How much do you really believe in God?

[huckelberry]

The idea that god is going to condemn people because they are the wrong religion is quite an insult towards god.

[Res Ipsa]

In this scenario I'd choose to be judged. Presuming that there was in fact an afterlife and a being offering this option, I think at that point I'd accept if this being is actually worthy of being considered good then I'll accept their judgment. And if they are the kind who plays the games of most gods we've been told exist, i.e. not good, odds are anyone choosing to escape judgment is royally screwed.

With hypothetical questions you've got to suspend disbelief and accept the terms as presented -- just assume the messenger can be trusted. That's the hardest part of getting an answer. I suspect as IHAQ said that a typical apologist will go straight into non-compute mode and be unable to imagine the bare possibility that they are wrong.

But the first part of your response is in line with how I imagine non-believers or liberal believers would respond. The idea is that it reflects your expectations. A non-believer coming to learn there is a God would likely be unable to imagine God is the lunatic most believers make him out to be and take their chances. My guess is a real fundamentalist who is able to entertain a hypothetical question would opt out. If they believe God is mainly about vanquishing their enemies and putting people in hell and find out they are worshiping the wrong God, then "oh crap!", they'll either fear the hell of the alternative God, or not want the heaven of another religion or even culture, let alone associate with people who believe differently.

I think if a real fundy were answer that they'd roll the dice on the real God, then that would make me suspect they are less fundamentalist than they let on. The fundy persona and exaggerations may be due to the person being very sensitive and lashing out.

Assuming the messenger could be trusted, I think I'd take the judgment. But it would be a close call.

[honorentheos]

In this scenario I'd choose to be judged. Presuming that there was in fact an afterlife and a being offering this option, I think at that point I'd accept if this being is actually worthy of being considered good then I'll accept their judgment. And if they are the kind who plays the games of most gods we've been told exist, i.e. not good, odds are anyone choosing to escape judgment is royally screwed.

With hypothetical questions you've got to suspend disbelief and accept the terms as presented -- just assume the messenger can be trusted.

I feel one has to accept the hypothetical is internally consistent which would make it more than a less sexy version that says, "You die, your God was a false god and one of the competitors in the religious space had it right. Are you willing to roll the dice that competitor somehow isn't going to damn you for worshiping their false competition?" That's a hypothetical where I'd say, sure fine. The gods described by religions in general include options that make eternal suffering very likely once your first pick in the ranked choice afterlife proposed is out.

But taken as written, there is the state of the universe we experience to take into account.

The last bit is what makes my choice what it is. If I presume the being can be trusted in keeping their word, I have to question why I'd be suspect of their judgement? A benevolent god who didn't force knowledge of themselves on the world but still cares about virtue is interesting. Why this final test but to see if you are willing to stand and account for your choices and actions? Like I said, if one assumes a god that demands proper worship to avoid damnation, the choice is obvious. I do not worship period, so the default is damnation. But why would THAT be the god putting this kind of offer on the table in the universe we actual experience? That makes it seem like this is now a final test for genuine virtue. Think about the test from Raiders of the Lost Ark, the last crusade. It asks.what kind of cup you think an all powerful deity drinks from and punishes those going for the gold, jewel-encrusted answer.

Where the fundies like MG and I diverge is in believing reality is consistent with their god both existing and being benevolent.

ETA: That said if the option were first asked if I wanted immortality or be content with my life as lived, I'd be content with my life as lived. The reveal and subsequent question as asked being a second question is spicier in my opinion.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m torn between your position and distrusting anyone who offers a pig in a poke.

[honorentheos]

I’m torn between your position and distrusting anyone who offers a pig in a poke.

True. As I read it, if the being is trustworthy then it follows the information provided is complete. I.e. it isn't one of the deities named or claimed else they'd provide that information. If all that can be known was shared (my belief was wrong, God exists, I can choose to be judged or cease to exist), then the part of me that believes in being accountable for my choices and actions demands I do so in this situation.

[Res Ipsa]

I’m torn between your position and distrusting anyone who offers a pig in a poke.

True. As I read it, if the being is trustworthy then it follows the information provided is complete. I.e. it isn't one of the deities named or claimed else they'd provide that information. If all that can be known was shared (my belief was wrong, God exists, I can choose to be judged or cease to exist), then the part of me that believes in being accountable for my choices and actions demands I do so in this situation.

That makes sense to me. It’s surprising to me how much I’ve gone back and forth on this issue.

[High Spy]

decry Swedish meatballs for the glory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Coincidentally, spy’s prophetic family members Swedish meatballs were the recipe of choice for tonight’s yummy dinner.

Said family member has passed on to the great gig in the sky.

But her yummy recipe will never die.

Spy is I, and I is Spy

Up in the sky

HI

[Physics Guy]

I guess a lot of people really do believe that God is going to punish people for not believing just as they do. Even for a lot of these people, though, I think this particular belief is actually a loose piece of the Jenga tower that could be pulled out without the whole thing collapsing.

You can always pull out pieces like that, at least up to a point. Even if people explicitly say that all their beliefs are one seamless whole that has to be accepted or rejected as a bundle, still that particular belief (or meta-belief) is itself just another piece of the package, and it can often be removed without much change to the rest.

So to me this thread's question just doesn't actually seem to be about how much people believe in God. It's really only about how much people believe their particular tenets about whether and how God is going to judge people about their beliefs.

And I'm afraid this particular scenario, about a choice between judgement and extinction, is itself another scenario in which ultimate reality is for some reason playing childishly cruel mind-games, just with an added preliminary opt-in-or-out round before the examination of my religious scruples. I'm having too hard a time taking the question seriously to find a serious answer; it's one of those bizarre hypotheticals that just makes me feel, Well, since we're in wacky-land, I may as well answer Banana.

Suppose you somehow meet Albert Einstein and he turns out to be a complete idiot, what do you say to him? Sure, you can frame the question, and even concoct a context in which he's had a stroke or something, but it's hard for me to get interested in the question because it's kind of self-contradictory. If he's an idiot then he's not the person to whom "Albert Einstein" refers, for me. If this guy's an idiot then he's really a totally different guy who just happens to have the same name, and since the guy with whom I'd love to talk is the great physicist, not just anyone with his name, I have no interest in thinking about what I might hypothetically say to his hypothetical idiot namesake.

Questions about what if God's a complete idiot are like that for me as well, only worse.

[Rivendale]

I guess a lot of people really do believe that God is going to punish people for not believing just as they do. Even for a lot of these people, though, I think this particular belief is actually a loose piece of the Jenga tower that could be pulled out without the whole thing collapsing.

You can always pull out pieces like that, at least up to a point. Even if people explicitly say that all their beliefs are one seamless whole that has to be accepted or rejected as a bundle, still that particular belief (or meta-belief) is itself just another piece of the package, and it can often be removed without much change to the rest.

So to me this thread's question just doesn't actually seem to be about how much people believe in God. It's really only about how much people believe their particular tenets about whether and how God is going to judge people about their beliefs.

And I'm afraid this particular scenario, about a choice between judgement and extinction, is itself another scenario in which ultimate reality is for some reason playing childishly cruel mind-games, just with an added preliminary opt-in-or-out round before the examination of my religious scruples. I'm having too hard a time taking the question seriously to find a serious answer; it's one of those bizarre hypotheticals that just makes me feel, Well, since we're in wacky-land, I may as well answer Banana.

Suppose you somehow meet Albert Einstein and he turns out to be a complete idiot, what do you say to him? Sure, you can frame the question, and even concoct a context in which he's had a stroke or something, but it's hard for me to get interested in the question because it's kind of self-contradictory. If he's an idiot then he's not the person to whom "Albert Einstein" refers, for me. If this guy's an idiot then he's really a totally different guy who just happens to have the same name, and since the guy with whom I'd love to talk is the great physicist, not just anyone with his name, I have no interest in thinking about what I might hypothetically say to his hypothetical idiot namesake.

Questions about what if God's a complete idiot are like that for me as well, only worse.

Einstein supposedly said that there has never been a mouse that built a mouse trap. That in response to humans building atomic bombs. I immediately thought of how many species however routinely eat there young. For me this is synonymous with people who leave their faith tradition and in many instances are ostracized if not deamonized by the group. That extra ratcheting of suffering dosen't have to be there yet seems to be unavoidable when dogma rules the group.

[malkie]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDdOnl0bHO4

Is any religion's claim substantially "better"/more believable?