Take that Blaise ;)

[yermom]

http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-post.html


It is without exaggeration to say that millions of people have died because they have different unproved religious beliefs inherited from their parents along tribal lines. Now imagine that Earth was invaded by an alien force with superior technology. Imagine, if you will, that humans were kept in cages and forced to fight each other to the death for the amusement of the aliens. Would you kill your fellow man and hope to gain favor with the aliens or would you resist by any means necessary and strive to regain human dignity? Which is the more moral option?

I propose as my answer to Pascal’s wager, two choices and two outcomes. The choices come down to theism (of any religion, not just Christianity) vs. atheism. The outcomes include going to heaven or not going to heaven.

i've kinda thought about this another way than him in that the problem with Pascal's Wager is that you don't actually lose nothing in believing in God since you spend a lot of time preparing/expecting an afterlife, thus wasting a lot of your life that will be over when you find no afterlife waiting for you, if that possibility is true

oh yeah, and :pop: ;)

[sanantoniosooner]

I don't consider it wasted time if I found out there was nothing at the end.

It's not like I drove the wrong way to Houston or something.

[TopDawg]

i've kinda thought about this another way than him in that the problem with Pascal's Wager is that you don't actually lose nothing in believing in God since you spend a lot of time preparing/expecting an afterlife, thus wasting a lot of your life that will be over when you find no afterlife waiting for you, if that possibility is true

Well that depends on how you "prepare" for an afterlife and define "wasting" your earthly life.

[tommieharris91]

http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-post.html



i've kinda thought about this another way than him in that the problem with Pascal's Wager is that you don't actually lose nothing in believing in God since you spend a lot of time preparing/expecting an afterlife, thus wasting a lot of your life that will be over when you find no afterlife waiting for you, if that possibility is true

oh yeah, and :pop: ;)

This seems like an extension of the Prisoner's Dilemma/Game Theory. If you go any way in this proposition, the dilemma will screw you over. All paths you could take have consequences. In one instance, you will be killed if other humans decide to play Gladiator and impress the aliens, so you could decide to defend yourself from other humans and kill them first. But if other humans decide to fight the aliens, you will surely be either prosecuted or killed. If you decide to fight the aliens, you may get killed by humans who look to impress the aliens. Of course, other humans could join you in defending earth, but that may be futile and you will be be forced to kill other humans if it doesn't work.

With this kind of reasoning, fighting the other aliens seems like the best of the 4 alternatives. So to fight back would be, by far, the best option. This option has by far the best chance for humanity to continue.

Now, to attack the person's premise of aliens coming to cage humans. I think he is actually asking "Would you accept Satan (or any other purely evil being) if he were to attack humanity?" Mostly everybody would (or should) say no, as this would destroy many ethical premises (social contracts) that current society accepts in order for humanity to advance. However, all people must agree to these for this to work. So to compare aliens attacking earth and acceptance of a supremely good deity is not quite the best analogy.

I think what I proposed in the above paragraph is happening more and more often in today's society, and I can say I am guilty of succumbing to evil a few times in my life. I think what he is saying is that there can be more enjoyment out of a life of athiesm, whereas you are not letting a doctrine of how to live life limit yourself, and that people are wasting their time on earth by living an unfulfilling life "doing what God told me to do." But, since surrendering to these enslaving aliens (or many evils in today's society) will doom humanity, it should not be done by anyone. Now, to get everyone to agree to this is the biggest problem (thus the Prisoner's Dilemma thinking), since a life of sex, drugs, and rock&roll is so much fun.

EDIT: Apparently I reason the same way the blogger and Pascal do. I just read his site, and he pretty much says what I thought, except that he advocates in his Athiest's Wager not to believe in a deity, while I take the side that there is an afterlife. Also, the blogger can probably submit this to philosophy academia, if he hasn't already.

[yermom]

Well that depends on how you "prepare" for an afterlife and define "wasting" your earthly life.

well, maybe not so much the casual Christian, but the ones that spend lots of time trying to convert other people. or people that make all of their life decisions based on the fact that this life isn't all there is. like the jihadi that blows himself up only to find out that there is no harem of virgins waiting for him. although, if there is no afterlife, you probably never even know that you chose poorly.

[Frozen Sooner]

http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-post.html



i've kinda thought about this another way than him in that the problem with Pascal's Wager is that you don't actually lose nothing in believing in God since you spend a lot of time preparing/expecting an afterlife, thus wasting a lot of your life that will be over when you find no afterlife waiting for you, if that possibility is true

oh yeah, and :pop: ;)

I think the real question is why he's spending time attacking something so obviously logically faulty as Pascal's Wager. I mean, the very first time I read it I thought "Er, yeah, but there's literally hundreds of mutually exclusive ways to worship just the Christian God, and tens of thousands of ways to worship other gods." That, and what you said about there not being zero cost in belief, as Pascal assumes.

[Frozen Sooner]

well, maybe not so much the casual Christian, but the ones that spend lots of time trying to convert other people. or people that make all of their life decisions based on the fact that this life isn't all there is. like the jihadi that blows himself up only to find out that there is no harem of virgins waiting for him. although, if there is no afterlife, you probably never even know that you chose poorly.

Good point. In fact, that's MY response to Pascal's Wager:

Theism allows that you MIGHT be able to be smug at some undefined time in the future. Atheism allows me the opportunity to be smug RIGHT NOW.

[Xstnlsooner]

"Party till you puke!" (or burn) I'm sticking to my faith and
I can't really say that any of the time I spend in worship
is wasted. I waste more time doing other things than that.
(heh) If you atheists want to read some good stuff from
a good Christian philosopher, try Alvin Plantiga. He's not
your average fundamentalist. He wrote a good skewer of
Dawkin's book, The God Delusion. Or try R. C. Sproul.

(refer to quote below, again)

[crawfish]

http://atheistwager.blogspot.com/2007/04/first-post.html



i've kinda thought about this another way than him in that the problem with Pascal's Wager is that you don't actually lose nothing in believing in God since you spend a lot of time preparing/expecting an afterlife, thus wasting a lot of your life that will be over when you find no afterlife waiting for you, if that possibility is true

oh yeah, and :pop: ;)

Personally, I wouldn't feel like my time was wasted if I found there was no God. It's made me a better person.

The number of people killed directly by religion is fairly easy to quantify. What's more difficult to quantify is how much it helps society; do the morals taught and rules applied actually cause people to be less violent or hateful than they would be if it didn't exist? I imagine yes.

My wife has been studying personality typing lately (Meyers-Briggs, Enneagrams), and I've learned some interesting things from them. Out of the 16 types, 3 or 4 of them make up nearly 80% of the entire population. Those types are also most prone to "fundamentalist thought" - by that I don't mean that they're necessarily fundamentalists, but they tend to have the mindset that could lead to fundamentalism. These types, when healthy, use the sets of morals and laws that govern them to curb bad behavior; they tend to listen and obey, for the most part. When unhealthy, they tend to want to force their morals on others.

Atheists have tended to be other types over the years - those that are more prone to be a "P" over a "J", if you understand the MB terminology. As atheism becomes more socially acceptable, more "J's" are adopting its tenets, and thus, it is more filled with fundamentalist-type thought. I think this really explains the combative nature "new atheism". Just my own thoughts, nothing proven or anything.

I think that getting rid of religion is like going to replace an old, frayed carpet and finding when you take it out that you've ripped the entire foundation out.

[crawfish]

Good point. In fact, that's MY response to Pascal's Wager:

Theism allows that you MIGHT be able to be smug at some undefined time in the future. Atheism allows me the opportunity to be smug RIGHT NOW.

I assure you that if you decide to become a Christian you'll have no problem with being presently smug. There's a lot of precedents. ;)

[yermom]

Personally, I wouldn't feel like my time was wasted if I found there was no God. It's made me a better person.

The number of people killed directly by religion is fairly easy to quantify. What's more difficult to quantify is how much it helps society; do the morals taught and rules applied actually cause people to be less violent or hateful than they would be if it didn't exist? I imagine yes.

My wife has been studying personality typing lately (Meyers-Briggs, Enneagrams), and I've learned some interesting things from them. Out of the 16 types, 3 or 4 of them make up nearly 80% of the entire population. Those types are also most prone to "fundamentalist thought" - by that I don't mean that they're necessarily fundamentalists, but they tend to have the mindset that could lead to fundamentalism. These types, when healthy, use the sets of morals and laws that govern them to curb bad behavior; they tend to listen and obey, for the most part. When unhealthy, they tend to want to force their morals on others.

Atheists have tended to be other types over the years - those that are more prone to be a "P" over a "J", if you understand the MB terminology. As atheism becomes more socially acceptable, more "J's" are adopting its tenets, and thus, it is more filled with fundamentalist-type thought. I think this really explains the combative nature "new atheism". Just my own thoughts, nothing proven or anything.

I think that getting rid of religion is like going to replace an old, frayed carpet and finding when you take it out that you've ripped the entire foundation out.

i don't really disagree with anything here, but i do have doubts as to where religions came from

[Fraggle145]

The number of people killed directly by religion is fairly easy to quantify. What's more difficult to quantify is how much it helps society; do the morals taught and rules applied actually cause people to be less violent or hateful than they would be if it didn't exist? I imagine yes.

I have always thought that this conclusion was kind of baseless. I think for the most part people will follow the golden rule. Whether or not that is derived from religion really isnt important. Can you teach the same rules by being a good parrent/example without using faith? I think that you could. I guess what I am trying to say is that I dont think that morals hinge upon faith.

[mdklatt]

I guess what I am trying to say is that I dont think that morals hinge upon faith.

This should be fairly easy to quantify as well. Figure out the proportion of atheists to theists in the prison population, and compare that to their proportion in the general population.

There are already indicators that there is no difference. I believe divorce rates are the same for Christians as for everybody else. Teens who sign abstienence pledges are no more likely to stay abstinent as teens who don't...although they are more likely to lie about having signed the pledge in the first place.

[JohnnyMack]

I think the obvious answer is that :dean: would end up winning.

[crawfish]

This should be fairly easy to quantify as well. Figure out the proportion of atheists to theists in the prison population, and compare that to their proportion in the general population.

There are already indicators that there is no difference. I believe divorce rates are the same for Christians as for everybody else. Teens who sign abstienence pledges are no more likely to stay abstinent as teens who don't...although they are more likely to lie about having signed the pledge in the first place.

I don't think that tells you anything. Atheists, at least traditionally, have been mostly among the "intellectual elite", and likely to be very educated. It does take a certain amount of knowledge to buck the traditions around you and accept that everything they say is wrong. Prisons tend to be populated by the uneducated and poor, who are less likely to have the knowledge to disbelieve. Even white-collar criminals should be more likely to be Christian, as that is the societal status quo and it's tough to pull off what they do when you're counterculture.

I'm also a bit dubious of the claims that abstinence programs don't affect teenage sexual activity. There is no evidence that they prevent such activity, or make much of a difference whether or not someone has sex; however, there is evidence to indicate that such programs raise the average age of first activity. That in itself would be worthwhile.

The problem with abstinence programs, of course, is that any message they send is conflicted by the entertainment media and, quite frankly, many parents.

[crawfish]

I believe divorce rates are the same for Christians as for everybody else.

Divorce rates tend to be slightly higher for Christians; of course, so do marriage rates. I wonder if there would be a great deal of difference if they included live-in and pre-marriage situations.

[Tailwind]

Amen!

[mdklatt]

it's tough to pull off what they do when you're counterculture

How so?




however, there is evidence to indicate that such programs raise the average age of first activity.


Not according to this (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/index.htm).

[mdklatt]

Divorce rates tend to be slightly higher for Christians; of course, so do marriage rates.

What is the rate of "Christian" marriages that fail compared to the rate of "non-Christian" marriages? It shouldn't matter which group gets married more frequently, as we're only looking at the marriages themselves.

As for living together, is a divorce any better than a break up? If you're going to end up divorced, isn't it prefereable to not have gotten married in the first place? It's not the divorce rate that's too high in this country, but the marriage rate.

[OCUDad]

Personally, I wouldn't feel like my time was wasted if I found there was no God. It's made me a better person.Well, yeah, but look where you started... there was no place to go but up.

[crawfish]

How so?

The key to being a good white-collar criminal is to have the appearance of somebody who can be trusted. You don't actually gain most people's trust by admitting you're an atheist. In other words, the key to getting away with illegal stuff is to look as inconspicuous as possible.





Not according to this (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/abstinence07/index.htm).

I believe there was another survey that tested that hypothesis specifically. Since I can't remember exactly where I heard it and what the results are, I'll punt on the argument.

[crawfish]

What is the rate of "Christian" marriages that fail compared to the rate of "non-Christian" marriages? It shouldn't matter which group gets married more frequently, as we're only looking at the marriages themselves.

Christians tend to get married younger and sooner(in the relationship), which skews the rates. Both are more likely to end in divorce.

But again, I admit that anything Christian teaching does is conflicted daily by the secular world, which makes it far more difficult to counter the societal forces leading to such behavior.


As for living together, is a divorce any better than a break up? If you're going to end up divorced, isn't it prefereable to not have gotten married in the first place? It's not the divorce rate that's too high in this country, but the marriage rate.

When there are shared resources and children involved, an unmarried breakup is just as bad as a divorce. Worse, in fact, because one party may find itself unprotected. It would just be interesting to see the results if those relationships were factored in.

[mdklatt]

I believe there was another survey that tested that hypothesis specifically. Since I can't remember exactly where I heard it and what the results are, I'll punt on the argument.


The jury is still out on abstinence-only education, one way or another. The good news about the study I linked to is that the abstinence-only crowd is just as likely to have safe sex as anybody else.

Here's an interesting philosophical question. Is it more immoral to have premarital sex if you think premarital sex is a sin than if you think it's not a sin?

[crawfish]

The jury is still out on abstinence-only education, one way or another. The good news about the study I linked to is that the abstinence-only crowd is just as likely to have safe sex as anybody else.

Here's an interesting philosophical question. Is it more immoral to have premarital sex if you think premarital sex is a sin than if you think it's not a sin?

Yeah, I noticed that. I chuckled to myself that the headlines weren't "abstinence-only eduction does not lead to higher rates of unprotected sex". Conservative media, indeed. :D

What most teenagers don't realize is that sex is incredibly complicated for something so simply done. There are emotional, psychological and physiological factors that make the act more than just a couple of innocent kids fooling around. To handle things properly requires a level of maturity that even many 18-year-olds don't have. The secular teaching really glosses over these difficulties.

Kids - some of 'em, anyway - are gonna have sex, and there is little we can do to prevent it. I'm well aware of this. I think we need to work to ensure that it's both safe AND minimized as much as possible.

[mdklatt]

Christians tend to get married younger and sooner(in the relationship), which skews the rates.

I would agree, and this is not a good thing. Once again, the key to reducing the divorce rate is to reduce the marriage rate.



But again, I admit that anything Christian teaching does is conflicted daily by the secular world, which makes it far more difficult to counter the societal forces leading to such behavior.


Who is to blame for the immorality of society? If we're talking about the US, the "secular" world is 80% Christian, right? This is why I don't buy into the Christian persecution complex at all. How can the "MSM" be so biased against 80% of its audience? It's not just atheists, Jews, and other pagans that are watching American Pie and subscribing to Hustler.

[crawfish]

I would agree, and this is not a good thing. Once again, the key to reducing the divorce rate is to reduce the marriage rate.

Of course, we can also decrease the number of deaths by decreasing the number of births. And we can decrease the number of births by coming up with some good program to prevent kids from having sex. ;)


Who is to blame for the immorality of society? If we're talking about the US, the "secular" world is 80% Christian, right? This is why I don't buy into the Christian persecution complex at all. How can the "MSM" be so biased against 80% of its audience? It's not just atheists, Jews, and other pagans that are watching American Pie and subscribing to Hustler.

Christians might watch the stuff; however, to claim it's part of "Christian society" would be wrong. It's a result of our society becoming MORE secular, NOT more Christian.

[mdklatt]

Of course, we can also decrease the number of deaths by decreasing the number of births. And we can decrease the number of births by coming up with some good program to prevent kids from having sex. ;)


Or making sure they know about birth control because they're apparently having sex no matter what we tell them. ;)




Christians might watch the stuff; however, to claim it's part of "Christian society" would be wrong. It's a result of our society becoming MORE secular, NOT more Christian.

Who is responsible for society becoming more secular? Surely the 80% is at least responsible as the 20%. So, for a portion of that 80% to put all of the blame on the 20% is pretty silly.

[crawfish]

Or making sure they know about birth control because they're apparently having sex no matter what we tell them. ;)

Or, having it without birth control no matter what we tell them. ;)

Face it. The ultimate for a teenage guy is to convince a girl to have sex with him without a condom. If you can't convince them to not have sex, you won't convince them to use a condom, either.


Who is responsible for society becoming more secular? Surely the 80% is at least responsible as the 20%. So, for a portion of that 80% to put all of the blame on the 20% is pretty silly.

I'm not putting the blame on the 20%. I'm putting the blame on the secularization of our society, which is supported by a large portion of the Christian population as well. No mention about how the Jews own the media, btw. (j/k) ;)

[yermom]

well, it's not just the teenage girls that need to know the risks of unprotected sex...

[crawfish]

well, it's not just the teenage girls that need to know the risks of unprotected sex...

...or the risks of protected sex.

It's like getting kids to wear seatbelts. It decreases the chances of injury, but I still don't want my kids to drive until they're mature enough to handle it.

[yermom]

yeah, but who hasn't borrowed the car for a little joyriding ;)