Trust me friends, don't knock it until you've tried it! — intrapersona

My point was that we have and other websites have (like Reddit) and we don't like the results. I don't anyway.

as long as you have a downvote option as well — intrapersona

That results in sheer abuse, as it did on the old forum. This better not turn into Reddit, which is an absolute pit.

A lot of those questions I disputed, because there was no good answer. I would describe myself variously as a classical liberal, constitutional conservative, neoconservative, and social conservative. Whether that is "particularly right leaning," I don't know.

Dead center in the first and business conservative in the second. Neither seem all that useful.

Therefore, what about the other 99%? Are we just here to consume the major contributions of others through their products/services/findings/innovations and to sing their praises? — schopenhauer1

You have it backwards, historically speaking. It's the toiling majority who provide the surplus necessary for the minority to pursue their interests.

I agree. Either God or Mammon, but it has to be one of them. — Agustino

This is falsely dichotomous, it seems to me. Are you really saying that all atheists, or Buddhists or Taoists for that matter, worship Mammon in some way?

I think with Plato that democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government if we exclude tyranny and dictatorship — Agustino

Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I am wont to agree.

Pascal gives his reasons why you should believe in God before the wager. — Agustino

The Pensees is on my list to read at some point, but do you think you could summarize these? If not, that's okay, as I'm probably asking a lot.

I have told you that the concept of "God" in the wager, applies to any "God" that one believe in, and that the majority of people believe in a Good God — Cavacava

"Any God" and "Good God" are not the same thing. :-|

Whatever, though. We seem to be done here.

I've understood the logic for some time now, Cava. But you still refuse to provide me with a definition of "God." You use this word as if I know what it means. I don't. You must provide it, or else the wager you argue for never gets off the ground.

Now, if, as you've said before, God can mean anything one wants, then I could define God as an evil demon, a la Descartes, or as a being who sends non-believers to heaven and believers to hell. In that case, I ought not to place my faith in him, which repudiates the outcome you argue for.

So our conversation seems to be caught in an infinite loop, the only way out of which is to state what you mean by God, once again. Let's see if you can do it this time.

but you refuse to say anything about your conception of God. So ? — Cavacava

So what? I don't know what you're getting at. Why do I have to have a conception of God? The onus is on you to provide one if you wish me to wager that he exists.

I don't doubt that our thoughts are shared. — Cavacava

About doxastic voluntarism? I don't see how what you say above is a reply to my comment on that.

Is existence preferable to nonexistence. You have no choice if there is a god. — Cavacava

What do you mean by the second of these sentences?

You also referenced some "above post" and I looked, I saw the post to John, but no other likely candidates, but then again I never seem to find what I am looking for. — Cavacava

You asked if I was a Christian, a theist, and believer in God and seemed to be going somewhere with those questions. I replied on the last page I believe.

I'm assuming you're going to respond to my post to you above, but I had some other things to say about this below:

Either way you roast — Cavacava

What if God privileges honest disbelief in him as opposed to dishonest belief for the sake of personal comfort, as your wager would have it? In that case, I ought to wager that he doesn't exist.

Moreover, you assume doxastic voluntarism, a topic I actually made a thread about a while back. What this means is that you assume I can choose what I believe. I have my doubts that this possible, as it seems apparent that I can't just will myself to believe something, like flipping on a light switch. This is true even if I want to believe something. Wanting to does not mean that one does or will believe.

Your irritations are a matter for you. Tears, mourning, crying and pain do not exhaust what suffering is. — John

I wouldn't claim my irritation is anything other than my own. As for your other claim, I think you're being wildly pedantic.

There is suffering involved in striving to become ever better, for example. Nowhere that I am aware of does the Bible say that once you die, your efforts are at an end. — John

So? Nowhere does it say that you will suffer. But if one suffers in heaven, then there isn't much to distinguish it from hell. And it doesn't seem like Adam and Eve before the Fall suffered much in the Garden of Eden. The implication is pretty strong, therefore, that God promises freedom from our afflictions. Are you trying to say there is good suffering and bad suffering? That wouldn't make much sense to me. Suffering is sometimes necessary for improvement, I agree, but then it is being used as a means, not an end. Suffering in and of itself is always bad.

what chance do we have of escaping it and becoming enlightened — John

As good a chance as the Buddha or countless other buddhas and bodhisattvas, the Buddhist might say. The point of their hagiographies is to show that becoming enlightened is indeed possible if one tries to emulate them. Nirvana is unconditioned, which means that nothing can cause its occurrence, however, the claim is that the Middle Way provides a sure enough path that tends to this goal. Correlation, as opposed to causation.

I like aspects of Buddhism but the cosmogony makes no sense to me. — John

Okay. And you're more attracted to Christianity, I take it? If so, what prevents you from formally converting?

No specific mention of suffering here. — John

I can't tell if you're being serious here. It's a really irritating response in either case.

By "promise" I mean "guarantee". — John

Then most Buddhists would probably say no. However, certain sects might say otherwise. Chan/Zen Buddhism would say that one is already enlightened, one simply doesn't realize it yet, owing to the defilements (greed, hatred, and delusion) clouding the mind. The Pure Land school gives virtually a guarantee of enlightenment if one is reborn in Amitabha's Western Paradise.

And even if it did promise Nirvana it doesn't promise it for you. — John

Yeah, Buddhism teaches anatman, but there are sects like Yogacara that do posit something like a permanent self.

Nothing controversial there? — m-theory

No.

It could have consequences, just not violent ones. One consequence would be that Muslims are persuaded to abandon their faith. Another would be that Shariah courts, for example, are disallowed.

Can you cite a Christian text that explicitly promises an end to suffering? — John

"He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

Buddhism doesn't promise Nirvana — John

This is highly debatable. What do you mean by this and by "promise?"

unless that declaration is trivial and meaningless such that it will come of no consequence. — m-theory

Well, see, this is what I think is the case. The claim is not threatening any physical violence against people. It's a declaration against a set of ideas. That's not controversial.

a christian — Cavacava

Not a believing one, at the moment, but I don't mind the label.

a theist — Cavacava

No.

do you believe in a god? — Cavacava

As I've told you before, this depends on what you mean by "God."

The goal in Buddhism is nirvana, which is the end of suffering and the liberation of one from samsara (the cycle of birth and death). I never said anything about eternal life.

the Christian promise of eternal life does not explicitly promise an end to suffering — John

That would be news to me. Source?

They all promise more or less the same thing: self-transformation and an end to suffering.

When you know all hope of recovery is gone, do you seek forgiveness or do you go steely eyed into oblivion. I've looked into those eyes. — Cavacava

You're going to have to flesh this scenario out a bit.

I'm not sure what post you're responding to. Are you talking about the soteriologies of other religions (other than Christianity, that is, I assume)? I should think Google would be able to answer that pretty easily.

Well, there are agnostic theists, so the question was relevant. I find it interesting that your wager only goes so far as intellectual assent. Wouldn't the same logic hold in terms of belonging to a certain religion? Why have you not taken that wager?

so what do you say when the priest comes around to you, "keep on trucking"? — Cavacava

I don't understand this question.

Its non-controversial status is not determined either by my saying so or by people I know saying so. It's determined by the reasons given in support of the claim. It also depends on the definition of the word "controversy" one is using.

No.

So, for the third time, do you belong to a particular religion or church? Cough it up, punk.

It is often in the news the controversial of an alleged war declared on christmas and on christianity. — m-theory

What a red herring. I'm aware that some people accuse others of doing this. But I asked you to find me someone who explicitly says they are waging or want to wage a war on Christmas.

What makes you think it is controversial to declare war on the christian religion, but not islam? — m-theory

Way to put words in my mouth. I never said whether it was or was not controversial to declare war on Christianity. To now disabuse you of your ignorance, I will say that I don't think such a statement would be controversial.

My point was if some said they declared war on christmas — m-theory

Key word: If.

So we're to pretend we've found it?

War also tends to favor belief over non-belief. — Cavacava

Wot.

So, are we going to find you on the pew somewhere?

I'm also curious as to the degrees this wager can take in terms of practice. Is it just belief that you wager? What about a particular religion? Do you, in addition to belief, wager that one religion is true, and then within that, that one sect is true? Are we to find Cavacava kneeling in some house of worship one odd day a week?

What doesn't matter? The truth? No, I'm afraid it does, to me at least. You appear content in assenting to a proposition whose truth you do not know and have not established for a benefit whose possibility is equally unknown; and this because the alternative is to feel "uncomfortable." Again, why should comfort matter and outweigh the truth?

What's the other way?

They are.

If you believe in the wrong God, then you could be roasting in the hell of another religion.

Ah, comfort. But see, for some people, truth trumps comfort.

Hirsi Ali, obviously. Lol.

So what does it mean to declare war on Islam? — m-theory

You combat its ideas and legal encroachment.

Who has declared war on Christmas?