Religion:
Peter re "Wager"

The atheist's refutation of the fundamentalist's argument contains a problem. It assumes that God is insane and inconsistent. While true that the insane are rarely consistent (one definition of insanity involving that inconsistency) and also that the book we have as measure of God's actions contains inconsistencies, we have no evidence to show that both of these conditions are true, as they must be for the atheist's argument to follow logically. If God is consistent but insane, then the Christian's viewpoint would be one possible conclusion. If God is sane but inconsistent then we are in the position of having to do as much to secure entry into heaven as possible in order to weigh the decision process. If God is both sane and consistent, we're approaching a New Testament ideal in which all are forgiven and welcome into grace upon their death and so it doesn't matter if you are a Christian or Satanist, God's got your back.

—Peter Hentges
December 2004

You’re right that God being insanely cruel doesn’t prove that the fundamentalist understanding of the afterlife is false. It merely means that there’s no sane reason to believe it.

—JoT
January 2004

top