Is it better to be a believer or an athiest?

[randb]

This is what I thought of a while ago....and then a couple of days back, I got to know that someone came up with this like 300 years ago....

So assuming that a Person A strongly believes in god.. If god doesn't exist, he wont lose anything..and if he does, A's soul goes to heaven which is a good thing...

A person B is athiestic. If god exists, he'll be punished for not believing in god (according to the Bible...and other religious texts...but correct me if I'm wrong).. And if god doesn't exist, he doesn't gain anything anyway...

A:
Worst Case: neutral...After death...he'll cease to exist..
Best Case: He goes to heaven

B:
Worst Case: torture in hell
Best Case: neutral...ceases to exit...


This is just a statiscal way to look at it, assuming that the probability of god existing is not equal to 0.

 

[JerryL]

What if the universe was created by a God who hates theists? Then A goes to hell and B goes to heaven? What if there is a God, though it's not the one A believes in; and while this God can understand doubt (atheism), infedility (worshipping a false God) is abhorrent to hem. Then, again, A goes to hell and B goes to heaven.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

Plus, you know, really strong belief doesn't just come from looking at the odds and picking what seems to be the best bet. I know my deepest convictions wouldn't change like that.

And you're only looking at what happens after death. Shouldn't you also look at what goes on during life and factor the positive and negative sides to that in? I mean what if (say, and I'm not implying that this is true in all or even most cases, but it's possible) the believer is a nasty person due to misguided beliefs, and the atheist ends up a scientist who makes important contributions to humanity. Shouldn't that count for something? Or things could go the other way round, with the believer being the contributor due to their beliefs. This life counts too.

 

[Nehustan]

Ever heard of 'Pascal's wager'?????​

​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager​

 

[Aqualung]

The worst case for A, in their beliefs is ceasing to exist, but then you put best case is being in heaven. How can this be? If best case is something that they don't even believe could happen, wouldn't worst case also be something they didn't believe in, ie eternal torture in hell?

 

[d.]

we have little choice in the matter, though - most of us tend to believe what we feel is more likely.

 

[Jaymes]

You fail to account for every other god or goddess in the history of humanity. Maybe he's worshipping the wrong one? Maybe they all want to be worshipped? Maybe how he's supposed to worship has been twisted and he's unwittingly doing it incorrectly?

It's not just A or B.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By that logic, we should all believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, too. After all, a believer has nothing to lose; but if you don't believe in the IPU and she exists, you'll have to shovel her manure for all eternity.

*I apologize for bringing up the IPU, to those who have seen it like a million times *

 

[Cowrebellion]

You thought of that yourself you say? I recall seeing it in a popular science maths book

 

[gnostic]

My problem with the Pascal's wager is that you are accepting something that you don't believe, as an insurance. That's to me, strike the nerve of being a hypocrite.

Either I fully believe in God or gods, and then join the religion, or I don't believe in their existence and not join in any religion. It is important that I remain true to myself, instead of placing wager on both religion and atheism.

Heck, I don't even like to gamble! :bonk:

 

[Majikthise]

Ever heard of 'Pascal's wager'?????​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager​

Make sure you read the whole thing.

Not impressed.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Many numerous and myriad are the problems with Pascal's Wager. IF there was but one God, and IF that God actually existed, then, and only then would Pascal's Wager be effective, but even then, you are only hedging your bets and are not really a true beleiver. So even in these very narrow and unlikely circumstance, ultimately, you still end up with problems.

Pascal's Wager is quite effective on the simple minded, those who cannot think outside the box and those who have an all or nothing mentality. For those bright enough to realize that there are many more possibility's than those laid out by Pascal, it falls apart pretty quickly. Once again it all boils down to the wisdom of Homer Simpson. . . .

"But what if we picked the wrong God? By going to Church each week, aren't we just making Him angrier and angrier?"

B.

 

[roli]

I guess that would depend on the interpretation of belief:
which is to assume or suppose, to be convinced of the truth or existence of,to accept the statement or opinion of a person as true.
Mainstream psychology and related disciplines have traditionally treated belief as if it were the simplest form of mental representation and therefore one of the building blocks of conscious thought. Philosophers have tended to be more rigorous in their analysis and much of the work examining the viability of the belief concept stems from philosophical analysis.

The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition) so like other propositional attitudes, belief implies the existence of mental states and intentionality, both of which are hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mind and whose foundations and relation to brain states are still controversial.

Beliefs are sometimes divided into core beliefs (those which you may be actively thinking about) and dispositional beliefs (those which you may ascribe to but have never previously thought about). For example, if asked 'do you believe tigers wear pink pyjamas ?' a person might answer that they do not, despite the fact they may never have thought about this situation before.

The belief in God from a born again christians experience is anything but a simplified belief system ,it is a living personal encounter with God through His Spirit.
And is virtually impossible for the natural mind to comprehend because of it's insistence on understanding thru reason and intellect.
So based on a personal living experience through an encounter with God, I would have to say from my own personal encounter and being on both sides of the fence of belief and unbelief.
Belief in God is better then disbelief as belief produces faith which inturn opens up the mysteries and hidden secrets of God that typically are left closed to those who disbelieve.
Not to say that athiests can't believe in God but they just won't experience the intimacy,forgiveness,and freedom in Christ that sets people free from the sinful nature.
The greatest miracle is the transforming power of God through conversion to those who believe it is truly an awesome lifelong experience.

 

[Ormiston]

So based on a personal living experience through an encounter with God, I would have to say from my own personal encounter and being on both sides of the fence of belief and unbelief.
Belief in God is better then disbelief as belief produces faith which inturn opens up the mysteries and hidden secrets of God that typically are left closed to those who disbelieve.
Not to say that athiests can't believe in God but they just won't experience the intimacy,forgiveness,and freedom in Christ that sets people free from the sinful nature.
The greatest miracle is the transforming power of God through conversion to those who believe it is truly an awesome lifelong experience.

So you would agree that insanity and halucinations are absolutely the greatest experiences possible because they produce limitless faith which inturn opens up mysteries and hidden secrets typically left closed to the sane? Some have self-respect for what we believe in.

 

[sky87]

just to answer the main question asked. i think that being a believer is better, sure you have some rules to follow, however you have your freedom as well. and what religion has done for us truly phenomenal, we have evolved into a civilized society where MOST of us know right from wrong, compared to the early ages.

 

[Ormiston]

just to answer the main question asked. i think that being a believer is better, sure you have some rules to follow, however you have your freedom as well. and what religion has done for us truly phenomenal, we have evolved into a civilized society where MOST of us know right from wrong, compared to the early ages.

And you credit religion!? I credit man.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I agree Ormiston,

Religion held this back for centuries. It was with the rise of naturalism and secular humanism following the Reformation and the loosening of the stranglehold The Church had on society that the idea of everyone, including women, racial minorities and (perish the thought) those who did not own land was equal and deserved to be treated as full humans.

B.

 

[BucephalusBB]

You talk about after life..
What if you find out during your life you were wrong.
theist -> atheist = you lose your made up friend
atheist -> theist = you gain a real friend

I rather start as an atheist then

 

[Opethian]

You could ask this same question:

Wear glasses that make everything pink which in turn makes you happy but distort your eyesight (believer), or wear glasses that do not make you happy but enable you to see clearer (atheist).

 

[michel]

By that logic, we should all believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, too. After all, a believer has nothing to lose; but if you don't believe in the IPU and she exists, you'll have to shovel her manure for all eternity.

*I apologize for bringing up the IPU, to those who have seen it like a million times *

What ? I didn't realise the unicorn was invisible...........how do you......oh, I see. Yes.

In answer to the OP, "Is it better to be a believer or an atheist ?", If I was God, I would be a little 'miffed' at the thought that someone believed in me just to 'cover his tracks'.

Don't forget, there's no fooling him! - He'll see right through you; there's no hiding your motives from him.

As I believe everyone will be given every opportunity to accept him (even after death), I don't honestly think it makes that much of a difference. Unless, of course, you think that believing in him during your life is going to spoil your 'fun'.............