It did make me raise an eyebrow when Rogan got him to admit he was afraid of the possibility of Heaven being real, due to it also being eternal.
Bruh, if you really don’t believe in something, why fear it? Do you know how scared I am of the possibility that Jason Vorhees is real? Not at all! I’m also not scared of the idea that Outworld is real and will take over our realm if we lose another tournament…
So shouldn’t the concept of Heaven be just as powerless to his sense of fear?
I’m not making a statement or trying to imply anything, I’m not sold on an afterlife of any kind (I think it’s a lovely idea, but, I also think it literally raining chocolate is a lovely idea), I just found that confusing is all.
The risk about being wrong about heaven, although infinitesimally unlikely, is very grave because it is forever - over time, being wrong about this would outweigh every other poor decision you’ve ever made.
And yet, of course, this alone is not a reason to believe in it. Even if you were to do so, which version do you pick to have faith in when there is no hard evidence for any of them?
It’s a bit like Roko’s Basilisk, come to think of it. We can all be quite sure it isn’t real. But (the way it works out in this case), why needlessly take the gamble even if there is no evidence? Infinitely unlikely risk, but with infinitely large consequence.
It did make me raise an eyebrow when Rogan got him to admit he was afraid of the possibility of Heaven being real, due to it also being eternal.
Bruh, if you really don’t believe in something, why fear it? Do you know how scared I am of the possibility that Jason Vorhees is real? Not at all! I’m also not scared of the idea that Outworld is real and will take over our realm if we lose another tournament…
So shouldn’t the concept of Heaven be just as powerless to his sense of fear?
I’m not making a statement or trying to imply anything, I’m not sold on an afterlife of any kind (I think it’s a lovely idea, but, I also think it literally raining chocolate is a lovely idea), I just found that confusing is all.
The risk about being wrong about heaven, although infinitesimally unlikely, is very grave because it is forever - over time, being wrong about this would outweigh every other poor decision you’ve ever made.
And yet, of course, this alone is not a reason to believe in it. Even if you were to do so, which version do you pick to have faith in when there is no hard evidence for any of them?
It’s a bit like Roko’s Basilisk, come to think of it. We can all be quite sure it isn’t real. But (the way it works out in this case), why needlessly take the gamble even if there is no evidence? Infinitely unlikely risk, but with infinitely large consequence.
Praise the Basilisk, please don’t kill me Basilisk
Because claiming you have all the knowledge is even dumber than believing in religion.