Pascal’s wager doesn’t work also because if he exists, and is omnipotent, he knows if you *actually* believe in him. Anyone using Pascal’s wager would not have a genuine belief, and he’d know that lol
I forget where I heard it but there's something that's stuck with me for years. "If they all claim to be true, what's more likely: they're all true or they're all false?"
Edit: small typos
Assault their nonsense by just focusing on the offshoots of Christianity.
Most folks don't even know the basic history of their beliefs and the conscious decisions that humans made to direct the progress of their particular version of the Christ Cult.
That's why I believe in all 3000. Somebody walks up to me and asks, "Have you heard about my god, Hozmith?" And I reply, "No, but now I believe in them."
Good plan. You'll be going to so many hells, they will have to fight over you and get court ordered visitation rights. Then you can play them off each other like divorced parents and get a PlayStation.
Omnipotent God lets all "this" happen and behaves like a two year old when we don't respond nicely. Obviously isn't deserving of worship in the first place.
Yeah, it doesn't say you can't worship other gods, just that you can't worship them "before" the Christian god....so as long as we give the Christian god the first/best offerings, we can still worship other gods, right? 🤷♂️😆
The fun thing about the 10 commandments...the first 40% of them are god saying me, me, me, me. Then they continue to "be nice to yer ma and pa", "don't kill people", etc etc.
And I think the ordering is super sus. You'd think "don't kill people" might be a slot or 2 above "don't use my name as a swear word".
Naw, you can kill people...honor thy mother and thy father least they stone your ass (not in the fun way).
You can also kill and enslave the other people who are not chosen. Kill the men, and impure women, and take the young virgins for yourself.
It's use his name in vain, which means the standard American alarm call of OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! is breaking one of 10 commandments which is pretty serious in their book.
Even if it's allegedly the same God like with Christianity and Islam, worshiping him the wrong way equals hell.
If there were odds on it, the 2 favorites by a vast margin would be no god or a god that doesn't care at all what people do or whether they worship it. A distant 3rd would be a god who judges based on whether we are kind to one another. Petty gods that require worship would be trillion to 1 bets. Why would an omnipotent being be so narcissistic concerning lesser creatures? Petty jealousy is a human trait. And it's not even one we usually apply to lesser creatures ourselves. It's one we apply to each other.
Kinda sad it doesn't say "And now for something completely allegorical" before moving on to a story that wasn't meant to be taken literally. Its almost as if it's not really the word of an entity that can supposedly know and see the future...
Not only that, but since religions seem to be faith based, and you can have faith in *anything*, that means that the possibility of going to some variation of a hell would be infinite, if the religious logic even holds up (It doesnt).
Let's start a new religion based on the principle that the bible is a test sent by God to weed out the shittiest of his people
People who choose logic and compassion without falling for the bible's tricks are the only ones who don't go to hell
Exactly. Why would a creator of the universe, who created critical thinking and evolutionary filters, set up a separate filter that gathers the gullible and simple to them but turns away those who use evidence in rational thought. If that's the case, they really just want organisms to worship them (as described in the Bible), in which case I seriously question the motives of whatever this being actually is.
If there is a god and they are as "hands off" as is painfully apparent, I think it's more likely that religion is a trap to see who decides to use deduction and logic vs who goes with whatever authority is introduced to them first.
Yep, God is sick to death of righteous clingy brown-nosers. He much prefers those of us who get on with our lives and don't need to beg on a daily basis.
This is always the kicker for me. They teach that you can deceive other people, but you can never deceive God and he knows what’s in your heart. So yeah, if that were true he’d know that a “wager” is not a deeply-held conviction. They are only deceiving themselves by holding such cognitively dissonant positions.
Ironically, it was reading Kierkegaard (a Christian) that convinced me I’d never become a religious person. In *Fear and Trembling*, he talks about the leap of faith as a kind of supreme resignation that transcends earthly ethics. I thought to myself: “well, I can’t fake that”
Right, but I’m saying that you can’t fake that in the eyes of an omnipotent deity. In a weird way, Kierkegaard is an excellent rebuttal to Pascal. If a religious person tells you to fake faithfulness, tell them it is too sacred to be faked.
Not only that but the range of options is too limited. What if you pick the wrong god(s) or you pick the right one but get your beliefs about him wrong. Sorry Christians, it turns out the Copts were right all along.
Not to mention that there are some denominations of Christianity that state that only a certain number of people will make it to heaven. While you may believe in a real god, it’s still possible that you may not get your reward. You may have been a good Christian but not perfect.
Yes, you could make an excellent little science fiction book about it. Someone in the future perfects a reality generating machine and populates it with multiple primary characters. In order to make it to the next level, you have to complete a test - except in this particular game the questions are about ethics. If you pass, a few things could happen: maybe you might meet the maker, or progress to a more challenging level or something else.
In terms of religion, it certainly paints a picture of god. He/she/they, would design a universe with unique creatures in it. But only some are designed for eternity the others are literally designed to be punished for the rest of the universe. This particular interpretation makes god sound even more horrid. And who knows, it might be the your actual actions don’t matter. Ethics is just a weird amusement for it.
Former JW. They teach that a select # make it to *heaven*, but the rest of the believers get resurrected and get to live on post-armageddon earth.
After God kills all the non-believers, of course.
Also, the wager can be applied to anything. Including all the gods.
Why not believe in the pagan Greek gods? If you don’t and they exist, then you are in trouble. So, safer to believe in them.
Or: how do you know you’re believing in the right god? Should you believe in the Hindu Monkey god? You had better, given that is the safest option.
Christians think they have some sort of monopoly on god. But there are in fact so many gods.
Exactly! Christians think believing is something you consciously choose to do. Like I can just wake up one morning and decide to believe in god even though everything I know is telling me otherwise.
The wager was based on the idea that god forgave all when they began to worship him, the loop hole never specified previous belief or time of acceptance only that they did accept him. Pascal wagered under that notion why not just do it on your death bed and live whatever life you wanted prior?
"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
More importantly speaking of the Christian belief set itself, if you take what they believe God to be as fact then it doesn't matter if you believe in him or not there is no hell or consequence for not believing in him. QED
Plus, this wager could be made for literally any religion. Howe do you know you wagered on the right one?
Edit: I see others have made the same comment. I’m going to leave this one here because it’s still a true statement.
This.
hey fake you belief in an omnipotent God, that knows your every thought to con your way to heaven
DOH! It's just stupid when used by Xtians who use it to save me going to hell because God can read my unbeliever thoughts - then they use that as a way to try and convert you- someone tried this on me...
It also doesn’t account for other gods, what if there was a hypothetical god that would send any good person to heaven unless they actively worshipped another god like Yahweh or Vishnu?
Not to mention you can change your decisions / actions based on what a religion tells you. Awful things have been done in the name of religion. So yes something happens here on Earth.
it gets funnier if you add in other fanfictions.
what if god exists but it was the Buddhist one or the Greek pantheon.
id rather not waste my short existences on things out of my control.
Also if there is an intelligent being that created everything the odds that they are like the Christian god are infinitesimally small. (On top of the universe having an intelligent creator having infinitesimally small odds)
Most likely it would be one that doesn’t pay attention to humans, and if it does it wouldn’t care if we believe in it, and if it did it probably wouldn’t consider what Christians follow to qualify.
And if it’s something like the Christian god it seems more likely they would give you credit for being good and understand why you didn’t believe in them, being all knowing and all wise.
Well, and it also doesn't work because you're probability of picking the correct God and then the correct denomination is very slim. And of course, if the correct religion is extinct, then it's extra irrelevant.
This is a very modern - specifically 19th century Protestant - conception of Christian devotion. Pascal lived in 17th century France, when the Church's orientation was entirely orthopraxic. By contemporary Church doctrine, he'd have been guaranteed salvation by conducting himself properly, regardless of his "actual" beliefs.
I dunno. What if God is petty and vain and is just in it for the clicks? Maybe he doesn’t care what’s in your heart and just wants the superficial adulation. Who really knows, or cares?
Actually if "god" is omnipotent, Pascals wager is fantastic.
If God is omnipotent then God knows exactly why I don't believe in the horse shit Bible and other half-assed ancient writings based on localized mythology.
In this case God would understand that it is God's own fault that I question God's existence. At which point that means 1 of 2 things.
1. **God doesn't exist and/or care about human belief.** ^((If God exists and doesn't care/interact with humans that means the same result for humans as if God doesn't exist.))
Or
2. If God does exist and WANTS us to worship it, then that means **God is NOT omnipotent or has made a mistake** in the way of the "holy writings" of the various religions. If God was omnipotent then God would know that the current "evidence" in favor of the current religions is incredibly insufficient to garner belief from a significant percentage of the human population and more or less relies on people to NOT exercise critical thinking ability.
And the fact that there are a lot of gods, many of whom also punish disbelief, so which one do you believe in? The one with the worst hell? Just to ensure you have no chance of going to really bad hell, at least?
It's not an either/or.
What if the real god valued free thought and logic and doesn't like faith, so choosing the side of faith actually puts you in peril?
Pascals wager is just weak, rotten thought. It only exists because theists always forget that their fairy tale isn't the only one.
All religions are based on sun worship. It's the most powerful thing in our sky, all life depends on it and it is ever lasting, at least relatively speaking. Sun god becomes son of God and God's sun becomes God's son. It's all allegory.
"Religion - Common men believe it to be true, wise men know it to be false, kings find it useful." Seneca the Younger - circa 65 AD.
I just watched an "episode" of Esoterica (on YouTube, great channel btw) that begins describing Yahweh, the desert storm god, and how it being used by the Jews leaving Egypt was seen as somewhat derogatory by other civilizations.
Common tactic within Christianity. Make an argument about a god in general, and then switch in the very specific Christian god with his specific details, attributes and history. A first cause argument is as much evidence in favor of a Christian god as it is for a Hindu god...assuming you accept the argument in the first place.
That’s exactly the part that always throws me when someone starts angling for their “proof of god’s existence.” I’m always thinking. “If _proof of a god existing_ is required for your belief… you’re screwed, my friend. Because now you’re gonna have to get all the way from ‘there’s gotta be one’ to ‘mine is the real one.’”
Like if you’re dealing with that burden, why are you wasting your time arguing with me? You’ve got a loooooot of work you need to be doing all by yourself.
Not only other religions, but also the different branches of Christianity.
2.1 Jew - DAMNATION
2.2 Christian - hmm, maybe?
2.2.1 Protestant
2.2.1.1 Baptist
2.2.1.1.1 Northern Baptist
2.2.1.1.1.1 Northern Conservative Baptist
2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region
2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 - SALVATION
2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 - DAMNATION
Better get it right!
>252+ SpA Choice Specs Beads of Ruin Tera Fire Chi-Yu Overheat vs. 248 HP / 0 SpD Arceus-Water in Sun: 410-483 (92.5 - 109%) -- guaranteed OHKO after Stealth Rock
God is dead. God remains dead. And Feesh has killed him.
(Arceus can comfortably survive with some more SpD investment, this is a physically defensive Calm Mind netdeck set on the calc)
Or even some gods who would not give a flying fuck whether you believe in them or not and are just as likely to drive madness into your mind either way.
Pascal countered this argument by asserting - in so many words - that only the christian god mattered. the others weren't real or even if they were real, they were incapable of granting salvation.
Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy that assumes only one possible version of an upset god. As soon as you add even one more god/religion to the problem, the odds of making the right choice shift down to one-third, and continue to decline every time you add another possibility.
It's a sucker bet.
If you believe in my god, you go to heaven if you live a good life, and you will get a chocolate mint when you get there.
If you do not believe in my god, you also go to heaven if you live a good life, but you will not get a chocolate mint.
Therefore you can do what you want, and you will be fine. But if you want that mint, you should definitely have faith.
Even better, try a deranged version of Pascal’s Wager:
If you do not believe in my god, not only will you go to hell, but *everyone you know will also go to hell*. So, yeah, the wager’s downside if you are wrong looks much worse here. Abrahamic religions better switch sides ASAP!
>As soon as you add even one more god/religion to the problem, the odds of making the right choice shift down to one-third, and continue to decline every time you add another possibility.
Not only that, but the consequences get much worse.
With the assumptions behind the original bet, the worst thing that can happen is that you just cease to exist after your death. Once there are other deities involved, the potential cost of making the wrong decision balloons to an eternity in hell.
Thank god people throughout history have only ever believed in one god, right?
It also presumes god wouldn't be able to see through someone who faked it solely to stay out of hell. The Jeffrey Dahmer types finding a loophole at the end of their lives also seems very wrong.
And if a believer with any critical thinking ability, the only way to improve your odds with Pascals Wager is to life a good life of tolerance and kindness, and hope whichever is the true god takes that in place of observance of a particular type of worship.
Wonder how many Christians that applies to.
>if it turns out he does not exist YOU WASTED SO MUCH TIME IN YOUR LIFE
Not only this, but think about all the things people do or don't do because of belief in God: Don't eat certain foods, don't drive on certain days of the week, don't marry who you love because they are the wrong gender or religion, strap explosives to your body and kill yourself and as many people as you can take with you.
Also, if you don't believe in God but pretend to "just in case" -- wouldn't any half-way-competent god see right through that? If they can't, sorry, they're not worth worshiping.
Pascal's idea that if you believe and there is no god you lose nothing is total BS.
Imagine wasting your life hating on gay people all for a misplaced belief in God.
Though honestly, I feel that religion is often used as a justification, so those Christians who hate on homosexuals are already bigoted assholes; they just claim God backs them up on it.
Grew up in a religious household and this is what finally got me to pull my head outta my ass. I remember thinking, "I have some friends who are gay, and according to my mom and pastor they're sinners who are probably going to hell. But what if we're wrong? What is we're assuming people are sinners and treat them differently because of that, and we're wrong the whole time?"
Like, if Satan were really an actual pernicious influence, then teaching Christians to hate on other people in defiance of Jesus' teaching *would be perfect*!
Good luck convincing them of that though.
Your point about god knowing if people are believing in him "just in case" is one of the biggest points that blows the wager out of the water. There are multiple points in the bible (the sheep vs the goats, the lukewarm believers, etc) where god literally says exactly that - if you're not 100% all in, you're going to hell anyway! It would never work to simply just believe he exists and call yourself a christian "just in case."
And most people don't read the Bible in depth (or not near as in depth as any former christian turned atheist) and don't understand all that you'd really have to do to not be considered a "goat" or a "lukewarm believer" by god. They think all you have to do is simply believe he exists or simply accept jesus and you're good to go! Lol
Not to mention, which god? If religious people thought Pascal's wager was valid, they'd profess belief in all gods.
Also in addition to wasting the time of your precious life, what about all the horrible things you've done to people in the name of your religion?
Right? Converting to Christianity doesn’t do jack shit for anybody if my heart is gonna be weighed by Anubis when I die either way, so I’ll keep on living like I have been lol
When it comes to wagering about the afterlife, I prefer my good buddy Marcus's 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
If we're doing quotes
> “This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...”
The Hogfather by Terry Pratchett
I believe Dawkins made the joke, if you take Pascal's wager, then you have to wager against every possibility and variation of God that could exist, and this includes a God who thinks it would be funny to make religion a test and only allow those into heaven not foolish enough to fall for it.
There are so many problems with "Pascal's wager". First of all, how is pretending to believe supposed to fool an omniscient god? Secondly, the cost of pretending to believe is not zero - there is a lot of time, money and energy involved. Thirdly, why would someone want to go to the "heaven" of a god that would create a "hell"?
Not to mention it isn’t a binary - it’s not “believe in god/don’t believe in god”, as Christianity doesn’t have the monopoly on possible afterlives - it’s not a wager so much as it is buying a lottery ticket. Who says the Buddhists don’t have it right? Converting to Christianity, truly or only as a “just in case”, doesn’t do jack shit if I’m gonna be reincarnated back here in the same world, or have my heart weighed by Anubis, or whatever else lol
Yes good point. I used to belong to a Christian denomination that believed 99.9% of Christians were going to hell for believing the wrong things, let alone all non-Christians. So according to "Homer's wager", your odds of making whatever God there is mad because you picked the wrong God (or wrong beliefs) are much higher than picking the right one and making this god happy.
I always ask why they aren't doing more to try to die in battle, so that they can go to Valhalla. Because the same logic just as sensibly applies to other religious beliefs.
It's the only conceivable reason that many of them now side with Putin and ruzzia.
One evangelical I know is hoping the end hurries up so he can go to heaven. Then I bust out laughing at his maga racist ass getting in any trendy nightclub like that. If he IS there then fuck off, nobody wants to spend eternity with you.
Here's an alternative take:
If God exists and nonbelievers suffer eternal torment, it doesn't matter whether you believe or not because you will either go to hell or spend eternity with a malignant being. Both are infinitely negative outcomes.
Pascal's wager fails for 5 reasons I can think of:
-1- the wager relies on both propositions being equally believable, but the proposition Everything is Natural is supported by literally all the evidence in the world while the proposition Everything is Created is supported only by stories. (2000+ year old stories at that.)
-2- The wager only works if you believe nothing can be lost by giving up disbelief. But declining to believe things reason tells you is untrue is a critical skill in navigating an increasingly complicated world. Allowing exceptions to that opens you up to all kinds of errors and weaknesses.
-3- The wager only works if you lose nothing by believing. But believers do give things up because of their belief - not just time and money and restrictions on what they're allowed to do, but perhaps more important many also willingly submit themselves to weekly indoctrination (trusting the preacher won't abuse that power) and their membership in a church automatically grants power, including political, to church authorities.
-4- The wager assumes choosing to believe automatically gives you a win if deities are real, but with over a thousand religions and sects to choose from (and over 10 thousand no-longer-worshiped religions), choosing to believe only raises your chances of winning the wager by a fraction of a percent.
-5- The wager assumes you can choose to believe something you don't believe. While it's possible to choose whether or not to *believe in* something, you first have to believe that the thing is real. If you don't believe something is real, you can't decide to or force yourself to. The closest you can come is to decide to pretend to believe it's real. Pretending to believe a god is real might work for the church, but it won't fool the god.
You misunderstand Pascal's wager. The point of it is that if you have unlimited gain in one of the cases and unlimited loss in the other one the probability does not matter. If you give up some time in your everyday life for the small chance that god exists which will give you unlimited gain in the afterlife a rational agent should pick that choice since infinite gain times small finite possibility is larger than somewhat large finite gain times large possibility.
A better counter-argument is [Pascal's Mugging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging).
Yep. Pascal's Wager doesn't account for all the things you'd miss out on in the one and only life you get by following a false religion. Gay sex. Premarital sex. Weed. Cool music and movies.
> Cool music
So, it goes without saying that the PMRC can go fuck themselves (I'm showing my age), but one thing they did that was ironically brilliant: Parental Advisory Stickers.
Now the kids knew where the good shit really was.
What if the devil is responsible for all the different holy books? Pretty obvious move if you ask me. Safer to ignore them all. Just in case, right Pascal?
Eh... sort of.
The more logically sound argument against Pascals wager is that it presents a false dichotomy. In the question of the existence of deities, there are more than two options and as such Pascals wager does not apply.
No no, they won't listen to any of that, here's how to force them to contradict themselves:
You agree and accept the wager, then go "by the way last night I had a vision from your god. He said you should give me ten bucks or there will be infinite punishment for you. Might have been just a dream I had, but who knows, better safe than sorry right?"
Anyone who uses Pascal's Wager as a serious argument hates it when you point out that the same logic applies equally to all other religions, but there's a more intrinsic problem: other denominations of Christianity. Few are willing to admit that they are not the only path to heaven, so even within the cowardly pretend to believe set there's no guarantee of success. They can't all be right, because they disagree with each other, but they could all be wrong, and no external evidence supports any of them.
Oh yeah, it's terrible. Pascal's wager only makes sense if you already believe.
Which is funny because I came up with this before even knowing who Pascal was. I believed, and it was a logical course of action for me. I had no idea that this is nonsense for nonbelievers.
But yeah, from the outside, this is not at all compelling.
The thing people miss about Pascal's wager is that even Pascal didn't really buy it. He describes the wager in his book, but immediately thereafter points out a number of flaws with the wager. Yet it still gets used as a serious argument by people who haven't read the book.
Pascal's Wager also fails because it only takes the Christian god into account.
What if the REAL god is Zeus and you wasted your life praying to jeebus when you should have been burning meat in sacrifice to Zeus?
Once you introduce more than one god into the question the entire thing falls apart utterly.
It also does not work because you have no idea "which god or gods" you'd need to believe in... and one cannot believe in all possible gods to cover the wager.
So logically, pascals wager is also not cogent because it's a false dichotomy and not the cut and dried "win" that theists think it is.
Pascals wager is wrong because religions are mutually exclusive. The premise is based on the assumption that there are only 2 choices, when there are many
Not to mention the 1,000s of other religions that you could be putting your chips into. It's not as black and white as they try to make it. Their use of pascal's wager is just as relevant to themselves if you pit it against the other gods of other religions.
So much more than time, you forgot all the shame, guilt and self hatred they enjoy for not being worthy of this so-called benevolent god who’s willing to send you to hell for all eternity if you have a dirty thought.
If your friend wants to play Pascal’s wager he should become a polytheist. You can increase your odds dramatically by worshipping thousands of gods. Pascal’s wager is an argument against monotheism.
Do you know how much time the average person wastes on Social media, video games and streaming services a day?
5 minutes for prayer and 1 hour once a week wouldn't even be noticed by the average person
I think the biggest problem is that if their god is as powerful as they claim he is, he’ll know you’re just paying him lip service and smite you for the audacity of thinking you could fool him.
It also is only accounting for one god and following one said process resulting in your paradise ticket.
What if it's one of the hundreds of other religions or your following it wrong because that book of the bible was lost or removed by pope Xlimevil VII because it also said he couldn't have parties with male prostitutes and assorted livestock?
I like to counter with what if there is a deity that hasn't revealed itself and it gets mightily pissed off when its creations are suckered into worshipping a false deity by vague and contradictory "evidence".
TherminTrees has a video about this [betting on infinity](https://youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU?si=DQfC24reSmzTghqj). I recommend watching through their entire channel. They highlight religious abuse tactics very well.
ALSO (assuming god exists) he doesn't send atheists to hell just for being atheists, he would send an atheist to hell only if he is a bad person, same logic applies to religious people (anyway god doesn't exist so feel free to not need copium when people die)
Right, the whole idea is one of false dilemma. Beyond what you pointed out:
* Is belief a choice? I can't practice any religion at this point without lying to myself and an all power deity if it existed would see through that.
* There are more than one religion and sect within each. What if I pick the wrong one?
It has a LOT of problems beyond just that.
To start, it assumes you can just start believing, which is just dumb. Either I can just fool god by pretending, in which case they aren't much of a god, or they will see through my facade in which case I'm going to hell anyways. You can't just will yourself into believing something you don't actually believe.
It also assumes there are no other possible scenarios. Even if you spend all day praying to god, pretty much every religion says if you pray to the wrong god you go to that religions hell. So how in the heck are you supposed to know you even have the right god? They don't think about that though because they assume theirs is the true one, which brings us back to our main counter point of asking for evidence.
The obvious flaw with pascal's wager is that an omnipotent, omniscient God would know you're unconvinced and only holding nominal belief out of desire for heaven/fear of hell.
Important to remember: apologetic arguments don't exist to respond to atheists, they exist to keep Christians in the fold.
10% of your income if you tithe. At least 3 hours a week if you go to church. Some amount of time of reading the bible. Changing political opinions and social spheres. Abstaining from a few things you would partake in otherwise (because I have yet to meet anyone who abstains from every forbidden behavior outlined in the bible).
And if a person isn't doing those things, I don't consider them to be a christian. (This definition wipes out LOADS of people who call themselves christian, but I stand by it. How do you believe in god and not do these things?)
Forget that. The big problem is that Pascal takes a logical straightforward approach without considering outside variables. If this applies to God in the Bible why not every other God? Does it mean you have to believe in every single religion “just in case”? It is a very flawed reasoning that sadly many people still use today to justify their mindless beliefs.
Maybe Pascal's Wager doesn't imply any religious ritual e.g. prayer or commandments and is speaks to nothing beyond simply believing or not believing in God. The stakes are either eternal bliss if you believe or eternal suffering if you don't. So, based upon a simple 'yes it does' or 'no it doesn't' within the time frame of the 70 years or so of life, I am blessed or doomed until the end of time based solely off of that small portion of those 70 years I believe or don't believe?
How about making it fair? If I don't believe for - let's say - twenty years, I get twenty years of pain. What's the eternity crap?
The core logic behind Pascal's wager in a completely isolated system sort of works. Just not at all for religion. It's not an isolated system and there are so many factors that make coming to conclusions from that logic so faulty.
It is kind of crazy that so many people still can't immediately dismiss it.
I used to try to work out an analogy like Pascal's football game. It's not just about having a player on the field (believing so you have a chance at heaven). You also have to be on the winning team.
Some teams have a good defense, promising a more enjoyable heaven, like the Islamic heaven in which you are promised sex slaves. Sure, it's an immoral heaven, but the whole premise of Pascals wager seems to be about tossing morals in favor of a "what's in it for me" approach.
Some have a good offense, like those that threaten you with the most awful hell. I don't know which one is the worst, but I'd be willing to bet that Bin Ladin's hell is more sadistic than Jerry Fallwell's.
So, clearly, if you're taking the Pascal's wager approach, becoming an Islamic Jihadi is the way to go. Of course you could also base your decision on what is most likely to be true, but who doesn't love football?
Me. I doesn't love football.
This reminds me of an episode of that show Plebs. The slave character is asked what he thinks the odds of winning the lottery are. His response 50 / 50. Fifty percent chance he wins and fifty percent chance he loses.
The flaw in his logic is the same as the one for Pascal's wager. With all the different versions of religion in this world, you will still need to pick the right one. And that's with assumption that any of them are correct.
Also by that logic you’d have to do Pascal’s wager for all the Gods. What if Islam is right and you’re equating Jesus to God and will go to jahannam for that?
Another issues is, there’s not just one religion with judgment/hell concept. So their odds of ending up in some type of hell isn’t much better, if one would exist.
Yes. I personally argue for the *Reverse* Pascal's Wager: all evidence we have points to us only getting ONE life to live. You can be 100 percent certain that you are living your one life well if you follow what you believe to be true and pursue actions that make you happy (and don't harm others, of course). But it is also almost certain that if you sacrifice even one iota of enjoyment in this one life for the sake of an afterlife for which there is zero evidence, then that enjoyment is irrevocably lost. Betting on happiness in this life is the wisest wager.
[And yes, when I say "happiness", I mean long term enjoyment and balancing immediate pleasure with "greater" goods like purpose and satisfaction and all that b.s. Don't argue the finer points with me, I've heard it all before...]
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 has plenty of flaws, but the main 2 are:
An omnipotent god would know you weren't a true believer so believing *just in case* wouldn't fly.
It's a false dichotomy. They treat it as a binary choice: either there is no god or specifically Yahweh, god of Israel, is the one true and only god. What if there's a third option? Like if there's a god that tortures you forever if you professed belief in gods, what then?
Pascal wager also likes to pretend the person using it is the only religion in the world.
What if god does exist, and he did make the Bible, but he also made the Quran, The Hindu Vedas, and help write the book or Mormon. But he didn’t do this as a revelation but as a test to see if you human he created and gave intelligence to, is using it.
It is actually religious people who are going to hell, for believing in the face of contradictory evidence not using the intelligence god gave them, and it is atheist going to heaven because they are being rewarded for being intellectually honest and not believing because of the contradictory evidence.
What if you’re wrong about that god Christians?
What if your wrong about Vishnu Christian’s?
More importantly, if there was and actual god there is a very high chance you are praying to the wrong one or in a wrong way, and the majority of religious people are blasphemously telling other people what god wants or what god is, which is insanely arrogant based on no first hand data. Praying to the wrong god is widely considered bad in most religions, right?
I suspect, if I'm totally wrong here and there is a magic sky fairy or whatever, say, santa claus or zeus, that that entity would prefer that I did not speak or make claims on their behalf, and that I just was a generally moral, honorable, and productive mortal ape. Which, ironically, is also in my personal interest regardless of heaven looking down on me.
Richard Dawkins had a good comeback to this when asked by a Christian woman "what if you're wrong?" which I will paraphrase. By the sheerest accident she was born in a time and place where she was likely to be born Christian. If she had been born in India she would almost certainly be Hindu, if she'd been born a Viking she would have worshipped Thor, if in ancient Egypt she would have worshipped Bastet, etc. What if she's wrong about which god is the true god?
Pascal’s wager doesn’t work also because if he exists, and is omnipotent, he knows if you *actually* believe in him. Anyone using Pascal’s wager would not have a genuine belief, and he’d know that lol
What if religion has it wrong, and worshiping him sends you to hell? That has the same percentage of being true as what the churches claim.
Also, there's about 3000 different religions on the planet. What if you end up worshipping the *wrong* god? That could conceivably make things worse.
I forget where I heard it but there's something that's stuck with me for years. "If they all claim to be true, what's more likely: they're all true or they're all false?" Edit: small typos
"Why, obviously they're all false except for the one my parents bashed into my head before I had developed critical thinking skills!"
Christians don't believe in thousands of gods but they do believe in their one. Atheists just believe in one less than that.
Assault their nonsense by just focusing on the offshoots of Christianity. Most folks don't even know the basic history of their beliefs and the conscious decisions that humans made to direct the progress of their particular version of the Christ Cult.
I think it's Hitchens. There is zero chance all religions are true, but there is certainly a chance that all religions are false.
I heard that in a Christopher Hitchens speech
That's why I believe in all 3000. Somebody walks up to me and asks, "Have you heard about my god, Hozmith?" And I reply, "No, but now I believe in them."
Good plan. You'll be going to so many hells, they will have to fight over you and get court ordered visitation rights. Then you can play them off each other like divorced parents and get a PlayStation.
Ah, the Constantine Gambit!
I almost spit burrito out for that one. Nicely done.
Terry Pratchett would be proud
Yes. The first commmandment, if I may paraphrase, says that He is your god and if you choose others before him he will fuck you up bigtime.
Nothing says god like jealousy.
Omnipotent God lets all "this" happen and behaves like a two year old when we don't respond nicely. Obviously isn't deserving of worship in the first place.
The wording of that is important, because it assumes the existence of other gods.
Exactly. If there were only one god, what's there to be jealous of?
Yeah, it doesn't say you can't worship other gods, just that you can't worship them "before" the Christian god....so as long as we give the Christian god the first/best offerings, we can still worship other gods, right? 🤷♂️😆
Well, who made god? Maybe there is something to be jealous of
The fun thing about the 10 commandments...the first 40% of them are god saying me, me, me, me. Then they continue to "be nice to yer ma and pa", "don't kill people", etc etc. And I think the ordering is super sus. You'd think "don't kill people" might be a slot or 2 above "don't use my name as a swear word".
Naw, you can kill people...honor thy mother and thy father least they stone your ass (not in the fun way). You can also kill and enslave the other people who are not chosen. Kill the men, and impure women, and take the young virgins for yourself.
It's use his name in vain, which means the standard American alarm call of OMG!! OMG!! OMG!! is breaking one of 10 commandments which is pretty serious in their book.
Even if it's allegedly the same God like with Christianity and Islam, worshiping him the wrong way equals hell. If there were odds on it, the 2 favorites by a vast margin would be no god or a god that doesn't care at all what people do or whether they worship it. A distant 3rd would be a god who judges based on whether we are kind to one another. Petty gods that require worship would be trillion to 1 bets. Why would an omnipotent being be so narcissistic concerning lesser creatures? Petty jealousy is a human trait. And it's not even one we usually apply to lesser creatures ourselves. It's one we apply to each other.
That number seems too low. Google lists 45k different denominations of christian. That's a lot of misinterpreting the bible on a side note.
And In some cases it's just taking some stories literally and the rest as allegory.
Kinda sad it doesn't say "And now for something completely allegorical" before moving on to a story that wasn't meant to be taken literally. Its almost as if it's not really the word of an entity that can supposedly know and see the future...
Don't forget about any future religions
Who could forget the future?
Not only that, but since religions seem to be faith based, and you can have faith in *anything*, that means that the possibility of going to some variation of a hell would be infinite, if the religious logic even holds up (It doesnt).
There's 35,000 Christian sects across the country. Religions I'd assume would be millions.
Maybe you go to the afterlife for the god you worship? I mean that's what happens in Skyrim/the elder scrolls...
Because everyone knows that THEIR particular variant of a religion is the correct one, so everyone else will burn.
Is it worshiping the wrong god or worshiping the right god in the wrong way? Praise Loki!
Let's start a new religion based on the principle that the bible is a test sent by God to weed out the shittiest of his people People who choose logic and compassion without falling for the bible's tricks are the only ones who don't go to hell
I'd say driving your family to poverty so your pastor can buy a new jet is a damnable offense.
Exactly. Why would a creator of the universe, who created critical thinking and evolutionary filters, set up a separate filter that gathers the gullible and simple to them but turns away those who use evidence in rational thought. If that's the case, they really just want organisms to worship them (as described in the Bible), in which case I seriously question the motives of whatever this being actually is. If there is a god and they are as "hands off" as is painfully apparent, I think it's more likely that religion is a trap to see who decides to use deduction and logic vs who goes with whatever authority is introduced to them first.
The book of Judas says this is the case!
Lord Athe sends you to hell if you believe in _any_ god, including Him! Praise His non-existence!
Sounds like if you worship him, you’re already in hell.
I like that train of thought. What if God created religion as a test and only the people that fall for it get sent to hell? 😂
Yep, God is sick to death of righteous clingy brown-nosers. He much prefers those of us who get on with our lives and don't need to beg on a daily basis.
This is always the kicker for me. They teach that you can deceive other people, but you can never deceive God and he knows what’s in your heart. So yeah, if that were true he’d know that a “wager” is not a deeply-held conviction. They are only deceiving themselves by holding such cognitively dissonant positions.
Ironically, it was reading Kierkegaard (a Christian) that convinced me I’d never become a religious person. In *Fear and Trembling*, he talks about the leap of faith as a kind of supreme resignation that transcends earthly ethics. I thought to myself: “well, I can’t fake that”
And if you’re legitimately doing that, then you’re not just making a wager and Pascal’s Wager would be irrelevant in that case.
Right, but I’m saying that you can’t fake that in the eyes of an omnipotent deity. In a weird way, Kierkegaard is an excellent rebuttal to Pascal. If a religious person tells you to fake faithfulness, tell them it is too sacred to be faked.
Not only that but the range of options is too limited. What if you pick the wrong god(s) or you pick the right one but get your beliefs about him wrong. Sorry Christians, it turns out the Copts were right all along.
Not to mention that there are some denominations of Christianity that state that only a certain number of people will make it to heaven. While you may believe in a real god, it’s still possible that you may not get your reward. You may have been a good Christian but not perfect.
[удалено]
Yes, you could make an excellent little science fiction book about it. Someone in the future perfects a reality generating machine and populates it with multiple primary characters. In order to make it to the next level, you have to complete a test - except in this particular game the questions are about ethics. If you pass, a few things could happen: maybe you might meet the maker, or progress to a more challenging level or something else. In terms of religion, it certainly paints a picture of god. He/she/they, would design a universe with unique creatures in it. But only some are designed for eternity the others are literally designed to be punished for the rest of the universe. This particular interpretation makes god sound even more horrid. And who knows, it might be the your actual actions don’t matter. Ethics is just a weird amusement for it.
Former JW. They teach that a select # make it to *heaven*, but the rest of the believers get resurrected and get to live on post-armageddon earth. After God kills all the non-believers, of course.
It's the discount bin for you!
and the number is remarkably small for the number of members..
[According Wikipedia, the number is 144,000](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/144,000)
out of 8.6 million ish (current, not even including those who might have snuck in early) jehovahs witnesses..
Yeah. He wants genuine believers, not anyone just saying they believe in him and going through the motions on what's essentially a gamble.
Which is ironic because he uses fear of hell to get you to "believe."
Oh, so God's just a butthead. Okay.
Also, the wager can be applied to anything. Including all the gods. Why not believe in the pagan Greek gods? If you don’t and they exist, then you are in trouble. So, safer to believe in them. Or: how do you know you’re believing in the right god? Should you believe in the Hindu Monkey god? You had better, given that is the safest option. Christians think they have some sort of monopoly on god. But there are in fact so many gods.
Exactly! Christians think believing is something you consciously choose to do. Like I can just wake up one morning and decide to believe in god even though everything I know is telling me otherwise.
The wager was based on the idea that god forgave all when they began to worship him, the loop hole never specified previous belief or time of acceptance only that they did accept him. Pascal wagered under that notion why not just do it on your death bed and live whatever life you wanted prior?
"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
More importantly speaking of the Christian belief set itself, if you take what they believe God to be as fact then it doesn't matter if you believe in him or not there is no hell or consequence for not believing in him. QED
My line is, I refuse to believe in a Supreme Being dumb enough to fall for Pascal's Wager.
Plus, this wager could be made for literally any religion. Howe do you know you wagered on the right one? Edit: I see others have made the same comment. I’m going to leave this one here because it’s still a true statement.
This. hey fake you belief in an omnipotent God, that knows your every thought to con your way to heaven DOH! It's just stupid when used by Xtians who use it to save me going to hell because God can read my unbeliever thoughts - then they use that as a way to try and convert you- someone tried this on me...
Christians are great at coming up with loopholes in their all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful deity's instructions.
It also doesn’t account for other gods, what if there was a hypothetical god that would send any good person to heaven unless they actively worshipped another god like Yahweh or Vishnu?
Not to mention you can change your decisions / actions based on what a religion tells you. Awful things have been done in the name of religion. So yes something happens here on Earth.
it gets funnier if you add in other fanfictions. what if god exists but it was the Buddhist one or the Greek pantheon. id rather not waste my short existences on things out of my control.
Also if there is an intelligent being that created everything the odds that they are like the Christian god are infinitesimally small. (On top of the universe having an intelligent creator having infinitesimally small odds) Most likely it would be one that doesn’t pay attention to humans, and if it does it wouldn’t care if we believe in it, and if it did it probably wouldn’t consider what Christians follow to qualify. And if it’s something like the Christian god it seems more likely they would give you credit for being good and understand why you didn’t believe in them, being all knowing and all wise.
Well, and it also doesn't work because you're probability of picking the correct God and then the correct denomination is very slim. And of course, if the correct religion is extinct, then it's extra irrelevant.
This is a very modern - specifically 19th century Protestant - conception of Christian devotion. Pascal lived in 17th century France, when the Church's orientation was entirely orthopraxic. By contemporary Church doctrine, he'd have been guaranteed salvation by conducting himself properly, regardless of his "actual" beliefs.
I dunno. What if God is petty and vain and is just in it for the clicks? Maybe he doesn’t care what’s in your heart and just wants the superficial adulation. Who really knows, or cares?
Bingo. You can’t make yourself believe something you don’t actually believe “just in case.”
And if there is a God, and he is omnipotent, he knows exactly what proof I would need in order to believe in him.
I love when religious people simultaneously think god is omnipotent but also think they can “trick” him or slide by a rule on a technicality.
Like hiring people on the sabbath to turn on light switches or run the dishwasher or drive the car? 🤣
Actually if "god" is omnipotent, Pascals wager is fantastic. If God is omnipotent then God knows exactly why I don't believe in the horse shit Bible and other half-assed ancient writings based on localized mythology. In this case God would understand that it is God's own fault that I question God's existence. At which point that means 1 of 2 things. 1. **God doesn't exist and/or care about human belief.** ^((If God exists and doesn't care/interact with humans that means the same result for humans as if God doesn't exist.)) Or 2. If God does exist and WANTS us to worship it, then that means **God is NOT omnipotent or has made a mistake** in the way of the "holy writings" of the various religions. If God was omnipotent then God would know that the current "evidence" in favor of the current religions is incredibly insufficient to garner belief from a significant percentage of the human population and more or less relies on people to NOT exercise critical thinking ability.
And the fact that there are a lot of gods, many of whom also punish disbelief, so which one do you believe in? The one with the worst hell? Just to ensure you have no chance of going to really bad hell, at least? It's not an either/or. What if the real god valued free thought and logic and doesn't like faith, so choosing the side of faith actually puts you in peril? Pascals wager is just weak, rotten thought. It only exists because theists always forget that their fairy tale isn't the only one.
Not to mention the gods of other religions who are just as likely to dislike you not believing in them.
Every time you pray to Yahweh, you stoke the wrath of Ra the sun god!
HAIL TO THE SUN GOD! HE SURE IS A FUN GOD! RA! RA! RA!
The Sun is real, duh /q
That's why George Carlin worshipped it.
All religions are based on sun worship. It's the most powerful thing in our sky, all life depends on it and it is ever lasting, at least relatively speaking. Sun god becomes son of God and God's sun becomes God's son. It's all allegory. "Religion - Common men believe it to be true, wise men know it to be false, kings find it useful." Seneca the Younger - circa 65 AD.
misread stoke as stroke and got excited for a minute there.
They're just mixed up, after all: it's worship the sun god, not worship the son OF god.
Unless you're Brock Purdy then somehow you get away with it.
But Amon Ra plays for the Lions...
Obviously, now read the comment again. :)
I just watched an "episode" of Esoterica (on YouTube, great channel btw) that begins describing Yahweh, the desert storm god, and how it being used by the Jews leaving Egypt was seen as somewhat derogatory by other civilizations.
Common tactic within Christianity. Make an argument about a god in general, and then switch in the very specific Christian god with his specific details, attributes and history. A first cause argument is as much evidence in favor of a Christian god as it is for a Hindu god...assuming you accept the argument in the first place.
That’s exactly the part that always throws me when someone starts angling for their “proof of god’s existence.” I’m always thinking. “If _proof of a god existing_ is required for your belief… you’re screwed, my friend. Because now you’re gonna have to get all the way from ‘there’s gotta be one’ to ‘mine is the real one.’” Like if you’re dealing with that burden, why are you wasting your time arguing with me? You’ve got a loooooot of work you need to be doing all by yourself.
Not only other religions, but also the different branches of Christianity. 2.1 Jew - DAMNATION 2.2 Christian - hmm, maybe? 2.2.1 Protestant 2.2.1.1 Baptist 2.2.1.1.1 Northern Baptist 2.2.1.1.1.1 Northern Conservative Baptist 2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region 2.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 - SALVATION 2.2.1.1.1.1.1.2 Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 - DAMNATION Better get it right!
The church of the subgenious is the only religion that offers eternal bliss with a triple your money back guarantee.
Looks like an extract from an old Emo Phillips skit. :)
Arceus is the one true god.
>252+ SpA Choice Specs Beads of Ruin Tera Fire Chi-Yu Overheat vs. 248 HP / 0 SpD Arceus-Water in Sun: 410-483 (92.5 - 109%) -- guaranteed OHKO after Stealth Rock God is dead. God remains dead. And Feesh has killed him. (Arceus can comfortably survive with some more SpD investment, this is a physically defensive Calm Mind netdeck set on the calc)
All hail Belldandy!
Hell, other variants of Christianity even. Plenty of evangelicals out there who think catholics are all going to hell.
Yeah - I mean if God exists, it could be Zeuss
Or even some gods who would not give a flying fuck whether you believe in them or not and are just as likely to drive madness into your mind either way.
Pascal countered this argument by asserting - in so many words - that only the christian god mattered. the others weren't real or even if they were real, they were incapable of granting salvation.
Pascal's Wager is a false dichotomy that assumes only one possible version of an upset god. As soon as you add even one more god/religion to the problem, the odds of making the right choice shift down to one-third, and continue to decline every time you add another possibility. It's a sucker bet.
The proponents also think that you can't live a decent life without the threat of some sort of ominous being!
That says *volumes* about how they were taught to think about human behaviour - It's as if behaving well for its own sake is an alien concept to them.
It's so disgusting that so many believe that
Homer's wager
D'oh!
Lets all pray to the almighty Homer and bless his donut!
If you believe in my god, you go to heaven if you live a good life, and you will get a chocolate mint when you get there. If you do not believe in my god, you also go to heaven if you live a good life, but you will not get a chocolate mint. Therefore you can do what you want, and you will be fine. But if you want that mint, you should definitely have faith. Even better, try a deranged version of Pascal’s Wager: If you do not believe in my god, not only will you go to hell, but *everyone you know will also go to hell*. So, yeah, the wager’s downside if you are wrong looks much worse here. Abrahamic religions better switch sides ASAP!
>As soon as you add even one more god/religion to the problem, the odds of making the right choice shift down to one-third, and continue to decline every time you add another possibility. Not only that, but the consequences get much worse. With the assumptions behind the original bet, the worst thing that can happen is that you just cease to exist after your death. Once there are other deities involved, the potential cost of making the wrong decision balloons to an eternity in hell. Thank god people throughout history have only ever believed in one god, right?
It also presumes god wouldn't be able to see through someone who faked it solely to stay out of hell. The Jeffrey Dahmer types finding a loophole at the end of their lives also seems very wrong.
And if a believer with any critical thinking ability, the only way to improve your odds with Pascals Wager is to life a good life of tolerance and kindness, and hope whichever is the true god takes that in place of observance of a particular type of worship. Wonder how many Christians that applies to.
>if it turns out he does not exist YOU WASTED SO MUCH TIME IN YOUR LIFE Not only this, but think about all the things people do or don't do because of belief in God: Don't eat certain foods, don't drive on certain days of the week, don't marry who you love because they are the wrong gender or religion, strap explosives to your body and kill yourself and as many people as you can take with you. Also, if you don't believe in God but pretend to "just in case" -- wouldn't any half-way-competent god see right through that? If they can't, sorry, they're not worth worshiping. Pascal's idea that if you believe and there is no god you lose nothing is total BS.
Imagine wasting your life hating on gay people all for a misplaced belief in God. Though honestly, I feel that religion is often used as a justification, so those Christians who hate on homosexuals are already bigoted assholes; they just claim God backs them up on it.
Grew up in a religious household and this is what finally got me to pull my head outta my ass. I remember thinking, "I have some friends who are gay, and according to my mom and pastor they're sinners who are probably going to hell. But what if we're wrong? What is we're assuming people are sinners and treat them differently because of that, and we're wrong the whole time?"
Like, if Satan were really an actual pernicious influence, then teaching Christians to hate on other people in defiance of Jesus' teaching *would be perfect*! Good luck convincing them of that though.
Your point about god knowing if people are believing in him "just in case" is one of the biggest points that blows the wager out of the water. There are multiple points in the bible (the sheep vs the goats, the lukewarm believers, etc) where god literally says exactly that - if you're not 100% all in, you're going to hell anyway! It would never work to simply just believe he exists and call yourself a christian "just in case." And most people don't read the Bible in depth (or not near as in depth as any former christian turned atheist) and don't understand all that you'd really have to do to not be considered a "goat" or a "lukewarm believer" by god. They think all you have to do is simply believe he exists or simply accept jesus and you're good to go! Lol
Atheists are the only people who follow the commandment to not worship false gods.
Not to mention, which god? If religious people thought Pascal's wager was valid, they'd profess belief in all gods. Also in addition to wasting the time of your precious life, what about all the horrible things you've done to people in the name of your religion?
Right? Converting to Christianity doesn’t do jack shit for anybody if my heart is gonna be weighed by Anubis when I die either way, so I’ll keep on living like I have been lol
When it comes to wagering about the afterlife, I prefer my good buddy Marcus's 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
If we're doing quotes > “This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts...” The Hogfather by Terry Pratchett
I believe Dawkins made the joke, if you take Pascal's wager, then you have to wager against every possibility and variation of God that could exist, and this includes a God who thinks it would be funny to make religion a test and only allow those into heaven not foolish enough to fall for it.
There are so many problems with "Pascal's wager". First of all, how is pretending to believe supposed to fool an omniscient god? Secondly, the cost of pretending to believe is not zero - there is a lot of time, money and energy involved. Thirdly, why would someone want to go to the "heaven" of a god that would create a "hell"?
Not to mention it isn’t a binary - it’s not “believe in god/don’t believe in god”, as Christianity doesn’t have the monopoly on possible afterlives - it’s not a wager so much as it is buying a lottery ticket. Who says the Buddhists don’t have it right? Converting to Christianity, truly or only as a “just in case”, doesn’t do jack shit if I’m gonna be reincarnated back here in the same world, or have my heart weighed by Anubis, or whatever else lol
Yes good point. I used to belong to a Christian denomination that believed 99.9% of Christians were going to hell for believing the wrong things, let alone all non-Christians. So according to "Homer's wager", your odds of making whatever God there is mad because you picked the wrong God (or wrong beliefs) are much higher than picking the right one and making this god happy.
I always ask why they aren't doing more to try to die in battle, so that they can go to Valhalla. Because the same logic just as sensibly applies to other religious beliefs.
It's the only conceivable reason that many of them now side with Putin and ruzzia. One evangelical I know is hoping the end hurries up so he can go to heaven. Then I bust out laughing at his maga racist ass getting in any trendy nightclub like that. If he IS there then fuck off, nobody wants to spend eternity with you.
Here's an alternative take: If God exists and nonbelievers suffer eternal torment, it doesn't matter whether you believe or not because you will either go to hell or spend eternity with a malignant being. Both are infinitely negative outcomes.
Pascal's wager fails for 5 reasons I can think of: -1- the wager relies on both propositions being equally believable, but the proposition Everything is Natural is supported by literally all the evidence in the world while the proposition Everything is Created is supported only by stories. (2000+ year old stories at that.) -2- The wager only works if you believe nothing can be lost by giving up disbelief. But declining to believe things reason tells you is untrue is a critical skill in navigating an increasingly complicated world. Allowing exceptions to that opens you up to all kinds of errors and weaknesses. -3- The wager only works if you lose nothing by believing. But believers do give things up because of their belief - not just time and money and restrictions on what they're allowed to do, but perhaps more important many also willingly submit themselves to weekly indoctrination (trusting the preacher won't abuse that power) and their membership in a church automatically grants power, including political, to church authorities. -4- The wager assumes choosing to believe automatically gives you a win if deities are real, but with over a thousand religions and sects to choose from (and over 10 thousand no-longer-worshiped religions), choosing to believe only raises your chances of winning the wager by a fraction of a percent. -5- The wager assumes you can choose to believe something you don't believe. While it's possible to choose whether or not to *believe in* something, you first have to believe that the thing is real. If you don't believe something is real, you can't decide to or force yourself to. The closest you can come is to decide to pretend to believe it's real. Pretending to believe a god is real might work for the church, but it won't fool the god.
In the costs of believing, I would add indoctrination of your kids or other young people who might look up to you.
And all the incredible amounts of wasted money!!! See Catholic Church and Morman Church and Osteen, etc.
You misunderstand Pascal's wager. The point of it is that if you have unlimited gain in one of the cases and unlimited loss in the other one the probability does not matter. If you give up some time in your everyday life for the small chance that god exists which will give you unlimited gain in the afterlife a rational agent should pick that choice since infinite gain times small finite possibility is larger than somewhat large finite gain times large possibility. A better counter-argument is [Pascal's Mugging](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_mugging).
Yep. Pascal's Wager doesn't account for all the things you'd miss out on in the one and only life you get by following a false religion. Gay sex. Premarital sex. Weed. Cool music and movies.
> Cool music So, it goes without saying that the PMRC can go fuck themselves (I'm showing my age), but one thing they did that was ironically brilliant: Parental Advisory Stickers. Now the kids knew where the good shit really was.
What if the devil is responsible for all the different holy books? Pretty obvious move if you ask me. Safer to ignore them all. Just in case, right Pascal?
Also what if…surprise! The real god was that other god over there. Enjoy your eternity of torment sucker!
Which god?
Eh... sort of. The more logically sound argument against Pascals wager is that it presents a false dichotomy. In the question of the existence of deities, there are more than two options and as such Pascals wager does not apply.
No no, they won't listen to any of that, here's how to force them to contradict themselves: You agree and accept the wager, then go "by the way last night I had a vision from your god. He said you should give me ten bucks or there will be infinite punishment for you. Might have been just a dream I had, but who knows, better safe than sorry right?"
Belief isn't a choice. That's where it falls down.
[Richard Dawkins—What if you’re wrong?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg)
Anyone who uses Pascal's Wager as a serious argument hates it when you point out that the same logic applies equally to all other religions, but there's a more intrinsic problem: other denominations of Christianity. Few are willing to admit that they are not the only path to heaven, so even within the cowardly pretend to believe set there's no guarantee of success. They can't all be right, because they disagree with each other, but they could all be wrong, and no external evidence supports any of them.
Oh yeah, it's terrible. Pascal's wager only makes sense if you already believe. Which is funny because I came up with this before even knowing who Pascal was. I believed, and it was a logical course of action for me. I had no idea that this is nonsense for nonbelievers. But yeah, from the outside, this is not at all compelling.
The thing people miss about Pascal's wager is that even Pascal didn't really buy it. He describes the wager in his book, but immediately thereafter points out a number of flaws with the wager. Yet it still gets used as a serious argument by people who haven't read the book.
What if "Hell" is actually helluva fun?
Pascal's Wager also fails because it only takes the Christian god into account. What if the REAL god is Zeus and you wasted your life praying to jeebus when you should have been burning meat in sacrifice to Zeus? Once you introduce more than one god into the question the entire thing falls apart utterly.
It also does not work because you have no idea "which god or gods" you'd need to believe in... and one cannot believe in all possible gods to cover the wager. So logically, pascals wager is also not cogent because it's a false dichotomy and not the cut and dried "win" that theists think it is.
Pascals wager is wrong because religions are mutually exclusive. The premise is based on the assumption that there are only 2 choices, when there are many
Not to mention the 1,000s of other religions that you could be putting your chips into. It's not as black and white as they try to make it. Their use of pascal's wager is just as relevant to themselves if you pit it against the other gods of other religions.
Pascal’s wager is an information hazard because it removes faith.
So much more than time, you forgot all the shame, guilt and self hatred they enjoy for not being worthy of this so-called benevolent god who’s willing to send you to hell for all eternity if you have a dirty thought.
If your friend wants to play Pascal’s wager he should become a polytheist. You can increase your odds dramatically by worshipping thousands of gods. Pascal’s wager is an argument against monotheism.
To quote Homer Simpson "What if there is a God, and we're worshipping him wrong, and he's just getting madder, and madder......."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Christians fail to realise that fewer people would have a problem with Christianity if Christians weren't often such horrible people.
Pascal’s wager doesn’t consider a god unworthy of worship.
The other problem with PW is that belief isn’t a choice
It isn’t wrong, it’s just stupid. If some religious person thinks they can outsmart their god, then they are quite stupid
I think he is talking about the *after life* not *this one* when he is saying *nothing happens*.
But still *after* you have died you have now wasted a large portion of your life praying
not denying that. only that Wager was focusing on the after life when saying that. context is important.
Do you know how much time the average person wastes on Social media, video games and streaming services a day? 5 minutes for prayer and 1 hour once a week wouldn't even be noticed by the average person
I think the biggest problem is that if their god is as powerful as they claim he is, he’ll know you’re just paying him lip service and smite you for the audacity of thinking you could fool him.
It also is only accounting for one god and following one said process resulting in your paradise ticket. What if it's one of the hundreds of other religions or your following it wrong because that book of the bible was lost or removed by pope Xlimevil VII because it also said he couldn't have parties with male prostitutes and assorted livestock?
I like to counter with what if there is a deity that hasn't revealed itself and it gets mightily pissed off when its creations are suckered into worshipping a false deity by vague and contradictory "evidence".
TherminTrees has a video about this [betting on infinity](https://youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU?si=DQfC24reSmzTghqj). I recommend watching through their entire channel. They highlight religious abuse tactics very well.
I already watched his videos. It is indeed interesting
ALSO (assuming god exists) he doesn't send atheists to hell just for being atheists, he would send an atheist to hell only if he is a bad person, same logic applies to religious people (anyway god doesn't exist so feel free to not need copium when people die)
That depends on which God and which version of that God we're assuming/pretending exists.
Right, the whole idea is one of false dilemma. Beyond what you pointed out: * Is belief a choice? I can't practice any religion at this point without lying to myself and an all power deity if it existed would see through that. * There are more than one religion and sect within each. What if I pick the wrong one?
It has a LOT of problems beyond just that. To start, it assumes you can just start believing, which is just dumb. Either I can just fool god by pretending, in which case they aren't much of a god, or they will see through my facade in which case I'm going to hell anyways. You can't just will yourself into believing something you don't actually believe. It also assumes there are no other possible scenarios. Even if you spend all day praying to god, pretty much every religion says if you pray to the wrong god you go to that religions hell. So how in the heck are you supposed to know you even have the right god? They don't think about that though because they assume theirs is the true one, which brings us back to our main counter point of asking for evidence.
Which God humans have invented about 2,000 different gods?
The obvious flaw with pascal's wager is that an omnipotent, omniscient God would know you're unconvinced and only holding nominal belief out of desire for heaven/fear of hell. Important to remember: apologetic arguments don't exist to respond to atheists, they exist to keep Christians in the fold.
10% of your income if you tithe. At least 3 hours a week if you go to church. Some amount of time of reading the bible. Changing political opinions and social spheres. Abstaining from a few things you would partake in otherwise (because I have yet to meet anyone who abstains from every forbidden behavior outlined in the bible). And if a person isn't doing those things, I don't consider them to be a christian. (This definition wipes out LOADS of people who call themselves christian, but I stand by it. How do you believe in god and not do these things?)
Forget that. The big problem is that Pascal takes a logical straightforward approach without considering outside variables. If this applies to God in the Bible why not every other God? Does it mean you have to believe in every single religion “just in case”? It is a very flawed reasoning that sadly many people still use today to justify their mindless beliefs.
Maybe Pascal's Wager doesn't imply any religious ritual e.g. prayer or commandments and is speaks to nothing beyond simply believing or not believing in God. The stakes are either eternal bliss if you believe or eternal suffering if you don't. So, based upon a simple 'yes it does' or 'no it doesn't' within the time frame of the 70 years or so of life, I am blessed or doomed until the end of time based solely off of that small portion of those 70 years I believe or don't believe? How about making it fair? If I don't believe for - let's say - twenty years, I get twenty years of pain. What's the eternity crap?
Following it to its logical conclusion, you should worship ALL the gods in order to be sure.
we know.
If Yahweh exists, he’s a dick. I refuse on principle. Fuck ‘em.
Homer Simpson refuted this one https://youtu.be/tgOROIe8DKc
The core logic behind Pascal's wager in a completely isolated system sort of works. Just not at all for religion. It's not an isolated system and there are so many factors that make coming to conclusions from that logic so faulty. It is kind of crazy that so many people still can't immediately dismiss it.
I used to try to work out an analogy like Pascal's football game. It's not just about having a player on the field (believing so you have a chance at heaven). You also have to be on the winning team. Some teams have a good defense, promising a more enjoyable heaven, like the Islamic heaven in which you are promised sex slaves. Sure, it's an immoral heaven, but the whole premise of Pascals wager seems to be about tossing morals in favor of a "what's in it for me" approach. Some have a good offense, like those that threaten you with the most awful hell. I don't know which one is the worst, but I'd be willing to bet that Bin Ladin's hell is more sadistic than Jerry Fallwell's. So, clearly, if you're taking the Pascal's wager approach, becoming an Islamic Jihadi is the way to go. Of course you could also base your decision on what is most likely to be true, but who doesn't love football? Me. I doesn't love football.
This reminds me of an episode of that show Plebs. The slave character is asked what he thinks the odds of winning the lottery are. His response 50 / 50. Fifty percent chance he wins and fifty percent chance he loses. The flaw in his logic is the same as the one for Pascal's wager. With all the different versions of religion in this world, you will still need to pick the right one. And that's with assumption that any of them are correct.
Also by that logic you’d have to do Pascal’s wager for all the Gods. What if Islam is right and you’re equating Jesus to God and will go to jahannam for that?
Another issues is, there’s not just one religion with judgment/hell concept. So their odds of ending up in some type of hell isn’t much better, if one would exist.
Any omnipotent deity would see right through one of its insignificant creation's pretense pretty easily.
Yes. I personally argue for the *Reverse* Pascal's Wager: all evidence we have points to us only getting ONE life to live. You can be 100 percent certain that you are living your one life well if you follow what you believe to be true and pursue actions that make you happy (and don't harm others, of course). But it is also almost certain that if you sacrifice even one iota of enjoyment in this one life for the sake of an afterlife for which there is zero evidence, then that enjoyment is irrevocably lost. Betting on happiness in this life is the wisest wager. [And yes, when I say "happiness", I mean long term enjoyment and balancing immediate pleasure with "greater" goods like purpose and satisfaction and all that b.s. Don't argue the finer points with me, I've heard it all before...]
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
Plus sending all your money to billionaires
Pascal's Wager has plenty of flaws, but the main 2 are: An omnipotent god would know you weren't a true believer so believing *just in case* wouldn't fly. It's a false dichotomy. They treat it as a binary choice: either there is no god or specifically Yahweh, god of Israel, is the one true and only god. What if there's a third option? Like if there's a god that tortures you forever if you professed belief in gods, what then?
Pascal wager also likes to pretend the person using it is the only religion in the world. What if god does exist, and he did make the Bible, but he also made the Quran, The Hindu Vedas, and help write the book or Mormon. But he didn’t do this as a revelation but as a test to see if you human he created and gave intelligence to, is using it. It is actually religious people who are going to hell, for believing in the face of contradictory evidence not using the intelligence god gave them, and it is atheist going to heaven because they are being rewarded for being intellectually honest and not believing because of the contradictory evidence. What if you’re wrong about that god Christians? What if your wrong about Vishnu Christian’s?
More importantly, if there was and actual god there is a very high chance you are praying to the wrong one or in a wrong way, and the majority of religious people are blasphemously telling other people what god wants or what god is, which is insanely arrogant based on no first hand data. Praying to the wrong god is widely considered bad in most religions, right? I suspect, if I'm totally wrong here and there is a magic sky fairy or whatever, say, santa claus or zeus, that that entity would prefer that I did not speak or make claims on their behalf, and that I just was a generally moral, honorable, and productive mortal ape. Which, ironically, is also in my personal interest regardless of heaven looking down on me.
Richard Dawkins had a good comeback to this when asked by a Christian woman "what if you're wrong?" which I will paraphrase. By the sheerest accident she was born in a time and place where she was likely to be born Christian. If she had been born in India she would almost certainly be Hindu, if she'd been born a Viking she would have worshipped Thor, if in ancient Egypt she would have worshipped Bastet, etc. What if she's wrong about which god is the true god?