What do you have to lose by believing in God? [Archive]

David Swidler

8th May 2006, 12:08 AM

And do you think most Muslims and Christians would agree they share the same God? Hah!!! Not bloody likely.

Of course they would. The word "Allah" just means "God." And the term refers to the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

And since the notion of God is such a vague concept, no one can really know what the "correct" form of worship is. That's my point. How do we know the Christian God is the right God to worship.

Or does simply believing in a "God" ensure eternal salvation, regardless of how you worship (or even if you don't worship at all, but as long as you believe)?

The question only addressed belief. The consequences of that belief are a separate issue.

KelvinG

8th May 2006, 12:18 AM

Of course they would. The word "Allah" just means "God." And the term refers to the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

Heh, so do a google search and you'll find plenty of Christians who are insulted by the idea that Allah and God are one in the same.

Some fundies were none to happy when President Bush made such an comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35787

The question only addressed belief. The consequences of that belief are a separate issue.

And I think it's entirely relevant to discuss the consequences of belief, because there are so many different ways to believe, that isn't it possible that perhaps only a very few people are doing it right. And thus, only a very few people will ever be saved.

In my opinion, it's no less safe to just not believe at all.

Huntster

8th May 2006, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That was a real gem of intelligence.

Allah is the same as the God of Abraham.

Where 'ya been?

And do you think most Muslims and Christians would agree they share the same God? Hah!!! Not bloody likely....

So? All that proves is that "most Muslims and Christians" are as stupid as you.

....And since the notion of God is such a vague concept, no one can really know what the "correct" form of worship is....

So you go with a form of worship that's appropriate.

Do you propound that since you didn't get a set of instructions that you like, you should ignore the situation, or (worse) curse God?

...That's my point. How do we know the Christian God is the right God to worship....

Choose one. The Allah of Islam, the "Great Spirit" of shamanism, the God of Abraham, etc.

He's the same guy, with different names originating from different tribes.

...Or does simply believing in a "God" ensure eternal salvation, regardless of how you worship (or even if you don't worship at all, but as long as you believe)?...

One thing is for sure under almost all religious scenarios:

If you curse God, you're screwing up.

KelvinG

8th May 2006, 12:23 AM

So? All that proves is that "most Muslims and Christians" are as stupid as you.

I stopped reading after this. I was civil in my posts, and for some reason you can't be.
Bye.

pipelineaudio

8th May 2006, 12:52 AM

That was a real gem of intelligence.

Allah is the same as the God of Abraham.

Where 'ya been?

Not exactly, according to muhammed the bible was corrupted by pig/ape jews so tha they would worship satan or other than allah while believing they worshipped allah

clarsct

8th May 2006, 12:59 AM

Saw this question elsewhere, thought it was interesting.

Dignity and self respect, to answer the OP.

David Swidler

8th May 2006, 01:07 AM

Heh, so do a google search and you'll find plenty of Christians who are insulted by the idea that Allah and God are one in the same.

Some fundies were none to happy when President Bush made such an comment.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35787

The fact that they feel insulted doesn't make it any less true. Christianity accepts the Jewish scriptures. Islam reveres Jewish and Christian prophets as genuine and saintly.

And I think it's entirely relevant to discuss the consequences of belief, because there are so many different ways to believe, that isn't it possible that perhaps only a very few people are doing it right. And thus, only a very few people will ever be saved.

See, that's why I made the "consequences" point. The belief doesn't automatically carry with it a specific mode of worship. Case in point: Judaism doesn't consign Christians or Muslims to hell. Or anyone else, for that matter; it's primarily a question of how one treats others, not of belief.

In my opinion, it's no less safe to just not believe at all.

Ain't free will awesome?

Donn

8th May 2006, 01:11 AM

The posts in this thread make my point. "Choose a god", "Which god" etc.
Look at Huntsters posts - he gets to use a Perennial Philosophy, one that says that god is whatever. His is a "just do it" approach.

Now, how do we leave the obvious arguments and make cogent ones against the "single god" approach?

chriswl

8th May 2006, 01:41 AM

Now, how do we leave the obvious arguments and make cogent ones against the "single god" approach?
We'd first have to accept that monotheism was the only valid form of religion. Why would we do that? Monotheism is a very recent development in human history and there are religions today that don't embrace it.

Even if we just ignore polytheistic religions (or pretend that they are not really polytheistic) we are still left with the problem that all religions have specific beliefs and cultural practices that their believers insist are central to what it means to follow those religions. Sure, you can say that as a Christian you believe in the same God as a Muslim but how impressed is God by this line of argument? If the Muslims are right then God is pretty miffed at your failure to face Mecca and pray to him five times a day and your consumption of pork and alcohol.

Donn

8th May 2006, 01:54 AM

What I mean is that we have done the "argument by differences" thing to death. Can we find a more base-line, underlying argument against God as a concept so we cut-off the whole thing even before it gets to all the foolish frippery of actual religion?

I suppose it will lead to asking why people need gods and that gets psychological and fuzzy. I was hoping to read a nice clean (almost Piggy-like :)) argument against the whole notion!

The other thing is that by saying "well all gods are really one god" one can make Pascal's wager kinda valid again. How do we argue against it in that light?

aargh57

8th May 2006, 01:56 AM

I wholeheartedly agree with Dogdoctor on this one. I can no more "choose" to believe in God than I can "choose" to believe in Santa Clause, pixies, dragons, or that 2+2=5.

However, this whole thing that you shouldn't believe in God because you might be wrong doesn't hold a lot of weight to me. If you even had a 1 in a million chance of picking the right religion wouldn't you take it to reap the rewards of eternal life? I've got a 0 in a million chance. I don't know of other religions that punish people for choosing a wrong religion any more than they punish a person that doesn't believe in any God.

Again, like I said, I don't believe in God but not because I "choose" not to. There is no choice in the matter.

KelvinG

8th May 2006, 02:00 AM

The fact that they feel insulted doesn't make it any less true. Christianity accepts the Jewish scriptures. Islam reveres Jewish and Christian prophets as genuine and saintly.

They don't appear to just be insulted, they appear to flatly refuse to believe that the two Gods are the same.
Is it possible scripture is wrong, or the fundies are just interpreting it differently and they are actually correct in their interpretation?

See, that's why I made the "consequences" point. The belief doesn't automatically carry with it a specific mode of worship. Case in point: Judaism doesn't consign Christians or Muslims to hell. Or anyone else, for that matter; it's primarily a question of how one treats others, not of belief.

So, in that sense perhaps atheists could go to heaven if they treat others well. Then the whole premise of believing in God just to be safe would make no sense. All one really needs to do is live a good life, treats others well, and they'll go to heaven. Sounds good to me.

Ain't free will awesome?

Yes, I've always been a big fan.

El Greco

8th May 2006, 02:17 AM

To name but the most trivial, I'd lose all the money I earn by killing, deceiving and otherwise damaging innocent people, secure in my understanding that I will not be punished in an afterlife.

Darat

8th May 2006, 02:35 AM

Saw this question elsewhere, thought it was interesting.

Even if you only pick one God like say the God of the RC or the God of Islam you would lose a lot of free time and a lot of freedoms of what you can and cannot do. If you wanted to cover your bets and believe in all the major religions of the world's God you'd have no time to do anything else.

That was a real gem of intelligence.

Allah is the same as the God of Abraham.

Where 'ya been?

Some claim this since they claim there is only one god, however if you were a Roman Catholic you would have to believe that although they may still believe in God their religion is deficient since the way to God is only through the Church's teachings. (Roman Catholics hold that even other denominations of Christianity are deficient never mind different religions!)

And do you think most Muslims and Christians would agree they share the same God? Hah!!! Not bloody likely.

And since the notion of God is such a vague concept, no one can really know what the "correct" form of worship is. That's my point. How do we know the Christian God is the right God to worship.

It's even thornier then that - as I mention above the RCC is quite clear that only they are the "true" Christians, so it's not even a matter of just picking the right religion you have to pick the right denomination as well...

Or does simply believing in a "God" ensure eternal salvation, regardless of how you worship (or even if you don't worship at all, but as long as you believe)?

Not according to most of the major religions, it's their way or no way.

Of course they would. The word "Allah" just means "God." And the term refers to the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

...snip...

If you think about it the very definition of Christianity shows this can't really be true for Christians at least (no matter what clever theological arguments some may put forward). Neither Muslims or Jews accept that Jesus is God therefore they are not worshipping or believing in the same thing when they talk about God.

So? All that proves is that "most Muslims and Christians" are as stupid as you.

I have to disagree with you - unlike you I don't think the last Pope or even the current Pope can be considered "stupid" - I think they have provided a lot of evidence to indicate that they are at least of average intelligence if not considerably above that.

So you go with a form of worship that's appropriate.

Yet according the world's largest Christian Church this is not the case - other forms of worshipping God (i.e. not as the RCC decrees it) are wrong.

...snip...
Choose one. The Allah of Islam, the "Great Spirit" of shamanism, the God of Abraham, etc.

He's the same guy, with different names originating from different tribes.

...snip...

How can he be when both Judaism and Islam deny Jesus's godhood? Jesus is not God and is no more divine to a Muslim or a Jew then Moses or Noah is.

David Swidler

8th May 2006, 02:45 AM

They don't appear to just be insulted, they appear to flatly refuse to believe that the two Gods are the same.
Is it possible scripture is wrong, or the fundies are just interpreting it differently and they are actually correct in their interpretation?

I hesitate to admit the fundie "intellectual" position has any validity. Considering their aversion to Islam, I rather doubt they've opened a Quran in their lives, and therefore speak from ignorance.

So, in that sense perhaps atheists could go to heaven if they treat others well. Then the whole premise of believing in God just to be safe would make no sense. All one really needs to do is live a good life, treats others well, and they'll go to heaven. Sounds good to me.

It's a question of "safe from what?" I imagine the "enlightened" theist position must posit a contiuum of "heaven-hell" experience, not an all-or-nothing deal. So, yeah, one might cover a good deal of the bases by being a good person, but refusal to believe in God would "expose" the atheist to other suffering.

Anacoluthon64

8th May 2006, 02:59 AM

What I mean is that we have done the "argument by differences" thing to death. Can we find a more base-line, underlying argument against God as a concept so we cut-off the whole thing even before it gets to all the foolish frippery of actual religion?

Yes. We can examine the properties that are commonly attributed to god for logical consistency. For example, "omnipotence" is an absurd concept in that it leads to logical contradictions. The classic argument illustrating this is the question of whether god can make a rock so big he is unable to lift it. Similarly, the presumption of god's "omniscience" is incompatible with his creation of a man imbued with "free will." "Supreme benevolence" runs into problems as soon as a canon of ethics consists of more than one distinct moral imperative since one can always conceive of situations in which two or more such imperatives will be in conflict with one another. "Eternal" is encumbered with difficulties when one asks how god can measure time at all (any finite time interval, regardless how long, is as zero compared to eternity).

Take such attributes away from god and he isn't god anymore.

The converse arguments in favour of god, such as the argument from design, the ontological "proof", etc., have all been picked apart and found to be wanting. The most cogent defence of a belief in god's existence that I have encountered is the one espoused by Martin Gardner - viz. "because it comforts me." This defence is an assertion of pure faith, just as it should be, yet most believers will consistently attempt to defend the veracity of their belief on rational and/or evidential grounds. Therein, perhaps, lies a much more pertinent inconsistency that belies what seems to be man's innate need for reason(s) to believe, rather than the belief itself.

'Luthon64

rocketdodger

8th May 2006, 04:32 AM

Anacoluthon64 beat me to the punch!

Personally, I actually do not disbelieve in a "god." I do know, however, that I consider myself an autonomous being with free will, and I will be damned if I am gonna let anyone think they can command me to be their slave. If I encounter the Christian god at the gates of heaven I am gonna tell him to get out of my way.

Incidentally there was a great Asimov short story about something like this in the compilation "Robot Dreams." A guy dies and finds out his consciousness is the creation of some evil superbeing, and all of his thoughts are actually being placed in his head by this being. The being demands subservience but the guy refuses and tells the being that he is going to figure out a way to think on his own. The being tells the man its pointless since he isn't thinking his own thoughts anway, but the guy doesn't care. The story ends with him sitting down to think about how to get out lol. You gotta love Asimov.

Jekyll

8th May 2006, 04:58 AM

Of course they would. The word "Allah" just means "God." And the term refers to the same God worshipped by Jews and Christians.

No. Jesus is consider to an aspect of God, the holy trinity, only in Christianity.

Whilst both Christians and Muslims believe in one all powerful God, the aspects of this God are different.

You can not be a Christian without believing that God died for our sins. You can not be a Muslim if you do believe that.

ChristineR

8th May 2006, 06:09 AM

Pascal's wager falls apart so many ways on so many levels. I'll just mention a few of them.

The wager starts by assigning values to outcomes and probabilities to scenarios. For example, the value of hell is -infinity and the value of heaven is +infinity. The cost of believing in God while alive is finite, but not zero.

You can get any result you like by choosing the values and probabilities. In particular, math done with "infinity" in it is pretty tricky. For example, if the probability of the exisitence of God is zero, but the cost of hell is -infinity, the cost of not believing in God is anywhere from zero to -infinity, depending on how you do the calculus.

Pascal considered only two possibilities, Catholicism and atheism. Most of the people throwing this question at you would be apalled at the idea that you might convert to Catholicism.

Once you start to add in other Gods and religions the decision starts to favor the most vicious and vengeful deity. This alone is enough to turn me off to the whole idea.

You can start to add in perverse deities. For example, maybe God/Allah will forgive polytheists but punish Christians for elevating Jesus to the level of a deity. Or maybe He/She/It will forgive atheists as they made an honest choice based on the evidence, but will punish everyone else who didn't find Spaghettism (for example) to be the obvious choice. Again, you can get any result you like by shifting the probabilities.

writerdd

8th May 2006, 06:16 AM

I don't think that belief is voluntary, so the question is moot.

I can't choose to believe in god just to make myself feel good. I used to be a born again Christian. Over time, I started to notice that doubts were growing in my mind and eventually I discovered that I no longer believed. It was not a choice.

Lothian

8th May 2006, 06:22 AM

Choosing to believe is not something you can opt in and out of, it is something within your character. I don’t believe in a deity because, like all Sagittarians, I need proof of something before accepting it uncritically.

Roboramma

8th May 2006, 08:02 AM

I find it silly to suggest that it's not possible to choose what you believe. I chose to believe in god for quite a while (a sort of vague, undefined god, but still some sort of intelligent, powerful force that created the universe, or at least was as old as it, and could affect my life), and then one day, realising what I was doing, I decided not to.

It really is that simple. Some times I think about it and consider believing in god again. So far I have chosen not to (and I think it's pretty sure that I will continue to) because I'd rather that my beliefs be as close to reality as I can get them than that they just be emotional comfort, or for social ease, or whatever. But I do think it's a choice. At least for me, it pretty obviously is.

It isn't that hard to believe in god if you want to, even if you know it doesn't exist. In the same way I still sometimes cross my fingers when I'm hoping something will turn out a certain way, even though I know it doesn't do any good. I can convince myself enough that it makes me feel good, which is all I'm trying to get out of it.

Now, if we're talking about believing in god in the same way that I believe that if I don't eat, I'll starve... well, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who has that kind of belief.

andyandy

8th May 2006, 08:09 AM

What do you have to lose by believing in God?

those sunday morning lie ins........:) :) :)

Roboramma

8th May 2006, 08:11 AM

The other thing is that by saying "well all gods are really one god" one can make Pascal's wager kinda valid again. How do we argue against it in that light?

Easily. "All gods are really one god" still doesn't actually tell us anything about that god or what it wants.
What matters about Pascal's wager is that it gets you out of hell or into heaven, or both.

But why should we assume believing in god, even the right god, would do that? Why do we assume the existence of heaven or hell?
Maybe god prefers atheists. All this is a test to see if we were smart enough and humble enough to follow the evidence where it took us, rather than preconcieved notions or what we'd like to be true. Maybe god made the world the way it is so that people of character would deny him, and in so doing, ensure their place at his side.

Or maybe he hates people who don't accept authority or the ideas of their parents, even if they are almost certainly wrong, and he will cast us into hell. Or maybe he's just waiting for us to use our decoder rings on our alphabet soup.

THere are an infinite number of possible ways that this "one god" could require us to live in order to get into heaven or out of hell. Believing in him is only one of those possibilities. Not believing in him is another. As is believing that he is a giant lettuce. There's no reason to believe that believing in god (any specific god, or some vague concept of all gods) has any more to do with our eternal fate than anything else. Including stepping on a crack on the sidewalk.

Maybe god requires nothing more to get into heaven than that we swear alliegence to Santa Claus. Or maybe he requires nothing more than that we renounce Santa and all his elves. There's just no way to distinguish between any of these things.

Roboramma

8th May 2006, 08:16 AM

Saw this question elsewhere, thought it was interesting.

Practically speaking, I think mainly what I have to lose is perspective.

Assuming there is no god, not believing in god means that I know the world the way it really is (in this regard at least). It means that when I make decisions based on that, I am making the right decisions. I know I'm not going to be reborn after I die (either in heaven, hell, or some reincarnation) so I live my life for this life, here and now.

If I found out I was only going to live for ten more days, how I live my life would change very much. If I found out I would live for another 1000 years, I'd also change how I live my life.
Of course, this assumes that this life can affect the afterlife in some meaningful way.

But there is more to it than that. I can appreciate things differently (not necessarily more, but certainly for what they really are), than I would with belief in god.

Humphreys

8th May 2006, 08:52 AM

Saw this question elsewhere, thought it was interesting.

Which God?

If you mean the Christian God, you lose the ability to live your life as you wish to live it. You have to follow the rules, and if you don't, what do you gain by believing in God?

writerdd

8th May 2006, 08:53 AM

Humphreys

8th May 2006, 08:57 AM

Choose one. The Allah of Islam, the "Great Spirit" of shamanism, the God of Abraham, etc.

He's the same guy, with different names originating from different tribes.

Well, not only is that nonsense, it misses the point. If you believe in Allah, you will follow Allah's rules, and the Christian God will punish you if he is real as described in the Bible, and vice versa.

You not only have to follow the correct God, you have to choose the correct set of rules, and follow them.

They could all be wrong, too, and the real God could award the atheists for their critical thinking skills used to reject the false Gods described in poorly written books, by men.

writerdd

8th May 2006, 08:59 AM

I find it silly to suggest that it's not possible to choose what you believe. I chose to believe in god for quite a while (a sort of vague, undefined god, but still some sort of intelligent, powerful force that created the universe, or at least was as old as it, and could affect my life), and then one day, realising what I was doing, I decided not to.

Now, if we're talking about believing in god in the same way that I believe that if I don't eat, I'll starve... well, I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who has that kind of belief.

That's exactly what belief is. If you don't REALLY think that God, for example, will keep you from going to hell to the extent that you believe that eating will keep you from starving, then you don't believe. Maybe you have wishful thinking or maybe you have what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief" but you don't have what true believers have.

If belief is voluntary, then you should have no problem choosing to believe that I am an alien with blue blood and pointy ears and that I am logging into your forums from a planet near the center of the galaxy. Do you believe me? Do you want to?

Here's an easier one. I am a human woman. Do you believe me or not? Do you want to?

When you hear something, your brain evaluates the information based on your prior knowledge and experience. Something happens in the subconscious and, presto, you either believe it or you don't.

Humphreys

8th May 2006, 09:08 AM

If belief is voluntary, then you should have no problem choosing to believe that I am an alien with blue blood and pointy ears and that I am logging into your forums from a planet near the center of the galaxy. Do you believe me? Do you want to?

It isn't as clear-cut as you suggest.

Belief is not a choice, per se, but it can certainly be encouraged. I can choose to edge belief into a certain direction. If I really wanted to become a believer, I think I could do it.

I'd have to change my mindset, stop reading anti-Christian material, start reading only pro-Christian material, go to church and hang out with believers constantly, and make the decision to stop thinking critically, and start taking things on "faith", unquestioningly.

Is that not what faith is, really? A conscious decision to believe regardless of evidence? Anyone can do it, I think.

Derren Browne recently converted a room full of atheists and agnostics in minutes, and I think that says a lot about the flexibility of belief.

Roboramma

8th May 2006, 09:19 AM

That's exactly what belief is. If you don't REALLY think that God, for example, will keep you from going to hell to the extent that you believe that eating will keep you from starving, then you don't believe. Maybe you have wishful thinking or maybe you have what Daniel Dennett calls "belief in belief" but you don't have what true believers have.

There are degrees of belief. I don't have to be absolutely certain of a thing in order to say I believe it. I believe that there is a man in New York named George Wilson, but I'm not certain of it (in fact I have very little reason for that belief other that I think it's a common enough name that there's probably someone there with it.)

If belief is voluntary, then you should have no problem choosing to believe that I am an alien with blue blood and pointy ears and that I am logging into your forums from a planet near the center of the galaxy. Do you believe me? Do you want to?

This is a false dichotomy. Some beliefs are harder to convince ourselves of than others. This isn't necessarily related to whether or not we have good evidence that they are true, though certainly it often is. It's in large part related to what does or does not seem true.
I remember being lost in the jungle in India at night, and it really did feel like there was some dark force alive there. I don't believe it because I choose not to, but it would be very easy to believe in some sort of animistic jungle god.

I have often believed in such things enough to be frightened by them. On the other hand, I didn't believe in them enough to try to convince others that they were true.

Here's an easier one. I am a human woman. Do you believe me or not? Do you want to?
I neither believe nor disbelieve you. Nor do I have any preference either way. What's your point?

When you hear something, your brain evaluates the information based on your prior knowledge and experience. Something happens in the subconscious and, presto, you either believe it or you don't.

Sure, but that doesn't preclude being aware of that process and deciding to change it.

I'll give you another example. After reading the book, "Banner Under Heaven" my sister began to question many of her beliefs. This clearly caused her some pain. She couldn't see any way to reconcile her beliefs with some of the obvious facts pointed out in that book. I remember having a conversation with her about it, and I could see her trying to get around it, but unable to.

It wasn't long, however, before she decided to just ignore those obvious facts. That was a choice, based on what she wanted to believe. I don't see how you could call it anything else.

I less than three logic

8th May 2006, 09:36 AM

Well, not only is that nonsense, it misses the point. If you believe in Allah, you will follow Allah's rules, and the Christian God will punish you if he is real as described in the Bible, and vice versa.

You not only have to follow the correct God, you have to choose the correct set of rules, and follow them.

They could all be wrong, too, and the real God could award the atheists for their critical thinking skills used to reject the false Gods described in poorly written books, by men.
This post reminds me of something Thomas Jefferson wrote:
In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

Humphreys

8th May 2006, 09:44 AM

If you think about it, it'd be a wonderful test, and the great irony.

All the believers go to hell...

I less than three logic

8th May 2006, 09:56 AM

I don’t think I’d mind spending an eternity with a God with a sense of humor like that. :)

I have little desire to spend much time at all with the egotistical one described by most religions.

Cleon

8th May 2006, 10:01 AM

Not exactly, according to muhammed the bible was corrupted by pig/ape jews so tha they would worship satan or other than allah while believing they worshipped allah

No. This is simply wrong.

First of all, Muhammed never referred to the Jews as "pigs" or "apes." That's simply incorrect.

Second, Muhammed preached that the Bible (both OT and NT) was a holy book, but that it was ultimately written by men and therefore corrupt. Believers in the Bible--both Jews and Christians--were to be respected as "people of the Book."

Some portions of the Quran promote a slightly more adversarial relationship between Muslims and "people of the Book," but any way you slice it the claim above is wrong.

Bob Klase

8th May 2006, 10:47 AM

I find it silly to suggest that it's not possible to choose what you believe.

Someone has opened a secret numbered bank account in Switzerland in your name. They deposited one billion dollars in the account- it's yours. But they're not going to tell you the name of the bank or the number on the account. You're now very rich.

What do you have to lose by not believing this? Do you choose not to believe it? Why? If you choose to believe it, do you honestly believe it?

Roboramma

8th May 2006, 10:50 AM

What do you have to lose by not believing this? Amoung other things, self respect.

Do you choose not to believe it? Why?
Yes, I do choose not to believe it, because I find it very unlikely to be true. For similar reasons that I choose not to believe in god.

ChristineR

8th May 2006, 11:02 AM

005.059
Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
005.060
Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

Shaikir translation.

Beerina

8th May 2006, 11:05 AM

No. This is simply wrong.

First of all, Muhammed never referred to the Jews as "pigs" or "apes." That's simply incorrect.

Technically true. All humans are pigs and apes, not just Jews.

Cleon

8th May 2006, 11:09 AM

Technically true. All humans are pigs and apes, not just Jews.

Yeah...That's not true either, but I suspect you already knew that.

Cleon

8th May 2006, 11:13 AM

Shaikir translation.
...Which does not contradict what I said, if you read it. Also, the Ali translation might be a bit more clear.

ChristineR

8th May 2006, 11:27 AM

Cleon

8th May 2006, 11:33 AM

I dunno, I didn't find Ali any clearer. The Hadith does make it somewhat clearer. Some Jews and Christians were transformed into pigs and apes.

None of this keeps Moslems from calling Christians and Jews pigs and apes, but I suppose it's no worse than calling Moslems terrorists and pedophiles.

I tend to react rather vehemently against this stuff, because a lot of the crap repeated about the Quran (like the BS bit about Muhammed believing the Bible was corrupted by "pig/ape Jews") is rather reminiscent of similar "criticisms" made against Judaism and the Talmud.

Almo

8th May 2006, 11:47 AM

Simple answer to the OP:

Integrity.

Yahzi

8th May 2006, 12:21 PM

Can we find a more base-line, underlying argument against God as a concept so we cut-off the whole thing even before it gets to all the foolish frippery of actual religion?

How about this question:

How do you know it is true?

Any concept of God is either a) provably wrong, or b) unprovable. If it is wrong, we are done, and if it is unprovable, then we are still done.

Claims that cannot be shown to be true are assumed to not be true. Any other position leads to epemistic anarchy.

The other thing is that by saying "well all gods are really one god" one can make Pascal's wager kinda valid again.
Except you also have to define all belief and practices as one practice. In which case "not believing" and "not praying or going to church" is as close to what believers do as anything else. If all concepts and practices are valid, then all of them are valid - including the set of no concepts or practices. (this is why nobody defines all practices and concepts as valid - becuase it leads to epemistic anarchy).

Yahzi

8th May 2006, 12:23 PM

So? All that proves is that "most Muslims and Christians" are as stupid as you.
I would like to thank you for this comment, insomuch as its combined levels of rudeness and error are so great as to alert me to the necessity of putting you on /ignore before I wasted any more time.

Tony

8th May 2006, 12:43 PM

I stopped reading after this. I was civil in my posts, and for some reason you can't be.
Bye.

You're in the right Kelvin. Just because "Allah" is the Arab word for "God" doesn't mean that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

chriswl

8th May 2006, 12:57 PM

This post reminds me of something Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"...Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. "
Wow, that's beautiful. I can't add anything to that.

Lothian

8th May 2006, 02:04 PM

There are degrees of belief. I don't have to be absolutely certain of a thing in order to say I believe it. You are mixing up what you say with what you believe; what you really believe. I don’t think you can just decide to change what you believe.

You can announce you have changed your belief. You can reflect on new evidence and decide your belief has changed, but I don’t thin you can decide that you are going to change what you believe any more that you can decide you are going to have fun.

You can go somewhere you have had fun before, you can prepare doing things you know puts you in a mood for fun, you can go somewhere other people of fun but there is no 100% guarantee you will have fun.

Afterwards you can say I had fun but I don’t think you can say I will have fun. Likewise you can say you changed your beliefs but you can’t say you will change you beliefs.

atari24

8th May 2006, 03:07 PM

What do you have to lose by believing in God?
What do you have to lose by believing in Santa Claus?
What do you have to lose by believing in Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What do you have to lose by believing in Fairies?
What do you have to lose by believing in Hobbits?
What do you have to lose by believing in Garden Gnomes?
What do you have to lose by believing in Unicorns?
What do you have to lose by believing in Crusty Rat Ghosts?
What do you have to lose by believing in that I am God?

slingblade

8th May 2006, 03:44 PM

"What do you have to lose by believing in God?"

My self-respect.

What do I have to gain?

Nothing. (I've already been there, so I know.)

Bob Klase

8th May 2006, 03:55 PM

Yes, I do choose not to believe it, because I find it very unlikely to be true. For similar reasons that I choose not to believe in god.

If you have reasons for believing (or not), then you're not making a choice to believe (or not)- you're looking at the facts and forming a conclusion (or opinion, or belief) based on the facts.

That's very different from merely making a choice to believe or not.

If you really believe that you're making a choice, then make the choice to believe in god- really believe. Just for a year or two, you can always choose to stop believe later.

8th May 2006, 04:09 PM

I stopped reading after this. I was civil in my posts, and for some reason you can't be.
Bye.

Bigotry is a good-sized chunk of religion KelvinG, don't take it personally.

writerdd

8th May 2006, 04:19 PM

Bigotry is a good-sized chunk of religion KelvinG, don't take it personally.

Hi TJ, I've recently noticed a lot of atheits on this forum and several others being bigoted toward all religious people. So it goes both ways. We have to respect others if we expect to be respected. That doesn't mean we have to respect their beliefs if they don't have evidence to back them up, but we can't treat them all like idiots. There is a wide spectrum of belief and behavior among religious people and they should be judged as individuals, not clumped into some group of "other".

8th May 2006, 04:57 PM

You're entirely correct, writerdd. I was (albeit obliquely) trying to make a point about that very thing, but it was directed specifically to Hunster, not to the religious in general. Hunster is clearly a believer, but spews this vitriol at an innocent. It was meant as a 'practice what you preach' post, but I can see where it could be misinterpreted. Mea culpa.

Bigotry is a very divisive phenomenon, and like many things, it is taken to extremes. Anything taken to an extreme, including atheism, can cause an us/them mentality, which will never be wholly constructive.

Beerina

8th May 2006, 08:08 PM

Yeah...That's not true either, but I suspect you already knew that.

I phrased it badly. The claim all humans are apes and pigs is mine, not Mohammed's.

Roboramma

8th May 2006, 09:01 PM

If you have reasons for believing (or not), then you're not making a choice to believe (or not)- you're looking at the facts and forming a conclusion (or opinion, or belief) based on the facts.

That's very different from merely making a choice to believe or not.

If you really believe that you're making a choice, then make the choice to believe in god- really believe. Just for a year or two, you can always choose to stop believe later.

I would if I wanted to. I don't want to however.
But as I said, I did believe in the past for the simple reason that I wanted to do so. It's really not that hard to convince yourself of something if you want to believe it.

writerdd

8th May 2006, 09:07 PM

It isn't as clear-cut as you suggest.

Belief is not a choice, per se, but it can certainly be encouraged. I can choose to edge belief into a certain direction. If I really wanted to become a believer, I think I could do it.

I'd have to change my mindset, stop reading anti-Christian material, start reading only pro-Christian material, go to church and hang out with believers constantly, and make the decision to stop thinking critically, and start taking things on "faith", unquestioningly.

Is that not what faith is, really? A conscious decision to believe regardless of evidence? Anyone can do it, I think.

Derren Browne recently converted a room full of atheists and agnostics in minutes, and I think that says a lot about the flexibility of belief.

You mean you could brainwash yourself? OK, I can buy that.

But no, faith is not really a conscious decision to believe regardless of the evidence. Faith is not accepting the evidence because you already believe something else so strongly that the evidence (at least for a time) doesn't sway you.

However, I said "for a time" because the fundamentalists are right about one thing, if they allow themselves to be exposed to other knowledge, they will eventually lose their faith because it is based on wishful thinking and myth, not on reality.

hellaeon

8th May 2006, 09:19 PM

What do you have to lose by believing in God?

lets see

Money. Reality. Common Sense. An ability to be strong in times of need without reverting to delusion. Money. The ability to dictate events factually. Rationality. Money. A strong will. A belief in the better side of humans. A acceptance of an outcome in a real sense, not because some bloke decided it was his master plan (and you dont know at all why). Money. Personal Freedom. Life. Living free. Money. Laughter. Natural Happyness. The ability to look through pure charlatans like Benny Hinn. More Money.

pipelineaudio

9th May 2006, 12:34 AM

No. This is simply wrong.

First of all, Muhammed never referred to the Jews as "pigs" or "apes." That's simply incorrect.

.

sorry

5:59 Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers ?
5:60 Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah ? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road

Like whenver we cross paths, you are the wrong one

Donn

9th May 2006, 02:20 AM

There's no reason to believe that believing in god (any specific god, or some vague concept of all gods) has any more to do with our eternal fate than anything else. Including stepping on a crack on the sidewalk.

When I read that bit about stepping on a crack, something clicked. There are elements of compulsion and obsession at work in belief.

I am no shrink, but try this out:
Underneath all the trimmings of all religions is a basic pizza base. This base is a thought, an urge, a feeling. This urge tells you that you should not step on the cracks! There is no reason. You simply "know" that by stepping on the crack you transgress against some absolute force and you are doomed.

So, this urge tells you that to doubt your "god", your elders, your tribe's culture will bring unnamed doom. Therefore, you swallow the whole pizza, garlic and all.

It's ironically rational in a sick (avocado and fish) kind of way. You are making a reasoned decision that you choose not to "tempt fate", "face doom".

Hence my thinking that underneath all the trappings is a frightened mammal that is expressing superstitious genes!

Seen this way, it's unlikely that humanity will ever rid itself of blind belief. The only way would be for those who "Believe" to be penalized by natural selection somehow and I think that natural selection has done a fine job of selecting for them in the majority.

I fear we Skeptical Atheists are thin on the ground.

Cleon

9th May 2006, 06:36 AM

sorry

5:59 Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers ?
5:60 Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah ? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road

Try reading them. Somebody already quoted these passages, and noted that they don't say what you think they say.

If you read the entire Sura, it actually explains the Muslim position rather well; but that would require actually learning something about the subject rather than taking a couple of passages out of context and deciding they mean something other than what they say.

Like whenver we cross paths, you are the wrong one

Nope, sorry. You made a claim that was 100% bullocks. Deal with it.

writerdd

9th May 2006, 08:01 AM

When I read that bit about stepping on a crack, something clicked. There are elements of compulsion and obsession at work in belief.

There is a form of OCD called Scrupulosity that compells people to go overboard in religion. There is also some evidence that temporal lobe epilepsy can cause spirutual ecstacy and even visions. I have often wondered whether religious people have mild versions of these types of conditions. But that explaination doesn't seem to hold up when you look at different parts of the world. If belief was purely a physical condition, wouldn't it be equally widespread in any region. But why is the Southern hemisphere so religious, and the United States, while Europe and Canda and some other areas are so secular?

Donn

9th May 2006, 08:28 AM

But why is the Southern hemisphere so religious, and the United States, while Europe and Canda and some other areas are so secular?
Well, I am speculating out of nothing. I didn't know about Scrupulosity, wow.

An anecdote from my childhood may explain the feeling of this 'compulsion' a little better. I was told by a step-sister that if I stood before a mirror at midnight and turned around three times, I would be struck in the back by an arrow!

Now this was obviously nonsense. Or was it....?

I sure didn't test it out. Hey, midnight to a 12 year old is a long way away!

That's the sensation. The "or is it nonsense?" bit. The burst of fear and uncertainty. Perhaps that is a kind of compulsion common to all religious people.

As to why some parts of the world are clear of belief; are they really?

Anway, I plan to be asleep before midnight. :)

Donn

9th May 2006, 08:37 AM

Snip. Oh dear, double post...

KelvinG

9th May 2006, 10:30 AM

You're in the right Kelvin. Just because "Allah" is the Arab word for "God" doesn't mean that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Thanks Tony!

KelvinG

9th May 2006, 10:32 AM

Bigotry is a good-sized chunk of religion KelvinG, don't take it personally.

I don't. Tempers get heated on this board (I've been guilty of some indiscretions) but this Huntster dude seems to be consistently like that, so I've added him to my ignore list.

KelvinG

9th May 2006, 10:46 AM

I hesitate to admit the fundie "intellectual" position has any validity. Considering their aversion to Islam, I rather doubt they've opened a Quran in their lives, and therefore speak from ignorance.

Yes, but you can't prove definitely that they are wrong. When dealing with unprovable matters of the supernatural, it's not possible to know who is actually correct. So, regardless of how you view the fundie intellect, they could be right. Unless you can somehow prove otherwise.

It's a question of "safe from what?" I imagine the "enlightened" theist position must posit a contiuum of "heaven-hell" experience, not an all-or-nothing deal. So, yeah, one might cover a good deal of the bases by being a good person, but refusal to believe in God would "expose" the atheist to other suffering.

Exactly, you "imagine" a position. But you could be very, very wrong!

Please provide me definitive proof that the "refusal to belive in God would expose the atheist to other suffering."
If I say "atheists who live a good life will go to heaven" there is absolutely no way you can prove me wrong.

Again, when dealing with matters of the supernatural, anything goes, as long as it can be cooked up in the mind of the believer.

You can go on all day about how the Muslim and Christian God are the same God, what the enlightened theist position is, what happens to atheists when they die, etc, etc.
But, when all is said and done, you can't prove any of it to be true or false.

So, the most hard core evangelical fundie might actually end up beind correct.

And this is what my original point was. Believing simply for the sake of believing doesn't make much sense in my opinion as no one can truly know the nature of God (if he actually exists, which I don't believe he does), and the odds of actually being correct are slim.
Thus non-belief is probably just as safe a bet (because maybe us good living atheists do go to heaven!!)

AWPrime

9th May 2006, 01:48 PM

What do you have to lose by believing in God?:

1. My time
2. My mind
3. My morals

Pauliesonne

9th May 2006, 02:00 PM

My intellectual freedom.

andyandy

9th May 2006, 02:07 PM

your objectivity....:)

writerdd

9th May 2006, 03:09 PM

What do you mean by "God"?

David Swidler

10th May 2006, 01:42 AM

[SNIP]
Again, when dealing with matters of the supernatural, anything goes, as long as it can be cooked up in the mind of the believer.

You can go on all day about how the Muslim and Christian God are the same God, what the enlightened theist position is, what happens to atheists when they die, etc, etc.
But, when all is said and done, you can't prove any of it to be true or false.

So, the most hard core evangelical fundie might actually end up beind correct.
It's not as arbitrary as you make it sound. Even the fundies have to have some support in the religious sources for their position. In this case, the evidence weighs more heavily in favor of their being the same God (certainly from the Muslim perspective). Should we identify religious doctrine based on the most vocal portion of adherents, or based on the bodies that develop doctrine?

It's one thing to say that fundamentalist Baptists in the American South claim that they don't worship the same God as Muslims do; it's another to paint all Christians with that brush.

And this is what my original point was. Believing simply for the sake of believing doesn't make much sense in my opinion as no one can truly know the nature of God (if he actually exists, which I don't believe he does), and the odds of actually being correct are slim.
Thus non-belief is probably just as safe a bet (because maybe us good living atheists do go to heaven!!)

Oh, I agree. Believing for the sake of believing is a pointless exercise. I merely pointed out that it's not a universally held principle that choosing the "wrong form" of belief for the "right" God is a ticket to hell.