Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen T-B · 08-14-2003, 08:38 AM

If you don't attach fault or blame to those who see it all as a game of chance, I think some Christians might consider you to be in error.
They might not think you are as "normal" as your choice of user-name suggests you think you are.

(I don't mean to insult you or them; I just make that observation.)

Normal · 08-14-2003, 08:43 AM

I don't find fault with people who attribute it to a game of chance, I just think it denies an important aspect of human existence. I don't know if you've heard of him, but the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard has a lot of the same views I do. If it is all a game of chance, it is impossible to be passionate about anything, and in passion, that is where life truly is.

Anyone who acts out of their own personal desire is denying it is a game of chance, because they are giving meaning to something that they should think is meaningless.

Stephen T-B · 08-14-2003, 08:58 AM

I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph - and haven't the time at present to look at it closely.

I have heard of Soren Kierkegaard, (I think) but haven't read anything by him, or about his philosphy.

I'll look him up, though.

Division By Zero · 08-14-2003, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
But you just admited him providing sufficient evidence would be forcing you to believe, so it would be impacting on your free will. I'm not denying that the things you observe are not entirely based on free will. For example, you do not choose to see 5 apples on the table, you either see five apples or you don't. But what you choose to be sufficient evidence to convince you of what is completely up to you. If your vision is blurry, you wouldn't be so sure there are five apples on the table, and might believe there are only two.

But as it is now, he is forcing me not to believe. He knows I cannot believe without X amount of evidence, and he deliberately provided, say, X - 5 amount of evidence. Either way, I have no free choice in the matter.

Quote:

I truly, truly despise Pascal's wager for god. It is the most selfish reasons to believe and anyone who bases their "faith" on that is a coward, in my opinion.

I wasn't referring to Pascal's Wager, rather I was referring to the doctrine that the only way to avoid hell is to accept Jesus as the savior and thus become a Christian. It hardly makes sense to punish me for not accepting Jesus as my savior if I can't even believe that the claims in the Bible are factual. If you don't accept that doctrine, feel free to ignore the comment.

Normal · 08-14-2003, 09:17 AM

I think that doctrine is pretty silly actually. I think it has more personal benefit to believe then some silly punishment in an afterlife, as in the above quote to Steven-TB: Some view it as a game of chance, some think there are no coincidences.

Also, Nietchze makes a lot of the same points, if you prefer a more atheistic philosopher: Don't put off this world for the promise of a better one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2003, 08:38 AM	#221
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	If you don't attach fault or blame to those who see it all as a game of chance, I think some Christians might consider you to be in error. They might not think you are as "normal" as your choice of user-name suggests you think you are. (I don't mean to insult you or them; I just make that observation.)

08-14-2003, 08:43 AM	#222
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	I don't find fault with people who attribute it to a game of chance, I just think it denies an important aspect of human existence. I don't know if you've heard of him, but the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard has a lot of the same views I do. If it is all a game of chance, it is impossible to be passionate about anything, and in passion, that is where life truly is. Anyone who acts out of their own personal desire is denying it is a game of chance, because they are giving meaning to something that they should think is meaningless.

08-14-2003, 08:58 AM	#223
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	I'm not sure I understand your last paragraph - and haven't the time at present to look at it closely. I have heard of Soren Kierkegaard, (I think) but haven't read anything by him, or about his philosphy. I'll look him up, though.

08-14-2003, 09:17 AM	#225
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	I think that doctrine is pretty silly actually. I think it has more personal benefit to believe then some silly punishment in an afterlife, as in the above quote to Steven-TB: Some view it as a game of chance, some think there are no coincidences. Also, Nietchze makes a lot of the same points, if you prefer a more atheistic philosopher: Don't put off this world for the promise of a better one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.