Pascal's wager...

[Keith&Co.]

I suppose it depends. What if there was a person who's leading that virtuous life,

but that's the point. Which life IS that virtuous life?

How does the wager help us determine the virtues and the sins?

Is Jesus the Messiah, prophet for The Messiah, or a false prophet?
Can't follow the right scripture without knowing.
Lion offers no help in determining this truth except by the threat of Hell if we're wrong. But the threat of Hell is already part of some traditions, not all, so that fear is still a few steps down the road.

Kinda useless.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pascal's Wager is a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing, owing to the fact that no gods are to be found. Better we call it Pascal's Bluff.

He does seem to find out things. Lets not be too harsh , not forgetting his many contributions to science.

https://www.famousscientists.org/blaise-pascal/

And how many contributions have been made to science thru logic as poor as The Wager?
By Blaise or anyone else?

Go ahead and name your favorite false dichotomy, or the most productive one.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Behavioral indicators of having an open mind:
Examining sources
Demanding consistency, rationality, empirical supports and results
Understanding the role of emotional appeal and propaganda, and setting them aside when analyzing claims
Understanding psychological processes
Doubt itself as an opening position, especially with regard to the supernatural

Behavioral indicators of a closed mind:\
Adherence to orthodoxy
Circular reasoning and special pleading
Giving weight to tradition in and of itself, to the number of adherents in and of itself
Claiming infallibility for a position, a text, or a group leader
Making a "post-truth" claim (i.e., Trump on scientists having an agenda that makes their observations invalid)
Claiming the validity of a 'spiritual experience' which is somehow superior to similar claims by divergent faith groups

 

[Lion IRC]

I suppose it depends. What if there was a person who's leading that virtuous life,

but that's the point. Which life IS that virtuous life?

How does the wager help us determine the virtues and the sins?

Is Jesus the Messiah, prophet for The Messiah, or a false prophet?
Can't follow the right scripture without knowing.
Lion offers no help in determining this truth except by the threat of Hell if we're wrong. But the threat of Hell is already part of some traditions, not all, so that fear is still a few steps down the road.

Kinda useless.

Pascal's Wager doesn't have to relate solely to catholic/apostolic Christianity, or Christianity in general, or biblical monotheism. It can, and probably should, be applied broadly to the existence of God(s) in general by agnostics who have nothing to lose by giving theism the benefit of the doubt instead of the alternative - presuppositional atheism.

 

[skepticalbip]

I suppose it depends. What if there was a person who's leading that virtuous life,

but that's the point. Which life IS that virtuous life?

How does the wager help us determine the virtues and the sins?

Is Jesus the Messiah, prophet for The Messiah, or a false prophet?
Can't follow the right scripture without knowing.
Lion offers no help in determining this truth except by the threat of Hell if we're wrong. But the threat of Hell is already part of some traditions, not all, so that fear is still a few steps down the road.

Kinda useless.

Pascal's Wager doesn't have to relate solely to catholic/apostolic Christianity, or Christianity in general, or biblical monotheism. It can, and probably should, be applied broadly to the existence of God(s) in general by agnostics who have nothing to lose by giving theism the benefit of the doubt instead of the alternative - presuppositional atheism.

You are making up your own meaning here, not applying what Pascal wrote. Pascal's Wager hinges on believing in the Christian god and eternal damnation. According to the wager if the Christian god is real, a kind, benevolent, caring, helpful person who spends their life devoted to helping others is still going to hell because they didn't accept the Christian god "into their hearts".

 

[Kharakov]

Which path leads to comfort, happiness, wealth, and pleasure in this life, for the longest sustainable time, with a nice, safe cut off so one doesn't suffer the infirmities of old age if one decides not to? Joining a corrupt society that forces those in lower positions to serve you... as long as you don't end up on the bottom for your whole life.


One path is the path of convincing others that they'll go to hell if they don't preserve your unearned position in the hierarchy of life. That hell is living on the street, or being locked up in jail with stronger rapists, thugs, and violent offenders without a chance at the good life.

You're not going to get the good life anyway, but you'll get a tiny bit of it if you do what the corrupt US military wants you to do. They get the lyin's share, and you'll know that you betrayed the weak if you enjoy the goods that you gain by serving them. But they control all wealth- so if you go against them, you will suffer. Not tons- you're useful, after all, and they don't want to do the work, they want to focus on enjoying the wealth you create and maintain.

They want to force you to, and they want you to keep on doing it long after they stop threatening you, so they can forget how they got their ill gotten gains in life. After they forget what they did, they want you to keep on doing the work, like you were the one who did wrong. Not the truth- that they do wrong, that their whole life is built around building a lie that puts their corrupt asses comfortably on top.

Anyway, they're all pieces of shit or fools. If you find a US military member who isn't a fool, they're a piece of shit. That's the way it is.

 

[Lion IRC]

You say there is no no evidence.
A few billion of your fellow human beings say they have enough evidence.

Why don't you keep an open mind? Why do you say their experience of evidence is false?

I see a few problems with this argument.

.. "A few billion of your fellow human beings" is invoking the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity or bandwagoning. Billions of people believing something doesn't make it true - billions of people believe in a mistaken idea about the nature of time.

So it doesn't matter how many scientists claim to have seen evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Technically, yes, there is a possibility they might ALL be mistaken - every single one of them.
But at what point are we reasonably entitled to assign a probability/likelihood that they might be onto something?

...Your use of the word, "evidence", indicates a confusion over what that word actually means. Present that evidence and if it is actually evidence rather than belief then you could convert a hell of a lot of people.

Yes, yes. I know.
Atheists demand empirical, repeatable evidence on-demand or it never happened.
Can you imagine if juries demanded to see, with their own eyes, the victim actually being murdered?
Oh sure, the prosecution has a hundred witnesses who claim they saw it happen but that can't be relied on because as we all know, no matter how many people claim something, that doesn't make it true.

.. "Open mind" does not mean accepting anything presented as true. It means considering what is offered and then accepting or rejecting it for cause or simply remaining unconvinced.

I remain unconvinced that atheism is true.

You are making up your own meaning here, not applying what Pascal wrote. Pascal's Wager hinges on believing in the Christian god and eternal damnation. According to the wager if the Christian god is real, a kind, benevolent, caring, helpful person who spends their life devoted to helping others is still going to hell because they didn't accept the Christian god "into their hearts".

Yes I am. I'm saying Pascals Wager can be a heuristic for AvT more generally - not necessarily Christian Particularism. Seek and ye will find.

 

[skepticalbip]

So it doesn't matter how many scientists claim to have seen evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Technically, yes, there is a possibility they might ALL be mistaken - every single one of them.
But at what point are we reasonably entitled to assign a probability/likelihood that they might be onto something?

You are right. It doesn't matter how many scientists agree. What matters is the weight of the evidence. Scientist's just happen to be fairly proficient at weighing evidence so it isn't surprising they tend to usually agree.

...Your use of the word, "evidence", indicates a confusion over what that word actually means. Present that evidence and if it is actually evidence rather than belief then you could convert a hell of a lot of people.

Yes, yes. I know.
Atheists demand empirical, repeatable evidence on-demand or it never happened.
Can you imagine if juries demanded to see, with their own eyes, the victim actually being murdered?
Oh sure, the prosecution has a hundred witnesses who claim they saw it happen but that can't be relied on because as we all know, no matter how many people claim something, that doesn't make it true.

It is reasonable people, not necessarily atheists, that demand empirical evidence. Then your jump to legal trials is a non sequitur. Juries yield their opinion, not 'truth'.

.. "Open mind" does not mean accepting anything presented as true. It means considering what is offered and then accepting or rejecting it for cause or simply remaining unconvinced.

I remain unconvinced that atheism is true.

Yup, people tend to have all sorts of beliefs about reality... you are certainly welcome to yours.

You are making up your own meaning here, not applying what Pascal wrote. Pascal's Wager hinges on believing in the Christian god and eternal damnation. According to the wager if the Christian god is real, a kind, benevolent, caring, helpful person who spends their life devoted to helping others is still going to hell because they didn't accept the Christian god "into their hearts".

Yes I am. I'm saying Pascals Wager can be a heuristic for AvT more generally - not necessarily Christian Particularism. Seek and ye will find.

Then I am confused as to why you would bother with invoking an argument as utterly stupid as Pascal's Wager. Why not just offer your own ideas of how people should live?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It can, and probably should, be applied broadly to the existence of God(s) in general by agnostics who have nothing to lose by giving theism the benefit of the doubt instead of the alternative - presuppositional atheism.

Wow, what a loaded claim.

You cannot say 'nothing to lose' because more than one superstition promises divine retribution for picking the wrong one.

And, one grants 'the benefit of the doubt' in assuming 'good' when you have no evidence one way or another AND no reason to assume 'bad.' But that doesn't apply uere, either.
If there only were one religion, it might. But about the only thing the thousands of human religions agree upon is that most of the others are fakes, wrong, or at the very least incomplete. So, whatEVER the faith is that you're shilling, the greater part of humanity believes it to be false. If we take your appeal to popularity as valid, we would be forced to conclude atheism.
Even without that, the behavior of theists thru history has not earned any religion the benefit of the doubt.

And your assertion that atheism must be presuppositionist, as you suggest it is THE alternative, well, that is just a load of bullshit.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, yes. I know.
Atheists demand empirical, repeatable evidence on-demand or it never happened.
Can you imagine if juries demanded to see, with their own eyes, the victim actually being murdered?
Oh sure, the prosecution has a hundred witnesses who claim they saw it happen but that can't be relied on because as we all know, no matter how many people claim something, that doesn't make it true.

Are you really saying you think there's a similarity between demanding evidence for who caused an event that everyone knows can and has happened and been verified and documented a million times (murder) and demanding evidence for something that has never, ever, been evidentially documented (god)?

Or do you know they are not similar but you're trying to use it to divert an uncomfortable conversation?

I mean, really, this is kind of a silly analogy, and all of us including you know it. If pascal's wager were only about which of the multiple thoroughly proven gods to follow, it would be a wholly different discussion, wouldn't it?

 

[Rhea]

in general by agnostics who have nothing to lose by giving theism the benefit of the doubt instead of the alternative - presuppositional atheism.

What? They have everything to lose. Everything!
If you believe in this god who will give you eternal happiness, you will do cruel and awful or wasteful and meaningless things with the only life you will ever get.



Like the evangelicals who want to start a war in Israel so they can hurry up the rapture.
Like the billions of theists who spend hours and hours on their knees talking to a deity who isn't there.
Like the cruel theists who would turn other humans into slave incubators on the whim that a zygote has a "soul".
Like the horrific animals who would punish and try to force a homosexual to "convert" or whatever the hell they call their abominable therapy.
Like the cold and heart-dead theists who will disown their own children for not following the theology.


Nothing to lose? You only get one life. You throw that away on cruelty and mumbo jumbo and you have lost every thing you could ever have had.

Seems to me the wager goes the other way.
You have nothing to lose

IF

the god is loving

and at the end of living a fulfilled and moral life without gods​

The god forgives you​

And welcomes you into heaven for your caring atheistic heart.​

Because you could not find belief in a god who would do otherwise. You couldn't imagine such cruelty would exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I suppose it depends. What if there was a person who's leading that virtuous life,

but that's the point. Which life IS that virtuous life?

How does the wager help us determine the virtues and the sins?

Is Jesus the Messiah, prophet for The Messiah, or a false prophet?
Can't follow the right scripture without knowing.
Lion offers no help in determining this truth except by the threat of Hell if we're wrong. But the threat of Hell is already part of some traditions, not all, so that fear is still a few steps down the road.

Kinda useless.

Pascal's Wager doesn't have to relate solely to catholic/apostolic Christianity, or Christianity in general, or biblical monotheism. It can, and probably should, be applied broadly to the existence of God(s) in general by agnostics who have nothing to lose by giving theism the benefit of the doubt instead of the alternative - presuppositional atheism.

That's pretty weak. You're claiming that it's better to be a believer in some kind of a god, any kind, then to not. But I think that's indeed what happens with people who are superstitious. It's revealing how many different gods and differences in the same god that people have invented. Obviously people believe in belief, not necessarily a particular incarnation. Gods end up being their placebos. Catholics do that, they take a dose of their god once a week. Well, 15 percent of them do anyway.

 

[skepticalbip]

Pascal's Wager doesn't have to relate solely to catholic/apostolic Christianity, or Christianity in general, or biblical monotheism. It can, and probably should, be applied broadly to the existence of God(s) in general by agnostics who have nothing to lose by giving theism the benefit of the doubt instead of the alternative - presuppositional atheism.

I have strong doubts that you sincerely are advocating this. Gods like Saturn or Bacchus were big on drinking, partying, and orgies. Would you suggest that agnostics accept and emulate them as their gods since they don't accept the Christian god? Or does it really bother you so much that there are actually people who do not believe that you would think this is preferable to nonbelief?

 

[Learner]

Pascal's Wager is a desperate attempt to make something out of nothing, owing to the fact that no gods are to be found. Better we call it Pascal's Bluff.

He does seem to find out things. Lets not be too harsh , not forgetting his many contributions to science.

https://www.famousscientists.org/blaise-pascal/

Pardon me for overlooking the argument from association.

I was actually hinting on Pascal's "Intellectual, rational credibility" (but well spotted I suppose). Sometimes one has to hint on the ovelooked in this regard.

A friend just got back from Israel and was telling me how he was right there standing on the shores of Galilee standing right there where the multitudes listened. So I told him how excited I was when I was five years old knowing that Santa was actually in my living room walking around leaving me presents.

You need to talk to your dad , urgently!

 

[Learner]

I suppose it depends. What if there was a person who's leading that virtuous life,

but that's the point. Which life IS that virtuous life?

The one thats closest to Pascal's theology description i.e. Christianity.

How does the wager help us determine the virtues and the sins?

Is Jesus the Messiah, prophet for The Messiah, or a false prophet?
Can't follow the right scripture without knowing.
Lion offers no help in determining this truth except by the threat of Hell if we're wrong. But the threat of Hell is already part of some traditions, not all, so that fear is still a few steps down the road.

Kinda useless.

To be honest, I don't know for sure (not as savy as others in this area) in regards to or according to the theology, for example; Would God accept the person who led a "virtuous life" even though he did not quite believe? I doubt there'd be any sort of pretending, since the motive to vigorously act out the belief, must for the individual, feel sub-consciously true, somewhere in his mind. Perhaps God would accept this person, even though it is said that "You can only get through by Jesus". Its God's judgement call .

Preachers don't preach Pascal's wager ,and I've never heard a sermon on it either. (obvious to certain dangers)

You can BTW determine virtues and the sins, since the wager suggests you go by the faith/doctrine.

 

[Learner]

And how many contributions have been made to science thru logic as poor as The Wager?
By Blaise or anyone else?

Go ahead and name your favorite false dichotomy, or the most productive one.

I don't think even Blaise would presents Theology (wager) as science. I would assume people like that would keep theology and science seperate. (Give or take a philosophical thought provoker now and then).

 

[Keith&Co.]

And how many contributions have been made to science thru logic as poor as The Wager?
By Blaise or anyone else?

Go ahead and name your favorite false dichotomy, or the most productive one.

I don't think even Blaise would presents Theology (wager) as science. I would assume people like that would keep theology and science seperate. (Give or take a philosophical thought provoker now and then).

Um, whether it's science or philosophy, the wager is still a false dichotomy, thus the conclusion is fer shitses.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The one thats closest to Pascal's theology description i.e. Christianity.

What? Still have not answered the question.
How do I know which set of virtues allow me to lead 'a virtuous life.' Just because Pascal framed the wager does not mean he guessed the right religion.
Even if The Wager itself were valid, there are still many possible choices. Pascal picking one of them us not evidrnce that he picked correctly.

How does the wager help us determine the virtues and the sins

You can BTW determine virtues and the sins, since the wager suggests you go by the faith/doctrine.

Jeez, you are bad at this.

Which faith do i use to determine sins and virtues?

I have Christain relatives who will not do business with any man who won't drink with them. They insist that wine is a sacrament exactly because in vino veritas, so you know no godly man will fear alcohol loosening his lips. They tie it into Jesus thru the wedding miracle and the Last Supper.
I also have Mormon relatives who will not touch alcohol, ever. Because God said not to.

So, who is right? How would The Wager help me pick who is right?

 

[Learner]

And how many contributions have been made to science thru logic as poor as The Wager?
By Blaise or anyone else?

Go ahead and name your favorite false dichotomy, or the most productive one.

I don't think even Blaise would presents Theology (wager) as science. I would assume people like that would keep theology and science seperate. (Give or take a philosophical thought provoker now and then).

Um, whether it's science or philosophy, the wager is still a false dichotomy, thus the conclusion is fer shitses.

Its not aimed at those who already believe, and its not a preached doctrine that's for sure. Oddly enough, It may have its uses, as sort of a stepping stone to the "full" conversion of faith, "eventually" for some. Maybe that was his underlining motive? (or not).

 

[DBT]

Theology....now, that is a strange field of study.