Jack the Bodiless

rhutchin:

How does your reply bear any relation at all to the scenario I was proposing?
If my scenario is correct, there IS a risk of eternal torment, which I can AVOID by NOT BELIEVING. I choose to go to my death without carrying the belief that Hell DOES exist: the belief that might trigger the actuality of Hell for me.
Correct: my atheism has no "cost" (in this life), though an unquantifiable "risk" in the next (as does Christianity).
For some reason, YOU have chosen to assume one risk of being "wrong" which I have AVOIDED by rejecting belief in Hell. You have presented no rational reason for accepting this extra risk.

Why increase your risk of eternal torment, rhutchin?

rhutchin

Kinda like the Twilight Zone episode with the little kid and the cornfield. The greater the evidence that you can do as you claim, the more likely I am to respond to your threat. In this case, I have little evidence of a threat. My ability to please you is also a factor. If you do not provide a means for me to escape your punishment, I can't do much about it. There is also the extent of the threat. I might think that I can defend myself to some degree from a tiger (or at least hide from it) and this will influence my behavior. You also need to be aware of what I am doing and the degree to which I think you are will affect my behavior. There are many factors that come into play that influence how a person reacts to perceived threats (real or imagined).

rhutchin

OK. There are still two possible positions. You can make a right decision or a wrong decision. You frame the decision you are making and then determine the impacts of being right or being wrong. As a rule, the downside risk is that you make a decision that is wrong and it is this risk that you want to minimize.

Yes and no. If your belief is correct, there is no cost. If your belief is not correct, there is a cost.

There are always two possible outcomes. A person can be right in that which he believes or a person can be wrong. There is always a risk assumed by the person. He chooses one option and risks the consequences of choosing that option and not the other.

As I understand the evidence, the action that I am taking reduces the risk of eternal torment the most.

Jack the Bodiless

Let me put it this way:

Christians (of the fire-and-brimstone variety) don't just BELIEVE in eternal torment: they have chosen to WORSHIP a being who supposedly set this up. They even describe this being as "omnibenevolent".

So, they have chosen to go to their deaths believing that it is a good thing that (some) people will suffer eternal torment.

Do you not see why this is an incredibly dangerous thing to do? Isn't it rather like walking alone through a high-crime area at night wearing a T-shirt which says "YOU deserve to be mugged"?

Do you see the problem here? Can you see that you have accepted an additional risk?

JPD

And what evidence, exactly, do you have? What other people have written down about their beliefs? Oh well that's going to be truly outstanding. I've written a poem in which a donkey goes berzerk in a shopping centre with a flame thrower because Pret didn't have any tuna bagels left. He tells one of the cashiers to believe that a swan with a limp and an eye patch will await him on his death where he will question him on how many snails there are in a locked garage, and that he must warn all of mankind. The penalty for not believing and not spreading the word is eternal torment. Oh lumme!

Jack the Bodiless

...What "evidence"?

There is no more evidence for Christianity than for many other religions, some of which promise eternal torment for those who don't follow that religion. And there is evidence against Christianity, which is not the case for many other religions (or for no religion).

And what about the "evidence" of ghost stories, where a common theme is that the ghost is trapped in a scenario derived from its own memories (e.g. doomed to struggle forever to complete an unfinished task, or to walk a route walked often when alive, and so forth)? Given this scenario, dying with a powerful belief in the reality of Hell is very dangerous.

Wayne Delia

This plan serves the dual purpose of not only refuting rhutchin, but also is a terrific example of a mentally healthy approach and attitude. I would be very confident that people who take this attitude will live a much happier and more psychologically stable life.

WMD

Wayne Delia

THAT was "proof"? Are you sure you understand what the term "proof" means?

You really don't want to go down that path. Using the same line of reasoning, we can claim that no one has been able to prove that God exists, and the proof is that no one can cite a source that has done this. (Therefore, God doesn't exist - analogous to your claim that no disproof of eternal torment exists.)

More hypocrisy on your part: Proof by absense of evidence is fine when you do it, but when the same technique is attempted by others to prove you wrong, all of a sudden it's an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy. You have too many double standards.

I've disproved the existence of the Christian God (which, of course, requires the assumption that three particular verses in the Bible are true - an assumption most Christians won't hesitate to make), and it's only a quick corollary to show that particular non-existent Judeo/Christian God's hell doesn't exist either.

WMD

Alf

1. This is an invisible supernatural tiger. You cannot defend yourself against it.

2. How to behave so that it doesn't attack you should be appearant from my earlier posts or I can provide you with a set of rules if you like.

3. So you ask for evidence or refer to lack of evidence to indicate that you don't have to take my threat seriously? Why is that? There is absolutely no evidence to indicate that the threat of hell is any more likely, so if you do not take my tiger threat seriously, why should we take your hell threat seriously?

I conclude that your sudden and aburpt call for evidence is arbitary, irrational, random and erratic.

You are an irrational person.

There, consider it proven. Now, don't thank me for proving to you that your decision is irrational. Try to change and become a rational person. It is easy to do:

1. You can even continue to claim lack of evidence as a reason not to feel intimidated by my tiger. However, you must in this case also be coherent and that means that you must also dismiss any other similar threat for which there is no evidence. This includes threats of hell from various religions such as christianity.

2. Adhere to regular plain simple logic. The same logic that guides you to open the fridge when you are hungry and which you live by in all other respects except religion. The reason and rationality that allow you to go to work or school and say "Hi" to your family and friends whenever you meet them and care for them and care about them.

All I ask is that you extend this same rationality also to religious claims. Lack of evidence? No reason to believe it. Any evidence? How reliable is it? Contradictory evidence in old books written by cluless bronze age goat herders can easily be dismissed. Coherent argumentation from anyone using rational logic - should count as valuable evidence. Immediate evidence that you can see for yourself? Should count as incontrovertible evidence.

See? It's not hard at all.

Can you do that?

Alf

Wayne Delia

Can you use that as an analogy to your empty death threat of eternal torment if we don't suck up to your God?

In the case of your God, we have no evidence of an actual threat.

You need to please Alf in order to get him to restrain the invisible tiger.

He did provide a means for you to escape. You have to be nice to him.

It's a tiger. That's a pretty damn extensive threat.

You can't hide from it. In addition to being invisible and carnivorous, it's also omniscient.

Do you see how this is a fairly good analogy to your empty death threat of eternal torment?

WMD