RE: Pascal's Wager

RE: Pascal's Wager (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/11/2010 1:18:37 AM)
FR I worked for a Christian for well over ten years. He tried everything to get me to believe. We had many talks. I wish more of them were on his time. Enough were, anytime I wanted a break I could just go and mention ........ you know. But his wit and whatever could not win out on me. It wasn't going to happen and once he realized it, he said "What if it is true ?". I had to sleep on that one because it was valid, what if it is true ? What if I have to go to hell ? Well that was decision time. I did sleep on it if you can call it that. The next day I told him "If I accept this just because it might be true (and carries threats), then that is the epitome of hypocrisy". It is. If you don't believe and just pretend because you fear hell, you probably belong in hell. If I were Jesus judging you and found that shit out I would be pissed. Believe in me out of fear ? I have spent enough time with "people" to know that trust based on fear is useless. When you are down, those you trusted when you were up in the thick of things could help you, or if they got the upper hand, kill you. Which type of loyalty do you prefer ? I have a hard time believing that people still struggle with this now, after witnessing the results of all that shit in the past. It should be clear by now. Fuck all that. T

SleazeMerchant -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/11/2010 3:31:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes quote: ORIGINAL: SleazeMerchant [Pascal's Wager] is also wrong because belief is not a choice. You can't simply choose to believe B instead of A, you have to have something to convince you of it in the first place.<snipped> Sorry, but belief IS a total and complete choice. I'm fond of saying that I'm a born-again Atheist. We are ALL born religion free. Most of us are then indoctrinated in the religion of our parents. And if that's what you mean by "something to convince you," well, then, I guess brain-washing is what we're talking about. A few Atheist parents do NOT indoctrinate their kids in Atheism, but rather allow them to decide for themselves what religion (if any) to take up. Here's a parallel situation - - Come along with me on a thought exercise and say, "Well, my parents did not indoctrinate me in my chosen field of study, but rather allowed me to choose." <Jewish doctors excepted. Oh, and family businesses in first generation, with kids of founders expected to "carry on."> In my particular case, there were NO computers as I was growing up. Took a special class (in 1967 !!!) and fell in love with them. To this day (some 40+ years later) my Mom still doesn't understand WIIT-I-D (for a living, you perverts, you. LOL) You, good sir, are wrong. You do NOT choose what you believe. Let's try my thought excercise; I'm going to assume that you don't believe that you can fly right? Good, I like that answer. Now, let's put your hypothesis to the test. Choose to believe that you CAN fly. I don't mean just prentend that you believe it, or say that you do. I mean REALLY believe it, just like you believe that the sun will come up tomorrow. Get up on that office building and fling yourself off with the conviction that you will fly yourself to safety. That sort of belief. I know what you're going to say; 'that's not the same thing,' right? Now, lets look at why this is so. You believe that you can't fly because previous evidence suggests that you cannot fly, like when you jumped off the roof of your dad's shed when you were younger, you didn't fly, it just hurt when you hit the ground. Further more, you've never seen anything else flying either, except for birds, but they all have wings, and you don't. Maybe if you had wings, you could fly, but you've never seen a person with wings either... shrugs Resulting in your belief that you can indeed, not fly. quote: Come along with me on a thought exercise and say, "Well, my parents did not indoctrinate me in my chosen field of study, but rather allowed me to choose." But THAT is not the same thing as choosing what you believe. You don't decide what you will believe in by tossing a dice or randomly picking something. It's still based on something that convinces you of that belief. You CAN choose to reject evidence you don't like by trying to ignore it by rationalising it away by some means; "Well he has an agenda, so I think he's probably lying to me about this to sucker me in, ha! But I know better!"; or maybe just by not understanding evidence that is presented, and not attempting to understand it because you don't want to change your beliefs; "An explosion in space, out of nothing, LOL, what are they talking about, I already know god created the world in seven days out of nothing, I don't need to listen to their mumbo jumbo!". I hope you're getting the idea now?

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/11/2010 11:29:11 AM)
SFR The problem with Pascal's wager as I see it is that it assumes certain human traits would be favourable to god; such as dogmatically following religious doctrine regardless of your actual faith. If I'm god then I can read your mind so don't think going through the motions is all that is required to pass 'the test'. Additionally it ignores that which humans do by their very nature; question previous beliefs. If a god wanted you to follow a path (the same path many others have trod) then why create a questioning nature in humans. If you want someone to walk from A-B you don't give them free will to get to C. Why even the need for such a test? You are created to fail because you were created with human imperfections but when you fail it will be your fault alone? When our car fails it's the fault of the manufacturer not the fault of the car, the car is an inanimate object with only a fraction of the abilities of its creator 'the human'. You either believe that we were created with imperfections and will therefore disappoint god (even though he knows about the shoddy workmanship) or we are living imperfectly as if by design. Nobody can guess the will of an omnipotent being after all. Pascal's wager assumes that gods will coincides with Religious doctrine, there is no proof of this. Following Religious doctrine may be ultimately more harmful for your immortal soul than not. Say for example if god hates humans seeking to control one another through such institutions.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 6:06:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Can the bible simply be an allegory for the living hells and heavens people create for themselves on this realm? Well personally it strikes me as disingenuous to shove new positions into the bible over the positions it actually takes but people certainly do that and either way this thread isn't about the Bible but about the obviously faulty logic used in a particular apologetics proof. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Why do things have to be A or B? They aren't A or B, that's an issue that people often take with Pascal's Wager. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Can I have two pointy hats? Sure though it's not very popular since wearing a cone in ones pants is rather akward. But hey you could even go unicorn orthodox if you want. [image]local://upfiles/566126/3866A1111BC3441EA7D9D64C2ABD5E91.jpg[/image]

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 6:50:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Is there any real proof of ANYTHING after a complete death? I am not talking about people seemingly coming back to life. I mean they are completely gone. Out of here not to return ever again. We can tell that the parts of the brain responsible for memory, personality, emotion and so on are no longer working. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic In any instance I think it is a good idea to simply do onto others as you would like others to do onto your self. This is not true and I wish that people would stop saying this on a site full of masochists. It would be horrible to convince a number of people on this site that your statement was true. Morality is a complicated subject which this platitude oversimplifies to the point that it's demonstrably false. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic There are multiple paths to the same place. In this case what exactly do you mean by that? quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic It is a waste of time to denounce the paths others are taking especially if they do the best for themselves and others. How is the continued use of a bullshit apologetics argument the best for anyone? quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic The equation will always balance itself out in the end. It is only the end of Us if we 'destroy' the planet you know. Everything will rebuild and reconnect. Just a tiny hiccup in the reconstruction of chaos to order to chaos, simple to complex to simple. Emergence will continue regardless of destructive ways. O.K., what the fuck does any of that have to do with Pascal's Wager?

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 6:53:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Well personally it strikes me as disingenuous to shove new positions into the bible over the positions it actually takes but people certainly do that and either way this thread isn't about the Bible but about the obviously faulty logic used in a particular apologetics proof. It is not imposing anything on the text to interpret allegory as allegory. It is, however, imposing a great deal on the text to interpret allegory literally, and, much though it may be a common failing among Fundamentalist wackos, it is sheer hubris to imagine that a prediliction for concrete thinking puts anyone in a position to call others disingenuous. K.

Aylee -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 8:12:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It's pretty easy - Conehats and Aconehats die. If Aconehat was right and the Conehat was wrong, both end up as dust, and the Conehat has paid no price for being wrong (believing the Big Bang was a unicorn orgy and wearing a cone upon his head in order to worship the pointy creators) BUT... If Conehat was right and the Aconehat was wrong, the chances are the Aconehat goes to the Pointy Pointy Bad Place, the Conehat goes to Unicorn Fun Land (it's AWE-SOME I mean they even fart rainbows!). That's about it...cut it any way you like, committing to Aconehatism is a much higher risk, for no greater reward. If there are NO other factors involved, than being an Aconehat is the only rational decision that can be made. (If I am remembering correctly, it has been MANY years, Pascal did some proofs or something to show that it G-d has to be the xtian g-d because that heaven is so wonderful.) On the other hand, as I recall this type of thing did not work out so well for that guy Kadmos in Euripides' play. Dionysus was none too pleased with him. "This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, 'Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?' When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr. Clever [Guy] in these parts...'" ~Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 9:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It is, however, imposing a great deal on the text to interpret allegory literally, and, much though it may be a common failing among Fundamentalist wackos, it is sheer hubris to imagine that a prediliction for concrete thinking puts anyone in a position to call others disingenuous. Agreed, however, it's also disingenuous bullshit to interprete the Bible into a series of trivial platitudes, discarding the supernatural claims upon which the religion is actually based. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata It is not imposing anything on the text to interpret allegory as allegory. Agreed, depending on the allegory. The passages about moving a mountain in Matthew which we've discussed previously, regardless of whether they are taken literally or figuratively are clearly making bold claims about the power of Christianity. Exchanging resonable allegorical interpretations of such passages for trivial platitudes, ignores the context in which the passages are given and edits the religion out of Christianity. Such interpretations impose a great deal of bullshit upon the text.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 9:30:58 PM)
quote: Such interpretations impose a great deal of bullshit upon the text Your interpretations impose a great deal of bullshit upon me. Where is your proof of the afterlife in which there exists a heaven or hell? Also... Where does your interpretation of the bible originate from? Where is the original bible? Why do you feel you have to oversimplify a complex reality into a dualistic wager?

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 9:51:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Exchanging resonable allegorical interpretations of such passages for trivial platitudes... edits the religion out of Christianity. Bingo. K.

Termyn8or -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 10:32:07 PM)
Steel, I am responding to the OP. I did read but I might be.........responsive here. If I believe in God because if He exists I am in deep shit for not believing, that is simply not belief. It is not faith. So many lie to themself, it is not funny. I take my chances, and I WILL take them to the grave. If they are right I'll look God right in the eye and say "You could've given us a bit better of a clue here". Think I won't ? I live for death. I really want to know who was right. And as usual, which accounts for my survival despite my worst enemy, who is well matched to me because he is me, I suspect I will come out right in the end. Unfortunately at that time I will not keep you "posted". I really must admit that I will avoid death just like the next guy, but really it is getting to the point where the desire to know what happens after death has caught up to my lust for life. Understand now that no matter how many burning babies I might carry out of a building, I cannot be brave or heroic. You can't be brave or heroic unless youy risk something of value. Not that my life is valuless, but I really am to the point where I can take it or leave it. I am VERY interested in what happens next, but I know it's a one way street. So I can wait. How's that for survival instinct ? "I can wait" . LOL T

lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/12/2010 10:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic In any instance I think it is a good idea to simply do onto others as you would like others to do onto your self. quote: This is not true and I wish that people would stop saying this on a site full of masochists. It would be horrible to convince a number of people on this site that your statement was true. Morality is a complicated subject which this platitude oversimplifies to the point that it's demonstrably false. Please explain to me why you think that this is false. Edited because I keep fucking up the quote procedure.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/13/2010 1:59:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Exchanging resonable allegorical interpretations of such passages for trivial platitudes... edits the religion out of Christianity. Bingo. K. I'm glad we can finally agree that you're previous interpretation of Matthew 21:21 was crap.

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/13/2010 2:04:27 AM)
I was reading up the page from the bottom, and stopped to reply to one of your posts farther down. I only just noticed this one after clicking to see what lickenforyou was trying to quote. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic In any instance I think it is a good idea to simply do onto others as you would like others to do onto your self. This is not true and I wish that people would stop saying this on a site full of masochists. It would be horrible to convince a number of people on this site that your statement was true. Morality is a complicated subject which this platitude oversimplifies to the point that it's demonstrably false. The idea of masochists inflicting pain on unwilling recipients, citing the Golden Rule, only works as a joke. Seriously. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/13/2010 2:09:22 AM)
As stated: quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It would be horrible to convince a number of people on this site that your statement was true. For example convincing the forced fantasy and rape crowds to do onto others what they want done to them would be a terrible plan. I don't even want to think about what would happen with the castration people [&:]

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/13/2010 2:10:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I'm glad we can finally agree that you're previous interpretation of Matthew 21:21 was crap. I have no idea what you're talking about, but if you think it was crap I'm pretty sure it was right. My point here, however, was that viewing and interpreting Christ's teachings through the lens of doctrines that were formulated decades and centuries after the fact, often without even having any basis in them, necessarily imposes a distortion. K.

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/13/2010 2:14:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I don't even want to think about what would happen with the castration people Well maybe you should think about it. If they don't like people doing things to them that they don't want done, they wouldn't do things to other people that those others didn't want done. Kinda simple, really, once you stop reading 'do unto others' in a purely concrete, self-centered, way. See if you can catch on to that. It might help you understand a whole world of things better. Like, unh, people, for example. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/13/2010 12:04:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic quote: Such interpretations impose a great deal of bullshit upon the text Your interpretations impose a great deal of bullshit upon me. Keep in mind that you're quoting my response to Kirata, which is a continuation of conversations that we've previously had. However to the extent that you feel my post addresses you, what do you mean by this? quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Where is your proof of the afterlife in which there exists a heaven or hell? There is absolutely no such proof. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Also... Where does your interpretation of the bible originate from? If we are talking about the concept of an afterlife, there is a good deal of non Bible and pre Bible evidence that Christianity and Judaism generally involved the concept of an afterlife. As such interpreting the Bible passages about an afterlife as passages about an afterlife isn't exactly rocket science. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Where is the original bible? Yes, yes, the lack of original manuscripts, some conflicting passages in the manuscripts we do have, anonymous nature of some of the authors and translation disagreements are sources of wiggle room in interpreting the text but not enough to remove core tenants of Christianity such as the concept of an afterlife. quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Why do you feel you have to oversimplify a complex reality into a dualistic wager? How pray tell am I doing that?

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/14/2010 10:14:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If they don't like people doing things to them that they don't want done, they wouldn't do things to other people that those others didn't want done. That's my point right there, you have to put the if in there. I've tried to pick examples of people who may well enjoy having things done to them against their will.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/14/2010 2:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata If they don't like people doing things to them that they don't want done, they wouldn't do things to other people that those others didn't want done. That's my point right there, you have to put the if in there. I've tried to pick examples of people who may well enjoy having things done to them against their will. Then its not against their will.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125