What do you think of this passage?

[Ravenshire]

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.

[Ravenshire]

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?!?

[truth_seeker]

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

[Jackalope]

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

[robvalue]

It's disgusting, fear-inducing nonsense from a fictional storybook.

Whether or not there is "a god" is a completely different question than whether that God just happens to be described by a story book. There are an infinite number of possible gods, so the probability it is actually any particular one, without any actual evidence, is zero. And each one may have an infinite number of arbitrary criteria by which it will reward or punish us. You can't please all of them. And the idea that they would want you to is ludicrous. A god acting like a spoiled toddler is just plain stupid.

I did a video about this recently for a friend, parts of which may help you:

http://youtu.be/4W0mJ7svsKk

[Expired]

Hey guys

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

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.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

[truth_seeker]

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! 

[drfuzzy]

---

Maybe this way of looking at it will help truth_seeker:

As an atheist, according to many (most?) religions, I'm due for some kind of eternal torture or another after I die.  So why aren't I sweating it?  Because there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that punishment actually exists.

Now, one religion out of the million or so on this planet may have actually gotten it right.  I may be utterly fucked (and not in the good way) after I die.  But, I'm not going to live my life in fear of that.  Why?  Because any deity that would eternally punish someone for unbelief - not harming or killing someone else, just merely not believing that this deity actually exists - doesn't deserve my worship or praise anyway.  Fuck it in the eyeball with a rusty spoon if that is the case (which I'm utterly confident it's not).

Believing out of fear is how religions are designed.  Truly, the only differences between a religion and a cult are scope and inertia.  Don't fall into the trap if you can help it.

---

---

I think we are confusing the logical vs the pragmatic ...
My argument is purely pragmatic.

---

KevinM1

---

As an atheist, according to many (most?) religions, I'm due for some kind of eternal torture or another after I die.

---

---

Not really ... I'm not aware of another god that is as strict and fierce with punishments (if any) as this one. So a pragmatic choice better be on this tough one's side if you ask me

Besides, in addition to the benefit of eliminating the huge cost/risk of eternal punishment, the system in itself isn't so terrible of a deal either ... basically a code of ethics, law, good deeds etc ...

---

---

What concern hath God for your punishment if ye are thankful and believers? God is ever the All-Appreciative, All-Knowing

We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance of Justice, so that mankind may observe right measure;

There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in God hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. And God is the All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

---

---

Is there evidence? Maybe not.
Is there proof? Maybe not.
Can all of this be a big fat lie? Possible.

---

Is the cost/benefit analysis sound and pragmatic? i.e. would this save my ass IN CASE it actually happens? Looks like it. Better safe than sorry.

So, to hedge your bets, you act as if you believe and worship even though you actually do not. And you believe that your god actually knows your thoughts and motivations. Well, any god that does would be really pissed that someone tried to lie his way into heaven.

[robvalue]

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