Sweet Spot between Atheism and Theism

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Oh boy! Solid historical evidence? Andy earlier admits the "evidence" is shaky and then returns to default position. Troll.

My Dear, as usual you miss the subtle meanings and nuances.

I recognize that "solid - ancient - historical evidence" is at best shaky. I mean it is solid as far as the study of ancient history can be. I have written about this - please read and reflect on what your saying.

I know all you are doing is fantasizing about me know (that you've heard how well endowed I am) - but please try to resist and try to focus intellectually.

Maybe if you attended college or something, things might improve for you.

God Bless

[Kinich Ahau]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Don't forget, we have written testimony that provides solid historical evidence that Android is a shit-eating, piss-drinking, hobo-shagging danger to civilised society. He can't grasp the highly advanced concept of 'Made-up Shit! His blankie must be overly comforting.

Yeah, the evidence is shaky or solid depending on how tight a grip he has on his blankie at the time.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Hope - as I've explained, arguably, could be interpreted as a bare minimal belief...

No argument here. Perhaps you thought there was. There isn't. It is WHAT you hope for that counts surely, yet you seem to be fixated on merely hoping that there is something rather than nothing.

Andrew66 wrote

You can play Pascal's wager for Allah. Pascal's wager of Jehova. Pascal's wager for Jesus - its up to the player to place their bet.

I'm dismayed that it is this very fact that you have articulated that is in fact a major criticism of the wager itself; you just don't see it do you?

Let's see if I can help: There is a decision theory matrix of god vs no god and belief vs non-belief(courtesy of Wikipedia). But here's the rub; it doesn't specifiy which god becasue Pascal (a cat-lick) had no concept of any other gods.

If one plays the wager in favour of say Quezoacotl, one may "hope" that one is positioned in the infinite gain box of the matrix.
However when one dies and finds out that say a different deity exists (e.g. Vishnu) then the very "hope / belief" that one had is what has now changed one's position in the matrix of belief in god / god actually exists from infinite gain to infinite loss.

Essentially due to the multiplicity of gods throughout human history "hoping / believing" in the wrong one results in the same outcome as believing in none.

The "deity multiplicity problem" is effectively a reductio ad absurdum and it is summed up neatly by paraphrasing Richard Dawkins thus:
We are all atheists about most gods that have ever been thought up. I just go one more god further than you.

Andrew66 wrote

In my humble opinion the "best" bet is Jesus. Biggest impact factor. Only God with solid historical evidence supporting a miracle - Resurrection.

Just had to leave this in there for comedy value. FYI if you base your "faith" on "evidence" then you don't get to call it faith.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

No argument here. Perhaps you thought there was. There isn't. It is WHAT you hope for that counts surely, yet you seem to be fixated on merely hoping that there is something rather than nothing.


I'm dismayed that it is this very fact that you have articulated that is in fact a major criticism of the wager itself; you just don't see it do you?

Let's see if I can help: There is a decision theory matrix of god vs no god and belief vs non-belief(courtesy of Wikipedia). But here's the rub; it doesn't specifiy which god becasue Pascal (a cat-lick) had no concept of any other gods.

If one plays the wager in favour of say Quezoacotl, one may "hope" that one is positioned in the infinite gain box of the matrix.
However when one dies and finds out that say a different deity exists (e.g. Vishnu) then the very "hope / belief" that one had is what has now changed one's position in the matrix of belief in god / god actually exists from infinite gain to infinite loss.

Essentially due to the multiplicity of gods throughout human history "hoping / believing" in the wrong one results in the same outcome as believing in none.

The "deity multiplicity problem" is effectively a reductio ad absurdum and it is summed up neatly by paraphrasing Richard Dawkins thus:
We are all atheists about most gods that have ever been thought up. I just go one more god further than you.


Just had to leave this in there for comedy value. FYI if you base your "faith" on "evidence" then you don't get to call it faith.

Judge
With respect most of what your saying is just bull shit.
Why make a simple discussion difficult?.

Belief in any God (broadly speaking, supreme being) and loving they Neighbour - this is a reasonable way to play the wager - hopefully a God, if at least one exists (Allah, Jehova, etc.) will not be so finicky that you got their name wrong.

And I'm not convinced that there is a finite loss if God does not exist. Loving their Neighbour is a lifestyle which often provides real life kick backs and benefits!

But just in case salvation is based on guessing the "correct" Diety - as I've explained Jesus (Christianity) is arguably the best bet, because at least there is a historic resurrection account whereby a miracle is attested to authenticate the Diety.

One doesn't have to play of course, if you are a strong Atheist (capital A) then the wager is a complete waste of time. But if you rank say 6/ 7 as an Atheist (this is where Dawkins places himself) - then playing the wager is not illogical, if no other reason than to cover your ass from an "infinite" loss.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Judge
With respect most of what your saying is just bull shit.
Why make a simple discussion difficult?.

Belief in any God (broadly speaking, supreme being) and loving they Neighbour - this is a reasonable way to play the wager - hopefully a God, if at least one exists (Allah, Jehova, etc.) will not be so finicky that you got their name wrong.

I think I see the problem here: You have made the assumption that "hope" in any god will appease any god that may exist (you clearly have not read much of your own buybull if you think Yaweh / Jehova is ok with you believing in anything other than "himself.") You therefore think that the wager is simple whereas in actual fact and like with most things in life, it is a bit more complex and nuanced than that.

Also you have conflated belief with ethical behaviour as a way of playing the wager; something that was never in the original waver which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the wager itself.

Andrew66 wrote

One doesn't have to play of course...

Again you clearly have not actually read the wager / about the wager itself have you?
Pascal framed the wager as inescapable; one has no option but to play it. Even if you were a strong "Atheist" you would still have to play according to the original framing of the wager but it is just all the more obvious in which area of the decision matrix you would fall.

Can I suggest a little background reading / reading around the subject before trying to make an argument please?

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

I think I see the problem here: You have made the assumption that "hope" in any god will appease any god that may exist (you clearly have not read much of your own buybull if you think Yaweh / Jehova is ok with you believing in anything other than "himself.") You therefore think that the wager is simple whereas in actual fact and like with most things in life, it is a bit more complex and nuanced than that.

No again your making things unnecessarily difficult

The way I see Pascal's wager is:

Hope in a God - take your best bet which God is correct (I've stated Jesus is probably the best bet).
Follow the basic teaching of said God - Love They Neighbor is pretty universal.

And then hope for the best in view of Pascal's wager.

I personally have always believed (even if against dogmatic teachings from the Church) that a God would forgive a follower if the only problem is choosing a wrong God. I even have a playful saying when a follower prays to an incorrect Deity - GOD CAN REDIRECT THE MAIL!

If I'm wrong - well, at least I've placed my bet with Jesus. Logically, if you have to choose one Deity Jesus is likely best for the reasons I gave earlier.

That's how I recommend an Atheist to play Pascal's Wager. Why is this a problem for you Judge?

The Judge wrote

Also you have conflated belief with ethical behaviour as a way of playing the wager; something that was never in the original waver which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the wager itself.

I've appropriately supplemented and added to the wager. When Jesus was asked by a follower what one must do to enter Heaven, the answer given was not only "believe" in God. It was also love they Neighbor.

If I conflate, who cares.? That you can't automatically see the merit to this suggests you don't understand Pascal's Wager in view and with particular attention to Christianity.

The Judge wrote

Pascal framed the wager as inescapable; one has no option but to play it. Even if you were a strong "Atheist" you would still have to play according to the original framing of the wager but it is just all the more obvious in which area of the decision matrix you would fall.

Yes of course, I stand corrected on this point.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Yeah, the evidence is shaky or solid depending on how tight a grip he has on his blankie at the time.

All you can think about is my Penis, sad.

Hope you at least used a condom on New Years like a said, lots of diseases out there young lady.

Have you been tested?

[Kinich Ahau]

I'm pretty sure women do appreciate nice sized dicks, in my experience most women aren't very interested in inbred, hillbilly boy, puny dicks that have spent most of their sexual experience masturbating over Wonder Woman comics and spent in younger brothers, cousins, pumpkins and assorted farm animals. Also, they do prefer men with teeth. Still we do hope you can experience some normal healthy sex sometime soon. Good luck in 2018.

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

No again your making things unnecessarily difficult

The way I see Pascal's wager is:

Hope in a God - take your best bet which God is correct (I've stated Jesus is probably the best bet).
Follow the basic teaching of said God - Love They Neighbor is pretty universal.

And then hope for the best in view of Pascal's wager.

I personally have always believed (even if against dogmatic teachings from the Church) that a God would forgive a follower if the only problem is choosing a wrong God. I even have a playful saying when a follower prays to an incorrect Deity - GOD CAN REDIRECT THE MAIL!

If I'm wrong - well, at least I've placed my bet with Jesus. Logically, if you have to choose one Deity Jesus is likely best for the reasons I gave earlier.

That's how I recommend an Atheist to play Pascal's Wager. Why is this a problem for you Judge?



I've appropriately supplemented and added to the wager. When Jesus was asked by a follower what one must do to enter Heaven, the answer given was not only "believe" in God. It was also love they Neighbor.

If I conflate, who cares.? That you can't automatically see the merit to this suggests you don't understand Pascal's Wager in view and with particular attention to Christianity.

There is so much wrong here it's troubling.
I'm going to go our on a limb here and suggest that I would not be surprised if you are a supporter of Trump. The psychology I see evident in the above is symptomatic of a wider modern problem: There is just so much in it that wreaks of pig-headed ignorance and an obstinate conviction that the world is simply the way you want it to be no matter what argument is made that appeals to logic, reason and that is based on facts.

It is a mish mash of poorly constructed, misunderstood bollocks that is willfully ignorant of the history and context of the wager itself with pithy little after thoughts bolted on to suit your world view.

The above drivel is not representative of the wager as it is written. You have bastardised the wager because of your a priori assuptions.



I sense that we will just end up spinning our wheels and spraying mud everywhere on the actual details of the wager so let me ask you this; so what if there's a god?

Could this now nameless and non-denominational mail re-director not also respect independent thought and cogitation? If the name / type of god matters not in your world view why then does belief in anything like a deity matter at all. Is it because this nameless deity (which ever one it could be) would be so capricious as to damn someone to "hell" for non-belief? Seems like a dick move to me.

[Andrew66]

The Judge wrote

There is so much wrong here it's troubling.
I'm going to go our on a limb here and suggest that I would not be surprised if you are a supporter of Trump. The psychology I see evident in the above is symptomatic of a wider modern problem: There is just so much in it that wreaks of pig-headed ignorance and an obstinate conviction that the world is simply the way you want it to be no matter what argument is made that appeals to logic, reason and that is based on facts.

It is a mish mash of poorly constructed, misunderstood bollocks that is willfully ignorant of the history and context of the wager itself with pithy little after thoughts bolted on to suit your world view.

The above drivel is not representative of the wager as it is written. You have bastardised the wager because of your a priori assuptions.



I sense that we will just end up spinning our wheels and spraying mud everywhere on the actual details of the wager so let me ask you this; so what if there's a god?

Could this now nameless and non-denominational mail re-director not also respect independent thought and cogitation? If the name / type of god matters not in your world view why then does belief in anything like a deity matter at all. Is it because this nameless deity (which ever one it could be) would be so capricious as to damn someone to "hell" for non-belief? Seems like a dick move to me.

Hard to respond to you Judge
Nothing you say has anything to do with anything.
I"m just talking about how I personally would approach Pascal's wager, and how I would suggest an Atheist may benefit as well.
There is absolutely nothing "wrong" about anything I said.
Is it because I don't restrict my thoughts to within your narrow way of thinking?
You ask "what if there is a God"?
Huh? What kind of question is that?
I suppose you want an answer in view of Pascal's wager, what if there is a God? I suppose whether we would benefit from salvation would depend on the God's rules. That's sort of the point of Pascals wager.
Yes I've bastardized Pascals wager, in favour of Christine doctrine. Why is that such a big deal to you - are you a Pascal Wager purist or something.?

[Davin]

Android66 is a shit eating, self loathing, admitted mentally deficient paid shill. There is written testimony of it, and that is the kind of evidence that Android66 accepts.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Android66 is a shit eating, self loathing, admitted mentally deficient paid shill. There is written testimony of it, and that is the kind of evidence that Android66 accepts.

Hey CrackHead, did you have a nervous breakdown and create a new login named "Hertz"? You guys sure sound alike, totally unhinged.

Where have you been? Sick, on vacation. I guess you heard about Sinny?

Yes I noticed, make a comment about how I'm the only one to notice and your Atheist friends didn't and then insincere KA will say something like she was "planning" to say something. Don't you hate people like that?

[Kinich Ahau]

Elvis lives! I know a bloke who saw him in the lift at work.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

[Inane drivel]

You accept written testimony as evidence, so you must accept the written testimony that you're a shit eating, piss drinking, idiotic loser that is a paid shill. You don't get to be two ways about it. Well, I mean you can, but then you just look stupid.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

You accept written testimony as evidence, so you must accept the written testimony that you're a shit eating, piss drinking, idiotic loser that is a paid shill. You don't get to be two ways about it. Well, I mean you can, but then you just look stupid.

Ha Ha Ha back to fall back retreat position eh?

Testimonial evidence gets analysed for its merit crackhead.

The Christian Resurection testimonial has been analysed by professional scholars - the mainstream view is

Jesus existed
Jesus died on cross
Followers believed they saw him afterwards.

Take a look at the response I gave earlier where I analysed and rebutted the merits of your "testimonial" story (work of fiction). You never responded to that did you