How does one justify their religion?

[Infinite_zero]

Don't think this type of specific topic has been made before, but as the title implies, I'm asking how a religous person, or a devout follower justifies their religion compared to all other religions that exist. I.e. how do you justify in saying your religion is the right one compared to the other? Why should someone follow religion A rather than religion B?

Keep in mind that the existence of God in this topic is irrelevant, and I'd like to stay away from discussing that. You can refer to God/Gods, but trying to prove it's existence/non-existence is not relevant to the topic.

Perhaps a better formulated question would be, if one is religious, then why is it a follower of that religion rather than another? If being raised in a certain tradition and religious society determines ones reason to be following that religion (in most cases, especially if one becomes religious at an early age), then that person could've just as well have followed a different one if it was born somewhere else at a different time. If what necessitates one being religious in the first place more or less is determined by in what society you're born in, (I do not take for granted that everyone being born in these societies necessarily becomes a religous devout to that religion only, one can convert, or one can also simply not believe, but these occasions are obviously a minority) then how can you justify that you're christian as opposed to jewish or a hindu for instance?

And reasoning by that you've been raised that way doesn't justify, or give any necessity to why you are following that religion as opposed to another.

I'd like to know if one could justify it on logical and rational grounds on why one follows their certain religion. (just like different philosophical views are argued for and against, the same is not often the case for justification of ones religious belief compared to others)

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

It seems very unlikely that one can actually justify their religion, especially if it was one in which they were born. To such a person we can say, out of all the religions in the world, what luck you happened to be born into the correct one!

When we have a scenario in which several different explanations are equally plausible, it doesn't seem to make sense to belief any one of them, especially when using Occam's Razor we can explain what needs to be explained for practical reasons without the specification of any one of the conflicting, elaborated explanations. Even for those who start with the assumption that at least one god exists, I think this clearly leads to deism or non-religious theism.

[Sim Al-Adim]

By what the religion offers. Happiness here and now. Or happiness in the hereafter. Every different religion has a unique answer to what this happiness is and how to obtain/receive it. People belonging to the religion justify the religion based on how well it delivers what it offers.

[Infinite_zero]

It seems very unlikely that one can actually justify their religion, especially if it was one in which they were born. To such a person we can say, out of all the religions in the world, what luck you happened to be born into the correct one!

Well I agree that to explain why i.e. how come you were born under those specific conditions that paved the way for you having that specific religion is just a random thing, that a person cannot reason, because it's out of their control to choose your birth place and time. But if we consider that one was born and raised as a Catholic Christian, and as you've become older, you've learnt more about the other religions that exists as well, and you've been educated well enough to make rational choices based on logical necessities and other forms of deduction and perhaps even induction. So why conclude with still having the same religion as opposed to another? It is not the case that every religion is the same is it? And if not, then how come one doesn't choose the one that's best? (one would have to first know how to decide which religion actually is better and which is not, but either way).

And you are absolutely right Scott, I myself find it hard to see how a religion can justify their own as opposed to another, it's even harder to do that, than proving God's existence in my opinion. And their first step is exactly that, explaining (justifying) why one who doesn't believe (an atheist, or just simply a casual non-believer or even an agnostic) should choose religion A compared to religion B?

And since justifying ones religion like this seems more of a task than what one would think, it will only lead to the conclusion (more or less implicated, if this is an impossibility) that religion is might I say even meaningless. For the simple reason that if one cannot justify, explain or reason why they have or chose religion A as opposed to religion B without any necessity involved in choosing one, then to even have one to begin with is therefore pointless. As there is no genuine reason for having the specific religion, might as well have had the other one right?

By what the religion offers. Happiness here and now. Or happiness in the hereafter. Every different religion has a unique answer to what this happiness is and how to obtain/receive it. People belonging to the religion justify the religion based on how well it delivers what it offers.

Well how do you know you wouldn't be as happy or happier by having a different religion? It's implicit as it's obvious that every religion delivers itself as offering something good, unless it didn't want more members to include in it. But the question is why an apple over a pear? or even less different, why a red apple as opposed to a green one? They both taste relatively the same, and are of relatively equal size.

I mean if people justify their religion based on how well it delivers what it offers, then how come people still have thousands of different religions? And even quite intelligent and rational people belong to several different religions, yet if you say a religion justifies based on how well it delivers what it offers, then they would've chosen the religion that does it best by now, any rational being seeking an answer in something more than the sciences would've done it by now. If religion A clearly brings more happiness by saying it does and delivering just that, then almost everyone would've been a follower of that religion rather than religion B.

Better yet, how can you convince someone who's agnostic or unsure about which religion to follow? If you say choose religion A because it delivers happiness more than the other, then that person can simply ask: "then how come there are people following religion B?" Then if you say that both religions deliver happiness, then it becomes pointless in having two different religions now wouldn't it? Might as well have 1 religion for it all no? Because you cannot differentiate the religions just based on the fact that it delivers happiness, justifiying on that premise becomes baseless to necessitate on which one to choose. (And also which one to keep)

[Vijaydevani]

I was born into a hindu family and studied in a catholic school. So from my early childhood I was exposed to two religions at the same time. Then as I grew older and read more and more of different religions I found hinduism in particular to be pretty fascinating in the sense that I found that it was not really a religion but a philosophy and a way of life with religion forming a part of it. Then I slowly turned into an atheist but I also found to my surprise that hinduism even has a place for atheists. I found that hinduism was not only a philosophy, a way of life and a religion but also a culture. So I am an atheist and I continue to call myself a hindu because this is the only "religion" which welcomes me as I am. Actually, my father, who is something of a hindu scholar, says that technically I cannot not be a hindu unless I specifically convert to another religion and according to him, atheism does not count as a religion. So whether I like it or not, I will remain a hindu in the eyes of all other hindus irrespective of my total rejection of the God concept.

I don't know if this has anything to do with the topic but I thought it was interesting and relevant in some way.

[Sim Al-Adim]

Well how do you know you wouldn't be as happy or happier by having a different religion? It's implicit as it's obvious that every religion delivers itself as offering something good, unless it didn't want more members to include in it. But the question is why an apple over a pear? or even less different, why a red apple as opposed to a green one? They both taste relatively the same, and are of relatively equal size.

It's like comparing apples and oranges. Certainly. Agreed.

I mean if people justify their religion based on how well it delivers what it offers, then how come people still have thousands of different religions? And even quite intelligent and rational people belong to several different religions, yet if you say a religion justifies based on how well it delivers what it offers, then they would've chosen the religion that does it best by now, any rational being seeking an answer in something more than the sciences would've done it by now. If religion A clearly brings more happiness by saying it does and delivering just that, then almost everyone would've been a follower of that religion rather than religion B.

Well. Maybe it's like what an apple offers and what an orange offers. Vitamin A vs. vitamin B. Krishna consciousness vs. Buddha Awareness?

You've got a million sub-types in Hinduism; worshipping one of the thousand of deities they believe in - for their own unique promises.

Then you've got exclusionary religions like Christianity - I mean if you aren't practicing spiritual faith to decrease your misery and increase your happiness, you shouldn't practice religion. And if you're religion doesn't deliver and you've gone about it for the right reasons; it's not the right one (for you).

Better yet, how can you convince someone who's agnostic or unsure about which religion to follow? If you say choose religion A because it delivers happiness more than the other, then that person can simply ask: "then how come there are people following religion B?" Then if you say that both religions deliver happiness, then it becomes pointless in having two different religions now wouldn't it? Might as well have 1 religion for it all no? Because you cannot differentiate the religions just based on the fact that it delivers happiness, justifiying on that premise becomes baseless to necessitate on which one to choose. (And also which one to keep)

Hey. Religion's not for everyone. Like in Hindu religion, there's a million devotions. You go about practicing one or the other depending on your temperament. They all make different promises. It's your choice and your gamble to decide what actually sounds like religious content to you.

It's just my opinion. If I had my druthers, I'd go with some sort of ancient Hatha Yoga system. I'd want to learn the ins and outs of the potential the spirit has without dwelling too much on my purpose in the world. Ie. I don't care why I'm here so much as how I'm here. If you know what I mean.

[Shadowfax]

If a child follows religion A because their parents follow religion A, this may be enough justification for the child. If someone finds evidence pertaining to a particular religion, eg christianity, such as noting that Jesus existed through evidence, this may be justification for them in believing in christianity. If someone has a sensus divinitatus experience, this may be justification to believe in a particular religion associating with the experience. Justification for religion is subjective and varies from person to person.

[Infinite_zero]

You've got a million sub-types in Hinduism; worshipping one of the thousand of deities they believe in - for their own unique promises.

Then you've got exclusionary religions like Christianity - I mean if you aren't practicing spiritual faith to decrease your misery and increase your happiness, you shouldn't practice religion. And if you're religion doesn't deliver and you've gone about it for the right reasons; it's not the right one (for you). [/quote]

I understand that one cho

Well. Maybe it's like what an apple offers and what an orange offers. Vitamin A vs. vitamin B. Krishna consciousness vs. Buddha Awareness? oses a religion for their uniqueness (if one were given the ability to choose between all existing religions that is of course). But choosing something for their uniqueness still doesn't necessitate why that particular instance of unique properties that the religion you chose is chosen to begin with.

Let me make an analogy with for instance with taste in movies. The reason certain people like movies in genre A as opposed to genre B may be because of genetic and enviromental factors determning your taste. The same applies to perhaps religion as well. One chooses that specific religion because that one has traditions that you can relate to easier, a philosophy more in your area of understanding and acceptance, and so on.

But at no point is there a necessary condition that logically implies that if I was a little different from what I am now, would I still have chosen the same religion? If the determining factors for my will, makes me choose religion A, then there could also be the case that in a possible world I had determining factors for my will that made me choose religion B instead. Because there is no rational, no general "objective" kind of sense in choosing a specific religion, it therefore becomes trivial in that sense, that it's merely a subjective thing. And because it becomes a subject to our subjectivity, the credibility in that pursuading any religion which anyone who sees there is no logical necessity bound in accepting, becomes apparent.

For instance, there is no one in the world that would doubt that 2+2=4, and here not the syntax 2 and 4. But what the semantic value stands for, the amount of 2 plus the amount of 2 equals the amount of 4, which is a logical necessity. Now apply this in any possible worlds, and the answer will still be the same. I could change out 2 for X and 4 for Y and opposite. Such that in some possible world, X represents the amount of 2, and Y represents the amount of 4. Making X+X=Y the equivalent of 2+2=4, which is still true and logically necessary.

Christianity for instance does the same with the use of sentences that implicate the conclusion of God's existence through logic. And some are quite strong, while other's weak. Though almost no logical sentence through language is quite 100% adequate because language makes it so that interpretations can vary somewhat. Still, not one religion gives that kind of argument for actually choosing one. And I see little hope in the possibility of doing so to.

Hey. Religion's not for everyone. Like in Hindu religion, there's a million devotions. You go about practicing one or the other depending on your temperament. They all make different promises. It's your choice and your gamble to decide what actually sounds like religious content to you.

Well it's interesting you mention Hinduism, and this might be off-topic now, but the term itself covering vast religous branches is quite vague in defining what Hinduism really is. As the religion is quite complex itself, it's perhaps closer to some Eastern philosophy fused with spiritualism through the belief in the God's and Brahman, and also the life force, as well as the seven energy centres or chakras. And many often think that Hinduism has many God's or what not, but they're actually avatars of the main Deities which again are part of the One force or something (My knowledge in this is quite rusty so I'm probably wrong at many points). Though many worship these avatars as Gods almost. But this is not enough to explain Hinduism. You have all kinds of variations, and especially in the villages you have a completely different type of religion than the one that bases off on the Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata and Ramayana. You also have several sub-religious branches as I mentioned earlier like Jainism and Brahmanism etc. (Even Buddhism is seen as a branch of Hinduism often by Hindus or at least some Indians in general)

And Vijaydevani gives the interesting perspective on Hinduism

I was born into a hindu family and studied in a catholic school. So from my early childhood I was exposed to two religions at the same time. Then as I grew older and read more and more of different religions I found hinduism in particular to be pretty fascinating in the sense that I found that it was not really a religion but a philosophy and a way of life with religion forming a part of it. Then I slowly turned into an atheist but I also found to my surprise that hinduism even has a place for atheists. I found that hinduism was not only a philosophy, a way of life and a religion but also a culture. So I am an atheist and I continue to call myself a hindu because this is the only "religion" which welcomes me as I am. Actually, my father, who is something of a hindu scholar, says that technically I cannot not be a hindu unless I specifically convert to another religion and according to him, atheism does not count as a religion. So whether I like it or not, I will remain a hindu in the eyes of all other hindus irrespective of my total rejection of the God concept.

And it is true that Hinduism does say that every other religion in existence is just a part of their, and that's the complex part of hinduism, any religion is basically a branch of Hinduism in that sense. But that's probably way off-topic.

If a child follows religion A because their parents follow religion A, this may be enough justification for the child. If someone finds evidence pertaining to a particular religion, eg christianity, such as noting that Jesus existed through evidence, this may be justification for them in believing in christianity. If someone has a sensus divinitatus experience, this may be justification to believe in a particular religion associating with the experience. Justification for religion is subjective and varies from person to person.

You're right that justification for choosing a religion is subjective. But subjective justification is not a good justification. Why? Because if subjective justification is sufficient for choosing, i.e. the action of picking a certain thing, which in this case is a religion. Then one can justify several other actions subjectively.

For instance a person called Fred might justify his action of beating a stranger with a bat because he had the urge to do so and felt good about it. Or the killer of John Lennon could justify it by saying I read a certain book that gave me the need to go and kill John Lennon. Or one could simply justify mass murder of a specific human race because you felt like it. Either way, there is nothing that says why justification for a religion should be subjective, just as why justification for any of these cases should be subjective. If one used subjective justification, then anything is justified in that sense for anyone, because in the end it's subjective, how can anyone else but you yourself know? That is a step away from any type of logical necessity. There is no rationality involved in the action of choosing. Then you could simply say I felt strong about choosing religion A, so I went with that. But you could've easily felt something else depending on when and where you picked it, and just as well gone with religion B.

I've yet to see this kind of necessity involved in the choosing of a religion. Even science though inductive in their empirical method, still develope laws bound by logical necessity given certain circumstances. Such that neglecting them would be ignorant, and accepting the value and the necessity involved in them would be to act rational, as denying obvious facts is irrational. But there is a fine line between accepting it as a descriptive model for nature, and to say these laws have always existed and are infinite and 100% true etc. That's a fallacy to conclude with.

Either way, perhaps I should specify on the term justification by adding that by justification for a religion I'm asking for some type of necessity in choosing one. And so this rules out any type of subjectivity involved, as that gives no necessity for rational beings, what one feels and such, because they're variables that could be A at time t1 and B at time t2 while a logical necessity doesn't change through time or possible worlds.

It's just my opinion. If I had my druthers, I'd go with some sort of ancient Hatha Yoga system. I'd want to learn the ins and outs of the potential the spirit has without dwelling too much on my purpose in the world. Ie. I don't care why I'm here so much as how I'm here. If you know what I mean.

Well I believe answering how you're here is possible, as for why, well that's up to either you or some higher power to know if there is one.

-- Updated November 28th, 2014, 5:06 am to add the following --

Well. Maybe it's like what an apple offers and what an orange offers. Vitamin A vs. vitamin B. Krishna consciousness vs. Buddha Awareness?

You've got a million sub-types in Hinduism; worshipping one of the thousand of deities they believe in - for their own unique promises.

Then you've got exclusionary religions like Christianity - I mean if you aren't practicing spiritual faith to decrease your misery and increase your happiness, you shouldn't practice religion. And if you're religion doesn't deliver and you've gone about it for the right reasons; it's not the right one (for you).

Well since I messed up the post prior to this, I guess reading the first paragraph from there to then continue where this ends would be recommended in getting the conext of the post before so here it goes:

I understand that one chooses a religion for their uniqueness (if one were given the ability to choose between all existing religions that is of course). But choosing something for their uniqueness still doesn't necessitate why that particular instance of unique properties that the religion you chose is chosen to begin with.

(Start from: Let me make an analogy... in the last post)

[Sim Al-Adim]

Yeah. No worries. It's not always easy to work around the quote indexes.

Nonetheless, I can't easily address each of your points. But I will say this much. Humans are inherently "bad". We are genetically inherited beings with intentions that constantly conflict with our other competitors. In that sense, religion is the conscience of man telling him to rethink how far he's willing to go to secure his survival.

I think it's possible to outline a criteria which fits religion in with survival ship. However, the ways in which we survive changes from minute to minute as our environment changes. So how could there be anyone set of codes that balances our human nature with our tendency to want the best for not only our selves but others?

What remains constant is the **** condition of life. What the sages of the past have told us is all in context with how awful surviving can be. So, I think one necessary condition for the idea that maybe one religion is truly justified should be that it doesn't rewrite the conditions of life.

Christianity will tell you - "oh. Yeah. Things were perfect and then Adam **** them up. But, believe in Jesus and things will be perfect again."

Life will never be perfect. If a religion sponsors that idea - like Scientology or the Jdub movement - it's like "wow. And there's a pyramid scheme within the organization too? Figures."

Find me a religious organization that doesn't also want your money. It's the ones that don't explicitly hide that they want your money or distort what they offer for your money, which are worth your investigation.

[Neopolitan]

I wrote something a while back about "creeping theism", perhaps an extract from it might be pertinent. In it I am talking about how some theists seem to use the term "theist" to hide their very specific beliefs (usually as some form of Christian) among a plethora of other different beliefs, some of which are quite similar, but many of which are totally incompatible:

Creeping theism appears to be an attempt to defend an individual faith by hiding among other similar, but apparently false, faiths. The “one form of theism among many” argument goes a bit like this:

1. While you might have some legitimate argument against my form of theism, you can’t possibly prove every single form of theism to be false.

2. Therefore, it is possible that one form of theism is true.

3. Insert Plantinga's Ontological Argument here to prove that one form of theism is true (while hoping that no-one notices the logical fallacies involved).

4. If one form of theism is true, then it must be the best form of theism.

5. My form of theism is the best form of theism.

6. Therefore, my theism is true.

On the face of it, this doesn’t seem to make any difference since if you prove the theist’s individual form of theism to be false, then it’s false. However, this ignores the mental gymnastics of the average Christian. Say someone (an atheist or some alternate theist), knocks down a vital pillar of a Christian’s world view – for example by convincingly arguing that the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible show that the Bible is in error thus eliminating confidence in the prophesies foretelling the arrival of a messiah and indicating that the Gospels are likely to have been made up.

The Christian may be assailed by doubt, but she will not necessarily be crushed. She activates the “one form of theism among many” argument, noting that it is unlikely that the specific Biblical errors and inconsistencies raised will affect all forms of theism equally. Since there is no evidence which successfully addresses all forms of theism, there is therefore refuge in some hypothetical form(s) of theism. Naturally, the Christian believes that if any form of theism is true then it has to be hers. Not all forms of theism have been shown to be untrue and, therefore, her "best form of theism" must be true.

I know, it doesn’t make sense but the Greatest Living Christian Apologist regularly deploys equally weak and logically invalid arguments.

Note that the reference to the Greatest Living Christian Apologist is made with tongue firmly in cheek.

[Shadowfax]

Either way, perhaps I should specify on the term justification by adding that by justification for a religion I'm asking for some type of necessity in choosing one.

The simplest answer I can give to this question is that people decide to choose a religion over atheism because if atheists are wrong (there really is a God), then they might suffer in hell. By choosing a religion, one can improve their chances of getting into heaven, if heaven and God is actually real. The problem with God is that it is falsifiable. It cannot be proven nor disproven. Atheists take a gamble. Religious people take less of a gamble, if God exists. If God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter if people are religious/not religous.

[Neopolitan]

Either way, perhaps I should specify on the term justification by adding that by justification for a religion I'm asking for some type of necessity in choosing one.

The simplest answer I can give to this question is that people decide to choose a religion over atheism because if atheists are wrong (there really is a God), then they might suffer in hell. By choosing a religion, one can improve their chances of getting into heaven, if heaven and God is actually real. The problem with God is that it is unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven nor disproven. Atheists take a gamble. Religious people take less of a gamble, if God exists. If God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter if people are religious/not religous.

Fixed that for you.

However, you still have a problem with choosing the right religion. Unless the god in question is happy so long as the human in question believes some muddle-headed nonsense rather than using the reason that many humans appear to be capable of bringing to bear.

Perhaps Scientologists have a chance at getting into heaven after all. It's a small step above other religions when it comes to muddle-headed nonsense.

However, if the god in question wants the human in question to believe a very specific version of muddle-headed nonsense, then the atheist and the theist are about on a par as far as risk taking goes, since no-one really knows which precise version of muddle-headed nonsense the god in question favours. It might be door-slam inspiring Seven Day Adventistry, in which case those guys will have the last laugh. It might be Islam after all, despite what Spectrum has to say about it. Maybe the god in question has a matrix, so that different humans are supposed to infected with different strains of delusion. Perhaps the old saying "don't blame me for being an atheist, it's the way god made me" is true and we atheists are doing precisely what is required of the Grand Plan. Who knows? (perhaps, although it's rather unlikely, god knows)

Finally, if the god in question sends people to hell for not believing in muddle-headed nonsense (either in general or specifically) despite gifting us with reason, then it's a totally immoral god and I personally want nothing to do with it. From the sound of it heaven will be stuffed full of the intellectually deficient anyway, so it sounds highly overrated. If I want that sort of experience, I can visit West Virginia.

[Shadowfax]

However, you still have a problem with choosing the right religion

Of course there is always this issue. But you still have greater chance of going to heaven (if it existed), than no belief at all. This is why some people might justify being religious. Whether the religion is the right one or not doesn't interfere with the fact that the choosing of the religion was justified on this basis.

However, if the god in question wants the human in question to believe a very specific version of muddle-headed nonsense, then the atheist and the theist are about on a par as far as risk taking goes, since no-one really knows which precise version of muddle-headed nonsense the god in question favours.

Take this analogy, assuming that a God of a particular religion exists... All the different religions are displayed as multicoloured balls in a bowl. The green ball is the 'right religion'. Athiests do not wish to choose from the bowl, where as a religous person does. Mathematically speaking, getting the right religion is more probable if you choose to stick your hand in the bowl than choosing not to. So I disagree when you say that atheists and theists are about on a par as far as risk taking goes.

Finally, if the god in question sends people to hell for not believing in muddle-headed nonsense (either in general or specifically) despite gifting us with reason, then it's a totally immoral god and I personally want nothing to do with it

I wonder if you'd say the same thing if you were wrong and had to rot in hell for all eternity.

-- Updated November 28th, 2014, 4:21 am to add the following --

BTW I meant to address Neopolitan, not Infinate 0. I can't seem to edit on this thing.

[Neopolitan]

However, you still have a problem with choosing the right religion

Of course there is always this issue. But you still have greater chance of going to heaven (if it existed), than no belief at all. This is why some people might justify being religious. Whether the religion is the right one or not doesn't interfere with the fact that the choosing of the religion was justified on this basis.

So, it's all about going to heaven? "Why should be allowed into heaven, Mr Shadowfax?" - Well, Mr Heavenly Border Guard, I ticked all the right boxes, my papers are correct, I picked a version of muddle-headed nonsense, largely at random but also partly out of convenience and the benefits I could get out it, and I believed that muddle-headed nonsense as fervently as I could. "Well done, Mr Shadowfax, do come in, first harp on the left."

However, if the god in question wants the human in question to believe a very specific version of muddle-headed nonsense, then the atheist and the theist are about on a par as far as risk taking goes, since no-one really knows which precise version of muddle-headed nonsense the god in question favours.

Take this analogy, assuming that a God of a particular religion exists... All the different religions are displayed as multicoloured balls in a bowl. The green ball is the 'right religion'. Athiests do not wish to choose from the bowl, where as a religous person does. Mathematically speaking, getting the right religion is more probable if you choose to stick your hand in the bowl than choosing not to. So I disagree when you say that atheists and theists are about on a par as far as risk taking goes.

Not really. Most people are given two balls to choose from, the theism ball pertaining to the prevailing culture, or the parents and the non-theism ball. They only get to the bowl after they've decided to throw away, or at least set aside, the theism ball. When they peek into the bowl, they will probably only consider the balls that look rather similar to the one they just ditched, or one that has been paraded around by their friends (so another boring abrahamic ball, or a trendy buddhist ball, or an edgy wiccan ball, or a loony, off your face scientology ball).

I don't assume that a god exists, but I see the decision tree going a little like this:

Option 1. Don't be religious

• Consequence 1.a. (a god exists and wants you to believe some specific muddle-headed nonsense) - 100% chance of being screwed
• Consequence 1.b. (a god exists and wants you to believe any old muddle-headed nonsense) - 100% chance of being screwed
• Consequence 1.c. (a god exists and doesn't care what you believe) - bingo, give the bird to the theists as you enter heaven
• Consequence 1.d. (no god exists) - bingo, you were right and you didn't spend your life sucking up to an invisible non-existent, megalomaniac sky fairy

Option 2. Be religious and choose one specific form of muddle-headed nonsense out of thousands (to be kind, I'll say you have 1/1000 chance of being correct)

• Consequence 2.a. (a god exists and wants you to believe some specific muddle-headed nonsense) - 99.9% chance of being screwed
• Consequence 2.b. (a god exists and wants you to believe any old muddle-headed nonsense) - bingo, give the bird to the catholics/muslims/jews/etc as you enter heaven (I recommend that you avoid the scientologists)
• Consequence 2.c. (a god exists and doesn't care what you believe) - oh dear, how sad, you were wrong and you spent your life sucking up to what you thought was an invisible, megalomaniac sky fairy but it was actually a cool dude who'd invite any froogy hipster to the party, try to get over the fact that you have to share heaven with the atheists who are probably still giving you the bird
• Consequence 2.d. (no god exists) - oh dear, how sad, you were wrong and you spent your life sucking up to an invisible non-existent, megalomaniac sky fairy

So, really, while we will be totally screwed while you swan off to heaven in the rather unlikely situation where your god simply wants us to be muddle-headed, we only have a very slightly higher chance of being screwed than a regular theist if indeed a god exists and that god cares about what specific form of muddle-headed nonsense you believe (and this is what most theists seem to think anyway). Otherwise, the atheists win hands down. Our chances of living our lives the right way are actually significantly better than those of the theist who thrusts his or her hand in to the bowl full of random balls of muddle-headed nonsense.

Finally, if the god in question sends people to hell for not believing in muddle-headed nonsense (either in general or specifically) despite gifting us with reason, then it's a totally immoral god and I personally want nothing to do with it

I wonder if you'd say the same thing if you were wrong and had to rot in hell for all eternity.

I guess we won't find out.

BTW I meant to address neopolitan, not Infinite 0. I can't seem to edit on this thing.

No problems, fixed that for you too.

[Sim Al-Adim]

There's another category Neopolitan has failed to address:

The Hindu philosophy which recognizes God but views Karma as the moral/ethical/behavioral determinant over one's future birth in the 32 realms of existence.

Some people believe that their actions carry moral consequences which impact their future destinies after rebirth. Adhering to a religious doctrine that encourages some type of moral standard may justify their adherence to the system.

However, one need not be a believer in God to appreciate how to go about life only screwing people over as things call for it, etc. Ie. One's post-destination after death, if it is a moral imperative, has already been determined in morally healthy athiests. But for the morally unhealthy, religion might be as justified as AA is to the alcoholic in all of us.