Do Atheist Really Exists?

[Rusha]

Christians are right and have EVERYTHING,

I disagree. I have known too many Christians who lived unhappy lives ... being happy and fulfilled IS having everything, IMO.

but if we are wrong we don't lose anything. Atheist have everything to lose.

When I hear or read comments such as what you just said, it really makes me question the sincerity of your beliefs. It sounds like you only believe and follow because of your own fear and wanting a "get out of hell free" card.

So let me ask you ... do you believe in OSAS and if so, what do you believe is your responsibility after the fact?

Do you believe that you need to set an example with your own life?

 

[Coteaz]

Christians are right and have EVERYTHING, but if we are wrong we don't lose anything.
Atheist have everything to lose.

No, being wrong could cause you to reincarnate as a pariah. Or a cockroach.

Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, pal.

 

[chestertonrules]

It is very hard for me to believe anyone could not believe we have a creator.
I just think they are all lying, and if they are not lying don't they have a surprise coming!!
Any thoughts out there.
I am a newbie, I am sure this subject has been talked to death.
But I would like to know what everyone is thinking.

mar


Chesterton said that if there was no God there would be no atheists.

We don't have aUnicorns or aMartians.

 

[Zetetic]

Chesterton said that if there was no God there would be no atheists.

We don't have aUnicorns or aMartians.

An atheist is one who believes there is no deity.

I am one who believes there are no unicorns. If we believe Chesterton and our dictionary, that not only makes me an aUnicornian, but it also means unicorns do exist.

It's a very interesting proof. If Chesterton is a reliable source, I'd take this one to your local university and see if you can't be funded for a safari.

-J

 

[Zetetic]

:yawn:

It's called Pascal's Wager. It is an old, OLD argument, and terribly terribly boring. And entirely irrelevant, a false dichotomy, and presents completely the wrong reasons for converting even if you were taken in by it.

This is like saying a song is terrible simply because you've heard it played too often. The truth is that the quality of the song is not related to its airtime. Likewise, the quality of an argument does not diminish because someone gets bored with it. I don't like Pascal's Wager either, but I think it is an interesting idea. You may be bored with it, but that doesn't make it a boring idea. It makes you easily bored.

Pascal's wager is interesting to me. I believe it sends the message that it is much more important to be right in your atheism than it is to be right in your theism. Engineers make choices all the time that are only necessary if a very unlikely event happens. They do this because it is much better to spend effort and money on something probably useless than risk hundreds of lives on the belief that the unlikely event will never occur.

I agree that god is unlikely to appreciate your devotion when you view him entirely like an insurance policy. However, the concept has driven many people to pursue god, and in so doing they found more reasons to believe than merely hedging their bets. They found faith lurking inside themselves that they didn't expect. This is the usefulness of the argument.

-J

 

[Zeus]

Pascal's wager is interesting to me. I believe it sends the message that it is much more important to be right in your atheism than it is to be right in your theism.

The problem is that this assertion is really very flimsy. By believing in a particular god, it only ups your chances a small amount, given the number of man's notions of god that have been rejected. You actually share a large component of common risk with the atheist. So many viscissitudes that both reject.

And, if there is only our one life on earth and you have chosen to adhere to a religion that is incompatible with your fulfilment (for example sexual/emotional satisfaction -- the MaryContrary and Just Toms), you have lost a wager of a different sort.

Maybe Pascal's wager is a boring concept because it is meaningless, not because it is repeated.

 

[Zetetic]

The problem is that this assertion is really very flimsy. By believing in a particular god, it only ups your chances a small amount, given the number of man's notions of god that have been rejected. You actually share a large component of common risk with the atheist. So many viscissitudes that both reject.

And, if there is only our one life on earth and you have chosen to adhere to a religion that is incompatible with your fulfilment (for example sexual/emotional satisfaction -- the MaryContrary and Just Toms), you have lost a wager of a different sort.

Maybe Pascal's wager is a boring concept because it is meaningless, not because it is repeated.

Firstly, it is a small subset of world religions that offer infinite reward for belief, infinite punishment for disbelief, and exclusivity with respect to other religions. You talk as if each religion offers the same risk.

Second, and this in a way eclipses my first point, Pascal never included the totality of world religions into his wager. He was comparing a belief in the Christian god to belief in no god whatsoever. Pascal had already come to believe that among religions, only Christianity could be true. He simply felt that he couldn't know for sure if the truth was Christianity, or no gods at all. He felt he had no choice but to wager and framed his wager in the way we all know so well. He also knew better than to think that this was all that was needed to please god. Are you sure you're familiar with Pascal? I haven't directly read anything of his, but it seems you are only vaguely familiar with his ideas.

Finally, your mention of a "wager of a different sort" sounds a great deal like one of Pascal's two scenarios - I'm not sure what you're calling 'different'. The whole point of Pascals Wager is that all your earthly sadness regarding the many things you abstained from will not amount to anything when stacked against eternity with god. Speaking of abstaining from sin, are these the kinds of things you think men regret on their deathbeds? You think they wish they'd had more sex, harmed people, been more selfish?

-J

 

[icilian fenner]

The problem is that this assertion is really very flimsy. By believing in a particular god, it only ups your chances a small amount, given the number of man's notions of god that have been rejected. You actually share a large component of common risk with the atheist. So many viscissitudes that both reject.

And, if there is only our one life on earth and you have chosen to adhere to a religion that is incompatible with your fulfilment (for example sexual/emotional satisfaction -- the MaryContrary and Just Toms), you have lost a wager of a different sort.

Maybe Pascal's wager is a boring concept because it is meaningless, not because it is repeated.

Agreed - whilst parciular beliefs sit well with some people, others struggle under their burden. If that belief is wrong, it doesn't matter if you believe it and it makes you happy. But what if you feel way less than you could be? :think:

There is also the possibility that there is a higher power who is un-revealed to us, that appreciates atheists more than theists. It's a risk you run, in this religion business.. :chew:


Pascal's wager has been thoroughly debunked before now, and nothing's changed since then..

 

[Zeus]

Firstly, it is a small subset of world religions that offer infinite reward for belief, infinite punishment for disbelief, and exclusivity with respect to other religions. You talk as if each religion offers the same risk.

Should we just adhere to the religion that threatens us best?

Se

cond, and this in a way eclipses my first point, Pascal never included the totality of world religions into his wager.

That's why it is so lame. False dichotomies never impress.

Speaking of abstaining from sin, are these the kinds of things you think men regret on their deathbeds? You think they wish they'd had more sex, harmed people, been more selfish?

Harming people, more selfish definitely not. More sex - the number one regret!

 

[Zetetic]

Should we just adhere to the religion that threatens us best?

Most creatures pay attention to the most significant threat. Those that don't are less likely to pass on their genetic traits. Pascal is saying that if we judge purely by a cost-benefit analysis, investigating Christianity is a prudent decision. The issue of whether God is fair or nice is another matter completely.

That's why it is so lame. False dichotomies never impress.

Pascal argued in his other works that if any religion was correct, it must be Christianity. It's not important if you agree with him and I have no idea how well he made those arguments. Nevertheless, the wager is set in a context where there are only two choices. If after reading those other works you still disagree, and believe his dichotomy to be false, then you can't use the wager as it does not apply to your situation. It is a mistake borne of ignorance to say that the wager itself is a false dichotomy and it is arrogance to think that such a man as Pascal would not be aware of the dichotomy he was operating in when he penned that wager - I imagine this is why he defended his dichotomy first.

It is unfortunate that people read a man's writings in a vacuum. I believe it to be a product of our time starved society that people make judgments so quickly. Whatever your excuse, it is still wrong.

Harming people, more selfish definitely not. More sex - the number one regret!

All joking aside, I don't know that I have much to say to this one. Were you expecting a wink and a fist bump?

-J

 

[Zeus]

Most creatures pay attention to the most significant threat.

But, only humans fear an imaginary one.

Pascal is saying that if we judge purely by a cost-benefit analysis, investigating Christianity is a prudent decision. The issue of whether God is fair or nice is another matter completely.
Pascal argued in his other works that if any religion was correct, it must be Christianity. It's not important if you agree with him and I have no idea how well he made those arguments.

It is sort of important to have a basis to collapse the issue to a choice of two. If there are no compelling reasons to do so, then it should not be done. If you do not even know his rationale, I fail to see how you can be defending the wisdom of such a dichotomy at all. I do not care about pascal or exactly how his argument unfolded. I care about evaluating the concept. You don't even care enough about it to find out his rationale and you are his defender.

It is unfortunate that people read a man's writings in a vacuum. I believe it to be a product of our time starved society that people make judgments so quickly. Whatever your excuse, it is still wrong.

I suggest you stop doing it as well.

All joking aside, I don't know that I have much to say to this one. Were you expecting a wink and a fist bump?

-J

I am not joking. I truly believe that among people's last thoughts are: I wish a had more sex, higher quality sex, and sex with particular people. I will now scour the internet to find proof.

 

[Zetetic]

But, only humans fear an imaginary one.

A matter of opinion as you know and having little to do with whether or not Pascals wager is boring. I thought your contention was that reacting to a perceived threat (real or imagined) is somehow a mistake. Is a sidetracking insult against theism your way of withdrawing from your position?

It is sort of important to have a basis to collapse the issue to a choice of two. If there are no compelling reasons to do so, then it should not be done.

I quite agree. If something has no compelling reason it is unreasonable. Sure.

If you do not even know his rationale, I fail to see how you can be defending the wisdom of such a dichotomy at all.

I never said there was wisdom in the dichotomy and am unsure why you accuse me of defending its wisdom. I did say that Pascal tried to explain why the dichotomy must be.

You said it was a false dichotomy simply because there are other religions. Pascal was aware of the other religions and made arguments that resolved the issue to a dichotomy of Christianity or a lack of theistic belief. You have not given us anything as to why you believe Pascals arguments were insufficient and you were unaware he'd made such arguments. I merely advised that you attempt to discredit the dichotomy as presented there, or at least read it, before condemning the wager.

As I've been careful to say, I don't even like the wager much. I think it is certainly an incomplete theological position if that is all a person uses to make their decision! I do find it interesting and I believe that it can be a first step toward faith. One must first find the motivation to seek something before they can hope to find it - even if that motivation is as ignoble as I believe the wager to be. The reason you need to read Pascal and I don't is that you are espousing the opinion that his argument is a conceptual failure while I am merely saying it is a novelty and has limited practical value. Were I to take a more definitive stand, I would feel compelled to learn more about the subject first.

I do not care about pascal or exactly how his argument unfolded.

Why are we having this conversation?

I care about evaluating the concept.

So...you do care. Look, this concept you care about includes his explanation of the dichotomy. You cannot divorce the wager from the reduction to two choices that precipitates it. You don't have to agree with his reasoning, but to discredit what you haven't read is not a good idea.

You don't even care enough about it to find out his rationale and you are his defender.

Again, not his defender. I said I find the idea of the wager to be interesting. I wouldn't presume to say that he is "right" or "wrong" because I haven't done the legwork yet.

I suggest you stop doing it as well.

Stop doing what? Are you saying that I made assumptions about Pascals Wager without first looking into it? I'm very sorry if I did that, but I can't very well avoid it in the future if I'm not sure what those assumptions were. I was trying to refrain from making definitive statements about the overall worth of the wager because I don't know much about it. I'll repeat again. I find it interesting and potentially useful if it is the first step toward a search for god.

I am not joking. I truly believe that among people's last thoughts are: I wish a had more sex, higher quality sex, and sex with particular people. I will now scour the internet to find proof.

I can only speak for myself as I do not have any hard statistics on subject, but I think that as a man grows in maturity he generally realizes that his sexual drive is one of the worst motivators when it comes to lasting happiness.

If by sex you mean a relationship involving love, trust, transparency, etc. then I may agree with you that people will regret not having more. If by sex you mean the simple pleasure of the act then I would wonder why you esteem it so highly. Most heroin users will attest to the fact that sex can't touch it for the thrill or the pleasure. Why would people regret sex and not heroin? Maybe I'm making a bad assumption here too. Perhaps you'll now argue that one thing people regret more than having too little sex is subjecting themselves to too little heroin.

-J

 

[PyramidHead]

what..... there are ppl out there w/o my exact opinion out there...??? nawww... they believe the same thing, they just DENY it. what nooblets

 

[Zeus]

A matter of opinion as you know and having little to do with whether or not Pascals wager is boring. I thought your contention was that reacting to a perceived threat (real or imagined) is somehow a mistake. Is a sidetracking insult against theism your way of withdrawing from your position?

My contention is that reacting on the basis of an unsubstantiated threat is quite foolish. And that choosing a religion on the basis of how scary the consequences within each sect is silly. High pressure sales is always distasteful -- especially when tied to major life decisions.

You said it was a false dichotomy simply because there are other religions. Pascal was aware of the other religions and made arguments that resolved the issue to a dichotomy of Christianity or a lack of theistic belief. You have not given us anything as to why you believe Pascals arguments were insufficient and you were unaware he'd made such arguments. I merely advised that you attempt to discredit the dichotomy as presented there, or at least read it, before condemning the wager.

I talk about Pascal's Wager like I talk about the Pythagorean Theorem. The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse. You see how the theorem is complete. I don't have to ponder the life's work of Pythagoras to get at it's meaning. It's about the Theorum, not Pythogoras. Same with the Wager. The Wager does not address all three sides of the triangle, and it should. So it is an incomplete or false wager without an analysis of all relevant components.

As I've been careful to say, I don't even like the wager much. I think it is certainly an incomplete theological position if that is all a person uses to make their decision!

I am glad you agree.

I do find it interesting and I believe that it can be a first step toward faith. One must first find the motivation to seek something before they can hope to find it - even if that motivation is as ignoble as I believe the wager to be.

I have no problem with this -- IF the analysis of Christianity versus other religions can pass the smell test.

The reason you need to read Pascal and I don't is that you are espousing the opinion that his argument is a conceptual failure while I am merely saying it is a novelty and has limited practical value. Were I to take a more definitive stand, I would feel compelled to learn more about the subject first.

I say the Wager is a failure because it has a giant hole in it. I wonder why Pascal's analysis of Xtian versus Others is NOT AT ALL FAMOUS and neither of us know anything about it. Could it be that it is a weak dismissal that centers on Pascal's own personal bias as a Christian?

Why are we having this conversation?

I address the Wager because it is presented often by Christians as it was in this thread. And repeatedly the hole in the Wager is not addressed, in fact it is completely ignored. Christians have never referenced Pascal's earlier analysis in forums that I have seen.

So...you do care.

I care deeply.

Look, this concept you care about includes his explanation of the dichotomy. You cannot divorce the wager from the reduction to two choices that precipitates it. You don't have to agree with his reasoning, but to discredit what you haven't read is not a good idea.

Other people repeatedly foist the Wager in my face without expalining the hole, and I am the one who can't comment until I read the complete works of Pascal?

I can only speak for myself as I do not have any hard statistics on subject, but I think that as a man grows in maturity he generally realizes that his sexual drive is one of the worst motivators when it comes to lasting happiness.

I am talking about sex in the context of relationship and NOT. Some people will regret that they hired fewer hookers than they might have, others will contemplate never having had consummated the love of their life. Sex in some form crosses the mind of many people as they contemplate their life choices in the death bed, I am sure you can now agree.

 

[Zetetic]

My contention is that reacting on the basis of an unsubstantiated threat is quite foolish.

And those who believe the threat to be substantiated ought to react to it. It's common sense, right?

And that choosing a religion on the basis of how scary the consequences within each sect is silly. High pressure sales is always distasteful -- especially when tied to major life decisions.

This is why you walk out on a doctor who tells you to get an expensive MRI because you might have a tumor. I can't say I agree with your stance on this one.

You see how the theorem is complete. I don't have to ponder the life's work of Pythagoras to get at it's meaning. It's about the Theorum, not Pythogoras.

You have to agree on his definition of a triangle, you have to agree with his mathematical conventions. You don't have to read his biography, but if you don't know what a triangle is, you shouldn't comment on Pythagoras' theorem.

I wonder why Pascal's analysis of Xtian versus Others is NOT AT ALL FAMOUS and neither of us know anything about it. Could it be that it is a weak dismissal that centers on Pascal's own personal bias as a Christian?

How should I know? If it makes you feel better to consider your speculation to be highly probable, go right ahead. Just understand that it only holds water in your own mind.

I address the Wager because it is presented often by Christians as it was in this thread. And repeatedly the hole in the Wager is not addressed, in fact it is completely ignored. Christians have never referenced Pascal's earlier analysis in forums that I have seen.

If I tell you that I think the Dallas Cowboys will play the Giants in the Superbowl this season and that the Cowboys are almost a shoe-in to win, you can weigh in on either the dichotomy or the final outcome. However, to say my argument is useless because it doesn't consider all the other teams is silly. I considered them when I decided who would show up in the big game. You can argue against THAT point if you like, but to imply that I am ignoring the other teams is to be ignorant of all facets of my argument. This is what you are doing to Pascal. It is also what Christians are doing if they insist that Pascal is right without being aware of how he came to his dichotomy.

I am talking about sex in the context of relationship and NOT. Some people will regret that they hired fewer hookers than they might have, others will contemplate never having had consummated the love of their life. Sex in some form crosses the mind of many people as they contemplate their life choices in the death bed, I am sure you can now agree.

Well, after seeing your further explanation on this issue I still have to disagree. I can't say that no one does as you say, but I would argue that it is not common and furthermore that it is the product of a shallow existence of regret things that are not central to the human experience. I won't regret not eating more, or not having more sex, or any of the other things that are central to even my dog's life. I will regret not having more uniquely human experiences. I think all people would do well to pursue those higher things, regardless of any religious persuasion or lack thereof.

-J

 

[icilian fenner]

If a religion with as plausable history as christianity offered salvation or condemnation for you and your loved ones based soley on your decision, would you then convert?

 

[Zetetic]

If a religion with as plausable history as christianity offered salvation or condemnation for you and your loved ones based soley on your decision, would you then convert?

I would convert if it proved more convincing to both my mind and my spirit/gut/instinct whatever you like to call it.

-J

 

[icilian fenner]

I would convert if it proved more convincing to both my mind and my spirit/gut/instinct whatever you like to call it.

-J

Why would it be different with the decision between atheism and theism?

Let's raise the stakes - the salvation of the entire world rests on your decision to believe. According to the wager, the higher the stakes, the lower the risk in losing.

 

[Gerald]

...I find it hard to trust atheists.

You should never ever trust atheists!

They'll cut out your heart and eat it if you drop your guard! K:

 

[Zetetic]

Why would it be different with the decision between atheism and theism?

Let's raise the stakes - the salvation of the entire world rests on your decision to believe. According to the wager, the higher the stakes, the lower the risk in losing.

I don't see anything wrong with your reasoning here. Granted that you are proposing a far fetched scenario. Does it remind anyone else of The Neverending Story?

Look, if I believed that it was impossible to determine if your proposed threat to humanity was real or imagined, it would make good sense for me try to find it in myself to believe for the sake of everyone else.

I don't know if that answers your question or not. If not you can rephrase it so I can do better on the next attempt!

-J