Right, that's what N. said - Christianity is a hoax, a "slave morality" perpetrated by those without power on those with power, blah, blah, blah.

If he's right(that God doesn't exist), then only finite, objective value exists, and you are free to create your own subjective value. But he could be wrong. Then infinite, objective value exists. Despair is produced because we want something higher than ourselves. The values we create for ourselves are still finite and in the larger view of things, trivial.

So I'm saying, if you have that despair, you lose nothing by pursuing theism, because pursuing atheism does nothing to cure despair, and basically, you give up nothing of any real value by pursing theism. Even if theism turns out to be false, what have you lost?

What type of values should man kind create? But first who would set them? And I doubt all of mankind would agree to them? Or that different men would come up with different values which would man kind follow or know to be right?

I think making a decision is ongoing. It isn't that at some point we have to but in the nature of the case we ARE deciding all the time - in our thought life, our daily actions, what we do with our time, etc. It will at times come to a head and be more obvious and dramatic and that's when we tend to identify something as a decision.

It depends on the brand of theism. But I'm not an anti-religious crusader anyway.

I'm not advocating any brand. No brand is perfect, few brands are completely false. My final standard for judging any human position is the Bible.

Edit: Well, I do advocate Christian theism, of course. I was thinking in terms of denominations above.

Here's one reason why Pascal Wager-type considerations don't seem relevant to me. I agree with you that this is properly thought of as an on-going process of choosing how to live our lives. I don't think it ever ends--even if/when someone converts to Christianity (or away from Christianity). However, it seems to me that I am already doing what a good God would want. What you call "pursuing God," I call a sincere and honest search for the truth. As long as I continue in that, wherever it leads me, then am I not already following your advice? And I don't think I'm unique in this. I think most, or at least many, atheists (or Mormons, or Buddhists, etc.) are doing the same.

You are asking questions about morality rather than meaning or value. Those are interesting questions, but I'd like to stay on topic here.

Name me something that has meaning or value? And how you come to that conclusion

If someone has this despair. Then they can loose more by not finding God in an endless fruitless search that leads to even more despair.

I try not to make judgments on individuals. DS regularly tries to trap me into doing this. There are some who would say you should do more but I just don't know. As I said, you seem to be open minded, which is a great plus. Whether or not you are doing what God wants is way, way above my pay scale. What the Bible says God wants is for us to admit we are sinners, to repent from sin and turn to Christ for forgiveness. That's just the starting point, necessary but only the beginning of the salvation process. In general, God wants you to have a personal relationship with Him and Christianity teaches that relationship has its basis in the Incarnation and Atonement, appropriated to the individual through faith.

There is a wager aspect to this. The search costs you little or nothing but the commitment will cost you everything. That's something that isn't promoted as it should be by Christians. A Christian is supposed to take up his cross and follow Christ, to die daily, to lose his life for Christ's sake. But when you do that you already believe that what you give up is nothing of real value.


Phil 3:

7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ

I can't really put it in mathematical terms. Suppose as I'm dying I find out for sure God doesn't exist and I missed out on a lot of "fun" during my life. I genuinely think I will look at that fun, look at what I was hoping for, and think, "Oh well, it was worth a shot". Maybe some mild regret but hardly noticeable. I can't say I would have felt that way before I became a Christian. The actual loss is "rubbish" but the perception of loss may be severe. The sin nature has a powerful hold on us.

BTW, no one can say what you actually have to give up. You have to be willing to give up everything, but what God will require of you will be what is best for you, not for me.

Im just measuring what you have to lose by despair. You can get more despair by trying to be a theists. So if thats what one is trying to avoid searching for God might not be the best bet.

I don't know why that would be the case and I don't personally know a Christian who feels that way. From what I've seen people who quit being Christians do so because they no longer believe it, not because of any increase in despair. Not that it can't happen, just I've never seen it.

I must not be making myself clear. But id rather not tard up a good thread. So..

I used to be a Christian and I used to feel that despair.

My friendship with my best friend, C____ has value. I come to this conclusion by realizing the importance of this relationship to me--that I'm willing sacrifice money, time, and pleasure to strengthen this relationship.

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that even if Pascal's Wager is correct, I don't see that I should be doing anything more than what I and other atheists who are sincere in our searching for the truth about religion are already doing.

That is, let's say that you became convinced that Christianity was probably false. Do you really think that in that state God's desire for your life would be for you to lie to yourself--to try to deceive yourself into believing what you think is false?

Sure, I can see how you would think that the best thing would be for you to realize the truth that God does exist and wants a personal relationship and so on. But what is second best? Is it trying to deceive or force yourself to believe something you suspect is false? Or is it to continue an honest and sincere seeking for understanding?

While obviously not a case of quitting Christianity, even so great a Christian as Mother Teresa reports feeling this sense of despair (I haven't actually read these letters, so I assume the article is somewhat accurate).

Also, in my reading of the Christian mystics this despair doesn't seem that uncommon.

If you sincerely think Christianity is false then all I can see for you to do is keep searching and keep examining your own motives. I do not recommend that you try to convince yourself something is true that you genuinely believe is false, nor that you believe what you don't believe. "The heart cannot accept what the mind cannot believe" - loose quote, don't remember who said it.

God promises that if you seek Him with all your heart you will find Him. I believe He keeps His promises so as long as you remain honest in your search I think you will eventually come to believe.

Jesus said on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?"

Though these examples show great difficulty in the soul, I don't think it's the same thing as existentialist despair.

David prayed for God to restore to him the JOY of his salvation. At the time he was suffering severe trials because of his sin. So we do not always experience the immediate presence of God. Nor is this trial always due to sin - obviously not for Jesus, uncertain why Mother Teresa had such extreme trials. I suspect though that many Christians do go through what she did but either don't speak of it or they are not public figures.

Christians do not have, nor or they promised, a trouble free life. On the contrary "Whom the Lord loves, He disciplines". And not all discipline is punishment for sin - it is often for the purpose of spiritual growth.

I identify with M.T. - I still have a sin nature, "Now we see in a mirror imperfectly, but then face to face". I have made some truly bad decisions, even since I became a Christian. Though God forgives the sin and though He does provide help for messed up lives, there are still consequences - and He doesn't always allow us to escape those consequences in this life.

If a Christian has severe doubts about the truth of Christianity, which certainly happens, then he would also have similar feelings to a non-Christian, and for similar reasons - he is no longer sure his life does have meaning greater than himself. The cure for the feeling is the same - return to the Lord and seek His will. Why it doesn't appear to have worked for M.T. I don't know - but she appears to have continued her search all her life, she didn't reject God or become an apostate. I believe that all the trials we have in this life produce the "gold, silver and precious stones" the Bible talks about as our reward in heaven. Perhaps M.T. will have far more of these rewards than others who seem to have had more joy and peace in their lives. She remained faithful through trials that might have broken me. But she seems to have persevered. That's real faith, real trust.

Morality needs external justification, of course!

Why? Well, the internally valid logic that I am presenting has convinced me that the world is scary and confusing otherwise there is no other sensible explanation for how the world works! And all of human experience and history aside, the world cannot function without this view of morality.

You may be wondering how I am reaching these conclusions without external justification, but don't worry, I don't care read it in a book written by God. Which is external.

Oooof. This is you effectively conceding your position and you don't even realize it. Pathetic.

Meh. Stop playing nice. NR claims in the follow-up to this he DOESN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR LINE and proceeds to scatter the argument into splinters that will never all be tracked down. (Very Craig-esque by the way, well done?) He has shown in these discussion to be very smart and capable of understanding complicated philosophical concepts so I call 100% BS/liar on him here. Your line was simple and the implications of it were very clear.

Surely it's him asserting that atheists are the wishful thinkers?

Not playing - I am nice. I'm maintaining civility because I like NR and rudeness gets you nowhere, really.

Fair enough. I would argue that NR is the one being inherently rude though (someone used dishonest before and I used to think that, but it is stranger than that.) Him willfully dodging/re-parsing parts of posts and pretending to not understand things based on convenience is intellectually "rude", it wastes people's time who are genuinely participating to be informed since his participation is all one big thinly veiled "You have turned away from God I guess if you don't get it. Too bad for you." Seems less than worthless as a conversational tactic is all, especially in light of NR's admission that religion "got to him" via the common tract of preying on depression and mental non-wellbeing at a young volatile age.

Also existential nihilism =/= moral nihilism? Existential nihilism seems to go hand-in-hand with atheism but lumping it all together is pretty bad which is all I am reading really?