Is this the Christian basis for its proclivity to using starvation and torture to help people "find god?"
LoL! I ask for you to "Please articulate what is nonsensical about Pascal's Gambit?" and this is how you respond. LoL! By changing the subject? ound: As Charlie Sheen would say "WINNING!" Okay I'll play your game, please supply something I can reference in order to respond to your question because I don't recall any "Christian proclivity for using starvation and torture" in recent or past history. Also, please define what you mean by "Christan" the whole body or something else? Additionally, the definition of "proclivity" is . . . proclivity |prōˈklivətē; prə-| noun ( pl. -ties) a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition toward a particular thing. Care to rephrase the question?
Well look how many posts are being posted now! It seems that no one is in a position to be the first to cast a stone here.
You're welcome. Well Daniel, you've done it again; tossed a hand grenade into the Pool of Complacency at the center of the Land of Smug. Firstly, I want to assure you that my mention of Aspergers was meant to neither praise nor bury you or your intellectual abilities. It was intended to illustrate the perspective that I use to get past your prickly, often insensitive presentation, and get to the ideas behind the veil. Secondly, I like this Blaise Pascal fellow. Thank you for returning him and his Gamble to my attention. I wrestled with it as a much younger man and dismissed it as bullish!t. Thanks to you and the Inter-web I've been able to consider it afresh. FWIW, Pascal himself dismisses the whole what if you pick the wrong god issue as trivial. I am intrigued by the fact that the whole philosophical Wager question is about belief in a god, and not religion. (Yes, I understand that Pascal came from a christian background and would have us believe that christianity is the only valid religion. To which I say, hogwash, it is no more or less valid than the other great religions of the world.) While at times I spend a lot of time reading about religions, for the most part I find their rituals quaint oddities. Reading about the Wager inevitably leads to reading and considering criticisms of it. I have come to understand that it may not be be a either/or proposition. As far as proper and righteous behavior goes, trying to believe in a god can be sufficient if it includes an honest (ongoing) attempt to find it. This is something I can believe in. I believe that the search is as important as the discovery, no matter how long it takes. Here is the paean that keeps my spirits up through the long days and longer nights: Needless to say, Wiki is a easy place to start digging into the Wager, but for now, this site has got my interest, and it will be quite a while before I track down all the supporting material: Pascal's Wager (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) In closing, a rhetorical question: Just why is it that all these folks have gotten themselves so all wrapped around the axel... or in the case of the front wheel drive Prius, a half-shaft? Thanks for the provocative thread.
So you're rejecting the book by it's cover not it's content? I can find more, from other than religious groups. Can you, xs650 or anyone find any in rebuttal? I have an open mind and would love to be proven wrong on this. Pew Forum: Religious people make better citizens, study says http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2#.T2kd73jtp7Q
The point is that their methods are not stated, their sample selection is not stated. They clearly have a dog in the fight, but they give no basis for their claim. I'd reject any study that similarly failed to describe, document, and verify their methods. In short, all we have is a claim, no more valid than any other unfounded claim. Yes. Lots of people. See post #1. It is precisely the fact that he assumed a Christian framework, that he assumed the Christian god that makes his wager nonsensical and worthless. Pascal's argument boils down to this: "I assume there is a god and it is the Christian god. Therefore, you are better off believing in him than not." That argument is both nonsensical and trite because the assumption is far-fetched and without foundation. You cannot prove a proposition by assuming the proposition. FHOP is by definition the forum for topics "irrelevant" to PC. That's why FHOP exists. So the car forums will be just about cars, and the off-topic stuff has a separate place. Nothing in FHOP is relevant to PC, or if it is, it belongs in one of the other forums. You could be right. I read it a long time ago and I might have put down the book after reading what I took to be drivel. Perhaps, later on, he said, "... but that's all nonsense and what we really should think is..." If that's the case, I owe C.S. Lewis an apology. And if that's the case, then you, C.S. Lewis, and I are all in agreement about Pascal's Wager, and I was mistaken about C.S. Lewis. (Though I still disagree with him about whether or not there's a god. And if there is a god, I lean towards the FSM, because the FSM gives us a beer volcano in heaven. ) But Pascal made the argument, and C.S. Lewis only repeated it, whether to agree or to disagree. I do not give Pascal's wager as any sort of proof of the non-existence of god. I only wish to explain why it cannot be taken seriously as an argument for why someone should believe in god. And I've known believers who agree with me: Hope of reward is a poor reason for faith. And I really have no quarrel with people who believe in god. My quarrel is with people who use their belief in god to argue for war or discrimination or to deprive people of basic human and civil rights, as well as with religions that abuse children by telling them that they are sinners and god is going to send them to everlasting torment if they fail to adhere to some arbitrary and pointless list of taboos.
This shows how biased he is. In rejecting the obvious possibility of gods other than the Christian god, he makes it clear that he is not making an argument that anyone who does not already believe in this god could possibly take seriously. It's the intellectual equivalent of convincing people to buy a particular brand of soft drink by hiring a popular singer to sing about how good it feels, or selling cars by hiring pretty girls to stand next to them. He makes an argument that sounds good only if you already believe it, but which falls apart at the slightest investigation. And then he dismisses the glaring reason why his argument is nonsense, by calling it "trivial." Sort of like building a nuclear reactor right on a major fault line and then dismissing earthquakes as a "trivial" objection to the location. Or dismissing explosions as a "trivial" objection to building a dynamite factory next door to a school.
Let's get this in context, I would rather that this subject be in a closed forum, the fact that it's irrelevant to PC is fact and shouldn't just dump it into FHOP, it "should" dump it into a closed forum where those that can't stop, don't have to...
Pascal's Gambit/Wager which was the first example of "Decision Theory" is constrained to a fixed number of possibilities. In this case two as all the other possibilities are endless. It focused on two expected outcomes, not on numerous unforeseen possibilities. All of the detractors here focus on the unforeseen events and the unlimited possibilities. Pascal deliberately constrained his gambit to two possibilities. As I pointed out above you're more than welcome to make your own comparisons but I'd limit them unless you want the whole gambit/wager to break down. You may not like it but you can't ascribe trite disparaging assumptions to him or his gambit without knowing the reasoning and facts behind it. It's just not logical. :nono:
Ever been to Reddit? I'm as anti-religious as they come, and the Atheists there annoy the crap out of ME!
Almost all my close friends are atheist. They're annoying but not in a atheistic way. Once at a BBQ they pointed the fact out that most of my good friends were atheist. When I told them that they're all going to hell they just laughed at me! Dang! I suck at being a Christian.
It's even beyond the pale for Fred's as Fred's is a forum for discussion not a forum for intolerance, attacks or contrived rants.
Have not been there, but could link sometime Dawkins himself shut down his forum because the members were too nasty....amazing for him to say! But to suffice to say, the forums I tend to go to focus on to topic and not so much beliefs.
Since it was pre-vBulletin, don't have the benefit of pulling those posts for quotes, but the tone was very heated and contemptful. It was definitely one of those discussions that broke down and should have ended with both sides acknowledging there will always be disagreement, then move on. It's no different than political threads - that expression "religion and politics" is lumped together for good reason. His Young Frankenstein avitar was odd. If it were me, I'd quoted less Scripture. But I do accept your apology and don't plan to bring up the Windstrings feud again.
This topic reminds me of the Middle East situation - factions that insist on fighting come hell or high water - "I demand respect, but the other side is unworthy of respect or even exist" - "Them or Us." Behavior in a discussion IS relevant...there are just too many examples in life where tact and good will is an essential ingredient in persuasion.
Send a PM to Danny, and post your idea in the Website Questions forum. Those are the venues where it will be considered by the owner and mods of the board, and seen and discussed by people who choose not to read this thread because these sorts of discussions do not interest them. Nobody has to read any thread. I read only a minuscule portion of all threads. When a thread does not interest me, such as a mechanical question about the Gen III, or an entire forum does not interest me, such as Diesels within Other Cars, I just don't read it. When making an argument, you cannot arbitrarily "limit the possibilities." If you do not take all possibilities into account, your argument is worthless. As I've often said, an argument stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of the character or intention of its originator. You claim that Pascal's intention was not to present a valid argument for belief, but rather to invent a new theory of decision making. Even if that is so, the argument itself, as sometimes presented to me by Christians, is still invalid. People have used this argument in discussions with me. I refute the argument. Pascal's intentions may acquit Pascal of blame, but the argument that bears his name is still invalid precisely because, as you admit, it arbitrarily limits the possibilities it is willing to consider. I argue against the argument that bears Pascal's name, not against Pascal himself. Poor example. In the Middle East people are murdering each other over religion. I have never assaulted another person, have never used or threatened to use a weapon against another person, have never joined an organization that uses or advocates the use of violence. I do vociferously advocate for my value system. As an example, since I support animal rights, I once went to a PETA demonstration. The tone was to insult the people who wear fur, rather than the act of killing animals, and I never had anything further to do with them. Some folks here are accusing me of improper conduct in this thread. I am careful not to characterize anybody in a negative way. I do characterize ideas which I consider anti-social and dangerous. If you hold such ideas and feel insulted that I challenge those ideas, that's your problem. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." In this case, respect the people, but slam the ideas. For many years, we were told it was not permitted to oppose irrational ideas if they were called "religion." Effectively, we were told that free speech does not apply if you want to criticize religion. Apparently, some people hold their religion so sensitively that they perceive any criticism of religion as a personal attack against themselves. I began this thread with a non-personal argument against a proposal that some people seriously offer in favor of religious belief. It immediately devolved into complaints against "yet another attack on religion," and calls for banning religious discussions. Religion is a large part of the life of the country, and is more and more being injected into politics. It deserves to be discussed, and demands for anti-religion opinions to be silenced are contrary to freedom of expression.
