Talk:You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon books.svg

This Books related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Jellybrain.png
This article requires attention for the following reason(s):

Several sections are completely empty

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)


million chamber revolver[edit]

"To be an atheist is to play Russian roulette with all barrels loaded." (This seems to be a reference to Pascal's Wager, in which case—given the number of gods proposed by world religions through the history of mankind—a better analogy would be "to play Russian roulette with a million-chamber revolver.")

I think I understand what the author was trying to do here, but as it is it doesn't make sense, right? I think they were trying to say something like, "to believe in a God is to play Russian roulette with a million-chamber-revolver with all-but-one barrels loaded". I've updated with the most concise formulation I can think of:

"...in which case—given the number of gods proposed by world religions through the history of mankind— it would be a million-barrel revolver, and Ray's would have one empty chamber." Kauri0.o (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Further to that: is this even an example of Pascal's Wager? I understand the million-chamber is a reference to the Infinite Gods problem, but I'm not convinced whether Ray's original statement is. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I like talking to myself. Where is the reference to infinite gain or infinite loss? Rather, it seems to me just a strange way of asserting that there must be a God. Kauri0.o (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The million chamber revolver argument doesn't make sense. That is because there is the weight of evidence issue. For example, there may be far more weightier evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible in terms of the quantity and quality of evidence than say some Hindu monkey god. In law, this is commonly referred to the "weight of evidence".[1] Perry Mason (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
It's shame Christian apologists never get around to actually showing us this supposed preponderance of evidence.... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The 'True Atheist'[edit]

He was only 19 at the time of writing so allowances should be made. Anna Livia (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)