tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post5055670422299803032..comments2023-10-23T08:28:44.881-06:00Comments on Splinters of Silver: Filling the VoidSplinters of Silverhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02899357787697070658noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-28980335605076661222007-11-07T09:03:00.000-06:002007-11-07T09:03:00.000-06:00Tim:I used the term "wager" because you allude to ...Tim:<BR/><BR/>I used the term "wager" because you allude to Pascal's wager, and my rebuttal was against Pascal's use of wager, because the question of a belief in God is not merely confined within the parameters of belief and disbelief.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-41916195957213070422007-11-06T12:44:00.000-06:002007-11-06T12:44:00.000-06:00Beast,The reason I wrote:"One is *wagering* eterna...Beast,<BR/><BR/>The reason I wrote:<BR/>"One is *wagering* eternal torment with assuming there is no God and no hell."<BR/><BR/>Is because you wrote:<BR/>"No one can prove 100% that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but do you wish to *wage your bet* on its existence?"<BR/><BR/>TimSplinters of Silverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02899357787697070658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-82003997151443660012007-11-06T11:43:00.000-06:002007-11-06T11:43:00.000-06:00Wagering is not even a good term to use. Talk abou...Wagering is not even a good term to use. Talk about taking a wild swing of the bat, blindfolded, trying to hit the target.<BR/><BR/>There are thousands of religions, all having wild assertions about their beliefs; almost all are similar, with distinctive threats of hells and the polemic rewards of heaven. Even a trip to the casino wouldn't yield such dramatic odds.<BR/><BR/>Any attempt to justify Pascal's wager will only invite ridicule and laughter, and for you, Tim, to keep running to it like a suckling baby to a mother(no offense to the baby and the mother, for both are natural, evolutionary acts), is quite puzzling to me.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-14851688957545892012007-11-05T10:51:00.000-06:002007-11-05T10:51:00.000-06:00Again,Living as though one assumes there is no God...Again,<BR/><BR/>Living as though one assumes there is no God, is not the same as pronouncing "there is no God."<BR/><BR/>It still remains merely an assumption, which could prove to be eternally fatal.<BR/><BR/>Note:<BR/><BR/>One is wagering eternal torment with assuming there is no God and no hell.<BR/><BR/>By trusting in Christ and beliving in God, if it were possible neither exist, I lose nothing.<BR/><BR/>TimSplinters of Silverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02899357787697070658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-51517015550723891342007-11-02T18:03:00.000-06:002007-11-02T18:03:00.000-06:00You continuously (meaning, in at least several of ...You continuously (meaning, in at least several of your posts) point to this particular quote of Dawkins': "[6] Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”" He only phrases it this way to be as diplomatic and scientifically correct as possible. By his reasoning (and his reasoning is what counts because he invented the scale), NO ONE is the absolutely higest on EITHER end of the scale (1 or 7). You and Mother Theresa and the Pope are all number 2's, because you cannot prove that there IS a God, but you live your life based on the assumption that there is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-74331724934834153532007-10-30T10:49:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:49:00.000-06:00Read my statement again:"Science may not conclusiv...Read my statement again:<BR/><BR/>"Science may not conclusively prove that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean science can't comment on the God hypothesis. In fact, evidence from physics and biology points to a Creatorless Universe."<BR/><BR/>No one can prove 100% that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, but do you wish to wage your bet on its existence?<BR/><BR/>(6) is the stand for most atheists, including myself. Since the probability of the existence of a deity is equivalent to the Cosmic McMuffin, I can jolly well negate his existence. That is a fair and rational response.<BR/><BR/>And your last post is more ludicrous, especially after I have all but debunked Pascal's Wager (Even Pascal himself wasn't convinced that rationality had anything to do with it).<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-41886726382177617582007-10-30T10:45:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:45:00.000-06:00Assumptions are sometimes wrong, and eternity is a...Assumptions are sometimes wrong, and eternity is a long time to pay for an incorrect assumption.Splinters of Silverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02899357787697070658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-90039513205691086032007-10-30T10:44:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:44:00.000-06:00Beast,There is no evidence that can be brought for...Beast,<BR/><BR/>There is no evidence that can be brought forth to point toward a "Creatorless Universe." Didn't you say you can't prove a negative (i.e. God does not exist)? Anything that science produces to assume there is no God, is being misinterpreted to ease their conscience.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins' very on definiton of himself: "[6] Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”"Splinters of Silverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02899357787697070658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-19477176232347047942007-10-30T10:32:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:32:00.000-06:00And would my views be necessarily wrong? Couldn't ...And would my views be necessarily wrong? Couldn't the bible be wrong too? After all, we can't go around stoning disobedient children and killing folks who collect sticks on Sabbath days?<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-58237170760721649202007-10-30T10:28:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:28:00.000-06:00Beast,Your question:"You claim that we atheists, u...Beast,<BR/><BR/>Your question:<BR/>"You claim that we atheists, unbelievers and heathens do not acknowledge our "wrongs", but what about the Christians?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here is my statement again:<BR/>"Denying sin as sin, merely acknowledging they may do some things wrong, people falsely believe they are removing themselves from their accountability to a holy, sinless God."<BR/><BR/><BR/>I did not write that "atheists, unbelievers and heathens do not acknowledge our "wrongs"," but that PEOPLE do not acknowledge things to be sin against God. I clearly said that PEOPLE acknowledge they do some things wrong. (Even Christians turn their backs on God when they choose to sin, rather than do what is right.)<BR/><BR/>And I agree, as Christians, although we realize sin as sin, we sometimes fail to acknowledge when we do wrong in sinning. We are called upon to repent, and we should. But since you do not consider God, or view Scripture as necessary, your view of right and wrong tends to vary from that of Christianity.Splinters of Silverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02899357787697070658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-13611944266561211772007-10-30T10:15:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:15:00.000-06:00You claim that we atheists, unbelievers and heathe...You claim that we atheists, unbelievers and heathens do not acknowledge our "wrongs", but what about the Christians?<BR/><BR/>The Christians who so vehemently carry out their hate campaign against gays, the Christians who refuse to ban slavery, and the Christians who so love to kill others who do not believe in their faiths? And most importantly, do Christians know they are wrong when they teach children the lies about safe sex, hence encouraging the spread of teen births, STDS, and AIDS?<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35324441.post-86838090214986286842007-10-30T10:12:00.000-06:002007-10-30T10:12:00.000-06:00"Interestingly, throughout time man has also fille..."Interestingly, throughout time man has also filled science with cases of unexplainable fantasy, only to later replace fantasy with more fantasy, or sometimes even having to come to terms with the fact that they simply believed fictional thinking."<BR/><BR/>If science is remarkably filled with "unexplainable fantasy", perhaps you may like to point to that light bulb that lights up your bedroom. Or the lightning rod on your house that keeps your house safe from the holy smite from "gawd".<BR/><BR/>In any case, I posted a rebuttal to your post on my blog:<BR/><BR/>Since you have Dawkin's book, check out what he says about the God Hypothesis and NOMA (Non Overlapping Magistera).<BR/><BR/>Science may not conclusively prove that God does not exist, but that doesn't mean science can't comment on the God hypothesis. In fact, evidence from physics and biology points to a Creatorless Universe.<BR/><BR/>BeastBEAST FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05679628160308289045noreply@blogger.com