With no intention of arguing with you, saying an argument doesn't work means nothing. If you want to maintain there is something more, please so good as to make a case. Your post was rather dumb, but whatever.
I would say that all are born perfect so all those whose loss returns them to where they started. They might not retain their beliefs, but they would understand what their beliefs were always really about.
Originally posted by: Tab
Moonbeam, you're a vaulable member of this forum. Please don't ever leave.
Now now, you can't see anything in me that's not in yourself. That's how I knew engineereeyore was being a dummy. I make unfounded claims all the time.
You are correct. I should make the statement that I'm assuming this Pascal's wager is being used in reference to Christian religions, as the poster I believe is Christian. Although there are several different denominations, I would claim that most accept the necessity of baptism or receiving the Holy Ghost. Things like that. Those are things that are necessary beyond simply living a good life.
Again, I know some religions vary on the importance of such necessities, thus giving me reason to feel that both Pascal's wager and the Atheist wager just make no sense. I don't think you could make either claim without being able to specify full credentials for being Christian. And in today's word, you're very correct. That's just something that is almost impossible to do with the different ideals being held by the different religions.
Your opinion is noted as such. Feel free to agree, disagree, like, or dislike. I think it makes sense and that's all that really matters.
exdeath
Lifer
- Jan 29, 2004
- 13,679
- 10
- 81
I have faith... in E=mc^2 and F=ma, among other things. I do agree with the moral principles in most western religions however (ie: stealing, murder, cheating, etc). I do my best to follow them on my own free will because I believe in being a decent person, not because I'm scared of an invisible man in the sky.
People will form a religion around just about anything...
"Born from the fallen wreckage, 'she' slowly arose, her long hair blowing in the wind as her eyes reflected the dawn's breaking light. Reflecting the start of the day that 'god' and 'humankind' fell to earth."
People will form a religion around just about anything...
"Born from the fallen wreckage, 'she' slowly arose, her long hair blowing in the wind as her eyes reflected the dawn's breaking light. Reflecting the start of the day that 'god' and 'humankind' fell to earth."
Originally posted by: Harvey
I agree with your second goal. I don't think it takes any kind of deity to come to the realization that it's makes good common sense. If you think about it, it's just a lot easier and more enjoyable way to live.
It also doesn't take any kind of deity to respect the vastness and wonder of the unknown, but in case you didn't notice, some of yesteday's unknown is now understood as scientific phenomena. Of course, a lot of what we've learned has just enabled us to see how much more we don't know.
Assuming for the moment that some all powerful single deity exists, how pathetically petty and small it must be if it cares more about which rituals we follow on which days, or which names we use to describe it, than whether we actually try live our lives consistant with your second goal, let alone why such a deity would demand that we remain ignorant and fearful of its manifestations. :roll:
It really does make good common sense when you think about it.
Its only the first one that still scares you( perhaps scares is too harsh)
Rituals: for the most part I would agree with that (ie.. Is God demanding that you worship him on sunday instead of saturday...I would say the day is unimportant the time spent is the goal, and it is every bit as acceptable to worship him by the river or park as it is in a church building), Christ in fact called the two statements that you are referring to as goals ,and said if you keep these you are keeping all the law and it is brought out again by paul In Galations ch3 that the law itself was merely a schoolmaster to lead us to faith. And that the penalty of the law was fulfilled by faith in the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ.
I think the only thing he is demanding is your love
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Harvey
I agree with your second goal. I don't think it takes any kind of deity to come to the realization that it's makes good common sense. If you think about it, it's just a lot easier and more enjoyable way to live.
It also doesn't take any kind of deity to respect the vastness and wonder of the unknown, but in case you didn't notice, some of yesteday's unknown is now understood as scientific phenomena. Of course, a lot of what we've learned has just enabled us to see how much more we don't know.
Assuming for the moment that some all powerful single deity exists, how pathetically petty and small it must be if it cares more about which rituals we follow on which days, or which names we use to describe it, than whether we actually try live our lives consistant with your second goal, let alone why such a deity would demand that we remain ignorant and fearful of its manifestations. :roll:
It really does make good common sense when you think about it.
Its only the first one that still scares you( perhaps scares is too harsh)
Rituals: for the most part I would agree with that (ie.. Is God demanding that you worship him on sunday instead of saturday...I would say the day is unimportant the time spent is the goal, and it is every bit as acceptable to worship him by the river or park as it is in a church building), Christ in fact called the two statements that you are referring to as goals ,and said if you keep these you are keeping all the law and it is brought out again by paul In Galations ch3 that the law itself was merely a schoolmaster to lead us to faith. And that the penalty of the law was fulfilled by faith in the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ.
I think the only thing he is demanding is your love
You can't demand love you silly man. Love is about pouring out and never about taking in. The only God who is jealous is a projection of jealous men.
Please. I did give you my opinion. I do feel free. The fact that something makes sense to you doesn't mean anything to me unless you can communicate it. The fact you don't want to communicate it or can't tells me, in my opinion, naturally, that you don't know what you mean anyway. Lots of things may seem to make sense to you since you seem not to have examined them to the point where you can express what you see. Hey, a big green giant just popped into the room but at least it makes sense to me and that's all that really matters. Sorry, I don't think so.
Like I said, you're opinion is noted as such. If you want more detail however, I have provided it in another post. The fact that it makes no sense to you can mean one of two things. One, I have not communicated it well, as you say, or two, you simply can't understand it. No one else is complaining, so I'm inclined to believe it's closer to possibility number two. However, after reading your first post and 3chordcharlie's post, I attempted to give a little more explanation. However, like I said, my day and life do not revolve around the necessity of helping you understand something. Perhaps you should spend more time trying to figure it out and less trying to lash out at me because you can't. 3chordcharlies understood it just fine, so like I said, I'm inclined to believe the problem is not mine.
No no, I am just responding to the general attitude you expressed to me, first that you won't be drawn in or feel any need to explain then being drawn in and further explaining then again back to your original claim etc. It's not about what I did or did not understand, but about the fact that if you or anybody else values communication they must make an effort or be at least prepared to further explain what it is they mean or simply look kind of silly. The approach, 'here are the facts, I won't explain them and I don't care what you think" is a bit, well supply your own term, don't you think?
At the point where somebody expresses an opinion they won't explain or defend there is no reason for somebody else to take them seriously because that somebody else can't judge if the opinion is sound or based on thin air. It is the case one can make for ones position that matters to me and not just what they opine. Otherwise, you could save yourself lots of time and just post, 'right or wrong' to somebody else's thread. Naturally, if you do, everybody will soon not give two hoots what you think.
Funny, I almost get the same feeling about not belonging to your club of self importance.
and the air of superiority that you are trying to exude.
But I spent the first 20 years of life in that club already and decided to cancel my membership.
I think that "being a good person" is enough to get you into heaven makes a lot of sense to me and that's all that really matters..
Fine by me. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, so if it makes sense to you, so be it. I see a flaw in the idea mostly due to the large number of 'Gods' worshipped in this world and not all are benevolent. I think that was the word used. So all I'm saying is that the idea, to me, has a flaw in that is assumes a certain type of God, which may or may not be the case. That's all, and it's just my opinion.
Oh, I agree, and if that is the way it came across, please forgive me. I was merely attempting to state that the idea seemed flawed, and looking back I can see that a little further explanation could have helped, so my apologies.
Good point. I'm not trying to say I'm unwilling to talk about it, I just didn't want to be dragged into a religious debate that just never seems to go anywhere. As for defending my position, I don't have a problem with that. I stated that I feel there is more than just 'being good' that is required, but I acknowledge that I probably could have been more specific. I just thought everyone would understand that I was implying concepts such as baptism.
If it's still confusing after my second post, let me know and I'll be happy to explain it better.
EDIT: It might help to state that when I said I didn't want to be drawn into a religious discussion, I was referring to what was going on between Harvey, daniel49, and miketheidiot. I was not referring to the idea that I was unwilling to justify or defend MY claim, but only that I didn't intend to get involved in that discussion. I was merely wanting to comment on the Atheist and Pascal wagers.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
It's fine with you....... but. OK, I can live with that..... but, who's to say your assumptions/beliefs about God are any more enlightened then mine? Why? Because that's what you were taught at an early age? It seems to me you are also making assumptions based on what you were told, not on your own experiences/gut feelings.
I'm assuming living a good, honest life is all that any benovolent God should/could ask of a lowly human being, at least any God that deserves to be believed in.
Special in what way, that I am going to heaven and you to hell. Special because I can't join the 'only us club'. You may be special in your own mind but I see nothing with which you can justify that charge against me. I can see nothing at all that makes me self important. What I believe does nothing for me except satisfy my hunger for honesty. I can't believe in your special god and your special region and your special text. What I call God is there for any and all. "There are a million paths in life and they all lead nowhere. Choose a path that has a heart." The way is narrow and is Jesus only if Jesus stands for heart and only if heart stands for love. You may have your texts but you don't know how to read.
No one is to say. You're welcome to disagree as I said and I wouldn't think any less of you. As for what I was taught when I was young, this isn't it. I was taught very little about religion when I was young.
As for my own experience, I'm making assumptions simply based upon percentages. Let me explain. Consider the 3 major religions (or at least the 3 biggest in my opinion): Christianity, Judaism, and Islamic. Neither the Islamic nor Jewish religions believe only good works are necessary. As for Christianity, I think it's a very small percentage that feel that good works is all that is required, though correct me if I'm wrong. This being the case, the idea that if God does exist he would reward you for your works and it would all be good is largely contrary to the majority of religions that maintain a belief in God. Does that make sense?
The Atheist's wager places all it eggs into a basket that has a very small probably of being correct. That doesn't mean it's not possible, because it definitely is. I'm simply stating that purely playing the statistics game, it's got a major problem.
I too believe that people will be rewarded according to the work they do here. I'm not arguing with you there because I think you're right. I'm just stating that making such a claim has a very small probability of happening. I sure hope we're right though.
If I looked at spirtuality as "playing the percentages" and felt I had to pick some set-in-stone belief, I think I'd pick Judism, or maybe Hinduism because I like their reincarnation ideas.
My Dad and all his friends are WWII vets and they've all been to Hell and back, literally, which I think jaded their beliefs. It seems that myself and all their kids went to church every Sunday, but in the last analysis we were all left to make up our own minds on what to believe.
To me it seems that orgainized religion is too easily corrupted and abused, so I've just come to the conclusion that being a good honest person is it's own reward. It doesn't matter if there is a reward or afterlife for being "good", because being good is it's own reward.
My Dad and all his friends are WWII vets and they've all been to Hell and back, literally, which I think jaded their beliefs. It seems that myself and all their kids went to church every Sunday, but in the last analysis we were all left to make up our own minds on what to believe.
To me it seems that orgainized religion is too easily corrupted and abused, so I've just come to the conclusion that being a good honest person is it's own reward. It doesn't matter if there is a reward or afterlife for being "good", because being good is it's own reward.
how are the statistics anymore out of favor for atheists than Christians? Looking around the world, it seems that the odds are that everyone is wrong. Ever seen the episode of family guy were they die, and when they reach the pearly gates, find out that the Mormons had it right?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter