iGamingForums.com

1 2 3 4 5

goodenough:

Actually, that's exactly what Pascal said unbelievers should do - act as if you believe, and in time you will come to truly believe.

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

88Countach:

[nq:1]You fail to include part of the risks.[/nq]
[nq:2]Consider the two options and consequences for each, that a ... Belief: Possible outcomes: a) no consequence b) eternal paradise[/nq]
[nq:1]Incorrect A) loss of time and income needed to support the religion and belief structure.[/nq]
An organized religion...perhaps, but faith or belief in a creator requires neither a monetary investment, nor an investment of time.

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

88Countach:

[nq:1]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?[/nq]
A poor analogy, since 100% of sane individuals know there are no elephants on Mars...purple or otherwise. Even if someone were irrational enough to believe it as a possibility, it could easily be disproven scientifically. The same cannot be said of a universal creator, in which a majority of people on our planet do believe, in one form or another. Despite their efforts, scientists and scholars have never been able to disprove (or prove) the existence of a creator.
[nq:1]If not, would you pretend to because the elephants may exist and will get mad if you don't believe in them?[/nq]
LOL. Ok I'll play along. I wouldn't "pretend" to believe in anything. There would be no point. You either believe or you don't. I was only pointing out that believing (in the example I cited) carries with it no risk, while not believing carries only risk. If a non-believer of any philosophy wants badly enough to believe, s/he will find a way to make it happen. Belief systems are created and modified by people continually. That doesn't mean they are faked, or are any less genuine. After all, we are born believing in nothing. It's only through life experiences that we are able to acquire certain sets of beliefs. These are then either reinforced or dismissed as new events influence us.
[nq:1]Would it do you any good to pretend if the elephants really existed and knew you were just pretending?[/nq]
So these Martian elephants of yours are mind-readers too? Impressive! (question already answered)
[nq:1]For those of us who don't believe religious dogma, are you saying it's acceptable for us to fake it?[/nq]
Nope. Never said it. It sounds like you equate faking a belief with aqcuiring a belief. Two different concepts.

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

goodenough:

[nq:2]The "accept Christ as your savior" theology is held by those generallydescribed as Christian Fundamentalists[/nq]
[nq:1]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]
No, I'm fairly certain that both Lutherans and Methodists have religious responibilities and obligations which go beyong the simple "accept Christ as your savior" theology as written in the original post. And Catholic theology is far more complex than that proposed as the Christian norm in the post to which I responded.

If, by this comment, you mean that a the vast majority of people would not consider eternal life in absolute bliss an infinite reward, then I guess you're right, I don't understand infinity. However, if the vast majority would consider this an infinite reward, we can chalk your comment up as just another mean-spirited, ad hominem attack, by the always smug Gary Carson.

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

Anonymous:

I dont believe that it is as simple as a) no consequence b) eternal paradise
it is more like this:
1) Belief:Possible outcomes: a) no consequence, but live a life not the way you fully should c) eternal paradise
2) Non-belief:Possible outcomes: a) no consequence & live a life they way you want it b) eternal damnation
now is the risk there?

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

Dave Hitt:

[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]
Enter "Pascal's Wager" into your favorite search engine to find the flaws in this line of thinking.
Dave Hitt

If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them? http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name three.html
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html

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

Dave Hitt:

[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. (paraphrasing obviously because I don't feel like looking up the quote).[/nq]
I think you've got that somewhat backwards. Atheists tend to be smart people, but most smart people are not atheists. Among the really, really smart people (the world's top scientists and engineers, for instance) you'll find a much higher percentage of atheists than you'll find in the general population, but they'll still be outnumbered by those agnostics and those who have some sort of belief in god.

I have met some pretty ignorant atheists, but I don't recall any that were mouth breathing stupid. On the flip side, churches love dumb people like poker players love fish - it's a major source of income for them.
Dave Hitt

If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them? http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name three.html
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html

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

Dave Hitt:

[nq:1]Actually, this is a misreading of an intellectual construct known as Pascal's Wager, posited by the French mathematician Blaise Pascal. ... God will see through that one. But then, Pascal also spent time and intellectual energy developping "systems" to beat roulette.[/nq]
And the real problem is what god to believe in? There are hundreds of religions that preach you're doomed unless you worship their God, and worship him in their prescribed manner. They're all sincere. They all have "proof." So which deity do you pick?
Dave Hitt

If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them? http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name three.html
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html

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

Dave Hitt:

[nq:2]If someone tells you that if you believe in purple ... cream you want after you die, would you believe it?[/nq]
[nq:1]A poor analogy, since 100% of sane individuals know there are no elephants on Mars...purple or otherwise. Even if someone ... another. Despite their efforts, scientists and scholars have never been able to disprove (or prove) the existence of a creator.[/nq]
Ok, forget the elephants. The real true savior beasts are the invisible pink unicorns. Despite their efforts, scientists and scholars have never been able to disprove (or prove) the existence of the IPU.
Dave Hitt

If it kills so many people, why can't they name three of them? http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name three.html
Quick Hitts - Rapid Rants From the Hittman
http://www.davehitt.com/blog/index.html

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 3

Related forum topics: