
I define faith as "belief, in the abscense(sp?) of evidence". I also
include in "evidence" past experiences. Because I have no past experience
in a god actually having an effect on my life and because I have never
seen evidence for any god beyond what can be explained without the
neccessity of a god or which is more convincing than the many fictional
works I have read (And other reasons), I do not believe in any god(s).
From what I have seen, some people reconcile this lack of evidence by
using faith.
It is faith in that sense (the only way I _currently_ understand the word
"faith") that I find intellectually dishonest.


Pascal's wager goes something like this:
Premise #1: Either there is or there isn't a God.
Premise #2: If God exists, He wants us to believe and will damn us for not
believing.
Premise #3: If God does not exist, then belief in God doesn't matter
because death is death, anyway.
Conclusion: Belief in God is superior to non-belief because
non-belief damns us to eternal punishment if we are wrong, while belief in
God only wastes a little time in life if we are wrong.

Sound pretty straightforward and is logically sound. The problem is,
Premise #1 presupposes 1:1 odds between belief and non-belief. This is
flat out wrong, because of the sheer number of religions out there and the
fact that, for the most part, the religions are mutually exclusive. I have
heard theists referred to as "99% atheists" because they believe in their
god (or gods) to be the _one_ god (or set of gods). The consequence of
this is "what if I pick the wrong god?" Suddenly, the odds don't look so
good because picking the wrong god or wrong doctrines of a god still
leaves you with the possibility of being wrong and being damned to another
god's version of hell.


I don't see how "disillusionment" enters into it. You see, I presented my
mother's treatment of me to show the cause of my questioning my atheism, a
questioning which continues to this day. I had already been an atheist for
five years before having any contact with my mother's version of
Christianity. If anything, I had become somewhat disillusioned with
atheism (uh, oh, I thought, What if there *is* a God?). Yes, in a way, I
have also become disillusioned by many religions, simply because I had
thought at one time that they had all the answers, if I only found the
right one.
I'm still looking, but each time I look in a different place, I become a
little stronger in my attitude (belief, if you will, no faith, though,
it's based on the evidence of past experience) that I'll never find a
religion which has all the answers.
Sorta like looking for Easter eggs. The more time it takes you to find the
next one, the more convinced you become that you may already have found
all the eggs you're going to find.
Someone else mentioned that critisism isn't going to make me think any
more highly of Christians. I have a contrary position: Constructive
critisism will likely improve my attitude towards Christians. Abusive
critisism will turn me off.
No accusations to you, Mr. Sapienza. I merely slipped that into this post
because I forgot to reply to that one.


Muppets and Garlic Toast forever.

Max (Bob) Muir