"The Atheist's Wager", A turn on Pascal

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Zhavric I'll remember this the next time you attempt to play the "everyone hates on Christians" card. It's astounding yet predictable how theists characterize challenges to their invalid world view as "histerical". There's a political bumper sticker that also applies to Christianity and most mainstream religions: "If you're not outraged then you're not paying attention."

I don't play the "everyone hates on Christians" card. We still live in a free society, and neither Christians or athiests are persecuted.

I wasn't characterizing challenges to my world view as histerical. I was characterizing the anger on this forum.

There's definetly things I'm outraged about. But my anger is directed at corrupt government rather than people with different world views than me.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: lindsay7 I don't play the "everyone hates on Christians" card. We still live in a free society, and neither Christians or athiests are persecuted.

Yeah, I'm sure all those folks in the rural areas of Arkansas and Wyoming would be just fine with someone coming out and saying "I'm an atheist". I'm sure there aren't HUNDREDS of churches teaching their children that an atheist is really a satanist.

(no true Scotsman fallacy in 5, 4, 3, in 2...)

I wasn't characterizing challenges to my world view as histerical. I was characterizing the anger on this forum.

Right. And I pointed out that what little anger we show here is perfectly justified nor is it irrational. Grown adults believing in santa claus-caliber nonsense on a global scale is a crisis.

There's definetly things I'm outraged about. But my anger is directed at corrupt government rather than people with different world views than me.

Then your anger is misguided and your epistemology needs work.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Zhavric Yeah, I'm sure all those folks in the rural areas of Arkansas and Wyoming would be just fine with someone coming out and saying "I'm an atheist". I'm sure there aren't HUNDREDS of churches teaching their children that an atheist is really a satanist. (no true Scotsman fallacy in 5, 4, 3, in 2...)

I've never been to a church that demonizes athiests or says they are satanists. They believe they are lost souls, but that they can find Jesus. They teach that we are ALL sinners who can be saved through Jesus Christ.

Maybe things are different in the good old rural southern United States. But I think that hateful churches are definetly in the minority. An annoyingly vocal minority, yes, but still the minority.

Talk to a pastor sometime and see. I doubt he would treat you with anything other than respect and compassion.

Right. And I pointed out that what little anger we show here is perfectly justified nor is it irrational. Grown adults believing in santa claus-caliber nonsense on a global scale is a crisis.

I was going to say I don't think the hostility is justified, but then I got thinking... I can understand why athiests would be frustrated at Christians who are against the seperation of church and state, and who want to impose their views on others - by having them taught in public schools for example. I can understand anger over that, as I would be against it as well.

I guess things are a lot more polarized in the U.S. and there is more us VS them mentality than I'm used to.

Where I'm from, we don't have those issues. Christians aren't pushing for those things. I, and the Christians I know, don't see any conflict between scientific study and belief in God, and we aren't trying to impose our beliefs on others.

Then your anger is misguided and your epistemology needs work.

How is my anger misguided?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: jrcbailey I definintely concur with your wager, but I doubt it's going to sway many thiests nowadays, because their faith has adapted to accepting the shifting scientific scene. But don't think for a second that I'm arguing against you, I'm just trying to explain what they (thiests) would probably try to explain. Despite the fact that the argument is quite obviously fallable, in that it is contradictory!

Thanks. As it turns out, I also doubt that I'm going to sway any theists, but for an entirely different reason. Neurotheology.

It's my personal belief that human beings are hardwired by evolution with an instinct towards religious experience that functions as a survival mechanism. A 'Religion Gene', as it were. Not that "religious experience" is the same thing as "The Existence of God", but unfortunately, "The Existence of God" has been the only thing most humans could come up with to describe what they thought they were experiencing.

I find myself in the awkward position of both realizing that the Emperor has no clothes, while simultaneously realizing that, all things considered, it's beneficial for people to believe the Emperor is finely dressed, false though it may be.

Weird, yeah?

Quote by: Lindsay I've never been to a church that demonizes athiests or says they are satanists.

That's nice, but apparently some folks have.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- President George H.W. Bush

.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Yeah, I'm sure all those folks in the rural areas of Arkansas and Wyoming would be just fine with someone coming out and saying "I'm an atheist". I'm sure there aren't HUNDREDS of churches teaching their children that an atheist is really a satanist.

What!

No truly Christian church would ever teach such a malevolent doctrine. It's un-Christian, and Christians aren't un-Christian! They embrace tolerance and love!

(no true Scotsman fallacy in 5, 4, 3, in 2...)

LOL< WHAtis a "tru scotsmen" fallacy?

[Jack]

They believe they are lost souls, but that they can find Jesus.

Their tune changes a bit when you revel that you once did find Jesus only to later realize religion is a for-profit organization built upon unfounded myth.

LOL< WHAtis a "tru scotsmen" fallacy?

‘No True Scotsman’ Explanation The no true scotsman fallacy is a way of reinterpreting evidence in order to prevent the refutation of one’s position. Proposed counter-examples to a theory are dismissed as irrelevant solely because they are counter-examples, but purportedly because they are not what the theory is about. Example If Angus, a Glaswegian, who puts sugar on his porridge, is proposed as a counter-example to the claim No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, the ‘No true Scotsman’ fallacy would run as follows: (1) Angus puts sugar on his porridge. (2) No (true) Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. Therefore: (3) Angus is not a (true) Scotsman. Therefore: (4) Angus is not a counter-example to the claim that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable. Real-World Examples An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Logical Fallacies .info - Fallacies of Presumption - 'No True Scotsman'


Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster:
National Library of Medicine

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim What! No truly Christian church would ever teach such a malevolent doctrine. It's un-Christian, and Christians aren't un-Christian! They embrace tolerance and love! LOL< WHAtis a "tru scotsmen" fallacy?

Isherwood already explained it. Your post above is a textbook example of that fallacy as is Lindsay's abdication of responsibility.

It's sad that I can call out the fallacies you guys will use before you actually use them. Have you considered improving?

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Zhavric Isherwood already explained it. Your post above is a textbook example of that fallacy as is Lindsay's abdication of responsibility. It's sad that I can call out the fallacies you guys will use before you actually use them. Have you considered improving?

Abdication of responsibility, how?

I thought it was clear that I put blame on churches with this paragraph...

I was going to say I don't think the hostility is justified, but then I got thinking... I can understand why athiests would be frustrated at Christians who are against the seperation of church and state, and who want to impose their views on others - by having them taught in public schools for example. I can understand anger over that, as I would be against it as well.

Obviously Christians come in all kinds and have many different world views. But I can't control others. Christians are no more responsible for the actions of other Christians than athiests are for other athiests.

It makes more sense to judge people as individuals.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: ItsDarts if there is a god who punishes people for rational doubt, why would you want to spend an eternity with it anyway? Such a capricious, egotistical, and nasty god wouldn’t be much fun. If you can’t trust it to be as moral as you are, you can’t trust it to keep its promises and make heaven nice or even let you stay for long. Not spending eternity with such a being doesn’t sound like much of a loss.

If when you die you either go to heaven or you simply get nothing, this argument is valid.


However, if when you die you either go to heaven or you go to hell, then I think people might be willing to bend their principles to avoid burning alive in a lake of fire.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: MplsBison If when you die you either go to heaven or you simply get nothing, this argument is valid. However, if when you die you either go to heaven or you go to hell, then I think people might be willing to bend their principles to avoid burning alive in a lake of fire.

This rather sophomoric stance is the hallmark of narrow-minded Chrstian thinking. If you're going to allow heaven and hell why not allow for reincarnation? Nirvana? 72 virgins? Each of the TENS OF THOUSANDS of religions of the world has its own idea of an afterlife and what one must do to get this or attain that. You need to deal with this issue honestly.

[MplsBison]

Feel free to extend my point to any of those concepts.


For example: if when you die you either go to heaven or you get reincarnated, this argument is valid.




However, even after extending it to all of those 10000 religious concepts, you're still going to have to deal with the possibility that you might go to hell if you don't have faith.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Isherwood already explained it. Your post above is a textbook example of that fallacy as is Lindsay's abdication of responsibility. It's sad that I can call out the fallacies you guys will use before you actually use them. Have you considered improving?

Wow Zhavric.

Do you have no sense of humor whatsoever?

A one-eyed newt would have seen I was joking.

[Cephus]

Quote by: MplsBison If when you die you either go to heaven or you simply get nothing, this argument is valid.

That's a ludicrous statement though. Depending on which, if any, of the religions are correct, there's the possibility of hell, Valhalla, or dozens and dozens of different possibilities. In fact, considering all the religions that man has invented for himself to follow, the chances of picking the right religion by chance is minuscule.

However, if when you die you either go to heaven or you go to hell, then I think people might be willing to bend their principles to avoid burning alive in a lake of fire.

Considering the hundreds or thousands of possible "heavens" and "hells" that you could end up in, if either of them exist, and the fact that in order to avoid any of the "hells", you have to reject all other religions, which will land you in another of the "hells" if that turns out to be true, your entire argument is ludicrous.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Isherwood Their tune changes a bit when you revel that you once did find Jesus only to later realize religion is a for-profit organization built upon unfounded myth.

That would include yours truly. As part of the Christian Youth movement, at the age of 18, I prayed and asked Jesus into my life. All was bliss for about 3 months, when I finally looked deep inside the realized that for as much as I wanted to, I just didn't buy it. Been a devout atheist ever since.

Quote by: MplsBison However, if when you die you either go to heaven or you go to hell, then I think people might be willing to bend their principles to avoid burning alive in a lake of fire.

IF you believe it's possible in the first place. I don't. There is no god, therefore there's no heaven and no hell. I don't have the least doubt, therefore not the least worry.

As I said, if others want to believe in Hell, they're welcome to go there.

.

[MplsBison]

Regardless if you choose to believe that hell exists or not, the possibility that you will go there given that you have no faith in Jesus is always greater than zero.

[Jack]

Quote by: MplsBison Regardless if you choose to believe that hell exists or not, the possibility that you will go there given that you have no faith in Jesus is always greater than zero.

Not true. That argument assumes that Jesus existed and was more than just a man. That assumption requires evidence to validate it before any argument can be based on it. All you can build on unsupported supposition is further unsupported supposition.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: MplsBison Regardless if you choose to believe that hell exists or not, the possibility that you will go there given that you have no faith in Jesus is always greater than zero.

If that's the case, Bison, we're ALL going to hell, because each of us is a non-believer in some other faith that condemns us being a non-believer.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

Understand?


.

[Flip Jackson]

Well, as far as the wager stated in the first post goes, I feel it is lacking in many areas. It only addresses the basic views of a Christian God. It does not address all forms of theism.

"If God`s a good guy, he`ll understand my doubts. If He`s a bad guy, why would I want to live with him forever, or try to follow his rules?"

That seems to be the basic idea of the wager. However, some theists, like me, believe that there is much more after this life than just heaven and hell. I also tend to believe that the kind of person we are will have a much larger effect on our judgement than whether or not we go to church. For me, there is a lot more at stake than "heaven and hell." For me religion is more like trying to reach my full potential by following the counsel of a wiser being.

Perhaps the wager could be useful when compared to the most common ideas of christianity, but is by no means effective when considering all forms of religious belief.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Isherwood Not true.

True by definition.


If it's not impossible, then the possibility is greater than zero.



Since you can never prove that it's impossible, then it's not impossible.

[Yasa]

Quote by: MplsBison True by definition. If it's not impossible, then the possibility is greater than zero. Since you can never prove that it's impossible, then it's not impossible.

And while we're talking about things that are "possible" what about the God who will send me to hell for believing in any religion!?!?!

I would therefore have a probability greater than zero of going to hell for believing in any religion.

Great argument.... ><