It seems to me that many atheists are atheists because they don’t find religion to be logical. I can understand that point of view. If I weren’t already a Mormon I’d probably think it was downright crazy too. But it seems to me that as illogical as belief in God may seem, it actually is more illogical to not believe in God. My logic is that religion is, if nothing else, like an insurance policy. The thing is that while perhaps one can’t prove there is a God, it’s also not possible to prove there isn’t a God (please feel free to take me to task if you already disagree with that point, because I’d like to understand your point of view). If you don’t know whether there is a God or not, it seems that it would be best to err on the side of assuming there is a God. If you act as though there is a God, but it turns out there isn’t, then no harm done, right? I mean, maybe you miss out on some partying, perhaps you waste a little time, but hey, you’re going to be dead in the ground so it’s not like you’re going to have any regrets. However, if there is a God, at least you can say “Hey, I could have been partying it up but instead I was trying to keep the commandments, just in case. Shouldn’t that count for something?”
Is this Pascal’s Wager a honest question? Or something to reassure yourself?
The simplest response is that satistically, atheists have a much better “insurance policy” then believers. There are untold thousands of [g]ods. Many, if not most, of them condemn worshipping other gods but do not condemn non-worship. Therefore, by choosing one [g]od, believers bet it all or nothing with these [g]ods. Whereas, atheists never receive condemnation by them. So already the atheist has better odds. Moreover, many [g]ods, including the Mormon [g]od does not condemn ignorance. Lastly, many [g]ods, including yours, condemn false worship for reward, and assuming he/she is real and can read internal thoughts and motivations, an honest atheist is held in higher regard than a dishonest follower. Of course not all [g]ods are benevolent or loving so both the believer and atheist would be on equal footing.
Are you concerned that mini-pink unicorns will consume and torment your soul when you die because you didn’t follow the commandments of the FSM?
Out of curiosity, why the brackets on the word “god” everywhere?
I guess there is some logic in what you’re saying, although it depends on what you believe God, or gods, would be like if there were one or more of them (from an atheist point of view). That is, for your logic to work, you must make the following assumptions:
1. God condemns people who don’t belong to the right religion.
2. The only two options are being a follower (honest or not) or an atheist.
But what if God doesn’t care about your religion so much as he cares about whether or not you’re searching for the truth? Shouldn’t you at least be trying to find out if there is a true religion, vs. writing all of it off and not even bothering to try? (for the sake of this discussion I’m defining an atheist as someone who firmly believes there is no God or superior being and isn’t trying to find out if there is one) After all, if there is a God, then there may be a way to find out if he exists, but there is no way I’ve heard of to definitively prove there is no God.
I bracketed god out of respect for you and to avoid confusion. God as a proper noun usually indicates the Judeo-Christian god. Some people are greatly disturbed by even spelling God and end up dropping the “o.”
“1. God condemns people who don’t belong to the right religion.”
Did you read my entire reply? #1 is your assumption you re-word and say is mine, which is the childish notion of Pascal’s Wager.
“2. The only two options are being a follower (honest or not) or an atheist.”
I’m not sure that there are only two options, in fact you list three. You are the one asserting that it’s safer to believe in god just in case. I merely stated that choosing one god out of thousands does not improve your odds in the afterlife lottery, in fact, it tends to weaken your odds. It’s up to you to say why your god gives you the better odds or which god would give you better odds and why.
“But what if God doesn’t care about your religion so much as he cares about whether or not you’re searching for the truth?”
In this scenerio, the atheist is in the same situation as the believer, so a believer does not have better odds.
“Shouldn’t you at least be trying to find out if there is a true religion, vs. writing all of it off and not even bothering to try?”
Is your hubris deliberate or unconcious? So without knowing anything about me you assert that I am lazy and indifferent? As one good turn……shouldn’t you at least be trying to find out there is no true religion vs. writing all of it off and sticking with what you got?
“for the sake of this discussion I’m defining an atheist as someone who firmly believes there is no God or superior being and isn’t trying to find out if there is one”
Though the term is grossly overused online, you’ve defined a strawman arguement perfectly. As an atheist, I cannot say there is no God as you point out I cannot prove a negative. However, I can say, for me, there is no convincing evidence for an anthropomorphic diety, but I am as a skeptic constantly willing to address new data and information and update the conclusion based on that new evidence.