Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bonduca · 10-12-2002, 09:57 AM

When I responded to him in this thread, I didn't assume he was. The comment about Christianity referred to my own past.

Buffman · 10-12-2002, 09:57 AM

Does he believe in the supernatural?

10-13-2002, 04:40 PM

"Irrelevant. PW in no way, shape, or form proves that any god of any kind exists."
by Goliat

My reply : And it in no way, shape or form proves that God doesn't exist either. PW is to show why people attend to choose God/religion than rather live as Atheist.

"Rational or MANDATORY? If it is rational, God has no business to punish atheists like me (as if I am)."

My reply : I have no idea what you are trying to say.

"What are you trying to say? That there is consequences by people who wouldn't bother purchasing the products?!"

My reply : What's the difference between a man who has something and man who don't have something? Simple - he has something. The consequence of not bothering to buy something is lack of the "something" you didn't buy.

"Good. We infidels care more than kissing ass of an unproven dogma. Like exposing corrupt religionists... "

my reply : Whatever ...

"The God of Pascal's Wager is objective. This God is flawed since humans are subjective and there are bound to be "defected" ones who chooses to ignore him."

My reply : And where in PW did it say THAT?

"Answer me. Do you wage that God exists?"
My reply : What business is YOURS what I wage? Is it relevant to this discussion?

"Answer me; are you supporting Pascal's Wager?"
My reply : Nope, I believe in God NOT because I wanted to go to heaven, thus Pascal's Wager doesn't apply to me.

"Wrong. It is lottery. Sure you get only one chance, but what? Gamble, it is."

My reply : Why said you (Atheists) and Religionists are not gambling? When you refuse God, you already cast that you do not wage on Him.

"If that is your definition, but this is also diminishes that "Free Will" shit you championed. I call that THREAT. Kiss his ass or suffer. Free will for you?"

My reply : Because of there is a FREE WILL, then there is a CHOICE to make in Pascal's Wager. If no free will, there will be no choice and everyone will be accepting God without question.

"If this is not lottery, I agree. THREAT."
My reply : Stupid and irrelevant.

"I agree concisely that karmaic religions like Hinduism and Buddhism is not relevant to Pascal's Wager."

My reply : It still exist possibility of Pascal's Wager in Hindusm and Buddhism, but only if the matrix and column of possibilities increase to support new probalities.

"If they do not believe in ANYTHING?"
My reply : And WHAT do you mean by that?

"Like I said, this God already made a "threat". Because there is only two possible outcome."
My reply : Irrelevant.

"Good point, but I'm intrested if we regard as if God is non-existent or dead. Your answer?"
My reply : Irrevelant.

"I think practical rationality is what suits you. Theoretical is what is the best for you according to dogmas...maybe. I could be wrong."
My reply : Explain.

"Jesus. You've contradicted yourself. You said that Pascal had only Christianity or none to consider: Reply : Pascal thought that humans unable to determine whether is such a force called God through studies of religion, and the only reason humans both to believe in God is because of the possible outcomes (going to heaven or hell for eternity)."

My reply : Where is the contradiction? I don't see it.

"You support Pascal's Wager then?"
My reply : To show why men accept religion - YES. to show whether there is a God - NO.

Devilnaut · 10-13-2002, 05:34 PM

Seraphim:

To say that PW shows "why men accept religion" seems to me to take an extremely narrow view of religious beliefs. First of all, I think you would have significant trouble finding even a single person who believes in the existence of a deity because of PW. Certainly the threat of eternal suffering is a factor, but it is only one of many!

And anyway, I don't really understand what you are trying to say when you defend PW "to show why men accept religion". This is not the purpose of Pascal's Wager. The purpose of the wager is to show why belief in God is rational. Whether or not it succeeds in doing so is an objective fact about the argument. There doesn't seem to be any room for subjective meanderings about PW being true for some people while not true for others, which is what you imply when you say that it "shows why men accept religion".

Are you trying to suggest that you actually admit that Pascal's Wager fails, but that you think it could be convincing to some people in certain situations? If this is the case, I don't see why you would defend the argument.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

K · 10-13-2002, 05:38 PM

Saraphim:

Do you really believe that PW shows that the odds of God existing is 50/50? Does that also apply to lotter tickets - you either have the winner or not?

Goliath · 10-13-2002, 05:49 PM

Seraphim,

Quote:

And it in no way, shape or form proves that God doesn't exist either.

Irrelevant. I make no claim that any kind of god exists.

You, on the other hand, being a theist must prove your assertion that a god exists. PW is not such a proof.

Sincerely,

Goliath

10-13-2002, 06:16 PM

"Irrelevant. I make no claim that any kind of god exists.

You, on the other hand, being a theist must prove your assertion that a god exists. PW is not such a proof."

My reply : And in WHAT way does Pascal's Wager proves that there is NO God? All I see is some details on WHY people choose to follow Religion and it is because followin God is the safest bet one could make. It doesn't show anywhere that it (PW) proves that God doesn't exist. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

10-13-2002, 06:30 PM

Seraphim,

Quote:

All I see is some details on WHY people choose to follow Religion and it is because followin God is the safest bet one could make.

Believing in a certain God(X) might be dangerous if it is God(Y) who exists. In other words, we can only assess pascals wager if we a) Enumerate the possibilities. b) Assess their relative probabilities and c) Quantify their gain/loss values.

Since pascal's wager is flawed, it is irrational to believe in any given God based upon it. Holding a given irrational belief might be relatively safe, but irrationality in general tends to be dangerous.

[ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

10-13-2002, 06:38 PM

"Care to back up that assertion?"

My rely : SURE. I notice most of you post that God doesn't exist from Christian point of view. WHY is that? Do you think that there is no other religion other than Christianity? I love to see someone tries to prove there is no God through Hindusm or Buddhism.

"Correct in my case, if by "belief" you mean "belief regarding anything supernatural."

My reply : Thank you.

no faith
Again, correct.

My reply : Thank you again.

And no strength,
And why is this?

My reply : Simple, what do you belief which gives you faith? What faith do you have which gives you strenght?
And if you say faith and belief is not necessary to have strenght, then show me some examples of people without faith who have strenght to move on.

"Uh-huh...and your assertion is based on...what, exactly?

Have you talked to HelenM, Seebs, or Rev. Joshua about this? They are xians that post on this board and are treated with a fair amount of respect."

my reply : I have no idea who there are, but I'm no Christian either. Frankly speaking, talking down on someone's belief just because you have no faith or different faith than others IS disrespect enough.

"So, it looks as though your last quoted assertion above is demonstrably false."

Which one? I get confused easily since I rush to entertain so many in such a short time, and it seems this forum doesn't allow you to post continuously.

10-13-2002, 06:58 PM

"Are you trying to suggest that you actually admit that Pascal's Wager fails, but that you think it could be convincing to some people in certain situations? If this is the case, I don't see why you would defend the argument."
By Devilnaut

Pascal's Wager is a failure when it comes to multi-deity with a Single God society such as Hindusm, Buddhism and Toaist/Chinese, thus it should not be consider a proof in proving whether there is a God. That is why I so eager to argue about it. If PW is only applied in society with Christian or Islam, then I won't give a crap about it.
And for your information, you should educate your fellow Atheists not to use such examples in places where people like Hindus, Buddhist and other non-Christian or non-Muslims hangs on, they WILL take it very personally and you people will have to prove this arguement one more time.

"Do you really believe that PW shows that the odds of God existing is 50/50? Does that also apply to lotter tickets - you either have the winner or not? "
By K

My reply - True. Just like a lottery - 50/50 chance you win if God exist, you win of God doesn't exist (since you won't be going to hell or heaven without a God).

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

10-12-2002, 09:57 AM	#41
bonduca Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: . Posts: 1,653	When I responded to him in this thread, I didn't assume he was. The comment about Christianity referred to my own past.

10-12-2002, 09:57 AM	#42
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	Does he believe in the supernatural?

10-13-2002, 04:40 PM	#43
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Irrelevant. PW in no way, shape, or form proves that any god of any kind exists." by Goliat My reply : And it in no way, shape or form proves that God doesn't exist either. PW is to show why people attend to choose God/religion than rather live as Atheist. "Rational or MANDATORY? If it is rational, God has no business to punish atheists like me (as if I am)." My reply : I have no idea what you are trying to say. "What are you trying to say? That there is consequences by people who wouldn't bother purchasing the products?!" My reply : What's the difference between a man who has something and man who don't have something? Simple - he has something. The consequence of not bothering to buy something is lack of the "something" you didn't buy. "Good. We infidels care more than kissing ass of an unproven dogma. Like exposing corrupt religionists... " my reply : Whatever ... "The God of Pascal's Wager is objective. This God is flawed since humans are subjective and there are bound to be "defected" ones who chooses to ignore him." My reply : And where in PW did it say THAT? "Answer me. Do you wage that God exists?" My reply : What business is YOURS what I wage? Is it relevant to this discussion? "Answer me; are you supporting Pascal's Wager?" My reply : Nope, I believe in God NOT because I wanted to go to heaven, thus Pascal's Wager doesn't apply to me. "Wrong. It is lottery. Sure you get only one chance, but what? Gamble, it is." My reply : Why said you (Atheists) and Religionists are not gambling? When you refuse God, you already cast that you do not wage on Him. "If that is your definition, but this is also diminishes that "Free Will" shit you championed. I call that THREAT. Kiss his ass or suffer. Free will for you?" My reply : Because of there is a FREE WILL, then there is a CHOICE to make in Pascal's Wager. If no free will, there will be no choice and everyone will be accepting God without question. "If this is not lottery, I agree. THREAT." My reply : Stupid and irrelevant. "I agree concisely that karmaic religions like Hinduism and Buddhism is not relevant to Pascal's Wager." My reply : It still exist possibility of Pascal's Wager in Hindusm and Buddhism, but only if the matrix and column of possibilities increase to support new probalities. "If they do not believe in ANYTHING?" My reply : And WHAT do you mean by that? "Like I said, this God already made a "threat". Because there is only two possible outcome." My reply : Irrelevant. "Good point, but I'm intrested if we regard as if God is non-existent or dead. Your answer?" My reply : Irrevelant. "I think practical rationality is what suits you. Theoretical is what is the best for you according to dogmas...maybe. I could be wrong." My reply : Explain. "Jesus. You've contradicted yourself. You said that Pascal had only Christianity or none to consider: Reply : Pascal thought that humans unable to determine whether is such a force called God through studies of religion, and the only reason humans both to believe in God is because of the possible outcomes (going to heaven or hell for eternity)." My reply : Where is the contradiction? I don't see it. "You support Pascal's Wager then?" My reply : To show why men accept religion - YES. to show whether there is a God - NO.

10-13-2002, 05:34 PM	#44
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	Seraphim: To say that PW shows "why men accept religion" seems to me to take an extremely narrow view of religious beliefs. First of all, I think you would have significant trouble finding even a single person who believes in the existence of a deity because of PW. Certainly the threat of eternal suffering is a factor, but it is only one of many! And anyway, I don't really understand what you are trying to say when you defend PW "to show why men accept religion". This is not the purpose of Pascal's Wager. The purpose of the wager is to show why belief in God is rational. Whether or not it succeeds in doing so is an objective fact about the argument. There doesn't seem to be any room for subjective meanderings about PW being true for some people while not true for others, which is what you imply when you say that it "shows why men accept religion". Are you trying to suggest that you actually admit that Pascal's Wager fails, but that you think it could be convincing to some people in certain situations? If this is the case, I don't see why you would defend the argument. [ October 13, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

10-13-2002, 05:38 PM	#45
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Saraphim: Do you really believe that PW shows that the odds of God existing is 50/50? Does that also apply to lotter tickets - you either have the winner or not?

10-13-2002, 06:16 PM	#47
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Irrelevant. I make no claim that any kind of god exists. You, on the other hand, being a theist must prove your assertion that a god exists. PW is not such a proof." My reply : And in WHAT way does Pascal's Wager proves that there is NO God? All I see is some details on WHY people choose to follow Religion and it is because followin God is the safest bet one could make. It doesn't show anywhere that it (PW) proves that God doesn't exist. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

10-13-2002, 06:38 PM	#49
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Care to back up that assertion?" My rely : SURE. I notice most of you post that God doesn't exist from Christian point of view. WHY is that? Do you think that there is no other religion other than Christianity? I love to see someone tries to prove there is no God through Hindusm or Buddhism. "Correct in my case, if by "belief" you mean "belief regarding anything supernatural." My reply : Thank you. no faith Again, correct. My reply : Thank you again. And no strength, And why is this? My reply : Simple, what do you belief which gives you faith? What faith do you have which gives you strenght? And if you say faith and belief is not necessary to have strenght, then show me some examples of people without faith who have strenght to move on. "Uh-huh...and your assertion is based on...what, exactly? Have you talked to HelenM, Seebs, or Rev. Joshua about this? They are xians that post on this board and are treated with a fair amount of respect." my reply : I have no idea who there are, but I'm no Christian either. Frankly speaking, talking down on someone's belief just because you have no faith or different faith than others IS disrespect enough. "So, it looks as though your last quoted assertion above is demonstrably false." Which one? I get confused easily since I rush to entertain so many in such a short time, and it seems this forum doesn't allow you to post continuously.

10-13-2002, 06:58 PM	#50
Seraphim Guest Posts: n/a	"Are you trying to suggest that you actually admit that Pascal's Wager fails, but that you think it could be convincing to some people in certain situations? If this is the case, I don't see why you would defend the argument." By Devilnaut Pascal's Wager is a failure when it comes to multi-deity with a Single God society such as Hindusm, Buddhism and Toaist/Chinese, thus it should not be consider a proof in proving whether there is a God. That is why I so eager to argue about it. If PW is only applied in society with Christian or Islam, then I won't give a crap about it. And for your information, you should educate your fellow Atheists not to use such examples in places where people like Hindus, Buddhist and other non-Christian or non-Muslims hangs on, they WILL take it very personally and you people will have to prove this arguement one more time. "Do you really believe that PW shows that the odds of God existing is 50/50? Does that also apply to lotter tickets - you either have the winner or not? " By K My reply - True. Just like a lottery - 50/50 chance you win if God exist, you win of God doesn't exist (since you won't be going to hell or heaven without a God).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.