Pascal's Wager: What Have I Lost?

[Jude]

Malcolm Muggeridge had no moral authority to make ex cathedra pronouncements such as this. He was just a journalist, for goodness sake, and he was wrong.

Whether Muggeridge be pope or pauper your mere assertion that he is wrong is an unverifiable faith statement. It carries no authority at all, moral or otherwise. You're not Rousseau and I'm not Hobbes so there is no doubt a lesser probability that the universe has been fined tuned for life by chance than you or I breaking any new ground on this argument. However opinions should have some evidential support. As for the first part of Muggeridge's quote I would cite the existence and need for governments, systems of laws/enforcement to ensure that humanity behaves itself (in effect sacrificing some personal considerations for protection) as pretty good evidence that as a whole humans have learned to distrust other humans. Additionally I am unaware of any successful Anarchist States.

For all our negative impulses we have many positive ones as well, such as attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy and reciprocal altruism.

I thank God that you are not alone in assessing that mankind is worthy of redemption.

Well perhaps you're the one who's "depraved".

Guilty.

It wouldn't worry me.

Evidence that the second part of Muggeridge's statement is also true.

[stfoskey15]

In OUR minds, that is how we would like it to be. But that is not what God says.

And He is the standard-setter, we are not.

Why does God say that, in your minds?

[Tassman]

Whether Muggeridge be pope or pauper your mere assertion that he is wrong is an unverifiable faith statement. It carries no authority at all, moral or otherwise.

You're not Rousseau and I'm not Hobbes so there is no doubt a lesser probability that the universe has been fined tuned for life by chance than you or I breaking any new ground on this argument. However opinions should have some evidential support. As for the first part of Muggeridge's quote I would cite the existence and need for governments, systems of laws/enforcement to ensure that humanity behaves itself (in effect sacrificing some personal considerations for protection) as pretty good evidence that as a whole humans have learned to distrust other humans. Additionally I am unaware of any successful Anarchist States.

I thank God that you are not alone in assessing that mankind is worthy of redemption.

Guilty.

Evidence that the second part of Muggeridge's statement is also true.

[Doug Shaver]

Since my conversion I have become, over all, a better person. A better son, father, and employee. More generous, less selfish and more kind. Faith has also provided great comfort, and a hope for a life beyond this vale of tears. So in the end, if there is no God, what have I lost?

Maybe nothing, if getting religion was the only way for you to acquire those benefits.

[Jude]

Well this is just repetitious "I know you are but what am I" nonsense. The truth of the statement is carried by the entire weight of human existence. Handwave that away if you want but realize that it is the essence of being very highly self-opinionated.


What we see in fellow primates is a high level of aggression.


No
the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay , Romans 8:21


I'm living happily ever after already.

What we are witnessing in society today is lack of shame. I'll leave you to wallow in your delusional self-superiority.

[Sparko]

Mankind is the only moral and self-aware species. It is the only species that needs redemption.

[Roy]

Mankind is the only moral and self-aware species. It is the only species that needs redemption.

Hmmm. We're not the only self-aware species. Are you sure that dolphins aren't moral?

[Sparko]

Hmmm. We're not the only self-aware species. Are you sure that dolphins aren't moral?

Yes. They do not understand the moral implications of good and evil. That doesn't mean animals can't behave in good or bad ways, but the judgement of their actions being "bad" or "good" is our interpretation of them not theirs. They can feel emotions and react to them but they don't know that they are good or bad actions, morally speaking. Your dog might be affectionate and lick you instead of biting you, but that is because he loves you and reacts in behaviors that express that. He doesn't know his not biting you is "good"

[Starlight]

He doesn't know his not biting you is "good"

So why do people say "good dog"?

[Tassman]

Mankind is the only moral and self-aware species.

There are numerous self-aware species.

It is the only species that needs redemption.

[Sea of red]

Evil exists on a scale. The fact that you haven't murdered anyone doesn't mean you haven't performed evil. Opposition to God is in itself evil.

I don't know how many different ways I can try to make this clear to you. Allow me to underline it: I don't oppose the Christian God. Just like you don't "oppose" the Islamic concepts of God, I do not oppose the Christian God. It's kind of hard to oppose something you have every reason to believe is mythology, and no reason to think is reality. You guys always try to categorize nonbelief as some sort of disobedience, instead of just drawing the simple conclusion that I don't believe because I sincerely do not find Christianity to be backed by evidence.

I don't see how this is anything more than speculative evolutionary history. Humans would probably have survived fine in monogamous relationships.

By definition it is those animals that reproduce the most that carry the species further evolutionary - it's pretty simple to understand. Animals that do not reproduce in sufficient numbers eventually go extinct. So, no, humans wouldn't have survived if great multitudes of our ancestors had not sought out multiple partners to reproduce with. It's a biological reality I'm afraid.

You haven't shown it to be "obviously perfectly moral and natural" at all.

I say if something is the key ingredient to a species survival, it is perfectly natural and moral by nature.

What do you mean "destine to never recognize him"? Countless of people throughout the world during all of history have recognized Him.

And countless of people never did, have, or will, so what's your point? God creates these beings knowing full well ahead of time that their minds would not grasp his existence as being real, and so they were doomed before they were even born. Sorry, the whole thing about God giving us free will to reject him, yet knowing before we are even born that such is our destiny by his own design, is not something that can be reconciled with anything I'd call moral and good. Maybe if God had planned things out a little bit better divinely, and not worried so much about his ego being stroked, more people would recognize his existence.

But that's my opinion.

[JonathanL]

All self-aware creatures, including dolphins, are aware of what behaviours will or will not be tolerated by the group, and this constitutes the group's moral code of right and wrong

The bolded doesn't follow at all from what was stated before it. Behaviour in itself is not enough to show the existence of a moral code.

[Sea of red]

Sure I am opposing them if they do exist. Loki might be pretty pissed at me. If they exist, I am sure they don't appreciate me not worshiping them. I am screwed.

What is it with all of these deities so concerned about whether they're worshiped or not? What kind of conciseness could be so ego centered and obsessed with themselves, that they are more concerned with whether they are loved and adored than even the most basic welfare of the world they are responsible for - look around. No person is entitled to love and worship. Not your partner, not your parents, not your friends, not your children, and not even God. Every relationship is based on each persons presence within that relationship, and what they bring to the table - not if they are related in some way.

[Tassman]

What is it with all of these deities so concerned about whether they're worshiped or not? What kind of conciseness could be so ego centered and obsessed with themselves, that they are more concerned with whether they are loved and adored than even the most basic welfare of the world they are responsible for - look around. No person is entitled to love and worship. Not your partner, not your parents, not your friends, not your children, and not even God. Every relationship is based on each persons presence within that relationship, and what they bring to the table - not if they are related in some way.

[Tassman]

The bolded doesn't follow at all from what was stated before it. Behaviour in itself is not enough to show the existence of a moral code.

Behaviour that consciously chooses between what is acceptable or unacceptable to the group shows the existence of a moral code within that group.