Appeal to Consequences: Just stop it!

For TheAtheistAntidote and Justchemicalz: Just two recent examples of theists confusing wishful thinking for epistemology.

Justchemicalz comments thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZScm_odpyo

TheAtheistAntidote: 'if atheism is true death is horrible!' vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a--atRg_mFY

Category:

Education

Tags:

• appeal to consequences
• wishful thinking
• epistemology
• brock

[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.'

[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.

[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.

[Obversity]

@xxxFaustusxxx

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

[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.

[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..

[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.