The term “believer” is more appropriately assigned to one who accepts teachings that are beyond demonstration for the most part.
It is an example of righteous self interest.
When he’s married he is no longer a bachelor.
Only Fundamentalists interpret the OT literally.
No one has unbridled freedom. We are all restricted by our limited intelligence, lack of knowledge, physical weakness, social customs, legal sanctions and, above all, by death. Nor have you explained what “reasonable restrictions” would consist of - nor how they would be implemented.
If you appreciate the value of life it should be obvious what the purpose is. What is your explanation? Or do you think life is worthless? A touch of consistency would be in order as far as you’re concerned… and I don’t get any pay…Oh, and you are way above your “pay-grade” if you think that you know the purpose of that “blueprint”. A touch of humility would be in order.
Because no one has produced a feasible blueprint of a perfect world.
The best test of any belief is how people live. Atheist**s **behave as if God doesn’t exist. They don’t pray on the offchance that they might be heard. You’re an excellent example of a militant atheist who attacks religion as a superstition and tries to bring it into disrepute - like Dawkins who describes religious education as child abuse.
Neat! And it doesn’t mean help others before they help you - unless you have an ulterior motive.
Ye gods. You are doubling down on this? Treat other people as you would hope to be treated yourself is righteous self interest?
So you believe a lot of stuff… but belief (no matter how strongly believed) does not constitute knowledge.
You believe a lot of stuff, too.
The point is that I do NOT confuse beliefs with knowledge.You believe a lot of stuff, too.
What is “knowledge” but a justified belief Vera?
That is not the correct definition. Usually, it is called “justified TRUE belief”. But without a way to VERIFY one’s mental image, it cannot be called “justified TRUE belief”.
CCC 1759 An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.
The thread isn’t about what a wondrously nice guy Pascal was :tsktsk: mamá.
I don’t speak of God as bogie man, the wager does.
Self-interest: 1. a concern for one’s own advantage and well-being <acted out of self–interest and fear> 2. one’s own interest or advantage <self–interest requires that we be generous in foreign aid>What is the evil trait?
I think you’ll find that Pascal’s argument doesn’t contain any clause requiring us to do that (although some of us have), but in any event we’re discussing the argument as laid out in the OP, so what you said here is ad hominem fallacy.
It is a greater evil to let a person reject God **unreasonably **than to appeal to his self-interest - which for Christians is not identical with selfishness..“playground name-calling” is an unjustified term of abuse whereas it is a fact that for Christians self-interest is not identical with selfishness…
Your objection is based on a total distortion of Pascal’s argument:
The OP did not make the following assertions:
You should be capable of recognising Pascal’s true argument rather than deliberately distorting it:
-wikipedia
You should be capable of recognising Pascal’s true argument rather than deliberately distorting it.
False!
-wikipedia
**The wager is not intended for Christians **but for atheists who reject Christ’s teaching. Pascal is using the thin end of the wedge to persuade them to give Christianity an opportunity to prove its worth rather than write them off as hopeless cases and just ignore them…
It’s better to have the whole picture of Pascal. If you don’t know anything about his personal life and the times he lived in, you will have a distorted image of his wager. But hey, that’s how most people argue these days, without very good knowledge, just off the top of their heads.
The thing is that at that time, everyone was aware of the teachings of the Church, but they chose to ignore them and pursue money. Today many people have no religious upbringing at all. So atheists today and atheists at that time are a breed apart. But still, I think his wager is valid.
The lesser of two evils - “It is a serious problem that this “principle,” now apparently part of our national lexicon of political ethics, is being mouthed by Catholics. If the relevant Wikipedia article is correct, the origin of the principle is found in U.S. foreign policy statecraft of the Cold-War era. Whatever its source, the dictum is anything but Catholic.” - catholicism.org/lesser-of-two-evils.html
You said that before and I chose not to respond. I said playground because I think your “unreasonable and unChristian” was an unjustified term of abuse, but let’s not get into baiting. Peace.
“Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.” - Phil 2
I think your editing went awry there as points were repeated, but again, I joined the thread to discuss the OP, and if you think it doesn’t accurately represent Pascal’s argument then it would be better to post your comments to the thread starter.
