The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: The Philosopher on March 06, 2007, 08:56:23 PM
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
"Just in case"? But then, is it a true belief? Or would we all be like that dumbass in The Mummy who was preying with every religious icon and in every religious language?
-
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
-
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
I agree that believing something due to logic or believing something due to faith are two completely different experiences. What if a person was unsure what to believe, though? Could a person use reason to justify his or her accepting a belief on blind faith, and would THIS be the same experience as believing something solely on faith?
You're right, though, this wager only truly works for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity). Any religion that claims the existence of positive and negative consequences to your actions fits this rationale though.
The point of the wager is that it doesn't matter in the end if you're wrong, because the loss here on earth would be finite. Also, you would have had the same probability of being wrong from choosing to believe in any other deity or force (provided there's no logical evidence to indicate that one religion is more likely to be true than another), with the promise of similar punishments and rewards.
This doesn't reflect any of my personal beliefs, by the way.
-
Another significant problem with the wager is the fact that bible clearly states that you have to believe in Jesus/God in your heart. Simply following the teachings of the bible is not enough, according to the bible, to get into heaven. So if you follow Christianity based on Pascal's wager, you're still going to hell.
-
Another significant problem with the wager is the fact that bible clearly states that you have to believe in Jesus/God in your heart. Simply following the teachings of the bible is not enough, according to the bible, to get into heaven. So if you follow Christianity based on Pascal's wager, you're still going to hell.
I agree that believing something due to logic or believing something due to faith are two completely different experiences. What if a person was unsure what to believe, though? Could a person use reason to justify his or her accepting a belief on blind faith, and would THIS be the same experience as believing something solely on faith?
-
Pascal's Wager is useless, since god is supposedly an omnipotent and omniscient being. Being omniscient, he knows if your reasons for praising and believing him are pure and true (purer faith), and could act accordingly (to hell with you, muhuhuhahahah!).
-
Pascal's Wager is useless, since god is supposedly an omnipotent and omniscient being. Being omniscient, he knows if your reasons for praising and believing him are pure and true (purer faith), and could act accordingly (to hell with you, muhuhuhahahah!).
Ok I guess I'll rephrase what I previously said, and quoted. If a person is unsure about whether or not to believe in God and rationalizes their decision to believe in God with the logic of Pascal's wager, is this a lesser form of faith? I think they would be the same. Even if a person justifies his decision to believe in God with Pascal's wager, he still believes in God out of faith.
-
I'd say yes, it is a lesser form of faith.
Just thinking "I'd be shot to hell if he was true and I didn't believe him, so I better go to mass now" is wrong.
Unfortunately, knowing about Pascal's Wager makes you think like that, so if you have read about Pascal's Wager and believe in god, your reasons will always be tainted by Pascal's Wager.
Therefore, you have doomed all god-fearing people who have read this thread.:P
-
I'd say yes, it is a lesser form of faith.
Just thinking "I'd be shot to hell if he was true and I didn't believe him, so I better go to mass now" is wrong.
Unfortunately, knowing about Pascal's Wager makes you think like that, so if you have read about Pascal's Wager and believe in god, your reasons will always be tainted by Pascal's Wager.
Therefore, you have doomed all god-fearing people who have read this thread.:P
Only if those people have no mental strength
Anyway, I'm not talking about a person obeying all the church laws because of Pascal's Wager. I'm describing a hypothetical situation in which a person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager. His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.
If this were a lesser form of faith, then all faiths that arose after birth would be lesser faiths. Most people that have faith gained it for one reason or another during their lives. I don't see why logic should be a less valid way of deciding to believe something.
-
But if they're believing because of Pascal's wager, are they actually believing, or are they just pretending to believe in case it turns out that the form of Christianity they're following is correct? If they actually believe, I don't see how it could be because of Pascal's wager.
-
One of the problems I have with Pascal's Wager is that it's based in the pre-supposition of the Christian god. There are how many deities (or representations of deities or however you want to word it) out there? 100s? 1000s?
What if Pascal's Wager applies more to Zeus?
IMO, it's a pathetic attempt on the part of Christianity to convert through subterfuge.
-
But if they're believing because of Pascal's wager, are they actually believing, or are they just pretending to believe in case it turns out that the form of Christianity they're following is correct? If they actually believe, I don't see how it could be because of Pascal's wager.
Like I said in the hypothetical situation described above, the person decided to believe for a different reason, but he still sincerely believes. He was previously unsure about whether or not to believe in God, and after seeing Pascal's wager he decided to believe. His belief in God is just as sincere, he just came to believe it in a different way.
One of the problems I have with Pascal's Wager is that it's based in the pre-supposition of the Christian god. There are how many deities (or representations of deities or however you want to word it) out there? 100s? 1000s?
What if Pascal's Wager applies more to Zeus?
As stated above:
You're right, though, this wager only truly works for the traditional monotheistic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity). Any religion that claims the existence of positive and negative consequences to your actions fits this rationale though.
IMO, it's a pathetic attempt on the part of Christianity to convert through subterfuge.
If it was created with this purpose in mind, I might agree with you.
-
The problem is that religion was introduced to humanity, it was not something innate in the human being, so not everyone will accept it as the truth.
-
The problem is that religion was introduced to humanity, it was not something innate in the human being, so not everyone will accept it as the truth.
I don't know what you mean. I personally think religion was the most primitive form of government.
-
The problem is that religion was introduced to humanity, it was not something innate in the human being, so not everyone will accept it as the truth.
I don't know what you mean. I personally think religion was the most primitive form of government.
I get that, but I thought what you were trying to get across was that, why doesn't everyone accept that there is a God? I was displaying my opinion on the subject. I wasn't debating the reason for religion here.
-
I get that, but I thought what you were trying to get across was that, why doesn't everyone accept that there is a God? I was displaying my opinion on the subject. I wasn't debating the reason for religion here.
I must have misinterpreted what you said. The question I'm asking now, though, is regarding this hypothetical situation:
A person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager. His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.
Is his belief any less valid, just because he agreed with the logic of Pascal's Wager? He still believes in God out of faith. His decision to believe (since he was previously unsure), however, was rooted in both faith and reason.
-
A person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager. His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.
Is his belief any less valid, just because he agreed with the logic of Pascal's Wager? He still believes in God out of faith. His decision to believe (since he was previously unsure), however, was rooted in both faith and reason.
In my opinion, his faith is valid. His faith in that there is a God is real because he accepts his existence, just as any other member of a religion does.
-
Even if you do accept that Pascal's wager is a valid reason why people would be better off if they believed in god, simply believing that you would be better off if you believed X isn't enough for you to actually believe X. I might doubt my wife's faithfulness, and believe that I would be happier if I were doubt-free, but I can't just wish away my doubts based on my analysis of my happiness. Similarly, I might think that god doesn't exist, and think that I would be better off if I thought he did exist, but I can't make the leap to actually believing the unbelievable based on the idea that I would be better off if I did.
-
Similarly, I might think that god doesn't exist, and think that I would be better off if I thought he did exist, but I can't make the leap to actually believing the unbelievable based on the idea that I would be better off if I did.
Exactly, everyone has doubts of a God's existence, even if they have been prominent figures in their chosen religions. How does this differ from people believing in God because of Pascal's Wager. They had their doubts, but now they believe.
-
A person, who was previously unsure, decided to believe in God (in ADDITION to following church laws) because of Pascal's Wager. His belief is sincere, he just decided to believe in it (possibly instead of being agnostic) due to logic.
Is his belief any less valid, just because he agreed with the logic of Pascal's Wager? He still believes in God out of faith. His decision to believe (since he was previously unsure), however, was rooted in both faith and reason.
In this case, I think what is important is his belief, not how he came about it. It is no less or more valid than anyone else's similar belief because it essentially is the same belief.
At some point this person would have to drop this shallow 'wager' in order to have belief in God (within my understanding of true belief in the Christian God, of course). This person would have to have a sincere relationship with God in order to be a believer, not just say "I believe because it is logical to do so". To me it seems this latter belief of logic is one of fear, which to me does not constitute belief (and how much of logic has to do with belief, and vice versa?). The former belief through a relationship with God is one of love (I would hope).
Well, if you're not confused with my parenthetical notation overkill . . . then I have failed.
-
Similarly, I might think that god doesn't exist, and think that I would be better off if I thought he did exist, but I can't make the leap to actually believing the unbelievable based on the idea that I would be better off if I did.
Exactly, everyone has doubts of a God's existence, even if they have been prominent figures in their chosen religions.
I don't think this is true. Perhaps you have such doubts, but I find it extremely unlikely that suicide bombers do. When people blow themselves up in the name of religion, I think that constitutes extremely persuasive evidence that they don't actually doubt its truth.
How does this differ from people believing in God because of Pascal's Wager. They had their doubts, but now they believe.
I don't understand what you mean by "believing in God because of Pascal's Wager" as I don't see how this is even possible. One can want to believe because of Pascal's wager, but belief in a proposition means that you actually think the proposition is true. Pascal's wager does not in any way help decide the question of whether the proposition "god exists" is true, it only suggests that we have a motive to try to believe it. That does not, in any way, make us think the proposition is any more likely than it was before we considered the wager.
-
I don't understand what you mean by "believing in God because of Pascal's Wager" as I don't see how this is even possible. One can want to believe because of Pascal's wager, but belief in a proposition means that you actually think the proposition is true. Pascal's wager does not in any way help decide the question of whether the proposition "god exists" is true, it only suggests that we have a motive to try to believe it. That does not, in any way, make us think the proposition is any more likely than it was before we considered the wager.
Say someone was raised to believe in God, but began to question that belief. If he was caught directly between the two possibilities, thinking both were equally likely, saw Pascal's Wager, and decided to believe in god, would his belief still be less valid? It just helped him answer his original questioning of his faith.
-
No, because it doesn't answer any of the doubts with regard to belief. Anyone who thinks that Pascal's wager is reason to believe something has a very different understanding of belief than I do. To me, "belief" requires that you honestly think something is true, and not just that you think you would be better off believing. If you begin to doubt your belief in a god, you must answer those doubts with something that takes away your reasons for doubting, or else you must continue to doubt. You can't stop doubting something just because you think you'd be happier if you did.
Again, I think the example of doubting your spouse's faithfulness is a good one. If you begin to doubt that your spouse is being faithful, you might easily conclude that you would be happier if you believed your spouse was faithful, but this only allows you to conclude that you would be happier if you believed your spouse was faithful; it doesn't let you conclude that your spouse actually is faithful.
-
No, because it doesn't answer any of the doubts with regard to belief. Anyone who thinks that Pascal's wager is reason to believe something has a very different understanding of belief than I do. To me, "belief" requires that you honestly think something is true, and not just that you think you would be better off believing. If you begin to doubt your belief in a god, you must answer those doubts with something that takes away your reasons for doubting, or else you must continue to doubt. You can't stop doubting something just because you think you'd be happier if you did.
Again, I think the example of doubting your spouse's faithfulness is a good one. If you begin to doubt that your spouse is being faithful, you might easily conclude that you would be happier if you believed your spouse was faithful, but this only allows you to conclude that you would be happier if you believed your spouse was faithful; it doesn't let you conclude that your spouse actually is faithful.
Well let us explore the wife analogy. Now you could use logic to come to the conclusion that your wife is faithful and that would only reinforce that faith wouldn't it?
The logic of Pascal's Wager is simply that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It simply reinforces the idea that God must exist for those with the right line of thought.
-
No, because it doesn't answer any of the doubts with regard to belief. Anyone who thinks that Pascal's wager is reason to believe something has a very different understanding of belief than I do. To me, "belief" requires that you honestly think something is true, and not just that you think you would be better off believing. If you begin to doubt your belief in a god, you must answer those doubts with something that takes away your reasons for doubting, or else you must continue to doubt. You can't stop doubting something just because you think you'd be happier if you did.
Again, I think the example of doubting your spouse's faithfulness is a good one. If you begin to doubt that your spouse is being faithful, you might easily conclude that you would be happier if you believed your spouse was faithful, but this only allows you to conclude that you would be happier if you believed your spouse was faithful; it doesn't let you conclude that your spouse actually is faithful.
Well let us explore the wife analogy. Now you could use logic to come to the conclusion that your wife is faithful and that would only reinforce that faith wouldn't it?
The logic of Pascal's Wager is simply that you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. It simply reinforces the idea that God must exist for those with the right line of thought.
It doesn't. It has absolutely no bearing on the question of god's existence; it makes the proposition of god's existence no more or less likely. At best, all it does is provide a positive incentive for having belief. But belief is simply not something you can have through sheer force of will. To believe a proposition is true, you must have some reason to think it likely, and pascal's wager doesn't make the existence of god more likely any more than recognizing that I would be happier if I believed my spouse was faithful makes my spouse's faithfulness any more likely.
We seem to be arguing past each other, and the only conclusion I can draw is that you somehow see a benefit you draw from believing a proposition as evidence making that proposition more likely to be true, while I simply don't. I don't see how any potential benefit I might draw from believing X increases the probability of X being true one iota, and believing X actually means that I think X is likely to be true, not just that I want X to be true, or I want to think that X is true.
-
Well when you talk about faith, you are talking about something you sincerely hope to be true. It's not even belief, it is literally a hope that something is true.
You can only HOPE that your wife remains faithful, just like you can only HOPE that there is a God.
You can use logic to reinforce that hope (Well she has never given me any reason to doubt her). True Pascal's Wager isn't the type of logic to reinforce a belief. But like I said it could be used that way if you have that line of thought.
"If God is good then it is only logical that the best course of action would be to believe him, since Pascal's Wager points out that it is only beneficial to believe in him while it is disastrous to not do so."
That line of thought doesn't work for me, but obviously it works for quite a few people.
-
Belief is not voluntary. No matter how much you want to believe something, you will never be able to force yourself to actually believe it.
-
Pascal's Wager was 'formulated' to get people into the church. It was a 'reason' to justify an introduction to the faith.
You hear the wager and choose to go to church based on 'logic.' The preacher (and God, through the preacher) is supposed to provide you with an impetus to stay. While you are in the church, you study, and you pray, and God is supposed to open your heart and speak to you.
Pascal's wager was not intended to prove or disprove the existence of God, but merely to point out:
The gain from believing in Christianity is greater than the gain from not believing in Christianity.
You must note however, that a Christian wrote this, and Christians have a habit of discounting life experiences that would be considered 'sins' in the face of 'everlasting life in heaven.'
Also, belief IS voluntary by controlling external events.
For example:
You know that there is no possibility of you coming to believe in a particular God if you never attend a church, read a holy book, or speak with someone of that particular faith. By controlling your interactions with these events, you can control your beliefs.
Likewise, your parents can exert partial control over your beliefs by controlling your circumstances.
Granted, you cannot force yourself to believe something, but you can restrict yourself from believing something.
-
Belief is not voluntary. No matter how much you want to believe something, you will never be able to force yourself to actually believe it.
Actually that statement is wrong. You can feel emotion through force of will, and you can believe through force of will. Though belief through convincing yourself of something is a lot easier then force of will.
Pascal's Wager was an attempt at providing people with a means to convince themselves. If they found faith by it then to call that faith false is to call any belief born of logical thought false.
-
You must mean something very different from belief than I do, or else be built very differently, because if I think something is false, no amount of willpower will convince me that it's true; I cannot believe through force of will.
Can you? Really? Do it. Believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn frolicking in your back yard right now. Go ahead.
-
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
Islams Allah, and Christianity's God are the same entity. They are both the same God that spoke to Abraham, the religions are very different though.
-
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
Islams Allah, and Christianity's God are the same entity. They are both the same God that spoke to Abraham, the religions are very different though.
You don't think Allah would be pretty pissed if you thought Jesus was his son and ignored the words of his last prophet? Besides, there are thousands of other Gods that are NOT the same. Pascal's Wager fails miserably as an apologetic.
-
As far as I'm aware, simply believing in God is not enough to grant you everlasting life. In fact God might look even less favourably on you come Armageddon if you believed in him but never followed any of his teachings.
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
No. Pascal's Wager implies that only the Christian god exists, and, also, an afterlife, which has no evidence whatsoever for its existence. Same goes with God.
-
You must mean something very different from belief than I do, or else be built very differently, because if I think something is false, no amount of willpower will convince me that it's true; I cannot believe through force of will.
Can you? Really? Do it. Believe that there is an invisible pink unicorn frolicking in your back yard right now. Go ahead.
That would be a radical belief. I might be able to manage it with some drugs and alcahol, but since I take neither I am a bit screwed. However for something that cannot easily be proven, or falls within the realm of possibilities (there is someone down stairs) it is easy to believe such based on evidence as small as sounds you thought you heard.
However I have fallen in love through force of will. I have also believed that someone or something was in my house/store when no one was there. While the ladder was was a product of paranoia and my mind playing tricks on me, it generated a belief of something that did not exist. The same could easily occur to someone for God. Would their belief be false then?
Finally I ask you, how do you come to the conclusion that something is false? And would it not be possible for someone else to come to the conclusion that what you thought was false is in fact true?
-
I'm paranoid of ladders, too. ;D
I will say that I have convinced myself some fallacy to be true. I would rather not go into details, but I definitely suffered because of my belief.
-
Certainly you can convince yourself of something based on meager evidence, but Pascal's wager is not evidence at all, it merely says you should will yourself to believe something which you don't. Of course most people, even - I would imagine - most atheists, don't find the idea of god nearly as unbelievable as the idea of an invisible pink unicorn, so they might not insist on nearly as much evidence to allow them to believe in god, but they'll still require some. In my experience, believing something on sheer willpower is simply impossible. Pascal might have tried to convince himself to believe in god because of his wager, but if he was actually successful, he must have had more concrete reasons for his belief.
Personally I think he should have stuck to probability, and not tried to meddle in metaphysics, since he clearly sucks at it, while he was rather good at probability.
-
Ah yes, I agree with your stating that Pascal's Wager is not evidence. However, if one believes that something bad will happen after death (which does not necessarily presuppose a belief in god) then there is very good motivation to accept the wager. Nearly everyone is scared of death to begin with and a belief in god (and the bible, in this case) gives relief to that fear (somewhat tautologically, IMO, but that's just me).
-
What do you mean by "accept the wager"? Even if you agree that it is a valid argument, you can't do anything about it if you can't force yourself to believe a statement through willpower alone.
-
What I meant was to accept Pascal's intention behind the wager, which is presumptuous of me. Let me rephrase: to believe in God based on the wager. I hold fast that if someone were fearful enough of death and what becomes of them thereafter, then Pascal's Wager could influence them to believe in God.
-
What I meant was to accept Pascal's intention behind the wager, which is presumptuous of me. Let me rephrase: to believe in God based on the wager. I hold fast that if someone were fearful enough of death and what becomes of them thereafter, then Pascal's Wager could influence them to believe in God.
Maybe people could, but I certainly couldn't, and I don't understand how other people can either.
-
What I meant was to accept Pascal's intention behind the wager, which is presumptuous of me. Let me rephrase: to believe in God based on the wager. I hold fast that if someone were fearful enough of death and what becomes of them thereafter, then Pascal's Wager could influence them to believe in God.
Maybe people could, but I certainly couldn't, and I don't understand how other people can either.
You're a fearless person.
-
Death? Ha! Death doesn't scare me much. It's the living I'm afraid of. Though I do think someone could be convinced to believe in God based on Pascal's Wager, I think it is a petty and shallow reason to do so.
-
Believing in God wouldn't help you escape his wrath. You have to follow his teachings otherwise you're no better than an atheist.
-
Believing in God wouldn't help you escape his wrath. You have to follow his teachings otherwise you're no better than an atheist.
I submit that when the supervolcano under Yellowstone erupts none will escape his wrath.
-
If we survive that long!
-
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
-
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
As much proof for God? There's no proof of God. If you believe otherwise, I'd really like to see what proof you're referring to, because I sure as hell hasn't seen any.
~D-Draw
-
Believing in God wouldn't help you escape his wrath. You have to follow his teachings otherwise you're no better than an atheist.
-
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
As much proof for God? There's no proof of God. If you believe otherwise, I'd really like to see what proof you're referring to, because I sure as hell hasn't seen any.
~D-Draw
"As much" could still mean zero for either case.
i personally love pascals standpoint on this matter. nothing can be lost, only gained.
I'm not sure that i even believe in god but i totally understand why someone would. In my opinion, there is as much proof for god as against it. If having faith in a higher power makes you feel happy and complete than go right ahead, you're not missing out on anything by having faith.
I still think this wager presupposes possession of a belief in God, or at least some belief in the afterlife. I believe heaven and hell are right here in front of our faces, wherever we go, not some 'other' place we go when we die. Ergo, there is much in my personal lifestyle to loose by changing my belief structure so dramatically. I would be an entirely different person with such a different perspective. There may be something to gain, yes. There is also plenty for me to loose, though.
I don't understand what is so wrong about living a good life without a belief in God. I know what I think is good, but I'm not going to make anyone else share my beliefs through fear. How do we know what God thinks is good? Does the bible tell us what is good? The bible is self-important, self-fulfilling, and preposterous for the most part, and I could never accept it as anything but a premiere work of science fiction.
-
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome.
Isaac Asimov
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
There's a hidden assumption here. Believing in G-d does not necessarily mean going to heaven.
-
There's a lot of hidden assumptions in Pascal's wager. Like the assumption that only Christianity and atheism are possible choices, when there are thousands of other gods that will probably be roughly equally pissed at you for believing in the wrong god or for not believing in a god at all.
-
Something slightly relevant to this topic but I've just started reading "What We Believe But Cannot Prove" - which is the collection of the 2005 Edge Question. In the introduction by Ian McEwan, he makes the point that religious philosophers had to prove that God existed in their published work, otherwise they would be killed as "heretics" or similar. I'm not sure if this still applied to Pascal, but I would certainly suggest that his opinions on religion, as all the opinions on religion by philosophers, were seriously compromised by the power of the church at that time. And indeed, according to "The Atheist Manifesto" by Michel Onfray (which is shit, incidentally), there were no real atheists until Jean Meslier - who although lived shortly after Pascal, didn't have his work published until 1729 when he died. I think a large reason there were no published atheists until that time is the fear of reprisal from the church at the time.
-
Something slightly relevant to this topic but I've just started reading "What We Believe But Cannot Prove" - which is the collection of the 2005 Edge Question. In the introduction by Ian McEwan, he makes the point that religious philosophers had to prove that God existed in their published work, otherwise they would be killed as "heretics" or similar. I'm not sure if this still applied to Pascal, but I would certainly suggest that his opinions on religion, as all the opinions on religion by philosophers, were seriously compromised by the power of the church at that time. And indeed, according to "The Atheist Manifesto" by Michel Onfray (which is shit, incidentally), there were no real atheists until Jean Meslier - who although lived shortly after Pascal, didn't have his work published until 1729 when he died. I think a large reason there were no published atheists until that time is the fear of reprisal from the church at the time.
Agreed, for as long as there have been believers in any god, there must have also been those who did not. It is human nature to be skeptical.
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.
That makes sense, since then the dichotomy is valid (in a way that doesn't make any sense, but w/e :P). Of course, the OP didn't pose his question in that context, so...
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.
It still makes no sense, regardless of the context. If you were to assume Christianity to be the only alternative, then it would...but that assumption clearly can't be made. I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone made the point that belief can't be forced or faked?
-
Christianity and agnosticism are the only choices if you are a Christian deciding whether or not God exists.
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
No, because this logic is flawed. It most glaringly makes the flase dichotomy of "Either Strong Atheism is true, or Christianity is true (Heaven, Hell, etc)". This is clearly not the case, as there are a vast number of afterlife scenarios, both within and without Christianity (Buddhism, Hinduism, even my own Wicca).
Pascals Wager gets thrown around a lot by dumb asses. Pascal wrote it for people actively trying to decide if they should continue being Christian, between Christianity and agnosticism only. It makes sense with this reference.
It still makes no sense, regardless of the context. If you were to assume Christianity to be the only alternative, then it would...but that assumption clearly can't be made. I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone made the point that belief can't be forced or faked?
That's always been the strongest argument against Pascal's Wager, to me. It assumes that we have some kind of rational control over what we believe and that's just nonsensical.
-
Dunno if I posted in this thread already but basically the wager is flawed because God would not let you into heaven if the only reason you believe in him is because of Pascal's wager.
/thread
-
This is probably the weakest justification for religious belief. It might be more applicable if there were only one religion, only two choices: theism, or atheism. Then one might be a theist simply as a sort of insurance policy. But there are thousands of religions. If you choose to believe in the Christian God "just in case", what happens if Allah turns out to be the true god, or any of the pagan or Hindu or Zoroastrian gods? And even provided you chose the correct deity, an unlikely circumstance in any case, mightn't that deity be angered by the fact that you only chose his/her/its religion out of convenience?
That doesn't change the wager. There are no religions that I know of that punish you more for having a different belief.... They usually just punish for lack of belief.
-
I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone made the point that belief can't be forced or faked?
To answer your question Beno, I do believe that point has been made somewhere in this thread. Or if not this one, one of the other threads about the exact same wager.
Christianity and agnosticism are the only choices if you are a Christian deciding whether or not God exists.
Athalus, I agree with you in that it is the context in which Pascal considered the wager. When considered from another point of view it lacks meaning.
-
I didn't read the whole thread, but has anyone made the point that belief can't be forced or faked?
To answer your question Beno, I do believe that point has been made somewhere in this thread. Or if not this one, one of the other threads about the exact same wager.
Christianity and agnosticism are the only choices if you are a Christian deciding whether or not God exists.
Athalus, I agree with you in that it is the context in which Pascal considered the wager. When considered from another point of view it lacks meaning.
How so? The possible outcomes are the same, when choosing between Christianity and being an atheist. If you bring in other religions then yes, it doesn't work, but that isn't the wager and is a fallacious argument at best.
-
Pascal's wager assume that reason has no say in whether or not God exists. It is only valid in that case, ignoring all the other minor arguments. That is the context.
-
Pascal's wager assume that reason has no say in whether or not God exists. It is only valid in that case, ignoring all the other minor arguments. That is the context.
And that the choice is between christianity and atheism. The argument itself states those two as the choices.
-
In which case the point is the same, the game theory and math just slightly harder. ;-)
-
uh...Pascals wager is bollocks.
/thread
Now that that's taken care of, let's derail this shit!
(http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/denis_pics/srilanka2.jpg)
-
uh...Pascals wager is bollocks.
/thread
Now that that's taken care of, let's derail this shit!
(http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/denis_pics/srilanka2.jpg)
Gayer won't be happy you derailed it first.
-
uh...Pascals wager is bollocks.
/thread
Now that that's taken care of, let's derail this shit!
(http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/denis_pics/srilanka2.jpg)
Gayer won't be happy you derailed it first.
Wasn't me...could be anything. Looks tropical, so probably bad engineering or design...the third world has shitty safety standards.
-
uh...Pascals wager is bollocks.
/thread
Now that that's taken care of, let's derail this shit!
(http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/denis_pics/srilanka2.jpg)
Gayer won't be happy you derailed it first.
Wasn't me...could be anything. Looks tropical, so probably bad engineering or design...the third world has shitty safety standards.
Third rate safety standards, amirite?
-
uh...Pascals wager is bollocks.
/thread
Now that that's taken care of, let's derail this shit!
(http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/denis_pics/srilanka2.jpg)
Gayer won't be happy you derailed it first.
You're right there
No derailing without me damnit!
-
That looks like the 4:35 to Manchester Piccadilly.
-
Right on time
-
uh...Pascals wager is bollocks.
/thread
Now that that's taken care of, let's derail this shit!
(http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/denis_pics/srilanka2.jpg)
Great argument ::)
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Do you disdain me?
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Do you disdain me?
No, you are a charming Lovely Country Troll. You we like. ;)
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Do you disdain me?
No, you are a charming Lovely Country Troll. You we like. ;)
I'm not a troll >:(
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Do you disdain me?
No, you are a charming Lovely Country Troll. You we like. ;)
I'm a troll in denial >:(
Fix'd
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Do you disdain me?
No, you are a charming Lovely Country Troll. You we like. ;)
I'm a troll in denial >:(
Fix'd
Git
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Do you disdain me?
No, you are a charming Lovely Country Troll. You we like. ;)
I'm a troll in denial >:(
Fix'd
Git
I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
-
Whatever
-
Do you disdain me?
Why would I disdain you? You're a rational contributor...most of the time ;)
-
Do you disdain me?
Why would I disdain you? You're a rational troll...most of the time ;)
fix'd
-
Do you disdain me?
Why would I disdain you? You're a rational contributor...most of the time ;)
hehe thanks
I'm ignoring you Guessed until you start being nice to me.
-
Do you disdain me?
Why would I disdain you? You're a rational contributor...most of the time ;)
hehe thanks
I'm ignoring you Guessed until you start being nice to me.
Sorry ma'am. Won't happen again
-
Do you disdain me?
Why would I disdain you? You're a rational contributor...most of the time ;)
hehe thanks
I'm ignoring you Guessed until you start being nice to me.
Sorry ma'am. Won't happen again
Better not
-
He's lying. And you know you love it, anyway.
-
Git
-
You say that but you don't really mean it. :-*
-
- * You believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your loss (the investment in your mistaken belief) is finite and therefore negligible.
* You do not believe in God.
o If God exists, you go to hell: your loss is infinite.
o If God does not exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
From a purely logical standpoint, shouldn't everyone believe in God?
I believe in God, but by no means from that logic. I don't have time in my life to believe in everything that that logic would require.
ie. believe in the poisonous ooze living in the sun that will eat your soul if you don't believe in him, but grants eternal booty to those that do...
Nobody asked you...
Be nice, Beno, you used to enjoy debates.
I'll debate anyone legitimate, I disdain trolls. Narc is a particularly annoying xtian troll, the worst kind.
Narc's just precious, be nice to him.
-
I, for one, totally reject the notion that a just and sane god would punish anyone merely for having honest doubts about his existence, let alone condemn anyone to an eternity of excruciating torment for that reason alone. If God is really that malicious and insane, I would rather go to hell than believe in, let alone worship such a monster! Those who do their best to deal honestly, respectfully and charitably with their fellow beings and try to make this a better and safer world for all who share it with them, without any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter (assuming that there is such a thing) is more deserving of heaven than anyone who proclaims a belief in God while threatening eternal hell and damnation to all who don't share a belief in their particular concept of God, particularly if they also foolishly claim that mere acceptance of Christ as their saviour is enough to save them, regardless of how they treat their fellow beings! Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so! Besides, doing so can often be ultimately its own best reward!
Here is another way to look at it. Suppose a human father who claims to love all his children, all of whom except for one occasionally misbehave, decided that he could not, in good conscience, forgive any of his children for their misbehaviour, no matter how repentent and remorseful, unless the one child who never misbehaved agreed to be cruelly tortured to death to atone for the misbehavior of his siblings. Wouldn't such a father be judged criminally insane? Why would it be even the slightest bit less insane for God to take that approach?
Gunnar
-
I, for one, totally reject the notion that a just and sane god would punish anyone merely for having honest doubts about his existence, let alone condemn anyone to an eternity of excruciating torment for that reason alone. If God is really that malicious and insane, I would rather go to hell than believe in, let alone worship such a monster! Those who do their best to deal honestly, respectfully and charitably with their fellow beings and try to make this a better and safer world for all who share it with them, without any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter (assuming that there is such a thing) is more deserving of heaven than anyone who proclaims a belief in God while threatening eternal hell and damnation to all who don't share a belief in their particular concept of God, particularly if they also foolishly claim that mere acceptance of Christ as their saviour is enough to save them, regardless of how they treat their fellow beings! Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so! Besides, doing so can often be ultimately its own best reward!
Here is another way to look at it. Suppose a human father who claims to love all his children, all of whom except for one occasionally misbehave, decided that he could not, in good conscience, forgive any of his children for their misbehaviour, no matter how repentent and remorseful, unless the one child who never misbehaved agreed to be cruelly tortured to death to atone for the misbehavior of his siblings. Wouldn't such a father be judged criminally insane? Why would it be even the slightest bit less insane for God to take that approach?
Gunnar
Too early in the morning to read block text. Throw some paragraphs in that shit, and we'll talk.
-
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
-
What he said actually makes a lot of sense... and he did use paragraphs ::)
-
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
-
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
Why should he bother to refute an unsupported statement?
-
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
Why should he bother to refute an unsupported statement?
To further debate?
-
God does not exist. I know this because I prayed to god to give me an A on my last math test and I would believe in him, but I didn't get one! Therefore, god does not exist. Prove me wrong.
-
God does not exist. I know this because I prayed to god to give me an A on my last math test and I would believe in him, but I didn't get one! Therefore, god does not exist. Prove me wrong.
Rather than quote it, refute it. If you believe something you can surely defend it. If atheists are ignorant gives us proof why theists are not. People in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.
-
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
Why should he bother to refute an unsupported statement?
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
-
Don't disagree with me, it's the wrong thing to do.
Whatever I say is true because I said it.
Whenever I make a statement I'm right until you prove I'm wrong.
-
If atheists are ignorant gives us proof why theists are not.
Can't theists and atheists both be ignorant?
-
If atheists are ignorant gives us proof why theists are not.
Can't theists and atheists both be ignorant?
Absolutely. However, Althalus made an assertion about atheists, so I was more so challenging him to defend it, which he has failed to do.
-
If atheists are ignorant gives us proof why theists are not.
Can't theists and atheists both be ignorant?
Absolutely. However, Althalus made an assertion about atheists, so I was more so challenging him to defend it, which he has failed to do.
You gotta prove me wrong first.
-
Prove what wrong? You havent said anything yet!
-
If atheists are ignorant gives us proof why theists are not.
Can't theists and atheists both be ignorant?
Absolutely. However, Althalus made an assertion about atheists, so I was more so challenging him to defend it, which he has failed to do.
I don't think you should see Althalus' statement as an assertion, but rather as an insult to atheists in general. It is well known here that Althalus is bitter from numerous arguments about theology on this forum, and possibly adding to this is the fact he is a catholic (though he has yet to admit this). Come on now, you should know that his statement was a generalization (that there is no way to prove or disprove such a remark without polling all of the atheists to find out what is a "typical" argument), which has no place in arguments of any kind, so please treat it as such.
-
He appeared to be siding with an atheist though:
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
Why should he bother to refute an unsupported statement?
-
He appeared to be siding with an atheist though:
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
Why should he bother to refute an unsupported statement?
On this count I agree, what is or isn't the "right" thing to do is subjective and cannot be used to support a position anyways.
-
I think the main point was that you should love and help because you want to not because you have to in order to please a God.
-
I think the main point was that you should love and help because you want to not because you have to in order to please a God.
Or because a law tells you that you should, or possibly for fear of consequences of not doing so, or even that helping someone can be lucrative for yourself. There are numerous reasons for loving and helping people, and I don't like assigning moral superiority to one of them.
-
I think the main point was that you should love and help because you want to not because you have to in order to please a God.
Then that comes down to a question of Humanism vs Self-Preservation. If you could help someone, but don't because it might harm you, does it make you bad for not trying? And if not, then what puts your life above theirs? It's a sliding scale, is what I'm trying to get at.
-
I think the main point was that you should love and help because you want to not because you have to in order to please a God.
Or because a law tells you that you should, or possibly for fear of consequences of not doing so, or even that helping someone can be lucrative for yourself. There are numerous reasons for loving and helping people, and I don't like assigning moral superiority to one of them.
They are all the same reason - because you have to. Bear in mine the context of the thread where we are comparing one type of "because you have to" - God tells you - with "because you want to". It is more beneficial to you and to others if you love and help because you want to.
-
I think the main point was that you should love and help because you want to not because you have to in order to please a God.
Then that comes down to a question of Humanism vs Self-Preservation. If you could help someone, but don't because it might harm you, does it make you bad for not trying? And if not, then what puts your life above theirs? It's a sliding scale, is what I'm trying to get at.
Yes but of course there are any number of situations just like that.
In general, though, it is beneficial to help others whenever possible, whether it's from a moral perspective or just a primitive "what's good for the continuation of the species" perspective.
-
Do you really have any serious doubts that it is better to deal honestly and charitably with others than to deliberately hurt and take unfair advantage of them whenever you feel you can get away with it? If so, I hope I never have to have any business or social dealings with you!
The one thing that preachers consistently get right is the importance of treating others as you would like them to treat you. I have found time and again that trying to live that principle is more conducive to real happiness and well being than any material advantage or influence that can be obtained by deliberately hurting or taking unfair advantage of others. Failure to practice that principle has been and still is the cause of some of the worst miseries that beset mankind. Failure to realize that is very nearly as foolish as believing that the Earth is flat!
This principle works regardless of whether there is any such thing as a hereafter, and even whether or not God exists (both of which I seriously doubt, by the way).
-
Do you really have any serious doubts that it is better to deal honestly and charitably with others than to deliberately hurt and take unfair advantage of them whenever you feel you can get away with it? If so, I hope I never have to have any business or social dealings with you!
The one thing that preachers consistently get right is the importance of treating others as you would like them to treat you. I have found time and again that trying to live that principle is more conducive to real happiness and well being than any material advantage or influence that can be obtained by deliberately hurting or taking unfair advantage of others. Failure to practice that principle has been and still is the cause of some of the worst miseries that beset mankind. Failure to realize that is very nearly as foolish as believing that the Earth is flat!
This principle works regardless of whether there is any such thing as a hereafter, and even whether or not God exists (both of which I seriously doubt, by the way).
I don't have doubt, I simply question your definition "honesty" and "unfair" define them.
-
From Mirriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:
Honesty: fairness and straightforwardness of conduct: adherence to the facts: sincerity
unfair: 1: marked by injustice, paritiality or deception: unjust 2: not equitable in business dealings
-
This is not a difficult concept! Why are you trying to make it one?
-
From Mirriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:
Honesty: fairness and straightforwardness of conduct: adherence to the facts: sincerity
unfair: 1: marked by injustice, paritiality or deception: unjust 2: not equitable in business dealings
Define fairness and straightforwardness. What constitutes each.Universal examples only, i don't care what the dictionary says or what particular groups do.. Also, define injustice and what is equitable.
-
I get the distinct impression that no matter what words I could use to define these terms you would simply ask me to define those words in turn and then the words I use to define them, and so on in an infinite regression that would get neither of us anywhere.
Straightforwardness is simply being what you say you are and doing what you say you will do. I realize, of course, that most, if not all of us, come somewhat short of that ideal from time to time, but there can't be any reasonable doubt that it is a worthy ideal -- not in my mind, anyway. If you don't think so, I hope I will never have the misfortune of meeting and having to deal with you in person.
As an example of unfairness, suppose I contract with you to provide a product or a service in exchange for something from you and then refuse to provide what I promised after getting from you what I wanted. Would you accept that as valid example of unfairness? Or how about if someone faked an injury on your property in order to sue you for everything he could get from you, would you regard that as unfair? I could easily come up with many examples of conduct that would satisfy any reasonable person's criterion for unfairness or dishonesty. I imagine your only response to that would be to demand that I define reasonable, and then to define any conceivable word I could possibly come up with to try to satisfy that demand.
-
by the way, how do you define "define."
-
It's always safe to assume someone agrees with you when they have no argument except the one that's for the sake of it.
-
I get the distinct impression that no matter what words I could use to define these terms you would simply ask me to define those words in turn and then the words I use to define them, and so on in an infinite regression that would get neither of us anywhere.
Straightforwardness is simply being what you say you are and doing what you say you will do. I realize, of course, that most, if not all of us, come somewhat short of that ideal from time to time, but there can't be any reasonable doubt that it is a worthy ideal -- not in my mind, anyway. If you don't think so, I hope I will never have the misfortune of meeting and having to deal with you in person.
As an example of unfairness, suppose I contract with you to provide a product or a service in exchange for something from you and then refuse to provide what I promised after getting from you what I wanted. Would you accept that as valid example of unfairness? Or how about if someone faked an injury on your property in order to sue you for everything he could get from you, would you regard that as unfair? I could easily come up with many examples of conduct that would satisfy any reasonable person's criterion for unfairness or dishonesty. I imagine your only response to that would be to demand that I define reasonable, and then to define any conceivable word I could possibly come up with to try to satisfy that demand.
I was maintaining that neither of those things has a set definition. Your examples may be applicable to yourself, just as they may be applicable to me, but they are not applicable universally. That was my point. It is a sliding scale.
-
Do you really have any serious doubts that it is better to deal honestly and charitably with others than to deliberately hurt and take unfair advantage of them whenever you feel you can get away with it? If so, I hope I never have to have any business or social dealings with you!
The one thing that preachers consistently get right is the importance of treating others as you would like them to treat you. I have found time and again that trying to live that principle is more conducive to real happiness and well being than any material advantage or influence that can be obtained by deliberately hurting or taking unfair advantage of others. Failure to practice that principle has been and still is the cause of some of the worst miseries that beset mankind. Failure to realize that is very nearly as foolish as believing that the Earth is flat!
This principle works regardless of whether there is any such thing as a hereafter, and even whether or not God exists (both of which I seriously doubt, by the way).
I dunno about that. I find it much more fun and rewarding to take unfair advantage of others.
-
Don't disagree with me, it's the wrong thing to do.
Whatever I say is true because I said it.
Whenever I make a statement I'm right until you prove I'm wrong.
(http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/4616/jesusav9.jpg)
-
I get the distinct impression that no matter what words I could use to define these terms you would simply ask me to define those words in turn and then the words I use to define them, and so on in an infinite regression that would get neither of us anywhere.
Straightforwardness is simply being what you say you are and doing what you say you will do. I realize, of course, that most, if not all of us, come somewhat short of that ideal from time to time, but there can't be any reasonable doubt that it is a worthy ideal -- not in my mind, anyway. If you don't think so, I hope I will never have the misfortune of meeting and having to deal with you in person.
As an example of unfairness, suppose I contract with you to provide a product or a service in exchange for something from you and then refuse to provide what I promised after getting from you what I wanted. Would you accept that as valid example of unfairness? Or how about if someone faked an injury on your property in order to sue you for everything he could get from you, would you regard that as unfair? I could easily come up with many examples of conduct that would satisfy any reasonable person's criterion for unfairness or dishonesty. I imagine your only response to that would be to demand that I define reasonable, and then to define any conceivable word I could possibly come up with to try to satisfy that demand.
You're getting ripped on, because your arguments are all surface ones. Guessed is getting you to define, because you use terms like better, good, best, right, wrong, etc.. without having any claim to their definition.
I've read your arguments briefly, and it seems you're an atheist. So, who determines the Good, True, Beautiful. How, without a coherent definition of those concepts, make claims about what is inherently these qualities. Go deeper, right now we're wading in the shallow end, amid the urine pools of all amateur philosophies, languishing in petty brevity.
-
I get the distinct impression that no matter what words I could use to define these terms you would simply ask me to define those words in turn and then the words I use to define them, and so on in an infinite regression that would get neither of us anywhere.
Straightforwardness is simply being what you say you are and doing what you say you will do. I realize, of course, that most, if not all of us, come somewhat short of that ideal from time to time, but there can't be any reasonable doubt that it is a worthy ideal -- not in my mind, anyway. If you don't think so, I hope I will never have the misfortune of meeting and having to deal with you in person.
As an example of unfairness, suppose I contract with you to provide a product or a service in exchange for something from you and then refuse to provide what I promised after getting from you what I wanted. Would you accept that as valid example of unfairness? Or how about if someone faked an injury on your property in order to sue you for everything he could get from you, would you regard that as unfair? I could easily come up with many examples of conduct that would satisfy any reasonable person's criterion for unfairness or dishonesty. I imagine your only response to that would be to demand that I define reasonable, and then to define any conceivable word I could possibly come up with to try to satisfy that demand.
You're getting ripped on, because your arguments are all surface ones. Guessed is getting you to define, because you use terms like better, good, best, right, wrong, etc.. without having any claim to their definition.
I've read your arguments briefly, and it seems you're an atheist. So, who determines the Good, True, Beautiful. How, without a coherent definition of those concepts, make claims about what is inherently these qualities. Go deeper, right now we're wading in the shallow end, amid the urine pools of all amateur philosophies, languishing in petty brevity.
Jesus you're a drama-queen.
-
you're just jealous of effective imagery...lol
-
Loving and helping others should be done because it is the right thing to do, not out of any expectation of reward or punishment in the hereafter for doing or not doing so!
Wow, what a compelling argument - the same compelling argument I've heard from every other preacher.
Are you disagreeing? If so then don't be such a fallacious hypocrite and come with at least half a counter-argument.
I definitely disagree that there is "the right thing to do" and I also think that anybody claiming that their moral viewpoint is the right viewpoint might have a little god complex.
How can I put up a counter-argument when they just make the claim that there is a "right" thing to do without enlightening us as to how they came to know what it is - perhaps it was divine revelation? Tell me, have you found a 'moralitron'? Have you discovered that missing link between descriptive and normative language?
As far as I've found all morality is in the end consequentialism (even 'absolutism' if you think about it). Whether or not I agree with his moral claims about what is beneficial behaviour or not is completely irrelevant to what I was saying: morality is subjective.
-
So you don't have anything to add apart from the now standard response around here "lol morality is subjective" like it's some brilliant and controversial view point that nobody has ever heard before. You know we get this topic cropping up a lot on here and always the same old responses get spewed out all over the place like some kind of regurgitated shit pudding.
I'm tired of it, nobody has a clue what they're saying they just spout it out because they're trying desperately to go against the grain, never once thinking about the topic at hand just reacting to the buttons being pressed. You know what? I know morality is subjective. It's probably one of the most obvious and simple concepts that I know of.
When you say "I disagree there is a right thing to do" you are lying. You don't disagree, you've been conditioned to disagree by several things such as forums like this one, literature and the age we live in in general where religious dogma is slowly dying away and being replaced by a new dogma which I call "fucking idiot dogma". What you say is correct but you have no idea why you're saying it. I love it when people come barging into a thread like this and start shouting about morality and subjectivness and religion when they haven't a fucking clue what they're talking about or even why they think the way they do.
Here's the big fucking surprise for you though. I never mentioned morality. You did, and I knew you would because you don't have any ideas you just react in the standard way that you know how. So where does that leave your argument? Redundancy.
So why don't you use that brain of yours that you're obviously so proud of and actually do some thinking of your own. You might actually realise that there's nothing wrong with loving and helping people; let's face it, the only reason you so religiously subsrcibe to this new age dogma is because you're scared. Think about what I've said before you reply because so far you've given nothing to this thread; absolutely nothing.
-
No surprises there, hence why I made it clear what I was disagreeing about in the first sentence.
I won't bother disagreeing with your view of me because one thing I've certainly learned from internet forums is that when somebody thinks they know you inside and out (from where you get your views, whether you're lying and whether you comprehend what you're saying, motives for doing things, etc.) from a few posts there's not really anything you can do to convince them otherwise.
So to sum up:
- Gunnar posts mostly regurgitated shit pudding about pascal's wager
- I make a jibe at him for using a moral absolutist term which is somewhat ironic given the subject (as I am conditioned to so)
- You, the only purely unconditioned person in the world that is full of original shit pudding, have a go at me for making a jibe at a term he used rather than making a statement about his regurgitated shit pudding.
If that's not accurate enough please feel free to correct otherwise I'm happy to put it to bed. I've added my redundant two-cents and you've added your redundant two-cents.
In a new line of thought, how can one know the difference between something they disagree with and what they've been conditioned to disagree with? What is the difference?
-
Kasroa, clearly moral relativism is a tired issue here, but it's not necessarily easy. For people so used to a standard right and wrong, the concept of subjective morality, being the only legitimate source of morality, is pretty radical.
If you understand it well, do those who don't a favor and explain it to them...or just direct them to another thread...it's what I try to do.
-
I would if he'd said anything incorrect but he never. What I disagree with is the standard knee-jerk response about morality being subjective when morality is not always the issue.
For example, where does morality come in to, say, a parent stopping their child from falling off a cliff? It's not a moral issue it's a preservation issue and that is something, as animals, we cannot escape when no external factors are involved. It is a fact that it's the right thing to do, but nobody ever thinks about it like that they just want to be the one who points out the subjectivness of morality. If anyone would like to claim it's not the right thing to do then feel free but at least back it up. And that's my scenario not some crazy new one where the parent could save their other 9 children by letting one die.
Going back to the more general terms of loving and helping others it extends beyond immediate family so there will always be instances where they are the best things to do and those instances would be a vast majority in my opinion. I believe there is an evolutionary reason why doing such things usually makes you feel good. I don't think it's a coincidence.
-
YES! Bill Maher is finally doing a movie on religion. Be prepared for some religious ridiculousness.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/ (http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous/)
-
So you don't have anything to add apart from the now standard response around here "lol morality is subjective" like it's some brilliant and controversial view point that nobody has ever heard before. You know we get this topic cropping up a lot on here and always the same old responses get spewed out all over the place like some kind of regurgitated shit pudding.
I'm tired of it, nobody has a clue what they're saying they just spout it out because they're trying desperately to go against the grain, never once thinking about the topic at hand just reacting to the buttons being pressed. You know what? I know morality is subjective. It's probably one of the most obvious and simple concepts that I know of.
When you say "I disagree there is a right thing to do" you are lying. You don't disagree, you've been conditioned to disagree by several things such as forums like this one, literature and the age we live in in general where religious dogma is slowly dying away and being replaced by a new dogma which I call "fucking idiot dogma". What you say is correct but you have no idea why you're saying it. I love it when people come barging into a thread like this and start shouting about morality and subjectivness and religion when they haven't a fucking clue what they're talking about or even why they think the way they do.
Here's the big fucking surprise for you though. I never mentioned morality. You did, and I knew you would because you don't have any ideas you just react in the standard way that you know how. So where does that leave your argument? Redundancy.
So why don't you use that brain of yours that you're obviously so proud of and actually do some thinking of your own. You might actually realise that there's nothing wrong with loving and helping people; let's face it, the only reason you so religiously subsrcibe to this new age dogma is because you're scared. Think about what I've said before you reply because so far you've given nothing to this thread; absolutely nothing.
Sometimes I love you
-
Back onto Pascals Wager... (http://) Perfect response...as close to perfect as you can get.
Oh, and this reminds me of a story from first year. I had just heard Pascals Wager, realized how bullshit it was when in the caf bathroom, so wrote on the stall: Fuck Pascal. When I came back to it a few weeks later, there was a theological discussion scrawled all over the stall...on both sides. Apparently, in private people feel strongly about Pascal.
-
Back onto Pascals Wager... (http://) Perfect response...as close to perfect as you can get.
Oh, and this reminds me of a story from first year. I had just heard Pascals Wager, realized how bullshit it was when in the caf bathroom, so wrote on the stall: Fuck Pascal. When I came back to it a few weeks later, there was a theological discussion scrawled all over the stall...on both sides. Apparently, in private people feel strongly about Pascal.
Well, its kinda a bullocks programming language.
-
Yet they still teach it.
No seriously, one day you might use it! Brush up on your Fortran too!