Thread: Purpose - An argument for belief in God

None of us know if there is or isn't a God, I find a lot of atheists can be nihilists.

Alright, lets say we have an Atheist named Joe and a Theist (of any religion believing in which there is a God/s) named Frank

Now, lets say that Atheism is the "correct" religion, if so, Frank is losing nothing if there ends up being no God, because if there is no God, or afterlife of any sort, he lost nothing in his life because there was nothing to lose in the first place.
Unless people who are Atheists in their life go to some special place for "winning" which I highly doubt.
NOW lets say that Christianity (or whatever theistic religion of your choice) is the "correct" religion, Frank has lost nothing because he is a Theist, and he is in Heaven/a new life/etc. But Joe has "lost" because he believed in no God or Gods, because he was an atheist.
so all in all, Theists are losing nothing in their life (except maybe some smart asses would say "their dignity" for believing in a god) because even if their religion was false, then they are losing nothing because there is no god or afterlife of any sort.

You have probably found something with my metaphor above, that Theists can be cowards and just be theistic out of fear, which I do agree with. But also Atheists can be Atheistic out of arrogance thinking they need no one. (or something like that)
yes it is horrible to be a certain religion out of fear, but what if that fear ends up saving you? and if it doesn't then there is nothing to lose.

I find that every religion has some sort of superiority complex, Atheists think they are smarter because they put faith in science, etc. But really, why should it matter what religion someone else is? is it your life? no. So people should just take Theism, Atheism personally and within themselves, just believe what you wish because it is a personal thing.

Originally Posted by erible

Alright, lets say we have an Atheist named Joe and a Theist (of any religion believing in which there is a God/s) named Frank.

Now, lets say that Atheism is the "correct" religion, if so, Frank is losing nothing if there ends up being no God, because if there is no God, or afterlife of any sort, he lost nothing in his life because there was nothing to lose in the first place.
Unless people who are Atheists in their life go to some special place for "winning" which I highly doubt.

Except atheism isn't a religion, and Frank wasted time in his life doing things to appease a God who didn't exist.

NOW lets say that Christianity (or whatever theistic religion of your choice) is the "correct" religion, Frank has lost nothing because he is a Theist, and he is in Heaven/a new life/etc. But Joe has "lost" because he believed in no God or Gods, because he was an atheist.
so all in all, Theists are losing nothing in their life (except maybe some smart asses would say "their dignity" for believing in a god) because even if their religion was false, then they are losing nothing because there is no god or afterlife of any sort.

You have probably found something with my metaphor above, that Theists can be cowards and just be theistic out of fear, which I do agree with. But also Atheists can be Atheistic out of arrogance thinking they need no one. (or something like that)
yes it is horrible to be a certain religion out of fear, but what if that fear ends up saving you? and if it doesn't then there is nothing to lose.

So, is this just Pascal's Wager or something?

I find that every religion has some sort of superiority complex, Atheists think they are smarter because they put faith in science, etc. But really, why should it matter what religion someone else is? is it your life? no. So people should just take Theism, Atheism personally and within themselves, just believe what you wish because it is a personal thing.

Except even if religion is just a "personal" thing, people may tend to act on their beliefs, which leads to things such as blocking stem-cell research, banning homosexual marriage, etc.

Okay, "belief". And so, at that time it was all in the realm of the unknown so he didn't know if God did or didn't exist.

yes, similar.

and okay, yeah, people tend to act on their beliefs but that doesn't mean everyone does. I am Christian and I support stem cell research and I support homosexual marriage (and homosexual rights in general). It isn't the religions/beliefs "fault" for them for acting upon it, it is how the person perceives it to be acted upon.

Originally Posted by erible

Okay, "belief". And so, at that time it was all in the realm of the unknown so he didn't know if God did or didn't exist.

This is where most battles on this subject tend to start.

I really hate the ambiguity of the word (or rather, the interpretation of the word) "Atheist," which is one reason I don't really identify myself as one, and have chosen to actively assert that the entire argument over whether a God does or doesn't exist is pretty much unknowable (Agnosticism). People tend to interpret 'Atheist' as someone who believes (actively) that there is no God.. That is not necessarily true. That would (more specifically) be an 'Anti-theist'. The literal translation of the word 'Atheist' is someone who simply does not have a belief in God. Every child brought into this world is born Atheist. In it's most literal interpretation, it is simply the default stance. It implies no 'belief' on the subject, whatsoever.

When you become introduced to theology, it takes a mental assertion - a pro-active decision; a belief - to become a Theist. Someone who chooses to believe in God.

Atheism - literally - is neither a religion, nor a belief.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

This is where most battles on this subject tend to start.

I really hate the ambiguity of the word (or rather, the interpretation of the word) "Atheist," which is one reason I don't really identify myself as one, and have chosen to actively assert that the entire argument over whether a God does or doesn't exist is pretty much unknowable (Agnosticism). People tend to interpret 'Atheist' as someone who believes (actively) that there is no God.. That is not necessarily true. That would (more specifically) be an 'Anti-theist'. The literal translation of the word 'Atheist' is someone who simply does not have a belief in God. Every child brought into this world is born Atheist. In it's most literal interpretation, it is simply the default stance. It implies no 'belief' on the subject, whatsoever.

When you become introduced to theology, it takes a mental assertion - a pro-active decision; a belief - to become a Theist. Someone who chooses to believe in God.

Atheism - literally - is neither a religion, nor a belief.

then what would you call it.

Originally Posted by erible

then what would you call it.

I would call it what it is: A lack of belief.

Originally Posted by erible

Okay, "belief". And so, at that time it was all in the realm of the unknown so he didn't know if God did or didn't exist.

Well it's not even a belief. Is it a belief to NOT believe in unicorns?

yes, similar.

Well then what a ridiculous proposal. Let's accept this religion merely out of fear that we might not please God? Your response to this may be: "yes it is horrible to be a certain religion out of fear, but what if that fear ends up saving you? and if it doesn't then there is nothing to lose." How does one gauge whether that fear will save you?

And just to show how your proposal is absurd, how do you know the religion you're accepting out of fear is the correct one? Just to be safe, shouldn't you accept every religion that has ever existed, and plan to accept every religion that will pop up?

and okay, yeah, people tend to act on their beliefs but that doesn't mean everyone does. I am Christian and I support stem cell research and I support homosexual marriage (and homosexual rights in general). It isn't the religions/beliefs "fault" for them for acting upon it, it is how the person perceives it to be acted upon.

My point is that it does matter what religion a person is, because we might then be able to gauge what they believe in. No, I'm not saying everyone will believe everything their holy book says, nor am I saying that everyone will act on their beliefs. Fortunately, most people don't adhere to the fundamentalist nonsense anymore. Unfortunately, some people still oppose contraception, abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage, and some of them have the power to make them illegal. Sure, its the person's fault for buying into such absurd notions, but why take the chance and keep the sources around for serious consideration? They should be demoted to the level of ancient Greek mythology.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I would call it what it is: A lack of belief.

okay but what would you call it comparing it to other religions? you wouldn't say "Hinduism and the lack of a belief are different because..." I've never heard anyone use it in that way

Originally Posted by erible

"Hinduism and the lack of a belief are different because..."

Yes. You would. Because Hinduism is a belief. It implies the belief in the context of the Hindu religion. Someone that has no belief in a religion or a deity or anything for that matter has no belief in anything that has to do with a higher power, or karma, or reincarnation, or anything of the sort. You can't compare it to other religions, just like you can't compare it to Christianity, because it is not a 'thing.' It is not an established "something for which to be believed." It is simply the lack of following a particular line of thought - which is what all 'other' religions are.

It is simply "A-theism" which means "non-belief in a theology." Not "belief in the opposite."

You never hear it used that way because most theists don't actually understand the meaning of the word.

It is like this:
If one of your friends comes up to you and says "Guess what? I'm now a multi-millionaire." You have three ways that you can respond to this. You can either have faith in them, and actively believe they are telling the truth; you can immediately believe that they are lying to you through their teeth; or you can say "Well...you know what...I'm not going to just assume you are lying, but I would like to see some proof before I believe you. If you really are a millionaire, then that's awesome, but as of right now, I remain neutral on the subject, because I just don't know whether or not I believe you."

In case of the latter, that person didn't go into the conversation with a position on anything. They were just there. To either believe someone is telling you the truth or believe someone is lying to you actually means you are making a decision regarding what you believe that person's intention is. Just saying "well that seems a little far-fetched, so I'm going to suspend judgment until I actually see something that tells me you are either telling me the truth or lying to me" is analogous to atheism.

By the way: Hinduism and lack of a belief are different because, if someone grew up on a deserted island, with no one else around, they would not believe in Hinduism, nor would they believe that Hinduism was fake. They would simply have no knowledge of it (and, thus, no belief in it). It takes learning about a 'religion' to believe in it.

[Edit]
And actually, I won't even go so far as to say that "Most theists don't understand what the word really means." More accurately, the word itself actually carries more than one interpretation. So whenever someone says they are atheists, theists tend to believe that they mean the believe the IS NO God, not that they simply don't have that established believe IN God. They are two completely different stances.

Go to Google and "Define: Atheism." See what kind of double-sided answers you get.

Everything is impermanent. If that depresses you, don't worry; It won't last long.

Dianeva, did you ever find out what his logical argument was that would lead anyone to his conclusion?

@stonedape
No, he said he'd write something long about it, but didn't. I'll try to figure it out soon, but don't expect anything. It's an odd situation. He's a very rational person. It's extremely important to him that his beliefs are based solely on reason, and he thinks he has it. If he honestly thought he didn't have a logical reason to believe in God, I'm almost certain he would not resort to blind faith, and would have to give up his belief. This knowledge makes it seem to me he must have some really good reason, and I’d really like to know what it is.

@Oneironaut
You obviously know what the technical definition of an atheist is, and have good reason for calling yourself agnostic instead - because that's how most theists would label you. But you might want to consider calling yourself an atheist if you're ever around 'serious' atheists educated on the subject. As soon as I hear someone refer to themselves as agnostic, my impression is that they don't know what they're talking about, don't know the correct definitions. I often watch a weekly atheist show that would have the same reaction.

@erible
Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that to take it seriously, to apply it universally, would be impractical. Consider this:
Let's say there's an old tradition of some long-dead tribe that believes in a god who rewards its followers with an eternal heaven-like place after death. All you have to do to prove that you follow that god is to utter a short sentence once a week, something like "I honor you, [god name]". Now, if you are to apply Pascal's Wager to this situation, you'd need to conclude that you should do this. It doesn't matter how unlikely it seems to you that the god exists. All you lose by doing it is about 1 second every week, which is nothing compared to the chance of the eternal reward at the end. Since I'm guessing you agree it would not make sense to do this, even if the tribal tradition was a real belief (it's not), it must be concluded that there is something wrong with applying Pascal's Wager to the Christian-God situation too.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

@Oneironaut
You obviously know what the technical definition of an atheist is, and have good reason for calling yourself agnostic instead - because that's how most theists would label you. But you might want to consider calling yourself an atheist if you're ever around 'serious' atheists educated on the subject. As soon as I hear someone refer to themselves as agnostic, my impression is that they don't know what they're talking about, don't know the correct definitions. I often watch a weekly atheist show that would have the same reaction.

Nah, I couldn't do it. I've put a lot of thought into planting myself into the "agnostic" camp. It's not something that I'm just going to change because atheists what to assume it means I'm less knowledgeable on the subject than I actually am. If someone wants to assume that one who calls his/herself agnostic doesn't know what they are talking about, then the fault lies on the one making that assumption. In all specificity, I am agnostic, because I firmly believe that the whole debate on whether there is a God or not is a non-issue. As of now, it is outside the scope of human knowledge. If I tell someone I'm agnostic, and they want to split hairs and say "well, technically you're an atheist," then I will tell them "if that's the way you want to interpret it, then that's fine." If they would be so bold as to assume that I don't know what I'm talking about then, frankly, I don't feel that I'm required to explain myself to them.

However, if someone hears me call myself an agnostic, and they want to have an actual discussion about why I choose that label (which is what I usually experience, even when dealing with 'serious' atheists), then I am more than happy to explain. But if someone wants to - quite arrogantly (no offense) - assume that I don't know what I'm talking about, simply because they choose not to acknowledge such a valid and clearly-defined label as 'agnostic,' then they are more than welcome to. As the saying goes: It's no sweat off my sack.

ok, but still atheists have a believe in their lack of a belief.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Well it's not even a belief. Is it a belief to NOT believe in unicorns?



Well then what a ridiculous proposal. Let's accept this religion merely out of fear that we might not please God? Your response to this may be: "yes it is horrible to be a certain religion out of fear, but what if that fear ends up saving you? and if it doesn't then there is nothing to lose." How does one gauge whether that fear will save you?

And just to show how your proposal is absurd, how do you know the religion you're accepting out of fear is the correct one? Just to be safe, shouldn't you accept every religion that has ever existed, and plan to accept every religion that will pop up?



My point is that it does matter what religion a person is, because we might then be able to gauge what they believe in. No, I'm not saying everyone will believe everything their holy book says, nor am I saying that everyone will act on their beliefs. Fortunately, most people don't adhere to the fundamentalist nonsense anymore. Unfortunately, some people still oppose contraception, abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage, and some of them have the power to make them illegal. Sure, its the person's fault for buying into such absurd notions, but why take the chance and keep the sources around for serious consideration? They should be demoted to the level of ancient Greek mythology.

Yes, because you are believing something doesn't exist. It takes as much faith to disbelieve something as opposed to believe something.

I am not saying Christianity is the "correct" religion, it is your choice to choose which path you want to follow since nobody knows. And I am not saying every Christian is a Christian out of fear. I'm sure some are, but I'm sure that goes for most religions as well.

and yes, I do agree with your 3rd point. I just think we should all be accepting of everyone/everything.

Originally Posted by erible

ok, but still atheists have a believe in their lack of a belief.

That makes absolutely no sense.
You are trying to label something incorrectly, to make it fit into a category it doesn't fit in.

They don't 'believe' they have a lack of belief. They know they do.
Lack of belief in something is not a belief system. It is complete neutrality. Belief in something is. Please try to understand so that you don't continue to confuse the two.

It's like this. There are two forces in this universe. Positive (+) and Negative (-). There is also the lack of force, which is neutrality (0).

Theism (the belief in God) = Positive / +
"Weak atheism" (The simple lack of belief in a God, that we are ALL born with) = Neutrality / 0
"Strong Atheism" or "Anti-Theism" (The assertive belief that there IS NO God) = Negative / -

A neutral stance on something is neither a positive nor a negative assertion. It is not a belief system, in and off itself. It is simply a lack of belief on either side.

Originally Posted by erible

ok, but still atheists have a believe in their lack of a belief.

what? atheists believe they don't have any beliefs? the fuck?

alright, here. what do you call a child that can't speak or understand any form of language? they are an atheist by default, because they do not know of any gods. atheism is a default setting on a person, and changes later.

if you had never been introduced to the idea of god, never thought of any celestial/supernatural beings, and never been around anyone that had, what would you be?

(the correct answer is an atheist)

no, what I meant was, don't they believe there is no god? or however you would define it? am I correct?

Oneironaut said that Atheism was the lack of a belief. But I'm not talking about a baby who doesn't know, I'm talking about people who CHOOSE to be "anti theist". They believe there is no god/higher power/etc.

Originally Posted by erible

no, what I meant was, don't they believe there is no god? or however you would define it? am I correct?

No. I can say "maybe there is a God. I don't know."
Or I can say "there is NO God."

These are both completely different views, but they are both, technically, Atheistic.

They don't believe in God. :/

They also believe that they don't believe in God, because they don't.

For similar reasons they probably believe that they believe that they don't believe in God.

Is this clear now?

Originally Posted by erible

Oneironaut said that Atheism was the lack of a belief. But I'm not talking about a baby who doesn't know, I'm talking about people who CHOOSE to be "anti theist". They believe there is no god/higher power/etc.

THAT is correct. They are not the same thing.

Also, erible, please use the Edit button, if you are going to make more than one post. It keeps the double posting down. Thank you.

then what about an Agnostic?

and in your last post, what are you talking about? what do you mean "THAT is correct"

and also, with the double post thing, what? I was posting to 2 separate people.

Originally Posted by Xei

They don't believe in God. :/

They also believe that they don't believe in God, because they don't.

For similar reasons they probably believe that they believe that they don't believe in God.

Is this clear now?

THANK YOU. This is what I'm trying to say.

What's your point?

they they believe that they don't believe in God.