Subject:
|
Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 17:40:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
410 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > But when we all go over the same topic in this forum, over and over and over
> > > again, it's annoying. For example, Bill F. in his response to your response,
> > > posts Pascal's Wager AGAIN, for what must be the 57th time in this
> > > newsgroup... and when, in fact, LFB had already said, (in effect) don't
> > > bother because here are the cites that argue against it, make up your own
> > > mind, it's old news. When he does that, THAT is plowed ground.
> >
> > I made points, that for me, are unresolved, and asked an honest question
> > because I sincerely want an answer. For me it's not plowed ground.
>
> If you sincerely thought you came up with Pascal's wager on your own, you're
> not very well read. Try www.yahoo.com with Pascal's Wager as search string.
I admit that I'm not well read, as I've said many times, I've not been to
college. I honestly hadn't read Pascal nor his wager - until last night at
this location, which is quite good:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
My reading in the past has been limited in many ways, no excuses though. My
favorite subject matter was the early church fathers (Chrysostom being my
favorite) because most of my debates were internal to the Christendom, which
as I said is far more fruitless and frustrating. Admittedly, I cannot use
such subject matter here because it is not acceptable, and haven't.
>
> If you sincerely thought that no one has yet thought about how to refute it,
> you're not very well read. Here's one link, easily findable from that same
> yahoo search, to lots of attempted refutations
>
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html
>
> Of all the different refutations, and there are many, the one that resonates
> the most to me is that one cannot just "decide" to beleive as a convenience,
> in order to cover a bet. Your god, who wants belief of a certain form(1),
> doesn't accept that. It doesn't count. You have to *sincerely* believe.
> That's hard. The other one I like, of course, is the "wrong god" argument,
> what if you've picked the wrong god and he's a different kind of god than
> you thought. Now you're fried anyway.
I didn't imagine it was bullet-proof, I even said that it's not a reason to
change one's beliefs, in my opinion. It is still factual for the sake of
argument, though, given the two assumptions I made - realizing them not to
be exhaustive. Given our two view points, I have nothing to lose period. I
wasn't implying a wager or that therefore you should "be assimilated" and
become one of us. For me it was a simple statement of fact not a ploy. I was
interested in getting an answer to my question - how would I be bettered by
realizing there is no god? Nothing more.
>
> It's disingenious to claim you've not read Pascal's wager and that you've
> not read these refutations and you've come up with some neat new idea on
> your own. Either that, or you really aren't that well read, in which case,
> back to the books with you, my son, and leave us alone till you've done your
> homework. The answer you seek likes in the research you apparently need to do.
>
> Till then, stay out of the plowed ground.
Fair enough. You're very right. That I will do. Do I need to take a test
before you'll let me back in? ;^)
>
> 1 - i.e. "groveling". You have to abase yourself, declare yourself not
> worthy, acknowledge original sin, acknowledge that you can't understand god
> and have no hope of doing so, then devote yourself to christ, and when you
> backslide because the Saints were on TV that sunday, you're in need of some
> repentance. I'd call that groveling... you could look it up to see if the
> word matches.
But I don't accept "worm" theology. If I apologize to someone, I can do it
with my head high and simply be honestand mature about the offense.
Groveling, to me, is like wallowing, I guess I just can't stand weakness and
whining. God is not impressed by phony pennance, repentance involves doing
it right next time - the sort that improve themselves - remember? To me
groveling is not very dignified. Pride is what God doesn't like, self
respect is OK.
Again, I believe your aversion to be based on numerous misconceptions -
mostly pride based - and factually incorrect, which goes back to critical
thinking. Your initial assumptions are wrong therefore so are your
conclusions. So, back to the books for you too, my friend. At least consider
that I "may" be right before you dismiss me out of hand.
As always, it's been a pleasure,
Bill
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: About "Plowed Territory"
|
| (...) If you sincerely thought you came up with Pascal's wager on your own, you're not very well read. Try www.yahoo.com with Pascal's Wager as search string. If you sincerely thought that no one has yet thought about how to refute it, you're not (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
