The Brilliance of Pascal's Wager

[sojourner]

And as long as we don't talk about THAT particular subject, we'd probably get along okay.

Why? Why is that subject verboten? "Let's only talk about all the stuff YOU wanna talk about." Why are you so reluctant to talk theology? Especially on a religious forum?

And just what am I so cock-sure of? That theists I engage with most often in my life tend to display ridiculous behaviors and modes of thought? I've already stated this is my opinion. What more do you want from me?

You seem so "cock-sure" that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you is "unreasonable." You seem so "cock-sure" that your opinion of the theists you engage with "most often" applies to every theist you engage with.

What more do we want? Simple respect in your exchanges.

 

[sojourner]

Re farce, we do see an awful lot of that from
our theistic friends. The nature of their beliefs
are farcical, and utter garbage is needed to
support it.

As you said-nonsense extant within the household of God.

(assuming there is this household)

Exceptions are also out there.

And it frustrates the life out of me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And yours are full of vitriol.

Call it what you will. There is no objective "wrong" to be assessed.

 

[Ouroboros]

The FSM is just Cthulhu in disguise. Look at 'em, don't you see the tentacles?

The True God has many names and many apparitions.

 

[Audie]

The True God has many names and many apparitions.

And where does ya get that info?

 

[Ouroboros]

And where does ya get that info?

I did some tea leaf reading and checked the innards of a meatball, and God without a Name told me so.

 

[Audie]

I did some tea leaf reading and checked the innards of a meatball, and God without a Name told me so.

WHY didnt I ever think of doing that???

 

[sojourner]

The FSM is just Cthulhu in disguise. Look at 'em, don't you see the tentacles?

I disagree! The FSM is Benevolent and Kind, filling us with Tomatoey Goodness and the Meatballs of Life. And if one is Favored, one also receives the Breadsticks of Happiness. There is no similarity between the Noodly Appendages and "tentacles." Glorious are the Noodly Appendages (may you be Touched by them!), and much to be favored by men.

 

[sojourner]

WHY didnt I ever think of doing that???

Tea...

It's not just for breakfast anymore.

 

[sojourner]

Cthulhu doesn't care about your false dichotomy or Christians and atheist or who is right and who is wrong. In the end Cthulhu is 100% non-discriminatory, discriminate being something he proudly never does, as he'll devour the souls of princes and paupers, male and female, white and black, young and old, abled body and infirm, he devours them all the same.

But the FSM covers us with the Sauce of Righteousness, and we eat and are satisfied.

 

[Ouroboros]

But the FSM covers us with the Sauce of Righteousness, and we eat and are satisfied.

Well, Cthulhu wants you fat and tender, so he appears as a tasty carb filled dinner to fill you up. He's just having you over for dinner...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But the FSM covers us with the Sauce of Righteousness, and we eat and are satisfied.

Cthulhu thanks the FSM for marinading humans before he eats us.

 

[sojourner]

Cthulhu thanks the FSM for marinading humans before he eats us.

I understand we're crunchy... and taste good with ketchup.

 

[sojourner]

Well, Cthulhu wants you fat and tender, so he appears as a tasty carb filled dinner to fill you up. He's just having you over for dinner...

But... if we eat him first...


How does that work, exactly?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand we're crunchy... and taste good with ketchup.

Cthulhu says please no ketchup, as we eat more than enough sodium without more of it being added to us. Apparently adding anymore salt to us makes us just way too salty, like overdoing the salt on popcorn.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here's me:

I'm not going to sit idly by while people tell me that make-believe should be affecting my life as if it were reality in profound ways.

And your reply:

When did I EVER make that claim?

And I'd just like to state, for the record, that certain statements of yours read very much like you feel that I should be entertaining more make-believe in order to be "doing it right" - basically, that there are things you feel should be affecting me and my view of reality. I honestly don't know how you can feign innocence on this point. Here are some examples:

Because things like unicorns, aliens, Bigfoot, and leprechauns (if such exist) are merely singular eccentricities of nature. Their existence doesn’t bring transformation.

This seems to be you claiming that God acts in the universe, and that I should recognize that beyond what we call unicorns, Bigfoot, leprechauns, etc.

God sets the bar for our being.

Unless "our" was meant to only encompass the set of all "believers" (and even then, you're stretching to make this blanket statement) then you were asserting right there that I should accept that God sets the bar for my being - which certainly sounds like something that you would assume would affect my life.

God, in the least, provides a standard to which we aspire

Again here... is "we" only the set of all "believers?" Again, even if so, you're stretching... but if not, then you meant it to be applicable to me. Changing the standard to which I aspire also seems a pretty impactful thing.

The Deity is “this realm.”

Pretty straightforward here. You want me to accept that "this realm" is a deity, and that would necessarily come with some impact on my existence.

Our hearts beat with the rhythm of the universe.

Once again... is "our" in reference to only "believers?" If not... you're trying to speak for me with this. If there is a "rhythm of the universe," and I am not somehow "in tune" then to get "in tune" I would assume some changes must be in order. So, for me to be right with this idea in your eyes, there would be some impact on my life.

However, you can’t prove that God doesn’t do those things.

I take this to be you trying to convince me that God is doing these things. Perhaps you are only trying to convince me that he may be doing these things? "May be" sounds awfully noncommittal though, and not in-keeping with your other statements quoted here in which you seem rather sure of yourself.

So, you see... you didn't outright state that I should be allowing make-believe to have sway in my life, but you do so implicitly, all the time. Most of your words on the subject, in fact. It is a very passive-aggressive sort of thing. Not uncommon within the pool theists who take a stab at convincing, or admonishing the non-belief of others.

 

[sojourner]

Here's me:
And your reply:
And I'd just like to state, for the record, that certain statements of yours read very much like you feel that I should be entertaining more make-believe in order to be "doing it right" - basically, that there are things you feel should be affecting me and my view of reality. I honestly don't know how you can feign innocence on this point. Here are some examples:
This seems to be you claiming that God acts in the universe, and that I should recognize that beyond what we call unicorns, Bigfoot, leprechauns, etc.
Unless "our" was meant to only encompass the set of all "believers" (and even then, you're stretching to make this blanket statement) then you were asserting right there that I should accept that God sets the bar for my being - which certainly sounds like something that you would assume would affect my life.

Again here... is "we" only the set of all "believers?"

Pretty straightforward here. You want me to accept that "this realm" is a deity, and that would necessarily come with some impact on my existence.

Once again... is "our" in reference to only "believers?"

I take this to be you trying to convince me that God is doing these things.

So, you see... you didn't outright state that I should be allowing make-believe to have sway in my life, but you do so implicitly, all the time.

I have a world view -- just like every other thinking person. And I'm entitled to that world view. And in this country I have a right to talk about that world view in a public forum. In my profession, my job demands that I talk about it as a public theologian. This is how I see the world -- not just myself, but everyone and everything. I'm not asking anyone else to see it that way, or to "believe" what I believe. But I have the right to see the world as I will.

Your post appears to be egocentric in the extreme. It appears as though you're saying that I don't have the right to see you as I see you. If that's the case, you'd be wrong. Further, it appears as though you feel I shouldn't speak out about how I see others. Again, you'd be wrong. I'm sorry if your self-concept is so dainty that it can't handle someone else seeing you differently than you see yourself. That's what your post appears to say, anyhow.

I'm not trying to get you to believe. I'm not trying to foist something on you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am responding to your insipid post comparing God to unicorns and leprechauns. And I have every right to do that as I see fit within the bounds of forum rules.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I disagree. Hitler's opinions certainly mattered to Jews. Misogynists opinions certainly matter to women. Homophobes' opinions certainly matter to homosexuals. Opinions matter, because opinions lead to actions, and action affect people.

What mattered was the mobilization of Hitler's opinions into action. I basically already stated this by mentioning that until someone's opinion sees them knocking on my door, pitchfork-in-hand, there is nothing forcing me to care about their opinion. Once the pitchforks come, then I care about those - but I still don't have to care about the opinion of the people wielding the pitchforks.

I'm as free to state my truth as you are. The difference being that I'm doing so with a tone of respect.

Are you now? You've called me closed-minded, "snotty" and "snarky", "bitter", "angry" and insinuated at one point that I may be "beyond help." Help with what, I have little to no idea. Can you point to one part of any of my posts where I called you a name, or targeted you with a negative adjective, and not JUST your ideas?

• I mostly joking insinuated that you may be "smoking" something at one point.
• Said that you were perhaps "kidding yourself" in one post.
• Called your ideas garbage and ridiculous (note this is not me calling you "garbage" or ridiculous - I really hope you can tell the difference).
• Let's see - I told you a bunch of times you couldn't demonstrate any of the things you were claiming (again - not an insult directed at you at all).
• I told you that some of your words mattered very little, or not at all to me (truthfully).
• Told you I wouldn't accept what you called "God" - again, no insult to be found there.
• Told you some of your words were useless - mostly because I found them to be so. Again - no insult directed at you - unless you are your words?
• I said your posts were "full of fluff" - perhaps this is just a form of brutal honesty you're not used to? I don't know - again... I don't know you, and was not insulting you. I only have your words to go by.
• I did say that I felt contempt with what I have been reading. Said I perhaps rolled my eyes at much of what was being said. Are you noticing a trend here? I have only really been attacking your words, your ideas.
• I told you I wouldn't believe you if you told me certain things without support or demonstration.
• I told you that I didn't think opinions had to matter.
• Oh, and I mentioned I wondered if you were pulling some of your ideas out of your butt. I admit that one had some amount of intended sting attached to it.

You have come at me with far less respect for my actual person. I have only disrespected your ideas for the most part. Show me one place where I targeted you with a derogatory or even negatively-connoted adjective and I will recant. Otherwise... I have you by the proverbial testes on this one.

I have a world view -- just like every other thinking person. And I'm entitled to that world view. And in this country I have a right to talk about that world view in a public forum. In my profession, my job demands that I talk about it as a public theologian. This is how I see the world -- not just myself, but everyone and everything. I'm not asking anyone else to see it that way, or to "believe" what I believe. But I have the right to see the world as I will.

COMPLETELY TRUE. As I am free to criticize, scrutinize and even provoke you to think on other terms. What's good for the goose, my friend.

Your post appears to be egocentric in the extreme.

And yet I have already displayed that I am not as big a name-caller as you have been in our conversation. Isn't that interesting?

It appears as though you're saying that I don't have the right to see you as I see you.

OF COURSE YOU DO. That's the only reason that I come to the conclusion that I also have the right to see you just as I do. It's more just that one of us can take it in stride... and one of us cannot without misconstruing the situation as some form of persecution or oppression.

I'm not trying to get you to believe. I'm not trying to foist something on you. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I am responding to your insipid post comparing God to unicorns and leprechauns. And I have every right to do that as I see fit within the bounds of forum rules.

And I will respond in kind. As I see fit... and again... you wanted to claim ad hominem... potentially seem to be insinuating that I am almost in breach of forum rules, and yet I produced several examples of your own words, calling me various negatively associated things. And again, I challenge you to find one thing that I directed at YOU, your person, specifically.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Why? Why is that subject verboten? "Let's only talk about all the stuff YOU wanna talk about." Why are you so reluctant to talk theology? Especially on a religious forum?

I actually enjoy talking theology. I do. I didn't say we couldn't talk about it. I only meant that were we to discuss it, then we;d have these same problems we're having right now. That is, disagreement in the extreme. You would continue to make assertions that you have no basis for, would continue to use very sprawling, all-encompassing language, and then pretend you only meant it was applicable to yourself, etc. And I would try and point all this out to you to no avail, because you would simply duck and dodge as you are doing now. These are the things I meant when I implied we might "not get along okay" if religious themes were part of the discussion. As stated, I have enormous amounts of fun talking about this stuff. Really, I do. If you can hack it... so can I. Truly.

You seem so "cock-sure" that you're right and everyone who disagrees with you is "unreasonable."

The only claim I have made, however, is to the unreasonableness of claims made without ability to provide intersubjectively verifiable evidence or demonstrate. I have made no other claims.

You seem so "cock-sure" that your opinion of the theists you engage with "most often" applies to every theist you engage with.

It applies to so many that I begin to stereotype in order to try and get to the quick a little faster. I use stereotyping as a tool, and from what I have read from you, I don't think you are as far-removed from the stereotypes of these types of ideas I have built up as you'd like to assume. For one thing, your "Religion" listed is "Christian/Shamanic", and yet when I brought up specific issues with The Bible, and content of stories purportedly attributable to God, you didn't reply to any of that. In fact, it seems like some of the "tougher" material I posted you dodged entirely. This is ENTIRELY applicable to my stereotypes. Honestly, it is one of the biggest things that annoy the crap out of me and one of the things I see the most often. When the going gets tough, reply to what's easily defensible and leave the rest. Like replying to all my "snotty" comments and pointing out their snottiness. But the actual theological meat of the discussion? Leave it... too difficult.

What more do we want? Simple respect in your exchanges.

Ideas do not intrinsically deserve respect. Especially given the medium of the internet, I am not really dealing with YOU, now am I? All I have are your ideas, really - and in this specific subject.

 

[sojourner]

You have come at me with far less respect for my actual person. I have only disrespected your ideas for the most part.

Nope. I've made comments about your posts and how they make you appear.

And yet I have already displayed that I am not as big a name-caller as you have been in our conversation. Isn't that interesting?

I never called you names. I observed that your posts were rather snotty. That's not calling you names. You should learn the dif.

OF COURSE YOU DO. That's the only reason that I come to the conclusion that I also have the right to see you just as I do. It's more just that one of us can take it in stride... and one of us cannot without misconstruing the situation as some form of persecution or oppression.

Judging from you bullet-pointed diatribe above, Guess Who is the one who's posts are misapprehending?

and yet I produced several examples of your own words, calling me various negatively associated things.

Nope. Again: learn the dif.

I actually enjoy talking theology. I do. I didn't say we couldn't talk about it. I only meant that were we to discuss it, then we;d have these same problems we're having right now. That is, disagreement in the extreme.

It doesn't appear as though you do. And on the 'net, appearances are everything. Perhaps a good course in writing would help you come across more effectively. What you "only meant" and what you said are two different things. I'm not convinced that you're not backpedaling here.

You would continue to make assertions that you have no basis for, would continue to use very sprawling, all-encompassing language, and then pretend you only meant it was applicable to yourself, etc. And I would try and point all this out to you to no avail, because you would simply duck and dodge as you are doing now.

Read above. This is a world view. Do you know what a "world view" is? They are, by nature, "all-encompassing." And yes, my world view is mine. I'm not asking anyone else to see it my way.

The only claim I have made, however, is to the unreasonableness of claims made without ability to provide intersubjectively verifiable evidence or demonstrate.

Uh huh. You said, "says you." I responded, "...and a million others." To which you "admonished" me for "appealing to the majority." You don't get to have it both ways, Ace. The "majority" in this case is "intersubjective."

It applies to so many that I begin to stereotype in order to try and get to the quick a little faster.

So... expediency trumps good judgment in your case, yes?

I don't think you are as far-removed from the stereotypes of these types of ideas I have built up as you'd like to assume.

Funny you should say that. I seem to be getting along much better with most other atheists here, because their posts aren't unnecessarily snarky. If that style of writing is simply "your thang," I might suggest you try a new thang.

For one thing, your "Religion" listed is "Christian/Shamanic", and yet when I brought up specific issues with The Bible, and content of stories purportedly attributable to God, you didn't reply to any of that. In fact, it seems like some of the "tougher" material I posted you dodged entirely.

You've completely lost me here. I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe I missed a post or something? It's possible. I respond to many threads.

But the actual theological meat of the discussion?

There hasn't been any theological "meat." What you call "theological meat" has amounted to "Nuh-uh" with undue attitude.

Ideas do not intrinsically deserve respect. Especially given the medium of the internet, I am not really dealing with YOU, now am I?

Of course you are! Especially given the medium of the 'net. If you don't get that, maybe a class in 'net etiquette might help?