Sklansky's Christian/Math Challenge

[setoverset55]

I just recently made a username, as this is my first post, but I've read the 2+2 forums anonymously for quite a while, and not until now did something present itself as enough of a reason to actually spend time creating an account and commenting.

It's truly astounding how many people will try to "disprove" popular scientific notions (or argue for religious ideas with little to no evidence) by using 10th grade level common philosophical fallacies and pretending they've discovered some magical new argument that's just going to flip everyone's poor uninformed viewpoint on its head.

Just last week I saw some jackass waste 15 minutes on a youtube video reciting a poorly worded repetition of the Cosmological Argument in order to objectively "disprove Atheism."

Sorry bud, look up Pascal's Wager, and take an intro level philosophy college course before you talk out of your ass next time.

Uh oh, what if we're wrong?? We'll be condemned to Hell forever!

Come to think of it, what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster people are right? After, they claim to have the One Answer To the Meaning of Life, and if you don't agree, they tell you, you're going to Hell (or some equivalent.)

Wait, don't the Muslims say the same thing? I personally happen to believe that an invisible pink unicorn created the universe, and if you disagree he's going to send you to a place of eternal suffering and torment. SHOULDN'T YOU MAKE THE SMART GAMBLE BY JOINING THE CHURCH OF THE IPU???

Point is, Atheists don't look at all the religions of the world and decide that each one has equal probability of accuracy, and then choose the Christian God because they have pot odds. Your argument assumes that we think every nutjob religious opinion out there deserves equal weight and consideration and that based purely on probability we should choose to believe in yours, out of the thousands of made up gods and religions over the course of human history.

To continue the poker metaphor, we're willing to risk being all in on Atheism here, because we think you're drawing dead.

Sklansky's point was that fundamentalist evangelicals ("IF YOU DON'T THINK THE SAME THING AS ME ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE THEN A GUY IN A RED SUIT WITH A PITCHFORK WILL MAKE YOU SUFFER FOREEEEVVVEEERRRR!!!11") tend toward lower intelligence levels than the rest of us, or they would have figured out the problems with their position by now, which I don't even need to go into.

How is it that there still exist some highly intelligent individuals who buy in to this crap? It's as simple as indoctrination from a young age--makes some things very difficult, if not impossible, to let go of.

The practical applications of the bet itself seem a little ridiculous, but Sklansky still has a point--how many members of the scientific community do you know who think the Earth is 6,000 years old?

I don't think he was targeting all religious people, just the fundamentalists/evangelicals who truly believe in that "eternal suffering in the afterlife based solely on one's religious opinions" garbage.

[JackOfSpeed]

derrrr...did anyone else read this thread title as "Sklansky's Crystal Meth challenge?"

I guess I've had enough to drink for today.