Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  you are boring me and our readers/lurkers.

Oh im not bored, Batshit crazy is my favorite channel.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:49 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-09-2013 10:44 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  [Image: aVSVQ.png]


We have all heard Pascal's Wager at some time, and some of us may have even used it once or twice during our lifetimes. Here is a good visual way of communicating its folly and error as it is used by Christians or Muslims (anyone could use it but they seem to be the main offenders).

Interesting....I've certainly heard that from Christians but never from Muslims. I guess 'convert or we'll chop off your head' was a more motivating calling card for them.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 10:57 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(06-11-2013 10:49 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Interesting....I've certainly heard that from Christians but never from Muslims. I guess 'convert or we'll chop off your head' was a more motivating calling card for them.

You'd think surviving the genocide of the crusades would have made them a more peaceful people.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 12:45 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for Sam Harris's view, I've seen the 2010 TED presentation. There's nothing to refute because he gives no empirical reasons for his viewpoints and their underlying schemes. He describes morality as peaks and lows but doesn't say, for example, WHY repression of women in Islam is a "low" or HOW scientific research PROVES it's a low.

How fucking obtuse are you?

Sam Harris explains the difference between 'answer in principal' and 'answers in practice'. The gist of his idea is to agree upon a subjective measuring stick, then using that to measure things against. Science can help us determine where an action falls relatively on the scale, it can also help us come to conclusions and agreement about which scale we should use. He then outlines his reasoning for using the subjective scale of causing harm and suffering. It's also a hell of a lot more evidence based and reasonable than any 'divine command theory' theistic bullshit.

And he does explicitly explain why Islamic suppression of women is immoral, because on the subjective scale of causing harm and suffering, subjugating woman is a net negative. Their society as a whole (and women in particular) suffers far more as a direct result of their oppressive patriarchal system. I can understand how you wouldn't want to understand or accept this, it does hit a little close to home for Christian fundamentalists and Catholics.

It's not that you don't get it, you just don't want to. It's far easier to strut around like a rooster in a hen-house acting like you've already proved your point; because you'd rather take the easier and more convenient path of just maintain your current indoctrinated position.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-11-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(05-11-2013 04:19 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 03:28 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Still refute what? We can debate whatever you like.

Whatever it was you were referring to when I quoted you. I was more making the point that just claiming to have already refuted something comes across as an evasion tactic, than wanting to debate you myself.

Well, it may be an ego thing, but the way this group both repeats canards and insists I reply to them only as individuals when five of you ask me the same question--it's clear many of you read only your notes and replies rather than entire threads.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 02:16 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(06-11-2013 10:11 AM)guitar_nut Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're not getting it. I come here to look for new challenges, new questions (new life, new civilizations). When you trod out crap recycled from college classes, which I refuted before you were born, you are boring me and our readers/lurkers.

1. When was I born? Just the year will suffice, or do you claim knowledge you don't actually have;
2. Speak for yourself as to who is bored. I don't think the lurkers asked you to think for them;
3. You're one of those people who buys their own trophies, aren't you? I mean, all these self-declared debunkings...

Again, you attempt to put everything in a box. This time it's 'recycled from college classes.' Well, your 'crap' is recycled from the bible. How's that for tired, old, recycled material? Whew, I can smell the mildew from here!

The reason the arguments against it don't changes is because they don't have to. Why? Because they haven't been debunked. Your religion can't change its claims, so why would the arguments against it change? The more we progress as a society, the more ridiculous and outdated biblical thinking becomes.

(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for Sam Harris's view, I've seen the 2010 TED presentation. There's nothing to refute because he gives no empirical reasons for his viewpoints and their underlying schemes. He describes morality as peaks and lows but doesn't say, for example, WHY repression of women in Islam is a "low" or HOW scientific research PROVES it's a low.

And there's your argument. His argument is invalid because there's no empirical evidence. You either play with the big kids or you don't. Maybe it's time to tone down that ego of yours.

My arguments are fresh. I sit down and constantly think not only of new apologetics but of debunking the claims of "theologians" like Augustine and Calvin--the kind of people who make arguments you are still attaching.

Again, I watched the TED presentation, all 25 minutes of it, and took notes, and Sam Harris asserted how Islam had erred and the religious had erred and how science could make moral decisions without explaining how it could do so, citing case studies or peer-reviewed efforts (sound familiar?) and etc. His offer to pay to refute his argument is a straw offer because he lays down no scientific facts in evidence that may be contested.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 02:21 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(06-11-2013 12:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-11-2013 02:58 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  As for Sam Harris's view, I've seen the 2010 TED presentation. There's nothing to refute because he gives no empirical reasons for his viewpoints and their underlying schemes. He describes morality as peaks and lows but doesn't say, for example, WHY repression of women in Islam is a "low" or HOW scientific research PROVES it's a low.

How fucking obtuse are you?

Sam Harris explains the difference between 'answer in principal' and 'answers in practice'. The gist of his idea is to agree upon a subjective measuring stick, then using that to measure things against. Science can help us determine where an action falls relatively on the scale, it can also help us come to conclusions and agreement about which scale we should use. He then outlines his reasoning for using the subjective scale of causing harm and suffering. It's also a hell of a lot more evidence based and reasonable than any 'divine command theory' theistic bullshit.

And he does explicitly explain why Islamic suppression of women is immoral, because on the subjective scale of causing harm and suffering, subjugating woman is a net negative. Their society as a whole (and women in particular) suffers far more as a direct result of their oppressive patriarchal system. I can understand how you wouldn't want to understand or accept this, it does hit a little close to home for Christian fundamentalists and Catholics.

It's not that you don't get it, you just don't want to. It's far easier to strut around like a rooster in a hen-house acting like you've already proved your point; because you'd rather take the easier and more convenient path of just maintain your current indoctrinated position.

One cannot call the subjection or subjugation of women (or men, or dogs, or children, or even--Lord help us--Atheists) a net negative, or net positive, or net neutral, on a scientific basis or a subjective basis without defining what is positive, what is negative, and how we know the difference, something Mr. Harris did not do.

In his presentation, he not only used subjective measures but had the arrogance to suggest that science can offer empirical data to prove assertions--without definitions, controls or scales! He got applause from an audience that doesn't like Islam or pornographic sales counters in America, and that's about all he accomplished.

You're here to defend your viewpoint and he isn't, so let's begin by suggesting that Islamic women are held compliant by the wicked society that subjugates them, which is a net positive from the male perspective in that society, and their might makes right in their eyes. Women in the West protest, abort children, violently abuse their husbands, etc. for a net negative.

See? As I've said to you many times now, you need to demonstrate why your subjective viewpoint is correct, and provide empirical evidence that it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 03:50 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(06-11-2013 02:21 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One cannot call the subjection or subjugation of women (or men, or dogs, or children, or even--Lord help us--Atheists) a net negative, or net positive, or net neutral, on a scientific basis or a subjective basis without defining what is positive, what is negative, and how we know the difference, something Mr. Harris did not do.

In his presentation, he not only used subjective measures but had the arrogance to suggest that science can offer empirical data to prove assertions--without definitions, controls or scales! He got applause from an audience that doesn't like Islam or pornographic sales counters in America, and that's about all he accomplished.

You're here to defend your viewpoint and he isn't, so let's begin by suggesting that Islamic women are held compliant by the wicked society that subjugates them, which is a net positive from the male perspective in that society, and their might makes right in their eyes. Women in the West protest, abort children, violently abuse their husbands, etc. for a net negative.

See? As I've said to you many times now, you need to demonstrate why your subjective viewpoint is correct, and provide empirical evidence that it is.


Yep, purposely obtuse once again... Drinking Beverage

If you are of the opinion that the conservative Islamic regimes are better on the whole than the liberal secular democracies, then I would invite you to convert to Islam and emigrate over there. Or better yet, don't convert, and then you can have the privilege of being treated as a heretic and subjected to Sharia law.

You'd never accept any evidence anyways, because you're stuck on an 'objective morality' kick. Science could help us better judge what is objectively more or less moral given a certain set of criteria, but science cannot determine what that subjective criteria is. There is no objective evidence to prove to you that gauging human suffering is the only or even the best gauge of morality. But it sure as hell is better than taking the Bible at face value.

If you take into account overall happiness, infant mortality, levels of education, wealth distribution, prison populations, etc. Just about any measurable scale between nations that you could use, the liberal nations of secular norther Europe are leagues ahead of backwards on oppressive fundamentalist religious regimes throughout the world. This would lead most people to conclude that supporting religious freedom, equality under the law, universal healthcare and education, and other prominent aspects of their government policies just might have something to do with the people in their nations living longer, being wealthier, better educated, and overall much happier. Maybe, just maybe, they're somehow connected.

Unless of course what you value in society isn't these things. Maybe you prefer the ability to murder your wife if she left the house without a male escort? Maybe you'd enjoy maintaining your honor by killing your daughter after she was brutally gang raped? Or maybe you'd rather live someplace where you don't ever have to worry about 'gay pride' parades?

I can't use science to say that you're objectively wrong in valuing those traits in a society, but I can tell you that to value them is fucked up. Yes, that is subjective. But I came to that conclusion by being more concerned for the well being of my fellow human beings, than with my own personal eternal fate after I die according to whatever religious indoctrination had taken hold of me.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 04:17 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(06-11-2013 02:16 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My arguments are fresh. I sit down and constantly think not only of new apologetics but of debunking the claims of "theologians" like Augustine and Calvin--the kind of people who make arguments you are still attaching.

Ouch. If you're sitting down with the goal of creating new apologetic arguments, then there's no reason to remove yourself from the pool of theologians you're trying to distance yourself from. You're presupposing your conclusion and looking for arguments to support the conclusion. Different content, same dubious goal. There will always be a need for apologetics, however, as long as our own knowledge continues to expand. Someday your arguments will be considered old, and younger creationist generations will offer new apologetics showing how the story of genesis obviously was meant to include the microbes we found on Mars in 2025. Alien landing? More apologetics needed. Jesus still hasn't returned? More apologetics needed. Sam Harris Jr. finds emperical evidence for scientific morality? More apologetics needed.

If I sit down and think "I know the bible can prove morality, how can I prove it?" then I'm not really taking an open approach to the topic. If I sit down and think "I wonder if morality can be demonstrated?" and resist the knee-jerk urge to reach for my bible, or search for articles in AIG, or Google 'Bible proves morality atheists are all wrong', then I'm being more of a freethinker.

(06-11-2013 02:16 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Again, I watched the TED presentation, all 25 minutes of it, and took notes, and Sam Harris asserted how Islam had erred and the religious had erred and how science could make moral decisions without explaining how it could do so, citing case studies or peer-reviewed efforts (sound familiar?) and etc. His offer to pay to refute his argument is a straw offer because he lays down no scientific facts in evidence that may be contested.

Well, then he's wrong and you should call him out. I think I know what the problem is, though. You could attack his argument, but you don't have a stronger counter-argument. Harris and most other atheist 'celebs' have made fodder of biblical-based morality. Still, I'd write him an essay. You crank out 1000 words an hour on this site. The essay should be no problem.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
07-11-2013, 12:57 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-09-2013 03:32 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 01:15 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm going to heaven "regardless".

In Heaven
Everything is fine
In Heaven
Everything is fine
You got your good thing
And you've got mine.




Man that's f'ing creepy lol
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: