Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Datheron · 02-13-2002, 03:53 PM

Tercel,

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. So they simply ban us from mentioning the thing and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't work.

Well, it's their board, so I suppose we have to obey their rules in all humility...

I'm interested in how you claim, Tercel, that "the skeptics" are "afraid" of Pascal's Wager, and that our arguments against it are weak. I have read a few pieces of literature against the Wager, and their arguments were quite solid - one such argument dealt with the fact that most religious teachings are exclusive and thus you cannot "cover all possible ground" for salvation; apparently, 'em deities were a jealous lot. In any case, I would like to see a refutations of the various arguments that are floating around against Pascal's Wager, if you're so kind as to provide them.

TollHouse · 02-13-2002, 06:04 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.

tsk, tsk... Tercel, you've been around here long enough to know better than that.
But you are right on one thing: Pascal's Wager is simple, so simple it's stupid.

Quote:

So they simply ban us from mentioning the thing and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't work.

I've never seen anyone banned here for mentioning it and we certainly don't pretend that it doesn't exist (why do you think we have a link to it at the top of the page, dummy?) we're simply sick of having to explain the obvious flaws of PW to every fresh faced born-again who comes to these boards in an attempt to win us over.

Quote:

Well, it's their board, so I suppose we have to obey their rules in all humility...

Yeah, that's some humility for you.
Liar.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: TollHouse ]

Orpheous99 · 02-14-2002, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Deputy42:


i dont think anyone would defend blindly following a system of beliefs, it is foolish. your mention of slavery is interesting look at romans 6:15-23
"what then? should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? by no means! do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? but thanks be to god that you having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entruested, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. i am speaking in human terms beacause of your natural limitations. for just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now prestent your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. so what advantage did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed? the end of those things is daeth. but now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to god, the advantage you get is sanctification. the end is eternal life. for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of god is eternal life in christ jesus our lord"
'nuff said

It it just "trading" one form of slavery for an even worse form of slavery. In order for love to be real and true it must not have ANY conditions attached to it. If your god truly loved us he/she/it would forgive us everything and allow all into heaven regardless of what we may have done. Christians have a twisted idea of what love is. Does your god want worshippers or sycophants?

Orpheous99 · 02-14-2002, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
Hi stooks and welcome.
Your brief life history sketch reminds me of myself: I have also found the evidence led me back to Christ.

Welcome to these boards, if you ever need any help on the boards or support in your faith, feel free to contact me, or any of the other Christian posters here.

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. So they simply ban us from mentioning the thing and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't work.

Well, it's their board, so I suppose we have to obey their rules in all humility...

Anyway, all of this is to say: Welcome aboard, and I look forward to seeing more of your posts in the future.

God Bless,
Tercel

Oh, please. We're not "afraid" of Pascal's Wager because it is meaningless. In order for it to be a valid arguement one would have to be a pantheists since it is silly to assume that it only speaks of one god, the Christian god.

Hobbs · 02-14-2002, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
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. So they simply ban us from mentioning the thing and pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't work

Oh, come on! You don't really think that, do you?

Are you afraid of Muslim hell? Are you afraid that maybe, just maybe, you've picked the wrong god, and you'll end up in some other god's hell? No? You aren't afraid of that? Not at all?

Well, that's about how afraid I am of your religion's hell: not at all.

Have you bothered to read any of the responses to Pascal's Wager at this site? Or are you just pretending they don't exist and they don't utterly destroy that pitiful argument, because you can't think of anything better to support your wishful thinking?

Draygomb · 02-14-2002, 05:06 AM

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?

sidewinder · 02-14-2002, 06:07 AM

Have you ever heard a Christian compare the relationship between God and believer to that of parent and child? It's a bad comparison.

I love my son unconditionally. No matter what he did I would never say that he should be sentenced to an eternity of being burned by fires. I wouldn't even want him separated from me eternally. I would never condition my love for him based on his beliefs. I would only do my best to instill good morals and values into him to give him the best chance of living a relatively good and happy life. I would encourage him to find his own path in life and help him whenever I could.

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. I would never hide from my son to the point where he doubted my existence. I would never threaten my son with something so horrorific as an eternal hellfire no matter what he did. I would want to do everything in my power to make sure I had the best relationship possible with my son. I would want it to be based on trust, understanding, respect, and love.

Eudaimonist · 02-14-2002, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stooks (or should I say Pascal?

):
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.

Before that "dust" is life. If my existence is my life, and my happiness is what makes my existence worthwhile, then my happiness in this life is of infinite (or ultimate) value to me. The finite duration of life does not detract from this value, since it is everything I am.

My happiness depends on my integrity, and that includes both moral and intellectual integrity. Why should I give up my integrity -- which gives my life infinite value -- on an unprincipled game of afterlife-roulette? Whether you realize it or not, that is what you are asking me to do.

And keep in mind that I am certain that this life exists, but I have no reason to think there is an afterlife.

Quote:

I know that I have led a fulfilling life so far.

Great, so have I.

Quote:

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.

Yup. In a heartbeat.

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

Pantera · 02-14-2002, 08:07 AM

Am I the only one who thinks Tercel probably had his tongue somewhat in cheek when he wrote that bit about Pascal's Wager? Nice one Terc.

Gurdur · 02-14-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pantera:
Am I the only one who thinks Tercel probably had his tongue somewhat in cheek when he wrote that bit about Pascal's Wager? Nice one Terc.

Probably? Probably?

Tercel gets in a savage blow at Occam's and some of us here; an incorrect, fallacious blow, but a nicely swingeing job.

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

02-14-2002, 05:06 AM	#16
Draygomb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Harrisburg, Pa Posts: 3,251	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?

02-14-2002, 06:07 AM	#17
sidewinder Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: omnipresent Posts: 234	Have you ever heard a Christian compare the relationship between God and believer to that of parent and child? It's a bad comparison. I love my son unconditionally. No matter what he did I would never say that he should be sentenced to an eternity of being burned by fires. I wouldn't even want him separated from me eternally. I would never condition my love for him based on his beliefs. I would only do my best to instill good morals and values into him to give him the best chance of living a relatively good and happy life. I would encourage him to find his own path in life and help him whenever I could. 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. I would never hide from my son to the point where he doubted my existence. I would never threaten my son with something so horrorific as an eternal hellfire no matter what he did. I would want to do everything in my power to make sure I had the best relationship possible with my son. I would want it to be based on trust, understanding, respect, and love.

02-14-2002, 08:07 AM	#19
Pantera Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart Posts: 2,431	Am I the only one who thinks Tercel probably had his tongue somewhat in cheek when he wrote that bit about Pascal's Wager? Nice one Terc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.