[nq:1]I'll stick with Einstein...the higher, [nq:2]I'll stick with Einstein...the higher, [nq:1]Option 1

1 2 3 4 5

88Countach:

[nq:1]I'll stick with Einstein...the higher the IQ the less propensity to be religious. The smartest people are almost all atheists, because, logically, religion makes no sense at all.[/nq]
I would challenge the accuracy of that claim, since logic dictates that when a risk:reward ratio is analyzed, you should choose the path which affords you the greatest possible reward and least risk. (hey, kinda like poker!)
Consider the two options and consequences for each, that a logical person contemplating religion (faith, spirituality, whatever you want to call it) is faced with:
1) Belief:Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) eternal paradise
2) Non-belief:Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) eternal damnation
Option 1 presents the possibility of infinite reward and the certainty of zero risk.
Option 2 presents the possibility of infinite risk and the certainty of zero reward.
Given those potential outcomes, it seems clear which path a truly intelligent person would choose. Why accept risk when there is no possibility of reward?
-)

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Beldin the Sorcerer:

[nq:2]I'll stick with Einstein...the higher the IQ the less propensity ... all atheists, because, logically, religion makes no sense at all.[/nq]
[nq:1]I would challenge the accuracy of that claim, since logic dictates that when a risk:reward ratio is analyzed, you should ... whatever you want to call it) is faced with: 1) Belief: Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) eternal paradise[/nq]
Incorrect
A) loss of time and income needed to support the religion and belief structure.
b) some form of afterlife.
[nq:1]2) Non-belief: Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) eternal damnation[/nq]
A) freedom to spend all your money as you see fit without repercussion. b) some form of afterlife.
[nq:1]Option 1 presents the possibility of infinite reward and the certainty* of zero risk. Option 2 presents the possibility of infinite risk and the *certainty of zero reward.[/nq]
See how distorting the truth (above) can prove a falsehood?

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Peg Smith:

[nq:1]Option 1 presents the possibility of infinite reward and the certainty of zero risk. Option 2 presents the possibility of ... seems clear which path a truly intelligent person would choose. Why accept risk when there is no possibility of reward?[/nq]
If someone tells you that if you believe in purple elephants on Mars you'll be rewarded with all the sex and ice cream you want after you die, would you believe it? If not, would you pretend to because the elephants may exist and will get mad if you don't believe in them? Would it do you any good to pretend if the elephants really existed and knew you were just pretending?
For those of us who don't believe religious dogma, are you saying it's acceptable for us to fake it? Faking it is our only chance for "salvation" when we don't believe in any of it.
Peg

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Gary Carson:

[nq:1]The "accept Christ as your savior" theology is held by those generally described as Christian Fundamentalists[/nq]
It's the theology of Lutherans and Methodists also, who generally aren't considered Christian Fundamentalists. I think it's also the theology of Catholics, although I'm not sure about that.
[nq:1]As to forgoing infinite "pot-odds" I refer to Pascal's wager.[/nq]
The error that Pascal made was that he didn't consider alternatives to the Christian God. He assumed the Christian God was the one, true God.
[nq:1]My point being that even if you lack faith, it's a poor gambler that wouldn't take a bet where the payoff is infinite.[/nq]
You don't understand infinity very well, do you?

Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Gary Carson:

[nq:1]1) Belief: Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) eternal paradise 2) Non-belief: Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) ... seems clear which path a truly intelligent person would choose. Why accept risk when there is no possibility of reward?[/nq]
What if the real God is some God you didn't pick to believe in and he's one that tends to get really *** off when you believe in false Gods but doesn't mind much if you ignore him?
The problem with your analysis is that your payoff function assumes you know which God is the Real God and that you know how you'll respond.

Smart people recognize that your payoff function isn't accurate.

Gary Carson
http://garycarson.com

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Jay Jerome:

[nq:1]In a created universe, whose more intelligent, those who believe and therefore go to church, or those who forgo infinite "pot-odds" through their non-belief?[/nq]
The question is: 'created by what?'
Religions come and go.
Cosmologies come and go too.
Non-Belief in a false theory will get you better 'pot-odds' than belief in a false theory.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

John T. Kennedy:

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

John Harkness:

[nq:2]Option 1 presents the possibility of infinite reward and the ... Why accept risk when there is no possibility of reward?[/nq]
[nq:1]If someone tells you that if you believe in purple elephants on Mars you'll be rewarded with all the sex ... to fake it? Faking it is our only chance for "salvation" when we don't believe in any of it. Peg[/nq]
Actually, this is a misreading of an intellectual construct known as Pascal's Wager, posited by the French mathematician Blaise Pascal. (an early roulette junkie)
Essentially, belief in God is the no risk, all reward position.

Not believing in God offers no reward, all risk.
Therefore believing in God is what the smart money does.

Not faking belief in God God will see through that one.

But then, Pascal also spent time and intellectual energy developping "systems" to beat roulette.
John Harkness

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Bill Reich:

What is also wrong in this argument, in its simplist form, is that it assumes one can CHOOSE whether to believe or not. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, believe that there is no gravity. I cannot, no matter how hard I try, believe anything I don't believe.
Paschal does make a good case that you can work at believing and put yourself in situations where believing becomes easier. His "wager" is not without interest, nor is it poorly stated. Most people who claim to be repeating his idea leave out the part about instantly CHOOSING to believe being impossible, for most of us.
I believe in a higher power. SQUARED is a higher power. Will in New Haven

"I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
in Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News

http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups = 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

goodenough:

"The smartest people are almost all atheists". This is, quite simply, either a bald-faced lie or a colossal display of ignorance. There are far, far more great minds in history that were believers than those of atheists. Einstein was not an atheist, he believed firmly in a created universe. Most of the intellectually honest physicists\cosmologists working today do, also. Those whose egos can't bear the idea of a superior being are frantically looking for an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, not because of any objective flaw in it, but because it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Big Bang Theory, coupled with the rest of what we know about the structure and contents of the universe, requires a creator.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: £3.00-£10,000 page 2

Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News

Related forum topics: