Pascal's Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal, that, even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. - Wikipedia. In other words, we ought to believe in God because, if we do and he exists, we’ll go to Heaven, and if we do despite him turning out not to exist, we haven’t lost anything so there is no matter. This suggestion in itself implies that a person living their life in accordance with a disbelief in God has everything to lose if he/she is wrong (going to Hell), and nothing to gain even if he/she is right (no afterlife anyway). While this gambit was quite popular and logical in the times in which it was thought up, it has been found nowadays to be less so, despite being an argument that is still often used in favour of theism. There are a number of reasons why it is no longer considered valid. 1. The suggestion in itself bears a serious logical fallacy, known as a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is a situation that is hypothesised involving two opposing beliefs or outcomes, which are assumed or implied by the proposition to be the only two such options (e.g. “either people go to Heaven when they die or they go to Hell”; a “black and white” perception of things). The reason that a false dichotomy is fallacious is because the two presented ideas may not necessarily be the only two that are possible (relating to the aforementioned example; there may be an alternative place to Heaven and Hell, such as purgatory, or maybe even none at all; the “grey area”). Pascal’s Wager is invalid on these grounds, because it assumes that God (as Pascal sees him) is the one true god, and indeed the god that will decide whether or not we “gain everything” or “lose everything”. It assumes that the religion concerning God (in this case Christianity) is the one true religion. In turn it ignores all other perceptions of Heaven and Hell, which might differ to those of the Christian religion that Pascal refers to, and might well be the real ones. Seeing that there have been found to be hundreds of religions and ideas of gods and heavens and hells believed in by many different people of the world, it is unreasonable to assume that the only choices are to get to Heaven by believing in the Christian god or to go to Hell by not doing so. For example, just because one believes in a particular god, doesn’t mean that they won’t end up in the Hell that relates to another god (which might exist instead). 2. There is another invalid assumption in the gambit; Pascal implies that a life spent believing in and worshipping God means nothing lost, even if he doesn’t exist. It could be said in response to this that every minute spent praying, worshipping and serving God, and every penny spent in deference to God and the Church, would have been wasted if it had turned out that no such god or afterlife existed. On the flipside, it implies that if a person goes about their life disbelieving that God exists and indeed turns out to be right, there’s still nothing gained. It could, however, be contested that a life lived with the assumption of no afterlife could well be one lived to the full; the belief that there is no life after death would make a person conscious of what little time there is to live, and in turn could spur a person on to put what life they know they have to good use. 3. The Wager also involves the presumption that belief is subject to will. It states that one should consciously change their belief; to become a theist and believe in the Christian god (if they don’t already). When taking into account the fact that beliefs are formed based on perceptions and cognitions, i.e. things which we have little or no manual control of, this presumption is nullified. Evidence for this comes from cognitive dissonance, which involves people feeling uncomfortable emotionally as a result of believing one thing but wanting to believe another, or partially having two or more beliefs that contrast and don’t suitably agree with each other. It is illogical to assume that everything we believe is necessarily what we want to believe. 4. By implying that people should essentially change their beliefs in order to be “safe” from Hell, Pascal’s Wager also implies that God would be naïve enough to buy into this as a reason for doing so (arguably a “charade”); that God would be perfectly happy to accept someone into Heaven for believing in him, despite the fact that that person only believed in him to avoid hell; not for positive reasons. In other words, it characterises the Christian god with something that contradicts Christian beliefs about him; i.e. Christianity would explain that true belief in God will get you to Heaven, as opposed to belief that has been changed accordingly out of fear or selfishness. Blaise Pascal lived in the early 17th century, so it is understandable why his Wager would have been considered logical at the time. However, since then it has been shown not to be as good a reason to believe in God (or any god for that matter) as was originally considered. It has still not been proven whether a god exists, and it’s reasonable to assume that it never will be. There will always be evidence for both sides and there may be even more in the future, but Pascal’s Wager, despite still being used today, is arguably defunct as it doesn’t sit well with today’s way of thinking, which has developed during the last 400 years.

 

View attachment ​

 

I have seen some posts before, but this is probably the most backwards I have ever read. I don't know where to begin.

1. You don't support organized religion- yet you now call yourself a christian

2. Jesus fought against the "it's my way or hell mentallity" Jesus brought forward the hell mentallity, Hell is an idea from the new testement, not the old

3. You judge the bible on the written word of the bible, not other peoples interpretations of it. However you are reading a bible that has been translated by several people through many languages, and not a single part of the bible is a first hand account of jesus, they are from people around 3 hundred years later to when he allegedly existed

4. Pascal's wager has been shown to be a farce several different ways.
Pascal's wager is that it is better for atheists to believe in god, because the punishment if they are wrong, is better than the prize if they were right.

Firstly you either believe something to be true or you don't, If you don't believe it to be true, and lied pretending to believe in God, to avoid eternal damnation, that this god would not be smart enough to work out your lack of honesty. And if this god was that fickle, what kind of people would you expect in heaven. Also which god, there are an infinite number of gods to pick from, why gamble on the christian one?
This wager also assumes you have nothing to lose by believing in god, what about all the wasted Sundays, wasted prayers, what about all the money that fills the pockets of churches. Lets face it, pascal's wager is a retarded reason to believe in god.

5. I have read the bible, it is full of genocide, infantacide, murder, rape, slavery, discrimination, cruelty to animals, and so on. Not to mention 100s of contradictions.

 

I reckon the 10% of Americans were all the celebs who are too bombed out on booze, drugs or sex to be able to reply. When was the last time you saw an American on TV who didn't finish a sentence with something like "Thank the Lord"?

Wee Hector

 

Dave: I agree on some points. However...

He is free to call himself a 'Christian'. Used properly, the word means 'follower of Christ', not 'member of an established religious group or sect'. One can follow Christ's teachings without subscribing to the ritual, the bullshit, or the proselytising practised by many denominations of the Church.

Secondly - and I may be wrong, this is from memory - Jesus himself did not argue that non-believers would be condemned to Hell. This doctrine was introduced in various writings and letters (as well as the gospels) and, really, if you're going to argue that the Bible is a translation and possibly a corruption, you cannot take anything in it to use to point a finger - Hell included. For what it's worth, Pope John Paul II decreed that the Bible contained figurative language and stressed that Hell was to be understood not as a lake of torment but the state of mind of those who deliberately and vociferously denied God and His existence.

Lastly, the Bible is indeed full of blood and gore, but the vast majority of it is in the Old Testament, which is an historical document (or sorts), that was written to record the history of God's chosen people. From that perspective, it is no more or less violent than any other historical account of the politics of the times.

 

Only Americans drink booze, do drugs and have sex?

 

Hense forth my point about the 100s of contradictions

 

LOL !! At least it was in a much more intelligent way! and gives me something to respond to...

 

WOW! I wasn't expecting that. Nice Rich!! Impressive. Some very good points! Some paragraphs would have been nice though. *kidding* I had never heard of this Pascal's Wager. Like I said I have not considered myself a christian for long and have gone about discovering it on my own with little influence from sources outside of the bible. Spirituality is a very private and personal thing for me. Most people who know me probably would never guess that I was christian. Unless the topic had already come up. The extent of my "religious" worship is hitting a bong and saying the lord's prayer and then reading random bible stories for an hour a couple of times a week. I dont push my beliefs on others but when the topic comes up, I do share my beliefs. I do not think others should necessarily share my beliefs nor do I believe that I will necessarily continue to have these beliefs forever.

Many of those points you brought up are things that I have asked myself. Here are the opinions that I have formed on each one in accordance to your numbering.

1. I guess I chose Christianity because it is of my culture and as I read the bible I related to Jesus and his beliefs on hypocrisy, corruption, and greed by an authority in power. Most religions share the same basic principle of do on to brother as you would have done to you. The christian God is shared by three major religions. He is essentially the God of Abraham which is shared by the Islamic, Jewish and Christian religions. I guess the Christian version was just much more accessible where I live.

2. Doesn't really apply to my beliefs as i do not believe in organized religion and do not waste my time or money on it. The time that I do spend focused and thinking of God is enjoyable and makes up part of my meditation.

3. I personally disagree to this idea that belief is something that is impulsive. I think that an impulsive belief is basically the same as ignorance. The more you learn the more you know. My personally opinions and beliefs change constantly as I learn new things about a situation.

As for my religious belief when I started to think of how much we actually scientifically about things such as infinity of space and such. I realized that we are lost. Like a blind man in a gymnasium, we are lost and clueless until we can at least touch a wall. In other words, although science has made leaps and bounds in discovering the world around us. We really dont even know where we are! Science continually contradicts itself as well. Generation after generation, century after century.

As I clearly do not believe that science has any sign of understanding things at the level of "God" or the universe. I personally chose to believe in god. If science does disprove god with out doubt. I will change my belief. There for beliefs, in my case anyway, are able to change based on circumstance.

4. I think Christian belief is more than just a feeling that you have. It is more of the way that you live your life. Therefore you would not have to "trick" god like you would a police officer. It is in your actions and the was you live your life and treat others.

Paz irmao.

 

In a related story it turns out that god only believes in 50% of Britains, and 75% of Americans. When asked for his opinion on other countries he declined to comment except to say "ISRAEL RULES!"

 

Not what I said. I suggested that Americans have this thing about "God Save America", "Lord Be Praised", "By The Will Of God" and the 10% who do not believe in him are those celebs who were too pissed to answer when polled. It was a joke. Nothing more. Why don't people read what was written?

Wee Hector%-)%-)

 

View attachment ​

 

As far as responses go, that one doesn't seem to obviously relate to what I said in any particularly meaningful way. Could you elaborate?

This is a very common viewpoint amongst theists but really, it's hugely problematic. You're starting at the arse-end of the argument, with a foregone conclusion in mind.

To put it simply: there is only a 'place to be' if you decide that we are somehow 'meant' or 'intended' to be here. If, as atheists believe, we are simply here through random chance, the reasons scientists have failed to find out 'where we are' is simply because the question is meaningless. We are in this universe; there may be others. We are in this galaxy; there are certainly others. We inhabit a planet in the so-called 'habitable zone' - there are certainly others. What answer, exactly, are you looking for? What, exactly, do you mean by the question?

The reasoning you've employed is circular. You believe in God, because He provides a 'place' for us in the Universe. But for a 'place' for us to exist, there must be someone who intended or designed it thus - and there is your God.

We are no more lost than a fish swimming in the sea, because there is nowhere we should or could be. There is nowhere we should be striving to be. The entire concept of 'where we are' and our 'place' is a meaningless metaphysical construct designed to validate those who already hold belief by reinforcing the idea of a benevolent God who is looking out for us. Take away the God - and no place is required.

 

YOUR STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 YALL AINT GOT NO KINDA A GOOD ARGUHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOTA ATTAKC SMAN A MAN FOR LITTLE TYPO COS YALL AINT GOT NO KIND A GOOD ARGUKMENT TO FIGHGT WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DUMM AS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Philip, can your God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?

 

What are christs teachings, where do we derive them from? I doubt that any of his teachings have not been corrupted by the "church" either the early Orthodox or early Catholic versions, and all other churches derive their holy writings from the books of the first two.

I think you have it about face, religion is stuck in the gym with a pale candle to lead the way, your god allows you to see so little, whereas science shines a great big light on where we are going and regularly throws up theories to be examined by peers to be torn down and replaced by more theories which in turn get torn down.

Your god is slipping away into the cracks of scientific proof and eventually will reside in the only area left which is faith, but faith does not build the bridge or cook the food, faith is only good for making you feel good about yourself, it is self indulgent and ultimately will be the downfall of all theists.

 

Although according to the OP this process is more advanced among us brits.

Thinskin

 

[/COLOR]

LOL ! If you thought that was backward, dont even get me started on politics!

To answer your comments.

1. Like orion said. You do not need to be part of organized religion to be a christian. In fact Jesus often spoke against organized religion. An example of this can be seen in Matthew 6:5-6

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

2. Yes, I agree this part was bad wording. Orion makes a good point about "hell", though.

What I was trying to express was that Jesus fought for us to be able to break the rules, sin, with out consequences which were brought on by the Jewish religion at the time. As long as we forgive others for the same.

3. I agree that the New Testament has definitely been corrupted over the years but the main idea of Jesus' teaching is clear. Forgive and do on to others as you would have them do to you... etc.

The New Testament is basically a collection of short examples of kindness, good will, political events which occurred at the time and advice on how to live a happy life. And the underlining theme is that you can chose to ignore this advice as long as you are kind and forgive others if they sin against you. To me it is irrelevant if all of these events happened exactly how is written or even happened at all. I consider the bible to be a spiritual book not a history book.

4. See my reply to richief's post above about Pascal's wager.

5. I agree with what orion has commented about this.

 

Who needs God, when you have Google
and Facebook
and Apple