Reason--Think it through, apply Pascal's Wager
15 comments
It works in inverse, too you know. What if there is no warm, bright light? No arms of God and Jesus? And you realize you wasted your life in complete self denial for nothing. As is said, the odds are extremely slim anyone is right, so the best you can do is just live well, and have fun along the way.
I dislike the idea that I, as a homosexual, have to deny my feelings simply because there MIGHT be a God who's already, in my eyes, a spiteful, destructive bastard. I see no reason for a self-insertion fantasist who has to basically commit suicide to prove to a world how much he loves it (after blowing parts of it up) to be worthy of worship or even respect.
Except Pascals Wager fails from go as it's a concept of no God vs Christian God. Not valid as there's literally hundreds of religions amd philophosies to be applied.
Pascals Wager is specifically Christianity ( Worse, denominationally specific ) vs science or Atheism. It fails as there's no allowance for every other religion or philophicy in its formula, therefor it's not a scientific or logical test.
Science and accumulated knowledge is not on par or equal to Christianity or any other conflicting belief, it's a superior system of facts and proven absolutes vs myth.
Well, Pascal's Wager works. Pascal just didn't account for ALL possible outcomes. Dito christian fundies, who only take into account what fits their narrow worldview. Otherwise, probabilistic wagers are a valid and reasonable method of making a decision. But it is crucial not to deceive oneself while doing so.
When you extend Pascal's Wager with possible outcomes like "God exists, but he hates hypocrites" "God exists, but doesn't care at all whether one believes in him or not" "God exists, but actually he is Odin" "God does not exist, and faith and religion draw more time and resources than religious people dare to admit",
then suddenly the conclusion of Pascal's Wager doesn't support "it's better to believe" in general, and doesn't support at all "it's better to believe in the christian god" anymore.
When you think Pascal's Wager consequently, then the conclusion is what Richard Dawkins claims in "The God Delusion": The existence of "god" is extremely improbable. And to "believe" has a very, very bad reward/effort ratio. Atheism has a much better reward/effort ratio. From the pure probabilities, Atheism is the default position. The burden of proof lies on everybody who claims the existence of a "god", insists on the necessity of "belief", and claims that nonbelief in his "god" has any bad consequences.
@Ebon
Pascal's Wager doesn't work. Even Pascal acknowledged that.
I heard he recanted on his deathbed :-)
I'm going to Vegas next weekend, and I'm putting all I have on the Roullette 00, because I hear it's the best only sensible choice. What have I got to lose?
line up shots on a bar. Take one shot and honor a God. Keep going until you a/mention every God that ever was mentioned or b/ pass out drink on the floor.
Do it alphabetically and see if you reach Yaweh.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.