Reconciliation, an accomplished fact

[Jasonconfused]

[Happymeal]

[Jasonconfused]

[RFNAPLES]

I can't remember a post where you discuss an issue and not a member. Just a lot of negative and/or whining comments.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[Jasonconfused]

[RFNAPLES]

Thanks
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums by RFNAPLES
Bubbling Under The Top 100 Greatest Mus...y RFNAPLES

[Guest]

Discussion eh? I want to discuss what purple said about gambit (which is called Pascal's Wager btw): First of all I have to say this argument is one of the weakest beliefs one can hold. To begin with it's an instance of fallacy of the false alternative, i.e., either you believe in god and if the entity exists then you go to heaven or you don't believe and if it exists you go to hell. But as you can see there are other options: what if you abstain; what about all those humanitarian people who haven't done anything wrong even by standards of Christianity but don't believe in god (and what keeps you from being that kind of person without believing in god)? also there isn't one conception of god; there are many, so when you wager on one of them your chance of winning becomes less.
A more striking feature of this wager is that its' based on fear (Christians criticise the wager based on this) and since it's a wager it cannot contribute to a spiritual experience and also underpins arbitrariness of moral principles. Many religious people don't see this wager convincing let alone atheists. Kierkegaard who saw religion as a realm of faith would've been furious with this wager for example. The wager implies that you just believe because you expect reward like a dog's belief in its master. You cannot develop a personal relationship with a wagered god.
Also there's another weakness in the wager. If you want to wager on god's existence there should be a way to show that that existence itself exclusively (or with some additional guidelines in its religious sense) is what sends you to heaven. I can claim that if you believe that there have been 73 grains of rice on Broadway in 1993/12/24 you go to heaven but you won't wager on that. It shows that when you wager on the existence of god you have some initial presumptions, that you have accepted consequences of existence of god but those consequences themselves can only be proved by other proofs of existence which have all been refuted (and because of those refutations of those proofs you originally have resorted to a wager). So it's shown that the wager itself is grounded on other proofs.
And on the existence of god or heaven and hell: there's the question that if people are sent to heaven and hell based on their acts and beliefs and they are subject to judgment because they have free will (and also religion claims that what makes human special is this free will) then what if someone commits a sin in heaven? will the person be transferred to hell? so what's the point of all this world?
On the problem of evil: religions claim that natural evils and other sorts of non-human evils are necessary and intrinsic to this world and this is the best world possible. So I ask: if god is omniscient before creation of the world he would've known of these evils and the creation of this world is a deliberate acceptance of those evils. Religion claims that god makes some sacrifices for greater good. But what I say is that a moral being would never accept existence of slightest evil for a greater good. A moral being would never accept to make such sacrifices as death of innocent people because of storm or earthquake for greater good, i.e. being of this whole world. An omniscient omnipotent moral being would have never created this world.