Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JPD · 02-20-2006, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The arguments that have been presented have ignored the Wager and raised issues that mean nothing a far as the Wager is concerned. Those who raise such issues then claim that their refusal to address the Wager means that they have won the debate. I am not convinced.

Maybe you could actually explain the arguments in context with the Wager and avoid the rabbit trails and other irrelevancies that people keep bringing up.

:notworthy: Your constant refusal to read the very thread that you have contributed to extensively.

"Ignored the wager" :notworthy:

JPD · 02-20-2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The arguments that have been presented have ignored the Wager and raised issues that mean nothing a far as the Wager is concerned. Those who raise such issues then claim that their refusal to address the Wager means that they have won the debate. I am not convinced.

Maybe you could actually explain the arguments in context with the Wager and avoid the rabbit trails and other irrelevancies that people keep bringing up.

I very much doubt that anyone here will have the patience to go through the vast range of information that has been posted here trying - desperately and perhaps stupidly - to get you to understand what you are either unable or unwilling to. Read the frigging posts and learn something!!!!!!!!!!!

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 05:26 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Don't get diverted by what Pascal did in applying the Wager. They key point that Pascal addresses is the rationality of a person who chooses to escape an infinite punishment. Whether the person should seek to escape an infinite punishment is the issue and not how the person would go about doing so.

Focus on the basic question -- Is it rational for a person to seek to escape an infinite punishment? Pascal provides a methodology for answering the question. Is Pascal's methodology irrational and is some other methodology better?

JPD
It is not rational since belief in infinite punishment is not in any way rational. Only a fool would make what they deem to be a rational decision on the basis of absolutely no information whatsoever. If you believe that it is rational then you don't understand rationality at all.

So what!!! The Wager is only to be used by that person (not you) who is uncertain whether eternal torment exists (based on the Bible or other document that describes a system of judgment and eternal punishment). You might call such people fools because you can prove with certainty that such people have nothing to fear. However, as irrational as you may think it for these fools to actually believe that eternal torment is possible, it is possible to suggest to such fools a rational methodology (the Wager) for addressing their uncertainty.

You seem to have little tolerance for those you consider to be fools. I am not sure that you can prove to them that you are not really the fool. Rather than calling people fools, maybe you should explain why they are foolish and do so with the sound information and reasoning that you claim they lack.

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Let's see...

There is no evidence that God exists or that God does not exist.
There is no evidence that, if God exists, eternal torment is the punishment for non-belief.
There is no evidence that there is, or isn't, an afterlife existence.
There is no evidence that any given belief or non-belief will result in any particular outcome, if any outcome at all.
There is no evidence that there is none, one, a couple, a few, many, an infinity of Gods.
There is no evidence that any of those other possible Gods has or has not the power to punish an individual for believing in another God.

The wager pretends to know something that it cannot verify so the risk analysis is worthless. It says "Hey everyone, we're uncertain about certainty/uncertainty so you know, it's not a bad idea to believe something that has absolutely no guarantee whatsoever of enabling a positive afterlife outcome. That's great isn't it?"

And you can't see why Pascal's wager is as effective as a stick of celery for fending off a rampaging elephant?

Your basic position is that people who read the Bible, the Koran, or other religious books are idiots. The only problem is that you can't explain why they are idiots and you are not.

JPD · 02-20-2006, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So what!!! The Wager is only to be used by that person (not you) who is uncertain whether eternal torment exists (based on the Bible or other document that describes a system of judgment and eternal punishment). You might call such people fools because you can prove with certainty that such people have nothing to fear. However, as irrational as you may think it for these fools to actually believe that eternal torment is possible, it is possible to suggest to such fools a rational methodology (the Wager) for addressing their uncertainty.

You seem to have little tolerance for those you consider to be fools. I am not sure that you can prove to them that you are not really the fool. Rather than calling people fools, maybe you should explain why they are foolish and do so with the sound information and reasoning that you claim they lack.

They believe in things for which no evidence exists and build entire systems on that basis that cannot be related to anything.

JPD · 02-20-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Your basic position is that people who read the Bible, the Koran, or other religious books are idiots. The only problem is that you can't explain why they are idiots and you are not.

No that isn't my position I'm afraid. Don't be silly now. You jump from my position - that people who believe in the reality of eternal torment on the basis of nothing at all are fools - to everyone who reads any religious text (myself included) being fools. I would not say the latter since there is not just one kind of believer.

Ubercat · 02-20-2006, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The arguments that have been presented have ignored the Wager and raised issues that mean nothing a far as the Wager is concerned. Those who raise such issues then claim that their refusal to address the Wager means that they have won the debate. I am not convinced.

Maybe you could actually explain the arguments in context with the Wager and avoid the rabbit trails and other irrelevancies that people keep bringing up.

Of course you're "not convinced." That would require concessions that you are incapable of making. Namely "I was wrong, you guys were right. Gee, I WAS pretty silly wasn't I?"

Maybe you could actually explain why your position makes any sense, WITHOUT using arguments that have already been shown at least 50 times to not make any sense. Perhaps you could even uncover your eyes and read the counter arguments posted here. You look pretty funny, sitting there like that.

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-20-2006, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So what!!! The Wager is only to be used by that person (not you) who is uncertain whether eternal torment exists (based on the Bible or other document that describes a system of judgment and eternal punishment). You might call such people fools because you can prove with certainty that such people have nothing to fear. However, as irrational as you may think it for these fools to actually believe that eternal torment is possible, it is possible to suggest to such fools a rational methodology (the Wager) for addressing their uncertainty.

You seem to have little tolerance for those you consider to be fools. I am not sure that you can prove to them that you are not really the fool. Rather than calling people fools, maybe you should explain why they are foolish and do so with the sound information and reasoning that you claim they lack.

I'm not aware that anyone implied that someone who considers torment a POSSIBLE fate, is a fool. Maybe someone who considers it a certainty, despite zero evidence would be. When the same person says that the perpetrator of the torment is GOOD, then I certainly find myself thinking fool.

Perhaps the "fools" should have READ the mountains of evidence presented in this thread and many others, proving that bible god, at worse doesn't exist, and at best, is diabolically evil. Then, if they're capable of making a rational decision, based on the evidence, then they wouldn't be such a "fool."

-Ubercat

Ubercat · 02-20-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Your basic position is that people who read the Bible, the Koran, or other religious books are idiots. The only problem is that you can't explain why they are idiots and you are not.

Ahh, the classic INSULT defence. I can't win. I have no position, so I'll imply that everyone is being rude and nasty to me. How can I debate in such conditions?

A more timid xian poster would have used this on page 2. Not Rhutchin though. He made us waste our time for 70+ pages before we got to this point! He'll be leaving the thread soon, with his head held high as if he'd won. So long Rhutchin. See you in another thread.

-Ubercat

rhutchin · 02-20-2006, 07:33 AM

Quote:

JPD
Let's see...

There is no evidence that God exists or that God does not exist.
There is no evidence that, if God exists, eternal torment is the punishment for non-belief.
There is no evidence that there is, or isn't, an afterlife existence.
There is no evidence that any given belief or non-belief will result in any particular outcome, if any outcome at all.
There is no evidence that there is none, one, a couple, a few, many, an infinity of Gods.
There is no evidence that any of those other possible Gods has or has not the power to punish an individual for believing in another God.

rhutchin
Your basic position is that people who read the Bible, the Koran, or other religious books are idiots. The only problem is that you can't explain why they are idiots and you are not.

JPD
No that isn't my position I'm afraid. Don't be silly now. You jump from my position - that people who believe in the reality of eternal torment on the basis of nothing at all are fools - to everyone who reads any religious text (myself included) being fools. I would not say the latter since there is not just one kind of believer.

OK. Your position is that a person who reads the Bible (or other religious book) is not an idiot.

If a person is not an idiot, then that person can read the Bible (or other religious book) and understand that the Bible claims that there is an eternal torment. You may not accept that claim, but will you allow another person to accept that claim?

If a person can understand that the Bible claims that there is an eternal torment, then that person can conclude that eternal torment might actually exist. You don’t have to conclude this, but will you allow another person to do so?

If a person can view eternal torment as a possibility, then it seems that he can use the Wager (and any other methodology) to decide how to respond to the possible existence of eternal torment.

Do you have a problem with a person proceeding through the above steps and believing things that you do not?

Quote:

JPD
The wager pretends to know something that it cannot verify so the risk analysis is worthless. It says "Hey everyone, we're uncertain about certainty/uncertainty so you know, it's not a bad idea to believe something that has absolutely no guarantee whatsoever of enabling a positive afterlife outcome. That's great isn't it?"

Actually, isn’t it the person who cannot verify that there is no eternal torment (because you cannot prove to him that there is not) and because of this, the person uses the Wager to evaluate his position?

Can’t that person reasonably conclude, “In the face of uncertainty, it's not a bad idea to believe something that has appears to have no guarantee whatsoever of enabling a positive afterlife outcome.�? He could conclude "absolutely no guarantee" as you say only if you can show him that this position is true.

Quote:

JPD
And you can't see why Pascal's wager is as effective as a stick of celery for fending off a rampaging elephant?

The Wager merely deals with a person’s uncertainty (an uncertainty that even you do not seem able to remove). What is the rampaging elephant that a person would fend off – uncertainty??

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.