Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[meltzerboy]

“Compassion, mercy, tolerance” are not owned by Francis as opposed to Benedict and the other popes who came before him.

I just don’t get your point. You make an interesting insinuation and then fail to clarify.

I certainly don’t think Francis has implied there is a road to salvation through atheism.

That would be bizarre and unprecedented as a papal opinion.

The only road open to atheists for their salvation is to repudiate their refusal to acknowledge God, beg forgiveness for their sins, and strive for holiness.

Otherwise, its the official teaching of the Church and even found in Scripture that atheism is a deadly sin with a terrible consequence.

Is the latter statement really the official teaching of the Church?

 

[Bradski]

We should just be grateful for the gift of life we were given…

It seems it’s not enough for most people. I’m not aware of any religion that does’t have a happy-ever-after in the small print.

Which is entirely reasonable as far as I am concerned.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

“Compassion, mercy, tolerance” are not owned by Francis as opposed to Benedict and the other popes who came before him.

I just don’t get your point. You make an interesting insinuation and then fail to clarify.

I certainly don’t think Francis has implied there is a road to salvation through atheism.

That would be bizarre and unprecedented as a papal opinion.

The only road open to atheists for their salvation is to repudiate their refusal to acknowledge God, beg forgiveness for their sins, and strive for holiness.

Otherwise, its the official teaching of the Church and even found in Scripture that atheism is a deadly sin with a terrible consequence.

One of my observations is that Pope Francis seems to be employing a different branding strategy. He is de-emphasizing the strident proclamations of infallible certainty and emphasizing emotional appeals to compassion. His message seems to be “become a Catholic to enhance your love of others because Jesus, etc” rather than “submit to the Roman Pontiff and believe these specific dogmas or burn in endless hell, sinners!” The latter strategy doesn’t work too well on increasing numbers of people since the 18th century or so. I think it makes sense to shift emphasis.

That said, it is a tough question to answer whether it is more reasonable to be an atheist or theist. I think a decision chart could be made for this. There are a lot of contingencies and “if-then” operators since there are so many gods to believe in simultaneously. Some of them are exclusivist and others inclusivist. It’s a very tough choice. I guess maybe believing in Allah is the most practical. That way, if Islam turns out to be true, you’re good. If Judaism is true, also good, ditto with atheism, Hinduism, and inclusivist forms of Christianity. I suppose if exclusivist forms of Christianity are true, then you’re outta luck. But, if you subscribe to any other religious belief and Islam turns out to be true, it’s endless hell for you! So, if you are trying to maximize your chances of avoiding eternal torture, Islam seems like the most reasonable choice.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I think one of the most (of many) convincing arguments for God - is just simply how out of reach of human reason / comprehension that notion is. It is so contrary to human logical thinking within the confines of the present - it strikes us as closer to absurd, maybe mystery is better. Ditto the fact of a hereafter. Not saying that is proof of God; but I feel more comfortable with something beyond me than human explanations, assumptions about existence. All of life points to an expansion, being far beyond the human scope, understanding. (unless you are an atheist of course, in which case, you’ve got it all down, no prob)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One of my observations is that Pope Francis seems to be employing a different branding strategy. He is de-emphasizing the strident proclamations of infallible certainty and emphasizing emotional appeals to compassion. His message seems to be “become a Catholic to enhance your love of others because Jesus, etc” rather than “submit to the Roman Pontiff and believe these specific dogmas or burn in endless hell, sinners!” The latter strategy doesn’t work too well on increasing numbers of people since the 18th century or so. I think it makes sense to shift emphasis.

That said, it is a tough question to answer whether it is more reasonable to be an atheist or theist. I think a decision chart could be made for this. There are a lot of contingencies and “if-then” operators since there are so many gods to believe in simultaneously. Some of them are exclusivist and others inclusivist. It’s a very tough choice. I guess maybe believing in Allah is the most practical. That way, if Islam turns out to be true, you’re good. If Judaism is true, also good, ditto with atheism, Hinduism, and inclusivist forms of Christianity. I suppose if exclusivist forms of Christianity are true, then you’re outta luck. But, if you subscribe to any other religious belief and Islam turns out to be true, it’s endless hell for you! So, if you are trying to maximize your chances of avoiding eternal torture, Islam seems like the most reasonable choice.

I don’t agree that Francis is offering a new brand of Catholicism. He is, if anything, offering the usual Jesuit brand, which is predictable since he was a Jesuit.

Damnation is offered as a possible judgment in all three brands of Abrahamic religion. So I don’t see how you escape it by choosing one over the other two.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Comparative study of religions is really fascinating in this regard - how do people view God. There are a lot of basic parallels between human beings from all time periods and religions in terms of belief in a higher power. Atheism is very new (last few centuries) and confined to the scientific, materialistic West, largely.

Hinduism in one of the most developed, advanced religions; there is a lot of knowledge, wisdom there, even if they don’t quite get as far as the Christian faith to my mind. (re redemption / love / mercy / forgiveness / compassion / transcendence) I have a lot of respect for Hinduism. Also the American Indian religions are quite interesting.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, if you are trying to maximize your chances of avoiding eternal torture, Islam seems like the most reasonable choice.

Your probability calculus seems completely out of whack if this is what it gets you to as “the most reasonable choice.”

My guess, based upon the fact that Jesus’ words regarding keeping the kingdom hidden from the “wise” who plot and scheme always to their advantage and revealing its secrets only to innocent and unsuspecting children, is that the whole method you are proposing to “maximize your chances” has been exposed as entirely unprofitable, even to the extent of being a great millstone hung around the neck.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One of my observations is that Pope Francis seems to be employing a different branding strategy. He is de-emphasizing the strident proclamations of infallible certainty and emphasizing emotional appeals to compassion. His message seems to be “become a Catholic to enhance your love of others because Jesus, etc” rather than “submit to the Roman Pontiff and believe these specific dogmas or burn in endless hell, sinners!” The latter strategy doesn’t work too well on increasing numbers of people since the 18th century or so. I think it makes sense to shift emphasis.

Actually, the New Testament sets the standard for the threat of hellfire. Your beef appears to be with Jesus, not with earlier popes as opposed to Francis.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

 

[meltzerboy]

Actually, the New Testament sets the standard for the threat of hellfire. Your beef appears to be with Jesus, not with earlier popes as opposed to Francis.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

I am almost sure that last statement by Mark is not the full Church teaching. It really must be interpreted more completely according to Catholic belief.

 

[meltzerboy]

It seems it’s not enough for most people. I’m not aware of any religion that does’t have a happy-ever-after in the small print.

Which is entirely reasonable as far as I am concerned.

Welcome to Judaism. Not even small print for some.

 

[Trident_H]

I have nothing to offer. You do you, no worries.

Then why tell me to lighten up? If you’ve got nothing straight to add instead?

For me it is ideal to be both good and happy. I’d say this works out most of the time. Sometimes, it seems like I have to choose to be good rather than happy. In those moments, my faith is that goodness outweighs happiness. The sun is amazing isn’t it? We all take it for granted but wow!

Glad it’s filling your void like that.

You know, I just can’t answer this without sarcasm or potentially ban-able derision so I’ll refrain.

I really wish you wouldn’t refrain. I wish you’d take the gloves off and tell me something real instead.

Not all sales pitches work on all people. I like Pope Francis, he seems like a very sincere and loving person. I’m a tough sell though; I do a lot of research and read every review before I buy something. Way too many negative reviews and questionable components of this product for me, I’m afraid.

For every 3 negative reviews there are usually 2 people complaining because they didn’t read the directions properly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am almost sure that last statement by Mark is not the full Church teaching. It really must be interpreted more completely according to Catholic belief.

The statement is by Jesus, not Mark. Your disagreement is not with me or Mark. It is with Jesus.

Interpretation is not the issue. It’s self evident what it says:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

Unlike Protestantism, the Catholic Church is not in the business of second guessing the words of Jesus as if he had not fully and clearly developed them on his own, or as if Mark had not clearly stated them or had erroneously rendered them. Mark was a disciple of Peter, and would have received these words directly from Peter, who received them directly from our Lord. .

 

[Nixbits]

Incidentally, since DaddyGirl didn’t reply to your post:
Charlemagne III:

Still waiting for you to identify the name of a reputable atheist who believes in reincarnation, and why he/she would hold such a belief.

There are around 500 million Buddhists. They don’t believe in God or gods but they believe in the cycle of rebirth. There are plenty of reputable sources of information about Buddhism that should help to explain why they hold such beliefs.

 

[Nixbits]

FollowChrist34:

Atheism is very new (last few centuries) and confined to the scientific, materialistic West, largely.

The notion that atheism is a modern invention made possible only by the secular scientific society is not necessarily true. It’s an idea reinforced by both theists and atheists. But disbelief in the supernatural is significantly more ancient than most people think.

Plato imagined a believer berating an atheist by saying that there were always those who disbelieved in the gods. Such examples of atheism being commonplace reoccur throughout much of the history of ancient Greece. There was little religious orthodoxy and atheism was often tolerated.

Whereas most cultures have had a dominant form of religious belief, there have always been those that have disbelieved.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Incidentally, since DaddyGirl didn’t reply to your post:

There are around 500 million Buddhists. They don’t believe in God or gods but they believe in the cycle of rebirth. There are plenty of reputable sources of information about Buddhism that should help to explain why they hold such beliefs.

This is a generalization that bears scrutiny. Not all Buddhists are atheists. Those who are don’t offer an explanation for how another life through reincarnation is possible. It is a belief without substance.

Certainly it is difficult to find an atheist who is not a Buddhist who will argue for an afterlife.

If you find one, let me know, and also if you would, provide me with the rationale for such an atheist’s belief in the afterlife. Thanks.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The notion that atheism is a modern invention made possible only by the secular scientific society is not necessarily true.

Quite right. Until the time of Darwin, atheism was not at all popular among scientists. It is still repudiated by many scientists.

In the ancient world there were atheists even among the thinkers, but not so many. The atheism that was popular among the thinkers arose at least partly from the disgust with Greek and Roman mythology. But Plato and Aristotle became useful to Christian philosophers, especially from the time of Augustine through the 13th Century.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Your probability calculus seems completely out of whack if this is what it gets you to as “the most reasonable choice.”

My guess, based upon the fact that Jesus’ words regarding keeping the kingdom hidden from the “wise” who plot and scheme always to their advantage and revealing its secrets only to innocent and unsuspecting children, is that the whole method you are proposing to “maximize your chances” has been exposed as entirely unprofitable, even to the extent of being a great millstone hung around the neck.

Here is how I arrived at that answer:

If you choose Islam and Islam is true:
If you choose Islam and Judaism is true: (no idol worship)
If you choose Islam and INCLUSIVIST Christianity is true:
If you choose Islam and Hinduism is true:
If you choose Islam and Atheism is true:
If you choose Islam and any other form of inclusivist religion is true (most of them):
If you choose Islam and EXCLUSIVIST Christianity is true:
If you choose Islam and Mormonism is true: telestial kingdom? outer darkness?

But:

If Islam is true, and you choose any other religious belief: hell forever. And, Islamic hell is FAR worse than Christian hell nowadays.

There is only one case where you’re at risk by choosing Islam (exclusivist Christianity being true). (I mean, the telestial kingdom doesn’t really seem so bad).

However, for every other religious belief, you’re at risk of hell if Islam is true, and at risk of multiple hells if others are true.

Are you not motivated by this kind of reasoning? It seems a little crass doesn’t it? That’s why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t really work…in my opinion.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I don’t agree that Francis is offering a new brand of Catholicism. He is, if anything, offering the usual Jesuit brand, which is predictable since he was a Jesuit.

Damnation is offered as a possible judgment in all three brands of Abrahamic religion. So I don’t see how you escape it by choosing one over the other two.

Right but if you’re a Muslim you probably won’t end up in Jewish hell since you didn’t worship any idols and the commandments are similar. Plus, Jewish hell is only temporary anyway.

If you’re a Muslim you probably won’t end up in Christian hell either, at least from what I’ve read of Vatican II.

But, both Christians (idol worshipers) and Jews (those who fail to heed the prophet) are headed straight for Islamic hell if that turns out to be true.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Actually, the New Testament sets the standard for the threat of hellfire. Your beef appears to be with Jesus, not with earlier popes as opposed to Francis.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

Weird how Mark left the “submit to the Roman Pontiff” part out. True, Mark did introduce the idea of eternal hell: a totally foreign concept to the Judaism of the time. Odd how Moses forgot to bring that up, considering how it seems like a big deal and he brought up quite a bit of other stuff in extreme detail…

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Then why tell me to lighten up? If you’ve got nothing straight to add instead?

Humor and levity can make the harshest burdens a little more bearable, I think.

Glad it’s filling your void like that.

I really wish you wouldn’t refrain. I wish you’d take the gloves off and tell me something real instead.

OH boy. How about a joke:

Satan hasn’t a single salaried helper; the opposition employs a million.

• Mark Twain

That sums up my attitude toward the relation of “marketing” and “churches.” Those helpers need to be paid somehow…

For every 3 negative reviews there are usually 2 people complaining because they didn’t read the directions properly.

LOL! True! I like the “expert” reviews and “verified purchase” reviews for that reason. Lots of experts and verified purchasers have moved away from this product since the 18th century though…