Formal Debate

[AustinMiles89]

Don't be surprised when people return the same kind of respect you've given.

well i actually wasnt insulting athiests, you were being rather sensitive.
the inference was that anyone who actually abides by The Bible would live much like Mother Teresa had. it wasnt a stab at atheists, it was actually a jab at the modern christian church.

 

[Delphiki]

well i actually wasnt insulting athiests, you were being rather sensitive.
the inference was that anyone who actually abides by The Bible would live much like Mother Teresa had. it wasnt a stab at atheists, it was actually a jab at the modern christian church.

I wasn't sensitive.. In fact, it was the opposite. I said I should take it as an insult, but chalked it up to ignorance instead.

And I'd rather not live like Mother Teresa, thank you. That's an open jab at Mother Teresa, by the way. Had she been treated at any of her own hospitals she allegedly raised money for, she would have died a lot younger.

 

[Delphiki]

Let me break Pascal's wager down for you. There are four "possible" situations:

- One believes there is a God and is correct
- One does not believe there is a God and is incorrect
- One believes there is a God and is incorrect
- One does not believe there is a God and is correct

These four situations are put up against the potentiality of there being a heaven and hell, versus nothing at all


- One believes there is a God and is correct (so you go to heaven!)
Which God? Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, Zeus, Gaia, Khaless? And if you believe in the God of the bible, which denomination are you? Is man saved by faith alone, or faith and good works? Is plunging or splashing the right way to baptize? Is baptism necessary? Regardless which of these you choose, and whether you're right or wrong, that leaves billions of people in the world who believe there is a god of some kind, yet are still subject to punishment. Pascal's wager loses it's 1:4 odds in favor of something more akin to playing a lousy lottery scratch off, but with dire consequences. And suppose the non-believer decides to believe just to be correct (if belief were even a choice at all anyway)? ... You think God would be too stupid to know the atheist is feigning belief? Or believing just for their own benefit (avoiding hell)?

- One does not believe there is a God and is incorrect (so you go to hell!)
If I am wrong, and the God you worship and pray to does exist, then that's fine by me. For one, I've read the bible and can say with confidence that if the deity character therein were anything but actually revered as being extant by religious followers, it would be a horrendous villain. Demanding the foreskins of armies, the rape and subordination of women and children, the most massive murder in all of history (great flood), and rampant racism and hatred. Mortals are ordered to bludgeon others to death for simply doubting his existence. In short, screw that guy.
Suppose I am wrong, and it's not the God you worship, but another one (which makes you wrong as well)... Not many other gods imagined by other religions are as narcissistic enough to really care whether you acknowledge it's existence.

- One believes there is a God and is incorrect (still going to hell)
As we both know, this is the boat I think you're in. We both may very well give to charity or selflessly help others, but the one thing I don't have is a deity to impress. When I do good (and I do, despite what you think), I do it because it helps others. There is satisfaction to be had just simply by helping other people. Many Christians, on the other hand, do it because they have to. Many Christians also tithe away a chuck of what they earn for themselves to support tax-free empires that may or may not share the same ethics as they do. If you believe in God, you also probably believe in sin... victimless crimes that basically hurt no one and are nothing more than a means to prohibit one from being human or thinking for themselves. Sin is the invented sickness from which religion will turn around and sell you the cure... and then you die.

- One does not believe there is a God and is correct (nothing happens when you die)
I'm every bit as happy as you claim to be. I love my family and friends. I help others. I learn from my mistakes. I regret my wrongdoings. I laugh, I cry, I smile, I anger... I do all the things you do without the belief in a deity. What's more, when I'm confronted with a great mystery of the universe, I don't invent an answer (must be God!). I admit I don't know, then endeavor to find the truth. I have no deity to get in the way of my thinking. I am able to change my mind on anything with provided evidence, while the best of believers will tell you that there is no possible way their minds could change. When I die, it will be no different than before I was born, and naturally, it's difficult for the human minds to imagine non-existence.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Let me break Pascal's wager down for you. There are four "possible" situations:

- One believes there is a God and is correct
- One does not believe there is a God and is incorrect
- One believes there is a God and is incorrect
- One does not believe there is a God and is correct

These four situations are put up against the potentiality of there being a heaven and hell, versus nothing at all


- One believes there is a God and is correct (so you go to heaven!)
Which God? Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, Zeus, Gaia, Khaless? And if you believe in the God of the bible, which denomination are you? Is man saved by faith alone, or faith and good works? Is plunging or splashing the right way to baptize? Is baptism necessary? Regardless which of these you choose, and whether you're right or wrong, that leaves billions of people in the world who believe there is a god of some kind, yet are still subject to punishment. Pascal's wager loses it's 1:4 odds in favor of something more akin to playing a lousy lottery scratch off, but with dire consequences. And suppose the non-believer decides to believe just to be correct (if belief were even a choice at all anyway)? ... You think God would be too stupid to know the atheist is feigning belief? Or believing just for their own benefit (avoiding hell)?

- One does not believe there is a God and is incorrect (so you go to hell!)
If I am wrong, and the God you worship and pray to does exist, then that's fine by me. For one, I've read the bible and can say with confidence that if the deity character therein were anything but actually revered as being extant by religious followers, it would be a horrendous villain. Demanding the foreskins of armies, the rape and subordination of women and children, the most massive murder in all of history (great flood), and rampant racism and hatred. Mortals are ordered to bludgeon others to death for simply doubting his existence. In short, screw that guy.
Suppose I am wrong, and it's not the God you worship, but another one (which makes you wrong as well)... Not many other gods imagined by other religions are as narcissistic enough to really care whether you acknowledge it's existence.

- One believes there is a God and is incorrect (still going to hell)
As we both know, this is the boat I think you're in. We both may very well give to charity or selflessly help others, but the one thing I don't have is a deity to impress. When I do good (and I do, despite what you think), I do it because it helps others. There is satisfaction to be had just simply by helping other people. Many Christians, on the other hand, do it because they have to. Many Christians also tithe away a chuck of what they earn for themselves to support tax-free empires that may or may not share the same ethics as they do. If you believe in God, you also probably believe in sin... victimless crimes that basically hurt no one and are nothing more than a means to prohibit one from being human or thinking for themselves. Sin is the invented sickness from which religion will turn around and sell you the cure... and then you die.

- One does not believe there is a God and is correct (nothing happens when you die)
I'm every bit as happy as you claim to be. I love my family and friends. I help others. I learn from my mistakes. I regret my wrongdoings. I laugh, I cry, I smile, I anger... I do all the things you do without the belief in a deity. What's more, when I'm confronted with a great mystery of the universe, I don't invent an answer (must be God!). I admit I don't know, then endeavor to find the truth. I have no deity to get in the way of my thinking. I am able to change my mind on anything with provided evidence, while the best of believers will tell you that there is no possible way their minds could change. When I die, it will be no different than before I was born, and naturally, it's difficult for the human minds to imagine non-existence.

so accounting for various religions and disregarding their common origins you choose to berate a one in ten or twelve chance at eternal bliss, for a fifty fifty at eternal nothingness or eternal damnation?

i still prefer my odds.

 

[justlookinla]

Life, after all, is a complex collection of chemical reactions, some of which can be recreated in a lab by simulating the conditions of early earth.

Define complex!!

 

[Delphiki]

so accounting for various religions and disregarding their common origins you choose to berate a one in ten or twelve chance at eternal bliss, for a fifty fifty at eternal nothingness or eternal damnation?

i still prefer my odds.

Your odds are worse than you think. Out of over 30,000 other denominations of Christianity that you don't belong to, how many do you guess would say that you're not yet saved? Considering Christianity is the right choice at all. Hey, if the Muslims are right, at least you'll only be one level below the bad Muslims in hell (atheists are four levels deeper). Let's not even start on the complicated nature of the ancient Greco-Roman underworld. Or what about being reincarnated as a tortured animal or dung beetle?

The problem with Pascals wager is that the odds aren't a simple 1:4. Your odds suck.

...And let's not forget the fact that you're essentially admitting you choose to believe in attempt to beat the odds... Is that the right reason to believe?

 

[Delphiki]

Define complex!!

In this particular context, I'm talking about a diverse multitude, rather than one or a few. Nice try, though.

 

[AustinMiles89]

Your odds are worse than you think. Out of over 30,000 other denominations of Christianity that you don't belong to, how many do you guess would say that you're not yet saved? Considering Christianity is the right choice at all. Hey, if the Muslims are right, at least you'll only be one level below the bad Muslims in hell (atheists are four levels deeper). Let's not even start on the complicated nature of the ancient Greco-Roman underworld. Or what about being reincarnated as a tortured animal or dung beetle?

The problem with Pascals wager is that the odds aren't a simple 1:4. Your odds suck.

...And let's not forget the fact that you're essentially admitting you choose to believe in attempt to beat the odds... Is that the right reason to believe?

there are two counterpoints which bear consideration.

one,
my odds within this win loss model may seem less than wonderful, but they still beat out choosing none and guaranteeing no return.
in fact my odds are far better if you really delve into the math on this and create a model to account for which religions are most widely accepted, which have had the most drastic changes on civilization, which have endured the longest, which have the most tenable doctrine to explain life, etc etc. if you really want to complicate it to make the odds worse, it could easily be taken a step further to resolve it back down in a game of probability.

two, i still have lost nothing even if i am wrong.

 

[Delphiki]

there are two counterpoints which bear consideration.

one,
my odds within this win loss model may seem less than wonderful, but they still beat out choosing none and guaranteeing no return.
in fact my odds are far better if you really delve into the math on this and create a model to account for which religions are most widely accepted, which have had the most drastic changes on civilization, which have endured the longest, which have the most tenable doctrine to explain life, etc etc. if you really want to complicate it to make the odds worse, it could easily be taken a step further to resolve it back down in a game of probability.

two, i still have lost nothing even if i am wrong.

Then you didn't read my post on the breakdown of Pascal's wager. Additionally, what's so horrible about "no return"? Were things so bad for you before you were born?

 

[Oafman]

there are two counterpoints which bear consideration.

one,
my odds within this win loss model may seem less than wonderful, but they still beat out choosing none and guaranteeing no return.
in fact my odds are far better if you really delve into the math on this and create a model to account for which religions are most widely accepted, which have had the most drastic changes on civilization, which have endured the longest, which have the most tenable doctrine to explain life, etc etc. if you really want to complicate it to make the odds worse, it could easily be taken a step further to resolve it back down in a game of probability.

two, i still have lost nothing even if i am wrong.

What if Allah is the true god, and even worse, what if he really hates it when people worship false idols?

So he's grumpy with atheists for not singing enough songs about him, but he's even grumpier at Christians for worshipping false idols, and saves a special kind of eternal suffering for such people?

So, us atheists don't fare very well. But Christians suffer the worst of eternal damnation? You'd be better off being an atheist.

See how Pascal's wager is nonsense? We have no idea which religion has it right, and in fact no idea whether or not any of them do. Perhaps it's better not to commit?

 

[bhsmte]

there are two counterpoints which bear consideration.

one,
my odds within this win loss model may seem less than wonderful, but they still beat out choosing none and guaranteeing no return.
in fact my odds are far better if you really delve into the math on this and create a model to account for which religions are most widely accepted, which have had the most drastic changes on civilization, which have endured the longest, which have the most tenable doctrine to explain life, etc etc. if you really want to complicate it to make the odds worse, it could easily be taken a step further to resolve it back down in a game of probability.

two, i still have lost nothing even if i am wrong.

Do you then chose to believe in a God, just in case it is true?

 

[AustinMiles89]

Then you didn't read my post on the breakdown of Pascal's wager. Additionally, what's so horrible about "no return"? Were things so bad for you before you were born?

if all your existence begins and ends with just this one lifetime, what does that mean? it means your pointless. you exist only to serve your own desire. even if they seem selfless, you fulfill only that which seems right in your own perceptions. which are infinitesimally small and meaningless then to mankind and the universe.
to believe that is to be the walking dead. a useless neophyte that can only hope to enjoy itself for a brief moment then perish.

and all because you based your beliefs on bad science?

David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution. - YouTube

 

[Split Rock]

so accounting for various religions and disregarding their common origins you choose to berate a one in ten or twelve chance at eternal bliss, for a fifty fifty at eternal nothingness or eternal damnation?

i still prefer my odds.

What if your god is instead going to send you to hell, if you are a Christian? Just as a joke, or because he likes torturing people who believe in him? Or maybe he wants to torture people who believe in the wrong god? What are the odds?

 

[bhsmte]

if all your existence begins and ends with just this one lifetime, what does that mean? it means your pointless. you exist only to serve your own desire. even if they seem selfless, you fulfill only that which seems right in your own perceptions. which are infinitesimally small and meaningless then to mankind and the universe.
to believe that is to be the walking dead. a useless neophyte that can only hope to enjoy itself for a brief moment then perish.

and all because you based your beliefs on bad science?

David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution. - YouTube

What bad science?

 

[AustinMiles89]

What if your god is instead going to send you to hell, if you are a Christian? Just as a joke, or because he likes torturing people who believe in him? Or maybe he wants to torture people who believe in the wrong god? What are the odds?

to calculate those odds you would have to take into account what is known or at least recorded and believed of the character of God, and weigh that against the probability of their consistency or inconsistency of character.

such a model would need the help of an information analyst. thus i proffer one to illuminate the integrity of the account of God we call the Bible.


THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE Part 1 of 2 - Chuck Missler - YouTube

 

[Oafman]

if all your existence begins and ends with just this one lifetime, what does that mean? it means your pointless.

It means that the cosmos does not care how significant I would like to be.

Do you recognise that there is a particular kind of self-absorption in the idea that you are so special. Above all the other species on Earth, and above any species elsewhere in the universe we are yet to discover, the whole thing was built for you?

Amongst the millions of imploding stars, and countless galaxies further than we will ever see, the whole thing exists for one species*, on one planet, in one star system? (* only those members of the species who believe something very specific, and not for those who believe something ever-so-slightly different).

The whole universe, created for us? 14 billion years before we came into existence? By which time 99% of Earth's species had already become extinct? What was the point of all those species, if not to interact with (by which I mean, be killed and eaten by) the one chosen species?

And even after we came along, 200,000 years of suffering; famine, pestilence, fear, before God even decided to make us aware that we are so special?

None of it adds up does it? So please don't play the insignificant card as a reason for deism, because everything we can see points to our cosmological insignificance. We might as well just deal with it.

 

[Split Rock]

to calculate those odds you would have to take into account what is known or at least recorded and believed of the character of God, and weigh that against the probability of their consistency or inconsistency of character.

such a model would need the help of an information analyst. thus i proffer one to illuminate the integrity of the account of God we call the Bible.


THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND ACCURATE Part 1 of 2 - Chuck Missler - YouTube

You mean this god?


Hosea 13:16 - Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

1 Samuel 15:3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

 

[Naturalism]

renowned mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and philosopher, Blaise Pascal. my quip is commonly known as Pascals Wager.

Much to learn, you still have.

Betting on infinity - YouTube

scientists have used the means available to them to prove their personal convictions for as long as science has been acknowledged. the idea that what we are taught today is inerrant, is just as tragic as the Catholic Church banning science in the dark ages.

Fail. Growth in Science knowledge is not predicated on inerrancy but rather knowing the limits of human comprehension and our fallibility. This is why you don't hear about scientists asserting their models or theories are not beyond question in parts and they allow for them to be questioned.

 

[Naturalism]

there are two counterpoints which bear consideration.

Like Delphiki I cannot really believe anyone would really use Pascal's Wager as a point of why belief is prefered over non-belief.

one, my odds within this win loss model may seem less than wonderful, but they still beat out choosing none and guaranteeing no return

A few points. The certainty for any supposed afterlife and any number of possibilities for hells that await are not anywhere near the certainty of the knowledge in the life you have now.

By giving up this life, the only one you know with any real certainty, and all the things that you could be doing were it not for religious beliefs, you're in that aspect giving up quite a lot.

in fact my odds are far better if you really delve into the math on this and create a model to account for which religions are most widely accepted, which have had the most drastic changes on civilization, which have endured the longest, which have the most tenable doctrine to explain life, etc etc. if you really want to complicate it to make the odds worse, it could easily be taken a step further to resolve it back down in a game of probability.

Sure, count up all the religions in all of history. How each are fairly mutually exclusive & how many have sects of their own. The consequence of reviewing this is that the numbers of religions for which you could be wrong is to the point where it's like betting on very poor odds. And this is only if you're considering religious possibilities and not any other. When a person reflects on all the possibilities, that's when the numbers, regrettably for you, take a serious turn for the worse.

two, i still have lost nothing even if i am wrong.

Not true. Depending on the religion and the commitments & obligations of that religion there is a lot you would need to give up.

Delphiki mentioned tithing, so expect to give up some money. Being unable to think freely is another area (commandments about what you can't think and commandments about what you must think), in addition to that actions. All one really needs to do is review the history of religions and how many commitments they have had for its adherents for anyone to put some weight onto the "things lost" column for the sake belief.

"The only winning move is not to play."

 

[Naturalism]

if all your existence begins and ends with just this one lifetime, what does that mean? it means your pointless.

No. It most certainly does not. A finite life, & knowing that life is finite, is meaningful and enlightening as it reminds us that we only have a relatively short time here on earth. A short time to help others, to share with friends, family, to help create a better world for friends, family, and the world at large. To leave it better than when you started. To make an impact, to build a legacy that will be remembered, written about, and regarded with respect, admiration and a deep level of respect for the love you had for your time and place on this "pale blue dot."

you exist only to serve your own desire.

I imagine this is drastically different to a believer who only believes for their own sake, to save their keester, who only does good & helps others as they are commanded to do so and not because they can see the shared community and shared obligation they have as a sentient being?

I am sorry, but if you need to be ordered to help others or out of guilt or out of fear of a supernatural dictator than you lack any human compassion and morality and are simply doing those things to help yourself.

and all because you based your beliefs on bad science?

Summarize please. You're not connecting pascals wager to this or how a belief in science is bad or in what way it's bad science.