If you are agnostic why don't you just believe anyways?

[rainepar]

Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Flamebait++

 

[blodhi74]

I see a ban im your future rainepar

 

[Mojoed]

First the post about the Tsunami, now this? What are you trying to prove?

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

 

[chuckywang]

WTF. Religion is about faith, not fear.

 

[BillyBobJoel71]

bannage coming round the corner. wtf religion is about what prayer building you go to.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

 

[EyeMWing]

Because I honestly do not care.

 

[icejunkie]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

When will you people realize there is more to believing in a supreme being and religion; the two can be completely unconnected. I'm agnostic because there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of a supreme being.

The fact that religion attached a set of rules and morals to follow to make said supreme being happy is a certain interpretation of what this supreme being actually is. I say that if one does exist it doesn't really care what we humans do, much as it doesn't care what alligators, giraffes and penguins do.

So to me there is no reward in just believing, there is no increased chance of being saved, becuase I just don't believe that if a supreme creator exists it wants us to act a certain way or worship it.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I agree with EyeMWing

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

You are a moron.

How the fvck does being agnostic or not effect your chances of being saved? Saved from what? Being a moron? Apparently not.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

Your logic starts with the assumption that there is such a god. One must first establish this.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

You are a moron.

How the fvck does being agnostic or not affect your chances of being saved? Saved from what? Being a moron? Apparently not.

fixed for you. Please read up on Pascal's wager before answering any more questions. Thank you.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

You are a moron.

How the fvck does being agnostic or not effect your chances of being saved? Saved from what? Being a moron? Apparently not.

That is possibly a stupid question.

 

[angstsoldat]

We should all adopt some arabic religion and sacrifice goats to our gods.

That'll be a 2 goat entrence fee btw.

 

[Confusednewbie1552]

Maybe we don't want to go to church every sunday? Or be able to eat pork? Or not have to pray 5 times a day? =P

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: JustAnAverageGuy
Your logic starts with the assumption that there is such a god. One must first establish this.

Wait....we have to establish proof for a god before being saved?

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

You are a moron.

How the fvck does being agnostic or not affect your chances of being saved? Saved from what? Being a moron? Apparently not.

fixed for you. Please read up on Pascal's wager before answering any more questions. Thank you.

From the first hit on google

"Pascal's Wager" is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God.

That's all I need to know. No book, no person, nothing is going to have any effect on what I believe.

And you never answered my question.

 

[angstsoldat]

Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
Maybe we don't want to go to church every sunday? Or be able to eat pork? Or not have to pray 5 times a day? =P

I dont do any of that and I believe in my sacred gods that require Goats for the semi annual sacrifices.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: icejunkie

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

When will you people realize there is more to believing in a supreme being and religion; the two can be completely unconnected. I'm

Truer words were never spoken but it doesn't help in the wager. Of course neither does taking the wager.......................

 

[Confusednewbie1552]

Originally posted by: angstsoldat

Originally posted by: Confusednewbie1552
Maybe we don't want to go to church every sunday? Or be able to eat pork? Or not have to pray 5 times a day? =P

I dont do any of that and I believe in my sacred gods that require Goats for the semi annual sacrifices.

Yes I believe the goats are needed as well.

 

[angstsoldat]

My gods will be deeply disappointed if I dont make a 5 goat sacrifice every 6 months. You want to join my goat sacrificing religion? PM me for teh goat

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Originally posted by: angstsoldat
My gods will be deeply disappointed if I dont make a 5 goat sacrifice every 6 months. You want to join my goat sacrificing religion? PM me for teh goat

voodoo?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: MCrusty

Originally posted by: rainepar
Pascals wager comes to mind. You're leaving open the possibility of their being a god, so why not just believe in at least one? It increases your chances of being saved. I don't see how you can be agnostic...unless you just love taking risks.

WTF!?

I think it is a legitimate question.

He is saying that the upside to believing something is greater than the upside of not believing.

Still, there are opportunity cost of believing i.e. time, money, energy, etc. It seems to me also that a God that would reward you based on feigned beliefs or blind faith instead of someone who leads a good life is not something I want to believe in anyway.
Are we to be like Pavlov's dog - conditioned to react based on reward/punishment? Seems pretty lame to me.

You are a moron.

How the fvck does being agnostic or not affect your chances of being saved? Saved from what? Being a moron? Apparently not.

fixed for you. Please read up on Pascal's wager before answering any more questions. Thank you.

From the first hit on google

"Pascal's Wager" is the name given to an argument due to Blaise Pascal for believing, or for at least taking steps to believe, in God.

That's all I need to know. No book, no person, nothing is going to have any effect on what I believe.

And you never answered my question.

fine. I don't care. I have answered your question in my first post and you called me a moron (ironic since I agree with your point of view if you actually read my response) when it took all of 4 seconds to find out what the OP was saying. He is asking the question wouldn't it be better to believe in something in order to get a reward i.e. heaven rather than not believing and get either nothing (no god) or punishment (god exists). It is a legitimate question which I responded to already.