Wayne Delia

Equivocation. Pascal here is talking about "spirit" and "justice", not any kind of tangible rewards or costs, finite or infinite. That's why it doesn't apply.

The problem is, you don't even believe what Pascal has written here. Otherwise, you would spend the finite cost to rent a backhoe and start digging up your backyard in search of the possibility of finding a source of unlimited amounts of money. The "Rational" person, acting on "Self-Interest", would contact his John Deere equipment salesman right away and start digging, because the finite cost of renting the backhoe "is annihilated" by the source of unlimited amounts of money. That's according to your line of reasoning, of course, not with any actual rational, logical approach. You would probably not do that at all, because you doubt the validity of the outcome. Yet you cannot live with the fact that we reject belief in God and acceptance of Pascal's Wager for the exact same reason. You have a double standard that's OK for you to use (to reject the pursuit of a hypothetical unlimited amount of money) which you object to other people's use. That's hypocritical.

Wrong, as usual. You've really got to stop trying to paraphrase other people's arguments for them. You aren't smart enough to do it properly.

My argument is that the so-called "risk analysis" cannot be performed because the alleged "infinite gain" is not established. There are other potential "infinite gains" from believing in any number of non-Christian religions, none of which you even cared to investigate. An actual finite cost, such as the 10% tithing requirement, does not effectively reduce to nothing BECAUSE the "infinite gain" cannot be established to be true.

Pascal didn't argue the costs of pursuing God were counted as nothing. In the excerpt you provided above, Pascal was discussing "spirit" and "justice", not the tangible finite costs of pursuing God, such as "tithes" you mentioned. You misrepresented Pascal's argument with an equivocation.

I did, and that's become your worst nightmare. I've shown where you intentionally misrepresented Pascal's argument in a scenario where you wanted to pretend you were an expert on it.

Look. Here's what's happened. You tried to bluff your way through a huge mistake when you broke the Ninth Commandment, calling all atheists "thieves". You got nailed to the carpet because of it, and your feelings were hurt because the atheists pointed out you were wrong; because the atheists showed you don't even qualify as a Christian based on the list of Biblical criteria you posted; because the atheists have demolished every argument you've tried to put forward. What you're doing here is trying to imitate the criticisms that you've received and endured, but they just don't apply.

I have read the Bible. Five times, cover to cover, and many of the more popular sections hundreds of times. I know the Bible better than you do, and I've demonstrated that on many occasions. For you to suggest that I ought to do more research is only digging your own hole deeper.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Begs the question. What actual evidence has anyone produced to establish the validity of the claims in the Bible? If you honestly answered that question, you'd see the blatant double standard you're using.

WMD

rhutchin

So long as the evidence is not strong enough to create certainty, it does not matter how weak that evidence is. Weak (qualitative) evidence creates uncertainty and the weakness (quantitative) of the evidence is immaterial as the degree of uncertainty does not matter. All that matters is that outcomes be uncertain.

Rejection of God as the means to escape eternal torment is rational only where the evidence proves with certainty that this is not necessary. Rejection of God as the means to escape eternal torment is irrational (emotional) where the person cannot prove that there is no eternal torment.

rhutchin

OK. We do not have to worry about any gods other than those that threaten eternal torment (or some infinite outcome). Why worry about anything else? One does not have to show with certainty that God exists and threatens eternal torment to cause a person to seek God. One needs only show that one cannot prove the position that God does not exist. The lack of proof for the position that God does not exist plus the lack of proof for the position that God exists creates uncertainty and in the face of this uncertainty, the rational response is to seek to avoid eternal torment.

If the outcome could be guaranteed outside the god’s claim to guarantee that outcome, then there would be no real decision to make. The issue here though is whether the alternative (no eternal torment) is guaranteed. If you cannot guarantee that outcome (that a person does not have to worry about eternal torment), then the rational action is to seek to avoid eternal torment and irrational (emotion-based) not to seek to escape eternal torment.

But you are unable to explain why that is so???

Jack the Bodiless

Why do you continue to make such a clearly-refuted claim? Especially so soon after Mageth's post, in which he listed a whole host of possibilities?

I'm an atheist. When I die, I believe it's possible (though, regrettably, very unlikely) that I'll experience some sort of afterlife. That includes the possibility of Heaven, hanging around as a ghost, reincarnation, "waking up" from a Matrix-like delusion, or maybe Hell (this last is VERY unlikely, because I find the whole notion fundamentally absurd).

So, if I'm wrong about the lack of an afterlife, I expect "death will choose" a possibility that does NOT involve eternal torment. And I have no reason to believe that I can override "death's choice" anyhow. Therefore your argument crumbles.

Mageth

Jiminy Christmas, how many times are you going to repeat the same nonsense? Repetition does not an argument make. Your "uncertainty" spiel as an appeal to "rationality" holds no water at all. It's been totally, completely, destroyed.

Eternal torment is a superstition, and will remain so until proven otherwise. One need not prove that it is a superstition. Acting based on the fear of a superstition is not rational; it's emotionally motivated and irrational.

Again, by your argument, you should toss spilled salt over your shoulder, avoid walking under ladders, avoid breaking mirrors, avoid crossing the path of black cats, and never open an umbrella indoors.

Further, make sure you never step on a crack (you might break your mother's back). If you find a penny, pick it up and put it in your shoe.

Your friends might all look at you funny, but at least you'll have the comfort of knowing you're acting rationally

According to your argument, you would be acting rationally to do so. To not do so would be an "emotional" reaction.

Further, according to your argument, the rational course for you to take is to go ahead and send me the $10,000. You cannot prove that you will not suffer eternal torment if you don't, after all.

Get this, rhutchin: I consider "fear of eternal torment" to be in exactly the same class as fear of breaking mirrors. They're both superstitions, and nothing more. I would be acting irrationally if I feared seven years of bad luck for breaking a mirror. My guess is that you would agree. I would also be acting irrationally if I acted based on fear of eternal torment. It's a superstition just as seven-years-of-bad-luck-if-you-break-a-mirror is a superstition.

rhutchin

You say, “As long as it's nothing more than superstition (which is the case)…� Can you prove that with certainty (if you can, you would be the first to do so)?

So long as you cannot prove with certainty that it is superstition, you allow uncertainty. That I cannot prove the opposite position does not matter since that just means that I cannot remove the uncertainty you allow.

You have a firmly held belief that it is all superstition. Your problem is that you cannot prove your position.

If you could prove your belief (that eternal torment is a superstition), you would have an argument. However, you are correct in “believing� in something (that eternal torment is superstition) as opposed to believing in nothing.

Mageth

And you are apparently unable to comprehend what you read, because it's been explained why that is so over and over and over again, in several different ways.

Jack the Bodiless

...Incidentally, rhutchin, are you familiar with Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" series?

When Death is asked what happens to the dead, he says that they generally go to whatever fate they expect to go to. If this is so, a basically "good" but nervous, guilt-ridden Christian has an excellent chance of ending up in Hell, whereas an atheist like myself has NO chance of this.

And this is a VERY real possibility, if the afterlife is a sort of limbo in which "thoughts define reality". MY thoughts will never define this "reality" for me. I really don't believe in Hell.

rhutchin

Complete reluctance to respond to a threat basically means that the person lets someone else decide for him. In this case, death would decide and death’s decision is that the person not try to avoid eternal torment. There is nothing rational about letting something else decide for you especially when that would leave you with no chance of escaping eternal torment.

OK. If it is possible that vampires exist, then a person should take action to avoid being bitten. If he takes no action, then he incurs the risk of the consequences.

Same thing with God. If it is possible that God exists (i.e., you cannot prove that He does not exist) and threatens eternal torment, then lack of action on your part means that you incur a certain risk.

In each case, it seems that you should address that risk in some manner – perhaps by following Prophet Mageth who espouses that it is all superstition and you have nothing to fear from God.