0f223620
XPost: alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
From: lunch@nofreelunch.us
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Aug 29, 10:15 am, tirebiter wrote:
>> On Aug 28, 10:27 pm, Virgil wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In article
>> > ,
>>
>> > AllSeeing-I wrote:
>> > > On Aug 28, 5:31 pm, Virgil wrote:
>> > > > In article
>> > > > <6d5d7e0f-b050-42dc-b4b7-ed17347d5...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> > > > AllSeeing-I wrote:
>> > > > > On Aug 27, 7:34 am, old man joe wrote:
>> > > > > > " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > unrighteousness of men,
>> > > > > > who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be
known
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > God is manifest in them;
>> > > > > > for God hath shewed it unto them.
>> > > > > [\]
>>
>> > > > > > let the cursing begin as the Atheist's dodge this basic fact of
life.
>>
>> > > > > One way they dodge is by refusing pascals'e wager. I have always
found
>> > > > > it facinating that so many atheist reject the principal behind
>> > > > > 'pasqual's wager'. Yet in their very own lives they will live by
such
>> > > > > phrases as "better to have it and not need it, then to need it and
not
>> > > > > have it", or "better to err on the side of caution".
>>
>> > > > > But when it comes to something as potentially damaging as the loss
of
>> > > > > one's soul, they reject the principal of erring on the side of
>> > > > > caution. They would rather not have it when they may need it.
>>
>> > > > > Time is running out k00ks. Take pascal's wager. Err on the side of
>> > > > > caution. Have saving-grace when you need it rather then ---to not
have
>> > > > > it when you do.
>>
>> > > > > Wake up and smell the evolution in your coffee.
>>
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > The truth is this way says...
>>
>> > > > > The All Seeing I
>>
>> > > > Pascal's wager is profoundly anti-theist, since anyone who accepts
>> > > > belief on the basis that it pays off better, would have damned himself
>> > > > if it turned out there were that sort of a god and wasted his life
>> > > > otherwise.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > > I love watching the atheist stammer and studier as they try to wiggle
>> > > away from the simplicity of the wager.
>>
>> > > They will make up all sorts of reasons why the wager is not, exactly
>> > > what it is.
>>
>> > > It is what it is.
>>
>> > > If you like the safe odds, or if believe in things like: "it is better
>> > > to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it", --then
>> > > pascal's wager will make sense to you.
>>
>> > > If you believe one or the other but not both then you are lying to
>> > > yourself.
>>
>> > I was under the apparently mistaken impression that your god was
>> > supposed to know your thoughts and the reasons for your actions, and
>> > would thus be aware that one's "belief" was bought.
>>
>> The horribly flawed Pascal's Wager really comes down to exactly this.
>> It requires a god that doesn't care why someone would want to believe
>> in it, even if it is just to win a bet.
>>
>
>It's also flawed as it creates a false dualism. One choice, or
>another. In fact, this question is one of many hundreds of choices.
>Between non-belief, and belief in one of the 640 or so known
>religions, and many more gods being worshipped.
And, of course, there's Homer's Corollary:
"But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make
God madder and madder."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
