Support NeoGAF

[Pixel Pete]

I'm telling you Pascal's Wager could and likely is full of shit. But Pascal's Wager is not what I believe. I believe Islam to be the true religion with the one true God and am not doing a numbers or odds game. Pascal's Wager means nothing to me.

I never argued it wasn't bullshit. I was referring to the Qur'anic take on religions of the book or those who believed in one God. Not Pascal's.

Wow.

Pascal's wager isn't scripture. It's a claim at probability through logic, which has since been proven to be incorrect.

It's like I said that alcohol is bad for you. In response, you said "But I don't believe in alcohol, I drink tea!" That doesn't change that alcohol is bad for you.

It's pure nonsense. Whether you 'believe' in pascal's wager or not does not change what falsifying it proves.

if I am then so be it.

That about covers it then. As long as your mature enough to realize the odds are against you and you are happy to take your chances, low as they are, I cannot begrudge you your own personal decision.

 

[Amir0x]

take God out of the equation and you would be a bad person?

Is fear of God the only thing keeping you from getting out of line? If so, I think that says quite a lot.

Sorry dude I'm not buying it. You lied once and are not a moral person. Enjoy hell. Flying spaghetti monster never forgets and you will burn.

Let us now pray to our all merciful, all forgiving spaghetti monster.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster NEVER forgets a liar. One lie and you live life in eternal sin, unless I accept him under the grace of noodles and meatballs. I don't know if I'm worthy... I've sinned so much...

...in fact, I'm going to go sin some more with about 10 percocets. I will be back in the morning to hopefully many gloriously entertaining responses

 

[Air]

Thread got turned into "Atheism vs. Theism |OT2| Dawkins is a jerk!" because that's what the people wanted.

Ah thanks. So the cycle begins anew.

I wanted to say something like "I'm sure there is middle ground between the two points of views", but I remember the nature of these debates, and I shake my head.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Ah thanks. So the cycle begins anew.

I wanted to say something like "I'm sure there is middle ground between the two points of views", but I remember the nature of these debates, and I shake my head.

Unfortunately most of the time that middle ground is saying and doing exactly nothing.

 

[nib95]

Wow.

Pascal's wager isn't scripture. It's a claim at probability through logic, which has since been proven to be incorrect.

It's like I said that alcohol is bad for you. In response, you said "But I don't believe in alcohol, I drink tea!" That doesn't change that alcohol is bad for you.

It's pure nonsense. Whether you 'believe' in pascal's wager or not does not change what falsifying it proves.

That about covers it then. As long as your mature enough to realize the odds are against you and you are happy to take your chances, low as they are, I cannot begrudge you your own personal decision.

Lol I know it ins't scripture. What I'm telling you is it has no relevance to my personal beliefs. I follow the Qur'an and Islam. Not Pascal, Christianity etc. But yes of course I realise that in a sea of religions the odds mathematically are against me, but I'm content with my choice. I did my research prior to it. That's what faith entails.

Is fear of God the only thing keeping you from getting out of line? If so, I think that says quite a lot.

I'm not sure who it's directed at, but generally I find there's reasoning behind things (main one I'm not completely sure about really to this day is pork) in the Qur'an.

So if in the Qur'an it talks about how parents, specifically your mother is the one who is owed the most respect. That I should not only treat her with ut most respect, but ideally not even raise my voice to her. It's not just because of God I'd behave such a way, I would, after a basic deconstruction of the moral constructs of those rules, and how they jive with me. I happen to have a fierce respect and level of care for my family, and where I can, do my very best to be what they might constitute as decent and respectable. That's not to say we don't argue etc, but they're usually very diplomatic affairs where I'd keep my tone non aggressive and show humility.

Generally I'll do as my mum asks of me even if it goes against personal interests or fun. I certainly wouldn't give her grief about any requests or what not. But the point is, it's something that is not only morally promoted by religion, but also personally appreciated, acknowledged and acted upon by myself. For personal and religious reasons.

Funnily enough, much of the moral foundations of Western civilisation are actually based off of Judeo-Christian influence.

 

[Log4Girlz]

take God out of the equation and you would be a bad person?

Is fear of God the only thing keeping you from getting out of line? If so, I think that says quite a lot.



The Flying Spaghetti Monster NEVER forgets a liar. One lie and you live life in eternal sin, unless I accept him under the grace of noodles and meatballs. I don't know if I'm worthy... I've sinned so much...

...in fact, I'm going to go sin some more with about 10 percocets. I will be back in the morning to hopefully many gloriously entertaining responses

The secret, and I've learned this through much tutelage as a young choir noodle, is to roll his meat balls around in your mouth. That is his favorite act of piety.

 

[Pixel Pete]

I did my research prior to it. That's what faith entails.

I'm afraid to say you are dead wrong here.

Funnily enough, much of the moral foundations of Western civilisation are actually based off of Judeo-Christian influence.

It's interesting, sure. Does it prove anything? Not really. People certainly managed morally before Judeo-Christian influence.

 

[Kinitari]

Dude, seriously, try to understand. I do not CARE about the wager. It doesn't even factor in to any of my thinking or beliefs. I believe my God to be the true God. I do not believe I am worhisping the wrong God, and as I said before, if I am then so be it. It won't bother me as I've still lived life charitably and more respectably as a result of religion.

Please for the love of God....no more posts on this area of the topic. It is mind numbing.

I don't think you guys are giving nib credit - when he clarified I understood what he meant. He isn't wagering on getting into heaven or anything, he is simply saying that even if there wasn't a god he wouldn't feel as though his current non-pascal based devotion was a waste, because he feels like the morality he has derived from Islam to be good - religious or not.

Mind you, we can then delve into the less savoury aspects of Islam's morality, discuss the idea of being a cafeteria Muslim, watch the mental gymnastics unfold and then get frustrated for what I think is a much more legitimate reason.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Dude, seriously, try to understand. I do not CARE about the wager. It doesn't even factor in to any of my thinking or beliefs. I believe my God to be the true God. I do not believe I am worhisping the wrong God, and as I said before, if I am then so be it. It won't bother me as I've still lived life charitably and more respectably as a result of religion.

Please for the love of God....no more posts on this area of the topic. It is mind numbing.

You brought up the wager, apparently without realizing that you were doing so. When I pointed out that you were presenting the wager, you backpedaled.

This may get me banned, but based solely on your posts in this exchange, you are either a liar or a dunce.

 

[nib95]

I don't think you guys are giving nib credit - when he clarified I understood what he meant. He isn't wagering on getting into heaven or anything, he is simply saying that even if there wasn't a god he wouldn't feel as though his current non-pascal based devotion was a waste, because he feels like the morality he has derived from Islam to be good - religious or not.

Mind you, we can then delve into the less savoury aspects of Islam's morality, discuss the idea of being a cafeteria Muslim, watch the mental gymnastics unfold and then get frustrated for what I think is a much more legitimate reason.

Holy crap someone gets it! Lol. I'm glad someone here has appreciable reading comprehension lol. Half the time I feel like it's mainly atheists trying to tell me what I was or wasn't meant to say lol.

And yes, I agree with you on the latter lol. These things can be quite the challenge, that's putting it lightly, though as mentioned those are the more important aspects. But save for the Islam thread I think.

You brought up the wager, apparently without realizing that you were doing so. When I pointed out that you were presenting the wager, you backpedaled.

This may get me banned, but based solely on your posts in this exchange, you are either a liar or a dunce.

LOL how does that even work?! I brought up something I didn't even realise I was bringing up? Really?! No but really?.... Plot lost.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I don't think you guys are giving nib credit - when he clarified I understood what he meant. He isn't wagering on getting into heaven or anything, he is simply saying that even if there wasn't a god he wouldn't feel as though his current non-pascal based devotion was a waste, because he feels like the morality he has derived from Islam to be good - religious or not.

Mind you, we can then delve into the less savoury aspects of Islam's morality, discuss the idea of being a cafeteria Muslim, watch the mental gymnastics unfold and then get frustrated for what I think is a much more legitimate reason.

Problem is that he only entertains the happier of the two "bad" endings.

Good ending: my god is the right one. Bring on eternity!

Bad ending: no god, I wasted all my time.

Bad ending: I worshiped the wrong god and now I will be punished!

If you are aware of option 3, then you can't really take comfort in the possibility of option 2.

LOL how does that even work?! I brought up something I didn't even realise I was bringing up? Really?! No but really?.... Plot lost.

This happens all the time. People can describe something without realizing there is a word or phrase for it. Sometimes people think they are proposing something new, when it is something that has been considered by many others for many years.

Further evidence for the dunce pile.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Holy crap someone gets it! Lol. I'm glad someone here has appreciable reading comprehension lol. Half the time I feel like it's mainly atheists trying to tell me what I was or wasn't meant to say lol.

And yes, I agree with you on the latter lol. These things can be quite the challenge, that's putting it lightly, though as mentioned those are the more important aspects. But save for the Islam thread I think.




LOL how does that even work?! I brought up something I didn't even realise I was bringing up? Really?! No but really?.... Plot lost.

My apologies for being persistent. It just appears that when you say you don't believe the Pascal's Wager argument (or argument against, in this case), it reads that you don't prescribe to logic and probability, which is what the use of Pascal's Wager alludes to.
Consider it dropped (by me)

 

[Kinitari]

Stuff.

I'd think for it to be Pascal's wager, it would have to include all four 'options' - wouldn't it? This is just something else. We can call it something else like... "My religions morality is a good credo even if you're a secular humanist" argument.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Why do people bring up the Judeo-Christian morality crap? Do people think that civilization started 2,000 years ago? Our species has been around for something like 250,000-100,000 years. We've managed to not kill ourselves into oblivion for a good chunk of it, without J-C morality.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I'd think for it to be Pascal's wager, it would have to include all four 'options' - wouldn't it? This is just something else. We can call it something else like... "My religions morality is a good credo even if you're a secular humanist" argument.

Perhaps, but we also can't forget the waste of time and all the old-fashioned behavior rules and silly hats and so on.

The more you play with Pascal's Wager, it falls apart.

 

[nib95]

Problem is that he only entertains the happier of the two "bad" endings.

Good ending: my god is the right one. Bring on eternity!

Bad ending: no god, I wasted all my time.

Bad ending: I worshiped the wrong god and now I will be punished!

If you are aware of option 3, then you can't really take comfort in the possibility of option 2.

That is obviously the case. But the idea is you have faith you are following the right path and God. A lack of faith isn't really part of my personal belief. The no God thing was only really to appease the Atheists in highlighting the fact that even if there wasn't a God I'd not regret it as I feel there are great (mainly moral) virtues in living a religious life.

If I did end up following the wrong God, (which obviously I do not believe to be the case), then so be it. Said God would have to judge me based on whatever it is he judged mankind on.

This happens all the time. People can describe something without realizing there is a word or phrase for it. Sometimes people think they are proposing something new, when it is something that has been considered by many others for many years.

Further evidence for the dunce pile.

No I'd say the duncy thing is putting words in people's mouths and telling them they were thinking things they never even knew they were thinking. What utter idiocy.

 

[Kalnos]

Nib, how were you less morally grounded without religion, how has it changed you? If you need religion to be a good person then I honestly think you're a weak person (no offense intended).

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why do people bring up the Judeo-Christian morality crap? Do people think that civilization started 2,000 years ago? Our species has been around for something like 250,000-100,000 years. We've managed to not kill ourselves into oblivion for a good chunk of it, without J-C morality.

By sheer chance and sorcery. Where do you think all those people are now? Hell. Thank you very much.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Why do people bring up the Judeo-Christian morality crap? Do people think that civilization started 2,000 years ago? Our species has been around for something like 250,000-100,000 years. We've managed to not kill ourselves into oblivion for a good chunk of it, without J-C morality.

Lets not forget that chimpanzee's, godless creatures they are, also have an observable sense morality.

 

[gwarm01]

I never understood why god was so petty and insecure. I managed to get over that in my early twenties and I'm not even that mature. We get it, dude. You're great. Let me get on with my life without being struck down or thrown into flaming pits.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Lets not forget that chimpanzee's, godless creatures they are, also have an observable sense morality.

Oh, wait since we're so special we're the ONLY species with "souls" and the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Oh, wait since we're so special we're the ONLY species with "souls" and the ability to distinguish right from wrong.

I sometimes have trouble distinguishing right from left.

 

[Timedog]

I'd think for it to be Pascal's wager, it would have to include all four 'options' - wouldn't it? This is just something else. We can call it something else like... "My religions morality is a good credo even if you're a secular humanist" argument.

What does your "option 4" have to do at all with Pascal's Wager? Also, why would you need to believe in a religion's god in order to use some of it's philosophy that you find appealing?

 

[nib95]

Why do people bring up the Judeo-Christian morality crap? Do people think that civilization started 2,000 years ago? Our species has been around for something like 250,000-100,000 years. We've managed to not kill ourselves into oblivion for a good chunk of it, without J-C morality.

That doesn't change the fact that Western society is heavily influenced off of Judeo-Christian inferences of morality though. Much of the very law that exists in countries such as the US and UK is influenced as such.

Nib, how were you less morally grounded without religion, how has it changed you? If you need religion to be a good person then I honestly think you're a weak person (no offense intended).

This is a good question and point. As I was saying earlier, ordinarily people receive moral teachings through parenting, education, piers, media etc. But I honestly feel (depending on the strength of each of these elements) it's not always enough. Often you also have media and pier pressure conflicting with parenting and so forth. I kind of fell in to that trap you could say.

I always thought for me religion was like the extra incentive and guidance that I honestly feel much of the world relies on or needs today. I think religion just exemplifies certain moral constructs in a bit more detail than we're really used to these days, a constant reminder, and one that is incentivised.

Which is a crude notion, should people have to have incentives or fear to be morally inept? Not necessarily, but I certainly think it helps. In a slightly similar way that we unfortunately need laws, rules and regulations. In an ideal world we wouldn't need any, but we do. You hit someone you go to jail. Religiously speaking you've sinned. Same sort of principle. Only thing is, for much of life, how children are with parents, family etc, there are no laws. I think that's where religion can really help.

Unfortunately I just don't think we're at that stage (or ever will be) where without religion we would have as much moral inclination in our day to day lives.

I mean, you see it. As less and less people properly follow religion you get dysfunctional or less traditional family values, people being less charitable, more materialistic, more self centred, more sexually motivated etc.

Though disturbingly, I believe divorce rates are higher among Christian families than non Christian families in the US? Cannot confirm this though.

 

[Pixel Pete]

That doesn't change the fact that Western society is heavily influenced off of Judeo-Christian inferences of morality though. Much of the very law that exists in countries such as the US and UK is influenced as such.

He's not refuting that, however. It simply isn't relevant to this particular discussion.

 

[Axion22]

My favorite part so far was the being ignorant of the parallels to Pascal's wager while pleading for comprehension. Five stars. Would read again.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Nothing about morality is original or exclusive to those religious texts. If you are simply referring to the historical significance of the Judeo-Christian philosophy, then yes, of course.

 

[jaxword]

My favorite part so far was the being ignorant of the parallels to Pascal's wager while pleading for comprehension. Five stars. Would read again.

Yeah, it's a debate tactic, feigning ignorance and pretending so as to avoid owning up to dishonest claims.

 

[nib95]

My favorite part so far was the being ignorant of the parallels to Pascal's wager while pleading for comprehension. Five stars. Would read again.

I think the Atheists in here were just so eager to jump in with the theory smashing third option that they assumed the connection when there wasn't one.

I made a simple point that was essentially ignored. Just because a similar theory exists doesn't automatically mean everything sharing similarities becomes it. Parallels or not. I explained my reasoning, but apparently nobody but a single other person in here actually caught on.

Not that it even makes a shred of difference. Even using Pascal's theory it would still make sense to choose one of the religions as one is still better than none. Theory has no relevance to my thinking though.

Yeah, it's a debate tactic, feigning ignorance and pretending so as to avoid owning up to dishonest claims.

I know you're hard on my case from earlier for calling out some of the misinformation, but you're honestly trying WAY too hard to paint a bad picture. Going through your posts in this very thread, most are trying to vilify me. You need to drop the chip on your block. Have a cookie on me or something lol.

 

[jaxword]

I know you're hard on my case from earlier for calling out some of the misinformation, but you're honestly trying WAY too hard to paint a bad picture. Going through your posts in this very thread, most are trying to vilify me.

Hey, when you lie, you need to be called out on it. It doesn't matter what religion or belief system you have, hypocrisy and lies are pretty much the bane of progress. After you tried so hard to vilify Amirox, you don't really have a leg to stand on in regards to that.

 

[nib95]

Hey, when you lie, you need to be called out on it. It doesn't matter what religion or belief system you have, hypocrisy and lies are pretty much the bane of progress.

Ok, please for amusement purposes point out where I've lied. Are you doing this because I called you a liar for stating Rebecca called elevator guy a straight sexist when she didn't? Or was that someone else? I honestly can't be bothered to go back through the thread to find out.

 

[jaxword]

Ok, please for amusement purposes point out where I've lied. Are you doing this because I called you a liar for stating Rebecca called elevator guy a straight sexist when she didn't? Or was that someone else? I honestly can't be bothered to go back through the thread to find out.

Well, at least you're finally admitting you don't bother to actually get facts right.

 

[Timedog]

Not that it even makes a shred of difference. Even using Pascal's theory it would still make sense to choose one of the religions as one is still better than none.

1/infinity is for all intents and purposes, equal to zero.

Theory has no relevance to my thinking though.

Of course not.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Even using Pascal's [wager] it would still make sense to choose one of the religions as one is still better than none. Theory has no relevance to my thinking though.

The point we have been trying to make is that it DOESN'T make sense to choose just one at the cost of all others.

 

[Guardian Bob]

They are both radicals in their beliefs if you ask me.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Pascal's Wager is a crock of shit. Belief out of fear isn't true belief....wait...all of belief is based on fear of going to hell.

 

[Shogmaster]

They are both radicals in their beliefs if you ask me.

One is radically stupid and pandering while the other is radically smart and provocative.

 

[nib95]

The point we have been trying to make is that it DOESN'T make sense to choose just one at the cost of all others.

Why not? Isn't having a single chance (one religion) better than having none?

Let me put it in to laymen terms.

Pascal's theory. If God existed.

Atheist = 0 chance to get in to paradise.
A religion = 1 chance to get in to paradise (if you pick the right God).
Not picking any religion in fear of it being the wrong one = 0 chance to get in to paradise.

With Pascal's theory you still have a better chance of hitting home if you stick with one even if there are tonnes. But it's a bullshit theory anyway so I don't know why we're debating it.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Why not? Isn't having a single chance (one religion) better than having none?

Let me put it in to laymen terms.

Pascal's theory. If God existed.

Atheist = 0 chance to get in to paradise.
A religion = 1 chance to get in to paradise (if you pick the right God).
Not picking any religion in fear of it being the wrong one = 0 chance to get in to paradise.

With Pascal's theory you still have a better chance of hitting home if you stick with one even if there are tonnes. But it's a bullshit theory anyway so I don't know why we're debating it.

Everyone should play the lottery every week.

 

[Timedog]

Why not? Isn't having a single chance (one religion) better than having none?

Let me put it in to laymen terms.

Pascal's theory. If God existed.

Atheist = 0 chance to get in to paradise.
A religion = 1 chance to get in to paradise (if you pick the right God).
Not picking any religion in fear of it being the wrong one = 0 chance to get in to paradise.

With Pascal's theory you still have a better chance of hitting home if you stick with one even if there are tonnes. But it's a bullshit theory anyway so I don't know why we're debating it.

All it requires to defeat that 1 chance is the possibility of a god who lets anyone into paradise unless they believe in a false god.

Not to mention that there are an infinite number of possible gods, so your one chance is 1 out of Infinity.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Let's be clear: Pascal's Wager is not a theory in the scientific usage of the word.

 

[speculawyer]

Wow.

Pascal's wager isn't scripture. It's a claim at probability through logic, which has since been proven to be incorrect.

Yeah, Pascal's wager always seemed to be quite arrogant and racist. It basically says "the one religion I am considering is the only possible 'true' religion". (The rest of the religions were not even considered as possibly true since they are followed by those dirty lesser foreign people of other races.)

A more accurate version would be Pascal's massive roulette wheel.

 

[nib95]

All it requires to defeat that 1 chance is the possibility of a god who lets anyone into paradise unless they believe in a false god.

I understand now. Sorry for the brain seizure, but thanks for explaining it. It's 5:55am here and I'm up against an army of atheists lol.

Out of curiosity, do any of the major religions have such a ruling?

 

[Shogmaster]

Out of curiosity, do any of the major religions have such a ruling?

Shopping around for a new one?

 

[nib95]

Shopping around for a new one?

Lol. I'm never going over to the dark side nor any side. I'm content

 

[jaxword]

Everyone should play the lottery every week.

Numerically speaking, if there were less more people that believed in God, there would be less atheists, numbers-wise.

 

[Nocebo]

Lol I know it ins't scripture. What I'm telling you is it has no relevance to my personal beliefs. I follow the Qur'an and Islam.

How can you possibly follow the Qur'an when it has at least one giant glaring error? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Qur'an say that
- Jesus was not crucified
?

According to william lane craig, historical scholars have no doubt there was a crucifixion of a person named jesus.

 

[Timedog]

How can you possibly follow the Qur'an when it has at least one giant glaring error? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Qur'an say that
- Jesus was not crucified
?

According to william lane craig, historical scholars have no doubt there was a crucifixion of a person named jesus.

It is debated whether or not jesus even existed.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

How can you possibly follow the Qur'an when it has at least one giant glaring error? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Qur'an say that
- Jesus was not crucified
?

According to william lane craig, historical scholars have no doubt there was a crucifixion of a person named jesus.

The only source that I'm aware of, outside of the bible, is Josephus who does say Jesus was crucified. It's largely believed the bit on Jesus has been altered to some degree, but there isn't agreement on which parts and how much.

 

[jay]

Why not? Isn't having a single chance (one religion) better than having none?

Let me put it in to laymen terms.

Pascal's theory. If God existed.

Atheist = 0 chance to get in to paradise.
A religion = 1 chance to get in to paradise (if you pick the right God).
Not picking any religion in fear of it being the wrong one = 0 chance to get in to paradise.

With Pascal's theory you still have a better chance of hitting home if you stick with one even if there are tonnes. But it's a bullshit theory anyway so I don't know why we're debating it.

But there is the possibility a god exists who only saves those who do not believe in him. There is also the possibility of a god who only allows those who did not choose into paradise. There is also the possibility of a god who sends all who choose religions based on the premise of paradise to hell.

You are assuming that all possibilities of what god is have been exhausted when this is not the case.

How can you possibly follow the Qur'an when it has at least one giant glaring error? Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Qur'an say that
- Jesus was not crucified
?

According to william lane craig, historical scholars have no doubt there was a crucifixion of a person named jesus.

He may have died on a pike and not a cross if Dan Barker is to be believed.