• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Liberals are...smarter!

Beliefs should not be about odds, leave that for gambling.:D

IMO, beliefs are personal. No two people have the same beliefs, and therefore no one can relate or adequately describe their beliefs to another person.

BTW, if there are different rules then your "odds" would be the same as what you started with (just the Christian odds) since you have to follow the rules to get to your destination.

They are not about odds, and beliefs are personal. You are right about that. Thatd be like playing God. But remember, I see the bible as an instructions book, or a holy instructions book, but I always bear in mind, that like any book. It is man written. Thus imperfect, since no one can truly interpret God. I abide the bible, but never go to the extremes.
 
Wow, I wish the folks who did that study looked at this thread.

Liberals are smarter.

Liberals tend to be atheists.

Now somehow, atheists are smarter yet some atheists spend their time arguing with someone who isn't even old enough to drive about whether or not he can prove a lot of shit that really isn't going to matter when all is said and done.

I wonder what morality and equality drives someone to ridicule a kid for their faith. To think people thought I was bad for telling kids that Santa was actually their parents. Atleast I didn't try to make them feel stupid for believing in the guy.

I hope you guys run for office, we're going to have the problems of the world beat. All of our issues with the economy, the environment, human rights will be tackled by moral, equitable, and just people. We just have to pee in some kid's frosted flakes first.

mpw, you had better have the cool accent that I hear in my head when I read your posts because that is the only thing that would keep me from hating you forever for making me read all of this in the foolish hope that there was a point. Don't try the "well, other people were arguing with him too" crap because you egged them on. Their hypothetical voices don't have British accents, so it makes it worse. May all of the sound files you ever download be clips of me singing something (that will really be a punishment for you because you don't pirate stuff.)
 
They are not about odds, and beliefs are personal. You are right about that. Thatd be like playing God. But remember, I see the bible as an instructions book, or a holy instructions book, but I always bear in mind, that like any book. It is man written. Thus imperfect, since no one can truly interpret God. I abide the bible, but never go to the extremes.

Or you could be a moron like me and read the manual after you've already broken it.

Yes, I read the whole healthcare bill but did not read all of the bible. I wish I could have that one back.
 
They are not about odds, and beliefs are personal. You are right about that. Thatd be like playing God. But remember, I see the bible as an instructions book, or a holy instructions book, but I always bear in mind, that like any book. It is man written. Thus imperfect, since no one can truly interpret God. I abide the bible, but never go to the extremes.

Previously posted by you:
True, but then again, the Jewish god, the Muslim god, and the Christian god are somewhat the same god, just with diffrent bibles, and all around the same time period. All three religions experienced a man named Jesus, although the Christians call him the son of God (to me he is), the Jews and Muslims do not. But really they are the same god, with diffrent names, that all mean God. Kinda like Chevy, Pontiac (although gone), and GMC, diffrent names, diffrent looks, but all from the same company, GM. So now my odds are a bit higher now, since I believe in the same god, just with a diffrent set of rules.


:confused:

I'm not even sure at this point if I can say this discussion is a circular argument. I thought this was becoming circular but then you just took a zinger to the right. I'm speechless at this point and as you can seeing rambling, quite ironic. :confused: I'll show myself the door.
 
Previously posted by you:



:confused:

I'm not even sure at this point if I can say this discussion is a circular argument. I thought this was becoming circular but then you just took a zinger to the right. I'm speechless at this point and as you can seeing rambling, quite ironic. :confused: I'll show myself the door.


How? You on the other hand, say you dont believe in a god, yet if science said so, you would. You can only make your mind up if science said so, thats not an assumption, thats a fact. The fact that you cannot make up your mind is your fault. I say that odds might be against me or with me, does that mean I care, NO. Unless you actually thought I did, I said, that I just abide by a diffrent set of rules, did I not. That set of rules was the bible. I simply put the about the whole odds thing to show you a little something. The fact that you thought I cared, thats your fault.
 
How? You on the other hand, say you dont believe in a god, yet if science said so, you would. You can only make your mind up if science said so, thats not an assumption, thats a fact. The fact that you cannot make up your mind is your fault. I say that odds might be against me or with me, does that mean I care, NO. Unless you actually thought I did, I said, that I just abide by a diffrent set of rules, did I not. That set of rules was the bible. I simply put the about the whole odds thing to show you a little something. The fact that you thought I cared, thats your fault.

I believe I am done with this conversation since it seems you have decided to start speaking for me.

In addition, after repeated attempts to politely ask you not to make assumptions about others you go on a binge post full of them, and in the end it's all my fault. Are you speaking for my girlfriend now?:D (ducks)

Have a good day WADude. You seem to have all the answers at such a young age, and don't really want to have a discussion so there's nothing left to say.
 
Regardless of that fact, I'm pretty sure that "making the smart bet" isn't exactly something god (or God, as it were) would be too psyched about. And if he/she is omnipotent as current canon claims IIRC then it's not exactly something you could hide from him/her.

Like, Pascal's wager made sense to me when I was 8 or so, but eventually I realized that if that's your reason for "believing", you're insulting the concept of Christianity way more than any atheist ever could.

again with the comparison of believers to ignorant children? I GET IT, YOU'RE SMARTER THAN ME. I HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OF AN 8 YEAR OLD, AND YOU ARE FAR ABOVE THAT TYPE OF THINKING.

However, if you're assuming that Pascal's wager is the sole reason for my being a believer, you are very much incorrect. I was simply bringing it up as one of my personal reasons that the existence of God makes more sense than being an Athiest. As childish as that sounds to such a developed mind as yours, it makes sense to me.

I became a believer because I realized that, no matter how 'good' of a person I try to be, I am ultimately a flawed, imperfect person, and I realized that what God did through Jesus' sacrifice, just so I could spend eternity with him, is more proof than any that He loves me, and that I should love Him as well. Call me childish, stupid, insane, whatever. I'd still bet I've lived a much happier, fulfilling live than any Athiest.

And I still love science, no matter how many Athiests label me as 'unscientific.'
 
Again with Pascal's Wager? Really?

If that's the case, the odds that your specific religion is the correct one is rather slim.


Speaking for you? Your the one that was playing the whole odds and Pascals game were you not? Then you said its best not to gamble with odds, all in order, that must mean that you changed your mind. And you say that I am the one changing my mind. And please, my age should not really matter to you, It was until I posted my age that you started treating me like a kid, whether I post my age or not, that does not matter. The matter is that you say I change my mind, contradicting my own statements, when you have done the same.
 
Think about what you just posted. If you are wrong why would there be a hell? Why make the automatic assumption that there is a hell when you are wrong in the first place?

I meant if I was wrong about my god, cause he gave me a list of religions.
 
again with the comparison of believers to ignorant children? I GET IT, YOU'RE SMARTER THAN ME. I HAVE THE INTELLIGENCE OF AN 8 YEAR OLD, AND YOU ARE FAR ABOVE THAT TYPE OF THINKING.

I never said all believers were 8 year olds. I said that someone who uses Pascal's Wager as the sole reason for having faith has the cognition of an eight year old. I'm not sure why you're getting defensive here.

Here, I'll help:

Like, Pascal's wager made sense to me when I was 8 or so, but eventually I realized that if that's your reason for "believing", you're insulting the concept of Christianity way more than any atheist ever could.
See the bold word? It's kind of important. I recommend reading it again but this time actually let the notion sink in instead of skimming the words and immediately going "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE STOP CALLING ME TEH STUPID".

However, if you're assuming that Pascal's wager is the sole reason for my being a believer, you are very much incorrect. I was simply bringing it up as one of my personal reasons that the existence of God makes more sense than being an Athiest.
Good for you, now please point to where I made any assertion that Pascal's wager was the sole reason for you believing in god. Regardless, a "wager" on an afterlife is no reason for having faith, even if it's not the only reason. Like, if you were a true Christian, gambling on the chances of God vs. "no afterlife" is weak at best, and an insult to Christ at worst. Think about that.

Christ: Do you believe and accept me as your savior?
You: Wellllll yeah....but maybe also I want to hedge my bets a little. It's one of my personal reasons to argue for the existence of God.
Christ: Seriously dude? Me dying for your sins wasn't enough? Bringing you the good news wasn't enough? You need to hedge your bets on TOP of that? What a jerk.

As childish as that sounds to such a developed mind as yours, it makes sense to me.
Persecution complex, look it up...seriously.

I became a believer because I realized that, no matter how 'good' of a person I try to be, I am ultimately a flawed, imperfect person, and I realized that what God did through Jesus' sacrifice, just so I could spend eternity with him, is more proof than any that He loves me, and that I should love Him as well. Call me childish, stupid, insane, whatever.
That's wonderful, I'm not sure why you're telling me this since you've already claimed that your faith has more to do with God than with Pascal (and therefore my post had nothing to do with you! lol)

I'd still bet I've lived a much happier, fulfilling live than any Athiest.
I GET IT, YOU'RE PURER THAN ME. I HAVE THE MORALITY OF AN EEEEVIL AGNOSTIC, AND YOU ARE FAR ABOVE THAT TYPE OF THINKING.

:rolleyes:

And I still love science, no matter how many Athiests label me as 'unscientific.'
OK? When have I said that religion and science are incompatible?

Seriously dude, relax.

Here's a quote that illustrates the kind of thinking I'm specifically addressing in my post:

Here's one of my favorite quotes " Although the odds are on your side, if I am right and there is a god out there afterall, I still get to say 'Ha, I was right all along bitches!', but If you are right, you still get no final say, because you'd be dead, and forgotten. I prefer to be the one getting the last word than no word at all." - WAdude:D
Like, did you miss that on your first read-through? That's the definition of Pascal's wager. And if that's even part of the reason for one's faith, I'd argue that that particular individual either A) isn't really all that faithful after all, or B) has a lot to learn when it comes to their faith.
 
I never said all believers were 8 year olds. I said that someone who uses Pascal's Wager as the sole reason for having faith has the cognition of an eight year old.

Having trouble finding the difference here. You're saying you never said all believers act like 8 year olds, but then say that (according to your personal belief I assume, since there's no scientific evidence for the following correlation) if a believer uses Pascal's Wager as their reason for belief, they have the cognition of an 8 year old.

I'm not sure why you're getting defensive here.

Here, I'll help:

See the bold word? It's kind of important. I recommend reading it again but this time actually let the notion sink in instead of skimming the words and immediately going "RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE STOP CALLING ME TEH STUPID".

I'm the one getting defensive? NONE of my previous posts have 1/10th the distain & sarcasm as there is in the above post...
 
Here's a quote that illustrates the kind of thinking I'm specifically addressing in my post:

Here's one of my favorite quotes " Although the odds are on your side, if I am right and there is a god out there afterall, I still get to say 'Ha, I was right all along bitches!', but If you are right, you still get no final say, because you'd be dead, and forgotten. I prefer to be the one getting the last word than no word at all." - WAdude:D

Like, did you miss that on your first read-through? That's the definition of Pascal's wager. And if that's even part of the reason for one's faith, I'd argue that that particular individual either A) isn't really all that faithful after all, or B) has a lot to learn when it comes to their faith.


Wow dude, theres a big ass smiley in the end, did you fail to notice that? But who cares, that was for fuuu... no, actually, I was very serious *sarcastically*
 
Having trouble finding the difference here. You're saying you never said all believers act like 8 year olds, but then say that (according to your personal belief I assume, since there's no scientific evidence for the following correlation) if a believer uses Pascal's Wager as their reason for belief, they have the cognition of an 8 year old.

Sigh, I'll try again.

If your reason (singular! grammar! yay! as in, not-reasons) for believing in god is Pascal's wager, then you're an idiot. Get it?

If (there's that word again!) your reason for believing in God is Pascal's wager + A, B, and C then you should probably take a good long look at your own faith and reconsider whether you need a wager of any kind to back it up/justify it/whatever.

Let me know if you need me to expand on this concept, I'm done with my work for the day so I should have time.
 
Sigh, I'll try again.

If your reason (singular! grammar! yay! as in, not-reasons) for believing in god is Pascal's wager, then you're an idiot. Get it?

Haha, yes! Believe it or not, I (an ignorant Christian) understand the concept of the word 'if' and understand basic grammar. However, luckily for other believers (whether they believe based on 'pascal's wager' solely, or for other reasons), your opinion of what an 'idiot' is has very little importance.

Jesus Himself preached about becoming a follower in order to avoid Hell. Why do you presume that God would look down upon that type of thinking? Would He rather me have the opinion that He simply doesn't exist? Do you share in God's wisdom?
 
Haha, yes! Believe it or not, I (an ignorant Christian) understand the concept of the word 'if.' However, luckily for other believers (whether they believe based on 'pascal's wager' solely, or for other reasons, your opinion of what an 'idiot' is has very little importance.

:rolleyes:

I can see you're butthurt because you perceive me as looking down on an "ignorant christian" so I'll drop it.

Have a nice day.
 
Jesus Himself preached about becoming a follower in order to avoid Hell.

I'm pretty sure I know which passage(s) you're referring to. Please list them so that I can confirm as to whether I'm right in my assumption.

Why do you presume that God would look down upon that type of thinking?

I don't think God would think that you need to gamble on his existence to have faith, but what do I know.

Would He rather me have the opinion that He simply doesn't exist? Do you share in God's wisdom?

I think he would rather you exhibit true faith rather than "I believe, BUT..."
 
I don't think God would think that you need to gamble on his existence to have faith, but what do I know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but It sounds like you're confusing true faith & obedience w/ a person who might simply state 'I believe in God' in order to avoid hell. There's a very strong difference between a berson who "believes" and a person who truely believes & obeys. If a person has TRUE faith/belief/repentance, there's no gamble. In that person's mind, they have complete faith in what the outcome will be. It's only a gamble to those who think of it that way (ie those who think God may or may not be real = not true faith). If there's any "believer" out there who claims "I believe, BUT... I would very much argue that he or she is not a true believer.
 
You stated you blindly believed things without evidence. I was seeing how far you would take blind faith.


Are you stupid? Or are you just dumb? There is a diffrence between believing in God, and buying beachfront in Arizona. I have proof that, like common sense proof, there are no beachfronts in Arizona. On the other hand, there is no proof of God, neither is there proof against him.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but It sounds like you're confusing true faith & obedience w/ a person who might simply state 'I believe in God' in order to avoid hell. There's a very strong difference between a person who "believes" and a person who truly believes & obeys. If a person has TRUE faith/belief/repentance, there's no gamble. In that person's mind, they have complete faith in what the outcome will be. It's only a gamble to those who think of it that way (i.e. those who think God may or may not be real = not true faith).

In that case, I think the confusion then lies in your statement that Pascal's Wager has anything to do with your faith (if you believe there's no gamble, then why are you stating that Pascal's Wager has anything to do with your faith?). If you want to re-think that position that's fine with me.
 
In that case, I think the confusion then lies in your statement that Pascal's Wager has anything to do with your faith (if you believe there's no gamble, then why are you stating that Pascal's Wager has anything to do with your faith?). If you want to re-think that position that's fine with me.

You're assuming Pascal's Wager is a contributing factor to my faith. It's not. I'm saying that logically, it does make sense. Logically, it describes Athiesm as the the less favorable choice. The wager itself cannot logically be a sole reason for belief as true belief requires more than simple acknowledgement of the wager.
 
You're assuming Pascal's Wager is a contributing factor to my faith. It's not. I'm saying that logically, it does make sense. Logically, it describes Athiesm as the the less favorable choice.

[FONT=&quot]
However, if you're assuming that Pascal's wager is the sole reason for my being a believer, you are very much incorrect.

[/FONT]It's not the sole reason for you being a believer (or a person of faith), but the fact that is it one of the reasons logically follows.

[FONT=&quot]
I was simply bringing it up as one of my personal reasons that the existence of God
makes more sense than being an Athiest. As childish as that sounds to such a developed mind as yours, it makes sense to me.
[/FONT]Personal reasons for the existence of God and trust in him/her/it = faith. hth.
[FONT=&quot]



[/FONT]
 
Back
Top Bottom