Is it rational to just believe any assumption that pops into your head? Or should there be some type of process in order for something to be accepted as a belief?

Are you working on bumping up your comment count? You know that you can edit a post after submitting it, rather than just adding another one (or two or three), right?

Given that if A then B, suppose A; therefore, B. Do you disagree? My point was strictly a matter of formal logic, but you seem to be hung up on the details of the specific propositions involved. No one is asking you to believe B if you reject A.

Are you working on bumping up your comment count? You know that you can edit a post after submitting it, rather than just adding another one (or two or three), right? — aletheist

I don't care.

My point was strictly a matter of formal logic — aletheist

There is a difference between logic and reason, and the thread is about what is rational.

There is a difference between logic and reason, and the post is about what is rational. — Jeremiah

If you were offered either free money or a punch in the face, which should you choose?

We're able to make claims about the rationality of a decision even if the decision is between two options that aren't actually being offered.

Does accepting the money mean I have to give up my core beliefs and accept an absurdity as true?

You can't paint it into a very small box, ignore everything else, and call it rational.

There is a difference between logic and reason, and the post is about what is rational. — Jeremiah

Given that if A then B, and I believe A, then it is rational for me to believe B; in fact, it would be irrational for me not to believe B. However, if I do not believe A, then I can draw no conclusion from the information given about whether it would be rational for me to believe B. All of this goes for any propositions that we assign to A and B; their content is irrelevant to the logic.

Is it rational to just believe any assumption that pops into your head? Or should there be some type of process in order for something to be accepted as a belief? — Jeremiah

Still an unprovable hypothetical, and my dispute is accepting it as a belief.

Does accepting the money mean I have to give up my core beliefs and accept an absurdity as true? — Jeremiah

Not according to the scenario as presented; you are imposing an additional assumption. "Free money" presumably means no such (or any other) strings attached.

I try not to dig into analogies too deeply, as when you do it too often take things off track. I restated my dispute for that reason.

Is it rational to just believe any assumption that pops into your head? — Jeremiah

No one is suggesting an affirmative answer to this question.

Still an unprovable hypotheticals, and my dispute is accepting it as beliefs. — Jeremiah

To what are you referring here as "unprovable hypotheticals"? What beliefs do you think you are being asked to accept?

What I am seeing are attempts to limit the argument to very narrow confines in order to make it appear more rational.

But I'll restate my question, that has yet to be answered: Is it rational to just believe any assumption that pops into your head? Or should there be some type of process in order for something to be accepted as a belief?

I would pray and prepare myself to meet my maker. I would be angry - if I had the strength left to be angry - to see everyone around pessimistic and sad. So what will I choose? I can't really choose anything can I? So I won't choose anything I think. I'll try to accept the inevitability of my situation and place my hope in my God and in the afterlife. I'd try to die hopeful. It's hard to think about it and imagine the scenario.

Keep in mind though that I'm a theist. If I was an atheist... I'm not sure what I'd do, because it's a hard one. I would feel the need to believe in God and convert - that's the only way to die with hope in your heart. At the same time I would be disgusted at myself, and see myself as a nothing. And I would think that if I was God, then a man like me certainly wouldn't deserve Salvation.

To what are you referring here as "unprovable hypotheticals"? What beliefs do you think you are being asked to accept? — aletheist

If you are not going to put in the effort to follow the debate, I am not going to put effort into answering your questions.

Also note that his deathbed conversion has been disputed apparently, according to this Wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Stevens

Regardless, also note that he is politically conservative. Conservatism is very close to theism. I was an atheist conservative, and I've morphed back into a theist conservative overtime. Conservatives generally don't have the emotional reasons that liberals have to reject God, so it's very easy to make the step. For example, if you already think that traditions matter and have to be upheld, it's much easier to accept God. And this holds not only with regards to the deathbed, but with regards to everything else. For example, if you already see sex before marriage as harmful, when God requests you not to engage in it, then accepting it isn't such a big deal for you. But for someone who holds the very opposite view - ie sex before marriage is good and should be practiced - they'll have a much harder time accepting God. Really, discussing people's religion apart from their political orientations is starting to make little sense to me. The two seem to converge. The conservative atheist for example is very far from the liberal atheist for example - and generally the motivations for their atheism are different too.

You did not link your statement about "unprovable hypotheticals" to any particular post, so how am I supposed to discern the specific reference? I have not asked you to accept any beliefs, except this one:

Given that if A then B, and I believe A, then it is rational for me to believe B; in fact, it would be irrational for me not to believe B. — aletheist

Regarding Pascal's Wager, we seem to agree that it does not warrant belief in the existence/reality of God; but we apparently disagree about why this is the case.

Given that if A then B, and I believe A, then it is rational for me to believe B; in fact, it would be irrational for me not to believe B. — aletheist

This means nothing if A and B are not defined. Just like x + y = a means nothing until it is defined. As I said, "What I am seeing are attempts to limit the argument to very narrow confines in order to make it appear more rational."

If I said y=mx+b is a rational equation for what we what to measure, there is no way to validate that until I define the variables.

I will note that Cavacava actually defined his variables, which was nice.

Do you think that the existence or non-existence of god can be proved? — Cavacava

Once again, you're assuming I know what you mean by the word "God." Why don't you tell me, then we can proceed.

Are you really Cavacava or have you simply taken over Cavacava's account? I don't recall you posting stuff like this or in the manner you have done.

Are you really Cavacava or have you simply taken over Cavacava's account? I don't recall you posting stuff like this or in the manner you have done. — Thorongil

>:O What do you mean haha? How do you remember Cavacava? I don't remember him as ever having very strong positions, more like someone who liked to explore issues.

I didn't interact with him much, but this thread seems out of character from him, I dunno.

Yeah, me neither for that matter. But I tend to have firm positions on issues. It's interesting how there are some members, even in such a small community, that I, for example, never interact with, and they don't interact with me either.

and see myself as a nothing — Agustino

Compared to God, you are.

God refers to what ever you believe is god is, for many god is the creator, but what ever you sincerely believe god is.

Yep 100% cavacava

God refers to what ever you believe is god is — Cavacava

Which makes it a meaningless term....

Yes, I read the Wikipedia article and other accounts. The Hospital Chaplin confirmed his conversion and as I pointed out in one of my posts he did an exposition on Pascal's Wager early on, in his first collected work of poetry & essays in 1923. He thought it is a rational wager.

Obviously not to those who believe in god.

Sure, but the conclusion to the wager, that believing in God gets one salvation, is now impossible to maintain if God can mean anything.

I didn't say that you did, it obviously means something to those who believe in God and those who believe in a Good God believe in salvation through this belief. which has greater utility than not believing in God.