And surely if they offer in all sincerity, with all their heart, would they not be accepted and delivered by god? — Punshhh

Maybe, but that's mercy. They certainly don't deserve it, which is what I'm claiming.

Moreover, you assume doxastic voluntarism, a topic I actually made a thread about a while back. What this means is that you assume I can choose what I believe. I have my doubts that this possible, as it seems apparent that I can't just will myself to believe something, like flipping on a light switch. This is true even if I want to believe something. Wanting to does not mean that one does or will believe.

Sorry I don't recall the thread, but it sounds interesting. I don't doubt that our thoughts are shared. We all speak a language, and we have access to similar materials, we seem to have similar emotions and experiences. I didn't invent God, I read about him, I was baptised, and brought up in a faith with teachings, traditions, sacraments and rituals. The vast majority of the world grew up in some sort of religion or standardized cultural practice that seems to make sense of why we are and how we ought to act.

Whether people ever make anything out of their upbringing is another story, my guess is that 80/20 rule applies, with 20% of those who say their are Christians actually practicing Christians. (Perhaps nominalism has its roots in theology)

What if God privileges honest disbelief in him as opposed to dishonest belief for the sake of personal comfort, as your wager would have it? In that case, I ought to wager that he doesn't exist.

I think then that your question comes down to this: Is existence preferable to nonexistence. You have no choice if there is a god. You will face some sort of judgement. If there is no god then no judgement but also no existence.

You also referenced some "above post" and I looked, I saw the post to John, but no other likely candidates, but then again I never seem to find what I am looking for.

I don't doubt that our thoughts are shared. — Cavacava

About doxastic voluntarism? I don't see how what you say above is a reply to my comment on that.

Is existence preferable to nonexistence. You have no choice if there is a god. — Cavacava

What do you mean by the second of these sentences?

You also referenced some "above post" and I looked, I saw the post to John, but no other likely candidates, but then again I never seem to find what I am looking for. — Cavacava

You asked if I was a Christian, a theist, and believer in God and seemed to be going somewhere with those questions. I replied on the last page I believe.

No, I don't believe War is about truth. It is about the immorality of man with man, it is an ethical issue, it is not an epistemological issue. It is about the rough reality of life, which is not cast in any book of logic. — Cavacava

Well in the sense of truth that you use in this post, then certainly not.

We live in a world where "...only small groups of men who, however, hold in thrall many million of their fellow human beings and who defend their own antiquated interests" (Strauss) When I think about the war in Syria, there is no way I can think of this being the 'truth'. — Cavacava

Certainly, but think about it ... politicians on all sides of the interested parties have to realise the truth - namely what each party wants out of Syria and how to ensure that their nation gets that. People afflicted by the conflict should also realise the truth, because that's what will best enable them to escape or defend themselves. Pretty much everyone needs to understand the truth (ie, reality) in order to play their cards the best way possible. What else can they do? Is there a better alternative?

An evil man who is willing to sacrifice the whole of his nation, men, women and children so he can hold on to power. — Cavacava

Well do you think he'll have a happy ending? Evil will always destroy itself in the end. In the end, Assad will lose even the power he wants to hold so desperately.

That can't be true in any sense of the term. — Cavacava

Except in the pragmatic sense that this is what is actually happening - in that sense it is certainly true.

Yes, I don't quite agree with Doxastic Voluntarism view that people elect their own beliefs, I think we tend to play roles, (husband, wife, teacher, student) adopt common beliefs, which is not to say that we can't make our own choices, just that we don't typically have that much say in the choices we have to make we simply accept them.

As I stated most people in the world are raised within some sort of religion, and many of these are only religious as a means of identification. You say you're a Christian, an acceptable 'label'. I explained to you that I am agnostic about God, but you refuse to say anything about your conception of God. So ?

If there is a God, then regardless of whether you end up in heaven or hell, you 'end up'. If there is no God then I don't think you 'end-up' anywhere,i.e. you are no longer existing.

Certainly, but think about it ... politicians on all sides of the interested parties have to realise the truth - namely what each party wants out of Syria and how to ensure that their nation gets that. People afflicted by the conflict should also realise the truth, because that's what will best enable them to escape or defend themselves. Pretty much everyone needs to understand the truth (ie, reality) in order to play their cards the best way possible. What else can they do? Is there a better alternative?

The only truth for certain is that scores upon scores of innocent people are dying, and people are being totally dislocated to places where they are not being welcomed. All the major participants and their supporters are responsible, but the world will not hold them responsible (except for the Terrorists whom all sides point at, whose barbarism in the name of religion demonstrates a medieval brutality toward man and his works) since many of these same participants hold the world in thrall.

How can it be changed? I don't know that it can be changed.

But belief is not knowledge. I don't believe that putting my hand on a flame is painful, this is something i know. — Wayfarer

I think that is very much a matter of how you define knowledge and belief. For Hume, for example, it is merely a belief based on habit that leads us to expect that things will invariably behave as we have always found them to behave. He actually says we have no rational justification for believing such a thing. I tend to disagree with that extreme view and think that is can only be rational (in the sense of 'measured') to base our beliefs on what we have found to be always or even nearly always the case. But it is still always a matter of belief, however rationally based we might think it is. We can never be absolutely certain. Even if we define knowledge as justified, true belief, and even if we think we can be certain that our beliefs are justified, I don't think it could be rational to claim that we can ever know (in the strong sense of 'absolute certainty') that they are true.

Personally I am OK with that. Life right down to the most mundane everyday detail is ultimately an ineluctable mystery. Our problem does not consist in, per impossibile, solving that mystery, but in something else.

But that need is because the ordinary state - that of the man in the street, you and I, the hoi polloi - is one of delusion and falsehood. — Wayfarer

This makes it sound as though it is a cognitive or a conceptual issue, and I don't think it is. I think the real issue is that people operate with essentially faithless wills. People just do and think mostly what they are told, and mostly for reasons of comfort and security. People don't generally seek to cultivate, and have faith in, their own experience and thoughts about it. People generally cling to some 'ism' or other if they are intellectually inclined. For me the beauty of the symbolism in Christianity is the idea of the relationship between God and Man; which is the idea of the absolutely unique relation of each man to his God. There is no room for any 'ism' in Christianity. I find it interesting that we have Brahmanism, Hinduism, Jainsim, Buddhism, Islamism, Judaism, but there is no Christianism. Don't take me to be saying there is nothing of value in those other religions, though; it's more that I think Christianity completes them all by introducing the primordial divine nature of the personal relation between Man and God, a relation which is prior to anything else.

As Christ in John 8:48-58 says: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

The irony is that belief in God is ultimately superior - even in this world, and even if there is no God.

Yes, I think this is an extremely important point, and not often understood. I understand that "belief" to consist in a certain kind of lived relation, a relation of love, which is salvation itself, present right now, and is also possible for atheists or adherents of other isms. It culminates, realizes itself fully, in Christian faith, though.

I think that is very much a matter of how you define knowledge and belief. — John

A fundamental task in philosophy, surely. Hume's scepticism was precisely the subject of Kant's criticism, which I think was effective.

Even if we define knowledge as justified, true belief, and even if we think we can be certain that our beliefs are justified, I don't think it could be rational to claim that we can ever know (in the strong sense of 'absolute certainty') that they are true.

Personally I am OK with that. Life right down to the most mundane everyday detail is ultimately an ineluctable mystery. — John

So long as we're not confusing 'mystery' with 'mystification'. I think the sub-text of much of Platonism, is that what we ordinarily take for granted, what we think we know, is in a strong sense, delusory. That is the basis of actual scepticism, not all the nonsense about 'is my hand real' or 'are people zombies'.

I find it interesting that we have Brahmanism, Hinduism, Jainsim, Buddhism, Islamism, Judaism, but there is no Christianism. — John

According to Christians, who invented the labels.

A fundamental task in philosophy, surely. Hume's scepticism was precisely the subject of Kant's criticism, which I think was effective. — Wayfarer

I don't think Kant's philosophy really addresses Hume's point about the irrationality of expecting things to be as they have been. I think it addresses the separate but related problem that causation cannot be observed.

For even if the world is constructed by the transcendental ego that still would not give us any reason to suppose that it will be constructed tomorrow as it was today.

According to Christians, who invented the labels. — Wayfarer

Of course one must be able to get outside, past, beyond or above something in order to be able to categorize it. It remains true that there seems to be much more of ideology in most other religions than in Christianity. Christianity replaces ideology and the associated laws with love, that is its greatest difference. In other religions there are implacable laws; Karma, Allah's word, the Torah or what-have-you. That's my impression in any case. :)

but you refuse to say anything about your conception of God. So ? — Cavacava

So what? I don't know what you're getting at. Why do I have to have a conception of God? The onus is on you to provide one if you wish me to wager that he exists.

Ok, maybe come at this a little differently.

Suppose you have a choice between, two cups of tea (I know you probably hate tea) one cup comes with a potential treat (something you consider a treat) the other with nothing, which would you pick?

All I am saying is that the expectation of additional utility to the choice of believing in God, given the circumstances , may cause real conversions. My viewpoint is agnostic re G at the moment but I am thinking ahead.

I've thought that Pascal's Wager (besides being valid) has an existential power about it, It enables us to ally a God to vanquish our fear, although I suppose some will not bend to reason. (I mean it is a crap shoot isn't it) I certain wonder what my choice would be. Maybe we all need forgiveness, especially when there is little hope of a future. What will/would you choose to do and perhaps a few words why.

Pascal said it is a decision we have to make. — Cavacava

As strange as this sounds I was in a very similar situation some 9 years ago. Without bothering with details my head nearly exploded (literally, as a facial artery ruptured) resulting in my recovery being quite questionable at best.

I suppose this was as close to an existenital crisis as I've ever had and indeed there was some sort of fear associated with the entire happening. There were indeed a few religious minded people who did confront me with such a question or should I say bargin?

Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears.

As for any need of forgiveness, I've never quite understood why I should need a sort of proxy of an invisible unknowable agent of forgiveness rather than confront the individual(s) themself that should be the one(s) I have "wronged"; thus the one(s) who I need to make an appeal for forgiveness. Perhaps I should have called this agent a proxy placebo, but I'm not quite sure about the term of this agent to serve as a viable substitution of granting forgiveness.

As for my future...

... it will be unfinished in terms of what I want to do. Indeed I have intentions and plans and goals and desires that will be unfulfilled. This includes a lot of things I wanted to do or say that will be unsaid and undone. Rather than dwell on this inablity to finish everything I just get done and say what I can and not worry to much about it all coming to an abrupt end. I would include the desire or notion of needing forgiveness to this long list of unfinished and unfulfilled things. I accept it as part of the deal of mortality.

My wife tells me that I requested at one point for all the religious superstitious minded folks to leave the room if they could not shut up about this nonsense and get on with the necessary medicine needed. I cannot remember this, but it does sound a lot like what I'd probably say.

More than likely this only says stuff about me and not Pascal's wager, but I figured the question you posted was more of a personal nature in asking "what will/would you choose to do and perhaps a few words why".

I can see what you mean by a sort of existential element being involved in Pascal's wager. The problem for me personally is that I haven't really that existential need of such a bargin or such a placebo to rid myself of ear or such a proxy as to grant me peace of mind in terms of being forgiven. Perhaps my worldview is just too absurdist or relativistic to find such existential baggage worth taking on the trip of experiencing life. It probably doen't really matter anyway.

Meow!

GREG

I've understood the logic for some time now, Cava. But you still refuse to provide me with a definition of "God." You use this word as if I know what it means. I don't. You must provide it, or else the wager you argue for never gets off the ground.

Now, if, as you've said before, God can mean anything one wants, then I could define God as an evil demon, a la Descartes, or as a being who sends non-believers to heaven and believers to hell. In that case, I ought not to place my faith in him, which repudiates the outcome you argue for.

So our conversation seems to be caught in an infinite loop, the only way out of which is to state what you mean by God, once again. Let's see if you can do it this time.

Hey, good to hear from you and thank you for your addition.

It's funny how life works out. I moved to Florida about 16 years ago, good job offer and my father who was getting on in years lived close by. Over the course of my youth we had decent father/son relationship, he worked a lot. That changed when I moved here. We developed a friendship that matured and enriched our familial relationship.

Last year he died. I went through the whole process with him, he knew he was not going to recover. The only thing he wanted was his family near him, he never asked for a priest, he went into hospice and he passed away the first night.

As I get older I wonder what my thoughts will be.

I suppose this was as close to an existenital crisis as I've ever had and indeed there was some sort of fear associated with the entire happening. There were indeed a few religious minded people who did confront me with such a question or should I say bargin?

Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears. — Mayor of Simpleton

When the existential crisis arrives (whatever it is) there is no particular model we have to follow. Rather, I think, we will follow whatever course presents itself, and that might be the course we have most often taken. If it makes sense at that time, if it harmonizes with who one is, then that is the "right" one.

For some people, it is very important that other people should have a deathbed religious crisis of some sort. They want the departing person to See The Light, or something. At my death bedside one of my dear sisters will be sitting there attempting to direct my departure according to her conservative Baptist plan. Just shoot me.

A gladsome Yuletide greeting to you and yours. The days are getting longer now and are supposed to be getting colder. We have the regulation minimum of snow on the ground, but freezing rain and thunderstorms are forecast for Christmas day. It does happen. in 2009 Christmas Eve streets were flooded with rain, then it all froze and stayed frozen until March.

Forget the halls and boughs of holly, fa la la la la la.
Decking walls with thorns is folly , fa la la la la la.

For some people, it is very important that other people should have a deathbed religious crisis of some sort. — Bitter Crank

Reminds me of this quip from Bierce:

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor.

Happy Holidays to you and yours as well BC. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Mortality, ours and the mortality of others, does have an effect/affect upon how we think, act and does to some degree foster bits of wishful thinking. It might well result in our building up laundry lists of things to get done or regrets of what could have been or was done. Of course religious notions or notions regarding questions of "is this all there is" lead to notions of deities and supernatural notions of "beyond nature". I can certainly understand why such a question can build up inside you considering the circumstances.

I have the feeling that such contributions of wishes to have done or to be able to undone lead me nowhere and just waste what little time I have; thus my tendency to categorically disinclude them in my experience of living life (well... I will discuss the topics, but as for such things being a factor in my life experience... nah.)

Perhaps one of the main purposes of religious beliefs and beliefs in god(s) is to make the inevitability of death seem a bit less distressful.

One might have the notion that closure is an important thing to have as well, but I'm only guessing here, as closure is not really one of the things I value so greatly.

I'm sorry I'm not being too philosophical. I've kind of punted on that kind of approach. I'm just spitballin' here.

Meow!

GREG

've understood the logic for some time now, Cava. But you still refuse to provide me with a definition of "God." You use this word as if I know what it means. I don't. You must provide it, or else the wager you argue for never gets off the ground.

Now, if, as you've said before, God can mean anything one wants, then I could define God as an evil demon, a la Descartes, or as a being who sends non-believers to heaven and believers to hell. In that case, I ought not to place my faith in him, which repudiates the outcome you argue for.

So our conversation seems to be caught in an infinite loop, the only way out of which is to state what you mean by God, once again. Let's see if you can do it this time.

I have told you that the concept of "God" in the wager, applies to any "God" that one believe in, and that the majority of people believe in a Good God, as a positive force of love and goodness and I explained my position as being agnostic.

I don't know which way I'll wager, that's why I asked for the input, for explanation of what each of you think. I appreciate and I am quite overwhelmed by all the fine responses, so thanks and Merry Christmas or whatever you celebrate! (Thorongil...Festivus starts with the listing of complaints)

Perhaps one of the main purposes of religious beliefs and beliefs in god(s) is to make the inevitability of death seem a bit less distressful. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ah but that can be turned around so fast. Perhaps lack of belief in God is there in order to make the consequences of our sins less frightening. Perhaps what atheists are really afraid of is the afterlife, hence the denial.

Anyway... the fear never seemed to justify an appeal to a supernatural ally as to work as a placebo to vanquish my fears. — Mayor of Simpleton

But why would you renounce the effects of the placebo? Any improvement is still an improvement after all. If belief in God raises your chances of survival by 30% because of the placebo effect, that's great! Combine the placebo and the medicine, and maximise the effect.

I have the feeling that such contributions of wishes to have done or to be able to undone lead me nowhere and just waste what little time I have — Mayor of Simpleton

But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter. My point isn't that you should meditate on your regrets, etc. but rather that folks who do this don't exactly "waste" their time either.

Maybe, but that's mercy. They certainly don't deserve it, which is what I'm claiming.

I think that the wager is not so much concerned with such notions, it's more to do with soul searching in the subject making the choice.

Whether they don't deserve it? well I heard that whomsoever turns to God is allowed in. That all that is required for salvation is to turn to God. That in our ignorance we can't judge which way the weighing scales will fall.

Whether they don't deserve it? well I heard that whomsoever turns to God is allowed in. That all that is required for salvation is to turn to God. That in our ignorance we can't judge which way the weighing scales will fall. — Punshhh

Yes but it is his Mercy which saves you, not his Justice, which condemns you. There's a big big difference there. And being saved only works once you understand that in truth you deserve punishment. Then being saved makes sense. But if you think you don't deserve punishment, then you can't be saved.

Perhaps lack of belief in God is there in order to make the consequences of our sins less frightening. Perhaps what atheists are really afraid of is the afterlife, hence the denial. — Agustino

I suppose that could be the case provided I thought there were sins in the absolute since of moral meaning as well as believe there is such thing as an afterlife. I see no reason tfor the absolute polarity value vector of sins and I see no reason whatsoever to believe there is an afterlife. As for lumping all atheists into this notion, I wouldn't do that, as I can only speak for myaself and not for all atheists. Perhaps there are atheists who believe in some sort of absolute moral correctness and believe there is an afterlife of sorts, but I'm not one of them.

Atheists are simply those who do not believe a theistic god(s) exist. That's just a single variable. I would not wish to add on connotations of "believing in sin" or "afterlife" as a must be so or it must follow that based upon a single variable.

But why would you renounce the effects of the placebo? Any improvement is still an improvement after all. If belief in God raises your chances of survival by 30% because of the placebo effect, that's great! Combine the placebo and the medicine, and maximise the effect. — Agustino

Is there any evidence that indicates that belief in god raises one's chances of survival by 30%?
Is there any evidence that a placebo really provides an improvement in my life?
Is there any evidence that indicates that a placebo mixed with traditional medicine will result in a maximised effect?

Is there any evidence for god existing?

Crap! That brings us back to the beginning.

But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter. My point isn't that you should meditate on your regrets, etc. but rather that folks who do this don't exactly "waste" their time either. — Agustino

I don't recall indicating that I stated that those who meditate on their regrets are wasting their time. I just said that about myself.

I don't see any way to unring a bell. Once something is done I live with the consequences. I do make efforts to adapt future notions based upon these collective of consequences, but I don't make a point to simply dwell upon them for the sake of dwelling upon them.

In what context do you have in mind with wasting time?

I simply attribute and assert purpose (a notion of value) in my life, but it's never absolute or ultimate. Purpose adapts with the influx of experiences/information. I suppose one could say I have no fixed points in value notions. Indeed some adaptions in value for me are quicker and some are slower, but nothing stays fixed. Context matters.

This is why I don't believe that value notions that are relative (in that they are not absolute or ultimate) are certainly irrelevant (such as being a waste of time). I don't interpret life experiences in term of ultimately, as I simply do not have enough experience/information to do so.

This might explain why I will deal with a question about a meaning of life (as relative and relevant), but completely blow off a question of the meaning of life (as absolute/ultimate and irrelevant).

Sure I'll deal with ideals, but I'm in no way an idealist.

What were we talking about?

Sorry... this one kind of got away from me.

I suppose what I'm ranting about is that to make a statement like "But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter" I need a context. If the context is a set of all sets absolute/ultimate for everyone, everywhere and every case... I'll probably say that's irrelevant. No one has the ability to have that much experience/information as to have the set of all sets regarding absolute/ultimate; thus why bother with such a standard of measure?

Perhaps this is part of why I simply cannot believe in god(s). God(s) are all to often "understood" as being a set of all sets... an unknowable. I fail to see how an unknowable is is anyway helpful when answering a question regarding what is currently unknown. Actually I fail to see that answering the currently unknown with the absolute unknowable is in any way an answer. I'm a bit like Tillich in this regard. Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge.

Meow!

GREG

Perhaps there are atheists who believe in some sort of absolute moral correctness and believe there is an afterlife of sorts, but I'm not one of them. — Mayor of Simpleton

But my point isn't this. It's not whether they believe it, because by this logic, neither does the theist believe that death is the end. The atheist, when he says that the theist resorts to belief in God because of fear of death (annihilation), does exactly the same as the theist would if he were to say that the atheist disbelieves in God because of fear of responsibility/accountability after death. So those arguments you have pointed against me, are equally valid against the atheist position. That's all I'm saying.

Atheists are simply those who do not believe a theistic god(s) exist. That's just a single variable. I would not wish to add on connotations of "believing in sin" or "afterlife" as a must be so or it must follow that based upon a single variable. — Mayor of Simpleton

Sure - but my point was a rhetorical one aimed to show mainly the silliness of making an argument like religious belief exists because of fear of death. If that were the case, then we have to also accept the argument that disbelief in God exists because of fear of responsibility and accountability. Just the same way the atheist uses a psychological motivation to account for the existence of belief in God, so can the theist use one to account for the existence of the disbelief in God.

Is there any evidence that indicates that belief in god raises one's chances of survival by 30%? — Mayor of Simpleton

There is evidence that the placebo effect betters one's condition by approximately 30%
http://patient.info/doctor/placebo-effect

Is there any evidence that a placebo really provides an improvement in my life? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes.

Is there any evidence that indicates that a placebo mixed with traditional medicine will result in a maximised effect? — Mayor of Simpleton

I haven't researched it, but it would seem intuitively obvious. In either case, I find it rational to play all possible cards that you have at your disposal.

Is there any evidence for god existing? — Mayor of Simpleton

It's more about the will than the intellect I find. Some of us find belief in God appealing - others don't.

I don't see any way to unring a bell. Once something is done I live with the consequences. I do make efforts to adapt future notions based upon these collective of consequences, but I don't make a point to simply dwell upon them for the sake of dwelling upon them. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yeah, I do agree that there's no point crying over spilt milk - but if one has cried over it, there's no point in worrying about that either. Hence ultimately it doesn't matter whether one cries or not.

I simply attribute and assert purpose (a notion of value) in my life, but it's never absolute or ultimate. Purpose adapts with the influx of experiences/information. I suppose one could say I have no fixed points in value notions. Indeed some adaptions in value for me are quicker and some are slower, but nothing stays fixed. Context matters. — Mayor of Simpleton

We all kind of do that, because we all need to adapt to our circumstances. But that's not to say that who we are fundamentally changes. I think character stays quite constant.

I suppose what I'm ranting about is that to make a statement like "But you'll "waste" that time anyway. Anything you do, in the end won't matter" I need a context. If the context is a set of all sets absolute/ultimate for everyone, everywhere and every case... I'll probably say that's irrelevant. No one has the ability to have that much experience/information as to have the set of all sets regarding absolute/ultimate; thus why bother with such a standard of measure? — Mayor of Simpleton

The context is simple. If you spilled the milk and cried, there's no reason to cry more for crying in the first place. In that sense, crying is never a "waste" of time - or it always is a waste of time. Means pretty much the same thing.

Perhaps this is part of why I simply cannot believe in god(s). God(s) are all to often "understood" as being a set of all sets... an unknowable. I fail to see how an unknowable is is anyway helpful when answering a question regarding what is currently unknown. — Mayor of Simpleton

It's more about how one relates to the unknown.

Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge. — Mayor of Simpleton

True, it's an act of faith.

I have told you that the concept of "God" in the wager, applies to any "God" that one believe in, and that the majority of people believe in a Good God — Cavacava

"Any God" and "Good God" are not the same thing. :-|

Whatever, though. We seem to be done here.

Pascal gives his reasons why you should believe in God before the wager. — Agustino

The Pensees is on my list to read at some point, but do you think you could summarize these? If not, that's okay, as I'm probably asking a lot.

His Pensées is one of the greatest books I have ever read. A pity that he died before he managed to finish them - he intended the Pensées as one finds them today to merely be separate thoughts which had to be merged in a comprehensive book of apologetics. However, he died before he could get it done. It's hard to summarise it, because it jumps around and he hasn't created a unity around it all. Different topics are addressed throughout. I could summarise it, but I'm not going to do that, because I shouldn't deprive you of the experience of reading the man for yourself. Please note that he has useful things to say about epistemology for example - not just theology/Christianity/God. So even if not for your interest in Christianity/God, you should read it as one of the greatest works of philosophy - up there with Kant, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, etc.

But if you think you don't deserve punishment, then you can't be saved

This is encompassed in my phrase "turn to God". For a person to turn to God during the soul searching in the crisis of the athiest* on the death bed, it is the subject stripped of their self conception who in humility offers themselves up. If the subject is in a state of denial as you suggest, they are not at the point of crisis, but rather of denial. As such they have not turned to God.

* in reality this crisis is not only faced by the atheist, but by all who are not devout, or at peace with themselves.

The atheist, when he says that the theist resorts to belief in God because of fear of death (annihilation), does exactly the same as the theist would if he were to say that the atheist disbelieves in God because of fear of responsibility/accountability after death. — Agustino

Well, I'm not all together sure what to make of this statement, as I have never once thought about fear of responsibility/accountablility after death. From what I gather there isn't anything after death we can really make any claims about, as so far there has never been a report given by someone who has any insight into after death. The dead simply don't give us any reports, so why worry about speculations of responsibility/accountability much less any fear of such a speculation.

It seems as if you wish for my motivations to be grounded in some sort of fear of the unknown. Truth is I know nothing about the unknown so I see no reason to fear it.

Sure - but my point was a rhetorical one aimed to show mainly the silliness of making an argument like religious belief exists because of fear of death. If that were the case, then we have to also accept the argument that disbelief in God exists because of fear of responsibility and accountability. — Agustino

I would point out that the belief in a god is the central pillar of a theistic worldview, where the disbelief in a theistic god is not necessarily a central pillar for an atheists worldview.

I'm not sold that a disbelief in a theistic god acts as a point of centering the being as it does for those who belive in a theistic god existing.

There is evidence that the placebo effect betters one's condition by approximately 30% — Agustino

This is a placebo in a medical trial. Fine. Is that the same as a placebo in a non-medical trial?

I haven't researched it, but it would seem intuitively obvious. In either case, I find it rational to play all possible cards that you have at your disposal. — Agustino

Funny, as one thing you'd have to take into consideration with a medical trial would be interactions. Quite often there are chemical combination that would have a less than desirable effect upon a patient if combinations of meds are taken together. I would think that would be safe to assume this would apply to placebos take with actual medicine, as both are chemicals.

So let's pretend for a moment we are not speaking of chemicals, but if ideas/notions. Would it be possible that there are combinations of ideas/notions that are not a good combination; thus leading to more problems than solutions?

The interactions of faith based placebos (acts of centering the being) may indeed conflict and impede progress of empirical investigations (acts of knowledge); thus any combination or mixture of ideas/notions will not guarantee a benefit.

It's more about the will than the intellect I find. Some of us find belief in God appealing - others don't. — Agustino

So if it is more appealing or not should be the foundation for fielding an answer?

uhh... I'm not on board with this one.

There are a great deal of things that are far less than appealing for my senses which are indeed the case. I find that handcuffing knowledge and reality to fitting my personal preferences is not really a good method of investigation, but I suppose to each their own.

Yeah, I do agree that there's no point crying over spilt milk - but if one has cried over it, there's no point in worrying about that either. Hence ultimately it doesn't matter whether one cries or not. — Agustino

Sure... ultimately, but I really pay little attention to ultimately. There are just too many factors and no one can take that standard of measure into consideration, so why bother with that futility? I fail to see any upside to holding my finite (knowable) life up to an infinite (unknowable) standard of measure.

I think character stays quite constant. — Agustino

I find that character develops and adapts.

The context is simple. If you spilled the milk and cried, there's no reason to cry more for crying in the first place. In that sense, crying is never a "waste" of time - or it always is a waste of time. Means pretty much the same thing. — Agustino

Actually I find that context is extremely difficult to isolate, but rather simple to assume one has isolated it; thus we get various people assuming they have absolute, ultimate and highly specific answers for generalized questions they have assumed are immune from adaptations and variations. Only by negating the possibility of accumulation of information leading to an adaptation of assumption can an idealist thrive.

It's more about how one relates to the unknown. — Agustino

How one relates to the unknown can be boiled down to an either/or. (did see that one coming from me, eh ;) )

Either one choose to investigate it or chooses not to investigate it.

If one chooses to investigate it and has not conclusive answer I suppose one makes assumptions, possibly a hypothesis, eventually a theory... in short investigates and trys to apply logic to the question.

If one chooses not to investigate it, then they don't make assumptions or a hypothesis or a theory, but if they do make an assumption or a hypothesis or a theory then this would be made out of ignorance.

Now it still doesn't really deal with my issue of answering the unknown with the unknowable.

Is the unknowable an answer or is it not?

I'd say it is not.

Belief in god(s) is not an act of knowledge.
— Mayor of Simpleton
True, it's an act of faith. — Agustino

How is this religious faith any different than simply saying "because" or "it is evident" without any foundation to support this other than saying "because" or "it is evident"?

Simply proclaiming it is evident is not a form of evidence. Stating it is evident is a conclusion prior to the argument being fielded. One of my issues about arguments for god is that I find in the end they are simply statements of faith wearing an arguments clothing. Nothing has been argued as much as it has been proclaimed.

Anyway, evidence sort of underminds faith. If you have facts to support something faith becomes redundant, whereas faith renders facts redundant.

Meow!

GREG

It seems as if you wish for my motivations to be grounded in some sort of fear of the unknown. Truth is I know nothing about the unknown so I see no reason to fear it. — Mayor of Simpleton

Likewise, it seems to me that atheists wish theist's beliefs to be grounded in some fear of annihilation... My point is that both arguments are absurd - even the theist one. Such arguments should never be used. I merely used a silly argument against you to show you that your own argument against theists was silly.

I'm not sold that a disbelief in a theistic god acts as a point of centering the being as it does for those who belive in a theistic god existing. — Mayor of Simpleton

Maybe not for you, but there certainly are many such atheists in the world. Or do you mean to tell me that there are no psychological advantages at all in being an atheist? I freely admit there are psychological advantages in being a theist for example - reduced fear of death, ability to hope to meet loved ones again, and so forth. And I can clearly see advantages to being an atheist - not having to worry what happens after death, being able to let go of your wrong-doings more easily, not being so concerned about responsibility, etc.

This is a placebo in a medical trial. Fine. Is that the same as a placebo in a non-medical trial? — Mayor of Simpleton

Well I think that your life clinging by the thread and doctors and others trying to save you is a medical trial, is it not?

I would think that would be safe to assume this would apply to placebos take with actual medicine, as both are chemicals. — Mayor of Simpleton

A placebo is generally a sugar pill. I'm unaware of medicines which have harmful interactions with sugar. So I'm quite sure it doesn't apply to placebos.

So let's pretend for a moment we are not speaking of chemicals, but if ideas/notions. Would it be possible that there are combinations of ideas/notions that are not a good combination; thus leading to more problems than solutions?

The interactions of faith based placebos (acts of centering the being) may indeed conflict and impede progress of empirical investigations (acts of knowledge); thus any combination or mixture of ideas/notions will not guarantee a benefit. — Mayor of Simpleton

In-so-far as people blabber about God and so forth in the room yes. But in-so-far as your inward attitude, which is what I'm discussing here, no. Your inner belief in God would have had no bad effect on the medical procedures going on (it may have had a positive one though due to placebo). But the folks blabbering about God around, would likely have had a negative impact on the medical procedures, and thus, yes, they should have gone out.

So if it is more appealing or not should be the foundation for fielding an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

Not should be - I never claimed that. I claimed that for many, as a matter of fact, it is. Most people who are atheists or theists don't hold those positions because of hundreds of hours of thought, debate and reading, and consideration.

I find that character is developed and adapts. — Mayor of Simpleton

This doesn't mean that it fundamentally changes though.

Either one choose to investigate it or chooses not to investigate it. — Mayor of Simpleton

And prayer/meditation in an effort to develop a relationship with God doesn't count as investigating it?

Is the unknowable an answer or is it not? — Mayor of Simpleton

Who said God is (completely) "unknowable"? The unknown isn't necessarily also unknowable.

How is this religious faith any different than simply saying "because" or "it is evident" without any foundation to support this other than saying "because" or "it is evident"? — Mayor of Simpleton

The reason why most arguments end up this way is that people who don't believe will never agree with the reasons/explanations offered by those who believe, and will instead find any other possible explanation for them that they can. This is a silly game. Any fact can be explained in a multitude of ways. You choose to believe it a certain way, I choose to believe it a different way. There's nothing really to discuss, except share that one of us has faith and the other doesn't.