Appeal to Consequences: Just stop it!

[crossoldman]

I like to point out to theists that we were all dead for at least 13.7 billion years before we where born. To question what happens after you die is just plain stupid, there is nothing that we have more experience at than being dead. Death = non-existence, Reality is a bitch, they should try to get used to it.

[Dshezno]

I wouldn't go so far as to call Brock's appeal fallacious. Yes, he uses an appeal to consequences, but he isn't using it to say, "Atheism is wrong". He's using it to say, "You shouldn't be an atheist". I think he's opening up a different can of philosophical worms, but he's not uttering a fallacy.

[xxxFaustusxxx]

TheAtheistAntidote's video was a double fail:

1) Appeal to consequence

2) Atheists can believe in afterlife without believing in God

[Obversity]

@xxxFaustusxxx

There seems to be as few compelling reasons for believing in an afterlife as for believing in God.

[mtheoryrules]

most religions make a single mistake in reasoning for the existence of a deity in a word anthropomorphism where by a subjective interpretation of divine command theories of ethics can be fostered religion is not unlike fast food it is cheap effective and convenient philosophically for those that do not like the weight of the subject that is philosophy pointing out fallacies you will likely find will help no one but yourself

[AtheistCitizen]

one of your better vids.

Brock sells god as something more appealing than simply dying. Claiming that as the promised afterlife is more appealing one should choose christianity.. As pts out Kiriltraceur, appeal has no bearing on reality..

[RyuDarragh]

That's not their point. They try the old Pascals Wager in order to get people to fall into the "Better to be safe than sorry, so I'll follow along just in case" schtick. The argument tries to take advantage of humans really shitty ability to assess risks.

[bitbutter]

The vid i'm replying to doesn't make use of Pascal's Wager. It does seem to make use of appeal to consequences.

[NapoleonReece]

Discussing the consequences of atheism is meant to induce fear and encourage a consideration of the Scriptures as a remedy for death.

The Scriptures should not be accepted without investigation of their contents.

You are correct that a conclusion that opposes what one wants does not prove one's system to be false.

It is important that we be logically consistent, accepting all of the necessary inferences of our systems.

Materialist Atheists, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

[bitbutter]

That earthly pleasures rundown is lacking. Here's an improved one that I think is more fitting:

'eat, drink, love, learn and be merry, for tomorrow we die.'

[LadyTigerLily]

Another succinct and well-articulated video BitButter. The other thing you pointed out (that drives me up the wall) is the appeal to a sense of morality as a justification of a creator. I feel that, just because morality is not objective, doesn't mean it can't exist without a Divine.

[UncertainTruth]

atheist antidote is a fool the likes of which i havent seen since venomfangx

[Xisla]

Appeal to consequences is a logical fallacy, but it is a useful social tool to frighten people into becoming more receptive of a unlikely (or untrue) proposition.

Also, there is always some conflict between factual reality and "social reality" - wishful thinking often become an important unifying force in social groups, driving members towards turning those wishes into reality.

Eg. Our credit-based world economy is essentially predicated on promises (fantasies?) of perpetual future growth.

[slipcurve]

Man, I've heard that one so many times.

[gremlinn7]

Appealing to consequences is fallacious, because the next person who uses it will get his face punched in.

[Kirilltraceur]

reality doesn't arrange itself around your desires.

why?

[bitbutter]

Because the primacy of consciousness is false.

[trondreitan]

Really think you hit the nail on the head here. Well done!

[Neilsama]

I've seen even the best theist apologists resort to the appeal to consequence. I don't hold out much hope for low-level thinkers like Brock Lawley or "Justchemicalz".

Speaking of which, that person's name is, itself, an appeal to consequence. In other words, if atheism is true, then we're all "just chemicals". In order for this person to comply with the point of your video, he would have to close his channel and open a new one with a name that is less stupid.

[ticobassie]

I like how you put in the disclaimer at 1:33 "if this isn't what you want to imply ..."

Solid argumentation there.

[randyhelzerman]

ha, did you just say "for God's sake please stop appealing to consequences!"

[bitbutter]

i guess i did :)

[UnBeguiled]

Appeal to consequences is so pervasive among theists that it seems to me they just don't think it's fallacious. Perhaps in rare moments of lucidity they will realize this, but their subconscious desire eventually sneaks back in to their arguments.

Goetz and Taliaferro's book "Naturalism" is an "argument" against naturalism based on the premise that our "common sense" understanding of ourselves must be true.

[legodesi]

that's not accurate. from what i know of goetz and taliaferro, the arguments they make against naturalism are derived from notions of rationality and consciousness that (they argue) presuppose free-will/soul. it's not an argument from consequences, thought it might be framed as such.

[bitbutter]

Sigh. Justchemicalz said something in a similar vein, after apparently refusing to look up the fallacy that i was trying to educate him about. His reply was, in effect, Consequences are important! [facepalm]

[Cribozai]

2:28 This is simply a truth most should remember. Also, facing reality is not that horrible. Mortality and the fact that we don't have an eternity to live. Not here, and neither anywhere else is just a reminder that we should use this time we have well.

[ProfMTH]

Exactly right on the appeal to consequences. So much of what our theist friends propose comes down to that fallacy.

Death is death no matter what window dressing one attempts to disguise its reality with. Theism in general and Christianity in particular no more "offer" immortality -- or, more specifically, felitictous immortality -- than shots of Botox offer youth.

[bitbutter]

Thanks prof,

'Christianity in particular no more "offer" immortality -- or, more specifically, felitictous immortality -- than shots of Botox offer youth.'

Do you mean that its hard to see how immortality (in the sense Christianity means it) is suitable as a reward or as something we would want?

[NemoUtopian]

i think he means that the illusion of youth is not the same as youth,just as the illusion of immortality is not immortality.

[RosieDesire]

I think he saying that botox does nothing to help youth look younger. And christianity offers nothing to death either. Well maybe both add the pain of the needle and the side effects that go with it but no benefit.

[ProfMTH]

First, I can't believe I misspelled 'felicitous'. Oy! Second, no, what I mean is that since there is no immortality for Christianity to offer, it's putting one over on people.

[bitbutter]

Got it, thanks!

[freethinker3161]

great work, loved this vid.

[EquitoErgoSum]

but if i stop using the appeal to consequences I'll look stupid! Therefore it is acceptable to appeal to consequences.

...therefore jesus.

[urbanelf]

Q.E.D.

[dewonthegrass]

1:08, "Death is even more frightening, if atheism is true". I don't think so. If you know how things stand, you get used to the idea, and value and enjoy your life even more. After you die, you stop existing. You didn't exist before you were born, either. Are you sad about that? My near and dear, who have died, are still in my head, it can be said they still live in my head, in a sort of way. So, you don't disappear entirely. And your achievements are left behind.

[bitbutter]

Yeah I agree. It was easier to grant that premise, to point to the bigger problem with brock's approach this case.

[dewonthegrass]

I know this was his assertion. Let's be honest, Brock's approach to this case is the notorious Pascal's wager. Which is nonsense, in my opinion.

Brock is becoming more mellow in his latest videos. He saw that vilifying with aplomb the group of atheists doesn't give him much... So, he is employing different tactics now.

I have taken a different approach to him in my latest video. Tell me what you think. :)

[riversonthemoon]

But if you're right about Brock's fallacious appeal to consequences, then I don't want to live in that world. Some of us prefer self-delusion to despair.

Seriously, though, I think the argument he makes in that video is probably his most honest one. He fears death, ergo atheism is false.

[mfunke]

But if there are no fairies, there's no pixie dust and I can't fly. What good is the world if I can't fly?

Therefore, fairies are real.