What does religion do for you?

[Hyperqube]

> Why do it with a fraudulent religion when it can be done without?

 

You're pulling an argument from ignorance here. For the most accurate and correct example, you'rd have to ask psychologist to get an accurate answer, but, top of my head, have you ever considered the fraudulent religion can give more encourancement, then the true religion? (for a practical example, refer to §1)

 

edit: I see you refer to "without"... have you ever considered the fraudulent religion can give more encourancement, then atheism?

that the positives minus the waistes of the fraudulent religion outweigh the positives that atheism gives you.

 

> show me something that extends your life, or gives you some sort of return

> that can only be done while following a false religion.

 

§1. consider the senario

• good people go to heaven, there is no hell
  as the goal is to get into heaven - that will be our measurement.
• a false religion worships a false god, it incorrectly believes that good* people go to a much much better heaven, or perhaps it believes that bad people go to hell
  *: good by the same standards as the true religion

by nature of example, the follower of a false religion will have more encouragement, then the follower of the true religion.

More encouragement leads to a higher chance to getting into heaven, whcih is a better deal.

And being the better deal, means you can no longer consider it a waste.

The true religion is shackled by the truth. A false religion can manipulate into picking the better deal.

This brings me to number 2

 

 

§2. consider the senario

• where there is no god
  as measurement of return of quality of life we shall look at how happy someone is in their life

is following a false religion a waste? well, studies have shown that overall theists are happier then atheists.

So, statistically, there's a bigger return on following a false religion (as all would be false), then there is to be an atheist
if there's a bigger return, it's intellectually dishonest to call it a waste.

 

 

§3. in abstract

• the true religion gives you an amount of positives, denoted by Pt
  T(X) = X + Pt
• the false religion gives you wastes ( WF ) , but it can also gives you positives ( PF )
  F(X) = X - WF  + PF

We can say someone there's a waste if the return of the false relgion is less then the return of the true religion , or

T(X) > F(X)

However, that will not be the case if

Pt  <  PF - WF

 

 

 

$4. or more philosophical

• religion is the road you take.
  the reward (the possible increased return) is the finish line.
• taking the straight path will get you there in time, but perhaps making a detour and taking the highway will get you there faster.
   

 

 

> To discredit my argument

 

Pascal's wager talks about Roman Catholicism.  Your point was, that if he was wrong, you wasted time/life/...

That measn, you claim, if RC isn't the true relgion wrong, following the true religion outweigh the return of following RC. or

Pt  > W'RC'  + P'RC'

 

To discredit your argument, to point out your argument is a poor one, I should point out, that it's your claim, thus your burden of proof.

 

that, if the Roman Catholicism isn't the true religion, that the benefits of following it will not outweight the benefits of the true religion (if any), by the measurement of that true religion (if any); So that, that we can talk of a waste,

[I AM ERROR]

I don't really have much of a view point on this topic, as I am an agnostic. I do lean more towards Atheism though, as I can't really believe in something that I don't have any proof for.