Re: A GOD CHALLENGE - Revisited Pascals Wager
Ron Dean
> In our last episode, <s9sLm.12130$gi1....@newsfe19.iad>, the lovely and
> talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> In our last episode, <ORmLm.13194$gd1....@newsfe05.iad>, the lovely and
>>> talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>>>> If you believe the wrong god, the real god will despise you and torture
>>>>> you for eternity. The nonbeliever doesn't fall into that trap.
>>>>>
>>>> It's no different than with the grave. The non-believer rejecting all
>>>> gods, will be in the same torture chamber as the believer in the wrong
>>>> god.
>>> There is no reason to think a god would operate that way.
>>>
>>> For example, suppose there is a god who will condemn a nonbeliever with a
>>> lifetime of good works to hell but reward a serial killer who converts in
>>> the last second of his life with paradise. That is completely unjust and
>>> irrational. Yet some people might believe in a god they think behaves that
>>> way.
>>>
>> Why, it's Gods to give. He would know, if he is capable of all that is
>> attributed to him, whether or not the death bed confession is sincere.
>> But Christians do not believe a life time of good works earns your way.
>> That is unless you are free from all sin - and who is.
>
> Yes, some people believe in such an irrational and unjust god. I thought I
> said that.
>
You are missing the fundamental belief that everyone has sinned,
consequently, no one is eligible for heaven based upon his _own_ merits.
Since the sole justification for going to heaven is being without sin.
>
>>> So why
would it be too far fetched to think there might be a god who intends
>>> paradise for all of its creations, but for jealousy will condemn anyone who
>>> believes in a different god.
>
It's very difficult to address your post, because in one sentence you
are specifically attacking your concept of the Christian God, and the
next you are attacking the justice of your idea of gods in general.
And you attack the idea of gods in general.
>>>
>> There's no reason to believe that God would hold you guilty if in all
>> honesty you worshiped the wrong God.
>
> There is not reason to believe in any god. Pascal's Wager is an attempt to
> convince people to believe in a god without reason.
>
I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
existence of God has potential loss.
>
>> Many do. But they will be given a another chance.
>
> Evidence?
>
You have presented your curious versions of the Christian God, so I
should be able to offer my views of Christianity.
>
> Of course not. If you had evidence, you would not have try to rehabilitate
> Pascal's Wager. You would present the evidence.
>
I've never claimed to have hard, empirical scientific evidence, so I
do not understand why this issue keeps re-appearing. But I have seen
circumstantial evidence which satisfies _me_. And this is my only
concern. I do not wish to impose my views on others. I don't wish to
have yet another charge of trying to impose my views upon atheist: which
is the complaint of many atheist against Christians.
>
>>> The pass to heaven then would be: just do not believe in the wrong god.
>>> The atheist gets the pass, the guy who bet on the wrong god doesn't.
>
>> The non - believer is still in his grave. Unfortunately, he never had a
>> chance. My above argument dealt with this scenario.
>
> No, it did not.
>
>>> Surely this makes as much sense as the previously described god.
>>>
>>>> So the believer is still better off since he has a chance getting
>>>> the right god.
>
> He is also getting a chance of being condemned for believing in the wrong
> god. And the non-believer has the chance that god will reward everyone who
> does not believe in the wrong god. Since the atheist believes in no god, he
> does not believe in the wrong god. But the believer has a chance of
> believing in the wrong god. So one of the possibilities is that the atheist
> goes to heaven and the believer is condemned to hell. When Pascal's Wager
> includes all the possibilities, it does not accomplish its purpose, which is
> to convince someone to believe in one god in particular.
>
Being from the West, Pascal was speaking in terms of one God, which is
the common Western religious view. His concern was people in the West.
>
>>> He also has a chance of getting the wrong god a being condemned to hell
>>> for it.
>>>
>> Maybe, but there remains the chance, however remote, of getting the
>> right God. The atheist is still without a chance.
>
> Of course not. If the rule is "Thou shalt not believe in the wrong god,"
>
There is no way to deal with way-out, hypothetical beliefs that
absolutely no one sincerely believes, not even atheist. They are
not real beliefs.
>
> then the atheist wins while the theist may or may not have guessed right.
> There is no reason to think that one has better chances than the other.
>
>
>> There is another aspect to this wager. The sincere believer
>
> First, it is dubious that someone who is convinced to believe on the basis
> of Pascal's Wager is accurately called a "sincere believer."
>
Yes, this is right. I would agree.
>
>> regardless of which God is his, has the comfort,
>
> Drugs give people comfort.
>
And Drugs can cure, while others can kill.
>
>> assurance
>
> No. A proposition that is false is not assurance.
>
False? In whose eyes? I can understand why it could not give
doubters assurance, but you are not recognizing that there
are millions of sincere believers who do not look upon their
religion or their God as a false proposition. If they did,
I would have to agree with you.
There may be people who
> buy a lottery ticket and max out their credit cards and home equity loans
> because they feel they have "assurance" they will win.
>
This is another way out, hypothetical scenario. No one, unless he
is a babbling idiot would feel an assurance of winning the lottery.
Also your gambler here risk everything on a known risk. The believer
risk nothing since belief is a free exercise, unless one consider
altruistic behavior a cost.
>
Pascal's Wager is a
> *wager*. The argument is that the player will be no worse off if he doesn't
> win. But that argument is wrong because possible outcomes include those in
> which the believer in a particular *is* worse off for making the wrong bet.
>
>> and peace of mind "knowing" that when this life on earth is over, there is
>> another life to come along with the chance to be with his loved ones
>> again. If atheist are right and there is no God and no future life. His
>> religion served him well: it gave him a life of hope, if nothing else.
>
> This cuts to the one unproven axiom underlying atheism which is: "The
> truth, even if unattractive, is better than a falsehood however pretty."
>
I don't take it that you mean you think meeting loved ones in the
afterlife would be unattractive. But I don't see how it fits within
this context.
>
> But it is not the argument of Pascal's Wager. That is what we are
> discussing: whether Pascal's Wager should be accepted.
>
> By the terms of Pascal's Wager, the believe who, according to you, enjoys a
> life of assurance and hope, could still be condemned to hell for eternity on
> account of believing in the wrong god.
>
This is not according to me, I never agreed that the believer in the
wrong God could be condemned to hell. God might just as well say,
I'm called by many names. But I am GOD!
The God capable of creating the universe, the laws of physics and life
I believe would be logical and reasonable. The honesty and sincerity of
the believer I think should count for something.
>
> The believer gets a lifetime of "hope" followed by one of three possible
> outcomes: heaven, eternal hell, nothing. The atheist gets a lifetime of
> pursuing truth followed by three possible outcomes: heaven, eternal hell, or
> nothing. If you find an advantage in one bet, it is perhaps because you
> have not quite appreciated the meaning of eternity.
>
Why do you continue to bring Hell into the discussion. Many Christians
people, me included, believe hell is the grave not a burning pit of
endless torture.
>
>> The atheist has a life of hopelessness for anything beyond the grave, a
>> deep loss with the death of each loved one and in the end no better off
>> than the the trusting and faithful, but mistaken believer.
>
> It doesn't follow. Since the believer may still be condemned to hell and the
> atheist may still reach heaven, there is no reason to think one wager is
> better than the other.
>
Here again is your far-out, sup positional and curious view that no one
believer or atheist sincerely accepts as a real possibility.
Thank you Lars, You are a fine person. I appreciate your candor mixed
with civility.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Only according to your particular denomination.
>consequently, no one is eligible for heaven based upon his _own_ merits.
>Since the sole justification for going to heaven is being without sin.
And only if it's your particular pretend friend.
Lars Eighner
talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> In our last episode, <s9sLm.12130$gi1....@newsfe19.iad>, the lovely and
>> talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>>> Why, it's Gods to give. He would know, if he is capable of all that is
>>> attributed to him, whether or not the death bed confession is sincere.
>>> But Christians do not believe a life time of good works earns your way.
>>> That is unless you are free from all sin - and who is.
>>
>> Yes, some people believe in such an irrational and unjust god. I thought I
>> said that.
> >
> You are missing the fundamental belief that everyone has sinned,
> consequently, no one is eligible for heaven based upon his _own_ merits.
What part of Pascal's Wager is that.
> Since the sole justification for going to heaven is being without sin.
According to those who believe in some subset of all the conceivable and
inconceivable gods. Sin is meaningless for believers in most of the gods
that humans have ever believed in and of course to atheists.
Let's keep our eyes on the prize; This is Pascal's Wager in the form
of a game theory type of table:
T R U T H
MyGod Nothing
B
E MyGod Heaven Nothing
L
I Nothing Hell Nothing
E
F
Which is to say if you believe in MyGod and MyGod actually is the
truth you go to heaven, and so forth. Pascal's argument is you should
believe in MyGod because at worst nothing happens, but you might win
everything.
What's wrong with it is that it leaves out many possibilities.
T R U T H
MyGod Nothing EzGod Jealous FuGod Deist
B
E MyGod Heaven Nothing Heaven Hell Hell Nothing
L
I Nothing Hell Nothing Heaven Heaven Hell Nothing
E
F EzGod Hell Nothing Heaven Hell Hell Nothing
Jealous Hell Nothing Heaven Heaven Hell Nothing
FuGod Hell Nothing Heaven Hell Hell Nothing
Deist Hell Nothing Heaven Hell Hell Nothing
etc.
Which doesn't even include a number of other possible outcomes such
as reincarnation a few times or forever, go to Vahallah but eventually
lose (with the gods) to chaos, outcomes humans have never thought of and
outcomes that humans are incapable of thinking of, and so forth.
When you consider all the possible gods and all the possible outcomes,
there is no particular reason to bet on any of the possible god beliefs.
And that is why Pascal's Wager fails.
>>>> So why would it be too far fetched to think there might be a god who
>>>> intends paradise for all of its creations, but for jealousy will
>>>> condemn anyone who believes in a different god.
> It's very difficult to address your post, because in one sentence you
> are specifically attacking your concept of the Christian God, and the
> next you are attacking the justice of your idea of gods in general.
> And you attack the idea of gods in general.
No. I am pointing out that Pascal's Wager is fallacious when you consider
all the possibilities. Clearly their could be gods that are more just and
rational than the christian gods. But there also could be gods that are
more foolish and arbitrary.
>>> There's no reason to believe that God would hold you guilty if in all
>>> honesty you worshiped the wrong God.
>>
>> There is not reason to believe in any god. Pascal's Wager is an attempt to
>> convince people to believe in a god without reason.
> >
> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
> the one God,
Yes, there is a cost. "The one God" could be false, and the true god could
hold that against you. If you had evidence of "The one God" you would not
need Pascal's Wager. But you don't. Well, there are plenty of other gods
for which there is no evidence. If Pascal's Wager doesn't consider them
it is worthless.
> but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the existence of God has
> potential loss.
There are potential losses whichever of the gods you believe in or
disbelieve.
>>> Many do. But they will be given a another chance.
>>
>> Evidence?
> >
> You have presented your curious versions of the Christian God, so I
> should be able to offer my views of Christianity.
Well, you are the one who identified the god I described as despising works
and caring only about faith as your god. I did not say that was the
christian god, but you recognized your christ in my description of an unjust
and irrational god. I described the shoe. You claimed it.
>> Of course not. If you had evidence, you would not have try to rehabilitate
>> Pascal's Wager. You would present the evidence.
> >
> I've never claimed to have hard, empirical scientific evidence, so I
> do not understand why this issue keeps re-appearing. But I have seen
> circumstantial evidence which satisfies _me_. And this is my only
> concern. I do not wish to impose my views on others. I don't wish to
> have yet another charge of trying to impose my views upon atheist: which
> is the complaint of many atheist against Christians.
But Pascal's Wager is all about an argument without evidence. Pascal's
Wager is the topic of this thread. It only works if you already believe
Pascal's conclusion. It is circular. That is why it is useless as an
argument.
>>>> The pass to heaven then would be: just do not believe in the wrong god.
>>>> The atheist gets the pass, the guy who bet on the wrong god doesn't.
>>
>>> The non - believer is still in his grave. Unfortunately, he never had a
>>> chance. My above argument dealt with this scenario.
>>
>> No, it did not.
>>
>>>> Surely this makes as much sense as the previously described god.
>>>>
>>>>> So the believer is still better off since he has a chance getting
>>>>> the right god.
>>
>> He is also getting a chance of being condemned for believing in the wrong
>> god. And the non-believer has the chance that god will reward everyone
>> who does not believe in the wrong god. Since the atheist believes in no
>> god, he does not believe in the wrong god. But the believer has a chance
>> of believing in the wrong god. So one of the possibilities is that the
>> atheist goes to heaven and the believer is condemned to hell. When
>> Pascal's Wager includes all the possibilities, it does not accomplish its
>> purpose, which is to convince someone to believe in one god in
>> particular.
> >
> Being from the West, Pascal was speaking in terms of one God, which is
> the common Western religious view. His concern was people in the West.
I see. So your god is limited by geography.
There is hardly a more Western idea than Deism, which was the belief of many
of the "Founding Fathers" of America. Yet, since the deist god does not
maintain a heaven or hell or offer eternal life to believers (or hear
prayers, etc.) the payoffs for deists in Pascal's Wager for deists are
often the same as for atheists.
>>>> He also has a chance of getting the wrong god a being condemned to hell
>>>> for it.
>>>>
>>> Maybe, but there remains the chance, however remote, of getting the
>>> right God. The atheist is still without a chance.
>>
>> Of course not. If the rule is "Thou shalt not believe in the wrong god,"
>
> There is no way to deal with way-out, hypothetical beliefs that
> absolutely no one sincerely believes, not even atheist. They are
> not real beliefs.
You seem to be saying that the possible gods are limited by the human
imagination. That would be true if all gods are imaginary. I find that an
entirely agreeable proposition.
>> then the atheist wins while the theist may or may not have guessed right.
>> There is no reason to think that one has better chances than the other.
>>
> >
>>> There is another aspect to this wager. The sincere believer
>>
>> First, it is dubious that someone who is convinced to believe on the basis
>> of Pascal's Wager is accurately called a "sincere believer."
> >
> Yes, this is right. I would agree.
>>
>>> regardless of which God is his, has the comfort,
>>
>> Drugs give people comfort.
> >
> And Drugs can cure, while others can kill.
Belief in god(s) can kill.
>>
>>> assurance
>>
>> No. A proposition that is false is not assurance.
> >
> False? In whose eyes? I can understand why it could not give
> doubters assurance, but you are not recognizing that there
> are millions of sincere believers who do not look upon their
> religion or their God as a false proposition. If they did,
> I would have to agree with you.
Again, Pascal's Wager only makes sense if you already believe the
conclusion. That is begging the question. If you already believe the
conclusion, why go through the charade of Pascal's Wager. If you don't
already believe Pascal's conclusion, you are a fool to be convinced by it.
>> There may be people who
>> buy a lottery ticket and max out their credit cards and home equity loans
>> because they feel they have "assurance" they will win.
> >
> This is another way out, hypothetical scenario. No one, unless he
> is a babbling idiot would feel an assurance of winning the lottery.
Exactly what I would say of god beliefs.
> Also your gambler here risk everything on a known risk. The believer
> risk nothing since belief is a free exercise, unless one consider
> altruistic behavior a cost.
Altruistic behavior? Don't make me laugh. Slavery, oppression, holy wars
is more like it.
>> Pascal's Wager is a wager*. The argument is that the player will be no
>> *worse off if he doesn't win. But that argument is wrong because
>> possible outcomes include those in which the believer in a particular
>> [god] *is* worse off for making the wrong bet.
>>
>>> and peace of mind "knowing" that when this life on earth is over, there
>>> is another life to come along with the chance to be with his loved ones
>>> again. If atheist are right and there is no God and no future life.
>>> His religion served him well: it gave him a life of hope, if nothing
>>> else.
>>
>> This cuts to the one unproven axiom underlying atheism which is: "The
>> truth, even if unattractive, is better than a falsehood however pretty."
> >
> I don't take it that you mean you think meeting loved ones in the
> afterlife would be unattractive.
That's right. It is a pretty falsehood.
> But I don't see how it fits within this context.
>> But it is not the argument of Pascal's Wager. That is what we are
>> discussing: whether Pascal's Wager should be accepted.
>>
>> By the terms of Pascal's Wager, the believe[r] who, according to you,
>> enjoys a life of assurance and hope, could still be condemned to hell for
>> eternity on account of believing in the wrong god.
> >
> This is not according to me, I never agreed that the believer in the
> wrong God could be condemned to hell. God might just as well say,
> I'm called by many names. But I am GOD!
So the Ten Commandments is waste paper. If you say so.
Not too far back you were appealing to "Western" orthodoxy. You'll have to
point me to what "Western" sect has ever held that it is okay to believe in
any god by any name because they are all the same. If I am "making up" a
number of god possibilites that no one in the West has ever believed in,
then you are making up a Jesus that no Western church has ever believed in.
> The God capable of creating the universe, the laws of physics and life I
> believe would be logical and reasonable. The honesty and sincerity of the
> believer I think should count for something.
To Christians that is heresy.
>> The believer gets a lifetime of "hope" followed by one of three possible
>> outcomes: heaven, eternal hell, nothing. The atheist gets a lifetime of
>> pursuing truth followed by three possible outcomes: heaven, eternal hell,
>> or nothing. If you find an advantage in one bet, it is perhaps because
>> you have not quite appreciated the meaning of eternity.
> >
> Why do you continue to bring Hell into the discussion. Many Christians
> people, me included, believe hell is the grave not a burning pit of
> endless torture.
There are so many different christian gods, it is hard to keep track ---
yet somehow christians are always united when it comes to war and
oppression.
>>> The atheist has a life of hopelessness for anything beyond the grave, a
>>> deep loss with the death of each loved one and in the end no better off
>>> than the the trusting and faithful, but mistaken believer.
>>
>> It doesn't follow. Since the believer may still be condemned to hell and
>> the atheist may still reach heaven, there is no reason to think one wager
>> is better than the other.
>>
> Here again is your far-out, sup positional and curious view that no one
> believer or atheist sincerely accepts as a real possibility.
> Thank you Lars, You are a fine person. I appreciate your candor mixed
> with civility.
--
Lars Eighner *Atheist #1965* use...@larseighner.com <http://larseighner.com/>
298 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Ron Dean
> In our last episode, <Q8CLm.13881$rE5...@newsfe08.iad>, the lovely and
> talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>>> In our last episode, <s9sLm.12130$gi1....@newsfe19.iad>, the lovely and
>>> talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> You are missing the fundamental belief that everyone has sinned,
>> consequently, no one is eligible for heaven based upon his _own_ merits.
>
> What part of Pascal's Wager is that.
>
Game theory is very complex and mathematical based. You set this table
up using premises you devised. I've yet to agree with these premises.
>
<snip>
>> It's very difficult to address your post, because in one sentence you
>> are specifically attacking your concept of the Christian God, and the
>> next you are attacking the justice of your idea of gods in general.
>> And you attack the idea of gods in general.
>
> No. I am pointing out that Pascal's Wager is fallacious when you consider
> all the possibilities. Clearly their could be gods that are more just and
> rational than the christian gods. But there also could be gods that are
> more foolish and arbitrary.
>
They would not be Gods. They are anthropic in concept with the same
human failures, fallacies, and quirks.
>
>>>> There's no reason to believe that God would hold you guilty if in all
>>>> honesty you worshiped the wrong God.
>>> There is not reason to believe in any god. Pascal's Wager is an attempt to
>>> convince people to believe in a god without reason.
>>>
>> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>> the one God,
>
> Yes, there is a cost.
>
You're missing the point. Their is no cost if you worship the one God.
After you are in the grave, it won't matter if you were wrong. You
will just be dead, oblivion, nothingness. Otoh. it depends upon where
you live. A Christian living in a Middle Eastern Country could have a
cost and many have paid the ultimate cost.
"The one God" could be false, and the true god could
> hold that against you. If you had evidence of "The one God" you would not
> need Pascal's Wager. But you don't. Well, there are plenty of other gods
> for which there is no evidence. If Pascal's Wager doesn't consider them
> it is worthless.
>
I'm sorry, but if there is no God(s), none of this will make any
difference you are simply dead. No further consequences, no rewards or
punishments.
>
>> but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the existence of God has
>> potential loss.
>
> There are potential losses whichever of the gods you believe in or
> disbelieve.
>
>
>>>> Many do. But they will be given a another chance.
>>> Evidence?
>>>
>> You have presented your curious versions of the Christian God, so I
>> should be able to offer my views of Christianity.
>
> Well, you are the one who identified the god I described as despising works
> and caring only about faith as your god.
>
If I did, I was mistaken. The God I worship cares about works but,
according to my believe good works _follows_ faith. "Show me you faith
without works, and I'll show my faith _by_ my works" "Faith without
works is dead". Bible verses, but I don't have a Bible on hand, to
reference them.
>
I did not say that was the
> christian god, but you recognized your christ in my description of an unjust
> and irrational god.
>
This is exactly contrary to the God I believe in.
I described the shoe. You claimed it.
>
If I did, I was wrong.
>
>
>>> Of course not. If you had evidence, you would not have try to rehabilitate
>>> Pascal's Wager. You would present the evidence.
>>>
>> I've never claimed to have hard, empirical scientific evidence, so I
>> do not understand why this issue keeps re-appearing. But I have seen
>> circumstantial evidence which satisfies _me_. And this is my only
>> concern. I do not wish to impose my views on others. I don't wish to
>> have yet another charge of trying to impose my views upon atheist: which
>> is the complaint of many atheist against Christians.
>
> But Pascal's Wager is all about an argument without evidence. Pascal's
> Wager is the topic of this thread. It only works if you already believe
> Pascal's conclusion. It is circular. That is why it is useless as an
> argument.
>
The point remains if non-believers are right, there is nothing after
the grave. So, it doesn't matter whether one believes in one God or
a whole host of gods. Believers and atheist are equally dead. OTOH If
there is a God or a host of Gods, the believer still has a chance of
having worshiped the one God.
>
<snip
>>>
>> Being from the West, Pascal was speaking in terms of one God, which is
>> the common Western religious view. His concern was people in the West.
>
> I see. So your god is limited by geography.
>
Actually, Pascal's wager addressed belief vs non-belief for people of
the West. I do no see how this in any way limits God.
>
> There is hardly a more Western idea than Deism, which was the belief of many
> of the "Founding Fathers" of America. Yet, since the deist god does not
> maintain a heaven or hell or offer eternal life to believers (or hear
> prayers, etc.) the payoffs for deists in Pascal's Wager for deists are
> often the same as for atheists.
>
>>>>> He also has a chance of getting the wrong god a being condemned to hell
>>>>> for it.
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe, but there remains the chance, however remote, of getting the
>>>> right God. The atheist is still without a chance.
>>> Of course not. If the rule is "Thou shalt not believe in the wrong god,"
.
>> There is no way to deal with way-out, hypothetical beliefs that
>> absolutely no one sincerely believes, not even atheist. They are
>> not real beliefs.
>
> You seem to be saying that the possible gods are limited by the human
> imagination. That would be true if all gods are imaginary. I find that an
> entirely agreeable proposition.
>
Atheist think all gods are imaginary. But I reject this I belief only
one God exist. Mormons believe in many gods.
>
>>> then the atheist wins while the theist may or may not have guessed right.
>>> There is no reason to think that one has better chances than the other.
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is another aspect to this wager. The sincere believer
>>> First, it is dubious that someone who is convinced to believe on the basis
>>> of Pascal's Wager is accurately called a "sincere believer."
>>>
>> Yes, this is right. I would agree.
>>>> regardless of which God is his, has the comfort,
>>> Drugs give people comfort.
>>>
>> And Drugs can cure, while others can kill.
>
> Belief in god(s) can kill.
>
I don't believe you live in fear of Christians beheading you while
you live in a Christian Country. But if you lived in a Moslem
country would you attack Mohammad as you do Christ? I don't think so.
>
>>>> assurance
>>> No. A proposition that is false is not assurance.
>>>
>> False? In whose eyes? I can understand why it could not give
>> doubters assurance, but you are not recognizing that there
>> are millions of sincere believers who do not look upon their
>> religion or their God as a false proposition. If they did,
>> I would have to agree with you.
>
> Again, Pascal's Wager only makes sense if you already believe the
> conclusion. That is begging the question. If you already believe the
> conclusion, why go through the charade of Pascal's Wager. If you don't
> already believe Pascal's conclusion, you are a fool to be convinced by it.
>
>
>>> There may be people who
>>> buy a lottery ticket and max out their credit cards and home equity loans
>>> because they feel they have "assurance" they will win.
>>>
>> This is another way out, hypothetical scenario. No one, unless he
>> is a babbling idiot would feel an assurance of winning the lottery.
>
> Exactly what I would say of god beliefs.
>>
>> Also your gambler here risk everything on a known risk. The believer
>> risk nothing since belief is a free exercise, unless one consider
>> altruistic behavior a cost.
>
> Altruistic behavior? Don't make me laugh. Slavery, oppression, holy wars
> is more like it.
>
Where is this happening. It's propaganda. And why look only at perceived
ill effects. There has been numerous benefits from Christianity. Ie
Christians found numerous Universities and public schools, hospitals
organizations such as Salvation Army, Christians outlawed slavery in
England and fought in the civil war to end slavery.
>
>>> Pascal's Wager is a wager*. The argument is that the player will be no
>>> *worse off if he doesn't win. But that argument is wrong because
>>> possible outcomes include those in which the believer in a particular
>>> [god] *is* worse off for making the wrong bet.
>>>
>>>> and peace of mind "knowing" that when this life on earth is over, there
>>>> is another life to come along with the chance to be with his loved ones
>>>> again. If atheist are right and there is no God and no future life.
>>>> His religion served him well: it gave him a life of hope, if nothing
>>>> else.
>>> This cuts to the one unproven axiom underlying atheism which is: "The
>>> truth, even if unattractive, is better than a falsehood however pretty."
>>>
>
>> I don't take it that you mean you think meeting loved ones in the
>> afterlife would be unattractive.
>
> That's right. It is a pretty falsehood.
>
>
>> But I don't see how it fits within this context.
>
>>> But it is not the argument of Pascal's Wager. That is what we are
>>> discussing: whether Pascal's Wager should be accepted.
>>>
>>> By the terms of Pascal's Wager, the believe[r] who, according to you,
>>> enjoys a life of assurance and hope, could still be condemned to hell for
>>> eternity on account of believing in the wrong god.
>>>
>> This is not according to me, I never agreed that the believer in the
>> wrong God could be condemned to hell. God might just as well say,
>> I'm called by many names. But I am GOD!
>
> So the Ten Commandments is waste paper. If you say so.
>
So, you think I'm saying, "you should not kill....steal, for example
is ok? I surely hope not. But man and God are both generic terms, not
specific.
>
> Not too far back you were appealing to "Western" orthodoxy. You'll have to
> point me to what "Western" sect has ever held that it is okay to believe in
> any god by any name because they are all the same. If I am "making up" a
> number of god possibilites that no one in the West has ever believed in,
> then you are making up a Jesus that no Western church has ever believed in.
>
Jesus was God made flesh. Only Christians believe this. But countless
people who don't accept Jesus believe in God independent of Jesus.
It is these belief systems I was in reference to. But you are correct
that no Western Church or denomination would accept my description.
>
>> The God capable of creating the universe, the laws of physics and life I
>> believe would be logical and reasonable. The honesty and sincerity of the
>> believer I think should count for something.
>
> To Christians that is heresy.
>
No, I believe on this point you are wrong.
>
>>> The believer gets a lifetime of "hope" followed by one of three possible
>>> outcomes: heaven, eternal hell, nothing. The atheist gets a lifetime of
>>> pursuing truth followed by three possible outcomes: heaven, eternal hell,
>>> or nothing. If you find an advantage in one bet, it is perhaps because
>>> you have not quite appreciated the meaning of eternity.
>>>
>> Why do you continue to bring Hell into the discussion. Many Christians
>> people, me included, believe hell is the grave not a burning pit of
>> endless torture.
>
> There are so many different christian gods,
>
On this point you are wrong. Christians believe in the same one God.
The one possible exception would be Mormons. They believe that
God is a man who lived, died and and was resurrected. Then through an
evolutionary process (called progression) rose to Godhood.
But then mainstream Christians generally reject Mormons as Christian.
it is hard to keep track ---
> yet somehow christians are always united when it comes to war and
> oppression.
>
This is an extremest propaganda. Who is being oppressed? I do
not see Christians oppressing anyone anywhere. There is nothing in
Christianity which calls for oppression.
<snip>
Lars Eighner
talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
> Lars Eighner wrote:
>> Belief in god(s) can kill.
> I don't believe you live in fear of Christians beheading you while
> you live in a Christian Country.
Well, no. Beheading is not the Christian way anymore. Pistol whipping,
yes. Bombing, yes. But not so much beheading these days.
> But if you lived in a Moslem country would you attack Mohammad as you do
> Christ? I don't think so.
I hope I would. If I live to the 25th that will have been 61 years under
the heal of Christian oppression. Somehow I am unimpressed by the argument
that other religions may be worse.
>> Altruistic behavior? Don't make me laugh. Slavery, oppression, holy wars
>> is more like it.
>>
> Where is this happening. It's propaganda. And why look only at perceived
> ill effects. There has been numerous benefits from Christianity. Ie
> Christians found numerous Universities and public schools, hospitals
> organizations such as Salvation Army, Christians outlawed slavery in
> England and fought in the civil war to end slavery.
Nonsense. Christians argued that dark skin was the "mark of Ham" and so it
was the "will of God" that Africans be the "servants of servants."
(What horrible thing had Ham done to bring this curse on all his
generations? He had the misfortune to walk in on his father who was passed
out drunk and naked. The father got passing out drunk, but the son got the
curse.)
Now it is perfectly true that Christians change the focus of their religious
efforts from time to time. Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Africans."
Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Jews." Today it is "Let's do dirt to
the gay people." The targets change, but Christianity need to sustain itself
with scapegoats never changes.
Christopher A. Lee
<use...@larseighner.com> wrote:
>In our last episode, <5mKLm.50437$gg6....@newsfe25.iad>, the lovely and
>talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>> Where is this happening. It's propaganda. And why look only at perceived
>> ill effects. There has been numerous benefits from Christianity. Ie
>> Christians found numerous Universities and public schools, hospitals
>> organizations such as Salvation Army, Christians outlawed slavery in
>> England and fought in the civil war to end slavery.
>
>Nonsense. Christians argued that dark skin was the "mark of Ham" and so it
>was the "will of God" that Africans be the "servants of servants."
I've heard right wing American TV evangelists saying this. Including
Pat Robertson AFAIR.
>(What horrible thing had Ham done to bring this curse on all his
>generations? He had the misfortune to walk in on his father who was passed
>out drunk and naked. The father got passing out drunk, but the son got the
>curse.)
It doesn't even mention race, colour or even slavery. Those were
simply rationalised from slave ownership.
Like far too much of their BS it starts from the result and tries to
backtrack to a "presumption". A sort of reverse non-sequitur.
>Now it is perfectly true that Christians change the focus of their religious
>efforts from time to time. Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Africans."
>Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Jews." Today it is "Let's do dirt to
>the gay people." The targets change, but Christianity need to sustain itself
>with scapegoats never changes.
It's a standard Christian dishonesty.
A minority of Christians from one of the better denominations go
against the Christian majority and reform something at a time when
eveybody was Christian including the bad guys.
so the loonies claim credit for all Christians. without even
mentioning that the bad guys were also Christians.
They're in major denial about its bloody history.
Ron Dean
> In our last episode, <5mKLm.50437$gg6....@newsfe25.iad>, the lovely and
> talented Ron Dean broadcast on alt.atheism:
>
>> Lars Eighner wrote:
>
>>> Belief in god(s) can kill.
>
>> I don't believe you live in fear of Christians beheading you while
>> you live in a Christian Country.
>
> Well, no. Beheading is not the Christian way anymore. Pistol whipping,
> yes.
>
was?
>
Bombing, yes.
>
You are confusing roadside bombing with who it's practitioners are.
Where are the Christian organizations who advocate and carry out these
bombings?
>
But not so much beheading these days.
>
being carried on 'these days' and name the organization which advocates
this?
>
>> But if you lived in a Moslem country would you attack Mohammad as you do
>> Christ? I don't think so.
>
> I hope I would. If I live to the 25th that will have been 61 years under
> the heal of Christian oppression. Somehow I am unimpressed by the argument
> that other religions may be worse.
>
fight for you.
>
>>> Altruistic behavior? Don't make me laugh. Slavery, oppression, holy wars
>>> is more like it.
>>>
>> Where is this happening. It's propaganda. And why look only at perceived
>> ill effects. There has been numerous benefits from Christianity. Ie
>> Christians found numerous Universities and public schools, hospitals
>> organizations such as Salvation Army, Christians outlawed slavery in
>> England and fought in the civil war to end slavery.
>
> Nonsense. Christians argued that dark skin was the "mark of Ham" and so it
> was the "will of God" that Africans be the "servants of servants."
>
And a Christian campaigned and won the outlawing of English slavery.
>
> (What horrible thing had Ham done to bring this curse on all his
> generations? He had the misfortune to walk in on his father who was passed
> out drunk and naked. The father got passing out drunk, but the son got the
> curse.)
>
is taught by any Church.
>
> Now it is perfectly true that Christians change the focus of their religious
> efforts from time to time. Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Africans."
> Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Jews." Today it is "Let's do dirt to
> the gay people." The targets change, but Christianity need to sustain itself
> with scapegoats never changes.
>
atrocious things. But it's equally atrocious to paint the majority with
the same broad brush.
>
randy
"Lars Eighner"
> Well, no. Beheading is not the Christian way anymore. Pistol whipping,
> yes. Bombing, yes. But not so much beheading these days.
Some "Christians" were born into Christian countries, had Christian parents,
and were therefore called "Christians," even though they didn't share the
spiritual values of true Christianity. Other Christians actually believe in
and practise Christian values. You shouldn't confuse the two.
No Christian I know believes in pistol whipping or in terrorist bombings. As
for beheading, forms of execution aren't the issue. If you don't believe in
the death penalty, civilized countries have normally believed in it,
historically.
> I hope I would. If I live to the 25th that will have been 61 years under
> the heal of Christian oppression. Somehow I am unimpressed by the
> argument
> that other religions may be worse.
You would think you would be impressed by differences between the different
religions, even the differences between religion and no religion. If you're
going to find the best possible argument for morality, you have to see what
justifies it the best. Islam does not impress me as a morally-consistent
religion. Christianity, if practised as it is, as a spiritual religion, is
morally consistent, in my opinion. Atheism has to reach a long ways to
explain how morality is, in fact, important.
> Nonsense. Christians argued that dark skin was the "mark of Ham" and so
> it
> was the "will of God" that Africans be the "servants of servants."
Again, ask yourself what kind of Christians would argue that the "Negro" is
under a curse of God, when Christian theology plainly says that there is
"neither Jew nor Greek" in Christ?
Ro 10:12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is
Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him.
The fact is, every ethnic or racial group are born with the peculiarities of
their fathers, both good and bad. In Christ we are born along a spiritual
dimension, freeing us from any curses associated with our sinful genetic
inheritances.
> Now it is perfectly true that Christians change the focus of their
> religious
> efforts from time to time. Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the
> Africans."
> Sometimes it is "Let's do dirt to the Jews." Today it is "Let's do dirt to
> the gay people." The targets change, but Christianity need to sustain
> itself
> with scapegoats never changes.
Christians are to judge what is right and wrong in their own lives. But
judgment of those outside of the church remains the realm of God, and the
realm of those governments God has appointed to judge them.
1 Cor 5: 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those
inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Drive
out the wicked person from among you."
It is, in my opinion, very unfair to group all kinds of Christians together,
and judge the whole by what only some do. Not all Christians are butchers,
even though some Christian governments have butchered. Not all Christians
torture by Inquisitions and rape through Crusades, even though some
campaigns have included "Christians" who have done that. Be fair and
recognize that there is a strong group of Christians who actually believe in
living by the spiritual values that Jesus taught.
randy
Matt Silberstein
Dean"@gmail.com> in <Q8CLm.13881$rE5...@newsfe08.iad> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
>existence of God has potential loss.
What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
and angrier?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
AZ Nomad
>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>Dean"@gmail.com> in <Q8CLm.13881$rE5...@newsfe08.iad> wrote:
>[snip]
>>I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>>the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
>>existence of God has potential loss.
>What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
>and angrier?
Ron doesn't seem to have the mental capacity to see outside the false duality.
It has been explained to him at least 5 times now in terms an 8 year
old could understand.
I'm not sure if he is faking it or if he is a genuine moron. It
doesn't really matter.
Ron Dean
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
> Dean"@gmail.com> in <Q8CLm.13881$rE5...@newsfe08.iad> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
>> existence of God has potential loss.
>
> What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
> and angrier?
>
> [snip]
>
I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
evidence for the existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. However, I do
have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing: you have no
faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
AZ Nomad
It is an attempt to get you to see the special treatment you afford
your god. Those other gods have exactly as much evidence (zero) as
your god.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>> Dean"@gmail.com> in <Q8CLm.13881$rE5...@newsfe08.iad> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>>> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
>>> existence of God has potential loss.
>>
>> What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
>> and angrier?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
>I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
>evidence for the existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
>empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not.
So what? That doesn't make yours any more real than them.
> However, I do
>have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing:
Againm, so what?
Your faith is worthless outside the box.
> you have no
>faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
So what?
There is no reason to believe in any of them.
>And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
>other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
>discourse.
Unless of yourse you talk anout one as though it were real, or are
stupid enough to use Pascal's wager.
> So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
>nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
Projecting again.
Keep your bullshit inside the box where it belongs, and you won't be
told to to put up or shut up.
Christopher A. Lee
But he has faith it's different. Therefore it is different for
everybody else too.
Virgil
wrote:
If anyone proclaims other gods, and many have, then you are bound to
proclaim how and why yours somehow trumps theirs if you want to persuade
anyone to invest in yours.
panam...@hotmail.com
> In article <4B0105D8.10...@gmail.com>, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > >> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
> > >> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
> > >> existence of God has potential loss.
>
> > > What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
> > > and angrier?
>
> > > [snip]
>
> > I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
> > evidence for the existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
> > empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. However, I do
> > have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing: you have no
> > faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
> > And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
> > other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
> > discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
> > nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
Virgil, where do you find these guys? The paragraph above is
priceless.
> If anyone proclaims other gods, and many have, then you are bound to
> proclaim how and why yours somehow trumps theirs if you want to persuade
> anyone to invest in yours.
And please recall that people who believe in other gods feel just as
passionately about them as you feel about *yours*, Mr. Dean. Those of
us who do not believe in these creatures see no difference in the
claims you make about your god/s, and the claims the supporters of the
other gods make. You are equally devoted, equally faithful, equally
confidant. It is not a diversion to introduce them to the conversation-
it is actually the very proof that Pascal's Wager is obsolete. It does
not address the question of "..what happens if you choose the *wrong*
god?.." That's a fatal flaw (but in its defence, it's also an
*extremely* old argument). If you honestly want non-theists to
consider what your religion has to offer, it's time to give up on
Pascal and try something new.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Ron Dean
gods" are false gods that neither you nor I believe in. Consequently,
there's no reason to inject them into this discussion. So, why are
you doing it?
Dan Listermann
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dVkMm.35450$Wd1....@newsfe15.iad...
Do you know the definition of "ethnocentric?"
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
Beam. Mote. Eye. Hypocrite.
It only "the only one" TO YOU.
Inside the box.
YOUR AUDIENCE IS OUTSIDE IT.
So why should they assume it's the only one, sociopath?
Ron Dean
proclaim as valid other gods which neither they nor I believe in or
accept as a real. Again it's only a diversionary trick.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
No ,moron. They are all logical abstractions - including yours. Yours
is no different than all the others.
Dan Listermann
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:r8p3g59t1upkm9kcp...@4ax.com...
That is over his head.
Mike
> >
> Again I point out that I _believe)_ only one God exist, your "Other
> gods" are false gods that neither you nor I believe in. Consequently,
> there's no reason to inject them into this discussion. So, why are
> you doing it?
Dear hell-bound heathen,
Do you have any idea of the torments that await you in the next
life? Just for your information, your Yahwee is a false god. The
true Lord of the Universe is the His Noodly Majesty, the Flying
Spagetti Monster. And he is a jealous, vengeful Monster, let me tell
you!!! Actually, there are different schools of thought on this. The
mainstream Pastafarians and the reformed Pastafarians have a namby-
pamby nicy-nicy conception of the Noodly One. But as far as I'm
concerned, they're all going to hell along with the Christians and the
Pagans and the Linguini-worshiping heretics.
I am a faithful member of the Fundamentalist Pastafarian Church
and I am an upright Pasta-fearing man, let me tell you!! When I will
be up in heaven partying with the faithful, you will be in hell and
you will be flogged with noodles for all of eternity. Yea, and there
will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and there shall be no escape
from the wrath of the Noodly Lord. Repent before it is to late!!
Matt Silberstein
Dean"@gmail.com> in <4B0105D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>> Dean"@gmail.com> in <Q8CLm.13881$rE5...@newsfe08.iad> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>>> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
>>> existence of God has potential loss.
>>
>> What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
>> and angrier?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
>I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
>evidence for the existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
>empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. However, I do
>have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing:
If you have faith, then discuss that, don't give the logical nonsense
of the Wager.
>you have no
>faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
You don't know my views, do you?
>And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
>other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
>discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
>nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
Nonsense. You asserted a position: that there is no harm to pretending
to believe in some particular god. There is as much evidence for the
harm of that belief as there is for the existence of the god. *Your*
claim that there is no harm is not supported.
Virgil
<24a79400-365e-492d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
panam...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
> > > evidence for �the �existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
> > > empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. �However, I do
> > > have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing: �you have no
> > > faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
> > > And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
> > > other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
> > > discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
> > > nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
>
> Virgil, where do you find these guys? The paragraph above is
> priceless.
They find themselves.
Virgil
Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is an attempt to get you to see the special treatment you afford
> > your god. Those other gods have exactly as much evidence (zero) as
> > your god.
> >
> Again I point out that I _believe)_ only one God exist, your "Other
> gods" are false gods that neither you nor I believe in. Consequently,
> there's no reason to inject them into this discussion. So, why are
But the worshippers of those other gods are equally certain that yours
is false.
I see no reason to suppose them any less correct than you are in the
matter of which gods are false.
And until you can provide such a reason which I find satisfactory, those
other gods are as much a part of this discussion as your own.
Virgil
Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
> Virgil wrote:
> > If anyone proclaims other gods, and many have, then you are bound to
> > proclaim how and why yours somehow trumps theirs if you want to persuade
> > anyone to invest in yours.
> >
> Since they do not believe in God nor other gods exist, they cannot
> proclaim as valid other gods which neither they nor I believe in or
> accept as a real. Again it's only a diversionary trick.
Whom do you claim does not believe in any "other" gods?
The Hindus believe in lots of gods that are incompatible with any of
yours, unless you are a Hindu yourself.
If their faith is worthless to you, then yours is equally worthless and
ridiculous to everyone who does not hold it..
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 5:27�pm, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote:
>> In article <4B0105D8.10...@gmail.com>, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>> > > Dean"@gmail.com> in <Q8CLm.13881$rE5....@newsfe08.iad> �wrote:
>>
>> > > [snip]
>>
>> > >> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
>> > >> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
>> > >> existence of God has potential loss.
>>
>> > > What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
>> > > and angrier?
>>
>> > > [snip]
>>
>> > I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
>> > evidence for �the �existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
>> > empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. �However, I do
>> > have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing: �you have no
>> > faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
>> > And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
>> > other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
>> > discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
>> > nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
>
>Virgil, where do you find these guys? The paragraph above is
>priceless.
Remember, this is the loonie who insists we're an anti-Christ
movement, and that the overwhelmingly Christian majority is persecuted
by about 4% of the population.
AZ Nomad
That's not all he has with his religious brain damage.
Smiler
> On Nov 16, 4:05 am, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>> Again I point out that I _believe)_ only one God exist, your "Other
>> gods" are false gods that neither you nor I believe in. Consequently,
>> there's no reason to inject them into this discussion. So, why are
>> you doing it?
>
> Dear hell-bound heathen,
>
> Do you have any idea of the torments that await you in the next
> life? Just for your information, your Yahwee is a false god. The
> true Lord of the Universe is the His Noodly Majesty, the Flying
> Spagetti Monster. And he is a jealous, vengeful Monster, let me tell
> you!!! Actually, there are different schools of thought on this. The
> mainstream Pastafarians and the reformed Pastafarians have a namby-
> pamby nicy-nicy conception of the Noodly One.
HERETICS! <Spit!>
> But as far as I'm
> concerned, they're all going to hell along with the Christians and the
> Pagans and the Linguini-worshiping heretics.
>
> I am a faithful member of the Fundamentalist Pastafarian Church
> and I am an upright Pasta-fearing man, let me tell you!! When I will
> be up in heaven partying with the faithful, you will be in hell and
> you will be flogged with noodles for all of eternity. Yea, and there
> will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and there shall be no escape
> from the wrath of the Noodly Lord. Repent before it is to late!!
You forgot to mention that, in His Noodly Majesty's hell, he'll be boiled
alive in cheap supermarket bolognese sauce until he's overcooked. Not a nice
experience, I understand. All praise His Noodly Majesty.
*Aldente*, brother.
--
Smiler
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
All gods are bespoke. They're all made to
perfectly fit the prejudices of their believer
thomas p.
Because he is trying to get you to see that, as far as evidence goes, there
is no difference between the god you believe in and the ones you call
false gods. Other people believe in those "false gods" for the same
reason you believe in your god, i.e. they believe because they believe.
Whether or not he or you believe in any of the others is irrelevant to his
point.
thomas p.
No, there really are people who believe in gods different than yours. They
really do have just as much reason to believe in their gods as you do in
your
god, i.e. they believe because they believe. By the way, is it giving you a
headache making yourself not understand this incredibly simple point?
Cognitive dissonance can be exhausting.
Ron Dean
haven't. It would change the argument entirely had I made such a claim.
>
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
What a fucking moron.
Why don't you learn to read for comprehension?
Including what YOU write, not just his responses?
Yap
> In article <dVkMm.35450$Wd1.32...@newsfe15.iad>,
Sensible reply.
It goes to show that there is no uniform "definition" of a god.
So, according to Ron, the god one believes is personal while others
are all false.
Then, what is the difference when each has his own god in comparison
to having no god?
The starting point really is the "sin" of human. But the religious
people never understand the "sin" is the creation of their
god......this is being truly stupid to begin with.
Yap
> thomas p. wrote:
> > Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean wrote:
> >> AZ Nomad wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:57:12 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
Yes.
While you admitted to no evidence, you still possess the strong
believe.
Your sticking point is your believe really come from the scripture
which you said is full of fables or false stories.
Your mind seems unable to equate fables/falsehood or created stories
with non-existence, therefore the basis of the bible is an invention
by human mind.
panam...@hotmail.com
> In article
Yes, you're right about that...unless I get all semantic and say they
never "find themselves"...<bfg>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
panam...@hotmail.com
> Virgil wrote:
> > In article <4B0105D8.10...@gmail.com>, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
> >>>> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
> >>>> existence of God has potential loss.
> >>> What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
> >>> and angrier?
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >> I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
> >> evidence for the existence of my God. But neither do you have any hard
> >> empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. However, I do
> >> have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing: you have no
> >> faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
> >> And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
> >> other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
> >> discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
> >> nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
>
> > If anyone proclaims other gods, and many have, then you are bound to
> > proclaim how and why yours somehow trumps theirs if you want to persuade
> > anyone to invest in yours.
>
> >
> Since they do not believe in God nor other gods exist,
Other theists do not believe in gods? This will be a major shock to
the Muslims...
snip
Les Hellawell
wrote:
We were talking Pascal's Wager and whether atheists should
dishonestly pretend to believe a god in order to avoid something
Christians call 'hell'
Deciding which god to pretend to believe in order to escape rather
than attract hell is very relevant. You might only believe one god
claim but we disbelieve thousands of claims. If indeed their is only
one god, our point is that you may be believing the wrong god and
certain to go to hell whilst we can hope that this real god will
understand why we picked none and and recognise our honesty.
For us it would be the only honest option. If indeed the
Christian god is the one true god it would reward honesty
rather than self-serving dishonesty (pretending to believe
in order to avoid hell) and understand why we stood pat.
--
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Dan Listermann
"Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4B017E1C...@gmail.com...
Great, so you can freely admit that there is a good chance that your deities
were simply made up at some point, right?
thomas p.
You didn't, so what? The point being made is that there is no difference
between the
basis for your belief and those that believe in the thousands of other gods
that people worship. That fact, among other things, is what makes Pascal's
wager
absurd, since it means that it is not a fifty-fifty proposition when there
are thousands of
possible gods - an infinity actually including none at all. Please don't
pretend again
that you do not understand.
Ron Dean
on these NG's who have. Consequently, my address is to the disbelievers.
No believers in Zeus, Jupitor Mars etc have challenged my views.
Hannele
Heretic! Blasphemer! The one and only true god is the IPU, Blessings Be
Upon Her Hooves!
Deny her and be trampled for all eternity!
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Hannele
And, unfortunately, they find us.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Hannele
But you fail to see that all gods are as (in)valid to us as your god.
That's no trick, it's just a statement of fact.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Christopher A. Lee
Blame Bill M for this one.
Bill is an asshole but Rondine is also a jerk.
Smiler
Wasn't there a bit about being impaled on her horn, too?
Alex W
She only gets horny with virgins.
Robibnikoff
"Alex W" <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1pizpf9v2i2gh$.1kq94fdrry0tr$.dlg@40tude.net...
Wooot! I didn't realize the IPU swung that way - Bless her hooves, etc.,
etc.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
Hannele
wrote:
Who was talking about female virgins?
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Ron Dean
possibility that believing in a superior being, gave man, who is
naturally selfish and self serving, a willingness for cooperation and
the art for surviving within a social environment. This has survaival
values and could be explained by evolution. I have no aversion to this.
Smiler
Ancient history, then. There's not many of those about nowadays.
Smiler
Do you see atheists NOT surviving in a social environment?
(excepting those whose survival was ended by theistic intervention, eg, the
inquisitions and the holocaust.).
Ron Dean
there were tribes. Atheist, assuming they cooperated, had the same
chance for survive in the tribal social structure, as anyone else.
>
<snip>
Smiler
Quite possibly. All gods were invented by mankind. That many (I wouldn't
claim 'all') tribes had their own tribal god(s) is a likely scenario. That
doesn't make those gods any more real.
> Atheist, assuming they cooperated, had the same
> chance for survive in the tribal social structure, as anyone else.
So where was (is) the claimed 'survival value' in belief?
AZ Nomad
It helps to rationlize murdering those outside your group.
It helps rationlize overbreeding to raise soldiers to war and to
delude the soldiers to sacrifice their lives in exchange for an afterlife.
Can't have any good wars without religion.
Ron Dean
regarding mans dealings with his fellow man. The head of the tribe
could set these rules, but enforcement would be another matter.
This I believe is where religion came into effect.
Ron Dean
now?
Yap
> Dan Listermann wrote:
> > "Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:4B017E1C...@gmail.com...
> >> thomas p. wrote:
> >>> Ron Dean" <"Ron Dean wrote:
> >>>> AZ Nomad wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:57:12 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
Try to define the "superior being", please.
Yap
You are assuming early men were superstitious and fragmented as
compared to current.
Why couldn't they have no concept of any god and were living to hunt
for survival, rather than living in fear of any "god"?
Ron Dean
a monkey whatever the tribe chose. There seems to be a empty spot
for worship in our psyche, that most humans have.
Smiler
Agreed.
> The head of the tribe
> could set these rules, but enforcement would be another matter.
Or the rules could be set by a 'committee' of the 'elders' or by general
agreement.
Enforcement, likewise. Much as modern law is set and enforced.
Punishment would have ranged from a 'slap on the wrist' through ostracism to
banishment from the tribe, which would have meant almost certain death,
either at the hands of the tribe's enemies, predatory animals or by
starvation. No gods needed.
> This I believe is where religion came into effect.
That's possibly true but still doesn't make any gods real.
hypa...@comcast.net
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in messagenews:r8p3g59t1upkm9kcp...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:36:14 -0500, Ron Dean <"Ron Dean"@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Virgil wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:53:47 -0500, in alt.atheism , Ron Dean <"Ron
>
> >>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>>>> I don't think so, quite the contrary. There is no cost if you worship
> >>>>>> the one God, but a chance (however remote)of reward. Denying the
> >>>>>> existence of God has potential loss.
> >>>>> What if you are worshiping the wrong god and just getting him angrier
> >>>>> and angrier?
>
> >>>>> [snip]
>
> >>>> I have point out on several occasions that there is no hard, empirical
> >>>> evidence for the existence of my God. But neither do you have any
> >>>> hard
> >>>> empirical evidence for these other gods angry or not. However, I do
> >>>> have faith that my God _alone_ exist, you have nothing: you have no
> >>>> faith; no belief; no confidence that any god, nor any other gods exist.
> >>>> And neither do I. Consequently, since neither you nor I believe these
> >>>> other Gods exist, they _cannot_ have a role an no bearing on the
> >>>> discourse. So, injecting these "other gods" into the discussion can be
> >>>> nothing more than a diversionary tactic.
>
> >>> proclaim how and why yours somehow trumps theirs if you want to persuade
> >>> anyone to invest in yours.
>
> >>Since they do not believe in God nor other gods exist, they cannot
> >>proclaim as valid other gods which neither they nor I believe in or
> >>accept as a real. Again it's only a diversionary trick.
>
> > is no different than all the others.
>
> That is over his head.-
As is the worthlessness of blind faith.
Alex W.
Schnell schnell sprich deutsch, Schweinehund!
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!...
Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Alex W.
Even the elders would have needed legitimisation for their rules,
and those don't come much better than a divine mandate.
There is also the issue of religious "specialists" growing into
roles of political power. The world was an utterly mysterious
place: dealing indiscriminate death one minute and offering up
endless bounty the next. No rhyme or reason -- so, not
unreasonably <g>, Man invented Gods to explain life, the universe
and everything. This explanation required specialists to mediate
between Heaven and Earth, to pass on polite requests, to
interpret divine behaviour. This means that religion is
thoroughly interwoven with daily life on all levels -- and
therefore with politics. Inevitably at somne point the shaman
would have become part of the political power structure, if he
didn't usurp it entirely. This would be a reasonable explanation
for the survival value of gods.
>
>> This I believe is where religion came into effect.
>
> That's possibly true but still doesn't make any gods real.
Not real, but potentially useful.
The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
bed) but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
valuable educational tool.
Christopher A. Lee
And that is another of Dean's lies. He's not a mind reader.
>> > No ,moron. They are all logical abstractions - including yours. Yours
>> > is no different than all the others.
>>
>> That is over his head.-
>
>As is the worthlessness of blind faith.
It shows how Christianity turns its believers into sociopaths. It's
real to him therefore it is for everybody else too.
Which is also why so many of them imagine they get to tell us what is
in our minds - and cannot grasp why we might find this offensive.
thomas p.
It appears to me that he understands the point clearly enough to know that
he has to avoid it, which he does by "misunderstanding" it.
AZ Nomad
You don't need religion to defend against agression.
Religion is great for starting wars, from dehumanizing the enemy, to
breeding lots of young ones to fight them and to deluding them into
devalueing their lives.
Alex W.
Clarification: *monotheism* is great for starting wars.
Polytheists do not usually go to war over teir deities.
Smiler
Not necessarily. The elders could have been revered (but not worshipped) for
their knowledge.
I agree that a supposedly divine mandate was invented in some tribes.
>
> There is also the issue of religious "specialists" growing into
> roles of political power. The world was an utterly mysterious
> place: dealing indiscriminate death one minute and offering up
> endless bounty the next. No rhyme or reason -- so, not
> unreasonably <g>, Man invented Gods to explain life, the universe
> and everything. This explanation required specialists to mediate
> between Heaven and Earth, to pass on polite requests, to
> interpret divine behaviour. This means that religion is
> thoroughly interwoven with daily life on all levels -- and
> therefore with politics. Inevitably at somne point the shaman
> would have become part of the political power structure, if he
> didn't usurp it entirely. This would be a reasonable explanation
> for the survival value of gods.
>
Agreed, but it wasn't necessarily 'universal'.
>
>>
>>> This I believe is where religion came into effect.
>>
>> That's possibly true but still doesn't make any gods real.
>
> Not real, but potentially useful.
Agreed.
> The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
> bed)
You looked?!?!? :-)
> but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
> valuable educational tool.
I never used that with any of my children. They (mostly) stayed in line.
thomas p.
"Smiler" <Smi...@joe.king.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:5u0Om.20034$Qc5....@newsfe29.ams2...
> Alex W. wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:24:28 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>> This I believe is where religion came into effect.
>>>
>>> That's possibly true but still doesn't make any gods real.
>>
>> Not real, but potentially useful.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
>> bed)
>
> You looked?!?!? :-)
>
>> but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
>> valuable educational tool.
>
> I never used that with any of my children. They (mostly) stayed in line.
>
I also doubt that teaching children that they should be good because of fear
of punishment is very productive.
Alex W.
> Alex W. wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:24:28 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> The head of the tribe
>>>> could set these rules, but enforcement would be another matter.
>>>
>>> Or the rules could be set by a 'committee' of the 'elders' or by
>>> general agreement.
>>> Enforcement, likewise. Much as modern law is set and enforced.
>>> Punishment would have ranged from a 'slap on the wrist' through
>>> ostracism to banishment from the tribe, which would have meant
>>> almost certain death, either at the hands of the tribe's enemies,
>>> predatory animals or by starvation. No gods needed.
>>
>> Even the elders would have needed legitimisation for their rules,
>> and those don't come much better than a divine mandate.
>
> Not necessarily. The elders could have been revered (but not worshipped) for
> their knowledge.
> I agree that a supposedly divine mandate was invented in some tribes.
Some? As much as we'd love to discover one, so far we have yet
to even hear of a tribe or culture that's atheist by nature.
As for elder worship, that is very common -- and it is a
religious practice to all intents and purposes. Live elders
dispensing wisdom and justice seamlessly transform into dead
elders who watch over the tribe and must be propitiated with
gifts and ceremonies. Catholicism still has remnants of such
beliefs, like the Mexican day of the dead or All Souls Day.
>
>>
>> There is also the issue of religious "specialists" growing into
>> roles of political power. The world was an utterly mysterious
>> place: dealing indiscriminate death one minute and offering up
>> endless bounty the next. No rhyme or reason -- so, not
>> unreasonably <g>, Man invented Gods to explain life, the universe
>> and everything. This explanation required specialists to mediate
>> between Heaven and Earth, to pass on polite requests, to
>> interpret divine behaviour. This means that religion is
>> thoroughly interwoven with daily life on all levels -- and
>> therefore with politics. Inevitably at somne point the shaman
>> would have become part of the political power structure, if he
>> didn't usurp it entirely. This would be a reasonable explanation
>> for the survival value of gods.
>>
>
> Agreed, but it wasn't necessarily 'universal'.
Wasn't it?
I'd be interested in reading of examples where religion was not
so used.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> This I believe is where religion came into effect.
>>>
>>> That's possibly true but still doesn't make any gods real.
>>
>> Not real, but potentially useful.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
>> bed)
>
> You looked?!?!? :-)
How else could I be sure?
>
>> but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
>> valuable educational tool.
>
> I never used that with any of my children. They (mostly) stayed in line.
Stop pulling that face, or one day it will stay like that
forever.
If you don't brush your teeth, the caries monster will come and
drill holes in your teeth while you sleep.
Don't tease the doggie, or he will eat you.
The list is practically endless. The vast majority of parents
use some such scare tactic to stop unwanted behaviour. And it
tends to work, at least up to a certain age when kids start to
notice that the bad men do not turn up to exact horrible
punishment for disobeying their parents every time they are less
than perfectly obedient.
Religion is really the same for grown-ups. The boogeyman is the
same but supercharged: he now hides everywhere and is responsible
for any event in our lives. Uncle Joe decides to go swimming in
the river and is eaten by a croc -- the divine boogeyman diddit,
and he must have had a reason. Hmmm ... oh, I know -- Joe got
eaten because he was rude to the priest and refused to hand over
his virgin daughter. So you look out that the same doens't
happen to you.
Does this work? Like a charm -- everywhere, and every time.
Point of fact, it even works in a purely secular setting: do
this, and the police will come and take you away to a place where
hairy men called Bubba-Joe will do unpleasant things to you.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Don't tease the doggie, or he will eat you.
>The list is practically endless. The vast majority of parents
>use some such scare tactic to stop unwanted behaviour. And it
>tends to work, at least up to a certain age when kids start to
>notice that the bad men do not turn up to exact horrible
>punishment for disobeying their parents every time they are less
>than perfectly obedient.
And many don't.
As has been explained to you before.
Alex W.
Honestly, I have yet to see parents who do not employ negative as
well as positive reinforcement.
thomas p.
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
news:10yyfpugp3nso.8...@40tude.net...
Nor have I seen any evidence that the positive effects outweigh the
negative. I also distinguish between warning the child of actual
consequences
and using fairy tales about boogie men, demons, gods etc. The first will
be confirmed by experience; the second I see as very likely to have a very
negative influence in the long run.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:43:34 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:39:08 +0000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Don't tease the doggie, or he will eat you.
>>>The list is practically endless. The vast majority of parents
>>>use some such scare tactic to stop unwanted behaviour. And it
>>>tends to work, at least up to a certain age when kids start to
>>>notice that the bad men do not turn up to exact horrible
>>>punishment for disobeying their parents every time they are less
>>>than perfectly obedient.
>>
>> And many don't.
>>
>> As has been explained to you before.
>
>Honestly, I have yet to see parents who do not employ negative as
>well as positive reinforcement.
Where did IO say that?
Hint: I didn't.
Please read what you just wrote, for comprehension.
Threatening the children with boogeymen for not obeying them?
Just because yours did doesn't mean everybody else's did.
So stop pretending.
Hannele
I never educated my kids by using fear, especially not fear of
non-existing monsters. Doing otherwise would be repulsive to me. Why would
anyone want to do that?
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Hannele
Making sure children know the consequences of (mis)behavior is not at all
the same as using fear as an "educational" tool.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
Christopher A. Lee
I can only guess that his parents did.
He's projected a few other things onto the rest of us and refused to
be corrected, including a refusal to admit that there are atheists who
were never taught to be theist as children who never felt the need for
the supernatural.
"Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you" doesn't encourage
understanding of others the way "How would you like it if they did
that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it to them?
Hannele
And of course if they see any worth in this, they will say the golden rule
is straight out of the bible and would not exist without christianity.
--
Hannele, A.A #2211
There are at least as many gods as there are believers.
Alex W.
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:41:17 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:30:09 +0100, Alex W. <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Not real, but potentially useful.
>>> The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
>>> bed) but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
>>> valuable educational tool.
>>
>>I never educated my kids by using fear, especially not fear of
>>non-existing monsters. Doing otherwise would be repulsive to me. Why would
>>anyone want to do that?
>
> I can only guess that his parents did.
>
> He's projected a few other things onto the rest of us and refused to
> be corrected, including a refusal to admit that there are atheists who
> were never taught to be theist as children who never felt the need for
> the supernatural.
I never refused to accept that there can be atheists who were
nevver taught to be such. What I refuse is your claim that this
is the natural state of affairs. Moreover, in the face of all of
human history and 99.x% of human experience you will have to
permit me to doubt that this atheist "who never felt the need for
the supernatural" which you tout is more than a curious and
exceedingly rare phenomenon.
>
> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you" doesn't encourage
> understanding of others the way "How would you like it if they did
> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it to them?
You assume that children have natural empathy,that they are by
their nature receptive to such an argument. Simple observation
of children interacting at play makes me doubt this, not least
because as logic goes, the "would you like it" argument is
dubious. Of course people do not like bad things done to them,
but it does not follow that they are therefore better off not
doing it to others. Hell, most adults have severe trouble with
this notion, and a few hours watching the behaviour of people in
traffic will servve to confirm that.
Your argument also appears to be based on the notion that
children are intellectually and emotionally capable of
understanding and internalising such abstract arguments. That is
just not so. There is simply no point in telling a small child
that running into the street without looking can lead to pain and
death because it has no conception of its own mortality.
Similarly, it is not really reasonable to expect a child to
appreciate animal rights or to treat a dog with respect if it has
no conception of the possible consequences: the threat of "... or
the dog may bite you" is either completely or emotionally
meaningless.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:42:47 -0500, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:41:17 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:30:09 +0100, Alex W. <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Not real, but potentially useful.
>>>> The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
>>>> bed) but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
>>>> valuable educational tool.
>>>
>>>I never educated my kids by using fear, especially not fear of
>>>non-existing monsters. Doing otherwise would be repulsive to me. Why would
>>>anyone want to do that?
My parents didn't either. Nor did the culturally Christian parents of
the other kids.
>> I can only guess that his parents did.
>>
>> He's projected a few other things onto the rest of us and refused to
>> be corrected, including a refusal to admit that there are atheists who
>> were never taught to be theist as children who never felt the need for
>> the supernatural.
>
>I never refused to accept that there can be atheists who were
>nevver taught to be such. What I refuse is your claim that this
>is the natural state of affairs.
So why don't kids who were never taught to be theist, come up with
gods on their own?
> Moreover, in the face of all of
>human history and 99.x% of human experience you will have to
>permit me to doubt that this atheist "who never felt the need for
>the supernatural" which you tout is more than a curious and
>exceedingly rare phenomenon.
Of course it is the natural state of affairs.
Because kids who weren't taught theism, bogeymen etc don't come up
with them on their own. And I know I'm not the only one in
alt.atheism.
Which word couldn't you understand?
I don't "tout" this.
And in spite of what you pretend, it is common in places where theism
is rare. And even happens with intelligent not-seriously-theist
parents.
Instead of just telling me I am wrong, DISPROVE IT by giving examples
of kids who never had gods/etc mentioned and who came up with the
concept.
Well?
I've already given you evidence that you ignore.
I have no idea why.
>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you" doesn't encourage
>> understanding of others the way "How would you like it if they did
>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it to them?
>
>You assume that children have natural empathy,that they are by
>their nature receptive to such an argument. Simple observation
>of children interacting at play makes me doubt this, not least
>because as logic goes, the "would you like it" argument is
>dubious. Of course people do not like bad things done to them,
>but it does not follow that they are therefore better off not
>doing it to others. Hell, most adults have severe trouble with
>this notion, and a few hours watching the behaviour of people in
>traffic will serve to confirm that.
No, moron, I OBSERVE it,
Do you understand the difference?
I ALSO observe that good parents nurture it.
And that bad ones don't so it atrophies, resulting in people who
imagine that the threat of a bogeyman is the only thing keeping people
good.
The word for this is sociopath.
And part of this is the refusal to grant other ways to bring kids up
to be decent people.
Inclusing dismissing it as "curious and rare".
All you have done is demonstrate that your parents threatened you with
a bogeyman if you didn't toe the line.
>Your argument also appears to be based on the notion that
>children are intellectually and emotionally capable of
Learn to read for comprehension.
What part of "nurturing the empathy" did you pretend you didn't
understand?
>understanding and internalising such abstract arguments. That is
>just not so.
Another straw man.
> There is simply no point in telling a small child
>that running into the street without looking can lead to pain and
>death because it has no conception of its own mortality.
So instead you tell them the bogeyman will get them?
Kids learn the hard way what "hurt" means.
And that there are degrees of hurt.
So it gets explained in those terms.
Kids also learn what death is at an early age. Hint: something to do
with parents who don't tell them the dead are still alive somewhere
else. Whether it's elderly relatives of family pets.
>Similarly, it is not really reasonable to expect a child to
>appreciate animal rights or to treat a dog with respect if it has
Why not?
>no conception of the possible consequences: the threat of "... or
More projection.
>the dog may bite you" is either completely or emotionally
>meaningless.
Again you move the goalposts.
You were talking about saying the bogeyman will get him.
Smiler
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:29:38 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>
>> Alex W. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:24:28 -0000, Smiler wrote:
>>>
>
>>
>>> The boogeyman is not real (or wasn't last time I looked under the
>>> bed)
>>
>> You looked?!?!? :-)
>
> How else could I be sure?
>
>
>>
>>> but he is very useful in keeping children in line. He is a
>>> valuable educational tool.
>>
>> I never used that with any of my children. They (mostly) stayed in
>> line.
>
> Stop pulling that face, or one day it will stay like that
> forever.
That one was used on me, as a child :-(
>
> If you don't brush your teeth, the caries monster will come and
> drill holes in your teeth while you sleep.
>
> Don't tease the doggie, or he will eat you.
"Don't tease the doggie, or he may bite you" or "Don't hurt the cat, or he
may scratch you" isn't fiction.
Dogs and cats do scratch and bite, especially when annoyed.
Yes, I did tell my granddaughter not to hurt the cat.
And, yes, she did hurt the cat.
And, yes, the cat did scratch her.
And, no, she didn't get any sympathy.
OK. "Eat you" is a bit OTT, but to a very young child, that may be
commensurate with their level of understanding.
> The list is practically endless. The vast majority of parents
> use some such scare tactic to stop unwanted behaviour.
I never did.
> And it
> tends to work, at least up to a certain age when kids start to
> notice that the bad men do not turn up to exact horrible
> punishment for disobeying their parents every time they are less
> than perfectly obedient.
>
> Religion is really the same for grown-ups. The boogeyman is the
> same but supercharged: he now hides everywhere and is responsible
> for any event in our lives. Uncle Joe decides to go swimming in
> the river and is eaten by a croc -- the divine boogeyman diddit,
> and he must have had a reason. Hmmm ... oh, I know -- Joe got
> eaten because he was rude to the priest and refused to hand over
> his virgin daughter. So you look out that the same doens't
> happen to you.
>
> Does this work? Like a charm -- everywhere, and every time.
Only with the gullible.
> Point of fact, it even works in a purely secular setting: do
> this, and the police will come and take you away
True, so far.
> to a place where
> hairy men called Bubba-Joe will do unpleasant things to you.
Again, that only works with the gullible.
Much like Santa and the tooth fairy only work with children who know no
better.
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
>> the way "How would you like it if they did
>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
>> to them?
>
> And of course if they see any worth in this,
> they will say the golden rule is straight out
> of the bible and would not exist without
> christianity.
I guess atheists do lie always.
Anyway...
Most of the popular sayings that we use, are from the Bible.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- Golden Rule
"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
- Matthew 7:12a
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do
for others and the world, remains and is immortal.�
- Albert Pines
thomas p.
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:a3lkg5d44mjbso5jk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:49:16 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
>>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
>>> the way "How would you like it if they did
>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
>>> to them?
>>
>> And of course if they see any worth in this,
>> they will say the golden rule is straight out
>> of the bible and would not exist without
>> christianity.
>
> I guess atheists do lie always.
Isn't bearing false witness a sin anymore? It was when I went to Christian
schools.
>
> Anyway...
>
> Most of the popular sayings that we use, are from the Bible.
>
> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> - Golden Rule
>
> "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
> - Matthew 7:12a
And did not originate in the Bible. What was your point?
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:a3lkg5d44mjbso5jk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:49:16 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl>
>> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
>>>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
>>>> the way "How would you like it if they did
>>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
>>>> to them?
>>>
>>> And of course if they see any worth in this,
>>> they will say the golden rule is straight out
>>> of the bible and would not exist without
>>> christianity.
>>
>> I guess atheists do lie always.
>
>Isn't bearing false witness a sin anymore? It was when I went to Christian
>schools.
These proscriptions apply to everybody else, not themselves.
It's situational ethics for the sociopath.
>> Anyway...
>>
>> Most of the popular sayings that we use, are from the Bible.
>>
>> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>> - Golden Rule
The sociopath needs this kind of simplistic one-size-fits-all rule
because he has no consideration or understanding for others.
It's supposed to put you in the other guy's position. But it doesn't
work because it puts the sociopath in it as himself, not the other
guy.
>> "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
>> - Matthew 7:12a
The Marquis de Sade version of the Golden Rule. Hurt people because
you want to be hurt.
Fundies use it to justify their religious harrassment of others
because they imagine they would want to be prosetylised if they didn't
already believe.
>And did not originate in the Bible. What was your point?
He has none.
Hannele
>
> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:a3lkg5d44mjbso5jk...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:49:16 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl>
>> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
>>>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
>>>> the way "How would you like it if they did
>>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
>>>> to them?
>>>
>>> And of course if they see any worth in this,
>>> they will say the golden rule is straight out
>>> of the bible and would not exist without
>>> christianity.
>>
>> I guess atheists do lie always.
>
You guess wrong then. Care to try again?
> Isn't bearing false witness a sin anymore? It was when I went to
> Christian
> schools.
>>
>> Anyway...
>>
>> Most of the popular sayings that we use, are from the Bible.
>>
>> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>> - Golden Rule
>>
What did I tell you?
>> "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
>> - Matthew 7:12a
>
> And did not originate in the Bible. What was your point?
>
>
Alex W.
Which is pretty much what I was aiming at. I would neither
endorse nor recommend such drastic threats as a matter of course,
but sometimes they can be a sensible option.
>
>> The list is practically endless. The vast majority of parents
>> use some such scare tactic to stop unwanted behaviour.
>
> I never did.
>
>> And it
>> tends to work, at least up to a certain age when kids start to
>> notice that the bad men do not turn up to exact horrible
>> punishment for disobeying their parents every time they are less
>> than perfectly obedient.
>>
>> Religion is really the same for grown-ups. The boogeyman is the
>> same but supercharged: he now hides everywhere and is responsible
>> for any event in our lives. Uncle Joe decides to go swimming in
>> the river and is eaten by a croc -- the divine boogeyman diddit,
>> and he must have had a reason. Hmmm ... oh, I know -- Joe got
>> eaten because he was rude to the priest and refused to hand over
>> his virgin daughter. So you look out that the same doens't
>> happen to you.
>>
>> Does this work? Like a charm -- everywhere, and every time.
>
> Only with the gullible.
We're all gullible.
We're just gullible in different ways. Case in point: the
Nigerian 411 scams. The socio-demographic profile of victims I
saw was quite revealing: the majority of dupes were what one
would consider smart people, doctors and engineers and such.
Religion is little different, IMO. You get some pretty savvy
folk who buy into this stuff, not least within the churches
themselves. Coming from a fairly heavily involved Catholic
family, I have met quite a few priests (one Opus Dei, a couple of
Jesuits and several Benedictines) who were highly intelligent and
extremely well educated but who stillchose to buy the spiel hook
line and sinker.
>
>> Point of fact, it even works in a purely secular setting: do
>> this, and the police will come and take you away
>
> True, so far.
>
>> to a place where
>> hairy men called Bubba-Joe will do unpleasant things to you.
>
> Again, that only works with the gullible.
> Much like Santa and the tooth fairy only work with children who know no
> better.
Unless you have been to prison before or have a close friend or
relative who's been inside, you don't really know any better.
You have to go by what you can glean from the media, and
Bubba-Joe usually figures prominently, along with gangs, drugs,
corrupt guards and the whole mythology of the penal system (makes
for better ratings).
Terry Cross
Both of you are too quick to pretend that your ideas are founded in
fact, while the ideas of others are based on ignorance.
In 2001 Human Rights Watch estimated that at least 140,000 inmates in
the US had been raped while incarcerated, and there is a significant
variation in the rates of prison rape by race. Stop Prisoner Rape,
Inc. statistics indicate that there are more men raped in U.S. prisons
than non-incarcerated women similarly assaulted. They estimate that
young men are five times more likely to be attacked; and that the
prison rape victims are ten times more likely to contract a deadly
disease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape
It may well be that your knowledge of religion is just as shallow --
and flawed.
TCross
Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:09:38 +0100, thomas p. wrote:
>
>> "Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:a3lkg5d44mjbso5jk...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:49:16 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl>
>>> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
>>>>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
>>>>> the way "How would you like it if they did
>>>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
>>>>> to them?
>>>>
>>>> And of course if they see any worth in this,
>>>> they will say the golden rule is straight out
>>>> of the bible and would not exist without
>>>> christianity.
>>>
>>> I guess atheists do lie always.
>
> You guess wrong then. Care to try again?
Don't need to. See below.
>>> Most of the popular sayings that we use,
>>> are from the Bible.
>>>
>>> "Do unto others as you would have them
>>> do unto you." - Golden Rule
>
> What did I tell you?
I'm sorry, are you too stupid to realize that
I quote the Golden Rule above and that
the quote from the Bible is below?
I guess so, since you just tried claiming
your lie about the quote above.
>>> "So whatever you wish that men would
>>> do to you, do so to them." - Matthew 7:12a
>>
>> And did not originate in the Bible. What was your point?
Thanks, stupid and goodbye. <chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
The atheists and even many "spiritual" people wish
for "Utopia". Little do they realize that this word,
coined by Thomas Moore in a novel, was really
a kind of joke. The word comes from the Greek,
"ou-topos" and is a Greek pun and literally means,
"no place" and the thrust of the novel, is that
what it all boils down to, as it turns out, is that
"no place is a good place". This is why he used
this word! :)
And yet, of course, the atheists in their ignorance
still dream of it and so do the "spiritual" folks
and even Christians today, who have taken on the
new (invented in the early 1800's) self pleasing
and aggrandizing belief called "Dispensationalism".
And so, before the Christians laugh at the atheists,
remember that if you are one of those Christians,
then you also look for the same place. You see,
when you believe that one day Christ will leave Heaven
(think about that... LEAVE HEAVEN... you also look for
this place on Earth, that will simply never exist and so,
YOU ALSO look for this same "Utopia"! (:
Heaven is not a place that God and His Christ are going
to leave, to come and live on a planet. How do we know
that for sure? Easy! :)
God says in His word that He does not dwell in buildings
(Acts 7:48-50) and yet, you expect Him to live on a
physical plane, even though He is outside of it and is
a Spirit and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth,
as the Scriptures say (John 4:24).
God does not come to live within His creation, but rather,
is above it! And so, when you acknowledge that He is
above His creation (and Dispensationalists surely do indeed
acknowledge that) and then claim that He will come here
with His Son to live, which means they will indeed have to
be physical, human beings at that point, then you have
indeed belittled God and denied His word and have tried
to make Him as small as you are, since Him doing this
would make Him subject to this world's physical laws
if He is going to be physical and therefore, He would
also be subject to linear time, which would then have
God aging, which, when you boil it down, is the exact
claim that Dispensationalism ends up making!
Think about this! Think hard about this! Think really hard
and you will find that all you can do when shown this, is to
immediately try to make things up on the fly to try to get
around this and that should tell you something, amen?
Your only other option is to personally attack me and
pretend that means you have defended your belief.
Either way, it's really very sad!
And so, shame on anyone who believes that sort of thing!!!
Shame! Shame!! Shame!!!
Terry Cross
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:09:38 +0100, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:a3lkg5d44mjbso5jk...@4ax.com...
> >> spake thusly:
>
> >>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
> >>>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
> >>>> the way "How would you like it if they did
> >>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
> >>>> to them?
That argument is useless because the answer is obvious to those who
enjoy inflicting pain.
TCross
Terry Cross
>
> > "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> > - Golden Rule
>
> > "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
> > - Matthew 7:12a
>
> And did not originate in the Bible. What was your point?
Cite the origin you allege and your authority. This should be
amusing.
TCross
Alex W.
You assume they don't. I do not take that liberty. Not least
because I can observe in a good many people (both privately and
in public life) a strong tendency to approach science and
technology with the same mindset as a believer his deity. And
certainly when one looks at the almost universal willingness to
indulge in a belief of the supernatural in general as opposed to
deities in particular (please no shifting of goalposts,
Christopher), the number of true non-believers is tiny. Everyone
who has a lucky shirt or a little ritual before hitting the
playing field (always put the left shoe on first, never wear red
socks, the Snoopy cover only ever goes on the driver, etc)
displays a belief in the supernatural. Everyone who thinks that
there may be something to stories of ghosts or who believes they
possess a soul has outgrown any purist atheism of his childhood.
Everyone who ever walks around ladders rather than underneath
them is no longer the atheist you take him for.
>
>> Moreover, in the face of all of
>>human history and 99.x% of human experience you will have to
>>permit me to doubt that this atheist "who never felt the need for
>>the supernatural" which you tout is more than a curious and
>>exceedingly rare phenomenon.
>
> Of course it is the natural state of affairs.
>
> Because kids who weren't taught theism, bogeymen etc don't come up
> with them on their own. And I know I'm not the only one in
> alt.atheism.
>
> Which word couldn't you understand?
>
> I don't "tout" this.
Yes, you do. I have asked you before to offer me some evidence,
so far without success.
In point of fact, denying the innate tendency to believe is also
a denial of evolution. We may hate the thought (and the
religious types certainly hate it), but our propensity for belief
in the supernatural and for organising such a belief in formal
social structures is an evolved behaviour, hardwired into our
brains. It is atheism which is a culturally and consciously
acquired behaviour. To use a physiological comparison, our
instinct has us chasing the most fatty, salty and sugary foods
and it is learned and conscious dieting which seeks to neutralise
and counteract our innate urges.
If you don't believe me, feel free to google "religion evolved
behaviour". Have fun wading through it all.
>
> And in spite of what you pretend, it is common in places where theism
> is rare. And even happens with intelligent not-seriously-theist
> parents.
Is it? Really? When do you next pop over to Europe? I'd like
to know so I can be there for you to show me around and point out
those "common atheists" in the most secular society on Earth. I
live here, and I travel widely throughout Europe, and I am pretty
damn certain when I tell you that what the locals lack in formal
religion they make up with the enthusiastic pursuit of any and
every New Age crackpottery and spiritualist enquiry you could
possibly think of.
>
> Instead of just telling me I am wrong, DISPROVE IT by giving examples
> of kids who never had gods/etc mentioned and who came up with the
> concept.
>
> Well?
Eastern Europe must be such a terrific disappointment to you.
All those hundreds of millions, generation after generation,
growing up in an atmosphere where the only permissible religion
is a fervent faith in the eventual victory of Communism -- and
what happens? As soon as the Socialist regimes fall, religion
springs up like mushrooms after a good rain. And not just the
old faith of the Orthodox churches, oh no -- every crackpot sect
and cult is welcomed with open arms, every snake oil salesman,
Siberian mystic, faith healer and miracle worker finds a ready
and credulous audience among all those "native-born atheists" you
believe in. Worse yet for you, there is also a clear age divide:
older Poles, Czechs and Russians who still have some memory of
the churches are the ones keeping Orthodoxy alive, and it is
their grandkids, those shining products of atheist education that
can't wait to sign up with the next guru to roll into town.
>
> I've already given you evidence that you ignore.
>
> I have no idea why.
You don't give evidence, you testify. It happened to you, so it
must be normal and common. Hallelujah.
>
>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you" doesn't encourage
>>> understanding of others the way "How would you like it if they did
>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it to them?
>>
>>You assume that children have natural empathy,that they are by
>>their nature receptive to such an argument. Simple observation
>>of children interacting at play makes me doubt this, not least
>>because as logic goes, the "would you like it" argument is
>>dubious. Of course people do not like bad things done to them,
>>but it does not follow that they are therefore better off not
>>doing it to others. Hell, most adults have severe trouble with
>>this notion, and a few hours watching the behaviour of people in
>>traffic will serve to confirm that.
>
> No, moron, I OBSERVE it,
>
> Do you understand the difference?
>
> I ALSO observe that good parents nurture it.
And good parents will know that such nurture will require
correction as much as encouragement, restraint and rules as much
as motivation. Whether it's cookery, languages, morality or just
about anything else, true understanding is something that arises
from absorbing the framework of rules, not the other way round.
>
> And that bad ones don't so it atrophies, resulting in people who
> imagine that the threat of a bogeyman is the only thing keeping people
> good.
>
> The word for this is sociopath.
Whyever did I get the impression that you weren't a spring
chicken anymore? Or have you simply forgotten all those decades
when the Commie Bogeyman worked like an absolute charm to shape
entire generations with hardly a murmur of protest? Do you
really believe that people pay their taxes or drive safely
because they are convinced that driving within the speed limit or
being honest about their business expenses is the right thing to
do, and that it has nothing to do with the fear of law
enforcement coming down on them like a ton of rectangular things
if they do as they wish? Are you proposing that every spouse who
refrains from taking the opportunity for a little bit on the side
does so only out of respect and love of the partner -- rather
than the fact that s/he will have their divorce lawyer ritually
rip off their reproductive organs with a dull paragraph if they
get found out?
Chris, fear is as much a motivating factor as greed or love or
even moral rectitude. Doesn't matter what we do ... and it
certainly does not make anyone a sociopath. Merely human.
>
> And part of this is the refusal to grant other ways to bring kids up
> to be decent people.
>
> Inclusing dismissing it as "curious and rare".
There was no refusal on my part. I simply don't think it is as
mainstram as you make it out to be.
>
> All you have done is demonstrate that your parents threatened you with
> a bogeyman if you didn't toe the line.
>
>>Your argument also appears to be based on the notion that
>>children are intellectually and emotionally capable of
>
> Learn to read for comprehension.
>
> What part of "nurturing the empathy" did you pretend you didn't
> understand?
>
>>understanding and internalising such abstract arguments. That is
>>just not so.
>
> Another straw man.
>
>> There is simply no point in telling a small child
>>that running into the street without looking can lead to pain and
>>death because it has no conception of its own mortality.
>
> So instead you tell them the bogeyman will get them?
>
> Kids learn the hard way what "hurt" means.
>
> And that there are degrees of hurt.
>
> So it gets explained in those terms.
>
> Kids also learn what death is at an early age. Hint: something to do
> with parents who don't tell them the dead are still alive somewhere
> else. Whether it's elderly relatives of family pets.
By the time youngsters hit 18, the vast majority of them will be
aware, on a theoretical basis, that they are mortal. And yet
they will persist in behaving as if they are the exception to
that rule. This demonstrates the disconnect between intellectual
and emotional awareness.
>
>>Similarly, it is not really reasonable to expect a child to
>>appreciate animal rights or to treat a dog with respect if it has
>
> Why not?
Ah, so you expect a child to appreciate and assimilate
fundamental philosophical concepts which elude the majority of
adults? Gee, if they are such geniuses, let's hand over
healthcare reform, the war in Afghanistan and the search for a
cure on cancer to the nearest Kindergarten. They clearly
understand more than we do.
Smiler
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:49:16 +0100, Hannele <han...@lycos.nl>
> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> "Do as I say or the bogeyman will get you"
>>> doesn't encourage understanding of others
>>> the way "How would you like it if they did
>>> that to you? If you wouldn't, why do it
>>> to them?
>>
>> And of course if they see any worth in this,
>> they will say the golden rule is straight out
>> of the bible and would not exist without
>> christianity.
>
> I guess atheists do lie always.
Nope. It's a Christian trait.
>
> Anyway...
>
> Most of the popular sayings that we use, are from the Bible.
>
> "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
> - Golden Rule
>
> "So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
> - Matthew 7:12a
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale
of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The
original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version of the
Epic of Reciprocity ever written.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
Lie your way out of that, Pastor Dave!
Alex W.
Never mind written references. Simply ask any passing
anthropologist, sociologist or psychologist about the Principle
of Reciprocity. Turns out that this is a hardwired instinct,
universal and quite vital for the formation and maintenance of
any sort of social structures. In other words, this is not some
fundamental philosophical insight but a behavioural observation
anyone could have made.
Smiler
He wouldn't have accepted anything else.
> Simply ask any passing
> anthropologist, sociologist or psychologist about the Principle
> of Reciprocity. Turns out that this is a hardwired instinct,
> universal and quite vital for the formation and maintenance of
> any sort of social structures. In other words, this is not some
> fundamental philosophical insight but a behavioural observation
> anyone could have made.
Agreed. It boils down to "be nice to people and they'll be nice to you" and
"be nasty to people and they'll be nasty to you". Things which anyone with
intelligence could infer from observation of the people around them and from
their own experiences.