I believe most people that actually have intelligent conversations, will usually provide a counter argument and not just keep rail-birding the you must state it better or provide more with getting fixated on something previously stated.

You really love spaghetti so much, I believe you are looking out of rose tinted glasses; where you see me, using it more than what is really the case.

Aaron, i'll respond more to your other post later, have to run for now.

If you're not intelligent enough to be able to articulate your own argument in a meaningful way, what sort of intelligent response are you expecting?

And if you're going to make arguments and analogies and not address the question of whether you even accept the arguments and analogies you're making, and try to deflect that by calling it "fixation" then you lack intellectual integrity.

Do you believe that you have an apt analogy between spaghetti and religion, based around "you don't really need it" by comparing the end results that you stated? Is this really an argument you stand behind as accurately representing the depth of thought that you've put into your belief?

I think best way forward in thread is to ditch the spaghetti convo.

All my focus for this thread, will now be on any added discussion that comes from this post.

I'll be happy to answer any questions about the post and why it correlates with the thread title and the original first thread post.

A couple of points.

You said this:

"I've made it clear in creating this thread, if you believe in any religion, you're gambling and you can attempt to argue this if you want."

You also said this:

"I'm sorry if you want me to write a novel but I'm assuming you know that isn't possible and that you have to add your own thought, not just my own."

This is a bit of a contradiction. If you leave gaps in your reasoning that people have to fill in with their own thoughts, then the point is not clear unless those fill ins are forced to fit thoughts exactly. But given the response to your premise you have to concede that virtually everyone who has responded itt has found your premise wanting. Your point is anything but clear.

Here is what you have done. You have shown that an analogy can be drawn between those who follow a religion and those who gamble if certain assumptions about the benefits are made. That same analogy could be drawn about many other decisions about life however, so the restriction to religion is unjustified.

What you have not done is shown that following a religion and being opposed to gambling is hypocrisy. Just because I purchase life insurance (an action that has some analogy with gambling and some with religion) does not mean that I cannot view the social cost of gambling to be severe enough that it should be restricted.

I'm not conceding?

I've basically admitted by posting my previous post; that I believe it would be simpler to start the thread fresh because thread was becoming a mess or too complicated when it didn't have to be that way.

I don't want to write a novel by posting in this thread.
If it is too difficult for people to understand, i'm going to attempt to make it even simpler by starting anew with that post I just made.

I believe it is simple, where anyone can understand; you are wagering your time, when you belong to a religion.
That is basically a very simple statement that correlates with the thread title.

The question becomes that is a person a hypocrite when he/she dislikes others that gamble as well in life at anything.

I say the answer is definitely yes.
If people can convince me otherwise, that would be nice to read.

What is justification and why is it unjustified if other things in life are also considered a gamble?

I would say you're a hypocrite; if you have life insurance and view the social cost of gambling to be severe enough that it should be restricted.

I'll come back to to why that is but I first want to explain my concept of time and money.
When I say that time is what people gamble with, I really mean it. Everyone has a different hourglass filled with their time that they are alive.
A person's money relates to the time it cost, to receive the currency and this is different for everyone.

When a person is using his money, he is spending the time it took to receive what he is spending.
He is gambling his time for whatever value, he will get from his time and that is how I relate time with money.

So when a person is paying for life insurance, yes he would be a hypocrite.
Who is he to say, how other people should be using their time.

I don't really understand how that isn't simple if it isn't.
Even if a person wants to say, well you can't go and compare apple to oranges because what about the social cost of the outcome of people doing x compared to y. Well there is a social cost of life insurance and it is significant. It is like saying there is no social cost of health insurance in one country vs another country living completely differently without it.

If this is true, then you are wagering your time when you don't belong to a religion. But more realistically, "wagering" is simply the wrong way to frame it.

No, it's not. It's simply dumb to say that investing time in something is the same as taking a chance at the lottery by gambling.

It's impossible to convince someone of something that they don't want to accept. Since I can't get you to accept that your analogy is stupid, I won't get you to accept that calling all religious people who think that gambling is wrong "hypocrites" by claiming that they're wagering their time.

I don't doubt that you mean it. I just doubt that you've really thought carefully about it. This framework basically says nothing about anything because everything is included.

This is another reason that I don't think any amount of reasoning will convince you that your framework is dumb.

That is not true.
A person that has never belonged to a religion, didn't invest any of his/her time into one and thus hasn't gambled any time for any benefit.

You believe it is dumb but they are pretty comparable when both are not needed in life.
Also what exactly are the odds of one religion being right compared to another, doesn't matter but sort of curious.

You haven't really explained why it is stupid besides just saying that you can't compare them but to me, they seem almost identical in the regard of gambling one's time for a benefit that necessarily won't come.

Everything isn't included.

You haven't really tried besides saying it is dumb.

They gambled their time in *something* because that time is now spent.

But to what end are you comparing them? Simply finding some aspect of something that's similar does not make a good analogy. That's not even how an analogy functions. Two things are not analogous because they have one similarity between them.

The odds are incalculable in any non-arbitrary manner.

Sometimes, all there is to say about something is that it's stupid. Your analogy is stupid because one similarity between two different objects does not make it a functional analogy. Your framework of wagering time is stupid because if it's taken to its logical ends then everyone is wagering time all the time on everything they do, which basically renders any analysis utterly meaningless because it's impossible to make any meaningful distinctions between anything.

How are non-religious people not wagering them time doing something? No matter what they do, their time is spent on something that has some sort of probabilistic outcome that may or may not have a positive benefit at the end.

I've actually done quite a bit. Maybe it's just over your head.

Just because OP is having difficulties engaging in analogous reasoning, does not make it irrelevant.

A gamble requires a perception of a win/loss scenario. If you don't believe you stand to lose anything by choosing spaghetti over rice then you're not gambling. Once again, perception of a win/loss scenario is required for a gamble to take place.

If I choose to go take a leak now, or 5 seconds from now, am I gambling? There's the risk that I'll pee myself I delay so am I gambling?

Obviously not, since there is no perception of win/loss, whether I go take a leak now, or 5 seconds from now.

I can keep going if its necessary....

If someone just hit me over the head with a book but I don't believe that I'm in pain and I don't believe I'm angry, am I still in pain and am I still angry?

Obviously not.

Should I continue...

Or is OP going to stop ignoring the relevance of people's subjective perceptions?

Reducing everything to perception doesn't help, either. I can be totally convinced that the next roulette spin will be red because the last 10 have been black. That doesn't mean that placing a bet on red isn't a gamble, no matter how convinced I am that the outcome will be favorable to me. So there's at least some objective component.

But a student taking a test is also not automatically gambling, even though there is a clear risk/reward scenario associated with an uncertain outcome, and even if the student perceives those possibilities. Most concepts of gambling require some sort of material risk, so risking "time" (in and of itself) is not often considered to be gambling. (But a student taking a multiple choice test by randomly picking could be considered a gamble.)

There's no clear definition that accounts for all uses and all concepts. There's no way to measure "enough" risk for it to be called a "gamble" compared to some other name you might call it. But it seems clear that some concepts go too far and that makes some uses of the word inappropriate.

In this situation you will still have a perception of a win/loss scenario. You are playing roulette after all...

I think it is sufficient to explain it as requiring 'a perception of a win/loss scenario'.

P.S. risk/reward is different to win/loss. A student isn't 'winning' an assignment or a test.

Not if I know it's going to be red next time.

I don't fully disagree with you, but a struggling C student wins if the gamble is not studying for a test and then passes it anyway. Passing is winning in that scenario.

O.K...Aaron.

I stand by my statement. It is sufficient to explain it as requiring 'a perception of a win/loss scenario'.

Wow. This is marginally incoherent. I am opting out for good now. This is going absolutely nowhere.

Yes, there are some people who look down upon people playing the lottery, but i wouldn't say its all religious people.

In reading the Bible, it is clear that religions are actually looked down upon as well, so of course it is a gamble, you are right, even bigger than playing the lottery i think.

Those who are still part of their religion if they look on the bright side, at the very least they have community.

When i think of gambling being looked down upon i can compare it to the currency changers being thrown out of the temple maybe making a few shekel with the exchange rates and not telling anyone. Are you trying to rip anyone off gambling? you see it could be alot different.

How can knowing where you come from not be beneficial?