So i recently got in a debate about whether we should spread the gospel (im highly against it let people have their own religion and dont interfere with it) and there excuse for it was "if you had a pill that could save a childs life would you give it to them" the short and easy answer to this is yes 100% of people would do it probably. But now lets go a bit deeper, say when you give the pill to the child, the child would have to spend there life telling others about the pill and persuading those to take it. about 99% would still do it because your saving the childs life still so lets go even deeper. Say you were handed a bowl with about 100 pills in it only 1 can save you the rest would plunge you into heII would you take it. the answer to this is no or around 99% would say no, because thats roughly the odds of your religion being correct. Moral of the story is just let people have their own religions guys because odds are yours is also wrong :) peace
Hey everybody to give some details I'm going to try and defend the other side here and hopefully show the issues, I'm going to cite from them and then comment my thoughts on that and hopefully you learn something also note that the original project is at the top and should be read before you read this part :). Nowhere am I trying to be rude or a strawman instead I do this so that others' opinions can be known if you reading this with eyes to disprove just take a breath and comment objections below now also don't fight me, or my spelling, or grammar instead fight my idea's. So let's begin. "whether we should spread the gospel (im highly against it let people have their own religion and dont interfere with it)" Okay first let's dissect this statement there against people spreading their religion because it infringes with other religions, Lets first start with what this means to them this would mean that they are being hypocritical talking against other religions when they said people should have there own religion and not interfere with them yet that's exactly what they're doing. Their own statement is used against them they should "let people have their own religion and don't interfere with it." And yes spreading the gospel is very very part of my religion. Next this seems to be a moral value statement or at least a value statement of humans that they deserve to have their own opinion something that I'm interested to hear and what it's grounded in because as far as I've seen with atheism human worth is the same worth of the color yellow being the best. Unlike theism where human worth is immense and based in God, in Christian theism to say a human doesn't have worth is just as wrong as saying 1+1=4 so I'm interested in hearing why we can say humans have worth with atheism. Next sentence, yes 100% of people would do it let's get past the point that all of these stats are random by them, and just look how they think the obvious answer is to save the child's life, I question where the value of life and morality comes from. the next part that I want to analyze. "or around 99% would say no," Okay first if you read before that he took away the metaphor and got down to what the metaphor is saying, according to there logic there is a 1% chance that they will go to be saved a 99% chance that they go to hell, Now if you don't take a pill according to them you'd have a 100% chance of hell although there math is completely wrong. first they didn't include their own religion atheism in the probability, although what I think the stronger argument is that taking a pill is better then taking zero pills if you even had a chance to survive then you should do it having a religion is epistemically better for you. Once more they didn't take the probability of chances of each religion being true, which from my experience if looked at Christianity takes first place in probability it increases the chances that you're going to take the right pill. "Moral of the story is just let people have their own religions guys because odds are yours is also wrong" Umm ironically they used moral(because most scholars I've seen agree that atheism doesn't allow for objective morals these are atheist scholars included.) and even more ironically they wrote an entire project that goes agaist there moral of the story to show there moral this is like stealing to tell people that they shouldn't steal, Also they didn't tell anybody why there odd's are correct instead I think there statistics are wrong, once more you it's better to join a religion because it makes the odd's more in your favor then picking zero religions the reason being is that if you list all the religions that include bad things if you didn't pick it, and there is a chance that one of them is true then picking one of those religions if they have equal probability is better then picking zero religions as your more likely being safe by picking one religion.
