The truth at last

On Mar 13, 10:44 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote . net:
More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

wrote:
Scott Seidman wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.
Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.

Why should I be appalled ? You've already admitted it that it works
well in convincing the weak-minded. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

wrote:

On Mar 13, 10:44 am, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote . net:

More unable than unwilling, I imagine. So the crystal ball isn't
perfect, it's still better to do something than nothing. Reducing
greenhouse gases certainly won't make the problem worse but it
might make the situation a little better.

Or it might not. My agnosticism might damn me to hell if there really is a
God. Should I thus believe, because its thus the safest option?


That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken


well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:
wrote:
That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken

wrote:
On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:

wrote:

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?


I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken


as we were talking about global warming, and the "safe wager" of
minimizing human contribution, causes, etc...

the "after-life" comment was meant only to be humorous reference to
pascal's wager...purely a tongue-in-cheek aside. ... some might say
it's the best or better bet...i chose safe because it seems to me a
wager grounded on "comfort".

....and... i doubt you can't help yourself. but, if you need solace,
there is always the "infinite nothing" alternative. g

your turn...

On 13 Mar 2007 20:35:20 -0700, "
wrote:

On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:
wrote:
That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken

Postulate that there is a god / are gods, but they're hidden, so we
ordinary mortals can't see any evidence of them.

If we turn agnostic, then the gods may blame us, but they may also be
understanding (doubtful, from all the god legends I've heard).
However, if we don't believe, but pretend to believe and the god /
gods are omniscient, I'd suspect that the pretense is going to be put
down as a black mark / flunk grade by said gods. And there's no doubt
whatever that black marks from gods tend to lead to bad experiences.
Most gods make the nastier of our last two presidents (choose
whichever one is opposite your party of preference.) look like sweetie
pies. You've got your choice of Arkansas State Troopers with guns and
billy clubs and Vince Foster versus Gitmo and the military prisons in
Iraq for starters.

There's no way pretending to believe comes off as a safe or secure
option as far as I can see.

My safe bet for after death is decomposition, just like any other
animal or virus or plant or rock. If I wake up to something else,
I'll be one surprized chickie. Because I can't come up with any
philosophy / belief system that treats humans as any different than
any other form of living matter (or mineral, for that, too.) to me.

--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher.
Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Cyli wrote:

On 13 Mar 2007 20:35:20 -0700, "
wrote:


On Mar 13, 5:54 pm, jeff wrote:

wrote:

That's actually used to convert the weak-minded. (See Pascal's Wager)
KenF should be appalled that he's using the same logical argument as
the fundies.
- Ken

well damn... i hadn't yet reached your post when i did the pascal ploy
on our friend scott... but, i disagree with the "weak-minded" ploy.
it's actually a strong argument in matters unscientific to say "what's
the harm", isn't it?

if you're going to bet on a potentially life-altering (or after-life)
issue, why not the safe wager?

I just can't help myself. What exactly is the "safe wager"
for the after-life?
- Ken


Postulate that there is a god / are gods, but they're hidden, so we
ordinary mortals can't see any evidence of them.

If we turn agnostic, then the gods may blame us, but they may also be
understanding (doubtful, from all the god legends I've heard).
However, if we don't believe, but pretend to believe and the god /
gods are omniscient, I'd suspect that the pretense is going to be put
down as a black mark / flunk grade by said gods. And there's no doubt
whatever that black marks from gods tend to lead to bad experiences.
Most gods make the nastier of our last two presidents (choose
whichever one is opposite your party of preference.) look like sweetie
pies. You've got your choice of Arkansas State Troopers with guns and
billy clubs and Vince Foster versus Gitmo and the military prisons in
Iraq for starters.

There's no way pretending to believe comes off as a safe or secure
option as far as I can see.

My safe bet for after death is decomposition, just like any other
animal or virus or plant or rock. If I wake up to something else,
I'll be one surprized chickie. Because I can't come up with any
philosophy / belief system that treats humans as any different than
any other form of living matter (or mineral, for that, too.) to me.


one of the criticisms of the wager. still, developing a pretense wasn't
the goal of the wager though. ...