Creation vs. Evolution (2 Viewers)

[Mr. Anonymous]

I don't understand the hairsplitting here.Theist: I think so, or I have faith thatAgnostic: I don't know, or I don't have faith thatAtheist: I don't think soI also don't understand all the wilfulness assumed in what one believes or not.I'm agnostic. I don't know. I also don't think we can know. My hunch is - unfortunately - no. I'm not being wilfull about it, or proselytizing that others should be agnostic.Somebody who's atheist may just not believe. He/she can't help it. Or somebody MAY also have come wilfully to that position.Since nobody can prove a negative, no atheist KNOWS there is no God, so it boils down to "I don't think so," based on studies, instincts, whatever.

 

[shining path]

Hi, I'm Dt's Mules.

Why are you doing this? What's with the alias? You've been outed.

Why does it bother you? You don't need to have the same problem with bb/sp doing this very thing in this thread?

Bigbottom and shining path are two different people.

you sure about that because when that trivia contest was run a while back everyone listed bb/sp and jericho/smoo as known alii

Bigbottom and slipperyslope are know alii. Perhaps that's what they meant. But I assure you that biggie and shiny are two different people.

How can you be so sure?

It is true that we've never been seen in the same room together.

 

[1586]

I assert that disbelief is a commitment. And really the point I've been trying to make the whole thread. Why be an atheist. Why make the commitment of disbelief. Why not be agnostic?

I'm an atheist because I believe there is not, never has been, and never will be, god(s). I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this.

You didn't really address my pointing out that agnostic and athiest are mutually exclusive.Yes, I'm trying to get the atheist to say:

"as a logical rational person, it makes more sense to say, I'm not sure, than I Disbelieve because disbelief would require some scientific certainty"

and before you counter my argument with "don't you require certainty TO believe". The answer is no, I don't require certainty of science, because I have certainty of faith.

 

[bueno]

I don't understand the hairsplitting here.Theist: I think so, or I have faith thatAgnostic: I don't know, or I don't have faith thatAtheist: I don't think soI also don't understand all the wilfulness assumed in what one believes or not.I'm agnostic. I don't know. I also don't think we can know. My hunch is - unfortunately - no. I'm not being wilfull about it, or proselytizing that others should be agnostic.Somebody who's atheist may just not believe. He/she can't help it. Or somebody MAY also have come wilfully to that position.Since nobody can prove a negative, no atheist KNOWS there is no God, so it boils down to "I don't think so," based on studies, instincts, whatever.

I'm a gnostic. Just to confuse the issue.I know that I cannot know.

 

[1586]

I assert that disbelief is a commitment. And really the point I've been trying to make the whole thread. Why be an atheist. Why make the commitment of disbelief. Why not be agnostic?

I'm an atheist because I believe there is not, never has been, and never will be, god(s). I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this:Atheism isn't a logical conclusion for a completely rational person. Agnostism would be much more practical and isn't that what you base your atheism on: scientific proof, logical conclusions, etc.?

 

[Jericho]

I assert that disbelief is a commitment.  And really the point I've been trying to make the whole thread.  Why be an atheist.  Why make the commitment of disbelief.  Why not be agnostic?

I'm an atheist because I believe there is not, never has been, and never will be, god(s). I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on this:Atheism isn't a logical conclusion for a completely rational person. Agnostism would be much more practical and isn't that what you base your atheism on: scientific proof, logical conclusions, etc.?

First, "scientific proof" is an oxymoron. Second, my atheism is a conclusion I have drawn from observation and knowledge of the the state and history of both the earth and the universe.Literal definitions: (A)theism has to do with belief. (A)gnosticism has to do with knowledge. One can have knowledge without belief, one can also have belief without knowledge.Also, I like your statement that atheism isn't a conclusion for a rational person, because that means by the same token that theism isn't a conclusion for a rational person either, which has been my conviction all along.

 

[1586]

Also, I like your statement that atheism isn't a conclusion for a rational person, because that means by the same token that theism isn't a conclusion for a rational person either, which has been my conviction all along.

Oh I fully admit it isn't a "rational" conclusion. It's a faith based conclusion. Just as much a "faith" based conclusion as atheism which you seem so hell bent on not conceding. The difference is, I don't "require" logic to believe.You, I would guess, would require logic to disbelieve and without complete knowledge of the situation, how can you make a decision with certainty? Pascal's Wager, btw, was a good read, I like the way ole Blaise thinks. Feeling pretty smart for coming up with the same idea on my own though

 

[1586]

Literal definitions: (A)theism has to do with belief. (A)gnosticism has to do with knowledge. One can have knowledge without belief, one can also have belief without knowledge.

When you say literal definitions, you mean the connotations? Because I think I effectively proved that the denotations are mutually exclusive (at least based upon merriam webster).I cannot speak to the connotations for you because I am unaware of your environment, but where I'm from agnostic is mutually exclusive from atheist.

 

[Jericho]

Literal definitions: (A)theism has to do with belief. (A)gnosticism has to do with knowledge. One can have knowledge without belief, one can also have belief without knowledge.

When you say literal definitions, you mean the connotations? Because I think I effectively proved that the denotations are mutually exclusive (at least based upon merriam webster).I cannot speak to the connotations for you because I am unaware of your environment, but where I'm from agnostic is mutually exclusive from atheist.

Agnosticism and weak atheism are the same thing: a lack of belief in god(s) (for whatever reason).

 

[Jericho]

Also, I like your statement that atheism isn't a conclusion for a rational person, because that means by the same token that theism isn't a conclusion for a rational person either, which has been my conviction all along.

Oh I fully admit it isn't a "rational" conclusion. It's a faith based conclusion. Just as much a "faith" based conclusion as atheism which you seem so hell bent on not conceding. The difference is, I don't "require" logic to believe.You, I would guess, would require logic to disbelieve and without complete knowledge of the situation, how can you make a decision with certainty? Pascal's Wager, btw, was a good read, I like the way ole Blaise thinks. Feeling pretty smart for coming up with the same idea on my own though

Why does an atheist require logic? Why can't an atheist just "feel" that there is no god the same way a theist "feels" it? Atheism and theism can both be reached by critical analysis, and they can both be reached by "hunch". Neither has any built in route that must be followed.

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

You guys are a bit caught up in this definition, so in order to help you along... Agnostism is the only logical answer, as opposed to atheism or religion, since that is the only path that clearly states that there might be a god, but that they are not sure. Both atheism and religion would require some form of conviction, by faith or otherwise, and thus attacking either on the basis of proof would be pointless.

Carry on.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

Hi, I'm Dt's Mules.

Why are you doing this? What's with the alias? You've been outed.

Why does it bother you? You don't need to have the same problem with bb/sp doing this very thing in this thread?

Bigbottom and shining path are two different people.

you sure about that because when that trivia contest was run a while back everyone listed bb/sp and jericho/smoo as known alii

Bigbottom and slipperyslope are know alii. Perhaps that's what they meant. But I assure you that biggie and shiny are two different people.

How can you be so sure?

They have different mailing addresses. I was Bigbottoms LABS secret Santa two years ago and Shiney's last year and was able to receive confirmation that both times the packages were received. Unless the conspiracy goes much deeper and one person made an effort to appear as if they had an address in a different state I would assume that they are in fact different people. In addition, I have seen alleged pictures of both individuals as well as a cute picture of Shiney with his high school prom date (as well as his legendary pompadour). I don't know what that proves but it just sounded informative.

 

[Jericho]

You guys are a bit caught up in this definition, so in order to help you along... Agnostism is the only logical answer, as opposed to atheism or religion, since that is the only path that clearly states that there might be a god, but that they are not sure. Both atheism and religion would require some form of conviction, by faith or otherwise, and thus attacking either on the basis of proof would be pointless.

Carry on.

That's what I was saying (or at least trying to).

 

[Jericho]

a cute picture of Shiney with his high school prom date

SFB LJ.

 

[1586]

Also, I like your statement that atheism isn't a conclusion for a rational person, because that means by the same token that theism isn't a conclusion for a rational person either, which has been my conviction all along. 

Oh I fully admit it isn't a "rational" conclusion. It's a faith based conclusion. Just as much a "faith" based conclusion as atheism which you seem so hell bent on not conceding. The difference is, I don't "require" logic to believe.You, I would guess, would require logic to disbelieve and without complete knowledge of the situation, how can you make a decision with certainty? Pascal's Wager, btw, was a good read, I like the way ole Blaise thinks. Feeling pretty smart for coming up with the same idea on my own though

Why does an atheist require logic? Why can't an atheist just "feel" that there is no god the same way a theist "feels" it? Atheism and theism can both be reached by critical analysis, and they can both be reached by "hunch". Neither has any built in route that must be followed.

I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence.Hey, if you are an atheist because you "feel" it, that makes sense to me. But that isn't what you said earlier. I believe it was something like "based upon what i've observed..." I'm just asserting that either requires a leap of faith and I'll admit to being illogical on this one even if you won't.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven. But the "leap of faith" an atheist is making is a smaller one than the one a theist is making.

 

[1586]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven.

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

Nope. But it is more "reasonable." (You have the empirical evidence of the lack of empirical evidence for a God, vs. faith.)

 

[1586]

btw, i'm feeling way over my head in the knowledge area here. clearly you guys have a depth and breadth that I don't.But, I think my critical reasoning is right on.

 

[Jericho]

Hey, if you are an atheist because you "feel" it, that makes sense to me. But that isn't what you said earlier. I believe it was something like "based upon what i've observed..."

Yes, but that's just me. Every atheist will have a different story and different reasons, just as every theist does.

 

[Jericho]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven.

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

Of course not. But let's say the Patriots are playing the Cardinals. I don't know for certain that the Pats are going to win, but I know enough to know that's the money bet. The agnostic in this situation would refuse to wager, to commit. The atheist slams the money on the table and bets it all on New England.The theist comes to the game in his Cardinals jersey and hopes nobody laughs at him.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yes, I'm trying to get the atheist to say:

"as a logical rational person, it makes more sense to say, I'm not sure, than I Disbelieve because disbelief would require some scientific certainty"

Are you agnostic about the existence of the Easter Bunny, or about whether Elvis is still alive?We can't go through our lives refusing to take a position on anything we can't prove one way or the other, since we really can't prove anything outside of math.

 

[Jericho]

...since we really can't prove anything outside of math.

Except for self-contradictory things, as you often like to quote (ie the "round squares" and "married bachelors"). I assume that's why a good chunk of the atheist literature I've read attempts to define deities as self-contradictory entities.

 

[1586]

Yes, I'm trying to get the atheist to say:

"as a logical rational person, it makes more sense to say, I'm not sure, than I Disbelieve because disbelief would require some scientific certainty"

Are you agnostic about the existence of the Easter Bunny, or about whether Elvis is still alive?We can't go through our lives refusing to take a position on anything we can't prove one way or the other, since we really can't prove anything outside of math.

No I have beliefs and most of them are grounded in logic. But that comes back to the consequences/utility argument I was making earlier.And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

 

[Jericho]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

 

[1586]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven.

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

Of course not. But let's say the Patriots are playing the Cardinals. I don't know for certain that the Pats are going to win, but I know enough to know that's the money bet. The agnostic in this situation would refuse to wager, to commit. The atheist slams the money on the table and bets it all on New England.The theist comes to the game in his Cardinals jersey and hopes nobody laughs at him.

the more i think about it this is a great analogy. if i wager 10 being the atheist, i probably win some small sum (will say the money line will get you 5). if I don't wager, i've lost nothing. If i take the long odds I just hit the superfecta.

 

[1586]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

Maybe. What kind of odds are you giving?

 

[Jericho]

the more i think about it this is a great analogy. if i wager 10 being the atheist, i probably win some small sum (will say the money line will get you 5). if I don't wager, i've lost nothing. If i take the long odds I just hit the superfecta.

It's not that great, given there are only two options in that scenario.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven.

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

Of course not. But let's say the Patriots are playing the Cardinals. I don't know for certain that the Pats are going to win, but I know enough to know that's the money bet. The agnostic in this situation would refuse to wager, to commit. The atheist slams the money on the table and bets it all on New England.The theist comes to the game in his Cardinals jersey and hopes nobody laughs at him.

the more i think about it this is a great analogy. if i wager 10 being the atheist, i probably win some small sum (will say the money line will get you 5). if I don't wager, i've lost nothing. If i take the long odds I just hit the superfecta.

Maybe. But if you want to keep the analogy going, maybe you've just wagered a portion of your freedom (and every seventh day of your life, in many religions) in the hopes of hitting the long shot.And just to be clear, by following a long and involved set of (often) seemingly arbitrary rules, you lose a portion of your freedom.

 

[Jericho]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

That doesn't strike you as foolish?

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

That doesn't strike you as foolish?

Naah. Just like the lottery. A tax for people who are bad at math.

 

[1586]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven.

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

Of course not. But let's say the Patriots are playing the Cardinals. I don't know for certain that the Pats are going to win, but I know enough to know that's the money bet. The agnostic in this situation would refuse to wager, to commit. The atheist slams the money on the table and bets it all on New England.The theist comes to the game in his Cardinals jersey and hopes nobody laughs at him.

the more i think about it this is a great analogy. if i wager 10 being the atheist, i probably win some small sum (will say the money line will get you 5). if I don't wager, i've lost nothing. If i take the long odds I just hit the superfecta.

Maybe. But if you want to keep the analogy going, maybe you've just wagered a portion of your freedom (and every seventh day of your life, in many religions) in the hopes of hitting the long shot.And just to be clear, by following a long and involved set of (often) seemingly arbitrary rules, you lose a portion of your freedom.

If you'll go back a couple of pages, I explain that pick the one that has the most utility for you, but pick something. and yes that something can be nothing, but you'd need to reread that whole argument.phew, i'm beat, i don't know how you guys do this every day. Where's larry? I need a pinch hitter.

 

[1586]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

That doesn't strike you as foolish?

Naah. Just like the lottery. A tax for people who are bad at math.

If you make the lottery positive ev, i'd play with every spare dollar i had.as it is, it's negative ev, and like CH said, a tax for people who are bad at maththough sometimes, if you gain enough utility from the fantasy of winning, then it become positive ev in terms of utility if not $

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

phew, i'm beat, i don't know how you guys do this every day. Where's larry? I need a pinch hitter.

So you're calling larry? Isn't that like putting Kevin Brown in to bat in the bottom of the ninth?

 

[1586]

phew, i'm beat, i don't know how you guys do this every day. Where's larry? I need a pinch hitter.

So you're calling larry? Isn't that like putting Kevin Brown in to bat in the bottom of the ninth?

i need some levity.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

Me too, if I don't have to wager very much.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

I also acknowledge the possibility that an alien battle cruiser will warp into our atmosphere tomorrow, that a giant space slug will devour our sun next Easter, and that Angelina Jolie may knock on my door tonight with a trench coat and a can of whipped cream.

Yeah, right. Like Angelina Jolie likes whipped cream. Please.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

"I don't know many atheists, but I thought that was a big argument for their side. That disbelief was a "more" logical answer based upon empirical evidence."

There is no empirical evidence for God, so it is logical to assume - in the absence of evidence - that there is no God. Occam's razor and all that.This is different from asserting that there is no God, since this can't be proven.

Just because it's the simpliest, does not guarantee certainty.

Of course not. But let's say the Patriots are playing the Cardinals. I don't know for certain that the Pats are going to win, but I know enough to know that's the money bet. The agnostic in this situation would refuse to wager, to commit. The atheist slams the money on the table and bets it all on New England.The theist comes to the game in his Cardinals jersey and hopes nobody laughs at him.

the more i think about it this is a great analogy. if i wager 10 being the atheist, i probably win some small sum (will say the money line will get you 5). if I don't wager, i've lost nothing. If i take the long odds I just hit the superfecta.

Maybe. But if you want to keep the analogy going, maybe you've just wagered a portion of your freedom (and every seventh day of your life, in many religions) in the hopes of hitting the long shot.

Also, to keep the analogy going, nobody can tell you who's playing or what what the payouts are. For instance, refusing to bet may have a higher payout than betting on the winning team, whoever that is.

 

[Jericho]

If you'll go back a couple of pages, I explain that pick the one that has the most utility for you, but pick something. and yes that something can be nothing, but you'd need to reread that whole argument.

I thought you said it was the most logical move to be an agnostic. Now you're saying that people should pick something. I'm not following you there.

 

[Jericho]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

Me too, if I don't have to wager very much.

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

Also, to keep the analogy going, nobody can tell you who's playing or what what the payouts are. For instance, refusing to bet may have a higher payout than betting on the winning team, whoever that is.

Yeah, yeah. Tell it to Pascal.

 

[1586]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

Me too, if I don't have to wager very much.

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

depends on which one you pick. I am thinking more and more about the Tao of Marni.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

Me too, if I don't have to wager very much.

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

And if you want to win big, you have to only have sex in the missionary position, and only for procreation - inside the institution of marriage.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

I'd definitely wager 10% of my career earnings if the bet were +EV. As for the two hours/week part, I'd have to reckon not only that it's +EV, but that it'd return a sufficient hourly rate. No use spending two hours to earn an EV of fifty cents.

 

[1586]

If you'll go back a couple of pages, I explain that pick the one that has the most utility for you, but pick something.  and yes that something can be nothing, but you'd need to reread that whole argument.

I thought you said it was the most logical move to be an agnostic. Now you're saying that people should pick something. I'm not following you there.

That's back to my 1,2,3 example.First you are agnostic. Then you are rational enough to choose the one that gives you the highest EV.edit:this scenario1. You don't believe there is a God(s) based upon what you know.2. You realize that you don't know everything3. You realize that you could gain some potential utility by believing in a God(s)4. You don't want to lose utility (drinking for the early games) so you pick a God(s) that allow this or minimizes your investment. (i.e. creates a positive EV for you)5. You realize that by picking the wrong God(s) you could actually create a negative EV (your penalty is worse than not believing)6. You are back to square one of not believing but armed with the knowledge that you did not believe for fear of picking the wrong one and creating negative EV.

 

[Jericho]

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

I'd definitely wager 10% of my career earnings if the bet were +EV. As for the two hours/week thing, I'd have to know not only that it's +EV, but that it'd return a sufficient hourly rate. No use spending two hours to earn an EV of fifty cents.

If I gave you long enough odds that Donna Summer would have more rushing yards than Fred Taylor by the end of the season, long enough to give it a positive EV, you'd bet 10% of your career earnings on that?I think you're a very silly man.

 

[1586]

And Jericho, I may make the bet on the cardinals and if the odds are long enough (eternity) it becomes a positive EV.

Sure, maybe. I'll bet you could get really REALLY good odds on who will finish with more rushing yards in the 2004 season, Fred Taylor or Donna Summer. If I gave you good enough odds to give Donna a positive EV, would you take that bet?

well yeah, if you gave me long enough odds.

Me too, if I don't have to wager very much.

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

And if you want to win big, you have to only have sex in the missionary position, and only for procreation - inside the institution of marriage.

see, my ev with that would go way down and I'd have to pick another.

 

[1586]

You have to wager 2 hours out of your week for the rest of your life and 10% of your career earnings.

I'd definitely wager 10% of my career earnings if the bet were +EV. As for the two hours/week thing, I'd have to know not only that it's +EV, but that it'd return a sufficient hourly rate. No use spending two hours to earn an EV of fifty cents.

If I gave you long enough odds that Donna Summer would have more rushing yards than Fred Taylor by the end of the season, long enough to give it a positive EV, you'd bet 10% of your career earnings on that?I think you're a very silly man.

well maybe not 10% of his career earning, but he'd bet something if he knew it was positive ev. that's the whole point, picking one is a positive ev.

 

[Jericho]

If you'll go back a couple of pages, I explain that pick the one that has the most utility for you, but pick something.  and yes that something can be nothing, but you'd need to reread that whole argument.

I thought you said it was the most logical move to be an agnostic. Now you're saying that people should pick something. I'm not following you there.

That's back to my 1,2,3 example.First you are agnostic. Then you are rational enough to choose the one that gives you the highest EV.edit:this scenario1. You don't believe there is a God(s) based upon what you know.2. You realize that you don't know everything3. You realize that you could gain some potential utility by believing in a God(s)4. You don't want to lose utility (drinking for the early games) so you pick a God(s) that allow this or minimizes your investment. (i.e. creates a positive EV for you)5. You realize that by picking the wrong God(s) you could actually create a negative EV (your penalty is worse than not believing)6. You are back to square one of not believing but armed with the knowledge that you did not believe for fear of picking the wrong one and creating negative EV.

Yes, but I've made my choice. I'm past step 2. And now you make the argument that I should go back to step 2 (being agnostic).