Yes, but who will you follow: a false doctrine of rules rules rules, following your own rules, or any doctrine that gives you no boss? Something you can learn from Christopher Hitchens: theism of God's commands for anyone who wants a boss, if not, then you can make up your own morals for yourself.
one can believe there is more to this life than the immediate physical world without resortin to religion or morality discussions or usin em to make up different rules than what already exists in society
why does one need to connect rules for life to theism?
I already made up different rules from what already exists in society, however, whatever works for me has already been enforced on Wendy and Mandy because I think my morals are morals you need to live by. And just when you thought no one will listen to my morals, I made the two clowns listen to me.
"Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness." - Blaise Pascal
Physics making me believe God might exist
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Yes, but who will you follow: a false doctrine of rules rules rules, following your own rules, or any doctrine that gives you no boss? Something you can learn from Christopher Hitchens: theism of God's commands for anyone who wants a boss, if not, then you can make up your own morals for yourself.
--
donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
-
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
one can believe there is more to this life than the immediate physical world without resortin to religion or morality discussions or usin em to make up different rules than what already exists in society
why does one need to connect rules for life to theism?
--
Hansberger
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I already made up different rules from what already exists in society, however, whatever works for me has already been enforced on Wendy and Mandy because I think my morals are morals you need to live by. And just when you thought no one will listen to my morals, I made the two clowns listen to me.
--
donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
well thats encouragin.....?
--
Hansberger
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The rules are simple: avoid stress and negative people, take pleasure in the simple things, and be very careful or very cautious.
--
donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
ive done the opposite of those things and here i am
--
Hansberger
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Don't toy with me, take pleasures in the simple things and don't give me lip!
"Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness." - Blaise Pascal