Any other atheists here? Some frustration

[awakening2]

I find Thorne's statement very thought provoking, "...consciousness is a function of energy and not simply a biochemical anomaly..." Further, " ...the same can be said of your atoms, whether from the decay products of your body..."! Synfall also adds an interesting statement above...even though I sense there seems to be little difference between the two...(sure not my judgement to make…!)

Nevertheless, I really liked the logical interpretation and rather find them a bit alarming/enlightening in a sense that it adds, indirectly some logical weight to the concept of life after death and the ultimate accountability and justice, professed by some religions, especially following holy Books. This lead to a simple calculation:
a) suppose there is no such reality of accountability (after death) so we need not worry of what ever we do here will make any difference to us, then those who thought so scored nearly 90-100 out of 100 as far as the enjoyment in this life is concerned (doing what pleased more). The score of those who believed in accountability in the life after death would be around 50 out of 100 as they did lot of self-restraints and self-control and enjoyed only things those were permitted in their beliefs.
b) Suppose there is accountability after death and these atoms and “conscious energy” are transformed back “for re-birth” as was done in the first case (our present life). Now those who did not believed in life after death and accountability, would lose every thing (being non-believer- no marks for the good deeds performed in ignorance, and punishment for the wrong doings done willingly). The believers, on the other hand, will be getting 90-100 percent marks. So it means if we believe we will not be a total loser in case there is no life after death, and if there is life after death – perfect winners. However, non-believers will be on two extreme ends, if there is no life after death and accountability, they are better off the rest, but on the contrary they would be the worst off (if there is accountability and life after death). Thus, playing safe would be to believe and do good deeds, so even in the worst case scenario, have some consolation (50%) then losing all?

Many thanks for the two for this philosophical discussion...though I wonder why I am trying to think about something that I know nothing about and the outcome of which I can only guess? Why not on the things which are in front of me and can give an outcome in my life-time, given my efforts in it...!

Still, Nice to be here...it does stimulate one's thinking!

[Thorne]

I wonder why I am trying to think about something that I know nothing about and the outcome of which I can only guess? Why not on the things which are in front of me and can give an outcome in my life-time, given my efforts in it...!

This is my point of view as well. We would all be far better off utilizing our energies to make this life better, for ourselves and our families, than in worrying about some potential afterlife. It's like the difference between using your hard earned income to buy groceries and pay the mortgage, insuring your safety, or spending it on lottery tickets for some intangible potential gain which may never come.

As for doing good deeds, I believe that most people, despite what they profess, refrain from doing "bad" things more out of fear of the consequences of the here and now rather than the consequences of some possibly mythical future.

We should respect the rights of others not because some god supposedly tells us to, but because that's how we want to be treated ourselves. We should obey the laws not because we fear for our souls, but because we fear prison and punishment, and because those laws give us all a sense of security which anarchy would not.

And if I'm wrong? If there is a God, and he is more concerned over my lack of faith than in the fact that I tried to be a good, honest person? Then to hell with him (and me)! I don't think I'd want to spend eternity with such a god.

[leo9]

b) Suppose there is accountability after death and these atoms and “conscious energy” are transformed back “for re-birth” as was done in the first case (our present life). Now those who did not believed in life after death and accountability, would lose every thing (being non-believer- no marks for the good deeds performed in ignorance, and punishment for the wrong doings done willingly). The believers, on the other hand, will be getting 90-100 percent marks. So it means if we believe we will not be a total loser in case there is no life after death, and if there is life after death – perfect winners. However, non-believers will be on two extreme ends, if there is no life after death and accountability, they are better off the rest, but on the contrary they would be the worst off (if there is accountability and life after death). Thus, playing safe would be to believe and do good deeds, so even in the worst case scenario, have some consolation (50%) then losing all?

The trouble with Pascal's Wager (as it's historically called) is that it only works if you assume (a) that there is, or isn't, only one God, and (b) that He/She/Whatever is sufficiently egocentric and brutal to damn people just for not praying to Him/Her/FlyingSpaghettiMonster, regardless of their other virtues.

As a polytheist I have trouble with premise (a). I don't have any trouble accepting that the God of the Mosaic faiths exists, as one of the many aspects of the Allfather, but I personally prefer to give my worship to the Goddess. But even within the limits of the Mosaic faiths, it won't do you any good to believe in Jaweh of the Torah if it turns out that Allah was in charge all along. Or vice versa.

And premise (b), as defined by the First Commandment, only really applies within the Mosaic faiths. Most other religions accept, outside of their primitive backwoods factions, that the gods will reward you for living a virtuous life whether or not you pray in their particular name or none at all.