Can you and a few others get out of the hating mode? I know that's extremely difficult for your POV as hate and anger fuels so many of your posts. ...and then you diagnosis me, making a boatload of judgements unbecoming of the MD you say you are, including saying I'm behaving like you in your recent posts (i.e. projection.) I noted Rokeby's post, but stuck to obvious observations about Daniel BEFORE that post. Sad SageBrush must bury that fact with a pile of flames.
For the record, I did not make a post that might upset many until #16 in this thread....was slow to get involved. I was quoting Daniel saying he agitated (words to that effect) so other atheists would come out of the closet...then it heated up a lot. Ad nasuem at PC, just attack religion until there is a flamewar. "We athiests/agnostics, etc get no respect....we DEMAND it!" "....but anyone religious is stupid!" yet some of the non-religious at PC are oblivious to the blantant double-standard, unless they simply don't give a damn - a strong possiblity Can't help but to repeat I'm part of 20 or so forums - none of them "taken over" by Christians, yet no ranting athiests....interesting.
Pascal specifically formulated his suggestion within a Christian framework, so to say that his "Gambit" is in error because it assumes no other God, supreme being or "only two numbers on the roulette wheel" reveals the ignorance of those who contend there's a problem. He specifically limited the wager to the Christian God and the either/or situation. Why? First, Pascal never supported, assumed or stated the wager was infallible. It was however the humble beginnings of "Decision Theory" and possibly the raison de tere behind the theory as well as charting new territory in probability theory. Today it's serves as a excuse for atheist to personally attack those who believe in the Christian God and His admonition to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which atheist hate because of their intolerance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
No, You diagnose you. I just put you in front of a mirror so that the same inane approach you applied to Daniel has a personal touch.
Keep it classy, PC. (BTW. I took your comment at random spiderman - I could have taken any other, but yours was closest to my cursor)
Maybe you don't subscribe to an "eye for an eye" but you do subscribe to a double standard and condone "eye for an eye" in others that share your POV. :glare:
^ haters gonna hate I'm in at least 20 other forums - none "taken over" by Christians. Isn't it strange they don't have people like SageBrush "diagnosing" me?
I know logic is not your strong suit, but you might try finding a bit better argument than circular reasoning -- or admit that Pascal's argument is hogwash and be done with it. Or is Pascal's argument a bedrock belief or yours, and you feel threatened by its nonsensical underpinnings ?
He didn't apply it he speculated at it. Daniel raised the issue publicly, rokeby, recalling that item and refreshingly preferring truth over personal feeling, brought the subject up. AFAIK, Daniel doesn't seem to mind as he hasn't said a word. Why are you trolling this around other than to start a flame war? BTW: Please articulate what is nonsensical about Pascal's Gambit?
Thanks. I just find it discouraging that we couldn't just agree on the facts that were presented back in the early pages (The definition of the wager, that faith puts different probabilities on the outcomes and so on) and leave it at that instead of falling to this. If it keeps going like this every time, then I doubt you PC'ers are going to meet up IRL.
Being a Doctor you have somewhat of an education. But you seem to have a striking inability to put it to use. First, you're mistaking a statement of fact for argument. Second, you've completely ignored those other items I listed i.e. the first formal use of "Decision Theory" and marked inroads into "Probability Theory" unless of course you think those are hogwash and nonsensical. :noidea:
Nor have I been "Assaulted" by those trying to push their religion upon me, which atheist continually use as an excuse. Not saying it doesn't happen but it's very rare and usually by some nut-job. On the other hand it could be some hysterical atheist caught in rush hour traffic and witnesses this <')))>{ on the bumper in front of them and claiming that as forcing religion upon them. Poor thing.
PC would be much nicer overall if this subject were given it's own home, as always the "usual suspects" will drag out the guns and try to work this "ponzi scheme" till the cows come home (everybody pays). it's a subject that's irrelevant to PC but for some reason never goes away. It's actually getting nasty in this thread, no one should have to put up with ocd behavior meant only to antagonize,imho.
Ironically, Daniel and I disagree vehemently on the issue of "is there a God" We've even talked about it .. a lot. Is that what you're referring too? I'm also confused about another point. I thought CS Lewis uses logic to presume that the whole "believe in a God just in case" theory is wrong and his position is more of a " you know there is a God because you can feel it in your soul" sort of thing? It's been years since I read it though so I might be way off base.
Well you may have just taught me something there. It's been years since I've read CS Lewis also and did not realize or recall anything like that in his books. As far as feeling it in your soul sort of thing, that would be common among those, including me, who have had a prayer life with God. However, I'd caution and the Bible itself cautions anyone from relying upon just feeling as a basis for their faith.
