Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

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.

wiploc
I agree. And since the alien is much more plausible than Jehovah, I think you, Rhutchin, should be worshiping the alien right now. At least that's what the Wager would have you do.

If the alien is more plausible than Jehovah, then this alien should have, at least, the documentary support that Jehovah has (i.e., historical accounts of his interactions with people).

Given that we have the Biblcial god, the Koranic god, the Mormon god, etc. and now this alien, we need to look at all the background info and try to decide who is the real God.

Do you have the background on the alien? I don't and nobody I know ever talks about him.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPD

Indeed so although it could be interesting it wouldn't be particularly useful. Personal testimony might be an accurate reflection of events but the part that chance plays could be significant. That we don't know doesn't invalidate it but it doesn't validate it either. It can't really be used.

Given this situation, I say it would be prudent to do a risk analysis.

rhutchin · 01-20-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

rhutchin
Any specifics on a test that you think would work? How do you create a test for an accident without destoying the "accidental" or unforseen aspect of the test?

JPD
Maybe it has already been tested - although the degree to which each was an accident could be unknown. But if you looked at human death stats for different snake species and examined the religious affiliation (or not) of the deceased do you think that any pattern would emerge? I would hazard a guess that it wouldn't but if such figures could be pulled together perhaps we could see.

i don't think religious affiliation is a good indicator. It would seem to be limited to people who are actively engaged in proclaiming the gospel as Paul was. It would be interesting to hear of the experiences of missionaries and the like who may have been involved with, directly or indirectly, in situations involving snakes or people trying to poison them.

Wayne Delia · 01-20-2006, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. If the god of the Bible allows a powerful alien to usurp his authority (contrary to that which he claims in the Bible), then you go with the alien.

That's a very dangerous position to take, especially if you were (or thought yourself to be) a Christian. Substitute "Satan" for "alien", and you've got a very commonly-used basis for Christian condemnation, rather than "if the God of the Bible allows Satan to usurp His authority, you go with Satan." If it was actually "contrary to that which He claimed in the Bible," then Satan would be completely impotent, and unable to be used as the basis for the Christian concept of sin. You really don't have a very good grasp on what's actually in the Bible, though.

Quote:

Of course,until a person is confronted with Skeptic's powerful alien, he would rationally decide to listen to the Biblical god.

Bwaaak! Polly wanna cracker! Bwaaak!

WMD

JPD · 01-20-2006, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Given this situation, I say it would be prudent to do a risk analysis.

But risk analyses when applied to this kind of thing don't have a great deal of data to work on so the results are going to be limited in their application. What is being dealt with, after all, is how what we are currently doing, saying and thinking is somehow supposed to affect another existence that comes after. The evidence that supports the existence of an afterlife existence is poor. The Bible, and every other religious text, trip on their own words at least once and cannot be relied upon 100%. A dimmmed view of something that could well be nothing and a poorly constructed wager are insuficient grounds for making an informed decision.

JPD · 01-20-2006, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

i don't think religious affiliation is a good indicator. It would seem to be limited to people who are actively engaged in proclaiming the gospel as Paul was. It would be interesting to hear of the experiences of missionaries and the like who may have been involved with, directly or indirectly, in situations involving snakes or people trying to poison them.

Don't limit the argument to particular groups. By doing that you will observe data pertaining to those groups only - in doing so you will limit the application of any trends you uncover.

Indeed, this is the strategy of a dishonest person. They select a particular group, find a pattern and then claim that only that group exhibits that pattern (because they haven't examined any other groups that they suspect could well contain the same pattern).

HRG · 01-20-2006, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Granting all that, is it in your self-interest to seek to avoid eternal torment?

Yes - in the sense that it is in my self-interest to avoid fire-spitting dragons, or disruptor-wielding Klingons.

Regards, HRG.

Sauron · 01-20-2006, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

One of the best ways to examine arguments such as those of rhutchin, is to see if the proponent is willing to apply them to other religions.

For example, rhutchins has told us that nonbelief in God must be an emotional response (since it is not a rational response in the face of uncertainty). So let's assume that someone were to be presented with a description of the Islamic view of hell. They examine the claim, and reject it. Would rhutchins say their rejection was irrational and emotion-based?

[snip]
Is he willing to state that position?

I see rhutchins is busy responding - and avoiding.

If someon is presented with the Islamic view of hell, evaluates it, and rejects it -- is that rejection "irrational" and "emotion-based"?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Sauron · 01-20-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak. If the god of the Bible

For whom you have provided no proof of existing.

The alien, however, clearly would exist since he is standing in front of you.

Quote:

Of course,until a person is confronted with Skeptic's powerful alien, he would rationally decide to listen to the Biblical god.

Why?

Until the alien arrives/is found, there is the same amount of evidence for:

a. existence of powerful alien

as there is for

b. existence of Biblical god

Given that fact, logically you cannot differentiate and must treat both as equals. Whether that means listening to both, or ignoring both.

Sauron · 01-20-2006, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The locals seemed to think it was poisonous.

No. The author(s) of Acts reported that the locals thought it was poisonous.

There is a universe of difference between (a) your statement above and (b) what the available evidence from the text can actually support.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.