Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 03-17-2006, 06:27 AM

rhutchin:

Quote:

You are a credulous person rhutchin. Many of us used to be the same, myself included. Twenty years ago I was a Christian. Before you call me a liar, you better provide evidence that you, yes even you rhutchin, are any different now than I was then.

I believe you. Twenty years ago, you told people that you were a Christian; today, you tell people that you are not a Christian. OK. Twenty years ago I told people I was a Yankees fan and today I tell people that I am an Orioles fan. Big deal. It just means that twenty years ago you went to church and today you don’t.

Are you saying that you were NEVER a Yankees fan, and that twenty years ago you lied about being a Yankees fan despite actually being an Orioles fan all along?

Why would you do that, rhutchin?

And do you therefore believe that every OTHER person who claims to be a Yankees fan is actually an Orioles fan who is lying?

If not: what IS your point here?

You were once a Yankees fan. We were once Christians. Now we've all moved on.

rhutchin · 03-17-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Jack the Bodiless
You are a credulous person rhutchin. Many of us used to be the same, myself included. Twenty years ago I was a Christian. Before you call me a liar, you better provide evidence that you, yes even you rhutchin, are any different now than I was then.

rhutchin
I believe you. Twenty years ago, you told people that you were a Christian; today, you tell people that you are not a Christian. OK. Twenty years ago I told people I was a Yankees fan and today I tell people that I am an Orioles fan. Big deal. It just means that twenty years ago you went to church and today you don’t.

Jack the Bodiless
Are you saying that you were NEVER a Yankees fan, and that twenty years ago you lied about being a Yankees fan despite actually being an Orioles fan all along?

Why would you do that, rhutchin?

And do you therefore believe that every OTHER person who claims to be a Yankees fan is actually an Orioles fan who is lying?

If not: what IS your point here?

You were once a Yankees fan. We were once Christians. Now we've all moved on.

I said that I believe you. You are not lying. If you say you were a christian twenty years ago then surely you were, just as I was a Yankees fan. You are whatever you say you are. You define a Christian to be that which you want it to be and voila, you are a christian, just as I define what it is to be a Yankees fan and become one.

Now, if you had claimed that God had saved you and therefore, you were a Christian, but then you up and decided to unsave yourself, then you would never have been a Christian (even if you believed you were). How could you, a mere pitiful man, undo anything God has done?

enemigo · 03-17-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK, you have your opinion and I have mine and they differ.

So thats it? The only way that your watered down version of the Wager can stand is if one accepts "your opinion" that the Bible is evidence of the existence of God?

Jack the Bodiless · 03-17-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Are you saying that you were NEVER a Yankees fan, and that twenty years ago you lied about being a Yankees fan despite actually being an Orioles fan all along?

Why would you do that, rhutchin?

And do you therefore believe that every OTHER person who claims to be a Yankees fan is actually an Orioles fan who is lying?

If not: what IS your point here?

You were once a Yankees fan. We were once Christians. Now we've all moved on.

I said that I believe you. You are not lying. If you say you were a christian twenty years ago then surely you were, just as I was a Yankees fan. You are whatever you say you are. You define a Christian to be that which you want it to be and voila, you are a christian, just as I define what it is to be a Yankees fan and become one.

Now, if you had claimed that God had saved you and therefore, you were a Christian, but then you up and decided to unsave yourself, then you would never have been a Christian (even if you believed you were). How could you, a mere pitiful man, undo anything God has done?

Similarly, if the magic leprechaun mascot of the Yankees (OK, I don't know what their actual mascot is) charmed you into being a Yankees fan, you couldn't now be an Orioles fan. How could you, a mere pitiful man, undo what a leprechaun's magic has done?

Of course, you actually CAN change your allegiance, because there is no leprechaun.

Here endeth the lesson.

rhutchin · 03-17-2006, 10:02 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Can you explain how the Wager would eliminate Christianity as an option. The Wager concludes that belief is preferable to unbelief if a person seeks to escape eternal torment. Belief includes Christianity. To exclude Christianity, the Wager would have to exclude belief as an option to escape eternal torment. How do you see the Wager doing that?

JPD
I don't think that it actually makes any difference which of the infinity of possibilities one exposes the weaknesses and strengths of one's belief in. The point is that there is an infinity of possibilities - what are the chances of identifying the (is there only one?) correct choice from an infinite range when one is knowingly exposing oneself to a finite number of possibilities whether one admits it to oneself or not that an infinite range exists?

If there are an infinite number of examples, it seems like you would be able to pick one and explain how the Wager would eliminate Christianity as an option. But if you can’t, you can’t.

Quote:

rhutchin
We know that belief in Yahweh provides an escape from eternal torment based on the evidence contained in the Bible. Belief in Yahweh results in eternal torment according to the Koran, the Book of Mormon, and maybe other sources. The true outcome depends on which source is true. Unbelief in any god without evidence is irrational.

JPD
How about unbelief in any God that is the product of someone's imagination who you will never meet and who does not advertise their beliefs?

Hey, if you want to believe that, go ahead. Let your imagination be your guide. Of course, you can meet the god of the Bible in, of all places, the Bible.

Quote:

rhutchin
Here is an expanded explanation of the premises to tie them together.

The Wager's basic assumptions are:
1. A person does not know whether God exists, because no one can prove that God exists.
2. No one can prove that God does not exist, so no one can conclude that God does not exist, and
3. Because no one can prove that God exists or God does not exist, no one can exclude the possibility that God exists and that He will hold people accountable for their actions and judge them. Thus a person follows his natural desires to escape eternal torment.

JPD
You have put it as Pascal would put it. We know that he deals in an inadequate manner with the subject....

But you just can’t seem to explain why it is inadequate.

Quote:

rhutchin
The Wager has nothing to do with that which a person believes. The Wager says that the rational action is for a person to seek to escape eternal torment, but it does not tell a person what to do to escape eternal torment. Correct deliberation of the Wager results in a person deciding to believe in something that will provide an escape from eternal torment. That belief may be belief in god X and unbelief in god Y, or belief in some other system to escape eternal torment.

JPD
You haven’t faced up to the inadequacy of the wager to comprehend the situation it pretends to offer a viable route through.

Inadequacy?? What inadequacy??

rhutchin · 03-17-2006, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Similarly, if the magic leprechaun mascot of the Yankees (OK, I don't know what their actual mascot is) charmed you into being a Yankees fan, you couldn't now be an Orioles fan. How could you, a mere pitiful man, undo what a leprechaun's magic has done?

Of course, you actually CAN change your allegiance, because there is no leprechaun.

Here endeth the lesson.

I agree. You actually CAN change your allegiance, because there is no leprechaun.

rhutchin · 03-17-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enemigo

So thats it? The only way that your watered down version of the Wager can stand is if one accepts "your opinion" that the Bible is evidence of the existence of God?

Sure. My opinion is at least as good as yours (maybe even better since I tend to look at things rationally).

Hedshaker · 03-17-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Now, if you had claimed that God had saved you and therefore, you were a Christian, but then you up and decided to unsave yourself, then you would never have been a Christian (even if you believed you were). How could you, a mere pitiful man, undo anything God has done?

That argument doesn't work unless you can prove that your particular God exists and does save his devotees. Since you are not able to do that it's reasonable accept that ex-Xians did at one time believe God existed and that they were saved, as you do now, but later descovered that the whole thing was fake. The fact that you haven't yet arrived at that obvious conclusion is irrelavant

enemigo · 03-17-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Similarly, if the magic leprechaun mascot of the Yankees (OK, I don't know what their actual mascot is) charmed you into being a Yankees fan, you couldn't now be an Orioles fan. How could you, a mere pitiful man, undo what a leprechaun's magic has done?

Of course, you actually CAN change your allegiance, because there is no leprechaun.

Here endeth the lesson.

Jack, just face it.. you were not a true Scotsman.

While your understanding of what defines a Christian is the beliefs that a person holds about Jesus, rhutchin's definition consists of being chosen by God, a definition which presupposes the existence of God. So, since rhutchin knows the will of this God that he presupposes to exist, he is in a much better position than you to know whether you were a Christian, regardless of what you truly believed at the time.

enemigo · 03-17-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Sure. My opinion is at least as good as yours.

And there we have it.

In order for the Wager to tell me that I should seek escape from eternal torment, I must first, before even considering the "logic" of the Wager, believe that the Bible is evidence that God & eternal torment actually exist. If I already believe that though, the Wager is entirely superfluous, and if I don't already believe that, then it doesn't tell me to seek escape from eternal torment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

(maybe even better since I tend to look at things rationally)

I wish I was as smart as you.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.