If god is true, why are christians so terrible at debating?

[Rhea]

Pascal's Wager would work equally well as an argument for any instance where you have nothing to lose by being accidentally being right and everything to lose by deliberately being wrong.
And "God" is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

I'm pretty sure science uses Pascals Wager too. (When it suits them)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/pdf/ehp0109-000871.pdf

My dear, there is a LOT to lose by taking Pascal's wager and betting on the Christian God.
Example: all the people who use their unshakable christian faith to deny climate change and destroy the entire fucking planet.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, how would Pascal's Wager apply to something with an actual, not false, dichotomy?

Like flipping a coin?

The coin will come up either heads or tails.
We can wager on either the result of heads, or the result of tails.

If it comes up heads, and we wagered heads, then we win.
If it comes up heads, and we wagered tails, we lose.
IF it comes up tails, and we wagered heads, we lose.
If it comes up tails, and we wagered tails, we win.
So the only way to win is to choose heads or tails.And the only way to lose is to choose heads or tails.

Clearly, this is a wonderful tool for evaluating our options in this consideration...

 

[Random Person]

"Other considerations" would mean non-religious considerations in this context.

it's still a fallacious argument. Using a fallacy for 'other considerations' would still be using a flawed tool and acting surprised when you get flawed results.

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix. It's not a good argument for God that even Christians point out (for different reasons than you probably do).

 

[Rhea]

Or not, you know. You'll just be exhibit... what's the count, Rhea?

Well it was gonna be "D" but I can't decide how to score the guy who just told two people who have been Americans for a combined total of well more than 100 years that "we don't do that in America," so, do I just give him a D+ ?

Or double-D?

I'm loath to make it sound desirable.

So we call the "we don't use that word like that in America" comment Exhibit D
and this new one Exhibit F.

 

[Random Person]

So, how would Pascal's Wager apply to something with an actual, not false, dichotomy?

Like flipping a coin?

The coin will come up either heads or tails.
We can wager on either the result of heads, or the result of tails.

If it comes up heads, and we wagered heads, then we win.
If it comes up heads, and we wagered tails, we lose.
IF it comes up tails, and we wagered heads, we lose.
If it comes up tails, and we wagered tails, we win.
So the only way to win is to choose heads or tails.And the only way to lose is to choose heads or tails.

Clearly, this is a wonderful tool for evaluating our options in this consideration...

No. Not like flipping a coin.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pascal's Wager would work equally well as an argument for any instance where you have nothing to lose by being accidentally being right and everything to lose by deliberately being wrong.

Well, 1) what if your attempt ot be right is the choice that's deliberately wrong?
What if the god you worship is NOT the one who will judge you in the afterlife?

And, 2) I did not deliberately choose atheism. I just found my original religion less and less compelling, and none of the alternatives seemed any better. If there's any element of honesty in salvation, I'm better of being honest atheist, than pretending to choose a religion i don't find convincing.

And "God" is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

Meh. Threats. Threats about something i don't find to be a reasonable possibility.

I'm pretty sure science uses Pascals Wager too. (When it suits them)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/pdf/ehp0109-000871.pdf

Where in any of that text is the use of Pascal's Wager? .

- - - Updated - - -

"Other considerations" would mean non-religious considerations in this context.

it's still a fallacious argument. Using a fallacy for 'other considerations' would still be using a flawed tool and acting surprised when you get flawed results.

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix. It's not a good argument for God that even Christians point out (for different reasons than you probably do).

You're repeating yourself, but not offering any situation where it's a useful tool for analysis.

 

[Lion IRC]

"Other considerations" would mean non-religious considerations in this context.

it's still a fallacious argument. Using a fallacy for 'other considerations' would still be using a flawed tool and acting surprised when you get flawed results.

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix. It's not a good argument for God that even Christians point out (for different reasons than you probably do).

Pascals Wager simply says give God the benefit of the doubt.
Of course if you are certain about your atheism you don't have to worry about being wrong.
But I thought atheists only acted on absolutely incontrovertible empirical evidence so I (naturally) expect them to be able to present that evidence on demand.
....because, you know #repeatable #falsifiable #etc

 

[Keith&Co.]

[

No. Not like flipping a coin.

'Kay. You're still not offering any situation where it's a useful tool for analysis. Wasn't it you that accused Underseer, if he COULD find fault, he would have posted it?

If you DID have a situation where PW is useful, wouldn't you have posted it by now? Unless you're just playing a game of keep away...


OR, maybe it's performance art? Throwing out unsupported assertions to show that Christains aren't the only ones who suck at debate?

 

[Rhea]

We don't use the word "cheer" that way in America. We don't cheer the team one when they are losing for instance.

What's this "we" shit, white eyes?
Okay, I had to come back to this because it's really quite funny.

Just the observation that Keith & Co has been a member here for 12 years and lists his location as Massachusetts should be your first clue that he has a fair handle on what's done in America. Second clue, if you pay attention is noting that he's retired from the Navy. That'd be the US Navy, tho maybe that's not a given. But add to the Massachusetts thing, and you've got a fair hypothesis going.

One can further observe that I've been a member here for 17 years, so I'm at least probably not fresh out of high school or anything. As for whether I'm American, I suppose you might not know at first glance - fair enough - But a glance at my spelling may make you perhaps pause in assigning me a lack of understanding of all things American. Still being a member here for 17 years (It's actually 19, but I changed my name) suggests I might be aware of how Americans talk. And me saying that I _was_ a cheerleader is a big huge clue, since non-Americans typically... aren't.


So what made you decide to tell us that the words we use aren't how it's done in America.


That's just - really - downright funny.

We don't use the word "cheer" that way in America

Seriously?

Yes we do. I'm an American who was a cheerleader. Dude. You're so wrong.
And that is very funny. Thank you for the laugh!

 

[Opoponax]

So, how would Pascal's Wager apply to something with an actual, not false, dichotomy?

Like flipping a coin?

The coin will come up either heads or tails.
We can wager on either the result of heads, or the result of tails.

If it comes up heads, and we wagered heads, then we win.
If it comes up heads, and we wagered tails, we lose.
IF it comes up tails, and we wagered heads, we lose.
If it comes up tails, and we wagered tails, we win.
So the only way to win is to choose heads or tails.And the only way to lose is to choose heads or tails.

Clearly, this is a wonderful tool for evaluating our options in this consideration...

No. Not like flipping a coin.

True. It's actually much worse than that. To choose the right god, you not only have to choose the right religion (e.g. Christianity), you have to choose the right sect. I don't remember how many different sects of Christianity there are (I've heard as many as 3,000), but let's just call it 100 to be incredibly generous. Sooooo...

You probably have to be born into a family at a certain time in history that adheres to the 1 in 100 sects in order to get it right. If you're not born into those circumstances then you have to randomly choose which one is right. To do that, you'd have to spend your entire life studying the Bible and each sect one at at a time, and be correct about your own interpretation of the Bible so that it happens to match up with the sect you eventually go with. So really, you're just as well off making up your own sect. But then that would make you the only one who gets it right, which doesn't seem like good odds.

Personally, if one chooses to go with Christianity, it would seem that Catholicism is the way to go because it's straight from the Source, or at least as close as one could get. But wait! Which form of Catholicism does one choose:


Western Rites:

Latin Rite

Roman Rite
Ambrosian Rite
Mozarabic Rite
Anglican Rite
Carthusian Rite

Eastern Rites:

Alexandrian Rite

Coptic Church
Eritrean Church
Ethiopic Church

Antiochian Rite

Maronite Church
Syro-Malankar Church
Syriac Church
Armenian Rite

Aremenian Church
Chaldean Rite

Chaldean Church
Syro-Malabar Church
Byzantine Rite

Albanese Church
Belarussian Church
Bulgarian Church
Croatian Church
Greek Church
Greek-Melkite Church
Hungarian Church
Italo-Albanese Church
Macedonian Church
Romanian Church
Russian Church
Ruthenian Church
Slovak
Ukrainian Church

Finally, what if the sect that had it right went out of business hundreds or maybe even more than a thousand years ago?

Uh-oh!

So yes, it really isn't like flipping a coin. Face it, we're all going to Hell. I look forward to meeting you in person.

 

[Rhea]

Well, 1) what if your attempt ot be right is the choice that's deliberately wrong?
What if the god you worship is NOT the one who will judge you in the afterlife?

[...]

Just FYI, that wasn't me. Unless I wrote it a wicked long time ago, like before the margaritas I'm enjoying tonight.

 

[Keith&Co.]

[
Just FYI, that wasn't me. .

Sorry. I have Lion on ignore, and can only respond to when he's quoted. SO it should link back to the post where you qwoted him...

 

[Rhea]

[
Just FYI, that wasn't me. .

Sorry. I have Lion on ignore, and can only respond to when he's quoted. SO it should link back to the post where you qwoted him...

Gotcha. Now I know I can finish my margarita.

 

[Random Person]

We don't use the word "cheer" that way in America. We don't cheer the team one when they are losing for instance.

What's this "we" shit, white eyes?
Okay, I had to come back to this because it's really quite funny.

Just the observation that Keith & Co has been a member here for 12 years and lists his location as Massachusetts should be your first clue that he has a fair handle on what's done in America. Second clue, if you pay attention is noting that he's retired from the Navy. That'd be the US Navy, tho maybe that's not a given. But add to the Massachusetts thing, and you've got a fair hypothesis going.

One can further observe that I've been a member here for 17 years, so I'm at least probably not fresh out of high school or anything. As for whether I'm American, I suppose you might not know at first glance - fair enough - But a glance at my spelling may make you perhaps pause in assigning me a lack of understanding of all things American. Still being a member here for 17 years (It's actually 19, but I changed my name) suggests I might be aware of how Americans talk. And me saying that I _was_ a cheerleader is a big huge clue, since non-Americans typically... aren't.


So what made you decide to tell us that the words we use aren't how it's done in America.


That's just - really - downright funny.

We don't use the word "cheer" that way in America

Seriously?

Yes we do. I'm an American who was a cheerleader. Dude. You're so wrong.
And that is very funny. Thank you for the laugh!

I hope you don't consider length of membership on a forum as an accomplishment.

 

[Random Person]

[

No. Not like flipping a coin.

'Kay. You're still not offering any situation where it's a useful tool for analysis. Wasn't it you that accused Underseer, if he COULD find fault, he would have posted it?

If you DID have a situation where PW is useful, wouldn't you have posted it by now? Unless you're just playing a game of keep away...


OR, maybe it's performance art? Throwing out unsupported assertions to show that Christains aren't the only ones who suck at debate?

I'll give you an example of what a decision matrix is.

A car owner considers buying insurance in a state where it's optional.

If I buy insurance and don't have an accident I'll have lost $x.
If I buy insurance and do have an accident...
(You get where I'm going right?)

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix.

I don't think it is a valid argument or reason for believing in God though.

 

[Rhea]

I hope you don't consider length of membership on a forum as an accomplishment.

No. As I carefully pointed out - it was a clue available to you that I would know perfectly well how we use words in America.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, that's the salient detail of her post.

 

[Rhea]

I'll give you an example of what a decision matrix is.

A car owner considers buying insurance in a state where it's optional.

If I buy insurance and don't have an accident I'll have lost $x.
If I buy insurance and do have an accident...
(You get where I'm going right?)

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix.

I don't think it is a valid argument or reason for believing in God though.

You really think Pascal wrote the first decision matrix? (removing this because if you say "first formalized" then the argument exists that his probabilities equal decision. Not needing to argue that.)

Also, how much of a matrix is it when you only list one insurance company and one single policy?
Just as Pascal argued that there's only one religion to put into the matrix.

 

[Random Person]

I'll give you an example of what a decision matrix is.

A car owner considers buying insurance in a state where it's optional.

If I buy insurance and don't have an accident I'll have lost $x.
If I buy insurance and do have an accident...
(You get where I'm going right?)

Pascal wrote the first decision matrix.

I don't think it is a valid argument or reason for believing in God though.

You really think Pascal wrote the first decision matrix?

Also, how much of a matrix is it when you only list one insurance company and one single policy?

I really think Pascal wrote the first decision matrix. If I'm wrong I welcome your correction.

I think we've come a long way in the last 400 years. Please excuse my clumsy example, my intention was to provide a decion everyone would be familiar with. Pascal wouldn't know what I was talking about.

 

[Rhea]

I really think Pascal wrote the first decision matrix. If I'm wrong I welcome your correction.

I edited above. Some may call his work the first "formalized" matrix and I have no need to argue that.

I think we've come a long way in the last 400 years. Please excuse my clumsy example, my intention was to provide a decion everyone would be familiar with. Pascal wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Well the example is exactly as clumsy as Pascals. so it's not a bad example, right?
But yes, Pascal is clumsy for assuming only one god, and one description of god.

Ludic fallacy
Main article: Ludic fallacy
A general criticism of decision theory based on a fixed universe of possibilities is that it considers the "known unknowns", not the "unknown unknowns"[citation needed]: it focuses on expected variations, not on unforeseen events, which some argue (as in black swan theory) have outsized impact and must be considered – significant events may be "outside model". This line of argument, called the ludic fallacy, is that there are inevitable imperfections in modeling the real world by particular models, and that unquestioning reliance on models blinds one to their limits.