RE: Pascal's Wager

RE: Pascal's Wager (Full Version)

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

Message

RCdc -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 4:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic you still cannot set yourself up to be a judge of what is right or wrong. You and I can, are, and necessarily need to be judges of what is right or wrong. I really was going to stay out of this thread but your hypocrasy is pretty enormous with such a statement, knowing the posts you usually make on threads concerning theology and religion. I know that I sound vaguely unkind, however it did cause me to raise an incredulous eyebrow. Pascals Wager sucks... what I have experienced though is that the only people who have ever brought it up as a viable and legitimate tool, example - whatever you want to label it - are non religious types and the largest majority being self listed agnostics or those who don't label themselves at all. I have only seen one person use it who has openly admitting to have any ounce of faith and that was on here... and that's equivilant to reading facts on wiki!

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 5:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc Pascals Wager sucks... what I have experienced though is that the only people who have ever brought it up as a viable and legitimate tool, example - whatever you want to label it - are non religious types Yeah really, ya noticed that eh? Same thing happens when it comes to quoting Bible passages. Seems the only people who treat the Bible as if it was in every respect the literal and inerrant Word of God are Fundamentalist preachers (when they're not off whoring somewhere) and certain "non-religious types" who shall remain unmentioned. Kinda makes ya wonder what they have in common, yanno? Neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity. ~Sigmund Freud K.

lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 7:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc Pascals Wager sucks... what I have experienced though is that the only people who have ever brought it up as a viable and legitimate tool, example - whatever you want to label it - are non religious types Yeah really, ya noticed that eh? Same thing happens when it comes to quoting Bible passages. Seems the only people who treat the Bible as if it was in every respect the literal and inerrant Word of God are Fundamentalist preachers (when they're not off whoring somewhere) and certain "non-religious types" who shall remain unmentioned. Kinda makes ya wonder what they have in common, yanno? Neurosis is the inability to tolerate ambiguity. ~Sigmund Freud K. People who are "spiritual" whatever that means often use Pascal's wager too

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 7:32:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou People who are "spiritual" whatever that means often use Pascal's wager too If you don't know what it means, then you can't answer the question: "What the hell are you talking about?" [:D] K.

lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 7:47:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou People who are "spiritual" whatever that means often use Pascal's wager too If you don't know what it means, then you can't answer the question: "What the hell are you talking about?" [:D] K. Let me rephrase, people who are "not religious, but are spiritual" whatever that means. If you know, please tell me.

Elisabella -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 8:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou Let me rephrase, people who are "not religious, but are spiritual" whatever that means. If you know, please tell me. It means you believe in divinity, but not dogma.

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 9:15:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella It means you believe in divinity, but not dogma. And given that Pascal's Wager is predicated upon a highly dogmatic cost-benefit analysis arising from the nature of a very specific kind of God, one might reasonably think it exceedingly peculiar for lickenforyou to be floating the claim that people who don't believe in dogma often use it. [:D] K.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 9:32:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc I really was going to stay out of this thread but your hypocrasy is pretty enormous with such a statement, knowing the posts you usually make on threads concerning theology and religion. I know that I sound vaguely unkind, however it did cause me to raise an incredulous eyebrow. OK, if you're going to call me a hypocrite at least do me courtesy of explaining what the fuck you're talking about. quote: ORIGINAL: RCdc Pascals Wager sucks... what I have experienced though is that the only people who have ever brought it up as a viable and legitimate tool, example - whatever you want to label it - are non religious types and the largest majority being self listed agnostics or those who don't label themselves at all. I have only seen one person use it who has openly admitting to have any ounce of faith and that was on here... and that's equivilant to reading facts on wiki! Was that Jaybeee, because this thread stemmed from an off topic conversation he started and we were having in another thread?

lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 9:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella It means you believe in divinity, but not dogma. And given that Pascal's Wager is predicated upon a highly dogmatic cost-benefit analysis arising from the nature of a very specific kind of God, one might reasonably think it exceedingly peculiar for lickenforyou to be floating the claim that people who don't believe in dogma often use it. [:D] K. Here’s a loose variation on Pascal’s Wager posted by a user on this site under the subject “Where is God?” tazzygirl - If its all meaningless, what have we lost by believing? I hear this all the time from “not religious, but spiritual” people It’s not a literal interpretation, but close enough. Not sure what my username on a fetish site has to do with the argument. And, you failed to answer the question “not religious, but spiritual” what the fuck does that mean?

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 9:36:31 PM)
It also seems strange to me considering how unpopular hell is among the spiritual that they would be advocating Pascal's Wager.

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 9:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel It also seems strange to me considering how unpopular hell is among the spiritual that they would be advocating Pascal's Wager. Does it? That's odd. Pascal's Wager is based on hell being "unpopular." But as to "how unpopular hell is among the spiritual," you've spoken to them all have you? All around the world? Buddhists? Shaivites? Jews? Broad general agreement is there? I'll tell you what's not strange, and that's your trademark bullshit. K.

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 10:07:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lickenforyou And, you failed to answer the question “not religious, but spiritual” what the fuck does that mean? I failed to answer the question? There's a hoot! You introduce the phrase, without even being able to say what you mean by it, and now you want to cry fault at me for not telling you?? Gimme a fucking break here. [:D] K.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 10:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Does it? That's odd. Pascal's Wager is based on hell being "unpopular." I was referring to belief in the existence of hell being unpopular. Try going beyond the superficiality you accuse me of sometime. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But as to "how unpopular hell is among the spiritual," you've spoken to them all have you? All around the world? Buddhists? Shaivites? Jews? Broad general agreement is there? You should learn about the existence of statistics. It would keep you from making asinine statements like the one above. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I'll tell you what's not strange, and that's your trademark bullshit. By all means continue to resort to appeals to ridicule when you fail to grasp what I'm actually saying.

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/20/2010 11:00:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I was referring to belief in the existence of hell being unpopular. Try going beyond the superficiality you accuse me of sometime. I'm afraid I'm not able to divine the existence of missing words in a sentence. Try not assuming that people can read your mind like you think you can read theirs. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You should learn about the existence of statistics. It would keep you from making asinine statements like the one above. I know a thing or two about statistics. What you need to learn is to present evidence to back up your claims. Case in point, where is your evidence that "the spiritual" advocate Pascal's Wager? Note that "the spiritual" is a general reference to "spiritual" people of all sorts collectively (unless I'm supposed to divine that you meant something else again), and also that you haven't even defined what the hell you mean by "spiritual". You tend to be very picky about words and demanding of evidence when you're talking to someone with whom you disagree. Try imposing the same standard of precision and evidentiary support on yourself for a change. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 1:17:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I'm afraid I'm not able to divine the existence of missing words in a sentence. No missing words, it works as written. It certainly doesn't require the sort of complete rewrite you regularly thrust onto statements. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Try not assuming that people can read your mind like you think you can read theirs. I don't, but I do expect them to actually manage to read what I've said. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Case in point, where is your evidence that "the spiritual" advocate Pascal's Wager? [sm=Groaner.gif] That's not my position at all. Try again. For someone who critizes the comprehension of others you have a serious problem with your own.

GotSteel -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 1:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata You tend to be very picky about words and demanding of evidence when you're talking to someone with whom you disagree. Try imposing the same standard of precision and evidentiary support on yourself for a change. Not just the people I disagree with. The people I agree with and myself as well. If I'd been sober when I posted I certainly would have included a citation but if you manage to grasp what I'm actually saying you might also notice that it's mundane and common knowledge. I mean you certainly don't think that Buddhists commonly believe in hell do you?

Kirata -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 2:09:52 AM)
Good Lord, I have finally come to see that with respect to lickenforyou's comment about spiritual ("whatever that means") people using Pascal's Wager you were agreeing with me, a state of affairs so unimaginable and utterly bizarre a few hours ago, yet so obvious now, that I can only wonder at the effect of lunar eclipses on some people, myself being the primary case in point. Nevermind whether you were sober or not, this crow is all mine. My sincere apologies, Steel. Kirata

Michael75 -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 4:30:41 AM)
My answer to Pascal's wager is generally "Would you rather be lied about or ignored?" Suppose, as an example, Christianity is correct. The Bible contradicts itself but some subset of the statements in the bible are true. It strikes me that people who go around preaching lies about God would get it worse in the afterlife than people who just left well enough alone and got on with their own lives.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 8:33:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael75 My answer to Pascal's wager is generally "Would you rather be lied about or ignored?" Suppose, as an example, Christianity is correct. The Bible contradicts itself but some subset of the statements in the bible are true. It strikes me that people who go around preaching lies about God would get it worse in the afterlife than people who just left well enough alone and got on with their own lives. In other words your answer to Pascals wager is to restate....Pascals wager. It still fails.

lickenforyou -> RE: Pascal's Wager (12/21/2010 3:42:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Good Lord, I have finally come to see that with respect to lickenforyou's comment about spiritual ("whatever that means") people using Pascal's Wager you were agreeing with me, a state of affairs so unimaginable and utterly bizarre a few hours ago, yet so obvious now, that I can only wonder at the effect of lunar eclipses on some people, myself being the primary case in point. Nevermind whether you were sober or not, this crow is all mine. My sincere apologies, Steel. Kirata I'm glad that you could figure out what I meant, as my post was poorly written. Let's all hug. Bone picking to follow.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375