Barefoot Bree

Ye gods and little godlings. I knew we were speaking different languages, rhutchin, but I had no idea we were living on different planets. Those are some truly mind-boggling statements.

Mageth

Let's see...you're impressed (and expect us to be as well, apparently) because the "Biblical God" supposedly provides an escape from a threat of eternal torment that the Bible promises, and thus one should believe in the Biblical God (to escape the Biblical threat)?

Umm, can't you see the problem with this, rhutchin? The Bible itself invents the threat for which it promises the only sure escape (through belief (and other things, of course) in the Biblical God it describes).

It's a marketing strategy - an emotional, and not rational one. That's all it is.

One more time...I have absolutely no rational reason to put any stock at all in the supposed Biblical threat of "eternal torment."

Umm, so do other religions. Islam, for example. There's nothing unique in Christianity offering a cure for a disease it invented.

And I'd rewrite that as "Christianity sells a specific way for a person to escape a hell that Christianity invented." Perhaps that's one point that hasn't been made yet. Your religion invents a threat for which it promises the only escape. It's an emotional, fear-based marketing tactic. Perhaps it'll be effective on some for whom fear of the unknown is a big concern, but not so much on those who actually think these things through.

Honestly, rhutchin. I was raised in a "hellfire-and-brimstone"-preaching church. Your pushing of the terribly flawed Pascal's Wager is not very different, and no more rational, than those emotional sermons intended to scare people into "gettin' saved."

Aah, now you're getting somewhere! You're expressing a bit of understanding! I have absolutely no fear of "eternal punishment". I put no stock in such vacuous, meaningless, evidence-less threats that are clearly the inventions of the religions that sell the "sure-fire" escape plans for the threats they invented. Perhaps a brilliant marketing strategy on their part, but useless on someone who sees through the sham. There is no real threat - only a marketing scam.. Get it?

So it's absolutely true: there is no reason for me to "pursue God".

This all reminds me of the "malware" I've been busy fighting recently on my home computer, actually. You know, the crap with "popups" that warn you about how your computer is infected, or in danger of infection, from various viruses, malware, and spyware? Take over your desktop? Even redirect your browser to theirs site? All trying to scare you into buying their product to get rid of, and protect you, from the bad stuff? When that company's product is the worst example of malware I've seen?

(Stuff from the rat-shit companies "PSGuard" and "RazeSpyware" is what I'm talking about )

The Old Testament cries out against the above assertion.

And how in hell could you claim to know what God will or will not do???

You just submarined your entire argument. You're admitting that "self-interest", and fear, is the true motivating factor, not rationality. Apparently, any action to escape eternal torment would be morally justifiable to you, as your morals appear to be based solely on self-interest. Forget simple belief; kill if you have to! Who cares if the one you kill ends up in eternal torment? At least you escaped!

:huh:

I like the "tithe" part, though. Remember that bit about selling a cure? Yes, for only 10% of your income (more, if you want a higher level of insurance), you too can escape eternal torment!

Sauron

Indeed. rhutchins went flying off the rails on that comment. HE totally ignores the situation - a common one, I might add - where someone evaluates the biblical evidence and is not impressed or swayed by it. In that case, disbelief clearly is not an emotional reaction, regardless of his attempts to characterize it that way.

Mageth

The above statement has absolutely nothing to do with my disbelief, which is in no way an "emotional reaction to the Bible", and is not at all me "saying that I will not obey God just so I can get into heaven (or avoid hell)."

Mageth

It's rather...interesting...that rhutchin, in the last couple of posts, has claimed:

1) to know what God will not do
2) to know what the motivation for disbelief in his God is (apparently for everyone that disbelieves in the Biblical God)

Not to mention the bit about it being "rational" to kill so that one could personally escape eternal torment.

enemigo

rhutchin, are you going to address my objection that since there are no "zero-potential postions," then no risk analysis can be made?

In case you missed it, my argument is outlined here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...79#post3066579

Sauron

1. That is precisely what I am saying. The assumptions are not mutually independent. Whether or not God even exists has ramifications for whether or not an afterlife, or torment, etc. exist. And if no such afterlife exists, that has ramifications for the claims about the existence of the christian god and/or his honesty. If other gods do exist, then the judeo-christian god is a liar, which has ramifications on his honesty and claims about salvation. One and on it goes.

2. Most assumptions about uncertainty do not try to simply wave away the other uncertainties in the model, as you have done. If this were a military planning scenario that had to take into account:
a. weather
b. supplies
c. communications
d. training
e. transportation

each element would have some unknown elements that have to be factored in - they would NOT, as you erroneously claim, merely be assumed into stability, for the sake of keeping the model simple. They would be accounted for, with the best possible data, and confidence values would be assigned to each of them.

Instead, what you are doing is tantamount to insisting that we only look at a, because you have magically assumed that b,c d, and e are certainties. But if you tried to present such a scenario as a militarily valid one, you'd be laughed out of the room.

No, that is merely the unknown that you chose to focus on, because that is how you want to channel the discussion of pascals wager.

No, that is not the rational conclusion. By your lame argument, if I walked up to you and said "The FBI is going to arrest and imprison anyone who doesn't have the letters FBI tattooed in bright pink on the bottom of their left foot" - then the "rational" conclusion is to behave as though this were true. After all: the person is presented with a binary choice where great loss is a possibility, right?

People do not suddenly spring into action because they are presented with a random dilemma-choice. The rational conclusion is to examine the dilemma-choice presented to see if it accurate, to see if it has any mistakes or is even a true choice that has to be made in the first place. Additionally, alternate and competing dilemma-choices have to be considered. You, however, have assumed the truth of the choice presented, without ever having proven it. And you do this (as I said) in order to streamline your model and keep it a neat binary exercise.

No, I don't it has. In fact, in this thread the multiplicity of deities has been brought up by several posters as a flaw in your argument.

What if the deity you choose has no such punishment of eternal torment? Then belief in that deity is not spawned or connected to the false binary wager at all.

Johnny Skeptic

2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." That is an outright lie. Consider the following:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

John 20:8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed.

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

1 Corinthians 15:5-8 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

The writers of the aforementioned scriptures were well aware that spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences do not confirm tangible experiences, but rather, that tangible experiences confirm spiritual/emotional/intuitive experience. Otherwise, all spiritual/emotional/intuitive experiences would have equal validity. My position is that the claim that God is not willing that any should perish cannot possibly be true because he has not given everyone equal access to objective first hand tangible evidence, and that since it is a fact that 2 Peter 3:9 is a lie, one lie indicates the presence of many others.

In your opinion, subsequent to initial salvation, does the God of the Bible require that in order for believers to go to heaven they must enter into a personal, loving, committed relationship with him?

rhutchin

It looks to me like you have excised 2 Peter 3:9 from its context in order to create the illusion of a lie. Go back and put the verse in its proper context and trace the words, us-ward, any, and all back to their antecedents and see what is being said. The question you need to answer is, To whom is the promise given?

Prior to salvation, the God of the Bible requires any person desiring to go to heaven to enter into a personal, loving, committed relationship with Him. Subsequent to salvation (i.e., after God saves a person), He gives that person a personal, loving, committed relationship with Him (a process called santification).

rhutchin

I agree. I should have said, "For those who are familiar with the Bible, disbelief is an emotional reaction to the Bible, where a person irrationally says that he will not obey God just so he can get into heaven."

In context, my comment was that people do not disbelieve the Bible based on their observations of other people (e.g., the hypocrites, backstabbers, etc. in the church). They disbelieve the Bible because they don't want to be held accountable to that which it says.