beastmaster

I agree with Albert. Pascal's Wager is incomplete without an Appeal to Authority.

John Page

How so? And, There isn;t one, so what do we do now?

Albert Cipriani

Dear K,
Is an absurd bet reasonable? You’ve just won this year’s loaded question award. I won’t dignify that ignominy by following you offstage with an answer.

Pascal ignored the “rich” histories of all the other gods for the same reason I do and you ought to, cuz they are impoverished. Catholic Conquistadores did more than ignore the “rich” history of the gods that required Aztecs to cut out the hearts of their children. Those Catholics put an end to that “rich” history as we should to this day. But that requires a value judgment, not logic. Logically, there is no reason to dismiss the rich history of any god or vampire you can dig up. Be my guest. – Sincerely Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear John,
You ask: Authoritative “history testimony” consist of two factors: duh, history and testimony. That is, history alone does not confer authority and its testimony alone does not confer authority.

For example, the Hindu gods have an arguably more ancient history than the Judeo-Christian tradition. But the testimony is riff with irrational fantasies. Conversely, scientific history is shorter than both religions. But scientific testimony is the most rational least contradictory of any human tradition.

Ergo, the most authoritative religion is the one that has the longest history AND the most logical testimony. Catholicism is that. As if you didn’t know. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

beastmaster

Pascal's Wager purports to furnish a basis for belief in a Xn God without reference to evidence. But the whole framework of the wager has numerous built-in assumptions that have no basis in anything other than Authority, such as Heaven, salvation through belief, etc.

You cannot even *get* to the starting point of the wager unless you first make the Appeal to Authority that preloads these assumptions *into* the wager.

Xns find Pascal's Wager credible because they accept the Appeal to Authority that forms its structure.

Atheists, like me, think Pascal's Wager is laughable because we do not accept the Appeal to Authority.

That's why I say that Pascal's Wager is incomplete without an Appeal to Authority.

And further, I agree with Albert that the debate really comes down to whether or not you accpet that Authority or not.

Pascal's Wager is just a sideshow to what really divides Xns and atheists.

John Page

Hmmmm. Don't you mean the most authoritarian religion?

Anyway, you seem to be saying that I should choose the opinions of a four year old whose been watching the same program all its life over similarly indoctrinated two year olds.

Again, what is the history testimony - OT, NT, Nicene Creed, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas?

Cheers, John

Albert Cipriani

Bravo Beastmaster,
I couldn’t have said it better: The issue swings over the aversion reflex liberals have to authority. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

JEST2ASK

What about **** JUDAISM ****

John Page

Jesus was the first catholic so it doesn't count, everything before that was just wondering around in the desert.

John Page

What authority, Albert? Doesn't the issue swing on the fetishes borne of right wing stricture?