Felagund
2mo ago
Then it's in your interest to estimate the probability space and act accordingly. Not to assume everything magically cancels.
Throwing up your hands and doing nothing is lazy and irresponsible, considering the stakes.
Pascal was quite right to criticize this attitude of carelessness or dismissal in Pensées 195:
Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.
Of all their errors, this doubtless is the one which most convicts them of foolishness and blindness, and in which it is easiest to confound them by the first glimmerings of common sense, and by natural feelings.
For it is not to be doubted that the duration of this life is but a moment; that the state of death is eternal, whatever may be its nature; and that thus all our actions and thoughts must take such different directions according to the state of that eternity, that it is impossible to take one step with sense and judgment, unless we regulate our course by the truth of that point which ought to be our ultimate end.
There is nothing clearer than this; and thus, according to the principles of reason, the conduct of men is wholly unreasonable, if they do not take another course.
On this point, therefore, we condemn those who live without thought of the ultimate end of life, who let themselves be guided by their own inclinations and their own pleasures without reflection and without concern, and, as if they could annihilate eternity by turning away their thought from it, think only of making themselves happy for the moment.
Yet this eternity exists, and death, which must open into it, and threatens them every hour, must in a little time infallibly put them under the dreadful necessity of being either annihilated or unhappy for ever, without knowing which of these eternities is for ever prepared for them.
This is a doubt of terrible consequence. They are in peril of eternal woe; and thereupon, as if the matter were not worth the trouble, they neglect to inquire whether this is one of those opinions which people receive with too credulous a facility, or one of those which, obscure in themselves, have a very firm, though hidden, foundation. Thus they know not whether there be truth or falsity in the matter, nor whether there be strength or weakness in the proofs. They have them before their eyes; they refuse to look at them; and in that ignorance they choose all that is necessary to fall into this misfortune if it exists, to await death to make trial of it, yet to be very content in this state, to make profession of it, and indeed to boast of it. Can we think seriously on the importance of this subject without being horrified at conduct so extravagant?
This resting in ignorance is a monstrous thing, and they who pass their life in it must be made to feel its extravagance and stupidity, by having it shown to them, so that they may be confounded by the sight of their folly. For this is how men reason, when they choose to live in such ignorance of what they are, and without seeking enlightenment. "I know not," they say ..."
Felagund
5mo ago
I like having BurdensomeCount around, and would be sad to see him banned.
My opinion probably doesn't count for all that much, but I like to think I'm one of the relatively more measured users here.
Felagund
7mo ago
I assume the question here has an intended answer (there wasn't much fraud).
Anyway, asking anyone who does think the 2020 election was stolen, do you have any examples of things that seem like obvious problems or evidence of substantial fraud? I'm currently inclined to think that there wasn't anything of that sort, but a lot of people seem really firmly convinced, so I'd be interested in seeing the evidence.
Felagund
2mo ago
I'd recommend historic protestantism. So neither modern evangelicalism, nor the woke mainlines. If you DM me your area, I could probably find some churches that have a reasonable chance of being good.
Felagund
2mo ago
assuming there is an eternal existence beyond my single finite life, it is vastly (infinitely!) improbable that I'm experiencing the finite life right now.
Is this still true if eternity is not temporal? (Or: might not be temporal)
I do think John deviates a bit from the other three to a suspicious extent, but what specifically are you talking about? I poked around in there but I didn't see anything that was particularly clear on salvation through grace.
It's pretty clear that we're saved by the father drawing us (see e.g. John 6:46 and surrounding), and it's by belief (same area, also John 3:16).
Sure, but there's a big difference between "I forgive this particular act" and "mere belief in me automatically erases all acts"
See the above reference in John. But no, it wasn't individual acts, but statements in general. See, e.g. Matthew 9:2.
Sure, maybe he's being metaphorical with some of this, but "he actually meant this unrelated and almost directly contradictory thing" should at least raise some eyebrows.
What unrelated and almost directly contradictory things are you thinking of?
probably doesn't mean "don't worry about it, your sins don't matter as long as you believe"
Correct, it doesn't. Sin's an awfully serious thing. Antinomianism is far too prevalent in modern lay Protestantism. We should certainly not be sinning more that grace may abound.
Edit: Should be John 6:44.
Felagund
10mo ago
I get that the libertarian candidate often has the best policies, but do you not care at all about your vote mattering? I suppose some of this depends on whether you're in a place where there are competitive elections.
Felagund
9d ago
You can't use DNA evidence from a place to prove you weren't there, which is what he's trying to do.
Felagund
2mo ago
Because I think that people are only saved by Christ, so none of those work.
Now, if you're asking why I think that Christianity is more likely to be true than some position that would recommend any other identifiable course of action, well, I think that the fact that it's claiming to be a revealed religion and is large are reasonably strong points in its favor—if we expect God to reveal himself (or, at least, if we expect that to be likely provided that he care about what we do, which is what is here relevant, since we want to know what can give infinite benefits/harms). I think that the evidence for the resurrection is decent. The teachings make sense.
Felagund
2mo ago
@SubstantialFrivolity had a much better response, and I wouldn't have this objection if you'd said something like that. I only warn you, for the sake of your soul at the day of judgment, to consider things seriously instead of as a mechanism of getting me to shut up. There are much more important concerns than shutting me up.
Felagund
2mo ago
Well, then look for options that don't require belief, and do those?
Or at least be researching the options extremely diligently on the off chance that one of them is true and you're convinced or God directly causes faith in you (for the positions that believe that happens) or something.
Any of these paths seem obviously to dominate over uncaring atheism.
Felagund
5mo ago
Use xcancel.com .
Felagund
6mo ago
But you said you were an atheist?
Where do you think Paul got his teachings?
Felagund
6mo ago
Things have clearly not gone as well for archaeologists hoping to prove the Exodus
Common misconception!
Felagund
6mo ago
But where do you think Saul got that Christianity from?
There were the apostles, who knew Jesus himself, and Saul confirmed with them that what he was saying was accurate. (See Galatians 2.)
Felagund
6mo ago
Perhaps you're excepting John, but it's pretty clear in John.
Jesus also forgives sins in the gospels.
I don't think Jesus actually intended every person to do every thing he spoke of. For example, he probably didn't intend for everyone to be gauging out their eyes.
Felagund
2mo ago
knowledge that the Wager specifically excludes.
Are you saying in that Pascal says so? Ignore that. Arguments matter in their idealized form, not their historical articulations.
How certain are you that we are completely ignorant? In the case where we are not completely ignorant, are there any possibilities that are at all more likely? (E.g. would "do good things" have better expected value than the contrary? Would some religion proposing some deity slightly increase the subjective chance of that deity existing (as presumably they should be evidence)? etc.)
I think that religions that claim revelation are at least more likely than the negation of those religions, and largeness is probably also a mildly positive sign for a religion. I further think that, even ignoring that, there's a decent chance that moral realism is true, in which case our ethical intuitions are more likely to be courses of action that are approved of by the divine.
Felagund
2mo ago
You didn't engage with the argument in a substantive way.
It's okay if you think they're all sourced by wishful thinking. It would still be the case that the remote chance that any of them are not, if they are actually claiming to bound up in matters of infinite value, is of greater expected value than what you'd get by ignoring the matter.
I'm not assuming that it's not followed, but he's not considering the right things by his previous responses. There were other things that he could have said that would not have caused me to respond in that way.
Felagund
2mo ago
Well, no, it's not. Rather, it's that there is some non-zero chance that there is, which does not seem at all like a bold claim to me.
Why are the jews your only issue?
Like, objectively, there seem to be far more important things to life in the US than whatever minor portion of the budget gives aid to which parties in the middle east.
More options
Context Copy link