Pascal's wager??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: hunter243sgkOriginally Posted By: seeknulfindInteresting thread. I cannot help but wonder why the OP started it. FW states a desire for a civil discussion about a religious subject. Why FW? Are you curious? Do you have doubts? Do you really care about what I or anyone else here thinks on the subject? Like I said I'm just wondering.

You yourself might wonder why I am replying to such a thread. My own reasons are varied and likely selfish but mostly, I came upon this thread the very day I finished up a blog post - that was last Thursday, if dates mean anything to you. As I just posted it today and the subject is related to this one, I thought I'd chime in. And the other reason is since I've read this I had some thoughts I'd like to share.

As a direct answer to Pascal, I'd say if one "believes" in a god based on odds, said god is likely to take exception. My understanding of my God, the Father of my Lord Jesus the Messiah is, He says He is a jealous God and we are to put no other gods before Him. I cannot speak for any other object of worship but I'd expect any god worth his or her salt to have similar inclinations. That said you are welcome to believe or not believe anything you wish. I won't stand in your way.

What I find most interesting about this thread is no matter what side one lands on, "proof" is lacking. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any being greater than ourselves, nor can those of who believe in a god prove or disprove their belief. Hence discussions such as this.

As far as myself, I believe what I believe because I've worked hard for decades to come to the understanding I now have. Part of that understanding is the fact that I do not have all the answers. There are some things, both factual and spiritual I do not and may not ever understand. An honest scientist or mathematician will acknowledge the same for his or her field.

As for this thread and others like it, I am glad there are those seeking truth - whether the truths they are seeking are scientific or spiritual in nature. I, for one, am confident all truth will one day be revealed. Then there will be no more debates or questions - we will know. I do not pretend to know when or how that day shall come or whether I will be here to see it. Then again, there are those on the side of atheism who expect mankind to extinguish itself. If they are correct, then I'd say all bets are off.
Very good post!! And you have a very good point, why does some people post there crazy sh%% and then want to argue about it?? Has any of us belivers tried to convert anyone?? Have we started a tread about our religion?? No and we are not the type to do that!!



There has been some constructive and civil debate going on here I thought. Then you mention people posting crazy sh@t, and mention arguing. I have to wonder if it's only crazy because it's opposite of your ideas? This is the church of the painful truth, where all comments are ok, as long as they are respectful. Why is another mans opinion any less as valuable as yours? There used to be a gang of thugs running wild in here that brow beat anyone that wasn't part of the congregation. Seems the mentor ran off with is dwindling flock. Imagine how your life would be if we all thought just as you do?
 
Originally Posted By: Willy BrotzOriginally Posted By: hunter243sgkOriginally Posted By: seeknulfindInteresting thread. I cannot help but wonder why the OP started it. FW states a desire for a civil discussion about a religious subject. Why FW? Are you curious? Do you have doubts? Do you really care about what I or anyone else here thinks on the subject? Like I said I'm just wondering.

You yourself might wonder why I am replying to such a thread. My own reasons are varied and likely selfish but mostly, I came upon this thread the very day I finished up a blog post - that was last Thursday, if dates mean anything to you. As I just posted it today and the subject is related to this one, I thought I'd chime in. And the other reason is since I've read this I had some thoughts I'd like to share.

As a direct answer to Pascal, I'd say if one "believes" in a god based on odds, said god is likely to take exception. My understanding of my God, the Father of my Lord Jesus the Messiah is, He says He is a jealous God and we are to put no other gods before Him. I cannot speak for any other object of worship but I'd expect any god worth his or her salt to have similar inclinations. That said you are welcome to believe or not believe anything you wish. I won't stand in your way.

What I find most interesting about this thread is no matter what side one lands on, "proof" is lacking. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of any being greater than ourselves, nor can those of who believe in a god prove or disprove their belief. Hence discussions such as this.

As far as myself, I believe what I believe because I've worked hard for decades to come to the understanding I now have. Part of that understanding is the fact that I do not have all the answers. There are some things, both factual and spiritual I do not and may not ever understand. An honest scientist or mathematician will acknowledge the same for his or her field.

As for this thread and others like it, I am glad there are those seeking truth - whether the truths they are seeking are scientific or spiritual in nature. I, for one, am confident all truth will one day be revealed. Then there will be no more debates or questions - we will know. I do not pretend to know when or how that day shall come or whether I will be here to see it. Then again, there are those on the side of atheism who expect mankind to extinguish itself. If they are correct, then I'd say all bets are off.
Very good post!! And you have a very good point, why does some people post there crazy sh%% and then want to argue about it?? Has any of us belivers tried to convert anyone?? Have we started a tread about our religion?? No and we are not the type to do that!!



There has been some constructive and civil debate going on here I thought. Then you mention people posting crazy sh@t, and mention arguing. I have to wonder if it's only crazy because it's opposite of your ideas? This is the church of the painful truth, where all comments are ok, as long as they are respectful. Why is another mans opinion any less as valuable as yours? There used to be a gang of thugs running wild in here that brow beat anyone that wasn't part of the congregation. Seems the mentor ran off with is dwindling flock. Imagine how your life would be if we all thought just as you do? Well sir, for one i sure would not like to see everyone think like me! For one i am nowhere near a perfect man and i know it. And i have NEVER started a topic about my religious believes. I assume you just dont like a use to be member or anyone who does. Thats fine but please dont judge me just because of that. Face it you do not know me, at all!! And i think everybodys opinion matters. Whether i agree with them or not, its nice to hear a different view.
 
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotthat dang pascal is causing rift among the ranks.

i vote he be deported.

Yes, but he sure has answered a lot of questions too.
grin.gif


He was responsible for my access to a blog entry that was very revealing and enlightening.

It was titled "The Arrogance Of An Atheist".

Now I have always thought that atheists were just normal people who believed the way they do because they have no evidence of proof of a deity, especially one who talks to us and takes an active part in controlling our lives. I really didn't see where even a tiny bit of arrogance was required for that.

So then I read this in the blog entry:

"Men have worshiped the sun and the stars and the earth. Men have worshiped rulers and governments. You name it, someone has likely built a shrine to it. Most will insist only their object of worship is true. I know I do. I also know we cannot all be right. Thus, I, like any other serious practitioner of my faith can fall into the trap of smug certainty. After all, I would not be a Christian if I weren't convinced I was on the correct path. I am quite sure a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim would feel the same. Thus the we are sure to feel to some extent that all others are just plain wrong."

So it appears that an individual who is an atheist toward all but one of the estimated 4200 religions in the world can claim "smug certainty" as a reasonable justification, but when somebody else decides to add that one chosen religion to make the total an even 4200, they are called a "arrogant atheist".

If I was smart enough to do one of those blog things, I would like to make an entry titled "Making a Case For Smug Certainty in Religion, and How It Differs From Arrogant Atheism".

But I'm just not that smart.

*


Really?

First of all, it may help you to understand that "smug certainty" was referred to as a trap. I am not certain how anyone can twist that into a justification.

Second: The only atheist I referred to as arrogant was myself.

I understand you believe you are "not that smart" but this stuff isn't all that hard, really.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: seeknulfindOriginally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotthat dang pascal is causing rift among the ranks.

i vote he be deported.

Yes, but he sure has answered a lot of questions too.
grin.gif


He was responsible for my access to a blog entry that was very revealing and enlightening.

It was titled "The Arrogance Of An Atheist".

Now I have always thought that atheists were just normal people who believed the way they do because they have no evidence of proof of a deity, especially one who talks to us and takes an active part in controlling our lives. I really didn't see where even a tiny bit of arrogance was required for that.

So then I read this in the blog entry:

"Men have worshiped the sun and the stars and the earth. Men have worshiped rulers and governments. You name it, someone has likely built a shrine to it. Most will insist only their object of worship is true. I know I do. I also know we cannot all be right. Thus, I, like any other serious practitioner of my faith can fall into the trap of smug certainty. After all, I would not be a Christian if I weren't convinced I was on the correct path. I am quite sure a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim would feel the same. Thus the we are sure to feel to some extent that all others are just plain wrong."

So it appears that an individual who is an atheist toward all but one of the estimated 4200 religions in the world can claim "smug certainty" as a reasonable justification, but when somebody else decides to add that one chosen religion to make the total an even 4200, they are called a "arrogant atheist".

If I was smart enough to do one of those blog things, I would like to make an entry titled "Making a Case For Smug Certainty in Religion, and How It Differs From Arrogant Atheism".

But I'm just not that smart.

*


I was going to leave this alone but you pointed out an obvious problem. It may help if you took the time to look at the statement you quoted and read it in context.

The sentence was not referring to atheists at all. Not even a hint. It is written in quite plain and uncomplicated English:

Quote:Thus, I, like any other serious practitioner of my faith can fall into the trap of smug certainty.

Notice the words "like any other serious practitioner of my faith"? Not only did I disclude atheists but also those who worship any other than what I consider the one true God and Father of my Lord Jesus the Messiah. And I went further and segmented out anyone who were not serious practitioners.

Now for the hard part... please read carefully. I will try to help you as you claim to be "not that smart":

I only described one arrogant atheist and that one arrogant atheist was myself. I was merely contrasting my own frame of mind from long ago with my frame of mind today.

If you are serious about starting your own blog, I'd be happy to help. I know you can do it as you seem quite capable of posting to this forum. Not much difference really. Soon visitors will be flocking to hang on to your every word as they do mine.


"The Arrogance of an Atheist

Recently an atheist attempted to turn the Manchester bombing into an attack on “religion”. The attempted argument was so weak in so many ways I never bothered to reply. "

If you're going to type it, you need to have the nerve to own it.
Good luck with your blog. If you keep your posts separated by subject maybe you'll have less chance of contradicting yourself.

*
 
Unlike some, I not only own what I write (or "type"), I understand I will have to answer for my words to the one true God.

Obviously your first attack on the article failed miserably. Now you are trying a different, and might I add, personal in suggesting I somehow lack "nerve".

By the way the argument I referred to was and will remain weak. Too bad if that offends you. While the reference to religion by an atheist concerning the attack in Manchester was laughable in a sense, it did spur me to consider and explore the idea of religion in general as well as my own early atheistic beliefs. As far as my own personal experiences are concerned, they are limited as I went directly from atheist to Christian. I did not muck around or "experiment" with anything else so all I can do is observe and relate my observations in a manner that makes sense to me.

However, in case you again missed it - the title, "The Arrogance of an Atheist", refers specifically to the atheist described later in the article i.e. myself. Unfortunately, the other specific atheist mentioned in the opening sentence was relegated to the role of merely introducing the larger topic. While it may have been interesting to some to explore the ideas of this atheist, close examination of his/her ideas revealed little more than smoke and mirrors. I found the deeper subjects of man's tendency to "look up and bow down" in relation to my own experience more satisfying.

That said, thank you for your awesome suggestion concerning my blog. I am pleased to be able to take advantage of your extensive expertise in this matter.
 
Originally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: seeknulfindOriginally Posted By: fw707Originally Posted By: SlickerThanSnotthat dang pascal is causing rift among the ranks.

i vote he be deported.

Yes, but he sure has answered a lot of questions too.
grin.gif


He was responsible for my access to a blog entry that was very revealing and enlightening.

It was titled "The Arrogance Of An Atheist".

Now I have always thought that atheists were just normal people who believed the way they do because they have no evidence of proof of a deity, especially one who talks to us and takes an active part in controlling our lives. I really didn't see where even a tiny bit of arrogance was required for that.

So then I read this in the blog entry:

"Men have worshiped the sun and the stars and the earth. Men have worshiped rulers and governments. You name it, someone has likely built a shrine to it. Most will insist only their object of worship is true. I know I do. I also know we cannot all be right. Thus, I, like any other serious practitioner of my faith can fall into the trap of smug certainty. After all, I would not be a Christian if I weren't convinced I was on the correct path. I am quite sure a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Muslim would feel the same. Thus the we are sure to feel to some extent that all others are just plain wrong."

So it appears that an individual who is an atheist toward all but one of the estimated 4200 religions in the world can claim "smug certainty" as a reasonable justification, but when somebody else decides to add that one chosen religion to make the total an even 4200, they are called a "arrogant atheist".

If I was smart enough to do one of those blog things, I would like to make an entry titled "Making a Case For Smug Certainty in Religion, and How It Differs From Arrogant Atheism".

But I'm just not that smart.

*


I was going to leave this alone but you pointed out an obvious problem. It may help if you took the time to look at the statement you quoted and read it in context.

The sentence was not referring to atheists at all. Not even a hint. It is written in quite plain and uncomplicated English:

Quote:Thus, I, like any other serious practitioner of my faith can fall into the trap of smug certainty.

Notice the words "like any other serious practitioner of my faith"? Not only did I disclude atheists but also those who worship any other than what I consider the one true God and Father of my Lord Jesus the Messiah. And I went further and segmented out anyone who were not serious practitioners.

Now for the hard part... please read carefully. I will try to help you as you claim to be "not that smart":

I only described one arrogant atheist and that one arrogant atheist was myself. I was merely contrasting my own frame of mind from long ago with my frame of mind today.

If you are serious about starting your own blog, I'd be happy to help. I know you can do it as you seem quite capable of posting to this forum. Not much difference really. Soon visitors will be flocking to hang on to your every word as they do mine.


"The Arrogance of an Atheist

Recently an atheist attempted to turn the Manchester bombing into an attack on “religion”. The attempted argument was so weak in so many ways I never bothered to reply. "

If you're going to type it, you need to have the nerve to own it.
Good luck with your blog. If you keep your posts separated by subject maybe you'll have less chance of contradicting yourself.

*

By the way, I edited and totally changed this post because after re-reading it, I realized I misunderstood your comments. Obviously, I was not fast enough to prevent your quoting and thus preserving the original post. It happens. All I ask is for those of you reading the original post to take it with a grain of salt as I immediately reconsidered my reply upon reflection.
 
Originally Posted By: seeknulfindUnlike some, I not only own what I write (or "type"), I understand I will have to answer for my words to the one true God.

Obviously your first attack on the article failed miserably. Now you are trying a different, and might I add, personal in suggesting I somehow lack "nerve".

By the way the argument I referred to was and will remain weak. Too bad if that offends you. While the reference to religion by an atheist concerning the attack in Manchester was laughable in a sense, it did spur me to consider and explore the idea of religion in general as well as my own early atheistic beliefs. As far as my own personal experiences are concerned, they are limited as I went directly from atheist to Christian. I did not muck around or "experiment" with anything else so all I can do is observe and relate my observations in a manner that makes sense to me.

However, in case you again missed it - the title, "The Arrogance of an Atheist", refers specifically to the atheist described later in the article i.e. myself. Unfortunately, the other specific atheist mentioned in the opening sentence was relegated to the role of merely introducing the larger topic. While it may have been interesting to some to explore the ideas of this atheist, close examination of his/her ideas revealed little more than smoke and mirrors. I found the deeper subjects of man's tendency to "look up and bow down" in relation to my own experience more satisfying.

That said, thank you for your awesome suggestion concerning my blog. I am pleased to be able to take advantage of your extensive expertise in this matter.



I'm going to very politely say that I have no confidence in your truthfulness, so I have no further use for your untruthful smug certainty either.
Your editing job did nothing to help your lack of credibility with me.
I won't quote your post this time since you may need to do another edit later.


*
 
Originally Posted By: swampwalkerI wonder if the Manchester bomber fell into the trap of smug certainty?

Magical 8 ball says:

"All signs point to yes"

I'm pretty sure it's non-denominational.

*
 
Quote:I'm going to very politely say that I have no confidence in your truthfulness, so I have no further use for your untruthful smug certainty either.
Your editing job did nothing to help your lack of credibility with me.
I won't quote your post this time since you may need to do another edit later.

No worries. Your confidence is not a requirement for my sake. I don't expect you to believe anything I say.
 
Originally Posted By: seeknulfindQuote:I'm going to very politely say that I have no confidence in your truthfulness, so I have no further use for your untruthful smug certainty either.
Your editing job did nothing to help your lack of credibility with me.
I won't quote your post this time since you may need to do another edit later.

No worries. Your confidence is not a requirement for my sake. I don't expect you to believe anything I say.



Well then I won't disappoint you. That's a good thing about smug certainty I would guess.

I'm going to stop replying to you now before you dig your hole any deeper.

Please feel free to have the last word. Maybe somebody will believe it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top