Let's talk simply here.  Let's say atheism is right, and belief in God is wrong.  That means that all who believe in God are okay at the end of the day, despite what you say. 

However, let's say that belief in God is right and atheism is wrong.  That means you are in big trouble.  Is it worth it? 

If you are right, I have nothing to fear.  If I am right, I have nothing to fear.  If you are right OR if I am right I have nothing to fear.  With that in mind, who is the most logical here?

What is your point?   Please explain.

Pascal's Wager?  Are you serious?  I'm really reading this as an argument you think anyone should be taking seriously?

You might want to do some reading, because Pascal's Wager is a fallacy and it's been ripped to shreds.   I believe Richard Dawkins handled this one very well, 'What if you're wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?'

It's stupid to ask someone if they wouldn't rather believe in your god because they might be wrong about what it is they don't believe.  Worse is disguising the option as one or the other, when there are an infinite number of gods in antiquity, the present and that I could make up each one of them with as good a chance at actually existing.  Perhaps along with your question you should provide absolute proof that your god is the one true god.  Put up or shut up and don't insult this forum with Pascal's Wager; I believe there may be people here on the brink of insanity who might be put over the edge if they read it one more time.

Christianity is not a religion. 

You may have heard that already, but it seriously isn't.  It is the only belief system where you actually have a relationship with God.  Most people who say they are Christian see it as one of the many religions.  However, Christianity has nothing to do with good works.  It has to do with surrendering your life to God.   

I have a PhD in psychology and used to think being "born again" was all in the head.  I discounted it for years.  I thought those who were "born again" wanted to be so beforehand and had a self fulfilling prophecy.  

That is so easily said before you surrender yourself to God.

Anyway, best of luck with everything.

Nadja

That argument is called Pascal's Wager, and to that I say, "Which god?"

There are loads of religions with competing concepts of a god(s), and many of them don't look kindly on those practicing the 'wrong' religion. So the wager is a false dilemma. Most permutations of this argument suggest that it's better to believe 'just in case.' This doesn't account for the notion many theists put forward that their god knows everything, so the insincerity of false belief wouldn't be preferable to non-belief.

OP quote, "Well let's show them something else to believe. " .... That's the point and a good one.

The god word of the west is screwed up, and stuck on god of abe.

Alternatives are required. That is all I think Sam is saying. Atheists can offer many helpful atheist philosophies that people need to move on from the old brainwash.

The progressive Buddhists and Pantheists are very  helpful to the atheist cause .... Redefining "god", and putting "god of abe" in the comedy section ..... 

You're a testament to cognitive dissonance then: harboring a delusion while bearing all the specific faculties necessary to recognize it as such, and yet not doing so for some reason. I'd think it would be a burden, knowing I was lying to myself, knowing how I was doing so, and knowing it isn't healthy, day after day after day... but that's just my opinion.

How much of your Christianity did you get from reading a book, or having someone tell you, versus having Jesus whisper it into your ear?

I don't know about Pascal.  I made that on my own, but boy do I feel smart!!

Anyway, please explain.  It has to do with life after death, and your view is still illogical despite what Pascal says or doesn't say.

Nothing needs to be put in the place of religious belief.  I'm frankly not interested in what compels religious belief beyond being aware of it so that I can avoid such compulsion and help people out of religion.  I, however, have no interest in converting people to Atheism as such.  People, in my experience, are quite capable of seeing themselves out of religion once they've been exposed to the merest rationality.

Perhaps it is different in America.  Perhaps believers in America are indeed brainwashed and tragically isolated from the rest of the world and coherency, or perhaps these are people that enjoy lying to themselves and blatantly ignoring reality.  This is something I would believe of religious Americans and to an extent the religious in general.

I happen to vehemently disagree with Harris on the subject of the term Atheism and I think it's ridiculous to suggest that something should be offered in place of religion and that respect should be given to the religious.  I think it's absurd to suggest that we should be 'impressed' by people who manage to fool themselves into believe in something that is patently bullshit and incompatible with reality.  It's also absurd to suggest that there is some inspiration in god belief.  Further, it is mind-numbing to consider 'spiritual experience' as valid as any monist will understand.  (I'll have it understood that I'm well aware that meditation and its effects are real, but this is not 'spiritual' and 'spiritual' does not exist.) I have no desire for anyone to be brainwashed into Atheism and suggesting that we employ the tactics of the religious into catching the attention and converting the religious is outrageous in every sense.  People are quite capable of seeing reason without being stimulated in the ways they are at evangelical gospel masses.

As a side, if anyone choose to disagree with Harris or anyone else, that is healthy and desirable.  I have no intention of aligning myself with Harris because he is also an Atheist.  If I think he's wrong, and I very much do in some cases, then I should be expected to let it be known and to challenge him.  Criticism of Harris is not shameful or perhaps the author would believe that his belief that Hitchens is misguided is shameful.  It's is very unwise to suggest to intelligent people what they should and should not find agreeable.  You may dislike Hitchens tactics, but as I may miss Harris' point (though I don't believe I do), I could say that you miss Hitchens point (though perhaps the body of my response will allow you to see what it is you've missed).

Xians keep re defining themselves , but it's root is dedicated to the god of abe ....

HA HA HA ..... it's over defending that old idea. Get a new name you xians, .....

p.s. I enjoyed the Jesus story too, So What. Hey really check out Buddha too. We are it,  g_o_d ...

now what, fall down and pray ? 

I knew everything about being a Christian, but I wasn't.  I had 5 generations of ministers in my family. 

It's not about going to church or being a good person or obeying the commandments.  I never knew that it was only about surrender.   Once that happens, everything else comes together.

I believe that most people who become ministers do not do it for God, but do it for themselves.  There are loads of hypocrites. 

Talk later,

Nadja

You should not feel smart for coming up with a fallacious argument.

So, you suggest that if I am wrong about my Atheism I go to hell if there is a god and if I believe in god, no matter what I'm in the clear?

I already pointed out why this is fallacious.  Reread my post and intsert afterlife along with 'god' and 'Thor' and whatever and the reasoning maintains.  What I've written is most certainly not illogical and I have a mind to ignore you if you don't look up Pascal's Wager for yourself and learn why what you're talking about is fallacious.  Someone else can respond to you baring that.

If I weren't so lazy, I would look up "Pascal's Wager" tonight.  He is obviously a genius.  I seriously mean that I am lazy, by the way.  It's nothing personal.  I will look him up tomorrow at work while at lunch.

Guess what conference I am going to tomorrow?  It should be very important to you guys.  *sparkle*  If you don't get the right answer, I will wonder about your research skills....

Here is a clue:

Dr. Anthony Flew

If you want to talk about that, create a new thread. This conversation about Pascal's Wager is diverting the original poster's topic as it is. 

Sam Tanner

Thanks . I appreciate an atheist who is honest and frank.

You have raised very important issues ? Why are we the way we are ?. Meaning why is a theist really a theist ? What seems to drive him towards theism, wht sense of purpose does he gets, what is his fulfilment ?  and I agree that before debunking faith , atheists dont go into these questions at all.

There in lies the problem with atheism. It is a know all attitude. Basically we have had to explain to atheists like we explain to children  that most of theists cant really prove god and dont care a shit  about the proof also. However the atheists starts his argument with , " Give me proof ". In doing this he not only completely ignores the fact that the proof is of no value at all, what is valuable is that the sense of purpose behind belief/faith. It drives the theists , it encompasses their lives , it gives them sustenance in various situations.

 So you are right, atheism needs to approach religion (not theists) , and point out the problems in religion , so that those can be addressed. Only when that happens , can the world say that atheism has really contributed to improving faith and religion itself.

However the start of the arguement is from ab initio , please prove God, it cant be proven , so I dont believe in it and you are a fool to believe in it. This just bounces back.

When atheists  realize that there are  highly educated and well read people among theists, they get further confused, irritated.

So the message to atheists - Go slow on Science , technology, Logic - It has much lesser value to the existence for a theist than the subkle gross level things.

Science and Tech are just tools for our lives. It cant be our life itself and it can never replace spirituality , the peace that faith provides.

Finally an honest theist. So you admit that proof doesn't matter. In other words, you believe in God because you want to and it makes you feel good. That is nice. I believe I'm richer than Bill Gates because I want to and it makes me feel good. Why doesn't the credit card company understand and give me a card with no limit? Proof doesn't matter all that matters is you feel good about it.

Venkatrajan, you do a good job making the OP's point. You can't really persuade someone who insists on holding a completely irrational belief even when they recognize it is irrational. No matter how much evidence you offer to the contrary they will continue to be irrational.

Now maybe I am missing something but I do not clearly understand the OP's point. What are we supposed to "replace" religion with? If someone is intent to hold onto an irrational belief it seems to me the only thing to replace it would be a different irrational belief. So you are just creating a different religion. Granted it might be a religion that is not as oppressive as Christianity but you still have the same fundamental problem and people will find a way to make the new religion oppressive as well. Again, maybe I am missing the point but could someone describe exactly what we are supposed to offer theists to replace Jesus? For example, how am I supposed to argue against someone who maintains an irrational belief but ignores evidence against it such as Venkatrajan? Go ahead, argue and see if you can make any headway. I would be very impressed if you can.

Personally, I don't particularly care to go through the effort of offering theists something to replace their religion. Most atheists I know don't go out of their way to burst peoples bubbles about their religions. How many people here would walk up to a person we don't know and start telling them all the reasons god does not exist? I don't. But when a theist comes up to me and starts telling me I need to be "saved" and "surrender" (I hate that word, I'm not surrendering, ever) that is the point where I will burst their little bubble. By offering rational arguments people who have not completely bought into religion will understand and start to question their beliefs. Those that are like Venkatrajan will maintain their little imaginary world but that is their problem not mine. 

What is this dribble about flew? It doesn't matter if somebody who is an atheist becomes a theist, unless his arguments for doing so stand up on their own. Which they don't.

Also, in relation to pascals wager, isn't your god omnisient? Would he therefore know you're faking your belief?  Also, to repeat what others have said its a shit argument. 

The fact that theists don't "care a shit" about proof in thier beliefs is precisely the problem with theism. My point was that there is a neurological process that occurs with religious experience that is very comparable to the feelings one has when creating art, music, or simply contemplating the universe. This is something that we must harness and understand before we can ever overcome religion.

You have to talk to atheists like children because that is how they view your logic: childish. We don't care to accept things without evidence and the fact that you thanked me for my post is clearly indicative that you didn't understand my point. I am as strong an advocate of removing dogma from society as anyone you'd ever want to meet. So when you say that we need to fix the problems with religion, I say there's nothing fixable about it. It shouldn't exist at. Religion is the problem. And you really stupified me when you said 'go slow on science'. That is not what I meant at all. Science is exactly what we should be utilizing to understand this state of mind, and provide an alternative to believing absurd notions like Jesus, or Allah, or whomever. So I think you need to re-read a little, because you've clearly missed the point.

You say you have a PHD in psychology and you've never heard of Pascal?? Not only would I say that you don't have a PHD but you've probably never taken a philosophy/sociology/psychology class. Because if you had, you would have at least heard of Pascal. And what is illogical about basing your life on dogma? What does it hurt? Well save what Dawkins had to say (and he did destroy this argument) and think about having a free-thinking life. If you arrest yourself into proclaiming that you believe in total nonsense because you're scared, then I just feel sorry for you.

While Hitchens tactics are not the way to go about destroying religion, they are entirely correct. I would admit that Christianity is masocistic and that it does poison everything. But how does this make us apear to the world of theists? It makes us appear to be angry. Which, as Hambydamnit has asserted, we should be. But this is not going to shake the hold that theism has over people's minds. I think providing them an alternative is entirely necessary, because it does exist. In fact, whether you admit it or not, you've been exercising your "spiritual" (and you can call it whatever you want, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist) potential by contemplating my post and writing you excellent retort. It stimulated you and made you feel fulfilled. This is what I meant. Meditation is only one form of this. I once read that the top three ways to relieve stress is through prayer, meditation, and exercise. Art was on down the list.

So maybe you're right about disagreeing with Harris. I still think that the majority of people who disagreed with his speech didn't really understand what he was saying.

I think there is a big problem in using words like 'spiritual' that are so steeped in religiosity. To encourage people to find ways to relieve feelings of guilt, as the religious may do praying, or to relax, as the spiritual may do meditating, or to distract themselves from worries, as many people may do exercising, may be fine, but not at the expense of facing what is truth.

Using the methodone approach of replacing religious dogma with spiritual mumbo-jumbo seems to be simply replacing one undesirable situation with another. Surely we could just face the fact that we, as humanity, are responsible for humanity, and confront the problems we face, as humanity, head on.

Let's just ditch all the loaded unnecessary terminology and face what we might call 'reality'. That seems to me to be the only place we will ever be able to make a 'real' difference.  

I agree with Vessel.  Specifically, I'm not exercising my 'spiritual' anything.  If what I'm exercising happens to coincide with what people term 'spiritual', then find a new word for it because that one is necessarily useless.  There is literally nothing 'spiritual' about anything, least of all my brain.

I'm also aware that meditation is only one example for what could be called 'spiritual' (I, admitedly haven't got another word either, but I still find it's use contentious).

 Also like Vessel, I think it's more important to face reality and to leave behind notions like 'spiritual'.  As such a thing can be experienced, it's not 'spiritual' at all.  Simply replacing one 'spiritual' for another is, as Vessel points out, as undesirable as the first situation.  It's analogous to people replacing mainstream religion for new age crap.  I don't want people replacing their new age crap and religion for Atheism for the same reasons they believe in religion and new age crap to begin with (faith and spirituality).  People calling themselves Atheists without knowing exactly why and without convincing themselves of it are not people I want calling themselves Atheists.

In Nadja's reply, the author argued that a person must surrender himself/herself to god (Islam = submission), and to a pagan collection of deities that originated in pagan-Mecca as "al-ʾasmāʾ al-ḥusnā al-ʾasmāʾ al-ḥusnā" that became, in time, "Allah".  For thousands of years people unwilling to think for themselves have invented any number of gods/goddesses (in Hebrew the plural noun is Elohim) to give answer/explanation to that which they did not wish to investigate or trouble themselves over: the generation of life, what happens after death, and other meaningless questions.  To "surrender" means to give up free will and turn the corporal body into a mechanical thing: a machine or marionette. God is for those weak of mind and ill in spirit--they have no decision making ability. I do not need any god or goddess, for reality began without either as matter moved into antimatter.

I'm with you.