If God probably don't exist!

[Farrukh]

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...

ok, you are trying to play a bit, why you missed verse 190 of 2nd chapter???
that says "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." Quran 2:190
and yes, it is called Jihad, i can't go and kill any non-muslim, but if non-believers will attack Muslims, we are instructed to fight with them.
These are orders given by lord, similar orders were given to previous nations but killing innocent was never allowed.
Quran says
"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors." Quran 5:32

 

[Farrukh]

Isn't it wrong to kill people just because they have different beliefs to you?

yes, it is totally wrong and there is no such ruling that says "kill other people just because of their belief".

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Doesn't this verse encourage people to die in the name of Islam?

yes, this verse encourages Muslims in case non-believers attack Muslims. what is wrong with that? should we fear and hide? similar instructions were given in Bible too.

"When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the LORD your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you." Deuteronomy 20:1

 

[Breathe]

Al-Fitnah [disbelief]

Off-the record, fitnah is not understood as disbelief.
Fitnah is probably closer a term to "civil war/guerilla war", or even "terrorism".

Persecution, disturbance, wars of schism and disunity, temptation to do wickedness, etc.

As far as I know, anyway.

 

[cocokorina]

yes, it is totally wrong and there is no such ruling that says "kill other people just because of their belief".

Not even apostates/murtid? In sharia what is punishment for those who declare islam as false? What is punishment for those who say out Mohammad was not a prophet? As far as I know, apostasy is a crime if it's declared.

 

[Tiberius]

ok, you are trying to play a bit, why you missed verse 190 of 2nd chapter???
that says "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." Quran 2:190
and yes, it is called Jihad, i can't go and kill any non-muslim, but if non-believers will attack Muslims, we are instructed to fight with them.

So you say that Allah told them not to transgress the rules he laid down, but where did he lay down the rule that said, "You can only kill at this time, and not afterwards?" I don't see that in any of the verses.

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors." Quran 5:32

What the Quran says about Religious Tolerance

 

[Robert.Evans]

Doomed? As in "destined to die"? Sure.

How that makes atheism any worse than theism, I have no idea.

As others have no doubt pointed out by now, Pascal's Wager is simply not a respectable "argument". If it is an argument at all.

There is a huge difference between enlightened and not enlightened. As for Pascal, one might look at it this way: if you are on a plane and it is going to crash and there is a parachute there, which has not been properly packed and may not open. You have no way of knowing whether it will or not. You might say you are an agnostic on the subject, as you wish to try and take the higher philosophical ground that being very important to you as you plummet to the ground. Would you put it on? I think logically you would. If it opens, you live, if it does not, you lose nothing, for you were going to die anyway. The reason it does not seem like a very good argument to you is that you don't take the subject seriously enough in the first place. One might say that you are deluded and that you don't even think the plane is crashing. There is not really a lot one can do with someone like that is there. So I don't see that the argument is that difficult nor Pascal that foolish

EDIT:
btw, your title seems to suggest you are an atheist agnostic Buddhist, is that right? And if so, how is that possible? Are you not sure what you are? just curious

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is a huge difference between enlightened and not enlightened. As for Pascal, one might look at it this way: if you are on a plane and it is going to crash and there is a parachute there, which has not been properly packed and may not open. You have no way of knowing whether it will or not. You might say you are an agnostic on the subject, as you wish to try and take the higher philosophical ground that being very important to you as you plummet to the ground. Would you put it on? I think logically you would. If it opens, you live, if it does not, you lose nothing, for you were going to die anyway. The reason it does not seem like a very good argument to you is that you don't take the subject seriously enough in the first place. One might say that you are deluded and that you don't even think the plane is crashing. There is not really a lot one can do with someone like that is there. So I don't see that the argument is that difficult nor Pascal that foolish

EDIT:
btw, your title seems to suggest you are an atheist agnostic Buddhist, is that right? And if so, how is that possible? Are you not sure what you are? just curious

Actually, to be a proper analogy with Pascal's Wager, someone is selling you a pack that he claims is a parachute but not letting you look inside.

If we want to make it a proper analogy with reality, it's actually many people all trying to sell you packs, but you don't know which ones are filled with parachutes and which ones are filled with poisonous snakes (which will bite you incessantly and cause your last few minutes before the plane crash to be agonizing instead of having a quick death).

 

[Willamena]

Actually, to be a proper analogy with Pascal's Wager, someone is selling you a pack that he claims is a parachute but not letting you look inside.

If we want to make it a proper analogy with reality, it's actually many people all trying to sell you packs, but you don't know which ones are filled with parachutes and which ones are filled with poisonous snakes (which will bite you incessantly and cause your last few minutes before the plane crash to be agonizing instead of having a quick death).

If the plane is still crashing, that doesn't affect the logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the plane is still crashing, that doesn't affect the logic.

It does if you dislike pain.

How would you prefer to die: quick and painlessly, or in agony from bites and poison?

 

[Willamena]

It does if you dislike pain.

How would you prefer to die: quick and painlessly, or in agony from bites and poison?

Hmm. Crushed to pieces on impact, or crushed into a pancake on impact. That's a tough decision.