rhutchin

Actually, from the information that I have, it appears to me that rejecting the Biblical god is the riskiest position. There just does not seem to be much risk involved in not appeasing many of the alleged gods. Maybe, they just haven’t had the time to make themselves known and build up a good resume.

Well, the information I have about the Biblical god (the Bible) is pretty comprehensive. The information on the other gods is pretty lean by comparison. My inclination is to go with the quantity of the information as the quality of the information in the Bible seems equal or superior to that information on the other gods. Inclination just means that I concluded that the Bible is probably the truth even though I cannot prove that conclusion with certainty.

I can’t. I also can’t prove that appeasing multiple gods offers any real benefit. If one wanted multiple gods, one could conjure up a tree god, a rock god, a rain god, and a host of other gods. However, without a track record to evaluate these gods, why should anyone think that appeasing these gods is better than appeasing any one god?

Absolutely. In this game we have no proof of anything except that we will all die one day.

No, the logical thing is to believe the real god and reject the false gods. What advantage is there to believing a hundred false gods?

OK. The quantity of information available for the Biblical god suggests to me that the Biblical god is the real God. Why isn’t this good reasoning?

OK, but we don’t have absolute evidence.

But, what if they are the biggest, toughest gods and the others are whimpy little wusses? Isn’t one big tough god better than several whimpy gods, especially if the whimpy gods are fakes?

Sounds good but we don’t have absolute certainty for anything. All we know is that some of the gods may be fake and only one god may actually be real. A person would be foolish to try to appease many gods without considering whether they are worth appeasing. There is not much information available on the Mageth god, and that suggests that he is a fake. As far as I can tell, the Mageth god has never done anything to prove that people should take him seriously.

Sauron

Yes. Would you consider the loss of your life -- or the lives of those you value -- to be a great loss? If so, then why haven't you prepared for vampires?

Would you consider being mauled by an invisible tiger to be a great loss? If so, then why aren't you prepared for invisible tigers?

Would you consider being abducted by aliens, tortured, and forced to live out your life in Galaxy 9 for the entertainment of the Qax Imperium to be a great loss? If so, then why haven't you taken steps to prevent your own abduction (or that of your family) by aliens?

The problem, however, is that there is no proof that anyone is in danger of such great loss. Simply saying that something might exist is not sufficient. If you argue that it *is* sufficient, then you need to explain why you dont' take steps to avoid vampires, invisible tigers and alien abduction.

And the same problem cripples your argument here. Simply saying that something might exist is not sufficient.

It is not relevant, because the criterion you offered was great loss. That leaves it up to anyone to define that. I would also point out that the only great loss we actually have evidence for existing, is our own death or the deaths of our loved ones.

An irrelevant question - Asking me what I think is merely a dodge. My question to you (above) remains unanswered. So I guess I'll ask it again - start the countdown clock:

This means that someone can come to the conclusion that there is no god at all, and still be considered a rational person.

Right?

Sauron

I did not get in late. Your excuse is not working.

However, you had not said anything over and over, as it relates to my question. I was the first and the only person asking about Islamic hell.

<edited> - typical christian.

Sauron

The vampire is not a god. There is no issue of trying to decide who to worship.

The vampire bite is one of those "great losses" that you advocate people should be trying to avoid.

So why aren't you following your own advice?

Sauron

What information would that be? Get specific.

Based upon what evidence? Yes, I'm serious.

Or maybe you're simply deliberately unaware of them. You speak of resumes: which resumes for which gods have you examined? None, I'd guess.

Also, you're being a hypocrite again. You advocate that as a result of (alleged) uncertainty, people should go ahead and believe in your god. People who rejected your god for total lack of evidence were being "risky".

Yet just above here, you felt perfectly free to reject other gods because (according to you) there wasn't much evidence. Isn't your own behavior "risky" as well?

Checkmate.

Edited to add: and once again, he logs off right as he comes to my questions.

Dlx2

Join the club. Once he realized that infinity can be applied to a great deal of losses, not just the afterlife, he stopped addressing my argument that there are infinite losses incurred by worshipping God, and thus the wager crumbles.

JamesBannon

Post #1328 if you care to go back and read your own words. I immediately picked it up as a flat denial of the wager since the non-elect cannot choose to come to God and therefore are quite incapable of acting on the wager. This kind of defeats the purpose of the wager does it not? I, and others, have raised this point before about your Calvinist doctrinal stance and your defence of the wager but have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

I'm not going to get into a debate about defining agnostic atheism as it would derail the thread. Besides, it's easy enough to work out what my position is from the words themselves.

I choose to stand up for what I believe in spite of cost to myself; this is called integrity. I would have thought that a religionist such as yourself would have viewed this as a virtue, but there you go. Perhaps integrity is only a virtue when someone agrees with your stance on religion?

rhutchin

The Wager is a straightforward mathematical solution to a problem. That people cannot choose to come to God does not deny the Wager any more than my ineptitude in Calculus denies differentials. The interesting part about the Wager is that it is not difficult to understand yet people spend a lot of time arguing about it. It seems that people understand the Wager but do not like the ramifications of the Wager. I think the Wager does exactly that which Pascal might have thought it would. It reveals that people make emotional decisions when it comes to their attitude toward God. If people were rational, everyone would seek to avoid eternal torment and everyone would seek God. They don't. Use yourself as an example. All the Calvinist Doctrine does is basically state that which can be easily observed. The nonelect have no interest in God. I admire your integrity. I also know that you could not be otherwise than that which you are.

JamesBannon

rhutchin,

Oh I agree that the wager isn't difficult to understand but that doesn't deny the fact the fact that it's nonsense. Also, far from not liking the ramifications of the wager, we choose to positively reject them because they have no basis in reality or because we choose not to submit to the arbitary whims of a tyrant. Either way the wager is defeated. Also, in spite of your protestations, your own doctrinal stance destroys the wager because acting on it, even if we wish to, by your own admission is impossible.

Please spare me the Calvinist preaching. Calvin was a mysongenist, an anti-semite and a mysanthrope just like his bastard offspring John Knox and his predecessor Martin Luther. If that's the kind of "hero" you base your life on then you have my sympathy.

rhutchin

Obviously, for the Biblical God, it is that information contained in the Bible. For Allah, it is the Qu’ran. For the Mormon god, the Book of Mormon. Then there are organizations that research various religions and their beliefs (e.g., Christian Research Institute). With the internet, a lot of this research is available online.

Basically because I have not found anything to suggest otherwise. My guess is that (if you have investigated this) many religions are relatively benign. From what I can tell, very few gods actually threaten people with eternal torment. If you have found anything different, that would be interesting to know.

I am open to receiving new information. It is obvious that some gods have not made themselves widely known and their is not much evidence for them.

The evidence for the Biblical god is found in the Bible. It is evidence regardless of those who want to claim that it is not.

My rejection of other gods is based on the amount of evidence available compared to the evidence available for the Biblical god. Why do you consider it hypocritical to compare two gods and reject one of them based on a comparison of the information available for each? Do you think everyone is a hypocrite just because they compare two things and accept one while rejecting the other?