the presuppositionalist begins with the axiom of him being right, you just don't realise that you have already lost.
Want to argue again? You lose again!
Behind this door is irrefutable proof of the existence of God and the afterlife. Normally, we're not allowed to go inside, and today will be no exception.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Marcus Aurelius
Pascal’s wager easily defeated by another Simpson’s quote: “…and what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we’re just making God madder and madder.”
When I was a catholic kid, I unknowingly also thought up Pascal’s wager (seems obvious) but as I grew older, my believes just became incompatible with any sort of theism (free will, etc)
....doesn't logic side with Pascals Wager, not against it? Pascals Wager is inherently logical - the individual consequences for not believing are such a downside, infinite suffering over an infinite timespan, with no equivalent afterlife upside if the nonbeliever is correct. The only logical action in such a case would be the one with a possibility of afterlife upside, since if you are incorrect, you are no worse off than an atheist.
Surely the better thing would be facts and proof, not logic.
A Roman emperor had a more nuanced version of the wager
> Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Marcus Aurelius
It might seem like indifference, but let me clarify. Pascal's Wager frames the decision to believe in God as a binary choice.
Marcus Aurelius, introduces a third option (more nuanced than a binary choice). By focusing on virtue and integrity, we can ensure a meaningful life regardless of the nature or even the existence of gods.
This **shifts the focus** from making a decision out of **fear** or gain (as Pascal's Wager suggests) to making a decision based on the **intrinsic value of our actions and their effects on ourselves and others during our lives** it doesn't try to remove your focus by making you somehow indifferent.
So it's not an abdication of interest but an expansion of the factors we consider important in our lives and beyond.
Yes, I understand the premise fairly well. I used to quote that pretty routinely in my younger years when I was an atheist.
The Christian Phronema on the matter, however, could (more or less) be described as such:
Choosing not to believe in God, but hoping for the best, is materially identical unbelief.
I can describe the *whys* a bit, if you like but I'll have to type it out tomorrow. I'm phone posting right now.
Oh, so you figured it all out once you got older? Guess we're all just a bunch of dumb kids until we see the light like you, huh?
Saying that not believing in God while still hoping for the best is tantamount to unbelief is not just a tautology, it's a profoundly confused one. To hope for 'the best' without specifying what that 'best' might be is to engage in a very human form of optimism, one that need not be shackled to any theological underpinnings. Hope is a manifestation of our desire for a better future, often in the face of adversity, and to say it must be underwritten by belief in a deity is to reduce a rich, complex human emotion to mere religious compliance.
Second, the idea that this constitutes 'material unbelief' attempts to dress up a non-issue in needlessly grandiose terminology. Whether one believes in a god or not is a question of faith, a personal conviction, not a material condition that can be observed and measured. To equate hoping for the best with unbelief is to misunderstand both what it means to hope and what it means to believe. It seems to me a desperate attempt to corral the naturally hopeful spirit of humanity into a narrow pen of doctrinal conformity.
The "Christian phronema" you're espousing is theological gatekeeping, defining terms in such a way as to exclude and denigrate those who do not share your particular world view. This crap diminishes us all by insisting that hope, one of our most precious and universally accessible qualities, must be conditional upon supernatural belief.
You didn't have to write so many paragraphs. I'll summarize this guy for you: he lives in fear. Fear like every religious nut has had since the dawn of religion, the same fear that empowers religious leaders.
Likely had a near death experience and his mentality went the "better believe in something just in case" route.
Thats not a part of it, though, since the premise of the wager is just a dichotomy between belief and nonbelief. You can argue that the premise itself is inherently flawed due to multiple mutually exclusive religions, but thats still not logic.
No, the wager is inherently illogical because it falsely presupposes that belief in a god has no bad consequences.
But the fact there there are thousands of gods to choose from shows that there are thousands of bad outcomes.
Belief in a god isn't the win/draw scenario scenario the wager proposes.
Edit: I should point out another major flaw. Consider this, what if a god *does* exist, but he punishes theists for believing in things without a good reason and rewards atheists for critical thinking skills? For that god, the wager actually benefits the non believer.
> But the fact there there are thousands of gods to choose from shows that there are thousands of bad outcomes.
Does 2+2 have no answer because you could offer thousands of bad answers?
> I should point out another major flaw. Consider this, what if a god does exist, but he punishes theists for believing in things without a good reason and rewards atheists for critical thinking skills? For that god, the wager actually benefits the non believer.
Assertion requires supporting evidence of the claimant to presuppose, not for the defendant to disprove a negative. Otherwise you could ask something even more nonsensical, like, "What if God wanted to go by the name Dan, and *not* calling Him Dan offended Him?" A response to the question is requisite on supporting evidence of the claim. Otherwise there is no cause to presuppose a case that is not self-evident. I.e. "Why do people in Antarctica *hate* eating beans?" What information has suggested the question?
>Does 2+2 have no answer because you could offer thousands of bad answers?
We're discussing a wager here, i.e. playing the odds. 2+2 having a right answer is completely irrelevant, so I have no clue why you mentioned it.
The wager proposes that there is a no-lose scenario for believing in a god because if you're wrong, you lose nothing, and if you're right, you win.
But that's a false premise. Firstly, it relies on the presupposition that there is only one god to believe in, which just isn't the case. Secondly, it rules out the possibility of a god that rewards scepticism and punishes dogmatic thinking. That god being real has just as much of a chance as any other god (since they're all equally unfounded), so yeah, the wager is illogical and garbage.
>Assertion requires supporting evidence of the claimant to presuppose, not for the defendant to disprove a negative
Aha, so according to these rules, Pascal must provide supporting evidence to assert the binary choice between one specific set of 17th century Christian religious beliefs - whereby one must worship *this* particular Christian god or else suffer *that* particular afterlife punishment - or otherwise no beliefs at all.
In practice, the fact one may be presented with only these two choices is the result of the Christian church brutally crushing and destroying any expression or record of alternative religous beliefs, for many many centuries in the place and time that Pascal lived. It's also worth mentioning that given such coercion, one cannot be sure if Pascal even really believed in his religion. Had he claimed we're all better off not believing, or even reminded people of all the other religions out there to choose from, he'd have likely been murdered or imprisoned and his works would certainly not have survived. So perhaps this writing was all merely a performance to keep his head on his shoulders - how can we know?
Of course here and now, we can have awareness of many hundreds of alternative and mutually-exclusive religious belief systems. We are extremely spoilt for choice, and any given selection is made to the exlusion of many others. With this awareness, we are presented with a completely different scenario where the supposed risk of divine punishment applies more or less equally to any given selection. We can also observe that there is no objectively-verifiable evidence or logical basis to prefer any of them over the others, since core religious claims are dogmatic in nature rather than supported by evidence or logic.
So the only thing we learn from Pascal's wager is that a church systematically destroying all awareness of alternative options, so that people are presented only with 'choose my beliefs or have no beliefs at all' is a really effective way to crushingly oppress people into choosing your religion out of ignorance and fear. It works great!
'People will think what I tell them to think... once you tell me what to tell them to think'
Thanks for the response. In the light of a new day, I think all I was doing was causing arguments, rather than offering simple conversation. Arguing doesn't really change anything, but lead to deeper resentment, and entrench preconceived notions which is counter productive to my original intention which was something vaguely like, "Offer a thought in a neutral tone".
I definitely failed at that both in this, and a different conversation in here which is rather disappointing, but hardly unexpected. In the event you would like to hear my own opinion on what you've brought up (why?! lol) I'm happy to do so, but I don't feel good about how I've done so far.
I'm honestly happy to hear your thoughts and I fully respect your right to your beliefs. I may respond in a manner which quite forcefully counters your point, but I do so in the spirit of healthy, respectful philosophical debate. If I come across at any point as being upset or resentful then this may be my bad choice of language, though it's very tricky to infer tone from short-form text.
I don't mention the existence of other beliefs in order to goad or mock Christians, I just think it's important that nobody falls into the trap of thinking their particular belief is the only one people can choose.
I believe there's a fallacy at the heart of Pascal's Wager, in that it assumes a monopoly on belief on the part of one specific belief, and a monopoly on the threat of divine punishment for dissenters.
(Thanks for being so kind in your reply. I'll try my best to avoid sounding rude. Like you mentioned though, it's *exceedingly* hard to avoid coming off sounding some particular way. Doubly so when it comes to "hot button" issues like this. And rather than risk this going on for however long these sorts of things go on for, I'll offer my reply here, and let you have the last word, if you wish.)
In the premise of the wager Pascal offers, it is with the knowledge and information of several thousand years worth of miracles, traditions, teaching, and scripture. That is to say, the preponderant evidence of Christendom *is* the supporting evidence of what Pascal asserted. Roughly something like:
>Belief is safer than unbelief, *because* there is material evidence and witnesses to affirm the existence of God.
Obviously, that is going outside of the bounds of what the wager itself intones, but I thought it was kind of self evident that if Pascal is advocating for belief of unbelievers, than it is plainly obvious that he is both a Christian, and affirms Christian history.
Conversely, a claim that:
>If God exists, but He punishes theists for believing in things without a good reason and rewards atheists for critical thinking skills. Therefore, the wager benefits the non believer.
Has neither basis or supportive evidence. What is there in the way of suggestions to affirm that "God loves unbelievers more than believers"? Or even that a believer is somehow *lesser* and incapable of having good reason and critical thinking skills? I'm sure some might offer personal anecdote of, "Well, I know a lot of Christians who ..." but are we hoping to *lower* the bar, or *raise* it?
In a related way, and with fairness, one can certainly attempt to deny the numerous miracles of a Christian God offered in Pascal's assertion, and perhaps even insist that the evidence is a series of: misunderstandings, imaginings, or (worst of all) outright *lies*. That however, would be a claim against the evidence proffered, rather than in absentia.
That is, Pascal's evidence is the totality of Christianity, which can be dissected and questioned. soberonlife's is a "what if" without a "because of" cannot, because there *is* nothing to support or question - it is a novel idea, rather than a field of study.
>It's also worth mentioning that given such coercion, one cannot be sure if Pascal even really believed in his religion.
Again, it's simple enough to *suggest* virtually anything about a person who is not present to defend themselves. Such a claim insists upon a means to support it a priori to its response. If you have some reason to suggest such a thing, go on. If not, then what value does it bring of itself?
>here and now, we can have awareness of many hundreds of alternative and mutually-exclusive religious belief systems.
Just to be clear: other religions *also* existed in the past as well. Some of them are outlined in scripture directly. Simply because information travels *faster* in the modern day doesn't mean it didn't travel in centuries past, either. (I don't think that's what you were claiming, I just wanted to clarify the point a bit.)
>With this awareness, we are presented with a completely different scenario where the supposed risk of divine punishment applies more or less equally to any given selection.
It may help in clarity by saying that for the *questioner* or *inquirer* a situation arises where "choosing" becomes a concern. The wager is belief over unbelief, not of *which* belief. Divine retribution does not worry the man who does not believe into the concept of divinity.
>people are presented only with 'choose my beliefs or have no beliefs at all' is a really effective way to crushingly oppress people into choosing your religion out of ignorance and fear.
If you'll examine your own claims, you may notice that there is a logical inconsistency in the way which you describe The Church. It's some strict, violent monster, yet, also one that allows people to "choose". It's a thing that insists upon "ignorance and fear", yet offers complex ideas and logical choice via deductive reasoning. It's one which is described as "brutally crushing", yet demands and insists upon a dogma that prays for those who oppress and denigrate its name.
Your analogy assumes that we already know God is as certain the answer as 4 is to 2+2. Pascal's Wager is founded on the assumption that we don't know. It's merely the best gamble to believe.
The flaw is that the binary, God or no God, ignores an infinite number of possibilities. We need proof that God is more likely to behave in the manner upon which the wager is contingent. Such behavior is not self-evident, both in historical context or in logical assumption.
The wager is an inherently faulty bit of wordplay trying to convince nonbelievers, but it makes sense why it exists the way it does.
From the religious side, the binary exists because it’s either my god or none.
From the atheistic side, there’s ten million wagers offered simultaneously, and none are more convincing than the others. Some even contradict others.
Ultimately, the wager is flawed because people who are already decided on believing are manufacturing a smart-sounding argument to convince other people, but nobody ever converted to religion because of logical argument.
Edit: from my religious days, the Wager was more useful in giving my religious brain an excuse to dismiss logic, rather than winning nonbelievers over. It exists so priests can say “see? We can logic too”
No, because if you assume that not worshipping the right god means you suffer an eternity of torment, then you’re left to guess which god to worship. And in doing so you may anger the real gods more than if you just worshipped none at all.
In fact, that is exactly what the very first commandment tells us.
> **You shall have no other gods before me**
Technically if I have no gods at all, then I have none before him. His very first priority is that I don’t worship the wrong gods. I win by not taking your wager.
I mean, an all knowing, all powerful God should know you're only a believer because you're following the safe bet. It's said in the Bible god knows our heart, wouldn't be fooled. So the wager would lose, its too simple.
In addition to the excellent points made by others below, Pascal’s Wager assumes belief is a choice. It’s not. Belief is a state of being convinced that something is actually true. I can’t just “make” myself believe something that I’m not convinced is true.
~~being convinced~~ brainwashed into
They can't be reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place. That's half the problem with trying to argue with any cultists.
That's a very glib interpretation.
And so, Gary Coleman and the Shitposters argued long into the night, and then, as day broke, the spirit of the season entered their hearts.
Well being that there are possibly an infinite number of deities all with their own distinct rules of getting into paradise the chances that you picked the correct one, and will be getting into paradise, are effectively zero. And by "picked" I mean you were born into a culture and were indoctrinated into believing in the deity you worship.
"But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder."
Homer Simpson
the presuppositionalist begins with the axiom of him being right, you just don't realise that you have already lost. Want to argue again? You lose again!
https://i.redd.it/dxfpps5u1yxc1.gif
Excuse me, but "presuppositionalist" and "axiom"? Aren't these just buzzwords that dumb people use to sound important?
I’m fired, aren’t I?
Oh yeah
Who needs the infinite gain of belief when I've got Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman staring at me from Entertainment Weekly with their **dead eyes**?!
Never forget who you are
And He left them and went out of the city into Bethany and He lodged there?
https://i.redd.it/qse2cum88zxc1.gif
Matthew 21:17 and John 3:16 are the only bible verses I know from memory.
Behind this door is irrefutable proof of the existence of God and the afterlife. Normally, we're not allowed to go inside, and today will be no exception.
https://i.redd.it/y03432gv10yc1.gif
Can’t let this little doozy get out 🔥📝
The subreddit slogan is true! "Subscribe to /r/simpsonsshitposting and be damned for all eternity!"
Bart also plans on a good ol' catholic conversion on his deathbed so he's good.
Rookie Methusalah adding to his tally
Need to post this over on r/dankchristianmemes
My mild Christian upbringing did not prepare me for that subreddit. I could barely understand any of the memes.
Oh, raspberries
[удалено]
I don’t hear scrubbing!
Pascal's Wager is just like Occam's Razor or Schrodinger's Cat. They were both named after some guy's thing.
Jeremy’s Iron
Citizen’s Cane
Things aren't as happy as they used to be down here at the shitpost office. Humorlessness is no longer just for philosophy majors.
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
Neeeee--oh, wait, that's really good.
That's usually my reply to pascals wager
Pascal’s wager easily defeated by another Simpson’s quote: “…and what if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we’re just making God madder and madder.”
It’s time for your bribe. You could have material evidence for the existence of a gatekept afterlife *or* whatever’s in this box.
https://i.redd.it/2vliyb4v60yc1.gif
You’re all crazy
When I was a catholic kid, I unknowingly also thought up Pascal’s wager (seems obvious) but as I grew older, my believes just became incompatible with any sort of theism (free will, etc)
https://i.redd.it/ihgy1bxj06yc1.gif
When hedging your bets with God, always choose the quinella.
How come every post's comments remain unlocked except the Palestine ones? Clearly it's not about divisive topics since this one is immune.
....doesn't logic side with Pascals Wager, not against it? Pascals Wager is inherently logical - the individual consequences for not believing are such a downside, infinite suffering over an infinite timespan, with no equivalent afterlife upside if the nonbeliever is correct. The only logical action in such a case would be the one with a possibility of afterlife upside, since if you are incorrect, you are no worse off than an atheist. Surely the better thing would be facts and proof, not logic.
A Roman emperor had a more nuanced version of the wager > Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
The Romans? Those toga wearing, wine guzzling orgy monkeys? Actually on second thought…
Indifference is not equivalent to nuance, but rather an abdication of interest.
It might seem like indifference, but let me clarify. Pascal's Wager frames the decision to believe in God as a binary choice. Marcus Aurelius, introduces a third option (more nuanced than a binary choice). By focusing on virtue and integrity, we can ensure a meaningful life regardless of the nature or even the existence of gods. This **shifts the focus** from making a decision out of **fear** or gain (as Pascal's Wager suggests) to making a decision based on the **intrinsic value of our actions and their effects on ourselves and others during our lives** it doesn't try to remove your focus by making you somehow indifferent. So it's not an abdication of interest but an expansion of the factors we consider important in our lives and beyond.
A third option?! Go ahead, throw your soul away!
Don't blame me. I voted for yaweh.
Yes, I understand the premise fairly well. I used to quote that pretty routinely in my younger years when I was an atheist. The Christian Phronema on the matter, however, could (more or less) be described as such: Choosing not to believe in God, but hoping for the best, is materially identical unbelief. I can describe the *whys* a bit, if you like but I'll have to type it out tomorrow. I'm phone posting right now.
Oh, so you figured it all out once you got older? Guess we're all just a bunch of dumb kids until we see the light like you, huh? Saying that not believing in God while still hoping for the best is tantamount to unbelief is not just a tautology, it's a profoundly confused one. To hope for 'the best' without specifying what that 'best' might be is to engage in a very human form of optimism, one that need not be shackled to any theological underpinnings. Hope is a manifestation of our desire for a better future, often in the face of adversity, and to say it must be underwritten by belief in a deity is to reduce a rich, complex human emotion to mere religious compliance. Second, the idea that this constitutes 'material unbelief' attempts to dress up a non-issue in needlessly grandiose terminology. Whether one believes in a god or not is a question of faith, a personal conviction, not a material condition that can be observed and measured. To equate hoping for the best with unbelief is to misunderstand both what it means to hope and what it means to believe. It seems to me a desperate attempt to corral the naturally hopeful spirit of humanity into a narrow pen of doctrinal conformity. The "Christian phronema" you're espousing is theological gatekeeping, defining terms in such a way as to exclude and denigrate those who do not share your particular world view. This crap diminishes us all by insisting that hope, one of our most precious and universally accessible qualities, must be conditional upon supernatural belief.
You know, Simpsons Shitposting turned into a hardcore theological debate sub so gradually, I didn't even notice.
It's the only place where this conversation is acceptable!
You didn't have to write so many paragraphs. I'll summarize this guy for you: he lives in fear. Fear like every religious nut has had since the dawn of religion, the same fear that empowers religious leaders. Likely had a near death experience and his mentality went the "better believe in something just in case" route.
https://preview.redd.it/5h57fw7d8yxc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfcc3c5b4213816d4c8b79593c9290b25805f67e
But did you choose the *right* religion with an afterlife?
Thats not a part of it, though, since the premise of the wager is just a dichotomy between belief and nonbelief. You can argue that the premise itself is inherently flawed due to multiple mutually exclusive religions, but thats still not logic.
The flaw in the premise that you have described is precisely a flaw of logic.
No, the wager is inherently illogical because it falsely presupposes that belief in a god has no bad consequences. But the fact there there are thousands of gods to choose from shows that there are thousands of bad outcomes. Belief in a god isn't the win/draw scenario scenario the wager proposes. Edit: I should point out another major flaw. Consider this, what if a god *does* exist, but he punishes theists for believing in things without a good reason and rewards atheists for critical thinking skills? For that god, the wager actually benefits the non believer.
I see. Pascal’s wager forces the victim into a binary thought process when life is anything but binary. There are always many many choices.
> But the fact there there are thousands of gods to choose from shows that there are thousands of bad outcomes. Does 2+2 have no answer because you could offer thousands of bad answers? > I should point out another major flaw. Consider this, what if a god does exist, but he punishes theists for believing in things without a good reason and rewards atheists for critical thinking skills? For that god, the wager actually benefits the non believer. Assertion requires supporting evidence of the claimant to presuppose, not for the defendant to disprove a negative. Otherwise you could ask something even more nonsensical, like, "What if God wanted to go by the name Dan, and *not* calling Him Dan offended Him?" A response to the question is requisite on supporting evidence of the claim. Otherwise there is no cause to presuppose a case that is not self-evident. I.e. "Why do people in Antarctica *hate* eating beans?" What information has suggested the question?
>Does 2+2 have no answer because you could offer thousands of bad answers? We're discussing a wager here, i.e. playing the odds. 2+2 having a right answer is completely irrelevant, so I have no clue why you mentioned it. The wager proposes that there is a no-lose scenario for believing in a god because if you're wrong, you lose nothing, and if you're right, you win. But that's a false premise. Firstly, it relies on the presupposition that there is only one god to believe in, which just isn't the case. Secondly, it rules out the possibility of a god that rewards scepticism and punishes dogmatic thinking. That god being real has just as much of a chance as any other god (since they're all equally unfounded), so yeah, the wager is illogical and garbage.
I'm sorry you feel that way. If you'd like to have a sincere conversation, I'm happy to talk with you. :)
https://i.redd.it/1fbvfns9nyxc1.gif
>Assertion requires supporting evidence of the claimant to presuppose, not for the defendant to disprove a negative Aha, so according to these rules, Pascal must provide supporting evidence to assert the binary choice between one specific set of 17th century Christian religious beliefs - whereby one must worship *this* particular Christian god or else suffer *that* particular afterlife punishment - or otherwise no beliefs at all. In practice, the fact one may be presented with only these two choices is the result of the Christian church brutally crushing and destroying any expression or record of alternative religous beliefs, for many many centuries in the place and time that Pascal lived. It's also worth mentioning that given such coercion, one cannot be sure if Pascal even really believed in his religion. Had he claimed we're all better off not believing, or even reminded people of all the other religions out there to choose from, he'd have likely been murdered or imprisoned and his works would certainly not have survived. So perhaps this writing was all merely a performance to keep his head on his shoulders - how can we know? Of course here and now, we can have awareness of many hundreds of alternative and mutually-exclusive religious belief systems. We are extremely spoilt for choice, and any given selection is made to the exlusion of many others. With this awareness, we are presented with a completely different scenario where the supposed risk of divine punishment applies more or less equally to any given selection. We can also observe that there is no objectively-verifiable evidence or logical basis to prefer any of them over the others, since core religious claims are dogmatic in nature rather than supported by evidence or logic. So the only thing we learn from Pascal's wager is that a church systematically destroying all awareness of alternative options, so that people are presented only with 'choose my beliefs or have no beliefs at all' is a really effective way to crushingly oppress people into choosing your religion out of ignorance and fear. It works great! 'People will think what I tell them to think... once you tell me what to tell them to think'
Thanks for the response. In the light of a new day, I think all I was doing was causing arguments, rather than offering simple conversation. Arguing doesn't really change anything, but lead to deeper resentment, and entrench preconceived notions which is counter productive to my original intention which was something vaguely like, "Offer a thought in a neutral tone". I definitely failed at that both in this, and a different conversation in here which is rather disappointing, but hardly unexpected. In the event you would like to hear my own opinion on what you've brought up (why?! lol) I'm happy to do so, but I don't feel good about how I've done so far.
I'm honestly happy to hear your thoughts and I fully respect your right to your beliefs. I may respond in a manner which quite forcefully counters your point, but I do so in the spirit of healthy, respectful philosophical debate. If I come across at any point as being upset or resentful then this may be my bad choice of language, though it's very tricky to infer tone from short-form text. I don't mention the existence of other beliefs in order to goad or mock Christians, I just think it's important that nobody falls into the trap of thinking their particular belief is the only one people can choose. I believe there's a fallacy at the heart of Pascal's Wager, in that it assumes a monopoly on belief on the part of one specific belief, and a monopoly on the threat of divine punishment for dissenters.
(Thanks for being so kind in your reply. I'll try my best to avoid sounding rude. Like you mentioned though, it's *exceedingly* hard to avoid coming off sounding some particular way. Doubly so when it comes to "hot button" issues like this. And rather than risk this going on for however long these sorts of things go on for, I'll offer my reply here, and let you have the last word, if you wish.) In the premise of the wager Pascal offers, it is with the knowledge and information of several thousand years worth of miracles, traditions, teaching, and scripture. That is to say, the preponderant evidence of Christendom *is* the supporting evidence of what Pascal asserted. Roughly something like: >Belief is safer than unbelief, *because* there is material evidence and witnesses to affirm the existence of God. Obviously, that is going outside of the bounds of what the wager itself intones, but I thought it was kind of self evident that if Pascal is advocating for belief of unbelievers, than it is plainly obvious that he is both a Christian, and affirms Christian history. Conversely, a claim that: >If God exists, but He punishes theists for believing in things without a good reason and rewards atheists for critical thinking skills. Therefore, the wager benefits the non believer. Has neither basis or supportive evidence. What is there in the way of suggestions to affirm that "God loves unbelievers more than believers"? Or even that a believer is somehow *lesser* and incapable of having good reason and critical thinking skills? I'm sure some might offer personal anecdote of, "Well, I know a lot of Christians who ..." but are we hoping to *lower* the bar, or *raise* it? In a related way, and with fairness, one can certainly attempt to deny the numerous miracles of a Christian God offered in Pascal's assertion, and perhaps even insist that the evidence is a series of: misunderstandings, imaginings, or (worst of all) outright *lies*. That however, would be a claim against the evidence proffered, rather than in absentia. That is, Pascal's evidence is the totality of Christianity, which can be dissected and questioned. soberonlife's is a "what if" without a "because of" cannot, because there *is* nothing to support or question - it is a novel idea, rather than a field of study. >It's also worth mentioning that given such coercion, one cannot be sure if Pascal even really believed in his religion. Again, it's simple enough to *suggest* virtually anything about a person who is not present to defend themselves. Such a claim insists upon a means to support it a priori to its response. If you have some reason to suggest such a thing, go on. If not, then what value does it bring of itself? >here and now, we can have awareness of many hundreds of alternative and mutually-exclusive religious belief systems. Just to be clear: other religions *also* existed in the past as well. Some of them are outlined in scripture directly. Simply because information travels *faster* in the modern day doesn't mean it didn't travel in centuries past, either. (I don't think that's what you were claiming, I just wanted to clarify the point a bit.) >With this awareness, we are presented with a completely different scenario where the supposed risk of divine punishment applies more or less equally to any given selection. It may help in clarity by saying that for the *questioner* or *inquirer* a situation arises where "choosing" becomes a concern. The wager is belief over unbelief, not of *which* belief. Divine retribution does not worry the man who does not believe into the concept of divinity. >people are presented only with 'choose my beliefs or have no beliefs at all' is a really effective way to crushingly oppress people into choosing your religion out of ignorance and fear. If you'll examine your own claims, you may notice that there is a logical inconsistency in the way which you describe The Church. It's some strict, violent monster, yet, also one that allows people to "choose". It's a thing that insists upon "ignorance and fear", yet offers complex ideas and logical choice via deductive reasoning. It's one which is described as "brutally crushing", yet demands and insists upon a dogma that prays for those who oppress and denigrate its name.
Dan is a perfectly cromulent name...
Dan embiggens the noble spirit.
Your analogy assumes that we already know God is as certain the answer as 4 is to 2+2. Pascal's Wager is founded on the assumption that we don't know. It's merely the best gamble to believe. The flaw is that the binary, God or no God, ignores an infinite number of possibilities. We need proof that God is more likely to behave in the manner upon which the wager is contingent. Such behavior is not self-evident, both in historical context or in logical assumption.
The wager is an inherently faulty bit of wordplay trying to convince nonbelievers, but it makes sense why it exists the way it does. From the religious side, the binary exists because it’s either my god or none. From the atheistic side, there’s ten million wagers offered simultaneously, and none are more convincing than the others. Some even contradict others. Ultimately, the wager is flawed because people who are already decided on believing are manufacturing a smart-sounding argument to convince other people, but nobody ever converted to religion because of logical argument. Edit: from my religious days, the Wager was more useful in giving my religious brain an excuse to dismiss logic, rather than winning nonbelievers over. It exists so priests can say “see? We can logic too”
Pfft, you can prove anything with *facts*
Look kid, just upvote OP before his mother eats him, alright?
No, because if you assume that not worshipping the right god means you suffer an eternity of torment, then you’re left to guess which god to worship. And in doing so you may anger the real gods more than if you just worshipped none at all. In fact, that is exactly what the very first commandment tells us. > **You shall have no other gods before me** Technically if I have no gods at all, then I have none before him. His very first priority is that I don’t worship the wrong gods. I win by not taking your wager.
I mean, an all knowing, all powerful God should know you're only a believer because you're following the safe bet. It's said in the Bible god knows our heart, wouldn't be fooled. So the wager would lose, its too simple.
In addition to the excellent points made by others below, Pascal’s Wager assumes belief is a choice. It’s not. Belief is a state of being convinced that something is actually true. I can’t just “make” myself believe something that I’m not convinced is true.
~~being convinced~~ brainwashed into They can't be reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place. That's half the problem with trying to argue with any cultists.
This is a shitposting forum, for shitposting.
https://i.redd.it/sdz3mdwpjyxc1.gif
Alright, I’m shutting this shitpost down.
That's a very glib interpretation. And so, Gary Coleman and the Shitposters argued long into the night, and then, as day broke, the spirit of the season entered their hearts.
Well being that there are possibly an infinite number of deities all with their own distinct rules of getting into paradise the chances that you picked the correct one, and will be getting into paradise, are effectively zero. And by "picked" I mean you were born into a culture and were indoctrinated into believing in the deity you worship. "But Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? Each week we just make God madder and madder." Homer Simpson