Ask an American, agnostic and atheist man pretty much anything

[Alchemist]

Indeed, we did ;-)



This argument is called "Pascal's Wager", and it is a very old gem. At first glance, it is indeed a fairly convincing argument -- but upon investigation it does not hold up. Let me illuminate a few of the flaws:

1) Which God? According to most sects and denominations, believing in the wrong one at best, does no good, at worst, angers god. Would you not agree that many Muslims would agree that Allah would be angered if one were to reject him for the Jewish version (called Yahweh, for simplicity), and most Christians would agree. To add to the matters, Baptists would say god would be angered if one were to be a Catholic, and vice versa. How are you to select which version of God, Allah, or Yahweh to believe in?

2) What about the 'other' gods? Odin? Zeus? Osiris? Etc.

3) You assume belief is a matter of choice. I disagree, as would most psychologists and philosophers. Belief is a result of a person being exposed to a convincing level of evidence, not a matter of conscious choice. Could you realistically *choose* not to believe in gravity? Or choose to believe that the sun will not come up tomorrow? Remember, you are not answering just me -- you would have to convince an all knowing, all powerful being of your belief. Any doubt at all would be known to them.

4) Pascal's Wager, even if not flawed as already mention, still would not be *proof* of a god's existence. Look at another example: you cannot win the lottery if you don't play, so thus, would it not be best to spend your entire income on tickets? Clearly it would be best for you to win the lottery, as opposed to not winning, right?

5) Even if a god did exist, would it not be possible that he would be upset that we reject the gifts of rationality, reason, logic, intelligence, and scientific endeavors that he granted us, in return for blind obedience? What kind of loving parent would want their kids to be underachievers?

To put it into a lighthearted image that has been making the rounds on the internet lately:


Best of wishes to you and yours -- I am looking forward to continuing this conversation.

Your arguments are rather silly sir.


There cannot be many gods in the first place.
If there were many gods then there would be no order or structure to reality. Our ability to predict the course of nature, the seasons, indeed, the stages of biological life, and continuum of space and time indicate that everything is united under One's will. And if there were many gods, then each god would do as he or she will's, and one day you will wake up with three legs walking at the speed of an ant then vanish and pop out 5 light years away as a fish in water and each god will pit against each other over petty matters the lot of us. As is such the depiction of gods in most polytheistic mythologies. So this line of reasoning of yours is flawed in the sense that you deny who God is.
Even the mystery religions suppose that there is One Supreme God, worshipped exclusively by the "chosen" sect, where as the lesser and commoner folks are given their own idols to praise. So his question to you was about The-God, and in arabic that translates literally to Al-Lah and this reason of yours fails.
Returning to your reasoning of "Pascal's wager" - if you were to believe that there isn't One God, but many gods, and that you have to choose between one god over the other, then this would be the greatest insult to the One God and this would anger Him the most and this would be the most inexcusable in His sight. For the One God will ask you to produce these other gods that you worshiped "beside" Him, and you wouldn't be able to. The wager would be the same for you to believe in many gods and no gods at all, against One god. For if there was no god, then you lose, and if there were many gods, lose, because if The One God asks you to produce the god you worshipped, and your god did exist, then he would be crushed by The more powerful God.

It seems like you didn't think this point thoroughly enough. And you have just learned to argue this way from that meme you found on google.images.

The paradox does not lie in our ability to belief, but in our ability to choose. That you have the ability to choose is proof that you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want.

You don not indicate the learning of a psychologist or a philosopher from the argument you have made. What a person believes, he acts on, therefore your actions are proof of your beliefs. And what you believe is contingent on what you experience as reality. If your beliefs are aligned with reality, then your experience will affirm your beliefs. A person suffering from agoraphobia will believe that if he or she leaves the house, he will surely experience something frightful and terrifying. Their experience does not affirm it to be true but that is what they choose to believe. In order to help such a person, they must be given experiences that invalidate their beliefs. So if you want to believe, you may choose to believe so by choosing to act on it.

Also, I think your faith in "Human rights" is misplaced and if anything, a cliche.
So called human rights from a philosophical and psychological perspective are mirages and illusions. If you believe that humans have a right to "freedom of speech", then this conviction of yours is as a result of your upbringing and the culture you have been imbued in. You are merely parroting another meme without understanding it's significance ...or insignificance.


I think you should spend some more time thinking all this through before you come here playing sage yoda - "Ask me anything". I am not impressed

[Catya Sher]

You tell him, Alchemist !

I thought even the title of the thread sounded bombastic.
I couldn't even read what he wrote.

It's too embarrassing how many Americans imagine they
are so smart, when they are next to ignoramuses as far as
REAL LIFE goes.

[Admin Khan]

J,

Indeed, we did ;-)



1) Which God? According to most sects and denominations, believing in the wrong one at best, does no good, at worst, angers god. Would you not agree that many Muslims would agree that Allah would be angered if one were to reject him for the Jewish version (called Yahweh, for simplicity), and most Christians would agree.

Well, that's an entirely different discussion. We use Allah, because it's a unique term that can't quite be manipulated. It's has a universal meaning amongst Muslims regardless of their origins. You are a technological person J, you should know that it's a final variable, and nothing more than that. In Islam, it's Allah, and in Judaism it could be Yahweh. Muslim's don't deny their past, we believe there were several past revelations, and over 100,000 different types of people sent by God/Allah. Let's stick to one discussion at a time, and we may move on as time progresses.

To add to the matters, Baptists would say god would be angered if one were to be a Catholic, and vice versa. How are you to select which version of God, Allah, or Yahweh to believe in?

By critically analyzing each faith, and allowing to see which one makes more sense to us. Allah is Allah. There is no version, there are simply past revelations that had an important role back in it's respective era. Muslim's don't deny Jesus or Moses.

2) What about the 'other' gods? Odin? Zeus? Osiris? Etc.

Muslims don't deny the past. In fact, we are advised that there were thousands of previous prophets. Perhaps Zeus was one of them, or maybe not.

3) You assume belief is a matter of choice.

It is a matter of choice. One can sit down, research it and analyze it, and realize if it makes sense to them or not. That's what most people end up doing in prison. No one has the right to shove a particular faith down someones throat, but should you chose Computer Science as your religion, it's a matter of your choice and free-will, something I respect and fight for. Whether it's right or not is a fruitful discussion in it's self.

I disagree, as would most psychologists and philosophers.

Such as? I'd like to see some references, please.

Belief is a result of a person being exposed to a convincing level of evidence, not a matter of conscious choice.

Wouldn't you have to be conscious in order to truly accept something as evidence? If you were to be unconscious, isn't that more of a medical problem? I'd like for you to elaborate on the aforementioned. I'm quite confused with your stance here. So if I were to apply some predicate logic, and negate that, what would the opposite statement be?

4) Pascal's Wager, even if not flawed as already mention, still would not be *proof* of a god's existence.

I never claimed it's God's existence. I was just throwing that in the wild, so initiate a discussion. I just want to know, what makes you believe there is no God, or creator?

5) Even if a god did exist, would it not be possible that he would be upset that we reject the gifts of rationality, reason, logic, intelligence, and scientific endeavors that he granted us, in return for blind obedience?

Why would he be upset? No were does God claim you should abstain from intellectual conversations based on logic and science. In fact, he encourages education more than anything. He never requested blind obedience, it's a matter of faith. With all due respect J, that's a misconception on your part.

What kind of loving parent would want their kids to be underachievers?

No parent would, nor would a God.

Best of wishes to you and yours -- I am looking forward to continuing this conversation.

So do I. I apologize for my late response. I will certainly try my best to respond daily, but due to the nature of the research I am conducting, there might be times where there will be a slight delay in my postings.

[kakargirl]

Allah name is unique no one calls themselves( Allah )but (GOD) name toba well so many have بترس از كسي كه او نمي ترسد از خدا called themselves GOD.

[ozymandias]

atheism is played out, its not hip, cool, or interesting.

I don't do it to be hip, or cool I do it because I cannot do anything else -- and I find it very interesting, personally.

professing a lack of belief is attention *****dom.

You are welcome to have your beliefs.

[ozymandias]

Your arguments are rather silly sir.


There cannot be many gods in the first place.

If there were many gods then there would be no order or structure to reality.

Many religions believe in a hierarchy or gods with no issues with that -- but that is not what I actually meant. I meant that any one of many gods could be the correct one.

Our ability to predict the course of nature, the seasons, indeed, the stages of biological life, and continuum of space and time indicate that everything is united under One's will.

Actually, no. It indicates that there are no supernatural actors, but that is a digression.

And if there were many gods, then each god would do as he or she will's, and one day you will wake up with three legs walking at the speed of an ant then vanish and pop out 5 light years away as a fish in water and each god will pit against each other over petty matters the lot of us.

And what basis do you ground this assertion on? At my place of employment, I have many bosses, but we manage to have a consolidated, consistent approach to our business. Why would this *have* to be different?

[quote]

As is such the depiction of gods in most polytheistic mythologies. So this line of reasoning of yours is flawed in the sense that you deny who God is.
Even the mystery religions suppose that there is One Supreme God, worshipped exclusively by the "chosen" sect, where as the lesser and commoner folks are given their own idols to praise.

This is in-line with what I meant. Which of the monotheistic gods is correct? In christianity alone, I could likely name several dozen distinct different gods. Add in the Jewish sects, and the Islamic denominations, and we are looking at a large number of gods, many of which are angered by someone following any one of the other versions.

So his question to you was about The-God, and in arabic that translates literally to Al-Lah and this reason of yours fails.

Not at all. You still have not presented which version is the correct one, which is something that Pascal's Wager, by design, omits. It is outside the scope of the wager.

Returning to your reasoning of "Pascal's wager" - if you were to believe that there isn't One God, but many gods,

This was not my argument, but a straw many you have created.

and that you have to choose between one god over the other, then this would be the greatest insult to the One God and this would anger Him the most and this would be the most inexcusable in His sight.

Bingo.

For the One God will ask you to produce these other gods that you worshiped "beside" Him, and you wouldn't be able to. The wager would be the same for you to believe in many gods and no gods at all, against One god.

Again, bingo. This is a *HUGE* flaw in the wager, as you evidently agree.

For if there was no god, then you lose, and if there were many gods, lose, because if The One God asks you to produce the god you worshipped, and your god did exist, then he would be crushed by The more powerful God.

It seems like you didn't think this point thoroughly enough.

I'm not sure how you can follow up with agreeing with my main point by saying I did not think it through enough.

And you have just learned to argue this way from that meme you found on google.images.

The paradox does not lie in our ability to belief, but in our ability to choose. That you have the ability to choose is proof that you have the freedom to believe in whatever you want.

This is thoroughly and completely false. Belief is in no way a matter of choice. You can act as if you believe something, but let's not be silly. Either an argument is convincing to you, or not.

You don not indicate the learning of a psychologist or a philosopher from the argument you have made. What a person believes, he acts on, therefore your actions are proof of your beliefs.

Not true. You can preform and an action that is the result of a hidden belief, or you can act contrary to your beliefs to hide them. For instance, were I to visit Iran, I would likely act as if I were a Christian, and attend a church. This is not an indication of my belief in the reality of the Christian faith, but an indication that I am concerned I would be attacked, legally or physically, for being an atheist.

And what you believe is contingent on what you experience as reality. If your beliefs are aligned with reality, then your experience will affirm your beliefs. A person suffering from agoraphobia will believe that if he or she leaves the house, he will surely experience something frightful and terrifying. Their experience does not affirm it to be true but that is what they choose to believe.

You are horribly abusing the word 'choice' here. Agoraphobics, by definition, do not chose to be agoraphobic, and are a perfect example of my point. They have experienced something in their lives that provided sufficient evidence *TO THEM* to convince them of the dangers of the outside. It is far from a matter of choice, and the cure for them is *not* to tell them to change their minds, but rather to provide them with evidence of the safety of the outside world, and overcome their belief.

In order to help such a person, they must be given experiences that invalidate their beliefs. So if you want to believe, you may choose to believe so by choosing to act on it.

But they are not choosing to change their belief. They are choosing to examine evidence that might sway their existing belief. You appear to be fluent enough in English to catch the difference. Please let me know if you miss it.

Also, I think your faith in "Human rights" is misplaced and if anything, a cliche.
So called human rights from a philosophical and psychological perspective are mirages and illusions. If you believe that humans have a right to "freedom of speech", then this conviction of yours is as a result of your upbringing and the culture you have been imbued in.

I do not disagree that I am the product of my environment.

You are merely parroting another meme without understanding it's significance ...or insignificance.

I do disagree with this statement.

I think you should spend some more time thinking all this through before you come here playing sage yoda - "Ask me anything". I am not impressed

Who is being a sage yoga? I am not claiming to have all the answers, and my intention with this thread is *NOT* to provide them for others. I thought I was fairly clear with the first post and explaining that the point was to provide an alternative viewpoint than one that you may have experienced before, and open a dialog. I am merely discussion what I believe, and expect to impart no wisdom. I expect to have thought provoking questions asked of me, and for *ME* to gain wisdom and insight into a world I cannot experience first hand.

[ozymandias]

You tell him, Alchemist !

I thought even the title of the thread sounded bombastic.
I couldn't even read what he wrote.

It's too embarrassing how many Americans imagine they
are so smart, when they are next to ignoramuses as far as
REAL LIFE goes.

I suggest you give it a shot. The point of this thread is *NOT* to say that 'I am so smart', the point of this thread is to say that 'the media and news cannot be trusted, anywhere. Let's cut out that biased, propaganda spewing middle man and have a conversation and attempt to learn something from each other.'

[ozymandias]

J,


Well, that's an entirely different discussion. We use Allah, because it's a unique term that can't quite be manipulated. It's has a universal meaning amongst Muslims regardless of their origins. You are a technological person J, you should know that it's a final variable, and nothing more than that. In Islam, it's Allah, and in Judaism it could be Yahweh. Muslim's don't deny their past, we believe there were several past revelations, and over 100,000 different types of people sent by God/Allah. Let's stick to one discussion at a time, and we may move on as time progresses.

Exactly. The choice of *which god is true* is outside the Wager, and is a vastly important choice.

By critically analyzing each faith, and allowing to see which one makes more sense to us. Allah is Allah. There is no version, there are simply past revelations that had an important role back in it's respective era. Muslim's don't deny Jesus or Moses.

By 'version', I mean which set of 'rules', not which ultimate god. The Wager simply states 'believe in a god', and makes *no* differentiation between which faiths. It lumps them all into one. According to the Wager, it is equally OK to be a Baptist, as a Muslim, which is the flaw I am pointing out.

Muslims don't deny the past. In fact, we are advised that there were thousands of previous prophets. Perhaps Zeus was one of them, or maybe not.

And that may be -- but if you were to worship Zeus, it would likely not fair well when you run into Allah -- or vice versa.

It is a matter of choice. One can sit down, research it and analyze it, and realize if it makes sense to them or not. That's what most people end up doing in prison. No one has the right to shove a particular faith down someones throat, but should you chose Computer Science as your religion, it's a matter of your choice and free-will, something I respect and fight for. Whether it's right or not is a fruitful discussion in it's self.

I am going to disagree. You can choose to be exposed to the evidence, which is one thing, but you cannot choose to be convinced by it. Either you find it convincing, or not. I will go back to the example of gravity. By your claim that belief is a choice, you ought to be able to decide to believe, for the next 24 hours, that there is no such thing as gravity -- and that you could honestly, deep down in the core of your self, change that belief. Keep in mind, that you do not need to convince yourself that your belief changed. You do not even need to convince me -- you would need to so firmly believe that there is no such thing as gravity that Allah himself would be convinced.

To add to this, I could make up hundreds of arguments that gravity is not real. You could even choose to read them -- but I sincerely doubt they would be convincing, and could not actually sway your belief.

Such as? I'd like to see some references, please.

I'll link to wikipedia, not because it is a definitive source, but because it is a nice overview of the topic: Belief - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see, choice is not listed, and all the listed causes are variations of 'becoming convinced of the validity of the evidence' in some fashion. I will spend some time this weekend looking for online references to present. Much of the sources I have on hand are from my college psychology text books from years back, but before I do, let's make sure that we are not already on the same page. I do not disagree that you can work towards changing you belief -- you clearly can, by selecting what information to present to yourself and what evidence to read. You see this in every day life -- to use an example that ought to have meaning for you, I am sure that you are aware that many Christians refuse to read the Koran, and a result of this is that they will *not* be exposed to much of the evidence that you find convincing. They do express control over their beliefs -- but it is not direct control.

Wouldn't you have to be conscious in order to truly accept something as evidence? If you were to be unconscious, isn't that more of a medical problem? I'd like for you to elaborate on the aforementioned. I'm quite confused with your stance here.

Out of curiosity, (and not to change the subject), how strong is your use of the English language? You seem to be very fluent, but in this case you made a slight mistake with an ambiguity, and past experiences with you indicate that it was a mistake, and not a deliberate bull-headedness. It may also be that you have a background in British English, and the nuances between the two languages is a stumbling block. You seem to be a native speaker, but this confusion has me wondering.

When I say 'conscious choice', I mean a matter of will. When you weight the pros and cons of an action, and then decide whether to take it or not, you are making a conscious choice. When you select which university to attend, you likely made a conscious choice. What I am saying is that belief (particularly in religion) is not a matter of weighing to pros and cons. I did not weigh the pros and cons of belief in gravity, I see the evidence for it every day, and I find it convincing that gravity exists. Does that make more sense?

So if I were to apply some predicate logic, and negate that, what would the opposite statement be?

In all honesty, I am not sure I can, and not just confuse the issue.

I never claimed it's God's existence. I was just throwing that in the wild, so initiate a discussion. I just want to know, what makes you believe there is no God, or creator?

The lack of supporting evidence, to put it shortly. I have never seen arguments *for* a god that I have found convincing. The more arguments for a god I see, and find flaws in, the less likely it is that there is a god. It really appears that there is only room for a god in the 'gaps' in science, and science is closing those gaps. Where once mankind needed the power of a god to explain the rising and setting of the sun, we now have physics. Where god was once used to explain earthquakes, seismology; volcanoes and tornadoes; meteorology. The list goes on.

Why would he be upset? No were does God claim you should abstain from intellectual conversations based on logic and science. In fact, he encourages education more than anything. He never requested blind obedience, it's a matter of faith. With all due respect J, that's a misconception on your part.

I'm not sure I agree. In my mind, that's exactly what Pascal's Wager asks for. It asks for blind obedience simply because it is deemed the 'safe bet' without providing additional evidence to support it. Keep in mind that we are discussing the Wager here -- and not any other proof for a god. Outside the Wager, I will grant you that you can make the arguments you just made -- but that is outside the Wager. Inside the Wager, the only fact you can consider is the punishment or reward for your choice, and no other evidence for or against.

No parent would, nor would a God.

But that is what the Wager asks for. In my mind, asking for faith without evidence would be asking them to be less than they could. You are asking them to 'turn off' part of their brains and reject what it is saying. You are asking them to be moral people through fear of reprisals, and not because being moral is the right thing to do. That is underachieving, in my mind. This would be avoided by providing evidence (outside of the Wager's scope) and building a moral code not based on punishment and reward.

So do I. I apologize for my late response. I will certainly try my best to respond daily, but due to the nature of the research I am conducting, there might be times where there will be a slight delay in my postings.

Same here. I will post as frequently as possible, but it is *very* likely that I will receive many more posts than I can respond to in a timely manner.

[ozymandias]

Allah name is unique no one calls themselves( Allah )but (GOD) name toba well so many have بترس از كسي كه او نمي ترسد از خدا called themselves GOD.

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Running that phrase through google translate resulted in this:

Allah name is unique no one calls themselves ( Allah ) but ( GOD ) name toba well so many have 'afraid of someone who's not afraid of God' called themselves GOD.

This clarified nothing. I believe that you are implying that the Wager means 'Allah', but it does no such thing. In fact, that is the core problem of it.


من متاسفم، من نمی فهمم شما در حال تلاش برای گفتن.
(I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say.)

یکی از مشکلات این است که پاسکال شروط خدا از هر خدای دیگر افتراق نیست.به اعتقاد من این است که شما در تلاش برای ایجاد.
(One of the problems is that Pascal's Wager does not differentiate Allah from any other god. I believe this is the point you were trying to make.)

Could one of you multilingual people be so kind as to let me know if google translate was even *close* on those translations? It really has no bearing on this discussion, but I would love to know.

[ozymandias]

I have question,Do you think a person could survive if a bomb exploded right next to him or her, or if a grenade went off in their hands .

This is a very vague question, so I will have to say 'yes'. There are many causes of exactly these things happening. It is not safe to assume everyone would survive these things, but it does happen. It is a matter of how strong the blasts are, the directionality of the blasts, the protective clothing and materials, the orientation of the bodies, arms, and explosives, and many other things I am not likely to understand fully -- but I know it happens.

[Admin Khan]

Good morning J. I hope you are in good health.

Exactly. The choice of *which god is true* is outside the Wager, and is a vastly important choice.

Like I said before my friend, to choose which God we must critically analyze the religions on hand. Islam, in my opinion, is backwards-compatible so it proves why Jesus and Moses were here before Prophet Muhammad.

By 'version', I mean which set of 'rules', not which ultimate god.

The rules outlined in the Quran, and Hadith.

The Wager simply states 'believe in a god', and makes *no* differentiation between which faiths.

Well, I very eloquently told you that a differentiation is required. Not to mention, Islam explains the past as well. So it's not like we will be sipping tea in the wood, and attempting to figure out who all those past prophets were, a perfect explanation has been provided in our authentic sources.

It lumps them all into one. According to the Wager, it is equally OK to be a Baptist, as a Muslim, which is the flaw I am pointing out.

And according to your e-friend, Admin Khan, it's not. I don't see a need to point out a flaw, for something I don't represent. J, I told you that line was to simply initiate a conversation with you. I'm not trying to tell you "You should blindly become a Muslim, because it's cool!". If religion doesn't make sense to you, we can have a discussion.

I'd like to learn from you.

And that may be -- but if you were to worship Zeus, it would likely not fair well when you run into Allah -- or vice versa.

I have no reason to worship Zeus. This has been made clear to us in our faith. Was Zeus a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was. The probability does indeed exist. In fact, your great^20 grandfather could've been a prophet. That's what Islam tells us. We are advised not to be oblivious of the past.

I am going to disagree. You can choose to be exposed to the evidence, which is one thing, but you cannot choose to be convinced by it.

If evidence is available, and I chose not to believe in it, the ball is in my court and I'd be the fool.

To add to this, I could make up hundreds of arguments that gravity is not real. You could even choose to read them -- but I sincerely doubt they would be convincing, and could not actually sway your belief.

If your arguments have evidence, I'd give it a shot.

As you can see, choice is not listed, and all the listed causes are variations of 'becoming convinced of the validity of the evidence' in some fashion. I will spend some time this weekend looking for online references to present.

I look forward to it.

Much of the sources I have on hand are from my college psychology text books from years back, but before I do, let's make sure that we are not already on the same page. I do not disagree that you can work towards changing you belief -- you clearly can, by selecting what information to present to yourself and what evidence to read. You see this in every day life -- to use an example that ought to have meaning for you, I am sure that you are aware that many Christians refuse to read the Koran, and a result of this is that they will *not* be exposed to much of the evidence that you find convincing. They do express control over their beliefs -- but it is not direct control.

If a Christian refuses to read the Quran, that's his choice. However, I wouldn't mind reading his Bible. We should read all sort of scriptures, and articles. Which is exactly what I do. I lurk through websites that are anti-Islam, just to learn what the foundation of their beliefs are. The list goes on.

Out of curiosity, (and not to change the subject), how strong is your use of the English language? You seem to be very fluent, but in this case you made a slight mistake with an ambiguity, and past experiences with you indicate that it was a mistake, and not a deliberate bull-headedness.

I sincerely apologize for my mistake. It was pretty late here, and I was working all day. I was also craving for food, but I figured I'd respond to you before I forget. Yes, English is my first language.

When I say 'conscious choice', I mean a matter of will. When you weight the pros and cons of an action, and then decide whether to take it or not, you are making a conscious choice.

I agree.

When you select which university to attend, you likely made a conscious choice. What I am saying is that belief (particularly in religion) is not a matter of weighing to pros and cons.

I disagree here. You are deliberately trying to make religion appear that way, but it's far from that. When someone studies Islam, they realize it's not just a religion, it's a way of life. So they obviously try to dissect the text on hand, and weight it's pro's and con's. Many find it compatible, some are often mislead by the complexity of Arabic. The point here is, they certainly have weighted the pro's and con's and I'm more than confident they have compared it to their former religion. I'm sure many of those who have reverted to Islam would agree.

I did not weigh the pros and cons of belief in gravity, I see the evidence for it every day, and I find it convincing that gravity exists. Does that make more sense?

That certainly makes sense, and I would agree that I have no evidence to prove that God exists. I follow what you are saying, but where do you think the Quran came from? Who do you think had the ability to write such an amazing book?

But that is what the Wager asks for. In my mind, asking for faith without evidence would be asking them to be less than they could. You are asking them to 'turn off' part of their brains and reject what it is saying. You are asking them to be moral people through fear of reprisals, and not because being moral is the right thing to do. That is underachieving, in my mind. This would be avoided by providing evidence (outside of the Wager's scope) and building a moral code not based on punishment and reward.

I'm asking to ask as many questions about the faith as possible, and see if it makes sense or not.

Same here. I will post as frequently as possible, but it is *very* likely that I will receive many more posts than I can respond to in a timely manner.

Awesome.

[Afghanistan2010]

i hope you are not planning to make an inside job to capture this forum....

[ozymandias]

Good morning J. I hope you are in good health.



Like I said before my friend, to choose which God we must critically analyze the religions on hand. Islam, in my opinion, is backwards-compatible so it proves why Jesus and Moses were here before Prophet Muhammad.

And like I said before, that is outside the Wager. The Wager is equally valid if you were to plug the word 'Zeus' in for god, it would equally argue that one should worship Zeus. You are drawing in additional material *not* related to the Wager.

The rules outlined in the Quran, and Hadith.

You are starting to get off track here. You are ignoring the fact that the Torah, and Bible also describe *versions* of gods. You may believe they are compatible, but not all people agree. The Wager argues for the Baptist version of God equally well as the Allah version -- and to the Baptists, the two are incompatible.

Well, I very eloquently told you that a differentiation is required. Not to mention, Islam explains the past as well. So it's not like we will be sipping tea in the wood, and attempting to figure out who all those past prophets were, a perfect explanation has been provided in our authentic sources.

And I believe I eloquently told you that any differentiation is outside the Wager.

And according to your e-friend, Admin Khan, it's not.

And you are outside the Wager. The Wager needs to be able to stand on it's own, and address it's own flaws -- or it is flawed. In the larger scope of the world, your arguments have merit, but when discussing the Wager, they do not, as they are beyond what the Wager discusses.

I don't see a need to point out a flaw, for something I don't represent. J, I told you that line was to simply initiate a conversation with you. I'm not trying to tell you "You should blindly become a Muslim, because it's cool!". If religion doesn't make sense to you, we can have a discussion.

I'd like to learn from you.

Same here.

I have no reason to worship Zeus. This has been made clear to us in our faith. Was Zeus a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was. The probability does indeed exist. In fact, your great^20 grandfather could've been a prophet. That's what Islam tells us. We are advised not to be oblivious of the past.

But according to the Wager, you do.The Wager makes no discussion of *which* god to worship, and can be used to argue for Zeus being the supreme god. You are drawing in arguments that are *not* part of the Wager to decide on Allah, and that is beyond the scope of the Wager.

If evidence is available, and I chose not to believe in it, the ball is in my court and I'd be the fool.

If your arguments have evidence, I'd give it a shot.

But they don't. That's the point. You cannot decide to believe something. You can only decide to expose your self to evidence, or hide yourself from it. You cannot decide if the evidence convinces you.

I look forward to it.

If a Christian refuses to read the Quran, that's his choice. However, I wouldn't mind reading his Bible. We should read all sort of scriptures, and articles. Which is exactly what I do. I lurk through websites that are anti-Islam, just to learn what the foundation of their beliefs are. The list goes on.

Indeed.

I sincerely apologize for my mistake. It was pretty late here, and I was working all day. I was also craving for food, but I figured I'd respond to you before I forget. Yes, English is my first language.

I agree.

I disagree here. You are deliberately trying to make religion appear that way, but it's far from that. When someone studies Islam, they realize it's not just a religion, it's a way of life. So they obviously try to dissect the text on hand, and weight it's pro's and con's. Many find it compatible, some are often mislead by the complexity of Arabic. The point here is, they certainly have weighted the pro's and con's and I'm more than confident they have compared it to their former religion. I'm sure many of those who have reverted to Islam would agree.


That certainly makes sense, and I would agree that I have no evidence to prove that God exists. I follow what you are saying, but where do you think the Quran came from? Who do you think had the ability to write such an amazing book?

Not to be insulting, but I simply do not find it to be any more amazing than any other historical document. It is a product of it's times, and to a scientific mind, does not contain anything that requires the 'divine' to have come about. Most of the 'scientific discoveries' people claim existed in the Koran are vague and are not all that amazing, simply because they are so vague.

I'm asking to ask as many questions about the faith as possible, and see if it makes sense or not.


Awesome.

[ozymandias]

i hope you are not planning to make an inside job to capture this forum....

I don't know what this means.

[kakargirl]

I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Running that phrase through google translate resulted in this:

Allah name is unique no one calls themselves ( Allah ) but ( GOD ) name toba well so many have 'afraid of someone who's not afraid of God' called themselves GOD.

This clarified nothing. I believe that you are implying that the Wager means 'Allah', but it does no such thing. In fact, that is the core problem of it.


من متاسفم، من نمی فهمم شما در حال تلاش برای گفتن.
(I am sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say.)

یکی از مشکلات این است که پاسکال شروط خدا از هر خدای دیگر افتراق نیست.به اعتقاد من این است که شما در تلاش برای ایجاد.
(One of the problems is that Pascal's Wager does not differentiate Allah from any other god. I believe this is the point you were trying to make.)

Could one of you multilingual people be so kind as to let me know if google translate was even *close* on those translations? It really has no bearing on this discussion, but I would love to know.

Thank you, you answered it in a very polite manner ,yes it meant fear those who don't fear god its a pashto saying too something elders will use that fear those who don't fear GOD .