An Atheist's Perspective

[Byronman]

Most of them don't actually think that they're spreading lies. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Edit: What a terrible analogy to use when my purpose was to bash religion.

lol

And you have a point. I can perfectly understand why a Christian would want to convert people to Christianity. When a Christian sees nice people or people he knows and cares about who are not Christian, he is filled with sadness because he knows they are going to hell, and he doesn't want that. So he will attempt to convert them. It sounds good to them, but they do not realize that people do not want to convert and are just annoyed by it.

Also, I apologize for my excessive use of he/she. If I think of a better way to word that I will change it.

Edit: Fixed

 

[RDK]

lol

And you have a point. I can perfectly understand why a Christian would want to convert people to Christianity. When a Christian sees nice people or people he/she knows and cares about who are not Christian, he/she is filled with sadness because he/she knows they are going to hell, and he/she doesn't want that. So he/she will attempt to convert them. It sounds good to them, but they do not realize that people do not want to convert and are just annoyed by it.

Also, I apologize for my excessive use of he/she. If I think of a better way to word that I will change it.

They?

Except that's bat grammar. :embarrass

 

[Deleted member]

Actually, it's proper grammar to assume masculinity. You don't say he/she or they, you just say he.

If you wanted to say "they", you'd have to change the sentence:

"When a Christian sees a person they like"..

to the following:

"When Christians see a person they like"

That's proper grammar. You do this to avoid the he/she problem, which is only a problem if you get off on the following:

 

[yossarian22]

Can I sig this?

Good luck trying to find the original writer of that. I think it was Bertrand Russel, but I am probably confusing him with something else.

Like Snex said, the question for nihilists is "Why not commit suicide?". The whole point of life having no meaning per se is sort of a paradox when it comes to nihilistic motivations, but the gist of it is that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another.

Which is the reason why "Why not commit suicide" is not the fundamental question for nihilists. It becomes "why do anything at all" or perhaps just "why".

You don't have to attach moral value to something in order to strive to do it. In a nihilistic viewpoint, existence is essentially pointless, so instead of just saying "Why bother?" and committing suicide, you find something to live for.

That is highly questionable, because you must assign value to something. And why do we assign values to things? Who should I assign values to things? I guess it depends on your approach to what you consider moral, but nihilist is just an empty shell of a philosophy because it explicitly contradicts itself in its purest form and offers little in the way of answers. Existentialism is far and away the better of Nietzsche's views.

 

[marthanoob]

If I were a nihilist, I would do nothing until my instincts told me to do something.
If "something" is the achievement of base desires the easiest way possible, than so be it.

If I thought life had no meaning, then it has no meaning. I don't hate it, I don't love it.
Killing myself would be putting forth an unnecessary effort.

 

[Batchfile]

Christianity can't be falsified or proven. Since it's such a interdimensional subject.

Therefore, it's more rational to believe in it then risk throwing a dart blindfolded for the sake of looking rational. And for the sake of not sacrificing a few hours a week, actually, it wouldn't take any time at all since church isn't necessary to be Christian.

 

[Aesir]

Christianity can't be falsified or proven. Since it's such a interdimensional subject.

Therefore, it's more rational to believe in it then risk throwing a dart blindfolded for the sake of looking rational.

No it's not because you're still taking a risk, what if Islam is the correct religion? or Judaism? or one of the many sects of Paganism?

So the "Wager" you offer isn't rational at all because it fails to take into account of the many religions that are out there.

 

[Batchfile]

No it's not because you're still taking a risk, what if Islam is the correct religion? or Judaism? or one of the many sects of Paganism?

So the "Wager" you offer isn't rational at all because it fails to take into account of the many religions that are out there.

Good point. But.

1/500 is larger then 0/500

 

[snex]

Good point. But.

1/500 is larger then 0/500

you fail to take into account this possibility:

god exists and created the universe, but he deliberately withholds evidence of his existence to see which of his creations will use their brains and which will just follow the herd. those who use their brains go to heaven while the people who believe just to believe get punished for refusing to use the intelligence god gave them.

 

[Deleted member]

Okay, so..

1/501

 

[Aesir]

Not really because Snex's scenario would mean it's benificial to your after life to be more atheistic then theistic.

Since the lack of evidence for a deity would mean such deity probably doesn't exist. There would be no point to hold onto a belief that wasn't backed by any type of evidence and would be just superstition.

It's silly to give special circumstances to imaginary friends.

 

[Deleted member]

Snex's scenario is still a religiously inclined scenario; one could declare that as a religion

Where do you get "probably" from? You're just being arbitrary.

 

[Aesir]

Snex's scenario is still a religiously inclined scenario; one could declare that as a religion

I wouldn't call that a religion as there wouldn't be any sort of worshiping involved or any set of moral code which are usually prerequisites of a religion.

It would fall under the category of spirituality.

I know it probably sounds like I'm arguing semantics but there is a difference between the two.

Where do you get "probably" from? You're just being arbitrary.

I typed that to simply cover my bases, probably just leaves it up in the air.

 

[Deleted member]

Man whatever, it's still an addition to the initial 500

Probably makes it sound biased and ignorant

 

[AltF4]

The point Del, was that Atheism might be exactly what god WANTS us to believe in. What if god loves logic and reason so much (which isn't that unlikely since he would have been the one who created logic and reason) that he will reward those humans who don't believe in him! In fact, that would explain why god loves to hide evidence of his existence. He's just tempting humans

Now we have a scenario where being Atheist is another possible thing for you to believe in under Pascal's wager.

Atheism is not a 0/500 chance of being right, it's 1/500. Just the same as christianity or any other.

Which breaks Pascal's wager, because you no longer "risk everything" by not believing.


You're forced once again to believe on the merits of the belief itself, not some arbitrary threat like Pascal's wager.

 

[RDK]

Alt beat me to the point about atheism being 1/500, but even so, there's a million kajillion more belief systems out there than just the major ones. Technically, anthing you take for granted without concrete evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt could be a religion. You could turn basically anything into a religion, because none of them are any more credible than the next.

10FLYINGSPAGHETTIMONSTERS

 

[Miller]

Alt beat me to the point about atheism being 1/500, but even so, there's a million kajillion more belief systems out there than just the major ones. Technically, anthing you take for granted without concrete evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt could be a religion. You could turn basically anything into a religion, because none of them are any more credible than the next.

10FLYINGSPAGHETTIMONSTERS

And thats why I find it so hard to believe in Christianity or any other religion. Theres to many different variations of everything. Like you could turn 10FLYINGSPAGETYMONSTERS into a religion. Christianity itself has so many fallacy's and contradictions that I stopped believing when I could realize all of that.

 

[Deleted member]

You guys don't know what a wager is. Atheism could be in the 500, sure, but you're not breaking the wager because the wager includes all these other terms. It might break Pascal's wager, but I'm not Pascal. Pascal's was not a wager of 500, it was more or less 1/3. This 500 wager is not broken simply because you add atheism in, you just lose odds.

The wager can't be broken, it can only become more or less probable.

It's like suggesting you can't play roulette because I've just added a couple green slots in addition to the red and black ones.

 

[AltF4]

I think you're missing the point, Del.

The entire point of Pascal's Wager is that you have nothing to gain by believing in Atheism. It says that you might as well believe in Christianity because you have nothing to lose.

Well, that's not true. Thus the argument is broken.

 

[Deleted member]

That's why I said it might break Pascal's wager, but not the one Batchfile proposed

 

[snex]

and as his roulette example shows, you DO have something to lose, no matter how you bet. the only way to win is not to play.

 

[AltF4]

I guess I'm just failing to see a difference between Batchfile's Wager and Pascal's Wager.

 

[Batchfile]

The point Del, was that Atheism might be exactly what god WANTS us to believe in. What if god loves logic and reason so much (which isn't that unlikely since he would have been the one who created logic and reason) that he will reward those humans who don't believe in him! In fact, that would explain why god loves to hide evidence of his existence. He's just tempting humans

Now we have a scenario where being Atheist is another possible thing for you to believe in under Pascal's wager.

Atheism is not a 0/500 chance of being right, it's 1/500. Just the same as christianity or any other.

Which breaks Pascal's wager, because you no longer "risk everything" by not believing.


You're forced once again to believe on the merits of the belief itself, not some arbitrary threat like Pascal's wager.

If Atheism is correct, everyone wins.

And if Christians are correct, not so much.

I didn't mean it like "What the hell, believe it, what can go wrong!"

 

[Deleted member]

Pascal's Wager: Nothing to lose by believing in a God

Batchfile's Wager: 1/500 is better than 0/500, even if we can consider Atheism to be a 501 or one of the 500 already

 

[Batchfile]

And also, there is an infinite amount of scenarios to take from how God might see it. Maybe he sets up his 'have-to-believe-in-to-exist' stance to sort loyalty from disloyalty.

Bah, it's a pretty massive subject.

 

[AltF4]

But, Del, it's not 0/501, it's 1/501. We just described a situation in which Atheism is the "right" choice. Thus it is one of the possible "correct" beliefs, just like christianity.

 

[snex]

If Atheism is correct, everyone wins.

And if Christians are correct, not so much.

I didn't mean it like "What the hell, believe it, what can go wrong!"

you have turned your wager on its head, and now by this post we should all be atheists.

you said it yourself. if atheism is correct, EVERYONE wins. dont you want everyone to win?

 

[Byronman]

But, Del, it's not 0/501, it's 1/501. We just described a situation in which Atheism is the "right" choice. Thus it is one of the possible "correct" beliefs, just like christianity.

So let me get this strait: Are you debating that atheism is a religion?

you have turned your wager on its head, and now by this post we should all be atheists.

you said it yourself. if atheism is correct, EVERYONE wins. dont you want everyone to win?

But what if atheism isn't correct? Then only they and the rest of the wrong religions lose. And also I would like to add, if you are just being a Christian to get into heavan without believing, truly believing, in the doctrine, then you might as well be an atheist.

Edit: lol at next post

 

[Batchfile]

Religions promise life after death.

Athiests promise nothing after death.

Booya xD

 

[Aesir]

Which religion? Countless religions differ from each other, and by picking one you haven't improved your chances in the least bit.

especially if we consider snex's proposal as a possible outcome.

 

[Batchfile]

All Religions to my knowledge promise life after death.

And i'm 90% sure i'm about to be smacked with a Wikipedia article telling me otherwise.

And by picking none you have no chances. And by saying picking none might be the riddle to live after death would be self made and have nothing to support it. But then again it's a riddle. Religous debate is one huge circle.

you have turned your wager on its head, and now by this post we should all be atheists.

you said it yourself. if atheism is correct, EVERYONE wins. dont you want everyone to win?

I shouldn't have used the word 'winning'. More like everyone loses. Unless somebody likes the idea of not feeling anything.

 

[Aesir]

All Religions to my knowledge promise life after death.

And i'm 90% sure i'm about to be smacked with a Wikipedia article telling me otherwise.

That really doesn't prove anything even if it were the case. All it does is show a commonality among those religions an incentive to "good".

And by picking none you have no chances. And by saying picking none might be the riddle to live after death would be self made and have nothing to support it. But then again it's a riddle. Religous debate is one huge circle.

Where as picking a religion you would have a chance? that's a fallacy because what if god loves logic and reason? and is willing to save those who didn't believe in him because they used logic and reason?

What makes that any less Valid then Christianity? It doesn't they're both systems based on faith.

 

[RDK]

What it boils down to is that religions require extraordiary faith while atheism does not. It only requires logic.

If people just opened up their eyes and applied Occam's Razor, we wouldn't have this problem.

 

[Batchfile]

That really doesn't prove anything even if it were the case. All it does is show a commonality among those religions an incentive to "good".

Life after death is good.

Where as picking a religion you would have a chance? that's a fallacy because what if god loves logic and reason? and is willing to save those who didn't believe in him because they used logic and reason?

That's what I mean't as to it being a self-made riddle. People have a endless bag of 'what-ifs' to pull out whereas Christians use the limited information the Bible provides.

What makes that any less Valid then Christianity? It doesn't they're both systems based on faith.

Well not more so Christianity but religion as a whole. All Religions have their historical roles and have groups of people to back them up. But so do Athiests. It's not like Atheism isn't anything new. It's been around since Religion poped up. It's neither less or more valid to believe. It's your own personal choice, whichever the person has a fancy to I guess.

The story with the happy ending is always going to get the most votes. And who doesn't like a happy ending? Though in Christianity there will be no happy ending as far as the world's population goes. But you get where i'm going.

 

[RDK]

Um, atheism is worlds more valid to believe. Evidence supports atheism. Nothing supports Christianity.

And your point about "life after death" being "good" is moot and subjective. Perhaps I don't consider life after death as good. Have you thought about that?

 

[Batchfile]

Um, atheism is worlds more valid to believe. Evidence supports atheism. Nothing supports Christianity.

And your point about "life after death" being "good" is moot and subjective. Perhaps I don't consider life after death as good. Have you thought about that?

The average person want life after death. There is nothing positive about oblivion, nor negative.

There are many ways to view religion. Anything a athiest can say disproving somehting 'bigger' can simply be brushed off with some written note in Religion.

See the thing with Religion is 'the creator of the world'. This 'thing' has mass control over the world and anything to do with it. Though that may be proof in itself "Why is there war?" Who knows.

As far as how smart we get we could just be nothing to something 'out there'. It's like fake throwing a dog bone and the dog goes running in the direction you waved your arm in. Who's to say we're not a toy at somebody's disposal. And we're just waiting for a dog treat for good behavior .

 

[RDK]

Who's to say we're not a toy at somebody's disposal. And we're just waiting for a dog treat for good behavior .

Because there's no evidence supporting that we are, and there's a lot of evidence supporting that we're not.

I reiterate--most relgions have zero evidence. Rational beings tend to migrate towards moderate atheism, or at least agnosticism.

 

[marthanoob]

Christianity can't be falsified or proven.

Thus it is incompatible with science.

 

[Batchfile]

Thus it is incompatible with science.

'Zactly.

------------

What do you mean that there's no evidence supporting we're being toyed with? That's the point, we're not even smart enough to see it.

 

[RDK]

Then why even entertain the idea? It's pointless and has no basis in reality.