Will we ever live in a religionless society?

[Bakiryu]

♥ Everybody seems to believe in something, however not as much as they did 200 years ago. Belief in religion is steadily declining. which leads to the question, will we ever live in a society without religion?

[crazefest456]

I know this sounds bleak, but there will be a time when everything will be destroyed and contorted to the point that we can't identify it as religion. Religion will become a lore, and complete celebration of materialism will reign as the new "in" thing. That will sort of be near to our physical world's end...But it's going to be a while from now. It's really scary sometimes.

[Bakiryu]

I know this sounds bleak, but there will be a time when everything will be destroyed and contorted to the point that we can't identify it as religion. Religion will become a lore, and complete celebration of materialism will reign as the new "in" thing. That will sort of be near to our physical world's end...But it's going to be a while from now. It's really scary sometimes.

strange. I thought everything was already pretty distorted. But your approximation sounds pretty realistic and matches with what is happening right now.

[TEND]

I sort of feel organized religion has to come to an end. Personal belief in an other worldly diety may continue but I think organized religions will either die out or destroy the world.

[cactus]

I sort of feel organized religion has to come to an end. Personal belief in an other worldly diety may continue but I think organized religions will either die out or destroy the world.

Amen!

Sorry I suppose my amen is not very welcome in some quarters.... no offence intended people. I agree that many people (especially in Western cultures) are looking beyond organised religion but I don't think religion (including organised religion) would disappear. Fundamentally, human beings like to look/consider things that are beyond us (or the sphere that we are in).

[TeeJay12513]

In my personal opinion relgion today is mankind clutching onto its training wheels of earlier times, and eventually we all will learn to deal with life for what its bleak existance really is, and people will stop telling me "Oh just wait until God talks to you, then you'll come crying to us"

[Bakiryu]

In my personal opinion relgion today is mankind clutching onto its training wheels of earlier times, and eventually we all will learn to deal with life for what its bleak existance really is, and people will stop telling me "Oh just wait until God talks to you, then you'll come crying to us"

so true.

Seriously, the day any deity happens to talk to me, I'll drive myself to Bedlam.

[RoCKiTcZa]

It has always been my dream to live in a society without religion. For me, religion creates boundaries between people and adds up to our daily burdens. The misunderstandings between different religions often cause disputes. Also, religions tend to prejudice one another and speak against other religions. With one unified religion, perhaps we could do a lot better--one unified religion with only two principles: Believe in God and Do Good (which means not causing hurt, pain, or grief to others and respecting them as you would respect your Creator and yourself.)

[Pendragon]

Oh there will be a world with no bothersome religions. It's called "Hell". A nation that forgets God shall be turned into hell...

[motherhubbard]

I think the question is broader than will people always believe in God. There are many religions that do not necessarily believe in God. This made me think of Our Great Ford and the giant Ts in Brave New World. No God, but still Religion.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Oh there will be a world with no bothersome religions. It's called "Hell". A nation that forgets God shall be turned into hell...

But my dear Pen, it was God, or some of his acolytes, who invented hell, and who are still busy consigning to hell everyone who doesn't follow the same dance steps.

[Lote-Tree]

♥ Everybody seems to believe in something, however not as much as they did 200 years ago. Belief in religion is steadily declining. which leads to the question, will we ever live in a society without religion?

The Answer is No.

If we go by history of religions - The Power of Organised Religion will certainly will go up and down.

The Reason why it will stay is that Humans Will Always Yearn for a Ultimate Meaning in Life...

[manolia]

Will we ever live in a religionless society?

I believe that we will..i can't really say why i believe this, though.

[mercy_mankind]

That is my answer:
Nope, religion is everlasting .


The Power of Organised Religion will certainly will go up and down.

I agree with that , but it doesn't mean that religion has an end , because Allah ""created"" In every time people know the truth and worship Him,
Earth without Religion will be Just like Hell.


It's called "Hell".

[amalia1985]

Perhaps, although people have always wanted to believe in something. I am a Christian, although hardly religious. There are parts in my life that I have found help by my personal relationship with God, praying, meditation. I would like to see a world free from religious prejudices. And priests. I believe in Christ's teachings. Do priests believe in His? Hardly...That's why I think that perhaps a world without religions would be a better place...


It has always been my dream to live in a society without religion. For me, religion creates boundaries between people and adds up to our daily burdens. The misunderstandings between different religions often cause disputes. Also, religions tend to prejudice one another and speak against other religions. With one unified religion, perhaps we could do a lot better--one unified religion with only two principles: Believe in God and Do Good (which means not causing hurt, pain, or grief to others and respecting them as you would respect your Creator and yourself.)


Couldn't say it better!!!:thumbs_up :thumbs_up :thumbs_up

[Shield&Sword]

As a muslim i believe that there will be time that no one believe in God-Allah.
Prophet said that there will be time when no one know why a person was killed, and earthquakes will appear, a huge amout of people will die in east and west at once, alot of not legal sexual relations, alot of wars. Then the time that follow these things will be fulled with believers especially when Christ peace be upon him will come, after the death of Christ peace be upon him people will loose thier faith with time and will come time when believers die and remain only persons who dont believe in any thing, one of these persons will say "my old grandfather was saying Allah" and with time no one will remain and pronounce the word Allah or God, no one religion will remain, even Quran wont be presented. Killing and raping and drinking will be diffused and then the day of judgment will begin, which is another chapter in humans life.

[mercy_mankind]

As a muslim i believe that there will be time that no one believe in God-Allah.
Prophet said that there will be time when no one know why a person was killed, and earthquakes will appear, a huge amout of people will die in east and west at once, alot of not legal sexual relations, alot of wars. Then the time that follow these things will be fulled with believers especially when Christ peace be upon him will come, after the death of Christ peace be upon him people will loose thier faith with time and will come time when believers die and remain only persons who dont believe in any thing, one of these persons will say "my old grandfather was saying Allah" and with time no one will remain and pronounce the word Allah or God, no one religion will remain, even Quran wont be presented. Killing and raping and drinking will be diffused and then the day of judgment will begin, which is another chapter in humans life.

:thumbs_up

I like your answers
But The marks of the judgment day , as the Prophet Muhammed Peace Be Upon Him said , that there will be Muslims and they will know (Al -Masseh Ad-djal) they will read the word "faithless" , so could you tell me the exact Hdith , I'll be grateful.

[Niamh]

I sort of feel organized religion has to come to an end. Personal belief in an other worldly diety may continue but I think organized religions will either die out or destroy the world.
Many people arent very happy with organised religions these days, thats why many people, myself included, have now turned to spiritualism which is by far a very personal belief.

The Answer is No.

If we go by history of religions - The Power of Organised Religion will certainly will go up and down.

The Reason why it will stay is that Humans Will Always Yearn for a Ultimate Meaning in Life...
I have to agree with you there Lote. Majority of people have always been drawn to organised religions.

That is my answer:
Nope, religion is everlasting .


I agree with that , but it doesn't mean that religion has an end , because Allah ""created"" In every time people know the truth and worship Him,
Earth without Religion will be Just like Hell.
But individual Religions in general are not everlasting. As history dictates, older religions have died so new ones could grow. The religions of ancient greece, rome, Egypt, Scandinavia and the celtic countries for example basic died out at one stage. (although there are now some little alternatives of the old beliefs and religions being reborn for the loss of fate in the Christian ones.)

[Taliesin]

I, personally, haven't got a bloody clue about what the world will be like in 2200.
Hell, I probably couldn't even predict what would happen, if, by strange coincidences, I would live to 80 years old, at the end of my life. And actually, I can't even predict what happens tomorrow and whether, by chance, my head would be cut off because Annuška dropped her sunflower oil or not

But since I would like to give and take a few thoughts:

First, I don't believe that a nation without God couldn't manage itself. Well, perhaps it could be Hell in the way that Satanists are quite okay people who just set their own moral values and believe in life before death and taking responsibility for themselves.
Heh. Now there's a thought. A Satanist country. Now that would be interesting. Not necessarily bad, though.

Second, referring to Huntingtons revanche de dieu and Spenglers thoughts about civilizations as life forms, religion seems to make a comeback nowadays, plus it seems to be a essential part of civilization.

Third, thinking of science fiction and that things can evolve much more quickly than people think they will, meaning that the society can be radically different in a couple a hundred years and who knows how it will be like and whether there'll be religion (I personally hope for anarcho-syndicalism).

To sum up: I haven't got a bloody clue.



Consult your pineal gland and Hail Eris!

[Shield&Sword]

The exact hadith of that i dont have it in english (the one that i suppose u are taking about).
When Addajal (anti christ) comes there will be alot of muslims, and Christ will come to lead muslims, christ will kill addajal in palastine and will remain 7 years and then he die peace be upon him, after his death people with time will loose their faith and believers will die, only faithless people will remain on earth.

[Lote-Tree]

only faithless people will remain on earth.

A bueno! Will shall have peace at last :D

[PrinceMyshkin]

That is my answer:
Nope, religion is everlasting .


I agree with that , but it doesn't mean that religion has an end , because Allah ""created"" In every time people know the truth and worship Him,
Earth without Religion will be Just like Hell.

But did Allah decree that there should be two ways to worship him, Shi'a and Sunni, and that each group should attempt to send the other to hell?

[Pendragon]

Well, right now there is a movement to tell churches what they can preach. It's like they will say, "Listen up. Get used to the fact that there are gay and lesbian people. You may not preach that the Bible says this is wrong."

OK. I have gay and lesbian friends on here. We can be friends because love is unconditional. But if I preach from the Bible and come across those verses, I don't stop and say, wait: I can't do this. No, if it's there, I'll preach it. But I don't go back to my friends as a self-righteous person and begin to condemn. If they don't know my stand by now, they would be foolish, and I don't have foolish friends. But they know I don't judge them. If they came into my church service, they wouldn't hear a thing on homosexuality unless it was already in my notes. Then I wouldn't back up. But I wouldn't change the sermon because they came. That's where people are wrong.

But if things go on as they are going, preachers won't be able to say anything against any type of sin. So what will be the use of preaching? Might as well just comment on the weather and tell a few jokes.

Thus religion will die out for any good, although it may remain as a gathering spot for people.

Pen

[Shield&Sword]

Prince would u say when u heard about Sunni and Shia for the first time?
If it was recently, lets say 3 or 4 years ago, then no God didnt say to shia and sunni kill each other (and scuse me for this but the one who believe that would be "stupid", especially if he know when islam was founded) . If you heard since u were born then allow me to say "i dont believe u".
I think u can read between the lines, i hope. If u cant then tell me.

[blazeofglory]

Religion is a byproduct of human follies. It is always misleading despite the fact that there are so many claims about the supremacies about religion.

[mercy_mankind]

But individual Religions in general are not everlasting. As history dictates, older religions have died so new ones could grow. The religions of ancient greece, rome, Egypt, Scandinavia and the celtic countries for example basic died out at one stage. (although there are now some little alternatives of the old beliefs and religions being reborn for the loss of fate in the Christian ones.)

Yes , I agree with you , as you mentioned that the religions of ancient ( Worship the kings ,stones ....etc) died out , because that religions are not the true one , so all religions as that ones will find their end . but the true only will continue for a limit time as Our Prophet said (peace be upon him)
that after the death of Christ peace be upon him all faith people will die by a cold storm after that the world will be full of evil people , and satan will tell them to worship Al-asnam , stones again .... then all evil people will die and that was the beginning of the Day of Judgement.


Shield&Sword,
The exact hadith of that i dont have it in english (the one that i suppose u are taking about).

Thank you , i've found it in Sahih Muslim, :)

[stella]

there will always be religion ,people will always look for a higher greater power ....

[Bakiryu]

Oh there will be a world with no bothersome religions. It's called "Hell". A nation that forgets God shall be turned into hell...

the new generation of the U.S has mostly forgotten god's existence. does that mean that in 50 years we will be in hell?


It has always been my dream to live in a society without religion. For me, religion creates boundaries between people and adds up to our daily burdens. The misunderstandings between different religions often cause disputes. Also, religions tend to prejudice one another and speak against other religions. With one unified religion, perhaps we could do a lot better--one unified religion with only two principles: Believe in God and Do Good (which means not causing hurt, pain, or grief to others and respecting them as you would respect your Creator and yourself.)

That is my dream also (well that and being a cult leader who fights for that)



As a muslim i believe that there will be time that no one believe in God-Allah.
Prophet said that there will be time when no one know why a person was killed, and earthquakes will appear, a huge amout of people will die in east and west at once, alot of not legal sexual relations, alot of wars. Then the time that follow these things will be fulled with believers especially when Christ peace be upon him will come, after the death of Christ peace be upon him people will loose thier faith with time and will come time when believers die and remain only persons who dont believe in any thing, one of these persons will say "my old grandfather was saying Allah" and with time no one will remain and pronounce the word Allah or God, no one religion will remain, even Quran wont be presented. Killing and raping and drinking will be diffused and then the day of judgment will begin, which is another chapter in humans life.

um, then it seems the day of reckoning is really close. this almost describes these times.


Religion is a byproduct of human follies. It is always misleading despite the fact that there are so many claims about the supremacies about religion.

I agree with this statement. (But I though you were one of those deeply religious people, from your threads)

[PrinceMyshkin]

Well, right now there is a movement to tell churches what they can preach. It's like they will say, "Listen up. Get used to the fact that there are gay and lesbian people. You may not preach that the Bible says this is wrong."

OK. I have gay and lesbian friends on here. We can be friends because love is unconditional. But if I preach from the Bible and come across those verses, I don't stop and say, wait: I can't do this. No, if it's there, I'll preach it.

Should one assume that you would therefore also preach in favour of animal sacrifice?

[Nightshade]

But individual Religions in general are not everlasting. As history dictates, older religions have died so new ones could grow. The religions of ancient greece, rome, Egypt, Scandinavia and the celtic countries for example basic died out at one stage. (although there are now some little alternatives of the old beliefs and religions being reborn for the loss of fate in the Christian ones.)
But surley they were wiped out because of aggresive 'conquring' by newer organized religions? And unless we returned to a time of religious prosecution and book burning surley now any exsisting rel;igion would exit in reminance even if just as referances?



The exact hadith of that i dont have it in english (the one that i suppose u are taking about).
When Addajal (anti christ) comes there will be alot of muslims, and Christ will come to lead muslims, christ will kill addajal in palastine and will remain 7 years and then he die peace be upon him, after his death people with time will loose their faith and believers will die, only faithless people will remain on earth.

Q: isnt it m'omins rather than muslims?

------

Ok I belive that belief and thus religion will always exsist in some form or other, perhaps noot officially sanction or recognised by society officially, that maybe society will become secular ( I always get them muddles is this the one that means no religion?) in that it wont be officially practised or a society labeld by its religion but I stioll tink that on some level their will always be peop who belive.

[Tersely]

I've always been a firm believer that if we dont kill ourselves first with it, technology is going to prove alot of things some people just dont want to believe. Being that we are in such a limited space (earth) over the millenias, we as people, eventually start to discover things going on in our surrounding environment. If we can recreate our limbs, cure incurible diseases (possibly wiping them out), have the capacity to feed every single person on the face of the earth, maintain a healthy and balanced environment ect,ect, ...whos really going to get the credit for that?

I think religion is going to be just another subject in ancient history when it comes to the future.

[Pendragon]

Should one assume that you would therefore also preach in favour of animal sacrifice?No, because of several verses:

Hebrews 9: [12] Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
[13] For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
[14] How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:[1] For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
[2] For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
[3] But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
[4] For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
[5] Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
[6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
[9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
[11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
[12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
[13] From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
[14] For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Why would I preach animal sacrifice then?

I believe that the sin in homosexulaity is not in them falling in love. It is in the sexual act. A Platonic relationship where they live together and share their lives is no sin. Some do this and are fine. Their love for each other is still stong as ever. But they don't have sexual relations.

But I am not the judge of those who do. They must trust in the grace of God, for only one sin is unforgivible, and this is not it. You don't answer to me or any preacher, you answer directly to God. I may not approve and may use the Bible to back up what I say. But I am human. He is divine. Who judges? He does. I stand on what I believe but I always give way to God.

God Bless

Pen

[Bakiryu]

I've always been a firm believer that if we dont kill ourselves first with it, technology is going to prove alot of things some people just dont want to believe. Being that we are in such a limited space (earth) over the millenias, we as people, eventually start to discover things going on in our surrounding environment. If we can recreate our limbs, cure incurible diseases (possibly wiping them out), have the capacity to feed every single person on the face of the earth, maintain a healthy and balanced environment ect,ect, ...whos really going to get the credit for that?

I think religion is going to be just another subject in ancient history when it comes to the future.

*nod, nod*

[Sweets America]

Well, right now there is a movement to tell churches what they can preach. It's like they will say, "Listen up. Get used to the fact that there are gay and lesbian people. You may not preach that the Bible says this is wrong."

OK. I have gay and lesbian friends on here. We can be friends because love is unconditional. But if I preach from the Bible and come across those verses, I don't stop and say, wait: I can't do this. No, if it's there, I'll preach it. But I don't go back to my friends as a self-righteous person and begin to condemn. If they don't know my stand by now, they would be foolish, and I don't have foolish friends. But they know I don't judge them. If they came into my church service, they wouldn't hear a thing on homosexuality unless it was already in my notes. Then I wouldn't back up. But I wouldn't change the sermon because they came. That's where people are wrong.

But if things go on as they are going, preachers won't be able to say anything against any type of sin. So what will be the use of preaching? Might as well just comment on the weather and tell a few jokes.

Thus religion will die out for any good, although it may remain as a gathering spot for people.

Pen

I've been very interested in what you said here, Pen. It appeared to me that you are in a tricky position because on the one hand, you believe in the Bible and you preach according to it, and on the other hand you have homosexual friends whom you don't want to judge. I think it must be very difficult for you to find a middle way.
I understand what you mean about not changing your sermon because of them but in the meantime it must be difficult to concile both views. I wonder.
I don't really know if your religion rejects homosexuals or if it accepts them even if it considers them as sinners? I saw what you wrote after, about sexual relationships. It's surely a complicated matter.

[Whifflingpin]

"I don't really know if your religion rejects homosexuals or if it accepts them even if it considers them as sinners?"

Churches would be very empty places if they rejected all sinners.

"it is the sick who need a physician, not the well."

[Bakiryu]

The last time I went to church they threw me out :(

[ajsa]

'if god does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him,while if god does exist,one will lose everything by not believing.'(pascal)

[Pendragon]

I've been very interested in what you said here, Pen. It appeared to me that you are in a tricky position because on the one hand, you believe in the Bible and you preach according to it, and on the other hand you have homosexual friends whom you don't want to judge. I think it must be very difficult for you to find a middle way.
I understand what you mean about not changing your sermon because of them but in the meantime it must be difficult to concile both views. I wonder.
I don't really know if your religion rejects homosexuals or if it accepts them even if it considers them as sinners? I saw what you wrote after, about sexual relationships. It's surely a complicated matter.I am going to say this Sweets. I have always been discomforted by the way that homosexuality is so looked upon as sin when people living together without benefit of marriage is acceptable. That also is condemned in the Bible as fornication. Then people bed-hop all over the place and again nothing seems to be said. That is called Adultery.
But you let a young woman get pregnant out of wedlock and wow! Everything hits the fan! But pregnancy is not the sin, the unclean living that lead up to it is the sin! And it takes two. Who jumps the guy who is responsible for getting her pregnant? Double-standard people. Wrong is wrong.
Like when Jesus had the woman caught “in the act of adultery” dragged before Him to demand her stoning “according to the law of Moses.” Where was the man, if she was taken “in the act?” The Law of Moses required they both be stoned. Perhaps it was this injustice that made Jesus rule: “He that is without sin cast the first stone at her.”
Don’t get me wrong. I stand on what I believe. But people have reached the point where they forget what the 10 commandments said sin was, what Christ further expounded on the commandments in The Sermon on the Mount and other teachings, and sin becomes getting caught or having something go terribly wrong in your life.
Churches indeed throw out the very ones that need help, because they don’t want to take the time it will take to reach them with love, they are ashamed to say “These people come to our church.” Who did Christ go to but prostitutes, unwanted tax-collectors, sinners, thieves, madmen, outcasts, fishermen who couldn’t read at the time, dead people, beggars—not exactly the cream of society, but the ones who needed Him.
You don’t find him condemning them past “Sin no more.” But watch what He gives the Priests: “Ye are of you father the Devil and the works of your father ye will do!” “Woe to ye, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”

God Bless

Pen

[RobinHood3000]

Historically speaking, it seems as if religion tends to outlive civilization fairly consistently. It's hard to gauge whether that will remain true in the smaller world, though...

As an atheist, I don't think that a world without religion would be so terrible, so long as ethics were held over. People sometimes get into the mindset that without religion, morals and ethics go with it, which is not necessarily the case. Of course, it doesn't seem particularly likely that people will let go of their religions any time soon. Science chips away at incorrect BELIEFS, but religion endures all the same. I would like to believe that one day, the dominant religion will suit the popular view (as religion often does) by becoming more open-minded, but that will be far beyond my time, so for the time being, I'm just going to worry about my own self.

[Dark Star]

Religions, much like life-forms, will have to adapt to new settings or die out. Do I see a complete destruction of religion in centuries? No. Things like Buddhism which can adapt and change with reality rather than fighting against it won't need to disappear. However, I can see theistic religions disappearing in a few centuries as science makes further and further advances which continue to reveal that there is absolutely zero evidence of any sort of divine presence out there, or at least becoming a tangential minority view as a result of this. Something like what Asatru, Wiccans, Kemetic Orthodox, and Hellenistic Re-constructionist Pagans are now.

That said, we currently have religious nuts whose only goal is to kill people who don't have the same beliefs as them (and for that matter, under the belief that martyrdom will get them a favored place in Heaven) getting control of nukes, so my money is on us all being dead by that time.

As for those who claimed that a society/world without religion would be hell: Care to substantiate this claim? As an example contrary to that I will point out Norway and Sweden (and the rest of the Scandinavian countries for that matter) which are primarily non-religious (atheism is the norm in both of those places, though Christianity is still a viable minority sect) and they're doing just fine. They're certainly not hellish places.


...stuff...

Out of curiosity, do you view homosexuality as inherently sinful, or is it sinful due to being a form of adultery? In other words, would homosexuality not be sinful if they were allowed to marry?

EDIT: After seeing your earlier post I'll note that the context of this question presumes that they are engaged in rather than a Platonic relationship.

[Whifflingpin]

"Of course, it doesn't seem particularly likely that people will let go of their religions any time soon. Science chips away at incorrect BELIEFS, but religion endures all the same. "

As has been said many times in this forum and elsewhere, religion and science are answering different questions. Science may answer the whats and hows of the physical world, but it does not answer, to any great degree, the whys and whatsfor. So where religions attempt to offer pseudo-scientific answers to the whats and hows they will be whittled away. But as long as people ask "why are we here?" or "what if any is the purpose of it all?" then there will be religions - not necessarily in any form that we now have.

[RobinHood3000]

Quite so, Whiff. :)

[Dark Star]

I disagree with that notion. A (non-religious) atheist can answer 'Why are we here?' or 'What if any is the purpose of it all?' without needing a deity of some sort to do so, and many non-theistic religions don't even make an attempt at answering those. Those who insist that religion is the only answer to those questions (which I find odd since there is in a fact a scientific explanation to why we're here for example) seem to forget about the existence of philosophy which can handle those same questions in a distinctly non-religious manner.

For that matter, the idea that they ask and answer different questions is something that exists in a Platonic ideal world and not in the real one we live in. If they were truly NOMA to use a term of Gould's there wouldn't be any books by the 'New Atheist' movement which are directed at religious violence and the need to literally interpret religious scriptures in the area of science. For that matter, there would be no ID movement or anything like it since the religious would simply accept what the scientists discover and tailor their beliefs to match that reality. I'll end the discussion of politico-religious matters there since I realize that going into ID is heading into dangerous territory.

[RobinHood3000]

But those are still belief systems, as opposed to science. Religion is not the only means of addressing the purpose of being, but science isn't an alternative to religion. Least, not as far as I can tell, anyway.

[Dark Star]

Irrelevant to the point at hand, here. It may not be an 'alternative' to it, but it certainly helps kill it when it consistently proves thing religion claims to be wrong. And while science won't cover everything, religion is by no means necessary to cover those questions that science doesn't, even if a philosophical belief system (that hopefully corresponds with reality) exists. As I said above, some religions are better at adapting to reality than others, so I expect those to stick around for quite a while.

EDIT: I've noticed that people seem to be thinking of religion as 'theism' throughout the thread, in particular the comments saying that a world without God would be a hellish one and other things along those lines. For the purposes of this discussion we need to define what religion is, and if we're only talking of the three monotheistic religions or of all the world religions.

[RobinHood3000]

Of course - I'm an atheist, I'm well-aware that religion is not the only way to answer the question of "why."

[Pendragon]

[Note addressed to Pen]

Out of curiosity, do you view homosexuality as inherently sinful, or is it sinful due to being a form of adultery? In other words, would homosexuality not be sinful if they were allowed to marry?

EDIT: After seeing your earlier post I'll note that the context of this question presumes that they are engaged in rather than a Platonic relationship.

Married or not, the act of sexual homosexuality is considered unacceptable by the Bible as is Bestiality. It is considered unnatural as it cannot produce offspring. When these couples want children, there must come into play a member of the opposite sex in some manner.

Many of these people are fine, upstanding citizens as opposed to the stigma of "freaks." They are kind, more than willing to help anyone, and monogamous.

As I have said before, I cannot condone the sin, but why should I not be friends with the people. They know my stand and do not judge me. So I do not judge them. Ask the atheists on here if I don’t take the same stand, I don’t judge. I am friends with many of them.

I preach the gospel to whomsoever will listen. And if the world rejects me for that, I don’t say a word. My mind is clear. Now it is time to extend a hand in friendship, and I know no enemy, except whomsoever just wants to make themselves my enemy.

There is preaching and there is condemning and shunning people. I do not condemn and shun, for I am not the judge, God is.

I hope this makes this clear. I stand on my beliefs but I am not going to shun or avoid people or fail to be friendly.

God Bless

Pen

[Rogers_68]

Some people turn to religion for comfort, some turn to it out of guilt, and some out of curiosity. I honestly don't think that there will be a time when absolutely no one has any sort of religious convictions.

Whether or not our society as a whole takes part in any sort of religious beliefs or activities I believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, and that He will be trying to bring people to Him for as long as there are people.


Married or not, the act of sexual homosexuality is considered unacceptable by the Bible as is Bestiality. It is considered unnatural as it cannot produce offspring. When these couples want children, there must come into play a member of the opposite sex in some manner.

Many of these people are fine, upstanding citizens as opposed to the stigma of "freaks." They are kind, more than willing to help anyone, and monogamous.

As I have said before, I cannot condone the sin, but why should I not be friends with the people. They know my stand and do not judge me. So I do not judge them. Ask the atheists on here if I don’t take the same stand, I don’t judge. I am friends with many of them.

I preach the gospel to whomsoever will listen. And if the world rejects me for that, I don’t say a word. My mind is clear. Now it is time to extend a hand in friendship, and I know no enemy, except whomsoever just wants to make themselves my enemy.

There is preaching and there is condemning and shunning people. I do not condemn and shun, for I am not the judge, God is.

I hope this makes this clear. I stand on my beliefs but I am not going to shun or avoid people or fail to be friendly.

God Bless

Pen

I think you explained that all very well. Nice work.

[ajsa]

For atheists friends;'if god does not exist one will lose nothing by believing in him,while if god does exist one will lose everything by not believing'....

i know that, u all know this famous saying of pascal,and just wanted to share it with u..(i really like) i think we all should consider much about this saying,shouldn't we?

[RobinHood3000]

Actually, a lot of us here have addressed Pascal's Wager, and have come to the consensus (last I remember) that it's...lacking in merit.

[Rogers_68]

Actually, a lot of us here have addressed Pascal's Wager, and have come to the consensus (last I remember) that it's...lacking in merit.

I guess I feel that looking at in terms of, "Well, I guess I'll believe in God because it may pay off someday" is sort of shallow. I think that God wants to actually love and bless people far more than that thinking suggests.

[Anza]

There will always be religon. It's like fitness-- there are hardcore believers, there are those who follow trends, and there are some who will never be a part of it.

[Tuninks]

It is wrong to think that we would one day live in a world without religion. Even the anarchists of society have a religion, whether that is through worship of Satanism or even paganism. Yet there will always be religion, instead of asking if we would live in a religionless society, you may want to ask WHAT religion may be in dominance in years to come. With traditional religion on the decline, who is to say what will take its place?

[Bakiryu]

It is wrong to think that we would one day live in a world without religion. Even the anarchists of society have a religion, whether that is through worship of Satanism or even paganism. Yet there will always be religion, instead of asking if we would live in a religionless society, you may want to ask WHAT religion may be in dominance in years to come. With traditional religion on the decline, who is to say what will take its place?

Not everybody has a religion, I know many people who don't really believe in anything, anarchists as you say or atheists. You could say atheism has a bit of a fighting chance now.

[Tuninks]

Yes, but religion isn't a fight against other people's beliefs. Atheists will always be on this Earth and I respect their lack of beliefs. Yet also don't forget of the other religions, christians and islam both boast numbers above a billion. Buddhism and hinduism are both still going strong despite their age. We should not look on our situation negatively, in fact we should be glad that people have the ability to have their own beliefs! Focusing on how religion is in a decline, which actually there are more modern means of embracing one's beliefs, we should be focused on the fact that we still have our faith and that is what matters. For with faith, an idea can strive for eternity.

[Whifflingpin]

"I know many people who don't really believe in anything, anarchists as you say"

Huh? Anarchy is a political stance, and anarchists have strong political beliefs. I'd say anarchism has nothing to do with religion, except that, for instance, any christian should be an anarchist politically, and a communist economically.

[Niamh]

Got there before me whiff.

[Dark Star]

For atheists friends;'if god does not exist one will lose nothing by believing in him,while if god does exist one will lose everything by not believing'....

There are several problems with this wager, the first among them is that it sets up a false dichotomy where the only two choices are between atheism and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. There are many other religions out there with their own deity or pantheon of deities that also claim to be correct so it's not a black and white issue. Tell me, if you found a religion other than Christianity (taking a shot in the dark here, but its primarily Christians I see using this argument) that had a form of Hell that was much worse and more torturous than the Christian one, would you convert so as not to take the risk of going there? If not, you've already defeated the Wager.

Also, the wager seems to assume for no good reason that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence, and thus, the bet is worth hedging and yet it provides no evidence to back this up. This is a rather drastic problem as the Wager rises or falls on the weight of the gamble a person is taking.

It also seems to put one on some uneven and shallow theological ground as someone here noted earlier. Do you truly believe an omniscient and omnipotent deity wouldn't recognize if people were just hedging their bets to get into heaven and weren't sure if they actually believed in him? For that matter, how are you sure they can't get into Heaven unless they believe in him? If we're speaking on Biblical grounds, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and this is rather vague as there are many interpretations of what blasphemy is. Some believe that lack of belief is blasphemy, some belief that insulting the Holy Spirit or directly denying it constitutes that, and I even have a friend that interprets it to mean that you must actively believe in God and deny his love and that atheists aren't committing a sin by 'blaspheming' the holy spirit since they can't truly reject something (the gift of God) they believe doesn't exist!

Most importantly, it fails to acknowledge the differences between two world-views and acts like the mindset of an atheist and that of a Christian are the same with the atheist simply subtracting God from the equation. Mind you, I'm not going to say this is completely untrue as many atheists will live in such a fashion but, as atheism is defined exclusively by unbelief, many will have a completely different lifestyle than they would as a Christian. (As a point of reference, I'll point out that some Secular Humanists act like Christians with God subtracted since Secular Humanism is essentially Christian ethics - God, and many even perform many similar rituals throughout the week by visiting a Unitarian church and trying to capture that feeling of spirituality that may be missing from their lives. No, I do not see anything wrong with this.) It is extremely arrogant to claim that someone shifting their views from non-theistic to theistic will not result in them having a change of world-view and losing many of the things they held dear before, and gaining some new things. Its bound to be a big change for most, and this applies to deconverting from a monotheism to atheism and in converting from atheism to a monotheism. I can only speak for myself alone, but to convert on the vague, tiny hope that I'd make it to Heaven (and that God wouldn't realize that I'm being dishonest) would take away the things I find the most beautiful and meaningful in my view of life.


Married or not, the act of sexual homosexuality is considered unacceptable by the Bible as is Bestiality. It is considered unnatural as it cannot produce offspring. When these couples want children, there must come into play a member of the opposite sex in some manner.

Many of these people are fine, upstanding citizens as opposed to the stigma of "freaks." They are kind, more than willing to help anyone, and monogamous.

As I have said before, I cannot condone the sin, but why should I not be friends with the people. They know my stand and do not judge me. So I do not judge them. Ask the atheists on here if I don’t take the same stand, I don’t judge. I am friends with many of them.

I preach the gospel to whomsoever will listen. And if the world rejects me for that, I don’t say a word. My mind is clear. Now it is time to extend a hand in friendship, and I know no enemy, except whomsoever just wants to make themselves my enemy.

There is preaching and there is condemning and shunning people. I do not condemn and shun, for I am not the judge, God is.

I hope this makes this clear. I stand on my beliefs but I am not going to shun or avoid people or fail to be friendly.

God Bless

Pen

Thank you for your detailed response to my inquiry. All I can say is that I am quite impressed; you certainly look at things from a much more compassionate (Christian?) and even-handed view than most of the Christians I've met who view homosexuality as a sin (many believe Jesus negated the OT as I'm sure you know, but that would be a debate for another time). It's good to see that it's possible to view it as a sin without viewing it as the sin and taking a 'THEY DESERVE NO RIGHTS! KILL 'EM ALL!' attitude to their sexuality.

[Pendragon]

"It's good to see that it's possible to view it as a sin without viewing it as the sin and taking a 'THEY DESERVE NO RIGHTS! KILL 'EM ALL!' attitude to their sexuality."

Do not let anyone who takes this stance ask me to call them a Christian. I mean this is "the sin--KILL 'EM ALL!" You don't know what kind of spirit you have on you my friend! The spirit of murder? You are trying to convice me it's justified to kill someone for being gay? No it isn't and it never will be! If you want to start killing people over sin the world would be without a population rather quickly. Fornication and adultry would take most. Remembering that Revelations says "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire." that would pretty much cover the rest of us. You say, "You just said 'us" Preacher." Right. We lie with out even thinking about what we're saying.

"Daddy's broke this week, son." Daddy has $150 in his pocket. What Daddy means is he owes that on bills. But at the moment he isn't broke. See? We can't help ourselves. The first thing we learn after talking is lying. "Who broke my vase?" mom asks three kids. All three say "It wasn't me."

We all need to pray more and mind our own business. Taking care of our own sins is a 24/7 job. But we all think ourselves well equiped to take care of the next persons. I preach because God called me to preach. But half the time I preach on myself.

God Bless

Pen

[crazefest456]

"It's good to see that it's possible to view it as a sin without viewing it as the sin and taking a 'THEY DESERVE NO RIGHTS! KILL 'EM ALL!' attitude to their sexuality."

Do not let anyone who takes this stance ask me to call them a Christian. I mean this is "the sin--KILL 'EM ALL!" You don't know what kind of spirit you have on you my friend! The spirit of murder? You are trying to convice me it's justified to kill someone for being gay? No it isn't and it never will be! If you want to start killing people over sin the world would be without a population rather quickly. Fornication and adultry would take most. Remembering that Revelations says "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire." that would pretty much cover the rest of us. You say, "You just said 'us" Preacher." Right. We lie with out even thinking about what we're saying.

"Daddy's broke this week, son." Daddy has $150 in his pocket. What Daddy means is he owes that on bills. But at the moment he isn't broke. See? We can't help ourselves. The first thing we learn after talking is lying. "Who broke my vase?" mom asks three kids. All three say "It wasn't me."

We all need to pray more and mind our own business. Taking care of our own sins is a 24/7 job. But we all think ourselves well equiped to take care of the next persons. I preach because God called me to preach. But half the time I preach on myself.

God Bless

Pen

Finally, someone thinks this way! Amen, pen :thumbs_up
We could all learn from this...

[Dark Star]

I will note that I was using some hyperbole to make my point. There are shades of grey between the 'KILL 'EM ALL' attitude and Pen's attitude in regards to those who feel that homosexuality is a sin (E.G. those who feel that they don't need to die but need 'counseling' so they can be 'cured' of homosexuality). I will still say that my opinion stands that Pen's view is one I can respect. :)

[crazefest456]

I will note that I was using some hyperbole to make my point. There are shades of grey between the 'KILL 'EM ALL' attitude and Pen's attitude in regards to those who feel that homosexuality is a sin (E.G. those who feel that they don't need to die but need 'counseling' so they can be 'cured' of homosexuality). I will still say that my opinion stands that Pen's view is one I can respect. :)
oh, yeah, I knew that...I'm pretty vague when I comment on something :)

[ajsa]

There are several problems with this wager, the first among them is that it sets up a false dichotomy where the only two choices are between atheism and the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. There are many other religions out there with their own deity or pantheon of deities that also claim to be correct so it's not a black and white issue. Tell me, if you found a religion other than Christianity (taking a shot in the dark here, but its primarily Christians I see using this argument) that had a form of Hell that was much worse and more torturous than the Christian one, would you convert so as not to take the risk of going there? If not, you've already defeated the Wager.

Also, the wager seems to assume for no good reason that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence, and thus, the bet is worth hedging and yet it provides no evidence to back this up. This is a rather drastic problem as the Wager rises or falls on the weight of the gamble a person is taking.

It also seems to put one on some uneven and shallow theological ground as someone here noted earlier. Do you truly believe an omniscient and omnipotent deity wouldn't recognize if people were just hedging their bets to get into heaven and weren't sure if they actually believed in him? For that matter, how are you sure they can't get into Heaven unless they believe in him? If we're speaking on Biblical grounds, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and this is rather vague as there are many interpretations of what blasphemy is. Some believe that lack of belief is blasphemy, some belief that insulting the Holy Spirit or directly denying it constitutes that, and I even have a friend that interprets it to mean that you must actively believe in God and deny his love and that atheists aren't committing a sin by 'blaspheming' the holy spirit since they can't truly reject something (the gift of God) they believe doesn't exist!

Most importantly, it fails to acknowledge the differences between two world-views and acts like the mindset of an atheist and that of a Christian are the same with the atheist simply subtracting God from the equation. Mind you, I'm not going to say this is completely untrue as many atheists will live in such a fashion but, as atheism is defined exclusively by unbelief, many will have a completely different lifestyle than they would as a Christian. (As a point of reference, I'll point out that some Secular Humanists act like Christians with God subtracted since Secular Humanism is essentially Christian ethics - God, and many even perform many similar rituals throughout the week by visiting a Unitarian church and trying to capture that feeling of spirituality that may be missing from their lives. No, I do not see anything wrong with this.) It is extremely arrogant to claim that someone shifting their views from non-theistic to theistic will not result in them having a change of world-view and losing many of the things they held dear before, and gaining some new things. Its bound to be a big change for most, and this applies to deconverting from a monotheism to atheism and in converting from atheism to a monotheism. I can only speak for myself alone, but to convert on the vague, tiny hope that I'd make it to Heaven (and that God wouldn't realize that I'm being dishonest) would take away the things I find the most beautiful and meaningful in my view of life.



Thank you for your detailed response to my inquiry. All I can say is that I am quite impressed; you certainly look at things from a much more compassionate (Christian?) and even-handed view than most of the Christians I've met who view homosexuality as a sin (many believe Jesus negated the OT as I'm sure you know, but that would be a debate for another time). It's good to see that it's possible to view it as a sin without viewing it as the sin and taking a 'THEY DESERVE NO RIGHTS! KILL 'EM ALL!' attitude to their sexuality.

by weber's saying what i mean is its full of logic and there is an obvious notice in his saying,and i am thanking to God that he created me as a believer even if i am not a good believer as i want,but also i respect all believers and unbelievers..greetings to all...

[Dark Star]

I'm sorry, but I found that statement as a whole rather incoherent.:confused:

[NikolaiI]

Also, the wager seems to assume for no good reason that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence, and thus, the bet is worth hedging and yet it provides no evidence to back this up. This is a rather drastic problem as the Wager rises or falls on the weight of the gamble a person is taking.

Good point. I guess an answer is that Pascal knew there was a God, and it wasn't 50/50, it was simply reality for him. There was no doubt in Pascal, he had total faith. He was just trying to bring others to faith by means of his wager, by giving a couple of "if, then" statements, although he knew the answer already.


It also seems to put one on some uneven and shallow theological ground as someone here noted earlier. Do you truly believe an omniscient and omnipotent deity wouldn't recognize if people were just hedging their bets to get into heaven and weren't sure if they actually believed in him? For that matter, how are you sure they can't get into Heaven unless they believe in him?

Good points. Your second point first-- following the principles of Christianity...we're all bound by sin, and it says to attend to one's own position before others. So people would argue this, saying that others must believe to go to Heaven, yet...perhaps they should be silent. I don't care about Scripture but one verse that makes a lot of sense to me is "Be still, and know that I am God." So we should be still. :)

To your other point...I guess it is about whether belief is authentic if it is based on such a wager. But if we say we believe because of the wager, then this isn't really belief at all. I mean you either believe or you don't believe. You can come to belief, but you can't believe if you don't believe. How is the wager convincing, anyway? The only way the wager can convince is to get someone thinking about the differences between going to heaven or simply ceasing to exist, about whether there is a God or not. The wager can't convince by its merit, and we can only be convinced by reason. We can't believe something if we don't think it's true, and the way the wager works is that it gets us thinking, and then if we decide it's true, decide it's real, then faith isn't needed, because we think already think it's real. Do you need to have faith in the ground for it to be there? No. We simply see God as reality, and we believe it's true that He's there, that He's under us, and then we live according to this.

-I know this is off-topic, sorry. I just wanted to reply to Dark Star's excellent post. :)

[Besmir87]

There actually have been a few religionless societies. You had Stalins Russia which abolished any sort of secremental or pious traditions, and we all saw how that worked out! Also my country of, Albania, which was the first declared atheist country in the world. The former Albanian tyrant, Enver Hoxha, ordered the burning of many historical churches and mosques, some dating back to the 12th century. He also imprisoned anyone who performed any sort of religious ceremonies, anything from praying, to possesing a bible, to religious symbols. My grandfather had to pull a 007 mission to baptize his children! Once man abolish religion he will place something else in its position, most likely the government!

[Bakiryu]

There actually have been a few religionless societies. You had Stalins Russia which abolished any sort of secremental or pious traditions, and we all saw how that worked out! Also my country of, Albania, which was the first declared atheist country in the world. The former Albanian tyrant, Enver Hoxha, ordered the burning of many historical churches and mosques, some dating back to the 12th century. He also imprisoned anyone who performed any sort of religious ceremonies, anything from praying, to possesing a bible, to religious symbols. My grandfather had to pull a 007 mission to baptize his children! Once man abolish religion he will place something else in its position, most likely the government!

that seems like it would be.....interesting.
When I was younger, religion was sort of declared illegal, but people still followed, so perhaps, religion, like an incurable disease, is something that cannot be abolished, for good or ill.

[The Fireman]

Has anyone read The Kingom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy?
I think Tolstoy had his fill of religion, but had a deep faith in God.

I loved the story of the Bishop of Seville, in The Brothers Karamazov.
These two books had a powerful effect on this Catholic.

Peace, this is my first post...be gentle

[NikolaiI]

Has anyone read The Kingom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy?
I think Tolstoy had his fill of religion, but had a deep faith in God.

I loved the story of the Bishop of Seville, in The Brothers Karamazov.
These two books had a powerful effect on this Catholic.

Peace, this is my first post...be gentle

Of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Welcome aboard. And you are from my home state anyway! We are all friends here.

I have never read that by him but I love Tolstoy!!! And the Brothers Karamazov is one of my very favourite books, though I do not remember precisely who the Bishop of Seville was. It also produced a big effect on me, too. I was given a new, wonderful translation for Christmas, and...some of the things Zosima said helped me out at a time when it was very helpful. And they led me to read some of the Gita that night, actually, and restored me a LOT!

So...it's really wonderful to read these books. A book that has been so powerful reading-- 3-5 times on every page, I simply take a breath, and am struck by how good it is-- a book that I want to share with my friends, and actually even buy and sell for very cheap if I had the money to, but perhaps...I am praising it too highly, but, a very good book is "Way To Wisdom" by Karl Jaspers!!!! Actually, this book fell into my hands at a time which made it a PERFECT read for me. Jaspers take on philosophy is wonderful, he's a great writer and you can tell he misses very little!! It's great to read a wonderful book at a time when it's just right for you...so, thanks for your suggestion of Tolstoy's book!! I will read it someday. Have you read "The Death of Ivan Ilyitch?" A short novel by him, it's pretty good.

Okay, I hope I haven't gone too long, but it's great to see a new face, and hopefully things will revitalise here.

Again- a warm welcome to you!!

[The Fireman]

NikolaiI,

I am sorry about refering to the Bishop of Seville, I should have said the Grand Inquisitor! (oops)

I will read "Way To Wisdom" and "The Death of Ivan Ilyitch?". I ordered Crime and Punishment yesterday.

I need to read more books by Tolstoy and Dostoevesky. They were favorite authors of Dorothy Day, a very faithful Catholic who started the Catholic Worker Movement in the 1930's. Tolstoy and Dostoevesky certainly had an influence on her love and disgust for the church's ways.

I bet Christ is shaking his head over the way organized religion has perverted His teachings.

I shold also read teh Gita also, it would do me good.

Peace........

[Pendragon]

I bet Christ is shaking his head over the way organized religion has perverted His teachings.



Peace........Amen! Mon ami! Amen! Mark 7:[13] Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

[Dark Star]

There actually have been a few religionless societies. You had Stalins Russia which abolished any sort of secremental or pious traditions, and we all saw how that worked out!

This is bull****. Stalin allowed the Eastern Orthodox church to continue its operations under his reign and did not harm any priests who didn't politically oppose him. He even went so far as to try to establish himself (to the population, this was a cynical move on his own part) as being something like the former Tzars, a leader chosen by God.

If you want a modern example of a 'religionless' or in this case mostly religionless society, look at the majority of the Scandinavian countries, Norway in particular.

Tell me, where is the en masse violence, genocidal projects, and things of that nature that are occurring in those countries since this is of course bound to happen in an atheistic society?

Oh wait...its not happening. They're doing just fine.



I'm going to be quoting both my post and NikolaiI's response here. I apologize if it makes the page a bit longer than necessary but I think it will make it easier to follow the flow of ideas in the discussion.


Also, the wager seems to assume for no good reason that there is a 50/50 chance of God's existence, and thus, the bet is worth hedging and yet it provides no evidence to back this up. This is a rather drastic problem as the Wager rises or falls on the weight of the gamble a person is taking.


Good point. I guess an answer is that Pascal knew there was a God, and it wasn't 50/50, it was simply reality for him. There was no doubt in Pascal, he had total faith. He was just trying to bring others to faith by means of his wager, by giving a couple of "if, then" statements, although he knew the answer already.

Oh, I agree (about Pascal being 100% sure or near that), but this is irrelevant when we're thinking of the Wager on its own terms rather than from Pascal's point of view. Or rather -- when viewing it on the terms of the people he directed it at, 'Those who are made so that they cannot believe.' It then becomes clear that he was positing a 50/50 chance risk and 'Hey, why take such a risky gamble?' I'm sure it occurred to him that he would have to look at it from their point of view where it was not a complete, 100% certainty. He seems to have failed to do that, though I cannot be sure just yet. I've never read Pensees in its entirety and apparently the Wager is much more impressive in context. I guess I'll find out when it arrives at the library.



It also seems to put one on some uneven and shallow theological ground as someone here noted earlier. Do you truly believe an omniscient and omnipotent deity wouldn't recognize if people were just hedging their bets to get into heaven and weren't sure if they actually believed in him? For that matter, how are you sure they can't get into Heaven unless they believe in him?


Good points. Your second point first-- following the principles of Christianity...we're all bound by sin, and it says to attend to one's own position before others. So people would argue this, saying that others must believe to go to Heaven, yet...perhaps they should be silent. I don't care about Scripture but one verse that makes a lot of sense to me is "Be still, and know that I am God." So we should be still. :)

Ah, but the problem is that it never directly states within the Bible that one must believe to go to Heaven. The whole text is rather vague and can be interpreted in many different ways, though. The one unforgivable sin is to 'Blaspheme the Holy Spirit' and one has to wonder what exactly constitutes blasphemy against it. Some say a direct insult or act against it, some say a direct denial, and some even say that doubting your faith is blaspheming the holy spirit. Its all a matter of interpretation. I do agree that they should be focusing on self-improvement rather than trying to get others to Heaven, though.


To your other point...I guess it is about whether belief is authentic if it is based on such a wager. But if we say we believe because of the wager, then this isn't really belief at all. I mean you either believe or you don't believe. You can come to belief, but you can't believe if you don't believe. How is the wager convincing, anyway? The only way the wager can convince is to get someone thinking about the differences between going to heaven or simply ceasing to exist, about whether there is a God or not. The wager can't convince by its merit, and we can only be convinced by reason. We can't believe something if we don't think it's true, and the way the wager works is that it gets us thinking, and then if we decide it's true, decide it's real, then faith isn't needed, because we think already think it's real. Do you need to have faith in the ground for it to be there? No. We simply see God as reality, and we believe it's true that He's there, that He's under us, and then we live according to this.

I think the biggest issue with that wager is, honestly, that it's out of context. From what I know of Pensees Pascal had intended for the Wager to be read, in context, as the last of a sort of 'Twelve Step' program to God which was aimed at small step-by-step system, showing a person how they could push themselves into belief in God and really believe it. The Wager was meant to be the final clincher that settled the deal, another cog in the machine. It certainly falls and falls hard when taken out of its proper context. It was never meant to be used by itself and it certainly suffers when it is.