God.

[devonin]

Re: God.

wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry any way?

So...we ought to be good "just in case" the specific God whose "good" you are being is real and as advertised?

I can think of many reasons to act in a way that society thinks of as morally good, but "just in case" God exists doesn't strike me as a very good one.

If that God does exist, do you think that He would be particularly impressed with "I only acted this way because I was afraid you might be real"

However, just because one believes they will be more successful in a situation doesn't mean they would actually be more successful.

This sounds perilously close to "Do what you want, and it's perfectly fine as long as you don't get caught"

[koreanese69]

Re: God.

Zomg!!! I'm an atheist

(Blunt)


Edit

and to clarify, atheism is no the disbelieve in all religions, just the ones that involve a god or deity.

Buddhism or other religions are atheistic.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Well, if you're going to state that the term has an imprecise meaning, perhaps you should pick a word that actually identifies your belief?

You're "An Atheist" of which stripe? Are you a Buddhist? There's a word for that (Buddhist)

[Grandiagod]

Re: God.

wouldnt it be better to be safe than sorry any way?I mean, if you dont believe in Him and you do "bad things" and there really is a God your screwed.and by doing "bad deeds" you just make things a whole lot more complicated for u when you die and while your on Earth.

Yes, but of course, how do you know which religion is the one to practice.

I guess I'll just have to subscribe to every religion on the planet because of the off chance that one might be right.

Man, it's going to be hard working in Temple, Church, praying to Mecca, Mass, chicken sacrifice and drinking the blood of calves all in one day.

Also koreanese, atheism can also be described as disbelief in the supernatural.

I'm more of an atheist anti-theist.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: God.

This sounds perilously close to "Do what you want, and it's perfectly fine as long as you don't get caught"

To some people, when I say "However, just because one believes they will be more successful in a situation doesn't mean they would actually be more successful," it would mean "Do what you want, and it's perfectly fine as long as you don't get caught." only to those people who choose to be bad. Don't get me wrong, a bad person is unjustified under my own logic, but to another person's own logic, being bad might be justified under their logic or they might want to be bad without any logic.

What I ultimately mean by that statement is that to a certain person, being good could be worse than being bad and that to another person, being bad could be worse than being good. Basically, not everyone gets what they want or what they believed that they would get.

[MeaCulpa]

Re: God.

What I ultimately mean by that statement is that to a certain person, being good could be worse than being bad and that to another person, being bad could be worse than being good. Basically, not everyone gets what they want or what they believed that they would get.

I agree with this. Morality is not objective, as it can be seen throughout the world. An action that makes one religion's god happy may do the opposite for another. So, which one do we appease? If we live a saint's life (so to speak) believing in the wrong religion, do we get eternally punished? What happened to the "just in case" then, Pascal? Your "guaranteed payout" wager loses.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Morality is not objective, as it can be seen throughout the world.

Counter: Morality is objective. The people who are acting in violation of that objective morality are just -wrong- and either don't know or don't care.

(Don't get me wrong, neither statement is provable, since there is equally no -proof- to support objective or subjective morality, but it answers your quibble about how differnet cultures act in different ways)

Also...Pascal didn't say anything about a guarenteed payout. Pascal said basically: Given a choice between believing and not believing in the christian God, it is a more sound position to believe, because if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you have everything to lose.

This doesn't say that he has a "guaranteed payout" it says that he has -better chances- one way than the other.

[who_cares973]

Re: God.

i say go string theory!!!!!

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Also...Pascal didn't say anything about a guarenteed payout. Pascal said basically: Given a choice between believing and not believing in the christian God, it is a more sound position to believe, because if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you have everything to lose.

...this has been addressed already by both myself and the person you're responding to. This contextualization and acceptance of Pascal's position is wrong.

This doesn't say that he has a "guaranteed payout" it says that he has -better chances- one way than the other.

Not when you take into account other religions or even other theological positions within monotheism. Hell, even if we accept the premise, there's still the issue of guaranteed finite payout now vs vaguely, questionably possible infinite payout later. The cost of the wager is very real, the reality of the possible payout is very, very, very questionable.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

What are your scientific credentials to make such a statement? Degrees, training of any sort, etc.

[devonin]

Re: God.

...this has been addressed already by both myself and the person you're responding to. This contextualization and acceptance of Pascal's position is wrong.

I disagree that it is a flat wrong interpretation of Pascal's position. I'm happy to redirect you to the professor of theology who put it forward in the way I am stating, and you can take it up with him, I guess.

Not when you take into account other religions or even other theological positions within monotheism. Hell, even if we accept the premise, there's still the issue of guaranteed finite payout now vs vaguely, questionably possible infinite payout later. The cost of the wager is very real, the reality of the possible payout is very, very, very questionable.

I utterly don't see where you're going with this.

Let us consider the paraphrased translation of Pascal. "God either exists or He doesn't. Based on the testimony, both general revelation (nature) and special revelation (Scriptures/Bible), it is safe to assume that God does in fact exist. It is abundantly fair to conceive, that there is at least 50% chance that the Christian Creator God does in fact exist. Therefore, since we stand to gain eternity, and thus infinity, the wise and safe choice is to live as though God does exist. If we are right, we gain everything, and lose nothing. If we are wrong, we lose nothing and gain nothing. Therefore, based on simple mathematics, only the fool would choose to live a Godless life. Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have nothing to lose. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is

So how exactly is

Given a choice between believing and not believing in the christian God, it is a more sound position to believe, because if you believe and are wrong, you lose nothing, but if you disbelieve and are wrong, you have everything to lose.

a -wrong- interpretation of the above passage?

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

I disagree that it is a flat wrong interpretation of Pascal's position. I'm happy to redirect you to the professor of theology who put it forward in the way I am stating, and you can take it up with him, I guess.

I would be glad to.

I utterly don't see where you're going with this.

... ... ...

Iff god is real, the wager has a payout, however if god is not real or another god or set of gods is, the wager does not have a payout. (at least not necessarily, there is the issue of benevolence in spite of faulty belief, but in this case why does it make a difference which way your beliefs are faulty? Is disbelief so different from erroneous belief? Only the God or God's could answer this)

Iff another god or set of gods are real which take issue with belief in the God you choose, there is an extremely high cost associated with belief. However, even if this is not the case and there are simply no gods of any nature, you've still paid a cost without return, in terms of prayer, reading the bible, going to church, etc.

So how exactly is a -wrong- interpretation of the above passage?

It's wrong because it is direct, and since the passage is wrong to begin with you've left the faults in place by not addressing them in a larger theological context.

Nothing makes a statement seem right like using itself as its own measuring stick.

[devonin]

Re: God.

I would be glad to.

Dr Barry Whitney BA, PhD. University of Windsor, Windsor Ontario Canada. Given that apologetics is one of his specialities I'm sure that you and he can kibitz for hours on end.

Iff god is real, the wager has a payout, however if god is not real or another god or set of gods is, the wager does not have a payout. (at least not necessarily, there is the issue of benevolence in spite of faulty belief, but in this case why does it make a difference which way your beliefs are faulty? Is disbelief so different from erroneous belief? Only the God or God's could answer this)

The wager is only a cogent wager if the God or Gods you consider as being possible to exist take a negatively connotated view of someone not believeing in them. For any given God or Gods that have a negative view of disbelievers, you are better off to believe in them than not. If this causes problems due to trying to cover all of your bases, then that is a problem with Pascal's wager, not in any of our accurate statements about his wager as stated.

It's wrong because it is direct, and since the passage is wrong to begin with you've left the faults in place by not addressing them in a larger theological context.

See above. His statement referred only to christianity or nothing. Applying his statement to the "larger theological context" is the misuse of Pascal, because it is beyond the scope of his discussion. If you formulate a theory about whether it is better to have a gasoline powered car or diesel, to say "But in the context of solar, electric and hydrogen cars, your wager makes no sense" isn't a valid extension of the question, because the question -is- direct.

Nothing makes a statement seem right like using itself as its own measuring stick.

I described Pascal's wager, you told me I was incorrect in my description, I provided a direct translation of the words Pascal wrote to demonstrate that my description was correct. If you want to go a step further and provide evidence that W. F Trotter was incompetent in his translation of Pascal, that is certainly a valid course you could take. As I don't read French nearly well enough to render my own translation of his words, I am forced to rely on his works in translation.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: God.

Dr Barry Whitney BA, PhD. University of Windsor, Windsor Ontario Canada. Given that apologetics is one of his specialities I'm sure that you and he can kibitz for hours on end.

I intend to bring to his attention as many potential faults in thinking as I am capable of with my limited theological knowledge.

The wager is only a cogent wager if the God or Gods you consider as being possible to exist take a negatively connotated view of someone not believeing in them. For any given God or Gods that have a negative view of disbelievers, you are better off to believe in them than not. If this causes problems due to trying to cover all of your bases, then that is a problem with Pascal's wager, not in any of our accurate statements about his wager as stated.

Yet you've restated his wager as if it was sound. Given the unsoundness of the wager, why the hell would you go to such efforts to state it in its original, highly flawed form as if it had any merit?

See above. His statement referred only to christianity or nothing. Applying his statement to the "larger theological context" is the misuse of Pascal, because it is beyond the scope of his discussion.

You have a penchant for ensuring that discussions remain pointless and that the inherent flaws in certain ways of thinking are never addressed.

If you formulate a theory about whether it is better to have a gasoline powered car or diesel, to say "But in the context of solar, electric and hydrogen cars, your wager makes no sense" isn't a valid extension of the question, because the question -is- direct.

I refuse to accept any contextualizing of an issue that consciously and pointlessly excludes solutions other than those explicitly listed for the core problem which is being addressed.

Also in the context of solar, electric, and hydrogen cars there is no significant new possible cost introduced to choosing a diesel or gasoline car. Perhaps on the scale of future cost expectations caused by transitions from one fuel/transportation infrastructure to another, most certainly not on the scope of infinite reward vs. infinite punishment.

I described Pascal's wager, you told me I was incorrect in my description.

I said no such thing. I said that both you and Pascal were wrong about the soundness of the wager.

[devonin]

Re: God.

Yet you've restated his wager as if it was sound.

I'm curious where I actually stated that I felt the wager was sound?

I presented the wager in the form Pascal did, to address what I considered a misstatement about what Pascal's wager was saying.

You are free to claim that his wager is not a -sound- wager, and I'm almost certain to agree with you.

The point was made "Well, what about case X? In case X Pascal's wager doesn't work at all!" And I countered with "Well...Pascal's wager is actually about case Y, if it doesn't work for case X, that's bully for Pascal, but not what he was talking about in the first place."

You have a penchant for ensuring that discussions remain pointless and that the inherent flaws in certain ways of thinking are never addressed.

No, I have a penchant for pointing out when someone sets up a strawman by just idly referencing someone in a context beyond the scope in which the reference was occuring.