rhutchin

It’s all risk analysis. However, if your powerful alien were to appear and do as you have described, he would effectively negate the Bible (which says that there is only one God). Decisions, decisions. Hope you make one that you can live with.

OK. Have it you way.

Everyone gets the same information – the Bible. If you want to get into heaven, then you can read the Bible and find out how to do that. If you do not, then you can ignore the Bible. If you need help, God says that you can ask Him and He will help you. No one needs any more than that.

Sauron

No. It does not. The wager is predicated upon the unproven assumption of a guaranteed outcome (i.e., belief in God and avoiding hell as a result). The wager deliberaly ignores the uncertainty in that scenario -- as well as several others.

The wager does not provide risk analysis, nor does it provide any way to deal with uncertainty; it merely ignores several areas of uncertainty by magically assuming them to be certainties -- all in the name of keeping the model simple as possible, so that it can be used as an evangelization tool.

But Pascal's Wager is not properly reasoned, nor does it accurately account for all the risk. Instead of repeating your claims the the contrary, why haven't you addressed the list of failures?

Sauron

Which brings me to the question you have avoided six times now: if someone is informed about the Islamic god and their view of hell and yet chooses to reject that, is that an "emotional decision" as well?

Or do you exercise a double standard and apply the terms "irrational" and "emotional" only when someone rejects Christianity and its view of hell?

Note: I also find it interesting that the last 3 times I have posed this question, your status has been shown to be "Active" and reading this thread. But then when I pose this question, you mysteriously log off. Are you trying to avoid giving an answer?

wyzaard

Again, what indicates that this is exclusive and pertinent information to the task at hand? You have not shown this as of yet.

Cart before horse.

Since everyone has made their positions quite clear and solid to you... I'm wondering where your problem understanding them lies... perhaps theism has deprived you of the cognitive apparatus necessary to process alternate schemas?

Mageth

Once again, it is not necessary that I be "certain" that a superstition is not true. Taking action based solely on what is nothing more than superstition is not rational.

The "Wager" means nothing to me because, as this thread has amply demonstrated, it's so severely flawed as to be totally useless. Not to mention the fact that, as I have explained, it's asking one to "wager" based on the possibility that a superstition is true. It's no different, and no more rational, than the warnings against walking under ladders and opening umbrellas indoors.

Once again, I put the Wager in the same class as the fear-based "Hell and Brimstone" sermons I heard when I was a kid. The Wager is nothing more than an emotional argument that attempts to use fear and "self-interest" to motivate one to "get saved" and become a Christian so you can escape the Hell the supposedly "loving" God set up for you. You're trying to pretty up a "Hell and Brimstone" sermon as a "rational" argument. It's anything but.

And once again, it's a fear (Hell) that Christianity invents to sell itself as the only "escape" for. It's a marketing ploy.

I routinely, rationally, and with no uncertainty, ignore superstitions. I'll walk under ladders, open umbrellas indoors, cross the paths of black cats, spill salt without tossing it over my shoulder, and break mirrors without panic. I'll wager that you do as well. However, following your "reasoning", you should heed every one of those superstitions, and then some.

I also don't bow towards Mecca five times a day. I'll wager that you don't as well. However, following your "reasoning", you should.

And I don't, won't, and further, can't, "choose to believe in God" so I can possibly avoid the possibility of "eternal suffering in an afterlife". I see no reason whatsoever to take some action based on what is nothing more than a superstition. To do so, once again, would not be rational. No more rational than not opening umbrellas indoors.

You've got it totally backwards. I'm not acting on emotion; that's the point. My argument is a rational argument, not an emotional argument, and my rejection of Pascal's Wager is a rational rejection, not an emotional rejection. For me to act based on the "Wager", to take some action based on a superstition, would be for me to let an "emotion" (fear) "rule over me". To not act based on superstition is the rational course, not the emotional course.

I have no need to do so. You're the one selling the superstition. It's your responsibility to convince me you are right, that there is any motivation at all to take the fear of eternal suffering in an afterlife seriously. (And that's just one hurdle you face). As of now, I have no motivation at all to take that superstitious belief seriously. And your attempt to make "Pascal's Wager" sound like a "rational" motivation for belief is not the least bit motivating or compelling to me. (And your repeating it ad infinitum is, of course, not compelling at all).

Hey, rhutchin, guess what? That's pretty much a "word-for-word" ending from one of those Hellfire-and-Brimstone sermons I heard when I was a kid. You can still hear them on occasion.

The Altar Call comes next. Perhaps with the song "Just As I Am" sung softly in the background....

Been there, done that, a thousand times. I recognize a Hellfire-and-Brimstone sermon when I hear one. And I've been hearing one from you.

Your words clearly and convincingly illustrate that, like those Hellfire Preachers, you are using fear, in the form of a threat, and guilt, by putting the blame on me, as your argument.

Again, your reiterations of "Pascal's Wager" are nothing more than a disguised "Hellfire-and-Brimstone" sermon, attempting to wrap the fear and guilt in a cloak of "rationality". Your words here just completed the removal of the cloak. Your Wager-based "argument" is nothing more than an attempt to scare us into "gettin' saved".

I am not acting on emotion, on fear and guilt. Instead, I am not acting on emotion, which is what you (through the Wager) are asking me to do.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Wayne Delia

Whatsamatta? Your standards apply to me, but they don't apply to you? That's blatantly hypocritical.

It's an argument to the consequences, a logical fallacy. It's too difficult to explain to you, because you don't understand logic.

Wrong. The vast majority of sacred and secular scholars have a near-unanimous consensus that the authors of the Gospels are anonymous and are not written by the apostles to whom they are attributed. To speculate otherwise without evidence would be ridiculous.

You are ignoring the most powerful refutation of this theory: the existence of a god is not dependent on whether humans have ever written about the god.

That's no problem. The only problem is that you've defined "Must be written about by humans" as a necessary requirement of any proposed god. That's just stupid.

Is that because no human has ever written anything at all about any other god? Do you realize how very wrong you are? We could also be left with the accounts of Allah. You need to ignore those accounts, but the Qu'ran can't be ignored using the same criteria you're using to ignore the hypothetical powerful alien, so you invent another criteria that would dismiss the Qu'ran (but, with your Laurel and Hardy timing, would put the hypothetical powerful alien back on the table).

It works fine for idiots, gullible people, and people who already believe the unestablished premise of Roman Catholic Christianity. In fact, Josh McDowell made a lot of money selling crap like that to people who wanted someone or something to reinforce what they already believe.

What would be the matter with that, even if it was true? You're explicitly making an emotional decision by accepting Pascal's Wager on self-interest, and that emotion is greed. Your decision is not only emotion-based, it's based on an emotion identified as one of the Seven Deadly Sins by the same church Pascal was affiliated with.

You haven't demonstrated any such risk actually exists. That's a reason why your "risk analysis" is bullshit.

It's not immaterial to me. If there's an idea which you think is good, that's reason enough for me to reject it as bad.

That, I think, is the problem in its entirety: we have already made a decision, and that decision doesn't line up at all with what you believe. In fact, we seem to casually dismiss that which you are terrified of, which leaves us looking a lot more braver (and, of course, less greedy) than you look.

And YOU are having a hard time living with that.

WMD

Wayne Delia

That's a bad issue to consider. There are literally more than a billion Christians who cannot be certain that their God exists, and that their position is correct. That's why "faith" is a religious requirement. If the issue is whether a person can prove his position is 100% certain, then religion is pretty much flushed down the dumper. But if the standards shift to whether a person is 100% confident that his conclusion is correct, then there are plenty of religious people who would qualify - but then, I'd also qualify about my lack of belief in gods of any kind, and my observation that God either doesn't exist, or is functionally equivalent to not existing.

Pascal's Wager doesn't "mean nothing" to me; it is useful as an example of very bad logic, particularly the logical fallacy of false dilemma ("It's either this, or it's that," ignoring many other equally-plausible alternatives).

Bullshit. All the Wager does is propose a single, alternate position of even less certainty. It ignores all the other religions, gods, and non-Christian hells, just as you have.

Just as you have allowed the emotion of "greed" to rule over you, since you accept the greed-based self-interest of Pascal's Wager? I'm not nearly as necessarily greedy or stupid to accept it.

Perhaps he has convinced himself he's right. Perhaps the "trying" wasn't as hard as you think it was. Are you convinced that you're right? Has anyone else in this thread agreed with you on any point of significance? (Of course, you'll be asked to post a reference, instead of making shit up as you usually do.) If nobody has agreed with you, what do you suppose the problem with your communication is?

There it is, right on time: the Josh McDowell Christian "Fuck You" Equivalent: "Worship my invisible sky-daddy, or He'll kick your ass!"

WMD

Wayne Delia

One which would punish the rapist, for starters. A punishment which fit the severity crime, which would also serve as a deterrent against other people who are considering committing the crime. A punishment which would take into account the needs of the victim, not requiring that she spend the rest of her life with her attacker. Those would be acceptable in society.

I have answered your question. Will you now answer mine? Would a rule providing no punishment for a rapist, and including a provision by which he would be able to marry his victim upon a token payment to the victim's father for "damaged property" be, in your own words, "good for society?"

A simple "yes" or "no" will do.

I bet you can't answer that question, because you'll either look like a psychopathic monster, or else you'll have to admit you're wrong about the Bible providing laws that are "good for society," especially since it was pointed out by an atheist.

It doesn't. There's nothing in the Bible which refers to atheists as thieves. You called me a thief, when you called all atheists thieves. There's a Bible story you're referencing in which Jesus called false religious teachers who came before Him "thieves". I certainly am not a religious teacher, nor did I come before Jesus, so it doesn't apply to me, or any contemporary atheist for that matter. You're left without a defense. You have slandered me, without cause, thus breaking the Ninth Commandment, and you brazenly pretend you didn't, because your pride is too much to overcome.

That doesn't surprise me, because you seem like the type that is easily amazed. On the same basis, you should also be amazed that there are laws on the books prohibiting slander and libel. Why should people who are slandered and libelled even care? The reasons are obvious, but since they are not obvious to you, I'll mention a few. False claims against people often cause damage - tangible, in monetary expenses or lost income, or intangible damage, such as a decrease in reputation or trustworthiness. That's why people should even care. Such damage is recoverable by criminal or civil prosecution.

Again, on the same basis, you should be amazed that the Bible contains the Ninth Commandment. Why should people who are the victims of someone else "bearing false witness" even care? Why was one of the Ten Commandments completely wasted on a topic you seem to think is so trivial that it doesn't even merit a punishment when you do it, and that victims of the "bearing false witness" shouldn't even care? Seems like a huge waste of influential legislation, which could easily have been replaced by something as simple and as straightforward as "Thou shalt boil thy water," which could have saved millions - perhaps billions - of lives throughout history.

The bottom line is that you trivialize the offense to the point of wondering whether people should even care about it, where the God you used to follow as a Christian cared so much about it He dedicated one of the Ten Commandments to prohibiting it. But, of course, you know so much better about that sort of thing than God would, don't you?

That's a huge mistake. It's equivalent to excusing any slander or libel on the basis that if a victim objects to being slandered or libeled, the victim is tacitly affirming the false charges against him. How well do you think that principle would be accepted in normal society? (You may want to read up on how people in normal society actually behave.)

WMD

Wayne Delia

We have. The problem is that YOU can't live with the fact that people make rational decisions which differ from what you believe.

Give up so easily? What point is it that you think you have failed to communicate?

But there are many different translations of the Bible, some which are faithful to the earliest surviving manuscript copies, and some others (i.e. "The Way," "The Living Bible") which are liberally euphemized into a significantly different meanings of descriptions of fundamental things such as God's character. As an illustration, the KJV has in Jeremiah 20:7, "O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me." A version called "The Message" renders the same verse "You pushed me into this, GOD, and I let you do it. You were too much for me. And now I'm a public joke. They all poke fun at me." (Note: I am not making this up. It's available on www.biblegateway.com.)

The first reference makes God out to be a liar; the second one euphemizes "deceived" into something which does not make God seem to be so dishonest, but more of a practical joker for no reason.

So, no, everybody does not have the same information, since there are so many wildly different versions of the Bible.

You did the same thing, and came up with four criteria - two of which disqualified you from Christianity. (To be fair, a third criteria disqualified everyone who is currently alive.)

You claimed to have done the same thing with all the holy books of all the other non-Christian religions. So what's the big deal?

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt, sold it at a yard sale. You're either lying, or mistaken.

Well, we could use someone who is a little more honest or more accurate than you've been.

WMD

Wayne Delia

As I have pointed out, it could be useful as a very good example of very bad logic.

WMD