Atheism

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Solace

As a fellow theist, Didymos, I agree with you completely.

And as a third theist, I agree with both of you... Pascal's wager leaves a lot to be desired.

The only real benefit I get out of it is the reminder that if there really is "nothing more" to our reality than matter, energy, and soon non-existence, then I don't have anything to fear by believing in "something more".

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

If there are any atheists who'd like to answer on why they're atheist and don't mind my questions, I'd appreciate it.

My personal life and priorities don't even validate the question as to whether there is a God. It's a profoundly interesting subject to me intellectually -- but it has nothing to do with how I decide what I believe about the world. Believe it or not, theism versus atheism is not an important question for many people.

Ironically, I practice Judaism somewhat actively. But I do it for fully authentic reasons that are independent of belief in God, I do it because my family and its history (including a history of great suffering by my grandparents) are bound to that identity and my family means everything to me.

Specifically, how do you resolve Pascal's wager?

Pascal's wager is nonsense. If God can see into your heart at the time of judgement, then whether he accepts you or not is not going to be based on what you choose to believe. It will be based on how true your heart is. No intellectual choice is going to override that.

Furthermore, in my own case, I know that I'm a good person. I am good to people, I cherish my whole family, I have a life of helping people including a lot of medical volunteering in Africa and South America. I'm kind, I don't take advantage of people, etc.

The point is, if God is going to throw me into Hell because I don't believe in him even though I've been nothing but good; but he'll take into heaven a bad person who happens to believe -- then screw him. As Albert Camus wrote in The Plague, "Who would dare assert that eternal happiness could compensate for a single moment's human suffering?"

[jknilinux]

Ugh, sorry- I thought I posted a reply but apparently it was deleted or something. I hate it when that happens...

Anyway, I thought all atheists are nihilists, but most of your responses seem to imply a non-nihilistic point of view. So, how can an atheist not be a nihilist? One seems to imply the other, at first glance.

Also, Didymos, I never meant for it to prove God's existence; in fact, if there is a God, then finding proof of His existence must be impossible, by design, if faith is required. Instead, I meant that it proves that you should believe in God, if you want to maximize happiness.

Aedes-
It makes sense that God wouldn't punish someone simply because they, for example, never had the opportunity to learn of even what religion means. In fact, that's exactly what the reasonable religions teach.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

Ugh, sorry- I thought I posted a reply but apparently it was deleted or something. I hate it when that happens...

Anyway, I thought all atheists are nihilists, but most of your responses seem to imply a non-nihilistic point of view. So, how can an atheist not be a nihilist? One seems to imply the other, at first glance.

Also, Didymos, I never meant for it to prove God's existence; in fact, if there is a God, then finding proof of His existence must be impossible, by design, if faith is required. Instead, I meant that it proves that you should believe in God, if you want to maximize happiness.

Aedes-
It makes sense that God wouldn't punish someone simply because they, for example, never had the opportunity to learn of even what religion means. In fact, that's exactly what the reasonable religions teach.

A couple of things here that I'd like to address jkn, even though it wasn't directed at me.

The implication may be about maximizing happiness, but the application is, let's face it, about justifying belief. I'm perfectly happy with my belief not being justified nor justifiable. As long as I am not proseletyzing and my belief doesn't harm anyone, I shouldn't be expected to justify it. Moreover, I think Pascal's Wager is more about justifying religion than belief, which is a whole different ballgame. One cannot possibly hope to justify religion by offering up a single sentimental question and passing it off as logic.

I don't think that Aedes was suggesting that he never had the oppurtunity to learn what any religion teaches. He's a well educated man, with the means to learn about just about anything that he desires to, via the internet for sure, and doubtless through many other means. I think, rather, that Aedes is saying that if belief in God is required for acceptance by God, should he exist, then God (and these are my words, not Aedes', so I'm not attributing, but extrapolating and adding my own thoughts to,) needs to get over himself and start seeing us, his creation, for what he made us to be. I am not responsible for God, but he is darn well responsible for me. It's past time that the faithful started treating themselves like God's creations rather than his caretakers.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

how can an atheist not be a nihilist?

Because meaning and hope come from us, not from God. We project them on the world. And religious people project them onto God.

Aedes-
It makes sense that God wouldn't punish someone simply because they, for example, never had the opportunity to learn of even what religion means. In fact, that's exactly what the reasonable religions teach.

And what of someone who has had plenty of opportunity, rejects God, but is a truly good person?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Yes, Pascal's wager is bogus, but people are concentrating on the wrong reason that it is bogus.

If one is unsure about the existence of a god or an afterlife, the probability that the typical Christian God and heaven are the true and sole forms is minuscule. It is far more probable that belief in God will result in a negative result than it would a positive result.

If anything, a skeptic should recognize that the only existence we are sure of is the one we presently have, and subjugating it to the hope for an afterlife would likely lead to no meaningful existence at all.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Pascal's Wager is essentially this: it's safer to believe in God than to not believe in God because if you believe in God and happen to be wrong said belief causes you no harm, but if you do not believe in God and happen to be wrong then you go to Hell.

Not only do I reject his theological premises, but I also take issue with the use of fear as a means of convincing people to adopt some belief. I do not see much logic in the argument.

Pascal's Wager is not a proof of God. It's a question about which belief (theism or atheism) is the safer belief to hold.

It is an attempt to prove that you ought to believe in God whether or not God exists. Whether God exists, it is supposed, cannot be known. I agree with the criticism that it gives no direction for what god to believe in, and, after all, if you make the wrong choice, then you ought not to believe in the God, since down you go!

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

If there are any atheists who'd like to answer on why they're atheist and don't mind my questions, I'd appreciate it. Specifically, how do you resolve Pascal's wager?

Hey there,

Excellent questions, thank you! I shall endeavor to answer as candidly and respectfully as I can.

Sure. I'm an atheist. They 'Why' is simple; I see no reason to believe in the existence of any god (either based in 'knowledge' or stemming from 'need').

Pascal's Wager needs no resolution; at least not to my mind. I suppose if I had a single most-significant reason for not buying into it, I'd say that it strikes me as "dishonest". Let me explain this: I see belief, to a humble and honest person, to be not a matter of choice. Belief, to me, is a place that I'm led to by the preponderance of the facts, circumstances or my own personal desire. How might one "choose" to believe then? This is why I see it as dishonest.

Another problem with the wager has to do with what I'd call the "What If Factor". Look at it this way: If you wanted to "play it safe" for every possibility, every act of superstition, every practical possibility for everything that could happen to you... what might your life be like? Do we have any reason to act in such a way as to account for every just in case scenario? I wouldn't think so. In this light, I ask myself: What makes this one any different and/or credible?

So yea, I don't put much stock in it. I think there's a god number of intelligent, contemplative people who do; and that's fine, we all have our reasons, views and perceptions.

Originally Posted by jknilinux

By atheist, I mean any non-religious person. If I'm of faith x, then people of faith y are still considered religious. However, people who do not think there is a God or can be a God are atheist, for the purposes of this discussion.

Good clarification. But if I may interject: What an atheist is, is quite simple: One who doesn't believe in any god. It's fairly straightforward. I think it becomes complicated because of the stigma attached to the term. But that might just be my perception.

Thanks again, I appreciate your questions. Please feel free to ring again if you have any other questions on atheism. There's a few of us out there who are more than happy to help others understand where we're coming from.

Cheers!

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

Aedes-
It makes sense that God wouldn't punish someone simply because they, for example, never had the opportunity to learn of even what religion means. In fact, that's exactly what the reasonable religions teach.

Catholicism calls that "invincible ignorance" and when there was Purgatory, that's where victims of invincible ignorance went. Plato, Aristotle, etc. were supposed to be found there.

[Icon]

Atheism... hmmm. I am not sure if I am considered an Atheist or not. I never really thought about it. See, for me, I just don't like the word belief. I think it is a short cut word used when we can't find an answer and don't want to try any longer. It means that we have seceded from the process of thought and subsided into a role of slave to the unknown. I can't do that. I won't do that. For me, Atheism is nothing more than a label given to those who aren't afraid to say that we don't know. The truth of the matter is that we don't know. We cannot prove, disprove, refute, or argue with religion because it is absolute. If you do not believe in so and so, you go to a place of eternal damnation and suffering, or you have to start from scratch as a roach, or you simply cease to exist, or any of the other terrible punishments designed to rob you of your senses. If a being is truly so powerful that they can do anything, be everywhere, and know the future then why would they be so intent on punishing those who do not dedicate their lives to a text book? You would think they would be wise enough to know that fear is only good for motivating the ignorant. <- not my words mind you, though I can't find the direct source currently.

My point being that I am not afraid to say that I don't know and I am not so influenced by fear that I must pretend to know in order to feel secure. If it is truly God's intent to be loved and known then he should make himself known in a way that we cannot dispute his existence. He has the power to do so, so why would he not choose to do so. He could save so many souls were he simply to show himself once.