Atheists: What If You Are Wrong?

[Davian]

Now there's some pop culture reference I can track down.

I had to google that too.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Carol Bacon Kelso

James M. Convey

Either of those sources seems a lot more likely than Camus.

At any rate, as other people have pointed out, it's pretty awful advice if you assume that the deity referenced is the Christian God, and it's pretty meaningless otherwise. Different gods demand different things, and some don't really demand anything.

If you want my opinion on the subject, let me substitute another misattributed quote, this one assigned incorrectly to Marcus Aurelius:

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

 

[durangodawood]

Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

I rest my case.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I rest my case.

So many cases. So little time.

 

[durangodawood]

So many cases. So little time.

Well it helps when I can steal them from smart people.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Atheists, do you ever worry what will happen to you if you are wrong in your disbelief in God and He really does exist. Do you find the thought of there being no afterlife depressing?

I'm surprised people still use Pascal's wager or a variation of it.

 

[JGL53]

I'm surprised people still use Pascal's wager or a variation of it.

I'm not. "People" - in general - most of the time - just aren't that smart.

We need to mandate Logic 101 classes in schools for children at about age 10. In time the human race might aspire to being something more than being hairless upright apes - in general.

 

[Tinker Grey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=kp

 

[Mediate]

I'm not. "People" - in general - most of the time - just aren't that smart.

We need to mandate Logic 101 classes in schools for children at about age 10. In time the human race might aspire to being something more than hairless upright apes -in general.

Intelligence is relative, and it is for some reason measured by particular standards in a society that deems a particular brand of perspective intelligent over another. The patterns of logical objective thought seem to pervade our educational system but as Amos Dolbear once said:

'Everyone is genius, yet if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that its stupid'.

Dolbear was a renowned physicist and inventor, and he couldn't have done the things he did if he did not understand the subjectivity and relativity of consciousness and experience.

Absolute logical, linear thought is only one small facet of 'intelligence'. Einstein once said 'if at first an idea is not utterly absurd, then there is no hope for it'.

Socrates said 'I know that I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing'. In other-words, perhaps intelligence isn't knowledge itself but the knowledge that there is so much that exists in life that the quest for ultimate knowledge ends with accepting you can never know it.

Intelligence isn't always measured with logic. Sometimes it isn't measured at all.

 

[JGL53]

Intelligence is relative ...Intelligence isn't always measured with logic. Sometimes it isn't measured at all.

All true. But on some issues intelligence and dedication to reducing subjectivity to a minimum is all you need.

One example of this is: 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10 mathematics.

Another one is: discerning that all forms of Pascal's Wager is bunk.

Know what I mean, brother?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I'm not. "People" - in general - most of the time - just aren't that smart.

We need to mandate Logic 101 classes in schools for children at about age 10. In time the human race might aspire to being something more than hairless upright apes -in general.

I don't think that it has anything to do with intelligence. Honestly, a lot of people just consider theism (and more specifically, their brand of theism) to be the default. It strikes them as absurd that anyone would deviate from that, and if someone does, it has to be because they're angry at God, or because they want to be immoral, or because they're illogical and someone's lied to them.

You get the first one even with people who are more secular in a "spiritual but not religious" sense. If I had a dollar for every atheist in a movie who was ticked at God because his sister died/he grew up in a bad neighborhood/he lost his cookie (note: it's always a he), I would have...well, probably enough to buy a chair or something, but that's beside the point.

The second one, you see all the time in evangelical circles where members might have met less devout believers or people who fill in none-of-the-above on religious questions, but not any open atheists. The third, you pretty much only see in evangelical tracts or films like the recent wonder of the world, God's Not Dead.

Ultimately, if you think like that and you believe that your faith is self-evidently true because you've never considered any other options, Pascal's Wager is going to seem reasonable. That doesn't make it actually reasonable, but I don't think that most people think these things through. Dogmatism makes that virtually impossible with more fundamentalist believers. The risk that you might become an atheist if you try to think about how an atheist really sees the world might seem too great.

 

[JGL53]

I don't think that it has anything to do with intelligence. Honestly, a lot of people just consider theism (and more specifically, their brand of theism) to be the default. It strikes them as absurd that anyone would deviate from that, and if someone does, it has to be because they're angry at God, or because they want to be immoral, or because they're illogical and someone's lied to them.

You get the first one even with people who are more secular in a "spiritual but not religious" sense. If I had a dollar for every atheist in a movie who was ticked at God because his sister died/he grew up in a bad neighborhood/he lost his cookie (note: it's always a he), I would have...well, probably enough to buy a chair or something, but that's beside the point.

The second one, you see all the time in evangelical circles where members might have met less devout believers or people who fill in none-of-the-above on religious questions, but not any open atheists. The third, you pretty much only see in evangelical tracts or films like the recent wonder of the world, God's Not Dead.

Ultimately, if you think like that and you believe that your faith is self-evidently true because you've never considered any other options, Pascal's Wager is going to seem reasonable. That doesn't make it actually reasonable, but I don't think that most people think these things through. Dogmatism makes that virtually impossible with more fundamentalist believers. The risk that you might become an atheist if you try to think about how an atheist really sees the world might seem too great.

Yes, all that too.

I think I was arguing for teaching children HOW to think as a mandated course. Most people have enough native intelligence to understand and separate logical argument from illogic argument if given the tools to do so.

It's just a dream of mine. I know it is highly unlikely to happen.

 

[Mediate]

I don't think that it has anything to do with intelligence. Honestly, a lot of people just consider theism (and more specifically, their brand of theism) to be the default. It strikes them as absurd that anyone would deviate from that, and if someone does, it has to be because they're angry at God, or because they want to be immoral, or because they're illogical and someone's lied to them.

You get the first one even with people who are more secular in a "spiritual but not religious" sense. If I had a dollar for every atheist in a movie who was ticked at God because his sister died/he grew up in a bad neighborhood/he lost his cookie (note: it's always a he), I would have...well, probably enough to buy a chair or something, but that's beside the point.

The second one, you see all the time in evangelical circles where members might have met less devout believers or people who fill in none-of-the-above on religious questions, but not any open atheists. The third, you pretty much only see in evangelical tracts or films like the recent wonder of the world, God's Not Dead.

Ultimately, if you think like that and you believe that your faith is self-evidently true because you've never considered any other options, Pascal's Wager is going to seem reasonable. That doesn't make it actually reasonable, but I don't think that most people think these things through. Dogmatism makes that virtually impossible with more fundamentalist believers. The risk that you might become an atheist if you try to think about how an atheist really sees the world might seem too great.

The last sentence resonates.

I see harm in blindly discounting a theory or idea if it contradicts your own conceptualizations. I do not, however, see harm in assuming a view and endeavouring to understand it, yet simultaneously realizing that adherence to this idea is by all accounts a choice you can make or not make.

 

[Mediate]

Yes, all that too.

I think I was arguing for teaching children HOW to think as a mandated course. Most people have enough native intelligence to understand and separate logical argument from illogic argument if given the tools to do so.

It's just a dream of mine. I know it is highly unlikely to happen.

But HOW each think is what makes humans individuals. It is one thing to propose objective knowledge and then allow a student to digest it and question it, to teach many sides of one coin, to encourage analysis and questioning, but holding children to a particular, singular brand of perception itself seems very brainwashy.

I would always encourage a child to question things, to stimulate them to look at the subjectivity of consciousness, of everything and its relativity, because objective reason and the promotion of singular perspective only perpetuates the dogmatic learning processes we already seem to embrace.

 

[JGL53]

But HOW each think is what makes humans individuals. It is one thing to propose objective knowledge and then allow a student to digest it and question it, to teach many sides of one coin, to encourage analysis and questioning, but holding children to a particular, singular brand of perception itself seems very brainwashy.

I would always encourage a child to question things, to stimulate them to look at the subjectivity of consciousness, of everything and its relativity, because objective reason and the promotion of singular perspective only perpetuates the dogmatic learning processes we already seem to embrace.

OK. No one is advocating brainwashing. If science teachers teach the latest in scientific understanding to their students are they brainwashing them? I think.

Would you have some objections to teaching students the fallacies inherent in Pascal's Wagner? Would that be brainwashing?

In school the point is to teach the most objectively determined facts, including everything from important dates in history to complex scientific principles that are well-established. Certainly students should be encouraged to ask questions and never just rely on authority. But then students don't get to make up their own personal facts. There is an expected right answer on a test and the students loses points if he answers otherwise. Do you for some reason disagree with that?

In school you get exposed to straight-up facts and understandings that are based in scientific and measured ways using empirical evidence. Intuitive reasoning and meditation and such is not on the curriculum - you can lobby for their inclusion if you wish.

There may very well be something more substantial to life than radical subjectivism or the teachings of the Dali Lama. Would you agree to that?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Atheists, do you ever worry what will happen to you if you are wrong in your disbelief in God and He really does exist. Do you find the thought of there being no afterlife depressing?

No, and no.

Mankind has created thousands of gods. Which one should I stake my belief in?

If I choose one, its a real long shot that I chose the correct one.

And I live my life as if this is the only one I get. Makes me treat it with much more respect imo.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yes, all that too.

I think I was arguing for teaching children HOW to think as a mandated course. Most people have enough native intelligence to understand and separate logical argument from illogic argument if given the tools to do so.

It's just a dream of mine. I know it is highly unlikely to happen.

I think that it would be a good idea, personally. Even getting someone to consider whether the arguments that they're hearing are actually good is a path toward getting us out of some of the problems that we've fallen into in the U.S. over the years.

 

[JGL53]

I think that it would be a good idea, personally. Even getting someone to consider whether the arguments that they're hearing are actually good is a path toward getting us out of some of the problems that we've fallen into in the U.S. over the years.

Many years ago, I mean like decades, I saw an ad in a science magazine for several different types of puzzles and games that were apparently being used with great effect teaching logic to gifted students in some Florida schools. I ordered on entitled "Propaganda" and enjoyed playing it with friends. It basically taught how to recognized logically fallacious arguments in any area of life. Many of the explanatory examples came from newspapers as I recall.

I think using some teaching tool like these games as a course would be good.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Atheists, do you ever worry what will happen to you if you are wrong in your disbelief in God and He really does exist. Do you find the thought of there being no afterlife depressing?

I agree with your OP. But I think we need to remember what the Scriptures tell us about unbelievers and why they will not come to God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Atheists, do you ever worry what will happen to you if you are wrong in your disbelief in God and He really does exist. Do you find the thought of there being no afterlife depressing?

What if we're both wrong? That God does exist but you are worshipping the wrong one? And this real God keeps getting madder and madder every time you ignore him and worship your fake one? I'd rather not worship at all.

Ken