What would you do/what would t right thing to be if yyou had reason to believe your neighbors house was about to explode/catch fire/ be hit by lightening or whatever and they and their family were in it?

Of course, you would tell them so as to allow them to escape. But what if they don't Maybe its cold outside and you know of this fire because of some knowledge that only you are privy to. You have special fire/explosion/lightening (or whatever) detection equipment that has been shown to you to be reasonably reliable.

Generally I t right of t individual to make their own decisions is paramount to me. But that's not where I am going here. Now I am simply making t point that probably we would do whatever it took to get them out as t alternative is that they would die.If persuasion didn't work we might lie or even use force to get them to evacuate as we would think our actions justified as t ends would justify t means.

For theist these are t stakes w everybody except not only are our lives at stake, but our souls for all eternity. Of course they think its ok to be lieing for Jebus. Of course they think its ok to force people to stop actions that are gay or adulterous or sinful in any way. Its ok, in fact, to fly planes into buildings killing thousands if even one soul is saved for eternity. Thousands of lives cut short an average of fifty years sounds like a lot. But when compred to infinity it pales.

I imagine theist figure things in this way while keeping Pascals wager in mind. It would justify just about anything.And they are sure they are right. We , on t other hand are about just as sure that they are not.

I feel I have a point here . But I am having trouble forming it up. We could simply say theists are wrong to interfere w t lives of others and figure everyone has t right to stay in their house, so to speak, if they want. But also there is a big difference in

how we come to think we know things. When my hypothetical subject came to t conclusion that his neighbors house would explode, in a sence he was having faith , believing in his instruments. But that is a dramaticaly different use of t word faith. Our guy

Views: 128

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pascal's Wager would be worth considering ... IF They Had ANY EVIDENCE.  The fact is, all the evidence they have, if you can call it that, is in that lousy little book of theirs, and it cuts the mustard in no way, shape, or form that I can determine.  For your example, if I saw a large tree branch about to fall or observed a loose gas line or electrical feed ... in other words, something demonstrable and tangible, then hell, yeah, you have every reason to alert your neighbor that something untoward is about to come down (in the case of the tree branch, LITERALLY!).

Otherwise, the whole business is still built around faith ... and faith doesn't get it done.

It blows my mind that the concept of Pascal's Wager even exists. It's a self defeating concept, since there are so many gods that have been conjured up over by man over the course of our existence. For it to work, not only would you be relying on your ability to fool an omnipotent deity with your disingenuous belief, but you would have to pretend to believe in ALL OF THEM in order for it to work at all.

Loren is correct here, but I see your point. This is why christians consider themselves correct, because they and they alone, have the truth! The problem is -- they have no EVIDENCE of any truth!

Dennis you have hit on something here! LOL!

Where can I get an application for his replacement.  I don't think I can wait for my 72 virgins anymore.

EVIDENCE......there is none......nada,zip,whatever.........if anyone around the world could show me even one shred of viable evidence of a gawd of any kind.......well I might take a look but until that time,whatever! When one isdead they are dead......the sad thing about death is that I will not be able to tell the guy in the grave next to mine that I told you so dumbass......all those years believing in something that clearly does not exsist....

I see where you are going here, I think. To understand your opponents, you need to understand their perspective even if you strongly disagree. And many times positions are not all black and white, even though people on each side of the fence try to cast them that way.

Thanks for responding. I think, I started off thinking I had a bit more of a point. But then I had to attend to work.

Anyway, I think I was trying to get at t know your enemy thing, like Jay h was saying.

I think I have read that brain scientists know from MRI scans that ones religious identity is about as close to ones core identity as anything, and that theists usually are as sure and certain of their religious beliefs as us rationalists are sire that one plus one equels two. 

Couple those two facts w how we would do anything to save someone from danger, then it is no surprise that theists lie for Jebus, carry on about gawd hating fags, and asume t priveleges that they do , and so forth.

Sure, from our pov t point is they have no evidence, only faith. But, I think, theists often equate t two and, in fact consider it a virtue that they do have t ability to believe what they want or would be beneficial for them




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service