|
my point of view to "Pascal's wager"
|
 (June 22, 2010 at 3:05 am)mo3taz3nbar Wrote: lol thats if you are choosing by luck or chance which will be really stupid.think about reading and comparing between different religions and scriptures Ok let me stop you right here... Can you please explain how the content of a book has anything what-so-ever to do with the likelihood of the god described in that book existing?
.
 (June 22, 2010 at 6:23 pm)theVOID Wrote:(June 22, 2010 at 3:05 am)mo3taz3nbar Wrote: lol thats if you are choosing by luck or chance which will be really stupid.think about reading and comparing between different religions and scriptures I thought hat's what he's been trying to do,with spectacular lack of success. The fool insists on ignoring a salient fact: Here he may not use his sacred book as evidence if he wants credibilty. He has made it clear his tactic is built on ignorance and lack of empathy. There is neither the abiility nor the desire to reason based on independent thought. His whole approach seems to be to parrot the drivel learnt at some madrassa. The result is to preach his peculiar form of tribalism. Not his fault, it's all he knows. He is typical of an especially close minded and dogmatic type of Muslim. I avoid such people at all costs in real life because they scare the shit out tof me. Hopefully,if we ignore him he will eventually leave. 
Getting the right religion and right god is a crap shoot within itself. The problem with religions is that they are bi-products of predecessors. Every religion that exists today has cannibalized some other religion, that's how religions work. Group A takes what they like from group B and makes their own group C. Christianity and Islam adopted a lot of their fables and figures from existing religions to make the conversion process easier. Most of these earlier forms were transitional so converting the locals was just as efficient as eradicating them, not to say that religious purging didn't happen, because it certainly did.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon  (June 24, 2010 at 12:45 pm)SleepingDemon Wrote: Getting the right religion and right god is a crap shoot within itself. The problem with religions is that they are bi-products of predecessors. Every religion that exists today has cannibalized some other religion, that's how religions work. Group A takes what they like from group B and makes their own group C. Christianity and Islam adopted a lot of their fables and figures from existing religions to make the conversion process easier. Most of these earlier forms were transitional so converting the locals was just as efficient as eradicating them, not to say that religious purging didn't happen, because it certainly did. Do you understand that science works this way too? When I was a theist the fact that religions borrowed from each other was simply proof that the god concept was being perfected. Some religious people have a very loose god concept and choose a religion based on the people in the church; they don't feel they have the "right" god so much as they have a servicable god concept that works for them. Tacky and fr0d0 seem to be those types of theists to me (correct me if I'm wrong). God can be seen as a concept that is ever studied, never fully understood. Science is similar but deals only with the natural world; the only one that is real in my opinion. Nature is ever studied, never fully understood. Praise Atheos and the IPU(BBHH), Rhizo
Right, but science builds upon the previous knowledge in pursuit of truth. Scientists never stop and say, well, we know everything there is to know about X so let's stop. Theism however cherry picks the idealisms from the previous theology and makes it their own. It's like if you get a recipe for stew, throw in a few ingredients, and call it your own. It's still stew.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon 
How's this for a wager:
What if there's a God who only rewards those who aren't gullible enough to believe the claims told by religion? What if there's a God who only allows non-believers to go to Heaven?
My blog: The Usual Rhetoric
 (June 24, 2010 at 2:41 pm)tavarish Wrote: How's this for a wager: Wouldn't that be sweet? Imagine all these believers being turned away and scolded, "You morons! How could you believe such crap as a global flood and a man rising up from the dead? You don't deserve to spend eternity in paradise! Get outta here!"
Science flies us to the moon and stars. Religion flies us into buildings.
God allowed 200,000 people to die in an earthquake. So what makes you think he cares about YOUR problems?  (June 24, 2010 at 3:40 pm)Thor Wrote:(June 24, 2010 at 2:41 pm)tavarish Wrote: How's this for a wager: You are not the first ![[Image: 2005-11-29-secular_heaven.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=dresdencodak.com%2Fcomics%2F2005-11-29-secular_heaven.jpg)
Because just one answer doesn't do the fractal stupidity of the argument justice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ryr2dlSDeM8
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too." ... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept "(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question" ... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist 
Even if you did believe in God as a fail safe, wouldn't God, being omniscient, know that your belief wasn't true, and send you to hell anyway (which is contradictory, because God is supposed to be all-forgiving)?
Eeyore Wrote:Thanks for noticing. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
