C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This is hopelessly muddled thinking which I refuse to dignify with a reply.
Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist
- Status
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
The OP asked which is more likely to be true: theism or atheism. The problem with that question is: there are many different kinds of theism, all of which have similar levels of evidence for their complete truthfulness. So, we might be tempted to conclude that atheism is more “reasonable” since one doesn’t need evidence to merely have no belief. No form of theism seems to have enough evidence to justify it alone while excluding all others, but atheism is self-justified since it is merely the lack of belief in god(s). God(s) are not self-evident, not observable, and reason seems to be inconclusive, so the null hypothesis would seem to stand.This is hopelessly muddled thinking which I refuse to dignify with a reply.
However, “reasonableness” or “truthfulness” are not the only concerns here since several forms of theism come with threats of eternal torture. In that case, it might make sense to do a “threat assessment” to determine which theism one should subscribe to in order to minimize one’s chances of negative outcomes. No other religion offers as negative of an after-life outcome for as wide a variety of people as Islam, so it makes sense to subscribe to it if one is attempting to avoid a negative afterlife. If any other religion turns out to be true (except exclusivist Christianity) and one chooses Islam, the afterlife outcome is acceptable anyway. But, if Islam is true and you don’t choose it, endless doom awaits.
Pascal engaged in analogous reasoning, in my opinion. I wouldn’t call it “muddled” necessarily, maybe “slimy” or something like that.
B
Bradski
Guest
Not all Hindus are theists. And they believe in an afterlife.
‘Well, OK, give me an atheist who is not a Buddhist or a Hindu who will argue for an afterlife.’
And Jainists do not have a god but have an afterlife.
‘Well, OK, give me an atheist who is not a Buddhist or a Hindu OR a Jianist who will argue for an afterlife.’
Etc etc
T
Trident_H
Guest
Nothing to laugh about at a funeral. And you’re trying to bring me to a relativistic one. Empty of deep meaning.
Most of these ‘purchasers’ never even owned the brand-name product. They settled for a cheap knock-off and found out all the most important parts were plastic.OH boy. How about a joke:
- Mark Twain
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…
Others were too lazy to finish putting it together. While more didn’t even take theirs totally out of the box.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The null hypothesis is self-destructive when applied to reality as a whole. It leads to precisely nothing…The OP asked which is more likely to be true: theism or atheism. The problem with that question is: there are many different kinds of theism, all of which have similar levels of evidence for their complete truthfulness. So, we might be tempted to conclude that atheism is more “reasonable” since one doesn’t need evidence to merely have no belief. No form of theism seems to have enough evidence to justify it alone while excluding all others, but atheism is self-justified since it is merely the lack of belief in god(s). God(s) are not self-evident, not observable, and reason seems to be inconclusive, so the null hypothesis would seem to stand.
However, “reasonableness” or “truthfulness” are not the only concerns here since several forms of theism come with threats of eternal torture. In that case, it might make sense to do a “threat assessment” to determine which theism one should subscribe to in order to minimize one’s chances of negative outcomes. No other religion offers as negative of an after-life outcome for as wide a variety of people as Islam, so it makes sense to subscribe to it if one is attempting to avoid a negative afterlife. If any other religion turns out to be true (except exclusivist Christianity) and one chooses Islam, the afterlife outcome is acceptable anyway. But, if Islam is true and you don’t choose it, endless doom awaits.
Pascal engaged in analogous reasoning, in my opinion. I wouldn’t call it “muddled” necessarily, maybe “slimy” or something like that.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The implication that Mark invented the idea of eternal hell is gratuitous.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
You’re right, it was an idea floating around in middle eastern religious traditions at the time. I doubt Mark completely fabricated it. It probably got absorbed into early Christian belief sometime in the 40s or 50s. Many of the contemporary “Christian” writings that did not end up in the official canon contained numerous pagan (non-Jewish) influences. It seems reasonable to believe this is just one more that “slipped through.” I mean, how would the Greeks who sorted this all out have any idea what didn’t make sense in the context of a Jewish culture 3 centuries after the fact?
T
tonyrey
Guest
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
If the wager argument was all you had to contend with, you would have a point.However, “reasonableness” or “truthfulness” are not the only concerns here since several forms of theism come with threats of eternal torture. In that case, it might make sense to do a “threat assessment” to determine which theism one should subscribe to in order to minimize one’s chances of negative outcomes. No other religion offers as negative of an after-life outcome for as wide a variety of people as Islam, so it makes sense to subscribe to it if one is attempting to avoid a negative afterlife. If any other religion turns out to be true (except exclusivist Christianity) and one chooses Islam, the afterlife outcome is acceptable anyway. But, if Islam is true and you don’t choose it, endless doom awaits.
Pascal engaged in analogous reasoning, in my opinion. I wouldn’t call it “muddled” necessarily, maybe “slimy” or something like that.
But Pascal is not so limited with the wager as you think. Read the rest of Pensees and you discover that the real reason to be a Christian is that Christianity is the most reasonable of all religions. Aquinas thought so too. The limitations of Islam as a religion are abundantly evident to us today. If you are living in Arab countries, it is obvious your argument would carry weight. Better Islam than Christian or Atheist. But we do not live in Arab countries, and the prospect that America would someday be ruled by Arabs is terrifyingly absurd to most people, especially Christians. Atheists also better not be arguing against Islam, as I see you are not. Believe it, hell is offered as a possibility by Christ as well, so be careful which God you choose.
Thomas Aquinas:
"He (Mohammed) seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh urges us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected; he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity.
He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the Contrary, Mohammed said that he was sent in the power of his arms - which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning (1). Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Mohammed forced others to become his follower’s by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimony of the Old and the New Testaments by making them into a fabrication of his own, as can be seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place faith in his words believe foolishly."
- Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 1, Chapter 16, Art. 4. Footnote: 1. Sura 21:5, Sura 44:14; Sura 16:103, Sura 37:36
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
I don’t remember proclaiming Mark’s doctrine of hell to be untrue, I was merely offering an explanation for its origin. You’re right, the source of belief has no bearing on whether it is true or not, which is why I’m baffled when people say we should believe utter nonsense simply because Jesus, or an ordinary magisterium, or an infallible Pope proclaimed it. Genetic fallacy!
I don’t care what Richard Dawkins thinks. Genetic fallacy!
Oh boy, here we go with more “diabolical wickedness.” Oddly enough, much of the diabolical wickedness today seems to be perpetrated by religious zealots as opposed to skeptics. Hell is a doctrine appealing to our basic fearful instincts, and the religiously motivated suicide bombers and mass-murderers of today very much believe in it and desire to send others there. It is spiritual terrorism, and both it and the regular kind of terrorism should be shunned by all reasonable and decent people.
P
PumpkinCookie
Guest
Pascal also rejected the forms of Catholicism popular today. He was a Jansenist “heretic.” I don’t believe Islam is true either, I was merely mocking the wager argument. Also, FYI, there are large numbers of non-Arab Muslims. The most populous majority Muslim countries are not Arab majority (Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh).If the wager argument was all you had to contend with, you would have a point.
But Pascal is not so limited with the wager as you think. Read the rest of Pensees and you discover that the real reason to be a Christian is that Christianity is the most reasonable of all religions. Aquinas thought so too. The limitations of Islam as a religion are abundantly evident to us today. If you are living in Arab countries, it is obvious your argument would carry weight. Better Islam than Christian or Atheist. But we do not live in Arab countries, and the prospect that America would someday be ruled by Arabs is terrifyingly absurd to most people, especially Christians. Atheists also better not be arguing against Islam, as I see you are not. Believe it, hell is offered as a possibility by Christ as well, so be careful which God you choose.
Since I am perfectly safe with my anonymous internet user name in a country with civil rights, I will happily argue against the truthfulness of Islam. If I lived in an Islamic theocracy I’d probably just toe the line since I’d rather live and pretend to believe nonsense than die denouncing it. Thank goodness for religious freedom!
That’s a fascinating quote! Especially this part: “What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning.” The same could be said of Jesus, couldn’t it? Educated Greeks, Jews, and Romans didn’t take it seriously at all. Suetonius called it “mischievous superstition.” Pliny the younger remarked that it was a “depraved, excessive superstition.” Paul recounts the rejection he faced in open-minded Athens. The scholars and experts of Judaism thought Jesus was a madman. His followers were almost exclusively ignorant and illiterate. Even today, where people are prosperous and free, droves are moving away from these beliefs. It is growing only in places where they still believe in witches and call the shaman prior to the doctor.
Regarding violence and force, it is true that there were rivers of blood right from the beginning of Islam. It is true that Jesus was not known to have committed any acts of ill temper or violence (except cursing the fig tree and flipping the money tables). Jesus was clearly a superior character to Muhammad. If I had to choose between living in a Christian theocracy and a Wahabist Islamic theocracy, I would choose the Christian one without hesitation. However, an agnostic secular state with robust personal freedom seems preferable to both.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Good luck finding one.
If you are thinking America is an “agnostic secular state with robust personal freedoms”
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
When I was a young man, this was assuredly a better country to live in because it was more of a Christian state with robust personal freedoms.
Today it is more of a robust immoral state dominated in the daily news by violence and pornographic images thanks to “agnostic/atheist secularism.”
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The irony of your remarks is that the wisdom of Christianity triumphed over Greek and Roman religion. The apostles were not exclusively ignorant and illiterate, but were open to a wisdom that even the Jews had long ago abandoned with their corrupt Sanhedrin.
Today yes droves are turning away from these beliefs because the world is on the fast track to hell, not because Jesus, Paul and Peter were witches or shamans.
T
tonyrey
Guest
On the contrary. It is absurd to believe Jesus would permit the successor of the apostle He appointed as the head of the Church to promulgate false doctrine.
You have just stated "I don’t remember proclaiming Mark’s doctrine of hell to be untrue…"!
“Hell is a doctrine appealing to our basic fearful instincts.” Another genetic fallacy!
It is absurd to believe terrorists are in heaven with all reasonable and decent people…
T
tonyrey
Guest
Have you ever lived in “an agnostic secular state with robust personal freedom” for everyone? If so where is it?
J
jtpearson
Guest
Where “people are prosperous and free” and moving away from theistic attachment as you say they also struggle to reproduce at the level of repopulation, suffer increased rates of depression, and voluntarily kill themselves (suicide) at rates exceeding the more superstitious regions of the globe, shamans included.
These more prosperous and modern nations typically labeled the West, these “agnostic secular state
Let’s take the US as an example. Our ability to simply govern ourselves, pass budgets, and not perpetually hate each other increasingly falls victim to ever more bifurcative politics and the platforms of the two major parties’ candidates leave little room to blame this disfunction on religious radicals of any stripe. Abortion’s been the hot bottom religious issue in this country for decades. So naming the current pro-life candidate seems like a relevant point here: it’s Donald Trump. If he loses this November you could probably get him to perform an abortion himself for the right amount of money. Whatever’s wrong with this country those coexist bumper stickers don’t seem to adequately grasp the problem anymore.
Whereas any group of humans will have a certain amount of wack jobs, religious radicals, and frustrated ex-employees it’s the modern, liberal, increasingly agnostic citizens of the West who have, since the early 90’s, become consistently more likely to initiate mass casualty civilian attacks when we become wack jobs, religious radicals, or frustrated ex-employees. Sub-Saharan Africa may have a lot going for it, but they can’t touch our proclivity for randomly killing each other. At least we’re less superstitious than they are.
Apart from a tautological nationalism (Our country’s good because we like it), what is it exactly that makes a Western secular nation cohesive in the sense we usually assume nations are? Or perhaps the better question for those of us in the West is that, having moved beyond the biases, stupidity, and superstitions of super-natural attachment; is there any cohesive force holding our nations together? Apart from the military and police that is.
When we in the West do have to finally struggle with the inevitable existential questions of a society: who are we? What makes we … we? It’s telling that both the quoted argument above and our national discourse share an identical horizon: our own political self-definition.
Pumpkin Cookie’s final rubric for a relgion’s merits is how it’s stereotyped extreme form would organize society if it was allowed utter political power. When the American news cycle finds itself temporarily lacking a tragedy our national discourse likewise turns to the only horizon available once we’ve all agreed to stop talking about God, smile and be secular: political self-definition. Why else would everyone get so worked up about who the government will let us marry and who gets to use which bathroom? Because there’s nowhere else to look for self-defining orientation in the secular West, just the government.
Modern, agnostic secularism has many merits in my opinion, but the assumption that it is the philosophical and political culmination of human history, though still widespread, is a vestige of 20th century liberal thought that really ought to be updated. Once the victory lap around superstitious shamans, Christians, Jews, and Muslims is complete, that is.
T
Trident_H
Guest
Good luck finding one.
If you are thinking America is an “agnostic secular state with robust personal freedoms”
I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
When I was a young man, this was assuredly a better country to live in because it was more of a Christian state with robust personal freedoms.
Today it is more of a robust immoral state dominated in the daily news by violence and pornographic images thanks to “agnostic/atheist secularism.”
B
Bradski
Guest
America is the most Christian society in Western civilization. That is, the most Christian society on the planet.
How do ypu think you are doing?
T
tonyrey
Guest
:clapping: Welcome to the forum! You’re a real asset.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Is it? In what respects?
How about you define what it means to be “most Christian” and see where America stands.
I foresee a bait and switch coming on; along with a deflection to No True Scotsman.
Yet, if you wish to make a claim like “America is the most Christian society in Western civilization” you have to be prepared to defend such a claim, no?
Other than to make an appeal to what “most people” nominally claim about themselves, I mean.
Words do have meaning, no?
Surely, it isn’t a sufficient definition of the word “Christian” that it is to be taken to mean whatever anyone who uses the word wishes it to mean, correct?
Isn’t that the very reason No True Scotsman is a fallacy in the sense spelled out by the anecdote? That the word “Scotsman” is not clearly defined by the claimant? Which is precisely the problem with the way that you will propose the word “Christian” be used in your claim – in some imprecise way?
I am certain there is more to coming up with a proper answer to the question than what is commonly supposed, which is why your claim about America being the “most Christian” society is to be challenged to see if it actually carries any meaning whatsoever.
- Status