:: Pascal's Wager
Pascal's wager doesn't make any sense to me. First of all, you can't choose what to believe--if you doubt the existence of the Easter Bunny, but you "choose" to beleive in him because it's a "good bet", you are simply lying to yourself. Secondly, even if you do beleive Jesus was a divine savior, you are still condemned to hell by a bunch of other religions, so no matter what you beleive you can never be "safe".
Well if you were the betting type, in choosing a religion you would go with the religion that seems most logical. But you are right. Pascal's wager is flawed on many levels:
1. The first point is that God (of most religions) would not approve of someone who had faith on this basis. Thus, the "empty" belief would actually not benefit you at all.
2. Pascal's wager states that believing in God only is a minor nuisance compared to suffering in hell. Many people disagree, saying it is a major nuisance. Believing in God eliminates one's independence and ability to maintain an internal locus of control.
3. The third point has already been hit on. The concept of God is arbitrary. God may just as likely reward sinners.
4. The last flaw is that there is not evidence of God's existence, therefore the odds greatly favor the non-believer.
The best arguments for theism were set forth by Thomas Aquinas in his work
Summa Theologica. These proof's, however, have been refuted many times. If you would like to discuss them let me know.
Basically, most atheists have told me they don't believe in god is simply because there is no reason to, since no proof has been put forth.
-----------------------------------------------------------
:: Suffering
Are you saying that humans are the cause of cancers, diabetes, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and also famine, poverty, etc? Surely an all-loving God could not let these atrocities devour his dearly loved creations. You say these are punishments for original sin, but I did not commit the original sin, nor did you, or orthodox, or anyone else on this site, or anyone else on this planet. Adam and Eve (a loophole of a story in itself, a human race can not be created with one man and one woman) committed the original sin. Why is God still blaming us for it? And I would think that such a forgiving individual as God would be able to forget one little mistake that occured so long ago.
Suffering is a complicated topic when it comes to rationalizing theism. C.S. Lewis is among those who have written an entire book about it, his is called The Problem of Pain. He was actually an atheist for much of his life and became a Christian in his later years.
I'll start off by saying I think there are probably two kinds of suffering. The first kind is caused by humans, either self-inflicted or caused by another individual. The second type of suffering is one which humans have little or no control over.
As for the first type of suffering I mentioned, I do not believe it can be attached to God. I believe that I am, to a large extent, in control of my actions. Sometimes free will is used for bad instead of good. I do not believe God could be held responsible for this.
The second kind of suffering is much harder to explain. Many Christians believe that all things happen for a reason (of course an atheist may believe the same thing - you might develop cancer as a result of life style choices: smoking, sunbathing, etc). But Job, in the bible, is a good example. If you are not familiar with this story, God allowed Job to be tempted by the devil for many years. Job suffered greatly but he stuck it out and when the trial had passed he was stronger than before. So a Christian might say that God allows us to suffer so that we can become a better individual in some way. I would also like to make clear that the Bible portrays the Christian belief to be not that God makes us suffer but allows us to do so.
Why do we go through periods of trial and tribulation? The best answer I have found to this is a quote by CS Lewis from The Problem of Pain.
"My own experience is something like this. I am progressing along the path of life in my ordinary contentedly fallen and godless condition, absorbed in a merry meeting with my friends or a bit of work that tickles my vanity today, a holiday or a new book, when suddenly a stab of abdominal pain that threatens serious disease, or a headline in the newspapers that threatens us all with destruction, sends this whole pack of cards tumbling down. At first I am overwhelmed, and all my little happinesses look like broken toys. Then[
] I try to bring myself into the frame of mind that I should be in at all times. I remind myself that these toys were never intended to posses my heart, that my true good is in another world[...] And perhaps, by Gods grace, I succeed, and for a day or two become a creature consciously dependent on God and drawing its strength from the right sources. But the moment the threat is withdrawn, my whole nature leaps back to the toys: I am anxious, God forgive me, to banish from my mind the only thing that supported me under the threat[
] And that is why tribulations cannot cease until God either sees us remade or sees us that our remaking is now hopeless."
This logic is not all-inclusive, but I do not think that suffering can be considered a good argument for atheism. That is what I think though, let me know if you have any questions.
) basically states that god subjects us to pain and suffering, because it is during those times that we turn to him for help the most, and obviously that is what he wants. This concept disturbs me a little. Do you think that it's right for god to make people suffer, just so they'll stroke his ego? I don't mean to offend here, this is just what's going through my head. What are your ideas on this?