Ask An Atheist

[jeffhughes]

(Christina;60258)
It just makes me a little angry that you people come here to show us how wrong we are because you have intelligence and logic on your side Which is really why your here no matter what you claim You maybe a nice person but your motives are the same as the others you want your ego boosted. By proving to yourself yeah all those christians are the same they wont listen to my intelligent arguments.
Christina, come on, give the guy some slack. I think that so far he's been very diplomatic (more diplomatic than I've been anyway, and I'm still here, right?) and civil. I don't see a reason to doubt that he is here for the reasons he says he is - atheists don't always have to have an ulterior motive, just like you wouldn't want an atheist to always assume that you are trying to convert them when you are simply asking them for the time. It brings up a lot of unnecessary tension when we do not assume that people are being honest - at least, when they have not given us a reason to assume otherwise.I think that we all can learn things from others - even if we disagree with them. His post was intended as a way to begin a civil dialogue between Christians and atheists, and even though it's not exactly the purpose of this board, it is still, in my view anyway, harmless. And possibly even helpful. Even if you never come any closer to agreeing with his views, and he never comes any close to agreeing with yours, a reasonable dialogue between the two can still be immensely fruitful in discovering why the other one holds the views he/she does. In the context of religion, why someone holds a belief is almost as important as whether that belief is true. I see the value of this discussion - although perhaps I am biased, I don't know.As for Theophage, I'd just like to add in my agreement with what he has said. I have agreed so far with every word of his posts - just so that you know that his views aren't entirely idiosyncratic. They're at least representative of two people

Edit: Okay, you guys posted while I was typing this up. I guess this can largely be ignored, but I'll leave it up here just because I like having my fifteen minutes of fame

 

[Alpha and Omega]

(Theophage;60253)
I don't know what evidence you have, of course, but I would guess that it is due to our disagreement about what really qualifies as supporting evidence or not. For example, if I said that rainbows were evidence that leprechauns exist, should that really be considered good supporting evidence? Clearly all possible evidences are not equal, and there must be a rational way to determine which is good evidence and which is bad evidence. I think each side considers their evidence to be the most rational, so the only real way to know is to put them against each other side by side and argue for and against. That is why people hold debates on these kinds of subjects, and I find them often very interesting and enlightening.
If a leprechaun makes prophecies reveals himself or writes a book than I would believe in them too. However I do not see that happening. Would you then accept evidence in the form of prophecy? I am not speaking of prophecies that have come to pass but ones that will come to pass shortly? If those came to pass would you see things in a different manner?(Theophage;60253)
Well, are you talking about strictly moral rules here, or other kinds of rules as well? I gave an answer above regarding where I get my sense of morality from. People across times and cultures generally have similar ideas of what is right and what is wrong. I feel this is built into us through evolution because we are social animals. If you examine other social animals, like a pack of wolves for instance, you will see many of the same kinds of moral "laws" in play.
(Theophage;60253)
As I mentioned in my post on my sense of morality, the problem with immorality in the history of humanity is not so much confusion about what constitutes right and wrong, but mostly a lack of universal application. Most people treat those they love with good moral consideration, but they don't extend that to everyone else.So to answer your question, I think that there are things which are actually right and actually wrong, regardless of what we think about them or what God commands about them. It comes from the way things really are, not added externally by another source.Did that help? I'm looking back now, and I'm not sure I answered you very well...

 

[Theophage]

(Alpha and Omega;60278)
If a leprechaun makes prophecies reveals himself or writes a book than I would believe in them too. However I do not see that happening.
And I totally agree with you here. But did you get what I'd meant about rainbows themselves being (poor) evidence for leprechauns? Even though rainbows themselves are objectively verifiable things, their relationship to leprechauns is not established by evidence.
Would you then accept evidence in the form of prophecy? I am not speaking of prophecies that have come to pass but ones that will come to pass shortly? If those came to pass would you see things in a different manner?
Well, that would depend on the nature and specificity of the prophecies, of course. But certainly they could be very good evidence of supernatural knowledge, and thus the reliability of their source. I really don't want to derail the purpose of this thread with such a discussion, however. Is there another public forum you'd like to continue this on, or would you like to do it by email?

 

[Lunar]

(Christina;60258)
The fact are very simple you listen to men think man has all the answersWe listen to God and think God has all the answers So the facts are you and I both have 50/50 % chance of being right The difference is if you are wrong it cost you your soul If Im wrong it costs me nothing except having to listen to people like you tell me Im wrong.
This is called Pascal's Wager, and it's a very famous fallacy.Pascal's Wager fails as an argument because it sets up a false dichotomy. The Wagerer represents the choice as simply between choosing to believe in God, and not choosing to believe in God. The actuality of it is much more complicated than that. If you choose to believe in Christianity, but it turns out you're wrong and Islam is right, then you lose just as much as the wrong atheist. Similarly, if you choose to believe in Islam and and the Greek gods were real, then you have just as much to believe as the aforementioned wrong Christian. And if you choose to believe in the Greek gods and the Invisible Flying Teapot was the god of the correct religion, you lose as well.So, the wager can't simply be presented as a choice between two options. It is a choice between infinite options - Christianity, Islam, Greek religion, Hinduism, Teapotism, Pastafarianism, and yes, atheism - an infinite number of conceivable religious views or lack thereof - all of which will send you to hell if they're wrong. Choosing to believe in any particular God doesn't seem to help one out much at all.Pascal's Wager also fails because it presents belief as a choice. Now, I don't know about you, but for me, belief is not a choice, but a response to observed phenomena. I see certain things in the world and, independent of my own will, conclude certain things to be true. If someone told me that they would give me a million dollars if I believed that 2+2=5, I would want very much to believe that 2+2 was 5, but I would not be able to. Similarly, if I was told that I could enjoy an eternity in heaven if I believed in God, then I would desire to believe in God, but I would be incapable of it until evidence suggested otherwise.Those are the two biggest problems with Pascal's Wager.

 

[Follower]

(Lunar;60283)
Pascal's Wager fails as an argument because it sets up a false dichotomy. The Wagerer represents the choice as simply between choosing to believe in God, and not choosing to believe in God. The actuality of it is much more complicated than that. If you choose to believe in Christianity, but it turns out you're wrong and Islam is right, then you lose just as much as the wrong atheist.
You don't understand what a false dichotomy is. It is not where you have only two choices, even if one of those choices can be further broken down. Islam belongs to choice #1 or #2, or a secondary dichotomy. Islam is not a third choice. There is no such thing as Theist vs. Atheist vs. Islamic. There is no false dichotomy, unless you can explain how Islam doesn't fall under Theism or Atheism.
Pascal's Wager also fails because it presents belief as a choice.
Whether you are able to accept the wager has nothing to do with the validity of the wager itself.
Now, I don't know about you, but for me, belief is not a choice, but a response to observed phenomena.
It sounds like you're saying that you're mindless. For you, it's not about choice but about [stimulus] response. Alarmingly, I think this is what you meant.
If someone told me that they would give me a million dollars if I believed that 2+2=5, I would want very much to believe that 2+2 was 5, but I would not be able to.
You don't understand the concept of a wager. In a wager, it's a given that you don't know what is true and what is not true. In a wager, you weigh odds against payoffs. But, you are certain of the fact that 2+2=5 is false. Also, no one is offering you a million dollars to believe 2+2=5. If someone did, you might find yourself more flexible than you think. But, as it is, you know that the only way to get good grades in school and not have your bank account overdrawn is to use 2+2=4. In this case, you win betting on 2+2=4. You've already taken the 5 vs. 4 wager and you chose the safe choice back in grade school when your only confidence was your trust in the teacher.The only fallacy here is the fallacious thinking of Atheists to rationalize a foolish choice.

 

[Lunar]

(Follower;60306)
You don't understand what a false dichotomy is. It is not where you have only two choices, even if one of those choices can be further broken down.
A false dichotomy is when the choice is presented as between two options when it is in fact a choice between many options. This is exactly what is the case with Pascal's Wager.(Follower)
Islam belongs to choice #1 or #2, or a secondary dichotomy. Islam is not a third choice. There is no such thing as Theist vs. Atheist vs. Islamic. There is no false dichotomy, unless you can explain how Islam doesn't fall under Theism or Atheism.
It is a false dichotomy because Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. If Islam is true, then Christianity is false. Christianity and Islam both fall under the category of "theism," but there are many things within theism which are mutually exclusive and produce different consequences under Pascal's Wager.Think about it. If you took the wager and decided to believe in Christianity, and Islam turned out to be true, you would go to hell. So how can you, as a proponent of the wager, say that you have "nothing to lose" with theism? As I just demonstrated, you have just as much to lose as the atheist.You can argue over whether it's properly termed a "false dichotomy" if you want, but that will say nothing about the objection that the Wager assumes you're believing in the right God. Given all the religious traditions which have been conceived or could be conceived, chances are you are not believing in the right God.(Follower)
Whether you are able to accept the wager has nothing to do with the validity of the wager itself.
But it does, actually. The wager says nothing about the validity of God's existence, it simply tempts the wagerer with good consequences should he decide to change his belief. But if the wagerer is unable to change his belief, the wager has no pull.(Follower)
It sounds like you're saying that you're mindless. For you, it's not about choice but about [stimulus] response. Alarmingly, I think this is what you meant.
Well, I don't think that I am mindless. I would be mindless if I were incapable of reason, but reason is precisely the thing that makes me unable to accept God's existence as true. For that reason, it is qualitatively different than, say, an animal's observing their environment around them and reacting to it.(Follower)
You don't understand the concept of a wager. In a wager, it's a given that you don't know what is true and what is not true. In a wager, you weigh odds against payoffs. But, you are certain of the fact that 2+2=5 is false.
You just made the problem even clearer, actually. Yes, I am certain that 2+2=5 is false - certain enough that I could not will myself to believe otherwise. I am also certain enough such that I could not will myself to believe otherwise that God is not real. Thus, by your definition of a wager, I simply cannot make a wager on his existence. Pascal's Wager thus has no argumentative pull.(Follower)
Also, no one is offering you a million dollars to believe 2+2=5. If someone did, you might find yourself more flexible than you think.
I sincerely doubt it. I would very much like to put my fear of death to rest by believing that I'll go to heaven when I die, too, but I am unable to do that.(Follower)
But, as it is, you know that the only way to get good grades in school and not have your bank account overdrawn is to use 2+2=4. In this case, you win betting on 2+2=4. You've already taken the 5 vs. 4 wager and you chose the safe choice back in grade school when your only confidence was your trust in the teacher.
Oh, this is just weak. Even if it were a billion dollars - a trillion dollars - enough such that I would be set for life, not have to go to school, not have to worry about my bank account, I could still not believe that 2+2 was 5.I mean, are you really saying that the only reason you believed that 2+2 was 4 in grade school was so you could pass your test and do your finances? It didn't have any more pull on your reason than that? It was purely a pragmatic choice?(Follower)
The only fallacy here is the fallacious thinking of Atheists to rationalize a foolish choice.
I don't think so. It's not just atheists that reject Pascal's wager. Most theists are not satisfied with the logic of Pascal's wager either, for the reasons I just described, and look for their justification elsewhere. There is something incredibly tacky about boiling such a personal faith down to a matter of pragmatics, after all. I don't think that is what's at the heart of religious experience.And the wager can be applied to many other situations as well in which you will likely find it unconvincing (global warming, for example).

 

[Christina]

what a bunch of mumbo jumbo... A God vs No God 50/50 chance How one choose to come to a belief there is ..or is not ..a God does not change the odds Its only after one makes a choice one way or the other that any other factors come into playExample: if one chooses No god he isnt in a quantry as to which religion is right he has choosen None all are wrong there is no God. If one choose's there is a God only then must he decide how to worship that God.

 

[Jordan]

Again, It a persons choice. A persons choice = Free Will.

 

[Lunar]

(Christina;60350)
what a bunch of mumbo jumbo...
Christina, I don't recall being so disrespectful to you. Let's try to encourage the spirit of mutual respect and discussion, here.(Christina)
A God vs No God 50/50 chance How one choose to come to a belief there is ..or is not ..a God does not change the odds
It does change the odds. Think about it - what you are saying implies that if you become a Muslim, you will go to heaven. Clearly you do not believe this. You think that you will only go to heaven if you are a Christian. But there are many gods you can worship aside from the Christian god which will send you to hell. Thus, it isn't a choice between "believing" or "not believing."I'll put it this way. Let's say there are 100 possible religious traditions in the history of the world. (There are far more than this, but I'll simplify it for the sake of simplicity). Let's also suppose that Christianity is the right one (though the wager doesnt' tell us that). The wager, then, would look like this:Islam: 1% (Hell)Hinduism: 1% (Hell)Shinto: 1% (Hell)Atheism: 1% (Hell)Zoroastrianism: 1% (Hell)Scientology: 1% (Hell)Christianity: 1% (Heaven)Gnosticism: 1% (Hell)Judaism: 1% (Hell)Buddhism: 1% (Hell)Jainism: 1% (Hell)Sikhism: 1% (Hell)Wicca: 1% (Hell)Pastafarianism: 1% (Hell)...and so on.In picking any particular religion, we choose against all of those others. And we see, given the sheer number of conceivable religious traditions to choose form, that our chance of getting it right is very, very small. This makes the wager much less convincing. There are actually infinite conceivable religious traditions and the Wager doesn't say anything about whether they're right. All it really tells is that if we pick it we have a 1 in infinity chance of going to heaven (and a very large chance of going to hell in the event that any of those infinite other conceivable religions that condemn you to hell for not believing them are true).(Christina)
Example: if one chooses No god he isnt in a quantry as to which religion is right he has choosen None all are wrong there is no God. If one choose's there is a God only then must he decide how to worship that God.
Yes, that's true, but it doesn't say anything substantial about the wager.(Jordan)
Again, It a persons choice. A persons choice = Free Will.
Do you think you could choose to believe that 2+2=5?

 

[Jordan]

(Lunar;60356)
(Jordan;60351)
Again, It a persons choice. A persons choice = Free Will.
Do you think you could choose to believe that 2+2=5?Could I choose to believe that? Yes. But do I know that 2+2=5 to be false? Yes.

 

[Lunar]

(Jordan;60358)
Could I choose to believe that? Yes. But do I know that 2+2=5 to be false? Yes.
Really? You could, right now, choose to really believe that 2+2=5, to the extent that if God asked you what you really believed about the sum of 2 and 2 in your heart, you could answer "5" with complete honesty?Well, you are an impressive person. I for one absolutely could not believe that 2+2 is 5, and I think that this is the case with most other people as well. Belief is not always up to us. No matter how much I might want to, it would be impossible.

 

[Christina]

(Lunar;60356)
Christina, I don't recall being so disrespectful to you. Let's try to encourage the spirit of mutual respect and discussion, here.It does change the odds. Think about it - what you are saying implies that if you become a Muslim, you will go to heaven. Clearly you do not believe this. You think that you will only go to heaven if you are a Christian. But there are many gods you can worship aside from the Christian god which will send you to hell. Thus, it isn't a choice between "believing" or "not believing."I'll put it this way. Let's say there are 100 possible religious traditions in the history of the world. (There are far more than this, but I'll simplify it for the sake of simplicity). Let's also suppose that Christianity is the right one (though the wager doesnt' tell us that). The wager, then, would look like this:Islam: 1% (Hell)Hinduism: 1% (Hell)Shinto: 1% (Hell)Atheism: 1% (Hell)Zoroastrianism: 1% (Hell)Scientology: 1% (Hell)Christianity: 1% (Heaven)Gnosticism: 1% (Hell)Judaism: 1% (Hell)Buddhism: 1% (Hell)Jainism: 1% (Hell)Sikhism: 1% (Hell)Wicca: 1% (Hell)Pastafarianism: 1% (Hell)...and so on.In picking any particular religion, we choose against all of those others. And we see, given the sheer number of conceivable religious traditions to choose form, that our chance of getting it right is very, very small. This makes the wager much less convincing. There are actually infinite conceivable religious traditions and the Wager doesn't say anything about whether they're right. All it really tells is that if we pick it we have a 1 in infinity chance of going to heaven (and a very large chance of going to hell in the event that any of those infinite other conceivable religions that condemn you to hell for not believing them are true).Yes, that's true, but it doesn't say anything substantial about the wager.Do you think you could choose to believe that 2+2=5?
If you think calling some guys theory mumbo jumbo is disrespectful to you somehow you are certainly much being a little over sensitive. You are completely misrepresenting the facts it is not even as complicated in reality as you are trying portray it lets take the three major religions of the World ChristianityIslamJudaism They all stem for the same roots All accept major parts of the Bible as Holy scripture to be believedAll accept Jesus Christ as a prophetAll worship one God All expect a messiah to come (two think Jesus Christ will return Islam and Christianity, Judasim just expects the messiah)All accept they stem from Abraham Now lets think about this The differances do not start appearing til later in history Neither Islam nor christianity would exist without the God of the Old Testament. Islamic doctrine as written in the Quran didnt exist untill hunderds of years after Christ Christianity embraces the Old testament it has its roots in Judaism one can not fully understand Christianity without some understandering of the Jew and their customs All the other religions you mention come afterward in History so it isnt as you have tried to portray .... You are trying to make a choice in a man made religions of how one worships.... the same as a belief in God... they are not the same...

 

[Follower]

(Lunar;60349)
It is a false dichotomy because Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. If Islam is true, then Christianity is false.
I understand that Christianity and Islam cannot both be true. But, you do not understand that there is no third choice to Theism vs. Atheism, so there is no false dichotomy. I told you before that Islam vs. Christianity would to be a secondary dichotomy, two choices under theism (The full Theism breakdown would be polychotomous, except I would not go this route with Pascal's Wager and Islam.) If you pick Atheism, you are only a loser. If you pick Theism, you have a chance of being a winner. If you pick Christianity you have a chance of winning. If you pick Atheism, you are a loser. I could end my post right here.Now, after I've given myself a chance of being a winner, while you've doomed yourself. I can wager on Christianity vs. Islam. By my understanding, being a good Christian means I win under Islam because in Islam salvation is by obedience to God and I try to be obedient. So, choosing Christianity is the right choice. Even if I couldn't win under Islam by being a Christian, given that the reward and punishment are similar, all that matters is a preponderance of the evidence (the word of the Christian fathers vs. that of a child-molesting warlord). That again makes Christianity the best bet. This wager takes a little more consideration than the Theism vs. Atheism wager.
Given all the religious traditions which have been conceived or could be conceived, chances are you are not believing in the right God.
Chances? Any chance is better than zero. Your "conceived and could-be conceived religion" argument is itself fallacious reasoning. A conceived religion or a could-be conceived religion is a religion that does not have a chance of being right. The one true religion is itself a revealed religion, not a conceived religion. By definition, God's existence and his will is not a matter of human conception (as if you could conceive of God). I would also put an unknown religion into the category of Atheism because without knowing it, you have no ability (or no requirement) to comply with it.
I would be mindless if I were incapable of reason, but reason is precisely the thing that makes me unable to accept God's existence as true.
The irony is that Pascal's Wager is a matter of reason. If you don't know what's true, you're very capable of assuming something to be true. You've done it countless times in your life. Is the Big Bang true? See. If an expert tells you that nearly all the mushrooms in the the woods are safe to eat, and then you go out into the woods and find a mushroom, do you eat it? You know most likely it's safe. But, but if it's poisonous, you'll die (or see pretty colors). So, in spite of being fairly sure it's safe, because of the possible consequences, you choose to assume that it's dangerous and you don't eat it.
Oh, this is just weak. Even if it were a billion dollars - a trillion dollars - enough such that I would be set for life, not have to go to school, not have to worry about my bank account, I could still not believe that 2+2 was 5.
Back when you were a child, you believed that 2+2=4 just for a little praise. There was a time you believed it before you understood it (e.g. 2+2 doesn't equal 11 only because you're not using Base 3). Let me repeat the argument I gave you previously. You know without a doubt that 2+2=4, so there's nothing to wager on. Maybe if you were tortured long enough by Cardassians you'd eventually convince yourself that 2+2=5, if that's what it took to be released. Maybe if you really believed someone might give you a billion dollars, you could convince yourself that 2+2=5. I'm not so sure you couldn't change your belief.
It's not just atheists that reject Pascal's wager. Most theists are not satisfied with the logic of Pascal's wager either,
An appeal to authority? You're really racking up the fallacies.

 

[Lunar]

(Christina;60396)
If you think calling some guys theory mumbo jumbo is disrespectful to you somehow you are certainly much being a little over sensitive.
It makes a mockery of the person's argument without explaining why - poor argumentative form. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from such tactics.(Christina)
lets take the three major religions of the World ChristianityIslamJudaism
...Excuse me?Christina, this displays a horribly Western-centric view. There are only 13 million Jews in the world. There are a billion Hindu adherents and 3-500 million Buddhists. You can't simply shrug these off and say that Judaism is more important. There are more Sikhs than Jews.(Christina)
They all stem for the same roots
True, there is a good deal of commonality between those three religions, but that doesn't mean that you'll go to heaven if you pick Islam when Christianity is right.(Christina)
All the other religions you mention come afterward in History
So? That doesn't make them more right or wrong.(Christina)
You are trying to make a choice in a man made religions of how one worships.... the same as a belief in God... they are not the same...
But Christina, don't you see? Whether the religion is man-made or not is precisely what is in question. We brought up Pascal's wager to decide whether or not we should believe if religion was real or man-made. To simply then say that all these other religions are man-made in defense of the wager is circular reasoning.Pascal's Wager does not factor in history or the religion's plausibility. Based on available evidence, all religious traditions are implausible, but the Wager is not an argument from evidence. It is an argument from pragmatics.Follower: Sorry I can't respond now, you'll hopefully receive a reply later tonight.

 

[Christina]

I see Pascal's Wager as circular reasoning it simply misrepresents the facts you can not create a theroy about man with out taking human histoty into account it is a non argument Follower is exactly right No matter what you have 50/50 % chance of being right period. No God vs A God is the choice all other facts/choices fall under a second/sub choice after you choose from the first.

 

[Jordan]

(Lunar;60359)
(Jordan;60358)
Could I choose to believe that? Yes. But do I know that 2+2=5 to be false? Yes.
Really? You could, right now, choose to really believe that 2+2=5, to the extent that if God asked you what you really believed about the sum of 2 and 2 in your heart, you could answer "5" with complete honesty?Well, you are an impressive person. I for one absolutely could not believe that 2+2 is 5, and I think that this is the case with most other people as well. Belief is not always up to us. No matter how much I might want to, it would be impossible.While yes, I can believe that if I want to. Why should I believe that it is true? Because it's nothing, but a LIE. Once again, either you believe in God or or you don't, it's all a person choice to make that decision. Again Free Will.Christina is correct.

 

[jeffhughes]

right[/i] God, since according to most religions, if you follow "other gods" then you go to hell or get punished in some way. Thus, simply "believing in God" is not sufficient. You must choose the right one. You can argue about the technicalities about whether Islam vs. Christianity is a "secondary dichotomy" all you want, but the fact is that, based on nothing but pragmatism (instead of reasoning based on evidence), theism is not good enough to get yourself to whatever heaven the right God has. The wager must take into account that there is more than one religion, which it does not. Therefore, it is flawed.

Unless the real God is one who is trying to hide himself, and therefore rewards those who did not believe in him. It sounds silly, but we could easily add it to the list of religions. Chances are, there's been a real religion like this out there at some point anyway. If there is a God like this, then you win as an atheist. Or perhaps God thinks that anyone who believes in him based on a stupid wager involving weighing your options should be doomed to hell. Therefore, by using it as a basis for your beliefs, you've lost. I could go on with "what-ifs", but I hope you get the point. The thing I'm trying to get at is that the wager operates on a bunch of "ifs" already, so we if we are going to use it, we must consider all the "ifs".

But according to Islam, you must recite prayers such as "There is one god, Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Have you done that lately? Islam is based on five central pillars, and at best, as a Christian, you'd be following one or two of them. Have you made your trip to Mecca? Have you fasted during the month of Ramadan? Then you are not winning as a Christian if Islam is correct.

Chances? Any chance is better than zero.

True. But under the other conceivable gods that I created' date=' you could still win as an atheist. So technically, the chance is not zero. Not to mention, that with the number of possible religions approaching infinity, the chance of winning with any one of these approaches zero, anyway. Either way, you're pretty much screwed.

Your "conceived and could-be conceived religion" argument is itself fallacious reasoning. A conceived religion or a could-be conceived religion is a religion that does not have a chance of being right. The one true religion is itself a revealed religion, not a conceived religion.

On what basis do you claim this? You assume that the true God wants to reveal himself. You also assume that there is a revealed religion...

The irony is that Pascal's Wager is a matter of reason. If you don't know what's true' date=' you're very capable of assuming something to be true. You've done it countless times in your life. Is the Big Bang true? See.[/QUOTE']Reasoning is based on evidence. The Big Bang can be shown to be true (or at least plausible) based on observable phenomena, as well as mathematical formulas. As well, science is inherently tentative in nature, due to its reliance on inductive reasoning. But it is still based on evidence. Pascal's Wager is based not on evidence, but rather on hedging one's bets to try and "beat the system", essentially. It mentions no evidence whatsoever, and so it is a wager that is presented in the absence of evidence. This is not reasoning - not any more than a gambler "reasoning" through which number to place his money on.

The analogy would work better, actually, if it went as follows: An expert tells you that there is one and only one mushroom in the woods that is safe to eat, and the rest are poisonous and will kill you. So do you eat one, hoping it is the right one? Well, if you do, then you're crazy. The much better strategy would be to eat none at all.

This is just silly. Children learn that 2+2=4 because they are shown the mechanics of addition (thus, using the function of logic and reasoning), not because they'll get a cookie if they say it equals 4. Even without this understanding of addition, a child would still rely on the knowledge of the "expert" (the teacher), and trust that they knew what they were talking about. Thus, they still base it on evidence.

That wasn't an appeal to authority, unless you believe that he counts theists as "authorities". He said it to let you know that it's not just some atheist drivel that we made up so we could discount Pascal's Wager. In other words, theists can see the reasoning behind rejecting the Wager, as well.

 

[Lunar]

(Follower;60397)
If you pick Atheism, you are only a loser. If you pick Theism, you have a chance of being a winner. If you pick Christianity you have a chance of winning. If you pick Atheism, you are a loser. I could end my post right here.
Let's try and make the problem even clearer.So first off, Pascal's Wager does not rule out any potential religion. It says nothing about their likelihood or validity. It simply weighs the potential outcomes that would happen if they were true. So we are weighing essentially infinite conceivable religions, each of which would send us to hell for being wrong, against each other.Assuming only that, of course, you still have a point. If there were 999,999,999 possible religions, then there is technically a 0 in 999,999,999 of going to heaven if you're an atheist, and a 1 in 999,999,999 chance of going to heaven if you're a theist. This chance is so small as to not be likely to persuade our reason, but it is technically a superior chance, and the stakes are very high. Does this mean you have a point?No. The reason is because you snuck in another false presupposition - the assumption that God rewards belief. Again, Pascal's Wager says nothing about this. I could conceive of a God which does not reward belief. In fact, perhaps he rewards nonbelief - perhaps our life on earth is a test of our reason, and he has intentionally chosen to remove all evidence of himself. If this were the case, then choosing to be an atheist would be the winning bet.Now, you may say that that is absurd, and that none of the major religious traditions today say anything like that. But Pascal's Wager is not a measure of what is absurd. It is not an argument from evidence. It is simply cost-benefit analysis based on all possible outcomes. You may, of course, think that there is overwhelming evidence that we should rule out all these hypothetical religions. But if an argument can be made from evidence, then there is no use for Pascal's Wager. We are much more likely to be moved by evidence then by someone saying "Well, your chance goes from 0 in 999,999,999 to 1 in 999,999,999!"(Follower)
Now, after I've given myself a chance of being a winner, while you've doomed yourself.
Again, this is actually not true under the wager. See above.(Follower)
I can wager on Christianity vs. Islam. By my understanding, being a good Christian means I win under Islam because in Islam salvation is by obedience to God and I try to be obedient. So, choosing Christianity is the right choice.
You seriously think that if Islam is right and you've chosen to be a Christian and worship Christ, Allah will let you off the hook because you've been "obedient?" You need to read the Qu'ran.(Follower)
Even if I couldn't win under Islam by being a Christian, given that the reward and punishment are similar, all that matters is a preponderance of the evidence (the word of the Christian fathers vs. that of a child-molesting warlord). That again makes Christianity the best bet.
Aha, but if you want to make this an argument from evidence (which is an avenue which is quite productive, and I welcome you to do so, but it is not this argument), then Pascal's wager becomes obsolete. The situation is no longer about weighing the rewards I will get, but about (as it should be) weighing the evidence for and against each religion(Follower)
Chances? Any chance is better than zero.
But again, as I've said before, you have a better than 0 chance of going to heaven as an atheist, too, once you factor in all conceivable religions. (Follower)
Your "conceived and could-be conceived religion" argument is itself fallacious reasoning. A conceived religion or a could-be conceived religion is a religion that does not have a chance of being right.
Oh, you're quite right. I don't lend any credibility to a religion simply because I conceived it. But what you misunderstand is what Pascal's Wager factors in. Pascal's Wager does not factor the plausibility of the religion. It says nothing about the probability of the religion being true. It only factors in the possible rewards. Once we start saying "Well, there is more evidence for Christianity so we shouldn't factor in all these other religions," then there becomes no point to Pascal's Wager.(Follower)
The one true religion is itself a revealed religion, not a conceived religion.
But whether we should believe a particular religion is revealed or conceived is precisely what is in question. Circular reasoning. I could become the prophet of my own theoretical religion and it would be a "revealed" religion just as much as every other revealed religion that you consider to be wrong.(Follower)
Back when you were a child, you believed that 2+2=4 just for a little praise.
Speak for yourself. Perhaps that's how you learned your arithmetic. My experience was that math had a more powerful pull on my reason than that. When my teacher put 2 beans in front of me and then another 2 beans and then asked how many there were, the reason that I answered "4" was not because I wanted a gold star or a good grade. It was because it was binding upon my reason that it had to be 4.(Follower)
An appeal to authority? You're really racking up the fallacies.
You misunderstand. I am not saying "You shouldn't believe Pascal's Wager because all these other Christians don't believe it." I am simply saying that you are misrepresenting the state of affairs. You presented this case as some radical fringe thinking that only an atheist would cling to (a bit of intellectual bullying on your part), which does a disservice to the way other Christians perceive the matter.Of course, whether or not you buy into Pascal's Wager is up to argument, not what other Christians believe. But please don't distort the truth in order to try and convince me.EDIT: Goodness, looks like jeffhughes got here before me. Seems like this was slightly redundant.

 

[Christina]

What does Pascal's Wager have to do with anything you started by arguing my point that you have 50/50 chance of being right You have attempted to deny this fact by side tracking the whole thing with some wager that does not even apply you either belive in a God or you dont thats it 1. 50% chance you are right 2. 50% chance you are wrong If your still trying to decide whether or not God was invented by man then you have not chosen choice 1 or 2 yet If you had chosen No God you no doubt believe he is man made but it doesnt matter he doesnt existIf you have chosen to believe in God you have already decided he is real therefore not man made your only decision is how will worship him Pascal's Wager may only be appplicable if you havent yet chosen choice 1 or 2 but it doesnt change your odds of 50 % chance you are right or wrong.

 

[Lunar]

(Christina;60430)
What does Pascal's Wager have to do with anything
The argument you made is Pascal's wager. That's what it has to do with it.(Christina)
you started by arguing my point that you have 50/50 chance of being right
A 50/50 chance of being right on whether there is a God? Possibly. A 50/50 chance on being right enough to go to heaven (i.e., right enough to have picked the correct God?) Not at all. (Christina)
You have attempted to deny this fact by side tracking the whole thing with some wager that does not even apply you either belive in a God or you dont thats it
Again - just believing in God is not enough to get you into heaven, so the argument of "you have nothing to lose and everything to gain" does not apply.That's the crucial thing that you are ignoring. It may be a 50/50 choice between God's existing or not, but picking "God exists" is not enough to get you into heaven even if he is real. You have to pick the right God and worship him the right way.To make this very, very clear, I will requote your original post.(Christina)
So the facts are you and I both have 50/50 % chance of being rightThe difference is if you are wrong it cost you your soulIf Im wrong it costs me nothing except having to listen to people like you tell me Im wrong.
The statement "If I'm wrong it costs me nothing except having to listen to people like you tell me I'm wrong" is false. You could choose to believe in God and still go to hell because of it, if you picked the wrong God.