The United Nations Charter of Human Rights and Islam

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

ozy, just have patience! I will get through this thread, in due time!

There are 32 articles that i have to go through. It will take time. In end we can discuss in detail.

[ozymandias]

But the evidence also does not support they did not exist.

Actually, it does.

Its a win-win for us. but a lose-lose for atheists.

I think you are confused. How is living in reality a 'lose'? How is expanding human and personal knowledge a 'lose'? How is being true to yourself a 'lose'?

[ozymandias]

I think she is referring to Pascal's wager.

"Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose"

I am familiar with the Wager -- and I am suprised that people still try and use such a flawed argument.

Imagine if you die and find out that God exists and there is indeed an afterlife. All your life as in atheist you were arguing against the existance of such a God and rediculing him and now you have to answer him and will be punished for your wrong doing.
If you die and there is no God, it will be the same for both theists and atheists and both of them would gain or lose nothing and won't have to face upto anything.

First of all the Wager is *not* an argument for the existence of a god, it is an argument for *belief*, which is completely different.

Imagine, if you will, that I state that I have a billion dollars, and I will split it with anyone that believes me. It would be in your best interest to *act* like you belief me. Pascal's Wager applies -- it is win if you believe that I have it, and I do. (believe and god exists). It's neutral if you believe and I do not (believe, and no god -- note, this is *NOT* win-win, as belief when no god exists is at best a neutral, if not an actual loss), if you don't believe, and I have the money (atheist, god exists) it is a loss, and if you do not believe and I do not have the money (atheist, no god) it's neutral *AT WORST* -- again lose-neutral.

That is, of course, assuming that I do not make you follow silly rules and waste time, effort, money, and lives proving your faith -- say asking you to violate human rights, free speech, pray, etc. This converts it to a win-lose, lose-win case.

Now, to beat this horse to death a little more, imagine that it is not *me* that has the billion dollars, but my friend -- and your belief in me having the money angered him (oops -- the Baptists are right!) now, not only do you lose out on the reward (no heaven) you pissed of the reward giver, and he is now going to spend some of his money not to reward you, but to punish you (Hell). Wow, we have gone from that 'win-win, lose-lose' proposed up above into a 'lose-lose,lose-win' case -- and we did so trivially, but looking at *minor* details that the Wager ignores.

Now lets get a little more deep with this issue. Lets imagine a caring, powerful, an just god exists. One that will forgive you for his mistakes (failure to provide proof to a person he created to require proof), and we are back to a win-lose, win-win, again, advantage to atheists.

In fact, it is only when you believe, believe in the *RIGHT* god, do not have to follow detrimental rules, *AND* a god exists does the wager result in a win for believers.

It's sad to see basic logic fall to the point that people cannot easily see the flaws in the Wager.

so you are taking a chance by denying God. Being Agnostic would be a better position in my opinion.

Well, you are ignoring the gaping flaws in the Wager, as well as misunderstanding what an Agnostic is. Agnostic has to do with *knowledge*. Atheism has to do with *belief*. The two are completely compatible, and in fact represent different axis on a graph.

(A/)Gnostics believe is is possible to *know whether or not a god exists.*
(A/)Theists believe that *the knowing is unimportant, belief is what matters*

It is possible to be a Gnostic Theist -- believe they can prove the existence of a god. These people are fools.

It is possible to be a Gnostic Atheist -- believe they can prove the non-existence of a god. Unless speaking in the definite case, these people are double fools.

It is possible to be an Agnostic Theist -- these people believe that a god exists, but they cannot prove it. These people are at least honest with themselves and have some basic understanding of logic. I can respect these people, especially the knowledgeable ones.

It is possible to be an Agnostic Atheist -- these people do not believe that a god exists, but they cannot prove the non-existence. These people understand logic, and are honest with themselves. I *AM* one of these.