Originally Posted by Riot Maker
When i was reading this i couldn't help to think about this. O'nus wouldn't you say that the time you spend showing people how atheist think and how christianity is wrong is equivilant to the time a christian would spend in church? Atheist always say that going to church would be awaste of time because there is no God. Wouldn't it be a waste of time to argue against christianity because there is no God?
I think im missing a major point here and im nto quite getting it.
Thats just a couple of questions i have that are semi-linked to the wager.
People can be passionate about anything. Have you not seen painters obsessed over their paintings? what about computer geeks? Video game nerds?
However, I hope to eventually show that my beliefs are not entirely resting on the opposition of something. I would best describe my beliefs as "Science" or "logic" because, in the field of science or logic, God does not exist yet (monotheistic wise, anyway).
Is that what you are getting to?
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Well yes, in theory (if you were talking about my posts). But I don't live by my philosophy. It's just my belief, if you want to call it that. If nothing can be proven then, for the moment, everything is possible. I find the logic useless, but it's the only truth I could come up with.
This is walking down the path of Cartesian doubt which, although I fervently adhere to, do not think it offers any pragmatic approach to the world.
We must approach the world from some point of view; you are forced to.
From an irrational "anything goes" point of view, we ought not to allow consistencies.
However, science is ever-changing and does allow newer ideas and modifications. So, there is flexibility.
Originally Posted by Replicon
I was just getting at the idea that what you believe comes not just from a conscious choice, but is really the result of the mental process that handles input over time.
That's not to say it's 100% external, of course. How your brain processes information is definitely affected by what you already believe (and what you'd LIKE to believe). So, Pascal's wager can be used as a reaffirming device, but it should never be used as a tool to argue in a religious debate.
I completely agree. It is not a good argument. This is why I proposed by response in such a way to demonstrate that a Theist would equally not believe in an "Atheist wager", don't you think?
I think you are fringing on the nature vs nurture debate, hm?
~
|
|
Bookmarks