Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tercel · 02-14-2002, 03:15 PM

Sheesh, that certainly ruffled a few feathers.
Perhaps you're all angry at me for uncovering the conspiracy to hide the Wager?

Tongue in cheek? Somewhat. I�ve been around long enough to note that you do have a good reason to at least restrict mention of it since otherwise every other fundie would be doing a drive by �ha ha you should believe because of PW�. (Assuming they�re even intelligent enough to know the name, which I doubt in most cases)
On the other hand, it wasn�t all tongue in cheek: I�m not entirely happy about the restrictions on PW, because I see it as a valid and reasonable argument. As I pointed out, I have to put up with Occam�s razor being parroted at me on a regular basis. It would certainly be nice to parrot back the Wager at least once in a while.

What does annoy me though is when people claim the Wager doesn�t work / is meaningless / useless etc. Come on guys, I don�t throw punches below the below the belt at the level of denying logic by saying Occam�s razor�s invalid! Or is this simply what they call free-thinking in the fullest sense of the word? (Free-of-thinking perhaps?)

For Hobbs� information: Yes, I read the articles (when I started posting to this board about a year ago) in the II library against Pascal�s Wager (Mainly out of fascination that anyone could be stupid enough to deny basic sense). And yes, I found them as bad as expected. I also read them again the other day before posting in this thread, I did note there had been added a lot of positive arguments for the wager, but the same old bad ones were still there too.

For Tollhouse: A reading lesson.
If there is a ban on mentioning something, it does not necessitate that they will get banned from posting if they mention it. In this case they just get told to shut up by all and sundry.

Tercel
PS Apologies for so completely sidetracking the thread, but I did want to say hello to Stooks.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]

Dr. Retard · 02-14-2002, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
What does annoy me though is when people claim the Wager doesn’t work / is meaningless / useless etc. Come on guys, I don’t throw punches below the below the belt at the level of denying logic by saying Occam’s razor’s invalid! Or is this simply what they call free-thinking in the fullest sense of the word? (Free-of-thinking perhaps?)

Have you considered the possibility that Pascal's Wager is indeed stupid and yet Occam's Razor is not?

Layman · 02-14-2002, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stooks:
When dealing with an issue such as the existence of God, where it is impossible to prove an answer either way, you will find evidence to support what you want to believe. This may be done totally subconsciously, but it still happens.

When I was younger I blindly accepted Christianity. Out of pure emotion and by what I had been taught. In recent years, however, I have questioned my beliefs. I have attended lectures, read many books, done studying of my own and asked questions to people who are much smarter than me. All the answers I found led me straight back to a holy, loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, timeless God who created the entire universe.

You on the other hand have obviously found something very different then me. Since neither one of us can truly prove our belief. Then only one question remains. What are the consequences of one of us being wrong?

If you are right and I am wrong, then (this is just a guess, you didn't put down your beliefs) I become dust and nothing more.

If I am right and you are wrong, then you will be in an unbearable hell for all of eternity, that is quite a long time.

So maybe you should renew your quest for knowledge looking towards God instead of towards nature, or whatever forces that you believe in.

I know that I have led a fulfilling life so far. I have seen and done many things that most people only dream about. I am willing to die for my beliefs. That is how sure I am about them. Do you feel so strongly about yours that you would risk spending an eternity in hell.

Hiya Stook,

Welcome to the Secular Web. Or Infidels.org as it is also known. I'm sure you are not surprised by your reception here. There are some bright skeptics willing to engage in a good discussion, but it's been my experience that most of them think that the idea of Christianity has already been so soundly refuted that all they have to do is keep reminding each other of that.

The so-called Pascal's Wager has not played much of a role in my Christian belief, but that certainly doesn't mean it is not a sound argument. I've never thought it would convince a hardened skeptic--such as we have here--to reexamine their beleifs simply because some religion claims their are dire circumstances for not doing so. However, as you say, there are evidences and arguments both ways. Some support the idea of a personal God, and some that don't. When one finds himself or herself in such a medium position, then certianly examining the consequences of either belief system is very reasonable.

Good to see ya around,

Layman

Autonemesis · 02-14-2002, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Draygomb:
Did it never occur to you that maybe god only likes atheists? How do you know that Atheists won't be the only ones in heaven?

I like that idea. Religion is the means by which god excludes all the yes-men and sycophants, so that he can spend eternity with "real souls" like us atheists.

Autonemesis · 02-14-2002, 03:43 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sidewinder:
I would never tell him he had to believe certain things or I would not want to be with him at all. I would never tell him he couldn't question me or my actions. I would never demand obedience no matter what.

You are obviously not running a fundie household.

Autonemesis · 02-14-2002, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
What does annoy me though is when people claim the Wager doesn’t work / is meaningless / useless etc. Come on guys, I don’t throw punches below the below the belt at the level of denying logic by saying Occam’s razor’s invalid! Or is this simply what they call [qb]free-thinking in the fullest sense of the word? (Free-of-thinking perhaps?)[/QB]

Oh, come on. Every newsgroup, every forum, every mailing list, has a FAQ list. It's been argued to death, and to allege that we (royal we) claim without reason that PW is lacking is completely dishonest. I swear I should go create a website <a href="http://www.debatepascalswager.com" target="_blank">www.debatepascalswager.com</a> to try and attract all of that detritus away from all the other forums. Go do a Google search on "pascal's wager" and you will find more links pro and con than you could possibly ever want to go through. There is NO shortage of people who are not afraid to discuss Pascal's Wager!

And about PW's relevance here: you may as well ask astronauts to reconsider whether the world is flat.

Toto · 02-14-2002, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


There are some bright skeptics willing to engage in a good discussion, but it's been my experience that most of them think that the idea of Christianity has already been so soundly refuted that all they have to do is keep reminding each other of that.

That's not quite true. The idea of Christianity has been soundly refuted again and again, but Christians keep trying new arguments (along with repeating the tired old ones), and the defense of secularism requires eternal vigilance.

I just amuses me how Layman adopts such a superior attitude, as if he actually had any good arguments in favor of Christianity.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Layman · 02-14-2002, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
[QB]

That's not quite true. The idea of Christianity has been soundly refuted again and again, but Christians keep trying new arguments (along with repeating the tired old ones), and the defense of secularism requires eternal vigilance.

Thank you for expressing your completely subjective, conclusory opinion Toto. Unfortunately, it has zero probative value in my subjective opinion.

Quote:

I just amuses me how Layman adopts such a superior attitude, as if he actually had any good arguments in favor of Christianity.

I actually don't think I'm superior in intellect to everyone here. But I've made plenty of good arguments in favor of Christianity. And I've made various such arguments from time to time to various persons. Some people have been convinced, some haven't.

GunnerJ · 02-14-2002, 05:28 PM

Quote:

You'll soon note, if you haven't already, that the skeptics are particularly afraid of Pascal's Wager because it is simple, effective and undoes their Occam's razor argument.

Oh my Athe, oh my Athe... THIS has go to go in the quotations file... Masterful job, Tercel. To think I wanted to pay to see a standup comedian try and make me laugh!

BTW, if the refutations of Pascal's wager (some of which have been posted here, like "are you afraid of Allah's hell?" or "What if god doesn't want to be belived in?") are so bad, why not come down off your high horse and share your rebuttal to them with us? Or are you just putting on a poker face?

YHWH666 · 02-14-2002, 06:51 PM

hmm... i really like that one! god likes atheists!

okay let's do the wager here for a second.
one should do either of the following:

#1 join the religion with the worst hell.

#2 join as many religions as possible with out joining conflicting ones (oh wait never mind, most of them are self contradictory anyway!)

#3 or best of all! be an atheist! let's assume god DOES exist. it's seems to me that he doesn't want people to know he exists. all the reason and logic is against it. the most reasonable choice is 3 because it is more likely than the other 2.

what a good laugh!

02-14-2002, 03:15 PM	#21
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	Sheesh, that certainly ruffled a few feathers. Perhaps you're all angry at me for uncovering the conspiracy to hide the Wager? Tongue in cheek? Somewhat. I�ve been around long enough to note that you do have a good reason to at least restrict mention of it since otherwise every other fundie would be doing a drive by �ha ha you should believe because of PW�. (Assuming they�re even intelligent enough to know the name, which I doubt in most cases) On the other hand, it wasn�t all tongue in cheek: I�m not entirely happy about the restrictions on PW, because I see it as a valid and reasonable argument. As I pointed out, I have to put up with Occam�s razor being parroted at me on a regular basis. It would certainly be nice to parrot back the Wager at least once in a while. What does annoy me though is when people claim the Wager doesn�t work / is meaningless / useless etc. Come on guys, I don�t throw punches below the below the belt at the level of denying logic by saying Occam�s razor�s invalid! Or is this simply what they call <strong>free</strong>-thinking in the fullest sense of the word? (Free-of-thinking perhaps?) For Hobbs� information: Yes, I read the articles (when I started posting to this board about a year ago) in the II library against Pascal�s Wager (Mainly out of fascination that anyone could be stupid enough to deny basic sense). And yes, I found them as bad as expected. I also read them again the other day before posting in this thread, I did note there had been added a lot of positive arguments for the wager, but the same old bad ones were still there too. For Tollhouse: A reading lesson. If there is a ban on mentioning something, it does not necessitate that they will get banned from posting if they mention it. In this case they just get told to shut up by all and sundry. Tercel PS Apologies for so completely sidetracking the thread, but I did want to say hello to Stooks. [ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

02-14-2002, 03:43 PM	#25
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	[QUOTE]Originally posted by sidewinder: <strong>I would never tell him he had to believe certain things or I would not want to be with him at all. I would never tell him he couldn't question me or my actions. I would never demand obedience no matter what.</strong> You are obviously not running a fundie household.

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

02-14-2002, 06:51 PM	#30
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	hmm... i really like that one! god likes atheists! okay let's do the wager here for a second. one should do either of the following: #1 join the religion with the worst hell. #2 join as many religions as possible with out joining conflicting ones (oh wait never mind, most of them are self contradictory anyway!) #3 or best of all! be an atheist! let's assume god DOES exist. it's seems to me that he doesn't want people to know he exists. all the reason and logic is against it. the most reasonable choice is 3 because it is more likely than the other 2. what a good laugh!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.