pwo said:
There is a saying that goes something like....."If you don't believe in God, then you better be right."
That's a distorted version of Pascal's Wager. If you're not familiar with P's W, in short it can be summed up as "You're better off believing in G-d because the odds of payout are better than not believing at all". From Wikipedia:
- You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
- You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
- You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
- You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.
There are many problems with the wager... That it assumes that the existence of a Christian G-d is binary, that it would only result in a Christian G-d (which leaves out many of the world's known religions/G-d(s)(ess)(esses)) ...That G-d would punish a person for not believing. Etc etc.
Proof of the existence or non-existence of a G-d is as possible as the old "Invisible Pink Unicorn" standard. I say that no person can prove or disprove the existence of a G-d anymore than they can prove or disprove the existence of an Invisible Pink Unicorn. As such, I'm an agnostic as that is the only working logic that can be correctly applied. There's no definitive way to know either way. I do lean more towards the fact that there is no supreme being, but I would be remiss to completely rule it out.
I believe that religion needs to be seperated from what are the conceivable mores of a society and need to be explained as such. What may have been good in the olden times is not always applicable to modern day values and as such, the religion cannot be adhered to while society has evolved into something else. Take a look at some excerpts from the Bible and realize that society has progressed in a better way now that we no longer adhere to these beliefs:
Corinthians 34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Deuteronomy 21
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Exodus 21:20
When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money
So women must be quiet and only learn from a man. A woman who has premarital sex must be stoned to death. And a slave is property that may be physically punished to the point of near death. These really aren't morals in a society I'd want to live in. That's not to say that the Bible doesn't have good lessons in it. I just think it's dishonest to call it infallible on the basis of what morality should be in toto.