The evolution of religious beliefs:

[☭proletarian☭]

I actually find this board interesting, even with your posts on it. I do try to keep an open mind, and A good argument is still a good argument. Even if it is one person taking both sides against themselves.

did you just call a False Dichotomy a good argument?

Did I?

Weren't we just discussing Pascal's False Dichotomy?

 

[SFC Ollie]

did you just call a False Dichotomy a good argument?

Did I?

Weren't we just discussing Pascal's False Dichotomy?

And it is interesting to many people, that you don't find it so I suppose is because you are you and I am I. I'm certain we disagree on many topics.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Did I?

Weren't we just discussing Pascal's False Dichotomy?

And it is interesting to many people, that you don't find it so I suppose is because you are you and I am I. I'm certain we disagree on many topics.

So you did just call a false dichotomy a good argument? Are you fucking serious?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Weren't we just discussing Pascal's False Dichotomy?

And it is interesting to many people, that you don't find it so I suppose is because you are you and I am I. I'm certain we disagree on many topics.

So you did just call a false dichotomy a good argument? Are you fucking serious?

I found it interesting years ago and still do. So what is your problem with that?

 

[Si modo]

Weren't we just discussing Pascal's False Dichotomy?

And it is interesting to many people, that you don't find it so I suppose is because you are you and I am I. I'm certain we disagree on many topics.

So you did just call a false dichotomy a good argument? Are you fucking serious?

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature. See, there is a bit more to Pascal's wager, to the curious that is.

 

[Kalam]

And it is interesting to many people, that you don't find it so I suppose is because you are you and I am I. I'm certain we disagree on many topics.

So you did just call a false dichotomy a good argument? Are you fucking serious?

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature. See, there is a bit more to Pascal's wager, to the curious that is.

This dichotomy is false. The suggestion that one should be a sanctimonious Christian rather than an open atheist fails to take an almost unlimited number of other options into account. From Pascal's perspective, whose to say that the "true god" isn't Ra or Thor? (astaghfir Allah )

Pascal makes his choice as if it grants him a 50/50 chance between eternal life and eternal nothingness. In reality, if we follow Pascal's line of thinking, the chance of us burning in the hell of one of the millions of other religions we reject is essentially 100%.

 

[Si modo]

So you did just call a false dichotomy a good argument? Are you fucking serious?

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature. See, there is a bit more to Pascal's wager, to the curious that is.

This dichotomy is false. The suggestion that one should be a sanctimonious Christian rather than an open atheist fails to take an almost unlimited number of other options into account. From Pascal's perspective, whose to say that the "true god" isn't Ra or Thor? (astaghfir Allah )

Pascal makes his choice as if it grants him a 50/50 chance between eternal life and eternal nothingness. In reality, if we follow Pascal's line of thinking, the chance of us burning in the hell of one of the millions of other religions we reject is essentially 100%.

Pascal's wager is about belief in God with no specification of religion, except as example.

There is much to the wager, not just about beliefs and atheism. It is an interesting work.

 

[Kalam]

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature. See, there is a bit more to Pascal's wager, to the curious that is.

This dichotomy is false. The suggestion that one should be a sanctimonious Christian rather than an open atheist fails to take an almost unlimited number of other options into account. From Pascal's perspective, whose to say that the "true god" isn't Ra or Thor? (astaghfir Allah )

Pascal makes his choice as if it grants him a 50/50 chance between eternal life and eternal nothingness. In reality, if we follow Pascal's line of thinking, the chance of us burning in the hell of one of the millions of other religions we reject is essentially 100%.

Pascal's wager is about belief in God with no specification of religion, except as example.

Which, according to most religious interpretations, will land you straight in hell. Belief in a deity and nothing more will not help your chances (from Pascal's perspective.)

 

[Si modo]

This dichotomy is false. The suggestion that one should be a sanctimonious Christian rather than an open atheist fails to take an almost unlimited number of other options into account. From Pascal's perspective, whose to say that the "true god" isn't Ra or Thor? (astaghfir Allah )

Pascal makes his choice as if it grants him a 50/50 chance between eternal life and eternal nothingness. In reality, if we follow Pascal's line of thinking, the chance of us burning in the hell of one of the millions of other religions we reject is essentially 100%.

Pascal's wager is about belief in God with no specification of religion, except as example.

Which, according to most religious interpretations, will land you straight in hell. Belief in a deity and nothing more will not help your chances (from Pascal's perspective.)

Don't assume I am arguing in favor of Pascal's conclusion. I am simply arguing the interest of it and the interest of the arguments for it and against it. Those who dismiss it as stupid are missing out on the challenge of all arguments for and against it. They are also missing out on a bit more of the depth of it.

 

[Kalam]

Pascal's wager is about belief in God with no specification of religion, except as example.

Which, according to most religious interpretations, will land you straight in hell. Belief in a deity and nothing more will not help your chances (from Pascal's perspective.)

Don't assume I am arguing in favor of Pascal's conclusion. I am simply arguing the interest of it and the interest of the arguments for it and against it. Those who dismiss it as stupid are missing out on the challenge of all arguments for and against it. They are also missing out on a bit more of the depth of it.

Fair enough. Pascal was an intelligent man, but I don't believe that he was an especially gifted philosopher. He would have been better off sticking to the hard sciences.

 

[Si modo]

Which, according to most religious interpretations, will land you straight in hell. Belief in a deity and nothing more will not help your chances (from Pascal's perspective.)

Don't assume I am arguing in favor of Pascal's conclusion. I am simply arguing the interest of it and the interest of the arguments for it and against it. Those who dismiss it as stupid are missing out on the challenge of all arguments for and against it. They are also missing out on a bit more of the depth of it.

Fair enough. Pascal was an intelligent man, but I don't believe that he was an especially gifted philosopher. He would have been better off sticking to the hard sciences.

Yes, he was a gifted mathematician. But his contribution to philosophy is nothing to dismiss glibly (not that you have), IMO.

 

[bodecea]

Funny how you dont bother to ask whether there actually is a God in this analysis. that seems completely irrelevant to your viewpoint here.

God irrelevant. Very true. It's all about control and coming up for reasons for things you can't currently explain.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature.

Wrong. To say all ae necessarily not false is just moronic. PW is a prime example of a false dichotomy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

]Pascal's wager[/URL] is about belief in God with no specification of religion

Wrong. It assumes a monotheistic religion, for one. for two, it assumes a single correct religion (as opposed to the possibility that many gods worshiped by different sects exist. As son as you introduce other possibilities, Pascal's Wager demands agnostic atheism, as one can only assume any god would be more offended by belief in the wrong god than by simply saying you have no way to know any religion is anywhere close to right.

 

[Si modo]

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature.

Wrong. To say all ae necessarily not false is just moronic. PW is a prime example of a false dichotomy.

All dichotomies are not false, especially digital ones. It's not a difficult concept, for most, that is.

 

[Si modo]

]Pascal's wager[/URL] is about belief in God with no specification of religion

Wrong. It assumes a monotheistic religion, for one. for two, it assumes a single correct religion (as opposed to the possibility that many gods worshiped by different sects exist. As son as you introduce other possibilities, Pascal's Wager demands agnostic atheism, as one can only assume any god would be more offended by belief in the wrong god than by simply saying you have no way to know any religion is anywhere close to right.

If one believes in a god, that is a subset of belief in gods. Oops.

But, no matter. It's all 'stupid' to you and I now understand why.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

All dichotomies are not false, especially those digital in nature.

Wrong. To say all ae necessarily not false is just moronic. PW is a prime example of a false dichotomy.

All dichotomies are not false, especially digital ones. It's not a difficult concept, for most, that is.

all dichotomies = not false

The above is incorrect and remains so no matter how many times you repeat it.

PW is a prime example of a dichotomy that is false.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

]If one believes in a god, that is a subset of belief in gods. Oops.

It is a subset of belief in the supernatural. To say belief in one god is a subset of belief in multiple gods is both false and moronic. You need to think before you say things.