[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
The thread about whether athiests would take an absolution "freeroll" offer, and their replies that they wouldn't, got me to thinking.

Many of the atheists replied that if God was good, he would reward their rationality. Which reminded me of the argument against Pascal's wager pointing out that perhaps God sends non believers instead of believers to heaven.

I have always regarded that argument a little silly as I'm sure most thiests do. Logically correct, but silly.


[/ QUOTE ]

If the argument is logically correct, then how is it "silly?" I can only think of one possible sense: since the concept of "god" (as well as "heaven" or "hell") is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless, then it's futile to attempt to maximize a cost function by adopting a particular belief system.

[ QUOTE ]

But it just dawned on me that the concepts involved are analagous to something I have written about regarding crime and punishment.

I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.

A simple enough concept for humans to understand. Why can't God see this concept too? And act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just one of the multitude of ways the Christian "god" is a hopeless morass of contradictions. But posing this question is perhaps a little silly.