Thinking of becoming a creationist...

[rjw]

Hello again True Blue,

Faiths, belief systems, ideas etc cannot be treated as economic systems. If they could then I am puzzled as to why you do not leave your house – be is a luxurious 2000 square home or a cardboard box hell-house. Your life is worth infinitely more that your home or your box – so evacuate now – just in case. Even evacuate just in case you got all your dollar values wrong on which you based your calculations. I mean you are not perfect and no matter how long and hard you thought about the dollar value of this and that, there is still a chance that you got it wrong.

So evacuate your house now.

I do not see my acceptance or rejection of the existence of your god in the terms you choose. Why should I?

I fully accept that I could be wrong and you could be right. If you are correct then expect to see me being dragged towards hell kicking and screaming.

Frankly I doubt that you are correct.

Even without invoking the supernatural and eternity, there are many scenarios that we can play out in the here and now, based on PW. And we do not use the Wager, simply because at the end of the day, it makes little sense to use it.

Maybe the Hindu does have the horse to look forward to. Supposing you are wrong? After all you are a fallible human. So why do you not factor into your equation your fallibility? What mark will you give yourself there? How do you know that your mark is reasonably credible and that you are not kidding yourself simply because the Christian claim appears to be so much better and you are sucked in only for that reason?

In essence you are asking me to assign numbers to something I have no possibility of doing. Yet you do it yourself – kidding yourself that you are making a sane judgment based on the fact that the Christian claim sounds far nicer than the Hindu claim. If you doubt me on this, then look at your words with respect to the Hindu? How do you know that “at least the Hindu has the horse to look forward to”. Maybe he does and he is correct because yours is the false religion and you are kidding yourself – simply because Christianity sounds nicer.

Assign an economic probability to that one!

So given that by some religions you are doomed and they happen to be the true religions, where as you are only kidding yourself with yours, why do you not convert? What probabilities are you going to place on the fact that they are the true religions and that yours is the false one? The probabilities you will place are those that suit your own prejudices.

So why should I trust you?

So I come back to my point. My atheism cannot be based on economic principles. For better or worse, it is based on what makes sense to me.

As for the rest of your post?

If faith is “largely independent of logic and reason” then why are you attempting to apply logic and reason on a matter of faith?

I do not think that Christianity is stupid. I do not think that any religion is stupid. Certainly I think that many Christians are stupid. But I also think that many atheists are stupid. I too am stupid. Many stupid Christians are also nice people. Ditto atheists. Ditto myself.

I mean – why do you think that, as an atheist, I believe that Christianity (Christians) is (are) stupid? I would be very convenient to know that Christians are stupid. But then it would be convenient to know that any body who disagrees with me on anything is stupid. Sleeping at night would be so much easier knowing that I was the only one who had it all worked out. My experience is that many atheists believe that theists are stupid. However, lest you think “see I told you so”, many Christians also think that atheists are stupid.

Trust me. I spent much of my childhood being taught by many of my religious peers that atheists were stupid. I have been told by many fundamentalists since then that I am “willfully ignorant” and “blind”. Name calling is not a one way street.


Thank you for your offer re C.S. Lewis. However I have a copy here. (Problem is I started to read it years ago and did not finish it.)


Regards, Roland

 

[True_Blue]

Roland, in post 33, I describe how any rational person applying analysis and common sense will choose to live in the house (unless you face some threat specific to the house but not the cardboard box). You have to include any reliable information that you receive about the situation when making a decision. Now, reliably, I know that atheists don't believe in God or an afterlife. And I know that the one document that exists in the world with hundreds of fulfilled prophecies and no confirmed false prophecies (like dozens of false Mormon prophecies) says faith in Christ is required for heaven. You can choose any terms or probabilities you want, Roland, but any religion with an afterlife in its belief system has terms better than atheism. Only one of those religions has a shred of credibility (I admit this statement would take a lifetime to address, though).

I've also found in studying economics that moral principles and a good, well-written set of laws and regulations is extremely good for the economy. Without laws, you have anarchy, and it's very difficult to make money in a state of anarchy without enforceable contracts. If economics can accurately define an optimal moral system, it can also be applied to religious principles. The created universe can be boiled down to two things--love and mathematics.

No, Roland, I don't think atheists are stupid in the slightest. Most of the folks who post in the creationist/evolutionist forum on both sides are incredibly bright and accomplished. I have observed, though, that some arguments I make which I think are easy to understand (like economic principles applied as I did early in this post) seem to slide off people's minds. I bounce these ideas off my friends, and they seem to understand just fine. I do think there is an active force in the world making those arguments "slide off," and I cannot assign fault to the audience.

My brother feels the same way you do. When he become an atheist, he thought he became unloved and rejected by his parents and his brothers. He is mistaken--we all love him and accept him. But we're worried sick about him--I want nothing more in my life than to find a way to convince him to come back to God's loving embrace. I could not tolerate life without His presence. I feel the same way about all the posters on this forum.

I do hope you find time to finish Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis is the man!

Dan

 

[Physics_guy]

I have observed, though, that some arguments I make which I think are easy to understand (like economic principles applied as I did early in this post) seem to slide off people's minds.

Maybe because you haven't thought critically about the Wager?

The fact that you believe that your use of Pascal's Wager, an argument that has been shown to be fallacious and inadequate by far brighter men than you and me for quite some time now, is valid is clear evidence of your lack of objectivity. The argument fails because of the introduction of infinite outcomes thus eliminating the role of probability in the decision matrix. Anyone with even a cursory undersanding of game theory would understand this. Without the role of probability in the matrix, any conceivable supernatural (because there are infinite possible supernatural explanations) must be included and all would be given equal value by your "economic analysis." That is why it is laughably faulty reasoning.

Furthermore, use of the Wager implies that one can make a "choice" regarding what they believe. I find this notion inconceivable. Beliefs aren't chosen - they are resultant of our experiences. How can one "choose" to believe anything? Can you choose to believe something that your experience tells you is not true? I challenge you to try it - choose to believe (and I mean really believe) that the monitor in front of you does not exist. Just for a moment.

If you can do that you are far better at lying to yourself than I am.

Now, if you want to discuss the actual evidence for the Theory of Evolution and the multi-billion year age of the Universe, please ask - there is loads of evidence to discuss. Scientifically it is not reasonable to hold the position that the Universe or Earth is less than 10,000 years old as YECs do, because there is mountains of data that direct contradict that belief. Furthermore, there is mountains of data that support evolution as the way by which the life on Earth has diversified.

Are you one of those creationists that accept your particular interpretation of the Bible based on faith alone (i.e. an intellectually honest one); or are you one of those creationists that actually believes the lie that the physical (i.e. scientific) evidence actually supports the YEC position (i.e. a Hovindesque one)?

 

[JohnR7]

The fact that you believe that your use of Pascal's Wager, an argument that has been shown to be fallacious and inadequate by far brighter men than you and me for quite some time now,

Only problem is that these "far brighter men" are in jail behind bars.

The wager is, that if you live right, follow the teaching of the Bible to treat others right, then you will reap the benifits of that. In this life and in the life to come. But if your lawless and a scoundrel so that you use and abuse others, then you will reap the consequences.

What "far brighter men" know is that you will reap what you sow.

 

[Mistermystery]

I could not tolerate life without His presence. I feel the same way about all the posters on this forum.

1) Not every poster on this forum is an atheist.
2) You ignored my post, which all considered is nothing surprising.

 

[Physics_guy]

Only problem is that these "far brighter men" are in jail behind bars.

The wager is, that if you live right, follow the teaching of the Bible to treat others right, then you will reap the benifits of that. In this life and in the life to come. But if your lawless and a scoundrel so that you use and abuse others, then you will reap the consequences.

What "far brighter men" know is that you will reap what you sow.

What are you talking about? Who is in prison that showed the Wager to be fallacious? Stop making stuff up, especiallly about things you don't understad - it makes you look like an idiot

The Wager says nothing about criminal behavior or quite frankly any behavior at all. It talks about belief in Christianity versus non-belief - that is all.

John, do you practice making zero sense, or does it come naturally to you?

 

[JohnR7]

it makes you look like an idiot

Your the idiot, the wager is that your going to reap the consequenses for your actions. The prisons are full of people who thought they could get away with something and it turned out they did not get away with anything. You can bet your last dollar that your not going to get away with anything either.

Hell is the same as prison, it is a place of punishment for people who break the law and do not want to turn away from being a sinner. If breaking man's law can get you thrown into prision, then how much more does the breaking of God's law get people thrown into hell.

 

[rjw]

Gidday True Blue,

You wrote:-

You have to include any reliable information that you receive about the situation when making a decision.

Indeed and I do not think that there is any reliable information as to the existence of the supernatural, let alone your own specific version which includes notions of heaven and hell. So if the acceptance of reliable information leads you to deny the legitimacy of PW and remain in your house, so the acceptance of reliable information leads me to deny the legitimacy of PW when it comes to accepting your particular version of it and the decision not to remain an atheist.

You wrote:- And I know that the one document that exists in the world with hundreds of fulfilled prophecies and no confirmed false prophecies (like dozens of false Mormon prophecies)

But I suspect that there are many theists who would sharply disagree with you on this. Given that you are not factoring your own fallibility into the Wager, why should I accept what you argue?

The final straw that broke the back of my faith was, as a young man of 19, meeting another group of Biblical literalists who believed that I was on my way to hell while I believed that they were on their way to hell. We each believed that the Bible was God’s inspired word and we each held contradictory views on several important issues and each used the Bible to support our claims.

So fallible people can hold infallible beliefs which are mutually contradictory and therefore presumably use PW to demonstrate to each other that the better alternative is to swap beliefs – lest each other end up in hell?

You wrote:-

Roland, but any religion with an afterlife in its belief system has terms better than atheism.

And any early evacuation from a house, no matter if futile, is better than no evacuation and getting killed by a very slow, agonizing, painful death. (Just as I know there is a slight chance you could be correct, so you know there is a slight chance that I could be correct. So why not evacuate?)

Of course it has better terms than atheism. But a salesman telling you that the car he is selling for $10,000 which does 1000 miles to the gallon, only needs a service (which costs $100) once a year is offering you far better terms than the salesman who is offering you a $15,000 car that does 30 miles to the gallon and needs a service approximately 3 times a year at a cost of around $200 each service.

So after having done all of the economic analyses and applied PW, are you really going to go for the first car because it “has better terms”?

It is the reality of the belief system which determines whether a person will accept it or not.

If the reality of the belief was not an issue but rather economics was the issue then tell me, which system do I choose? I cannot necessarily choose yours, despite all your advertising hype because. For all I know, you may be no more than that first car salesman. After all, where does this Wager come from? It is being offered to me by another fallible human.

Imagine if I were the human who offered the Wager to myself! What afterlife should I choose? One with a heaven and ice cream every second day. One with a heaven and ice cream and strawberries every day. One with heaven and bliss that lasts only 20,000,000 years? Or one with eternal heaven and eternal bliss? What about one with Hell and eternal misery only?

With respect to the last choice – it is far better that I remain an atheist, surely. With respect to the other choices – it is far better that I choose eternal heaven and eternal bliss. But given that I do not know whether the eternal hell or the eternal heaven is reality – exactly what choice do I make?

Perhaps agnosticism is the best choice?

You threw the Wager at me and offered me to put in any figures I might like. At days end I conclude that the Hindu belief is the more economical one (for what ever reason). Are you happy? Or suddenly does the viability of PW begin to melt – simply because I made the wrong choice? Why?

And if any religion with an afterlife is better than atheism, what if your god decides, for what ever reason, that you should go to hell (which, by definition, could only be a good decision), would an afterlife be better for you than atheism? Or suddenly does “an afterlife” begin to have your restrictions and constraints placed on it which may or may not represent reality?

You wrote:-

If economics can accurately define an optimal moral system

How do you know when economics has accurately defined an optimal moral system?

Referring back to the first sentence in this paragraph of yours and with tongue in cheek, I can think of one system which had “moral principles and a good, well-written set of laws and regulations” and a very strong economy. The allies fought against it from 1939-45. Were the allies right to do so or were they wrong?

It is a pity that your brother feels unloved. However, the way you wrote this, I hope that you do not think that I felt unloved by my parents and siblings because of my atheism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I never had that problem which your brother seems to have. My parents were always loving and very liberal in their beliefs – mum abandoned regular church at 70 and became a Unitarian. Our family was close and always accepted the beliefs of individual members. That situation continues between myself and my children. Beliefs of family members range from atheism to mild supernaturalism to full blown Christianity. We always could discuss our concepts of reality with each other.

You wrote:-

I want nothing more in my life than to find a way to convince him to come back to God's loving embrace. I could not tolerate life without His presence. I feel the same way about all the posters on this forum.

I hope you do not mind some advice? If your brother is happy then my advice is to leave him be. He has found his own version of reality and if your God really is loving then he will understand your brother. If your brother is unhappy then he does have a problem. However don’t conclude that his unhappiness is because of his atheism.

Also be careful about judging others based on your own experience. Maybe you could not tolerate life without God’s presence. Obviously I can. I can because I do not think that He exists. If I thought that your god did exist then don’t you think that I would be flocking to his loving embrace? It makes no sense for me to flock to the embrace of something/someone whose existence I doubt.

You are just going to have to hope, until I reach the conclusion you wish me to reach. But do not hold your breath – you will need a miracle to stay alive otherwise.


C.S. Lewis? Nah. These days I much like authors such as Paul Collins, Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong.


Regards, Roland

 

[Physics_guy]

Your the idiot, the wager is that your going to reap the consequenses for your actions. The prisons are full of people who thought they could get away with something and it turned out they did not get away with anything. You can bet your last dollar that your not going to get away with anything either.

Hell is the same as prison, it is a place of punishment for people who break the law and do not want to turn away from being a sinner. If breaking man's law can get you thrown into prision, then how much more does the breaking of God's law get people thrown into hell.

John, thank you for reminding me why I should have you on my ignore list. Your posts continually show that in any battle of wits, you are not just out-gunned, you are simply unarmed.

 

[Blessed-one]

You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.

Example: use of words like “idiots”.
- Posts on particular individuals rather than dissecting their ideas.

http://www.christianforums.com/t732865

 

[nalibok]

Evolutionary scientists devotion to their religion causes them to say the dumbest things:
They think that Mars was once engulfed in a worldwide flood even though they've never found a single drop of water there or any real evidence of it. In the meantime, 75% of the earth's surface is covered by water and they've admitted that all of North America was once covered by water, but of course there's never been a worldwide flood on earth!
How do you think they've found seashells and fish fossils on the highest mountains on earth?

 

[Jet Black]

Evolutionary scientists devotion to their religion causes them to say the dumbest things:
They think that Mars was once engulfed in a worldwide flood even though they've never found a single drop of water there or any real evidence of it.

only if you ignore all the evidence that we have found.

In the meantime, 75% of the earth's surface is covered by water and they've admitted that all of North America was once covered by water, but of course there's never been a worldwide flood on earth!

not according to the biblical descriptions no. that would require four times more water than exists on the earth

How do you think they've found seashells and fish fossils on the highest mountains on earth?

PLATE TECTONICS IS YOUR FRIEND. note that all these fossils of which you speak are embedded in sedimentary rock.

 

[Hydra009]

Evolutionary scientists devotion to their religion causes them to say the dumbest things:
They think that Mars was once engulfed in a worldwide flood even though they've never found a single drop of water there or any real evidence of it.

Mars has polar icecaps. I'll let you ponder the relationship between ice and water.

In the meantime, 75% of the earth's surface is covered by water and they've admitted that all of North America was once covered by water, but of course there's never been a worldwide flood on earth!

North America was once covered by water? I've never heard that claim before. Do you have any evidence of this?

How do you think they've found seashells and fish fossils on the highest mountains on earth?

This is a PRATT. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

 

[Jet Black]

Your the idiot

I think this is my favourite internet sentence ever. I see it (and it's cousin, "your an idiot" - heck I had to "uncorrect" that) so often, and it always makes me laugh.

 

[Philosoft]

Evolutionary scientists devotion to their religion causes them to say the dumbest things:
They think that Mars was once engulfed in a worldwide flood even though they've never found a single drop of water there or any real evidence of it.

Actually, about the only thing they haven't found is the water itself. The geological features of Mars relatively scream "water-formed." You haven't actually been reading the relevant articles from the past three years or so, have you?

In the meantime, 75% of the earth's surface is covered by water and they've admitted that all of North America was once covered by water, but of course there's never been a worldwide flood on earth!

Of course.

How do you think they've found seashells and fish fossils on the highest mountains on earth?

Geological features are constantly in flux. The crust that resides at high altitudes wasn't always there - plate tectonics has rearranged land masses several times in the earth's history.

Look here: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Seashells_on_mountains_are_evidence_of_a_flood

 

[Vance]

Only about half of North America was covered by water. The middle half.

As for seashells on mountains, think about how mountains are formed by plate tectonics. But yes, I think there was a time when all the earth was covered with water, which was a time when there were no mountains (and about 4 billion years before there were any humans to build an ark).

 

[Jet Black]

Actually, about the only thing they haven't found is the water itself. The geological features of Mars relatively scream "water-formed." You haven't actually been reading the relevant articles from the past three years or so, have you?

rovers? they sent rovers to mars?!?

 

[Philosoft]

rovers? they sent rovers to mars?!?

And several other dogs, too.

 

[Jet Black]

And several other dogs, too.

rubbish, next you will be telling me they sent a beagle out for a sojourn.

 

[Philosoft]

No, I think Sojourner was driven by hamsters.