Atheism Saved My Life

[Adami]

By that rule, belief in christianity is pretty risky. And at that point it becomes so convoluted that every possible belief can be as risky of a thing to believe as anything else.

Yes I agree.  But this thread is about Atheism, which is ultimately the riskiest belief of all.  Even riskier than the Great Jelly Bean example you threw out.


It's not riskier at all. It's just not as potentially rewarding.

[Pirate]

The other thing with Pascal's wager is that sometimes it's stated as if there's nothing to lose if you just 'say' you believe in God, which is illogical for the reasons stated, if you believe in x you're condemned by y etc., but also, is it really going to fool the supposed omniscient, omnipotent ruler of all that exists if you only "believe" so that you aren't sent to hell?

Sorry about the run-on sentence

[Ħ]

I think you guys are focusing on the religions and their risks, rather than Atheism which is what this thread is about.  Obviously there are going to be exception to the chart, like Hinduism, which doesn't grant eternal benefits, or with PC's example.  But the bottom line is, when you look at the big picture, Atheism is the least beneficial system.  It's hard to debate otherwise.

It's like Pokemon for example.  Would you rather have a move like quick attack, with 100% accuracy, but only 40 power, or Rock Slide, with 90% accuracy but 75 power?

In the long run, if you use these moves an infinite number of times,  Rock Slide is better, even though at first, it seems like a riskier option.
Quick Attack: 40 x 1 = 40
Rock Slide: 75 x .9 = 67.5

Same thing when deciding the road between belief and no belief.

[sonatafanica]

What in the name of fuck are you talking about

[Perpetual Change]

I think you guys are focusing on the religions and their risks, rather than Atheism which is what this thread is about.  Obviously there are going to be exception to the chart, like Hinduism, which doesn't grant eternal benefits, or with PC's example.  But the bottom line is, when you look at the big picture, Atheism is the least beneficial system.  It's hard to debate otherwise.

It's like Pokemon for example.  Would you rather have a move like quick attack, with 100% accuracy, but only 40 power, or Rock Slide, with 90% accuracy but 75 power?

In the long run, if you use these moves an infinite number of times,  Rock Slide is better, even though at first, it seems like a riskier option.
Quick Attack: 40 x 1 = 40
Rock Slide: 75 x .9 = 67.5

Same thing when deciding the road between belief and no belief.

90 percent is a high estimate. Even assuming God exists, once you take into account all the religions and all the other scenarios, the likelihood that your god is the right one is, I'd guess, in the tweens.

[j]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

And even if they could, I can't imagine a less genuine motive for faith.

-J

[Ħ]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

[Perpetual Change]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

And even if they could, I can't imagine a less genuine motive for faith.

-J

This too. As someone who constantly struggles with faith, I absolutely hate it when I'm around people who don't understand that not everyone is just born faithful.

[Pirate]

I think you guys are focusing on the religions and their risks, rather than Atheism which is what this thread is about.  Obviously there are going to be exception to the chart, like Hinduism, which doesn't grant eternal benefits, or with PC's example.  But the bottom line is, when you look at the big picture, Atheism is the least beneficial system.  It's hard to debate otherwise.

It's like Pokemon for example.  Would you rather have a move like quick attack, with 100% accuracy, but only 40 power, or Rock Slide, with 90% accuracy but 75 power?

In the long run, if you use these moves an infinite number of times,  Rock Slide is better, even though at first, it seems like a riskier option.
Quick Attack: 40 x 1 = 40
Rock Slide: 75 x .9 = 67.5

Same thing when deciding the road between belief and no belief.

Atheism is only the least beneficial if you enjoy practicing religion (as opposed to only doing it to get into heaven). The only thing promised to us is our life and it's end, and after that who knows. In my view atheism is the most beneficial system, because you live your life not worrying about any sort of afterlife - when your death comes, either nothing happens, one of hundreds of thousands of predictions of the afterlife is true (slim chance for a catholic, for example), or something completely unexpected happens. I know that in the small chance that you're faith saves you, you benefit infinitely greater, but theres no way to know.

tl;dr Atheism most beneficial if no afterlife, faith only beneficial if there is afterlife (even then small chance among so many different religions)

[ZBomber]

What in the name of fuck are you talking about

Seriously, that was one of the most bizarre analogies I have ever heard.

[Adami]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

No it's not. Can you choose not to believe in god? Can you choose to wholeheartedly believe that I am god?

[j]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

It really isn't.  Could you choose right now to stop believing in gravity or Newtonian mechanics?  If you think you could, then we're defining "belief" differently.

It's not just an outward proclamation or self-delusion.  It's actually, *sincerely* concluding that something is true based on what you know and perceive.  I could go outside and exclaim that I am certain there is a God, but it would be meaningless.  Genuine belief doesn't have an "on/off switch".

-J

EDIT: Adami the ninja.

[Pirate]

I genuinely believed the world looked the way it did to me until I got glasses. My perception changed. Is my perception 'correct' now? No, I'm slightly colorblind. But thats neither here nor there - the point is, there is no 'correct' human perception, therefore genuine belief cannot be characterized, and therefore doesn't exist. I wholeheartedly believe that my room is blue - although my perception tells me it's red. Neither of my stances are definitely the correct choice. But neither is less likely than the other. See what I mean? No one just doesn't believe - it's all we can do. There aren't varying degrees of belief.

[Pantherize]

    Awesome post to the OP.  I too was raised in a pretty fundamentalist christian household. One of the most terrifying discussions I've ever had in my life was telling my dad that I didn't believe in God anymore. I was ready to be disowned, never spoken to again. Funny thing is, he confessed to me that he hadn't believed in quite some time either. My dad who had a degree from Moody Bible institute and was an elder in the church. My jaw just about hit the floor. Here's a man who scolded me for saying Jeezum Crow once because it was such an obvious substitute for Jesus Christ.  I was pretty taken aback by his revelation to me. But it turned out to be a great conversation and I realized that even though I'd lost my belief in God and wasn't quite sure of where I fit in terms of answers to life's questions, I wasn't ever going to go back to believing something that felt so wrong to me just for lack of knowing what I did believe in.

[73109]

When in doubt...become a Buddhist.

[Perpetual Change]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

It really isn't.  Could you choose right now to stop believing in gravity or Newtonian mechanics?  If you think you could, then we're defining "belief" differently.

It's not just an outward proclamation or self-delusion.  It's actually, *sincerely* concluding that something is true based on what you know and perceive.  I could go outside and exclaim that I am certain there is a God, but it would be meaningless.  Genuine belief doesn't have an "on/off switch".

-J

EDIT: Adami the ninja.

Awesome second paragraph though. Saying you believe IS about outward projection. Christians who don't understand why other Christians sometimes struggle if not outright "reject" their faith , in my opinion, care less about your spiritual well being and more about your indentification with "the group," hence again the distinction between "God" and "Religion."

[El JoNNo]

Wow, God would be pretty fucking stupid to fall for pascal's wager.

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

It really isn't.  Could you choose right now to stop believing in gravity or Newtonian mechanics?  If you think you could, then we're defining "belief" differently.

It's not just an outward proclamation or self-delusion.  It's actually, *sincerely* concluding that something is true based on what you know and perceive.  I could go outside and exclaim that I am certain there is a God, but it would be meaningless.  Genuine belief doesn't have an "on/off switch".

-J

EDIT: Adami the ninja.

Religion is all about choosing to believe. Just choose to remain unaware and you'll be fine. I think Proverbs 3:5 sums it up nicely.

Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don't lean on your own understanding. In all things acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way.

[Quadrochosis]

Hinduism, which doesn't grant eternal benefits

Yes it does.

But the bottom line is, when you look at the big picture, Atheism is the least beneficial system.  It's hard to debate otherwise.

The problem is that you are trying to use some weird graph/numbers/chart/pokemon to somehow defend belief in something that is ungraphable/numberable/chartable/uncatchable (thus rendering the "Gotta Catch 'Em All!" thing useless, btw), If such a thing even exists.

Seriously, a defense of religious belief using Pascals Wager is the biggest lol ever. If God was so stupid that anyone that just said, "Yup, I believe in ya poppy!" went to heaven, then there would be no hell. It's a little more complicated than that.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Ignoring your pokemon analogy because what the fuck was that,

The bottom line is, when you look at the big picture, Atheism is the least beneficial system.  It's hard to debate otherwise.

I actually could debate otherwise.  Maybe I don't want to live forever.  Personally, I can't imagine there being anything interesting to do after even a thousand years of being a live, and fucking ETERNITY?  No thanks.  Not existing doesn't sound too bad compared to that. 

[Quadrochosis]

Also, when people say things like "If there is no God, then life has no meaning" are not only wrong, but they have it backwards.

If there is a God, and therefore all life is eternal (be it in Heaven or Hell) then therefore the life on this Earth essentially becomes meaningless, because the extended life beyond this Earthly one is infinite, and therefore infinitely longer, and therefore infinitely greater.

If there is no God, and therefore all life is finite then life on this Earth becomes important due to it being finite.

Infinite life, then, becomes valueless life, and finite life, then, becomes valuable life.

Note: Obviously the above line of reasoning only apply to religions that posit infinite, corporal life.

Hence why religions that speak of living forever in Heaven in any corporal way (only really Islam and Christianity) do not have afterlife solutions that are logical, or make sense, or even desirable (as Seth alluded to)

[The Degenerate]

I think you guys are focusing on the religions and their risks, rather than Atheism which is what this thread is about.  Obviously there are going to be exception to the chart, like Hinduism, which doesn't grant eternal benefits, or with PC's example.  But the bottom line is, when you look at the big picture, Atheism is the least beneficial system.  It's hard to debate otherwise.

It's like Pokemon for example.  Would you rather have a move like quick attack, with 100% accuracy, but only 40 power, or Rock Slide, with 90% accuracy but 75 power?

In the long run, if you use these moves an infinite number of times,  Rock Slide is better, even though at first, it seems like a riskier option.
Quick Attack: 40 x 1 = 40
Rock Slide: 75 x .9 = 67.5

Same thing when deciding the road between belief and no belief.

Holy fuck dude

[Perpetual Change]

OK, one thing I don't get about the early responses to this thread:


Why do people think people like the OP would be less likely to abandon Christianity if the church he'd gone to was based just on what was said in the Bible?  I can sympathize with that argument, but honestly I don't see how anyone would feel somehow less suffocated just because the church's teachings were slightly more literal. In fact, that can sometimes be more oppressive.

[Quadrochosis]

OK, one thing I don't get about the early responses to this thread:


Why do people think people like the OP would be less likely to abandon Christianity if the church he'd gone to was based just on what was said in the Bible?  I can sympathize with that argument, but honestly I don't see how anyone would feel somehow less suffocated just because the church's teachings were slightly more literal. In fact, that can sometimes be more oppressive.

I don't want to speak for Bosky, but I don't think he was suggesting that.

I have friends that are non-denominal and they would say something like: "'It's based on what God said,' as opposed to the Bible or a church authority. God can (and is mostly as far as the Bible) be present in those things, but he can speak to you directly, or through prayer, etc."

About the Bible and the Jesus event, it becomes more about "The Gospel", as opposed to "The Gospels"

[ScioPath]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

The operative word being 'sincerely'. You can't just decide to believe in God because it's mathematically the most profitable option. That isn't sincere in the slightest. If there is an omnipresence (and I'm not saying there is btw), he would be aware of how you've invested probability into your belief system in place of personal values, which should be the driving influence.

[Ħ]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

The operative word being 'sincerely'. You can't just decide to believe in God because it's mathematically the most profitable option. That isn't sincere in the slightest. If there is an omnipresence (and I'm not saying there is btw), he would be aware of those pretenses.

PC and a couple people brought that up.  Maybe what I meant to say is that regardless of whether religion is true or you have belief, Pascal's Gambit (while not a good reason to have belief in of itself) should be enough to convice someone to make truth-hunting a major part of their life.  Plenty of people just seem to shrug and say "it's not for me" and based on the chart, that is kind of a silly thing to do.  PG works very well as a "first step." 

[Quadrochosis]

PG works very well as a "first step." 

No, it doesn't. It sets these so-called "truth-hunters" on the search/hunt/journey for the entirely wrong reason.

[Adami]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

The operative word being 'sincerely'. You can't just decide to believe in God because it's mathematically the most profitable option. That isn't sincere in the slightest. If there is an omnipresence (and I'm not saying there is btw), he would be aware of those pretenses.

PC and a couple people brought that up.  Maybe what I meant to say is that regardless of whether religion is true or you have belief, Pascal's Gambit (while not a good reason to have belief in of itself) should be enough to convice someone to make truth-hunting a major part of their life.  Plenty of people just seem to shrug and say "it's not for me" and based on the chart, that is kind of a silly thing to do.  PG works very well as a "first step." 

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Atheists haven't done any soul searching or fact finding? Do you really believe that looking for the truth will always lead to god?

[ClairvoyantCat]

PC and a couple people brought that up.  Maybe what I meant to say is that regardless of whether religion is true or you have belief, Pascal's Gambit (while not a good reason to have belief in of itself) should be enough to convice someone to make truth-hunting a major part of their life.  Plenty of people just seem to shrug and say "it's not for me" and based on the chart, that is kind of a silly thing to do.  PG works very well as a "first step." 

Most of what you're implying here is really unfair.  You're sort of suggesting that Atheists tend to believe the way that they do because they don't "truth-hunt."

Really, I'd say that there are maybe even more Christians who just get herded into the religion and don't do any sort of "truth-hunting" of their own, either.  And I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in saying that you might not have been referring to only Atheists, except for the fact that your basis was Pascal's Gambit, which is clearly slated towards Christianity. 

[Ħ]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

The operative word being 'sincerely'. You can't just decide to believe in God because it's mathematically the most profitable option. That isn't sincere in the slightest. If there is an omnipresence (and I'm not saying there is btw), he would be aware of those pretenses.

PC and a couple people brought that up.  Maybe what I meant to say is that regardless of whether religion is true or you have belief, Pascal's Gambit (while not a good reason to have belief in of itself) should be enough to convice someone to make truth-hunting a major part of their life.  Plenty of people just seem to shrug and say "it's not for me" and based on the chart, that is kind of a silly thing to do.  PG works very well as a "first step." 

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Atheists haven't done any soul searching or fact finding? Do you really believe that looking for the truth will always lead to god?

I am not lumping all Atheists into that category (obviously there are some very knowledgable people that choose that) but most Atheists I've talked to are just shoulder-shruggers that don't know anything.  Yes this is true of Christians and others.......but this thread is about Atheism.

[Adami]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

The operative word being 'sincerely'. You can't just decide to believe in God because it's mathematically the most profitable option. That isn't sincere in the slightest. If there is an omnipresence (and I'm not saying there is btw), he would be aware of those pretenses.

PC and a couple people brought that up.  Maybe what I meant to say is that regardless of whether religion is true or you have belief, Pascal's Gambit (while not a good reason to have belief in of itself) should be enough to convice someone to make truth-hunting a major part of their life.  Plenty of people just seem to shrug and say "it's not for me" and based on the chart, that is kind of a silly thing to do.  PG works very well as a "first step." 

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Atheists haven't done any soul searching or fact finding? Do you really believe that looking for the truth will always lead to god?

I am not lumping all Atheists into that category (obviously there are some very knowledgable people that choose that) but most Atheists I've talked to are just shoulder-shruggers that don't know anything.  Yes this is true of Christians and others.......but this thread is about Atheism.

Well if it applies to every single faith and has nothing to do with atheism aside from the fact that atheism is one of the many belief systems that it applies to, then why even bring it up?

[Quadrochosis]

[j]

BrotherH, actual belief is not really a "choice".  It's not something one can just suddenly decide to do, sincerely.

What?  That makes no sense.  Belief is absolutely a choice.

It really isn't.  Could you choose right now to stop believing in gravity or Newtonian mechanics?  If you think you could, then we're defining "belief" differently.

It's not just an outward proclamation or self-delusion.  It's actually, *sincerely* concluding that something is true based on what you know and perceive.  I could go outside and exclaim that I am certain there is a God, but it would be meaningless.  Genuine belief doesn't have an "on/off switch".

-J

EDIT: Adami the ninja.

Awesome second paragraph though. Saying you believe IS about outward projection. Christians who don't understand why other Christians sometimes struggle if not outright "reject" their faith , in my opinion, care less about your spiritual well being and more about your indentification with "the group," hence again the distinction between "God" and "Religion."

Thanks.   And yeah, it's not only identification with a particular "group", but also trying to distance and distinguish themselves from another "group" of Christians.  Lots of those types here in Tejas.

PC and a couple people brought that up.  Maybe what I meant to say is that regardless of whether religion is true or you have belief, Pascal's Gambit (while not a good reason to have belief in of itself) should be enough to convice someone to make truth-hunting a major part of their life.  Plenty of people just seem to shrug and say "it's not for me" and based on the chart, that is kind of a silly thing to do.  PG works very well as a "first step." 

Most of what you're implying here is really unfair.  You're sort of suggesting that Atheists tend to believe the way that they do because they don't "truth-hunt."

Really, I'd say that there are maybe even more Christians who just get herded into the religion and don't do any sort of "truth-hunting" of their own, either.  And I'd give you the benefit of the doubt in saying that you might not have been referring to only Atheists, except for the fact that your basis was Pascal's Gambit, which is clearly slated towards Christianity. 

I'd say it applies to both groups, probably about equally.  There are some Christian sects that discourage questioning and actual "truth-seeking" outside of their own small umbrella, but that doesn't change people's natural tendencies.  Ironically, I've probably met just as many atheists as Christians who adhere to their belief set for reasons like belonging to a group or being perceived by others a certain way.

-J

[Jirpo]

Wow, very touching read.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote and honestly, I cannot believe the idea of a god, its just to far-fetched, although my aunt and uncle are strong believers and very good people.

[TheVoxyn]

I usually thought about the possible moves and then picked the most logical one. My lapras was pretty good at defeating pokemon with rock slide.

[jsem]

I usually thought about the possible moves and then picked the most logical one. My lapras was pretty good at defeating pokemon with rock slide.