Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zippy2006" data-source="post: 74226537" data-attributes="member: 342410"><p>Premises that have been justified and accepted by both dialogue parties do not require further justification within the dialogue. This is common sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When speaking with another person do you spend a great deal of time justifying premises that you both already agree upon? Do you enjoy those echo chambers? If not the application of your rule is very selective.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How so?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Like any argument, Pascal relies on the better-known premise of the possibility of eternal damnation and makes inferences that conclude with belief.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Easy because they disagree with you? That's shoddy reasoning.</p><p></p><p>If you continue to beg the question with such abandon I will quit you as Silmarien has. I remember you as a much more careful thinker. Continually parroting the words "dubious emotional appeal" without any accompanying rational justification will not get you very far with me. It's just a bit of silly bullying or a non-rational attempt at conditioning.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zippy2006, post: 74226537, member: 342410"] Premises that have been justified and accepted by both dialogue parties do not require further justification within the dialogue. This is common sense. When speaking with another person do you spend a great deal of time justifying premises that you both already agree upon? Do you enjoy those echo chambers? If not the application of your rule is very selective. How so? Like any argument, Pascal relies on the better-known premise of the possibility of eternal damnation and makes inferences that conclude with belief. Easy because they disagree with you? That's shoddy reasoning. If you continue to beg the question with such abandon I will quit you as Silmarien has. I remember you as a much more careful thinker. Continually parroting the words "dubious emotional appeal" without any accompanying rational justification will not get you very far with me. It's just a bit of silly bullying or a non-rational attempt at conditioning. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
Top
Bottom