Just a passing thought, but aren't atheists a little hypocritical? After all, they claim that they don't believe in a god because it is illogical and stupid (no proof, spaghetti monster, blah blah blah). But logically, wouldn't it be safer/more logical to choose to follow a religion, just as a backup plan if there really is possibly an afterlife? If there is a second life, there's at least a chance your religion is the right one, and you make it. If there isn't then who gives a shit, you're dead anyway. Comments, thoughts? And if you are atheist, maybe add what religion you would pick to cover your bases (one with most followers, one with promises of virgins).

Squiggle squiggle Allah Akbar squiggle squiggle BOOM Āmīn

I am not an Atheist though.

This argument has been around for a while, it's called Pascal's Wager and you can read about it more here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

And yeah, it kind of makes sense. After all you literally end up with better odds in any possible scenario.

A lot of people (including myself actually) don't find it particularly convincing, but there's not really any denying that it's a solid argument.

if any of the Abrahamic faiths are actually right, then i`d rather go to hell then worship a genocidal egomaniac

I don't know about others but six:

1: I don't believe in things that have no proof in them. The Abrahmic God is allknowing, so it wouldn't matter.

2: I find it hard to believe that a kind God (as in Christianity and Islaam), without giving any kind of proof or sign to me at all, and I taking the logic endsay from that, would punish me for taking the needed endsay.

3: No grounds why you can't do this on your deathbed.

4: Some folk hold beliefs/stances over life. Not me, though.

5: Aren't you being hypocritic? Perhaps there is a god but he punishes folk who do unlogic things and believe what they're told without any kind of proof or sign.

6: don't say atheism, say godlessness.

And if I would convert, it would be Jainism, as it's very behaviour-based faith with the weightiest vow being that violence is never acceptable, but also bans lying and stealing. "Do not kill, make no harm. Nonviolence is the greatest faith." - Mahavira, last teacher-god of Jainism. I also wouldn't want to be gainborn as an earthworm or hungerghost or a gazelle (torn apart by a tiger). Again, point 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S93jMOqF-oE&index=15&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR

1: I don't believe in things that have no proof in them. The Abrahmic God is allknowing, so it wouldn't matter.

Fair enough, although you have to draw the line at what you consider to be "proof". The holy books of many religions come from the exact same sources as modern discoveries about science and such do, through the writings and testimonies of other humans.

2: I find it hard to believe that a kind God (as in Christianity and Islaam), without giving any kind of proof or sign to me at all, and I taking the logic endsay from that, would punish me for taking the needed endsay.

If you think about it it really makes a lot of sense. If someone literally has to believe on faith alone without any proof, it will make the trials that come through challenges of their faith much more potent.

3: No grounds why you can't do this on your deathbed.

Technically in christian theology this sort of ministry is allowed. However, if you're planning to do this in any other faith, you should probably think twice about it since it pretty much goes against common sense. After all if you've spent your entire life doing whatever you want, why should you suddnely be forgiven in your last hours?

Again, this is not the case for chsitianity, but I'm not sure about any other faiths.

6: don't say atheism, say godlessness.

Atheism is a commonly used term, while Godlessness isn't. There's no reason to use obscure terms when you have a perfectly fine one that is commonly used.

"Just a passing thought, but aren't atheists a little hypocritical? After all, they claim that they don't believe in a god because it is illogical and stupid (no proof, spaghetti monster, blah blah blah). But logically, wouldn't it be safer/more logical to choose to follow a religion, just as a backup plan if there really is possibly an afterlife? If there is a second life, there's at least a chance your religion is the right one, and you make it. If there isn't then who gives a shit, you're dead anyway. Comments, thoughts? And if you are atheist, maybe add what religion you would pick to cover your bases (one with most followers, one with promises of virgins).

Squiggle squiggle Allah Akbar squiggle squiggle BOOM Āmīn"

This is a really silly argument. You don't choose to believe in something. It either resonates with you or it doesn't.

It's also certainly NOT hypocritical to disbelieve. Do you even know what that word means?

Hypocritical would be if they didn't believe in a god yet pretended to do so to gain favor with such a hypothetical being were it to exist.

What you're actually stating is that you think atheists are honest individuals and that you think they should be more hypocritical.

Also, what if you belive in the wrong god?
What if the god belives in reason more than faith and also rewards athiests?

Pascal's wager is broken.

Christians definitely aren't hypocrites

The holy books of many religions come from the exact same sources as modern discoveries about science

Theories and laws are based on replicable experiments and watchings. What you said was the case to varying extents in sites before the scientific way reached them. Learned guesses are based off of extending these theories and laws. The split is such like assuming if you drop a ball it will fall (over much old happenings and a law saying that they do) against thinking something with no (confirmed) old happenings, like Jesus rising to the sky. Maybe there's some grounds that these happenings don't happen anymore for anyone to confirm ("Proof denies faith and without faith, I am nothing." - God in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), but you don't know that.

If someone literally has to believe on faith alone without any proof, it will make the trials that come through challenges of their faith much more potent.

Why would I believe in anything in the first stead without any proof? It can be hazardous to believe something and then also insist that your belief is the right one without any proof of it. The faeriebook tells me that folk who don't believe in faeries are evil and immoral and will try to kill you at some point in their life, so you should kill them first. This is why violent faith extremists are, and also a few other nutty folk like violent racists (and unrule bombers in particular - one of the presidents of the USA was even killed by one of such).

Again, this is not the case for chsitianity, but I'm not sure about any other faiths.

I doubt it would be different for other Abrahamic faiths. If I did this, I would be Muslim (their hell is the worst, I hear).

Atheism is a commonly used term, while Godlessness isn't.

"godlessness" is a Germanic word, and it's self-explaining, while "atheism" isn't, but means the same thing in Greek.

Edited 8/14/2016 01:15:09

#StopAnglish

Theories and laws are based on replicable experiments and watchings. What you said was the case to varying extents in sites before the scientific way reached them. Learned guesses are based off of extending these theories and laws.

While there definitely are some things that are replicable and should be taken as basic fact, a lot of things aren't and are just based on observation and testimony. For example, to my knowledge we haven't been able to recreate the conditions that allowed for evolution in any artificial environment.

Why would I believe in anything in the first stead without any proof? It can be hazardous to believe something and then also insist that your belief is the right one without any proof of it.

There isn't any proof for atheism either though. With some things for which you have insufficient evidence, you just have to make a blind choice one way or the other.

In fact, practically everyone takes things as given without any proof. I just kind of assume that other people are real, even though I don't really have conclusive proof of it.

The faeriebook tells me that folk who don't believe in faeries are evil and immoral and will try to kill you at some point in their life, so you should kill them first.

This doesn't actually mean much of anything. The fact that there is more than one religion doesn't really have much to do with which one (if any) is true.

"godlessness" is a Germanic word, and it's self-explaining, while "atheism" isn't, but means the same thing in Greek.

Atheism is well known enough of a term that it's basically become self-explanatory. Also, the roots of it aren't too hard to figure out is you think about it for like literally 5 seconds. "Theos" is a really well known word for "God", and a- is a prefix which is commonly used to imply a negative. Thus, a-theos means "Without God", and "A-theos" sounds really similar to "Atheism". Plus that, it's a more novel word than "Godlessness", so it really sticks in your mind once you learn it.

Also, what if you belive in the wrong god?

It doesn't matter, your chances are still improved over not believing at all since so many religions are exclusive.

What if the god belives in reason more than faith and also rewards athiests?

Although it's an interesting idea, it literally makes no sense. What it essentially means is that this God is okay with the idea of you using mind traps to trick yourself into following your own moral code rather than his. Plus this, it doesn't really make much sense that you would be rewarded in any form by a being that you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of.

For example, to my knowledge we haven't been able to recreate the conditions that allowed for evolution in any artificial environment.

What does this mean? Just because we can't simulate it doesn't mean it didn't happen, especially when all evidence points in that direction.

Calling atheists hypocrites for following what they believe and not for just trying to be rewarded "if there is a god"?

Believing in a "god" is very illogical for us, atheists, and I would never lose any time of my life believing in something that, for me, doesnt make sense, neither change anything in my life style. If some god exists let him/her send me to the worst hell, i dont care.

What does this mean? Just because we can't simulate it doesn't mean it didn't happen, especially when all evidence points in that direction.

Dude calm down, I'm not trying to deny anything here. My point was actually that we can believe in things that we're not able to reproduce.

Edited 8/14/2016 03:13:11

I was calm lol

Lol sorry then, it kind of sounded like you were trying to start a flame war over my alleged denial of Evolution :P

Baltic paganism is the one true religion.

For example, to my knowledge we haven't been able to recreate the conditions that allowed for evolution in any artificial environment.

https://sites.google.com/site/myeds60103journeyglo2015/_/rsrc/1442416075103/blogs/2/table%20comparison.png

There have been many signs upholding evolution, such as genetic code, fossil records, and us seeing it in our own lifetimes (in cases like pathogenic evolution). A theory without any consistent signs is called a learned guess. And even with learned guesses, it's just a game of taking the least assumptions. For example, the main guess for how the Moon was made was that a colossal rock named "Theia" crashed into Earth and unloosed loads of stuff that later became the Moon. This is trying to be upheld and downheld. So which takes more assumptions: "assuming there could be a rock that crashed into the Earth" or "assuming a wise unseen being that made the Moon"?

There isn't any proof for atheism either though.

Right, but it's safe to think that there aren't any faeries living under your garden. R. Descartes, a French knowledgelover, played this game and came to the endsay that the only "proof" he has of anything is his wise being - "I think thus I am.". Maybe there's a god but without any signs of it at all, I surely won't believe in it. It's like witchcraft. If God comes into lore, just an easy truth, then I'll believe in God.

The fact that there is more than one religion doesn't really have much to do with which one (if any) is true.

That's not at all my point. You're recommending I take as truth potentially hazardous dogma. I don't believe in what's not at all signed, since there's an endless muchness of what you can make up.

Atheism is well known enough of a term that it's basically become self-explanatory.

It's needless learning of a word that stacks up in the long time. Folk shouldn't have to know the Greek roots that lead up to this word, either, unless they're Greek, when there're good English roots.

What if the god belives in reason more than faith and also rewards athiests?

Although it's an interesting idea, it literally makes no sense. What it essentially means is that this God is okay with the idea of you using mind traps to trick yourself into following your own moral code rather than his.

An allstrong and allknowing god would himself design who would do mindtraps on themselves and who would be helled forever (this god would not be a kind one). It's his own blame and he knows it. Furthermore, I don't think it's a mindtrap to not follow a, at some points, directly disproven and unsigned writ. Even most Christians and Muslims don't follow it to the mark (for example, are women banned at all in Christendom to teach men? "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." 1 Timothy 12). Furthermore, it's not a mindtrap to not assume that there's a God without signs, it's the standard way of doing things.

Plus this, it doesn't really make much sense that you would be rewarded in any form by a being that you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of.

If his point was for you to be logic about it, then sure it would. You passed his the test of logos, you took the appropriate endsay, and he purposefully made no sign of himself.