Slythe - this “disrespecting” goes both ways. Rousseau rambled on about why he believed. Actually answering the OP. Ended up by saying
And your so respectful response was:
I didn’t think Rousseau was trying to “tell anyone” what to believe in, just rambling on about why he believed what he did. Answering the OP. (What a concept!)
So, after your oh-so-“respectful” quip, Rousseau “respectfully” quips back (parroting your use of the word “silly”):
And so you claim that:
So…what do you do? Give some well-explained, articulate and detailed question about the specifics of Rousseau’s post? Uh, no. You just mention it being “silly”. The OP specifically welcomed
I did not find your little reference to “silly” exactly “thoughtful”.
Not really, you just said “silly”. Doesn’t give a lot for Rousseau to work with.
Not really. You got what you gave out. You made some snippy little reference to “silly”. Rousseau did the same back. I see no reason for you to whine about how you’ve been “insulted”.
Yosemitebabe, Rousseau tried to mis-use Pascal’s Wager to show why it was more logical to believe in God than not to, and I pointed out that it doesn’t point out which god to believe in, thus invalidating the Wager. For this I was called silly, without explanation, and dismissed. Rousseau’s reason for calling the explanation I gave silly has YET to be explained, but my reason to call her reasoning silly I explained.
If you or Rousseau can find fault with my reasoning, go right ahead, but just calling it silly, without any explanation whatsoever, is insulting.
Rousseau: “The bowers of the bowerbirds have a purpose that preceeds personal expression. Name for me one animal that creates things solely for the purpose of expressing beliefs or emotions.”
Huh? You object to this form of art because it is used to communicate something specific? Do you also reject love poetry as a form of artistic expression? Maybe you should be more specific about what sort of things qualify as art.
That sounds “disrespectful” and all too brief for me. Not thoughtful, like the OP welcomed. The use of “silly” is insulting. You felt like Rousseau’s use of the word “silly” in reply to you as “insulting”, yet you started it all by introducing the word into this conversation. If you had wanted a more comprehensive and coherent reply, why could you have not been more polite and articulate with your original question? One does not expect you to be all deference or excruciatingly polite, but a little less snippy would have helped get a more “respectful” reply.
Why fire off a snide little quip and then complain about being “insulted” when you do not receive politeness and civility back?
Yosemitebabe, Pascal’s Wager has been shown to be silly way too many times on this board for me to argue about it now. If you have a specific problem with my interpretation of it, I would love to hear it. More specifically, Rousseau’s dismissal without reason of my posting would be appreciated. Or we can continue this game of attacking the poster instead of the post, instead.
Slythe: You’re just not grasping what I’m getting at here. It’s not your question, it’s the snotty way you phrased it. Would it have killed you to say “I find your logic faulty, could you elaborate?” It gets the point across - it’s not deferential, but it’s not overtly rude.
But instead you were snotty. Not for the first time on this board, I might add. And then you feign surprise when the object of your snide post does not respond well to your snottiness. And, in fact, throws your snottiness back and dismisses you. Gosh - some people do that when they are asked something in a rude way. What a shock.
And now, when I challenge your methods of asking (not the legitimacy of the core question, which would be a valid one if brought forth with some semblance of civility) you purposely ignore my point.
Fine. Be snotty. Be amazed when people dismiss you for being snotty, or don’t take you as seriously as they might if you were more civil. And then act grieved when they are snotty back, and act all offended. You poor, poor dear. People are so mean to you.
Yosemitebabe, YOU don’t get it. I am not the subject here. But just to assage your delicate feelings, I will rephrase the question.
Rousseau, in what way does Pascal’s Wager point to the belief in your particular god system?
Oh, by the way, Rousseau didn’t say that she was insulted by my post, she simply said that she was going to ignore it. I’m am not the one that brought up Pascal’s Wager, she was. She can either defend it, explain it, or retract it, but shouldn’t dismiss questions about it.
Oh, and Yosemitebabe? I don’t care how snotty people are towards me, as long as they don’t use it as a cheap excuse not to answer a direct challange to a point made.
[humbly]Would someone kindly tell me how Pascal’s Wager points to a particular belief system, and not to all belief systems in general? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.[/humbly]
[Real World]People don’t always respond well to snotty and rude questions.[/Real World]
The fact that you don’t mind being asked something in a rude way does not negate the fact that a lot of people do resent it.
[Real World]When approached in a rude way, some people resond in a rude way back.[/Real World]
There are consequences to how you approach something. Why not acknowlege it? Why act all grieved when someone reacts poorly to your rudness? Why act as if you did nothing to prompt the rude reaction that you get?
Oh you poor dear. People are so mean to you. They actually (gasp!) don’t respond well to your rudeness. The nerve of them.
Yosemitebabe, I am just trying to get an answer to a question. If you want to turn this into a rant about me, why don’t you go start a thread in the BBQ Pit about me. I got your point three posts ago, but I still haven’t gotten a reply from Rousseau, or anyone else, about my challenge to Pascal’s Wager, WHICH IS THE TOPIC I AM TRYING TO TALK ABOUT!
Sorry about the yelling, but I have asked the question, rephrased the question, repeated the question, explained the question; I have done everything but send the message via FTD with a bouquet of roses and a bunch of Smurfy balloons.
Stop critiqueing the question, and answer the damn thing, pretty please with sugar on top?
You got my point three posts ago? Amazing. You could have fooled me. You have been sarcastic, and have acted grieved because someone had the audacity to not take your snidely-phrased question with the seriousness and respect you feel it deserved. But if you say you “get it”, fine.
I am not here to answer your question - I never was. You can wait on Rousseau for that. I never presented the “silly” post - he did. All I was trying to do is give you some sort of insight as to why Rousseau possibly blew off your question in the first place. (…Since you complained about his response, and alluded to being “insulted” by him.) Don’t you feel better now? I’ve provided you with a reason as to why you were “insulted” and given “disrespect”.
And now that we have that all resolved, back to the OP!
Thank you, Miss Manners. You may now go patrol the other Forums for chances to kill flies with bazookas. When you actually have something to say about the topic itself, I will gladly share postings with you.
It’s been real.
Back to the topic at hand…Can Pascal’s Wager be used in any way to prove the existance of a particular “god”, or can we safely lump it in with the “gry” question?
Outside of that, I can’t think of any logical arguments that point towards the existance of a particular “god”, and without that, why should any religion be prefered? Outside of the fuzziest of thinking, if all gods are equal, then none are valid, because of the inherant contradictions in all of the different “gods”.
Tinker:
I may be wrong, but I think Mangeorge’s intention was to call attention to your translation of “those who claim to have had a direct experience of God” with "true christians ".
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Well, as I my last post indicated the parallelism was unintentional, and so was the translation.
But for mangeorge’s sake let me say: a true christian has direct experience with God, but not all who claim to have direct experience with God are true christians.
Part of my point WRT “true christians” is that most of us can recognize a phony. For example, while some here might claim that Poly, Lib, Adam, Jeffrey, and Tris, et al, are misguided, very few would claim they are phony. (Hope I’m not making anybody blush.)
I am here to clear these things up for you when you complain and whine about being insulted by the people you address. Don’t act all astonished and greived when people do not always respond graciously to your somewhat contemptous way of asking questions. Then I won’t need to explain why they react that way to you, will I?
I am sooo glad you’ve found a purpose for your life. I am here to find out why my question concerning the existance of god is not being answered. It’s called being “On Topic”.
You should try it sometime.
