to escape, I was certain this giant ogre would inflict the most dreadful harm to my body mind and soul imaginable throughout all eternity.
Having determined that living a life always in fear and with no hope of ever experiencing a moment of liberation from this monster�s irrepressible aggression was without justification, I decided to stop my running and turn to meet this monster face to face so that I would at least in the end be provided with the knowledge of the actual nature of my tormentor.
In the same moment I focused my vision upon the monster that had terrified me so night after night . . . it vanished into the fog of fear driven prevarication from which it had first arose!
The End
naomi, what i was saying to Theland is that he claims that his creator must have made the universe because everything must have a cause. At least twice I have pointed out the fallacy in that argument and on each occasion he has ignored the fallacy and trotted out the same old stuff again a while later.
I am not Theland and would not be so daft as to claim that I know the answer.
Sorry to have misled you.
I am not Theland and would not be so daft as to claim that I know the answer.
Sorry to have misled you.
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.