|
|
Posted by Steve on 09/20/07 06:30
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:O7adnXeaxIalPmzbnZ2dnUVZ_uOmnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve wrote:
>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:cuadnVL5QPJvyW3bnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:296dnbsuHfXCnW3bnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:nNqdnZZZKfElX3LbnZ2dnUVZ_h6vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:JoWdneE7j9ChsHLbnZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, I'd much rather have a God-fearing President than an atheist.
>>>>>>>> jerry, i've been quiet thus far. what is wrong with an atheist or
>>>>>>>> atheism itself. you and i are involved in a scientific field. i
>>>>>>>> have to ask, what scientific evidence do you have that god exists.
>>>>>>>> and, with whatever 'evidence' you may provide, what kind of
>>>>>>>> relationship does it indicate that she may want to have with us? as
>>>>>>>> there is no objective evidence, i can only infer that if a god
>>>>>>>> exists, she wants nothing to do with us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't need scientific evidence. My faith is good enough for me.
>>>>>>> And I feel sorry for you.
>>>>>> oh my!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i can see the romanticism in the idea of the things hoped for. that
>>>>>> is the nature of humanity. however, to afix that to a god-figure and
>>>>>> create a regiment of though/belief about that concept - one that
>>>>>> rules your life and had such a huge and not always pleasant mark on
>>>>>> the history of others lives - without proof or indications that say
>>>>>> you seem to be correct...that is just scary!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> why is it that most rational people who go through their lives
>>>>>> applying critical thinking to all aspects of their lives, negate or
>>>>>> forbid themselves from doing the same with this one, special case -
>>>>>> god? that is wholly beyond me!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you go ahead and feel sorry for me. i hope you are serving the
>>>>>> 'right' one, cuz all of the major religions now are quite exclusive
>>>>>> in membership with eternal damnation for not joining. (he pauses to
>>>>>> think...i wonder if jerry is going to come back with the good ol'
>>>>>> pascal wager at this point...then chuckles to self)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Whatever. It's my belief. However, you can be assured if there is a
>>>>> God, you will be in the wrong. At least I have a chance of practicing
>>>>> the "correct" religion.
>>>> I KNEW IT...I CALLED IT...I TOLD YOU IT WAS COMING!!!
>>>>
>>>> PASCAL'S WAGER !!!
>>>>
>>>> and no, we have exactly the SAME changes of being right. you really
>>>> should research theology more before committing one of the most basic,
>>>> stupid, and flawed logical arguments passed throughout history. (as
>>>> jerry now beings to google, red in the face from embarrassment once he
>>>> sees what the fuck he just did).
>>>>
>>> Not at all. If there is no god, my religion is neither helping or
>>> hurting me. However, if there is a god, you have no chance of being
>>> right because you never entered the lottery. OTOH, I could have picked
>>> the "correct" religion.
>>
>> perhaps you didn't google the wager. the logic is explained quite clearly
>> and how the odds are equal for all players, those who believe and those
>> who don't even participate.
>>
>
> And yes, I am familiar with Pascal's Wager. He agrees that it is better
> to live as if God exists, and in very simple terms. But then came other
> philosophers who threw all kinds of "what-if's" into the equation - some
> of them which conflict with my beliefs (i.e. the Atheists wager - He "may"
> ignore the fact you didn't believe in Him). But that "may" can also be
> "may not" - and there the Atheist's wager falls apart.
actually, only pascal's wager falls apart. you've never read the original,
have you. he prefaced the wager by saying god cannot be known. since that is
the premise, then everything is a guess. god may reward the evil and punish
the good. we don't know. he may honor those who only believe what logic and
reason allow (intelletual honesty...in which case, atheists get their shot).
hell, even if you have the right religion (of the 2500 or so religions that
have ever existed), there is nothing to say that only those christians who
scratch their ass a certain way get a reward...or that it's all just random.
but, that's pascal's wager and pascal's premise. you know what? without
evidence of god, pascal is right...we are left to guess...and the wager left
to fall.
>> were i a betting man though, i'd go with a babylonian religion...you
>> know, the pagan ones. a ton of christian traditions originate with those.
>> hell, the story of noah is the retelling of the babylonian saga of
>> gilgamesh - and i can give you the specific archeological cite for that
>> one! that's about 2K BCE and a few centuries before genesis. and genesis'
>> plagurism is almost word for word with gilgamesh in more than just
>> several places. either so much for the babble being god's word...or, god
>> was pagan too and 'inspired' both accounts (changing the names to protect
>> the innocent i'm sure). but i digress...if i went the babylonian route,
>> i'd double my chances of being right. nah, i'd understand the flaws
>> inherent in pascal's wager and wouldn't be foolish enough to use it.
>> plus, i'd have looked it up if i didn't know what the fuck it was before
>> bullishly saying 'not at all' whilst continuing to place the bet!
> Gee, maybe they are so much alike because they are telling the same
> stories?
which would be problematic for you since babylon was abhorent to the god of
the bible...yet, in the bible, we see a story of pagan origin...and the
bible is supposed to be god's word. that was my point you know...that the
bible IS retelling the story of gilgamesh. actually, worse than that. the
bible makes claims of authenticity and authority, yet has clearly plagurized
at least this book. are you contending that the non-pagan god who inspired
the bible is the same pagan god that inspired gilgamesh? that seems a bit
problematic to me. and for you to sarcastically arrive at my stated point as
if it should be news to me...that shit cracks me up. first, that you didn't
get my point, second that you regurgitate my point back to me in sarcasm,
and finally, that you don't even realize the position you have put yourself
in. i must say, that one is problematic to explain.
but, off you go. explain away...
do keep up, jerry.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|