Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
The above argument has nothing to do with the Wager. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand the Wager.

That which you argue above is predicated on the conclusion reached through the Wager that one should believe in God. Having made the decision to escape eternal torment and to believe in God to achieve this goal, you frame an argument to explain the difficulty a person faces in identifying the true God from among many gods.

MRM
It has to do with the wager in an indirect way - the wager is only used by christians (at least, I don't know about other religions that uses this argument)

I just want to point out, that if you want to reduce the question of believe to a mathematical equation, than it would work against christianity ( or other monotheistic religions, with a jealous god )

And the wager don't adress the point that an unhonest false believe ( only based on a wager ) is maybe worse than a honest disbelieve ...

All of which do not detract from the purpose of the Wager which is to provide a person with a logical method to determine if he should believe in God.

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ubercat

...When was the bible demonstrated to be evidence of anything?...

Better yet, where has anything been demonstrated to be evidence of anything?

Sauron · 02-04-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. One can presume neither truth nor fiction and let the document speak for itself. One does not have to enter with any biases that you might carry.

Except that you have already told us that the quran doesn't "seem" to tell the truth. What is that statement, other than a bias?

Quote:

I didn’t??? And you know this how?

Have you made preparations in the event of an Islamic hell yet?

Start the countdown clock until rhutchin mysteriously logs off again.

Sauron · 02-04-2006, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Coincidence should not be mistaken for conspiracy.

Considering how often you dodge my very clear and pointed question?

Here is my question:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...64#post3120964

When do you plan to answer it?

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
My contention is that the rational action is to escape eternal torment. I think the Why is obvious. Who wants it? I don't see you arguing for not doing so. Unless you have a good argument for not seeking to escape eternal torment, I don't see that it matters what God is if He is the only one who is providing an escape from eternal torment.

JamesBannon
Then your decision is based on fear. Tell me, why is this any more rational than my decision to reject God irrespective of the conclusions?

Based on fear? Sounds rational to me.

What is rational about not wanting to escape eternal torment? Can you explain your rational for rejecting God if that rejection means that you will suffer eternal torment?

Ubercat · 02-04-2006, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Let’s clarify this. God has obligated Himself to save certain people (the elect) and He must reveal Himself to the elect in such a way that they will submit to Him. However, God has said that He has revealed Himself to all people through His creation so that none are without excuse in knowing about Him. On one occasion, God took the form of a man, lived among the Jews, and revealed Himself to certain men. These experiences were recorded and we have them in the Bible. If God wanted to reveal Himself to everyone in such a manner that everyone would be saved, He could. It seems apparent that God has chosen not to do this.

The good God is that god described in the Bible. We have no source of information about an evil God. Anyone who reads the Bible will find ample information about the God who is described within its pages.

OK. God is that being that is described in the Bible. The Bible claims that God is good, to say that God is that being described in the Bible is to say that God is good.

OK. Then let’s stick with the information we have about God. Whatever God might be can only be that described in the Bible. If the Bible also says that God is good, then by definition good is that which God is described to be in the Bible.

Well let's see. By your reasoning, Zeus must be real because we have stories about him taking on physical form and seducing human women. Any old story is true by definition. Is that right Rhutchin? Is the most important piece of evidence the age of the story? I'm assuming it must be because you reject any modern story out of hand. (Ie. invisible tigers) I daresay that the greek myths are older than the Jewish ones. Zeus must be more real than jesus!

Ok, god is good. We know this because the bible says he's good. And we know that the bible is true because god made it, and he's good. Do you want to pretend that this isn't circular reasoning? Dumb question. Of course you do. Never mind that any moral person would describe most of his biblically described actions as sadistic, perverted, and just plain evil. When you pin "good" on this being, you destroy the word. It loses all meaning. Congratulations. What word will you nuke next?

Oh, when did you demonstrate that bible god is the true one? I missed that post.

-Ubercat

Wayne Delia · 02-04-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I think the rebuttable presumption here is that belief in the Christian god provides a means to escape eternal torment.

Jesus Himself said that belief based on "going through the motions" (as Pascal's Wager recommends) won't work, though.

Quote:

I don't think that issue is open to debate here although you might start a new thread and explain how you came to that conclusion and why everyone else seems to have misunderstood this point.

Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

You say "everyone else seems to have misunderstood this point" - that would have to include Jesus, who said that feigned belief (by merely saying 'Lord, Lord' based on the self-interest of Pascal's Wager) won't work.

It's just a darn shame that nobody, including Jesus Christ, understands Christian theology as well as you do. No wonder you don't qualify as a "true Christian."

WMD

Sauron · 02-04-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't think that I have labeled anyone choosing another god other than the Christian god as illogical, emotional, and irrational. I have said that those who choose non belief in any god are illogical, emotional, and irrational.

That is incorrect. Here is what you said:

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.

You have tried to claim that rejecting God and the christian version of hell is "irrational" and "emotion-based". Yet you have dodged sixteen times answering whether that also applies to someone who rejects Islam and the Islamic version of hell. Why is that?

Quote:

However, one can choose to believe in Allah or the invisible tiger in the same rational manner as one chooses to believe in the Christian god.

And again, that is not the question.

The way you have framed your statement, a person is illogical / irrational / emotional if they are exposed to some possibility that they cannot discount, and fail to prepare for it. You have been informed about:

* the Islamic hell
* vampires
* alien abductions
* etc.

You cannot 100% discount any of these scenarios. And yet you do not prepare for any of them. Therefore, you must be illogical, irrational and emotional -- by your own standards. Agreed?

Your newly revised comment above also indicates that a person can choose NOT to believe in something in a rational manner. Or is only belief rational for you, and not disbelief?

Quote:

I think a side-by-side comparison favors the Christian god.

1. By what measurement of comparison?
2. When have you ever done such a side-by-side comparison? What were the results? Lay them out for us here; it should be interesting.

Ubercat · 02-04-2006, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Better yet, where has anything been demonstrated to be evidence of anything?

Good point. No one can provide any evidence of anything. Ever.

Will you be leaving the cave later, Rhutchin? I think Ooga wanted some help skinning that rabbit, and my arm's still hurting fron the mauling that boar gave it. Could you bring me back some moss when you return? Oh, and an egg too. Thanks, I appreciate it. Goop was working on a "wheel" something or other, but he can't prove the concept so he's stumped. Oh well.

-Ubercat

p.s. That was one of the most pathetic dodges I've ever seen, even from you. You should be ashamed.

Sauron · 02-04-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If the goal is to escape eternal torment, what would be a better way to proceed other than to appease the god who promises an escape from eternal torment if you appease him? In your mind, what else could a person do under those circumstances?

And if 500 such gods all threaten you, that means you worship all 500.

Right?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.