Convert Me

== Observations == 1) I don't have to assume a stance of atheism. Being non-religious means I don't accept any religion. It doesn't mean I don't believe in god. 2) I'm not going to argue that Christianity is wrong because other religions say so. But the whole point of the OP was that I don't have any reason to accept Christianity over any other religion, so this "comparative" argument remains open. This does not devolve into a "debate between classical theism", because you can actually try and prove that christianity is the correct religion. What I'm looking for is – "Even if you believe god exists, what leads you to a CHRISTIAN god?" == Pro Case == Pascal's wager....... A) I deny the dichotomy between an Atheist world and a Christian world. He simply assumes that these are the ONLY two possibilities. Clearly, this is false. There are a zillion other religions, and infinitely many possible "worlds". So even if he thinks that this debate is restricted to Christianity vs Atheism, there are infinitely many atheist worlds too. We should also include non-religious, theistic worlds... The allowance of ANY of these possibilities is enough to blow up pascal's wager. So there is... An Athiest World A Christian World A Hindu World A World where I go to hell for helping an old lady across the street A World where I go to heaven for mass murdering giraffes A World created by a god where there is no afterlife A World NOT created by a god where there is an afterlife And so on to infinity, with every possible permutation of Atheist worlds, non-religious worlds. But there is only one Christian world... So if we integrate our utility function over all possible worlds, it will balance out to no afterlife advantage. To see this, just consider that "A world where X" is mirrored with "A world where not-X", where X is anything at all. So Pascal's wager fails on utilitarian grounds because the probability of any ONE world happening is infinitesimally small, and exactly balanced with some other world that is commensurately its opposite. B) I won't believe literally anything Pascal's wager can be used to promote any religion. If I write "you go to hell if you don't do jumping jacks" on a napkin, he could argue for that too. This whole argument is question begging – why did you choose Christianity in the first place? What makes it so much more probable than all the other possibilities? C) Assumptions about risk and values Pascal's wager assumes actors want to maximize their expected happiness. But what if I want to take a risk? After all, people willingly engage in risky behavior all the time even when their expected gain is negative. If I believe in Christianity, I'll never be able to participate in a 10 man orgy. How much is that worth to me? Maybe a lot. There's a 50% chance of hell, but I have it within my power to guarantee 100% that I will live a life of libertine hedonism. Its up to the individual to compare these options, because value is subjective. D) The (+1) life of Christianity There are a lot of ways to live healthy and happy... I can just do those things and not be a Christian. In fact, I'll just turn all these examples on him: All they show is that Christianity is correlated with nice things. But what if the causality is the opposite of what he thinks? What if charitable people are more likely to be Christian? What if being sociable CAUSES you to become christian (because you want to fit in... makes sense) So the causality can go both ways easily... This is also another set of value assumptions. I may not care about getting together at the county cook off to drink beer and talk about the high school football team with the other fathers. Anything that tears me away from engineering, exercise, and video games is gonna piss me off... So again, I reject these as merely subjective arguments. ==Con Case== I have a napkin. On it, I wrote that "Sieben will go to heaven so long as he does not believe in any religion. He gets bonus points if he converts other people away from religions, and also points count double in the last quarter" This sounds good to me. I don't believe it, but I'd rather believe it than Christianity because I don't have to do anything to go to heaven. This "Atheist Afterlife" is just as probable as the Christian Afterlife, so I get no disadvantage. VOTE FOR SIEBENISM