People that belong to a religion and look down or dislike people that play the lottery.

People that do that are hypocrites?

You believing in any religion, is the same as taking a chance at the lottery; by gambling.
There will always be a chance, that the religion you belong to is the absolute truth; but in reality the odds are, that chance is astronomically small compared to any other religion 'getting it right'.

So why do people belong to a religion but can dislike people that take part in gambling games. We all know that, those people exist and i'm talking to the choir because we are on a gambling forum. 'pun in there'

Anyway it seems weird reading that because I don't know if any reason for being that way is just.
It seems to me, there is no rational for the excuse and makes me wonder why laws can protect people following a religion compared to people wanting to gamble for lets say, poker online.

I don't believe the reason; my religion says, "gambling is bad" is the real reason.
Maybe it is but I just don't think its possible for a person to take the chance at believing what they're told. So they attach onto the belief and then take the belief that it says, 'gambling is truly evil' and hold onto it without some reason.

I would like to read any responses on the other side if possible.
Since, I don't think banning something that people enjoy because some people can get addicted or lose their fortune is the solution. Maybe a regulation put on games that talley how much a person loses and puts a restriction on their deposits for those sites, until their other married member can consent to the deposits or they seek mental health evaluation.

Having laws put into place, where people just scurry around causes people to get hurt.
I know it must be happening and imagine there must be a lot of victims if you include the lock poker victims as an actual example.

I think the vast majority of religious people do not think deeply about the nature of their belief. They are not hypocrites in my opinion, just lazy thinkers. But that is in general the norm for religious and non religious alike.

Your point has some validity if one puts a little thought into the question but under further examination it has flaws. Given the obvious complexity of the universe, the exact nature of a creator of that universe is bound to be a very difficult concept to get exactly right. It is unlikely (approaching impossible) for any human religion to be the absolute truth. In that light religion represents a commitment to God and to attempting to live one's life in the best possible manner with that commitment. Some religions may be more or less helpful in doing that, which is ultimately a personal choice. It is simply not plausible imo that the choice of a particular religion is the determining factor of success or failure in one's life wrt God. That removes the elements that seem superficially similar to gambling.

Having said that, gambling imo is not inherently bad. It is like alcohol or pharmaceuticals or sex or a lot of other things. It is how it is used that determines whether it is beneficial, neutral or destructive. It is true that gambling has some elements that make it more dangerous than other competitive activities but that does not make it bad or evil.

What exactly is my point and what flaws do I have with them?
You didn't really tell me my flaws, you pretty much said exactly what I said and i'll rephrase my point simpler for you.

People are gambling with their lives and the way they think when they join a religion or don't join a religion for life.
The gamble is actually a very big risk either way of the coin, going with a religion or not.
Joining a religion over another religion is an extreme gamble that you are getting yourself into the correct religion compared to joining what others may see as a cult.

Now that all is one big gamble and I don't see it any different than choosing to spend your time on earth, playing a game and gambling on the outcome.

Life is very much like one big continues game of adventures.
You are a fool/hypocrite if you dislike gambling and join a religion with no proof it is right. The same as playing the lottery and not knowing you have the winning ticket before you play. You can't admit you're not gambling and should not hold any dislike about gambling to ban it.
So what flaws do I have in writing that?

Your point appears to be that picking a religion that is not "absolute truth" is somehow losing a wager.

My point is that picking a religion that is not "absolute truth" is not losing at all. Thus there is no wager.

Does that help frame the flaw that I see in your argument?


Your last post seems to have broadened the issue by the following comment:

If you want to make the argument that opposing gambling is unjustified because we all gamble everyday with just about every decision we make, then I partially agree. Most decisions have some inherent risk/reward calculation that is possible so that they could be treated as a gambling problem. However, that does not necessarily mean that the question of the value/cost to society of financial gambling games cannot be raised.

That is not my point, I don't understand how you read the above and got to that.
The topic of discussion has nothing to do about any benefit or non benefit about being religious or not religious.

No matter what, a person is gambling with their life when they pick any one of the religions possible to pick today. There is a small chance that any one of them could be correct or in fact they are all wrong and the non religious people win the coin toss.

So why are some people that are religious, that choose to make it apparent that they will gamble exactly the same as deciding to gamble in life... will dislike people that like to gamble in life.

This seemed to imply that the game was to choose a correct religion.

OK.

What a minute, isn't the bold exactly a statement about the benefit of joining a religion or not?

So are we talking about the choice of a religion or about the broader question of theism or atheism? I am having a very hard time extracting a coherent argument from your posts.

If you play the lottery it can be shown that all number combinations are equally likely.

I don't think it's the case that the truth of any given religion is equally likely. Certainly followers of a religion don't think that they've chosen some unlikely event and put a bet on it. They tend to think the chance that their religion is true is ~1.

Lots of poker players like Doyle Brunson are Christian believers but don't advertise it. Also as far as I know gambling in small doses is not officially considered a sin. So your original premise is dubious,OP.

The OP has a fundamental ignorance and misunderstanding about the nature of religion, and
especially Christianity, and it's relationship between faith and reason.

I'd highly suggest he read something like William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics" before he posts any more claptrap like this thread.

Well... theoretically, all number combinations are equally likely... I don't know saying that "it can be shown" is accurate.

Repackaging Pascal's wager ITT. Nothing to see or learn here people, go enjoy your day.

Sent from my SM-N910V

religion is lame and the cause of so much suffering in the world. get away as fast as you can. But I think believing in a Creator and religion are not at all the same. As brilliant mind Jim Collins wrote the enemy to great is good. Most religious people are "good" people and have a "good" belief system setup. But they will never have anything to offer bc they are not objectively searching for absolute truth. Most people care nothing about absolute truth and just want to fit-in or impress their peers at the church potluck

-Alan

I don't understand the mixed responses in this thread.

Sure, I guess if you took all the religions by name and put them into a paper ball, as well as other non religions; we are possibly going to end up with one ball coming out of the shoot or maybe the balls get jammed.

My question is sort of geared towards the people that are gambling with their life by even choosing a ball/religion.
If they dislike gambling, well they seem like a huge hypocrite or non rational fool.

It is not gambling to the believer. It is gambling to the non-believer.

So who is the non-believer to tell the believer what is gambling to him?

I think this is the crux of the disagreements in this thread thus far; and for the foreseeable future of this thread.

Even if you pick a religion that explicitly disagrees with your statement? You really need to look into Reform Judaism.

There are a lot of Christians who think it is officially a sin, even in small doses.

I can understand why people will assume, that joining a religion or choosing not to join a religion; are equal in the concept of gambling in your life by doing either.

Is it really gambling if you choose not to purchase a ticket?
The person that chooses to attend religious ceremonies is comparable to a person going to a casino and playing slot machines. They both typically lose money or don't lose money.
On the other hand the person that doesn't, never loses anything and never took on any risk.

I'm still thinking about it.

Maybe you see that as a benefit but I don't really see it as a benefit.

Btw, my personal experience is that a person tends to be religious and hold some connection to religion when they dislike gambling.
If that is different for you, please explain why and i'm generally talking about people that want bans on gambling.

You can't choose not to buy a ticket any more than you can't choose to not have been born.

Deep.

Just like the person who stashes money in their mattress instead of a bank doesn't lose anything and isn't taking any risk... but is also not earning interest and their money is not FDIC insured. Their money is less safe than it is in a bank.

Think longer. This path seems to value ignorance. If you just bury your head in the sand, you think you're doing the right thing.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/...ead.php?t=7060

If you love spaghetti and you selected a spaghetti dish for dinner, instead of a rice dish, were you gambling?

Would it have mattered whether the spaghetti dish was better for your health or worse for your health (absolute truth/not absolute truth)?

Yah being born is something you have no choice in.
Similar to being born into a religious family and being taught x religion.
But what about the person born into a non religious family and passing by someone for the first time that mentions if they want to join x religion and they say nah.

I'm not really sure if that is the same and am stumped on it atm.

I don't believe we can know for certain if it is less safe in a bank or not in the bank.

Does it depend on if you are picking the dish based on which is healthy.
Both serve the same end result by filling the hungry role.

I'm not sure if joining a religion or not is the same as that.
Since you are not really filling a role when you can choose to live without it.

Yah Aaron, I know that some atheists will also be against gambling but I tend to not see them as hypocrites.

It's not a choice: to live without it.

They love the spaghetti. They don't see it as a choice/gamble.

They gambled when they decided to eat it for the first time.