For example, many environmentalists will use fear-based tactics in order to cause many people to panic. This causes a wave of people using metal straws and buying reusable water bottles.....They have been feared to make desperate and not logical decisions. — stressyandmessy

Once waves of people start using metal straws and reusable water bottles, who knows where it could lead? They might begin frantically recycling paper or growing vegetables. Calming the situation down could take many years.

But they do not understand that this action will not truly help the environmental situation. — stressyandmessy

Thanks for the heads-up. I will chuck out my metal straws and reusable bottles and go back to single-use plastic. But I want to truly help. What should I do?

Although the person will believe in God they are doing so because of fear and not because they believe in the values that God provides. — stressyandmessy

Yes, and I think they truly feel the former but try to promote the latter as the 'real reason' for their faith.
But this is something I can't prove unless it is admitted on a theist by theist basis. Admitting that your theism is purely fear-based is rare, as long as your theism perpetuates. The memory of Its fear-based origin can fade over time for the committed, life-invested theist.

There he is, Pascal's wager! Thanks!

What's the dis advantage of believing in gods, the only rational explanation of the universe, which is proof for their existence? Ignoring this evidence is ignoring rational thought.

For example, many environmentalists will use fear-based tactics in order to cause many people to panic. — stressyandmessy

But the fear is justified. That's not the case with gods punishing us in the afterlife. Who says there is an afterlife? Probably we just get reincarnated.

:lol: but remember! shhhhhhhhhh!

I remember! Shhhhhhhhh.... :wink:

Pascal's wager, RIP Pascal, is more of an explanation than an advice!

RIP Blaise Pascal :flower: :death:

the greatest flaw is that the logic is built on fear. — stressyandmessy

the person will believe in God they are doing so because of fear and not because they believe in the values that God provides. — stressyandmessy

Making a decision based on fear is a common and rational reaction.

The reason why this is problematic and an issue is because the belief is not genuine and instead of believing in God for the values that they offer. — stressyandmessy

You're right. That is a problem. Can we just decide to believe something? Sometimes I think we can. People have tried to rationally justify a belief in God at least since the ancient Greeks. I guess Pascal is just a theological pragmatist. That's probably a good reason to reject his argument.

Making a decision based on fear is a common and rational reaction — T Clark

I am sure Putin would agree with you!

Sometimes I think we can. People have tried to rationally justify a belief in God at least since the ancient Greeks. — T Clark

Raitionally justifying belief can help you if you're seriously consider the belief. I doubt it'll help at all if your intution tells you the item at hand is nonsense (i.e. if it doesn't make sense to you). Raitional thought can sway doubt, or function as a tiebreaker. It can get rid of "obstacles" (you believe X is wrong because of Y, but you find yourself convinced that Y is untrue).

A pragmatic approach, such as the wager, might motivate you to consider the item at hand, but only if the item at hand has a minimum amount of credibility. I'm an atheist, and I can't make enough sense of the concept of God to motivate myself to even think "yeah, I should belief." Pascal may talk about infinite gain and infinite loss, but it's all so abstract and alien to me that I just can't feel the loss, not even hypothetically. If it did, I could, for example, decide on a fake-it-till-you-make-it approach, or some such method. I can't guarantee success, of course, but I can try. However, abstract talk about infinite gain/loss isn't exactly experience-adjacent to this atheist mind. I don't long for heaven, and I don't fear hell, and no amount of rational argument is going to make it. What it'd take is a major upheaval in my world view. And I'm not sure what it would take to get there.

Sometimes I think we can. People have tried to rationally justify a belief in God at least since the ancient Greeks.
— T Clark

Raitionally justifying belief can help you if you're seriously consider the belief. — Dawnstorm

I could, for example, decide on a fake-it-till-you-make-it approach, — Dawnstorm

I was serious when I said "Sometimes I think we can," and it was "fake-it-till-you-make-it" I was thinking about.

It would be an empty meaningless universe without gods. Now that's proof.

I'm an atheist, and I can't make enough sense of the concept of God to motivate myself to even think "yeah, I should belief." — Dawnstorm

I intend this as a serious question and not at all as a criticism of what you've written - If that's how you feel, why get into this particular discussion at all? Most atheists here on the forum have a bone to pick. You don't seem to.

I always say that I am not a theist or that I'm not a follower of any religion. I don't say I am an atheist. I come to discussions about God for two reasons. 1) It's a place where people who call themselves rational come to show off their ramshackle rationality. Their arrogance pisses me off. And, more importantly 2) There is an aspect of humanity's relationship to reality that is at least acknowledged by religious or spiritual understandings that is denied by more rationalist approaches.

Pascal’s wager is flawed because there are more options than believing in the Christian God there are also other religions that we would have to take into account. But the greatest flaw is that the logic is built on fear. The possibility of going to hell incites people to believe in God it is all fear-based. — stressyandmessy

I think you nailed it for the most part.

No one can choose to believe in something, you either are convinced or you are not convinced.

Running with this kind of narrative any god/s who run a mafia boss style protection racket - 'believe and you will be saved' - are worthy of scorn and shunning, surely?

I'm an atheist, and I can't make enough sense of the concept of God to motivate myself to even think "yeah, I should belief." Pascal may talk about infinite gain and infinite loss, but it's all so abstract and alien to me that I just can't feel the loss, not even — Dawnstorm

I think the idea of god/s are incoherent too. Above and beyond all the arguments in both directions, I lack a sensus divinitatis so belief is not really possible in my case.

A full reading of the Pensées shows the wager is not simply placing a bet on a yes-or-no proposition but is a reflection of the human condition in which change is possible. It is not bound up with reciting a creed but looking for guidance in the circumstances of our lives. From that perspective, fear is one of things that has to be understood:

We are not satisfied with the Ife we have in ourselves and our own being. We want to lead an imaginary life in the eyes of others, and so we try to make an impression. We strive constantly to embellish and preserve our imaginary being, and neglect the real one. And if we are calm, or generous, or loyal, we are anxious to have it known so that we can attach these virtues to our other existence; we prefer to detach them from our real self so as to unite them with the other. We would cheerfully be cowards if that would acquire us a reputation for bravery. How clear a sign of the nullity of our own being that we are not satisfied without the other and often exchange one for the other! For anyone who would not die to save his honour would be infamous. — Pascal, Pensées, 806, translated by A.J. Krailsheimer

Pascal's wager would require us to study the hells of all the religions and go with the one that has the most painful of them all. When there is no evidence for a God or that one which exists wants us to pay attention to him, the wager becomes rather silly. Risk is when there is a good reason to think you are in danger

I intend this as a serious question and not at all as a criticism of what you've written - If that's how you feel, why get into this particular discussion at all? Most atheists here on the forum have a bone to pick. You don't seem to. — T Clark

I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious nonsense to me can be believed by so many people. I think to get to bottom of it, you'd have to peel back your world-view, but the more you peel back the less is left to do the peeling. It's not really just about God, it's just the most prominent and most frequent topic. I feel similarly about topics like "free will", for example, but the topic doesn't have as much real life relevance.

Take Pascal's Wager: if your attention is on God a lot, and God's a central piece in your world view, it makes much more sense, even in the face of all of its incosistencies or logical short comings. The motivation you need is just to go on as you have, or to open up a little if you come from the other side. Basically, the contents of your mind have a believe-this-or-not structure already. Pascal's Wager makes a lot less sense if you have yet to build or consolidate that structure. A loss you can't even imagine isn't going to feel like a loss.

All those proofs of God? I think they're incomplete if you only consider the logic of the argument. There's always something behind this; something you either live or don't, some sort of intuition. For example, I'm the son of Roman Catholic christians, but I never fully grew into a belief in God - I left that behind with the Easter Bunny, and as I was zoology geek as a kid, I never believed in the Easter Bunny either. I came out as an atheist fairly early and never felt like I had any disadvantages for it. If I have no bone to pick, it's because I've never been given one. My situation is also different from ex-theists who at some point experienced a change of mind. Such people might have intuitions I lack.

I think the idea of god/s are incoherent too. Above and beyond all the arguments in both directions, I lack a sensus divinitatis so belief is not really possible in my case. — Tom Storm

Pretty much this, except I probably wouldn't phrase it as "the idea being incoherent". What I'm talking about when I say that "God doesn't make sense" is more personal and more intuitive. Certainly, any idea of God I can come up with is incoherent. And as a result, I can't seriously make Pascal's Wager. A gain I can't imagine isn't a gain, infinite though it may be.

It would be an empty meaningless universe without gods. Now that's proof. — EugeneW

So we need gods so that people can go to war about which is the true god and give the universe meaning.

Before you can make this statement, I think you should submit some proof that the universe either should have, needs, or is somehow dependent on having a meaning.
You cannot state that it would be meaningless without mankind's gods unless it is actually supposed to have a meaning.

So we need gods so that people can go to war about which is the true god and give the universe meaning — Sir2u

No, we don't. All gods are true gods. But if people wanna fight about it, it's up to them.

Before you can make this statement, I think you should submit some proof that the universe either should have, needs, or is somehow dependent on having a meaning. — Sir2u

The universe can't exist because of natural laws only. It must have been created. So it has a divine spark in it. Without that spark it would be meaningless.

So, you have a problem with someone creating a logic for a particular religion that they believe in. You also have a problem with fear.

Let me say it another way, I do not have a problem with a specific logic that applies to one thing rather than another. Example: I create a logic that pertains to me rather than other people to help me better understand myself. I create a logic that helps strengthen my own faith in God rather than a logic that other people will use to strengthen their own faith in God. I create my own personal prayer to use that might not seem fruitful to other people who pray. I create a logic for a lifestyle that works for me but might not work for others.

I do not have a problem with fear. I see a big bear and run away, and then I get to tell the story to my children one day. I see a movie that is really scary and I turn off the movie because I don't wanna get nightmares. It looks very dark out in the woods so I bring a flashlight so I do not get bit by an animal. I follow a law that I do not think is very important, like very low speed limits even though everyone on the road is going 20 miles faster. The reason I follow the law is because I do not want to get arrested. If I saw a cop flash his lights I would probably be scared that I was speeding and then get a ticket.

I do not see anything wrong with a logic that only applies to Christianity nor a logic based on fear. What I think is more important though, is how you think a logic is wrong based on your preferences. Are you saying that any logic can never be personal or particular, but rather must be universal in every possible way? Or were you looking for more of a formal modus ponens logic? What exactly makes Pascal's wager wrong, outside of the scope of your preferences?

I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious nonsense to me can be believed by so many people. I think to get to bottom of it, you'd have to peel back your world-view, but the more you peel back the less is left to do the peeling. It's not really just about God, it's just the most prominent and most frequent topic. I feel similarly about topics like "free will", for example, but the topic doesn't have as much real life relevance. — Dawnstorm

I find the idea of God interesting also. Although I don't follow any religion, I find that the idea, the experience, of having a personal relationship with the world a natural one. On the other hand, I have no trouble seeing why people reject the idea. I'm not sure how free will fits into that mix.

All those proofs of God? I think they're incomplete if you only consider the logic of the argument. There's always something behind this; something you either live or don't, some sort of intuition. — Dawnstorm

Whatever God is, I don't think there's any rational way to show it exists. You say "some sort of intuition," I say God is an experience. I think we're probably talking about the same thing.

I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious nonsense to me can be believed by so many people — Dawnstorm

Likewise, I find it fascinating that something that feels like obvious sense to me cannot be believed by so many people

No, we don't. All gods are true gods. But if people wanna fight about it, it's up to them. — EugeneW

And I suppose that the benevolent gods sit on the sidelines cheering their team on as well. But I suppose you answer that the gods gave them free will to do as they please.

The universe can't exist because of natural laws only. — EugeneW

And how exactly do you now this? Maybe you could share the evidence you have, I am sure that many of us here would love to see it.

And I suppose that the benevolent gods sit on the sidelines cheering their team on as well. But I suppose you answer that the gods gave them free will to do as they please. — Sir2u

The gods play their own game, not worrying about the games played here.

And how exactly do you now this? Maybe you could share the evidence you have, I am sure that many of us here would love to see it. — Sir2u

The fundamental laws of nature and the stuff acting conformly to them contain no recipe how they came into being.

The gods play their own game, not worrying about the games played here. — EugeneW

I once knew a gentleman that spent more than 30 years building a miniature railway in his basement. He used to work at two jobs and get in as much overtime as he could in both and spent most of his money on pieces to build it.
Just looking at the love and dedication put into building all of the thousands of tiny trees, buildings, roads with signs, lakes and so many other details made me want to cry for joy. To see the cars and trains moving around was like watching scenes from real life. He could run about 8 or 10 trains at the same time the thing was so big and on so many levels.

So some religions see mankind as made in the image of their god and think that we were created to be like him.

The man I knew was mentally retarded to a certain degree, never married, no kids and lived in his mothers house. A truly gentle man.

But there is no way in hell he would have just let the fucking neighbor's kids come in and start smashing things up and making a mess of his creation.

But I suppose that if one could create the universe in just seven days or get a turtle to lay an egg or any of those other creation stories why should you give a shit about it. When it breaks, just create a new one.

The fundamental laws of nature and the stuff acting conformly to them contain no recipe how they came into being. — EugeneW

Which fundamental laws are we talking about here? Maybe you could give us an example.
My granny's potato cakes never had a recipe for them either, but they were delicious every time.

Just because something has not been explained does not mean that there is no explanation for it. It just means ignorance still exists.

Just because something has not been explained does not mean that there is no explanation for it. It just means ignorance still exists. — Sir2u

Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created. Modern man is on its way to destroy the beauty that evolved from it. By building railroads, energy plants, factories, etc. Just like that man did for 30 years. Problem is that those building it in the real world are not retarded.

Jackpot! And if the gap is closed, we can nothing but conclude that the building blocks of the universe had to be created. — EugeneW

I have still not seen any proof of that. Are you going to provide any evidence or just continue chanting the same sentence with different words. Repetition of a mistake or untruth does not make it right or true. Conclusions prove nothing, it is the evidence that is used to reach a conclusion that counts.

Modern man is on its way to destroy the beauty that evolved from it. By building railroads, energy plants, factories, etc. — EugeneW

And the gods are OK with that? If so, then there is the proof that mankind was not made in the image of a god. Because no one I know would let someone into their personal home to destroy it.
I think you must have missed the part where I explained about that. Lots of people feel no remorse about the way the planet is treated, but tread on a flower in their garden and they get pissed off. It is their creation, their personal piece of ground. Just as the earth is said to be gods personal creation that he does not seem to give a damn about..

It is also interesting that you used the word evolve to talk about a creation, but we can let that slip unnoticed I believe.

It is also interesting that you used the word evolve to talk about a creation, but we can let that slip unnoticed I believe — Sir2u

:up:

continue chanting the same sentence with different words. — Sir2u

Bad idea!