Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ill_Sound621 t1_j2ps2ch wrote

Reply to comment by _Zirath_ in Atheistic Naturalism does not offer any long-term pragmatic outcome of value when compared to Non-Naturalist views, such as Theism by _Zirath_

Honestly remembering back. That wasn't Even the worst part of your argument. Just the one that stand out the most.

And from what I recall from that specific tread You were not making a good point. I wonder if the other poster just raised their arms in exahustion.

1

_Zirath_ OP t1_j2pshe4 wrote

You can speculate on his motivation all day, but its just a flat misunderstanding of either my argument or pascals wager to say they're the same. If you think otherwise, please explain how they're the same argument.

1

Ill_Sound621 t1_j2pt72v wrote

Both misuse infinite. Both positive and negate

They claimed that the "god" position have infinite value.

And the "not god" position have Zero or minus infinite value.

Both use the same appeal to consecuences fallacy to coerse certain answer.

The only diference as far as I could read was that Yours "only" wanted to "reasses" the bias of naturalism or something like that???? Wich again. Is just Pascal's wager with more steps.

2

_Zirath_ OP t1_j2pw2qx wrote

Wow that just makes it all the more clear. Lesson time:

Pascal's Wager more or less says one should believe in God because doing so entails infinite gain if correct and only finite loss if wrong. Meanwhile the atheist position entails only finite gain if correct and infinite loss if wrong (hell). So the rational person should believe in God/Christianity.

My argument makes no such conclusion. In short, it says naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss. This is less preferable than worldviews that don't entails infinite loss, so it should motivate one to seek to disprove naturalism, and only discontentedly accept it.

So its like I said: the arguments are not the same. The conclusions are not the same. It is only similar insofar as it is a pragmatic approach to the issue of infinite gain/loss around beliefs and such.

1

Ill_Sound621 t1_j2pwtv3 wrote

It's the same. Wording differently but the same results.

>infinite loss if wrong (hell).

>naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss

You would only are changing the rows.

Also si wrong. Because naturalism doesn't entails infinite lose. But that is one of the other mistakes that You Made.

1

_Zirath_ OP t1_j2pxly4 wrote

Not the same premises or conclusion, but you still think they're the same argument. Haha ok. I'll just refer you over to the other more interesting comment thread I had on this.

1

Ill_Sound621 t1_j2pxv09 wrote

I'm more interesting in knowing if You realise that You never talk about Theism here???.

Have someone told You that???

1

_Zirath_ OP t1_j2pylqr wrote

This argument only posits theism as an example of a potential alternative and really doesn't care about the truth or falsity of theism. Like I said, I'll just refer you elsewhere in this thread because you just don't seem to understand:

https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/100zfxn/atheistic_naturalism_does_not_offer_any_longterm/j2lln47/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3

1

Ill_Sound621 t1_j2pyyg4 wrote

But You based your definition of naturalism by using this (false) definition of theism. The minus infinite stuff and all that jazz.

1