I don't know if you saw my conversation with Wrick-It-Ralph in the comments, but I will tell you what I told him.
Even though I am putting this idea forward, I am an atheist.
When I first thought of this revision to Pascel's Wager, it sounded reasonable. But I knew that I needed to put up to the scrutiny of others before I even considered adopting it. That is basically what I am doing on this website. I thought that I would attempt to defend this position. I figured that if others were unable to find flaws with it, then I would adopt the philosophy.
At the current point in our debate, it seems my objections are weak. What you are saying makes sense, and what Wrick-It-Ralph has said makes sense. The revision to Pascel's Wager has been completely undermined for me.
I thought that I should still continue with the debate to hone my argumentative skills, but it feels dishonest.
For these reasons I concede.
If you are currently working on a response to my last argument, I would be fine if you posted it as I'm sure I would find it interesting. It's your choice.
Even though I am putting this idea forward, I am an atheist.
When I first thought of this revision to Pascel's Wager, it sounded reasonable. But I knew that I needed to put up to the scrutiny of others before I even considered adopting it. That is basically what I am doing on this website. I thought that I would attempt to defend this position. I figured that if others were unable to find flaws with it, then I would adopt the philosophy.
At the current point in the actual debate, it seems my objections are weak. What my opponent is saying makes sense, and what you have said makes sense. The revision to Pascel's Wager has been completely undermined for me.
I thought that I should still continue with the debate to hone my argumentative skills, but it feels dishonest.
Funny enough, this is my first argument on this website and have no idea how to forfeit.
Ok. So let's say that two people are playing a chess game. One of them is a gambler and makes his chess moves based on one philosophy and no others. The other is an experienced chess player. If they both play 500 games and the gambler wins the majority, would it not be reasonable to say you should emulate the gambler rather than the experienced chess player?
It makes sense that some faith systems require more than simple belief for salvation. It also makes sense that if you aren't sincere to a specific faith system then you aren't sincere to any of them. It would be hard to please a God when you have no sense of what he/she/it wants you to do. Since you don't know what he/she/it wants you to do, I guess the hope is that a genuine seeking for the truth will be enough to avoid the punishment of Hell. Problem with this is that maybe the God would rather you be an atheist before you can come to a solid conclusion rather using this revision.
Another issue with all this is that doing things like upholding the five pillars of faith is unequivocally tied to the concept of Hell. I don't know of any faith system that lets you avoid Hell just by hoping to communicate with whatever God exists.
Even with these issues my original thesis still stands. Atheism seems to have the same problems as this revision. So it stands to reason that they are equally defensible positions.
The philosophy still takes care of Hell. If you believe in whatever God exists, then you will automatically avoid whatever Hell exists. Does this make sense or have I misunderstood?
Ok. We'll see what happens.
I don't know if you saw my conversation with Wrick-It-Ralph in the comments, but I will tell you what I told him.
Even though I am putting this idea forward, I am an atheist.
When I first thought of this revision to Pascel's Wager, it sounded reasonable. But I knew that I needed to put up to the scrutiny of others before I even considered adopting it. That is basically what I am doing on this website. I thought that I would attempt to defend this position. I figured that if others were unable to find flaws with it, then I would adopt the philosophy.
At the current point in our debate, it seems my objections are weak. What you are saying makes sense, and what Wrick-It-Ralph has said makes sense. The revision to Pascel's Wager has been completely undermined for me.
I thought that I should still continue with the debate to hone my argumentative skills, but it feels dishonest.
For these reasons I concede.
If you are currently working on a response to my last argument, I would be fine if you posted it as I'm sure I would find it interesting. It's your choice.
Makes sense.
Let me explain a few things.
Even though I am putting this idea forward, I am an atheist.
When I first thought of this revision to Pascel's Wager, it sounded reasonable. But I knew that I needed to put up to the scrutiny of others before I even considered adopting it. That is basically what I am doing on this website. I thought that I would attempt to defend this position. I figured that if others were unable to find flaws with it, then I would adopt the philosophy.
At the current point in the actual debate, it seems my objections are weak. What my opponent is saying makes sense, and what you have said makes sense. The revision to Pascel's Wager has been completely undermined for me.
I thought that I should still continue with the debate to hone my argumentative skills, but it feels dishonest.
Funny enough, this is my first argument on this website and have no idea how to forfeit.
Excuse me for being out of the loop but what is DART?
Ok. So let's say that two people are playing a chess game. One of them is a gambler and makes his chess moves based on one philosophy and no others. The other is an experienced chess player. If they both play 500 games and the gambler wins the majority, would it not be reasonable to say you should emulate the gambler rather than the experienced chess player?
I have not read the Pensées. I only knew about Pascel's Wager from what I have read and seen online. In fact I didn't know the Pensées even existed.
It makes sense that some faith systems require more than simple belief for salvation. It also makes sense that if you aren't sincere to a specific faith system then you aren't sincere to any of them. It would be hard to please a God when you have no sense of what he/she/it wants you to do. Since you don't know what he/she/it wants you to do, I guess the hope is that a genuine seeking for the truth will be enough to avoid the punishment of Hell. Problem with this is that maybe the God would rather you be an atheist before you can come to a solid conclusion rather using this revision.
Another issue with all this is that doing things like upholding the five pillars of faith is unequivocally tied to the concept of Hell. I don't know of any faith system that lets you avoid Hell just by hoping to communicate with whatever God exists.
Even with these issues my original thesis still stands. Atheism seems to have the same problems as this revision. So it stands to reason that they are equally defensible positions.
The philosophy still takes care of Hell. If you believe in whatever God exists, then you will automatically avoid whatever Hell exists. Does this make sense or have I misunderstood?