would it make sense for atheist to might as well just believe in the existence of God? since if we all die and it turns out there is no God, then thats just it, the end of the road, no more thoughts or soul or afterlife, we are just that, dead and nothing more. But if atheist turn out to be wrong and there is God, and because he believed in God, then at least he has an afterlife, however that is taught how to be achieved by various religions.
I mean, an atheist wont lose anything by believing in the existence of God, since even if he is right that there is no God, in the end, thats just it, we are all dead. no heaven or hell.
any thoughts here?
2006-10-14 16:46:08 · 27 answers · asked by bernardmailman 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
i like you. that is a great point! i agree with you completely. but then the question would be... which god to believe in. there are many gods beside the God of Christianity.
people who think it isn't logical have never really looked into the facts of science in comparison to the Bible.
2006-10-14 18:18:34 · answer #1 · answered by christy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry. I don't think there is anything in your question that deserves to be dignified by calling it a thought.
This begins with your assuming there is some sort of necessary correlation between the existence of a God, a belief in that God and the availability of an afterlife. It ends with your assumption that if people believe something for the sake of being rewarded for that belief, they will somehow come out ahead.
It's a shame that you have had your soul (the part of you that looks for Truth) stolen by a corrupt and perverted religion. May you some day get free.
2006-10-14 17:18:14 · answer #2 · answered by beast 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is Pascal's wager. (From French philosopher Blaise Pascal)
The wager is that you have one life to bet on whether God exists or not. If you bet God exists and you lose, you lose one life against nothing, in the sense you live your life according to a false belief. You bet God exists and win and you win an eternity of lives. If you bet he doesn't exist, and he doesn't, you keep your wager (1 life). If you bet he doesn't exist and he does, you lose the one life. Here it is in table form:
-----------------------------God Exists-------------God doesn't exist
Wager God Exists------Win Eternity------------Lose 1 life
Wager God Doesn't------Lose 1 life------------Win 1 life.
So that no matter how you look at it, an eternity always makes the odds worth while. No matter what you calculate the probability of God's existence to be, an infinity always makes that number look infinitely small. So Pascal concluded only a fool would not take such a bet.
However, I can see two things wrong with this approach.
1) You cannot will yourself to believe. If you don't believe in God, you can't simply decide to believe. Belief is something that acts independantly of will.
2) I think it is wrong to have faith in God simply because you're looking for a reward in the end, or fearing a punishment. Shouldn't the belief in God be anchored in something deeper than the very first stage of a child's moral development (reward/punishment)?
2006-10-14 16:56:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believing in God doesn't mean you have to believe in Heaven or Hell. Many Jewish people, for example, believe in God but do not believe in an afterlife. In fact, every Rosh Hashannah, this is part of a prayer that we recite: "As for Man, he comes from dust and to dust he shall return. Man is like grass that withers, a flower that fades, a shadow that passes..." Sounds surprisingly like the atheist view, yes?
Discounting that, and assuming you're going to go with God so you don't go to Hell, and assuming it is actually possible for you to decide to believe in God even though you don't, you would have to pick the right one. Christians say you've gotta go with Jesus but Muslims disagree. Even within the religions there's disagreemnt. Catholics say you have to do good works and be forgiven through a priest. Some baptists say once saved always saved. Others seem to think that everybody is hell-bound except for the .0000001% of the world population as pious as they are. How to pick the right view? As an atheist, you might have some trouble there.
2006-10-14 16:55:43 · answer #4 · answered by τεκνον θεου 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about you, but "believing in [anything]" isn't just a swith I flip on and off. If I say I do when I don't (or vis-versa) I'll be inauthentic. If God did exist, and he were all-powerful, he'd see through that, unless he were one of those Greco-Roman gods. Then that brings another question. Once I acknowledge that a supreme being does exist, how do I relate to that being. Some religions say being open to his existence is enough. If you're going the Christian route, then, according to Scripture (James 2) even devils believe in God, but faith shown by action pleases God.
2006-10-14 18:28:46 · answer #5 · answered by Michael R 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I try to be an honest person. I would lose that if I were to simply say 'sure, maybe there is a god', since to say such a thing would be lying to myself.
I remember when I was only 5 years old, staring at the ceiling in the church, listening to a sermon, and thinking to myself 'how can people actually believe this stuff? this is worse than the easter bunny and santa claus combined. silly fairy tales'. Go back on my own truths just to please the christian majority? I think not.
2006-10-14 17:12:52 · answer #6 · answered by MigukInUJB 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
But your leaving out some stuff, it is a packaged deal. First if you choose to believe in god you have to believe in possible damnation, this is a serious burden. An atheist's mind is free of distracting thoughts of the after life, to give that up and lead a moral and accountable life seems like a big sacrifice to me.
2006-10-14 16:59:33 · answer #7 · answered by tallspot07 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's like saying I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm just gonna leave out a glass of milk and some cookies anyway, because I don't stand to lose it if he doesn't come, but if he does, at least I'd get a present.
Doesn't that require me to believe in the possibility of Santa then? Put into context of your question, those people are no longer atheists, but agnostic.
2006-10-14 19:01:21 · answer #8 · answered by boo! 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You have described a classical pascal's wager[1]
There are problems with it however. The biggest problem is that you assume with-out warrant that the are ONLY 2 possibilities -- that there is no God, or that there is a God who rewards belief in him and punishes disbelief.
IN reality there are INFINITELY many possibilities. For instance there can be a GOD who rewards getting drunk every day, or even God who rewards atheism.
Thus lacking knowledge it is impossible to predict whether belief in God will be rewarded, punished, or ignored.[2]
2006-10-14 16:57:45 · answer #9 · answered by hq3 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
And an atheist won't lose anything by believing there's no God, since they also do not believe in heaven.
If you believe in a God and heaven for your afterlife, so it may be for you. For those who don't believe in either, that lack of belief is right for them. There is no need to concern yourself with the beliefs of others. Feel good about your beliefs, enjoy them, feel completed by them. Others should be allowed to live their lives with the same freedom.
2006-10-14 16:51:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋