What do you think of this passage?

[Minimalist]

I don't see any warnings of punishment or anything? so what's the risk here?

You miss the party every night.

[Ivan Denisovich]

It's just piece of shitty writing. I see nothing of interest there.

[truth_seeker]

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

On #1) Sure, we can assume infinite deities, no worries. And then when we assign a cost/risk function, it will simply be zero for all deities from which there were no claims of punishment/warning.

On #2) Not really. I will say ((that's *if* there is actually a hereafter)) that I didn't have conclusive evidence, but I got your warning messages and did my end of the deal. Now its your turn.

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

Mmm, not really .. He doesn't seem to be really that big of a dick  .. he claims this:

And there is no creature on the earth, nor a flying bird with its wings, except but they are communities like you.
We have neglected nothing in the Book. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered.

O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of God, is only the best in conduct. Lo! God is the All-Knower, All-Aware.

[robvalue]

Uh, what? You're excluding possible deities for which there is no evidence?

That's all of them then. Story books aren't evidence.

Are you saying the God of the quran isn't a dick? Have you read it? He's a foul, evil creature.

But you do whatever makes you happy Just trying to save you pointless effort.

[Angrboda]

[robvalue]

It seems to me that you're only really considering that God can be a character from one of the current popular story books. I don't know how on earth you can come to that conclusion. They're not even internally consistent, so probably can't exist.

[truth_seeker]

[Angrboda]

[truth_seeker]

@Jörmungandr: very interesting!   that's exactly the kind of pragmatic reasoning I was referring to.

But then are they really mutually exclusive? and is it the same cost of risk?



Here is the interesting parts:

• "... firstly, beings are not sent to Naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment; secondly, the length of a being's stay in a Naraka is not eternal ... "
  

so based on my pragmatic risk aversion reasoning, the idea still holds. No? ... the belief above entails less cost/risk compared to other ones.

Karma or a god's judgement, the practical result is the same.  And you're ignoring samsara, which is infinite, unless you become enlightened, which will never happen if you keep appealing to the wrong god concept..

Ok, so maybe I can have both good Karma and abide by God's judgement. This seems to be the best combination to reduce as much risk as possible, isn't it?
i'm just trying to minimize the cost of the risks involved here. I am also not aware of a claim that Karma or Samsara has claimed that it/he/she is a deity. is it?

[Angrboda]

I am also not aware of a claim that Karma or Samsara has claimed that it/he/she is a deity. is it?

You'd have to get into the individual religious beliefs for that, and there are many many many many.