Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Creaca]

Actually when in comes to tracking them down, it has to deal more with the fact that they are forced to confirm their current address to the police every 3 months, and the fact that, say, should a child disappear in the town or neighborhood of a registered sex offender, you have a pretty good place to start your case.

The Gun issue is a whole 'nother can of beans. But suffice to say they're for recreation and self defense, not vigilante justice.

[Jude]

Pascal made a pretty stupid argument in favor of beliving in god out of it : since it's presumably a source of infinite benefice, and any other choice is not (unproved by the way) you must believe in god. To refute this argument, or armok's you have to refute the premise, which is indeed wrong : I don't think either are worth more  than anything else. Nor live nor paradise.

Well, pascal's argument is dumb because you can't choose to believe God exists any more than you can choose to believe the apple you're holding is red, or neon blue, depending upon your theistic preferences. Believe is compulsory, not a voluntary act.

[Creaca]

Compulsory or not, in isn't full-proof. Believe in God or not believing in him is based on accepting or rejecting evidence surrounding the issue (Including the testimony of other people who've done the same thing). And then choosing out of the options which one best fits to you.

To use your Apple comparison, it would be like you and your friend arguing if an apples color was Firehouse Red-171 or Firehouse Red-173

[Morrigi]

Except your friend might want to punch you in the face in the Name of Firehouse Red-171.

[Duke 2.0]

Except your friend might want to punch you in the face in the Name of Firehouse Red-171.

And you judge everybody who has a Firehouse Red-171 apple as an idiot because of color choice.
 This is not an attack on you, just an observation of the analogy.

[Cheeetar]

I prefer green apples.

[Jreengus]

I prefer green apples.

Ah so in our analogy red is the abrahamic faiths whilst green would be... paganism?

[Morrigi]

I like blue apples.

[Jackrabbit]

Now you're just dicking around with us.

[Jude]

Compulsory or not, in isn't full-proof. Believe in God or not believing in him is based on accepting or rejecting evidence surrounding the issue (Including the testimony of other people who've done the same thing). And then choosing out of the options which one best fits to you.

Yeah but "which one best fits you" is not something you choose, in the way that you choose if you're going to buy a Hershey bar or a can of Coke. Your perceptions are not something you can manipulate at will. Whether you accept or reject evidence is determined by how the evidence seems true or not to you, and that is not something you can voluntarily choose to have happen one way or the other.

To use your Apple comparison, it would be like you and your friend arguing if an apples color was Firehouse Red-171 or Firehouse Red-173

No, you're completely missing the point.

[smigenboger]

You could also argue emperical perspective. A man with green-tinted sunglasses may have all the red filtered out of his sight, therefore seeing a black apple where most would see a red one

(Don't get technical with complementary colors, it's an example)

[Morrigi]

Now you're just dicking around with us.

I got bored. I will stop derailing the thread and go to bed now.

[MrWiggles]

The actual weakness to pascal argument, is that it ignores every other religion currently in use and every religion ever to exist. Not that belief is compulsory, which I disagree. I think its a learned behavior. Most peeples just have a shallow belief, they never really thought about and don't really use.

Then beyond that weakness, there are other weakness, such assertion a god would want to placated belief, over  sincere belief, and would prefer someone of any morality to believe then someone of moral fiber.

As in, for a god (and read as any god. Pick your poison, there tons of them.) Would prefer a believer who is an ass verse a none believer who isn't an ass.

[Hungry]

How strange...

Spoiler: Hungry's univeral beliefs (click to show/hide)

EVER THING IS WRONG. Your views, their views, our view, my view...your beliefs, their beliefs, our beliefs, my beliefs... everthing everywhere always is all wrong, even this.
THINGS ARE JUST DIFFERENT. Man and women will never get over that there is difference, even with love.
WE ARE BUT STRANDS OF LIGHT. Everything we are and know comes from light, interacts with it, and like light moves though the unending dark.
NOTHING IS WORSE. No act of nature is worse then what humans can do.

[Cyx]

Yeah but "which one best fits you" is not something you choose, in the way that you choose if you're going to buy a Hershey bar or a can of Coke. Your perceptions are not something you can manipulate at will. Whether you accept or reject evidence is determined by how the evidence seems true or not to you, and that is not something you can voluntarily choose to have happen one way or the other.

It's actually an interesting problem. I would argue that people know that God exists the way they can hear, see and feel things when they dream ; we could think that feeling the presence of God makes us believers and that we have no choice, but maybe it's only because very few people can realize that this doesn't point to anything real and tell themselves that the warm feeling is a lie. Maybe the belief in God is a few tendencies that the church twists into what becomes, on a conscious level, faith. If this is true, one could very well be inclined to think that the universe has a purpose, to see patterns where there is none and all the left brain fuss, in fact "feel God in his heart" like a true Christian, without consciously considering that God exists ; the reverse can certainly happen. I'd like to meet a guy like this, but I never have. I'm not even sure it's possible, which is why it's interesting.

And if you can't control what you consciously see as true, then you can't control anything at all, and you're hitting the Pascal's wager fly with the total determinism tactical nuke. Observing that we don't know for sure whether God punishes or rewards atheism is far simpler.

Well, anyway.  I think we're largely in agreement and mostly arguing semantics at this point, anyway.

Yep.