Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

In the course of our lives it is not possible to thoroughly investigate all religions. We have to take short cuts. Atheism takes the biggest short cut by summarily dismissing all religions without even investigating. But it seems to take a particular relish in dismissing the God of Abraham. And many atheists do that without even investigating as thoroughly as they could and should.

I prefer not to see this thread turned into a world religions thread, but if you decide to start such a thread, I'd be glad to join you there.

I"m not trying to turn this into a world religions thread... It appears you are trying to convince us that there are only 2 possibilities - atheism or Christianity. It is actually the case that people who profess a belief in God follow a multitude of religions, and some people believe in God but follow no religion.

Two possibilities: theism or atheism. Of atheism there appears to be only one kind. Of theism there are many kinds, so inevitably a choice must be made: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Polytheism, etc. One looks them over and decides. That was the aim of Pascal to explore, but he died before he could finish his project. The reflections he did make were collected and published later as Pensees. The wager argument is included among those reflections.

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Just because someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right?

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

[anonymous66]

I"m not trying to turn this into a world religions thread... It appears you are trying to convince us that there are only 2 possibilities - atheism or Christianity. It is actually the case that people who profess a belief in God follow a multitude of religions, and some people believe in God but follow no religion.

Two possibilities: theism or atheism. Of atheism there appears to be only one kind. Of theism there are many kinds, so inevitably a choice must be made: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Polytheism, etc. One looks them over and decides. That was the aim of Pascal to explore, but he died before he could finish his project. The reflections he did make were collected and published later as Pensees. The wager argument is included among those reflections.

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Just because someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right?

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

I've never come across a compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists I've come across online and in person appear to be arguing that Christianity is stupid/irrational/destructive - and the only other option they know about is atheism. For them it is: Not Christianity - therefore atheism.

[LuckyR]

OK, then address my first paragraph, not the second.

If one makes the leap of faith, one is no longer an atheist and quickly learns to adapt to a life of faith. If one professes to be a believer but is not, that person remains an atheist. There are many such people who live inside religious communities, but they are only kidding themselves.

Accurate as written, but not taken to it's logical conclusion.

Are those living inside religious communities yet don't believe, members of a religion or atheists? I ask because those who measure these things do not count them as atheists.

If they are atheists, that would boost the number of atheists dramatically, such that atheism would begin to outnumber many more religions.

My guess, considering the amount of intellectual processes required to buck the prevailing cultural tide of religiosity in order to become an atheist, that any such atheist who bought into the "logic" of Pascal's argument would not truly believe.

I happen to believe there are many more atheists than theists and that is proving itself in the deplorable decline of morals in our civilization. It cannot reasonably be argued that atheism on its own has, like the religion of Abraham, been a centuries long conveyor of human morals.

Several things. Atheism is formally (not using your stated definition) a tiny fraction of the population. However, a substantial percentage of those who do not believe in the existence of gods DON'T self identify as atheist. Similarly, a certain number of self described members of every religion don't believe in gods.

Most agree that atheism is increasing in number from almost zero to a tiny fraction of the population. But let's say that despite a mountain of data to the contrary, that the number of atheists is anywhere close to that of theists, what objective evidence do you have that supports either a decline in morals (as a concept) or any long-term negative outcomes in a practical sense?

[Charlemagne]

If one makes the leap of faith, one is no longer an atheist and quickly learns to adapt to a life of faith. If one professes to be a believer but is not, that person remains an atheist. There are many such people who live inside religious communities, but they are only kidding themselves.

Accurate as written, but not taken to it's logical conclusion.

Are those living inside religious communities yet don't believe, members of a religion or atheists? I ask because those who measure these things do not count them as atheists.

If they are atheists, that would boost the number of atheists dramatically, such that atheism would begin to outnumber many more religions.

My guess, considering the amount of intellectual processes required to buck the prevailing cultural tide of religiosity in order to become an atheist, that any such atheist who bought into the "logic" of Pascal's argument would not truly believe.

I happen to believe there are many more atheists than theists and that is proving itself in the deplorable decline of morals in our civilization. It cannot reasonably be argued that atheism on its own has, like the religion of Abraham, been a centuries long conveyor of human morals.

Several things. Atheism is formally (not using your stated definition) a tiny fraction of the population. However, a substantial percentage of those who do not believe in the existence of gods DON'T self identify as atheist. Similarly, a certain number of self described members of every religion don't believe in gods.

Most agree that atheism is increasing in number from almost zero to a tiny fraction of the population. But let's say that despite a mountain of data to the contrary, that the number of atheists is anywhere close to that of theists, what objective evidence do you have that supports either a decline in morals (as a concept) or any long-term negative outcomes in a practical sense?

My objective evidence is 82 years of life and observations. If you are nowhere near my age, you can have no idea of how far into the moral depths we have sunk. Most people of my generation are appalled at the decline of religion and the rise of atheism.

[Count Lucanor]

It's very clear that the leap of faith that you have to make to take Pascal seriously also requires that you dismiss all other religious narratives without any good reason, other than the pure coincidence of being born in a time and place where those particular beliefs are nurtured and promoted over the others. Were you born in another time and place, you would put your faith in other doctrines put forward by the ruling clerics.

Not really. It is possible to dismiss all those religions with good reason. Even a perfunctory investigation of them would lead to dismissal. There are just too many reasons why Abraham's God is preferable to any other. Of course, if one is determined not to believe any god exists, that would require the same number of investigations. Does anyone think atheists are as eager to investigate all the other gods as they are to dismiss Abraham's God?

Dismissing other religions by reason would be a contradictory stance, since you endorse the dogmas of your religion by faith. But I understand you, since all you do is suddenly behave as an atheist in front of all the other religions. Of course, if you made use of some reasoning when dealing with the nonsensical doctrines of the Christian faith, you would end up as any other atheist.

I can't see why Abraham's god is preferable. Is it maybe because he is the most revengeful:

• So Moses declared, “This is what the LORD says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt, 5and every firstborn son in the land of Egypt will die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on his throne, to the firstborn of the servant girl behind the hand mill, as well as the firstborn of all the cattle. 6Then a great cry will go out over all the land of Egypt. Such an outcry has never been heard before and will never be heard again. 7But among all the Israelites, not even a dog will snarl at man or beast.’ (Exodus, 11).

[LuckyR]

Accurate as written, but not taken to it's logical conclusion.

Are those living inside religious communities yet don't believe, members of a religion or atheists? I ask because those who measure these things do not count them as atheists.

If they are atheists, that would boost the number of atheists dramatically, such that atheism would begin to outnumber many more religions.

My guess, considering the amount of intellectual processes required to buck the prevailing cultural tide of religiosity in order to become an atheist, that any such atheist who bought into the "logic" of Pascal's argument would not truly believe.

I happen to believe there are many more atheists than theists and that is proving itself in the deplorable decline of morals in our civilization. It cannot reasonably be argued that atheism on its own has, like the religion of Abraham, been a centuries long conveyor of human morals.

Several things. Atheism is formally (not using your stated definition) a tiny fraction of the population. However, a substantial percentage of those who do not believe in the existence of gods DON'T self identify as atheist. Similarly, a certain number of self described members of every religion don't believe in gods.

Most agree that atheism is increasing in number from almost zero to a tiny fraction of the population. But let's say that despite a mountain of data to the contrary, that the number of atheists is anywhere close to that of theists, what objective evidence do you have that supports either a decline in morals (as a concept) or any long-term negative outcomes in a practical sense?

My objective evidence is 82 years of life and observations. If you are nowhere near my age, you can have no idea of how far into the moral depths we have sunk. Most people of my generation are appalled at the decline of religion and the rise of atheism.

To open, I too am in retirement, so I've been around the block.

We're in agreement that atheism is on the rise (mostly because of the almost zero percent incidence until the recent past).

However, what "moral depths" (besides atheism) are you referring to?

Because stats don't support your personal "observations" :

In the long term, violent crime in the United States has been in decline since colonial times. The homicide rate has been estimated to be over 30 per 100,000 people in 1700, dropping to under 20 by 1800, and to under 10 by 1900.[7]

[Sy Borg]

Two possibilities: theism or atheism. Of atheism there appears to be only one kind. Of theism there are many kinds, so inevitably a choice must be made: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Polytheism, etc. One looks them over and decides. That was the aim of Pascal to explore, but he died before he could finish his project. The reflections he did make were collected and published later as Pensees. The wager argument is included among those reflections.

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Just because someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right? :D

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

I've never come across a compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists I've come across online and in person appear to be arguing that Christianity is stupid/irrational/destructive - and the only other option they know about is atheism. For them it is: Not Christianity - therefore atheism.

The most compelling argument for atheism is the utter, utter silliness of superstitious religious belief. There's precious little difference between disbelieving Abrahamic myths and disbelieving myths of Santa Claus. There's shouldn't even be a name for it. It's simply a refusal to believe in nonsense just because some people vouch for it.

So, if disbelief in virgin births, miracles, materialising fish (prepared for eating), the resurrections and the idea that an anthropomorphic spirit created the universe makes me an atheist, that's my official label, but that is a stupid label too. What are people who don't believe in Zeus and Thor called? Why should I be defined by that which I reject, while theists are defined by what they are?

The answer? Cultural bias and tradition.

Do I believe in something greater than me? Sure, many things, although theists would say atheists don't believe in anything greater. Nations, companies, humanity as a whole, the biosphere, the Earth, the Sun, Saggitarius A*, the Milky Way. In a sense I am part of all of these things, and they impress me infinitely more than literalist interpretations of myth and slavish following of tradition. I could almost be called a Gaian, except I think Lovelock fundamentally misunderstands the relationships between humans and the planet, treating them as peers, protagonists. No, humanity is just one part of the Earth's many complex and interdependent systems, which means the Earth > humanity as a whole.

Simply, our worship has been misdirected from the worthy by myths that have been co-opted by those seeking political power, whose twisted interpretations and manipulative self-serving schemas have lead humanity to the point where some intelligent, educated people in the 21st century still literally believe Iron Age myths.

Theists like to paint me as "angry" to undermine my skewering of their superstitions. I'm not, but I am mightily unimpressed by people who repeat crappy arguments, unaware of the gaps in their reasoning, if any reasoning was done. Yes, in recent times I have become tactless and undiplomatic, fed up with treating intellectual hucksters and delusional narcissists with kid gloves. One reaches a point where one tires of suffering fools gladly, giving them a free pass to speak utter rubbish because they are part of a tradition. No, let's just call a spade a spade. Anyone who believes in crazy Abrahamic superstitions is simply not credible.

If we don't disregard the delusional and the intellectually dishonest (trying to prove their priori beliefs correct) then our discussions will be doomed to be shallow, regressive and circular. It's not anger, but the realisation that mercilessly destroying superstition is the only way to open a path forward.

[Charlemagne]

I'll repeat a point I made earlier in this thread. There is in the atheist a mentality locked into reason as the supreme instrument by which we find truth. No doubt it is for many kinds of truth. But human life is not mere philosophy or science. It is also a story. Stories finally end happy or sad. This is the essential defect of atheism. It ignores the happy or sad ending that must finally come with our last breath. This is why people choose faith over cerebral conviction. The person on a deathbed who has faith is not likely to find consolation in atheism. But the person who has no faith is sorely tempted to look for a happy ending that rises above earthworms in six feet of dirt. The decision to call such a choice rank cowardice or senile dementia reeks of arrogance and inhumanity toward fellow humans.

[Sy Borg]

Charl, if you prefer sweet lies to hard truths, that is your choice. I would rather face facts and muster the courage to deal with life without intellectual comfort toys.

Christians seem to think that oblivion is negative, yet they seek it desperately every night and are most disappointed if they don't achieve it. Oblivion is nothing to fear. There is a reason people say Rest in Peace. Oblivion is supremely peaceful, which is why we crave it each night.

The fact is that you were oblivious before your birth and you are oblivious after you die. You may, however, have some interesting experiences with the remnant oxygen in your brain before your lights go out.

Whatever, Pascal's wager only works with a naive deity that cannot distinguish sincerity from self-serving artifice.

[anonymous66]

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Just because someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right?

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

I've never come across a compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists I've come across online and in person appear to be arguing that Christianity is stupid/irrational/destructive - and the only other option they know about is atheism. For them it is: Not Christianity - therefore atheism.

The most compelling argument for atheism is the utter, utter silliness of superstitious religious belief. There's precious little difference between disbelieving Abrahamic myths and disbelieving myths of Santa Claus. There's shouldn't even be a name for it. It's simply a refusal to believe in nonsense just because some people vouch for it.

So, if disbelief in virgin births, miracles, materialising fish (prepared for eating), the resurrections and the idea that an anthropomorphic spirit created the universe makes me an atheist, that's my official label, but that is a stupid label too. What are people who don't believe in Zeus and Thor called? Why should I be defined by that which I reject, while theists are defined by what they are?

The answer? Cultural bias and tradition.

Do I believe in something greater than me? Sure, many things, although theists would say atheists don't believe in anything greater. Nations, companies, humanity as a whole, the biosphere, the Earth, the Sun, Saggitarius A*, the Milky Way. In a sense I am part of all of these things, and they impress me infinitely more than literalist interpretations of myth and slavish following of tradition. I could almost be called a Gaian, except I think Lovelock fundamentally misunderstands the relationships between humans and the planet, treating them as peers, protagonists. No, humanity is just one part of the Earth's many complex and interdependent systems, which means the Earth > humanity as a whole.

Simply, our worship has been misdirected from the worthy by myths that have been co-opted by those seeking political power, whose twisted interpretations and manipulative self-serving schemas have lead humanity to the point where some intelligent, educated people in the 21st century still literally believe Iron Age myths.

Theists like to paint me as "angry" to undermine my skewering of their superstitions. I'm not, but I am mightily unimpressed by people who repeat crappy arguments, unaware of the gaps in their reasoning, if any reasoning was done. Yes, in recent times I have become tactless and undiplomatic, fed up with treating intellectual hucksters and delusional narcissists with kid gloves. One reaches a point where one tires of suffering fools gladly, giving them a free pass to speak utter rubbish because they are part of a tradition. No, let's just call a spade a spade. Anyone who believes in crazy Abrahamic superstitions is simply not credible.

If we don't disregard the delusional and the intellectually dishonest (trying to prove their priori beliefs correct) then our discussions will be doomed to be shallow, regressive and circular. It's not anger, but the realisation that mercilessly destroying superstition is the only way to open a path forward.

But you're presenting a false dichotomy. You're acting as if there are only 2 options - Atheism or Christianity. And you're only considering one interpretation of Christianity. It is entirely possible for someone to believe as you do about this one form of Christianity and yet not consider himself to be an atheist. And not to become (as you admit about yourself) "tactless and undiplomatic".

[anonymous66]

There are more possibilities besides atheism and theism. Don't forget Deism and Fideism - and there are a growing number of people who wonder about panpsychism and a conscious universe that could be considered God (it could be the case that the universe is all that exists and the universe is conscious).

Just because someone professes a belief in God and/or accept Pascal's Wager - that person is still a long way from being converted to Christianity - which appears to be Pascal's (and your?) goal.

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right?

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

I've never come across a compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists I've come across online and in person appear to be arguing that Christianity is stupid/irrational/destructive - and the only other option they know about is atheism. For them it is: Not Christianity - therefore atheism.

The most compelling argument for atheism is the utter, utter silliness of superstitious religious belief. There's precious little difference between disbelieving Abrahamic myths and disbelieving myths of Santa Claus. There's shouldn't even be a name for it. It's simply a refusal to believe in nonsense just because some people vouch for it.

There are many people who don't buy into superstitious religious belief and yet are not atheists. Again a false dichotomy - you're acting as if there are only 2 options - superstitious religious belief or atheism.

[Charlemagne]

I'll just repeat for the sake of emphasis concerning the choice of God against Nogod.

"The decision to call such a choice rank cowardice or senile dementia reeks of arrogance and inhumanity toward fellow humans."

You are infallibly certain there is no God, then you preach the silliness of religion.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, I agree. Pascal's goal was to convert people to Christianity as the best kind of theism based on its record and teachings. The wager argument was just his opening gambit because he recognized that you can never persuade an atheist of the existence of God, but you might be able to persuade him of the need to believe.

In this forum, of course, there are atheists trying to make converts out of Christians, right? :D

It's a hard task both ways.

Is there more than one kind of atheism? Pantheism and Deism certainly cannot qualify as atheism.

I've never come across a compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists I've come across online and in person appear to be arguing that Christianity is stupid/irrational/destructive - and the only other option they know about is atheism. For them it is: Not Christianity - therefore atheism.

The most compelling argument for atheism is the utter, utter silliness of superstitious religious belief. There's precious little difference between disbelieving Abrahamic myths and disbelieving myths of Santa Claus. There's shouldn't even be a name for it. It's simply a refusal to believe in nonsense just because some people vouch for it.

There are many people who don't buy into superstitious religious belief and yet are not atheists. Again a false dichotomy - you're acting as if there are only 2 options - superstitious religious belief or atheism.

Not at all. It's the incoherence of your worldview that created a false dichotomy in your mind. Theists, ie. those who believe that Iron Age Abrahamic mythology is true, are inherently superstitious by definition. There are two broad angles - realism and superstition - although how heavily theists lean into the superstition will obviously vary, which appeared to be your point. However, there are many options regarding reality that are not measured against Abrahamic mythology. Last time I analysed the possibilities, I came up with eleven of them. I presume you didn't read that.

[anonymous66]

I've never come across a compelling argument for atheism. Most atheists I've come across online and in person appear to be arguing that Christianity is stupid/irrational/destructive - and the only other option they know about is atheism. For them it is: Not Christianity - therefore atheism.

The most compelling argument for atheism is the utter, utter silliness of superstitious religious belief. There's precious little difference between disbelieving Abrahamic myths and disbelieving myths of Santa Claus. There's shouldn't even be a name for it. It's simply a refusal to believe in nonsense just because some people vouch for it.

There are many people who don't buy into superstitious religious belief and yet are not atheists. Again a false dichotomy - you're acting as if there are only 2 options - superstitious religious belief or atheism.

Not at all. It's the incoherence of your worldview that created a false dichotomy in your mind. Theists, ie. those who believe that Iron Age Abrahamic mythology is true, are inherently superstitious by definition. There are two broad angles - realism and superstition - although how heavily theists lean into the superstition will obviously vary, which appeared to be your point. However, there are many options regarding reality that are not measured against Abrahamic mythology. Last time I analysed the possibilities, I came up with eleven of them. I presume you didn't read that.

Okay - so we both agree that there are more possibilities than just atheism or superstitious religious belief. Deism comes to mind as a counterexample.

[Count Lucanor]

But you're presenting a false dichotomy. You're acting as if there are only 2 options - Atheism or Christianity. And you're only considering one interpretation of Christianity. It is entirely possible for someone to believe as you do about this one form of Christianity and yet not consider himself to be an atheist. And not to become (as you admit about yourself) "tactless and undiplomatic".

So you agree there are many options: Yahve, Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Osiris...any of the thousand of gods, and they are all equally tenable beliefs, right?