Pascal's Wager

  • 143 Replies
  • 25627 Views
*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #90 on: May 30, 2008, 03:59:24 PM »
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.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #91 on: May 30, 2008, 04:04:40 PM »
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
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #92 on: May 30, 2008, 04:14:29 PM »
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
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #93 on: May 30, 2008, 04:22:18 PM »
He's lying.  And you know you love it, anyway.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65192
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #94 on: May 31, 2008, 04:28:55 PM »
Git
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #95 on: May 31, 2008, 05:32:38 PM »
You say that but you don't really mean it.  :-*
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2008, 01:31:41 PM »
Quote
  •     * 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.

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #97 on: June 05, 2008, 08:16:13 PM »
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

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #98 on: June 06, 2008, 05:24:11 AM »
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.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #99 on: June 06, 2008, 05:50:15 AM »
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.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49844
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #100 on: June 06, 2008, 10:24:23 AM »
What he said actually makes a lot of sense... and he did use paragraphs  ::)
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #101 on: June 06, 2008, 10:40:57 AM »
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.


Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #102 on: June 06, 2008, 11:48:06 AM »
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?

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #103 on: June 06, 2008, 11:56:12 AM »
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?
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #104 on: June 06, 2008, 12:00:07 PM »
Quote from: Typical Atheist
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.

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #105 on: June 06, 2008, 12:13:13 PM »
Quote from: Typical Atheist
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.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #106 on: June 06, 2008, 01:18:04 PM »
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.


Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #107 on: June 06, 2008, 01:58:56 PM »
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.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #108 on: June 06, 2008, 02:27:48 PM »
If atheists are ignorant gives us proof why theists are not.

Can't theists and atheists both be ignorant?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #109 on: June 06, 2008, 02:43:10 PM »
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.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #110 on: June 06, 2008, 03:00:34 PM »
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.

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #111 on: June 06, 2008, 03:01:54 PM »
Prove what wrong? You havent said anything yet!

?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #112 on: June 06, 2008, 03:04:58 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2008, 03:07:14 PM by [][][] »
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #113 on: June 06, 2008, 03:07:52 PM »
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?

?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #114 on: June 06, 2008, 03:09:56 PM »
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.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #115 on: June 06, 2008, 03:15:46 PM »
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.

?

[][][]

  • 554
  • Man of science.
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #116 on: June 06, 2008, 03:19:27 PM »
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.
The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Some Frenchy

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #117 on: June 06, 2008, 03:19:42 PM »
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.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #118 on: June 06, 2008, 03:35:56 PM »
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.

Re: Pascal's Wager
« Reply #119 on: June 06, 2008, 03:42:30 PM »
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.