Pascal's wager

As an occasional lurker in these type of threads, and normally a non-participant, I'd like to suggest there is a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

 

Here's a taste of what daniel and airportkid rail against . . .

The Barna Group - Atheists and Agnostics Take Aim at Christians

Now I understand why they do what they do, Christians and people of faith make them look bad. :yo:

 

Yes, seriously.
I don't subscribe to the whole "eye for an eye" thing. It leaves everyone blind. ~ I think Ghandi or someone else really cool said that.

 

The Barna Group is an evangelical Christian polling firm. Undoubtedly unbiased.

 

Chuck said:

Fixed that for you.

 

Octavia,

I did NOT ask nor hoped for a diagnosis on any member.

That's consistent with my desire to be civil and avoiding getting personal.

I absolutely agree it's better to meet someone in person to get a better idea of who they really are.

I wish Daniel extended that courtesy to a very nice member here (who I spent time with him at his home) - Windstrings. About five times a day for six months Daniel was vitriolically calling Windstrings an idiot and the other insults he throws at outspoken Christians. While those posts were
pre vBulletin, many remember that.

I have not attempted to diagnose anyone, but anyone that jumps on a member like Windstrings over six months is telegraphing looks very bad from a behavioral viewpoint. With Daniel, that goes on....

If you want to appear well-adjusted, years of rants and attacks is not the way to go.

Sagebrush, your last post reflects the unfortunate them-or-us attitude....it almost seems like some of you would like to restrict PC membership to athiests, agnostics, others leaning in that direction....they rest of us are "religious zealots." I was quiet the first four years here. Again, some of you scream as if some religious fanatics are trying to make PC into a Church - not such a thing, then with the same tact do the exact same thing in a secular direction.

 

Windstrings hasn't posted here in years. C'mon, Chuck, let it go.

 

You probably didn't directly but you certainly grouped him in with all the other "nut-job, uneducated, irrational, etc." Christians. But I know now, that just goes to your lack of social skills.

 

You forgot Octavia's other point -- have a clue before you throw out DSM labels, even if you *have* met the person.

I am a practicing MD, and my son has been diagnosed with Asperger's / autistic spectrum disorder. I am probably better read on the condition than 99.99% of the populace. Yet I would never label Daniel as such, visit or not, because of the simple fact that the overlap with "normal" people is too great.

But then I am not a Christian with an axe to grind, throwing out personal attack innuendo to deflect the conversation away from religion's perversions. Daniel said in effect: respond to my arguments if you wish, the messenger is irrelevant.

He has a lot to teach you.

 

No, if he was grouped there it was because he matched the skill set.

Like you, spidey

 

Sagebrush - who has the ax to grind?

Did not say Daniel has Aspargers, but pointed out his behavior in the past raised red flags.

Please set the example you profess to be and stop the flamebait.

 

Right now I don't have much time to comment, but the crux of the matter is a lack of respect.

If both sides can spend less time on religion issues like this and agree to disagree, it's better for all concerned. Over the last year at times less has been said and it's been good.

Think the positions of all are well known...I can accept no one is likely to change their mind...if others are so inclined and be respectful, that would be a good conclusion.

 

So you throw out innuendo, but refuse to take responsibility.

Is that a behavior you learned in Church, or a life-long habit ? If you were to apply your own ... uhhh ... judgement in the mirror, I'm afraid you would have to conclude there are definite red flags of personality disorder.

 

Chuck, in thread after thread after thread, wades in and complains that criticism of religion bothers him.

And that's fine, as far as that goes. I'm sure for any of us there are topics that make us squirm.

But Chuck goes further. It bugs him, so he demands that we stop.

Now, Chuck doesn't have to participate. No one is grabbing Chuck by the earlobes and making him read posts that bother him. if it bothers him that much he should stay out of it.

To stay in and demand that OTHERS stop is an arrogant conceit. No one starting a thread critical of religion begins it by saying "Chuck believes so and so and therefore Chuck is an idiot". The discussions begun name NO ONE; they are abstract explorations of ideas that warrant exploration. If they bother people, the people bothered should stay away. Don't go barging in and demand that OTHERS shut up.

So all the foofrah in here, most of it from Chuck, that criticism of religion should be refrained from because it's "not respectful" is just that: foofrah, not worthy of the slightest consideration, because as a demand, it is the most inconsiderate of all: that it demands that OTHERS be barred from speaking their minds.

 

The problem with Pascal's wager is it assumes there are only two numbers on the roulette wheel. The problem is even greater than that analogy implies because the figurative roulette wheel in this case hasn't got 38 possibilities but more than 38,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 possibilities, all of them equally valid.

Just because sizable portions of humanity have piled their chips where others have piled their chips does not in the slightest way affect the likelihood of any those numbers catching the ball.

So when ETC(SS) airly waves his hand and says "I'll take my chances" he's expressing an assurance that has ruined many a bettor busted at the Vegas table who thought putting everything on number 16 was a good idea because of the chips already there from other players.

Daniel's criticisms of Pascal's Wager are all right on the money and clearly expressed, but I threw this in so at least one of my posts in this thread matched its topic.

 

The problem with this thread is the same as all the threads regarding religion: One side bases arguments on science and logic, the other on belief. This guarantees that Side A will be unimpressed by the arguments of Side B. State them any way you wish, yell as loudly as you can, and it won't make any difference. All that is left is character assassination, name calling, and other assorted ad hominem attacks.

It comes back to my normal comment relating to this sort of discussion: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it only wastes your time and annoys the pig.

Tom

 

So what if the Barnes Group is a Christian organization do you doubt the conclusions their study arrived at? Does anyone here actually believe that atheist are charitable givers to level of Christian's or other believer's?