Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mageth · 01-25-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You say, “As long as it's nothing more than superstition (which is the case)…�? Can you prove that with certainty (if you can, you would be the first to do so)?

It's not necessary to prove that a superstition is a superstition. It is a superstition until proven otherwise.

Quote:

So long as you cannot prove with certainty that it is superstition, you allow uncertainty. That I cannot prove the opposite position does not matter since that just means that I cannot remove the uncertainty you allow.

I am absolutely, positively certain that the threat of eternal torment is a superstition. I do not have to prove it is a superstition; it is a superstition until proven otherwise. IT ABSOLUTELY MATTERS THAT YOU CANNOT PROVE OTHERWISE!

It's irrational to act based on superstition. I'll expand that to say that

IT'S IRRATIONAL TO ACT BASED ON SUPERSTITION BECAUSE YOU CAN'T "PROVE WITH CERTAINTY" THAT IT IS A SUPERSTITION.

That point you keep trying to make is itself irrational. It's nonsense.

If you disagree, make sure you follow to a letter all the superstitions I've listed and all others you know about.

Don't step on any cracks! Don't break any mirrors!

Quote:

You have a firmly held belief that it is all superstition. Your problem is that you cannot prove your position.

Nonsense. I have no such problem. I know it's all superstition. Unless you or someone else can prove it's not, it will remain firmly in the realm of superstition.

According to you: prove that breaking a mirror will bring you seven years of bad luck is a superstition. If you can't prove it's a superstition, then you'd better act according to the superstition!

Quote:

If you could prove your belief (that eternal torment is a superstition), you would have an argument.

Nonsense. I know "the threat of eternal torment" is a superstition. Acting on superstition is irrational. Lack of ability to "prove" that it is a superstition is irrelevant, as it is, and will remain, a superstition until proven otherwise. Think breaking mirrors for another example.

Quote:

However, you are correct in “believing�? in something (that eternal torment is superstition) as opposed to believing in nothing.

"Eternal torment" is superstition. That's not a belief, that's a fact until demonstrated otherwise.

Mageth · 01-25-2006, 08:39 AM

rhutchin: "Don't break that mirror, or you'll have seven years of bad luck."

Mageth: "That's a superstition."

rhutchin: "Aah, unless you can PROVE it's a superstition, you should not break that mirror! That would be the RATIONAL thing to do!"

Mageth: "Nonsense. It's a superstition unless you can prove it's not. And it's irrational to act based on superstition."

rhutchin: "No - you have to prove that it IS a superstition! Otherwise, you're acting emotionally and irrationally if you break that mirror!"

Mageth: "Nonsense. I would be acting emotionally and irrationally if I didn't break the mirror because I feared the superstition. It is a superstition, and will remain firmly so unless proven otherwise. It's nonsense to claim that I have to PROVE that it's a superstition."

(CRASH TINKLE TINKLE)

rhutchin · 01-25-2006, 08:52 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
If you can prove that it is all superstition and remove that uncertainty, then you will have done what no one else has been able to do.

Mageth
Again, I do not have to prove that a superstition is a superstition. Because it is a superstition until proven otherwise, and to act on superstition is not rational.

So, you should not have to act on your superstitious belief that there is no God?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2006, 08:58 AM

As I have stated on several occasions, rhutchin is only interested in risk anaylsis if the conclusion appeals to his own self-interest. If an alien came to earth, did not claim to be God, demonstrated that he could convert energy into matter, said that he planned to send everyone hell, and left the earth, rhutchin would definitely still be a Christian. He would hope that the alien lied, or that the alien would be unable to send everyone to hell. He would have nothing to lose by adopting those positions, and possibly something to gain by adopting those positions.

In a previous post, I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

The only way that skeptics can be fairly held accountable for rejecting the God of the Bible is if they know that he exists and still reject him. If God exists, if he clearly revealed himself to everyone, surely some skeptics would become Christians. Regarding skeptics who would become Christians if God clearly revealed himself to everyone, the intent of their hearts cannot be fairly questioned.

Rhutchin cannot possibly successfully refute either of my arguments.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-25-2006, 09:20 AM

(emphasis mine)

...More of the same. Basically, "If I'm right, you're screwed". You are STILL refusing to consider other possibilities.

See my post #709 above. While this is not my actual belief, I consider it to be somewhat MORE plausible than the Christian scenario. Therefore I estimate that I would be INCREASING my chance of suffering eternal torment if I became a Christian: because I would go to my death believing in the existence of Hell, and this could be a Bad Thing.

Therefore, Pascal's Wager dictates that I should actively avoid religions with a Hell, that might be made "real" for ME by my belief.

Sauron · 01-25-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I agree. It is this uncertainty that the Wager deals with.

Except that you are misrepresenting what he said.

He point-blank said that the wager does not use or address any evidence.

Quote:

If absolute evidence existed, there would be no need for the Wager.

He isn't talking about absolute evidence.
He is talking about evidence of any meaningful kind whatsoever.

Sauron · 01-25-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

If the evidence is weak, then rejection of god(s) is rational, not emotional. It would be emotional if someone believed in god(s) despite the weak evidence. Which means that your position is the emotional one here; not his.

So long as the evidence is not strong enough to create certainty, it does not matter how weak that evidence is.

Yes, it does matter.

In the first case, I am responding to your claim that rejection of the evidence is emotional. It is not. If the evidence for a position is extremely weak, then rejecting that position, and non-belief in that position, are both rational and logical. Not emotional at all.

In the second case, your claim "no matter how weak the evidence" also fails. There is actually evidence for superstitions, such as leprechauns. It is atrocious, appallingly bad, unverifiable, etc. but the evidence does exist. That does not mean that the people should believe in superstitions.

Quote:

Rejection of God as the means to escape eternal torment is rational only where the evidence proves with certainty that this is not necessary.

Incorrect. Your position rests upon the assertion of a guaranteed outcome, and that your god is able to deliver upon that outcome. You have not proven that yet.

Quote:

Rejection of God as the means to escape eternal torment is irrational (emotional) where the person cannot prove that there is no eternal torment.

You have it backwards. Belief in such a torment is irrational/emotional because no such evidence exists for it.

JPD · 01-25-2006, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, you should not have to act on your superstitious belief that there is no God?

Do you feel comfortable extracting definitions that are not correct?

Superstition is: (from a definition of superstition)

"An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome."

Now this is you not anyone else here. Not believing in something for which there is no evidence is NOT superstition by any stretch of the imagination. You are superstitious in proclaiming belief in a God for which there is no evidence. Taking the opposing stance - that there is no God because there is no evidence - is NOT superstition. An opposing response to your superstitious belief is NOT superstition is it now?

Sauron · 01-25-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

No it cannot, unless all those other gods:

(a) also share the same "believe in me or suffer eternally" position that the christian god has;

(b) can be shown to provide a guaranteed outcome of such belief; i.e.; their belief rescues them from such torment.

You have never shown (a) - and this thread is littered with counterexamples that you keep ignoring. You cannot show (b), not even for your own god -- so it's highly unlikely you can show it for anyone else's god.

OK. We do not have to worry about any gods other than those that threaten eternal torment (or some infinite outcome). Why worry about anything else?

First, let's acknowledge that your previous sweeping claim:

Pascal's belief in the Roman Catholic Christian God can be expanded to encompass all gods alleged to provide an escape from eternal torment and evaluated against the nonbelief position.

has just been proven to be wrong.

Quote:

One does not have to show with certainty that God exists and threatens eternal torment to cause a person to seek God. One needs only show that one cannot prove the position that God does not exist.

Incorrect. For starters, you must also show that:

a. you have an accurate understanding of what this god(s) want;
b. this god(s) can be trusted;
c. no other god(s) provide or threaten similar consequences;

As usual, it is far simpler than your artificial binary construction.

Quote:

If you cannot guarantee that outcome (that a person does not have to worry about eternal torment), then the rational action is to seek to avoid eternal torment and irrational (emotion-based) not to seek to escape eternal torment.

Incorrect.

1. You are presented with the possibility that you might go to the Buddhist or Islamic hell.
2. Yet you do not seek to avoid those outcomes.
3. Therefore your actions are irrational and emotion-based.

Either you agree with this conclusion, or your entire progression of thought is broken.

Quote:

But you are unable to explain why that is so???

I have explained it several times. As have others.

And while we're discussing items that need explaining, why is it that I have had to ask my question about Islam and Islamic hell nine times without a direct response from you?

rhutchin · 01-25-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Barefoot Bree (msg #419)
Disbelief actually comes from the mind, not belief. It comes from going to church and seeing the backstabbing, hypocritical actions of one's fellow "worshippers"; reading the holy books and seeing the contradictions, misrepresentations and outright evil acts committed therein; listening to ministers and seeing their hypocrisy and self-serving actions; on feeling the wonder at the vastness and complexity of the natural universe, while recognizing that finding a good parking spot is simple random chance, not a miracle, and all the ten million and six everyday occurrences with not a god in sight.

rhutchin
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. It has nothing to do with people acting like people.

EverLastingGodStopper
This can't be true, there are millions of people who have both never heard of the bible and also do not believe in the Christian god.

And people acting like people do disbelieve in all sorts of gods, rendering this last sentence meaningless.

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.

Quote:

rhutchin
From Romans 1, I would conclude that you didn't like what you found and might even have been ashamed of that which the Bible says. Then, again, a lot of people have turned away from God because they got screwed by someone in a church.

JamesBannon
According to your profile you're a Calvinist and according to Calvinist doctrine this simply cannot happen. Once your saved, by God as humans are quite incapable of saving themselves, then you're saved and nothing anyone can say or do will cause this to be otherwise. Similarly, once you damned, by God as humans are quite incapable of damning themselves, then you're damned and nothing anyone can say or do will cause this to be otherwise. From a Calvinistic point-of-view therefore, Pascal's Wager is totally useless. I still wonder why you support a wager that according to your own doctrine is fatally flawed.

rhutchin
What that tells us is that people do not make rational decisions when it comes to God. Rejection of God is basically an emotional decision where the person insists on his way even when he stands to lose everything by doing so. It makes no sense.

Quote:

rhutchin
The emotional decision is to reject belief in God (whomever one decides that God to be) in favor of nonbelief in God.

Sauron
However, that is not what you originally said. This is the second time you have tried to dodge my straighforward question by answering obliquely. So now I'm going to remind you for the 2nd time now of your original comments:

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. It has nothing to do with people acting like people.

You also 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.

Both your position statements specifically called out the bible. Your new comment above does not. SO:
Are you now widening your position from the original statements (green above), to say that rejecting god, in any form he/she/they take(s), is an emotional decision?

I think you have lost the context for the earlier decisions. In effect, those quotes in green amount to my conclusions about the Bible and fit the context of the discussions in which they were written.

Quote:

rhutchin
If a person examines the evidence and rejects the Muslim god, then he would limit his choices to the remaining gods that are alleged to exist.

Sauron
Ah, how you try mightily to wriggle off your own hook. The question is still not answered:

would such a rejection of the islamic god be "irrational" and "emotional"? As you have characterized a rejection of the christian god?

Or do the terms "irrational" and "emotional" only apply when someone rejects christianity?

Edited to add: this is the fourth time that I have posed this question where you were logged on and viewing/responding to this thread, but mysteriously logged off.

I don’t see a problem. One is faced with many gods. If a person examines the evidence and rejects the Muslim god, then he would limit his choices to the remaining gods that are alleged to exist.

We can extend this and say, If a person examines the evidence and rejects the god X, then he would limit his choices to the remaining gods that are alleged to exist.

The person would do this until he is left with one God. Now, let’s say that a person rejects this last god. In coming to that conclusion, he is basically rejecting the position that eternal torment is a threat. The only question at this point is the certainty of his earlier rejections. If the person can be certain of his proof that the god should be rejected, then by doing so for all the gods that exist, he has provided a proof that God does not exist. He would, then, be the first to ever have done so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2006, 08:39 AM	#712
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	rhutchin: "Don't break that mirror, or you'll have seven years of bad luck." Mageth: "That's a superstition." rhutchin: "Aah, unless you can PROVE it's a superstition, you should not break that mirror! That would be the RATIONAL thing to do!" Mageth: "Nonsense. It's a superstition unless you can prove it's not. And it's irrational to act based on superstition." rhutchin: "No - you have to prove that it IS a superstition! Otherwise, you're acting emotionally and irrationally if you break that mirror!" Mageth: "Nonsense. I would be acting emotionally and irrationally if I didn't break the mirror because I feared the superstition. It is a superstition, and will remain firmly so unless proven otherwise. It's nonsense to claim that I have to PROVE that it's a superstition." (CRASH TINKLE TINKLE)

01-25-2006, 09:20 AM	#715
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	(emphasis mine) ...More of the same. Basically, "If I'm right, you're screwed". You are STILL refusing to consider other possibilities. See my post #709 above. While this is not my actual belief, I consider it to be somewhat MORE plausible than the Christian scenario. Therefore I estimate that I would be INCREASING my chance of suffering eternal torment if I became a Christian: because I would go to my death believing in the existence of Hell, and this could be a Bad Thing. Therefore, Pascal's Wager dictates that I should actively avoid religions with a Hell, that might be made "real" for ME by my belief.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.