Which is worse - believing an being wrong or not believing and being wrong?

The choice -

Believing and being wrong

or

Not believing and being wrong.

By far the worst scenario is believing something that turns out to be wrong since such a belief prevents the pusuit of other alternatives and seeking for truth and real solutions. This religious perspective is the evil, and probably the greatest evil that mankind faces today. It is a complacent and defeatest attitude that there is no need to place any great energy into solving and discovering real solutions since the belief is that the real future lies beyond death.

The scenario of not believing and being wrong presents quite a different outcome. If there is a life beyond death then the non believer has not lost anything by looking at alternatives. Also if a god were to exist then surely it would be able to justly understand the reasoning behind the non believer's choice and see his/her heartfelt reasoning.
 
not believing and being wrong is WAY WAY worse.
If I believed and I was wrong, so what. I'd be dead and wouldn't know it.
If I didn't believe and I was wrong, then I'd be in hell, tortured for eternity, with my Mom bellowing from heaven "I TOLD YOU SO!!, but no, you never listen to your Mom, You think you know everything!"
 
I suppose it depends on the faith.
In Christianity or Islam not believing and being wrong is far worse as you end up in Hell. I mean duh that's the whole reason people concocted the notion of a Hell - to scare the gullible and naive into beleiving.

Buddhism I think it doesn't matter.

Hinduism, not sure probably doesn't matter.

Americana nature religions - probably doesn't matter.

Shintoism - probably doens't matter.

Greek Pantheon - It's up to fate to decide.

Egyptian Pharisee - hard to say. Probably doesn't matter.

there's a start.
 
There are an infinite number of things to believe or not believe in. Therefore, I'll take the things that have good reason for belief (the sun rising every 24hrs; water being wet; coffee being the most refreshing beverage ever next to scotch; etc. to infinity). Believing in these things and being right is always good. You have to wonder about the poor bastard that thinks the sun isn't going to rise or that gravity doesn't apply to him.

But somehow I don't think the OP was referring to rational beliefs...
 
It dosen't really matter. The real question is how much intellectual integrity do you have to toss out the door to believe vs. how much you retain by accepting that you have no basis for your belief and just admit you were wrong if that turns out to be the case.

I'll take #2.
 
Cris said:
If there is a life beyond death then the non believer has not lost anything by looking at alternatives.
Click to expand...

According to who, you? The unbeliever, according to the God of the bible, has lost his soul through unbelief...and that same God says of the soul:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

There are no alternatives out there worth more than ones soul--and the information which enables one to save it.

Cris said:
Also if a god were to exist then surely it would be able to justly understand the reasoning behind the non believer's choice and see his/her heartfelt reasoning.
Click to expand...

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

If a God exists, it is reasonable to conclude one is the product of His handiwork...in light of that, it is inconceivable that that same God would leave Himself without witness to His existence...in light of the testimony of that same Witness, it would then be inexcusable for a just and righteous God to justify/excuse the denial/infidelity of an unbeliever.
 
it is all the same to me...believing and being wrong and not believing and being wrong

I know I am right.
 
Nasor said:
You will be attacked by vampires unless you pay me $1. Which is worse, believing me and being wrong or not believing me and being wrong? If you believe me and are wrong, you are only out $1. If you don't believe me and are wrong, you will face a vampire attack! So, will you pay me the dollar?

Hopefully now you understand how stupid this thread is. If not, let me spell it out for you: Although the consequences of not believing me and being wrong (vampire attack) are much worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong (loss of $1), you know based on your reason and experience that vampires almost certainly don't exist. You need some credible reason to believe that vampires exist and that they are likely to attack you if you don't pay me $1 before you would seriously consider my claim, even though the consequences of not believing me and being wrong are much worse than the consequences of believing and being wrong. Similarly, atheists don't consider the bible to be credible evidence that god exists, or that he will punish people in the afterlife if he does exist. So before this "argument" can be of any use, you first need to present convincing evidence that you god does, in fact, exist.
Click to expand...

I really was about to use an example like this.

For me, pretending to believe in something I truly can't bring myself to believe is just impossible. I can't do it. It doesn't make any sense and simply limits perceptions. Until there is any evidence whatsoever, I will regard anything based purely on faith as real as unicorns, leprechauns, and magic.
 
draqon said:
it is all the same to me...believing and being wrong and not believing and being wrong

I know I am right.
Click to expand...

Coincidently, this is exactly the same rationality the 19 hijackers who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 had. Interesting.
 
Photizo,

According to who, you? The unbeliever, according to the God of the bible, has lost his soul through unbelief...and that same God says of the soul:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

There are no alternatives out there worth more than ones soul--and the information which enables one to save it.
Click to expand...
Then you would be faced with the obvious injustice of the man that spends his whole life performing altruistic deeds for others but does not believe versus the corrupt vile murderer who chooses to believe as he is being executed.

If a god were to exist would he not be just and reasonable? Or do you wish to assert that the god of your belief is irrational?

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Also if a god were to exist then surely it would be able to justly understand the reasoning behind the non believer's choice and see his/her heartfelt reasoning. ”

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Click to expand...
Why then would such a god provide man with a brain where he can reason and think for himself? Would he not look kindly upon the person who uses his god given gifts rather that the lazy person who believes blindly because of tradition and culture and have not thought it through?

If a God exists, it is reasonable to conclude one is the product of His handiwork...in light of that, it is inconceivable that that same God would leave Himself without witness to His existence...
Click to expand...
In which case without such evidence it is fully rational to be an unbeliever and not an irrational believer. Why would such a god who has deliberately withheld evidence punish the man for thinking clearly?

in light of the testimony of that same Witness, it would then be inexcusable for a just and righteous God to justify/excuse the denial/infidelity of an unbeliever.
Click to expand...
I don’t follow what you say here. This statement appears to be a non-sequitur to your previous statement. Are you trying to make the case for the claims of alleged prophets who claim to be messengers of a god? In which case the same reasoning applies – the absence of evidence of their claims leaves the unbelievers in the rational position and whose position should not be punished by a reasonable and just god.
 
Which is worse - believing an being wrong or not believing and being wrong?
Why? said:
Take the test atheists.
Click to expand...

pascals wager again,huh?

so do YOU believe in Allah,
if not read up on whats his HELL like,,, you aint gonna like it!!;)
 
Why? said:
Take the test atheists.
Click to expand...

life is not a check the box text. And people don't always believe what they claim to belief or the box they check on surveys. Does George Bush believe in Jesus and God? And if the box checked is yes, what does it mean? Being smug about this like it's a logic problem or the stuff of gambling strategies can give one a sense of smugness, a state not approved of anyway by most messiahs.
 
atheists are imaginary people

Why? said:
Take the test atheists.
Click to expand...
If someone known supposedly as "atheist" require an OBJECTIVE evidence of a being, invisibly existing, as proven by the existing mind invisibly understood by the visible human beings who cannot explain the animalistic phenomenon known as "beast clothing ignorance", then he is a supernatural inquirer (in short, spiritual quester) and ceases his position of being an atheist. Reasonably speaking, some so-called atheists divide themselves into weak and strong. What a sheer mimicry, inasmuch as they imitate the Bible's division of christians into true brethren and false brethren.
 
The choice is obvious. Ignore theists ridiculous tests of faith.
 
Of course suicide bombers and those Heaven's Gate people believed and they were wrong...or were they??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top