NationStates Jolt Archive

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Pascal's wager come on.

Ah, yes Pascal's Wager, or at least a form of it.

If an atheist doesn't believe in god or heaven, joining a religion would be basically pointless. Why join a religion in which you don't believe?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
What's the point? I have my own personal moral code, which ties in closely to most world religions. If I don't believe in God, or any other deity, why would I try a religion?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

And which one of the several thousand that people have dreamed up over the years would you suggest we try? And why should we favor it over any other? And how can you try a religion without believing in it's central object of worship in the first place? That's not so much trying as acting, and what would be the point of that exactly?

As for what the harm would be... depends on what the religion is doesn't it?

What's the point? I have my own personal moral code, which ties in closely to most world religions. If I don't believe in God, or any other deity, why would I try a religion?
I think you're just lazy.

I decided to give Reformed Huitizilopochtlism a shot. Is that good enough for you?

I think you're just lazy.
No, he's being sensible.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Why should I?

I think you're just lazy.
I *am* lazy! But that's not the reason I don't follow a religion. I had a religious background for the first 10-12 years of my life, and, after some thought, I decided I disagree with the idea of there being a supreme being.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
Many atheists I've talked with have tried a religion. If they don't believe why should they pretend to? I am sure you don't suggest they lie with their actions and prettend to be and believe something they do not.

I decided to give Reformed Huitizilopochtlism a shot. Is that good enough for you?

Ooh, sounds fun. Does it involve human sacrifice, or is that what the Reformed is about?

Anyway, to any Theist who doesn't understand how ridiculous this suggestion is, why don't you try giving Atheism a go?

Ooh, sounds fun. Does it involve human sacrifice, or is that what the Reformed is about?
Well, in traditional Huitzilopochtlism you sacrifice a human in a stone altar by cutting her (or his, but it's more often her) chest open with an obsidian knife, ripping the heart out, and eating it while it's still beating.

In the Reformed version you can cook the heart. I mean, there's no reason to risk an infection.

That's not a sensible question for anybody. It's as offensive to theists as it is to athiests. One of the largest problems with the world of faith and theism today is that people follow precepts without actually believing in the message behind them or investigating what that message means to them. This attitude leads to idiotic fundamentalists like Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son who said God punished New Orleans for sin.

Believe or don't believe, but do it honestly because you think it's right not because you don't have anything to lose.

Ooh, sounds fun. Does it involve human sacrifice, or is that what the Reformed is about?

Given the Aztec history, that would involve a fair bit of reformation. :)

Maybe it's just taking the first steps towards it - only sacrificing adults, say.

EDIT: I wasn't too far off...

I actually feel some religions would be pretty cool to follow, binds the community together etc - but rationally I just couldn't bring myself to believe, so would feel like a faker.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

If you don't believe in Communism, what would be the hurt to join the Communist Party of America?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
Try a religion?

How? Do we suggest to the religious that they try atheism? It's not something you can do by wearing a different slogan T-shirt and changing your hairstyle. :rolleyes:

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

If you only believe in the Christian god (I assume that you are Christian), what's the harm in giving some other religions a go? It'll be good fun.

Try a religion?

How? Do we suggest to the religious that they try atheism? It's not something you can do by wearing a different slogan T-shirt and changing your hairstyle. :rolleyes:

Perhaps like a wine tasting?

Perhaps like a wine tasting?
Mmmmh... Consacration Wine...

Well, in traditional Huitzilopochtlism you sacrifice a human in a stone altar by cutting her (or his, but it's more often her) chest open with an obsidian knife, ripping the heart out, and eating it while it's still beating.

In the Reformed version you can cook the heart. I mean, there's no reason to risk an infection.

Ha ha, nice to see that the Aztec religions are keeping up with the times.

Try a religion?

How? Do we suggest to the religious that they try atheism? It's not something you can do by wearing a different slogan T-shirt and changing your hairstyle. :rolleyes:


I find it really interesting that many Christians (the ones who support Pascal's Wager) treat religion as something that can be changed at will like a pair of old socks. Makes me really wonder if they take it seriously or is it just a social club for them.

Actually...this is a fairly common theme that comes up throughout history.
Religions evolve and change, as they borrow aspects from other religions around them.

When I visited Thailand (which is predominantly buddhist) I saw a LOT of spirit houses, little houses with incence and such, along the roadsides. Apparently you make sacrifices to the spirits so they behave nice, help you out, don't eat your babies etc.

I asked our guide "I thought buddhists didn't believe in giving worship to spirits" "oh, yes. But the Thai are practical. If buddhism is right, there's no loss to them, and if it's wrong, the spirits won't be angry" - good answer.

And, in a case like this, I don't think the spirits care if you believe or not, as long as you leave the sacrifice. So an athieist could quite happily keep a spirit house.
Of course, an athiest who is sure about their beliefs might not see the point (although they could have other reasons, e.g. they want their children to grow up with the spiritual heritage)

Personally, I believe something similar, but the opposite. I'm atheist agnostic. I've seen no evidence that God exists (and I have looked) - I've seen no reason to be Christian over any other religion (and I've asked christians exactly this question - assuming I don't believe the Bible is any more holy than the Koran, or other scriptures, what's the clue that Christianity is right) - still, I was brought up in a Christian tradition, so when I think of a higher being, that's the one I think of.

I figure I'll live my life as well as I can, I'll build my own moral code by looking at the morals of those around me, and taking what I feel to be right from them, and if a God exists, it can reward me for using my initiative and living as good a life as possible. If that's not good enough for it, then I wouldn't be able to live up to its exacting standards anyway. If it wanted me to believe in a specific religion, I'm here actively keeping an eye out for the clues.

As such...what do I get out of a religion? I can spend Sunday in church. That's an unnecessary pain when I have so little free time as it is. I could meet other people who share beliefs with me....except I don't share their beliefs. I can have theological discussions with knowlegable people (now this one does interest me), but in a church setting that often comes down to "you must have faith" and I always end up with "why must I have faith?", and....despite what their beliefs tell them to do, there's often at least a few people who feel they are morally superior because they believe in their God, and I don't, and I'm somehow wrong, and that makes them better than me. I don't need to put up with that, especially when those people are often the ones who have never questioned their beliefs and come to their conclusions from rational thought. (yes, I'm just as guilty of sometimes thinking I'm morally superior)

So...the only real benefit I'd get would be if the God of that particular church happened to exist (which is pretty low odds, considering the number of religions, and how they've changed over time) - if the church was flexible enough to let me worship in my own way (I reject traditions in religion when I can see the obvious reason for the tradition and disagree) - and if the God in question didn't care that I didn't actually believe it existed.

Or...I could take this time and effort, and donate it to either earning money, or working in a soup kitchen, or doing other things to make peoples lives better (yes, me earning money makes peoples lives better. I have a regular donation to cancer study, as well as use my spare cash, little as it can be, to help where I can. Not always, but sometimes.)
How many God's will begrudge me this free time? And if they would, is it really worth MY effort to bother about THEM? (yes, my arrogance coming out again). I have better things to do than sing the praises of another without the other doing something observable that improves the world around them. I'd much rather sing the praises of people who I KNOW are helping.


----

On the other hand, if I misunderstood your question, and you meant "even if you're atheist, what's the harm of saying "well, god might exist, I don't know. I might as well accept he could be there", then yes...I already do that.

I won't go to church and push those beliefs on other people, though. If I teach my child that God exists (when I don't believe it, because what's the harm) then my child might never question that belief. And pass it down to their children. And church might become an accepted authority in matters that it really has no business being an authority, and people like Galileo might have to hide their studies, because it doesn't suit church dogma.

As long as people say "God might exist, but there's no evidence, so there's no reason to change what we're doing because of the possibility" then I have no problem with religious dogma or traditions. I actually think religion is wonderful, it can pull a community together, something our modern world seems to desperately need.

Pascal's wager come on.

I read a very interesting variation on this about a year ago.... If we look at it from a Christian pov- taking that we were created in god's image- we assume that since we are rational beings, god must also be. Now since there is not concrete proof for god, it would be illogical to assume that god exists. So perhaps, god wishes for us not to believe in him, since that is the rational choice. Kinda the opposite results of Blaise's.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Don't be silly, atheism isn't not believing in God and Heaven, it's about not believing in any religion's deities or afterlives.

And the 'hurt' would be wasting my time doing something I don't believe in. It would be like spending your time and money building a giant space antennae to be used in contacting aliens when you don't believe in aliens.

Actually...this is a fairly common theme that comes up throughout history.
Religions evolve and change, as they borrow aspects from other religions around them.

When I visited Thailand (which is predominantly buddhist) I saw a LOT of spirit houses, little houses with incence and such, along the roadsides. Apparently you make sacrifices to the spirits so they behave nice, help you out, don't eat your babies etc.

I asked our guide "I thought buddhists didn't believe in giving worship to spirits" "oh, yes. But the Thai are practical. If buddhism is right, there's no loss to them, and if it's wrong, the spirits won't be angry" - good answer.

And, in a case like this, I don't think the spirits care if you believe or not, as long as you leave the sacrifice. So an athieist could quite happily keep a spirit house.
Of course, an athiest who is sure about their beliefs might not see the point (although they could have other reasons, e.g. they want their children to grow up with the spiritual heritage)


It seems to me that some religions are compatible with this kind of "practical religious" thinking. Many people believe in a vast range of big and small supernatural beings, including local and foreign entities. It would make sense that when you follow such a belief system and hear of a new god you'll naturally assume that they exist and it wouldn't hurt to pay them some respect. I've heard that it is common in parts of Asia to have shrines to Jesus, Buddha and others.

However, the Christian religion has a focus on being the "one true religion", and usually incorporates all other religions as being the work of the devil so is not really consistent with this kind of thinking.

I read a very interesting variation on this about a year ago.... If we look at it from a Christian pov- taking that we were created in god's image- we assume that since we are rational beings, god must also be. Now since there is not concrete proof for god, it would be illogical to assume that god exists. So perhaps, god wishes for us not to believe in him, since that is the rational choice. Kinda the opposite results of Blaise's.

I don't think we could actually describe God as "rational". Apart from the fact that we supposedly can't comprehend God's mind, an omniscient being doesn't need to be rational. If you know everything, past, present and future, there is no need to systematically or logically consider anything, you would just know straight away. As we obviously don't have this power, we can't claim that our minds were created in God's image.

I find it really interesting that many Christians (the ones who support Pascal's Wager) treat religion as something that can be changed at will like a pair of old socks. Makes me really wonder if they take it seriously or is it just a social club for them.

Is this honestly a surprise?
They grow up being taught that christianity is right, yet they are surrounded by a secular society that doesn't reinforce the christian morals or beliefs.

If you never question a belief then it isn't as firmly set in your mind as "right" - at least, not in a way that you fully understand. If you question it, are willing to reject it, then decide it's right, you understand *why* it's right, or at least why you believe it's right.

I'm much happier to change my belief in things that I've been taught is right, rather than something I've decided for myself. Many people are. I'm happy to be catholic, or protestant, or greek orthodox, or... because I've never really considered which of those religions is "right" and examined them to find sufficient reason to believe one is better than the other.
I'm much less happy to change beteween an xbox, or a playstation, because I've looked at that for myself, examined the choices, made a decision based on what I observed. In my mind I firmly know which one is the better system. At least in my opinion.

Besides, why do we expect christians these days to be true believers? Throughout history we've had periods where whole societies were christian, brought up as christians, had their christian beliefs reinforced, and they still often didn't truly believe, or at least not act as their religions says they should. Heck, look at the crusades! I'm not going to condemn the church for that....let's just look at the individual cases. Many knights waddled off to the crusades for a good excuse to kill, maim, and rape. Condoned by the church, so they're "allowed" to. How many of those truly believed they were doing it for God? Some did, definately. I suspect not that many, though. Considering how many christians were killed by crusaders.

If we can't expect people on a *holy war* to practice what they preach, what chance do people in this modern world of sex-before-marriage, "take-the-bits-you-like" religion have?

(Apologies for bringing up the crusades. I don't mean it to bash christianity, just as an illustration. Apologies also to any offended christians, I am fully aware that many truly believe and act as they can according to their religion.)

However, the Christian religion has a focus on being the "one true religion", and usually incorporates all other religions as being the work of the devil so is not really consistent with this kind of thinking.

Yep, that was one of their cleverer ideas. Right there behind "Actually, God loves you. Truly, he does"

It rocketed them right up there. Who'd want to believe in Mars, god of war, who might be responsible for you and your family dying without giving a second thought, when you can believe in God, the only, and most powerful, who will protect you and your family.

And, if you choose the kind God, hey, he's the ONLY one. Mars is wrong. Tell your friends!

Interestingly, this worked well in the roman empire, the romans were very secure in their religions, and didn't mind much what people worshipped.

In scandanavia and such, they treated religion quite differently, where the villiages would worship their gods, often different gods to other villiages. Just saying "Here's one, but he's the ONLY one" didn't work well. The missionaries there instead said "Sure, your gods exist. They're pretty cool. But mine is BETTER. He's stronger and more powerful!" - there are stories of christian missionaries attacked by the believers of other religions, and God's powers showing he is the stronger.

Of course, even there, God didn't share or play nice. They still had to worship just him, if they wanted his protection and power.

In scandanavia and such, they treated religion quite differently, where the villiages would worship their gods, often different gods to other villiages. Just saying "Here's one, but he's the ONLY one" didn't work well. The missionaries there instead said "Sure, your gods exist. They're pretty cool. But mine is BETTER. He's stronger and more powerful!" - there are stories of christian missionaries attacked by the believers of other religions, and God's powers showing he is the stronger.

And in many cases these gods didn't disappear. They were transformed into saints that people could keep paying respects to within the context of Christianity.

Athiesm doesnt mean non-religious, just no god. For example, Buddhists (like me) and Daoists dont believe in any god(s).

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
Who know's, why take the risk?

To be honest I dont know of any religion that I ought to 'try'. Some of them strike me as silly, some as immoral, and some as both...

Dude...I'm a Christian so obviously I believe in God and Jesus, ect.

However you can't just try out a religion every week. You either believe in it or not. Don't ask an atheist to try a religion, because that is just showing that you personally do not believe yourself. Beliefs are hard to change, so if you are asking someone to just change for a bit and then if they don't like then to change back, then you don't believe yourself.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?Is your god so stupid that it would fall for that? If it is, then why worship it?

Dude...I'm a Christian so obviously I believe in God and Jesus, ect.

However you can't just try out a religion every week. You either believe in it or not. Don't ask an atheist to try a religion, because that is just showing that you personally do not believe yourself. Beliefs are hard to change, so if you are asking someone to just change for a bit and then if they don't like then to change back, then you don't believe yourself.

I agree

Athiesm doesnt mean non-religious, just no god. For example, Buddhists (like me) and Daoists dont believe in any god(s).
Agreed. Occasionally, one will encounter references to gods and devils in various sutras, but they are presented in a metaphorical sense rather than as supernatural entities. Besides, how else could one explain the devil of the sixth heaven?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?


How do you "try" a religion if you dont believe in any of the religion's premises?

Lie to yourself? That violates integrity.

Yo mama so ugly that if ugly were bricks she'd have her own projects.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
Funny. With a title like that, one actually get the (utterly wrong) impression that you'll be appealing to ones common sense. No such luck, as it turns out.

Anyway, for starters, here's a couple of the problems involved.
1. Which religion would one try?
2. Why would it be better to spend time on religion(s) than something else that makes an atheist happy?
3. Assuming for a moment that religions aren't wrong, wouldn't it be better to not choose one, and then hope whatever supernatural forces there may be respect your personal choices? - plenty of religions don't accept people who follow other religions.
4. Assuming again that religions are true, wouldn't it be pretty damn stupid to pretend to be a follower, when almost all religions teach that phoneys are an affront to <insert deity/pantheon>?
5. Wouldn't it be disrespectful to real followers of the religion(s) to pretend to be one of them?
6. Why should one abandon personal responsibility & freedom just to pretend to be religious?
7. Make up more as you see fit.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
Um, well, faking a belief is harmful to the psyche.

I might try worshipping Khorne, the Chaos God of Blood and War.

Now where did I leave my axe...?

This question is as idiotic as the following:

If people believe the Earth is round, why not "try" believing the Earth is flat? Where is the harm?

If people believe the sun is the centre of the solar system, why not "try" believing the Earth is the centre of the solar system?

I'll tell you why. Because it's an insult to my intelligence. Why should I believe in fairtales, I don't believe in the three little pigs and neither do I believe in god.

I think you're just lazy.

No. The noisest ones around tend to be Christianity and offshoots of them. And those guys usually put demands on my time (prayers, worship service, etc) and money (tithes, "voluntary donations"). There you go. Time and fiscal cost for something I don't believe in. Mind you, this happens in other religions too.

Sell me a better venture.

Now onto a lighter note.

I might try worshipping Khorne, the Chaos God of Blood and War.

Now where did I leave my axe...?

Slanesh borrowed it. Said something about needing a gory weapon of war to decorate his battlewagon.

Don't expect it back though. I'm still waiting on the 10 bucks I loaned him. And that was some 5000 years ago. *Tzeentch*

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Why do you assume no atheist could formerly have been religious? Many atheists have 'tried a religion,' some for many years.

My intellect and personal integrity prevent me from 'trying' a religion.

y'know, I've always enjoyed the way people believe they have to worship god implies that he crested the universe just for an ego trip... but that's just my opinion..

Funny. With a title like that, one actually get the (utterly wrong) impression that you'll be appealing to ones common sense. No such luck, as it turns out.

Anyway, for starters, here's a couple of the problems involved.
1. Which religion would one try?
BeliefNet (http://beliefnet.com/tlrd2.asp?lnkpid=11495&lnkid=4217) has a reasonably good online quiz that may help one identify a religion that is compatible with one's core beliefs.

2. Why would it be better to spend time on religion(s) than something else that makes an atheist happy?
Suppose it depends on how one defines happiness. If one looks in happiness in terms of the hedonistic criteria of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, and fecundity, religious practices tend to be heavy on the fecundity side of things. I could explain how cause and effect are simultaneous, but that's a whole other thread.

3. Assuming for a moment that religions aren't wrong, wouldn't it be better to not choose one, and then hope whatever supernatural forces there may be respect your personal choices? - plenty of religions don't accept people who follow other religions.

This kind of thinking is akin to thinking that the safest place on a highway is standing on the yellow line that runs down the middle. Any religion that teaches one to hate should be avoided and anyone that hates because of their religion developed the idea on their own.

4. Assuming again that religions are true, wouldn't it be pretty damn stupid to pretend to be a follower, when almost all religions teach that phoneys are an affront to <insert deity/pantheon>?
5. Wouldn't it be disrespectful to real followers of the religion(s) to pretend to be one of them?
Why pretend? Many believers of various religions look at non-believers as believers that don't know it yet.

I'd answer the rest, but I have to go. Be well...

Why pretend? Many believers of various religions look at non-believers as believers that don't know it yet.


That is just insulting. Would you like it if I claimed that many atheists look at theists as people who are too scared and or stupid to realise that their religious beliefs are fairytales?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Somebody's probably already made this point but I haven't got time to read the whole thread: Most modern religions claim that their deity is all-knowing so there's no point in pretending to believe.

My intellect and personal integrity prevent me from 'trying' a religion.

Personal integrity: fine, I feel the same way really; but don't you think it's a bit arrogant to place yourself intellectually above everyone who does practise religion?

1. Which religion would one try?

BeliefNet has a reasonably good online quiz that may help one identify a religion that is compatible with one's core beliefs.

Actually, if I ever decide to pick up faith, I think I can already say it'll be bloody mayhem in the name of Gork & Mork. Thanks all the same.

2. Why would it be better to spend time on religion(s) than something else that makes an atheist happy?

Suppose it depends on how one defines happiness. If one looks in happiness in terms of the hedonistic criteria of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, and fecundity, religious practices tend to be heavy on the fecundity side of things. I could explain how cause and effect are simultaneous, but that's a whole other thread.

In other words: I haven't got a clue, but I'd like to imply it's my belief that atheism is the same as hedonism.
It would've been wiser if you'd just shared with us what you religion means for you, since you're so eager to spread it. Also, it's quite hard to convince people to see things your - way when you know they already percieve you as a slightly retarded biggot - by offending them. Not that I mind, but it does nothing for your argument. Rather, it affirms my belief that a disproportionate amount of religious people pollute our genepool & steal my oxygen.

3. Assuming for a moment that religions aren't wrong, wouldn't it be better to not choose one, and then hope whatever supernatural forces there may be respect your personal choices? - plenty of religions don't accept people who follow other religions.

This kind of thinking is akin to thinking that the safest place on a highway is standing on the yellow line that runs down the middle. Any religion that teaches one to hate should be avoided and anyone that hates because of their religion developed the idea on their own.

Care to share which religion you practice? Obviously not Christianity, or...?

4. Assuming again that religions are true, wouldn't it be pretty damn stupid to pretend to be a follower, when almost all religions teach that phoneys are an affront to <insert deity/pantheon>?
5. Wouldn't it be disrespectful to real followers of the religion(s) to pretend to be one of them?

Why pretend? Many believers of various religions look at non-believers as believers that don't know it yet.

I'd answer the rest, but I have to go. Be well...

Well sure that's completely obnoxious, but I expected no less, given the OP. However, the main objective in a religion with a divinity (which is what I assume is what you are talking about, since practitioners of godless religions are atheists), is to abide by the divine mantlepeice, right?
Now you'll just have to forgive me if I'm wrong here, but isn't faking faith (which is what a non-believer necessarily would be doing) supposedly heavily frowned upon by more or less every god mankind ever dreamed up? - Just like the thing about worthshipping gods from other religions is it?

Blah blah, verbal abuse abounds. IF you wish to tone it down, simply say so. It's a two way street.

If you don't believe in Communism, what would be the hurt to join the Communist Party of America?
Believing in communism is also like damnation, except for a lifetime instead of eternity.

Funny. With a title like that, one actually get the (utterly wrong) impression that you'll be appealing to ones common sense. No such luck, as it turns out.
Oh, no you di-in't. That hurts man...And you're wrong. Christianity is right.

This is hillarious...

Why not join a religeon if you don't beleive? Well, put it this way, if you were a devout creationist, would you teach evolution? Atheism is DENIAL of a god/dess/s. It's AGNOSTICS who are unsure.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
It would be as much of a waste of time for me to join a religion and go to church as it would be for you to take some time out of your Sunday to stare at drying paint. It would require me to get out of bed early on Sunday morning, which seems to always be scheduled after Saturday night's festivities. This would hurt me quite a bit because I'll be sleep deprived and possibly hung over.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?


That was my thought when I jacked off on a poem to the Godess Aphrodite, to see if the Greek Gods of mythology existed or not. I ended up invoking Iris, but nevertheless I found my answer.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
The hurt would come in lending personal, financial and visible support to apolitical ideology contrary to my own. (Yes, most Religions support political ideologies - they are political entities and have been since they were invented.)

I would no more "Try" a Religion (different than visiting a house of worship, TRY indicates following the tenets for at least a while) than I would "Try" Serial Killing.

This is hillarious...

Why not join a religeon if you don't beleive? Well, put it this way, if you were a devout creationist, would you teach evolution? Atheism is DENIAL of a god/dess/s. It's AGNOSTICS who are unsure.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9752496&postcount=11

Would people please stop saying that?

bump (I love watching these people tearing me apart when they're wrong)

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

*echo, but...* Because I know of no religion that offers any benefits to those who do not believe in it's principals and tenets.

Buddhism. There's no god and it's religion. Smoked

come to think of it, why just pick one. There are thousands of Hindu gods. An atheist is bound to like one of them.

Perhaps like a wine tasting?
no. more like a job fair

you go down to the convention center where the various religions and their various sects have booths

you go around looking, listening to the sales talk, picking up brochures

the catholics have a giant gold crucifix and the men wear black dresses. it looks cool but they keep tossing in phrases in latin.

the various orthodox churches also have men wearing black dresses but they are more stylish. plus they have all that art in the form of icons. you pick up a brochure to study later

the methodists play their trump card...excellent church music. their men dress in suits and ties. sounds good but maybe a bit boring

the pentacostals keep falling on the floor and shouting out things in nonsense syllables. you just keep walking

the baptist have a great booth but they keep talking about burning in the fires of hell...no thanks.

the quaker booth is eerily quiet.....

as you drift by the non christian section, you stop for a moment at the theravada buddhist booth. very ornate! then you remember that saffron washes you out so you reject it.

you pick up a brocure at the islam booth but get confused about sunni vs. shiite. would your wife be willing to be covered from head to toe? you notice a fanatical glint in ali's eyes and put the brochure back down.

it goes on and on. its a full day.

Oh, no you di-in't. That hurts man...And you're wrong. Christianity is right.

Christianity is wrong, only the Great Pink Unicorn excists.

:) An Atheist's biggest worry is that God will prove him wrong :)

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?


Why waste my time, money, and dignity? I don't beleive/don't care that there is a God, and I'm not gonna demean myself by pretending to beleive in it. Similarly, there is no benefit to me in the worship of a god because I wouldn't want eternal life in paradise in exchange for selling-out on my own moral code.

To be fair, I don't know that there is no god, but It's my general impression that there isn't, and that it doesn't matter if there is. So... In general (which is where we are after all), I've no interest in wasting my time.

Call it, lazy. I don't care.

BeliefNet (http://beliefnet.com/tlrd2.asp?lnkpid=11495&lnkid=4217) has a reasonably good online quiz that may help one identify a religion that is compatible with one's core beliefs.
I am a hardcore sceptic, on the limit to spiritual dabbler. Nice to have it confirmed. I guess this is were many atheists end up. What does it mean? (since you used the quiz to answer another question)

no. more like a job fair

you go down to the convention center where the various religions and their various sects have booths

you go around looking, listening to the sales talk, picking up brochures

the catholics have a giant gold crucifix and the men wear black dresses. it looks cool but they keep tossing in phrases in latin.

the various orthodox churches also have men wearing black dresses but they are more stylish. plus they have all that art in the form of icons. you pick up a brochure to study later

the methodists play their trump card...excellent church music. their men dress in suits and ties. sounds good but maybe a bit boring

the pentacostals keep falling on the floor and shouting out things in nonsense syllables. you just keep walking

the baptist have a great booth but they keep talking about burning in the fires of hell...no thanks.

the quaker booth is eerily quiet.....

as you drift by the non christian section, you stop for a moment at the theravada buddhist booth. very ornate! then you remember that saffron washes you out so you reject it.

you pick up a brocure at the islam booth but get confused about sunni vs. shiite. would your wife be willing to be covered from head to toe? you notice a fanatical glint in ali's eyes and put the brochure back down.

it goes on and on. its a full day.

how does "saffron washing you out" count as a logical basis to discredit Buddhism.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Actually, Pascal's wager (which is really what you're ultimately reffering to), is ultimately self-defeating....

Someone can claim to not believe in God, and decide to take better odds and worship, or follow this God.... This person acts out of an internal force and motive of desire upon the path they have taken; thus the wager is meaningless, as the person actually has some sort of motivation towards God.

Soemone can claim no belief in God, and decide odds don't matter, and ignore God... This person still makes choice from internal motive, the wager means nothing to them, as the person has no motivations to God...

Pascal's wager ignores the immaterial fact that people will still follow the course of their nature... And why Calvinsim is the superior soterology over Arminianism and Pelagianism...

You can't "force" a real conversion with Logic anymore than you can with torture or death... Attempting to in the first place is indicative of a faulty mind, operating with faulty intentions... You talk to people, and they either accept, or they don't... And if they don't, you keep on trucking... Who knows, maybe they will accept in the future, maybe they won't... Ultimately, even if you're an insrument of the almighty, He is still the one making the calls... We do out part, within our power... But that is it... No one is keeping score on how many people you convert, and no one cares (mostly because your score is always going to be 0 anyway)...

Welcome to real life...

how does "saffron washing you out" count as a logical basis to discredit Buddhism.
when shopping for a religion, everything counts.

Actually, Pascal's wager (which is really what you're ultimately reffering to), is ultimately self-defeating....

Pascal's Wager is also grounded in serious logical fallacies.

Pascal's Wager is, basically:

'Say you decide to be an atheist and die, only to find there is a God after all. You'd lose a lot, obviously, since God would send you to hell! You're better off being religious, since then if you die and are right about there being no God, you lose nothing, but if you're wrong and there is a God, you get to go to heaven.'

Problems with the Wager are:

1: It assumes there is only one religion. What if you take the wager, worship the Christian God all your life without fail, and then find yourself facing an angry Zeus or Allah when you die? The Wager totally ignores this issue.

2: The Wager assumes that religion will require you to do absolutely nothing that you would not do as an atheist, otherwise the claim that 'you lose nothing' cannot be fulfilled. Some religions make severe demands of adherents; what if the Wager-taker took a vow of celibacy as part of their religion and then found there was no God? They most certainly have lost something then.

3. It assumes that the God, if it exists, would punish unbelievers somehow. This isn't true of all religions, so it's not necessarily true that someone who takes the Wager would actually be any better off than someone who didn't bother, even if the God[s] turn out to exist.

4. It assumes God is incredibly stupid and would be willing to go along with someone who only became religious because of the fear of a negative consequence rather than for any unselfish reason such as genuine reverence. Most Gods are supposed to be smarter than that.

Religion is supposed to be about spiritual gain. You don't lose anything by being religious.

Except time. And rationality. And in some of them, the ability to have good sex.

Religion is supposed to be about spiritual gain. You don't lose anything by being religious.
no but you do make a bit of a fool of yourself by pretending to be religious.

Except time. And rationality. And in some of them, the ability to have good sex.
You forgot to metion freedom of thought & self respect.

Wow.

What a dumb question.

bump (I love watching these people tearing me apart when they're wrong)

Is gloating an example of moral behaviour? :rolleyes:

Out of interest, am I the only one who suspects that Trexia is actually an Atheist having a laugh?

bump (I love watching these people tearing me apart when they're wrong)

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people that play at moral superiority.

Not to mention that if you are a Christian, doesn't this rather fall under the 'pride' category? As in one of the 'Seven Deadly Sins'?

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people that play at moral superiority.

Not to mention that if you are a Christian, doesn't this rather fall under the 'pride' category? As in one of the 'Seven Deadly Sins'?
Thank Dog I'm an atheist. Nothing to stop me from laughing at Trexia, as s/he burns in hell :D

I think that what really gets to religious people is that atheists have demonstrated that it's possible to have a rich and fulfilled live, and being an upstanding and moral member of society without having to believe in magical beings that punish you.

when shopping for a religion, everything counts.

yeah, except for what kind of spices they put on their food. thats called illogical.

now if you had said something about how much Mahayana Buddhism has strayed from original teachings or how often Theravada Buddhism puts too much stress on the individual on not on saving all sentient beings, that would have been a clear and logical argument.

I think that what really gets to religious people is that atheists have demonstrated that it's possible to have a rich and fulfilled live, and being an upstanding and moral member of society without having to believe in magical beings that punish you.

not all religions have "magical beings", some just teach the understanding that negative actions (actions that hurt others or yourself, or are unnecessary) yeild negative results.

Buddhism, Daoism, Hiduism...

I think that what really gets to religious people is that atheists have demonstrated that it's possible to have a rich and fulfilled live, and being an upstanding and moral member of society without having to believe in magical beings that punish you.

And what really gets to atheists is that religious people demonstrate that it's possible to have a rich and fulfilled live, and being an upstanding and moral member of society without having to subscribe their personal ideas of 'rationality' or 'intelligent thought'.

The whole atheist versus theist thing is stupid.

Actually, if I ever decide to pick up faith, I think I can already say it'll be bloody mayhem in the name of Gork & Mork. Thanks all the same.
Fair enough. Picking a direction and going forth is preferable to standing around and doing nothing. Nobody can 'prove' anything to you. All people can do is offer what they have and you can either accept it or reject it as you see fit.

In other words: I haven't got a clue, but I'd like to imply it's my belief that atheism is the same as hedonism.
It would've been wiser if you'd just shared with us what you religion means for you, since you're so eager to spread it. Also, it's quite hard to convince people to see things your - way when you know they already percieve you as a slightly retarded biggot - by offending them. Not that I mind, but it does nothing for your argument. Rather, it affirms my belief that a disproportionate amount of religious people pollute our genepool & steal my oxygen.
My intentions with bringing up hedonism was an attempt to establish some standard that we both can agree upon. With any dialogue, if there is nothing that can be agreed upon, then there is no progress. The hedonistic criteria I mentioned were meant to be morally neutral, not as a condemnation of your beliefs, which I still know nothing about.

Nobody can see things "my way". My intention is to encourage people to explore what "their way" is.

Would you care to establish a foundation for your beliefs?

Care to share which religion you practice? Obviously not Christianity, or...?

I consider myself to be a Buddhist, which would make me religious and atheist at the same time.

Well sure that's completely obnoxious, but I expected no less, given the OP. However, the main objective in a religion with a divinity (which is what I assume is what you are talking about, since practitioners of godless religions are atheists), is to abide by the divine mantlepeice, right?
Now you'll just have to forgive me if I'm wrong here, but isn't faking faith (which is what a non-believer necessarily would be doing) supposedly heavily frowned upon by more or less every god mankind ever dreamed up? - Just like the thing about worthshipping gods from other religions is it?

Blah blah, verbal abuse abounds. IF you wish to tone it down, simply say so. It's a two way street.

Well, I think I have established my beliefs are not theist in origin. It's a strange thing about lies. In order to have a convincing lie, there has to be an element of truth in it, or otherwise it would be completely unbelievable. The challenge is to be able to distill the truth out of lies. To say that any religion is wrong is misleading. To say that a religion is "not completely correct" would be more on the mark.

The challenge here is to create something of value that everyone can share. I invite you to contribute.

I am a hardcore sceptic, on the limit to spiritual dabbler. Nice to have it confirmed. I guess this is were many atheists end up. What does it mean? (since you used the quiz to answer another question)

I would say that you haven't determined what you want yet and are still looking, or possibly are not looking at all and thinking that a system of belief will find you and you will know it is the right one for you when you see it.

Religions are spiritual paradigms. Like any other paradigm, the only way to concentrate on the important information is to discard a whole lot of other information. The only way to have an accurate way of viewing the world is to include everything, which would make it prohibitively cumbersome to function.

Buddhism, Daoism, Hiduism...
Daoism most closely reflects the teachings of a philosophy rather than religion. But one of the main tenants of buddhism is that of reincarnation and soul, obviously unscientific. Hinduism does have magical beings, several of them in fact, depending on the branch of hinduism one follows.

Daoism most closely reflects the teachings of a philosophy rather than religion. But one of the main tenants of buddhism is that of reincarnation and soul, obviously unscientific. Hinduism does have magical beings, several of them in fact, depending on the branch of hinduism one follows.

reincarnation can be compared to the law of physics that states that no energy can be created or destroyed only recycled. and Buddhism definitely doesnt teach that there is a soul. and not all Hindus believe in a god, there are many Hindu atheist, monotheists and polytheists.

And what really gets to atheists is that religious people demonstrate that it's possible to have a rich and fulfilled live, and being an upstanding and moral member of society without having to subscribe their personal ideas of 'rationality' or 'intelligent thought'.

Well, there are two things in your statement that make it ridiculous. First is that atheism is not necessarily about 'rationality' or 'intelligent thought'. You may be an atheist simply because you don't see a point in believing in a god, just like that. That's not rational, you simply don't feel like it.

The second one is that atheism is the relative newcomer (although it has been present since antiquity but never as widespread as now) and therefore the new way that has proven itself. Religious followers have demonstrated that they can be moral and upstanding, yes, but always assuming that the promise of a reward in the afterlife is what made it possible.

An atheist puts that assumption to the test and proves it invalid.


The whole atheist versus theist thing is stupid.
And yet many people, like the thread starter, insist in making a thing out of it.

reincarnation can be compared to the law of physics that states that no energy can be created or destroyed only recycled. and Buddhism definitely doesnt teach that there is a soul. and not all Hindus believe in a god, there are many Hindu atheist, monotheists and polytheists.
A soul, or consciousness, or whatever you want to call it. A part of the individual that survives the physical body and gets transferred to the next. And it can be compared to that law of physics, but it's not that law of physics or even related to it.

The energy and matter stored in the individual's body remains, absorbed by the earth and transformed in worms, humidity, plants, bacteria, etc. but the consciousness, thoughts, memories, etc. that make up the individual itself is destroyed.

There may be no god in some forms of hinduism but if supernatural events remain that makes them unscientific.

There may be no god in some forms of hinduism but if supernatural events remain that makes them unscientific.

Some apparently supernatural events could easily be something natural that science hasn't explained yet.

Some apparently supernatural events could easily be something natural that science hasn't explained yet.
I meant that if the religion considers supernatural events as part of its tenets. These could be reincarnation, creation mythology, etc.

Of course there may be unexplained natural events that the religion tries to attribute to a supernatural cause but without considering it too important overall.

Religion is supposed to be about spiritual gain. You don't lose anything by being religious.

Except the things I described, which you do lose. By being religious, you could stand to lose your sundays, your sex life, your entire sexuality, your ability to eat certain foods, your firstborn child, your partner, your posessions, your life in battle against heathens, or parts of your genitals, depending on the religion. You most certainly do not 'lose nothing' by being religious; almost all religions require either adherence to some form of code which overrides the humanistic morality set, or some kind of sacrifice to be made for that God.

If you have made these sacrifices and you find you were wrong, you have made them for no reason, therefore you have lost something. This is one of the failures of Pascal's Wager.

Pascal the triangle guy?

yeah, except for what kind of spices they put on their food. thats called illogical.

now if you had said something about how much Mahayana Buddhism has strayed from original teachings or how often Theravada Buddhism puts too much stress on the individual on not on saving all sentient beings, that would have been a clear and logical argument.
oh im sorry, saffron is that color yellow that many buddhist monk's robes are colored.

my post wasnt intended as a refutation of the basic tenets of any religion, it was mocking the idea that someone my "try out" a religion.

Pascal the triangle guy?

That's him. He really should have stuck to mathematics though.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

Here is my opinion on this.

There is no harm in trying a religion, the problem is that the Athiest is getting nothing out of it.
As an Athiest I have occationally attended church with friends or family during special occasions. Its not really doing anything but following rituals and playing sheep with the congregation as far as I am concerned, though there are some social benefits to going to church as well.

There are some downsides however, I own my own buisness, and the time that I spend at church hurts my buisness because I could spend that time working and making money for myself, not to mention if I attend regularly most Christian Demoninations ask for a Tythe, which also costs me money. So there are reasons for me not to go, which outweigh the benefits I have of attending.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

How is this a "sensible question"?

Except the things I described, which you do lose. By being religious, you could stand to lose your sundays, your sex life, your entire sexuality, your ability to eat certain foods, your firstborn child, your partner, your posessions, your life in battle against heathens, or parts of your genitals, depending on the religion. You most certainly do not 'lose nothing' by being religious; almost all religions require either adherence to some form of code which overrides the humanistic morality set, or some kind of sacrifice to be made for that God.

If you have made these sacrifices and you find you were wrong, you have made them for no reason, therefore you have lost something. This is one of the failures of Pascal's Wager.
With any religion, you don't lose anything you don't give up freely. It would be fairly easy to find people that consider themselves Christian that don't always go to Church on Sunday, or engage in premarital sex. People don't get involved in a religion because they are perfect. If anything, I would say that the opposite is true. I speak of Christianity in this case because it is the one religion most people on here can relate to in some way.

The second part of the "I don't get it" idea of atheists comes in reading religious texts. One could try thinking of them as more like a really big horoscope. Horoscopes become accurate because people believe they are accurate. They read them, try out the advice given, and if it works out, then they are convinced of its validity. The main thing is to read them with your life, i.e. consider how what is written could apply to your current life condition. Granted nobody had you in mind when it was written, but the problems human beings face are as old as humanity, and I doubt there have been any genuinely new ones for quite some time.

With any religion, you don't lose anything you don't give up freely. It would be fairly easy to find people that consider themselves Christian that don't always go to Church on Sunday, or engage in premarital sex.

Irrelevant. All religion involves a certain amount of sacrifice; even if you only pray for five seconds in your entire life Pascal's wager fails because you've lost five actual, tangiable seconds if your religion turns out to be false. The fact that some forms of Christianity compel you to lose much, much more is just extra evidence against the Wager's justifiability as a concept; if one of the more restrictive forms were to turn out to be an incorrect path, they have lost a lot of time and not done a lot of things they could have done.

The main thing is to read them with your life, i.e. consider how what is written could apply to your current life condition. Granted nobody had you in mind when it was written, but the problems human beings face are as old as humanity, and I doubt there have been any genuinely new ones for quite some time.

Religious texts generally recommend you pray to $deity[s] for aid or wisdom. Again, under the conditions of Pascal's Wager, if the religion in question turns out to be false when the person dies, this is a total waste of their time; this means Pascal's Wager is not justifiable.

In addition, literal interpretation of most religious texts can be used to justify some nasty stuff; you have to not only consider what is written, you have to selective interpret it and choose which parts to ignore.

Well, I followed a religion once, but though that all of that was nonsense, so now I am an atheist.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
Wasting your precious time.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

What would be the good?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

*crosses fingers and whispers* please, please don't let him be a Christian*continues whispering to self*

Seriously, dude, if you are a theist you have just revealed your level of faith. "Don't worry, you don't have believe, just come hang out and pretend. We all do it."

Irrelevant. All religion involves a certain amount of sacrifice; even if you only pray for five seconds in your entire life Pascal's wager fails because you've lost five actual, tangiable seconds if your religion turns out to be false. The fact that some forms of Christianity compel you to lose much, much more is just extra evidence against the Wager's justifiability as a concept; if one of the more restrictive forms were to turn out to be an incorrect path, they have lost a lot of time and not done a lot of things they could have done.

Religious texts generally recommend you pray to $deity[s] for aid or wisdom. Again, under the conditions of Pascal's Wager, if the religion in question turns out to be false when the person dies, this is a total waste of their time; this means Pascal's Wager is not justifiable.

In addition, literal interpretation of most religious texts can be used to justify some nasty stuff; you have to not only consider what is written, you have to selective interpret it and choose which parts to ignore.

As far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, I'll agree that it is a stupid reason to embrace any religion. The value of any religion should be in dealing with daily life. If all one is looking for is a nice place to spend all eternity, then I would say one has missed the point entirely.

As far as prayer goes, it does bring up interesting effects: regardless of the belief, no matter to whom (or what), or how one prays, all believers will be able to relate that their prayers are effective. One would think with the whole "jealous God" idea that prayers outside of a particular belief system would be worthless, but it doesn't appear to be the case. What I would say accounts for the results is the authenticity of the person praying rather than the object of prayer.

As far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, I'll agree that it is a stupid reason to embrace any religion. The value of any religion should be in dealing with daily life. If all one is looking for is a nice place to spend all eternity, then I would say one has missed the point entirely.

Yes, and since the original poster of this thread apparently wants people to take Pascal's Wager, I'm dealing with the validity of that as a path to faith .

As far as prayer goes, it does bring up interesting effects: regardless of the belief, no matter to whom (or what), or how one prays, all believers will be able to relate that their prayers are effective.

Prayer does have certain logical uses; it can be calming, and it's reassuring to believe someone is listening to you and holding your hand in a metaphorical sense. However, if one takes the exact justification for Pascal's Wager ['you lose nothing'] you have still 'lost' that time you spent praying, since there [i]are other activities not requiring reverence to a divine being that can achieve the same effect. Additionally, most religions require more than prayer.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?
You don't have a problem with living a lie?

As far as prayer goes, it does bring up interesting effects: regardless of the belief, no matter to whom (or what), or how one prays, all believers will be able to relate that their prayers are effective. One would think with the whole "jealous God" idea that prayers outside of a particular belief system would be worthless, but it doesn't appear to be the case. What I would say accounts for the results is the authenticity of the person praying rather than the object of prayer.
Actually they tried to repeat a study that showed prayer effective and have been unable to do so. A number of studies have shown absolutely no effect from prayer on the sick.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15936750-13762,00.html

What an individual believes has nothing to do with what actually happens and people will believe whatever they damn well please, no matter how many times it's shown to be incorrect.

Actually they tried to repeat a study that showed prayer effective and have been unable to do so. A number of studies have shown absolutely no effect from prayer on the sick.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15936750-13762,00.html

What an individual believes has nothing to do with what actually happens and people will believe whatever they damn well please, no matter how many times it's shown to be incorrect.

Yeah, I've read this study before. By removing interaction between the prayer and the prayee, it did take away what would make prayer beneficial.

Ultimately, the effects of prayer are going to be experienced by the pray-er.

On a side note, one thing that I would recommend is people taking an active role in their lives. There seems to be this tendency for people want to be able to claim superiority by counting up how many things that they don't do, how many ideas that they reject, and how many people they exclude. If anything, I would say that the more sensible approach to claiming goodness is by taking inventory of the things one embraces and who one includes.

Actually they tried to repeat a study that showed prayer effective and have been unable to do so. A number of studies have shown absolutely no effect from prayer on the sick.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15936750-13762,00.html

As above; I wouldn't argue any definite benefit to the object of a prayer; what I and, I assume, PasturePastry were talking about is the personal benefit of praying, provided one believes there's some value to it in the first place. There are studies that show there are definite personal benefits to prayer in relieving anxiety or stress, depression, stuff like that.

http://www.centrastate.com/body.cfm?id=520&action=detail&articlepath=/Atoz/dc/cen/canc/gen/mindspirit.html#7

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

It seemed perfect when I first discovered it, but my first NS General attempt at promoting it ended all my faith in the wager.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415198&

Ah, Pascal's Wager.

It seemed perfect when I first discovered it, but my first NS General attempt at promoting it ended all my faith in the wager.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415198&

<Points back to my post at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9771111&postcount=73 >

I think that just about covered it all, hee.

I know a lot of people like to think they'd lose something if they did pascal's wager and found there to be no god but you really wouldn't because you'd be dead. You wouldn't actually found out that there isn't a god because you'd be dead. You would no longer exist. They'd be no regrets. No whining over lost hours spent praying. Nothing. Do you know what I mean?

I know a lot of people like to think they'd lose something if they did pascal's wager and found there to be no god but you really wouldn't because you'd be dead. You wouldn't actually found out that there isn't a god because you'd be dead. You would no longer exist. They'd be no regrets. No whining over lost hours spent praying. Nothing. Do you know what I mean?

Yes, we know what you mean and we try to pretend like it doesn't make our eyes hurt.

Wasted time. Simple as that.

Here is my opinion on this.

There is no harm in trying a religion, the problem is that the Athiest is getting nothing out of it.
As an Athiest I have occationally attended church with friends or family during special occasions. Its not really doing anything but following rituals and playing sheep with the congregation as far as I am concerned, though there are some social benefits to going to church as well.

There certainly are. I went to church for about eight months and it paid off. I nailed the pastors daughter. :D

As above; I wouldn't argue any definite benefit to the object of a prayer; what I and, I assume, PasturePastry were talking about is the personal benefit of praying, provided one believes there's some value to it in the first place. There are studies that show there are definite personal benefits to prayer in relieving anxiety or stress, depression, stuff like that.

http://www.centrastate.com/body.cfm?id=520&action=detail&articlepath=/Atoz/dc/cen/canc/gen/mindspirit.html#7

Yes, I agree with you as far as the effects of prayer on the person praying. As far as praying for other people go, especially sick people, there are two effects that the aforementioned study eliminated: the Placebo Effect and the Hawthorne Effect, both of which I'm certain I could find studies on if anyone was interested. Had those two effects been allowed to work in the study, the results would be much different.

Back to the original idea: Pascal's wager is an expedient means to encourage people to take up a religion. The whole point of practicing a religion is to enhance the value of life right now, not after you die. Eternal life is basically a big carrot on a stick.

Can you really explain what is achieved by spiritual practices? Well, it's difficult at best. There's a Zen saying that goes: "Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." The basics of life do not change much. What does change is one's perspective on life, and without actually posessing that perspective, it's difficult to discuss sensibly.

I consider myself something of Deitist. A good analogy is a diamond with all its facets. Each fact is just a different way of looking at the same thing. Since one facet does not make up the whole, many different facets do, some completely different than the other to get the whole image.

Why I dont follow any of the organizied religions. They are to worried about a book and what it says than about their own personal experiences and what feels right. They go about their tasks because its expected of them not because they truly believe. Faith is not faith until it is all you have left.

By the single minded devotion to one belief thinking all others are wrong they have broken from what their god as wanted them to do which is to love and accept each other. More than 10 crusades where fought over religion and in their gods name. A god supposedly of love and mercy they used to justify their immoral actions.

Religion and spirituality should be a path that each follows on their own. While a common religion does help each other get through difficult times. It should not be the end all be all. By killing each other over religion and you have just performed the work of your great enemy. By killing, thinking irrationally and with hate you make the great enemy stronger. Kodos for you.

I know a lot of people like to think they'd lose something if they did pascal's wager and found there to be no god but you really wouldn't because you'd be dead. You wouldn't actually found out that there isn't a god because you'd be dead. You would no longer exist. They'd be no regrets. No whining over lost hours spent praying. Nothing. Do you know what I mean?

No. You have lost those things because you could have spent those hours of your life doing something productive; instead, because you were wrong, you spent them pointlessly and unproductively. The fact that you cannot personally perceive you wasted that time, does not mean you did not; it's much like saying if you lose your credit card but never realise it, you haven't lost it.

The problem is you are trying to say, as Pascal did, that the Wager is a digital proposition : there is either 'yes,' God exists, so you go to heaven, or a single failure condition, god does not exist and there is no afterlife. The trouble is there are [i]at least seven other failure conditions. To list all eight failure conditions:

1. Oblivion. There is no God or Gods and no afterlife. Any time you spent praying is basically wasted.
2. There is a God, but despite taking the Wager you fail to adequately live up to it's standards. You go to hell anyway, and you might as well have not bothered.
3. Wrong sect. There is a God and an afterlife, and you choose the right one, but worship him in the wrong way; for example, you become a Protestant and die only to find the Catholics were right. You lose despite believing.
4. A God [or Gods] exists, and there is an afterlife, but God does not penalise unbelievers in any way; he could, for example, judge people solely on the basis of their good works. Again, you wasted your time being religious, because in this scenario God doesn't care.
5. You take the Wager, but choose the wrong God. Your faith is not only wasted, it actually has a negative consequence in this scenario.
6. There is an afterlife, but no God at all; you become a spirit or similiar. This is the problem with your 'you would be dead' argument; you could become something else after you die even if there is no God at all. In such a case, you would be fully able to perceive the Wager's uselessness and your own wasted time.
7. There is a God, but he sends everyone to Hell regardless of what they believe. In this case, your belief is wasted.
8. There is a God, but he is a weird God. He punishes believers and rewards nonbelievers. In this case, by taking the wager, you lose, and by not taking it, you win.

Also, from that other thread:

We know that the infinite exists without knowing its nature, just as we know that numbers are not finite. Thus there is an infinite number, even though we do not know what it is.

I can't believe someone like Pascal with a background in mathematics would actually make such a blatantly ridiculous claim. There is no 'infinite' number because infinity is an abstract concept, not a number. Were infinity an actual number, you could use it to do regular sums. But, um:

X+X=2X
[cancel X] 1+1=2

Infinity+Infinity=Infinity
[Cancel infinity] 1+1=1.

*crosses fingers and whispers* please, please don't let him be a Christian*continues whispering to self*

Seriously, dude, if you are a theist you have just revealed your level of faith. "Don't worry, you don't have believe, just come hang out and pretend. We all do it."
I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.

I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.
OK

ill try out a nice scientology meeting this afternoon

the dead aliens in my head have been giving me headaches lately anyway.

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

That is a bit like saying "why not try drugs."

Religion is bad for you - just say NO!

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

If you don't believe in canibalism what would it hurt to try a tiny little piece of human?

If you are a vegitarian, what would it hurt to try a little cow?

If you are a christian, why not try satanism?

All valid I suppose.:headbang:

I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.

Which religion should people try, and why? Why don't you try atheism, or a different religion? How many religions have you tried to be sure your current one is correct? Can you be absolutely sure that God doesn't punish believers and reward unbelievers, meaning you'd actually be condemning people rather than saving them?

I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.

Maybe some of us have, and found that religion cannot have the answers because it needs a belief in the unbelievable.

I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.

You can't try to believe something you don't believe. You can have an open mind, but that is not what you're asking. Your request shows a ridiculous misunderstanding of your faith. I certainly hope your faith isn't based on Pascal's wager. If so, it is no faith at all.

I can't believe someone like Pascal with a background in mathematics would actually make such a blatantly ridiculous claim. There is no 'infinite' number because infinity is an abstract concept, not a number. Were infinity an actual number, you could use it to do regular sums. But, um:

X+X=2X
[cancel X] 1+1=2

Infinity+Infinity=Infinity
[Cancel infinity] 1+1=1.
Incidentally, you can manipulate infinites if you consider the real number field as a ring where Positive and Negative infinity meet (an idea not too bizarre when you consider that 1/0 = 1/-0) and the addition and subtraction of infinity being equal to a pi radian rotation. IE,

Infinity +/- Infinity = 0

I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.

Three things...

One: It may come as something of a surprise to some, but MANY Atheists and/or Agnsotics HAVE 'tried' religion... either as part of a search for answers that ultimately left them empty, or because they were raised into one

Two: You say 'I want to help these people save themselves'... which is an interesting thing to say. It sounds like you are preaching Christian salvation, there... and yet, you didn't SAY people should try Christianity... but, I'm guessing that is what you MEAN.

Three: As someone pointed out already, why don't these 'religious' people 'try' being Atheists? Many people have lost their faith in god/gods, and gone on to be very productive. I'm just trying to help 'religious' people save themselves from wasting their lives worshipping falsehoods.

I'm saying, why don't they try a religion. There have been many people that have tried new religions and have found their faith. I want to help these people save themselves.Why must faith depend upon Religion?

Can't I just develop a sense of spirituality that doesn't depend on any organisational structure?

If atheists don't believe in God and Heaven, what would be the hurt to try a religion?

I don't think you understand what atheism is. Not that I'm sure its possible to understand atheism and still reject it. Anyway. Thanks for spelling "atheism" correctly.