Logical way to approach religion

[waraabe]

I am using Islam for this thought process


It is a simple gamble. You gamble on 2 things, that God exists and if you follow you get heaven or that God doesn't exist and there is nothing after death.

I believe it is a positive gamble with potential to win and not lose.

If you go down the god route you get heaven etc

If you go down the no God route and it turns out that God exists then you face hell

If you go down the route of no God and turns out u r right then there is Nothing after death.

This is my theory, being religious is a good gamble. Think about it. If you do believe in God and do all the acts required on doing so, u get heaven = win

If you are a believer of God and do all the required acts (from God) and it turns out God doesn't exist then you won't be around to be pissed off or regret because there is nothing after death.

But if you believe in no God and it turns out you are wrong, then it is hell fire for eternity.

So gamble on religion because chances are you are either going to be rewarded with heaven (avoid hell) or you won't be there to be pissed off

 

[angrycat]

I get what you are saying, but this doesn't work with atheist...they will just say, well which of the 10000 gods is the right one? how do I know I wont go to hell anyway because the real god is a sadistic one who just wants to put you in hell?, they are people of doubt and hypothetical scenarios

 

[BipolarBear]

This is my theory, being religious is a good gamble. Think about it. If you do believe in God and do all the acts required on doing so, u get heaven = win

God knows your thoughts, you cant just gamble and get away with it lmao.

 

[waraabe]

I get what you are saying, but this doesn't work with atheist...they will just say, well which of the 10000 gods is the right one? how do I know I wont go to hell anyway because the real god is a sadistic one who just wants to put you in hell?, they are people of doubt and hypothetical scenarios

Absolutely, you get through the whole malarkey of which religion is correct. But for this thought experiment I am only focusing on Islam

 

[waraabe]

God knows your thoughts, you cant just gamble and get away with it lmao.

Would be unfair if someone was a very good muslim and did everything right only his believe was a bit skeptical.

 

[Freebandz]

I don't give a f*ck about the after life or for its existence

 

[Sixth]

I don't give a f*ck about the after life or for its existence

Wawareey

 

[BipolarBear]

Would be unfair if someone was a very good muslim and did everything right only his believe was a bit skeptical.

God would be the judge of that. Questioning ones belief isn't bad in any way, God did give you a brain to think with. Its the actions that hold more weight for punishment.

 

[Haze]

@waraabe Your theory is called Pascal's Wager. It's an argument for pragmatism. And honestly it's the same no matter what religion you look at. From a pragmatic point of view, it's better to believe in god, and Pascal argues that even if you stoutly disbelieve in god you can train yourself to believe in him. Which is the ultimate goal because you lose nothing, and stand a chance at gaining something. But just like there's people who are willing to believe in god exist, there are people who are willing to bet on the opposite. Regardless of who is right though, the argument is one that only the dead can solve. Too bad for us, they don't talk.

 

[Inactive]

There are countless religions. Even if a religion were to be the truth, chances are you're following the wrong one. It's like playing Russian Roulette.

Atheism is the only truth.

 

[Haze]

@AbdiJohnson I wouldn't necessarily say that since atheism is also a belief system. The belief being you choose to not believe. So if we were playing russian roullete then atheism would be just another possible bullet we would be taking rather than it being the one empty chamber that lets you live. But then again if the atheist chamber is empty, going back to pascals wager, then so are all the other chambers. So in effect whether or not you believe isn't as important as you would think. It's just more pragmatic to be a believer since you never really know.

 

[Inactive]

@AbdiJohnson I wouldn't necessarily say that since atheism is also a belief system. The belief being you choose to not believe. So if we were playing russian roullete then atheism would be just another possible bullet we would be taking rather than it being the one empty chamber that lets you live. But then again if the atheist chamber is empty, going back to pascals wager, then so are all the other chambers. So in effect whether or not you believe isn't as important as you would think. It's just more pragmatic to be a believer since you never really know.

It's not pragmatic to be a believer.

I'll tell you what's pragmatic: tell your God to show himself every 10 years so every human in the world knows who they must obey and believe in.

He won't because he doesn't exist.

Why is that so hard?

 

[waraabe]

@waraabe Your theory is called Pascal's Wager. It's an argument for pragmatism. And honestly it's the same no matter what religion you look at. From a pragmatic point of view, it's better to believe in god, and Pascal argues that even if you stoutly disbelieve in god you can train yourself to believe in him. Which is the ultimate goal because you lose nothing, and stand a chance at gaining something. But just like there's people who are willing to believe in god exist, there are people who are willing to bet on the opposite. Regardless of who is right though, the argument is one that only the dead can solve. Too bad for us, they don't talk.

But this approach is the most logical since we can't figure out any thing.

Are you interested on philosophy too sxb

 

[waraabe]

It's not pragmatic to be a believer.

I'll tell you what's pragmatic: tell your God to show himself every 10 years so every human in the world knows who they must obey and believe in.

He won't because he doesn't exist.

Why is that so hard?

Clearly illogical argument. Dt m Mathis pragmatic approach is the only logical methodology in tackling the God vs no God argument.

It does raise issues about the various religious approaches though.

 

[Inactive]

Clearly illogical argument. Dt m Mathis pragmatic approach is the only logical methodology in tackling the God vs no God argument.

It does raise issues about the various religious approaches though.

Nothing illogical about your God showing he exists. Tell him to start a tsunami every 1000 days somewhere. He doesn't have to hurt anyone. He must show he truly exists.

Enough of the contradictions in every people's holy book.

 

[Haze]

@waraabe yes, i am. But i've only read a few pieces. So i'm not the most knowledgeable person around.
@AbdiJohnson I'm sorry. But to say that jumping into hypotheticals in a situation where there is no real way to discern, outside of a miracle that is, the truth just doesn't work. You can believe whatever you want, but let's face reality and let common sense do it's thing. If there is a god, and to YOU that is an if, then the odds are not in your favor. If there isn't a god, then to MYSELF, the odds don't favor nor go against me. So from a purely logical perspective, pascal's wager is common sense argument, if taken at face value.

 

[Inactive]

@Haze provide evidence. Don't give me Disney stories. I need facts

 

[Inactive]

Pascal's Wager tells us to believe in a God because it will save us from hell.

Which God? There are thousands of Gods and every religion says they are the true faith.

There are contradictions in all faiths. Their books are full of contradictions.

Would a God have contradictions in his religion if it were really the true religion?

 

[Mckenzie]

@AbdiJohnson what are the contradictions in Islam that you see? And can you tell us what led you to Atheism? I think I've asked you before but I can't remember

 

[Hatredfree]

God does exist, even the smartest scientists don't know how

"life began on Earth." God created the universe.