Attention dotoree!

[Anachronous Rex]

As dotoree doesn't seem to have the where with all to do this himself, I have taken it upon myself to split off a thread for him, before he gets himself banned:

From, this thread:

Quoth dotoree:
{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

Answer my question about converting to Islam.

Of course he has no answer, not that he'll admit that.

It won't stop him from making the same claim about the strength of Pascal's wager again, however.

--
Last reply here I hope, I really need to spend the tiny time I have in the other forum I started discussing in. MODS, I replied directly to the original topic...others challenged me with other things (such as converting to Islam). I only responded to that. This will be my last response to them, but they demanded I answer a question.

1) The problem of many religions is no problem for Pascal's wager at all.
Here's why:
1) The Bible teaches that God is a righteous and fair judge and doesn't judge people on things they don't know (that would be like me grading you on Korean language ability, very unfair). Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, but He judges on our conscience (Romans 2:12-16) and winks at ignorance (Acts 17:22-30). Have we tried to followed the truth they know? Have we tried to conquer sin? Have we been open to following evidence and not misrepresenting it?

Adventists based on the above verses and others believes there will be many in heaven who never knew Jesus, but followed all the truth they were aware of(some Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, shamanists, even possibly some atheists, etc.). But, many will be lost because they rebelled against evidence and truth that was available to learn and follow. Doing that is dangerous.
Btw, There is no eternal hell. It's only a temporary thing to end all sin and suffering and something that God has absolutely NO pleasure in. It's only the way to end the far worse hell of endless crime, abuse, war, terrorism, etc. See my playlist on hell.
here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=7C4256A5E213CF24

2) Pascal wrote, "I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." THIS is the actual wager..that we get MANY benefits from being a Christian (and science conclusively shows that those who follow Bible principles live ~10 years longer than average, have better marriages on average, are happier, commit fewer crimes, advance human rights more, etc. See: "Why America Needs Religion" by Guenter Lewy, a critic of religion at first, from the University of Massachusetts who documents these things and more. Some studies depend on people claiming that they are Christians. But a Christian who doesn't follow Biblical principles is no more a Christian than someone claiming to be a scientist and refusing to follow the scientific method.

See a few videos on this (and links in notes) here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=21AEF61B66D954E1 esp. watch
"How to live to 100+" by Dan Buettner, head of Blue Zones Research project, on Adventists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8HOrDo8xUM (11:30)

MUCH more than this. But, I'll stop here due to my time and to end the diversions from the main topic as the moderator has advised.
Bryan
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

and, in defiance of his promise to stop, version two:

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
MODS, I replied directly to the original topic...others challenged me with other things (such as converting to Islam). I only responded to that. I"ll try to make this my last response to them on these other topics, but they demanded I answer a question, so I will answer a couple in only 1 post. I really need to spend the tiny time I have in the other forum I started discussing in anyway...but must answer a couple things.

"I have to say dotoree, you give me the terrible impression of someone who has never questioned his own beliefs, much less even listened to the arguments against them."
--
Absolutely false. I've been listening to the best atheists and evolutionists for decades. I have no reason to follow fiction. NONE. The shortest I can make it is this. I prefer to follow the weight of evidence. That weight of evidence is SOLIDLY in favor of biogenesis (billions of examples) vs. abiogenesis (not even one case of evolution from inert matter to even the simplest cell). We also have solid evidence that Bible science adds 10+ years to live beyond the average THESE days (that proves Pascal's wager a solid truth). There is so much more evidence than that, but that's for a hopefully soon coming debate as soon as I can carve out a bit of time.

Just in the last couple months, I listened to debates including atheists like Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc. They and 99% of atheists have extremely serious misunderstandings about the Bible's theology (some is due to Christians, esp. Catholics, following man made traditions instead of the Bible such as eternal hell for example, something that Jesus explicitly condemned in Mark 7:5-13 and something the Bible warned would happen. But, some is because of willful ignorance and intentional misrepresentation on the part of atheists.
---

Answer my question about converting to Islam.

Of course he has no answer, not that he'll admit that.

It won't stop him from making the same claim about the strength of Pascal's wager again, however.

--
1) The problem of many religions is no problem for Pascal's wager at all.
Here's why:
1) The Bible teaches that God is a righteous and fair judge and doesn't judge people on things they don't know (that would be like me grading you on Korean language ability, very unfair). Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, but He judges on our conscience (Romans 2:12-16) and winks at ignorance (Acts 17:22-30). Have we tried to follow the truth we know? Have we tried to conquer sin? Have we been open to following evidence and refused to misrepresent it, doing our best to follow the weight of evidence?

Adventists based on the above verses and others believes there will be many in heaven who never knew Jesus, but followed all the truth they were aware of (some Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, shamanists, even possibly some atheists, etc.). But, many will be lost because they rebelled against evidence and truth that was available to learn and follow, used double standards and logical fallacies in order to follow their emotions instead of the facts. Doing that is dangerous.

Btw, There is no eternal hell. It's only a temporary thing to end all sin and suffering and something that God has absolutely NO pleasure in. It's only the way to end the far worse hell of endless crime, abuse, war, terrorism, etc. See my playlist on hell.
here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=7C4256A5E213CF24

2) Pascal wrote, "I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." THIS is the actual wager..that we get MANY benefits from being a Christian (and science conclusively shows that those who follow Bible principles live ~10 years longer than average, have better marriages on average, are happier, commit fewer crimes, advance human rights more, etc. See: "Why America Needs Religion" by Guenter Lewy, a critic of religion at first, from the University of Massachusetts who documents these things and more. Some studies depend on people claiming that they are Christians. But a Christian who doesn't follow Biblical principles is no more a Christian than someone claiming to be a scientist and refusing to follow the scientific method.

See a few videos on this (and links in notes) here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=21AEF61B66D954E1

esp. watch "How to live to 100+" by Dan Buettner, head of Blue Zones Research project, on Adventists here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8HOrDo8xUM (11:30)

Some have spoken above of God as a dictator. This is not even close to true. Even though He is omnipotent, he values the freedom of His created beings so much that he has allowed himself to be put on trial in front of the whole universe. The Cosmic Conflict videos (1st ~20 minutes) here explain that well:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=FF4DF93F306FA0C3

The Notre Dame professor Plantinga explains and has resolved the problem of evil to the satisfaction of most scholars even though God is good and omnipotent (see the video at the end of the same playlist above for a short overview of it).

Many people want to do everything their own way, what they call freedom. But, if we rebelled against science, against education, against history, it would be really foolish and we would only hurt ourselves and hamper our progress or reverse it. It's exactly the same with God. His desire is to empower our intellectual understanding and growth and He gave us minds able to grasp incredible things if we put effort into that. He didn't just give us all the answers. NO good teacher does that. He gave some answers for the best life here on earth (health, happiness, relationships and some others), but wanted us to enjoy the thrill of discovery and reach our highest potential and be proud of what we've discovered.

This is a quote on education and God's desire for our intellectual growth that many atheists need to read:
"True education means more than the pursual of a certain course of study. It means more than a preparation for the life that now is. It has to do with the whole being, and with the whole period of existence possible to man. It is the harmonious development of the physical, the mental, and the spiritual powers. It prepares the student for the joy of service in this world and for the higher joy of wider service in the world to come.

The world has had its great teachers, men of giant intellect and extensive research, men whose utterances have stimulated thought and opened to view vast fields of knowledge; and these men have been honored as guides and benefactors of their race; but there is One who stands higher than they. We can trace the line of the world's teachers as far back as human records extend; but the Light was before them. As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun, so, as far as their teaching is true, do the world's great thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Every gleam of thought, every flash of the intellect, is from the Light of the world.

***(IMPORTANT PARAGAPH)**
Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen. Instead of educated weaklings, institutions of learning may send forth men strong to think and to act, men who are masters and not slaves of circumstances, men who possess breadth of mind, clearness of thought, and the courage of their convictions.
***

MUCH more than this. But, I'll stop here due to my time limits and to end the diversions from the main topic as the moderator has advised.
Bryan
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

*My apologies for the {} things, but I didn't want to be accused of editing his post, even just to quote it properly.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Also, I'd like a reply to this:

Anachronous Rex, Pasteur's wager is solid and very true. There are so many benefits to Christianity conclusively proven by scientists both Christian and secular.

You're mistaken if you think this is what - Pascal - was arguing for. Also, prove it.

So you can't lose..you get many benefits in this life and and also a great chance at eternity. See my channel for a few videos and references as well. Btw, faking faith will never work. See Matt. 25.

Actually you get a statistically irrelevant chance at eternity, given the infinite number possibilities regarding this hypothetical afterlife. For instance, if atheists are the only ones who get to go to heaven, then you've screwed yourself. And if there is a god, and it's your god, do you think he honestly prefers this dishonest, hypocritical, self-interested, cynical, gambit - made in case it might be true - to my sincere unbelief, honestly arrived at, free of duplicity or deceit?

Would that be a moral god?

By the way, I object to this notion proposed by you religious sorts that my beliefs are so malleable. What I believe is an obligate condition that has been forced upon me by what the best evidence suggests (or doesn't.) This idea that I can simply 'choose' to believe something I do not believe, is an insult to me and to the intellect. I do not believe in your god, I cannot make myself believe without evidence - which no one has ever been able to present to me, despite trying quite hard. By definition I could only ever be faking faith.

I have to say dotoree, you give me the terrible impression of someone who has never questioned his own beliefs, much less even listened to the arguments against them.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Oh, and just so you don't think I'm letting that last little bit go without a fight:

For reference:

"I have to say dotoree, you give me the terrible impression of someone who has never questioned his own beliefs, much less even listened to the arguments against them."
--
Absolutely false. I've been listening to the best atheists and evolutionists for decades.

Well you certainly fail to convey your decades of experience in your posts. Seeing as how readily you spout the same tired, old, refuted arguments we've all dealt with many times previously.

I have no reason to follow fiction. NONE.

This statement is a direct and unambiguous contradiction of two of your previous statements:
"Pasteur's wager is solid and very true."

Pascal's wager specifically provides a reason to follow Christianity even if you think it is a fiction. You cannot argue that Pascal is correct while at the same time stating that you have no reason to follow a fiction.

"There are so many benefits to Christianity conclusively proven by scientists both Christian and secular."

This rather poorly evidenced assertion (rendered absolutely laughable by even a brief study of history), whether or not it is true, certainly seems to be believed by your person. Accordingly, this is a reason to follow a fiction: numerous vague benefits.

The shortest I can make it is this. I prefer to follow the weight of evidence. That weight of evidence is SOLIDLY in favor of biogenesis (billions of examples) vs. abiogenesis (not even one case of evolution from inert matter to even the simplest cell).

There would still be abiogenesis even if the Christian god is the source of all life, this argument is therefore badly misguided. Moreover, even if your assertion is somehow valid, it would not point to the Christian god over any of the other thousands of gods.

We also have solid evidence that Bible science adds 10+ years to live beyond the average THESE days

You keep saying that. You have yet to prove it. Also, why would this be proof of the Bibles accuracy even if true? It is said Ahriman can work miracles as well as Ohrmazd, it could well be the case that your "Bible science" is powered by the dark magic of the Destroyer himself - an overt attempt to blind the faithful to the truth of Zarathushtra. This could easily be the case were Islam the true religion as well, or Judaism, or even other forms of Christianity. This isn't evidence of anything, because it has no exclusionary power.

(that proves Pascal's wager a solid truth).

Pascal's wager concerns the consequences of belief vs. unbelief in the afterlife, not this life (except insofar as you do not loose by believing, which is debatable.) I can't imagine what it is that you think you're arguing here, but it has nothing to do with Pascal. At least learn your own damned apologetics.

There is so much more evidence than that, but that's for a hopefully soon coming debate as soon as I can carve out a bit of time.

Yeah, that evidence... always coming just a little bit later isn't it? Don't count on me to hold my breath.

Just in the last couple months, I listened to debates including atheists like Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, etc. They and 99% of atheists have extremely serious misunderstandings about the Bible's theology (some is due to Christians, esp. Catholics, following man made traditions instead of the Bible such as eternal hell for example, something that Jesus explicitly condemned in Mark 7:5-13 and something the Bible warned would happen. But, some is because of willful ignorance and intentional misrepresentation on the part of atheists.

You've grossly misinterpreted all three of them if you think they're primary concern with Christianity is with it's theology. It's like discussing the finer points of Dungeons and Dragons: it doesn't matter whether you prefer second or third edition rules, in the end it's still fiction.

Also, you've done absolutely nothing to establish your credibility over the Catholics - still the largest branch of Christians - so until you prove definitively and unarguably that yours is the correct sect, we're all perfectly justified in using them in our arguments.

Of course he has no answer, not that he'll admit that.

It won't stop him from making the same claim about the strength of Pascal's wager again, however.

--
1) The problem of many religions is no problem for Pascal's wager at all.
Here's why:
1) The Bible teaches that God is a righteous and fair judge and doesn't judge people on things they don't know (that would be like me grading you on Korean language ability, very unfair). Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven, but He judges on our conscience (Romans 2:12-16) and winks at ignorance (Acts 17:22-30). Have we tried to follow the truth we know? Have we tried to conquer sin? Have we been open to following evidence and refused to misrepresent it, doing our best to follow the weight of evidence?

This is as big a problem for Pascal's wager as the point about Islam. If I as an atheist have (by living my life morally, which I try to do) as good of a shot at the afterlife as a Christian, and as great a risk of hell, then there is no enticement towards Christianity. I may as well remain an atheist. Pascal's wager only works because it requires that disbelief is punished and belief rewarded. If our deeds, rather than our religion, rule our fate, then there is no reason anyone should want to be a Christian. What you've just done, is taken Pascal's wager, and removed both it's carrot and it's stick - you've eviscerated it, there is no longer anything there to consider.

Now as for the point about Islam, because clearly you don't understand it:
Suppose that Allah is the one true god, now suppose that he does care who believes in Islam and who does not. By Pascal's logic, you have as much to loose by not believing in Islam as by not believing in Christianity, and stand to make the same gain. The same can be done with every religion, until any chance that remains is statically negligible.

But wait, it gets worse. Because, in fact, by saying that the Christian god does not care what religion you follow, you've just made every other religion that does care preferable to Christianity by Pascal's own logic.

Adventists based on the above verses and others believes there will be many in heaven who never knew Jesus, but followed all the truth they were aware of (some Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, shamanists, even possibly some atheists, etc.). But, many will be lost because they rebelled against evidence and truth that was available to learn and follow, used double standards and logical fallacies in order to follow their emotions instead of the facts. Doing that is dangerous.

I should be fine then.

Btw, There is no eternal hell. It's only a temporary thing to end all sin and suffering and something that God has absolutely NO pleasure in. It's only the way to end the far worse hell of endless crime, abuse, war, terrorism, etc. See my playlist on hell.
here:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=7C4256A5E213CF24

You'd be amazed how little I care what you think on the subject.

2) Pascal wrote, "I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognize that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing." THIS is the actual wager..that we get MANY benefits from being a Christian (and science conclusively shows that those who follow Bible principles live ~10 years longer than average, have better marriages on average, are happier, commit fewer crimes, advance human rights more, etc. See: "Why America Needs Religion" by Guenter Lewy, a critic of religion at first, from the University of Massachusetts who documents these things and more. Some studies depend on people claiming that they are Christians. But a Christian who doesn't follow Biblical principles is no more a Christian than someone claiming to be a scientist and refusing to follow the scientific method.

Pascal asserted that you would gain in life, but that assertion is not part Pascal's wager. You still have yet to demonstrate that you live longer, and the rest of these assertions are not only counter-evidenced by all the statics I've seen that did not derive from blatantly biased religious sources, but worse still backed up by youtube videos. Good thing I don't make a video saying the opposite, because that would certainly prove you wrong.

Some have spoken above of God as a dictator. This is not even close to true. Even though He is omnipotent, he values the freedom of His created beings so much that he has allowed himself to be put on trial in front of the whole universe. The Cosmic Conflict videos (1st ~20 minutes) here explain that well:
http://www.youtube.com/my_playlists?p=FF4DF93F306FA0C3

1) Even if he values freedom, by virtue of his supposed omniscience freedom in his creations is impossible. At least until this is demonstrated to be otherwise.
2) I'm told he was given the death penalty, no? The bastard didn't even have the common-fucking-courtesy to abide by the verdict.

The Notre Dame professor Plantinga explains and has resolved the problem of evil to the satisfaction of most scholars even though God is good and omnipotent (see the video at the end of the same playlist above for a short overview of it).

I always love it how Christians you and Craig will inevitably claim that most scholars agree with their assertions. There is no fucking way either of you could know that.

Many people want to do everything their own way, what they call freedom. But, if we rebelled against science, against education, against history, it would be really foolish and we would only hurt ourselves and hamper our progress or reverse it.

Funny you should mention it, I can't remember the last time I've seen an atheist rebelling against science, education, and history... you know what group I do see doing this quite often though?

It's exactly the same with God. His desire is to empower our intellectual understanding and growth and He gave us minds able to grasp incredible things if we put effort into that. He didn't just give us all the answers. NO good teacher does that. He gave some answers for the best life here on earth (health, happiness, relationships and some others), but wanted us to enjoy the thrill of discovery and reach our highest potential and be proud of what we've discovered.

Another boring assertion. Get yourself some evidence, and then we'll talk.

This is a quote on education and God's desire for our intellectual growth that many atheists need to read:
"True education means more than the pursual of a certain course of study. It means more than a preparation for the life that now is. It has to do with the whole being, and with the whole period of existence possible to man. It is the harmonious development of the physical, the mental, and the spiritual powers. It prepares the student for the joy of service in this world and for the higher joy of wider service in the world to come.

You know, you make an awful log of spelling mistakes for an English teacher; as a teacher myself, I pity your students. Anywho, none of this means anything until you demonstrate your god! I'm sorry to overdo it with the italicization, but come on mate. This shit wouldn't work on you if it was being spouted in some madrasa, and you know exactly why: because you don't think the spiritual dimension they're espousing actually exists. Well it's the same for us. Give us evidence of your god, then we'll take this shit more seriously. Until then it all sounds like this:

The world has had its great teachers, men of giant intellect and extensive research, men whose utterances have stimulated thought and opened to view vast fields of knowledge; and these men have been honored as guides and benefactors of their race; but there is One who stands higher than they. We can trace the line of the world's teachers as far back as human records extend; but the Light was before them. As the moon and the stars of our solar system shine by the reflected light of the sun, so, as far as their teaching is true, do the world's great thinkers reflect the rays of the Sun of Righteousness. Every gleam of thought, every flash of the intellect, is from the Light of the world.

More drivel.

***(IMPORTANT PARAGAPH)**
Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen. Instead of educated weaklings, institutions of learning may send forth men strong to think and to act, men who are masters and not slaves of circumstances, men who possess breadth of mind, clearness of thought, and the courage of their convictions.
***

I agree, except I don't think any of this requires or ever required someone's permission.

MUCH more than this. But, I'll stop here due to my time limits and to end the diversions from the main topic as the moderator has advised.
Bryan

Yeah, too bad about your banhammered status. I guess I'll just have to wait for whatever non-answers you can summon.

 

[Inferno]

In case dotoree ever reads this: Stop linking to your own playlists! They do NOT work for us. All I get is an error-message saying "This playlist does not belong to you."
Instead, link us to the first video of the list, hm? (Even though I still won't watch it...)

 

[UNFFwildcard]

As Doteree was censored, and as I fear he will quickly become outnumbered on this thread, I'll come to his aid.

This rather poorly evidenced assertion (rendered absolutely laughable by even a brief study of history), whether or not it is true, certainly seems to be believed by your person. Accordingly, this is a reason to follow a fiction: numerous vague benefits.

The following literature review provides ample evidence for all assertions made by Doteree concerning the increased health and longevity of the religious:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/crrucs_objective_hope.pdf

Pascal's wager concerns the consequences of belief vs. unbelief in the afterlife, not this life (except insofar as you do not loose by believing, which is debatable.) I can't imagine what it is that you think you're arguing here, but it has nothing to do with Pascal. At least learn your own damned apologetics.

Doteree is arguing that the popular notion of Pascal's Wager is incorrect, and that current life benefits need to be considered as well. I agree with Doteree, and that the numerous benefits of religiosity make the gambit a very valid one.

You've grossly misinterpreted all three of them if you think they're primary concern with Christianity is with it's theology. It's like discussing the finer points of Dungeons and Dragons: it doesn't matter whether you prefer second or third edition rules, in the end it's still fiction.

The fact that they think it's all fiction is the very crux of the matter. If theology is bullshit, then who cares if you misrepresent it, and strawman it? Refuting bullshit with more bullshit is anti-intellectual.

This is as big a problem for Pascal's wager as the point about Islam. If I as an atheist have (by living my life morally, which I try to do) as good of a shot at the afterlife as a Christian, and as great a risk of hell, then there is no enticement towards Christianity. I may as well remain an atheist. Pascal's wager only works because it requires that disbelief is punished and belief rewarded. If our deeds, rather than our religion, rule our fate, then there is no reason anyone should want to be a Christian. What you've just done, is taken Pascal's wager, and removed both it's carrot and it's stick - you've eviscerated it, there is no longer anything there to consider.

But who says the chance is equal? And what of teaching the laity our susceptibility to sin, and our fallible human condition? What of being, as the phrase goes, a hospital for sinners, and not just a museum of saints? What of shaping our relationship with God, and transforming the individual for the better? Of what is good for us, what does God desires us to be, and how our Faith delivers us closer to that? Do those things not matter to this discussion?

Now as for the point about Islam, because clearly you don't understand it:
Suppose that Allah is the one true god, now suppose that he does care who believes in Islam and who does not. By Pascal's logic, you have as much to loose by not believing in Islam as by not believing in Christianity, and stand to make the same gain. The same can be done with every religion, until any chance that remains is statically negligible.

The problem with your argument is that there is no such mutual exclusivity between every faith system, be it in terms of theology or salvation. Within Catholicism, the former has been explored within works such as Nicholaus of Cusa's De Pace Fidei, and the latter described in Papal promulgations such as Lumen Gentium. Equivalent ideas can be found within Islamic theology, as well as many other religions. Concluding the gambit as statistically negligible is simply wrong. While Allah may care about who believes in Islam, if He is just, then he will also acknowledge my ignorance of the ultimate truth of Islam, will recognize my own love of truth in Christianity (however incomplete it may be), and will otherwise take an appropriately nuanced view of my life. If Allah Is unjust, then we are all fucked, and most probably the Muslims are as well. But, as the demonstrable health benefits of religiosity are still there, even if God does not exist, the gambit is still valid. Furthermore, if it must be reasoned, many believe systems can be rationalized as being less likely than others for a variety of reasons, thereby adding another damaging consideration to your 'statistically negligible' remark. The irony of course is that you've most probably already done this with Christianity by reasoning to yourself that it makes even less sense than other religions, or by comparing it to a hypothesized theistic view created by yourself that you would consider far more plausible.

 

[Memeticemetic]

As Doteree was censored, and as I fear he will quickly become outnumbered on this thread, I'll come to his aid.

Dotoree was not "censored". He was temporarily banned for derailing a thread. When asked not to do so, he acknowledged the warning and did it again anyway.
http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6612

The following literature review provides ample evidence for all assertions made by Doteree concerning the increased health and longevity of the religious:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/crrucs_objective_hope.pdf

Dotoree's assertions are about the particular health benefits as derived from the bible specifically, not health benefits derived from being a member of an "organic religion". The paper may prove interesting and I will probably read it in full later, but it is irrelevant to dotree's claims.

Doteree is arguing that the popular notion of Pascal's Wager is incorrect, and that current life benefits need to be considered as well. I agree with Doteree, and that the numerous benefits of religiosity make the gambit a very valid one.

The popular notion of Pascal's Wager is dead-on-balls accurate. It's not rocket science for chrissake, it was a rambling minor digression from his Pensees. The entire "argument" is fallacious on its face as a blatant appeal to consequences. In other words, the effect of a belief has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that belief is true. That is why people have a problem with the wager, and why it's a bloody shame that that abortion is all a brilliant man like Blaise Pascal is remembered for in popular culture.

But who says the chance is equal? And what of teaching the laity our susceptibility to sin, and our fallible human condition? What of being, as the phrase goes, a hospital for sinners, and not just a museum of saints? What of shaping our relationship with God, and transforming the individual for the better? Of what is good for us, what does God desires us to be, and how our Faith delivers us closer to that? Do those things not matter to this discussion?

In a word, no. These things don't matter to this discussion unless you can find a way to demonstrate that they matter. If you want to present a case that any of that even makes sense, let alone is germane in any way, feel free.

The problem with your argument is that there is no such mutual exclusivity between every faith system, be it in terms of theology or salvation. Within Catholicism, the former has been explored within works such as Nicholaus of Cusa's De Pace Fidei, and the latter described in Papal promulgations such as Lumen Gentium. Equivalent ideas can be found within Islamic theology, as well as many other religions. Concluding the gambit as statistically negligible is simply wrong. While Allah may care about who believes in Islam, if He is just, then he will also acknowledge my ignorance of the ultimate truth of Islam, will recognize my own love of truth in Christianity (however incomplete it may be), and will otherwise take an appropriately nuanced view of my life. If Allah Is unjust, then we are all fucked, and most probably the Muslims are as well. But, as the demonstrable health benefits of religiosity are still there, even if God does not exist, the gambit is still valid. Furthermore, if it must be reasoned, many believe systems can be rationalized as being less likely than others for a variety of reasons, thereby adding another damaging consideration to your 'statistically negligible' remark. The irony of course is that you've most probably already done this with Christianity by reasoning to yourself that it makes even less sense than other religions, or by comparing it to a hypothesized theistic view created by yourself that you would consider far more plausible.

Quite incorrect. Most theological systems contain greater or lesser degrees of exclusivity. The real problem though comes in when you realize the very real possibility that they are all incorrect and some other system not yet devised is true. The possibilities then become literally infinite and we are stuck with complete statistical negligibility that any given one is true.

The remainder of your argument is, again, an appeal to consequences. Even assuming the health benefits of having an organic belief system are true does not demonstrate that the claims made about, or by, the belief system are true. But then you go on to say that, "even if God does not exist, the gambit is still valid." So it appears you are not even interested in what is true, but in what will benefit you instead. This is why the wager fails. It is not an argument for any idea, simply an appeal to the baser nature of man. It's cowardly and corrupt and even if I were a theist I would treat it with the same contempt; quite possibly more since I would likely hold my deity in greater regard than to so cavalierly throw out such dreck in it's support.

At the risk of stepping on Rex's toes I will say that you are quite presumptuous to assert that he has concluded that christianity is more nonsensical than other religions. The only actual irony presented was when you state, "a hypothesized theistic view created by yourself that you would consider far more plausible." This isn't something atheists do, this is something theists do. I'll gladly unpack why this is so, but I would rather you stew on it and try to figure out why I would say that first.

 

[Gnug215]

As Doteree was censored, and as I fear he will quickly become outnumbered on this thread, I'll come to his aid.

UNFF, I've always respected you and your reasoned and usually fairly impartial take on things.

The bolded statement, however, is entirely unfair, and a cheapshot from you. I hope you can see it - or otherwise substantiate this claim of yours, at least to a degree where you can justify this on your part, so that I can determine - which I inevitably would be able to - that your impression on the matter relies on a misunderstanding.


Also, I am surprised you would run to the defense of Pascal's Wager.

At its core, it relies on fake faith, appeal to consequences, and has no evidentiary validity in any way in terms of the existence of any god.

It seems clear that it's an "argument" that only survives because it bolsters the faith of people who already believe. There is no way anyone could fake-faith their way into heaven, which is what the argument basically relies on, and I'm sure you know this.

And yes, dotoree was making the argument that the Bible specifically prolongs life, not just religion in general. But this is also not an argument for the validity of the faith, I'd say.
(In fact, if one were so inclined, one could argue that it's an argument against religion, pointing out that this would just mean that religion would be favored by evolution, and so on in that vein... But yeah, a fairly unsubstantiated digression, meant mostly to point out that we should really be weeding out the weakest arguments (like Pascal's Wager) out of this debate because it's wholly unconstructive.)

 

[Anachronous Rex]

it's a bloody shame that that abortion is all a brilliant man like Blaise Pascal is remembered for in popular culture.

Memeticemetic, I feel compelled to thank you for pointing this out. I had meant too, but promptly forgot, and I dislike how much my posts seem to bash on a man whom I mostly approve of.

 

[kenandkids]

it's a bloody shame that that abortion is all a brilliant man like Blaise Pascal is remembered for in popular culture.

Memeticemetic, I feel compelled to thank you for pointing this out. I had meant too, but promptly forgot, and I dislike how much my posts seem to bash on a man whom I mostly approve of.

I personally hold Pascal to have been a great man and scientist for quite a long time. But when he decided to shutter his mind on behalf of religion, he tainted his own reputation and legacy. I have no problem dismissing both he and his idiot ramblings, but when I do I refer to the person he became, not the person that contributed so much.

 

[Andiferous]

We'll be sure to make sure doctoree can reply when he returns, and if need be, I'll proxy. If need be that is.

Keep in mind he can't post for a week.

 

[UNFFwildcard]

As Doteree was censored, and as I fear he will quickly become outnumbered on this thread, I'll come to his aid.

UNFF, I've always respected you and your reasoned and usually fairly impartial take on things.

The bolded statement, however, is entirely unfair, and a cheapshot from you. I hope you can see it - or otherwise substantiate this claim of yours, at least to a degree where you can justify this on your part, so that I can determine - which I inevitably would be able to - that your impression on the matter relies on a misunderstanding.


Also, I am surprised you would run to the defense of Pascal's Wager.

At its core, it relies on fake faith, appeal to consequences, and has no evidentiary validity in any way in terms of the existence of any god.

It seems clear that it's an "argument" that only survives because it bolsters the faith of people who already believe. There is no way anyone could fake-faith their way into heaven, which is what the argument basically relies on, and I'm sure you know this.

And yes, dotoree was making the argument that the Bible specifically prolongs life, not just religion in general. But this is also not an argument for the validity of the faith, I'd say.
(In fact, if one were so inclined, one could argue that it's an argument against religion, pointing out that this would just mean that religion would be favored by evolution, and so on in that vein... But yeah, a fairly unsubstantiated digression, meant mostly to point out that we should really be weeding out the weakest arguments (like Pascal's Wager) out of this debate because it's wholly unconstructive.)

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Realise though that I made that quip in protest to what I perceived as unfair and heavy-handed treatment. As evident by the 11 day gap between doteree and the last post, the blog topic was dead, and, if anything, doteree's semi-related post stimulated further discussion. Prior to your warning, he was already being mocked & egged on by A. Rex to respond to rebuttals. Doteree politely acknowledged your warning, saying he required only one post more, and responds to arguments made. You also told other people to ignore him, yet people respond with facepalms or other quips. When Doteree is gone, people continue talking about the deviation from main topic (which is, in itself, another unrelated topic). You throw down the temporary banhammer because Doteree didn't follow your directions down to the letter, yet when others don't follow directions, all is forgiven. If I was Dotoree, I would receive the temp-ban as an insult, and would be far less inclined to return. Besides, on a general level, why concern yourself over unrelated posts on dead topics? Must everything on this website be organized and categorized so strictly?

Pascal's wager is quite valid; the problem rests in its application. No, it does not provide evidence for the existence of God, but who ever claimed it did? Both you and Meme imply it does, and frankly, it's a borderline strawman objection. It's an appeal to consequences? Of course it is, but not in the matter of affirming the existence of God, but rather of assessing potential benefits and risks. And just what is inherently wrong about this? It relies on fake faith? Hardly. Pascal himself suggested the possibility of obtaining faith through practicing the rituals of the Christian faith. Acquired faith is not fake faith. The problem is the assumption that one can change what one believes at will, an assumption almost rejected by all. But if the opposite is true, then why would anyone criticize me for affirming the benefits of religious practice, or accuse me of cowardice, or of faking my faith, or of simply looking out for myself with pitiful self-interest, when I myself cannot choose what I believe? While I am not saying that you suggested such, I wish to make this contradiction painfully obvious as it is something I often see whenever atheists argue against the gambit.

As for your last comment, I'm sure you know just as well as I do that explaining away why the belief exists on evolutionary terms is no basis for invalidating the belief. I realise that you were not seriously suggesting this though.

 

[Squawk]

Hardly. Pascal himself suggested the possibility of obtaining faith through practicing the rituals of the Christian faith. Acquired faith is not fake faith..

And herein lies the problem. Please tell me on what grounds one would choose to practice the rituals of Christianity over the rituals of the thousands of other religions without some prior notion that Christianity was somehow more valid.

Regress still further, and why would one make the presumption that the practice of any religious ritual/practice, related or not to Christianity, would lead to some form of enlightenment?

The issue here is that a predisposition to faith is a pre-requisite for pascals wager to have any impact, and thus it is revealed as a circular argument whose only function is to bolster the faith of the previously credulous.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Perhaps I chose the wrong word. Realise though that I made that quip in protest to what I perceived as unfair and heavy-handed treatment. As evident by the 11 day gap between doteree and the last post, the blog topic was dead, and, if anything, doteree's semi-related post stimulated further discussion. Prior to your warning, he was already being mocked & egged on by A. Rex to respond to rebuttals. Doteree politely acknowledged your warning, saying he required only one post more, and responds to arguments made. You also told other people to ignore him, yet people respond with facepalms or other quips. When Doteree is gone, people continue talking about the deviation from main topic (which is, in itself, another unrelated topic). You throw down the temporary banhammer because Doteree didn't follow your directions down to the letter, yet when others don't follow directions, all is forgiven. If I was Dotoree, I would receive the temp-ban as an insult, and would be far less inclined to return. Besides, on a general level, why concern yourself over unrelated posts on dead topics? Must everything on this website be organized and categorized so strictly?

To a certain extent I am inclined to agree with you, perhaps the ban was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction due to the annoyance factor. But to call what followed his post further discussion is a bit of a stretch. It's not uncommon for threads to get derailed or go off on tangents but it generally happens organically and follows the normal vagaries of conversational fate. Dotoree's interjection was out of the blue, unrelated to the previous discussion, and barely related to the OP at all. I'll be the first to admit that I lead the charge in the ensuing flame war, but the suggestions I made were quite valid and anyone actually interested in furthering debate would have gladly accepted them and started their own thread. His post after the unambiguous warning was an insult so I, for one, would not lament if he feels insulted by his ban. If he never returns... well, I'm a bit ambivalent, since I do enjoy getting righteously indignant at blatant stupidity and hypocrisy from time to time, much as it also infuriates me.

Squawk already covered my own objections to Pascal's wager admirably and far, far more succinctly than I would have so I'll not add further to that.

 

[Memeticemetic]

Oh, and I would like to make it quite clear UNFF, I did not for a moment intend to accuse you of cowardice, I was calling Pascal's wager cowardly. I've seen nothing from you thus far that would suggest cowardice in your character.

 

[borrofburi]

Also, I am surprised you would run to the defense of Pascal's Wager.

At its core, it relies on fake faith, appeal to consequences, and has no evidentiary validity in any way in terms of the existence of any god.

It seems clear that it's an "argument" that only survives because it bolsters the faith of people who already believe. There is no way anyone could fake-faith their way into heaven, which is what the argument basically relies on, and I'm sure you know this.

I have to disagree here (though I note UNFFwildcard already beat me to it).... People are quite good at lying to themselves, EVEN if they know they're intentionally doing it. I'm not sure I could fake myself in to actually being a christian again, but it's not hard to imagine someone who was a little bit different who could. As UNFF (I assume that curtailing of characters is acceptable to him) pointed out, Pascal even gives a sort of manual for how to lie yourself into being a True Christian.

I think Pascal fails to emphasize how much you have to squelch doubts and continually STOP THINKING as soon as you start worrying about the truth or validity of christianity, and actively practice killing the critical part of your brain ANY time it turned towards christianity, especially if you were once a rationalist/empirical critic of christianity; but other than that I think he's right: partake in the rituals, pretend to be one, the more you pretend to believe something the more you'll actually believe it.

It's kind of like how the brain has difficulty telling the difference between a fake smile and a real smile, so the more often you fake smile, the more often you'll real smile. The more you practice being a True Beliver, the more you'll start to actually believe it. Of course the question of whether real faith with genesis in purposeful lying is as valid to whatever deity you've chosen to worship as real faith with some some other genesis (e.g. being raised in it, having a religions experiential conversion, whatever else).



Regardless of all that, I, as is very common, (completely coincidentally) fully agree with Squawk: why would I fake myself into believeing christianity? Why not become a mormon, a jehovah's witness, a muslim, a buddhist, a taoist, part of the cult of athena, maybe the FSM, or any of the infinity of gods that haven't been named or created (or revealed themselves) yet?

 

[borrofburi]

Regardless of all that, I, as is very common, (completely coincidentally) fully agree with Squawk: why would I fake myself into believeing christianity? Why not become a mormon, a jehovah's witness, a muslim, a buddhist, a taoist, part of the cult of athena, maybe the FSM, or any of the infinity of gods that haven't been named or created (or revealed themselves) yet?

I am reminded of this very large list: http://208.116.9.205/10/content/25595/1.jpg
Why pick specifically jehova? (yes I know there are some inaccuracies in that list, but the question holds)

 

[Gnug215]

Perhaps I chose the wrong word.

I'd say so, thanks for admitting as much.

Realise though that I made that quip in protest to what I perceived as unfair and heavy-handed treatment. As evident by the 11 day gap between doteree and the last post, the blog topic was dead, and, if anything, doteree's semi-related post stimulated further discussion. Prior to your warning, he was already being mocked & egged on by A. Rex to respond to rebuttals. Doteree politely acknowledged your warning, saying he required only one post more, and responds to arguments made.

I'll, in turn, admit to being heavy-handed. (Not just to exchange niceties, but because I KNOW it was heavy-handed.)

However, I still think you have read the situation slightly wrong. If you look at the thread, you'll notice that the thread had basically died, then dotoree came in with a post where only the first few paragraphs were really related to the topic, the rest was him pasting the stuff he has been doing for a while in here. A couple of people responded to the derailing, and sure, egged him. I then came in and made my first mod note and warned dotoree primarily, since I consider him the primary rule breaker.

Once I had done that, I had effectively killed the thread. (A shame? Well, more on that below...)

The thread only woke up again when dotoree came back, CONTINUING the derailing, EVEN after acknowledging my warning (what gives??) - and not just with one post, but with TWO lengthy posts. That's almost like... a criminal assaulting someone, and then when the police comes to stop him, he acknowledges the police's presence, says he'll stop, but just needing to finish the assault... twice.

So... I shot him in the leg to make him stop.

A harsh analogy, perhaps, but it really did bother me that he so flagrantly ignored the warning and made two posts, knowing full-well he could have started a new thread or whatever.

You also told other people to ignore him, yet people respond with facepalms or other quips. When Doteree is gone, people continue talking about the deviation from main topic (which is, in itself, another unrelated topic). You throw down the temporary banhammer because Doteree didn't follow your directions down to the letter, yet when others don't follow directions, all is forgiven.

As mentioned above, I considered dotoree the primary rule breaker - for breaking specific rules twice (or thrice). I honestly don't have a huge beef with the other posters for posting to something like that, even though they are contributing to derailment.

If I was Dotoree, I would receive the temp-ban as an insult, and would be far less inclined to return.

But yeah, I shot him in the leg. If he's insulted by that then that's his loss, really. It IS just a temp ban, after all. Knowing him, with him being gone for weeks at a time, I doubt he'd even notice it.

Besides, on a general level, why concern yourself over unrelated posts on dead topics? Must everything on this website be organized and categorized so strictly?

Honestly? Because I tend to be rather anal and pedantic with certain things. I would prefer it if a debate topic that was active was actually listed as what it actually was about, not... debating Pascal and Bible evidence as a side note on a statement by the Pope about Catholic priests.

Anyway, I took this up with some of the other mods in the mod forum, and while they mostly agreed it was a bit harsh, none objected vehemently enough to overturn the ban.

Pascal's wager is quite valid; the problem rests in its application. No, it does not provide evidence for the existence of God, but who ever claimed it did? Both you and Meme imply it does, and frankly, it's a borderline strawman objection. It's an appeal to consequences? Of course it is, but not in the matter of affirming the existence of God, but rather of assessing potential benefits and risks. And just what is inherently wrong about this? It relies on fake faith? Hardly. Pascal himself suggested the possibility of obtaining faith through practicing the rituals of the Christian faith. Acquired faith is not fake faith. The problem is the assumption that one can change what one believes at will, an assumption almost rejected by all. But if the opposite is true, then why would anyone criticize me for affirming the benefits of religious practice, or accuse me of cowardice, or of faking my faith, or of simply looking out for myself with pitiful self-interest, when I myself cannot choose what I believe? While I am not saying that you suggested such, I wish to make this contradiction painfully obvious as it is something I often see whenever atheists argue against the gambit.

While I may not have heard anyone (although memory may fail me here) specifically state that Pascal's Wager is evidence of the existence of God, I have gotten the distinct, direct, expressive impression that many people DO think it's evidence, and present it as such. You have to admit that some theists do give that impression, right? (dotoree has been throwing it in together with some of his other "evidence", so I suppose that counts, right?)
However, if it isn't used as evidence, then why do we see it so often? One would assume that it's something that might bolster the beliefs of people who already believe, but why is it so often presented to atheists as some kind of argument?

But as an appeal to consequences, and it's, to me, appeal to faking one's faith (at least initially), it's a terrible, terrible argument already there. Assessing potential benefits and risks? This isn't a stock market investment, this is about faith! Truth! Eternity! God! Factoring in benefits and risks seems like an afterthough of convenience for the believer.

However benifical to the theist, it's still pretty evident that most atheists and non-believers find it to be a terrible argument - and here I haven't even dealt with some of the other problems of the argument.

As for your last comment, I'm sure you know just as well as I do that explaining away why the belief exists on evolutionary terms is no basis for invalidating the belief. I realise that you were not seriously suggesting this though.

Yes, I was indeed being facetious, wanting to demonstrate how dotoree's point about Pascal's Wager and his "10+ years Bible science" thing are nonsensical and invalid to the debate, in slightly similar fashion as my silly example was.
I really wish both sides could get rid of some of these arguments, which are basically moot and pointless. At least in terms of veracity and validity of either position. People are, of course, free to discuss whatever they want, but I think it's fair to say that atheists and non-believers are experiencing having Pascal's Wager (and other similarly invalid, at least in an evidentiary, veracity-of-world-view sense) thrown at them as "evidence".

 

[Gnug215]

Also, I am surprised you would run to the defense of Pascal's Wager.

At its core, it relies on fake faith, appeal to consequences, and has no evidentiary validity in any way in terms of the existence of any god.

It seems clear that it's an "argument" that only survives because it bolsters the faith of people who already believe. There is no way anyone could fake-faith their way into heaven, which is what the argument basically relies on, and I'm sure you know this.

I have to disagree here (though I note UNFFwildcard already beat me to it).... People are quite good at lying to themselves, EVEN if they know they're intentionally doing it. I'm not sure I could fake myself in to actually being a christian again, but it's not hard to imagine someone who was a little bit different who could. As UNFF (I assume that curtailing of characters is acceptable to him) pointed out, Pascal even gives a sort of manual for how to lie yourself into being a True Christian.

I'll have to counter-disagree here, though. I think "lying to oneself" is actually bit of a linguistic paradox. Wouldn't it be impossible in reality? Isn't there something else at play? Reinforcing beliefs, confirmation bias, other psychological mechanisms?

Would someone who was, shall we say, consciously atheist ever be able to pull this off?

I highly doubt it, but is there a way to determine that?

Besides, if I were God, even if it wasn't fake and someone managed to convince themselves to believe, I'd still be rather, well, skeptical towards a believer who started to believe based on the supposed benefits of the belief - not because it was right or true, or because God is a swell deity.

 

[WarK]

coincidentally I'd watched this vid just before reading Gnug's post about lying to oneself

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Hardly. Pascal himself suggested the possibility of obtaining faith through practicing the rituals of the Christian faith. Acquired faith is not fake faith

Sorry to get to this a little late... the problem with saying this is that part of the 'rituals of the Christian faith' is repeating things that begin with "I believe" and whatnot. I cannot fathom how such a thing can be anything other than 'fake faith' if said but not believed.

That, and there are serious ethical problems with telling someone to, "say it until you believe it!" style rhetoric, seems awfully Orwellian.