What do you think of this passage?

[Chad32]

I will admit, I'm not as repulsed but most gods as I am with the Abrahamic ones, but that's mostly because no one is on TV saying we need to kill the gays because of Zeus. It's more the followers than the god that I have the problem with, because the god does nothing. The followers, if extreme enough, will kill people because of a book.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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 Dodgy ...
do you think there is something wrong with my reasoning/line-of-thought??

Yes, very wrong. You reasoning is analogous to: 'Either hyperintelligent cannibalistic aliens from the plant Glorpnyx VII will eat my testicles or they won't. Therefore, the odds of my testicles being eaten are 50/50.'

It's this sort of pseudo-thinking that makes me want to dig up Blaise Pascal and beat him over the head with his own shinbone.

Boru

[KevinM1]

@truth_seeker, that's a completely illogical way to look at it.

I can make a claim: unicorns exist. Do you really think there's a 50-50 chance I'm right? And if not, why is that substantially different than your god claim?

[truth_seeker]

I will admit, I'm not as repulsed but most gods as I am with the Abrahamic ones, but that's mostly because no one is on TV saying we need to kill the gays because of Zeus. It's more the followers than the god that I have the problem with, because the god does nothing. The followers, if extreme enough, will kill people because of a book.

Yeah, totally got your point Chad.

But then again every form of constitution/law has its a$$holes. Example: If you interpret the constitution like the late SCOTUS Justice Scalia (but let's leave politics for another day )

[Cato]

If baseless assertions such as these are so convincing that you will believe in god without evidence, your cause is hopeless.

[truth_seeker]

@Kevin, @Boru

Yes, I know. You guys are saying exactly what's on my mind
But the thing is, there has been no corroborated documented historical **claim** from Mr. Unicorn or Mr. Alien, so the risk is practically zero for all practical purposes.

But this particular god who claims to be the creator of the universe has been pretty consistent in his warnings over long historical periods ... hence the risk is more practical and real, catch my drift?

[KevinM1]

@Kevin, @Boru

Yes, I know. You guys are saying exactly what's on my mind
But the thing is, there has been no corroborated documented historical **claim** from Mr. Unicorn or Mr. Alien, so the risk is practically zero for all practical purposes.

But this particular god who claims to be the creator of the universe has been pretty consistent in his threats through many claims over different historical periods ... hence the risk is more practical and real, catch my drift?

That's still utterly illogical.  That god's threats are static.  They've remained unchanged for thousands of years.  There's also nothing to verify that this god is actually behind those threats, or that, again, this god actually exists.

What does it matter that the same message has been repeated over and over?  Repetition doesn't lend reality to fiction.

Again: provide evidence.  If you have none for your god, that means you also have none for your hell.

[truth_seeker]

That's still utterly illogical.  That god's threats are static.  They've remained unchanged for thousands of years.  There's also nothing to verify that this god is actually behind those threats, or that, again, this god actually exists.

What does it matter that the same message has been repeated over and over?  Repetition doesn't lend reality to fiction.

Again: provide evidence.  If you have none for your god, that means you also have none for your hell.

I completely agree. It is illogical and there is no evidence. 100% agree

My entire discussion was only based on evaluating the high risk involved, that's all. As in **if** it turns out to be true, then I'm f*cked. And it would be a high risk gamble.

I guess I can clarify what I'm trying to say in this fashion:
the risk that Mr. Unicorn well own my a$$ in hell is pretty low (1%??) because I didn't find consistent corroborated claims from Mr. Unicorn telling me about it.
but the risk that this particular god has the capacity to deliver on these warnings seems a bit higher (20%? 50%?) due to the presence of many consistent corroborated claims

SO ... I'm not saying believing is right or wrong.

I'm only saying the risk is pretty steep

[IATIA]

Do you really think that scumbag in the babble-book is a god? Would you not expect more from a god?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But the thing is, there has been no corroborated documented historical **claim** from Mr. Unicorn or Mr. Alien, so the risk is practically zero for all practical purposes.

And there's a 'corroborated documented historical claim' from the God of Abraham?

Boru