Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/19/07 22:29

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.


> 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?


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]