| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"stubby-x" |
| Date: |
30 Oct 2004 10:59:11 AM |
| Object: |
Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
(Robert Cohen) wrote in message news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
.
|
|
| User: "ChuckkPF" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 01:21:27 PM |
|
|
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
MORON!
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.783 / Virus Database: 529 - Release Date: 10/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 01:52:02 PM |
|
|
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence goes. Why is
that cowardly?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 02:21:44 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:w6WdnSvssp7pfh7cRVn-1w@comcast.com:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence
goes. Why is that cowardly?
Because you haven't joined the rabid true-believers on either side in their
war.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 03:01:35 PM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95927DC47EFDBretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:w6WdnSvssp7pfh7cRVn-1w@comcast.com:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence
goes. Why is that cowardly?
Because you haven't joined the rabid true-believers on either side in their
war.
But what evidence does either side have? Besides the "religious gamble" makes it
hard to be an agnostic (kantian variety)
Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various
possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we
believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will
receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will
have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the
argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great
punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or
nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on
balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It
is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little
or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or
gain little or nothing.
The conclusion that Pascal’s Wager draws from this is that belief in the
Christian God is the rational course of action, even if there is no evidence that
he exists. If the Christian God does not exist then it is of little importance
whether we believe or disbelieve in him. If the Christian God does exist then it
is of great importance that we do believe in him. In order to cover ourselves in
all circumstances, therefore, we ought to believe that the Christian God exists.
A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:
Pascal’s Wager
(1) It is possible that the Christian God exists and it is possible that the
Christian God does not exist.
(2) If one believes in the Christian God then if he exists then one receives an
infinitely great reward and if he does not exist then one loses little or
nothing.
(3) If one does not believe in the Christian God then if he exists then one
receives an infinitely great punishment and if he does not exist then one gains
little or nothing.
(4) It is better to either receive an infinitely great reward or lose little or
nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment or gain
little or nothing.
Therefore:
(5) It is better to believe in the Christian God than it is to disbelieve in the
Christian God.
(6) If one course of action is better than another then it is rational to follow
that course of action and irrational to follow the other.
Therefore:
(7) It is rational to believe in the Christian God and irrational to disbelieve
in the Christian God.
Three common objections to this argument will be considered here. A more detailed
discussion of each can be found by following the appropriate link.
OBJECTION 1:
The first of these objections targets the third premise of the argument as it is
stated above. It is the objection that Pascal’s Wager illicitly assumes a
Christian view of the criteria for entrance into heaven, i.e. it illicitly
assumes that if there are infinite rewards and punishments to be had then they
will be distributed on the basis of belief or disbelief in the Christian god.
There are many possible ways in which such rewards and punishments might be
distributed; they might be distributed on the basis of belief in the Christian
God, or on the basis of good deeds, or on the basis of belief in the Muslim God,
for instance. In fact, distribution of heavenly rewards and infernal punishments
on almost any basis imaginable appears to be possible. It is only, however, if
such rewards and punishments are distributed on the basis of belief in the
Christian God that belief in the Christian God is in our interests. On many of
the other possible distributive schemes, it is by disbelieving in the Christian
God that one receives a heavenly reward. If any of those distributive schemes
were the true scheme, though, then the third premise of Pascal’s Wager would be
false. It would not be the case that if one does not believe in the Christian God
and the Christian God does not exist then one gains little or nothing, for if
such a distributive scheme were the true scheme then one might gain a great deal
(i.e. an infinite reward in heaven) by disbelieving in the Christian God. In
order to demonstrate that the third premise of his argument is true, then, the
advocate of Pascal’s Wager must demonstrate that the only possible criterion for
entrance into heaven is belief in the Christian God and the only possible
criterion for entrance into hell is disbelief in the Christian God. This, the
objector suggests, cannot be demonstrated, for it is false.
OBJECTION 2:
The second objection to Pascal’s Wager targets the fourth premise of the argument
as it is stated above. It is the objection that the probability that God exists,
and so the probability of either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or of
receiving an infinite punishment in hell, is so small that these possible
outcomes of belief or disbelief can be discounted. The choice between belief and
disbelief is thus taken to be a choice between losing little or nothing and
gaining little or nothing. As it is better to gain little or nothing than it is
to lose little or nothing, this objection concludes that it is wagering on
atheism, rather than wagering on theism, that is the rational course of action.
It is better, the objection suggests, to take the certain benefits of disbelief
(the joys of indulging in sin and of being free from religious commitments) by
wagering that God doesn’t exist than it is to gamble on the vastly improbable
hope of a heavenly reward and almost certainly gain nothing at all.
OBJECTION 3:
The third objection targets the inference from the fifth and sixth premises to
the conclusion. It is the objection that we cannot choose our beliefs. We form
our beliefs on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of desire. No matter how
much one may want to believe that a given proposition is true, one cannot bring
oneself to do so simply through an act of will. Rather, in order for one to come
to believe that a proposition is true one requires evidence for its truth. Pascal
’s Wager, though, merely prescribes belief in God; it does not provide any
evidence that such a belief would be true. As such, it asks us to do the
impossible: to believe without reason.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
http://www.google.com/search?q=religious+wager
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 05:58:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 13:01:35 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95927DC47EFDBretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:w6WdnSvssp7pfh7cRVn-1w@comcast.com:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence
goes. Why is that cowardly?
Because you haven't joined the rabid true-believers on either side in their
war.
But what evidence does either side have? Besides the "religious gamble" makes it
hard to be an agnostic (kantian variety)
It's not "either side". It's theists insisting that their wacky
beliefs describe a reality that applies to everybody else, and those
who say "put up or shut up".
Pascal’s Wager seeks to justify Christian faith by considering the various
possible consequences of belief and disbelief in the God of Christianity. If we
believe in the Christian God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will
receive an infinitely great reward in heaven while if he does not then we will
have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in the Christian God, the
argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinitely great
punishment in hell while if he does not then we will have gained little or
nothing. The possible outcomes of belief in the Christian God, then, are on
balance better than the possible outcomes of disbelief in the Christian God. It
is better to either receive an infinitely great reward in heaven or lose little
or nothing than it is to either receive an infinitely great punishment in hell or
gain little or nothing.
Pascal's wager is an inanity whose problems are obvious but they are
too self-centered to realise them, and too stupid to realise that
their premises don't apply to the rest of the world.
The conclusion that Pascal’s Wager draws from this is that belief in the
Christian God is the rational course of action, even if there is no evidence that
he exists. If the Christian God does not exist then it is of little importance
whether we believe or disbelieve in him. If the Christian God does exist then it
is of great importance that we do believe in him. In order to cover ourselves in
all circumstances, therefore, we ought to believe that the Christian God exists.
A formal statement of this argument might be constructed as follows:
Pascal’s Wager
It's not a conclusion but smug ignorance, the result their inability
to think outside the box..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 05:58:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:21:44 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:w6WdnSvssp7pfh7cRVn-1w@comcast.com:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence
goes. Why is that cowardly?
Because you haven't joined the rabid true-believers on either side in their
war.
Another button-pushing falsehood.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 06:42:33 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:jq48o05hfospt4v725bmlu75lv7h0qp1o9@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 19:21:44 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:w6WdnSvssp7pfh7cRVn-1w@comcast.com:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence
goes. Why is that cowardly?
Because you haven't joined the rabid true-believers on either side in
their war.
Another button-pushing falsehood.
Poor wittle baby Christopher - broken recrd respons to everything is
"lies"
Just like a true believer.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
31 Oct 2004 10:13:07 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:52:02 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence goes.
Seeing that "agnostic" basically means to not make statements for
which one has no evidence, this is ludicrous.
And, since most atheists *are* agnostic, the OP's statement makes no
sense.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
31 Oct 2004 02:30:59 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hm3ao0d5j2v6npbrekfs6r13vs6gnqc7oq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:52:02 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence goes.
Seeing that "agnostic" basically means to not make statements for
which one has no evidence, this is ludicrous.
And, since most atheists *are* agnostic, the OP's statement makes no
sense.
--
And you are suggesting that instead people generally should make statements which
have no evidence? Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
31 Oct 2004 09:25:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:30:59 -0800, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hm3ao0d5j2v6npbrekfs6r13vs6gnqc7oq@4ax.com...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:52:02 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> said in alt.atheism:
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence goes.
Seeing that "agnostic" basically means to not make statements for
which one has no evidence, this is ludicrous.
And, since most atheists *are* agnostic, the OP's statement makes no
sense.
And you are suggesting that instead people generally should make statements which
have no evidence? Why?
His statement that he's agnostic, not atheistic, makes as much sense
as stating that one is male, not reptilian. Being agnostic doesn't
mean that one can't also be atheistic. MOST atheists don't make
claims for which they have no evidence (IOW they're agnostic).
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 05:58:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:52:02 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence goes. Why is
that cowardly?
Actually, it isn't the best position. It means you single it out to
treat it more specially, give it more credence, significance etc that
all the other things you don't believe.
It's part of the theist's worldview, not the atheist's, non-theist's
etc.
It's not even part of the atheist's worldview, where it is little
different than the theist's view of Zeus, Mithras, Krishna, Odin and
all the others that are somebody else's belief.
Whereas you seem to start from the theist's position and then say you
don't know either way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 06:41:50 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:vf48o0talpeskn65l1c2k7cb724758jdpb@4ax.com:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:52:02 -0700, "Immortalist"
<Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
"stubby-x" <stubbyx_76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a492262.0410300759.4bec1d03@posting.google.com...
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message
news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Seems that the agnostic is in the best position as far as evidence
goes. Why is that cowardly?
Actually, it isn't the best position. It means you single it out to
treat it more specially, give it more credence, significance etc that
all the other things you don't believe.
It's part of the theist's worldview, not the atheist's, non-theist's
etc.
It's not even part of the atheist's worldview, where it is little
different than the theist's view of Zeus, Mithras, Krishna, Odin and
all the others that are somebody else's belief.
Whereas you seem to start from the theist's position and then say you
don't know either way.
Talk about babbling inanely, loon. No wonder everyone laughs at you.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intelligent Design" vs "Evolution" |
30 Oct 2004 07:27:27 PM |
|
|
On 30 Oct 2004 08:59:11 -0700, (stubby-x)
wrote:
robtcohen@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen) wrote in message news:<20041026215735.27265.00003164@mb-m03.aol.com>...
i'm more agnostic rather than merely simply atheistic
COWARD!
Is it cowardice? Perhaps it's just an intelligent way to express
uncertainty. A way to be superior without getting into the morass of
distasteful debate. To set one aside without the cumbersome effect of
decision. Sure, the agnostic understands both sides of the issue but
elects to remain smug and above committing to actual evidence, thus
receiving the superstitious ***** without complaint and smiling at
atheist logic.
But a coward!?
No! No!
He's a fucking *****! A pitiful ***** with a weak mind
and an aide to the superstitious mind fucked idiots. They're the one
that perpetrate the 'you'll be a believer someday' myth for the
Godbots. They do more harm to atheism than a good burning at the
stake!
***** 'em!
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
