Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Some truths are more equal than others.
So far you haven't backed that one up.
.
Some truths are more equal than others.
So far you haven't backed that one up.
.
Interesting Views
- Thread starter Rolf
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Rolf
You're not alive?
If you are, you're on the journey to either oblivion or the undiscovered country.
That's a pretty big assumption! Okay, I think I'm finally catching on to what he's saying there. By not choosing, you're essentially choosing the non-believer side with respect to his analysis. Sorry, it's quite a leap for me to contemplate the consequences of religious theory! I thought he was saying that it is not possible to be completely agnostic; that we will always lean one way or the other.
You're not alive?
If you are, you're on the journey to either oblivion or the undiscovered country.
That's a pretty big assumption! Okay, I think I'm finally catching on to what he's saying there. By not choosing, you're essentially choosing the non-believer side with respect to his analysis. Sorry, it's quite a leap for me to contemplate the consequences of religious theory! I thought he was saying that it is not possible to be completely agnostic; that we will always lean one way or the other.
Exactly rpn453,
To not decide is to decide against God.
I believe Pascal is saying regarding being agnostic is that if you can't or won't decide, it's the same thing as rejecting God. If God wants you to choose Him and you don't, it doesn't matter WHY you didn't choose him, you simply didn't choose Him and the consequences are severe.
There is little risk to choose God, but great risk to not choose Him was Pascal's argument.
I think that's a bit over simplified, but I think taking the discussion any further will overstep the TOS here.
To not decide is to decide against God.
I believe Pascal is saying regarding being agnostic is that if you can't or won't decide, it's the same thing as rejecting God. If God wants you to choose Him and you don't, it doesn't matter WHY you didn't choose him, you simply didn't choose Him and the consequences are severe.
There is little risk to choose God, but great risk to not choose Him was Pascal's argument.
I think that's a bit over simplified, but I think taking the discussion any further will overstep the TOS here.
Originally Posted By: javacontour
.... To not decide is to decide against God. ....
There is little risk to choose God, but great risk to not choose Him was Pascal's argument. .....
That is the gist of his argument.
From a practical standpoint, if we join Pascal in his wager, we may not make earth heaven, but surely we make it less a h-ll.
.
.... To not decide is to decide against God. ....
There is little risk to choose God, but great risk to not choose Him was Pascal's argument. .....
That is the gist of his argument.
From a practical standpoint, if we join Pascal in his wager, we may not make earth heaven, but surely we make it less a h-ll.
.
Yeah, it isn't a difficult concept. I was just thinking in a different direction. Thanks for straightening me out!
I have some trouble with the labels which are used here to describe people who don't profess to know what they believe. They seem to promote the idea that if you are not PRO gd, you are therefore ANTI - there is no room for undecided, unconvinced, still gathering data, haven't reached the appropriate life altering crisis, etc. This is coupled with the idea that believing in a particular philosphy is something you can just decide to do, on the same level as deciding what shoes to put on in the morning.
Perhaps some people can do that. I can not, although I tried it for about 35 years, until I realized I was fooling myself and that I had to find something that worked for me on multiple levels of belief - logically, emotionally, practically, and other ways I can't even enumerate.
One of the philosphies I tend to agree with says that labels are a trap. You can get very off-track defining yourself, or letting other people define you, according to labels. If you are comfortable with what you are, it doesn't matter how other people think of you. If indeed you have to answer for somehing down the line, it will be for whether or not you used the navigational instincts you were given for making your way in this world.
Perhaps some people can do that. I can not, although I tried it for about 35 years, until I realized I was fooling myself and that I had to find something that worked for me on multiple levels of belief - logically, emotionally, practically, and other ways I can't even enumerate.
One of the philosphies I tend to agree with says that labels are a trap. You can get very off-track defining yourself, or letting other people define you, according to labels. If you are comfortable with what you are, it doesn't matter how other people think of you. If indeed you have to answer for somehing down the line, it will be for whether or not you used the navigational instincts you were given for making your way in this world.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Now, why you don't you let the professionals discuss motor oil and run along?
.
When professionals found out that Exxon was using mostly group III base stock in Mobil 1 EP, you didn't want ANY discussion of it. You don't want discussion, you want censorship. BITOG was founded to be a place for free exchange of ideas and discoveries (without corporate influence). You're the antithesis of that.
Now, why you don't you let the professionals discuss motor oil and run along?
.
When professionals found out that Exxon was using mostly group III base stock in Mobil 1 EP, you didn't want ANY discussion of it. You don't want discussion, you want censorship. BITOG was founded to be a place for free exchange of ideas and discoveries (without corporate influence). You're the antithesis of that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Oh ..Rolf is the clown that tried to get Tom fired??
Now it all makes sense.
Rolf ..carry on dude. You're in a class by yourself!
Now it all makes sense.
Rolf ..carry on dude. You're in a class by yourself!
I'm not going to say anything about this thread except this:
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. If you decide based on his logic, you stand to gain nothing, no matter which decision you make. There is no intelligent choice. The man was just grasping at straws and masking it by grandiose language and difficult to follow figures just like almost everybody else in his era... Trying to understand the big picture by replicating the minutae of what they could see from their own vantage. Taking the same tired ideas and reworking their presentation, presenting them as 'Modern'. Or, just trying to compress the most words into the smallest idea possible. Maybe he was just trying to get women, but whatever the case might have been it's a silly thing to discuss further.
This thread needs to be locked up and forgotten about, IMHO. I've never used the ignore function before but I'm considering it strongly.
.
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. If you decide based on his logic, you stand to gain nothing, no matter which decision you make. There is no intelligent choice. The man was just grasping at straws and masking it by grandiose language and difficult to follow figures just like almost everybody else in his era... Trying to understand the big picture by replicating the minutae of what they could see from their own vantage. Taking the same tired ideas and reworking their presentation, presenting them as 'Modern'. Or, just trying to compress the most words into the smallest idea possible. Maybe he was just trying to get women, but whatever the case might have been it's a silly thing to discuss further.
This thread needs to be locked up and forgotten about, IMHO. I've never used the ignore function before but I'm considering it strongly.
.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
I'm not going to say anything about this thread except this:
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. If you decide based on his logic, you stand to gain nothing, no matter which decision you make.
So, deciding for a God, one conducts his affairs in a moral manner, and attains an eternal reward.
How does that gain nothing?
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
This thread needs to be locked up and forgotten about, IMHO. I've never used the ignore function before but I'm considering it strongly.
Locking it because you don't happen to find the topic of interest seems a bit extreme.
.
I'm not going to say anything about this thread except this:
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. If you decide based on his logic, you stand to gain nothing, no matter which decision you make.
So, deciding for a God, one conducts his affairs in a moral manner, and attains an eternal reward.
How does that gain nothing?
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
This thread needs to be locked up and forgotten about, IMHO. I've never used the ignore function before but I'm considering it strongly.
Locking it because you don't happen to find the topic of interest seems a bit extreme.
.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
When professionals found out that Exxon was using mostly group III base stock in Mobil 1 EP, you didn't want ANY discussion of it.
First, I was not posting at the time.
Second, it was those who wanted more data who are no longer posting here.
I've read every thread on the topic from front-to-back and find not a single piece of data.
There appear a lot of assumption, conclusions, positions, slogans, and so on but no data.
.
When professionals found out that Exxon was using mostly group III base stock in Mobil 1 EP, you didn't want ANY discussion of it.
First, I was not posting at the time.
Second, it was those who wanted more data who are no longer posting here.
I've read every thread on the topic from front-to-back and find not a single piece of data.
There appear a lot of assumption, conclusions, positions, slogans, and so on but no data.
.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Oh ..Rolf is the clown that tried to get Tom fired??
I don't see anything about Tom getting fired or anyone trying to get him fired.
(I am assuming this is "Tom NJ" who started the brouhaha which led to a fairly vocal anti-Mobil 1 contingent on the board).
.
Oh ..Rolf is the clown that tried to get Tom fired??
I don't see anything about Tom getting fired or anyone trying to get him fired.
(I am assuming this is "Tom NJ" who started the brouhaha which led to a fairly vocal anti-Mobil 1 contingent on the board).
.
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
One of the philosphies I tend to agree with says that labels are a trap.
This returns to my original point, which is that not thinking outside the box, and not putting things in the context of systems, leads to linear thinking and bad conclusions.
A label stops our thought process. "A" is an "X", and all Xs are blah blah blah.
We all "know" that blah blah blah.
.
One of the philosphies I tend to agree with says that labels are a trap.
This returns to my original point, which is that not thinking outside the box, and not putting things in the context of systems, leads to linear thinking and bad conclusions.
A label stops our thought process. "A" is an "X", and all Xs are blah blah blah.
We all "know" that blah blah blah.
.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
One of the philosphies I tend to agree with says that labels are a trap.
This returns to my original point, which is that not thinking outside the box, and not putting things in the context of systems, leads to linear thinking and bad conclusions.
A label stops our thought process. "A" is an "X", and all Xs are blah blah blah.
We all "know" that blah blah blah.
.
Agreed. I like the idea that "a conclusion is what you have when you stop thinking".
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
One of the philosphies I tend to agree with says that labels are a trap.
This returns to my original point, which is that not thinking outside the box, and not putting things in the context of systems, leads to linear thinking and bad conclusions.
A label stops our thought process. "A" is an "X", and all Xs are blah blah blah.
We all "know" that blah blah blah.
.
Agreed. I like the idea that "a conclusion is what you have when you stop thinking".
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Now, why you don't you let the professionals discuss motor oil and run along?
.
When professionals found out that Exxon was using mostly group III base stock in Mobil 1 EP, you didn't want ANY discussion of it. You don't want discussion, you want censorship. BITOG was founded to be a place for free exchange of ideas and discoveries (without corporate influence). You're the antithesis of that.
Yep. People like to pick and choose the facts they want to believe. Some individuals do have facts, while others don't.
The only company not producing any FACTS is XOM. On base oils and a response to Valvoline.
Thanks for the Pascal link. I share that view to a large extent.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Now, why you don't you let the professionals discuss motor oil and run along?
.
When professionals found out that Exxon was using mostly group III base stock in Mobil 1 EP, you didn't want ANY discussion of it. You don't want discussion, you want censorship. BITOG was founded to be a place for free exchange of ideas and discoveries (without corporate influence). You're the antithesis of that.
Yep. People like to pick and choose the facts they want to believe. Some individuals do have facts, while others don't.
The only company not producing any FACTS is XOM. On base oils and a response to Valvoline.
Thanks for the Pascal link. I share that view to a large extent.
Originally Posted By: Rolf
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
I'm not going to say anything about this thread except this:
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. If you decide based on his logic, you stand to gain nothing, no matter which decision you make.
So, deciding for a God, one conducts his affairs in a moral manner, and attains an eternal reward.
How does that gain nothing?
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
This thread needs to be locked up and forgotten about, IMHO. I've never used the ignore function before but I'm considering it strongly.
Locking it because you don't happen to find the topic of interest seems a bit extreme.
.
Completely over your head on both counts. Ignored.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
I'm not going to say anything about this thread except this:
Pascal's wager is fundamentally flawed. If you decide based on his logic, you stand to gain nothing, no matter which decision you make.
So, deciding for a God, one conducts his affairs in a moral manner, and attains an eternal reward.
How does that gain nothing?
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
This thread needs to be locked up and forgotten about, IMHO. I've never used the ignore function before but I'm considering it strongly.
Locking it because you don't happen to find the topic of interest seems a bit extreme.
.
Completely over your head on both counts. Ignored.
Originally Posted By: buster
The only company not producing any FACTS is XOM. On base oils and a response to Valvoline.
They aren't required to respond in the manner you would prefer.
ExxonMobil, unlike Red Line or some others, does not promote its motor oils by touting this or that base stock, or this or that blend stock.
Their position, with which I happen to agree, is that they sell motor oil, and if you like the way it performs, buy it. If not, don't.
As to Ashland, it perplexes me to no end what they hoped to accomplish.
Taking the bait and engaging in a p-ssing contest with them would serve - at least in the short run - Ashland's interest but not ExxonMobil's.
So, ExxonMobil provides plenty of facts - there are thousands of product files and MDS files on their website - just not the facts you want in the manner you want them.
.
The only company not producing any FACTS is XOM. On base oils and a response to Valvoline.
They aren't required to respond in the manner you would prefer.
ExxonMobil, unlike Red Line or some others, does not promote its motor oils by touting this or that base stock, or this or that blend stock.
Their position, with which I happen to agree, is that they sell motor oil, and if you like the way it performs, buy it. If not, don't.
As to Ashland, it perplexes me to no end what they hoped to accomplish.
Taking the bait and engaging in a p-ssing contest with them would serve - at least in the short run - Ashland's interest but not ExxonMobil's.
So, ExxonMobil provides plenty of facts - there are thousands of product files and MDS files on their website - just not the facts you want in the manner you want them.
.
Originally Posted By: buster
...oh and the only individual NOT to post facts was Mickey M. Facts were found.
I haven't seen any, and I've gone over the material a number of times.
Perhaps when you have a few spare moments you can point to them.
.
...oh and the only individual NOT to post facts was Mickey M. Facts were found.
I haven't seen any, and I've gone over the material a number of times.
Perhaps when you have a few spare moments you can point to them.
.
Originally Posted By: greenaccord02
Completely over your head on both counts. Ignored.
Do you have an actual point to make?
.
Completely over your head on both counts. Ignored.
Do you have an actual point to make?
.
- Status
