lol I need a prompt man, I'm not here for your entertainment. I just popped in to see if I could get Macbeth here to quit being a hypocrite and off himself.Mutantsteak wrote:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208 … cosmos.jpg
Well I made this thread to listen, I want to hear what FM has to say
lol Don't worry it'll probably happen on it's own. I can't be killed of a woman born anyway.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol I need a prompt man, I'm not here for your entertainment. I just popped in to see if I could get Macbeth here to quit being a hypocrite and off himself.Mutantsteak wrote:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208 … cosmos.jpg
Well I made this thread to listen, I want to hear what FM has to say
jokes
Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol I need a prompt man, I'm not here for your entertainment. I just popped in to see if I could get Macbeth here to quit being a hypocrite and off himself.Mutantsteak wrote:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208 … cosmos.jpg
Well I made this thread to listen, I want to hear what FM has to say
jokes
Mutantsteak wrote:
More like the need to create ideas so that things can be learned properly. eg, A long time ago people had to determine the speed in which something would fall they would first have to accept that it would fallMacbeth wrote:
A being that makes it's own meaning to accompany what it feels fit?Mutantsteak wrote:
Meaning is a human idea so that meaning can be created to accompany any truth. Humans have a natural desire to learn so they create things so they can
Last edited by Mutantsteak (2009-02-15 21:30:24)
Not till I give my "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" rant. But at that point I'll prob have to worry about my friend coming after my head.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Well get on with it man. Don't put off 'till tomorrow what you can do today.
Yes, and I find it repulsive. Both in its childish estimation of the power of God/god/gods and in the lack of respect for one's decision making skills. There are better things to base your decisions off of than the unknown.Kmarion wrote:
Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol I need a prompt man, I'm not here for your entertainment. I just popped in to see if I could get Macbeth here to quit being a hypocrite and off himself.Mutantsteak wrote:
http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n208 … cosmos.jpg
Well I made this thread to listen, I want to hear what FM has to say
jokes
Thats true but the idea is valid because humans have theoretically nothing to lose so making these decesions would not be harmfulFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes, and I find it repulsive. Both in its childish estimation of the power of God/god/gods and in the lack of respect for one's decision making skills. There are better things to base your decisions off of than the unknown.Kmarion wrote:
Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol I need a prompt man, I'm not here for your entertainment. I just popped in to see if I could get Macbeth here to quit being a hypocrite and off himself.
jokes
Last edited by ColCarnage (2009-02-15 21:36:52)
I agree. But the manner in which he rationalized it was.. unique.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes, and I find it repulsive. Both in its childish estimation of the power of God/god/gods and in the lack of respect for one's decision making skills. There are better things to base your decisions off of than the unknown.Kmarion wrote:
Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol I need a prompt man, I'm not here for your entertainment. I just popped in to see if I could get Macbeth here to quit being a hypocrite and off himself.
jokes
You have everything to lose. Pascal made the same mistake of putting a price on a human life as politicians are ripped to shreds for every day.Mutantsteak wrote:
Thats true but the idea is valid because humans have theoretically nothing to lose so making these decesions would not be harmfulFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Yes, and I find it repulsive. Both in its childish estimation of the power of God/god/gods and in the lack of respect for one's decision making skills. There are better things to base your decisions off of than the unknown.Kmarion wrote:
Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?
It's the same argument that people pitifully use every single day to make every decision, only at epic proportions. What is easiest?Kmarion wrote:
I agree. But the manner in which he rationalized it was.. unique.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2514519Kmarion wrote:
William James did a good job of shredding the Pascalian theory.
"The idea of betting on God for the sake of infinite personal gain"
William James did it in a time when it was considered taboo. Sort of a pioneer. We've (a lot of us) have just come to accept it now. When you put it into historical context you can see how we take these ideas for granted. Of course William James wasn't the first person branded as a heretic.Macbeth wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2514519Kmarion wrote:
William James did a good job of shredding the Pascalian theory.
"The idea of betting on God for the sake of infinite personal gain"
From the standpoint of a truly religious person (the only kind that could win Pascal's Wager in any circumstance) there is only one true God. There is no picking - there is only one. It becomes a binary decision. Of course if you didn't already make that decision and you are pondering the wager, then you aren't a truly religious person. In which case it goes back to my point that it severely underestimates an all-powerful being. I don't think wanting to believe counts in very many religions.Macbeth wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2514519Kmarion wrote:
William James did a good job of shredding the Pascalian theory.
"The idea of betting on God for the sake of infinite personal gain"
Reading his wiki article now. Seems interesting.Kmarion wrote:
William James did it in a time when it was considered taboo. Sort of a pioneer. We've (a lot of us) have just come to accept it now. When you put it into historical context you can see how we take these ideas for granted. Of course William James wasn't the first person branded as a heretic.Macbeth wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2514519Kmarion wrote:
William James did a good job of shredding the Pascalian theory.
"The idea of betting on God for the sake of infinite personal gain"
Pure curiosity nothing else intended by it; but what religion are you or what branch of non-religion do you categorize yourself as?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
From the standpoint of a truly religious person (the only kind that could win Pascal's Wager in any circumstance) there is only one true God. There is no picking - there is only one. It becomes a binary decision. Of course if you didn't already make that decision and you are pondering the wager, then you aren't a truly religious person. In which case it goes back to my point that it severely underestimates an all-powerful being. I don't think wanting to believe counts in very many religions.Macbeth wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2514519Kmarion wrote:
William James did a good job of shredding the Pascalian theory.
"The idea of betting on God for the sake of infinite personal gain"
The religoin of uncertainty. I was raised catholic though. .. misquoted ..sorry..lol.Macbeth wrote:
Reading his wiki article now. Seems interesting.Kmarion wrote:
William James did it in a time when it was considered taboo. Sort of a pioneer. We've (a lot of us) have just come to accept it now. When you put it into historical context you can see how we take these ideas for granted. Of course William James wasn't the first person branded as a heretic.Pure curiosity nothing else intended by it; but what religion are you or what branch of non-religion do you categorize yourself as?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
From the standpoint of a truly religious person (the only kind that could win Pascal's Wager in any circumstance) there is only one true God. There is no picking - there is only one. It becomes a binary decision. Of course if you didn't already make that decision and you are pondering the wager, then you aren't a truly religious person. In which case it goes back to my point that it severely underestimates an all-powerful being. I don't think wanting to believe counts in very many religions.Macbeth wrote:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=2514519#p2514519
Someone who refuses to waste their life thinking about irrelevant questions, only the people who do?Kmarion wrote:
Really there is no wrong answer. Anyone who says for certain that there is no creator is also guilty of pretentious certainty. Lack of faith is faith in something.. just not a deity (er whatever).
Everyone needs a hobby. The question comes naturally.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone who refuses to waste their life thinking about irrelevant questions, only the people who do?Kmarion wrote:
Really there is no wrong answer. Anyone who says for certain that there is no creator is also guilty of pretentious certainty. Lack of faith is faith in something.. just not a deity (er whatever).
Was a little confused when I read that, wondered why you where responding to the question asked to FM. lolKmarion wrote:
The religoin of uncertainty. I was raised catholic though. .. misquoted ..sorry..lol.Macbeth wrote:
Reading his wiki article now. Seems interesting.Kmarion wrote:
William James did it in a time when it was considered taboo. Sort of a pioneer. We've (a lot of us) have just come to accept it now. When you put it into historical context you can see how we take these ideas for granted. Of course William James wasn't the first person branded as a heretic.Pure curiosity nothing else intended by it; but what religion are you or what branch of non-religion do you categorize yourself as?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
From the standpoint of a truly religious person (the only kind that could win Pascal's Wager in any circumstance) there is only one true God. There is no picking - there is only one. It becomes a binary decision. Of course if you didn't already make that decision and you are pondering the wager, then you aren't a truly religious person. In which case it goes back to my point that it severely underestimates an all-powerful being. I don't think wanting to believe counts in very many religions.
Hmm ok.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone who refuses to waste their life thinking about irrelevant questions, only the people who do?Kmarion wrote:
Really there is no wrong answer. Anyone who says for certain that there is no creator is also guilty of pretentious certainty. Lack of faith is faith in something.. just not a deity (er whatever).
Marginally Baptist mother. Fuck institutionalized religion father. I'm fucking legit and you guys suck religion myself.
Though I was according to BSA I have a religion and I don't want my Eagle taken away, so shhhhhhhhhh.
Frankly, I don't have enough time to deal with the questions on my plate as it is. If someone gets through everything else to the point that they are working on this question...then they need a hobby.Kmarion wrote:
Everyone needs a hobby. The question comes naturally.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone who refuses to waste their life thinking about irrelevant questions, only the people who do?Kmarion wrote:
Really there is no wrong answer. Anyone who says for certain that there is no creator is also guilty of pretentious certainty. Lack of faith is faith in something.. just not a deity (er whatever).
To each is own. If someone gets to the point that they are dictating which hobbies should be persued.. then they need a hobby .Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Frankly, I don't have enough time to deal with the questions on my plate as it is. If someone gets through everything else to the point that they are working on this question...then they need a hobby.Kmarion wrote:
Everyone needs a hobby. The question comes naturally.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Someone who refuses to waste their life thinking about irrelevant questions, only the people who do?
