Atheism

[jknilinux]

Hi everyone,

As hard as it must be for people who've seen my views on ethics to believe, I am not an atheist.

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?

And please, no flaming, no fallacies (even if they're funny). Thanks!

EDIT:

You're right, the question is unfortunately vague- sorry about that.

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.

Also, I should have mentioned this earlier, but my main question is how one can remain atheist in light of pascal's wager.

[jgweed]

Based on the many discussion threads about the same subject, it would be a very good idea, Jknilinux, for you to edit your post and define precisely what you mean by atheist, even if it be a cut and paste from a philosophical dictionary. This will serve to better focus the discussion on that definition.

[Deftil]

I have to agree with jgweed here. The term "atheism" seems straightforward, but not everyone uses it the same way in the same contexts all the time.

I'm like Bertrand Russell in regards to atheism and agnosticism; in some circumstances it seems more appropriate to refer to myself as an atheist, and in others as an agnostic.

[xris]

Atheists like me who claim to be agnostics...hummm i feel like a teenager not knowing whats happening to my growing body ..unsure what path i will take next,seeing others around me so sure of their abilities to understand life's quandaries and at the late stage of my life still not certain of anything..

[Didymos Thomas]

I've never found Pascal's Wager to be terribly profound, and certainly never thought the matter needed to be resolved. Essentially, Pascal suggests we ignore the question of whether or not God exists and instead focus on any fears we might have about God's nonexistence. I do not think that fear should direct us in such a way.

[jknilinux]

But pascal's wager is logically sound, right?

[ciceronianus]

Originally Posted by jknilinux

But pascal's wager is logically sound, right?

As I understand the Wager, it is not intended to be a proof, in the normal sense. I don't know if it is appropriate, therefore, to call it logically sound.

[jgweed]

It could be argued that Pascal presents us with a false dilemma, since it presents an either/or situation that may be argued to be inconsistent with the facts; in arguing that one must make a choice between Roman Catholicism (or Christianity) or not, he ignores many other options.
Moreover, rather than offering a deductive argument, he is appealing to pragmatic self-interest, or as Didymos mentioned, "fear." Pascal's argument is more like "hedging one's bet."

Viewed in either of these lights, the wager doesn't seem logically sound, or even logical.

[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.

[Solace]

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