Atheists and Agnostics risk infinite loss for no gain

[max-greece]

I don't think the OP can look any worse than he (?) already does.

Can't help it - I am convinced he is a woman.

[Jackalope]

but maybe a reply will happen if it keeps coming up?

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

If you want to use Pascal's wager, you have to apply it evenly to all possibilities. Would it not be safer with respect to Islam to believe in Islam?

Then you realize that Pascal's wager is utterly useless. It is no more likely to lead you to any real conclusion whatsoever.

For atheists and agnostics, the multiple "believe or damned" do not change the risk of infinite loss.

For the believer all that is needed is to find the only true one. That is easy.

[Mister Agenda]

For atheists and agnostics, the multiple "believe or damned" do not change the risk of infinite loss.

That's right, we recognize that it's an argument ad baculum (believe or else) that has no bearing on what is actually true.

For the believer all that is needed is to find the only true one. That is easy.

Well, it's fairly easy to whittle down the candidates. The one that is supposed to have created the earth in six days, stopped the sun, and flooded the earth up to the mountain tops never existed because all the available evidence says those things never happened. The God with the least cognitive dissonance is the God of deism, and no one claims to know if that one does anything with you after you die.

[TheBeardedDude]

A) Atheism is on this as a baseline for the absence of the positions

B) It would be the same for an atheist to find that which is most likely to be true

C) Pascal's Wager not only makes no claim about truth, it necessarily is incapable of leading anyone towards it in any sense. (if any one of the faith-based positions is true, and someone starts from the null hypothesis, then they have no better than a random chance of landing on the right one)

If you want to use Pascal's wager, you have to apply it evenly to all possibilities. Would it not be safer with respect to Islam to believe in Islam?

Then you realize that Pascal's wager is utterly useless. It is no more likely to lead you to any real conclusion whatsoever.

For atheists and agnostics, the multiple "believe or damned" do not change the risk of infinite loss.

For the believer all that is needed is to find the only true one. That is easy.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

For atheists and agnostics, the multiple "believe or damned" do not change the risk of infinite loss.

That's right, we recognize that it's an argument ad baculum (believe or else) that has no bearing on what is actually true.

For the believer all that is needed is to find the only true one. That is easy.

Well, it's fairly easy to whittle down the candidates. The one that is supposed to have created the earth in six days, stopped the sun, and flooded the earth up to the mountain tops never existed because all the available evidence says those things never happened. The God with the least cognitive dissonance is the God of deism, and no one claims to know if that one does anything with you after you die.

But if the odds against abiogenesis are so great that it is absolutely ludicrous to hold to the no God assumption, the God Almighty must have done it.

What would be impossible for the Almighty God?

Maybe you would never be able to discern what God did.

[TheBeardedDude]

That's right, we recognize that it's an argument ad baculum (believe or else) that has no bearing on what is actually true.


Well, it's fairly easy to whittle down the candidates. The one that is supposed to have created the earth in six days, stopped the sun, and flooded the earth up to the mountain tops never existed because all the available evidence says those things never happened. The God with the least cognitive dissonance is the God of deism, and no one claims to know if that one does anything with you after you die.

But if the odds against abiogenesis are so great that it is absolutely ludicrous to hold to the no God assumption, the God Almighty must have done it.

What would be impossible for the Almighty God?

Maybe you would never be able to discern what God did.

non sequitur.

If you disprove science, it does not logically follow that religion has the right answer. Religion would still have to pony up the evidence to assert that.

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

But if the odds against abiogenesis are so great that it is absolutely ludicrous to hold to the no God assumption, the God Almighty must have done it.

What would be impossible for the Almighty God?

Maybe you would never be able to discern what God did.

non sequitur.

If you disprove science, it does not logically follow that religion has the right answer. Religion would still have to pony up the evidence to assert that.

I am disproving atheistic origin science.

[Bad Wolf]

I am disproving atheistic origin science.

You are doing an incredibly poor job of it. In fact, you are affirming our atheism much in the same way that reading the bible does.
Besides this 'atheistic origin science' is a term you created yourself. You have already been corrected on it but i guess you just ignored it like the majority of the posts on here. There is no atheistic origin science. There is just science. Science that looks into how everything got here. The religious explanation for how everything got here cannot be considered science at all. No scientific method involved at all. Therefore it is pointless to call it atheistic science when there is no other type of science to differentiate from.

[TheBeardedDude]

non sequitur.

If you disprove science, it does not logically follow that religion has the right answer. Religion would still have to pony up the evidence to assert that.

I am disproving atheistic origin science.

Where did you do that?