Pascal’s School Shooting II

Trigger Warning: If triggered by trigger warnings, you should stop reading prior to reading this trigger warning.

Trigger Warning:  This tread, literally called "pascals school shooting," is indeed about pascals wager and school shootings.

Trigger Warning: Seriously, deep thoughts are ahead on a taboo subject.

My last thread got flooded with posts about irrelevant tangents instead of interacting with my main point. So now I have created a clickbait title and posted in philosophy instead.

So here you go:

Option 1a: There is no God, and I do a school shooting. Result: Finite gain.

Option 1b: There is no God, and I do a school shooting. Result: Finite loss.

Option 2a: There is a God, and I don't do a school shooting. Result: Infinite loss.  

Option 2b:  There is a God, and I do a school shooting: Result: Infinite gain.

100% of children go to heaven, but less than 100% of adults go to heaven. Having guaranteed infinite gain is infinitely better than having any ammount of finite gain + x% chance of infinite gain + 100-x% chance of infinite loss (hell). So even if 999 children that get shot would go to heaven anyways, the gain of the 1 that would have gone to hell had he grown up to reject God, is infinitely outweiging the finite loss the 999 children suffered from not being able to live on earth in addition to heaven. So shooting children is such an unlimited source of potential net positive that any non-zero chance of God existing would render school shootings a net positive even for those that don't believe in God. 

The triomni singular creator God that the classical Pascals wager assumes is literally defined as good and just. That would logically entail, and most Christians would agree with me here, that ALL children go to heaven. If you don't buy this, just swap out school with kindergarden, or abortion clinic, or whatever. The point is, the option of going to hell is not open right from the start of life, rather it is UNLOCKED at some stage of moral development or after a milestone autonomous decision that can be effectively classified as sin. Otherwise, that infants die all the time, and that God in the various holy books orders and indeed himselfs commits on numerous occasions the slaughter of babies, would imply that some people are BORN IN HELL, figuratively speaking, since they got born on the train to auswitch with no chance to jump off or avoid hell. If God exists, being shot as a child guarantees you heaven.In conclusion, since we cannot disprove God, both God and the derrivative infinite good of school shootings COULD exist, so school shootings are justified utilitaristically.

This argument also applies to abortion. Every aborted child will go to heaven or simply stop existing while not a single aborted child will go to hell (otherwise wtf God).

Thank God I am an atheist.

A typo. 

Option 1a: There is no God, and I don't do a school shooting. Result: finite gain.

You must contact the police about this ASAP it isn't a joke anymore. This is actionable. I already thought it was his previous thread but this is too much, he may convince someone else to do it either way.

RM

Dude...

You do realize Benjamin is atheist?

Please explain to RM that you were just making argument against Christianity and that you dont encourage what he thinks you do.

Pretty much! I have come to the same conclusion. Hell doctrine is pretty difficult to defend. *crickets* And I don’t hear anyone around here coming to its defense…

Lmao. Imagine thinking pascals wager of all things will convince anyone to do anything, let alone shoot children. Tbf many christians would kill children if God told them to.

Funny enough, her legal defense was literally that following Gods command, that was not too disimilar from what we see in the Bible, was a form insanity.

For now, at least, I changed the title of this topic to reflect the content. I do not agree that this warrants legal action as it stands, but I do think that title might have been a bit much given the content. Yes, I know it was clickbait, but it was still a little much.

In dath vaders voice: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh, my clickbait title!   

PS: Could you at least switch it to "Pascals school shooting"

The OP is illegal

You are helping a highly potential terrorist get away with it. This is his manifesto. You must understand he can even convince someone else to do it with this.

I honestly don’t see how.

Lot of conclusions there that I’m not seeing reflected in the post. I don’t agree that this is an attempt to convince someone to engage in a school shooting, but I’ve posed this to the other mods for consideration.

RM, are you projecting your own feelings? Was this argument convincing to you, and that is why you fear others will be convinced by it? Or are you just insulting everyone else on this site as being way less intelligent than you and thus unable to accomplish the easy task of seeing this text is meant to highlight the logical fallacies in pascals wager, not endorse it.

Not to mention calling me a "very potential terrorist" on literally no basis. If you really believe that then unblock me so we can talk about it.

I think free speech has value and its clear from other forum topic which has similar points that this is just argument against Christianity.

I dont think anyone believes that Benjamin is even a Christian, let alone a Christian terrorist.

Benjamin is very clearly not a terrorist and I buy that this post is clearly satire for rhetorical reasons, rather than RationalMadman's interpretation that this is an endorsement for genocide and terrorism.

But there is a basis on why this thread shouldn't stand.:

1. Regardless of how obvious the context is to us, you can guarantee that Rational will not be the only one to misinterpret it. This could lead to this site being blacklisted, or an investigation is conducted by anti-terrorism agencies, so there is legitimacy to RationalMadman's claim regardless.

2. This post likely to offend lots of people. Specifically, relatives of victims of such tragedies. This scrutiny can result in vigilantism that takes the form of retaliatory doxxing, or website raiding. Especially with vigilantes or people who believe it's acceptable to make Benjamin the target of their harassment.

I don't have a problem with what is written here, but how can you expect that nobody else will?

3. The incentive has always been to garner publicity for the site, but posts like these are very shock-value and disturbing to read, so if anything. It's just deterring new residents from an already dying population. Removing this post doesn't compromise the integrity of free speech, but a line does need to be drawn somewhere.

4. Moderation Consistency. If FishChaser gets warned for saying things like this to me?: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5413-diet-battle?argument_number=3

https://www.debateart.com/debates/5413-diet-battle?open_tab=votes&votes_page=1&vote_number=2
Why should posts like these be allowed without some measure of moderation scrutiny? The fact that this doesn't invoke some kind of reaction is just an example of moderation inconsistency.

Rational's rage-quitting of the site is such a big exaggeration and overreaction, that it makes it more likely that ANY criticism of this thread will not be taken seriously.
At the very least, this thread should be deleted and reposted, and reworded significantly differently.

You've already had to change the title of this thread, so why in the world are you stopping there?

Like I said, I think a post like this warrants discussion as regards whether it should stand. I think you make some good points, but I'm not going to make this decision unilaterally. I'm going to discuss it with the other mods. So, in response to your question, I haven't stopped there because I haven't decided whether this thread should stay up yet.

A passive response isn't sufficient mod enforcement to an otherwise sensitive subject like this.

If you agree that the points are good, then you acknowledge the immediate urgency this thread demands.

Specifically, the intervention of anti-terrorism agencies, vigilante harassment, and mob-lynching should be everyone's first concern.

That's a call to action that should overrule any objections the other mods raise.

Situations like these are exceptions to the principles and ethics of democracy. What good is a talk with the council going to do when this is a decision that requires firm leadership and a quick reaction?

You're welcome to view it however you want.

How do you suggest I reword this? The idea that good people suffer in hell because they had wrong religion is hardly less disturbing than dead children getting solace in heaven. And this is not something I invented, nearly any religious person in the US will tell you that victims of school shootings are in heaven now, while their atheist parrents suffer in hell.

Anyone religious and insane enough will eventually come to the same conclusion on their own, and will justify it to themselves over time. But if they read this early on they might come to realize the insanity of the idea. By disallowing the mention of the logical next step, we would not protect any children, we would protect the idea from well-deserved scrutiny.

If you are going to censor certain opinions, real or troll, because they are "scary" then there are way better candidates on this site. 

Firstly, it doesn't matter that I agree with the message or logic behind this post.

The fact remains that no religious person is going to be persuaded by reading this, no matter how right you are. It has nothing to do with the quality of the point and everything to do with the delivery itself.

The amount of biases and indoctrination is instinctual in the mind of a religious person, so even if you confront them with a straightforward argument that contradicts their worldview, they'll deliberately misinterpret this post to avoid confronting the unpleasant reality that is their religion by instead accusing you of whatever garbage Rational accused you of. And then justifying whatever reactions they do, as is consistent with an extremist vigilante.

If you disagree with religious people being convinced, then I suggest you present this argument to religious people on different platforms. Perhaps, Reddit or Quora.

Even if that didn't happen, the common counterarguments that Christians would use is that God would never instruct something so morally abominable, so they wouldn't comply with said command because it didn't come from God. They will always deflect and never engage with the direction of the example you're going for.

But there will be a lot of mixed reactions from Christians with a lot of them being morally outraged.

A more effective version of this thread that better illustrates the point of your thread would be to keep the content the same, but to reframe it in a way that engages Christians without directly challenging their beliefs or opinions in a confrontational way.

I'm assuming your goal is to get christians to question their beliefs?

You accomplish that by making it clear that you're not associating them with homicidal extremists or categorizing them as the same, that you understand there is a clear distinction. And then you ask them how they would counter those arguments by a lunatic who actually held those beliefs.

Secondly, I don't want this opinion "censored."

The argument is perfectly valid. But it definitely needs to be rephrased.

Craig literally said that the infants benefited from being bludgeoned to death on Gods orders. People will tolerate the excact same idea that I presented here if its in a holy book.

Does Norwegian Law allow us to say Ratman is a whack job drama queen. 

The greater whack job is this thread.  See 3RU7AL vid to see how whacky it can get with philosophy in regards to the label God { clearly not well defined from the get go }.

When does philosophy go whacky?  This thread is good { God } example.

Heaven > God > Aborted Child{?} as if a fetus is breathing child.

Philosophy  can get whacky for sure, and religous God chatter puts whacky icing on top of whacky philosophy.

Which came first whacky philosophy or whacky religion?

Which has more quacks participating. Philosophy or Religion?