Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2007, 02:06 PM   #161
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster View Post
Perhaps I need to stop posting in a giant block of text as Devonin politely asked me to, but I would encourage that you not mock me and instead read what I have to say. Did you even bother to see what I wrote about?
That's the point you see...the giant wall of text makes reading it such an eye and mind strain, that you run the risk of people simply bypassing what you're saying in the same way that people will bypass a random nonsense post without responding to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoHunter
Do you honestly have any idea how ignorant you sound by saying that? Do you understand what hypocrisy is?
Well, since they said "What I don't like is "religious people who X"" and you said "What I don't like is "non-religious people who X"" (Note, neither of you said or even necessarily implied you think -all- religious or non-religious people are like that) Neither of you is being a hypocrite.

There -are- religious people who blindly follow what they are told without questioning it (I've met several) And there -are- non-religious people who buy in to the "all religious people are ignorant buffoons" mindset (I've met several of those too) so you are actually both perfectly justified in making the statements you made. Can't we all just get along?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrandiaGod
ITT- We group every religious/anti-theist person into groups because attacking the members of a school of ideology is a lot easier than actually attacking the ideas, beliefs and facts that both sides have to present.
Ironically, you're the only one who actually made an absolute statement that what people have been doing is speak in absolutes *grin*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shihen22
lmao. I kinda think god exists, but I have to since I go to catholic school......
See, that this kind of statement gets made is what gives credence to what Mblavis7 says. I spent 15 years in Catholic schools, and while you learn about Catholicism, I'm pretty sure that if you don't believe in Catholicism you aren't kicked out. (Heck, we actually had a protestant religion teacher for a while) You are in fact allowed to think critically about the faith and draw your own conclusions.

If you have religious/religion teachers, or your school has a chaplain who is remotely competant, they should be encouraging such thinking, and questioning.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 02:20 PM   #162
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

So here is the original block of text that people are finding difficult to read, for the purposes of this post, feel free to bypass this block.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster
These threads on religion really go no where. No one can argue for it because humans made religion and yet they want to argue something that goes beyond humanity without any evidence. On the other hand, the lack of evidence applies to any critics of religion as well. The answer really lies in a side of the argument that isn't so one-sided and perhaps the idea that one could honer that certain parts of religion are right, certain parts are wrong, all are right, or all are wrong. One can't trust religion 100% or mistrust religion 100% because neither have evidence. With any of the possibilities in mind, I always value a person having their rights of life, liberty, and property unless that person is trying to take someone else's life, liberty, or property without a justified cause (certain religions and their different treatment of others without any real justification). Now someone might ask me what if I just want to take someone's life, liberty, or property just for the sake of doing such an act without being justified. To me, this is considered a bad act because I use the simple logic that such an act is not the way I would want to be treated (with my life, liberty, or property taken away). If someone wants to be what I define as bad, be my guest. On top of my personal beliefs, I also believe that if you are good at being good or if you are good at being bad, a person chooses what path better suits them in life (what ever path a person believes would give them more life, liberty, and property [this doesn't mean that it would Actually happen]). If I was to come across a person who was willingly able to accept that they are bad and wanted to take my liberty for no reason, I value an eye for an eye, but only if it makes me get my life, liberty, or property back. There is no reason to seek vengeance if vengeance doesn't give you anything in return to get back to where you first were. For example, what's the use of killing someone who killed your family member when you obviously know that the person who died won't come back? Sure you would be even in the fact that you both have family members lost, but you are beneath where you started. If this bad person started this, he should be lower than you in status. Not on the same level of life, liberty, and property. Let's say that this bad guy was trying to also kill someone else, but I beat him up and save that someone else. I would have saved a person and gotten the bad guy imprisoned. The very thought that I saved a person (which would make me regret losing a family member less) and that getting the bad guy imprisoned (to stop him from ever killing during the time he is imprisoned) would make me feel above this bad guy (in this case, some would probably not feel even with the bad guy since you lost a loved one). I would say that a good guy or bad guy would only be satisfied with an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property. A good person would want an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property to stop the bad person from doing something bad again. On the other hand, the bad person would want the unproportional share of life, liberty, and property because he/she wants to lower everyone else's life, liberty, and property to be superior.
Now I'm going to basically copy/paste what you said above only putting in some hard returns where they ought to be, and generally making the formatting a little easier on the eyes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_faster, with some formatting
These threads on religion really go nowhere. No one can argue for religion because humans made religion and yet they want to argue something that goes beyond humanity without any evidence. On the other hand, the lack of evidence applies to any critics of religion as well.

The answer really lies in a side of the argument that isn't so one-sided and perhaps the idea that one could honour that certain parts of religion are right, certain parts are wrong, all are right, or all are wrong.

One can't trust religion 100% or mistrust religion 100% because neither have evidence. With any of the possibilities in mind, I always value a person having their rights of life, liberty, and property unless that person is trying to take someone else's life, liberty, or property without a justified cause.

Now someone might ask me what if I just want to take someone's life, liberty, or property just for the sake of doing such an act without being justified. To me, this is considered a bad act because I use the simple logic that such an act is not the way I would want to be treated (with my life, liberty, or property taken away). If someone wants to be what I define as bad, be my guest. On top of my personal beliefs, I also believe that if you are good at being good or if you are good at being bad, a person chooses what path better suits them in life (what ever path a person believes would give them more life, liberty, and property [this doesn't mean that it would Actually happen]).

If I was to come across a person who was willingly able to accept that they are bad and wanted to take my liberty for no reason, I value an eye for an eye, but only if it makes me get my life, liberty, or property back. There is no reason to seek vengeance if vengeance doesn't give you anything in return to get back to where you first were.

For example, what's the use of killing someone who killed your family member when you obviously know that the person who died won't come back? Sure you would be even in the fact that you both have family members lost, but you are beneath where you started. If this bad person started this, he should be lower than you in status. Not on the same level of life, liberty, and property.

Let's say that this bad guy was trying to also kill someone else, but I beat him up and save that someone else. I would have saved a person and gotten the bad guy imprisoned. The very thought that I saved a person (which would make me regret losing a family member less) and that getting the bad guy imprisoned (to stop him from ever killing during the time he is imprisoned) would make me feel above this bad guy (in this case, some would probably not feel even with the bad guy since you lost a loved one).

I would say that a good guy or bad guy would only be satisfied with an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property. A good person would want an unproportional share of life, liberty, and property to stop the bad person from doing something bad again. On the other hand, the bad person would want the unproportional share of life, liberty, and property because he/she wants to lower everyone else's life, liberty, and property to be superior.
Now...I'm going to take some liberties here, and see about restating the above in a more clear and succint way, it should still communicate the same information but in a way that is easier to digest, and easier to respond to. Apologies if I end up removing any of the parts you felt were vital to what you were saying, but hopefully this will show the benefits of being a little more discerning with word choice and tangents:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_master restated by Devonin
These threads on religion really go nowhere. Religion is inherantly unprovable, but is also impossible to conclusively disprove. The only thing that is really effective is a middle-ground view, where some parts of religion are integrated with some parts of non-religion.

The one aspect that most religions have in common with non-religious institutions (Like law) is that all humans have a right to their own life, liberty and property, and this is something I support as well.

Now, this doesn't mean that everyone is perfectly allowed to exercise their own right to life, liberty and property any way they choose. They are constrained by the logic of the religious concept of 'do unto others.' Your rights extend only as far as you aren't trying to take away the rights of others.

For people who violate that right, I'm in favour of eye-for-an-eye as a means of punishment, but only insofar as it can directly reverse the violation of my rights. If you steal from me, I should get my things back, if you assault me, you should be assaulted. There's no point in equal revenge if it doesn't undo what you did.

Last edited by devonin; 06-15-2007 at 02:23 PM..
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 02:57 PM   #163
purebloodtexan
FFR Player
 
purebloodtexan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In front of the speakers, banging my head until I get a nosebleed.
Age: 29
Posts: 2,845
Send a message via AIM to purebloodtexan
Default Re: God.

Also, mblavis, religion was primarily a way to explain the events of the universe (Although science has explained those), establish morals, and control people. The only reason that we had our handful of [for lack of a better word] tyrants is because they interpreted the "Thou shall not have any other Gods before me" commandment in a bad way. Religious freedom in most Western countries (Particularly the U.S.) would seem like a way to solve this problem, but some people are still ignorant and shoving beliefs down people's throats. Even one of my favorite comedians (And also a religiou man, although he still uses logic), Tyler Perry, gave a hint of ignorance in one of his dialogues:

Mr. Brown: I think she's an alias (He means to say 'atheist')
Kora (Not getting what Brown is saying): ......What's that?
Mr. Brown: Someone who doesn't believe in God.
__________________


purebloodtexan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 04:26 PM   #164
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: God.

Thanks for clearing up my big piece of text Devonin. I would say that the meaning is close enough.
The only thing that I think should be added was the fact that I still value that a person can make his/her own decisions to be what I define as good/bad if that is what they believe will give them more success (life, liberty, and property). However, just because one believes they will be more successful in a situation doesn't mean they would actually be more successful. For example, if you are gang member and you died early, (yet you really believed that you would get more liberty and property) you were probably better off not doing what I define as bad deeds.
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 04:45 PM   #165
cathergirlhaley
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6
Default Re: God.

wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry any way?I mean, if you dont believe in Him and you do "bad things" and there really is a God your screwed.and by doing "bad deeds" you just make things a whole lot more complicated for u when you die and while your on Earth.
cathergirlhaley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 05:32 PM   #166
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry any way?
So...we ought to be good "just in case" the specific God whose "good" you are being is real and as advertised?

I can think of many reasons to act in a way that society thinks of as morally good, but "just in case" God exists doesn't strike me as a very good one.

If that God does exist, do you think that He would be particularly impressed with "I only acted this way because I was afraid you might be real"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_faster
However, just because one believes they will be more successful in a situation doesn't mean they would actually be more successful.
This sounds perilously close to "Do what you want, and it's perfectly fine as long as you don't get caught"
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 05:54 PM   #167
koreanese69
FFR Player
 
koreanese69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hawaii
Age: 31
Posts: 40
Send a message via AIM to koreanese69
Default Re: God.

Zomg!!! I'm an atheist

(Blunt)


Edit

and to clarify, atheism is no the disbelieve in all religions, just the ones that involve a god or deity.

Buddhism or other religions are atheistic.

Last edited by koreanese69; 06-15-2007 at 06:52 PM..
koreanese69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 07:22 PM   #168
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Well, if you're going to state that the term has an imprecise meaning, perhaps you should pick a word that actually identifies your belief?

You're "An Atheist" of which stripe? Are you a Buddhist? There's a word for that (Buddhist)
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 07:45 PM   #169
Grandiagod
FFR Player
 
Grandiagod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Feaefaw
Age: 32
Posts: 6,122
Send a message via AIM to Grandiagod Send a message via MSN to Grandiagod
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cathergirlhaley View Post
wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry any way?I mean, if you dont believe in Him and you do "bad things" and there really is a God your screwed.and by doing "bad deeds" you just make things a whole lot more complicated for u when you die and while your on Earth.
Yes, but of course, how do you know which religion is the one to practice.

I guess I'll just have to subscribe to every religion on the planet because of the off chance that one might be right.

Man, it's going to be hard working in Temple, Church, praying to Mecca, Mass, chicken sacrifice and drinking the blood of calves all in one day.

Also koreanese, atheism can also be described as disbelief in the supernatural.

I'm more of an atheist anti-theist.
__________________
He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny
Grandiagod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 10:49 PM   #170
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
This sounds perilously close to "Do what you want, and it's perfectly fine as long as you don't get caught"
To some people, when I say "However, just because one believes they will be more successful in a situation doesn't mean they would actually be more successful," it would mean "Do what you want, and it's perfectly fine as long as you don't get caught." only to those people who choose to be bad. Don't get me wrong, a bad person is unjustified under my own logic, but to another person's own logic, being bad might be justified under their logic or they might want to be bad without any logic.

What I ultimately mean by that statement is that to a certain person, being good could be worse than being bad and that to another person, being bad could be worse than being good. Basically, not everyone gets what they want or what they believed that they would get.
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2007, 11:14 PM   #171
MeaCulpa
FFR Simfile Author
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
MeaCulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: T-Dot
Age: 32
Posts: 841
Send a message via AIM to MeaCulpa
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_of_the_Faster View Post
What I ultimately mean by that statement is that to a certain person, being good could be worse than being bad and that to another person, being bad could be worse than being good. Basically, not everyone gets what they want or what they believed that they would get.
I agree with this. Morality is not objective, as it can be seen throughout the world. An action that makes one religion's god happy may do the opposite for another. So, which one do we appease? If we live a saint's life (so to speak) believing in the wrong religion, do we get eternally punished? What happened to the "just in case" then, Pascal? Your "guaranteed payout" wager loses.
MeaCulpa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:20 AM   #172
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Morality is not objective, as it can be seen throughout the world.
Counter: Morality is objective. The people who are acting in violation of that objective morality are just -wrong- and either don't know or don't care.

(Don't get me wrong, neither statement is provable, since there is equally no -proof- to support objective or subjective morality, but it answers your quibble about how differnet cultures act in different ways)

Also...Pascal didn't say anything about a guarenteed payout. Pascal said basically: Given a choice between believing and not believing in the christian God, it is a more sound position to believe, because if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you have everything to lose.

This doesn't say that he has a "guaranteed payout" it says that he has -better chances- one way than the other.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:35 AM   #173
who_cares973
FFR Player
 
who_cares973's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: :U
Age: 32
Posts: 14,976
Send a message via AIM to who_cares973 Send a message via MSN to who_cares973 Send a message via Yahoo to who_cares973 Send a message via Skype™ to who_cares973
Default Re: God.

i say go string theory!!!!!
__________________
who_cares973 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:44 AM   #174
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Also...Pascal didn't say anything about a guarenteed payout. Pascal said basically: Given a choice between believing and not believing in the christian God, it is a more sound position to believe, because if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you have everything to lose.
...this has been addressed already by both myself and the person you're responding to. This contextualization and acceptance of Pascal's position is wrong.

Quote:
This doesn't say that he has a "guaranteed payout" it says that he has -better chances- one way than the other.
Not when you take into account other religions or even other theological positions within monotheism. Hell, even if we accept the premise, there's still the issue of guaranteed finite payout now vs vaguely, questionably possible infinite payout later. The cost of the wager is very real, the reality of the possible payout is very, very, very questionable.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:46 AM   #175
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

What are your scientific credentials to make such a statement? Degrees, training of any sort, etc.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 01:52 AM   #176
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
...this has been addressed already by both myself and the person you're responding to. This contextualization and acceptance of Pascal's position is wrong.
I disagree that it is a flat wrong interpretation of Pascal's position. I'm happy to redirect you to the professor of theology who put it forward in the way I am stating, and you can take it up with him, I guess.

Quote:
Not when you take into account other religions or even other theological positions within monotheism. Hell, even if we accept the premise, there's still the issue of guaranteed finite payout now vs vaguely, questionably possible infinite payout later. The cost of the wager is very real, the reality of the possible payout is very, very, very questionable.
I utterly don't see where you're going with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blaise Pascal, translated by W. F. Trotter
Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is
So how exactly is
Quote:
Given a choice between believing and not believing in the christian God, it is a more sound position to believe, because if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you have everything to lose.
a -wrong- interpretation of the above passage?
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 02:02 AM   #177
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
I disagree that it is a flat wrong interpretation of Pascal's position. I'm happy to redirect you to the professor of theology who put it forward in the way I am stating, and you can take it up with him, I guess.
I would be glad to.

Quote:
I utterly don't see where you're going with this.
... ... ...

Iff god is real, the wager has a payout, however if god is not real or another god or set of gods is, the wager does not have a payout. (at least not necessarily, there is the issue of benevolence in spite of faulty belief, but in this case why does it make a difference which way your beliefs are faulty? Is disbelief so different from erroneous belief? Only the God or God's could answer this)

Iff another god or set of gods are real which take issue with belief in the God you choose, there is an extremely high cost associated with belief. However, even if this is not the case and there are simply no gods of any nature, you've still paid a cost without return, in terms of prayer, reading the bible, going to church, etc.

Quote:
So how exactly is a -wrong- interpretation of the above passage?
It's wrong because it is direct, and since the passage is wrong to begin with you've left the faults in place by not addressing them in a larger theological context.

Nothing makes a statement seem right like using itself as its own measuring stick.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 02:09 AM   #178
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x View Post
I would be glad to.
Dr Barry Whitney BA, PhD. University of Windsor, Windsor Ontario Canada. Given that apologetics is one of his specialities I'm sure that you and he can kibitz for hours on end.


Quote:
Iff god is real, the wager has a payout, however if god is not real or another god or set of gods is, the wager does not have a payout. (at least not necessarily, there is the issue of benevolence in spite of faulty belief, but in this case why does it make a difference which way your beliefs are faulty? Is disbelief so different from erroneous belief? Only the God or God's could answer this)
The wager is only a cogent wager if the God or Gods you consider as being possible to exist take a negatively connotated view of someone not believeing in them. For any given God or Gods that have a negative view of disbelievers, you are better off to believe in them than not. If this causes problems due to trying to cover all of your bases, then that is a problem with Pascal's wager, not in any of our accurate statements about his wager as stated.

Quote:
It's wrong because it is direct, and since the passage is wrong to begin with you've left the faults in place by not addressing them in a larger theological context.
See above. His statement referred only to christianity or nothing. Applying his statement to the "larger theological context" is the misuse of Pascal, because it is beyond the scope of his discussion. If you formulate a theory about whether it is better to have a gasoline powered car or diesel, to say "But in the context of solar, electric and hydrogen cars, your wager makes no sense" isn't a valid extension of the question, because the question -is- direct.

Quote:
Nothing makes a statement seem right like using itself as its own measuring stick.
I described Pascal's wager, you told me I was incorrect in my description, I provided a direct translation of the words Pascal wrote to demonstrate that my description was correct. If you want to go a step further and provide evidence that W. F Trotter was incompetent in his translation of Pascal, that is certainly a valid course you could take. As I don't read French nearly well enough to render my own translation of his words, I am forced to rely on his works in translation.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 02:23 AM   #179
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Dr Barry Whitney BA, PhD. University of Windsor, Windsor Ontario Canada. Given that apologetics is one of his specialities I'm sure that you and he can kibitz for hours on end.
I intend to bring to his attention as many potential faults in thinking as I am capable of with my limited theological knowledge.

Quote:
The wager is only a cogent wager if the God or Gods you consider as being possible to exist take a negatively connotated view of someone not believeing in them. For any given God or Gods that have a negative view of disbelievers, you are better off to believe in them than not. If this causes problems due to trying to cover all of your bases, then that is a problem with Pascal's wager, not in any of our accurate statements about his wager as stated.
Yet you've restated his wager as if it was sound. Given the unsoundness of the wager, why the hell would you go to such efforts to state it in its original, highly flawed form as if it had any merit?

Quote:
See above. His statement referred only to christianity or nothing. Applying his statement to the "larger theological context" is the misuse of Pascal, because it is beyond the scope of his discussion.
You have a penchant for ensuring that discussions remain pointless and that the inherent flaws in certain ways of thinking are never addressed.

Quote:
If you formulate a theory about whether it is better to have a gasoline powered car or diesel, to say "But in the context of solar, electric and hydrogen cars, your wager makes no sense" isn't a valid extension of the question, because the question -is- direct.
I refuse to accept any contextualizing of an issue that consciously and pointlessly excludes solutions other than those explicitly listed for the core problem which is being addressed.

Also in the context of solar, electric, and hydrogen cars there is no significant new possible cost introduced to choosing a diesel or gasoline car. Perhaps on the scale of future cost expectations caused by transitions from one fuel/transportation infrastructure to another, most certainly not on the scope of infinite reward vs. infinite punishment.

Quote:
I described Pascal's wager, you told me I was incorrect in my description.
I said no such thing. I said that both you and Pascal were wrong about the soundness of the wager.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2007, 02:27 AM   #180
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
Yet you've restated his wager as if it was sound.
I'm curious where I actually stated that I felt the wager was sound?

I presented the wager in the form Pascal did, to address what I considered a misstatement about what Pascal's wager was saying.

You are free to claim that his wager is not a -sound- wager, and I'm almost certain to agree with you.

The point was made "Well, what about case X? In case X Pascal's wager doesn't work at all!" And I countered with "Well...Pascal's wager is actually about case Y, if it doesn't work for case X, that's bully for Pascal, but not what he was talking about in the first place."

Quote:
You have a penchant for ensuring that discussions remain pointless and that the inherent flaws in certain ways of thinking are never addressed.
No, I have a penchant for pointing out when someone sets up a strawman by just idly referencing someone in a context beyond the scope in which the reference was occuring.

Last edited by devonin; 06-16-2007 at 02:31 AM..
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution