Pascal's Wager

[Rustle]

Actually, not much of anything can be found in the first 5 pages of this thread. Especially not answers.

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

I belive in God, I used to be an Atheist (for the majority of my life) and I don't recall paying a fee for changing my mind. In fact all I did was change my mind. No ritual or anything. I might have murmured Hallelujah once and while in my life but only sarcastically. Certainlly not at every opportunity.

If I didn't know what a level headed skeptic Mr. Randi was I would think that he was harbouring prejudices based on stereotypes.

Mind-numbing. You say that believers do not pay a fee, and then put your own infantile fantasies as proof. (I would have put "belief system, but you really don't believe this crap, you just like to reminisce and toss it around in your head) Whenever someone attacks your "beliefs", you retreat into inscrutability: "hey man, whatever, thats just what I believe 'cuz I feel like it so thats what I believe". Craptastic.

Pascal's Wager is set up with the idea that belief has a fee. Even Pascal thought you would be at least inconvenienced! Honestly, I dont' think you would have met Pascal's threshold for a "belief".

Further, have heard of James Randi? No really... do you know who he is? Have you read any of his books? Seen an appearance maybe? Clearly you haven't, or have no memory of it for whatever reason. Let me recommend his fine book "the faith healers". Belief does't command behavior? Possibly you just don't know what we're referring to. We're talking about people that actually think something to be true. If, for example, you believe that you will not recover from a disease unless you send all of your money to Benny Hinn, then you have 2 options: send all of your money, or suffer the knowledge that you could end your own suffering but choose not to.

I don't know what combination of drugs and senility have given you the ability to roll an idea around in your head endlessly without taking a bite, but it clearly wasn't the same combination of drugs and senility that caused Phillip K Dick to write the Valis. PKD actually believed the crap that he was spouting. He truly believed that he had visions. Dick alternated between the belief that he was experiencing supernatural events, and fear that he was losing his mind. He would have been disgusted by your intellectual wishy-washiness.

But I digress. What I really wanted to say is, the existance of this thread has bothered me all week. It really bothers me that you can spout this kind of crap and still call yourself a skeptic, without having masses of people screaming "BS!". Your beliefs are idiotic. They are also unformed, immature, and unfit to be used as the basis for any criticism or argument. Do yourself a favor and never admit to holding to such codswallop again.

 

[farmermike]

I don't know what combination of drugs and senility have given you the ability to roll an idea around in your head endlessly without taking a bite/QUOTE]
Could be a smattering of cognative dissonance.

 

[valis]

Said a whole bunch o' stuff.

A. It is possible for someone to hold a beliefe because it pleases them and still be a skeptic.

B. I disagree with everything else you said as well.

C. Your rude.

D. Everyone is a tough guy on the Internet.

 

[Rustle]

A. It is possible for someone to hold a beliefe because it pleases them and still be a skeptic.

You used your "beliefe" as evidence in an argument. Martin Gardner may believe in god because it makes him feel good, but it doesn't use that belief as evidence of anything.

B. I disagree with everything else you said as well.

I see you've expended your usual level of effort in reaching this disagreement.

C. Your rude. [sic]

Yes. There is a time and a place for it. You are spouting nonsense and using it as a criticism. You are also inappropriately hiding behind an erroneous popular sentiment of religious tolerance. It's crap. Stop it.

D. Everyone is a tough guy on the Internet.

I did not threaten to punch you in the face. I accused you being intellectually lazy, of abusing the english language with your use of words like "skeptic", "logic", and "critical thinking". I expressed dismay that more people haven't called you out on your nonsense. I stand by all of these statements. If this is your idea of being a "tough guy", then we have different definitions on that phrase as well.

 

[valis]

You used your "beliefe" as evidence in an argument. Martin Gardner may believe in god because it makes him feel good, but it doesn't use that belief as evidence of anything.

No I didn't. I claimed I have beliefs. I did not claim to have evidence of anything. Unless you mean in how my beliefs effect my own life?

I see you've expended your usual level of effort in reaching this disagreement.

Because everything that you mentioned was discussed earlier in the thread. If you don't want to read it fine. I frequantly see threads I find interesting but they are long and I don't have the time to wade through them to follow the entire discussion. I move on to something else; I don't expect others to rehash the entire discussion for my benifit.

Yes. There is a time and a place for it. You are spouting nonsense and using it as a criticism. You are also inappropriately hiding behind an erroneous popular sentiment of religious tolerance. It's crap. Stop it.

Well I see that you agree with me that you are rude. See we agree on something. How religious tolerance is erroneous is lost on me. I recognize that I can always be wrong and that others may have very good reasons for reaching conclusions that do not agree with mine. I temper my language with this in mind.

I did not threaten to punch you in the face. I accused you being intellectually lazy, of abusing the english language with your use of words like "skeptic", "logic", and "critical thinking". I expressed dismay that more people haven't called you out on your nonsense. I stand by all of these statements. If this is your idea of being a "tough guy", then we have different definitions on that phrase as well.

I didn't say that you did. I do however doubt that you talk this way to people in face to face real life. If you do then I stand corrected and C applies to you but not D. My apologise if that is the case.

I am as much a skeptic as someone who likes to belive that dinasours still roam the earth but does not let that belife interfere with other aspects of their skepticism.

 

[Rustle]

I do however doubt that you talk this way to people in face to face real life.

You would be very, very wrong.

I am as much a skeptic as someone who likes to belive that dinasours still roam the earth...

I agree with this statement.

 

[valis]

You would be very, very wrong.

Then why does it bother you that I won't answer your post? You must be accostumd to people refusing to speak to you. If someone were talking to me in a face to face conversation, the second they questioned what drugs I used or if I was senile I would walk away on the grounds that they are unable to follow the rules of civil conversation.

I agree with this statement.

I was incorrect. I actually should have said mammoths. You are saying this is not the voice of a skeptic?

...I harbor a seceret notion, admittedly without a grain of good evidence, that somewhere in the Mato Grosso of Brazil roams the remnants of a herd of mammoths....

 

[macgyver]

...I harbor a seceret notion, admittedly without a grain of good evidence, that somewhere in the Mato Grosso of Brazil roams the remnants of a herd of mammoths....

Wouldn't they be really really hot? I don't imagine the Mato Grosso is very "ice agey".

 

[Meffy]

And pardon this further digression, but Meffy, the company that makes those plushies is called Toy Vault and you can find retailers on their website. They also have a Rigel plushie (from FarScape). Enjoy!

Thanks, but I was only interested when they cost $1 or $2 each and they had be dug out from among bins full of scuba-diving Tasmanian Devils and multi-color snakes and Doras the Explorers. :-} My motto is "Never pay retail." Or whatever that is in Latin.

 

[macgyver]

Thanks, but I was only interested when they cost $1 or $2 each and they had be dug out from among bins full of scuba-diving Tasmanian Devils and multi-color snakes and Doras the Explorers. :-} My motto is "Never pay retail." Or whatever that is in Latin.

Nunquam persolvo retail ?

...online translator...

 

[Rustle]

I was incorrect. I actually should have said mammoths. You are saying this is not the voice of a skeptic?

YES.

...I harbor a seceret notion, admittedly without a grain of good evidence, that somewhere in the Mato Grosso of Brazil roams the remnants of a herd of mammoths....

There is a difference between saying something like that, and actually believing it. I may very well say that I believe that mammoths still exist... purely as a conversational device. In no way do I actually believe such a thing. If you really believe this bit about the mammoths, then no, you are certainly not skeptical about this issue, and by any meaningful definition not a "skeptic" in general. You seem to define a skeptic as "someone that doubts at least one thing, at some point in their life". That has got to be the weakest definition that I've ever considered possible.

Then why does it bother you that I won't answer your post? You must be accostumd to people refusing to speak to you. If someone were talking to me in a face to face conversation, the second they questioned what drugs I used or if I was senile I would walk away on the grounds that they are unable to follow the rules of civil conversation.

More mind-numbing nonsense.

You: "I bet you don't talk like that in real life, tough guy!"
Me: "Yes, I do."
You: "Then why are you upset that I won't answer you?"

That's just nonsense on its face. Furthermore, what post were you supposed to answer? Are you talking about the statement I made, that you put zero effort into your last reply? ...not exactly a question looking for an answer. Then again you probably define "question" and "answer" in some hitherto unknown and completely meaningless way. I suppose that yes, in a bizaro world of your own imagining, I might be completely furious that you did not answer some fictitious question that I never posted. Let me assure you that on the prime material plane, however, I simply think that you're an idiot. No need for a response.

You put your beliefs up as evidence in an argument about Pascal's Wager. You then retreated from any examination of those beliefs on the basis that they were personal, (and therefore didn't need to make sense). While ingenious as a forum debating tool, I find this to be disengenuous. I also feel that it depends on a mistaken notion of conversational religious tolerance. Do we really have to give lip service to your kind of ideas? My answer, purely as a matter of my opinion, is no.

If someone wants to believe that Elvis is alive, Mammoths walk the earth, and "questions" are invisible lime flavored butterflys, then they certainly should be allowed to do so. If they bring these beliefs up in conversation, however, they should be laughed at. If they try to use them as evidence of anything, they should be shot down.

Your remedy, if you don't want people to criticize your beliefs, is to not bring them up in public, certainly not on an internet forum, and most certainly not as evidence of a criticism.

 

[Rustle]

If you include "Mammoth Believers" as skeptics, then you would also have to include bigfoot investigators, UFOlogists, ghost spotters, faith healers....

...the word, in your hand, means nothing. I find that intolerable.

 

[Meffy]

Nunquam persolvo retail ?

...online translator...

Close enough for government work. *bow*

 

[valis]

If you include "Mammoth Believers" as skeptics, then you would also have to include bigfoot investigators, UFOlogists, ghost spotters, faith healers....

...the word, in your hand, means nothing. I find that intolerable.

I think you are reacting to my posts without actually reading them.

The mammoth quote is by one James the Amazing Randi, it can be found in the book Flim Flam.

 

[valis]

YES.
More mind-numbing nonsense.

You: "I bet you don't talk like that in real life, tough guy!"
Me: "Yes, I do."
You: "Then why are you upset that I won't answer you?"

That's just nonsense on its face.

No it isn't. In both real life and the Internet I choose to ignore rude people. I find they are usually not interested in discussion but in yelling or talking past people. The 'net is full of people that will engage you in this style of conversation, I am not one of them.

In fact I find it intolarable!

 

[Rasmus]

A. It is possible for someone to hold a beliefe because it pleases them and still be a skeptic.

How many of these belives do you think can anyone hold whlst still being a sceptic?

A specific number, or a certain fraction of the total of all of the things they hold to be true?

Does it matter how much evidence exists to the contrary? Or in favour?

 

[Rustle]

I think you are reacting to my posts without actually reading them.

The mammoth quote is by one James the Amazing Randi, it can be found in the book Flim Flam.

I had actually considered this, btw. The important question is, does he actually believe this to be true, or is it something that he used as a conversational device?

If he believes it to be true, then yes, he is not being skeptical about this belief. There are no pristine prophets in skepticism: he is not right because of who he is.

I lost my copy of Flim-Flam long ago, can anyone actually give this quote? Valis appears to define a quote as "an idea vaguely alluded to". What I mean is, can someone actually give the exact sentence where Randi says this, preferably with the sentence before it and the sentence after it?

If someone can actually ask James Randi whether or not he truly believes that there are mammoths alive today, that would be ideal!

 

[Rustle]

No it isn't. In both real life and the Internet I choose to ignore rude people. I find they are usually not interested in discussion but in yelling or talking past people. The 'net is full of people that will engage you in this style of conversation, I am not one of them.

In fact I find it intolarable!

You completely missed the point of what you quoted. Completely. I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of act you're putting on.

 

[valis]

You completely missed the point of what you quoted. Completely. I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of act you're putting on.

I refuse to take someone seriously who by way of conversation:

Asks if I am senile (which I was totally going to answer but I got sidetracked looking for my car keys and then some damn kids wouldn't get off my lawn and by then it was nap time).

Questions if I use drugs.

Uses the term 'codswallup'.

Sorry if I am not treating your important opinions with the gravity they deserve. I would suggest the Ignore feature if it upsets you that much.

 

[horse_pheathers]

I took Pascal's Wager, figuring what the heck? Can't hurt to believe in God....imagine my surprise to die and find myself facing Thor, and boy was he miffed!

Seriously -- Pascal's Wager is flawed on so many levels, from the false dichotomy of atheism versus belief in the Christian God to the utter inanity of assuming we can _choose_ what to believe. I mean, I can be _convinced_ to believe something and I can choose to behave as if something is true when I believe it to be false or unproven, but actually choose what I believe? No, I believe what I believe because experience has led me to believe it.

Another thing -- who would be in more trouble with a just and loving deity? The bloke who led a decent and moral life without regard to reward in the hereafter because they don't believe a deity exists? Or the weasel who forces himself to believe for no other reason than "there might be a god and an afterlife, and if I believe, I'll get a spiffy reward"?

I'll stick with my "I don't know but it seems pretty darned unlikely a deity exists" stance and lead a moral life, thanks. Any deity worth worshipping will appreciate that more than sycophantic lip service any day.

-- Horse_Pheathers