Deism: some pretty smart fellows believe in it--what about you?

[RayLopez99]

Who said this below? You think you're smarter than him? Than Him?
Man, you are dumb. Literally.

Do you know what Socrates said? He was reputed to be (said the
Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
nothing" (Socrates). Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?

The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of
Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
die you'll be saved by a god or gods.

Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
nothing.

RL

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111vol.html

[1] I MEDITATED last night; I was absorbed in the contemplation of
nature; I admired the immensity, the course, the harmony of these
infinite globes which the vulgar do not know how to admire.

[2] I admired still more the intelligence which directs these vast
forces. I said to myself : " One must be blind not to be dazzled by
this spectacle; one must be stupid not to recognize the author of it;
one must be mad not to worship Him. What tribute of worship should I
render Him? Should not this tribute be the same in the whole of space,
since it is the same supreme power which reigns equally in all space?
Should not a thinking being who dwells in a star in the Milky Way
offer Him the same homage as the thinking being on this little globe
where we are? Light is uniform for the star Sirius and for us; moral
philosophy must be uniform. If a sentient, thinking animal in Sirius
is born of a tender father and mother who have been occupied with his
happiness, he owes them as much love and care as we owe to our
parents. If someone in the Milky Way sees a needy cripple, if he can
relieve him and if he does not do it, he is guilty toward all globes.
Everywhere the heart has the same duties: on the steps of the throne
of God, if He has a throne; and in the depth of the abyss, if He is an
abyss."

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:08 PM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
Man, you are dumb.  Literally.

Welcome to AvC Ray

I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know nothing either.

 

Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?

The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of
Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
die you'll be saved by a god or gods.

Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for understanding reality.

And Pascal's Wager fails because it works on the false dichotomy that there is only the Christian God.

There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are worshipping the wrong one?

-- 

"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." --Thomas Jefferson

"You're still the goofy Canadian Maharanicess Pseudo Pagan-Priestess
Princess of AvC." --fundy xtian Chris of AvC

"Dear GodMocking Maggot" --TrueChristian

[Timothy 1:4a]

Welcome, Ray.

I assume you read the entire page that you linked to, and I hope the
theists in this group will do the same!!!

Trance used to use Voltaire quotes in her signature (instead of the
deist Jefferson quote that she has now). I always say that in the
debate of Atheism vs. Christianity (which is *not* Atheism vs. Theism)
the deists are on the atheist side. Your link certainly proves it for
Voltaire.

I am a weak atheist who regards the existence of god as possible, just
unproven. But like Voltaire, I reject the man-made stories I've heard
about what God is like and what worship He wants from us.

Unfortunately, of course, Voltaire is not right that only Abrahamic
religions make religious war. The Aztecs come to mind.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On May 31, 6:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> Man, you are dumb.  Literally.

When Xenophon asked Socrates for advice, Socrates advised him to
consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. Do you consult oracles? If
not, do you think you're smarter than Socrates?

> Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> of truth being a never-ending process,

Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
worshipping the scientific method?

> and, as a consequence of
> Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> die you'll be saved by a god or gods.

Suppose you ignore science. Now, by wagering Pascal's wager, how would
you know whether you'll go to Christian heaven or burn in Islamic hell
or be rowed across the Styx by Charon?

> Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> nothing.

Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
because he doesn't know that gods exist?

[Trance Gemini]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

Welcome, Ray.

I assume you read the entire page that you linked to, and I hope the
theists in this group will do the same!!!

Trance used to use Voltaire quotes in her signature (instead of the
deist Jefferson quote that she has now).  I always say that in the
debate of Atheism vs. Christianity (which is *not* Atheism vs. Theism)
the deists are on the atheist side.  Your link certainly proves it for
Voltaire.

I wouldn't agree that Deists are on the atheist side, Timothy.

I would agree that they can be on the Materialist / Naturalist side.

However, they are theists.

I would agree that they can (but don't necessarily) have more in common with atheists.

 

And both Voltaire and Jefferson were Deists.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 3:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:08 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> Welcome to AvC Ray

Thanks. I see this NG is moderated, so I'll refrain from calling you
names. For now. :-)

>
> I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> nothing either.
>
>

Well you're no Socrates! :-) Remember, your knowledge is always
provisional with the Scientific Method. Hope you're OK with that.

>
> Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> understanding reality.

Right. My point actually. So what do you worship? What myth
(metaphysics) do you believe in? Like the ancient Jews--pre-Maccabees
(and ancient Greeks, Babyloanians for that matter, but not the
Egyptians), do you believe that you'll exist--at best--as a shadow in
the underworld, if you exist at all after death?

>
> And Pascal's Wager fails because it works on the false dichotomy that there
> is only the Christian God.
>
> There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> worshipping the wrong one?
>

Any of the over 3000 gives you a 1/3000 chance of being right, which
is greater than zero if you're a true atheist.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 9:30 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> When Xenophon asked Socrates for advice, Socrates advised him to
> consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. Do you consult oracles? If
> not, do you think you're smarter than Socrates?

Yes, I do consult the oracle of Apollo. Check my header on this
message--look at the country I'm posting from! ;-)

>
> > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > of truth being a never-ending process,
>
> Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
> know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
> worshipping the scientific method?
>

The point is: knowledge in this world is gained by the Scientific
Method--but it's not a rule to live (or die) by--in the afterlife,
there are different protocols for knowledge. Which do you believe
in? Nothing? The Scientific Method will not get you into heaven, at
least according to any religion I know (it might get you into
Purgatory, in certain variants of the Catholic christian faith
however).

> > and, as a consequence of
> > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> Suppose you ignore science. Now, by wagering Pascal's wager, how would
> you know whether you'll go to Christian heaven or burn in Islamic hell
> or be rowed across the Styx by Charon?

You don't. But given the three religions you list, you'll have a 33%
chance of being right. With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
Purgatory issue).

>
> > Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> > nothing.
>
> Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
> might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
> because he doesn't know that gods exist?
>

Yes. But that person would be rare in today's world, unless born in a
cave, no?

RL

[Alan Wostenberg]

On May 31, 6:15 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> worshipping the wrong one?
>

The gods are inhabitants of physical reality, not it's creator. No
physical object can deliver the promise of the Wager: eternal
happiness. Whatever god you pick -- Zeus, money, physical health,
economic security -- will fail you.

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:08 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> Welcome to AvC Ray

Thanks.  I see this NG is moderated, so I'll refrain from calling you
names.  For now. :-)

Well actually you're allowed to call me names and I'm not allowed to ban you for it. Haha.

We moderate for spam and porn and redirect moderator issues to our Moderator Board.

Other than that this is an Open Free Speech site.

Although Google has some spam filter running that sends posts to moderation if they contain swearing or certain combinations of words.

Can't do much about that I'm afraid.

When they appear, we put them through to the site.

 

>
> I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> nothing either. 

Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.

I am and why is that a problem for you?

 

> Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> understanding reality.

Right.  My point actually.  So what do you worship?

I'm an atheist. I don't worship. Scientific knowledge and understanding changes all of the time. It's a reviewed process and expected to change. I'm fine with that.

 

 What myth
(metaphysics) do you believe in?  Like the ancient Jews--pre-Maccabees
(and ancient Greeks, Babyloanians for that matter, but not the
Egyptians), do you believe that you'll exist--at best--as a shadow in
the underworld, if you exist at all after death?

I suspect that I will not exist after death but there is no evidence to indicate what happens either way so I'm agnostic on that question. I don't know, will find out when it happens, and it's irrelevant to my life and how I live it.

 

>
> And Pascal's Wager fails because it works on the false dichotomy that there
> is only the Christian God.
>
> There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> worshipping the wrong one?
>

Any of the over 3000 gives you a 1/3000 chance of being right, which
is greater than zero if you're a true atheist.

It's greater than zero but significantly reduces the possibility of each one.

What's a "true atheist"? Is that like a "true christian"?

Reference No True Scotsman fallacy here ;-)

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

Any of the over 3000 gives you a 1/3000 chance of being right, which
is greater than zero if you're a true atheist.

I repeat my question which you didn't answer regarding Pascal's Wager: 

What if you pick the wrong god?

[Trance Gemini]

Including the Abrahamic God? :-)

If so, that's just one more reason not to accept Pascal's Wager.

[Neil Kelsey]

On May 31, 3:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> nothing"  (Socrates).

He knew plenty more than just one thing.

>  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?

That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
than just "one thing."

> The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of
> Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> die you'll be saved by a god or gods.

I've never met anyone who worships the scientific method, so this is
like ranting against. two-headed midgets with green hair who play in
the NBA. And no one has the comfort of knowing that when you die they
will be saved by a god or gods, including you.

> Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> nothing.

Thought about it. I remain an atheist.

> RL
>
> http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111vol.html
>
> [1] I MEDITATED last night; I was absorbed in the contemplation of
> nature; I admired the immensity, the course, the harmony of these
> infinite globes which the vulgar do not know how to admire.

I disagree that those who don't spend their time admiring infinite
globes are necessarily vulgar. I'm not crazy about this kind of
arbitrary anti-social arrogance in general.

> [2] I admired still more the intelligence which directs these vast
> forces. I said to myself : " One must be blind not to be dazzled by
> this spectacle; one must be stupid not to recognize the author of it;
> one must be mad not to worship Him.

Just because Voltaire may have been dazzled by nature does not mean
that it is guided by an intelligence/god.

> What tribute of worship should I
> render Him? Should not this tribute be the same in the whole of space,
> since it is the same supreme power which reigns equally in all space?
> Should not a thinking being who dwells in a star in the Milky Way
> offer Him the same homage as the thinking being on this little globe
> where we are? Light is uniform for the star Sirius and for us; moral
> philosophy must be uniform.

I don't understand why uniform light from Sirius means that we must
have a uniform moral philosophy. What's the connection? In addition,
we don't have a uniform moral philosophy now, we've never had one
ever, and yet our species is thriving - why must moral philosophy be
uniform? The Nazis sought a uniform moral philosophy. Shouldn't the
goal be to have a moral philosophy that best benefits all? Wouldn't
that include not regarding people as vulgar just because they don't
share the same hobbies as you do?

> If a sentient, thinking animal in Sirius
> is born of a tender father and mother who have been occupied with his
> happiness, he owes them as much love and care as we owe to our
> parents. If someone in the Milky Way sees a needy cripple, if he can
> relieve him and if he does not do it, he is guilty toward all globes.

What if that cripple were vulgar, and wasn't dazzled by nature? Would
Voltaire feel the need to "relieve" him then?

> Everywhere the heart has the same duties: on the steps of the throne
> of God, if He has a throne; and in the depth of the abyss, if He is an
> abyss."

Voltaire sounds like he prefers theoretical beings on Sirius to vulgar
humanity. Once again, God seems more rationally explained as a
psychological projection rather than an actual being. Argument from
incredulity fallacies certainly don't help show that God exists.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

You missed Yahweh. Whatever god you pick - Yahweh, Zeus, etc., that is.

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

According to some modern interpretations of Hinduism's Jnana Yoga,
pursuit of knowledge is one of the ways to get to the same place or
state that religious people aspire for.

> > > and, as a consequence of
> > > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> > Suppose you ignore science. Now, by wagering Pascal's wager, how would
> > you know whether you'll go to Christian heaven or burn in Islamic hell
> > or be rowed across the Styx by Charon?
>
> You don't.  But given the three religions you list, you'll have a 33%
> chance of being right.  With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> Purgatory issue).

Suppose you say that dogs become merely matter when they die. Suppose
three others have different ideas such as dogs going to heaven (eg.,
according the Mahabharata, a dog went to heaven with the Pandavas),
dogs getting reborn as puppies or animals of other species, and so on.
Now, do you have a 0% chance of being right and do each of those
others have a 33% chance of being right?

> > > Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> > > nothing.
>
> > Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
> > might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
> > because he doesn't know that gods exist?
>
> Yes.  But that person would be rare in today's world, unless born in a
> cave, no?

1 year olds are typically (or all) atheist and are typically not born
in caves. Most of them are converted to theism by adults, not by gods
making them aware that gods exist. Some, such as Trance Gemini, are
not converted to theism by their parents. Now, which of these are know
it alls? If one claims "my parents and then priests told me that gods
exist (or God exists); therefore I know that gods/God exist/exists" is
one not a know-it-all?

> RL

[TLC]

Well, if all Deists can up with as being "pretty smart fellows" are
people from the Bronze Age, (Plato's Socrates) it makes the Garden
Fairy believers seem even more like "pretty smart fellows"!

What's pretty smart about people from past cultures believing in
deities when basic science was considered MAGIC?

[Jelrak TB]

Those are the worst kind...

> RL

[William T. Goat]

On May 31, 6:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of
> Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> nothing.

It seems strange that you start out by praising the wisdom of one who
claims to know nothing, and then you recommend the comfort of knowing
something.

If you say you know what happens when you die, then do you think
you're smarter than Socrates?

--Billy

[William T. Goat]

On Jun 1, 7:59 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:30 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 31, 6:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> > When Xenophon asked Socrates for advice, Socrates advised him to
> > consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi. Do you consult oracles? If
> > not, do you think you're smarter than Socrates?
>
> Yes, I do consult the oracle of Apollo.  Check my header on this
> message--look at the country I'm posting from! ;-)

The Bible says that you will burn in Hell for consulting non-Christian
gods. Aren't you worried?

> > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > > of truth being a never-ending process,
>
> > Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
> > know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
> > worshipping the scientific method?
>
> The point is:  knowledge in this world is gained by the Scientific
> Method--but it's not a rule to live (or die) by--in the afterlife,
> there are different protocols for knowledge.

That's nice, but we're not in the afterlife right now.

> Which do you believe
> in?  Nothing?  The Scientific Method will not get you into heaven, at
> least according to any religion I know (it might get you into
> Purgatory, in certain variants of the Catholic christian faith
> however).

I've heard Christians say that being a good person will not get you
into heaven. Does that mean we have to choose between being good and
going to heaven? Does that mean we should stop trying to be good? Is
heaven more important than goodness? Should we reject goodness?

> > > and, as a consequence of
> > > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> > Suppose you ignore science. Now, by wagering Pascal's wager, how would
> > you know whether you'll go to Christian heaven or burn in Islamic hell
> > or be rowed across the Styx by Charon?
>
> You don't.  But given the three religions you list, you'll have a 33%
> chance of being right.

Unless of course none of them are right. That's the problem with
Pascal's wager; none of the probabilities are known.

> With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> Purgatory issue).

Unless of course there is no Heaven, in which case atheists have a
100% chance of being right. I think you're confusing being right with
being saved.

> > > Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> > > nothing.
>
> > Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
> > might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
> > because he doesn't know that gods exist?
>
> Yes.  But that person would be rare in today's world, unless born in a
> cave, no?

Actually, nobody wise knows that gods exist. (Remember, Socrates knew
nothing.)

Most people just believe in gods, and then (arrogantly) call it
knowledge. But believing is not knowing.

--Billy

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 3:44 pm, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The gods are inhabitants of physical reality, not it's creator. No
> physical object can deliver the promise of the Wager: eternal
> happiness. Whatever god you pick -- Zeus, money, physical health,
> economic security -- will fail you.

Source please? A priori assumptions noted. At best, what you say is
an unproven hypothesis.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 3:55 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well actually you're allowed to call me names and I'm not allowed to ban you
> for it. Haha.
>

FU then! Spoken as a True Christian. LOL.

>
> > > I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> > > nothing either.
>
> Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> I am and why is that a problem for you?
>

It's not a problem TG. It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
chance to appease some god.

>
>
> > > Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> > > understanding reality.
>
> > Right.  My point actually.  So what do you worship?
>
> I'm an atheist. I don't worship. Scientific knowledge and understanding
> changes all of the time. It's a reviewed process and expected to change. I'm
> fine with that.

OK. Straight to hell for you my girl! :-) And said with a smiley
face...

>
> >  What myth
> > (metaphysics) do you believe in?  Like the ancient Jews--pre-Maccabees
> > (and ancient Greeks, Babyloanians for that matter, but not the
> > Egyptians), do you believe that you'll exist--at best--as a shadow in
> > the underworld, if you exist at all after death?
>
> I suspect that I will not exist after death but there is no evidence to
> indicate what happens either way so I'm agnostic on that question. I don't
> know, will find out when it happens, and it's irrelevant to my life and how
> I live it.
>

Well you go girl. And certain Greek cynics said that there are gods,
they do exist, but they don't care for humans anymore than humans care
for insects. And when you die, unless you're a hero (like Hercules),
you just dissolve into nothingness. So you should just live your life
as you please. I always liked that philosophy. But you note they are
not denying the existence of god(s), which I think is a universal
reality grounded in logic.

>
>
> > > And Pascal's Wager fails because it works on the false dichotomy that
> > there
> > > is only the Christian God.
>
> > > There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> > > worshipping the wrong one?
>
> > Any of the over 3000 gives you a 1/3000 chance of being right, which
> > is greater than zero if you're a true atheist.
>
> It's greater than zero but significantly reduces the possibility of each
> one.

Right. But episilon > 0.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 4:13 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 3:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > nothing"  (Socrates).
>
> He knew plenty more than just one thing.

No, he is saying just that--don't put words into his mouth.

>
> >  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
> than just "one thing."

False. You are trying to switch the argument to more familiar
grounds.

>
> > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of
> > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> I've never met anyone who worships the scientific method, so this is
> like ranting against. two-headed midgets with green hair who play in
> the NBA. And no one has the comfort of knowing that when you die they
> will be saved by a god or gods, including you.

Nope. Scientific Method *is* worshipped, I would argue, by all
agnostics. Atheists are a different story. They actively say there
is no god--which runs somewhat counter to the Scientific Method as
taught by Popper. Technically, they should say that god has not been
proven.

>
> > Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> > nothing.
>
> Thought about it. I remain an atheist.

Burn in hell then.

>
> Just because Voltaire may have been dazzled by nature does not mean
> that it is guided by an intelligence/god.

Not the premise of my quote. Voltaire may also have believed in the
Divine Right of kings to rule (though I doubt it, from what I've read
about him second hand).

Rest of your post is off-topic...goodbye!

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > > > of truth being a never-ending process,
>
> > > Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
> > > know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
> > > worshipping the scientific method?

Not clear what you mean. You can still do science according to the
Scientific Method and not worship it. In fact, some Young Earth
Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the
same.

>
> > The point is:  knowledge in this world is gained by the Scientific
> > Method--but it's not a rule to live (or die) by--in the afterlife,
> > there are different protocols for knowledge.  Which do you believe
> > in?  Nothing?  The Scientific Method will not get you into heaven, at
> > least according to any religion I know (it might get you into
> > Purgatory, in certain variants of the Catholic christian faith
> > however).
>
> According to some modern interpretations of Hinduism's Jnana Yoga,
> pursuit of knowledge is one of the ways to get to the same place or
> state that religious people aspire for.

OK that's fine. But it posits a heaven, which is theological, or
metaphysical, and I would argue logical. BTW, on a separate thread
I'd like to argue who invented reincarnation--Indians or Greeks?
Strong evidence that the Indians picked it up from the Greeks
(Pythagoras) but you can argue either way.

>
> > > > and, as a consequence of
> > > > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > > > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> > > Suppose you ignore science. Now, by wagering Pascal's wager, how would
> > > you know whether you'll go to Christian heaven or burn in Islamic hell
> > > or be rowed across the Styx by Charon?
>
> > You don't.  But given the three religions you list, you'll have a 33%
> > chance of being right.  With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> > Purgatory issue).
>
> Suppose you say that dogs become merely matter when they die. Suppose
> three others have different ideas such as dogs going to heaven (eg.,
> according the Mahabharata, a dog went to heaven with the Pandavas),
> dogs getting reborn as puppies or animals of other species, and so on.
> Now, do you have a 0% chance of being right and do each of those
> others have a 33% chance of being right?

We all have a greater than zero chance of being right. That is my
point. But an atheist has a zero chance of being right about the
afterlife. That is Pascal's Wager (as modified, not the original
version).

> > > Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
> > > might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
> > > because he doesn't know that gods exist?

No. The definition you seek is "agnostic", not atheist. Atheist says,
positively, THERE ARE NO GODS. This is hubris and wrong, unless the
same person is willing to admit they worship the Scientific Method--
then I have no problem with their statement (I just think it's very
limited and logically wrong, but at least they are consistent)

>
> > Yes.  But that person would be rare in today's world, unless born in a
> > cave, no?
>
> 1 year olds are typically (or all) atheist and are typically not born
> in caves.

Well that's one reason Catholics baptize when infants born.

> Most of them are converted to theism by adults, not by gods
> making them aware that gods exist. Some, such as Trance Gemini, are
> not converted to theism by their parents. Now, which of these are know
> it alls? If one claims "my parents and then priests told me that gods
> exist (or God exists); therefore I know that gods/God exist/exists" is
> one not a know-it-all?

How you came to your beliefs is not important. What is important is
WHAT are your beliefs. If I believe nothing can travel faster than
the speed of light because God made it so, it makes no difference with
somebody who is an atheist who believes the same fact. Facts are
facts. And the fact remains, an atheist is making a huge presumption
of knowledge--a fatal and logical (Pascal's Wager) mistake, if they
are concerned with their own self preservation. If not, well, that's
another story.

RL
>
> > RL

[RayLopez99]

Not clear what you mean. You realize I hope that Socrates divided
man's history into Gold, Silver and Bronze ages? Anyway, thanks for
playing, but you're not making sense.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 10:35 pm, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It seems strange that you start out by praising the wisdom of one who
> claims to know nothing, and then you recommend the comfort of knowing
> something.
>
> If you say you know what happens when you die, then do you think
> you're smarter than Socrates?
>

No, we're equally smart--he also believed in gods, and drank the
hemlock out of conviction of this belief.

RL

[JTB]

You mean a zero % chance of being saved, right?
 

>
> > RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 10:55 pm, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The Bible says that you will burn in Hell for consulting non-Christian
> gods. Aren't you worried?
>

Nope. Bible doesn't say that anyway--not my bible. In fact, if you
read the Old Testiment you'll see there was a period when the Jews
were henotheistic--they worshipped many gods, openly.

>
> That's nice, but we're not in the afterlife right now.

You will be soon Goat. With your drinking problem too; are you
kidding me? LOL.

>
> I've heard Christians say that being a good person will not get you
> into heaven. Does that mean we have to choose between being good and
> going to heaven? Does that mean we should stop trying to be good? Is
> heaven more important than goodness? Should we reject goodness?

Nope. Off topic. Believe if a god--even Satan--is the key. If Satan
is the true god, you "win".

> Unless of course none of them are right. That's the problem with
> Pascal's wager; none of the probabilities are known.

Nope. You never took statistics in college I see. Or you're playing
dumb. Non-zero numbers are the key.

>
> > With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> > Purgatory issue).
>
> Unless of course there is no Heaven, in which case atheists have a
> 100% chance of being right. I think you're confusing being right with
> being saved.

Not confusing anything, but being right is, in the context of this
thread, the same as "being saved". You gonna play word games with me,
cirrosis of the liver?

>
> Actually, nobody wise knows that gods exist. (Remember, Socrates knew
> nothing.)

Goodbye, you got nothing. Next!

RL

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 1, 1:18 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:13 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 31, 3:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > nothing"  (Socrates).
>
> > He knew plenty more than just one thing.
>
> No, he is saying just that--don't put words into his mouth.

I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm saying he was wrong.

> > >  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
> > than just "one thing."
>
> False.  You are trying to switch the argument to more familiar
> grounds.

I'm not switching any arguments. He said he only knows one thing, and
I'm saying straight out that he was wrong. He knew lots more than just
one thing. Everyone knows lots more than just one thing.

> > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > > of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of
> > > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>
> > I've never met anyone who worships the scientific method, so this is
> > like ranting against. two-headed midgets with green hair who play in
> > the NBA. And no one has the comfort of knowing that when you die they
> > will be saved by a god or gods, including you.
>
> Nope.  Scientific Method *is* worshipped, I would argue, by all
> agnostics.

Equivocating on the word "worship" is not evidence that anyone
worships the scientific method. Where are the shrines? Where are the
rituals? Where are the prayers? Where are the sacrifices?

>  Atheists are a different story.  They actively say there
> is no god--which runs somewhat counter to the Scientific Method as
> taught by Popper.  Technically, they should say that god has not been
> proven.

Specific gods have been disproven, like the God of the Bible, since
the Bible contradicts reality.

> > > Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> > > nothing.
>
> > Thought about it. I remain an atheist.
>
> Burn in hell then.

I don't recognize your authority to send me to Hell, and I certainly
don't see where you've shown that Hell actually exists.

> > Just because Voltaire may have been dazzled by nature does not mean
> > that it is guided by an intelligence/god.
>
> Not the premise of my quote.

Of course it is, it is right there in the first sentence: "I admired
still more the intelligence which directs these vast forces." You
seem to be one of those people that can point at a dog and say it's a
cat.

>  Voltaire may also have believed in the
> Divine Right of kings to rule (though I doubt it, from what I've read
> about him second hand).

That sounds off-topic...goodbye!

> Rest of your post is off-topic...goodbye!

If by "is off topic" you mean "directly addresses the quote that you
pasted," I agree!

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:14 PM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:55 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well actually you're allowed to call me names and I'm not allowed to ban you
> for it. Haha.
>

FU then!  Spoken as a True Christian. LOL.

Sorry the TrueChristian title is taken here.

He calls me a GodMockingMaggot. Haha.

I do prefer it if people don't yell at me and call me names tho.

When they do I'm soooooo tempted to do it back and I'm trying very hard to reform myself in that regard ;-).

 

 >
> > > I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> > > nothing either.
>
> Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> I am and why is that a problem for you?
>

It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
chance to appease some god.

I'm also an apatheist which means that even if a god were proven to exist I would worship it. So, it's logical for me.

 

>
> > > Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> > > understanding reality.
>
> > Right.  My point actually.  So what do you worship?
>
> I'm an atheist. I don't worship. Scientific knowledge and understanding
> changes all of the time. It's a reviewed process and expected to change. I'm
> fine with that.

OK. Straight to hell for you my girl! :-)  And said with a smiley
face...

Hey it wouldn't be the first time I've been told that. Lol.

But seriously, why should anyone care if a god exists. If it shows itself, deal with the issue then.

 

>
> >  What myth
> > (metaphysics) do you believe in?  Like the ancient Jews--pre-Maccabees
> > (and ancient Greeks, Babyloanians for that matter, but not the
> > Egyptians), do you believe that you'll exist--at best--as a shadow in
> > the underworld, if you exist at all after death?
>
> I suspect that I will not exist after death but there is no evidence to
> indicate what happens either way so I'm agnostic on that question. I don't
> know, will find out when it happens, and it's irrelevant to my life and how
> I live it.
>

Well you go girl.  And certain Greek cynics said that there are gods,
they do exist, but they don't care for humans anymore than humans care
for insects.  And when you die, unless you're a hero (like Hercules),
you just dissolve into nothingness.  So you should just live your life
as you please.  I always liked that philosophy.  But you note they are
not denying the existence of god(s), which I think is a universal
reality grounded in logic.

I can't deny what I don't believe exists.

And while it may have been logical for them in their era and based on the knowledge they had it wouldn't be today. At least I have yet to see any compelling logic.

And I would dispute that it was logical given the existence of atheists even at the time of Greeks. (Democratus, et al)

[Bob T.]

On Jun 1, 5:44 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 31, 6:15 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> > worshipping the wrong one?
>
> The gods are inhabitants of physical reality, not it's creator. No
> physical object can deliver the promise of the Wager: eternal
> happiness.

And Jehovah, being non-existent, can't deliver it either.

> Whatever god you pick -- Zeus, money, physical health, economic security -- will fail you.

Ooh, that's a trick - only one of the above is actually a god. I have
an extra-credit question for Alan - nobody else help him, please -
which one of the above list is a deity?

- Bob T

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

 

 

I would argue, by all
agnostics.  Atheists are a different story.  They actively say there
is no god--which runs somewhat counter to the Scientific Method as
taught by Popper.  Technically, they should say that god has not been
proven.

And herein lies the source of your apparent confusion.

1. Atheism is a statement of belief

2. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge

You are conflating the two.

The atheist says he lacks a belief in gods. 

The agnostic says the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.

These statements are speaking to two completely different concepts philosophically.

One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

For example, I say that I'm agnostic where the existence of Deist type gods are concerned because a Deist god doesn't have any properties other than being a Creator God and is therefore not falsifiable and I lack a belief in all gods.

I also say that I'm not agnostic where the Abrahamic God is concerned because it has properties which are falsifiable and am a strong atheist where this god is concerned and will also say that I do not believe the Abrahamic God exists.

Treebeard says that he's agnostic where his concept of god is concerned but believes in it anyway.

HTH

[Bob T.]

On Jun 1, 1:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > > > > of truth being a never-ending process,
>
> > > > Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
> > > > know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
> > > > worshipping the scientific method?
>
> Not clear what you mean.  You can still do science according to the
> Scientific Method and not worship it.

Of course - in fact, that's what _all_ scientists do because none of
them are daft enough to "worship" the
Scientific Method.

>  In fact, some Young Earth Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
> In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the same.

That goes to show how useful cognitive disonnance can be for a theist.

>
>
> > > The point is:  knowledge in this world is gained by the Scientific
> > > Method--but it's not a rule to live (or die) by--in the afterlife,
> > > there are different protocols for knowledge.  Which do you believe
> > > in?  Nothing?  The Scientific Method will not get you into heaven, at
> > > least according to any religion I know (it might get you into
> > > Purgatory, in certain variants of the Catholic christian faith
> > > however).
>
> > According to some modern interpretations of Hinduism's Jnana Yoga,
> > pursuit of knowledge is one of the ways to get to the same place or
> > state that religious people aspire for.
>
> OK that's fine.  But it posits a heaven, which is theological, or
> metaphysical, and I would argue logical.  

Obviously you use the word "logical" to mean "like my mommy taught
me."

> BTW, on a separate thread I'd like to argue who invented reincarnation--Indians or Greeks?
> Strong evidence that the Indians picked it up from the Greeks
> (Pythagoras) but you can argue either way.

Gosh, young man, you apparently have far too much time on your hands.

- Bob T.

> > > RL- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Bob T.]

On Jun 1, 1:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>

> We all have a greater than zero chance of being right.  That is my
> point.  But an atheist has a zero chance of being right about the
> afterlife.  That is Pascal's Wager (as modified, not the original version).

Don't be silly - atheists are almost 100% certain to be right about
the complete lack of an afterlife.

>
> > > > Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
> > > > might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
> > > > because he doesn't know that gods exist?
>
> No.  The definition you seek is "agnostic", not atheist. Atheist says,
> positively, THERE ARE NO GODS.

Every year or so there is a long discussion on this group about the
meanings of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", and it turns out that
there are many atheists who do not make the strong claim as you
decribe it. I myself do not believe in any Gods, but I can't rule out
the possibility completely.

> This is hubris and wrong, unless the
> same person is willing to admit they worship the Scientific Method--
> then I have no problem with their statement (I just think it's very
> limited and logically wrong, but at least they are consistent)

Nobody worhips the Scientific Method, kiddo.

- Bob T

[chazwin]

This is the funniest thing I have read all week.

What stupid arrogance to point the finger at atheist for not admitting
to knowing nothing from a fuck-wad who claims to know the origin of
the Universe!!
ROLF..

On May 31, 11:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know

> nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?

>
> The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature

> of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of

> Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> die you'll be saved by a god or gods.

Clearly you have not read either Popper or Kuhn.
Ignorant savage!

As for Pascal's wager - we'll leave such fripperies to fools like you
that apparently know they will be saved.

>
> Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> nothing.

Look at yourself. Atheists know that they cannot know god. You think
that you can.
You have just shot yourself in the foot.

>
> RL
>
> http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111vol.html
>
> [1] I MEDITATED last night; I was absorbed in the contemplation of
> nature; I admired the immensity, the course, the harmony of these
> infinite globes which the vulgar do not know how to admire.
>

> [2] I admired still more the intelligence which directs these vast
> forces. I said to myself : " One must be blind not to be dazzled by
> this spectacle; one must be stupid not to recognize the author of it;

> one must be mad not to worship Him. What tribute of worship should I

> render Him? Should not this tribute be the same in the whole of space,
> since it is the same supreme power which reigns equally in all space?
> Should not a thinking being who dwells in a star in the Milky Way
> offer Him the same homage as the thinking being on this little globe
> where we are? Light is uniform for the star Sirius and for us; moral

> philosophy must be uniform. If a sentient, thinking animal in Sirius

> is born of a tender father and mother who have been occupied with his
> happiness, he owes them as much love and care as we owe to our
> parents. If someone in the Milky Way sees a needy cripple, if he can
> relieve him and if he does not do it, he is guilty toward all globes.

[William T. Goat]

But we weren't talking about beliefs; we were talking about knowledge.
Do you know what happens after you die, or do you know nothing? Pick
one; you can't have it both ways.

For the record, I have never claimed to know that no gods exist. Not
many atheists make that claim.

--Billy

[William T. Goat]

On Jun 1, 4:33 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 10:55 pm, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > The Bible says that you will burn in Hell for consulting non-Christian
> > gods. Aren't you worried?
>
> Nope.  Bible doesn't say that anyway--not my bible.  In fact, if you
> read the Old Testiment you'll see there was a period when the Jews
> were henotheistic--they worshipped many gods, openly.

And God disapproved.

> > > The point is:  knowledge in this world is gained by the Scientific 
> > > Method--but it's not a rule to live (or die) by--in the afterlife, 
> > > there are different protocols for knowledge.
> >

> > That's nice, but we're not in the afterlife right now.
>
> You will be soon Goat.  With your drinking problem too; are you
> kidding me? LOL.

All right then; help me believe in gods. How do I get a belief in a
god? Do I have to talk myself into it, the same way a drug addict
tries to convince himself that he can stop anytime? Or is objectivity
needed?

> > >  The Scientific Method will not get you into heaven, at
> > > least according to any religion I know (it might get you into
> > > Purgatory, in certain variants of the Catholic christian faith
> > > however).
>

> > I've heard Christians say that being a good person will not get you
> > into heaven. Does that mean we have to choose between being good and
> > going to heaven? Does that mean we should stop trying to be good? Is
> > heaven more important than goodness? Should we reject goodness?
>
> Nope.  Off topic.  Believe if a god--even Satan--is the key.  If Satan
> is the true god, you "win".

You're missing the point: it's not a game. Atheists aren't trying to
get to Heaven. Atheists don't believe in Heaven. They're... atheists.
Those of you who believe in God, are the only ones trying to turn
spirituality into a competition that you must "win" and that everyone
else must "lose". Why don't you work for world peace instead?

> > Unless of course none of them are right. That's the problem with
> > Pascal's wager; none of the probabilities are known.
>
> Nope. You never took statistics in college I see.  Or you're playing
> dumb.  Non-zero numbers are the key.

But you (like Socrates) don't know what the numbers are. You're
guessing, based on your own convictions. And since when does the truth
bend to anyone's convictions?

> > > With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> > > Purgatory issue).
>
> > Unless of course there is no Heaven, in which case atheists have a
> > 100% chance of being right. I think you're confusing being right with
> > being saved.
>
> Not confusing anything, but being right is, in the context of this
> thread, the same as "being saved". You gonna play word games with me,
> cirrosis of the liver?

In the context of this thread, and in the context of the Abrahamic
religions, yes, being right is the same as being saved. But in the
context of real life, we're all as ignorant as Socrates. We all
struggle to seek the truth, and none of us knows who's right and who's
saved. Can you admit to that?

People can only believe what seems true. In a world as big as ours,
people are going to have different experiences, see different
evidences, and end up with different beliefs. And yes, many of those
beliefs will be incorrect. It's got nothing to do with hating God,
loving to sin, ignoring evidence, or anything like that. It's just a
testament to how big and complex reality is, that so many honest
seekers of truth can come away with different answers. Can you admit
to that?

No, you can't admit to that, because you're a bigot. In the mind of
the believer, anyone who believes differently is not merely mistaken
and in need of enlightenment, but rebellious and deserving of
punishment.

I cannot believe that the real God is evil enough to spread this lie.


--Billy

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jun 1, 4:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > > > > of truth being a never-ending process,
>
> > > > Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
> > > > know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
> > > > worshipping the scientific method?
>
> Not clear what you mean.  You can still do science according to the
> Scientific Method and not worship it.  In fact, some Young Earth
> Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
> In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the
> same.

Abdus Salam was an outstanding scientist and still a theist.

Are you sure that you have no chance of being right if you say that
dogs have no afterlife? If not, why does a disbeliever in human
afterlife have no chance of being right?

> > > > Might anyone be atheist because they don't know it all? For example,
> > > > might there be someone (i.e., at least one person) who is atheist
> > > > because he doesn't know that gods exist?
>
> No.  The definition you seek is "agnostic", not atheist. Atheist says,
> positively, THERE ARE NO GODS.

That would be a strong atheist. A weak atheist might be atheist
because he is agnostic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the
principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

>  This is hubris and wrong, unless the
> same person is willing to admit they worship the Scientific Method--
> then I have no problem with their statement (I just think it's very
> limited and logically wrong, but at least they are consistent)

Agnostic method according to Huxley (see the definition above). If one
has (or has seen) a lamp from which a genie appears upon polishing it,
then a genie is demonstrable with the use of that lamp and therefore,
one can be agnostic while still believing in genies. One who says
there are no genies might be agnostic if his belief in genies'
nonexistence is based on lack of demonstrability of genies rather than
lack of scientific proof for genies. Now, for people who believe in
the scientific method as distinct from the agnostic method. If you
show them that you can run around a 400m track 2 metres above the
ground, would all of them disbelieve that you can levitate because
levitation goes against science? Or would some (or even most) of them
say that they don't know how you managed to levitate, against the laws
of physics, but they have to admit that you did it because they saw
you do it?

> > > Yes.  But that person would be rare in today's world, unless born in a
> > > cave, no?
>
> > 1 year olds are typically (or all) atheist and are typically not born
> > in caves.
>
> Well that's one reason Catholics baptize when infants born.
>
> > Most of them are converted to theism by adults, not by gods
> > making them aware that gods exist. Some, such as Trance Gemini, are
> > not converted to theism by their parents. Now, which of these are know
> > it alls? If one claims "my parents and then priests told me that gods
> > exist (or God exists); therefore I know that gods/God exist/exists" is
> > one not a know-it-all?
>
> How you came to your beliefs is not important.  What is important is
> WHAT are your beliefs.  If I believe nothing can travel faster than
> the speed of light because God made it so, it makes no difference with
> somebody who is an atheist who believes the same fact.  Facts are
> facts.  And the fact remains, an atheist is making a huge presumption
> of knowledge--a fatal and logical (Pascal's Wager) mistake, if they
> are concerned with their own self preservation. If not, well, that's
> another story.

Does a monotheist make a huge presumption of knowledge that gods other
than a particular one don't exist and can't reward or punish him?

> RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 1, 1:14 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:55 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well actually you're allowed to call me names and I'm not allowed to ban you
> > for it. Haha.
>
> FU then!  Spoken as a True Christian. LOL.

Oh, grow up and say "Fuck You" if that's what you mean, boy.

>  >
>
> > > > I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> > > > nothing either.
>
> > Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> > I am and why is that a problem for you?
>
> It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a chance to appease some god.

Not all gods are as insecure about people believing in them as
Jehovah.

>
>
> > > > Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> > > > understanding reality.
>
> > > Right.  My point actually.  So what do you worship?
>
> > I'm an atheist. I don't worship. Scientific knowledge and understanding
> > changes all of the time. It's a reviewed process and expected to change. I'm
> > fine with that.
>
> OK. Straight to hell for you my girl! :-)  And said with a smiley face...

You seem to be kind of a jerk, boy ;-}

>
> > >  What myth
> > > (metaphysics) do you believe in?  Like the ancient Jews--pre-Maccabees
> > > (and ancient Greeks, Babyloanians for that matter, but not the
> > > Egyptians), do you believe that you'll exist--at best--as a shadow in
> > > the underworld, if you exist at all after death?
>
> > I suspect that I will not exist after death but there is no evidence to
> > indicate what happens either way so I'm agnostic on that question. I don't
> > know, will find out when it happens, and it's irrelevant to my life and how
> > I live it.
>
> Well you go girl.  And certain Greek cynics said that there are gods,
> they do exist, but they don't care for humans anymore than humans care
> for insects.  And when you die, unless you're a hero (like Hercules),
> you just dissolve into nothingness.

As we all will.

>  So you should just live your life as you please.  I always liked that philosophy.

It's what we all do, whether we realize it or not.

>  But you note they are not denying the existence of god(s), which I think is a universal
> reality grounded in logic.

Logic has nothing to do with it - simple observation informs us that
there don't appear to be any gods anywhere.

- Bob T

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 1, 6:17 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Welcome, Ray.
>
> > I assume you read the entire page that you linked to, and I hope the
> > theists in this group will do the same!!!
>
> > Trance used to use Voltaire quotes in her signature (instead of the
> > deist Jefferson quote that she has now).  I always say that in the
> > debate of Atheism vs. Christianity (which is *not* Atheism vs. Theism)
> > the deists are on the atheist side.  Your link certainly proves it for
> > Voltaire.
>
> I wouldn't agree that Deists are on the atheist side, Timothy.

My take: Christians are not a problem because they are theists. They
are a problem because they have a faulty moral code and/or fact base
and believe it is God-given. Those like deists, who help poke their
arguments apart, are on our side in this debate.

> I would agree that they can be on the Materialist / Naturalist side.
>
> However, they are theists.
>
> I would agree that they can (but don't necessarily) have more in common with
> atheists.
>
> And both Voltaire and Jefferson were Deists.
>
>
>
> > I am a weak atheist who regards the existence of god as possible, just
> > unproven.  But like Voltaire, I reject the man-made stories I've heard
> > about what God is like and what worship He wants from us.
>
> > Unfortunately, of course, Voltaire is not right that only Abrahamic
> > religions make religious war. The Aztecs come to mind.

>
> > On May 31, 6:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>
> > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>

> > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature

> > > of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of

> > > Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> > > die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>

> > > Think about that, atheist know-it-all that doesn't know they know
> > > nothing.
>

> > > RL
>
> > >http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111vol.html
>
> > > [1] I MEDITATED last night; I was absorbed in the contemplation of
> > > nature; I admired the immensity, the course, the harmony of these
> > > infinite globes which the vulgar do not know how to admire.
>
> > > [2] I admired still more the intelligence which directs these vast
> > > forces. I said to myself : " One must be blind not to be dazzled by
> > > this spectacle; one must be stupid not to recognize the author of it;
> > > one must be mad not to worship Him. What tribute of worship should I
> > > render Him? Should not this tribute be the same in the whole of space,
> > > since it is the same supreme power which reigns equally in all space?
> > > Should not a thinking being who dwells in a star in the Milky Way
> > > offer Him the same homage as the thinking being on this little globe
> > > where we are? Light is uniform for the star Sirius and for us; moral
> > > philosophy must be uniform. If a sentient, thinking animal in Sirius
> > > is born of a tender father and mother who have been occupied with his
> > > happiness, he owes them as much love and care as we owe to our
> > > parents. If someone in the Milky Way sees a needy cripple, if he can
> > > relieve him and if he does not do it, he is guilty toward all globes.
> > > Everywhere the heart has the same duties: on the steps of the throne
> > > of God, if He has a throne; and in the depth of the abyss, if He is an
> > > abyss."
>

> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 1, 8:44 am, Alan Wostenberg <awo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 31, 6:15 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> > worshipping the wrong one?
>

> The gods are inhabitants of physical reality, not it's creator. No
> physical object can deliver the promise of the Wager: eternal

> happiness. Whatever god you pick -- Zeus, money, physical health,
> economic security

-- Jesus

> -- will fail you.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 1, 7:55 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:08 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> > > Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>

> > Welcome to AvC Ray
>
> Thanks.  I see this NG is moderated, so I'll refrain from calling you
> names.  For now. :-)

>
> > I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> > nothing either.
>
> Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
> provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>

> > Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> > understanding reality.
>

> Right.  My point actually.  So what do you worship?  What myth

> (metaphysics) do you believe in?  Like the ancient Jews--pre-Maccabees
> (and ancient Greeks, Babyloanians for that matter, but not the
> Egyptians), do you believe that you'll exist--at best--as a shadow in
> the underworld, if you exist at all after death?
>

> > And Pascal's Wager fails because it works on the false dichotomy that there
> > is only the Christian God.
>

> > There are well over 3000 named gods in the world, what if you are
> > worshipping the wrong one?
>

> Any of the over 3000 gives you a 1/3000 chance of being right, which
> is greater than zero if you're a true atheist.
>

> RL

But the god Ampheru will give you eternal happiness if you try to live
a good life through observation of Physical Evidence and the
application of Rational Thought (PERT). He will destroy your soul upon
your death if you live by putting your faith in another god.

Therefore you are just as likely to get a good afterlife through PERT
as through any formal religion.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 3:55 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well actually you're allowed to call me names and I'm not allowed to ban you
> > for it. Haha.
>
> FU then!  Spoken as a True Christian. LOL.
>
> > > > I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> > > > nothing either.
>
> > Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> > I am and why is that a problem for you?
>
> It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
> chance to appease some god.

Trance is appeasing Ampheru. A wise precaution and a good bet.

> > > > Nobody "worships" the scientific method. It's just the best method for
> > > > understanding reality.
>
> > > Right.  My point actually.  So what do you worship?
>
> > I'm an atheist. I don't worship. Scientific knowledge and understanding
> > changes all of the time. It's a reviewed process and expected to change. I'm
> > fine with that.
>
> OK. Straight to hell for you my girl! :-)  And said with a smiley
> face...

Neither Voltaire nor Socrates believed that. Are you smarter than
they? :-)

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 1, 4:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> > > > > and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature
> > > > > of truth being a never-ending process,
>
> > > > Do you know that the earth is round rather than flat? If so, do you
> > > > know it due to others' scientific examination or do you know it by
> > > > worshipping the scientific method?
>
> Not clear what you mean.  You can still do science according to the
> Scientific Method and not worship it.  In fact, some Young Earth
> Creationists are outstanding scientists,

Seems possible, but have you any examples?

> same for Muslim scientists.
> In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the
> same.

Dr. Collins is an outspoken opponent of Creationism, as one would
expect with his strong background in biology. Not all evangelicals are
fundamentalists.

"In his book Collins examines and subsequently rejects creationism and
intelligent design."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29

Sorry, unless you can shake off that dangerous opinion, Ampheru will
destroy you.

[Bodmerocity]

Actually it's because I'm ignorant of the existence of any gods, and
have not found any compelling evidence to convince me otherwise in
spite of earnest searching, that I consider myself an atheist.

On May 31, 5:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Who said this below?  You think you're smarter than him?  Than Him?
> Man, you are dumb.  Literally.
>

> Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> nothing"  (Socrates).  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>

> The problem with worshiping the scientific method, as modified by Kuhn
> and/or Popper, is that you end up knowing nothing by the vary nature

> of truth being a never-ending process, and, as a consequence of

> Pascal's Wager, you cannot even have the comfort of knowing when you
> die you'll be saved by a god or gods.
>

[Bodmerocity]

So like... Does that mean I'm more like Socrates in Plato's Apology
than you are, and therefore smarter?

> > abyss."- Hide quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfa...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 6:17 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Welcome, Ray.
>
> > I assume you read the entire page that you linked to, and I hope the
> > theists in this group will do the same!!!
>
> > Trance used to use Voltaire quotes in her signature (instead of the
> > deist Jefferson quote that she has now).  I always say that in the
> > debate of Atheism vs. Christianity (which is *not* Atheism vs. Theism)
> > the deists are on the atheist side.  Your link certainly proves it for
> > Voltaire.
>
> I wouldn't agree that Deists are on the atheist side, Timothy.

My take: Christians are not a problem because they are theists. They
are a problem because they have a faulty moral code and/or fact base
and believe it is God-given.  Those like deists, who help poke their
arguments apart, are on our side in this debate.

They might be, where materialist and naturalist beliefs are concerned as I pointed out.

However, they aren't necessarily.

There are Deists who assign properties to their concept of god including a "special" relationship with humanity, etc.

One Deist I'm currently talking to on another group claims his concept of God created humans as moral agents. This is a religious concept and not consistent with materialist or naturalist positions. So, this Deist will have little in common with atheists.

And they are theists.

Not necessarily religious ones but theists nonetheless.

-- 

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 11:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > > nothing"  (Socrates).
>
> > > He knew plenty more than just one thing.
>
> > No, he is saying just that--don't put words into his mouth.
>
> I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm saying he was wrong.

Well, you are wrong. You refuse, like the communists, to think that
your system of belief--the Scientific Method--can be contradicted
since it is logically internally correct (like Communism is, like many
a mathematical system is). But you fail to take the 'meta' approach
and look outside this belief system. I do trust you know what the SM
is?

>
> > > >  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > > That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
> > > than just "one thing."
>
> > False.  You are trying to switch the argument to more familiar
> > grounds.
>
> I'm not switching any arguments. He said he only knows one thing, and
> I'm saying straight out that he was wrong. He knew lots more than just
> one thing. Everyone knows lots more than just one thing.

Well, no use arguing with you. Again, see my above quote. When you
can come to grips with this, let's debate further. Read up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

And when you understand it, as best you can, we can debate further.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 11:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > > > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> > > I am and why is that a problem for you?
>
> > It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
> > chance to appease some god.
>
> I'm also an apatheist which means that even if a god were proven to exist I
> would worship it. So, it's logical for me.
>

I assumed you meant "would NOT worship it".

> But seriously, why should anyone care if a god exists. If it shows itself,
> deal with the issue then.

OK, so you are a female Doubting Thomas. DT had some nerve I always
thought--after all the miracles of the Christ, he wanted even more
proof--to stick his hands in the wounds--that takes some nerve.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 1, 11:56 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would argue, by all
>
> > agnostics.  Atheists are a different story.  They actively say there
> > is no god--which runs somewhat counter to the Scientific Method as
> > taught by Popper.  Technically, they should say that god has not been
> > proven.
>
> And herein lies the source of your apparent confusion.
>
> 1. Atheism is a statement of belief
> 2. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge
>
> You are conflating the two.

No, I would argue I am saying the statement of belief of atheism--that
there is no god(s)--runs counter to the Scientific Method--do you
agree?

>
> The atheist says he lacks a belief in gods.
>
> The agnostic says the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
>
> These statements are speaking to two completely different concepts
> philosophically.
>
> One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

I don't see how--unless you are conflating the two. I guess you can
also be a agnostic Christian if you can be an agnostic atheist? Is
that your position? Then we best disband this NG, since it's become a
trivial tautology

>
> For example, I say that I'm agnostic where the existence of Deist type gods
> are concerned because a Deist god doesn't have any properties other than
> being a Creator God and is therefore not falsifiable and I lack a belief in
> all gods.
>
> I also say that I'm not agnostic where the Abrahamic God is concerned
> because it has properties which are falsifiable and am a strong atheist
> where this god is concerned and will also say that I do not believe the
> Abrahamic God exists.

Now you're changing definitions. You are saying you are an atheist as
opposed to the Abrahamic God. But this definition of yours, while
logical and goes a ways in explaining your bizarre definitions above,
is not (I think) supported by the literature or the conventional way
of saying "atheist", which means belief in NO god (that there is no
god).

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> >  In fact, some Young Earth Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
> > In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> > and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the same.
>
> That goes to show how useful cognitive disonnance can be for a theist.
>
>

Nope. That goes to show how throwing out words will not win the
debate for your side.

>
> > BTW, on a separate thread I'd like to argue who invented reincarnation--Indians or Greeks?
> > Strong evidence that the Indians picked it up from the Greeks
> > (Pythagoras) but you can argue either way.
>
> Gosh, young man, you apparently have far too much time on your hands.

Gosh old man, when are you going to run out of time and meet your
maker?

RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 2, 5:42 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > > > nothing"  (Socrates).
>
> > > > He knew plenty more than just one thing.
>
> > > No, he is saying just that--don't put words into his mouth.
>
> > I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm saying he was wrong.
>
> Well, you are wrong.  You refuse, like the communists,

Holy shit! "the communists"??? You're comparing the Scientific
Method to communism? That's really daft, boy.

> to think that your system of belief--the Scientific Method--can be contradicted
> since it is logically internally correct (like Communism is, like many
> a mathematical system is).  But you fail to take the 'meta' approach
> and look outside this belief system.  I do trust you know what the SM is?

I do not trust you know what a clue is?

> > > > >  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > > > That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
> > > > than just "one thing."
>
> > > False.  You are trying to switch the argument to more familiar
> > > grounds.
>
> > I'm not switching any arguments. He said he only knows one thing, and
> > I'm saying straight out that he was wrong. He knew lots more than just
> > one thing. Everyone knows lots more than just one thing.
>
> Well, no use arguing with you.  Again, see my above quote.  When you
> can come to grips with this, let's debate further.  Read up on this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Gosh, oh gee, we poor dumb atheists couldn't possibly understand
Godel.

>
> And when you understand it, as best you can, we can debate further.

Please don't let our ridicule and disdain drive you away - you're the
most entertaining thing to come around in months.

-Bob T

>
> RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 12:27 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> Don't be silly - atheists are almost 100% certain to be right about
> the complete lack of an afterlife.
>

But that's very difficult to prove. Do you know about the Scientific
Method? I'm not going to tutor you, but you should, to do battle with
me, lern (sic) it.

> Every year or so there is a long discussion on this group about the
> meanings of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", and it turns out that
> there are many atheists who do not make the strong claim as you
> decribe it.  I myself do not believe in any Gods, but I can't rule out
> the possibility completely.

Ever wonder why there is a long discussion? Because people like
Gemini and you confuse the terms, and then wonder why the other side
gets frustrated when you move the goalposts. That sort of technique
only wins debates in your mind's eye. And you think you're so smart?
Heh.

>
> > This is hubris and wrong, unless the
> > same person is willing to admit they worship the Scientific Method--
> > then I have no problem with their statement (I just think it's very
> > limited and logically wrong, but at least they are consistent)
>
> Nobody worhips the Scientific Method, kiddo.

Nope. Wrong. No such word as 'worhips' (sic), and further, I'm using
worship colloquially to mean 'ascribe to', 'believe in'. Guess you
never win debates except in your mind's eye, eh?

>
> - Bob T

Bob (em) T.

See you in hell Bob! LOL, watch Bob bob for the troll bait now...

RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 2, 5:50 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:23 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > >  In fact, some Young Earth Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
> > > In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> > > and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the same.
>
> > That goes to show how useful cognitive disonnance can be for a theist.
>
> Nope.  That goes to show how throwing out words will not win the debate for your side.

Please try to make sense when you reply to me.

>
> > > BTW, on a separate thread I'd like to argue who invented reincarnation--Indians or Greeks?
> > > Strong evidence that the Indians picked it up from the Greeks
> > > (Pythagoras) but you can argue either way.
>
> > Gosh, young man, you apparently have far too much time on your hands.
>
> Gosh old man, when are you going to run out of time and meet your maker?

I met my parents a long time ago, sonny.

- Bob T

>
> RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 12:46 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This is the funniest thing I have read all week.
>
> What stupid arrogance to point the finger at atheist for not admitting
> to knowing nothing from a fuck-wad who claims to know the origin of
> the Universe!!
> ROLF..

Glad to have made you laugh, hate filled chazwin loser. If God does
not exist, and, if the universe is constantly expanding, tell us what
lies beyond the universe, loser boy? Even Stephen Hawking was stumped
by that one.

> Look at yourself. Atheists know that they cannot know god. You think
> that you can.
> You have just shot yourself in the foot.

No. Wrong. Examine what you said. "Atheists know that they cannot
know god". What's wrong with that sentence? What you should have
said (unless like Bob T and Gemini you want to play word games) is:
'Atheists know that there is no god'.

I'm going to have to leave this NG--to your loss, not mine--unless
somebody here can raise the level of the game on the atheists side.
Not fun punching up a dummy, that would be you, chaz(loser)!

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 1:58 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> But we weren't talking about beliefs; we were talking about knowledge.
> Do you know what happens after you die, or do you know nothing? Pick
> one; you can't have it both ways.

I did pick one--and I see, since you're the third person to mention
the below distinction--that this group is confused. I am talking
about belief. You are talking about knowledge. Knowledge comes from
the Scientific Method. But belief is meta (outside of) the SM.
Sometimes, in some books on theology, I've seen the word "myth" also
used to describe this belief.

>
> For the record, I have never claimed to know that no gods exist. Not
> many atheists make that claim.

Well fu ck then, I'm out of here. I thought I was debating a bunch of
atheists, not a bunch of whinny punks who are mad at their parents for
making them go to Sunday school. That's lame. Goodbye, and don't
expect me back unless somebody can make more cogent arguments on
behalf of atheists as I define (and the rest of the world defines)
them, namely, a belief system, not a system of epistemology (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology )

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 2:48 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > Nope.  Bible doesn't say that anyway--not my bible.  In fact, if you
> > read the Old Testiment you'll see there was a period when the Jews
> > were henotheistic--they worshipped many gods, openly.
>
> And God disapproved.

So? If God exists, why would he approve? Remember, he's a jealous
god.

>
> > You will be soon Goat.  With your drinking problem too; are you
> > kidding me? LOL.
>
> All right then; help me believe in gods. How do I get a belief in a
> god? Do I have to talk myself into it, the same way a drug addict
> tries to convince himself that he can stop anytime? Or is objectivity
> needed?

No objectivity Goat--you just gotta believe.

>
> > Nope.  Off topic.  Believe if a god--even Satan--is the key.  If Satan
> > is the true god, you "win".
>
> You're missing the point: it's not a game. Atheists aren't trying to
> get to Heaven. Atheists don't believe in Heaven. They're... atheists.
> Those of you who believe in God, are the only ones trying to turn
> spirituality into a competition that you must "win" and that everyone
> else must "lose". Why don't you work for world peace instead?

Why should I work for world peace? Do you know the iron law of
Malthus? Your "peace" is my "disaster", like the poem The Fly by
Karl Shapiro. But even if you are for world peace, you should be
looking to enable capitalism, the greatest way to achieve peace ever
invented. Are you a capitalist Goat?

>
> > > Unless of course none of them are right. That's the problem with
> > > Pascal's wager; none of the probabilities are known.
>
> > Nope. You never took statistics in college I see.  Or you're playing
> > dumb.  Non-zero numbers are the key.
>
> But you (like Socrates) don't know what the numbers are. You're
> guessing, based on your own convictions. And since when does the truth
> bend to anyone's convictions?
>

Nope. Episilon (which mathematicians use as shorthand for a small
number) is greater than zero.

> > > > With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> > > > Purgatory issue).
>
> > > Unless of course there is no Heaven, in which case atheists have a
> > > 100% chance of being right. I think you're confusing being right with
> > > being saved.
>
> > Not confusing anything, but being right is, in the context of this
> > thread, the same as "being saved". You gonna play word games with me,
> > cirrosis of the liver?
>
> In the context of this thread, and in the context of the Abrahamic
> religions, yes, being right is the same as being saved. But in the
> context of real life, we're all as ignorant as Socrates. We all
> struggle to seek the truth, and none of us knows who's right and who's
> saved. Can you admit to that?

But if you believe you'll be saved statistically speaking (according
to Pascal's Wager)--can you admit to that?

> No, you can't admit to that, because you're a bigot. In the mind of
> the believer, anyone who believes differently is not merely mistaken
> and in need of enlightenment, but rebellious and deserving of
> punishment.

No, I just like to win. The difference between you and me, Goat.

RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 2, 5:54 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:27 am, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > Don't be silly - atheists are almost 100% certain to be right about
> > the complete lack of an afterlife.
>
> But that's very difficult to prove.  Do you know about the Scientific
> Method?  I'm not going to tutor you, but you should, to do battle with
> me, lern (sic) it.

Of course it's impossible to prove - that's why I said "almost".

>
> > Every year or so there is a long discussion on this group about the
> > meanings of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic", and it turns out that
> > there are many atheists who do not make the strong claim as you
> > decribe it.  I myself do not believe in any Gods, but I can't rule out
> > the possibility completely.
>
> Ever wonder why there is a long discussion?  Because people like
> Gemini and you confuse the terms, and then wonder why the other side
> gets frustrated when you move the goalposts.  

No, silly, it's so that we all use the terms consistently.

> That sort of technique only wins debates in your mind's eye.  And you think you're so smart?

Smart enough that when I join a discussion group that has established
definitions for commonly used terms, I don't say "you're all using the
words wrong."

> Heh.

Heh yourself, kiddo.

>
> > > This is hubris and wrong, unless the
> > > same person is willing to admit they worship the Scientific Method--
> > > then I have no problem with their statement (I just think it's very
> > > limited and logically wrong, but at least they are consistent)
>
> > Nobody worhips the Scientific Method, kiddo.
>
> Nope.  Wrong.  No such word as 'worhips' (sic), and further,

Wow, a typo - you caught it, that must mean you're really really
smart.

> I'm using worship colloquially to mean 'ascribe to', 'believe in'.  Guess you
> never win debates except in your mind's eye, eh?

Oh, so you have your own private definition for the word "worship",
too. You should provide a glossary of common English words that you
invented new meanings for, if you want us to understand you... or you
could just write in standard English like the rest of us.

>
> > - Bob T
>
> Bob (em) T.
>
> See you in hell Bob! LOL, watch Bob bob for the troll bait now...
>

Hell, Colorado or Hell, Norway?

- Bob T
> RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 3:36 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Not clear what you mean.  You can still do science according to the
> > Scientific Method and not worship it.  In fact, some Young Earth
> > Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
> > In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> > and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the
> > same.
>
> Abdus Salam was an outstanding scientist and still a theist.
>

Good. My point.

> > We all have a greater than zero chance of being right.  That is my
> > point.  But an atheist has a zero chance of being right about the
> > afterlife.  That is Pascal's Wager (as modified, not the original
> > version).
>
> Are you sure that you have no chance of being right if you say that
> dogs have no afterlife? If not, why does a disbeliever in human
> afterlife have no chance of being right?

He has a chance, actually. I was thinking about this last night. If
god decides to spare unbelievers--which the Christian God has
explicitly ruled out, but, being god, they can always change their
mind--then yes, you as an unbeliever have a chance. But you have a
better chance by believing--again, Pascal's wager.

> > No.  The definition you seek is "agnostic", not atheist. Atheist says,
> > positively, THERE ARE NO GODS.
>
> That would be a strong atheist. A weak atheist might be atheist

> because he is agnostic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

> Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:
> Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
> the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the
> principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
> conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

OK, I see this group is into such semantics. For the record, when I
say "atheist" (as do most people) I mean a STRONG atheist.
[Definition of agnostic--as defined by Huxley--deleted, as not central
to this thread]

> Does a monotheist make a huge presumption of knowledge that gods other
> than a particular one don't exist and can't reward or punish him?
>

Yes, but by Pascal's Wager the monotheist is making a better bet than
the (strong) atheist.

Hey, if you were a follower of the Hindu god Shiva--I would relate to
you a story about that god--I once made a wager with an Indian--as a
joke--that if Shiva existed then a certain improbable event would
occur right at that moment--and it happened! The chances of that
happening were (I would image) a million to one against. But that's a
topic for another thread, and, of course, scientifically you would
just say it's a coincidence.

C'mon (strong) atheist people--raise the level of your game here--I'm
bored with such weak competition!

RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 2, 6:08 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, I just like to win.

After you run away from us with your tail between your legs, please
send us a postcard when you finally 'win' something.

- Bob T

[Bodmerocity]

I'm still curious to know whether you think my ignorance of God
compared to your relative certainty inspite of a lack of evidence
makes me more like Socrates than you, and therefore 'smarter' - One of
the messages of The Apology being that the first step towards wisdom
is the acknowledgement of ones own ignorance.

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 5:32 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But the god Ampheru will give you eternal happiness if you try to live
> a good life through observation of Physical Evidence and the
> application of Rational Thought (PERT). He will destroy your soul upon
> your death if you live by putting your faith in another god.
>
> Therefore you are just as likely to get a good afterlife through PERT
> as through any formal religion.

Well, Tim, for future rhetorical effect let me rewrite this point of
yours, since you are a bit weak in the art of irony or persuasion,
though as a cafe philosopher you would do well in this country I'm in
(Greece), which is largely uneducated.

You should say:

'But the god Nihilus [resonates with the Star Trek character of Darth
Nihilus] will give you happiness if you try and live a good life
through...PERT. He will destroy your happiness on earth if you live
by putting your faith in another god. [Then, just to drive this point
home:]. Therefore, if you want a good life, live according to PERT
rather than any formal religion.'

Now you would dovetail seamlessly with classic philosophers who, like
the Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics, counseled exactly that.

Gotta go now..you guys bore me....c'mon, raise your game or you'll be
left talking to yourselves again...I thought this group was lively!
It's a spam repository from some other posts I'm beginning to see...

RL

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 2, 5:42 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 1, 11:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > > > nothing"  (Socrates).
>
> > > > He knew plenty more than just one thing.
>
> > > No, he is saying just that--don't put words into his mouth.
>
> > I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm saying he was wrong.
>
> Well, you are wrong.

No, I'm not. Socrates knew the Socratic method, that's one more thing
he knew right there. He also knew Plato, that's another. He knew what
drinking hemlock would do to him, there's three more things. Shall I
keep going? You're wrong, he's wrong (although I know what he really
meant is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know).

>  You refuse, like the communists, to think that
> your system of belief--the Scientific Method--can be contradicted
> since it is logically internally correct (like Communism is, like many
> a mathematical system is).

Good of you to put words in my mouth, but I wasn't talking about the
scientific method. I was talking about the inaccuracy of his quote
that *you* pasted, which was "One thing only I know, and that is that
I know nothing." Strawman fallacies aren't going to win you any
arguments, got anything else?

> But you fail to take the 'meta' approach and look outside this belief system.

I don't think it is necessary to look outside his "belief system" to
know that "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing" is
inaccurate.

>  I do trust you know what the SM is?

Of course - you're a sadist and I'm a masochist for even trying to
communicate with you. But maybe I just have a high pain threshhold.

> > > > >  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > > > That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
> > > > than just "one thing."
>
> > > False.  You are trying to switch the argument to more familiar
> > > grounds.
>
> > I'm not switching any arguments. He said he only knows one thing, and
> > I'm saying straight out that he was wrong. He knew lots more than just
> > one thing. Everyone knows lots more than just one thing.
>
> Well, no use arguing with you.  Again, see my above quote.

That's fairly vague, and paradoxical, too, since there are several
"above quotes," and you've also edited out most of your "above
quotes." Do you get a lot of confused looks from people, by any
chance?

>  When you
> can come to grips with this,

I...cough choke wheeze...will try...gasp...to struggle on - you go on
without me, take the children, don't argue - hack cough...and if I
ever can come to grips with the fact that "One thing only I know, and
that is that I know nothing" is wrong, I will pick up the pieces of
what remains of my life and dream that we can debate further.

> let's debate further.  Read up on this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

I am already familiar with Godel.

> And when you understand it, as best you can, we can debate further.

I agree with Godel that our system of knowledge is incompete, and that
it will never be complete, but that doesn't mean we only know one
thing.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:44 AM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 11:43 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > > > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> > > I am and why is that a problem for you?
>
> > It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
> > chance to appease some god.
>
> I'm also an apatheist which means that even if a god were proven to exist I
> would worship it. So, it's logical for me.
>

I assumed you meant "would NOT worship it".

Yes that's what I meant. I'm a fast typist and while I'm relatively accurate I do miss words from time to time.

 

> But seriously, why should anyone care if a god exists. If it shows itself,
> deal with the issue then.

OK, so you are a female Doubting Thomas.  DT had some nerve I always
thought--after all the miracles of the Christ, he wanted even more
proof--to stick his hands in the wounds--that takes some nerve.

In order for me to be a Doubting Thomas I have to believe that Christ existed as a miracle worker.

I don't, so no cigar. 

I believe there was possibly a historical Jesus who led the Christus and whose philosophy and beliefs are likely so distorted as to be unrecognizable from what this person actually advocated and are lost as a result.

[Answer_42]

On Jun 1, 4:14 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:55 AM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well actually you're allowed to call me names and I'm not allowed to ban you
> > for it. Haha.
>
> FU then!  Spoken as a True Christian. LOL.
>
>  >
>
> > > > I'm an atheist and while I don't know it all I wouldn't say that I know
> > > > nothing either.
>

> > Well you're no Socrates! :-)  Remember, your knowledge is always
>
> > > provisional with the Scientific Method.  Hope you're OK with that.
>
> > I am and why is that a problem for you?
>
> It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
> chance to appease some god.

And why would I want to worship a god that needs to be appeased?
Appeased from what?

I thought the god you believed in was benevolent.
Why would a benevolent god need to be appeased?

Do you truly understand what "appease" means?
_________________________________________
The moral and religious teachings of no bible reach a higher altitude
than the intelligence and mental development of the age and country
which produced it.
-- Kersey Graves

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:49 AM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 11:56 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would argue, by all
>
> > agnostics.  Atheists are a different story.  They actively say there
> > is no god--which runs somewhat counter to the Scientific Method as
> > taught by Popper.  Technically, they should say that god has not been
> > proven.
>
> And herein lies the source of your apparent confusion.
>
> 1. Atheism is a statement of belief
> 2. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge
>
> You are conflating the two.

No, I would argue I am saying the statement of belief of atheism--that
there is no god(s)--runs counter to the Scientific Method--do you
agree?

You are doing so based on an apparent misunderstanding of how both the words agnostic and atheist are used.

Atheists lack a belief in gods because we have *no* concept of gods.

So no, there is nothing in this atheist statement that runs counter to the Scientific Method which for all intents and purposes treats gods in exactly the same way.

The Scientific Method also has no concept of gods.

If a concept of god is presented to an atheist or to the Scientific Method the response will be the same.

Can this concept of god be falsified?

If it can, falsification occurs. If it can't, both the atheist (most but not all) and the Scientific Method would remain agnostic.

>
> The atheist says he lacks a belief in gods.
>
> The agnostic says the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
>
> These statements are speaking to two completely different concepts
> philosophically.
>
> One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

I don't see how--unless you are conflating the two.  I guess you can
also be a agnostic Christian if you can be an agnostic atheist?

Treebeard, a member of this site, states that he's an Agnostic Christian.

And you have to conflate the two to support your position. My explanation has clearly delineated the philosophical differences between the two.

You are arguing that agnosticism is third neutral belief system on a scale which starts with atheism then moves to agnosticism then moves to theism.

This position conflates the concepts of belief and knowledge and therefore agnosticism and atheism.

I'm saying they're different.

 Is
that your position?  Then we best disband this NG, since it's become a
trivial tautology

You still don't understand the difference between belief and knowledge and how it's handled from a philosophical perspective.

Have a chat with Treebeard and he can explain it to you.

You obviously have little confidence in believing what atheists tell you.

 

>
> For example, I say that I'm agnostic where the existence of Deist type gods
> are concerned because a Deist god doesn't have any properties other than
> being a Creator God and is therefore not falsifiable and I lack a belief in
> all gods.
>
> I also say that I'm not agnostic where the Abrahamic God is concerned
> because it has properties which are falsifiable and am a strong atheist
> where this god is concerned and will also say that I do not believe the
> Abrahamic God exists.

Now you're changing definitions.

Unfortunately, that what you've been doing and that's why you're having trouble understanding my points.

 You are saying you are an atheist as
opposed to the Abrahamic God.  But this definition of yours, while
logical and goes a ways in explaining your bizarre definitions above,
is not (I think) supported by the literature or the conventional way
of saying "atheist", which means belief in NO god (that there is no
god).

Atheist -> lack of belief in gods.

Strong atheist -> no gods exist 

These are the standard definitions.

These terms and their definitions are listed in FAQ pinned to the top of the main AvC site.

You might want to take a look at that when you have some time.

[Answer_42]

On Jun 1, 4:08 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The gods are inhabitants of physical reality, not it's creator. No
> > physical object can deliver the promise of the Wager: eternal
> > happiness. Whatever god you pick -- Zeus, money, physical health,
> > economic security -- will fail you.
>
> Source please?  A priori assumptions noted.  At best, what you say is
> an unproven hypothesis.

And what is your "proven" hypothesis regarding gods, or your god in
particular?

[Answer_42]

On Jun 1, 4:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> > Suppose you say that dogs become merely matter when they die. Suppose
> > three others have different ideas such as dogs going to heaven (eg.,
> > according the Mahabharata, a dog went to heaven with the Pandavas),
> > dogs getting reborn as puppies or animals of other species, and so on.
> > Now, do you have a 0% chance of being right and do each of those

> > others have a 33% chance of being right?

>
> We all have a greater than zero chance of being right.  That is my
> point.  But an atheist has a zero chance of being right about the
> afterlife.  That is Pascal's Wager (as modified, not the original
> version).

What is this "afterlife" you speak of?
Before we can even get to the point of deciding whether Pascal's wager
makes sense or not (in the way you claim it does), we must first
establish that there is indeed some sort of "afterlife", don't we?

So, what is your evidence that there is an "afterlife" so that
Pascal's wager becomes relevant in the way you imply it is?

However, it seems to me that the absence of afterlife is one f the
possibility that Pascal's wager evokes, so, in fact, atheists who do
not believe in the afterlife also have a chance of being right,
because there is a strong possibility that there is no such thing as
an afterlife (as opposed to your conclusion that atheists have zero
chance of being right based on the bare assertion that there must be
an afterlife, whatever that is).

[Answer_42]

On Jun 2, 9:02 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > But we weren't talking about beliefs; we were talking about knowledge.
> > Do you know what happens after you die, or do you know nothing? Pick
> > one; you can't have it both ways.
>
> I did pick one--and I see, since you're the third person to mention
> the below distinction--that this group is confused.  I am talking
> about belief. You are talking about knowledge.  Knowledge comes from
> the Scientific Method. But belief is meta (outside of) the SM.
> Sometimes, in some books on theology, I've seen the word "myth" also
> used to describe this belief.
>
>
>
> > For the record, I have never claimed to know that no gods exist. Not
> > many atheists make that claim.
>
> Well fu ck then, I'm out of here.  

Well, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

On second thoughts, do let it, it will be funnier that way.

> I thought I was debating a bunch of
> atheists, not a bunch of whinny punks who are mad at their parents for
> making them go to Sunday school. That's lame.

Not quite as lame as writing "fu ck" instead of "fuck"...

> Goodbye, and don't
> expect me back

I am not sure we will ever recover...
Please, come back!

> unless somebody can make more cogent arguments on
> behalf of atheists as I define (and the rest of the world defines)
> them, namely, a belief system,

So, in your brilliant mind, "lacking belief in gods" or "not believing
in any god" becomes a "belief system"?
Please, do explain how a "belief system" can be based on a lack of
belief?

Would that be like a star system in which there was no stars?
A colour scheme in which there are no colours?
A hair system for bald people?

Ouch! My atrophied inadequate brain is hurting!

Please, don't let us hanging, we need you!
Come back!
Explain all this confusing stuff so that our brains addled by atheism
(or agnosticism, I am not sure which is correct anymore!) can make
sense of this complex reality you speak of!

COME BACK!

> not a system of epistemology (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology)

OUCH! STOP IT!
You are using difficult words! They hurt our little brains!

COME BACK!

[ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com]

On Jun 2, 9:15 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 3:36 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 4:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not clear what you mean.  You can still do science according to the
> > > Scientific Method and not worship it.  In fact, some Young Earth
> > > Creationists are outstanding scientists, same for Muslim scientists.
> > > In fact, I believe the head of the US NIH is a fundamental Christian,
> > > and arguably a borderline Creationist if not closet version of the
> > > same.
>
> > Abdus Salam was an outstanding scientist and still a theist.
>
> Good. My point.
>
> > > We all have a greater than zero chance of being right.  That is my
> > > point.  But an atheist has a zero chance of being right about the
> > > afterlife.  That is Pascal's Wager (as modified, not the original
> > > version).
>
> > Are you sure that you have no chance of being right if you say that
> > dogs have no afterlife? If not, why does a disbeliever in human
> > afterlife have no chance of being right?
>
> He has a chance, actually.  I was thinking about this last night. If
> god decides to spare unbelievers--which the Christian God has
> explicitly ruled out

According to people in the Syrian Orthodox churches in India, one is
saved by grace and God decides whom to give his grace to. One of them
had a son who became a charismatic Christian and tried for 18 years to
convince his father that God would give his grace only to Christians
but the old man maintained that it was God's prerogative to decide
whether or not to give his grace to a Krishna bhakta (worshipper) and
if a Krishna bhakta were to receive God's grace, he would receive the
same benefits as a Christian who receives God's grace.

> , but, being god, they can always change their
> mind--then yes, you as an unbeliever have a chance.  But you have a
> better chance by believing--again, Pascal's wager.
>
> > > No.  The definition you seek is "agnostic", not atheist. Atheist says,
> > > positively, THERE ARE NO GODS.
>
> > That would be a strong atheist. A weak atheist might be atheist
> > because he is agnostic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
> > Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:
> > Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
> > the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the
> > principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend
> > conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
>
> OK, I see this group is into such semantics. For the record, when I
> say "atheist" (as do most people) I mean a STRONG atheist.
> [Definition of agnostic--as defined by Huxley--deleted, as not central
> to this thread]
>
> > Does a monotheist make a huge presumption of knowledge that gods other
> > than a particular one don't exist and can't reward or punish him?
>
> Yes, but by Pascal's Wager the monotheist is making a better bet than
> the (strong) atheist.

Consider this scenario: A monotheist picks the wrong god. He badmouths
the right god, and also says that he doesn't exist. A strong atheist
too says that the right god doesn't exist but doesn't badmouth him.
Now, whom would the right god might be more offended with? The one who
badmouths him and says he doesn't exist or the one who says he doesn't
exist but does not badmouth him?

[JTB]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:51 AM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

On Jun 2, 5:42 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:42 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Do you know what Socrates said?  He was reputed to be (said the
> > > > > Delphic Oracle, according to Plato) the smartest man in the world.
> > > > > After a lifetime of trying to find out why, he concluded he was smart
> > > > > because: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know
> > > > > nothing"  (Socrates).
>
> > > > He knew plenty more than just one thing.
>
> > > No, he is saying just that--don't put words into his mouth.
>
> > I'm not putting words in his mouth. I'm saying he was wrong.
>
> Well, you are wrong.  You refuse, like the communists,

Holy shit!  "the communists"???  You're comparing the Scientific
Method to communism?  That's really daft, boy.

>  to think that your system of belief--the Scientific Method--can be contradicted
> since it is logically internally correct (like Communism is, like many
> a mathematical system is).  But you fail to take the 'meta' approach
> and look outside this belief system.  I do trust you know what the SM is?

Haha...when I first read this I thought he was oddly referring to the Spaghetti Monster..."I do trust you know what the Spaghetti Monster is?" followed by an ominous pause...but then I realized the right translation and was no longer gripping my seat in excitement...
 

I do not trust you know what a clue is?

> > > > >  Do you, atheist, know even this one thing?
>
> > > > That "one thing" is false, so what's to know? Everyone knows much more
> > > > than just "one thing."
>
> > > False.  You are trying to switch the argument to more familiar
> > > grounds.
>
> > I'm not switching any arguments. He said he only knows one thing, and
> > I'm saying straight out that he was wrong. He knew lots more than just
> > one thing. Everyone knows lots more than just one thing.
>
> Well, no use arguing with you.  Again, see my above quote.  When you
> can come to grips with this, let's debate further.  Read up on this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Gosh, oh gee, we poor dumb atheists couldn't possibly understand
Godel.

>
> And when you understand it, as best you can, we can debate further.

Please don't let our ridicule and disdain drive you away - you're the
most entertaining thing to come around in months.

-Bob T

>
> RL

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 4:20 pm, Bodmerocity <bodmeroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm still curious to know whether you think my ignorance of God
> compared to your relative certainty inspite of a lack of evidence
> makes me more like Socrates than you, and therefore 'smarter' - One of
> the messages of The Apology being that the first step towards wisdom
> is the acknowledgement of ones own ignorance.

Yes, you are smart, but not smarter. Because you are agnostic (that's
smart, as I pointed out in my thread earlier). At least you're not an
atheist, which is dumb. There's even a passage in Corinthians by
Apostle Paul to the Greeks who worship "The Unknown God".

But because of Pascal's wager, I would argue I in fact am smarter.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 4:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> keep going? You're wrong, he's wrong (although I know what he really
> meant is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know).
>

Nope. Wrong. That's not what Socrates meant at all. Read his works
(preferably in the original, as I have). You are again putting words
into his mouth, this time with homely Americanisms like "the more you
know, the more you realize you don't know". That's B.S. Readers
Digest pablum that you picked up from your friends at the mall. In
fact, Socrates is saying that you cannot know anything except
imperfectly (among other things).

> >  You refuse, like the communists, to think that
> > your system of belief--the Scientific Method--can be contradicted
> > since it is logically internally correct (like Communism is, like many
> > a mathematical system is).
>
> Good of you to put words in my mouth, but I wasn't talking about the
> scientific method. I was talking about the inaccuracy of his quote
> that *you* pasted, which was "One thing only I know, and that is that
> I know nothing." Strawman fallacies aren't going to win you any
> arguments, got anything else?

Then you were not clear. Don't blame me for that.

>
> > But you fail to take the 'meta' approach and look outside this belief system.
>
> I don't think it is necessary to look outside his "belief system" to
> know that "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing" is
> inaccurate.

Still stuck on that? I'm going to plonk you soon, junior, if you keep
this up.

>
> >  I do trust you know what the SM is?
>
> Of course - you're a sadist and I'm a masochist for even trying to
> communicate with you. But maybe I just have a high pain threshhold.

No. That would be S&M. Getting closer to plonk junior.

>
> That's fairly vague, and paradoxical, too, since there are several
> "above quotes," and you've also edited out most of your "above
> quotes." Do you get a lot of confused looks from people, by any
> chance?

You seem very argumentative, then again, you're a junior.

>
> I...cough choke wheeze...will try...gasp...to struggle on - you go on
> without me, take the children, don't argue - hack cough...and if I

Respiratory problems? Comes with old age. For somebody as young as
you seem to be, it points to asthma.

<PLONK>

> I am already familiar with Godel.

Tell us about it then.

>
> > And when you understand it, as best you can, we can debate further.
>
> I agree with Godel that our system of knowledge is incompete, and that
> it will never be complete, but that doesn't mean we only know one
> thing.

Nope. That's not what Godel says at all, except at a very superficial
level.

PLONK.

Goodbye.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 5:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > OK, so you are a female Doubting Thomas.  DT had some nerve I always
> > thought--after all the miracles of the Christ, he wanted even more
> > proof--to stick his hands in the wounds--that takes some nerve.
>
> In order for me to be a Doubting Thomas I have to believe that Christ
> existed as a miracle worker.
>
> I don't, so no cigar.
>

Well the German Christians around the 19th century, being rational as
many Protestants are, denied that Christ performed miracles. For
example, walking on water was in fact Jesus walking on a sand bar,
which sometimes can form in the middle of a lake, and the apostles
were unaware of this...and so on.

Likewise, raising Lazarus from the grave is just an example of the not-
unheard of phenomena were somebody is in a coma like catatonic state,
and comes out of it.

Other of Jesus's miracles can be ascribed to known magician's tricks.
And so on.

So you don't have to believe in miracles to be a Christian.

> I believe there was possibly a historical Jesus who led the Christus and
> whose philosophy and beliefs are likely so distorted as to be unrecognizable
> from what this person actually advocated and are lost as a result.

Right. But do you believe in god? And if not, are you not illogical
because of Pascal's Wager? Or rather, are you not negligent about
your own salvation? (assuming you want to live after death that is).

RL

[Trance Gemini]

There are over 30,000 claimed gods. 

Which is the right one? 

Are you sure you picked it? How do you know? 

And what happens if you picked the wrong one?

Pascals Wager is logically flawed.

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 5:17 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It's not a problem TG.  It's just not logical. You are throwing away a
> > chance to appease some god.
>
> And why would I want to worship a god that needs to be appeased?
> Appeased from what?
>
> I thought the god you believed in was benevolent.
> Why would a benevolent god need to be appeased?
>
> Do you truly understand what "appease" means?

Yes. Do you? The same reason you presumably want me to answer you,
rather than ignore you or .killfile you, right?

If not.... <PLONK!>

RL

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipped>

Correction: The following should be "over 3000" claimed god.

 

There are over 30,000 claimed gods. 

Which is the right one? 

Are you sure you picked it? How do you know? 

And what happens if you picked the wrong one?

Pascals Wager is logically flawed.

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And what is your "proven" hypothesis regarding gods, or your god in
> particular?

That's not the issue here. The issue is Pascal's Wager is a logical
way for self-preservation. A strong atheist's belief in no gods is
not.

BTW, a hypothesis, once proven, becomes a fact.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 5:37 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is this "afterlife" you speak of?
> Before we can even get to the point of deciding whether Pascal's wager
> makes sense or not (in the way you claim it does), we must first
> establish that there is indeed some sort of "afterlife", don't we?

No.

>
> So, what is your evidence that there is an "afterlife" so that
> Pascal's wager becomes relevant in the way you imply it is?
>

No need for evidence. That's the beauty of Pascal's wager. It's based
on statistics, not evidence.

> However, it seems to me that the absence of afterlife is one f the
> possibility that Pascal's wager evokes, so, in fact, atheists who do
> not believe in the afterlife also have a chance of being right,
> because there is a strong possibility that there is no such thing as
> an afterlife (as opposed to your conclusion that atheists have zero
> chance of being right based on the bare assertion that there must be
> an afterlife, whatever that is).

It seems to you, but that's not Pascal's wager. Go study it first
before posting about it.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 6:24 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"

<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> According to people in the Syrian Orthodox churches in India, one is
> saved by grace and God decides whom to give his grace to.

This is the same as certain Calvinist Protestant sects too--that
believe in predestination. A nice religion, since by definition you
cannot be "unelected" or NOT saved--even if you sin by doing bad
things (murder, rape, etc).

> Consider this scenario: A monotheist picks the wrong god. He badmouths
> the right god, and also says that he doesn't exist. A strong atheist
> too says that the right god doesn't exist but doesn't badmouth him.
> Now, whom would the right god might be more offended with? The one who
> badmouths him and says he doesn't exist or the one who says he doesn't
> exist but does not badmouth him?
>

Well, it might be a tie. Or, if predestination exists, both lose. Or,
the god could decide to save both (saving everybody). But Pascal's
Wager says that your chances increase if you pay homage to a god,
under the theory that your chances increase over somebody who does not
pay homage. This is because most beings like homage. Logical, no?
Put another way: it is possible that the true god is some Hindu god,
and the strong atheist who does not believe it god--denies god--has a
smaller chance of salvation than the Christian who believes in god,
simply because the Christian can make the plausible argument to the
Hindu god that they worshiped a god, not knowing this god was the
Hindu god, but instead calling that god Jesus. Whereas the strong
atheist can make no such argument to the Hindu god. Of course, the
Hindu god could decide to spare the atheist and damn the Christian in
the cycle of reincarnation, but that result, logically, is strained
according to what most beings want (homage, fidelity, belief in
something). Put another way: it's possible that a master will love
the dog that bites his hand and is ungrateful more so than the dog
that is faithful and kind, but not as likely (btw for you folks
familiar with the Prodigal Son parable in the Bible, note this is not
the same because the Prodigal Son repented to his father. In this
example the bad dog is simply a hand biter and ungrateful). Again,
playing the probabilities. That's Pascal's Wager.

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 5:21 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are doing so based on an apparent misunderstanding of how both the words
> agnostic and atheist are used.
>
> Atheists lack a belief in gods because we have *no* concept of gods.

OK, since you seem to cling to semantics:

Statement I: a STRONG atheist--or better, a person who says 'there is
no God(s)'--is being logically inconsistent with the Scientific
Method, and that person's stance diminishes their chances of salvation
in the afterlife, according to Pascal's Wager.

Statement II: an agnostic--or better (to avoid confusion)--a person
who says "I don't know whether there is a God(s)"--is being logically
consistent with the Scientific Method, but that person's stance
diminishes their chances of salvation in the afterlife, according to
Pascal's Wager.

Agree on either I or II?

If so, game, point, match. I go home. And this forum is closed.

RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 2, 1:17 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And what is your "proven" hypothesis regarding gods, or your god in
> > particular?
>
> That's not the issue here.  The issue is Pascal's Wager is a logical
> way for self-preservation.  A strong atheist's belief in no gods is not.

Wrong. That has already been disproven several times in this very
thread.

>
> BTW, a hypothesis, once proven, becomes a fact.

Wrong again. In science, a hypothesis is never "proven". A hypothesis
that is confirmed by the evidence (or, rather, not contradicted by the
evidence) becomes a theory.

- Bob T
>
> RL

[Neil Kelsey]

On Jun 2, 12:53 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 4:32 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > keep going? You're wrong, he's wrong (although I know what he really
> > meant is that the more you know, the more you realize you don't know).
>
> Nope. Wrong.  That's not what Socrates meant at all.

Sure it is.

> Read his works (preferably in the original, as I have).

Wow. You can misunderstand people in two languages. Good for you.

> You are again putting words
> into his mouth, this time with homely Americanisms like "the more you
> know, the more you realize you don't know".  That's B.S. Readers
> Digest pablum that you picked up from your friends at the mall.  In
> fact, Socrates is saying that you cannot know anything except
> imperfectly (among other things).

So you just contradicted yourself (if I translate your questionable
grammar correctly). If you can know only know one thing (that you
don't know anything), how is it possible for that to be "among other
things" that you can know? I know you're a genius and everything, but
isn't 1 + x greater than one if x is greater than zero?

And Socrates is wrong anyway. He knew a lot more than just one thing.
So do you. So do I.

> > >  You refuse, like the communists, to think that
> > > your system of belief--the Scientific Method--can be contradicted
> > > since it is logically internally correct (like Communism is, like many
> > > a mathematical system is).
>
> > Good of you to put words in my mouth, but I wasn't talking about the
> > scientific method. I was talking about the inaccuracy of his quote
> > that *you* pasted, which was "One thing only I know, and that is that
> > I know nothing." Strawman fallacies aren't going to win you any
> > arguments, got anything else?
>
> Then you were not clear.  Don't blame me for that.

Yes. I will take responsibility for your inability to read for
comprehension. That makes a lot of sense.

> > > But you fail to take the 'meta' approach and look outside this belief system.
>
> > I don't think it is necessary to look outside his "belief system" to
> > know that "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing" is
> > inaccurate.
>
> Still stuck on that?  I'm going to plonk you soon, junior, if you keep
> this up.

Go ahead, Dad, but that still won't make you any less wrong.

> > >  I do trust you know what the SM is?
>
> > Of course - you're a sadist and I'm a masochist for even trying to
> > communicate with you. But maybe I just have a high pain threshhold.
>
> No.  That would be S&M.

Weally?

> Getting closer to plonk junior.

Go ahead, Dad, but that still won't make you any less wrong.

> > That's fairly vague, and paradoxical, too, since there are several
> > "above quotes," and you've also edited out most of your "above
> > quotes." Do you get a lot of confused looks from people, by any
> > chance?
>
> You seem very argumentative, then again, you're a junior.

Go back and read your first post, then tell me that you aren't
"argumentative."

> > I...cough choke wheeze...will try...gasp...to struggle on - you go on
> > without me, take the children, don't argue - hack cough...and if I
>
> Respiratory problems?  Comes with old age.  For somebody as young as
> you seem to be, it points to asthma.

> <PLONK>

I thought you announced your exit already. Why are you still here?

> > I am already familiar with Godel.
>
> Tell us about it then.

Why, if you already know about him?

> > > And when you understand it, as best you can, we can debate further.
>

> > I agree with Godel that our system of knowledge is incomplete, and that

> > it will never be complete, but that doesn't mean we only know one
> > thing.
>
> Nope. That's not what Godel says at all, except at a very superficial
> level.

Superficial as you think it may be it is still true even though our
system of knowledge will never be complete it doesn't mean that we
can't know anything, within our agreed upon definition of the verb "to
know" (and I'll take the OED as the agreed upon defintion, before you
start redefining English).

> PLONK.

I'll bet you're fun at parties.

> Goodbye.

You've said that. Why are you still here?

[Trance Gemini]

Your two statements are incorrect because you don't understand the difference between belief and knowledge.

The following is a correct representation of the facts.

 1. An atheist lacks a belief in gods. 

There is nothing inconsistent here with the Scientific Method. Many atheists are Methodological Naturalists and the Scientific Method comes out of Methodological Naturalism.

2. A strong atheist will say gods do not exist. 

If the atheist is a Naturalist they are taking a  Metaphysical Naturalist position.

A key difference between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism where belief in gods are concerned is that Methodological Naturalism is agnostic on the question of unfalsifiable gods and Metaphysical Naturalism is not.

However, for all practical purposes *both* Methodological and Metaphysical Naturalism completely ignore the issue of gods where the Scientific Method is concerned.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Trance Gemini <trance...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 2, 5:21 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You are doing so based on an apparent misunderstanding of how both the words
> agnostic and atheist are used.
>
> Atheists lack a belief in gods because we have *no* concept of gods.

OK, since you seem to cling to semantics:

Statement I: a STRONG atheist--or better, a person who says 'there is
no God(s)'--is being logically inconsistent with the Scientific
Method, and that person's stance diminishes their chances of salvation
in the afterlife, according to Pascal's Wager.

Statement II:  an agnostic--or better (to avoid confusion)--a person
who says "I don't know whether there is a God(s)"--is being logically
consistent with the Scientific Method, but that person's stance
diminishes their chances of salvation in the afterlife, according to
Pascal's Wager.

Agree on either I or II?

Your two statements are incorrect because you don't understand the difference between belief and knowledge.

Just to elaborate a bit on the philosophical question of knowledge.

What Socrates meant by his statement was that there is no such thing as *absolute* knowledge. That is, we can't know anything to 100% true.

That doesn't mean that we can't and don't have confidence that certain things are highly likely to be true.

That is, knowledge has a truth value associated with it.

Some things are highly unlikely to be true, other things might be true or are possibly true or highly likely to be true.

He didn't literally mean that we know nothing.

Socrates was the one who introduced the concept of justified true belief which is what he defines as knowledge.

-- 

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 2, 11:39 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

>
> > BTW, a hypothesis, once proven, becomes a fact.
>
> Wrong again.  In science, a hypothesis is never "proven". A hypothesis
> that is confirmed by the evidence (or, rather, not contradicted by the
> evidence) becomes a theory.

Wrong. Do us all a favor and learn your terminology first. I made a
boo-boo myself with a lack of distinction between a atheist and a
strong atheist.

Go here Bob: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (note
from the passage by Hawking that your definition is imprecise and
therefore wrong).

And keep in mind Karl Popper's definition --the subject matter of the
Wikipedia cite--is not the only one out there...

RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 3, 12:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 5:21 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are doing so based on an apparent misunderstanding of how both the
> > words
> > > agnostic and atheist are used.

Your dodging of the issues are noted.

>
> > > Atheists lack a belief in gods because we have *no* concept of gods.
>
> > OK, since you seem to cling to semantics:
>
> > Statement I: a STRONG atheist--or better, a person who says 'there is
> > no God(s)'--is being logically inconsistent with the Scientific
> > Method, and that person's stance diminishes their chances of salvation
> > in the afterlife, according to Pascal's Wager.
>
> > Statement II:  an agnostic--or better (to avoid confusion)--a person
> > who says "I don't know whether there is a God(s)"--is being logically
> > consistent with the Scientific Method, but that person's stance
> > diminishes their chances of salvation in the afterlife, according to
> > Pascal's Wager.
>
> > Agree on either I or II?

>
> Your two statements are incorrect because you don't understand the
> difference between belief and knowledge.

So you disagree with both I and II?

>
> The following is a correct representation of the facts.
>
>  1. An atheist lacks a belief in gods.
>
> There is nothing inconsistent here with the Scientific Method. Many atheists
> are Methodological Naturalists and the Scientific Method comes out of
> Methodological Naturalism.

Not at issue. Read the word STRONG. No wonder you're going straight
to hell--you don't follow directions, the signpost said "TURN RIGHT TO
AVOID HELL" and you, like a typical woman driver, keep going
STRAIGHT! Turn woman, turn!

>
> 2. A strong atheist will say gods do not exist.
>
> If the atheist is a Naturalist they are taking a  Metaphysical Naturalist
> position.
>
> A key difference between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological
> Naturalism where belief in gods are concerned is that Methodological
> Naturalism is agnostic on the question of unfalsifiable gods and
> Metaphysical Naturalism is not.

OK, then does the STRONG atheist who is (if I understand your obscure
and obscurantist definitions--did you study under some French
philosopher or something?) a "Methodological Naturalist", is this
person then inconsistent with the Scientific Method? Clearly yes.
Then, is Pascal's Wager sound? I've not seen you refute it. Ergo,
for this type strong atheist, it follows that Statement I is correct.

And please don't say you made a typo when answering, or I'm afraid
I'll have to PLONK you! :-) <--smiley face means you may be going
straight...to...

Bye,
RL

[RayLopez99]

On Jun 3, 12:19 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to elaborate a bit on the philosophical question of knowledge.
>
> What Socrates meant by his statement was that there is no such thing as
> *absolute* knowledge. That is, we can't know anything to 100% true.

Nope. Did not say that. Common misunderstanding. He said that Forms
(a term of art) are 100% truth, and most common people can usually
only see them imperfectly. But if you achieve a state of
enlightenment you can see these Forms perfectly.

>
> That doesn't mean that we can't and don't have confidence that certain
> things are highly likely to be true.

True enough. Like Pascal's Wager--very logical, and highly likely to
be true. So why not accept it?

>
> That is, knowledge has a truth value associated with it.
>
> Some things are highly unlikely to be true, other things might be true or
> are possibly true or highly likely to be true.
>
> He didn't literally mean that we know nothing.

Nobody said literally. Except that fool on this thread that tried to
make that point. If literally we knew nothing we would, like Hume's
pessimism, not be able to even communicate with one another.

RL

[Bob T.]

On Jun 2, 2:23 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:39 pm, "Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > BTW, a hypothesis, once proven, becomes a fact.
>
> > Wrong again.  In science, a hypothesis is never "proven". A hypothesis
> > that is confirmed by the evidence (or, rather, not contradicted by the
> > evidence) becomes a theory.
>
> Wrong.  Do us all a favor and learn your terminology first. I made a
> boo-boo myself with a lack of distinction between a atheist and a
> strong atheist.
>
> Go here Bob:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Can you show me where in that article a hypothesis is proven and
becomes a fact?

> (note from the passage by Hawking that your definition is imprecise and
> therefore wrong).

Of course it was imprecise, it was a single sentence - which was all
that was necessary to point out that you don't know your fact from a
hypothesis in the ground.

- Bob T

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:33 PM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 12:08 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:39 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 5:21 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are doing so based on an apparent misunderstanding of how both the
> > words
> > > agnostic and atheist are used.

Your dodging of the issues are noted.

>
> > > Atheists lack a belief in gods because we have *no* concept of gods.
>
> > OK, since you seem to cling to semantics:
>
> > Statement I: a STRONG atheist--or better, a person who says 'there is
> > no God(s)'--is being logically inconsistent with the Scientific
> > Method, and that person's stance diminishes their chances of salvation
> > in the afterlife, according to Pascal's Wager.
>
> > Statement II:  an agnostic--or better (to avoid confusion)--a person
> > who says "I don't know whether there is a God(s)"--is being logically
> > consistent with the Scientific Method, but that person's stance
> > diminishes their chances of salvation in the afterlife, according to
> > Pascal's Wager.
>
> > Agree on either I or II?

 >
> Your two statements are incorrect because you don't understand the
> difference between belief and knowledge.

So you disagree with both I and II?

Yes. I believe that's what I said when I stated: "Your two statements are incorrect..."

 

>
> The following is a correct representation of the facts.
>
>  1. An atheist lacks a belief in gods.
>
> There is nothing inconsistent here with the Scientific Method. Many atheists
> are Methodological Naturalists and the Scientific Method comes out of
> Methodological Naturalism.

Not at issue.  Read the word STRONG.  No wonder you're going straight
to hell--you don't follow directions, the signpost said "TURN RIGHT TO
AVOID HELL" and you, like a typical woman driver, keep going
STRAIGHT!  Turn woman, turn!

The point, which you appear to have missed is that the comparison of *belief* can only be made between an atheist and a strong atheist. Not an atheist and an agnostic which is a statement of knowledge, not belief.

 

> 2. A strong atheist will say gods do not exist.
>
> If the atheist is a Naturalist they are taking a  Metaphysical Naturalist
> position.
>
> A key difference between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological
> Naturalism where belief in gods are concerned is that Methodological
> Naturalism is agnostic on the question of unfalsifiable gods and
> Metaphysical Naturalism is not.

OK, then does the STRONG atheist who is (if I understand your obscure
and obscurantist definitions--did you study under some French
philosopher or something?) a "Methodological Naturalist", is this
person then inconsistent with the Scientific Method?

A Strong atheist who is a Naturalist is a Metaphysical Naturalist and does not believe in gods and is not agnostic about any gods.

An atheist who is a Naturalist is a Methodological Naturalist who lacks a belief in gods and is agnostic where unfalsifiable gods is concerned.

The Scientific Method is based on Methodological Naturalism but for all intents and purposes it behaves like Metaphysical Naturalism because it ignores the existence of gods as irrelevant.

And note that the above is both commonly known and generally accepted.

 Clearly yes.
Then, is Pascal's Wager sound?  I've not seen you refute it.

I refuted it and you ignored my refutation.

1. There are 3000+ claimed gods.

2. What if you pick the wrong god?

Pascal's Wager now fails.

[Trance Gemini]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:37 PM, RayLopez99 <raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Jun 3, 12:19 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to elaborate a bit on the philosophical question of knowledge.
>
> What Socrates meant by his statement was that there is no such thing as
> *absolute* knowledge. That is, we can't know anything to 100% true.

Nope. Did not say that. Common misunderstanding.  He said that Forms
(a term of art) are 100% truth, and most common people can usually
only see them imperfectly.  But if you achieve a state of
enlightenment you can see these Forms perfectly.

*IF* that's true and I will check, he has just contradicted himself according to you.

Your OP states that Socrates claims that we know nothing.

Now you are claiming that Socrates claims that Forms are 100% truth.

Which is it that you are claiming that Socrates claims?

And FYI, my understanding is the generally accepted understanding of what Socrates claimed in regards to defining what *knowledge* is.

I suspect that you have taken these comments of "forms" out of context and that there is no connection between the statements regarding "forms" and the statements regarding knowledge.

No wonder you're so confused about the philosophical difference between belief and knowledge.

 

>
> That doesn't mean that we can't and don't have confidence that certain
> things are highly likely to be true.

True enough.  Like Pascal's Wager--very logical, and highly likely to
be true.  So why not accept it?

I told you why. 

 

>
> That is, knowledge has a truth value associated with it.
>
> Some things are highly unlikely to be true, other things might be true or
> are possibly true or highly likely to be true.
>
> He didn't literally mean that we know nothing.

Nobody said literally.  Except that fool on this thread that tried to
make that point.  If literally we knew nothing we would, like Hume's
pessimism, not be able to even communicate with one another.

You said it in your OP.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 5:49 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 1, 6:17 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Timothy 1:4a <canfanor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > Welcome, Ray.
>
> > > > I assume you read the entire page that you linked to, and I hope the
> > > > theists in this group will do the same!!!
>
> > > > Trance used to use Voltaire quotes in her signature (instead of the
> > > > deist Jefferson quote that she has now).  I always say that in the
> > > > debate of Atheism vs. Christianity (which is *not* Atheism vs. Theism)
> > > > the deists are on the atheist side.  Your link certainly proves it for
> > > > Voltaire.
>
> > > I wouldn't agree that Deists are on the atheist side, Timothy.
>
> > My take: Christians are not a problem because they are theists. They
> > are a problem because they have a faulty moral code and/or fact base
> > and believe it is God-given.  Those like deists, who help poke their
> > arguments apart, are on our side in this debate.
>
> They might be, where materialist and naturalist beliefs are concerned as I
> pointed out.
>
> However, they aren't necessarily.
>
> There are Deists who assign properties to their concept of god including a
> "special" relationship with humanity, etc.
>
> One Deist I'm currently talking to on another group claims his concept of
> God created humans as moral agents. This is a religious concept and not
> consistent with materialist or naturalist positions. So, this Deist will
> have little in common with atheists.
>
> And they are theists.
>
> Not necessarily religious ones but theists nonetheless.

A deist is definitely different from an atheist, but not always as
different as you might think.

I'm not in that talk with your deist on the other group, but have you
determined how s/he determines what God wants humans to do in order to
be moral? Suppose s/he were to say, "God expects us to look at the
world around us and the people around us, determine their needs as
best we can, and try to make ourselves and our neighbours happy by
following the Golden Rule." There are deists like that, and you can't
distinguish them from secular humanists without a microscope and a
Geiger counter.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 8:49 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 11:56 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would argue, by all
>
> > > agnostics.  Atheists are a different story.  They actively say there
> > > is no god--which runs somewhat counter to the Scientific Method as
> > > taught by Popper.  Technically, they should say that god has not been
> > > proven.
>
> > And herein lies the source of your apparent confusion.
>
> > 1. Atheism is a statement of belief
> > 2. Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge
>
> > You are conflating the two.
>
> No, I would argue I am saying the statement of belief of atheism--that
> there is no god(s)--runs counter to the Scientific Method--do you
> agree?
>
> > The atheist says he lacks a belief in gods.
>
> > The agnostic says the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
>
> > These statements are speaking to two completely different concepts
> > philosophically.
>
> > One can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.
>
> I don't see how--unless you are conflating the two.  I guess you can
> also be a agnostic Christian if you can be an agnostic atheist?  Is
> that your position?  Then we best disband this NG, since it's become a
> trivial tautology

Sounds like it's your turn for some homework, Ray.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

"Christian agnosticism means being a Christian despite uncertainty
about whether Christian teachings are true. It is not an oxymoron
because the two terms refer to different things - agnosticism to
knowledge, and Christianity to belief."
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/43861/13952817/Christian_agnosticism

> > For example, I say that I'm agnostic where the existence of Deist type gods
> > are concerned because a Deist god doesn't have any properties other than
> > being a Creator God and is therefore not falsifiable and I lack a belief in
> > all gods.
>
> > I also say that I'm not agnostic where the Abrahamic God is concerned
> > because it has properties which are falsifiable and am a strong atheist
> > where this god is concerned and will also say that I do not believe the
> > Abrahamic God exists.
>
> Now you're changing definitions.  You are saying you are an atheist as
> opposed to the Abrahamic God.  But this definition of yours, while
> logical and goes a ways in explaining your bizarre definitions above,
> is not (I think) supported by the literature or the conventional way
> of saying "atheist", which means belief in NO god (that there is no
> god).
>
> RL

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 9:23 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:32 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the god Ampheru will give you eternal happiness if you try to live
> > a good life through observation of Physical Evidence and the
> > application of Rational Thought (PERT). He will destroy your soul upon
> > your death if you live by putting your faith in another god.
>
> > Therefore you are just as likely to get a good afterlife through PERT
> > as through any formal religion.
>
> Well, Tim, for future rhetorical effect let me rewrite this point of
> yours, since you are a bit weak in the art of irony or persuasion,
> though as a cafe philosopher you would do well in this country I'm in
> (Greece), which is largely uneducated.

Why does your profile say "California"? Are you out of date, or even
more confused than your posts make you seem?

> You should say:
>
> 'But the god Nihilus [resonates with the Star Trek character of Darth
> Nihilus]

Don't recall him on Star Trek. Was that in the episode where parallel-
universe Spock had a beard?

> will give you happiness if you try and live a good life
> through...PERT.  He will destroy your happiness on earth if you live
> by putting your faith in another god.  [Then, just to drive this point
> home:].  Therefore, if you want a good life, live according to PERT
> rather than any formal religion.'
>
> Now you would dovetail seamlessly with classic philosophers who, like
> the Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics, counseled exactly that.

Ampheru does not interfere in your earthly life. He just gives eternal
rewards in the afterlife to those who don't believe in man-made gods.
Those who follow Ampheru's path will win Pascal's Wager.

> Gotta go now..you guys bore me....

That seems to be because you can't follow our arguments! Must make
them less interesting, all right.

> c'mon, raise your game or you'll be
> left talking to yourselves again...I thought this group was lively!
> It's a spam repository from some other posts I'm beginning to see...
>
> RL

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 9:23 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:32 am, "Timothy 1:4a" <canfanor...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip for bandwidth>

> Now you would dovetail seamlessly with classic philosophers who, like
> the Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics, counseled exactly that.

Apparently Heraclitus could not step in the same river twice. I think
it was an Ephesian health ordinance or something.

<snip>

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 10:37 am, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 4:26 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Suppose you say that dogs become merely matter when they die. Suppose
> > > three others have different ideas such as dogs going to heaven (eg.,
> > > according the Mahabharata, a dog went to heaven with the Pandavas),
> > > dogs getting reborn as puppies or animals of other species, and so on.
> > > Now, do you have a 0% chance of being right and do each of those
> > > others have a 33% chance of being right?
>
> > We all have a greater than zero chance of being right.  That is my
> > point.  But an atheist has a zero chance of being right about the
> > afterlife.  That is Pascal's Wager (as modified, not the original
> > version).

>
> What is this "afterlife" you speak of?
> Before we can even get to the point of deciding whether Pascal's wager
> makes sense or not (in the way you claim it does), we must first
> establish that there is indeed some sort of "afterlife", don't we?

To be fair, no. Pascal argued that he won if there was an afterlife
and broke even if there was not, which gave him a positive expectation
for his bet. Alas for Pascal, he never learned about Ampheru and so
is no more.

> So, what is your evidence that there is an "afterlife" so that
> Pascal's wager becomes relevant in the way you imply it is?
>

> However, it seems to me that the absence of afterlife is one f the
> possibility that Pascal's wager evokes, so, in fact, atheists who do
> not believe in the afterlife also have a chance of being right,
> because there is a strong possibility that there is no such thing as
> an afterlife (as opposed to your conclusion that atheists have zero
> chance of being right based on the bare assertion that there must be
> an afterlife, whatever that is).

> _________________________________________
> The moral and religious teachings of no bible reach a higher altitude
> than the intelligence and mental development of the age and country
> which produced it.
> -- Kersey Graves

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 4:17 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:25 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And what is your "proven" hypothesis regarding gods, or your god in
> > particular?
>
> That's not the issue here.  The issue is Pascal's Wager is a logical
> way for self-preservation.  A strong atheist's belief in no gods is
> not.

Why are you still on that? Where is the justification for your
implicit (and unlikely) assumption that any god which may exist will
save or plonk humans based on whether said humans give allegiance to
said god's religion?

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 4:19 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 5:37 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What is this "afterlife" you speak of?
> > Before we can even get to the point of deciding whether Pascal's wager
> > makes sense or not (in the way you claim it does), we must first
> > establish that there is indeed some sort of "afterlife", don't we?
>
> No.
>
> > So, what is your evidence that there is an "afterlife" so that
> > Pascal's wager becomes relevant in the way you imply it is?
>
> No need for evidence.  That's the beauty of Pascal's wager. It's based
> on statistics

and faulty premises, and, definitely

[Timothy 1:4a]

Before you go, could you give us the names of those crackerjack
Creationist scientists you heard about?

[Trance Gemini]

I don't disagree that it can be the case.

My point is that it isn't always the case.

Voltaire, Jefferson and Paine are barely distinguishable from atheists but then they were alive at a time where they didn't have the option to just abandon god beliefs.

Today we do. So, it's a fair question to ask why people would bother to believe in what is essentially an irrelevant god.

That's the question I ask anyway.

[Timothy 1:4a]

On Jun 2, 8:34 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:

It's a fair point.

[William T. Goat]

On Jun 2, 9:08 am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2:48 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nope.  Bible doesn't say that anyway--not my bible.  In fact, if you
> > > read the Old Testiment you'll see there was a period when the Jews
> > > were henotheistic--they worshipped many gods, openly.
>
> > And God disapproved.
>
> So?  If God exists, why would he approve?  Remember, he's a jealous
> god.

You were trying to imply that God approved. Lost track of the
conversation already?


> > > You will be soon Goat.  With your drinking problem too; are you
> > > kidding me? LOL.
>
> > All right then; help me believe in gods. How do I get a belief in a
> > god? Do I have to talk myself into it, the same way a drug addict
> > tries to convince himself that he can stop anytime? Or is objectivity
> > needed?
>
> No objectivity Goat--you just gotta believe.

How do I do that?


> > > Nope.  Off topic.  Believe if a god--even Satan--is the key.  If Satan
> > > is the true god, you "win".
>
> > You're missing the point: it's not a game. Atheists aren't trying to
> > get to Heaven. Atheists don't believe in Heaven. They're... atheists.
> > Those of you who believe in God, are the only ones trying to turn
> > spirituality into a competition that you must "win" and that everyone
> > else must "lose". Why don't you work for world peace instead?
>
> Why should I work for world peace?

Because that would be the moral thing to do. Are you immoral?


> Do you know the iron law of
> Malthus?   Your "peace" is my "disaster", like the poem The Fly by
> Karl Shapiro.

Ah, you're a moral relativist.


> > > > Unless of course none of them are right. That's the problem with
> > > > Pascal's wager; none of the probabilities are known.
>
> > > Nope. You never took statistics in college I see.  Or you're playing
> > > dumb.  Non-zero numbers are the key.
>
> > But you (like Socrates) don't know what the numbers are. You're
> > guessing, based on your own convictions. And since when does the truth
> > bend to anyone's convictions?
>
> Nope.  Episilon (which mathematicians use as shorthand for a small
> number) is greater than zero.

You don't know that epsilon is the right number. The right number
might be zero. Again: you're guessing, based on your own convictions.

The fact is, any religion whose God is said to have created this
world, is easily disproved if the religion describes this world
incorrectly. For example, the Bible says that God crated the Earth in
the form of a flat disc which does not move through space because it
is supported by pillars. If the God of the Bible is real, then the
real Earth would fit this description. But the real Earth does not fit
this description. Therefore, the God of the Bible is not real. So the
chance of the Christian God being real is at most 0%.


> > > > > With atheism, you have a 0% chance (save the
> > > > > Purgatory issue).
>
> > > > Unless of course there is no Heaven, in which case atheists have a
> > > > 100% chance of being right. I think you're confusing being right with
> > > > being saved.
>
> > > Not confusing anything, but being right is, in the context of this
> > > thread, the same as "being saved". You gonna play word games with me,
> > > cirrosis of the liver?
>
> > In the context of this thread, and in the context of the Abrahamic
> > religions, yes, being right is the same as being saved. But in the
> > context of real life, we're all as ignorant as Socrates. We all
> > struggle to seek the truth, and none of us knows who's right and who's
> > saved. Can you admit to that?
>
> But if you believe you'll be saved statistically speaking (according
> to Pascal's Wager)--can you admit to that?

No, because Pascal's Wager is based on false premises.


> > No, you can't admit to that, because you're a bigot. In the mind of
> > the believer, anyone who believes differently is not merely mistaken
> > and in need of enlightenment, but rebellious and deserving of
> > punishment.
>
> No, I just like to win. The difference between you and me, Goat.

That's not a very spiritual attitude. Haven't you heard that winning
isn't everything?

--Billy