• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

A question for Atheists AND Agnostics

Kyrielle

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,294
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
What do atheists/agnostics have to lose if they're wrong?

I don't think one can be "right" or "wrong" in this matter. So, in effect, nothing.

I think all belief systems come from the same place and that's the place in human minds that demands an explanation for the unexplainable. We're all, just about, believing in or exploring the same things...that there's something out there out of our control and bigger than us and that our goal is to try to understand or name this something so we feel like we have an illusion of control over our perception of it. Religions seek to place a name and attributes to it. Atheists seek to scientifically quantify it and name it. Agnostics seek to understand the possibility of it. (Those were all big assumptions made to try to make my point. I probably couldn't sum up those three belief systems in just one sentence while remaining 100% accurate.)

Regardless, we all have this drive to believe there is something bigger than ourselves that influences the universe. It doesn't have to be a spiritual something. It could be gravity or dark matter or the universe itself. Or it could be God or Zeus or some omnipresent ether. It could be anything. But this desire for this force bigger than us seems to be something innately human.

No one is "right" or "wrong". Just like nothing is "good" or "bad". It's all subjective, really. And that's the problem. There's no objective evidence, yet, that satisfies our drive in this matter, so we must rely on subjective understanding.

Even if it's not the consequence of Christianity, but of some other belief system? Wouldn't it make most "logical sense" to at least commit oneself on to some belief?

What about all of them being "right" all at the same time?
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Pascal's Wager?

Either God exists or God doesn't.
If God exists, you're totally screwed if you don't believe.
If God doesn't exist, what have you lost by going along with the crowd?
So, believe!

Both conditionals are probably faulty, not least because they both describe a limp-wristed commitment to your faith.

And atheism is a faith if "But I can imagine lots of ways you're wrong" is a substantial objection to saying that God does not exist.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Actually, Pascal's arguments were better than the spiffy Dilemma I rendered them as above. And there is some sense in taking it not as a proof you should believe, but as a proof that it's worth beginning the process of coming to believe.


But I'm INTJ and I'm constrained by cognitive functioning to avoid admitting to deities, so there.
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
I can't be bothered with outdated social mores on how to live my life.

Thus, I'm agnostic.

You sound atheist to me... (and agnostic, yes).

Both conditionals are probably faulty, not least because they both describe a limp-wristed commitment to your faith.

Pascal's wager fails due to the probability of choosing the right outcome, all of which are contradictory. It can be as simple as Islam vs Christian, both with equally bad outcomes. It can depend on how you interpret the 'burning in hell' (ie: non-believers in purgatory, or simply obliteration, which changes the reward matrix)...

For example, why not simply find a religion that doesn't require you to believe, but still be saved. That way you don't even have to believe. Or join.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
Pascal's Wager?

Either God exists or God doesn't.
If God exists, you're totally screwed if you don't believe.
If God doesn't exist, what have you lost by going along with the crowd?
So, believe!

Both conditionals are probably faulty, not least because they both describe a limp-wristed commitment to your faith.

And atheism is a faith if "But I can imagine lots of ways you're wrong" is a substantial objection to saying that God does not exist.

The problem with this, and the original scenario, is that it's set up like discarding a free lottery ticket. Why throw away such a thing even if it's very unlikely to win?

However, I don't think most atheists think in such ways. I certainly don't. First of all, the ticket is hardly free - there are a number of pros and cons to buying into this lottery, social customs and limitations that a faithful should adhere to. Second, unlike the christian perspective, the atheist will see any infinite number of possibilities rather than "god or not". For example, what if god hates worship and sends all worshippers to hell? It's not implausible that the people who scribed the bible were wrong or even malicious. What if we should be worshipping moon men instead? We can't worship every plausible (however unlikely) scenario, and we have no way to know the ultimate result of our efforts without proof, so *any* route is as good as any other, so we may as well focus on what's best and applicable to our current and known life, which is to follow that of reason and science.
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
For example, why not simply find a religion that doesn't require you to believe, but still be saved. That way you don't even have to believe. Or join.

Quite so, ptgatsby. I do believe you've hit the nail on the head.

Why would any religion need to have faith as a precursor for salvation unless it had a hidden agenda - other than getting the masses through the Pearly Gates, of course.

I can't see anything wrong in letting non-believers into Paradise; and if I was God, I'd let the unbelievers in - just to show how merciful I can be on a good day.
 

Randomnity

insert random title here
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
9,485
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The problem with this, and the original scenario, is that it's set up like discarding a free lottery ticket. Why throw away such a thing even if it's very unlikely to win?
Exactly. I think the real scenario is more like buying a very expensive lottery ticket (as you said), and furthermore there is no proof that nobody ever has or ever will "win". Doesn't sound very rational to me.

I will be agnostically atheist until something happens that makes religious beliefs seem more plausible to me than science. Not proof, just....you know, anything. And I have a high degree of doubt in religious literature intended to be taken as fact. If there were a god, I really doubt its true intentions would be revealed word-for-word in a book written by humans.

Of course, if there's a god and it likes to play guessing games with humans, there will never be any evidence, so we can't prove the non-existance of god. That doesn't mean it makes any sense to mindlessly start believing in one, "just in case".

That being said, if it genuinely makes your life happier to believe in god, that's great and I'm happy for you, as long as you don't go around making other people miserable.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
If there is a god, there's no more reason to suspect it will punish Atheists moreso than Christians.

Unless you have evidence, faith is a lucky dip.
 

CopyPaste

New member
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
28
MBTI Type
INFP
Don't see this as an attack of any kind. This is just my view as clear as I currently can describe, on how I feel towards this subject. It is in no way intended to stir or ruse.

I didn't see it as an attack. At the same time I sincerely hope I didn't offend anyone with my own musings. It's important to me to see everyone's point of view here. Life and death is, has, and will be a controversial issue, and I'm glad we could have this discussion.

A few of you had questions that, from my interpretation, are directed towards me. They are really important suspicions, some of which date back to the Biblical era itself! Like I said earlier though, I didn't intend this thread as a defense of Christianity (I just used it as an example in the OP since I'm Christian). I'd like to answer your questions if you have an authentic interest in obtaining a better understanding, but let's get real... opening one can of worms just sets off a chain reaction on forums, and from what I can perceive, I could just be typing the painted letters off the keyboard here (that and I really get antsy sitting at the computer for long periods of time). Plus, as it is another forum tradition, there are some who ask questions only in attempts to "set traps" or justify their own, immovable position on an issue, or even attempt to belittle someone else's position/reputation. Therefore, since it's hard for me to differentiate whether a question is a genuine inquiry or not, I ask that we have a PM discussion as this reflects there is no ulterior motive of being "showy" to the forum public. Or if you don't feel like having a discussion but still curious, we know there are endless resources out there that you can find answers to by just using a little creative search engine technique (or I can give you some resources).

But seriously, there are a few points of view I've read here that I hadn't heard from other atheists/agnostics before. Thanks for participating.
 

Blackmail!

Gotta catch you all!
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
3,020
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
Pascal's Wager?

Either God exists or God doesn't.
If God exists, you're totally screwed if you don't believe.
If God doesn't exist, what have you lost by going along with the crowd?
So, believe!

Both conditionals are probably faulty, not least because they both describe a limp-wristed commitment to your faith.

And atheism is a faith if "But I can imagine lots of ways you're wrong" is a substantial objection to saying that God does not exist.

I'm glad somebody noticed CopyPaste's lame attempt to plagiarize our dear Blaise Pascal.

Proselyte believers are predictable. They always use the same tricks. :thumbdown:

Frankly, it's boring. It's boring to be treated as uneducated morons.

---

There are many, many ways to become an atheist. And it would take a long time to sum up these many forms. But let's say that between Spinoza, Hume, d'Holbach, Marx, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Popper, Freud... well.... the opinions are rather diverse, to say the least.

Most of the time atheism is not a "faith", since it's intrinsically the absence of faith. Pretending atheism is a faith, is just like explaining the absence of sugar in your coffee is a taste.

It's absurd. But what can we expect from a devout proselytiser like Copypaste? :newwink:

His name tells all!

---

I'm an atheist, because I do not need God to explain the universe.
I'm an atheist, because I do not understand what people mean when they say "God".
I'm an atheist, because I find the concept of God to be useless.
I'm an atheist, because I'm not interested into mysticism or metaphysics.
I'm an atheist, because like Euclide said, "what is claimed without proof, can be negated without proof".
I'm an atheist, because Men are more important than Gods. Always.
I'm an atheist, because faith is a waste of time and energy.
I'm an atheist, because you should grow your own garden first.
I'm an atheist, because there's nothing funnier than the face of Believers after they have listened to a big Blasphemy.
I'm an atheist, because religions are like ideologies. They predate the human mind.
I'm an atheist, because frankly, I consider faith or agnosticism to be intellectual weaknesses, or just hypocrisy!
I'm an atheist, because after Auschwitz, I do not understand why my Jewish fellows would still dare to believe in something.


And so on...
 

MrME

New member
Joined
Jan 9, 2009
Messages
383
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Let's please stop capitalizing "atheist." It's not a title, it's a descriptor. I am not Atheist. I am an atheist.

I understand what you mean here because Atheist friends of mine have the shared the same viewpoint. I've also been told Atheism is the most rational of the "faiths" (yes, I believe it takes great faith to be Atheist).

Atheism is a faith like baldness is a hairstyle.

Does it take faith to NOT believe in leprechauns?
 

hokie912

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2009
Messages
271
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
So I move on to Christianity and Islam, which make clearly clear the eternal consequences of our actions. I end up with Christianity. Why? The Christian God doesn't appear as transient or disconnected from humans as the Islamic. The Christian God is Illustrated as very loving, merciful, and gracious, just, slow to anger, etc.

I think this is so subjective, particularly your defense of Christianity over the other major religions. I definitely admire your attempts to take a logical stance, but the inherent bias shows through here. Someone else could just as easily see the Christian concept of God as vain, arbitrary and vengeful, and find more comfort in the idea of reincarnation. I'm not saying that I do, but it bears observation.

So why, if I were an atheist/agnostic, would I choose Christianity? Well, let's say atheists were right, Christians were wrong... no god; we all disappear when we die and that's it. Even if it were the case, what did Christians lose out on in life? Nothing. Christians still enjoyed life to the fullest, they still loved, they still laughed, they still worked, they still had families, and even more so, they did it with an uncommonly joyful heart because of the hope (even if in vain) inside of them. It's a joy that's not as clearly defined by Islam in my opinion. If Christians are right? Wow....there wouldn't be words to describe the awesomeness.

What do atheists/agnostics have to lose if they're wrong? Even if it's not the consequence of Christianity, but of some other belief system? Wouldn't it make most "logical sense" to at least commit oneself on to some belief? Say Christians and atheists are both wrong--wouldn't that still make the Christian more rational by believing in at least Something Unknown?

Belief for fear of consequences isn't belief at all. I don't think that you can reason yourself into feeling something that you don't inherently feel. Allow yourself to be open to the possibility of belief, absolutely, but most people can't tell themselves, "belief is logical, so I will believe."

I would question whether it's logical at all, though. I'm an atheist, and the bottom line with the "what if you're wrong?" argument is that I don't think I could respect a deity that would damn me to hell for eternity for questioning its existence. If my options are "believe, just in case" or "risk eternal damnation," I'll choose the latter. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
That's not to say that God, if one were to exist, would be okay with your concluding that he doesn't, but that there's more value in thinking about it and deciding for yourself. I wouldn't want to worship a god that didn't appreciate doubt and would punish it more severely than the most egregious repented sins.

But on the whole, as far as my personal beliefs go, I just don't think that a higher power exists. I don't believe in any supernatural elements...there are things that science can't yet explain, sure, but I don't think that's because they can be ascribed to supernatural causes. I don't feel that my life is any less fulfilled by the idea that this is all there is.
 

juggernaut

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,009
Any god that is "slow to anger" is not a god I want any part of. Anger, wrath, pettiness...those are human foibles, not qualities of a divine being. If that is god, please keep it. There's nothing rational in believing you will fry for all eternity because you didn't quite live up to your maker's expectations. How perfect is this god that makes us so fucked up and then punishes us for his inability to get the job done right? The abrahamic god is a nut and would probably be in prison or an asylum if he were flesh and bone. Believing in this guy is about as sane as joining the Manson family.

Saner accounts of the divine, or divinity, do exist. Those I don't know enough about to rationally evaluate so I'm staying in the agnostic camp.

OP, you may want to keep in mind that religion and belief are not necessarily connected. Many people are happy to honor the social/moral/familial practices associated with a religion and have absolutely no belief in a god at all. You don't need to be believe in a god to recognize the importance of getting along and being a decent person. It's a part of being the sort of primates we are.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
Saner accounts of the divine, or divinity, do exist. Those I don't know enough about to rationally evaluate so I'm staying in the agnostic camp.

Aristotle's De Anima - great, good stuff on the soul and divine nature!


I also find the take the Pythagorians had about divinity extremely interesting and .... almost unfightable. They realized that before they ever discovered the Pyth. theorum, it was true then, regardless of them being unaware of it. They also realized that the Pyth. Theorum would ALWAYS be true, forever, regardless if NO ONE knew of it. Thusly they came to the conclusion that they had stubbled upon an article of PERFECT KNOWLEDGE, which could only be divine and godlike. They believed it so strongly they were described to me as almost being cult-like..... but I can't really blame them either because their foundation is somewhat solid. They thought they had achieved immortality via proxy to the divine.

I mean think about - how could something so perfect and complete arise out of the human brain alone, always being 100% true? is the pythagorean theorum and all the pure knowledge mathematics gives us just..... a convenient coincidence for us? I don't know 'bout that..... :)
 

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
You sound atheist to me... (and agnostic, yes).

Ah, there are liberal religious people that have no interest in their holy book's definitions on how to live. Even conservative denominations no longer adhere to racism, suppressing women, and certain dietary laws.

I don't believe in the tooth fairy version of God that people have created. That doesn't make me an atheist. I still believe a higher power is possible, but I'm unable to say whether it's definitely true or not true.
 

jenocyde

half mystic, half skeksis
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
6,387
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w8
I don't believe in the tooth fairy version of God that people have created. That doesn't make me an atheist. I still believe a high power is possible, but I'm unable to say whether it's definitely true or not true.

+1
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I didn't want to take that other thread off onto another tangent so hence my spinoff. Here's what Fluffywolf wrote that prompted me to make this thread:



I understand what you mean here because Atheist friends of mine have the shared the same viewpoint. I've also been told Atheism is the most rational of the "faiths" (yes, I believe it takes great faith to be Atheist). This may come across as offensive, but my personal belief is that Atheism is one of the least rational, especially to those who can't be sure there isn't a higher power. Using a simple process of elimination, if one is genuinely rational, it seems like they'd become compelled to practice a religion.

Why? Well for sake of simpler illustration I'll start with the most populous religions out there: Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam. They teach about life and death. Hinduism and Buddhism relate more to cylces and apart from re-incarnation (which I see as a form of hellish existence, yet not absolute or perpetual suffering) the afterlife isn't emphasized as much as the two other religions. The hints of afterlife (ie. nirvana) honestly don't seem like that great of a reward to me... I'd prefer having more intimacy with those who are dear to me now as opposed to just an individual eternal state peace or nothingness which sounds a little lonely to me. With these two religions, the highs don't seem as high and the lows don't seem as low to me when compared to the next two.

So I move on to Christianity and Islam, which make clearly clear the eternal consequences of our actions. I end up with Christianity. Why? The Christian God doesn't appear as transient or disconnected from humans as the Islamic. The Christian God is Illustrated as very loving, merciful, and gracious, just, slow to anger, etc. Furthermore, through my personal studies, I've seen great evidences and prophecies the Bible has fulfilled unlike the Qu'ran (both claimed divine inspiration). At the same time, Hell is a real and clearly defined consequence to those who reject Him (same goes for Islam). Now, if I were an atheist/agnostic, and could actually grasp what eternity means (for ever and ever and ever without ceasing), committing myself to avoid endless suffering/torment would be enough for me to choose one of those two religions that have the most dire eternal consequences (of course this isn't the right way to approach these belief systems--out of sheer fear--but i'm just illustrating pure rational thought here). On the other hand, the beauty, fellowship and absolute perfection described for those who keep the faith (Christianity) are second to none. So the lows are really low, but the highs are exceedingly high! It's because of it's extreme benefits, its consistency through my study, and it's irreversible consequences that Christianity makes most sense to me (remember this is just my rational viewpoint, I'm not adding what I believe by faith or personal conviction).

So why, if I were an atheist/agnostic, would I choose Christianity? Well, let's say atheists were right, Christians were wrong... no god; we all disappear when we die and that's it. Even if it were the case, what did Christians lose out on in life? Nothing. Christians still enjoyed life to the fullest, they still loved, they still laughed, they still worked, they still had families, and even more so, they did it with an uncommonly joyful heart because of the hope (even if in vain) inside of them. It's a joy that's not as clearly defined by Islam in my opinion. If Christians are right? Wow....there wouldn't be words to describe the awesomeness.

What do atheists/agnostics have to lose if they're wrong? Even if it's not the consequence of Christianity, but of some other belief system? Wouldn't it make most "logical sense" to at least commit oneself on to some belief? Say Christians and atheists are both wrong--wouldn't that still make the Christian more rational by believing in at least Something Unknown?

I say all this in love. It's just what goes through my head sometimes and my true intentions aren't to belittle anyone.

Well, maybe the title of this thread is a bit misleading because I don't have one specific question, but I welcome your opinions on this.

(note: by "we" here I mean atheists who follow this ideology, not ALL atheists, blah blah)

This is called Pascal's Wager, and it's most often countered by pointing out the fact that scientific inquiry points to an extraordinarily low probability of God existing in any conscious-entity form as described by popular religion today.

Note, please, that this doesn't require faith in anything--we don't know these things for certain, but given the information currently available, we estimate the probability of the existence of Hell as described by Christianity (or any other popular religion) as so low that, as pt says, it is essentially a zero loss.

In short, we simply don't believe in anything until shown conditions to indicate a high probability that it is true. Atheism is not faith that nothing more powerful than humans exists; it's simply lack of faith in the idea that it does.

Pascal's Wager is also easily falsifiable by comparison to similar belief systems: I could ask the same question about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other afterlife reward/punishment system I could arbitrarily invent. We're not working with absolute knowledge here; just because I can't prove 100% that this conscious person-God doesn't exist doesn't mean I have any reason to expect that he does.

We're working with probability clouds, not absolutes. I consider the idea that my body exists to have a high probability of accuracy because I have acted as if it does my entire life and seen constant repeated evidence to indicate that it does. It's technically possible that this could all be an illusion, but if you want to claim that my body isn't real, the burden of proof is on you--as they say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

As such, I rate the probability of conscious-entity-God's existence so low that the threat of Hell is intuitively a non-issue.
 

matmos

Active member
Joined
Mar 24, 2008
Messages
1,714
MBTI Type
NICE
Pascal's Wager is also easily falsifiable by comparison to similar belief systems: I could ask the same question about the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other afterlife reward/punishment system I could arbitrarily invent.
"The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn,[4] the Flying Spaghetti Monster[5] and The Dragon in My Garage.[6]"
Source:Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ahem.
 

Qre:us

New member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,890
Hinduism and Buddhism relate more to cylces and apart from re-incarnation (which I see as a form of hellish existence, yet not absolute or perpetual suffering) the afterlife isn't emphasized as much as the two other religions. The hints of afterlife (ie. nirvana) honestly don't seem like that great of a reward to me...

Afterlife is not the same as nirvana/muksha. Afterlife is what one gets if they DON'T attain nirvana/muksha (i.e., freedom from the cycle of births and rebirths).

I'd prefer having more intimacy with those who are dear to me now as opposed to just an individual eternal state peace or nothingness which sounds a little lonely to me.

Nothingness? And, there is nothing 'individual' about the eternal state. If you understood the philosophy(ies) of those two religions, you'd notice a distinct call for the shedding of the 'self' (the individual).....in that one reaches nirvana/muksha, as one becomes part of The Truth/one with the universe.


So I move on to Christianity and Islam, which make clearly clear the eternal consequences of our actions. I end up with Christianity. Why? The Christian God doesn't appear as transient or disconnected from humans as the Islamic. The Christian God is Illustrated as very loving, merciful, and gracious, just, slow to anger, etc.

I'm guessing you're not meaning the Old Testement when you speak of this loving, merciful, gracious, slow to anger, god. :dry:

Now, if I were an atheist/agnostic, and could actually grasp what eternity means (for ever and ever and ever without ceasing), committing myself to avoid endless suffering/torment would be enough for me to choose one of those two religions that have the most dire eternal consequences (of course this isn't the right way to approach these belief systems--out of sheer fear--but i'm just illustrating pure rational thought here).

Leaving aside Pascal's Wager (which others have brought up).....this line of argument is illogical to bring to an atheist. You're asking those that don't believe (because they want proof), to then believe in 'soul living for eternity and suffering'??? Has anyone called from Hell to let us mortals know how bad it is? Why would you think an atheist, who doesn't believe in god, or hell, to even consider a line of argument talking of the existence of eternal suffering IN hell?
And, philosophically/abstractly, I understand, quite well, what eternity is.
 
Top