enemigo

rhutchin,

Does self-interest supercede considerations of evidence when infinite loss is at stake?

If so, then that principle doesn't end at adopting a single belief that one should try to escape potential eternal torment. It logically extends to adopting the belief system that provides the greatest chance of escape. In other words, you must choose the belief system that eliminates the most risk; you must choose the belief system that leaves you vulnerable to the fewest potential threats of eternal torment possible.

Monotheism is, incontrovertibly, a higher risk belief system than polytheism. Monotheism rejects all other potential gods, in favor of exclusive belief in a single potential god. That necessarily leaves you vulnerable to more potential threats than appeasing multiple potential gods. Keep in mind that not all possible gods would require exclusive belief in themselves. So even appeasing just two potential gods that don't require exclusive belief in themselves, automatically reduces the number of potential threats to which you are vulnerable, and is consequently less risky than monotheism.

Your claim that at this point one should evaluate evidence, is nothing less than a complete rejection of your premise that one ought to adopt beliefs based on greatest potential benefit to one's self. You are rejecting the inherently less risky belief system of polytheism because of your irrational, emotional attachment to monotheism.

Wayne Delia

For a second? I live my life as if both of them didn't exist.

With all due respect, you wouldn't know logic if it hit you across the forehead with a 2x4. I'll show you what I mean.

If you were rational, the first order of business is to determine if the threat is real. Since there's no evidence to establish that it is, no avoidance is necessary.

As usual, you've got the cart way before the horse: you're assuming it's a real threat, without establishing it. You've been confronted with the threats of eternal punishment from the Mageth God, from "God Z" and other variations. You've dismissed those threats mainly due to lack of evidence to persuade you that they're real. Thus, by your own standards, you are acting in an irrational matter.

You were offered a way to escape God Z's threat of eternal torment: to withhold belief in gods of any kind. Did you take it? No, you did not, because according to your own standard, you are acting irrational.

The starting point as far as I am concerned is "Is this threat valid?" You've bypassed that starting point in favor of "Assume my unsupported threat is valid, now what do you do?" Problem is, you're not willing to take the same starting point when it comes to evaluating the claims of other religions or other gods.

Your problem is that you know you need to disbelieve in all gods in order to avoid God Z's eternal torment.

There actually is no evidence, and no opportunity to be confused. On the other hand, you know that you are confused, period.

Same back atcha.

The problem for you is, my compatriots (fellow atheists) and I are safe in the boat, but you're metaphorically drowning in a eternity of God Z's torment by believing in any gods at all. We're trying to throw you a life preserver, but you seem to think your faith in God will save you, which ironically is what is killing you after all. I deserve congratulations for what has turned out to be a pretty darn good analogy.

WMD

rhutchin

No, to the first question. Evidence can never be discounted.

I agree on the second point. As has been already been stated, determining the legitimacy of the claims can be difficult so that deciding which belief system to follow is not an easy task.

Montheism is not a higher risk option just because it is "mono"theism. That's like Hillary Clinton recent assertion that the US is ready for a woman to be Preseident just because it has not had a "woman" President. A woman may be elected President but not because the candidate is a woman (granting that some people only care about gender and vote on that basis).

I do not see how a person could evaluate a benefit without appeal to evidence.

rhutchin

That a person has no desire to come to God does not prevent a person from understanding a logical argument. Even the Totally Depraved understand the logic behind the Wager and the conclusion that the rational person would reach. The clear import of the Wager is that a decision to reject God is based in emotion. Even the nonelect can see and understand that which they are doing and how they are helpless to change what they are.

I guess we disagree on the comparison of the Bible to Homer or the Aboriginal Dreamtime (but I have not read the Aboriginal Dreamtime). I guess it would matter if either Homer or the Aboriginal Dreamtime offerred an escape from eternal torment.

rhutchin

Can't do it (without reference to the Bible). Therefore, let's consider that either could be true in the risk analysis.

rhutchin

If you could provide a proof of your assertion that eternal torment is mere superstitution, then you would have a basis for your argument.

rhutchin

Using your logic, the Wager is flawed because it cannot be used to derive the square root of a number. At least you understand the Wager enough not to argue for nonbelief.

JamesBannon

You can't "read" the Aboriginal Dreamtime, it's an oral / symbolic tradition as the Aboriginals had no written language. You can, however, read about it as you can with Homer. Does this sound familiar?

Your first statement again simply defeats the wager. There is no wager one can accept if Calvinism is true as you're either damned or not at God's good pleasure.

P.S. Ever heard of "Holy Wullie's Prayer" by the great Robert Burns? Perhaps you should read it.

Mageth

Don't break any mirrors, rhutchin. Don't walk under any ladders. Don't step on any cracks. Hang some garlic around your neck, and bow to Mecca five times a day.

You've still got it ass-backwards. And are still simply repeating ad infinitum the same discredited arguments.

Supertitions need to be proved for them to escape the label 'superstition'. Again, the onus is not on me to "prove" that "eternal torment" is a superstition. The onus is on the one selling the superstition to convince me that it is anything more than a superstition.

If you can't, then a superstition it remains.

To act based on what is a superstition, and on which cannot be demonstrated in any way to be anything more than a superstition, is not rational.

For me to act based on fear of "eternal torment" would be for me to act irrationally. By selling Pascal's Wager as a motivation for "choosing to believe in God", you are asking us to act irrationally. It is for the simple reason that the threat of eternal torment cannot be rationally established. Belief in it is, therefore, irrational. Not being able to "prove" that there is no threat of eternal torment is completely irrelevant and unnecessary.

I'll call attention to a post of yours that just preceded this one, in which you said, in response to the question" "At what point do you plan on demonstrating, via SOME kind of evidence, that eternal torment is a more likely fate than simple oblivion?":

You're essentially asking us to "consider that it [the threat of eternal torment] could be true" to perform the "risk analysis".

Again, there is no rational basis to consider the threat of eternal torment to be true, or that it could be true. It remains a superstition.

I'll note that you also can't demonstrate that "eternal torment" is anything more than a superstition. All you have is the Bible, which of course is a religious document that you are using (from time to time) to support your argument. Again, the Bible records a superstition (the threat of eternal torment) as a motivation for accepting the superstition that the Bible records as an "escape plan" from "eternal torment".

Superstitions all the way down. You're trying to get us to fear one superstition so that we'll accept another. There's nothing rational at all in what you're asking us to do.

enemigo

Uncertainty discounts it.

Unless you can prove with absolute, 100% certainty that any of the claims are not legitimate, then any appeal to evidence is discounted by uncertainty. You can't discount claims unless you have absolute proof of their nonexistence - just like you say we can't discount your claim that eternal torment exists unless we can prove with absolute 100% certainty that it doesn't exist.

Dispense with the evasive, weak analogies and address the argument by actually demonstrating that appeasing multiple potential gods is not inherently less risky than appeasing only one potential god.

Exclusive belief in a single god is inherently more risky because it leaves you vulnerable to more potential threats. Appeasing multiple potential gods, inevitably reduces the amount of risk you take by reducing the number of potential threats that you are vulnerable to.

Nor do any of the skeptics here. That didn't stop you from rejecting their appeals to "evaluate the evidence." The basis for your rejection was uncertainty. That exact same uncertainty that you say nullifies their appeals also nullifies yours.