(December 26, 2012 at 1:23 am)Jaxl Wrote: This leaves it to the individual to be able to discern right from wrong, good from bad, and what to do and what not to. Why even believe disbelieve in God when the benefits of believing in him seem to outweigh the benefits of disbelieving in him, given that either case is equally probable?
Okay, there are a few basic problems with the conclusions that you have come to. Number one is that agnosticism means that ether case is equally probably. That is not the case with agnostics, they simply say that we cannot know the answer to whether or not there is a god. That it is an unknowable question. It isn't a belief that says it's a 50/50 chance.
As I have heard that most Atheists are Agnostics, I have found the reverse to also be true. When I have pressured most agnostics I know, saying if you had a gun to your head and had to make a guess, the majority will say that they find God unlikely. So being an Agnostic doesn't mean at all you believe there is a 50/50 chance. I consider myself an Agnostic/Atheist, but I find the chance of God to be extremely low. Maybe an omnipotent being will appear tomorrow, having been hiding himself for no apparent reason. I don't find this likely.
The other problem is that you say the benefits of believing in God outweighs not believing in him, based on a moral argument. The main problem with this is that morality tends to deteriorate in large groups, rather than improve. Look at all the terrible moral decisions made in mass by the religious. An individual isn't going to decide to go out and burn witches, or start a war. These aren't moral decisions that an individual is even capable of making. History seems to indicate that individual morality has been far superior to group morality, and especially religious group morality.
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)