The_vagabond7 said:
You're assuming that you're only wrong about whether or not a deity exists. Pascals wager doesn't work because it is weighted as a 50/50 chance, either you're right about god or there isn't one. But it leaves out that there are thousands of gods and thousands of beliefs, and even within a single religious order there are numerous disagreements about how that specific god or gods want to be worshipped. If you were simply going to make a wager, the pragmatic approach would be you should either go all in figuring that it's unlikely you'll pick the correct god AND the correct method of pleasing him, and instead just live your life hoping that if you're wrong, the god that does exist is the kind that will judge you for your deeds and not judge you for arbitrary demands. So you win even if you don't believe in him. Or go the other direction and hedge your bet by picking whoever is the most unmerciful, hateful, vicious, punitive and punishing god, and suck up to his ass like there is no tomorrow. Because if there is a loving god that isn't arbitrary in his demands (don't be gay, pray seven times a day facing mecca, believe in me alone), but is genuinely loving then you're good either way. But if the actual god is wrathful and unmerciful, then you need to be on his good side or else there is going to be torments worse than hellfire in your future. I obviously go with the first option, seems more rewarding than living a life sucking up to Cthulu, or ancient gods to appease them. But even then it's not because it's statistically smart, it's because there isn't any good reason to believe in any of these elder gods of ancient tribes.
Also all religious faith is being questioned and held up to be scrutinized by the rational, not just your pet interpretation of your personal one. And That is not even close to persecution, go read some history books to learn what religious persecution looks like (it's considerably more violent and disturbing than sarcasm on the internet, or democratic political legislation to make a more religiously nuetral government environment). And two, it goes for all faiths. It's just that alot of religions excel in persecution complexes, which leads to confirmation bias that clearly they are being singled out, just as was foretold in every holy book ever written by any person claiming to be a prophet. It's just "us vs them" conditioning to strengthen the tribe. "Your enemies will rise up against you and your kind, and speak out against you and your way of life!" "There are people that actively disagree with me, just like the prophets of yore said they would! Now I know I'm right!" ect ect. |
Actually, is thinking is logical valid.
In logic there`s only right or wrong, there`s no third chance - and that`s a logical principle that avoids contradiction. So, looking at what he said, he is right in the wat he expressed himself. God, from a christian point of view if you will, does exist or does not. Which, in conclusion, "if our beleif is wrong, nothing happens, we die and its lights out. If they are wrong however..." is logically valid.
About everything being the same as everything - praise this one or that one for the sake of being safe - in real life, is void of meaning as when there`s no actual faith, just picking the safest option, adds nothing, just an illusion. That`s why faith is a gift. There`s more to religion than just picking... but i think now i`m going astray on the subject
Reason secrutinizing faith or vice-versa brings you what? When they speak different languages, even though they are part of us and complete us, how can one expect for each part to scrutinize the other?
That`s like putting science and faith face to face in a dispute to see who can fully discard the other.
"Because if there is a loving god that isn't arbitrary in his demands (don't be gay, pray seven times a day facing mecca, believe in me alone)..."
How is that arbitrary when they serve everyone and there`s fundamentation to those actions/morals?
