Why Atheism?

[DrunkDestroyer]

Ok Guys, lets face it. If you want to look at it from a methematical/scientific point of view, I can go there.

There is a chance that God exists.
There us also a chance that God doesn't exist.

Both of these add up to one, and the die is not rolled untill we die. The values of either side are unknown. You can speculate, you can make theories, but all we know is that x+y=1, and either x or y must happen.

Now, if y is God doesn't exist, then we can die believing or not believing, with nothing happening at all if y is "chosen".
But x is God does exist. And if that one is "chosen", then our outcome changes depending on whether we are faithful or not. Would you want to miss out on the positive outcome of x just because you couldn't repent on your deathbed?

Simple maths tells us that belief is the way to go here, with two positive outcomes rather than one. And since the values x and y are unknown, no matter what you claim to know (both sides of the argument here) then you better start thinking fast.


Note: If you do meet up with God somewhere along the line, it is probably unwise to use this logic to show him why you decided to turn.
Serious note: This post seems kind of weird to me, becuase I am essentially trying to use maths to explain God, and it doesn't really work like that. Thats what you guys usually do. If I make sense to you guys this way (not trying to convert anyone here), then it has done it's job.

[QuantumT]

I'd like to point out that Pascal's Wager (which is basically what Napalm's quote was) represents a false dichotomy. It presents no god and the Abrahamic God as the only 2 options. I could add more gods that are every bit as valid as the abrahamic one but are mutually exclusive to it.

So DD's equation becomes something more like:

a+b+c+...+x+y+z=1

So Pascal's wager shouldn't be taken as an argument for belief.

[DrunkDestroyer]

I'd like to point out that Pascal's Wager (which is basically what Napalm's quote was) represents a false dichotomy. It presents no god and the Abrahamic God as the only 2 options. I could add more gods that are every bit as valid as the abrahamic one but are mutually exclusive to it.

So DD's equation becomes something more like:

a+b+c+...+x+y+z=1

So Pascal's wager shouldn't be taken as an argument for belief.

Huh...I got beaten to it by some French guy some 400 years ago.
I knew it probably wasn't original (far too obvious explanation to escape 2000 years worth of people) but I never knew it was an actual theory.


However: Most religions overlap. They have different practises, but the trend is that good actions = good future, bad actions = bad future.
The general trend also consider ignorance an excuse as long as your intentions were just. While there are slight differences, it would seem unfair to split x up into multiple religions because of different practises, if the final result is the same.
Is there a basis for when to split them? Hinduism and Catholicism may be very different, but it seems strange to split them when the outcome after death follows the pattern good actions = good future.
I mean, without naming your a + b + c for all we know, you could be including a 4 year old who said 'God makes you cut your kneee after you pray!".
For it to be a separate possibility, it would need to be based on something, and have a different trend to 'good actions = good future'

[QuantumT]

I'd like to point out that Pascal's Wager (which is basically what Napalm's quote was) represents a false dichotomy. It presents no god and the Abrahamic God as the only 2 options. I could add more gods that are every bit as valid as the abrahamic one but are mutually exclusive to it.

So DD's equation becomes something more like:

a+b+c+...+x+y+z=1

So Pascal's wager shouldn't be taken as an argument for belief.

Huh...I got beaten to it by some French guy some 400 years ago.
I knew it probably wasn't original (far too obvious explanation to escape 2000 years worth of people) but I never knew it was an actual theory.


However: Most religions overlap. They have different practises, but the trend is that good actions = good future, bad actions = bad future.
The general trend also consider ignorance an excuse as long as your intentions were just. While there are slight differences, it would seem unfair to split x up into multiple religions because of different practises, if the final result is the same.
Is there a basis for when to split them? Hinduism and Catholicism may be very different, but it seems strange to split them when the outcome after death follows the pattern good actions = good future.
I mean, without naming your a + b + c for all we know, you could be including a 4 year old who said 'God makes you cut your kneee after you pray!".
For it to be a separate possibility, it would need to be based on something, and have a different trend to 'good actions = good future'

The end goal for all the religions being the same also only holds if you're willing to discard the idea that you have to believe in Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever to get into heaven. Otherwise they all get separate probabilities.

But moving on, I propose a god that values logic above all else. He creates the universe, but does so in a way that it's impossible to prove that he exists. The only way to get in to heaven is to be logical, therefore you can't believe in him and get into heaven.

This god is every bit as valid as the abrahamic one, but it's mutually exclusive.

Or heck, maybe god just values honesty above all else. This would lead to a decision matrix that looks like this

	God rewards reasoning	God does not exist
Honesty/Reasoning	+ ∞(heaven)	+1 (a rational, scientific life)
Dishonesty/Lack of reason	- ∞ (hell)	-1 (irrational life)

[asymmetry]

If you stop existing, then what was even the point?

I won't get into the logical field of the argument, but instead ask... *socratic method mode=on*  is life pointless per se?

[DrunkDestroyer]

The end goal for all the religions being the same also only holds if you're willing to discard the idea that you have to believe in Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever to get into heaven. Otherwise they all get separate probabilities.

The topic is called Why Athiesm?
Not Why not Christianity? or Why not Hinduism?

Personally, I am of the belief that the only thing necessary is belief.
I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.

And to split up the religions like that and then compare them to athiesm is like dividing the hair colours "Light brown" "lightish Brown" "Quite Light Brown" "Darker than Light Brown"  and then suddenly "Red hair" and leaving it at that.


Edit: Arrgh- you edited your post. I'm going to have to come back to this

[QuantumT]

The end goal for all the religions being the same also only holds if you're willing to discard the idea that you have to believe in Yahweh or Jesus or Allah or whatever to get into heaven. Otherwise they all get separate probabilities.

The topic is called Why Athiesm?
Not Why not Christianity? or Why not Hinduism?

Personally, I am of the belief that the only thing necessary is belief.
I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.

And to split up the religions like that and then compare them to athiesm is like dividing the hair colours "Light brown" "lightish Brown" "Quite Light Brown" "Darker than Light Brown"  and then suddenly "Red hair" and leaving it at that.

Note that the division is something that those religions sometimes do to themselves.

The reason it's in a Why Atheism thread is just because I'm arguing that Pascal's Wager is not a reason to steer away from atheism.

[Dm]

I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.

But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?


EDIT : Ty, quantum. Epic facepalm. >.< 

[QuantumT]

I very much doubt that any God would treat someone differently if they worshipped him under the name Jesus instead of Yahweh.

But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?

I'd like to note that isn't my quote.

[Dm]

Should be fix'd. Question stays the same, though.

[DrunkDestroyer]

But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?

I have no doubt that the religions are different, and I have every doubt that my religion was the correct one.
However, the general consensus (as said before) on the most practised faiths is:

Good actions = Good Future
The one/s who make/s the decisions is/are both forgiving and understanding.

Therefore, acting in good faith, whether or not your religion is correct will grant you a good future (beyond life).

[Daxx]

But who says there is only one "God'? Or two, for that matter, one with each name. Which religion is correct? That's my biggest doubt about the religions. Everyone on their religion thinks that their way is the true way, but which one actually is?

I have no doubt that the religions are different, and I have every doubt that my religion was the correct one.
However, the general consensus (as said before) on the most practised faiths is:

Good actions = Good Future
The one/s who make/s the decisions is/are both forgiving and understanding.

Therefore, acting in good faith, whether or not your religion is correct will grant you a good future (beyond life).

Actually quite a large proportion of religious people do believe that you have to do something more than be a good person to get into heaven.

Catholics believe you must be prayed for in order to ease your passage through purgatory.
Baptists, Catholics and many other groups believe that you must "accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", or some variant thereof, in order to get into heaven - no matter how good you are.
The Orthodox church teaches that you must accept God's grace to be saved.
Lots of Christian groups believe that you can only go to heaven if you have been baptised.
In Lutheranism and Calvinism salvation is elective - that is, it has to be chosen.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only 144,000 people will ever get into heaven.
In Islam, people who do not believe in "The One God", or Allah, will not get into heaven.

This is far from a general consensus. In fact, it appears that the general consensus is that just being a good person alone will not get you into heaven.