Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 220

On April 01 2015 11:16 Millitron wrote:

You're forgetting that it is equally likely that you only get your great afterlife if you believe there is no afterlife. Being correct in and of itself is no reward. Being right or wrong doesn't matter. The point is which one gets you into heaven. It is equally likely that you will be rewarded for being wrong as it is that you will be rewarded for being right.

On April 01 2015 11:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:


And if Pascal's wager was about the Best way into heaven then this would be a valid argument.

However, Pascal's wager is about the consequences of the rewards of being right. Wanting to change the discourse is fine, but you need to state that you no longer wish to discuss the wager and no simply start talking about other concepts outside of the initial premise.

On April 01 2015 11:15 Acrofales wrote:

No. I think everybody is just tired of trying to plod through 18-paragraph posts that reiterate the same point you made in your previous 18-paragraph post but is still wrong.

What Millitron is trying to point out is that one of the N possibilities might be a rather quirky God, who only lets people into heaven if they DON'T believe in any god.

So no. In this case, the reward for religious people (all brands) is X (or if he is particularly petty, he lets them rot in hell for all eternity) and for atheists it is X + Y.

So in other words, there is no magic chosen one (atheism) out of the infinite possibilities that gets no possible reward at the end of the tunnel. There are simply N possibilities (in fact, it became an argument FOR atheism: atheists (might) get their cake and eat it too). Providing yet another counter-argument to Pascal's wager.

And no, you are not a special little snowflake for having found a flaw in his argument. As this thread has shown, there are numerous counter-arguments, none of which Pascal is alive to argue against, so we win. Can we now please go back to discussing the merits of shoving a girl through a door after you hold it open for her and other stupid questions?

On April 01 2015 11:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:


And if Pascal's wager was about the Best way into heaven then this would be a valid argument.

However, Pascal's wager is about the consequences of the rewards of being right. Wanting to change the discourse is fine, but you need to state that you no longer wish to discuss the wager and no simply start talking about other concepts outside of the initial premise.

On April 01 2015 11:36 Millitron wrote:

It's still related though because it is equally likely that you will be rewarded for being wrong. So Pascal is wrong when he says believing there's no afterlife can get you nothing.

On April 01 2015 11:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:


And if that was his stance, he would be. But he does say that we cannot know which one is right--but that there is no benefit to being correct with believing in no afterlife. When you're wrong about there being no afterlife the rewards or punishments is unknown, but the reward is constant and knowable (nothing)

And so if you believe the only way into heaven is not having an afterlife--you can easily make that your afterlife of choice. Nothing wrong with it.

On April 01 2015 09:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
is there any theoretical way to get close to or surpass the speed of light while somehow managing to avoid the problem off time dilation?

On April 01 2015 15:28 Cascade wrote:
Can you 4 guys go somewhere else with that discussion none else cares about? It seems like you are ending up with personal insults now, so you are probably done anyway.

Thanks.

On April 01 2015 10:56 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:



another question that's a little similar. any solid theoretical physics attempts at space travel recently? I have a book from 1993 that talks about ramjets, boussard's rocket, arks and the like but was wondering if there's anything more recent

On April 01 2015 11:19 IgnE wrote:
Stupid question for the ask and answer stupid questions thread:

Does magpie know that he's moron or is he truly just that dumb?

On April 01 2015 22:54 fruity. wrote:
T Minus To potential epic-ness. But for what?

On March 31 2015 23:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:

Oh, and would you care to enlighten us farvacola? There's nothing interesting about anything oneofthem has said. The crux of his argument is that scientific knowledge that has given all of our technology, our means of controling the environment around us cannot be proven to be taken as true, because of the assumption that reality has causality, is merely an assumption. It's boring and it doesn't lead anywhere. Not to mention that as far as anybody but the insane (literally), reality do follow assumptions. When you move parts of your body, your arm doesn't just simply disappear and reappear somewhere else for instance. When you throw a ball the same way within set conditions, it does tend to land in the same place. When you put food in your fridge, the food doesn't disappear unless someone has eaten it when you weren't looking. If you put an object in a box, when you open the box, the object will still be there. When you fall asleep in your bed in your room, you don't wake up on the moon. When you look into a mirror, that is a reflection of your person, not another person. These are all assumptions. Basically oneofthem has said something you think is immensely interesting to you, or you don't fully grasp the concept, but really it is dreadfully circular and mundane and ultimately leads nowhere.