Pascal's Wager

[LibralAteoJesus]

There is a difference between study and asserting your research is complete. He said he knows. He then re-asserted he knows from his personal talking to the atheists he did speak to.
You have to see that sample size is extremely limited. Not to mention atheists don’t have a dogma they follow. Many of them feel different ways on different issues. Came to their conclusions differently.

It’s better to say “In my experience the atheists I’ve talked to seem to feel this way”
then to outright claim factual knowledge of atheists minds due to talking to some of them. Absurd if you ask me

They may have different views regarding life issues but on disbelief, most of them have very similar reasons.

• No evidence for supernatural.
• Evidences and reasons that disprove religions and deities.

 

[JohnMichaels]

They may have different views regarding life issues but on disbelief, most of them have very similar reasons.

• No evidence for supernatural.
• Evidences and reasons that disprove religions and deities.

I notice you didn’t list “They really believe in god, they just don’t want to cause they fear him”
This is the proposition he presented as factual. To disprove this, I have to engage in a defense of atheism. Which could get me banned. Alternatively, he fears no blow-back for poking the bear, so-to-speak.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

I notice you didn’t list “They really believe in god, they just don’t want to cause they fear him”
This is the proposition he presented as factual. To disprove this, I have to engage in a defense of atheism. Which could get me banned. Alternatively, he fears no blow-back for poking the bear, so-to-speak.

Better to say that they have nothing against any god; they just fear the terrible things religions can do because of holy books and monarchism.

“I ain’t afraid” is a good song for Charlemagne to hear

 

[MPat]

Well here’s three things you should consider:

1- Is the belief in a god a bet, wouldn’t a great god know when we are pretending to believe and when we actually don’t ( suppposing he exists), isn’t that a dishonest behavior?

It is not “pretending to believe”, but “trying to believe” and “acting as if one believed”. I have written a post about it in this thread, so I’ll just repeat one part: would you say that trying to persuade oneself of the truth of Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is “dishonest”…? It does take some effort and you do not start believing for “right” reasons (though, probably, respecting the authority of the scientists on those matters).

2- What if you pick a wrong god out of the thousands, what if the Muslim or the Hindu or other sort of gods exist, would you truly take that risk?

Well, you are supposed to investigate the matter. Some claims are not that hard to disprove (look at the Mount Olympus using, let’s say, some satellite images, and you will get some evidence about existence of Ancient Greek gods).

In effect, such case is similar to the one of police investigator, who concludes that “It was a suicide!” because otherwise he could suspect the whole population of Earth.

3-Why would a God send a disbeliever who was unable for any reason to believe in his existence to an eternal damnation ( This isn’t the Catholic theology teaching/ Invincible ignorance); and if it happens that such a god exists would you worship him? I personally wouldn’t, I dislike dictators.

Not everyone is disciplined by a dictator, that’s for sure, but can you explain what does this have to do with a God?

If there is God who tortures you eternally for not believing or for any other reason, that’s not a good god, even in this life, the philosophy of Epicurus on suffering is another rational reason against the existence of an all powerful, all good creator.

In other words, you are saying that if God would send you (or anyone else) to hell, then you would actually want to go to hell (away from Him)? Well, if that is your choice (not a very good one, if you ask me), then what exactly is so wrong with sending you where you want…?

And, of course, the Pascal’s Wager presupposes that one would prefer to act with one’s self-interest in mind… It does not apply to someone who wants to go to hell.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

It is not “pretending to believe”, but “trying to believe” and “acting as if one believed”. I have written a post about it in this thread, so I’ll just repeat one part: would you say that trying to persuade oneself of the truth of Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is “dishonest”…? It does take some effort and you do not start believing for “right” reasons (though, probably, respecting the authority of the scientists on those matters).

Well, you are supposed to investigate the matter. Some claims are not that hard to disprove (look at the Mount Olympus using, let’s say, some satellite images, and you will get some evidence about existence of Ancient Greek gods).

In effect, such case is similar to the one of police investigator, who concludes that “It was a suicide!” because otherwise he could suspect the whole population of Earth.

In other words, you are saying that if God would send you (or anyone else) to hell, then you would actually want to go to hell (away from Him)? Well, if that is your choice (not a very good one, if you ask me), then what exactly is so wrong with sending you where you want…?

And, of course, the Pascal’s Wager presupposes that one would prefer to act with one’s self-interest in mind… It does not apply to someone who wants to go to hell.

Trying to believe would end up pretending when you are not truly convinced, no matter how you try, what you don’t accept as reality for many reasons won’t make you change into a believer.

I investigated and found out all theistic claims aren’t really hard to disprove, just for the same reasons that you dismiss other gods ( other than the faith in your religion), I dismiss the Christian god.

I should make it more clear:

1- I don’t believe in a personal God ( for Scientific/ historical/ logical reasons).

2- If a personal God exists, I don’t think he’s good with all this suffering ( Epicurus philosophy).

----> Therefore, it’s not only that I don’t believe in a god for many reasons but if a God exists, I don’t think he’s good ( because of suffering) , therefore I don’t want to worship any non good God.

Remember I said IF a god exists, he wouldn’t be a good god ( Epicurus philosophy doesn’t disprove a creator but it disproves a loving one)

For the Catholic theology, you are saying God is good and has hell for disbelievers, that’s another reason to think that IF a god exists with all this earthly suffering and have as well another +1 suffering place after death? That would more cruel, of course I don’t want suffering, why did you think that if I don’t choose God that means I want suffering?

If I had a choice between these three:

1- Going to Heaven and worshiping a bad God
2- Going to hell and suffer
3- Cease to exist

I would pick the third, to me disbelief isn’t just a truth but it is something reassuring and I’m happy about ( Please note that I didn’t “choose” that disbelief because I’m happy about)…t

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

It is not “pretending to believe”, but “trying to believe” and “acting as if one believed”. I have written a post about it in this thread, so I’ll just repeat one part: would you say that trying to persuade oneself of the truth of Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics is “dishonest”…? It does take some effort and you do not start believing for “right” reasons (though, probably, respecting the authority of the scientists on those matters).

Well, you are supposed to investigate the matter. Some claims are not that hard to disprove (look at the Mount Olympus using, let’s say, some satellite images, and you will get some evidence about existence of Ancient Greek gods).

In effect, such case is similar to the one of police investigator, who concludes that “It was a suicide!” because otherwise he could suspect the whole population of Earth.

In other words, you are saying that if God would send you (or anyone else) to hell, then you would actually want to go to hell (away from Him)? Well, if that is your choice (not a very good one, if you ask me), then what exactly is so wrong with sending you where you want…?

And, of course, the Pascal’s Wager presupposes that one would prefer to act with one’s self-interest in mind… It does not apply to someone who wants to go to hell.

Trying to believe would end up pretending when you are not truly convinced, no matter how you try, what you don’t accept as reality for many reasons won’t make you change into a believer.

I investigated and found out all theistic claims aren’t really hard to disprove, just for the same reasons that you dismiss other gods ( other than the faith in your religion), I dismiss the Christian god.

I should make it more clear:

1- I don’t believe in a personal God ( for Scientific/ historical/ logical reasons).

2- If a personal God exists, I don’t think he’s good with all this suffering ( Epicurus philosophy).

----> Therefore, it’s not only that I don’t believe in a god for many reasons but if a God exists, I don’t think he’s good ( because of suffering) , therefore I don’t want to worship any non good God.

Remember I said IF a god exists, he wouldn’t be a good god ( Epicurus philosophy doesn’t disprove a creator but it disproves a loving one)

For the Catholic theology, you are saying God is good and has hell for disbelievers, that’s another reason to think that IF a god exists with all this earthly suffering and have as well another +1 suffering place after death? That would more cruel, of course if I don’t choose God that doesn’t mean I want suffering.

If I had a choice between these three:

1- Going to Heaven and worshiping a bad God
2- Going to hell and suffer
3- Cease to exist

I would pick the third, to me disbelief isn’t just a truth but it is something reassuring and I’m happy about ( Please note that I didn’t “choose” that disbelief because it makes me happy) …

 

[MPat]

Trying to believe would end up pretending when you are not truly convinced, no matter how you try, what you don’t accept as reality for many reasons won’t make you change into a believer.

So, may I repeat once more: would you say it is “dishonest” or “pretending” if one tries to persuade oneself of the truth of Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? By trying different experiments or otherwise?

I investigated and found out all theistic claims aren’t really hard to disprove, just for the same reasons that you dismiss other gods ( other than the faith in your religion), I dismiss the Christian god.

OK, so, what are the reasons for which I “dismiss other gods”? You would have to know them to claim so, wouldn’t you?

I have listed one reason that does apply to the gods of Ancient Greece (who were supposed to live on one specific mountain), but not to God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, not to gods of Hinduism, not to gods of Shintoism, not to… Well, I think you should get the idea.

Or, to reuse the example about police investigator, it is easy to show that the great majority of the Earth’s population has a good alibi - were on a different continent. It does mean that “I could suspect everyone on Earth, so I’ll just declare it was a suicide!” exaggerates the problems and is not a good idea, but it does not mean that it is going to be just as easy to rule out everyone else.

I should make it more clear:

1- I don’t believe in a personal God ( for Scientific/ historical/ logical reasons).

Then Pascal’s Wager (the topic of this thread) is simply irrelevant to you. It was never supposed to be useful when one is able to make a choice on other grounds.

2- If a personal God exists, I don’t think he’s good with all this suffering ( Epicurus philosophy).

----> Therefore, it’s not only that I don’t believe in a god for many reasons but if a God exists, I don’t think he’s good ( because of suffering) , therefore I don’t want to worship any non good God.

Remember I said IF a god exists, he wouldn’t be a good god ( Epicurus philosophy doesn’t disprove a creator but it disproves a loving one)

For the Catholic theology, you are saying God is good and has hell for disbelievers, that’s another reason to think that IF a god exists with all this earthly suffering and have as well another +1 suffering place after death? That would be a lot, of course I don’t want suffering, why did you think that if I don’t choose God that means I want suffering?

Well, hell is almost defined as the one place where you can stay away from God. The suffering is a consequence of staying away from the source of all that is good.

If I had a choice between these three:

1- Going to Heaven and worshiping a bad God
2- Going to hell and suffer
3- Cease to exist

I would pick the third, to me disbelief isn’t just a truth but it is something reassuring and I’m happy about ( Please note that I didn’t “choose” that disbelief because I’m happy about)…

Well, if you say so… However, drinking too much of an alcoholic drink also seems to make one happy - in the short run. And then comes the “hangover”… Maybe you should make sure that this case is different…

Oh, and… About that “choose” with quotation marks… I hope you do not mean you were forced to disbelieve by someone else…?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…]The way is very simple. The atheist has to close his mind to Nogod and open his heart to God. …]

I speculate that there may be others that will not know what concept you are invoking here since, as far as I’ve seen, “nogod” is a word that is only used in these forums. For their sake I’m refering to past invokations of the word so that perhaps they will be able to infer the concept that you are communicating. Feel free to provide correction if you think that any of these misrepresent your intended meaning of the word here.

All religions pretty much worship the same God. Even atheists worship Nogod!

…]Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It is not the mere absence of belief in God, but the denial of God, which is at the same time both a negation of God and an affirmation of Nogod.

Along with that affirmation of Nogod come all kinds of implications: the denial of the soul, the denial of immortality, the denial of absolute moral principles, etc.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

So, may I repeat once more: would you say it is “dishonest” or “pretending” if one tries to persuade oneself of the truth of Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics? By trying different experiments or otherwise?

OK, so, what are the reasons for which I “dismiss other gods”? You would have to know them to claim so, wouldn’t you?

I have listed one reason that does apply to the gods of Ancient Greece (who were supposed to live on one specific mountain), but not to God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam, not to gods of Hinduism, not to gods of Shintoism, not to… Well, I think you should get the idea.

Or, to reuse the example about police investigator, it is easy to show that the great majority of the Earth’s population has a good alibi - were on a different continent. It does mean that “I could suspect everyone on Earth, so I’ll just declare it was a suicide!” exaggerates the problems and is not a good idea, but it does not mean that it is going to be just as easy to rule out everyone else.

Then Pascal’s Wager (the topic of this thread) is simply irrelevant to you. It was never supposed to be useful when one is able to make a choice on other grounds.

Well, hell is almost defined as the one place where you can stay away from God. The suffering is a consequence of staying away from the source of all that is good.

Well, if you say so… However, drinking too much of an alcoholic drink also seems to make one happy - in the short run. And then comes the “hangover”… Maybe you should make sure that this case is different…

Oh, and… About that “choose” with quotation marks… I hope you do not mean you were forced to disbelieve by someone else…?

I’m not going to say those reasons, this would be an irrelevant debate to the main post and it might get closed.

Yes, Pascal’s wager is irrelevant to me. Only the third reason I mentioned (you can check it) was a matter of choice.

I’m not forced to disbelieve but disbelief isn’t a choice, it’s because some beliefs didn’t make sense to you at the first place, or it’s something that you conclude after thoughts and researches, you don’t suddenly say I want to stop believing, you just stop believing because it doesn’t convince you anymore.

To clear it up again so you don’t say I rejected God as first level, there is two levels, not conditions that work together, but levels:

1- I don’t believe in a personal god for plenty of reasons. ( This is the first and the main level, which is a conclusion; not a choice)

2-If a god exists, I don’t think he is good ( Second level, first part, a conclusion too).

Therefore because he isn’t all good as an all powerful being I won’t worship him ( That’s a choice and it comes after If, which has nothing to do with the first level about non beleiving). It’s also the third part of Pascal’s wager as I mentioned before, and that’s why it’s hard to take Pascal’s wager seriously because I think it’s hard to pass the first level and the first part of the second level, as well the first two parts in the the 3 parts I mentioned earlier.

Cheers!

 

[Gorgias]

2- If a personal God exists, I don’t think he’s good with all this suffering ( Epicurus philosophy).

By definition, God is all-knowing; we, as humans, are not. Would you be willing to admit that there’s the possibility that what you perceive as “all this suffering” might not be what it appears to you, but rather, in the context of what God knows and sees, might be the best way to give us the opportunity to know and come to believe in God?

For the Catholic theology, you are saying God is good and has hell for disbelievers, that’s another reason to think that IF a god exists with all this earthly suffering and have as well another +1 suffering place after death? That would more cruel, of course if I don’t choose God that doesn’t mean I want suffering.

According to Catholic theology, we all have a choice: follow God or refuse to follow God. In the end, this choice is critical: if we choose God, we aspire to heaven. If we choose to refuse God, then God honors that choice and allows us to spend eternity without Him. Why is that ‘cruel’?

If I had a choice between these three:

1- Going to Heaven and worshiping a bad God
2- Going to hell and suffer
3- Cease to exist

I would pick the third

And that’s just the thing: there isn’t any ‘choice’ about reality. You didn’t get to choose the reality of the universe, you were born into it. You also don’t have the opportunity to choose whether there’s heaven & hell, just which you want to aspire towards…

 

[Gorgias]

1- I don’t believe in a personal god for plenty of reasons. ( This is the first and the main level, which is a conclusion; not a choice)

2-If a god exists, I don’t think he is good ( Second level, first part, a conclusion too).

Therefore because he isn’t all good as an all powerful being I won’t worship him

Ah-ah-ah! Hold on a second! Your conclusions don’t follow your premises! It would be more logical to state, “therefore, because I don’t think he is all good and i don’t think he is an all powerful being, I won’t worship him”…! There’s a big difference between this conclusion and the one that you stated! And, as it turns out, if you’re being fair with yourself and admitting that the correction that I made is actually the conclusion that you’ve reached, then you’re exactly at the entry point for Pascal’s wager: that’s quite a big gamble you’re making! You’re wagering I think’s against the possibility of an eternity without God. Sure you wanna make that bet?

Blessings,

G.

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

According to Catholic theology, we all have a choice: follow God or refuse to follow God. In the end, this choice is critical: if we choose God, we aspire to heaven. If we choose to refuse God, then God honors that choice and allows us to spend eternity without Him. Why is that ‘cruel’?

And that’s just the thing: there isn’t any ‘choice’ about reality. You didn’t get to choose the reality of the universe, you were born into it. You also don’t have the opportunity to choose whether there’s heaven & hell, just which you want to aspire towards…

Because many live without a God and this isn’t a suffering to them, why then would Hell be a suffering if it’s only an eternity without God?

Right and the reality to me is that the first two options, Heaven and Hell are only ancient myths, in this debate I’m saying IF , but in my life I don’t take them any seriously.

 

[empther]

You have to stop and think things out, or you’ll get something like this:

Because many live without a God and this isn’t a suffering to them, why then would Hell be a suffering if it’s only an eternity without God? :bigyikes:

Here’s some other things you’ll be without in hell:

Food, water, clothes, homes, diversions, time by yourself (the devil is always screaming in your face), change of scenery, any scenery at all, rest, and friends.

Sounds pretty boring to me.

 

[JohnMichaels]

Here’s some other things you’ll be without in hell:

Food, water, clothes, homes, DVDs, time by yourself (the devil is always screaming in your face), change of scenery, any scenery at all, rest, and friends.

Sounds pretty boring to me.

That sounds pretty sweet. DVD’s in Heaven? Personal homes too?

Tell me more about this…

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Here’s some other things you’ll be without in hell:

Food, water, clothes, homes, DVDs, time by yourself (the devil is always screaming in your face), change of scenery, any scenery at all, rest, and friends.

Sounds pretty boring to me.

I hope this is a joke, no DVD’s

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther View Post
Here’s some other things you’ll be without in hell:

Food, water, clothes, homes, DVDs, time by yourself (the devil is always screaming in your face), change of scenery, any scenery at all, rest, and friends.

Sounds pretty boring to me.

That sounds pretty sweet. DVD’s in Heaven? Personal homes too?

Tell me more about this…

DVDs, personal homes and so on are as good as it gets on Earth,
but all these physical comforts are trivial things compared to the joys of Heaven.

I once skimmed a book written by the wife of a Protestant minister about what it will be like in Heaven.
Among other things, she said we’d be given videotapes about Jesus’s actual movements around the Holy Land which we would take back to our personal mansions to view at leisure.
I asked myself, “How many trillions of years could I do that before getting bored?”
The woman could not rise up to a faint glimmer of the real nature of eternal bliss.

( How easy it is to slam smart alecky remarks. )

 

[Gorgias]

Because many live without a God and this isn’t a suffering to them, why then would Hell be a suffering if it’s only an eternity without God?

Easy. The “many (who) live without God” here on earth are doing so under the assumption that God isn’t real, or that heaven & hell aren’t real, or that these realities aren’t at all important. So, it’s easy to live without them here on earth and not suffer. However, let’s have a bit of a thought experiment: suppose you live your life, eschewing all notion of religion and God, but when you die, you find out that it was all true – God exists, and you had had the opportunity to choose Him and be with Him in eternity; instead, though, through your actions, you chose not to take Him up on His offer. Now, for eternity, you find that you’ve missed out on the ultimate happiness; instead, you only have emptiness. That’s suffering.

(I just caught “For Love of the Game” on TV the other day. Have you ever seen it? Kevin Costner, playing the main character Billy Chapel, has just reached the pinnacle of his career as a major league pitcher: in his last start, he pitches a perfect game. At the end of the night, he goes to his room and checks his voicemails – there are none. He sits on his bed and weeps – the kind of crying that only a guy who’s lost it all will recognize. You see, despite all the good things he’s just experienced, he’s missing the most important thing: the presence of the woman he loves and whom he’s lost.

My take on heaven? It’s pretty near to that scenario: once we realize what we’ve had, and the opportunity that was given us, and that we threw away – in that moment, we’ll know what true suffering is. Devils? Pitchforks? Fiery pits? Meh – that’s nothing, compared to the knowledge of what we had been offered but threw away…)

Right and the reality to me is that the first two options, Heaven and Hell are only ancient myths, in this debate I’m saying IF , but in my life I don’t take them any seriously.

“Reality to me”? What do those two words do, to qualify your statement? Reality is. It isn’t relative to what you believe or what I believe, right? It. Just. Is. So, take them seriously or don’t take them seriously, but the expectation that “I don’t believe in them, so they don’t exist” doesn’t make any sense, logically speaking…

 

[JohnMichaels]

DVDs, personal homes and so on are as good as it gets on Earth,
but all these physical comforts are trivial things compared to the joys of Heaven.

I once skimmed a book written by the wife of a Protestant minister about what it will be like in Heaven.
Among other things, she said we’d be given videotapes about Jesus’s actual movements around the Holy Land which we would take back to our personal mansions to view at leisure.
I asked myself, “How many trillions of years could I do that before getting bored?”
The woman could not rise up to a faint glimmer of the real nature of eternal bliss.

( How easy it is to slam smart alecky remarks. )

Oh, so you don’t know then? Ok
You claimed a person would be without things in hell, and specifically named them. This implies he would be WITH those things if he went to Heaven.

But you’re saying, you don’t know.

(How easy it is to take answers to smart alecky remarks and turn them to my advantage )

 

[LibralAteoJesus]

Easy. The “many (who) live without God” here on earth are doing so under the assumption that God isn’t real, or that heaven & hell aren’t real, or that these realities aren’t at all important. So, it’s easy to live without them here on earth and not suffer. However, let’s have a bit of a thought experiment: suppose you live your life, eschewing all notion of religion and God, but when you die, you find out that it was all true – God exists, and you had had the opportunity to choose Him and be with Him in eternity; instead, though, through your actions, you chose not to take Him up on His offer. Now, for eternity, you find that you’ve missed out on the ultimate happiness; instead, you only have emptiness. That’s suffering.

(I just caught “For Love of the Game” on TV the other day. Have you ever seen it? Kevin Costner, playing the main character Billy Chapel, has just reached the pinnacle of his career as a major league pitcher: in his last start, he pitches a perfect game. At the end of the night, he goes to his room and checks his voicemails – there are none. He sits on his bed and weeps – the kind of crying that only a guy who’s lost it all will recognize. You see, despite all the good things he’s just experienced, he’s missing the most important thing: the presence of the woman he loves and whom he’s lost.

My take on heaven? It’s pretty near to that scenario: once we realize what we’ve had, and the opportunity that was given us, and that we threw away – in that moment, we’ll know what true suffering is. Devils? Pitchforks? Fiery pits? Meh – that’s nothing, compared to the knowledge of what we had been offered but threw away…)

“Reality to me”? What do those two words do, to qualify your statement? Reality is. It isn’t relative to what you believe or what I believe, right? It. Just. Is. So, take them seriously or don’t take them seriously, but the expectation that “I don’t believe in them, so they don’t exist” doesn’t make any sense, logically speaking…

Also saying “My God exists and Heaven is real”, doesn’t make it true.

Saying, “to me” is an expression of my opinion which you disagree with, whatever it’s true or not that would be another issue.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

John
**
Sorry. I will ignore you then, you seem to hold firm you position that you CAN assert fact with no evidence, despite the actual fact I cannot engage in this kind of debate. **

You have already engaged in the debate by being an atheist. If all you will tolerate is facts, how is it that atheism is a fact with no evidence that it is a fact? It is not a fact. You have offered no evidence that it is a fact. You cannot offer evidence that it is a fact because no such evidence exists. Atheism is a belief. And it is an empty belief, because all atheism offers is one thing and nothing else? It offers eternal death. It does not offer hope. It does not offer a code of ethics. It does not even offer freedom, since it chains us to a vision of a materialistic universe that is ultimately doomed.