religious debate thread

[Naryar]

Rational belief can only be true to it's name if it is philosophic.

[Squirrel_Monkey]

Religion is logical.

[Urjak]

Religion is logical.

In what way?

[Squirrel_Monkey]

Religion is logical.

In what way?

There's the whole arguement that
1. If God exists then you will go to heaven if you believe, if you don't you won't
2. If God doesn't exist then nothing happens
Therefore, believing gives you nothing to lose whilst not believing could prevent eternal life.
It's Pascal's Wager.

[Urjak]

There's the whole arguement that
1. If God exists then you will go to heaven if you believe, if you don't you won't
2. If God doesn't exist then nothing happens
Therefore, believing gives you nothing to lose whilst not believing could prevent eternal life.
It's Pascal's Wager.

What if a different god that you don't worship exists?

[Squirrel_Monkey]

There's the whole arguement that
1. If God exists then you will go to heaven if you believe, if you don't you won't
2. If God doesn't exist then nothing happens
Therefore, believing gives you nothing to lose whilst not believing could prevent eternal life.
It's Pascal's Wager.

What if a different god that you don't worship exists?

That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.

[Urjak]

That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.

You know how many gods there are? The statistical advantage gained would be incredibly insignificant. To call it logical is questionable.

[Squirrel_Monkey]

That's the problem, but believing in one gives you a better chance than believing in one.

You know how many gods there are? The statistical advantage gained would be incredibly insignificant. To call it logical is questionable.

Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%

[Urjak]

Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%

From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.

[Scorpion]

Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%

From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.

I was just about to say that urjak.
Besides, as I always say, would you really want their to be a god given all that goes on in this world?

[Squirrel_Monkey]

Still a statistical advantage. 0.0000000000000001% is infinite times more likely than 0%

From a purely statistical standpoint you are correct. However time wasted in religious activities (festivals, church, etc) that could have been used for better purposes (curing world hunger, research, etc), then you are better off not partaking in any religion at all.

Why not follow a religion without all that effort?

[Urjak]

Why not follow a religion without all that effort?

Like?

[madman3]

To be honest the only religious people who haven't been fooling around are the Sikhs.

[Squirrel_Monkey]

Why not follow a religion without all that effort?

Like?

Basic Christianity. Just be good

[Urjak]

Basic Christianity. Just be good

Secular Humanism states the same thing, yet it is not Christianity. So then what makes a "Basic Christian" different from a Secular Humanist?

[Squirrel_Monkey]

Basic Christianity. Just be good
Secular Humanism states the same thing, yet it is not Christianity. So then what makes a "Basic Christian" different from a Secular Humanist?

Belief in God.

EDIT: WTF with this post?

[Urjak]

And how do "basic Christians" express that belief?

[Squirrel_Monkey]

By believing, if God is real they he will know what you think and will reward you for your faith. Actions are a plus but not necessary.

[Naryar]

You can call a system of thought based on a hypothesis (the existence of God) logical, but you can't call it reasonable.

Oh, and Pascal's wager is basically a self-centered and egoist calculus. While I encourage these, I very much doubt the christian God, if he exists, likes these to be his followers.

[Urjak]

The way I see it, it is more likely none of the gods exist and everyone just made it up then one religion exists and everyone besides that one group made theirs up.