just received this via e-mail...... i guess this infers that a life without a GOD in it.... is an immoral one???

is one lived the same way, whether God exists or not. That's the life I have now.

Beats the Hell out of the Mormon treadmill.

Fallacy? Consider the following two lines of reasoning:

First (I):

A. Christianity teaches that if you believe in Christ you will survive death and live forever with God, but that if you do not believe, you will receive a far less desireable fate, possibly ultimate death (non-existence) or hell (endless torment)

B. Atheism asserts that you live a relatively short, insignificant life, and then you are gone forever. (nonexistence).

C. I admit that the liklihood of Christianity being true is exceedingly low.

D. However, existence is better than non-existence, and in the context of possible eternal bliss, my short life in Christian service and belief is a small sacrifice given the potential reward.

Conclusion: Although the probably of Christianity being true is exceedingly low, given the risk/benefit analysis, and the shortness of life, I prefer to believe in Christianity.

Second (II):

A. The doctors all say I will die of cancer within three months.

B. This holistic practitioner says that if I take his pill I will be cured, and he provides the names of numerous witnesses, none of whom are available to interview. The cost of the pill is $10.00.

C. Notwithstanding the low probability that the pill will cure me, I think I will take the pill given the risk / benefit analysis.

Please tell me which, if any, of the above lines of reasoning is fallacious and why.

ANSWER: NEITHER. Both are perfectly acceptable reasoning. Both involve a value judgment encompassing a risk/benefit analysis. There is absolutely NO fallacy here, or error in logic!

Now, of course, its true that most of us would place the likelihood of IA being true as exceedingly low, either as a doctrine and/or interpretation, and also place the value of life, even if relatively short, as quite high. Moreover, some of us (myself included) would be frightened by the prospect of eternal (endless) life. But again, when Pascal's wager is presented as a first person line of reasoning (rather than a third person argument), as it was in this post, there is nothing wrong with it.

Allow me to point out the FIRST logical fallacy of your reply, and that is that you presented a FALSE DICHOTOMY:

It's not "atheism vs christianity." There are countless gods and religions one would have to choose from if that individual were to decide to believe in a god concept. Why christianity? Why not islam? Why not hinduism? Why not Jainism? That's your first fallacy.

Your second fallacy is the strawman set up with Atheism = A short, insignificant life, and then being gone forever.

For one thing, short is a relative term. Relative to what?

Second, life is as significant as you make it. No sky daddy's opinion required.

Third, atheism does not deal with whether consciousness continues after the body dies. There are atheists on both sides of the fence on this issue.

I also take issue with your cowardly appeal to existence being better than nonexistence when your existence would depend on worshiping a being who would annihilate or torture those of its creations who choose not to make-believe in his existence even though he chooses not to reveal himself to them.

sounds like more christer propaganda.

The problem, Reed Smith, is that you've decided that ONLY the Christian God's claims must be evaluated. But if there IS a God, the first thing you have to do is actually determine which one (if any) it is. Since you've no evidence for ANY God that can actually be evaluated, you're kind of stuck with hoping and wishing. But it was a nice try.

I'd rather live my life with beer and find out Satan invented it than live without beer and find God invented it.

Just sayin'...

Ron

And that's why I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. RA'men.

Pesto be upon thee brother

If by living "as if there is a God" means being a brainwashed and obedient drone, I'd rather do without God.

But if it means living a moral life, being a good man, husband, father and citizen; then I can do that just fine without God.

HEY!! What do you know? Either way, God is unnecessary. Life is good!

Either way, I have no control over what happens afterwards.

If there is a heaven, I'll fix it when I get there. Right now, my plate's pretty full.

If there ain't ... well, I guess it don't matter much.

Timothy

I don't know if there is a god or not. I'd like there to be a god and I'd like there to be an afterlife, but I can't know. No one can. Any god worth it's salt will get that.
Susan

+1

I would agree. Any God worth its salt will know that humans are limited in their understanding of God and therefore will make allowances.

A long time ago some famous philosopher whose name escapes me said that if there be gods and they are just then they will reward us for the good life we have lived. On the other hand, if they are unjust it makes no difference how we live, therefore, live a good life and hope for the best.

God is conceived to be many different things by many different people - everything from "one with the universe" to "my Bestest Friend in my head telling me everything to do". There are many conceptions of God that I personally would rather live without, and a few that might be ok if I had to live with. But, it is all in the way one decides to view God.

The problem comes in deciding which God. Because you can't live your life honoring all the rules of every Religion. If I live my life as if the Mormon version of God exists and it turns out that Catholics, Muslims, or any other religions God exists, I'm in the same boat as if I didn't believe in any God.

Why would it be so terrible to find out there's a God after all in the end? What, afraid ya gonna get spanked by the Ol' Man?

Oh, wait, yes there's that H-E-L-L threat again. Oooo, such a meanie that God. And Christians never tire of ejaculating "But God love you!" as if that means anything in terms of his psychotic and sadistic behavior. Oh, wait "God love you" is another wunna 'em threats, ain't it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2011 02:06PM by charles, buddhist punk.

What if you live your life like a good christian, and after death find out there's only Allah? Or vice versa?

are all called the Abrahamic God.....all worship the same God....minus Jesus.... and worship in different ways!!

I'm pretty sure Allah and EV Jesus don't give points for a Mormon life. So it's unless you were exceptionally lucky enough to be born into the exact right religion you still are likely come up short in the after life.

From "Why Atheism?" by Mark Thomas

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

"Pascal’s Wager

There is an argument for belief in God that is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it. The argument goes like this: Either there is a god or there isn’t. If you believe in God, and God exists, then you win big time and go to Heaven. If you don’t believe in God, and God exists, you lose big time and go to Hell. If there is no god, then you haven’t lost much by believing. So the obvious choice is to believe in God, because it’s simply the best bet.

Pascal’s Wager has several faults. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. Like many other such arguments we have discussed, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.

Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god's mind is knowable, and that he doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. Perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not obsequious followers. Since the Christian god Yahweh is on record as having lied, there's no way to know his intentions. It would be quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Yahweh, in his infinitely mysterious ways, had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.

Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar. Since the odds of the Christian, Jewish, or Muslim god existing are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant illuminate the lack of actual evidence for God.

Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine. Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god.

Beliefs in a god (and the often concomitant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.

God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive.

The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.

The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits."

Where is Yahweh on record as having lied?

How do you claim that the odds for the Christian, Muslim or Jewish god existing are only 0?

O.K. Should we let Mark Thomas do our thinking for us, or should we apply some real critical thinking?

Thomas identifies "several faults" with Pascal's Wager, let's examine them.

1. "It is not a proof of any god's existence; it is just an argument for believing."

Response: First, it is not claimed to be a proof. Second, in the present post it was not formed to be an argument for anything; only one persons reasoning. It was not intended to convince anyone, but only stated someone's point of view.

Moreover, someone who asserts this kind of thinking has some doctrine in mind, which he or she is assuming as possibily true. Of course, you can question whether such doctrine is actually true, but the line of reasoning is based upon a minimal assumption, namely that it might be true--even with a small probability. To argue against this line of reasoning you have to assert that the proposed doctrine is essentially impossible.

2. "Pascal's Wager assumes god's mind is knowable, and that he doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons."

Response: This is ridiculous. Of course, any religious doctrine assumes that god has made his mind known. That is the nature of religion. There is nothing in Christianity, say, that makes any assumption that god's reasons for belief are selfish. Rather belief is supposed to be beneficial to the believer, not to god.

3. "Another problem with Pascal's Wager is that it implicitly assumes that the odds of the two possibilities are similar."

Response: Again, false. It only requires the assumption that the doctrine in question is possibly true. Human beings make judgments on a cost/benefit analysis that do not require that human action be based upon good odds. If Thomas really thinks that the odds of god existing is zero, he owes us a proof beyond his mere intuitions.

4. "Pascal's Wager also depends on the idea that you don't lose much by believing."

Response: Again false. The argument only depends upon a cost/benefit weighing. It says nothing about what sacrifices are entailed by believing; only that it is worth it.

5. "The last problem with Pascal's Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to."

Response: This is the best argument against Pascal's Wager, but it is very weak. The line of reasoning assumes that the person making the choice is able to believe, and able to honestly make that choice. There is no deception inherent in this though process.

This account of Mark Thomas is typical of the skeptical literature attempting to deal with this line of reasoning. If Pascal's Wager was formulated as a logical argument, then it would indeed be easy to refute. However, as simply one person's thought process, and value judgment, there is no logical problem with it.

The responses to this post amaze me. Why is it so easy to criticize Mormon apologetics, and rightfully so, but so difficult to apply normal logic to one's preferred beliefs?

This post is intended as instruction, not argument!

...in accordance with god's will? Dishonesty is part of which commandment? Pretending to believe what one really doesn't think is even plausible is something an all-knowing god wouldn't see through?

Don't see where morality comes into play!

If God is not real what have you lost nothing!

If he is, well that puts a whole other spin on things.

Freedom to chose, that is how I saw it!

... when you choose to worship a god who tortures his creations for doing exactly what he knew they would do before he ever created them. (All-knowing, right?)

The x-ian god is immoral. Worshiping that god is, therefore, also immoral.

or with "Bigfoot" or "Xenu"

and you will see how it falls apart

Neither does Bigfoot. They both told me that they want you guys to send me money, though.

bignevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just received this via e-mail...... i guess this
> infers that a life without a GOD in it.... is an
> immoral one???

No, but it would be godless. Which is NOT the same thing as being immoral.

Which god? There are so many available to worship, and each one wouldn't like it if you worshipped another.

In fact it removes morality as a reason to believe in god.