Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Monster Rain wrote:My bad. I thought we were having an open-minded discussion. I won't make that mistake again.

whatwhat wrote:The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?

He wasn't calling himself Jewish, he was Jewish. And He didn't hate anyone. But I'm not going to waste any more time trying to engage in discussion in which your reply will begin with "lol."

Your trying to drag me into a discussion about whether or not it was right for Jesus to challenge his jewish beliefs. That's not a discussion I particularly care for. And one I will very happily lol at.

And call himself, is a. Whatever he likes to think. The fact is if someone went up to a jew and said 'half of the stuff you believe is a load of balls' I'd quite happilly put that person under the title: antisemitic.

Sure you can believe it but to go and throw it in their face while throwing yourself up as a 'King' of them. That's taking it beyond just a belief kept to yourself.

Baptists are fringe?

Orlanth wrote:
Pascals Wager is not interested in other religions, they are subsets of unbelief in Christ. This is not a false dichotomy because it is correct within the paradigm of the subject matter. There are two actual choices: faith in Christ or any other option.

Yes, and the set 'any other option' is much, much larger than the set 'faith in Christ'. In fact, its infinitely larger. Since Pascal's wager is predicated on the idea that each of the two sets is equally probable the fact that one of them is actually infinitely large invalidates the argument. Infinite sets are infinitely more probable than sets of 1 when all elements of all sets are granted equal weight.

Orlanth wrote:
You are trying to apply the Wager beyond its bounds. It is intended as an exercise to determine wherther there is a point to continuing with a life of faith, not an absolute Truth.

The basic forumaltion of Pascal's Wager is based on the premise that one's faith will eventually be proven correct or incorrect in the afterlife. So yes, its deals in absolute truth.

Orlanth wrote:
Christianity has more than enough points of absolute Truth, whichcan only be accepted or rejected wholecloth, such as Jesus claim 'I am the Way the Truth and the Life, noone comes to the Father except through me.' The Wager builds on this foundation.
Its internally consistent, you are trying to break something that isnt broken by placing it outside its setting.

Yes, it is internally consistent. The problem is that its not externally consistent. It doesn't really matter if an argument has internal validity if it lacks any sort of external validity; which, in this case, relates to the descriptive merit of equating belief in one thing with non-belief in that thing.

This is a fundamental tenet of logic. Answering 'yes' to any possible question is far more definitive than a 'not yes' response.

Vene wrote:Baptists are fringe?

The Baptists that believe that are, yes. Not all of them do. Billy Graham, for example, did not believe that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. He's considered to be the "Ron Burgundy" of Baptists.

Which is to say, he's kind of a big deal.

And please tell me you're not including Westboro Baptist in your idea of "Mainstream Christianity." Otherwise I feel this would have all been a terrible waste of time.

I'm not talking about Westboro, but I do have to wonder, how do you determine if it is fringe? And why can we not discuss fringe in context of the wager? They have to be considered as well. Does fringe just mean a few believers? If so, you are dangerously close to argumentum ad populum.

Vene wrote:I'm not talking about Westboro, but I do have to wonder, how do you determine if it is fringe? And why can we not discuss fringe in context of the wager? They have to be considered as well. Does fringe just mean a few believers? If so, you are dangerously close to argumentum ad populum.

Like I said, I'm not discussing the Wager because it only allows for two options and there are more than two possibilities for truth.

The "what is a fringe group" question seems like a red herring. I'm only refuting direct statements made about Christianity that are incorrect. I will give the example of Westboro Baptists being a fringe group of the Baptist Church and let it speak for itself.

You used the word without a clear definition of what makes a group fringe. You just declared groups fringe for no given reason. What is the reason? And why do you seem to not include them as a part of Christianity? Is the WBC Christian?

Vene wrote:You used the word without a clear definition of what makes a group fringe. You just declared groups fringe for no given reason. What is the reason? And why do you seem to not include them as a part of Christianity? Is the WBC Christian?

Fringe Group:
A set phrase to dissociate a mainstream organization (usually religious) from outcast radical members.

fringe (frnj)
n.
1. A decorative border or edging of hanging threads, cords, or strips, often attached to a separate band.
2. Something that resembles such a border or edging.
3. A marginal, peripheral, or secondary part: "They like to hang out on the geographical fringes, the seedy outposts" (James Atlas).
4. Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views: the lunatic fringe.
5. Any of the light or dark bands produced by the diffraction or interference of light.
6. A fringe benefit.


As to whether or not the WBC is Christian: I think that they believe that they are, but considering the negativity they draw toward Christianity and their total rejection of Christ's teachings on love and compassion would make them complete hypocrites and incompatible with mainstream Christian values.

So, you are saying they're fringe because there are not many of them. Yeah, you're in fallacy territory now. They are Christian, they are appropriate to talk about when discussing Christianity, and are very much appropriate to talk about when saying there are differences between Christian denominations and that different denominations of Christianity have doctrines distinct enough that you can't follow both. This was my original point, that even ignoring other religions, there is more than one way to believe in the Christian god and that choosing the wrong denomination is just a risky as choosing the wrong god is just as risky as choosing non-belief.

Vene wrote:So, you are saying they're fringe because there are not many of them. Yeah, you're in fallacy territory now. They are Christian, they are appropriate to talk about when discussing Christianity, and are very much appropriate to talk about when saying there are differences between Christian denominations and that different denominations of Christianity have doctrines distinct enough that you can't follow both. This was my original point, that even ignoring other religions, there is more than one way to believe in the Christian god and that choosing the wrong denomination is just a risky as choosing the wrong god is just as risky as choosing non-belief.

So I can use Stalin as an archetype for Atheists?

As far as fallacies go, why is it unreasonable to say that the majority of the members of an organization would believe similar things? Is it argumentum ad populum to say that the ELF is a fringe group of the Enviromentalist Movement because the majority of them don't espouse violence?

Also, you're off base by calling the WBC a denomination. It's an offshoot of a denomination, and a radicalized one at that.

But since we've gone completely off the topic that we were discussing and arguing about the argument itself can we safely say that we're done talking about your incorrect assertions on Christianity?

He was an atheist, I will not ever try to deny that he was an atheist. I will say he didn't represent all atheists, but I never said one denomination represented all of them.

And no, I won't agree to that because they are still Christian. They may not be Christian in the exact same way most people are Christian, but they are still Christian. Because they are still Christian, they can be brought up in a discussion about Christianity. It would be wrong to characterize them as the majority of Christians, and it would be wrong to say that WBC represents Baptists, but I'm not doing that. I'm just stating that they are another denomination and needs to be considered with Pascal's Wager.

Vene wrote:He was an atheist, I will not ever try to deny that he was an atheist. I will say he didn't represent all atheists, but I never said one denomination represented all of them.

And no, I won't agree to that because they are still Christian. They may not be Christian in the exact same way most people are Christian, but they are still Christian. Because they are still Christian, they can be brought up in a discussion about Christianity. It would be wrong to characterize them as the majority of Christians, and it would be wrong to say that WBC represents Baptists, but I'm not doing that. I'm just stating that they are another denomination and needs to be considered with Pascal's Wager.

Okay, well co-opting a belief system isn't the same thing as being a member of that belief system.

There are a lot of groups that are or have been nominally Christian that in practice are nothing of the sort. David Koresh springs to mind. Equating these fringe groups with the mainstream churches is misguided at best.

No True Scotsman

That is all.

Vene wrote:No True Scotsman

That is all.

There are so many reasons why that is off base.

Not least of which is where you are implying that there is no objective, codified manner in which Christians should behave. Which there is.

You have fail, and then you have epic fail.

Monster Rain wrote:
So I can use Stalin as an archetype for Atheists?

Sure, but the things about Stalin that made him a terrible person probably won't easily fit into a definition of atheism. After all, if all atheists must commit mass murder in order to be considered atheists, there aren't going to be very many of them around.

Also, Vene isn't arguing that Christians that believe that the Pope is the anti-Christ are archetypal Christians. Instead, he is arguing that they are Christian, and therefore relevant to a conversation that deals in the degree to which Christian beliefs can vary. If there exist Christian denominations that are incompatible with other Christian denominations, then differences in denomination are relevant to his criticism of Pascal's Wager.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
So I can use Stalin as an archetype for Atheists?

Sure, but the things about Stalin that made him a terrible person probably won't easily fit into a definition of atheism. After all, if all atheists must commit mass murder in order to be considered atheists, there aren't going to be very many of them around.

The things that make Westboro Baptist awful wouldn't fit into a definition of Christianity either.

Monster Rain wrote:

Vene wrote:No True Scotsman

That is all.

There are so many reasons why that is off base.

Not least of which is where you are implying that there is no objective, codified manner in which Christians should behave. Which there is.

You have fail, and then you have epic fail.

Belief in Christ is all that matters.

Noun

* S: (n) Christian (a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination)
(link)

Monster Rain wrote:
The things that make Westboro Baptist awful wouldn't fit into a definition of Christianity either.

But they would still be Christian in at least some sense; mostly those that ignore judgment from works (read: the non-categorical senses). Its simply that the things that make them awful aren't relevant to determining whether or not they can be called Christian, just as Stalin's mass-murdering tendencies are not relevant to his atheism.

Vene wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Vene wrote:No True Scotsman

That is all.

There are so many reasons why that is off base.

Not least of which is where you are implying that there is no objective, codified manner in which Christians should behave. Which there is.

You have fail, and then you have epic fail.

Belief in Christ is all that matters.

Noun

* S: (n) Christian (a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination)
(link)

Okay man. I was fine with discussing this with you in a civil manner until you got all smarmy with your True Scotsman bit. You still don't quite know what you're talking about, but I'm not going to waste my time pointing out stuff to you if the final product is going to be a link to some perceived logical fallacy which you really couldn't be more dead wrong about.

So, are we going to talk, or not? Your move, Sex Machine.

Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.

whatwhat wrote:The point is a man calling himself jewish who openly denounces the beliefs of other jews, is a bit of a self hating jew no?

I don't see why this would be the case. God and his prophets seem to criticise the Jewish people frequently in the bible, and make them wander around in exile and so forth. And while there are some people who believe that, say, criticism of a nation's government shows a lack of patriotism, I don't agree with this, and I don't think most people do either. After all, it's usually easier to abandon or avoid something that you hate than it is to fix it.

Vene wrote:So, you are saying they're fringe because there are not many of them. Yeah, you're in fallacy territory now.

How so? Popularity has always been the primary method by which a theory being "fringe" is defined, in my experience with the term.


Also, regarding Pascal's wager, it may well be valid if it is presupposed that the Christian conception of metaphysics and the atheist conception of simply perishing are the only possible choices. However, this would really be begging the question, as a sensible atheist would, when confronted with this new paradigm, not continue to ask for a reason to believe in God, but rather for a reason to believe that there are only two valid conceptions of metaphysics. If Pascal's wager is meant to be an argument for the belief in God in the real world I would say, then, that it is a false dichotomy. If Pascal's wager was only ever meant to be an argument for the belief of God under a specific set of conditions it wouldn't be a false dichotomy, but it would seem to be useless, as you could arbitrarily declare that God exists as easily as you could arbitrarily set up the conditions necessary for Pascal's wager to be valid.

I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general), partly because I'm fairly convinced that they're just a money-making scam. Internet Trolls taken to real life, making money by suing people and local governments who they goad into infringing on their civil rights by their incredibly offensive (but legal) behavior.

That said, there is such a variety in beliefs and behaviors expressed among Christians, some of them pretty offensive, that it definitely bears on Pascal's Wager. People are burning books again?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/06/florida.quran.burning/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

It's more the dismissal of them that's fallacious. Truth is not determined by popularity, even theological truth.

Vene wrote:Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.

I'm not running away. I'm excluding you from my conversation on the subject. Big difference. For example, I'll be happy to continue discussing the concept with Dogma when I'm done putting the kids to bed. You're more interested in being a creep on the internet than having a meaningful discussion. I'm happy to let you behave that way, but I'm done with being a part of it.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
The things that make Westboro Baptist awful wouldn't fit into a definition of Christianity either.

But they would still be Christian in at least some sense; mostly those that ignore judgment from works (read: the non-categorical senses). Its simply that the things that make them awful aren't relevant to determining whether or not they can be called Christian, just as Stalin's mass-murdering tendencies are not relevant to his atheism.

A major part of Salvation is acknowledging your sin and repenting for it. Since the WBC doesn't see anything wrong with their willful disregard for several of the teachings of Jesus and arguably a few of the 10 Commandments and are therefore unlikely to repent for that it could be argued that they don't follow some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

The Stalin example was only to illustrate the judgment of a group by it's most distasteful members, nothing more.

And again, I feel like this is beside the point that we were originally discussing.

Mannahnin wrote:I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general), partly because I'm fairly convinced that they're just a money-making scam. Internet Trolls taken to real life, making money by suing people and local governments who they goad into infringing on their civil rights by their incredibly offensive (but legal) behavior.

That said, there is such a variety in beliefs and behaviors expressed among Christians, some of them pretty offensive, that it definitely bears on Pascal's Wager. People are burning books again?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/06/florida.quran.burning/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Mannahin, that is a great example of what I'm talking about as far as people who are nominally Christians who just completely miss the point.

As hack as it sounds, I really think that these people should put their "WWJD" bracelets back on. Because if they had that phrase in mind I seriously doubt there would be a scheduled Quran burning.

Well, I would say that the WBC is Christian.

However, it seems to me that from the standpoint of Pascal's wager, whether they are Christian or not doesn't really matter. Rather, all that matters is whether they part of Pascal's conception of true Christianity, part of his conception of atheism, or something else. Belief in a Christian God who would punish insincere believers and save sincere atheists and belief in (my previous conception of) Baal, the jealous god who would punish Christians and leave atheists alone, lead to the same conclusion (i.e. rejection of Pascal's wager).

Monster Rain wrote:

Vene wrote:Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.

I'm not running away. I'm excluding you from my conversation on the subject. Big difference. For example, I'll be happy to continue discussing the concept with Dogma when I'm done putting the kids to bed. You're more interested in being a creep on the internet than having a meaningful discussion. I'm happy to let you behave that way, but I'm done with being a part of it.

I link to wikipedia and you call me creepy? Oh well, I guess I'll be a creep again and offer another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Vene wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Vene wrote:Feel free to run away, you are the one claiming that people who are believers in Christ aren't Christian, not me.

I'm not running away. I'm excluding you from my conversation on the subject. Big difference. For example, I'll be happy to continue discussing the concept with Dogma when I'm done putting the kids to bed. You're more interested in being a creep on the internet than having a meaningful discussion. I'm happy to let you behave that way, but I'm done with being a part of it.

I link to wikipedia and you call me creepy? Oh well, I guess I'll be a creep again and offer another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Hey, me too!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokusatsu

Monster Rain wrote:
A major part of Salvation is acknowledging your sin and repenting for it. Since the WBC doesn't see anything wrong with their willful disregard for several of the teachings of Jesus and arguably a few of the 10 Commandments and are therefore unlikely to repent for that it could be argued that they don't follow some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

That depends on what translation of the commandments you use, how you interpret that translation, and to what degree you accept that they are universally binding. Personally, I feel that the mere fact that the WBC appeals to the 10 commandments is sufficient to consider them Christian. Are they definitive of the faith? Absolutely not, but then I don't consider any denomination to be definitive of the faith.

Monster Rain wrote:
The Stalin example was only to illustrate the judgment of a group by it's most distasteful members, nothing more.

Maybe I missed something, but it didn't seem to me that Christianity was being judged at all. Instead it seemed to me that it was being defined on a categorical level. Its important to remember that simply because a group of people can be considered categorically Christian it does not follow that all Christians can be held responsible for that groups perceived failings; exactly as you've illustrated vis a vis Stalin and atheism.

And again, I feel like this is beside the point that we were originally discussing.

Mannahnin wrote:I'd be very reluctant to equate the WBC specifically with Christianity, partially for the same reason Monster Rain cited (their repulsive behavior isn't really representative of Christian behavior in general), partly because I'm fairly convinced that they're just a money-making scam. Internet Trolls taken to real life, making money by suing people and local governments who they goad into infringing on their civil rights by their incredibly offensive (but legal) behavior.

I used to believe that, but after a little digging it almost looks as if the WBC loses as much money on lawsuits as they make. Indeed, I have quite a bit of trouble finding instances in which judgments worked out to the favor of the WBC. Its certainly happened, but not, to my mind, enough to justify thinking of them as con artists. They're still nuts of course, no denying that.

dogma wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
A major part of Salvation is acknowledging your sin and repenting for it. Since the WBC doesn't see anything wrong with their willful disregard for several of the teachings of Jesus and arguably a few of the 10 Commandments and are therefore unlikely to repent for that it could be argued that they don't follow some of the most basic tenets of Christianity.

That depends on what translation of the commandments you use, how you interpret that translation, and to what degree you accept that they are universally binding. Personally, I feel that the mere fact that the WBC appeals to the 10 commandments is sufficient to consider them Christian. Are they definitive of the faith? Absolutely not, but then I don't consider any denomination to be definitive of the faith.

Jews and Muslims use the 10 commandments as well.

As to the Judgment of Christianity thing, I simply don't accept that the WBC should be associated with mainstream Christian denominations any more than Al Qaeda should be associated with mainstream Islam. In fact, one would be considered a bigot for doing so.

dogma wrote:Its important to remember that simply because a group of people can be considered categorically Christian it does not follow that all Christians can be held responsible for that groups perceived failings; exactly as you've illustrated vis a vis Stalin and atheism.

Well, atheism doesn't really have any doctrine. Perhaps the better question would be "was Stalin a socialist?" I would consider him to have been one, even though I'll admit that he wasn't following socialist doctrine very closely.