Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-09-2013 11:17 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  The diagram's missing the "Cthulu" option.

Good point! One of my favorite authors is Brian Lumley who is a big Cthulu devotee himself. "Keep Calm and Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 12:59 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(24-09-2013 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 01:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're not playing the game friend. What if Islam is correct? Shouldn't you hedge your bets and believe that just in case?

Lets assume you can't ascertain the right one and its silly to try. The question becomes:

By changing my current belief to a random belief, Is my future likely to be better off, worse off, or about the same?

Ah, but if you seek god, god will find you. And you have to start somewhere that isn't apatheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 01:13 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 12:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Ah, but if you seek god, god will find you.

You know, as I look around my house, I can see evidence of gremlins. Yup. Definitely gremlins living in my house. If I look at everything in my house with the right interpretation, it's obvious that gremlins are real. When I seek gremlins with all of my heart and open my eyes to the evidence, I'd be a fool to not believe that gremlins exist and fuck with stuff in my house. Not just my house, all over the place.

I believe it. You may not, but that's because you've blinded yourself to the delusion that they don't exist. If you would only trust what I'm telling you. You can't deny that gremlins are real if you would only seek the evidence. Angel




When you look at the world through god tinted glasses, you will see evidence for god everywhere.

When you take off those glasses and look at the world as it really is, you just see the world. There is no room in reality for your god.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
25-09-2013, 01:18 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 12:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  EK:

Quote:Hence, not responsible. That is scapegoating, letting others take responsibility for your actions; and Christianity is scapegoating writ large. Even ignoring the nonsense of a 3-in-1 god sacrificing a part of himself to himself to appease himself, the doctrine of cosmic vicarious redemption is immoral at it's core.

Yes, I got it. Christopher Hitchens was a very intelligent person with interesting ideas. However, someone in prison who is born again does not have their cell doors fly open the next day. Gamblers who become born again don't have their debts paid. The scapegoat/atonement process has to do with the next world. Biblically, all of us are going to Hell without it, so I don't want to "have it your way" to use Burger King's slogan.

All we need to do to soften Hitchens's concept of "disgusting moral shift" is replace "substitutionary atonement" with "a friend helped me do something I couldn't do on my own" which is the golden rule, altruism and many other things Hitchens certainly believed in. You are making a category error, ascribing a payment or transaction or will legacy (Bible terms for salvation and sin's payment) with a abrogation of responsibility.


Sure, if your friend would only help you if you telepathically told him you accepted him as your personal savior so that your friend would save you from the raging inferno his father (who is also himself) will subject you to for all eternity if you don't.

That's not altruism, that's a protection racket. Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
25-09-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 01:13 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Ah, but if you seek god, god will find you.

You know, as I look around my house, I can see evidence of gremlins. Yup. Definitely gremlins living in my house. If I look at everything in my house with the right interpretation, it's obvious that gremlins are real. When I seek gremlins with all of my heart and open my eyes to the evidence, I'd be a fool to not believe that gremlins exist and fuck with stuff in my house. Not just my house, all over the place.

I believe it. You may not, but that's because you've blinded yourself to the delusion that they don't exist. If you would only trust what I'm telling you. You can't deny that gremlins are real if you would only seek the evidence. Angel




When you look at the world through god tinted glasses, you will see evidence for god everywhere.

When you take off those glasses and look at the world as it really is, you just see the world. There is no room in reality for your god.

Can you be more specific? You are indeed making an outrageous claim, but I'm open minded. I've heard stranger things. What is the evidence you keep claiming for gremlins? Is it empirical? Metaphysical? Tell us more, please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PleaseJesus's post
25-09-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 01:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  EK:


Yes, I got it. Christopher Hitchens was a very intelligent person with interesting ideas. However, someone in prison who is born again does not have their cell doors fly open the next day. Gamblers who become born again don't have their debts paid. The scapegoat/atonement process has to do with the next world. Biblically, all of us are going to Hell without it, so I don't want to "have it your way" to use Burger King's slogan.

All we need to do to soften Hitchens's concept of "disgusting moral shift" is replace "substitutionary atonement" with "a friend helped me do something I couldn't do on my own" which is the golden rule, altruism and many other things Hitchens certainly believed in. You are making a category error, ascribing a payment or transaction or will legacy (Bible terms for salvation and sin's payment) with a abrogation of responsibility.


Sure, if your friend would only help you if you telepathically told him you accepted him as your personal savior so that your friend would save you from the raging inferno his father (who is also himself) will subject you to for all eternity if you don't.

That's not altruism, that's a protection racket. Weeping

Talking to someone who can hear is not telepathy, it's talking. I think atheists have an investment in making the events of the Bible more supernatural than they are, I think it's hyperbole to create straw man argumentation.

Your second point can be fixed by saying "protection" and not "protection racket", but protection is something different than abandoning moral responsibility--you see how in your way of thinking, Hitchens was making the wrong point, as I've pointed out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Talking to someone who can hear is not telepathy, it's talking. I think atheists have an investment in making the events of the Bible more supernatural than they are, I think it's hyperbole to create straw man argumentation.

Dodgy

(25-09-2013 12:37 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I haven't claimed ever to be strong in faith. I do claim I'm strong in knowledge, a knowledge that has resulted from exactly what you wrote--either the Bible is 100% true or it's rather useless.

What stawman? Drinking Beverage



(25-09-2013 01:23 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Your second point can be fixed by saying "protection" and not "protection racket", but protection is something different than abandoning moral responsibility--you see how in your way of thinking, Hitchens was making the wrong point, as I've pointed out.

If your god has to protect us from himself, there is something very wrong with your worldview and the things you choose to worship. At the very least, your god is anything but benevolent; which is one of the points I've been driving at since forever. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 12:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(24-09-2013 01:32 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Lets assume you can't ascertain the right one and its silly to try. The question becomes:

By changing my current belief to a random belief, Is my future likely to be better off, worse off, or about the same?

Ah, but if you seek god, god will find you. And you have to start somewhere that isn't apatheism.

I sought and I found no god.

I didn't grow apathetic until after I had reached the conclusion that I didn't believe in a god.

Stop making assumptions about how I derived my opinions.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
25-09-2013, 02:04 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
EK:

Quote:If your god has to protect us from himself, there is something very wrong with your worldview and the things you choose to worship. At the very least, your god is anything but benevolent; which is one of the points I've been driving at since forever.

I'm pleased you mentioned this. God has to protect us from the consequences of sin, not himself. Sin is a force like gravity or electromagnetism with its own rules for conduction, and consequences. Look at it this way:

1. God planned to grant us free will

2. This free will would only be free if we disobeyed

3. This disobedience kills

Your analogy is very close! It's not "god planned to punch us then blocked the punch" it's "god gave us car keys, and air bags". So close. My analogy works if you would admit that humans have absolute or practical free will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2013, 02:06 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 01:56 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 12:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Ah, but if you seek god, god will find you. And you have to start somewhere that isn't apatheism.

I sought and I found no god.

I didn't grow apathetic until after I had reached the conclusion that I didn't believe in a god.

Stop making assumptions about how I derived my opinions.

Huh? I didn't say how you derived your present opinion. I opined that if one will in the future seek god, god will find them, and that apatheism is pushing away from that seeking.

For all we both know, you are going to find god 20 years from now, and you sought him, will be found by him and the apatheism is delaying your finding and etc. As a Christian, I wouldn't presume your done forever, just closed-minded for now, which is different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: