[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by randilover

Well, I think it’s great that you listened. You’re a fair man, Brian. Actually, these statements are really honest. I mean really honest. It's appreciated.

Well, after hammering evolution into the ground, a new line of discussion is probably called for. I will say at the outset that I am no philsopher. While I did read a good deal of philosophy in college, it wasn't my strong suit. Thus, I won't delve too deeply into philosophical debates quite the same as I would a scientific one.

Originally Posted by randilover

It actually isn’t a disagreement, it’s a matter of fact. Without a God, you can do whatever you want. His point was a moral law, not laws in general. He actually draws a contrast between cultural laws and a moral law. For example, remember the Nazi trial point he made. If there is not moral law, then what did those men do wrong?

You contradicted yourself there, or else you didn't really agree with me. Without God, there still can be right and wrong based on societal rules and standards. Right and wrong in a religously moral sense? Probably not, but good and bad can still be defined without God. The speaker was big on word definitions, so lets look at "moral." At dictionary.com, the first definition for moral is: "of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." Now, let's look at the definition of "goodness." One of the definitions of goodness is "that which is good or valuable or useful." So, a society can define was is good or bad (right or wrong) by an actions usefulness to the success of that society. Obviously, killing a bunch of people for no reason other than their religous beliefs does not inherantly benefit society, so it can easily be defined as wrong.

Originally Posted by randilover

I thought this was surprisingly compelling. What do you do with justice that is not carried out, etc? And it is extrapolated to be no hope for this life. Those who have no hope in the next life have no hope in this one, and without hope, what is the point?

I don't believe anything will happen to me after I die. Therefor I realize I have one shot in this one. I can't do this (life) again, so everything I need to do, want to do, I have to do now. That's the point. What do I need hope for? What am I hoping for?

Originally Posted by randilover

I don’t mean this in a derogatory way at all, I truly don’t. I don’t know you real well, other than what’s been discussed here, and a few pictures of your boys, but this is a sad statement. I don’t know what I’d do if the things that came my way did not have meaning, that he experiences, and the emotions, the thoughts and vitality that come my way and pass through my life just hit a point and stop without carrying out through to meaning, to someone other and outer than myself. I wouldn’t know where to place the emotions and feelings I have towards my wife and kids, how to deal with them on that level, to explain to them that they are valuable, and their lives are meaningful. What on earth do you say to them if not.

While I said there is no universal meaning to life, that does not mean there can be no point to life. I think each person needs to find for themself what their life is about. For me, with the birth of my kids, my life is about my family. One of my good friends has absolutely no desire to have kids. Can I honestly look at him and make an assessment that his life, becuase he has not drawn the same conclusions as me, has no point? I would be arrogant to do so. And (this is not derogatory either), but I think anyone who tells someone else what the point of their life is is arrogant as well.

Originally Posted by randilover

Again, I’m not trying to take a higher ground and look down on you point, or intellectually get one up on your or anything like that. I mean, man to man, what do you do?

Ravi made the exact point I’ve made before (which you guys seemed surprised at). If this is all there is, why do what you are doing? Why keep going? Why not just spend all you can out of your body and cash out? Or do you not hold to account those that do? Are you simply just "rolling the stone to the top of the hill" without asking why?

Much like smith said, I don't ask "why" too much. It's probably because I don't think their is an overall answer, so it is pointless to ask. I think there are a lot of people out there, either in bad situations, living in poverty, experiencing poor family relations, living in violent conditions, that need an answer as to why. It is not an answer I seek or need.

Originally Posted by randilover

Ah, I think you missed his point slightly. He's not making the point to just do it anyway, whether you believe it or not. (God like you, doesn't appreciate phony facades.) Remember, he says Pascal meant it existentially. Meaning that for the atheist, he has no compelling argument as to why the theist is incorrect, because if all there is in this life is this life, and the theist is happy being a theist, then what is the problem with his point of view. He couldn't be a lose by mistake. I thought it was noteworthy too that the atheist has to make himself think it through, to be sure of himself, because there really is no recovery if he is incorrect.

As I understand it, Pasca's wager does nothing but reassue one who believes in God that he is not wasting his time. Right? Here's a question. What if you are worshipping the wrong God?