Originally posted by AgergYes. But I got confused when you said
That is correct - and the distinction there is why I acknowledge my 50/50 error.
heads up ~> God exists,
tails up ~> no god exists (little g!)
I don't see where you get that. If heads up means God exists, then tails up should mean God doesn't exist. Each flip would be about one particular god.
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistit is good that you are unable to see where I got that, as I said earlier I no longer agree with my mapping - it is wrong!!!...I suppose what gave rise to it is the common assumption on the part of theists that there exists only one god (as opposed to infinitely many of them). Accordingly when I hear this argument, I sense that they are ascribing a 50/50 chance to God existing or not, and with the knowledge that their god is one of many gods that could otherwise exist (assuming at least one exists of course!) lurking in the background of my thoughts I habitually dwell too much on the theists assumption that there is only one god - namely "G"od.
Yes. But I got confused when you saidheads up ~> God exists,
tails up ~> no god exists (little g!)
I don't see where you get that. If heads up means God exists, then tails up should mean God doesn't exist. Each flip would be about one particular god.
Having realised the error in my thinking (even ff I haven't fully accounted for where this error came from), that mistake will not be made in the future.
------------------------------------------
For any theists reading this btw, the wager is still utter garbage, just my means of showing it was imprecise.
Originally posted by Agergwww.eternal_address.long
it is good that you are unable to see where I got that, as I said earlier I no longer agree with my mapping - it is wrong!!!...I suppose what gave rise to it is the common assumption on the part of theists that there exists only one god (as opposed to infinitely many of them). Accordingly when I hear this argument, I sense that they are ascribing a 50/50 ...[text shortened]... ts reading this btw, the wager is still utter garbage, just my means of showing it was imprecise.
hello, hello, mister ag...
>sorry, unable to confirm.
click.v
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGrampy - make a list of all the people who you think respect you, respect your intelligence, and are interested in what you have to say.
(Smile... Serious conversation's impossible)
After you have included in this list every person who has ever joined this website please remove me from that list
Serious conversation is no more possible with you than it is possible with RBHILL, josephw, RJHinds, or Dasa
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYou implied that he won't exist in Heaven. When directly asked for your meaning, you choose instead to imply he is unable to converse intelligently.
(Smile... Serious conversation's impossible)
You don't address any of the points or questions in the thread. You make implications and refuse to clarify. I'm apparently one of the few people around here who hasn't decided you are worth ignoring, but you're losing me, Bobby. Have you been drinking?
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergSubjective peer respect tends to be self serving and, as such, is worthless.
Grampy - make a list of all the people who [b]you think respect you, respect your intelligence, and are interested in what you have to say.
After you have included in this list every person who has ever joined this website please remove me from that list
Serious conversation is no more possible with you than it is possible with RBHILL, josephw, RJHinds, or Dasa[/b]
-
Originally posted by apathist"a) You implied that he won't exist in Heaven. When directly asked for your meaning, you choose instead to imply he is unable to converse intelligently. You don't address any of the points or questions in the thread. You make implications and refuse to clarify. I'm apparently one of the few people around here who hasn't decided you are worth ignoring, but you're losing me, Bobby. b) Have you been drinking?"
You implied that he won't exist in Heaven. When directly asked for your meaning, you choose instead to imply he is unable to converse intelligently. You don't address any of the points or questions in the thread. You make implications and refuse to clarify. I'm apparently one of the few people around here who hasn't decided you are worth ignoring, but you're losing me, Bobby. Have you been drinking?
...............................
a) Who?; b) No. (high on life and maybe a few frosty cold ones on a red hot day in August); c) ?
Postscript: Apathist, my intent has never been to lose you.
Originally posted by AgergTheists also believe the wager is utter garbage, but not for the same reasons you do. Obviously.
For any theists reading this btw, the wager is still utter garbage, just my means of showing it was imprecise.
The wager also assumes a God who would be fooled by some yokel "pretending" to believe.
The belief has to be written on your heart, meaning it has to be a true belief. True beliefs also tend to result in actions fitting those beliefs. Just declaring you believe and then living the rest of your life as if you didn't won't cut it.
"Pretend" belief is bogus, and God knows your heart and won't be fooled by pretense. Ergo, the wager is nonsense.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by SuzianneSOME theists think it's utter garbage.
Theists also believe the wager is utter garbage, but not for the same reasons you do. Obviously.
The wager also assumes a God who would be fooled by some yokel "pretending" to believe.
The belief has to be written on your heart, meaning it has to be a true belief. True beliefs also tend to result in
actions fitting those beliefs. Just declaring y ...[text shortened]... , and God knows your heart and won't be fooled by pretence. Ergo, the wager is nonsense.
I say this because WE (atheists) did not bring this up.
We don't shoot down this argument just for the sake of it.
We shoot it down because theists keep bringing it up.
Just sayin.
3 edits
Originally posted by Suzianne...What is the difference between 'belief' and 'true belief'? You seem to deny human free will. I choose what to believe in, and I believe lots of others do also. Pascal broke ground with his wager in that regard:
The wager also assumes a God who would be fooled by some yokel "pretending" to believe.
The belief has to be written on your heart, meaning it has to be a true belief. ...
Stanford
We find in it the extraordinary confluence of several important strands of thought: the justification of theism; probability theory and decision theory, used here for almost the first time in history; pragmatism; voluntarism (the thesis that belief is a matter of the will); and the use of the concept of infinity.
You do not choose what to believe in? Your beliefs are forced upon you?