An atheist's sacrifice is the most noble sacrifice in all mankind.

[Sammael]

That's based on the assumption that any religious person who sacrifices themselves will be rewarded in the afterlife. I don't think sacrificing yourself is an automatic ticket to some sort of heaven regardless of what else you did in your life. So if someone sacrificed themselves knowing they would face never ending damnation in hell then one might argue that the act of sacrifice could be more noble.

 

 

Why is there no life after death for Atheists? I'm not sure what Atheists base their beliefs on (I think they are science based, let me know) but there is no solid scientific evidence that proves or disproves an existence after death. With the current scientific understanding of the universe, the belief that there is no form of existence after death can be nothing more than faith regardless of your religious classification. 

 

 

 

Uh guys, just to clarify, this post made no claims or assertions about what WOULD happen in the afterlife, or lack thereof.  It only focuses on the EXPECTATIONS of the person making the sacrifice or not.

 

Where there is or is not an afterlife, the belief or lack of belief in one makes a huge psychological difference, and a huge difference in the relative weights of the sacrifice.  Because the atheists expect nothingness, to cease to be.  There is no second life, or notion of being able to shelter in the palm of the creators hand.  For all of these reasons, when they make a sacrifice, in their own minds they are giving up far more.

[Nineshadow]

"If you believe in God,whoever that is, and he doesn't exist,you don't lose anything.However,if you don't believe in him and he does exist,you lose everything" - somebody else it seems

[Jack.EXE]

As a Theist (like myself) death is not the end. an atheist believes that it is the end.

 

If I were required to give my life for another, I can take comfort in that it's not my end.

 

However, an Athiest has no fallback in mind. if they give their life, they give up everything.

[beebskadoo]

So in essence, we like to believe that what we do here actually matters, rather than being some giant cosmic joke/test.

 

That's how I've always thought about it, your immortality comes through what you've done here, and whether your not you are remembered.

 

That's actually not a reference to the Christian god, despite what Christian's think

Most of the founding fathers were Deists, a few Atheists, many were christians. Transcendentalism was popular also among the founders.

[Volbet]

"If you believe in God,whoever that is, and he doesn't exist,you don't lose anything.However,if you don't believe in him and he does exist,you lose everything" - some Romanian writer.

That's Blaise Pascal. The quote is a simplified version of Pacal's Wager

[Nineshadow]

That's Blaise Pascal. The quote is a simplified version of <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal" s_wager"="">Pacal's Wager

I know some Romanian writer said it too.

[Fred Castellum]

"If you believe in God,whoever that is, and he doesn't exist,you don't lose anything.However,if you don't believe in him and he does exist,you lose everything" - some Romanian writer.

If he does exist he may be incomprehensible. I'd much rather just live doing what I think I should do than going by the book.

[beebskadoo]

That's Blaise Pascal. The quote is a simplified version of <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal" s_wager"="">Pacal's Wager

 

"If you believe in God,whoever that is, and he doesn't exist,you don't lose anything.However,if you don't believe in him and he does exist,you lose everything" - some Romanian writer.

Atheist alternatives

 

The argument is based on the false assumption that atheists don't gain anything efter they die. Most atheists don't believe that they do, but there are other possibilities than just going to heaven vs ceasing to exist, such as progression to a better plane, or hanging around as ghosts. Neither of those require the existance of gods to be possibilities.

Detesting life?

 

An example of a widespread atheist view on life after death is the Buddist belief in reincarnation. Personally I would suggest that this is the bet that gets the most gain, since it lets you play again, and again, and again... for eternity.

Theists may say that the gain from heaven is greater than the gain from life on earth, so their faith is a better bet than belief in reincarnation. But they miss the point that living for eternity will give you infinite gain as long as the gain is positive, because infinity times any positive number is still infinity. Even infinity times infinity is still infinity, so the only possibility that would give theists better gain than Buddists is if the gain from life on earth is negative or exactly zero. Therefore you have to detest life and the world for the argument to be valid.

 

Blasphemy worse than un-belief

 

Believing in the wrong god has one additional problem. Most religions assure you that blasphemers will be more severely punished than un-believers. Once again, if we calculate with the rest of the possible gods, the chance of you being wrong is P=1-(1/n) so you both run a bigger risk than the atheist of being punished and risk the greater punishment.

The loss from religion

 

Pascal also made the incorrect statement that you would lose nothing from believing if you are wrong. This is not true either. Assume that you are wrong in being a theist. You will waste a lot of time and energy on going to church, praying and religious rituals. Imagine if all the energy that,throughout human history, had been wasted on such activities had been used to improve the world instead. Then maybe we would have had heaven here on earth instead.

Imagine if all that energy had been used for science, arts and music. OK, there have been many christians who have devoted their life to that, but imagine how wonderful things they would have been able to do if they hadn't wasted their time on prayers and rituals. Imagine what Pascal could have done for mathematics and physics if he hadn't left science for God.

 

Considering what religious belief has done to the world, it would be better if there was no religion. Religion is like a virus that changes people's minds into dogmatic thinking, rule following, and blind faith, qualities which do no good for the well-being of mankind. Consider how many people who have been burned, mutilated and tortured in the name of religion. Wouldn't it be better if we left the Dark Ages for once!?

 

Believing what is probable

 

The process of belief is not a bet, not based on hope for reward or fear of punishment. Normally you believe in something your sences tells you is likely to be true. No intelligent person would be convinced that god exists from Pascal's wager, and I question that this argument really was the reason why a genious like Pascal believed in god. I rather see it that he had lost the basis for his faith and that Pascal's wager was the last thread to keep him hanging on to christianity.

Argument for theists only

 

Pascal thought that theism and atheism were equally likely - that is, we cannot know which of the philosophies is correct. This is non-information, and, according to information theory, it is impossible to get information from non-information without any cost. Therefore it is impossible to conclude, from the assumption, that theists will gain more than atheists and the statement that if god exists you gain from believing in him must also be an assumption - not a conclusion. So what Pascal's wager basically says that "If you believe in God, you will believe that you gain from worshipping him". Not a very convincing argument for atheists.

God rewarding only true believers

 

The christian god is supposed to be omnipotent. If so, he will know who are the true believers and who worship him only to be on the safe side. Therefore it is not likely that a person who worships God because of Pascal's wager will go to heaven. This is sometimes called the Atheist version of Pasca'sl wager, since it says atheists will be better rewarded than theist hypocrites, and thus if you do not believe in god, you shouldn't lie and say you do.

Is god just?

 

Now if there is a god, and he is just, he would not send kind atheists to hell only because they can't believe in him. A just god judges people for who they are, not for what their minds tell them is likely to be true or not. Therefore a just god would still save atheists if they were good people.

Like someone once said, "I would love to go to hell and meet people such as Einstein, Darwin, Russell and Voltaire." Is it really likely that these people were sent to hell, only because their great minds didn't find any evidence of the Christian god? In that case the word "just" is not applieable to god, and such a god is not even worth worshipping. To worship such a god would be like worshiping your worst enemy because you were afraid of his revenge if you didn't submit to his power.

 

Theists being punished for their sins.

 

I don't think there is an agenda in christianity that you are being rewarded for mere worshipping god. I think it is far more common among theists to believe that god rewards you for what you really are. In other words, God won't reward you for helping people if you do it only to please God, but he will if you do it out of compassion. Therefore it is quite likely that false people, who only worship god because they fear hell, or because they think it is the bet that gives the most gain, will go to hell. So believing in god and being a bad person will be as bad as being an atheist, if not worse because God mightn't like being surrounded for eternity by cringing hypocrites.

Economics

 

The original version of Pascal's wager fails to handle probabilities, since it states that both theism and atheism are equally reasonable. The problem with that approach is, as stated above, that it makes information out of no information, and hence is invalid as an argument. For the argument to be valid you will have to consider the probabilities of theism being right and the loss/gain from holding a religion.

In order to convince an atheist, with Pascal's wager, theists need to convince him that there probably is some supernatural force, and that that supernatural force probably doesn't treat atheists the same as people of his religion, that that supernatural force probably doesn't treat people of his religion worse than atheists, and that either the probability of theism being right or theists reward is high enough to overcome the cost of following his religion in this life.

 

Pascal's wager alone just doesn't cut it - you need to provide evidence of the supernatural, and reasons to think that the supernatural significantly rewards people of your religion, if you really want to convince people with the Pascal's wager logic.

[Nineshadow]

If he does exist he may be incomprehensible. I'd much rather just live doing what I think I should do than going by the book.

Exactly.

Everything should come out as a result of your own actions,your own thinking,etc.

[Nineshadow]

 

-/-

If you really spent all that time writing that...oh jeez.

[Volbet]

 

Atheist alternatives

 

The argument is based on the false assumption that atheists don't gain anything efter they die. Most atheists don't believe that they do, but there are other possibilities than just going to heaven vs ceasing to exist, such as progression to a better plane, or hanging around as ghosts. Neither of those require the existance of gods to be possibilities.

Detesting life?

 

An example of a widespread atheist view on life after death is the Buddist belief in reincarnation. Personally I would suggest that this is the bet that gets the most gain, since it lets you play again, and again, and again... for eternity.

Theists may say that the gain from heaven is greater than the gain from life on earth, so their faith is a better bet than belief in reincarnation. But they miss the point that living for eternity will give you infinite gain as long as the gain is positive, because infinity times any positive number is still infinity. Even infinity times infinity is still infinity, so the only possibility that would give theists better gain than Buddists is if the gain from life on earth is negative or exactly zero. Therefore you have to detest life and the world for the argument to be valid.

 

Blasphemy worse than un-belief

 

Believing in the wrong god has one additional problem. Most religions assure you that blasphemers will be more severely punished than un-believers. Once again, if we calculate with the rest of the possible gods, the chance of you being wrong is P=1-(1/n) so you both run a bigger risk than the atheist of being punished and risk the greater punishment.

The loss from religion

 

Pascal also made the incorrect statement that you would lose nothing from believing if you are wrong. This is not true either. Assume that you are wrong in being a theist. You will waste a lot of time and energy on going to church, praying and religious rituals. Imagine if all the energy that,throughout human history, had been wasted on such activities had been used to improve the world instead. Then maybe we would have had heaven here on earth instead.

Imagine if all that energy had been used for science, arts and music. OK, there have been many christians who have devoted their life to that, but imagine how wonderful things they would have been able to do if they hadn't wasted their time on prayers and rituals. Imagine what Pascal could have done for mathematics and physics if he hadn't left science for God.

 

Considering what religious belief has done to the world, it would be better if there was no religion. Religion is like a virus that changes people's minds into dogmatic thinking, rule following, and blind faith, qualities which do no good for the well-being of mankind. Consider how many people who have been burned, mutilated and tortured in the name of religion. Wouldn't it be better if we left the Dark Ages for once!?

 

Believing what is probable

 

The process of belief is not a bet, not based on hope for reward or fear of punishment. Normally you believe in something your sences tells you is likely to be true. No intelligent person would be convinced that god exists from Pascal's wager, and I question that this argument really was the reason why a genious like Pascal believed in god. I rather see it that he had lost the basis for his faith and that Pascal's wager was the last thread to keep him hanging on to christianity.

Argument for theists only

 

Pascal thought that theism and atheism were equally likely - that is, we cannot know which of the philosophies is correct. This is non-information, and, according to information theory, it is impossible to get information from non-information without any cost. Therefore it is impossible to conclude, from the assumption, that theists will gain more than atheists and the statement that if god exists you gain from believing in him must also be an assumption - not a conclusion. So what Pascal's wager basically says that "If you believe in God, you will believe that you gain from worshipping him". Not a very convincing argument for atheists.

God rewarding only true believers

 

The christian god is supposed to be omnipotent. If so, he will know who are the true believers and who worship him only to be on the safe side. Therefore it is not likely that a person who worships God because of Pascal's wager will go to heaven. This is sometimes called the Atheist version of Pasca'sl wager, since it says atheists will be better rewarded than theist hypocrites, and thus if you do not believe in god, you shouldn't lie and say you do.

Is god just?

 

Now if there is a god, and he is just, he would not send kind atheists to hell only because they can't believe in him. A just god judges people for who they are, not for what their minds tell them is likely to be true or not. Therefore a just god would still save atheists if they were good people.

Like someone once said, "I would love to go to hell and meet people such as Einstein, Darwin, Russell and Voltaire." Is it really likely that these people were sent to hell, only because their great minds didn't find any evidence of the Christian god? In that case the word "just" is not applieable to god, and such a god is not even worth worshipping. To worship such a god would be like worshiping your worst enemy because you were afraid of his revenge if you didn't submit to his power.

 

Theists being punished for their sins.

 

I don't think there is an agenda in christianity that you are being rewarded for mere worshipping god. I think it is far more common among theists to believe that god rewards you for what you really are. In other words, God won't reward you for helping people if you do it only to please God, but he will if you do it out of compassion. Therefore it is quite likely that false people, who only worship god because they fear hell, or because they think it is the bet that gives the most gain, will go to hell. So believing in god and being a bad person will be as bad as being an atheist, if not worse because God mightn't like being surrounded for eternity by cringing hypocrites.

Economics

 

The original version of Pascal's wager fails to handle probabilities, since it states that both theism and atheism are equally reasonable. The problem with that approach is, as stated above, that it makes information out of no information, and hence is invalid as an argument. For the argument to be valid you will have to consider the probabilities of theism being right and the loss/gain from holding a religion.

In order to convince an atheist, with Pascal's wager, theists need to convince him that there probably is some supernatural force, and that that supernatural force probably doesn't treat atheists the same as people of his religion, that that supernatural force probably doesn't treat people of his religion worse than atheists, and that either the probability of theism being right or theists reward is high enough to overcome the cost of following his religion in this life.

 

Pascal's wager alone just doesn't cut it - you need to provide evidence of the supernatural, and reasons to think that the supernatural significantly rewards people of your religion, if you really want to convince people with the Pascal's wager logic.

 

I never said I would consider Pascal's wager a good argument, far from it. It is flawed in more ways than I care to go into.

I just didb't want ot go into it, since it's a bit late where I am, and I really need to be awake to do this kind of thing.

[beebskadoo]

I never said I would consider Pascal's wager a good argument, far from it. It is flawed in more ways than I care to go into.

I just didb't want ot go into it, since it's a bit late where I am, and I really need to be awake to do this kind of thing.

I was just quoting you to bring you into the discussion, I didn't expect you to think it was a good argument.

[Volbet]

I was just quoting you to bring you into the discussion, I didn't expect you to think it was a good argument.

Righto, for some reason that didn't even cross my mind. Probably time for me to sleep.

[mr moose]

Thanks for the incite, I had no idea that was what they were for, I assumed religious education.

 

I feel that the national party part of the Coalition govt. are quite conservative. You are right though, no "In God we trust" on our banknotes and plastered around our court rooms.

 

In my experience, most of them don't talk about God or religion unless they are specifically asked. I don't know if it is law or a just a professional courtesy/respect thing for individual beliefs.  I shall have to ask.

 

I have been following Australian politics for a bit over 20 years now,  What worries me the most is not religious influence, but the influence of the internet.  For people who are just coming of age to vote and start to understand how the government is supposed to work, the last seven years has been one loaded with landmines.  By this I mean in the last seven years our youth (under 21)  has had good access to the internet, which is an absolute wealth of information (consider face book, twitter etc).  but all this information is coming from individuals.  Individuals who are staunch christian, staunch unionist, staunch environmentalist or staunch liberals Plus paid lobby groups who actually only represent minorities most of the time. So the information new voters are most subject to is both anecdotal at best and usually lies about opposing political persuasions. Prior to this the only way we knew who stood for what in the government was by reading the official transcripts or watching the news that really only had heavily prepared press releases.  No one was caught off guard and politicians had time to consider how to run the country properly and not waste time considering popularity on facebook or twitter.

 

but enough of my ranting.  We live in the best country in the world PERIOD.

[Guest]

Locked - spam