Wayne Delia

That is true, and as such, is functionally equivalent to a Mafia protection racket. "Nice afterlife ya got there. Would be a shame if something (smack!) happened to it. Lucky for you we got your solution right here."

Not only adaptable, but used rather often by Muslims, for example. I've pointed out several times that rhutchin does not seem particularly concerned about that threat, going so far as to invent excuses to ignore it; if I remember correctly, his reason for ignoring Islam was that Moslems "didn't get as excited" about their religion as Christians did.

WMD

Dlx2

Eternal torment is not a logical conclusion based on the existence of God. It's a conclusion based only on the existence of a single brand of Christian God.

If you're Jewish and follow all the commandments and you believe in God but not Jesus, do you receive eternal torment? What if you follow all the commandments except for burning witches and killing homosexuals? What if you're a Christian and believe in Jesus, but you don't honor your father and mother? What if you believe that Jesus might have been God, but you're not certain? What if you believe with all your heart in Jesus and ask forgiveness for your sins, but your sins include murder and rape?

The probability of receiving eternal torment is dependent on the existence not of God, but of a specific version of God. God is also apparently merciful, so it's not clear whether or not he's going to roast you eternally for some little mistake, like believing that an obviously absurd book written millenia ago is possibly false. The number of factors which affect the possibility of eternal torment effectively produces a binomial distribution, which is a continuous function. The degree of effect of believing in God on your mortal life is also a continuous function. So, instead of simply maximizing the chance that you're going to go to heaven, you want to maximize your chance of going to heaven but also minimize the negative effect of belief on your mortal life. Finding the break-even point basically requires deciding the probability of God. If you believe God is a very likely existence, it is more important to maximize your chance of receiving divine favor. If you believe God is unlikely to exist, it becomes more important to minimize the negative effects of belief.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: If a powerful alien came to earth, claimed to be God, but not the God of the Bible, and demonstrated to your satisfaction that he had supernatural powers, would you accept him or reject him?

rhutchin

Of course, taking this position means that you let death decide for you. The decision that death makes is that you not believe anything. I don't think death takes your interests into account nor cares about them. The rational approach would be to make a decision yourself despite the complexities of the issue. Even drawing straws would be preferable to letting death decide for you.

JPD

Not necessarily - the mere act of drawing straws could be a gamble in itself. The odds are, once again, unknown. This wager will satisfy shallow people only.

rhutchin

If an alien does as you imagine, I think the rational action is to consider what he says. If he says that he can, and will, condemn you to eternal torment unless you meet certain requirements, then all the more reason to listen to him. Wouldn't even you, despite all the emotional baggage that you seem to carry about religion, sit up and take notice in such a situation??

The problem comes when your neighbor receives the visit (and it is real as you have stated) and tells you what the alien said. Do you take notice? I think you would and you would ask for verification.

JPD

So would YOU accept him or reject him?

rhutchin

Given the alternative -- Death making the decision for you -- any choice one makes (no matter how one arives at that choice) is preferable. Do you know of a rationale for letting Death decide your fate in this situation?

rhutchin

Sure. Wouldn't you??

JPD

One would be the inadequacy of the wager.