Topic: Based upon your past ...
Walsch John started this discussion 10 years ago #56,144
Surely. And certain civil regulations - rules and go troughs - are certainly a must in your' primitive civilisation. (You understand that in not-primitive civilisations this kind of law making is not necessary. All beings regulate themselves.) In your civilisation you still are holding up to certain intricate manners. Do you stop at the end of the street before you continue? Would you buy and sell following certain rules? Would there be limitations in respect to your interaction with others?
In fact these fundamental laws should - prohibitions concerning murder, molestation, betrayal, or even driving trough a red light - mustn't or don't have to be necessary, if only all people held themselves to the Laws of Love.
In fact these fundamental laws should - prohibitions concerning murder, molestation, betrayal, or even driving trough a red light - mustn't or don't have to be necessary, if only all people held themselves to the Laws of Love.
anonymous XXX (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #725,000
bump
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,008
We used have something called "stealing a kiss". Now it's called manditory minimum prison sentence for almost rape
anonymous A (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,009
whatevar .. dont read dont know .. a pretty thought-ending cliché you judge this thread with
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,010
stop your apple stinkin' thinkin' kind of lol
anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,011
want to hear more brainless shyyyyte listen to this lollhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz_XsYNTlN0
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
anonymous A (OP) quadruple-posted this 10 years ago, 10 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #725,014
Blind faith
One way to counter the wager is to replace Pascal's Judeo-Christian God with a perverse god that punishes those who believe in him without evidence, and rewards those who don't. Note that this doesn't even presuppose that the Bible and other holy texts are not divinely inspired: this god could have authored them to serve as a test of credulity. Importantly, because Pascal's Wager can only work if you improve the prior probability of any one god's existence over the others (which generally doesn't happen in any theological argument) this wager is exactly as valid as Pascal's original formulation.
This theoretical belief system presents a win/win scenario for atheists and a lose/lose scenario for those who believe in God. Since the two contrasting ideas of a specific god are logically equivalent in likelihood, atheism is shown to have the greatest potential for gain, completely negating and effectively reversing Pascal's argument. Remember, this is equally empirically provable as Pascal's Wager, and so we now have to factor in a 50:50 chance of Pascal's Wager being true or this one being true.
The wager assumes that there is a self-evident reason for rewarding blind faith. Why is the faith of a believer better than the personal courage of the disbeliever that leads an outstanding life? Why does a deity prefer blind faith over evidence based submission?
The real argument goes in the opposite direction: God exists (I assume) and I cannot see him, therefore he has to have a reason not to show himself. Therefore, there has to be something for me if I play along.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Blind_faith
One way to counter the wager is to replace Pascal's Judeo-Christian God with a perverse god that punishes those who believe in him without evidence, and rewards those who don't. Note that this doesn't even presuppose that the Bible and other holy texts are not divinely inspired: this god could have authored them to serve as a test of credulity. Importantly, because Pascal's Wager can only work if you improve the prior probability of any one god's existence over the others (which generally doesn't happen in any theological argument) this wager is exactly as valid as Pascal's original formulation.
This theoretical belief system presents a win/win scenario for atheists and a lose/lose scenario for those who believe in God. Since the two contrasting ideas of a specific god are logically equivalent in likelihood, atheism is shown to have the greatest potential for gain, completely negating and effectively reversing Pascal's argument. Remember, this is equally empirically provable as Pascal's Wager, and so we now have to factor in a 50:50 chance of Pascal's Wager being true or this one being true.
The wager assumes that there is a self-evident reason for rewarding blind faith. Why is the faith of a believer better than the personal courage of the disbeliever that leads an outstanding life? Why does a deity prefer blind faith over evidence based submission?
The real argument goes in the opposite direction: God exists (I assume) and I cannot see him, therefore he has to have a reason not to show himself. Therefore, there has to be something for me if I play along.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager#Blind_faith
(Edited 2 minutes later.)