Pascal's Wager

[Rustle]

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

Uses the term 'codswallup'.

I used the term because I'd been listening to the archived radio shows, where Randi uses the word and talks about how much he likes it. I guess you have no time for Randi.

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.

Great. That explains why you've put zero effort into your claims since the time I started posting on this thread. Now, what is the reason that you put zero effort into your claims prior to my posting in this thread?

 

[bruto]

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

While I'm quite inclined to agree with you on principle, I'm not entirely sure that All Christians, especially perhaps those of the established church in Pascal's time, would agree that the moral atheist should be better rewarded than the cynical communicant. It's one of those funny things about Christianity and jealous old Jehovah, and the concept of "grace not works." I still think that Pascal's wager is (excuse me, Valis, but I kind of like the term, and it's more polite than that B...s..t one) pretty much codswallop whether you choose faith or not, but the bargain may have been reckoned a little differently in Pascal's world.

 

[valis]

but the bargain may have been reckoned a little differently in Pascal's world.

That is something; as I mentioned earlier. that I really hadn't thought about. The view in Pascal's day would have been much more black and white.

My post wasn't actually meant to be about the wager itself though; it was about the idea of all Christians being some sort of praising and tithing machines. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse because I have mentioned this in other threads; but I think in recent years there has been an increase in the nastiness towards religion on this board and in some other places. It could of course be my perception; or perhaps years of being exposed to it is causing it to become a sore point.

As an educational foundation I would assume that JREF is trying to reach out to and educate people. Since a large number of Americans have Christian beliefs I don't see what purpose being snide or name calling is going to serve. In my opinion it just pushes away people that might listen to the JREF's point of view otherwise.

If the point is that one can't be a 'true' skeptic and harbor any religious belief at all then you are just going to end up preaching to a choir of atheists. Belittiling people and stereotyping are counter productive in my opinion.

 

[valis]

I guess you have no time for Randi.

I guess you have no time for Jesus.

I can't help but notice how similar in tone those two sentences are. Have you ever thought of going through your posts and substituting Jesus for Randi. They still sound about the same don't they?

Perhaps the reason you don't like my posts is because you are a fundementalist and I am not.

Great. That explains why you've put zero effort into your claims since the time I started posting on this thread. Now, what is the reason that you put zero effort into your claims prior to my posting in this thread?

I can't see any hope of us having a meaningful conversation. Read your posts. What would be the point of us discussing anything?

After reading your posts I cannot imagine anything that I could say that would be of any interest to you or would sway your opinion in any way.

If you do not feel my posts contain anything of value then I implore you to stop reading them. In fact since they seem to upset you I would urge you again to consider using the forums Ignore feature (I am assuming one exists, I've never looked for it here).

I don't think we should talk any longer anyhow. I am going to pray that God reaches out and speaks to you; if you are busy talking to me he might get a busy signal. I would feel terrible if you went to Hell as a resutlt of reading my posts.

 

[macgyver]

If the point is that one can't be a 'true' skeptic and harbor any religious belief at all then you are just going to end up preaching to a choir of atheists. Belittiling people and stereotyping are counter productive in my opinion.

I have to agree with the last point, however I also agree that you aren't truly a skeptic if you hang onto religious belief.

I think that civility and respect is still important in any social discourse.

However, I can also understand the resentment that many skeptics have that we should handle people who believe in nonsense with special consideration, simply because the nonsense is "important" to them.

Like most religious debates you'll ultimately end up in a catch 22 or some paradoxical situation where you can't move forward. 100% of the time this is because the "believer" simply shuts down the debate when their belief is fundamentally challenged.

So even if skeptics play "nice", the believer will label them as disrespectful, or rude as soon as any serious questions of the validity of their belief comes into play.

I think this thread has illustrated that point quite well. "Part-time Skeptics" like yourself simply state "I believe this because it makes me feel good, and I'm comfortable with that". So end of debate. That's certainly not a skeptical approach.

 

[Rustle]

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.

This is what I wrote in regards to Randi. The codswallop exchange was in response to your appeal to authority via "Randi believes mammoths live".

Valis, you are clearly not reading my posts, and clearly are haphazardly spewing crap crafted to be offensively provocative.

 

[Rustle]

I don't think we should talk any longer anyhow. I am going to pray that God reaches out and speaks to you; if you are busy talking to me he might get a busy signal. I would feel terrible if you went to Hell as a resutlt of reading my posts.

I thought you never think about hell? I guess you're a flat out liar alongside being a disingenuous troll. And of course, you could stop posting, but that isn't what you want. You want to continue this conversation, not because you want to have an actual discussion, but because you are a self-absorbed forum troll. You don't think we should talk? Why don't you stop posting in this thread then? I never asked you to respond...

 

[Rustle]

I have to agree with the last point, however I also agree that you aren't truly a skeptic if you hang onto religious belief.

There is a difference between honestly harboring a poorly supported beliefs, which we all do, and reveling in absurdity, which I despise.

 

[macgyver]

There is a difference between honestly harboring a poorly supported beliefs, which we all do, and reveling in absurdity, which I despise.

I don't know if there's much of a difference really. I think all superstitious belief is silly. I don't necessarily give any religion extra points just because they have documented their superstition and proudly wear it as virtue.

However, if we are to persuade those who are deluded into questioning their superstitions...then your method simply won't work.

Perhaps you despise people who "revel in absurdity", but then how do you differ from somebody who despises the Jews, or Blacks, or any other definable sub-culture or race?

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I question your maturity and motives. In fact, the picture you are beginning to portray is bordering on the absurd.

This is in no way meant to be misconstrued as siding with valis, I'm attempting to be impartial.

 

[Rasmus]

Perhaps you despise people who "revel in absurdity", but then how do you differ from somebody who despises the Jews, or Blacks, or any other definable sub-culture or race?

Can I despise Nazis?

And would it make a difference if I despised Jews instead of Jews?

 

[macgyver]

Can I despise Nazis?

And would it make a difference if I despised Jews instead of Jews?

There were probably some very nice Nazis....

I don't get the second line...

However, I was only trying to make a point that using language like "I despise this kind of person" is a bit strong, and won't do much to further a discussion. You can despise anyone you like, but if you want to enter into a debate with them about why they do things you despise, then expect some pushback unless you're somewhat civil. Is it false to do so? Perhaps, but then it's more likely that you both may come away from the exchange having learned something, rather than even more solidified in your current position.

I just can't help but see valis and rustle as having similarities in their steadfastness. Even though I generally agree with Rustle, his borderline flame war approach isn't particularly useful to anyone.

I also understand that although Valis feels justified in expecting others to move towards him in their philosophy and "meet in the middle ground", that it's essentially counter to being a skeptic to do so. That doesn't make Rustle a "fundamentalist", it simply makes him a skeptic who requires evidence, and non is being offered. A rude skeptic, perhaps, but much more skeptical than valis.

 

[Rasmus]

There were probably some very nice Nazis....

I would agree that there could have been "rather nice" Nazis, i.e. some were a lot less horrible than others. But in my not very humble opinion, one simply cannot be both, very nice and a Nazi.

I am not asking anyone to like anybody else. I won't even ask anyone to like Jews. But being a Nazi entails a lot more than just not liking Jew, or even dispising them.

I don't get the second line...

Well, obviously, it is may way of pointing out that I didn't get enough sleep and that I am therefore too tired to restructure a sentence after first writing it and then still remembering that it should contain each "Jew" and "Nazi" once.

However, I was only trying to make a point that using language like "I despise this kind of person" is a bit strong, and won't do much to further a discussion.

True.

But with some people (and I haven't read this thread much, so I am by no means referring to any of the participants here), being polite, diplomatic and sensible doesn't help, either. And sometimes it would be silly to assume that they are just having a bad day. Then being honest and maybe burning a few bridges might be called for.

You can despise anyone you like, but if you want to enter into a debate with them about why they do things you despise, then expect some pushback unless you're somewhat civil.

You get pushback from some people no matter how polite you are.

And sometimes, it all just gets a little too much. What are you supposed to do with a person who on one hand tells you about their loving god, and on the other hand threatens you with eternal hellfire and think all's well that way?

Is it false to do so? Perhaps, but then it's more likely that you both may come away from the exchange having learned something, rather than even more solidified in your current position.

Some people are immune to reason, and I am rather certain that there are people that truly don't have anything to teach me.

I just can't help but see valis and rustle as having similarities in their steadfastness. Even though I generally agree with Rustle, his borderline flame war approach isn't particularly useful to anyone.

Maybe not.

But could he do better?

At this point, could anyone, or is the thread lost as it is?

I also understand that although Valis feels justified in expecting others to move towards him in their philosophy and "meet in the middle ground", that it's essentially counter to being a skeptic to do so.

Yes.

That doesn't make Rustle a "fundamentalist", it simply makes him a skeptic who requires evidence, and non is being offered. A rude skeptic, perhaps, but much more skeptical than valis.

I applaud your attempt to get this thread back to where it belongs!

And I agree, you cannot hold certain believes - under certain circumstances - and still claim you're a sceptic as if nothing had ever happened.

(Just as you can't be a Nazi and still claim you're a very nice person, as if it just didn't make a difference...)

 

[macgyver]

(Just as you can't be a Nazi and still claim you're a very nice person, as if it just didn't make a difference...)

Oskar Schindler: nice Nazi?

Heinrich Himmler: not nice Nazi

My only point here is that the Nazi party that many people joined, was not what they thought it was, nor would they have joined if they knew what it would turn out to be....

Otherwise, you can't be a Nazi and love Jewish People anymore than you can be a skeptic and love God.

However, I think I can be a skeptic, and have friends who are religious, even though I know that they're deluded. If I couldn't, then I wouldn't have many friends

 

[macgyver]

Can I despise Nazis?

And would it make a difference if I despised Nazis instead of Jews?

Edited for free!

Just to address this directly, the answer is no - if you were debating a Nazi in an attempt to help them see the error of their belief.

Just like any irrational belief system, we should have protections in place to limit the ability for that belief to cause harm. That means a secular system of law and order. It also means free speach, and freedom of religion. I would also add freedom FROM religion just to further the point. So the Nazi would also be protected, unless they did something to break the law (or threatened to). Just as the Christian affords the same protection. The problem is that Christian belief can find it's way into our secular system undetected, because even though it's nonsense, it's familiar and considered "harmless".

I think the only way to curb the irrational, is with rational, and reasonable debate.

I agree with your point, however, that this is often harder to find on the "other side of the fence"....

 

[Rustle]

There is a difference between honestly harboring a poorly supported beliefs, which we all do, and reveling in absurdity, which I despise.

I hate to be nit-picky, but what I said I despise is "reveling in absurdity". I'll stand by that statement. At some point the action paints the person, and the distinction dissipates. However, it is, at root, the action which is abhorent.

As for being rude, I'll take that criticism. I should have posted my dissent right away instead of stewing about it for a week.

Can you despise a Nazi? I think so. You can despise a racist, can't you? Nazism is, amongst other things, racist. Can you despise a jew in the same way? I don't think so. "Jew" is an ethnicity, and like "black", tells you absolutely nothing about the persons character, their beliefs, or their likely actions.

I think we should be free to hate ideologies, however! What Nazism suggests is abhorent; what judaism suggests is (imo!) silly. The caste system of India sucks and apartheid blew. These are man-made social constructs and I don't think we should be afraid to hurl our minds against them like a pick and see how well they stand up.

 

[valis]

I thought you never think about hell? I guess you're a flat out liar alongside being a disingenuous troll. And of course, you could stop posting, but that isn't what you want. You want to continue this conversation, not because you want to have an actual discussion, but because you are a self-absorbed forum troll. You don't think we should talk? Why don't you stop posting in this thread then? I never asked you to respond...

I do sooo want to stop, but I can't help myself. Needleing the rude and the self inflated is something I just can't control. That's why I keep suggesting you not reply to my posts; it's like waving herion in front of an addict. And then you go and call be a 'flat out liar', how can I not pull your chain a little more? I am onlly human after all.

A friendly suggestion though; I think you should have your sarcasm meter checked, it seems to be a bit out of adjustment.

But I will put an end to this once and for all. I will pray every day until Jesus takes hold of your heart and forces you to become a Christian. No point resisting it is too late now. Any day, when you least expect it; BOOM you will be smote (smited?) with the undeniable power of the Lord. And when that day comes you be sorry you ever called me names.

Oh and don't bother saying 'I'm still an atheist, ha ha.' that just means you haven't waited long enough.

 

[valis]

I also understand that although Valis feels justified in expecting others to move towards him in their philosophy and "meet in the middle ground",

I am not asking that at all. All I am asking is to consider that the thought process of Christians may be more diverse and nuanced than you think it is. There seems to be a subset of atheism that is downright hostile towards religion and all believers there in. The idea that all Christians (or whatever religion is in question) are believers because someone told them to belive or because they are not sophisticated enough to question anything is just wrong.

The only reason I harp about this is because I was an atheist most of my life and I understand the reasoning. I have made all the arguments I have read here at one time or another. So I thought I would share a differing viewpoint in case anyone was interested. I am not attepting to change anyone's mind.

 

[empeake]

If I believe in God because it is convenient for me to do so, does this make me a pragmatheist?

prag'ma·the·ist n.
1: A person who takes a practical approach to believing or not believing in God, and is concerned primarily with saving face, fitting in, avoiding confrontation, winning the lottery, avoiding the flames of eternal hell and/or JREF forum members, not being considered a Creationist loony, etc.
2: A member of the Church/Non-Church of Pragmatheism® (Motto: Our belief/non-belief/disbelief depends on who's doing the funding). Patent pending. All rights reserved. Rated PG-13. No MSG. No returns without receipt.

 

[macgyver]

Well, I'm a bacontologist, so I guess I can't be throwing stones in the glass house of the Lord.

Even though bacontology has nothing to do with Jesus....obviously....eating pork is not allowed according to the Bible.

 

[valis]

This is what I wrote in regards to Randi. The codswallop exchange was in response to your appeal to authority via "Randi believes mammoths live".

That is simply untrue. Go back and look at the order of the posts.