Pascal's wager...

[Keith&Co.]

I saw that someone quote Lion.

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

He's mentioned that before.

Does that strike anyone else as a pretty redundant point?

I mean, the only reason to worry about the consequences of apostasy is if god is as the theists describe him (even when they pretend they are not describing him). The possibility of Hell is intrinsic to the possibility of god, and that god has to be the sort of asshole who sends people to eternal torture for ANY reason, including a fairly ego-centric one like disappointing his self-important but not readily apparent plan.

So, if i really do, honestly, see no good reason to think you (or anyone) is right about a particular skybeast, i have no reason to concede the more objectionable possible attributes, and actions, you associate with that beast.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Moslems tell us that to claim Jesus is son of God is wrong and is an insult to Allah and will result in us going to hell. Christians tell us that denying Jesus is son of God is wrong and denying that will send us to hell. Then we have the Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons and others. All of a sudden this Pascal's Wager bit starts getting a bit more complicated and there is no sure bet. And of course, strong atheists that see how the claims made for God seem to soon break down into incoherent claims, contradictions and problems meaning that Pascal's Wager is a waste of time. It's like a bad bar bet thing.

 

[lpetrich]

I think that Pascal's Wager is a big load of merde de taureau.

One can construct versions of it for a variety of creeds. A Muslim version would go: If you make yourself believe that there no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet, and it is true, then when you die, you will live in a luxurious palace with A/C and gardens and running water and tasty food and fancy clothes and furniture, and if you are heterosexual and male, you will also get plenty of lovely ladies to be your very own harem. If it is not, then you are no worse off than if you did not believe that. But if it is true and you did not believe that, you will be burned alive forever and ever and ever, with your skin replaced by the angels who run the place when it gets burned off.

 

[DBT]

Pascals Wager doesn't say much for the Character of the God one is supposed to believe in, under the peril of Eternal Damnation.

 

[Politesse]

If God is really such a hard-ass as to condemn someone to eternal torture for failing to worship the (for instance) God of what is to them an enemy nation, you're probably screwed whether or not you try to toady up -- he'll get you for something in the end. People like that will always find some excuse to burn you. Look at Trump's inner circle and how quickly they find themselves outside of it. Petty demands for unconditional loyalty and infinite mercy do not cohabit obviously.

Mind you, I don't think this is really God's character. Hell is a borrowed fantasy dreamed up to scare the monastery neophytes, not a reasonable cosmological perspective.

 

[Wiploc]

I saw that someone quote Lion.

The existence of God is the wrong thing to be wrong about.

He's mentioned that before.

Does that strike anyone else as a pretty redundant point?

Suppose god really does exist. And suppose that he rewards non-believers infinitely, and throws believers into eternal torment.

This seems at least as plausible as what Christians believe. And, if this is the case, then the existence of gods is the wrong thing to be right about.

Therefore, I don't see Lion's claim as redundant.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yeah, there's infinite possibilities up there, but this threat of Hell is really asking us to accept that much of the myth as valid for no more reason than so that we're motivated to accept the rest of the myth.

Even the con man selling the abandoned gold mine salts the shaft because he knows no one would just accept his story without any evidence more than 'aren't you afraid of being poor? Better buy the mine!'

 

[sinkorswim]

Paschal's wager - The motto of "just in case christians". They believe in god just in case he's real and just as evil as they think he is.

Sent from my SM-T550 using Tapatalk

 

[ideologyhunter]

Well, here's My Wager. If it's in someone else's head -- and they got it from someone else's head -- and they can't demonstrate that it's more than bloated whimsy -- then it doesn't apply to me. Not its rules, its taboos, its miracle narratives, its cast of characters, its lines you mustn't cross.
Mencken I think says somewhere -- this is correct within a word or two -- that you owe your neighbor's religious beliefs the same respect you owe his belief that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.
Feh and Meh, in equal measure.

 

[Treedbear]

I thought the whole idea behind the Protestant Reformation was to allow freedom of conscience. For Pascal or Lion to think that it is in any way redeeming to profess a belief in a god simply because of the possibility of inconvenient consequences is apocryphal, i.e.; imagined or invented. It's no better than believing in the Catholic church because of the threat of being burned at the stake. It's essentially hypocritical. And why would an all powerful, just God honor that?

ETA -
Answer: Because that God is a random and capricious god.

 

[220volt]

Pascal's Wager is the dumbest argument ever. How do you "make" yourself believe? Faking your belief out of fear of being on the wrong side of the argument. Any omnipotent being would see through that.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, I've really never understood that. "If you don't actually believe it, pretend you do, God can't detect that kind of bullshit - go for it!"

 

[Learner]

It may have its uses, at least if one behaved in the manner thats required for believers, like the example of those you "treat as yourself", sort of thing.

 

[Treedbear]

Except that it undermines any personal integrity that the word might usefully convey. And it therefore requires that one continually be on the alert for possible challenges to that belief. Just as someone might routinely buy lottery tickets from the same stores because breaking that routine might be construed within one's own conscience as breaking faith with the hope of winning the big one. One is taught to continuously doubt one's own motives, resulting in the need to express religious zeal in crushing any source of doubt in one's religious beliefs. It's a corruption of what the word belief actually means. Just as religions have done to the ideas of faith and free will.

 

[Lion IRC]

Pascal's Wager is the dumbest argument ever. How do you "make" yourself believe? Faking your belief out of fear of being on the wrong side of the argument

It would be, IF that was what Pascal's Wager proposes. It does not.

No one is asked to fake their belief. Because that certainly wouldn't help any more than a mafia mobster faking remorse at confession on Sunday then carrying on as normal first thing Monday morning. You can't fool God and lying to yourself makes you the fool.

What Pascals Wager proposes is that you give God the benefit of the doubt because you have nothing to lose....which is a very OPEN-MINDED unbiased thing to do.

Methodological skepticism (presuppositional atheism) doesn't allow one to accept anything relating to divinity unless it comes complete with a certificate of empirical, repeatable authenticity. For such people Pascals Wager is a waste of time.

 

[Elixir]

What Pascals Wager proposes is that you give God the benefit of the doubt because you have nothing to lose.
...which is a very OPEN-MINDED thing to do.

Bad deal. I have an open mind, but I am not about to forfeit the reasoning ability that God presumably gave me in order to subscribe to any human's notions about God, i.e. any religion.
Christianity and VooDoo are indistinguishable in their level of bullshit.

 

[Rhea]

What Pascals Wager proposes is that you give God the benefit of the doubt because you have nothing to lose....which is a very OPEN-MINDED unbiased thing to do.
.

So now the scripture says that "Give the benefit of the doubt on Jesus and ye shall live forever"?

 

[DBT]

What Pascals Wager proposes is that you give God the benefit of the doubt because you have nothing to lose....which is a very OPEN-MINDED unbiased thing to do.

Which still means that your fate hinges on an trivial factor, the ability to convince yourself to believe in something for which there is no evidence...which is neither fair, reasonable or unbiased.

 

[skepticalbip]

For someone who already believes in a god that is sadistic enough to condemn people to eternal torment, Pascals Wager may make some sort of sense. Not so for someone who thinks the religious schtick is superstitious nonsense.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Either you believe in the Great Carrot or you do not
Either the Great Carrot is real or he is not.

If you believe in the Great Carrot, and he is real you get to spend all eternity in his Garden of Vitamins.
If you don't believe in the Great Carrot, and he is real, you spend all eternity being shredded for salad.
If you don't believe in the Great Carrot and he is not real, you gain nothing.
If you believe in the Great Carrot and he is not real you lose nothing.

Add to this we know CATEGORICALLY, that Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the other isms are heathen superstitions invented by the Evil Weevil to lead good Carrotists astray and that no matter what they say, they REALLY worship the Evil Weevil. We know this for two reasons, 1: it says so in the Carrotistically Inspired Seed Catalog of the Great Carrot and 2: Leaders of those heathen superstitions have said so, most recently Billy Graham said so on Squaty Stoopfellers TV Show.

So belief in the Great Carrot is the safest bet.

Bugs Bunny's Wager.

Eldarion Lathria