Atheism

[jknilinux]

jgweed-
The latter atheists you mentioned may not be atheists at all. At one point I knew of no self-contradictory denomination, so I didn't belong to any, but I was still religious.

Didymos-
I think we see the wager differently. Here's how I see it:
There are four possibilities...
1: God exists and you believe in Him. - Reward
2: There is no God and you believe in him. - No net result b/c of nihilism.
3: There is no God and you don't believe in him. - No net result b/c of nihilism.
4: God exists and you don't believe in Him. - Unknown

So, if you believe, then you get 1 or 2. If you don't, you get 3 or 4. Reward or nothing is better than unknown or nothing, so you should believe. Which God should you believe? That's another can of worms, but you should look for one that isn't self-contradictory and supports good values. Also, my religion has a method of dealing with this problem as well, so this problem is also removed.

icon-
Don't be so sure. I always try to keep an open mind, so you never know.

[jgweed]

Two general comments:
(1)
Inasmuch as a "nihilist" denies any and all value even the value of seeking value, an Atheist strictly speaking, denies the existence of God; this does not mean than an Atheists denies values or doesn't maintain that some values are better than others.
One can deny the existence of God, in the senses I mentioned earlier, and yet work for the common good and improvement of mankind, love dogs, babies and apple pie. The tacit assumption that any "good" value must necessarily come from God, or a belief in some sect's view of God, must be reconciled to the plain facts that much good is done based on entirely different---some of which are even philosophical---sources, and done from a desire to do something worthwhile despite there being no rewards in the afterlife urging them on.
(2)
It is exceeding hard for (as an example) a Christian to decidedly say, "This is what God wants." Rather were he to be honest, he would have to say, "This is what I think God wants." Would he not be forced, given all the different Christian sects with different beliefs, to acknowledge that his view was also an interpretation?

[xris]

Why are atheists so committed to christ and the common accepted face of god...God could be me but proving im not a god is a matter of indulgence but i am me...

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

Aedes-
You can say meaning and hope come from us, but according to atheists, aren't we just products of chance, whose only goal is survival and reproduction?

According some atheist, perhaps. Atheism refers to one's belief about God, not about anything else. Atheism does not imply any particular point of view about freewill and determinism or any other question of philosophy other than the question of God's existence or nonexistence.

Originally Posted by jknilinux

Didymos-
I think we see the wager differently. Here's how I see it:
There are four possibilities...
1: God exists and you believe in Him. - Reward
2: There is no God and you believe in him. - No net result b/c of nihilism.
3: There is no God and you don't believe in him. - No net result b/c of nihilism.
4: God exists and you don't believe in Him. - Unknown

You have an odd take on Pascal's Wager. 1 seems to be right. 2 and 3 are close, but the lack of result isn't because of nihilism, but because there is no God to punish or reward you. The non-existence of God does not demand nihilism. As for number 4, this one seems to have no connection to Pascal's Wager - If God exists and you do not believe in him, according to the Wager, you go to Hell or suffer some other divine retribution. That's the whole point - it's better to believe in God so as not to risk eternal damnation. According to the Wager, the result isn't entirely unknown - the result is undesirable.

Originally Posted by jknilinux

So, if you believe, then you get 1 or 2. If you don't, you get 3 or 4. Reward or nothing is better than unknown or nothing, so you should believe. Which God should you believe? That's another can of worms, but you should look for one that isn't self-contradictory and supports good values. Also, my religion has a method of dealing with this problem as well, so this problem is also removed.

Again, I do not find Pascal's Wager to be a significant issue - it's a false dilemma. The question of "which God" is something the Wager ignores entirely, which is convenient for Pascal considering the fact that we can use his Wager to justify belief in any deity we like which leads anyone who employs the Wager as an argument into necessary logical contradiction.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

Aedes-
Sorry, I still don't see how an atheist can be non-nihilist. You can say meaning and hope come from us, but according to atheists, aren't we just products of chance, whose only goal is survival and reproduction? How can there be meaning in that? If you're atheist, then any and all work we do for the common good just forestalls the species' inevitable extinction... Or, we live forever as 2,000 lb slugs addicted to entertainment... etc... So, in any of these cases, why not have a religion?

Who is better, the person who behaves in a "good" way because he is told to behave in this manner, or the person who behaves in a "good" way because he has an innate sense of wrong and right and feels an obligation to abide by this?

I turn it around on you: How can you find meaning in your religious beliefs? God is no more justified in bestowing meaning than nature or reason.

[jknilinux]

jgweed-
I define nihilist as someone who thinks there is no purpose in life, other than to die. Or, something like that...

(2)- I take it this is in reference to my comments on catholicism... Well, anything is possible, but some things are definitely more likely.

didymos-
Perhaps you could provide an example of a non-nihilist atheist? I think this may be a big source of our disagreements: If there is no purpose in life other than to slowly descend toward non-existence I consider that pretty nihilist. You may still have values, but they're pointless if we're transient accidents who'll all die out in a million years from our own pollution.

Also, in my opinion, pascal's wager doesn't require there to be a hell, just a difference in happiness if you take one outcome vs. another.

which god- one that is self-consistent. Like I said, certain denominations have recognized this problem, and according to their doctrine there is a wa to know they are correct.

MFTP-
They have the same value, from our standpoint. A reasonable religion with a reasonable god will concur.

[ciceronianus]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Again, I do not find Pascal's Wager to be a significant issue - it's a false dilemma. The question of "which God" is something the Wager ignores entirely, which is convenient for Pascal considering the fact that we can use his Wager to justify belief in any deity we like which leads anyone who employs the Wager as an argument into necessary logical contradiction.

This is common to all the traditional "proofs" of the existence of God, I believe. See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, who in utilizing the "First Cause" argument concludes there must be a First Cause, and then states "and this we call God," thus begging the question(s).

[jknilinux]

cicerroneous- I never said it was a proof of his existence, and I agree you can't use it on all religions- it only works on the dichotomy of believing in a higher power vs. not believing in a higher power.

[Didymos Thomas]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

didymos-
Perhaps you could provide an example of a non-nihilist atheist? I think this may be a big source of our disagreements: If there is no purpose in life other than to slowly descend toward non-existence I consider that pretty nihilist. You may still have values, but they're pointless if we're transient accidents who'll all die out in a million years from our own pollution.

Bertrand Russell. Most atheists. Again, atheism is just a claim about the existence of God. Nothing else.

Originally Posted by jknilinux

Also, in my opinion, pascal's wager doesn't require there to be a hell, just a difference in happiness if you take one outcome vs. another.

Right, not Hell necessarily; as long as we assume some sort of divine retribution in the afterlife, Pascal's Wager keeps what few teeth it had to begin with.

Originally Posted by ciceronianus

This is common to all the traditional "proofs" of the existence of God, I believe. See, for example, Thomas Aquinas, who in utilizing the "First Cause" argument concludes there must be a First Cause, and then states "and this we call God," thus begging the question(s).

The Wager isn't a proof, though. The traditional proofs, like Aquinas' proof, all have some fallacy. The interesting thing is that the fallacies, generally, are beside the point. Augustine is a great example - he wrote his theology under intense inner pressure. Like any artists who feels compelled to express himself, Augustine had to write. He had to put down in words, even if the logic was faulty, his experience of the divine.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

If it is possible, then, perhaps you can believe that God can exist as at least some theists see God.

It's perfectly reasonable for an atheist to accept that the existence of God is true to those who believe. And that's a much more socially sophisticated viewpoint than assuming that theists are duped morons because they believe in magic and miracles.