Surely its better to be 70 years right then eternity wrong!?

Question

As what happens if religion is right! surely the one who believes is in a better postion. As if you die and are a athesist there is no life after death!

Ok this lifetime say 70 years, surely it is better for the believer as what happens if he is right? he will spend eternity in salvation! for those who dont believe will have eternal damnation! So therefore it is better to have a belief then not, as for the majority of non believers there is no life after death. You die and that is it!

Your born... you live... you die...Surely it is better there is something after death then not. That is all i am saying, it is better to have a belief then not.

Answer 1

I so agree with you.

However, it is best to be a believer simply because you truly believe. I'm not so sure you are a true believer just because you've convinced yourself to try to believe, only because you are worried you'll have no life after death if you are an atheist! That sounds like you are only a "half believer."

Make sense?

Answer 2

I'm a little baffled by how you are determining "right" and "wrong". Still, I think what you are proposing is a variation on what has been called Pascal's wager:
The basic premise of the argument is reflected in a passage from C.S. Lewis: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, is of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.". If this is the case, then so long as Christianity is at least possible (has a non-zero probability of being true), then its "infinite importance" makes belief a worthwhile gamble. Essentially, Pascal's Wager encourages people to believe in God because what they stand to gain by believing is infinitely more than what they risk losing.

The flaw which some thinkers have pointed to in this argument is contained in Pascal's Flaw:
Pascal's Flaw is derived from the incompleteness of Pascal's Wager, in which the French physicist, mathematician, philosopher, and theologian Blaise Pascal argued against atheism simply by stating that it would be better to believe in a non-existent God than to offend one that did exist, while avoiding entirely the questions of whether or not God actually existed, whether or not the Christian concept of a faith-rewarding God existed, and whether belief could actually be chosen. It should be noted that Pascal himself did not believe that a religious belief based on such a wager would be valid; his famous wager was a caricature of an opposing position.

SO, yes, if you think you absolutely know what is right and what is wrong, of course you would be better off being "right" for 70 years rather than "wrong" for eternity. But I remain confused about what you are defining as "right" and wrong"...On the other hand, Blaise Pascal, who was quantum leaps smarter than I am would likely agree with you.

Answer 3

I don't think looking at the balance of probabilities is the right way to assess whether or not to be religious.
To believe in religion because you have a statistically higher chance of being more comfortable after death is a bit strange.

If you want to take a philosophical approach to the afterlife, then you need to take a philosophical approach to the existence of god.
Such an approach would examine notions along the line of:

"If good is all powerful, why doesn't he stop natural disasters?"
"If he can stop natural disasters but chooses not to, does this mean that he is capable of evil?"
"If god is capable of evil, this cannot make him all good (or divine)".

"This means that god is either all good or all powerful, but not both".

The subject of god in philosophy can be found in most introductions to philosophy or on the Internet.

Answer 4

Presidents, kings and even dictators show themselves so the people who follow them them will know what's going on. Surely a god who creates the whole universe out of love would not leave us to fight and kill each other over a guessing game. I'd probably be terrified if a god did show imself, but I'd still want to know the truth.

Answer 5

I would rather live in reason and rationality than worship something I didn't believe in. Also, if you don't believe what kind of life are you giving yourself with all the rules and restrictions most religions place that are meaningless if you don't believe.

Answer 6

So you're really just hedging your bets and don't neccessarily believe it?

Is it actually about TRUTH? or is it just about winning the lottery?

That argument is flawed in so many ways and it completely invalidates your 'religion'. I guess the way your logic works you wouldn't even realise that.

Faith (aka religion) is supposed to be based on 'belief' not 'luck of the draw'.

Answer 7

If there is an afterlife why should you have to believe in anything to become part of it? Belief in something doesn't make it true; conversely not believing doesn't make it false. If there's an afterlife, then there is - whether or not you believe in it. (I don't, in case you hadn't realised.)

It's all just religious bullying to get people to tow the line: believe in God and do as we say or you won't go to heaven.

Answer 8

some believe an don`t live by it. some don`t believe but live
by it.first shall be last and last shall be first. its not the book,
its whats in the heart, dogma has caused a lot of atheists,who don`t believe in whats pushed on us by law.but inside they
live by the spiritual law of love your neighbor. then you have
people who go to church and pray every day but they hate
others because they don`t believe what they do.......
its a fine line to ride truth,so we better pay attention.......

Answer 9

No. You die and that is it. Nothing else. Why worry?

Answer 10

Pascals wager has too many flaws...its retarded