The got posts character after character not saying about anything..same old recycled googled retort by Spurstalk's number one psuedo-intellectual, tbh..
"But but I know hydraulics and topology!"
You are really going to say that? You spam the political forum about two topics every day and try to drown out people that disagree with you.
But I need to evaluate how I spend my time? Introspection is important.
The got posts character after character not saying about anything..same old recycled googled retort by Spurstalk's number one psuedo-intellectual, tbh..
"But but I know hydraulics and topology!"
To you. I don't really care about what you think though.
You are going to complain about someone else posting useless drivel? Nice.
All I see when I get the "he is trying to be smart" are people's inferiority complex's responding. You keep on with the being dumb.
BD's posts are much acclaimed, tbh..I'm the truest mother er on this forum..I don't front being tough or intellectual..it just flows naturally..as for my posts compared to yours..my posts are actually on point..meaning, they say something directly..you're posts are full of just like your pseudo intellectual schtick..the only other poster(s) who dare quote you in praise are lib cuck pieces of ..
Truth is you're a googling try-hard who has 10,000 posts of useless gotry..you still think, after all these years, that you come off as impressive with your paragraph long responses about how someone has conceded an argument with a given take..your kind are garden variety, tbh..now go log back into your alt Th'Pusher to tell board conservatives how butthurt they are, it's the truest you'll ever be on here..
Yes, get a ing life.
Only a loser takes the time out of their day to prepare for an internet argument.
Only a loser sees the internet as a place where war is waged.
I post in the political forum to counter the spread of misinformation by white guilt people such as yourself. You've been strangely absent from the two St. Louis shooting threads, wonder why.
I'm sure you could find more productive things to do with your time than preparing for an internet battle.
oh $hit a TSA sighting nice!
I have been absent from the political forum just like many others because it had devolved into you, boutons, and the nazi spamming every thread. You have done your job of driving people away. I have no desire to come to talk to you or them. I don't like anything about you. I think you are contemptible, frankly. There is no point in going there in stupid vindictive circles though. That is what is a waste of my time.
You post against white guilt people like myself? Calling me the loser after that is delicious.
To demonstrate the savory delectables let's compare and contrast to what I did. I reread sections of Bert Russell's A History of Western Philosophy and Fred Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.
We clearly value things differently. Have fun winning your race war.
I think you hit on what I was saying, but you were so keen to disagree that you didn't realize it. Essentially, assuming both that exactly one religion is right and that we don't know which one that is, it essentially becomes an Bizarro version of Russian Roulette. If you don't play, you're definitely going to (in this hypothetical), but if you play, there's a chance you'll go to heaven. Any chance is better than no chance, all things being equal.
Thanks for the segue. If there were no difference in utility for picking a belief system (or picking atheism), then it is simple game theory, and any religion is better than none. However, I would argue that there's quite a difference in utility between being pious and self-denying and being hedonistic, between being closed-minded and scientific. I don't think the slight increase in chance at salvation is worth giving up all those things, so I wouldn't feel the need to play the wager. However, some people might, especially if they rationalize in their minds ways to give themselves extra utility through their religion.What does "all other things equal" mean? Is that your "I'm right" card? What other things?
It's alive and well for anyone who knows game theory. The Argument of Inconsistent Revelations changes the game to where it becomes much more subjective, but it does not break it.Pascal's Wager has been destroyed. Get over it.
Looks like you're showing promise if you're using 'categorically' correctly. What have you learned of the imperative and the other assignments in your homework?
You do realize RG isn't talking about me, right? He's literally quoting someone else. No way you can be this terrible at reading.
1) I put out the constructive again about a page back. You were even quoted in it. Not surprised you didn't see it.I have actually been prepared for him to put out the arguments formally. I looked up Russell's proofs against them and was going to shove him in his face but I think he knew that and has been dissembling ever since.
2) "Russell's proofs" are no more evidence to than the bible is. His arguments may be solid, but they have no power if you just quote them without understanding what they mean. It's a logical fallacy to appeal to him instead of your own reason.
3) Nice to hear you are doing homework. Maybe you won't be held back after all.
I average 4 posts a day, I think you need to look up the definition of spamming.
Name oneYou have done your job of driving people away.
You don't like talking to me because I mock you and call out your bull for what it is.I have no desire to come to talk to you or them.
Here you are again taking the a message board seriously, get a ing life.I don't like anything about you. I think you are contemptible, frankly.
And studying up for an internet battle isn't?There is no point in going there in stupid vindictive circles though. That is what is a waste of my time.
Race war?You post against white guilt people like myself? Calling me the loser after that is delicious.
To demonstrate the savory delectables let's compare and contrast to what I did. I reread sections of Bert Russell's A History of Western Philosophy and Fred Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.
We clearly value things differently. Have fun winning your race war.
There is a huge difference between someone being tired of listening to the never ending liberal white guilt crowd and someone who is a racist. Make good use of your time and provide any proof of me saying anything racist on here or anywhere else on the internet.
So you understand the uselessness of your approach. Yup you are a coward but you started this patronizing bluster after I said what? That is what must've gotten your ass chapped. Let's go see.
Enjoy the point where my argument which made you quit.
I'm borderline concerned for you and the people around you. No way you can function correctly in society with your level of reading comprehension.
However, you did demonstrate that you have not yet gotten to the 'ad homenim' section of your homework, since you still don't actually know what that fallacy is.
What the were you doing when you were 'preparing' for my arguments?
Like I said, what we value is clearly different. You can try to throw barbs to hurt me but the conversation really isn't moving forward. You don't seem to have very good self control.
You think I am a loser because I read Nietzsche and Russell and I think you are a loser because you go out of your way to respond to white guilt repe ively. It is what it is and I can live with it.
I will also say that you are pretty dumb for not picking up on the 'loser' and 'war' play on words regarding your racism I was going for and instead taking the literal.
Now go drink some antifreeze.
More hand waving I see.
I didn't say that it can ONLY be had from religious thinking. I am saying that it can be had from religious thinking. I don't see why that is so bad.
"Wow, truth bomb after truth bomb!
You see. This really confuses the out of me. So an atheist rejects evidence of God, but doesn't reject the idea of God? Does this mean that an atheist can believe in God?
You obviously don't understand the grace aspect of Christianity. You cannot play yourself into heaven in Christianity. You don't "participate" in a religion.You either believe it and follow it or you follow it and don't believe it, or you do neither. So it's like this:
1. Believe and follow: Heaven through grace
2. Don't believe but follow out of "safer bet": no heaven
3. Don't believe and don't follow: no heaven
That's only for Christianity. Since 1 isn't something you can control through safer betting practices, you are left with 2 and 3 (you cannot simply believe something because you feel it might be the most profitable thing to do, and supposedly the Christian god knows your heart). So then for 2 and 3 you are in .
There's no safer bet there. The 1st one is a mirage, not real, cannot be faked.
If we take the position that heaven and exist, then Pascal's Wager still doesn't work unless simply being exposed to the religion could lead to genuine belief and adherence to teachings. Even the Christian god might well favor the non-believer who was honest in his thoughts and claims, knowing the price of being wrong over the person who feigned belief in order to save his ass. You have to factor that into the equation.Thanks for the segue. If there were no difference in utility for picking a belief system (or picking atheism), then it is simple game theory, and any religion is better than none. However, I would argue that there's quite a difference in utility between being pious and self-denying and being hedonistic, between being closed-minded and scientific. I don't think the slight increase in chance at salvation is worth giving up all those things, so I wouldn't feel the need to play the wager. However, some people might, especially if they rationalize in their minds ways to give themselves extra utility through their religion.
What if there is a reward after life and it's based on not following any religion? You have to add that one as well as any other you could possibly concoct.
Consider that Pascal wasn't referring to all and any possible religions, but Christianity. Don't you feel "what if you're wrong" is a false dichotomy? What if there is a god and Christians are wrong as well? Sure you can morph Pascal's Wager into whatever "all possible other outcomes besides what atheists think will happen" but that's dishonest and you know it. If an atheist lives as his mind and conscience tells him to live, without fear of eternal damnation for doing so, he's certainly not better off to feign a god belief in the hopes of fooling one of them.It's alive and well for anyone who knows game theory. The Argument of Inconsistent Revelations changes the game to where it becomes much more subjective, but it does not break it.
What you call evidence might not pass the falsifiability test that atheists insist upon. "My sister was healed by God". Your sister was ill and recovered, that much is not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is that a god did it. So where you see the healing as evidence, it wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. Sometimes it doesn't need to. You cannot prove you love someone nor they you but you believe it enough that you live your life as if it's true. Most often it is.
There's an honesty about what you believe to be true. It's a difference between how two people define "belief". One considers it a notion while the other considers it just short of knowledge. It's the difference between "I believe someone's creeping around in my garage because my garage door is open" and "I believe there's someone creeping around my garage because I see the bas in there". Even if you see the bas in there, there's a slight chance you see something you mistook for a person and it's not a person at all. However, the open garage door led the other person to believe someone is in the garage through a series of "connect the dots" and often those draw preconceived notions pretty well.
another problem is how different people will define atheism differently. some people define atheism as a claim that god does not exist, while theism is the claim that god does exist. while the theism definition is rarely really disputed, i consider atheism to be the lack of a claim altogether. to me its foolish for somebody to make a claim that "god does not exist." that's like saying "aliens don't exist." you can't really know that, and its almost never considered to be scientific to claim a negative.
Yes, that's the other common criticism of the wager (the Argument from Inconsistent Revelations being the first). It's definitely the more powerful one. But many religions seem fine "scaring" people into believing them. This isn't very different. As I said before, if left to its own devices, people will believe whatever they do independent of profit or ruin. But since beliefs come from a thought process, I do think that certain motivations can affect what beliefs are formed through discouraging certain intellectual pursuits. If people think science will make them go to , then they won't read about the research which would make them turn away from their religion.
I dunno if you or I could become persuaded by the wager and change our courses now. But a person like Avante well could use it as his justification to keep on ignoring science and reason.
I don't really take issue with this outside the objection I made in the last section. On a personal level, I can't see a heaven that values a specific religious group, since I don't think any religion is correct enough to be in a privileged position.If we take the position that heaven and exist, then Pascal's Wager still doesn't work unless simply being exposed to the religion could lead to genuine belief and adherence to teachings. Even the Christian god might well favor the non-believer who was honest in his thoughts and claims, knowing the price of being wrong over the person who feigned belief in order to save his ass. You have to factor that into the equation.
What if there is a reward after life and it's based on not following any religion? You have to add that one as well as any other you could possibly concoct.
I think it's a true dichotomy, only instead of thinking about as christian and atheist, it should thought of as atheist and some type of religion. However, I do think that Pascal over-represented the odds of taking the christian side of the bet. You're right when you say that the slim chances of picking the right religion really shrinks the risk atheists and non-religious theists are taking. But it doesn't make all options equal. Because we don't know which religion would be right (if any) then the possible benefit of the right one would get distributed among the entire set, except for atheism.Consider that Pascal wasn't referring to all and any possible religions, but Christianity. Don't you feel "what if you're wrong" is a false dichotomy? What if there is a god and Christians are wrong as well? Sure you can morph Pascal's Wager into whatever "all possible other outcomes besides what atheists think will happen" but that's dishonest and you know it. If an atheist lives as his mind and conscience tells him to live, without fear of eternal damnation for doing so, he's certainly not better off to feign a god belief in the hopes of fooling one of them.
So rather than thinking about the wager in terms of actual values (atheism-0, false religions-0, true religion-1), it should be thought of in game-theoretic terms (atheism-0, each religion-some fraction). And the wager holds. It's weaker, but it also gains the benefit of being generalizable. Or if we include the idea of non-religious heaven in the math, atheism gets a slight increase, but it has to share it with every religion.
You're saying it works. I've not argued that it doesn't. I've argued that it's not a winning proposition. I think you moved the goal posts here.
So the wager isn't profitable, not even by a small percentage.I don't really take issue with this outside the objection I made in the last section. On a personal level, I can't see a heaven that values a specific religious group, since I don't think any religion is correct enough to be in a privileged position.
All options don't need to be equal for the bet to be non-profitable. Atheism could be as right as any of them, as I illustrated, unless you exclude it to bias your example.I think it's a true dichotomy, only instead of thinking about as christian and atheist, it should thought of as atheist and some type of religion. However, I do think that Pascal over-represented the odds of taking the christian side of the bet. You're right when you say that the slim chances of picking the right religion really shrinks the risk atheists and non-religious theists are taking. But it doesn't make all options equal. Because we don't know which religion would be right (if any) then the possible benefit of the right one would get distributed among the entire set, except for atheism.
Not really. Atheism would only equal 0 if it was certain someone was right and there was no benefit to atheism. There could be an instance were atheism that represents truth is rewarded. In that case atheism doesn't equal 0, so there's no reason to artificially assign it zero value except, as I said, to bias your example. You can always construct an argument in your favor, but Pascal's Wager dealt with Christianity vs atheism and was a false dichotomy, and it's not a beneficial wager at all. If anything, it's condescending to atheists. It supposes their belief is just a whim they can change for profit.So rather than thinking about the wager in terms of actual values (atheism-0, false religions-0, true religion-1), it should be thought of in game-theoretic terms (atheism-0, each religion-some fraction). And the wager holds, is weaker, but also gains the benefit of being generalizable. Or if we include the idea of non-religious heaven in the math, atheism gets a slight increase, but it has to share it with every religion.
I've never argued that I was a proposition I'd take. I argued that the wager was a reasonable argument.
No. I don't feel so. Some do, though.So the wager isn't profitable, not even by a small percentage.
No, I didn't exclude athesim. In that case, no one wins. But that wager is set up when you don't know who's right, so you get contingent benefits. Atheism will have a benefit of zero no matter what's true (unless it's the non-religious heaven that welcomes atheism like we talked about). All things equal, there's never a benefit to being atheist (as far as the wager goes specifically).All options don't need to be equal for the bet to be non-profitable. Atheism could be as right as any of them, as I illustrated, unless you exclude it to bias your example.
That would be weird. I guess it could be like some alien race has been watching humans and saves the brainwaves of those who were atheistic? Even so, such a scenario is just as plausible for every belief system, so as I said the benefit would distribute across the whole board. Atheists would no longer be at zero, but they would still be behind each religion.Not really. Atheism would only equal 0 if the outcome was known. There could be an instance were atheism that represents truth is rewarded. In that case atheism doesn't equal 0, so there's no reason to artificially assign it zero value except, as I said, to bias your example.
We can agree to disagree on the dichotomy thing. As far as the benefit, that is and always has been subjective. I don't think it's beneficial, and you don't seem to. But others can if they place so much potential utility in being religious that it overrides their projected utility of being non-religious.You can always construct an argument in your favor, but Pascal's Wager dealt with Christianity vs atheism and was a false dichotomy, and it's not a beneficial wager at all. If anything, it's condescending to atheists. It supposes their belief is just a whim they can change for profit
As far as the whole condescending thing, I don't think that was Pascal's intention. He seemed to have been fine with atheists who were critical thinkers and didn't like anyone who made blanket statements about metaphysics with no room for change. It seems like the wager is meant to be an element that an individual considers when deciding their belief system or lack of one; it doesn't have to try to stand as the determining factor.
Last edited by Chinook; 10-22-2014 at 12:40 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)