Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2013, 11:26 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(26-09-2013 05:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 03:33 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  i wish.. that.. . you know.. people would stop trying to assert that god exists when the best that they can offer up is faith; in other words people mistake the hope that something is real for it being real. Just because I hope I'm rich doesn't mean I am and I can sure as hell hope that I buttered the correct side, but well you never really know.

You have people in this thread asserting that its likely God doesn't exist when the best they can offer up is faith in that position.

Saying it is LIKELY that god does not exists is far different from saying

I KNOW FOR CERTAIN god exists like almost any christian I know will.

I use the evidence I see to still say he LIKELY does not exist...

Then they say NO NO I have proof he does exist but that proof is nothing more than a concept of faith, something that be definition is NOT proof of anything but in this case ignorance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like gall's post
27-09-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(26-09-2013 05:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 03:33 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote:  i wish.. that.. . you know.. people would stop trying to assert that god exists when the best that they can offer up is faith; in other words people mistake the hope that something is real for it being real. Just because I hope I'm rich doesn't mean I am and I can sure as hell hope that I buttered the correct side, but well you never really know.
You have people in this thread asserting that its likely God doesn't exist when the best they can offer up is faith in that position.

You didn't think very hard about that before commenting did you...

Believers have faith that there is a god precisely because there is no evidence. Think about it. If there was evidence, then faith would be replaced by knowledge.

So there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god. We all agree on that (even if believers won't admit that).

The difference between atheists and believers is atheists respond to that fact with "therefore, I have no belief in a god" whereas believer respond with "god exists so, without evidence, I must simply have faith". Now, take god out and insert anything else, like 50-headed mammals, and it should be obvious which conclusion is more reasonable...

You were attempting to say that, if one assertion in the absence of absolute knowledge is silly, the opposite assertion in the absence of absolute knowledge must be equally silly - but I've just shown that logic doesn't hold.

Finally, atheism is not faith that there is no god. It's not faith at all, but the absence of it.

"Religion has caused more misery to all of mankind in every stage of human history than any other single idea." --Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
27-09-2013, 01:26 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
Your point is well formed. No sufficient evidence, along with many other contributing factors, is what allowed me to break free of the mental shackles of a religious mindset. The reason faith is so heavily emphasized in church circles and in the bible is that it is foundational to knowledge of god. It is the hope for things not seen, to paraphrase Paul. That's why they call it faith. The shell game is that you can't "know god" unless you have faith, so it's easy for Christians to discount unbelievers' assertions because they are "spiritually blind." In their world, faith is a virtue. In the real world it's just called gullibility.

(27-09-2013 12:04 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 05:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You have people in this thread asserting that its likely God doesn't exist when the best they can offer up is faith in that position.

You didn't think very hard about that before commenting did you...

Believers have faith that there is a god precisely because there is no evidence. Think about it. If there was evidence, then faith would be replaced by knowledge.

So there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god. We all agree on that (even if believers won't admit that).

The difference between atheists and believers is atheists respond to that fact with "therefore, I have no belief in a god" whereas believer respond with "god exists so, without evidence, I must simply have faith". Now, take god out and insert anything else, like 50-headed mammals, and it should be obvious which conclusion is more reasonable...

You were attempting to say that, if one assertion in the absence of absolute knowledge is silly, the opposite assertion in the absence of absolute knowledge must be equally silly - but I've just shown that logic doesn't hold.

Finally, atheism is not faith that there is no god. It's not faith at all, but the absence of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(25-09-2013 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 02:06 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  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.

For all we know, aliens will fly into our orbit from a far away galaxy and tell us they are the inspiration for what we call gods but they just have really advanced technology.

Am I close-minded for saying that this is so unlikely to be true that it warrants no serious consideration since there is 0 evidence it is likely in even the remotest sense? No.

I seek an understanding of reality. If any god exists concurrent with that, then it would really matter if I were apathetic or not, it would be inevitable to find it, no?

But it clearly isn't the god of the bible that exists. The bible is a fairy tale and contains no truth about reality.

At the risk of making an ad populum:

*How many people claim contact with space aliens?

*How many with a god?

*How many people say as you said "The Bible contains NO truth about reality"? I don't see many arguments here lately against the Proverbs, for example, which contain some interesting items about money, work, education, child rearing, etc. regardless if you agree with some or all of them. You are disagreeing with ALL of them and showing a bias here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 10:06 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(27-09-2013 11:26 AM)gall Wrote:  
(26-09-2013 05:54 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You have people in this thread asserting that its likely God doesn't exist when the best they can offer up is faith in that position.

Saying it is LIKELY that god does not exists is far different from saying

I KNOW FOR CERTAIN god exists like almost any christian I know will.

I use the evidence I see to still say he LIKELY does not exist...

Then they say NO NO I have proof he does exist but that proof is nothing more than a concept of faith, something that be definition is NOT proof of anything but in this case ignorance.

What evidence do you see to say he likely does not exist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(01-10-2013 10:04 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(25-09-2013 02:20 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  For all we know, aliens will fly into our orbit from a far away galaxy and tell us they are the inspiration for what we call gods but they just have really advanced technology.

Am I close-minded for saying that this is so unlikely to be true that it warrants no serious consideration since there is 0 evidence it is likely in even the remotest sense? No.

I seek an understanding of reality. If any god exists concurrent with that, then it would really matter if I were apathetic or not, it would be inevitable to find it, no?

But it clearly isn't the god of the bible that exists. The bible is a fairy tale and contains no truth about reality.

At the risk of making an ad populum:

*How many people claim contact with space aliens?

*How many with a god?

*How many people say as you said "The Bible contains NO truth about reality"? I don't see many arguments here lately against the Proverbs, for example, which contain some interesting items about money, work, education, child rearing, etc. regardless if you agree with some or all of them. You are disagreeing with ALL of them and showing a bias here.

"*How many people claim contact with space aliens?"

Why does it matter the volume? A small group can be just as wrong as a large one when the only thing they use to try and corroborate their claim is anecdotal evidence, faith, and appeals to different fallacies while providing no actual evidence or logical arguments connecting their "evidence" with their conclusion. Hence...
"*How many with a god?"
this too is a moot point.

"*How many people say as you said "The Bible contains NO truth about reality"? I don't see many arguments here lately against the Proverbs, for example, which contain some interesting items about money, work, education, child rearing, etc. regardless if you agree with some or all of them. You are disagreeing with ALL of them and showing a bias here."

I can appreciate stories for being stories, regardless of the truth within them or not. I still find them fascinating.

And if those stories contain moral absurdities and immorality parading as morality, then I have no problem throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Whatever truth you think the bible contains with respect to money, work, education, or child rearing, I bet you will find those same "truths" in other religious texts too. And certainly in any secular text worth its weight in salt. Why? Human nature. Hell, in some of those cases its the basic nature of life (not all lifeforms mind you). Man just verbalized it and assigned it to a story as a way of trying to teach it.

The tortoise and the hare contains no truth within it. But it does have a lesson about life within it. Big difference there.

Evolve

Smartass
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Beard2
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-10-2013, 02:14 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(01-10-2013 10:42 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 10:04 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  At the risk of making an ad populum:

*How many people claim contact with space aliens?

*How many with a god?

*How many people say as you said "The Bible contains NO truth about reality"? I don't see many arguments here lately against the Proverbs, for example, which contain some interesting items about money, work, education, child rearing, etc. regardless if you agree with some or all of them. You are disagreeing with ALL of them and showing a bias here.

"*How many people claim contact with space aliens?"

Why does it matter the volume? A small group can be just as wrong as a large one when the only thing they use to try and corroborate their claim is anecdotal evidence, faith, and appeals to different fallacies while providing no actual evidence or logical arguments connecting their "evidence" with their conclusion. Hence...
"*How many with a god?"
this too is a moot point.

"*How many people say as you said "The Bible contains NO truth about reality"? I don't see many arguments here lately against the Proverbs, for example, which contain some interesting items about money, work, education, child rearing, etc. regardless if you agree with some or all of them. You are disagreeing with ALL of them and showing a bias here."

I can appreciate stories for being stories, regardless of the truth within them or not. I still find them fascinating.

And if those stories contain moral absurdities and immorality parading as morality, then I have no problem throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

Whatever truth you think the bible contains with respect to money, work, education, or child rearing, I bet you will find those same "truths" in other religious texts too. And certainly in any secular text worth its weight in salt. Why? Human nature. Hell, in some of those cases its the basic nature of life (not all lifeforms mind you). Man just verbalized it and assigned it to a story as a way of trying to teach it.

The tortoise and the hare contains no truth within it. But it does have a lesson about life within it. Big difference there.

You sure are dancing, but I'm not your partner as you "do the waffle". You made a statement about the Bible, which runs about 2,000 pages in an English text, that would be offensive to mainline scholars as well as us ordinary lay folk.

The Bible is not The Tortoise and the Hare. That's a category error of logic that is so severe you should be embarrassed. That's like me comparing all the writing Christopher Hitchens ever wrote to a meme .gif with one sentence on it.

Quote:Whatever truth you think the bible contains with respect to money, work, education, or child rearing, I bet you will find those same "truths" in other religious texts too.

Really? Where else did you find substitutionary atonement, e.g.?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2013, 02:50 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition

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
01-10-2013, 09:43 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(01-10-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You sure are dancing, but I'm not your partner as you "do the waffle". You made a statement about the Bible, which runs about 2,000 pages in an English text, that would be offensive to mainline scholars as well as us ordinary lay folk.

Since when was 'offensiveness' a determinate of truth? Does simply finding something 'offensive' make it untrue? Because by that logic, the Bible is simply untrue because many find the entire book 'offensive' by modern standards. Let's face it, if you try to follow the Bible literally, you'll end up dead or in prison.



(01-10-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible is not The Tortoise and the Hare. That's a category error of logic that is so severe you should be embarrassed. That's like me comparing all the writing Christopher Hitchens ever wrote to a meme .gif with one sentence on it.

They are both fiction, both have attempts to tell moral parables, both contain talking animals. Laughat Just because one makes (unsubstantiated) claims to divine inspiration and truth, we're not allowed to compare the two? Compare Hitchen works to a gif for all we care, it should be judge on the merit of the point and argument you're trying to make, not simply dismissed as 'embarrassing' because one collection of works has more words in it.



(01-10-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Whatever truth you think the bible contains with respect to money, work, education, or child rearing, I bet you will find those same "truths" in other religious texts too.

Really? Where else did you find substitutionary atonement, e.g.?

What makes you think 'substitutionary atonement' is a truth? Or right, the Bible. A big problem with that is that it isn't substantiated, and can easily be argued against as being supremely immoral (not the kind of 'truth' Christians would agree with). Oh wait, I forgot. If a Christian simply finds the idea that 'substitutionary atonement' is anything but the best thing ever, if they find the idea that it's not true as 'offensive', then it's simply untrue by fiat...

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
02-10-2013, 01:15 PM
RE: Pascal's Wager Expanded Edition
(01-10-2013 09:43 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-10-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You sure are dancing, but I'm not your partner as you "do the waffle". You made a statement about the Bible, which runs about 2,000 pages in an English text, that would be offensive to mainline scholars as well as us ordinary lay folk.

Since when was 'offensiveness' a determinate of truth? Does simply finding something 'offensive' make it untrue? Because by that logic, the Bible is simply untrue because many find the entire book 'offensive' by modern standards. Let's face it, if you try to follow the Bible literally, you'll end up dead or in prison.



(01-10-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The Bible is not The Tortoise and the Hare. That's a category error of logic that is so severe you should be embarrassed. That's like me comparing all the writing Christopher Hitchens ever wrote to a meme .gif with one sentence on it.

They are both fiction, both have attempts to tell moral parables, both contain talking animals. Laughat Just because one makes (unsubstantiated) claims to divine inspiration and truth, we're not allowed to compare the two? Compare Hitchen works to a gif for all we care, it should be judge on the merit of the point and argument you're trying to make, not simply dismissed as 'embarrassing' because one collection of works has more words in it.



(01-10-2013 02:14 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Really? Where else did you find substitutionary atonement, e.g.?

What makes you think 'substitutionary atonement' is a truth? Or right, the Bible. A big problem with that is that it isn't substantiated, and can easily be argued against as being supremely immoral (not the kind of 'truth' Christians would agree with). Oh wait, I forgot. If a Christian simply finds the idea that 'substitutionary atonement' is anything but the best thing ever, if they find the idea that it's not true as 'offensive', then it's simply untrue by fiat...

You made the statement that we could find the Bible logic and wisdom else-every-freakin-where. Yet I'm pretty certain many Cratheists have tension with atonement and lay that maddog $%# to my Christian homies. Yes? No?

And your "the Bible has NOTHING to tell us" is whack, dissin' and unsubstantiated. Yo, dogma!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: