Even on the societies that are based on "force" You still need to have complience from the masses. Otherwise your structure crumbles.

Even in dictatorships You still have some democratic participation by desing.

Those two things go with eachother.

Like op said. When there is a need for Manpower You cannot aford to treat other like "less like".

For example durango WW2 many women went to work while the men were at war. The needs of war outweight the centuries of disctimination.

In the same way disctimination can only happens when there is structure to wrap around. Everyone can chop a tree the same way but only a few would be able to make a good pot.

It's not. It's a discussion of every phylosophy ever taught.

But You based your definition of naturalism by using this (false) definition of theism. The minus infinite stuff and all that jazz.

I'm more interesting in knowing if You realise that You never talk about Theism here???.

Have someone told You that???

It's the same. Wording differently but the same results.

>infinite loss if wrong (hell).

>naturalism (if correct) entails infinite loss

You would only are changing the rows.

Also si wrong. Because naturalism doesn't entails infinite lose. But that is one of the other mistakes that You Made.

Both misuse infinite. Both positive and negate

They claimed that the "god" position have infinite value.

And the "not god" position have Zero or minus infinite value.

Both use the same appeal to consecuences fallacy to coerse certain answer.

The only diference as far as I could read was that Yours "only" wanted to "reasses" the bias of naturalism or something like that???? Wich again. Is just Pascal's wager with more steps.

Honestly remembering back. That wasn't Even the worst part of your argument. Just the one that stand out the most.

And from what I recall from that specific tread You were not making a good point. I wonder if the other poster just raised their arms in exahustion.

Basically not.

The Main problem is that OP is misunderstanding what naturalism AND theism means.

Naturalism is flexible enough to account for any "non natiralistic" problems.

But honestly OP chosed one of the worse examples that they could have chosen. It has more holes than the boat that the example proposed.

This sounds like Pascal wager with extra steps. You never do Pascal wager with extra steps.

ETA oh yeah. You mentioned Pascal wager. It's is. Is a very faulty argument.