Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JPD · 03-06-2006, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It boils down to uncertainty about what happens after death. People do not know whether death means oblivion or eternal life in heaven or torment. After this, the process for deciding what to do about this uncertainty can itself contain uncertainties as you describe above. So, what else is new?

If you could tell a person what happens after they die, you could avoid all the uncertainties you list. You do not seem to be able to do this. Is that incorrect?

And any conclusions one draws are uncertain - it doesn't matter how compelling the argument appears to be (to the believer) - there isn't a conclusion that is drawn that is based on any evidence. No amount of pleading has any impact other than on the desperation shown by the believer.

rhutchin · 03-06-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
It boils down to uncertainty about what happens after death. People do not know whether death means oblivion or eternal life in heaven or torment. After this, the process for deciding what to do about this uncertainty can itself contain uncertainties as you describe above. So, what else is new?

If you could tell a person what happens after they die, you could avoid all the uncertainties you list. You do not seem to be able to do this. Is that incorrect?

JPD
And any conclusions one draws are uncertain - it doesn't matter how compelling the argument appears to be (to the believer) - there isn't a conclusion that is drawn that is based on any evidence. No amount of pleading has any impact other than on the desperation shown by the believer.

Uncertain - the key word.

So, do you skeptics have any evidence for what happens to a person after death??

rhutchin · 03-06-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
OK. So all we need is a good, sound argument to show that the Bible is myth. Have you seen one?

JPD
You have just provided one - the Bible itself. Please provide a good, sound argument to show that the Bible is not full of myth. At its foundation is belief in that which is non-existent on any plane that we can perform experiements in. Any claim can be made but there is nothing against which to check it. Demonstrate that the alleged miracles are anything other than myth.

If God is real as described in the Bible, then He could have done everything that the Bible says that He did. One has to believe that the Bible is myth just as one has to believe that it is not myth. You have your beliefs; I have mine. You hope that there is no God and I have hope that there is.

JPD · 03-06-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If God is real as described in the Bible, then He could have done everything that the Bible says that He did. One has to believe that the Bible is myth just as one has to believe that it is not myth. You have your beliefs; I have mine. You hope that there is no God and I have hope that there is.

Or he could be fooling everyone.

Actually I'm not concerned whether "God" exists or not - if the God that is described in the OT turns out to be "real" then I would not, in retrospect, have changed anything. The texts in support are not very wonderful and, should God turn out to exist, I will have a chat with him/her/it about why he/she/it felt it to be of satisfactory quality.

JPD · 03-06-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Uncertain - the key word.

So, do you skeptics have any evidence for what happens to a person after death??

No-one has any at all - this is why it is not necessary to hold particular beliefs intended to prepare oneself for something for which no evidence exists. I can't waste my life pondering the inane crap that religions produce when a whole universe is there to be studied.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-06-2006, 10:34 AM

Message to rhutchin: Regarding God's supposed actions, other that "the Bible is true because it judges itself as being true," what gives you the notion that God's actions necessarily indicate his motives? Surely you must know that actions need not necessarily indicate motives. What the Bible writers said might have been the result of 1) fraud, 2) innocent but inaccurate revelations, 3) inspiration from an evil God who was (an still might be) masquerading as a good God, or 4) inspiration from the God who is depicted in the Bible. How do you propose that we find out which is the case?

It would be quite natural, and quite easy, for an evil, deceptive God to portray himself exactly like the Bible describes God. In other words, he could easily heal people, raise people from the dead, predict the future, and promise a comfortable eternal life to believers.

Dlx2 · 03-06-2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It boils down to uncertainty about what happens after death. People do not know whether death means oblivion or eternal life in heaven or torment. After this, the process for deciding what to do about this uncertainty can itself contain uncertainties as you describe above. So, what else is new?

If you could tell a person what happens after they die, you could avoid all the uncertainties you list. You do not seem to be able to do this. Is that incorrect?

Now you're just being intentionally dense.

JamesBannon · 03-06-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I would not describe it as completely worthless. It is one logical argument constructed to address one particular circumstance. It accomplishes that which it was intended to accomplish.

Nonsense, it does not and has not. My point was that why do you spend your time defending an argument that, to you, is worthless? From a Calvinist perspective there is no wager at all: one is either damned, and therefore subject to eternal punishment, or one is not, irrespective of what one chooses; indeed for Calvin there is no such thing as choice. It just does not make sense to argue from the basis of uncertanity because there is no uncertainty, only ignorance

rhutchin · 03-06-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
I would not describe it as completely worthless. It is one logical argument constructed to address one particular circumstance. It accomplishes that which it was intended to accomplish.

JamesBannon
Nonsense, it does not and has not. My point was that why do you spend your time defending an argument that, to you, is worthless? From a Calvinist perspective there is no wager at all: one is either damned, and therefore subject to eternal punishment, or one is not, irrespective of what one chooses; indeed for Calvin there is no such thing as choice. It just does not make sense to argue from the basis of uncertanity because there is no uncertainty, only ignorance

My position does not affect the logical argument made by the Wager. It is still a logical argument.

What Calvinism adds is that people willingly choose that which the Wager tells them is irrational. That is the interesting part. A person can understand the irationality of a decision and still watch themselves chose to be irrational. Only Calvinism explains why this happens.

rhutchin · 03-06-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

rhutchin
It boils down to uncertainty about what happens after death. People do not know whether death means oblivion or eternal life in heaven or torment. After this, the process for deciding what to do about this uncertainty can itself contain uncertainties as you describe above. So, what else is new?

If you could tell a person what happens after they die, you could avoid all the uncertainties you list. You do not seem to be able to do this. Is that incorrect?

Dlx2
Now you're just being intentionally dense.

Maybe, but you still cannot tell a person what happens after they die. Even someone as dense as me can see the way you avoid that.

03-06-2006, 10:34 AM	#2006
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Pascal's Wager started as The Resurrection is irrelevant Message to rhutchin: Regarding God's supposed actions, other that "the Bible is true because it judges itself as being true," what gives you the notion that God's actions necessarily indicate his motives? Surely you must know that actions need not necessarily indicate motives. What the Bible writers said might have been the result of 1) fraud, 2) innocent but inaccurate revelations, 3) inspiration from an evil God who was (an still might be) masquerading as a good God, or 4) inspiration from the God who is depicted in the Bible. How do you propose that we find out which is the case? It would be quite natural, and quite easy, for an evil, deceptive God to portray himself exactly like the Bible describes God. In other words, he could easily heal people, raise people from the dead, predict the future, and promise a comfortable eternal life to believers.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.