(March 14, 2016 at 8:09 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: The point that I'm talking about is a slightly different angle ...
my point is the **cost** of the risk ...

Well, the "**cost** of the risk" of "Independence Day" type aliens is quite high as well. Doesn't make them plausible. For risk assessment to work, you have to have demonstrable evidence that a risk does indeed exist. Otherwise it's just wild speculation.

The "risk" associated with not believing in any work of fiction in roughly equivalent to the "risk" associated with not believing in any other work of fiction. Zero, because there's no evidence for any risk.

There is as much evidence for the existence of Harry Potter, Darth Vader or Frodo Baggins as there is for Odin, Athena or Yahweh.

(March 14, 2016 at 9:39 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote:

(March 14, 2016 at 9:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The thing with Pascal's Wager is that if you die and find yourself face-to-face with Odin he may be really pissed that you didn't die with your sword in your hand.

Then what are you going to do?

There's absolutely no excuse for that.

Everyone should die with a sword or axe in their hand, in honour of the ALLFather.

WTF?!? No love for my war hammer?!?

(March 15, 2016 at 12:14 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote: Well, the "**cost** of the risk" of "Independence Day" type aliens is quite high as well. Doesn't make them plausible. For risk assessment to work, you have to have demonstrable evidence that a risk does indeed exist. Otherwise it's just wild speculation.

Mmm that wasn't the point

We don't have any documented claim from Independence Day Aliens that they will punish the shit out of us if we don't follow a certain ethical code.

You are confusing plausibility with pragmatic risk aversion

let's assume the **possibility** of eternal punishment is 10%
((note that, if we had a true evidence at our hands -- which we don't -- then the above percentage becomes 100%))

the cost of this eternal punishment is extremely high -- infinite, due to the claim of eternity

therefore, from a pragmatic risk aversion perspective, even though I might not "enjoy" this belief .. the pragmatically sound decision is to play safe

Let me know when you start complying with every other religion - inclusing those that are mutually exclusive - in order to avoid going to their hell.

That argument is not sound, it presupposes not only the existence of deity, but also that you know, or even could know, how to avoid (its/their) hell.

Let me guess, it has to be your God that's the right one, amirite? Without that presupposition, the argument fails, and is therefore invalid. QED

(March 14, 2016 at 5:41 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Hey guys

I'm interested in knowing your opinion/thoughts on the following passage from the Quran:

Quote:And when God is mentioned, the hearts of those who believe not in the Hereafter shrink with aversion, but when those other than Him are mentioned, behold! they are glad

Say, "O God, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the witnessed and the unseen, You alone will judge between your creation concerning that over which they used to differ."

And if those who did wrong had all that is in the earth, and therewith as much again, they verily will seek to ransom themselves therewith on the Day of Resurrection from the awful doom; and there will appear unto them, from their Lord, that wherewith they never reckoned.
And there will appear to them the evils they had earned, and there they will be enveloped by what they used to ridicule.

And when adversity touches man, he calls upon Us; then when We bestow on him a favor from Us, he says, "I have triumphed only because of my own knowledge."
Nay, but it is only a test. But man does not believe.

your thoughts? feelings?
I guess I'm interested in hearing more thoughts about this 'coz am flip-flopping these days between theism and atheism

What percentage of alcohol are in the rivers of wine? anything less than 11.5 and I'm not interested.

(March 14, 2016 at 6:18 pm)truth_seeker Wrote: Thanks you guys

But here's the thing ... when I think about it, there is a 50-50 chance of this happening, which sounds like a huge risk to me ...
do you think there is something wrong with my reasoning/line-of-thought??

That's like saying there's a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery , either you win or you don't.

Almost everyone keeps repeating exactly what I'm trying to say, but not seeing the next step that I'm trying to conclude

Let me itemize this, perhaps I can explain things better:

1. Lets assume x1, x2, x3 ... xN to represent a total of N possible deities
2. Lets assume that the x's have no evidence for or against their existence
3. Lets assign to each x a cost function f(x) that evaluates the cost/risk of ignoring that particular x

all am saying is, its pragmatic to pick something that minimizes the cost function f(x), in order to hedge the risk. that's all! 

Truth seeker:

You are making several mistakes:

1) You seem to be assuming a finite number of possible gods

2) You're assuming that pretending to believe in a god is going to fool a god

3) You're missing the fact that for every set of criteria for heaven/hell, there's another set of possible criteria which are exactly reversed. So you literally cannot win. And since you have no idea how much work is involved in either scenario, for an infinite number of these opposed criteria sets, it's impossible to generate any kind of pragmatic plan this way.

A god who isn't a dick will be happy with you treating people and animals right.

A god that is a dick can't be trusted to stick to his criteria and isn't worthy of respect.

That's my pragmatic formula