Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
I don't understand your argument and I am not sure that you understand the Wager. The Wager merely leads a person to the conclusion that he should believe in God. (I do not see you arguing this point.)

MRM
Well - in fact the only reason why I am not arguing this point at the moment is that I don't want you to confuse with too many arguments on the same time so I pick just an easy one.

If you are not arguing that particular point, then you have taken the Wager off the table and are merely arguing about those conditions that exist after one has applied the Wager and determiend to believe in God.

Quote:

rhutchin
The Wager does not say anything about which (or how many) gods one should believe. Can you explain how you determined that the Wager should apply to a decision about which god to believe?

MRM
Well I don't know if I can explain it more simple than I have allready done - but I will try - step by step.

Step one - you have to study all ancient myths

2) You find 100 gods that threats you with hell if you don't appease them

3) 50 of them demand that you don't worship other gods too.

So now you don't know which is the right one, therefore you have to maximize your chances only based on maths [myths?].

4) If you pick one of those gods that allow you to worship others too, then you can increase your chances by worshipping all gods that allows you to worship others too - It's just like a lottery where you buy 50 out of 100 tickets. The chance that the bought the right ticket is now 50/50. Simple, isn't it ?

5) If you pick on of the other gods ( like your christian one ) than you are not allowed to worship other gods, or to say it with the lottery, now you have only one ticket out of hundert - so your chances are worse ( 1 % or 1 out of hundert ) that you have the winning ticket.

Of course this simple model don't take into account the professor god ( that don't want you to worship any gods, including himself )

And it don't take into account that a god may punish you for pretended believe but won't punish you for disbelieve

And it don't take into account that you may waste lot of time, money and worries for nothing ...

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.

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne Delia

Probably the same way you "know" that I was "pretending to be a Christian." Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

You are the one who has described how you pretended to be a Christian for a while until one day you got tired of pretending and went on your way.

JamesBannon · 02-04-2006, 09:18 AM

rhutchin,
According to you we ought to try and escape eternal torment. My question is why? Why should we respond to threat by a tyrant? This is something I've asked before but you haven't answered.

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by knotted paragon

Pascal was high, a tard, or just ignorant of the facts. The bible doesn't threaten mankind with eternal torment. From the original Greek, Sheol and Gehenna are not eternal. Check out the facts here from Diogenes the Cynic. You need to get busy choosing another religion there rhutchin. Probably your best bet is to say hello to Allah and his prophet -- yours just ain't makin' it...

I'll go with the Bible on this.

Matthew 25
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:...
46 “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�?

In his zeal to explain away eternal torment, Diogenes seems to have concluded that it was best for him to ignore this passage.

MRM · 02-04-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ...

rhutchin · 02-04-2006, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

rhutchin,
According to you we ought to try and escape eternal torment. My question is why? Why should we respond to threat by a tyrant? This is something I've asked before but you haven't answered.

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.

Ubercat · 02-04-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I'll go with the Bible on this.

Matthew 25
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:...
46 “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.�?

In his zeal to explain away eternal torment, Diogenes seems to have concluded that it was best for him to ignore this passage.

Will the self righteous, arrogant, liars and hypocrites be among those on the left? Just curious.

-Ubercat

MRM · 02-04-2006, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Why do you think worshipping a god would let you escape ? Maybe not worshipping the wrong one would be a saver methode ?

JamesBannon · 02-04-2006, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Ubercat · 02-04-2006, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If your claim is that there is no evidence of God (despite the Bible) and you are certain of this position, then the Wager would not apply to you. Your only concern would be that you are incorrect in your evaluation of the information that is available and have made a bad decision. If you are certain that you have not made a bad decision and have a rational basis for that conclusion, then you are to be congratulated since you have done that which no other person has been able to do.

I must have missed a post somewhere. When was the bible demonstrated to be evidence of anything? Other than the gullibility of people who should know better, and the myths of one tiny tribe in the bronze age, who borrowed much of it from other tribes.

-Ubercat

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

02-04-2006, 09:18 AM	#1203
JamesBannon Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Paisley, Scotland Posts: 5,819	rhutchin, According to you we ought to try and escape eternal torment. My question is why? Why should we respond to threat by a tyrant? This is something I've asked before but you haven't answered.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.