The Meaning Of Life and Longevity Thereof

[IsmAvatar]

Allow me to digress to a more sensible self, rather than repeating random rhetoric I pulled up from some website. Indeed, my post (and quote) were simply quotes from a popular /b/ image, along with the successive irreverent post of an "extraterrestrial jesus"; the image bearing the description, "Futility - All those carefully worded arguments are falling on deaf ears".

Allow me now to address your points.

Starting with the unusual assumption that life is futile , and thus we must simply create beliefs which suit our pleasure (I may later disassemble this assumption), I would not consider an afterlife to be a necessarily pleasurable outcome. In particular, in the year 2002, there were 27,000 active religions proclaiming a heaven-like outcome to those who profess, and a hell-like outcome to those who profess a belief in any religion that is not theirs in particular (that is to say, you have a 26,999:1 chance of picking the "right one" if there is a right one). I'm of course barring a few thousands of religions which make no mentions of these outcomes temporarily.

Now what it really comes down to is Pascal's Wager. If you are unfamiliar of the classical Pascal's Wager (one of the last semi-mathematical contributions of the famous statistician, Blaise Pascal, before finally beginning a downward spiral into utter Christian insanity), it begins with 2 states, and 2 choices. The states are that there is a heaven and hell, or there is not a heaven and hell. Simple enough. The choices, as you've mentioned, are to believe, or to not believe (for Pascal, the belief was of course in God). Now it makes an assumption which I find questionable. It states the simple assertion that if you believe, and there is a Heaven, that you will go to heaven, and the vice versa for Hell. I will momentarily explain why this stands on shaky grounds (barring of course, momentarily, your assumption of futility), but for now, allow me to complete the explanation of Pascal's Wager.

* You live as though God exists.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
* You live as though God does not exist.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.

Using simple statistics, I acknowledge that the sensible choice is to live as though God exists, simply because a positive infinite is far more reasonable than a negative infinite.
Pascal's wager is then extended to difference outcomes of "If God does not exist', accounting for possible outcomes such as finite gain and finite loss, but in the end, it is well known (and I acknowledge) that the infinite trumps the finite. This is a simple application of Game Theory (which Pascal made many great contributions to)

Now the assumption it makes. It makes that assumption that the God in which you believe is the correct God. This is an unreasonable assumption, because as I stated before, there's at least 27,000 religions all claiming that their God is the correct God, and all the rest will go to Hell. Thus, you have a 1 in 27,000 chance of picking the right one and going to Heaven, and a 26,999 chance in 27,000 of picking the wrong one and going to Hell. By statistics (and applying many of Pascal's own formulae), this causes the positive infinite to simply come down to a simple chance of 1 in 27,000, and resultantly cancel. Thus, your outcomes are either infinite Hell (for either of the "God exists" choices) or finite time on earth to live as you choose (for either of the "God does not exist" choices).
So if God exists, you have an extremely high probability of winding up in Hell. Your chances of picking the right guy are Statistically Insignificant. Thus, might as well assume that there is no God, and live your finite time on earth as you please, because it's either this finite happiness and then nothing, or this finite happiness and then an eternity in hell.


That said, I also touch back on the simple fact that most of the literal readings of their scriptures state that you must live a very harsh life - and this applies to scriptures of non-abrahamic and non-christian religions as well. The simple fact of the matter is, no matter your fictitious afterlife that brings you a very small finite joy, the fact still exists that you're going to make a crappy life for yourself. Atheism on the other hand, lends itself freely to a joyous life. Oblivion isn't that bleak, when you consider the alternative of lying to yourself. I think the truth is a more noble goal than lies. It's also more virtuous.



Now on to your response to my joke post.

What can be observed can be proved and called "fact", but that does not mean the unobservable is false. Barring a subjective quantum reality - which is entirely acceptable I suppose - the planets in our solar system existed long before they were ever discovered.

My assertion is statistically reasonable (and accurate) once you consider the infinite possibilities that there are when you take way the burden of proof. Anybody can claim anything, e.g. my Dragon in my Basement, and see also Burtrand Russel's Teacup, and Pastafarianism's Flying Spaghetti Monster (touched by His divine noodliness). When there's not a shred of evidence to narrow the choices down to a manageable set, we reject them as statistically insignificant until further proof arrives.

[Alexander_Q]

You have made a large error in the assumptions supporting your reply, and those are that you made any assumptions at all. "God" and "Afterlife" are concepts that can easily stand as separate from "Religion", "Heaven" and "Hell".

Often when someone talks about God, we make the culturally-induced error of thinking of such things as The Bible, Jesus, Prophets, etc, when no such connection to these objects were intended. "God", as it were, denotes an all powerful being. "Afterlife" denotes a continued existence after physical death. There are no religious conotations, especially in my post.

Let me explain. I denounce religion, and in the example given above, think that Pascal was a fool. His logic relied on "God" and "Afterlife" being connected to religion - much like the logic of Descartes - and as we have seen, these concepts do not, or should not, imply any such connection. I live as though there is a God, and as though there is an afterlife, and as though all religions are false. I find it reprehensible to force, through culture or through bloody war as has often been the case, any "set of beliefs" that serve to close people's minds.

My "God" doesn't care what you've done or who you've become, He's always there to guide you. Similarly, my "Afterlife" is available to either everyone, or no one. These are the things I "choose" to believe in the absence of any contrary proof, and indeed if the Flying Speaghetti Monster (may His divine noodly tendrils envelop the world) made me happy I'd choose to live as if He was real too.

[IsmAvatar]

I used to live like that - believing that there was a supreme being and an afterlife, and rejection religion. I used to think he was just there to help and make life nicer. But then I realized that he wasn't helping at all. In fact, I was beginning a downward spiral into depression, and tried to make my connection with him stronger so that I could overcome it through a love of God. But the days just got worse and worse, until eventually I realized it wasn't God. It was just me. I had control of my life, and I could make it how I wanted. I am in control of my actions, not some other celestial noodly body, and not some gray-haired old man who finds pleasure in making you suffer.

And I'm pretty sure that Pascal's Wager can stand separate from religion, since heaven is solely defined as an infinitely positive afterlife, and God is thrown in there for some reason (after all, you can easily believe in an afterlife without needing a God or gods) - but the wager could easily be modified to omit Him. He also assumes that there is a hell, defined purely as an infinitely negative afterlife, so as to discourage you from living an immoral life (this is logical, since if you believed in heaven and no hell, then why would you care about morality? You could kills millions of people, etc etc, and still wind up in heaven?).


As for the "absense of proof" thing, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was only 1 example to demonstrate a plethora, and indeed, an infinite supply, of Gods. Thus, if you accept a single god or 2 gods (God + His Noodliness) solely on the grounds that there is no proof against them, then you would also have to believe the infinite other gods, scenarios, etc as well, including but not limited to, Russel's Invisible Teapot, the Dragon in my Garage, ad infinitum (even with your "positive life" ideal, there is still an infinite supply. After all, I think it'd be wicked cool if I had a Dragon in my Garage (and a Garage, for that matter)).