• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

There's no downside in believing in GOD -> Pascal's Wager

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Cerpin Taxt said:
Because what you have described is a strawman, again.

I believe that we are reincarnated after we die. I do not believe that I have a sufficient amount of evidence with which to justify that belief as knowledge, however. I do not purport that my belief is true and justified, but I do believe it to be true.

What doesn't make sense about that?
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense because apparently, you are an unreasonable human being.

Here is your original claim:

"Except the ones that believe God exists but do not hold that their beliefs are necessarily true and justified. "

1) I believe God Exists
2) I believe God is probabilistically not True.

These two statements are incompatible to a rational human being.

Your new statement:

Theory: Humans reincarnate
Supporting Evidence: Inconclusive, insufficient.

Conclusion: Humans reincarnate.

Again, only an irrational human being would be able to agree with this. Cognitive distortion.




EDIT: I'll highlight another shortcoming in your understanding. I described an agnostic atheist thus:


This is not someone that is "lacking knowledge of an existence, yet purports to believe in the negative." It is someone that does not believe in the affirmative. Those two are not equivalent, yet you treat them as though they were, because you are an ignorant and peurile moron.
Click to expand...

Excellent, here is where you can explain.

Please distinguish between believing in the negative vs not believing in the affirmative.

Affirmative: One or more Gods exist.

Negative: "One or more Gods do not exist"

Not belief of the Affirmative: "I don't believe one or more Gods exists"

The affirmative is clear. The Negative is also clear - a rejection of the existence of any number of Gods. The final statement is also equivalent to the Negative.

Affirmative = 1+ Gods Exist
Negative = 0 Gods Exist
No belief of affirmative = 0 Gods Exist
 
Kev said:
MJinZ, you claim that atheists assert that there is 100% no god, and that the most renowned atheist, Richard Dawkins, has made this statement. Either find a quote where he says there is 100% no god, or stop saying that all atheists believe that.

Or, you could continue arguing vocabulary words like a dullard.
Click to expand...

Atheists claim that there are no Gods. However, I have already stated in the past that there is no true rational atheists because:

1) A rational person MUST be Agnostic, because they can not prove the negative. There is certainly tiny amount of doubt in ALL Atheists, if they are rational beings. That by default, makes them Agnostics.

2) An Atheist who professes to believe in no purpose in life has no rational reason to continue his or her existence. There only exists irrational fear of death.
 
MJinZ said:
Atheists claim that there are no Gods. However, I have already stated in the past that there is no true rational atheists because:

1) A rational person MUST be Agnostic, because they can not prove the negative. There is certainly tiny amount of doubt in ALL Atheists, if they are rational beings. That by default, makes them Agnostics.

2) An Atheist who professes to believe in no purpose in life has no rational reason to continue his or her existence. There only exists irrational fear of death.
Click to expand...

fail
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
Absolutely preposterous. Ask any philosophy instructor or post-grad. The generally accepeted definition of knowledge is "true and justified belief."


This is meaningless babble, thrown together in the hopes of saving yourself from the obvious embarassment.

Read the wiki on Epistemology and then come back here and apologize for being such an unbelievable tool.

From that article:
800px-Classical_Definition_of_Knowledge.svg.png
Click to expand...

So you are painting yourself repeatedly as someone who absorbs but does not digest, and someone who can't think apparently for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problems

Relationship between Belief and Knowledge. This becomes a rather cross-discipline type of study.

Let's start with Truth:

Truth is infallible. The Truth is, that the Sky is blue and the Earth is spherical.

Then, what occurs next? Does the Sky's blueness and the Earth's roundness stem from our beliefs?

No, we observe the sky and (eventually) observe the Earths. Observational truths form the foundation of our knowledge and thus, beliefs. You can have no beliefs without a foundation or framework of knowledge. It does not need to be advanced knowledge, and higher learning. But everything starts from knowledge, not belief.

Non-observationable truths will elicit beliefs. Beliefs about gravity, plate-tectonics, even God. Now, those beliefs may eventually become knowledge as we set about to prove them, through experiment or other means.
 
Last edited:
MJinZ said:
Atheists claim that there are no Gods. However, I have already stated in the past that there is no true rational atheists because:

1) A rational person MUST be Agnostic, because they can not prove the negative. There is certainly tiny amount of doubt in ALL Atheists, if they are rational beings. That by default, makes them Agnostics.

2) An Atheist who professes to believe in no purpose in life has no rational reason to continue his or her existence. There only exists irrational fear of death.
Click to expand...

So you chose to continue arguing vocabulary words. Cool, have fun with that.
 
MJinZ said:
2) An Atheist who professes to believe in no purpose in life has no rational reason to continue his or her existence. There only exists irrational fear of death.
Click to expand...

We have natural survival instincts, just like all mammals. Don't be so arrogant as to think we've evolved to the point that we can go against our natural biological tendencies.

<-- Believes there's no higher purpose to life.
 
MJinZ said:
It makes perfect sense because apparently, you are an unreasonable human being.
Click to expand...
Right. 🙄

Here is your original claim:

"Except the ones that believe God exists but do not hold that their beliefs are necessarily true and justified. "

1) I believe God Exists
2) I believe God is probabilistically not True.
Click to expand...
No where is (2) implicit in that statement.

These two statements are incompatible to a rational human being.
Click to expand...
Rational human beings also recognize that "I do not believe X is true and justified" is not equivalent to "I believe X is probabilistically not true." You are obviously not among the set of rational human beings.

Maybe it would help you see the distinction if I wrote it this way:

I believe the idea that we reincarnate is true, but I do not believe that it is (true and justified). I believe it to be true, while acknowledging that I cannot demonstrate justification for its truth. That's why it's simply a belief, not knowledge. I don't say that I know we reincarnate after we die. I simply believe it.

Your new statement:

Theory: Humans reincarnate
Supporting Evidence: Inconclusive, insufficient.

Conclusion: Humans reincarnate.

Again, only an irrational human being would be able to agree with this. Cognitive distortion.
Click to expand...
You're a regular strawman factory, aren't you? None of the above accurately characterizes my position. Try again.


Excellent, here is where you can explain.

Please distinguish between believing in the negative vs not believing in the affirmative.

Affirmative: One or more Gods exist.

Negative: "One or more Gods do not exist"

Not belief of the Affirmative: "I don't believe one or more Gods exists"

The affirmative is clear. The Negative is also clear - a rejection of the existence of any number of Gods. The final statement is also equivalent to the Negative.
Click to expand...
The final statement is not equivalent to the negative, which is precisely the error in your understanding. You cannot logically derive "I believe not-X" from "I do not believe X."

Affirmative = 1+ Gods Exist
Negative = 0 Gods Exist
No belief of affirmative = 0 Gods Exist
Click to expand...
Wrong as it ever was.
 
I'm not sure where all this money is coming into play in regards to discussing churches.

I've not paid a cent to any church. Ever.
 
MJinZ said:
So you are painting yourself repeatedly as someone who absorbs but does not digest, and someone who can't think apparently for themselves.
Click to expand...
Apparently going off the reservation and flying the face of literally centuries of philosophy is "thinking for one's self" and some kind of virtue. 🙄

Rather, I think you simply admitted implicitly that you're just making this stuff up as you go.

Truth is infallible. The Truth is, that the Sky is blue and the Earth is spherical.
Click to expand...
Truth is a quality of propositions which describes the extent to which the words used in a proposition's construction agree with our accepted definitions for their meanings, grammar, and syntax. Truth is only "infallible" because it is circular.

Then, what occurs next? Does the Sky's blueness and the Earth's roundness stem from our beliefs?

No, we observe the sky and (eventually) observe the Earths. Observational truths form the foundation of our knowledge and thus, beliefs. You can have no beliefs without a foundation or framework of knowledge. It does not need to be advanced knowledge, and higher learning. But everything starts from knowledge, not belief.

Non-observationable truths will elicit beliefs. Beliefs about gravity, plate-tectonics, even God. Now, those beliefs may eventually become knowledge as we set about to prove them, through experiment or other means.
Click to expand...
Babble babble babble. I'm not going to sit here and debate every piece of spittle that dribbles off your chin. All you have is argument by assertion, and as I've demonstrated, your assertions are patently ridiculous.
 
Ya'll get soooo woooorked up over the stupidest of things.

Mjinz and Cerpin Taxt need a drink and to calm the fuck down. You just look silly 😛
 
JM Aggie08 said:
I'm not sure where all this money is coming into play in regards to discussing churches.

I've not paid a cent to any church. Ever.
Click to expand...

LOL, you haven't seen any clips of some of the crazy tv-galincals do? I remember one of a guy with his Jesus anointed cure all snake oil (I kid you not) that would cure anything but was only able to get Jesus to anoint 5 samples for him this Sunday, but believes that is because there are 5 tv viewers out there with desperate need for the oil with $1,000 to pay for it to receive healing for Jesus.

I have seriously seen this clip and seriously seen people pay for con artist snake oil.

Seriously walk into any religion "shop" and it's all the same. Bunch of swindlers trying to sell deluded people religious artifacts that do everything from bringing them a longer happier life to curing cancer.
 
HumblePie said:
LOL, you haven't seen any clips of some of the crazy tv-galincals do? I remember one of a guy with his Jesus anointed cure all snake oil (I kid you not) that would cure anything but was only able to get Jesus to anoint 5 samples for him this Sunday, but believes that is because there are 5 tv viewers out there with desperate need for the oil with $1,000 to pay for it to receive healing for Jesus.

I have seriously seen this clip and seriously seen people pay for con artist snake oil.

Seriously walk into any religion "shop" and it's all the same. Bunch of swindlers trying to sell deluded people religious artifacts that do everything from bringing them a longer happier life to curing cancer.
Click to expand...

Haha. Yea i've seen that vid.

The Catholic Gift shop we used to get my great grandmother (God rest her soul) gifts at was pretty modest. Crucifixes, Books, CDs, Throws, Candles, etc. Now, I for one will never own a single thing from that store lol, but it's good to know there are some places that keep it sane. Hehe.
 
Last edited:
So what happens if you're believing/worshiping in the wrong god? what if the real god(if there is one) sees you worshiping a fake god and get pissed and decides you need to go to hell as punishment? Would not believing but being a good person be better or worse than worshiping a false idol?
 
MJinZ said:
So you are painting yourself repeatedly as someone who absorbs but does not digest, and someone who can't think apparently for themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problems

Relationship between Belief and Knowledge. This becomes a rather cross-discipline type of study.

Let's start with Truth:

Truth is infallible. The Truth is, that the Sky is blue and the Earth is spherical.

Then, what occurs next? Does the Sky's blueness and the Earth's roundness stem from our beliefs?

No, we observe the sky and (eventually) observe the Earths. Observational truths form the foundation of our knowledge and thus, beliefs. You can have no beliefs without a foundation or framework of knowledge. It does not need to be advanced knowledge, and higher learning. But everything starts from knowledge, not belief.

Non-observationable truths will elicit beliefs. Beliefs about gravity, plate-tectonics, even God. Now, those beliefs may eventually become knowledge as we set about to prove them, through experiment or other means.
Click to expand...

I believe i will wake up in the morning, i don't know it.

See how very simple this concept really is? It's the same with an agnostic atheist, i don't believe in a god but i can't absolutely know there is not one.

Dawkins and Hitchens are examples of agnostic atheists, they don't believe but they don't claim to have absolute knowledge either.

I can't understand how you cannot get such an extremely simple concept that most of humanity including you live with every single day.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
Apparently going off the reservation and flying the face of literally centuries of philosophy is "thinking for one's self" and some kind of virtue. 🙄

Rather, I think you simply admitted implicitly that you're just making this stuff up as you go.


Truth is a quality of propositions which describes the extent to which the words used in a proposition's construction agree with our accepted definitions for their meanings, grammar, and syntax. Truth is only "infallible" because it is circular.


Babble babble babble. I'm not going to sit here and debate every piece of spittle that dribbles off your chin. All you have is argument by assertion, and as I've demonstrated, your assertions are patently ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated anything. In every instance, you appeal to some sort of authority and basically resort to an attack on character. 🙄 This isn't too surprising considering all of your posts are similar in presentation. Laughably, it's YOUR arguments (or lack thereof), that are simply by assertion.
 
You're forgetting a con about believing in God. Believing you have to live your life to please some entity that's always looking over your shoulder and any slip up and they could damn you for all eternity. Yeah, that's not a con at all. I'd rather live my life how I see fit and not by a set of predefined codes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top