NationStates Jolt Archive

Being an athiest and holding the firm belief that the nations of the world will recongnize my greatness and pronounce me emporer of earth I ask just one question: Why believe in God in the first place? Sure theres that thing about there being no meaning to the universe without him yadyadayada but does there have to be a meaning to the universe? And about the ark: Noah never brought a girl on board with him if you know what I mean. So religion doesnt aswer everything it preaches. So doesn't that mean that there is a chance it is a lie? Cavemen thought litning was the gods wrath and what of the ancient Egyptions? Romans had a god for every day of the week and so did the greeks. So to say that there is one god is well... whats the word... hypocritic. I"m not attacking religoin, just questioning it.

I believe you mean 'hypocritical.'

Yes, I do. Thank you.

This is the part where you crawl me for being an athiest mother ******* and say I go to hell. Go on, I"ll wait. Sadly this is the normal response I get.

I believe in the Jabberwock and frumious Bandersnatch.

Realy? I"m not fimiliar with those. Are you a Bushanistianist? ( You're kidding right?)

Noah never brought a girl on board with him if you know what I mean.

yes he did...

genesis 7:1 - The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

the best way to find answers to things is to study them. maybe you should try that...

yes he did...

genesis 7:1 - The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation.

the best way to find answers to things is to study them. maybe you should try that...
One down, 300000000 more to go. Fire away. And what made them so special? 2 of every animal and he gets what 4 humans? Lame, God's not fair to girrafes and Rhino's. And how did he save salt water fish? Giant fish tank?

Realy? I"m not fimiliar with those. Are you a Bushanistianist? ( You're kidding right?)

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
'And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

One down, 300000000 more to go. Fire away. And what made them so special? 2 of every animal and he gets what 4 humans? Lame, God's not fair to girrafes and Rhino's. And how did he save salt water fish? Giant fish tank?

and i assume you have a list of 300000000?

anyway, ill pass...

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
'And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
Didn't under stand a word. Native American? I'm guessing so help me out.

and i assume you have a list of 300000000?

anyway, ill pass...
Not a list. Not enough paper in the world. But how did he save the salt water fish?

Not a list. Not enough paper in the world. But how did he save the salt water fish?

maybe he caught them in a fish net and put them in a salt water tank in heaven?

Could be that...Or could it be a lie put in the bible for people to catch and debate about.... Or it could be some drunken preist blindly writing about stuff that he dreamed about.

maybe he caught them in a fish net and put them in a salt water tank in heaven?

Don't forget family Filoviridae, family Orthomyxoviridae, and genus Clostridium.

Don't forget family Filoviridae, family Orthomyxoviridae, and genus Clostridium.

dont try to confuse me with your scientific names!

One down, 300000000 more to go. Fire away. And what made them so special? 2 of every animal and he gets what 4 humans? Lame, God's not fair to girrafes and Rhino's. And how did he save salt water fish? Giant fish tank?Actually, if I remember correctly, it was seven of every 'clean' animal, only two of every unclean one. (And some other stuff I can't remember that probably meant he didn't bother with fish at all, though at least some birds were invited.)

IMHO, it's a metaphor placed upon a folk memory of one or more localised events (floods aren't that uncommon), but when talking to people who believe in the literality of the text, you might as well be in possession of as many details as possible.

What about Pascal's Wager?
Despite being an atheist myself, I have yet to see serious flaws in Pascal's Wager. Yes, it hasn't convinced me to recant my non-believeing ways, but I find it to be quite logical for what it is.

Pascal's Wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

I'd much rather have 42 than god, thank you every much....

Atleast 42 doesn't get mad when I don't worship it. Even if it does get mad, I can just make it go away by dividing it by 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, or 21.

What about Pascal's Wager?
Despite being an atheist myself, I have yet to see serious flaws in Pascal's Wager. Yes, it hasn't convinced me to recant my non-believeing ways, but I find it to be quite logical for what it is.

Pascal's Wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Please tell me you're joking. It is based entirely on assumptions. There are so many flaws in Pascal's Wager that a book could be written about them.

Please tell me you're joking. It is based entirely on assumptions. There are so many flaws in Pascal's Wager that a book could be written about them.

On the face of it, it makes sense (no, I haven't studied it in great detail). And if the assumptions are correct, it would make sense to worship God, not that it could convince you to. Its argument doesn't cover how you make yourself worship something, only that, following its logic, you should.

Actually, if I remember correctly, it was seven of every 'clean' animal, only two of every unclean one. (And some other stuff I can't remember that probably meant he didn't bother with fish at all, though at least some birds were invited.)

IMHO, it's a metaphor placed upon a folk memory of one or more localised events (floods aren't that uncommon), but when talking to people who believe in the literality of the text, you might as well be in possession of as many details as possible.

indeed, there were seven paisr of all clean animal,s, only two of the unclean, and there were eight humans, Noah, and his wife, and his three sons and their wives, and if you want to think God favoured humans, well He would have, after all He made man (or humans) "In His own image", now, I belive you have some obscene figure of questions more to ask, and I assume you are not asking any religion but very specifically Christiantiy, as all ignorant people seem to like to do

On the face of it, it makes sense (no, I haven't studied it in great detail). And if the assumptions are correct, it would make sense to worship God, not that it could convince you to. Its argument doesn't cover how you make yourself worship something, only that, following its logic, you should.


Timed out during writing my original reply... This was what it was, though:

What about Pascal's Wager?
Despite being an atheist myself, I have yet to see serious flaws in Pascal's Wager. Yes, it hasn't convinced me to recant my non-believeing ways, but I find it to be quite logical for what it is.

Pascal's Wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wagerCheck the "Criticisms of Pascal's Wager" section in that self-same page for the several serious flaws in it.

And I'm not convinced by the relative (as opposed to absolute) probabilities of it, as given near the end, though I do whole-heartedly support the following statement from the Wikipedia article:

This requirement for such an assessment of utilities suggests that Pascal's Wager should be regarded as a criterion by which the coherence of one's existing beliefs can be judged, rather than as a method of choosing what to believe.

As a self-proclaimed atheist, perhaps you should consider whether it would be more favourably judged by any supreme being that does exist if you live a moral but secular life, rather than attempt to play the odds and butter up a version of God that may or may not be the one that may or may not be judging you. (And, in the process, depriving yourself of pleasures that other versions of God than the one you decided to bet on don't have a problem with, or even would prefer you partake in).

For anyone who does genuinely believe in a Version of God, then there's relatively little problem in doing so if it's the wrong God, as long as you are true.

Of course, He could be a real stickler for the rules, but then any random theist is in almost as bad a position (perhaps worse) as an atheist, unless you've picked the right combination of commandments in the lottery of faith...


In short, follow your own path. Unless there's some really strange rules to life that the One True Religion has, it'll probably help if you don't make your life in the mortal realm too uncomfortable for others (and thus for yourself). In fact, this counts double if there is no afterlife. I've no idea what to do if you fancy a bit of self-indulgence but believe that A Little Bit Of What You Fancy Gets You Damned, though. I don't proclaim to know all the answers... ;)

On the face of it, it makes sense (no, I haven't studied it in great detail). And if the assumptions are correct, it would make sense to worship God, not that it could convince you to. Its argument doesn't cover how you make yourself worship something, only that, following its logic, you should.

To worship god is just something to fill in the time and void that is all. God is just a simple and primitive answer to a complex and difficult question. Why are we here?

Oh Jesus:rolleyes: :p

all i got to say for now is this one:

"Bad Religion - Atheist Peace

Maybe it’s too late for an intellectual debate,
but a residue of confusion remains.

Changing with the times,
and developmentally tortured minds
are the average citizen's sources of pain.

Tell me what we’re fighting for
I don’t remember anymore,
only temporary reprieve

And the world might cease
if we fail to tame the beast
from the faith that you release
comes an atheist peace.

Atheist peace.

Political forces rent
bitter cold winds of discontent
and the modern age emerged triumphantly.

But now it seems we've stalled
And it’s time to de-evolve
and relive the dark chapters of history

Tell me what we’re fighting for
No progress ever came from war,
only a false sense of increase

and the world won’t wait
for the truth upon a plate
but we’re ready now to feast on an atheist peace.

Atheist peace"

What about Pascal's Wager?
Despite being an atheist myself, I have yet to see serious flaws in Pascal's Wager. Yes, it hasn't convinced me to recant my non-believeing ways, but I find it to be quite logical for what it is.

Pascal's Wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

Serious flaws in Pascal's Wager:

1. It assumes that, assuming the existence of a god, we are to be judged purely on faith. It could be that we're to be judged on good works, cultivated virtues or even the ammount of cheese we've consumed; it may seem weird to us but maybe it makes sense to an omniscient being.

2. It assumes that you're worshipping the right god. Worshipping Jesus may get you into HUGE trouble with Yahweh, or worshipping Yahweh may piss off Thor. The most extreme example of this line of thought is the 'God of Logic' argument: suppose we are to judged by a God of Logic, maybe he would reward those who didn't believe in him due to lack of evidence and punish those who had blind faith.

3. It assumes that the god in question is a fool. Do you really think that an omniscient being is going to fail to realise that you don't really believe and you're that just pretending to believe because it's a safe bet?

Is that enough?

maybe he caught them in a fish net and put them in a salt water tank in heaven?

All this argument about the fish is absurd.

What serious danger does a great flood pose to the survival of species of aquatic life? What of avian life?

Hence the flaw in the entire story; all of evil was destroyed except for all the evil amphibians, fish, birds, aquatic mammals, squid etc.....

And what of the penguins, you may ask.....

can i ask something... when you're going on about 'religion' which religion are you talking about? there are an awful lot, and most of them aren't monotheistic... (believing in 1 God) so you're argument about the whole roman/egyptian/pagan god for every day of the week doesn't really make sense if you're saying that it makes religion invalid, loads of religions around now have a god for 'every day of the week' as you put it. hinduism being a good example. also lots of tribal beliefs and animist/shintoist beliefs are similar with the whole praying to spirits/ancestors thing...
if you're going to have a go at christianity islam and judaism (who all share the same bit of the bible that noah comes from) at least have the courage to say so, rather than lumping all 'religions' together and potentially insulting a lot of people who hold very different but equally 'religious' beliefs.

can i ask something... when you're going on about 'religion' which religion are you talking about? there are an awful lot, and most of them aren't monotheistic... (believing in 1 God) so you're argument about the whole roman/egyptian/pagan god for every day of the week doesn't really make sense if you're saying that it makes religion invalid, loads of religions around now have a god for 'every day of the week' as you put it. hinduism being a good example. also lots of tribal beliefs and animist/shintoist beliefs are similar with the whole praying to spirits/ancestors thing...
if you're going to have a go at christianity islam and judaism (who all share the same bit of the bible that noah comes from) at least have the courage to say so, rather than lumping all 'religions' together and potentially insulting a lot of people who hold very different but equally 'religious' beliefs.

I think it was Bottle who said: "Complaining that people think of the Abrahamic religions when you talk about religion is like complaining that people think of Elvis when you talk about sightings of dead rock and roll singers".

Didn't under stand a word. Native American? I'm guessing so help me out.

Oh My God.Wow.You really don't get it,do you?He's mocking you.

It's the Jabberwocky.

It's a poem by Lewis Carrol,modelled after Olde English,I beleive.It's not supposed to be completely understood,though many people beleive they understand the general drift.

The bible justifies having sex with your gender modified clone! If Eve came from Adam's rib, she had the same DNA... which leads to some nasty question about how many toes Cain and Abel had. And where did their wives come from? Did banjo's exist in the Garden? Did Cain tell Abel to squeal like a piggy?!? I'm gonna die now aren't I?

If I were God I'd take extra pleasure in sending those who used Pascal's Wager to hell. Everybody hates a tourist, especially one who thinks its all such a laugh...

Didn't under stand a word. Native American? I'm guessing so help me out.


Nope, its an English 'nonsence' poem called 'JABBERWOCKY' by Lewis Carroll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky

Edit: (took me 20minutes to post this?!)

And about the ark: Noah never brought a girl on board with him if you know what I mean.

I never realised Noah's wife was a man :eek:

What about Pascal's Wager?
Despite being an atheist myself, I have yet to see serious flaws in Pascal's Wager. Yes, it hasn't convinced me to recant my non-believeing ways, but I find it to be quite logical for what it is.

Who is to say that believing in one version of God will earn you any more than even more severe punishment at the hands of the real deity - the Great and Rather Unmerciful Rubber Chicken?

Serious flaws in Pascal's Wager:

1. It assumes that, assuming the existence of a god, we are to be judged purely on faith. It could be that we're to be judged on good works, cultivated virtues or even the ammount of cheese we've consumed; it may seem weird to us but maybe it makes sense to an omniscient being.

2. It assumes that you're worshipping the right god. Worshipping Jesus may get you into HUGE trouble with Yahweh, or worshipping Yahweh may piss off Thor. The most extreme example of this line of thought is the 'God of Logic' argument: suppose we are to judged by a God of Logic, maybe he would reward those who didn't believe in him due to lack of evidence and punish those who had blind faith.

3. It assumes that the god in question is a fool. Do you really think that an omniscient being is going to fail to realise that you don't really believe and you're that just pretending to believe because it's a safe bet?

Is that enough?
I believe that you have interpreted Pascal's Wager incorrectly, especially in regards to points 1 and 3. As far as your "God of Logic" argument is concerned, do you believe that such a God could exist?

Or that god is an almighty spatula? Or that the Flying Spagetti Monster is real, and has been waiting till our culture is relaxed enough to laugh about it?

I believe that you have interpreted Pascal's Wager incorrectly, especially in regards to points 1 and 3. As far as your "God of Logic" argument is concerned, do you believe that such a God could exist?

How did I interpret it wrongly? Please explain.

As to your second question: no I don't believe He exists. He will reward me for my unbelief.

Point 3 is definitely right. Your friends, as isolated and finite as they are, can usually tell when you're lying. A personal god definitely can. And an impersonal god? Well, how could something impersonal, without a single will judge you? So its like the god of logic. or Brahman, who just kind of exists, with no explanation.

As far as your "God of Logic" argument is concerned, do you believe that such a God could exist?

Sure, I could definitely see a God who rewards intelligence and questioning and punishes stupidity and blind faith.

How did I interpret it wrongly? Please explain.
From the Wiki article, here is Pascal's Wager:

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

"To Pascal, God was the Christian God of the Bible". This would negate all of your points.

As to your second question: no I don't believe He exists. He will reward me for my unbelief.
I do believe that you just contradicted yourself. :p

The description of the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god, "his" nature and "his" program for man just doesn't reconcile with reality.
And, the Bible, as the touted source of "truth" can't then concurrently be its own evidence as well.

Sorry, but there are numerous problems with the Ark/flood/Noah story.
Anyone wanting to gain some actual "truth" about that can start their reading at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html. It provides a pretty darn decent education on the topic.

"To Pascal, God was the Christian God of the Bible". This would negate all of your points.

No, it would negate his. He starts out by making unjustified assumptions.

Sure, I could definitely see a God who rewards intelligence and questioning and punishes stupidity and blind faith.
Are you suggesting that people who believe in a God are not intelligent and do not question their God?

No, it would negate his. He starts out by making unjustified assumptions.
What "unjustified assumptions" are you referring to?

there is a heresy for which people were burned which, when logically followed through, encompasses all questioning of dogma. And the example of Abraham shows that questioning is not encouraged in the Bible. Outside that, I'm not suitably informed.

From the Wiki article, here is Pascal's Wager:

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

"To Pascal, God was the Christian God of the Bible". This would negate all of your points.

I'll repost my points one by one and compare them to the text you just pasted:

1. It assumes that, assuming the existence of a god, we are to be judged purely on faith. It could be that we're to be judged on good works, cultivated virtues or even the ammount of cheese we've consumed; it may seem weird to us but maybe it makes sense to an omniscient being.

This isn't even mentioned by Pascal, it is one of his assumptions that, if god exists, we will be judged purely on faith. This isn't even completely agreed upon within Christianity as a whole, let alone world religions in general. Pascal is assuming that the only possible god is the protestant 'solar scriptura' deity, who judges on faith alone. A big assumption wouldn't you say?

2. It assumes that you're worshipping the right god. Worshipping Jesus may get you into HUGE trouble with Yahweh, or worshipping Yahweh may piss off Thor. The most extreme example of this line of thought is the 'God of Logic' argument: suppose we are to judged by a God of Logic, maybe he would reward those who didn't believe in him due to lack of evidence and punish those who had blind faith.

I touched on this in my above response. It matters not what deity Pascal had in mind when he wrote the wager, it works just as well when Allah, Yahweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even the God of Logic are used instead of the Christian god.

It assumes that the god in question is a fool. Do you really think that an omniscient being is going to fail to realise that you don't really believe and you're that just pretending to believe because it's a safe bet?

Belief cannot be switched on and off like a lightbulb, Pascal doesn't even touch on the idea that anyone moved to religion via the wager would only be feigning belief in an attempt to get the best odds. To be honest I don't see the relevance of the passage you just quoted in regards to this objection.

I do believe that you just contradicted yourself. :p

I don't see why the idea of a God of Logic is so far fetched, in the past there have been muses of erotic poetry (Eros), patron saints of philosophers and scholars (Thomas Aquinas), and many godesses of wisdom (Athena, etc.). Why not a God of Logic?

A God of dance would reward the most graceful dancers and punish the clumsy.

A God of farming would reward the most skilled farmers and punish the incompetant.

It follows that a God of Logic would reward the most logical and punish those who believed without good cause.

Using the bible to prove the bible's own point is circular reasoning. Just saying.

Mathelogically, all religions have exactly equal chance of being true. That is to say, Christianity is just as likely as Buddhism, which is just as likely as Atheism. Being that, to this day, there is no cold, hard evidence of the trueness of any of them. Like I just said, Christianity isn't immediately proven true just by thumping the Bible. I could verify Islam to be true by that same reasoning by reading from the Qur'an. It just doesn't work like that.

This is why I get annoyed whenever I see anyone arguing this point. I'm perfectly tolerable of religion, it's just condescending to say to anyone else "You're wrong about your religion, so I'm going to pray for you, but I hope you go to hell", and that is a really evil attitude.

What people need to do is mind their own business. If someone isn't Christian yet, they probably weren't raised Christian, and as such usually don't "want" to be saved (they'll see anyone trying to "save" them as attacking their religion, which is not right).

So, if you're Christian, great, go be Christian. Same with Atheists or Hinduists or Judaists, or whatever. You should never try to impose your beliefs on anyone.

Never believe anything just because someone tells you to believe it. Believe something if you truly think that it is right.

BUT a God Of Logic, to allow anyone to be "saved" would have to leave evidence. Otherwise its like saying "I have three apples and two oranges. How many books on eschatology have I read?"

BUT a God Of Logic, to allow anyone to be "saved" would have to leave evidence. Otherwise its like saying "I have three apples and two oranges. How many books on eschatology have I read?"

The utter lack of evidence is proof that the God of Logic does exist and wants us to reject Him!

UNREPENT SINNERS!!!

Himlaret, I wish to ask, do you want to have a reasonable discussion on this matter? It seems these forums are cluttered by flames, taunts, and otherwise useless material. If you would like to have an actual intelligible talk on the issue, shoot me a telegram.
- Veritas
Of the Nation Tyslan

I'll repost my points one by one and compare them to the text you just pasted:

1. It assumes that, assuming the existence of a god, we are to be judged purely on faith. It could be that we're to be judged on good works, cultivated virtues or even the ammount of cheese we've consumed; it may seem weird to us but maybe it makes sense to an omniscient being.

This isn't even mentioned by Pascal, it is one of his assumptions that, if god exists, we will be judged purely on faith. This isn't even completely agreed upon within Christianity as a whole, let alone world religions in general. Pascal is assuming that the only possible god is the protestant 'solar scriptura' deity, who judges on faith alone. A big assumption wouldn't you say?
However, you stated that Pascal's Wager was seriously flawed, and now you are drawing conclusions to something that isn't written in this Wager. He is simply stating that you have all to gain in regards to "happiness" and nothing to lose if you wager that God exists. I believe that you are reading far more into the "wager" than is actually there, especially the part about judgement.

2. It assumes that you're worshipping the right god. Worshipping Jesus may get you into HUGE trouble with Yahweh, or worshipping Yahweh may piss off Thor. The most extreme example of this line of thought is the 'God of Logic' argument: suppose we are to judged by a God of Logic, maybe he would reward those who didn't believe in him due to lack of evidence and punish those who had blind faith.

I touched on this in my above response. It matters not what deity Pascal had in mind when he wrote the wager, it works just as well when Allah, Yahweh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or even the God of Logic are used instead of the Christian god.
Again, these points are not expressed in the "wager" at all. The basic concept of the "wager" is to establish whether you believe in a God or not and the benefit that derives from that belief.

It assumes that the god in question is a fool. Do you really think that an omniscient being is going to fail to realise that you don't really believe and you're that just pretending to believe because it's a safe bet?

Belief cannot be switched on and off like a lightbulb, Pascal doesn't even touch on the idea that anyone moved to religion via the wager would only be feigning belief in an attempt to get the best odds. To be honest I don't see the relevance of the passage you just quoted in regards to this objection.
Where are you getting this "pretend to believe" stuff? Pascal surely doesn't mention it and since he believed in the Bible, I doubt that he would think that would be a viable option. The "wager" certainly makes no assumptions that "the god in question is a fool". Perhaps that is your own deduction? At any rate, I do not see the relevance of your point in regards to the "wager" itself.

I don't see why the idea of a God of Logic is so far fetched, in the past there have been muses of erotic poetry (Eros), patron saints of philosophers and scholars (Thomas Aquinas), and many godesses of wisdom (Athena, etc.). Why not a God of Logic?

A God of dance would reward the most graceful dancers and punish the clumsy.

A God of farming would reward the most skilled farmers and punish the incompetant.

It follows that a God of Logic would reward the most logical and punish those who believed without good cause.
You are welcome to your multitude of Gods. I am quite content to follow one God, whether that is logical to you, or not.

BTW, I noticed that you skipped the part where you contradicted yourself?

As to your second question: no I don't believe He exists. He will reward me for my unbelief.

Kierkegaard said that contradiction is inherent to all religions, and thats part of the point...

This is why I get annoyed whenever I see anyone arguing this point. I'm perfectly tolerable of religion, it's just condescending to say to anyone else "You're wrong about your religion, so I'm going to pray for you, but I hope you go to hell", and that is a really evil attitude.
Well, that certainly is not a very Christian like attitude to say the least.

I like to believe that Christianity is more about love than hate and as an example, I post this prayer:

THE PRAYER OF ST. FRANCIS

Lord, make me a channel of thy peace,

that where there is hatred, I may bring love;

that where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness;

that where there is discord, I may bring harmony;

that where there is error, I may bring truth;

that where there is doubt, I may bring faith;

that where there is despair, I may bring hope;

that where there are shadows, I may bring light;

that where there is sadness, I may bring joy.

Lord, grant that I may seek rather to comfort than to be comforted;

to understand, than to be understood;

to love, than to be loved.

For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.

It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.

It is by dying that one awakens to Eternal Life.

"You are welcome to your multitude of Gods. I am quite content to follow one God, whether that is logical to you, or not."

So why does the Wager matter to you?

"You are welcome to your multitude of Gods. I am quite content to follow one God, whether that is logical to you, or not."

So why does the Wager matter to you?
Another poster was trying to read something into the Wager that just wasn't there.

You are welcome to your multitude of Gods. I am quite content to follow one God, whether that is logical to you, or not.

I have recently befriended a Hindu and, thinking about her religion, I have realized that monotheism is inherently intolerant. If I believe there is only one god then all other beliefs must be wrong. If I believe there are many gods, then other beliefs may be true.

However, you stated that Pascal's Wager was seriously flawed, and now you are drawing conclusions to something that isn't written in this Wager. He is simply stating that you have all to gain in regards to "happiness" and nothing to lose if you wager that God exists. I believe that you are reading far more into the "wager" than is actually there, especially the part about judgement.

Pascal's Wager is seriously flawed. Pascal wrote "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." In other words the assumption is:

-if you believe and you're right then you gain all, if you're wrong you lose nothing.
-if you do not believe and you're right you gain nothing, if you do not believe you lose everything.

This obviously leans on the premise that we are to be judged on faith. If we were to be judged on, for example, good works then the belief element is utterly irrelevant.

Conclusion: Pascal has failed to show us that, if god does exist, gain or loss is dependant on faith.

Again, these points are not expressed in the "wager" at all. The basic concept of the "wager" is to establish whether you believe in a God or not and the benefit that derives from that belief.

No, the basic concept of the wager is to establish whether it is advantageous to believe in a god. The fact that these points are not addressed by Pascal is a weakness in his Wager, not in my argumentation.

Conclusion: nothing has been said to address my point that theism could lead to greater loss than atheism if you happen to choose the wrong religion.

Where are you getting this "pretend to believe" stuff? Pascal surely doesn't mention it and since he believed in the Bible, I doubt that he would think that would be a viable option. The "wager" certainly makes no assumptions that "the god in question is a fool". Perhaps that is your own deduction? At any rate, I do not see the relevance of your point in regards to the "wager" itself.

Where did you get the idea that belief is a choice? I cannot suddenly decide to believe in god.

Suppose you were betting on a game of dice. You place a huge bet on the three dice coming down as triple ones. You then leave the room and don't see how the dice land.

It is obviously preferable for you if the dice came down as triple one but that doesn't cause you to believe that they did.

Conclusion: the wager demonstrates that it is better to believe in god, assuming that you're worshipping the right god/s and judgement is based on faith, but as belief isn't a conscious descision this is irrelevant.

You are welcome to your multitude of Gods. I am quite content to follow one God, whether that is logical to you, or not.

You are free to worship whatever god you like my friend but please don't try to defend the travesty of logic that is Pascal's Wager.

BTW, I noticed that you skipped the part where you contradicted yourself?

I notice you failed to spot the humour in said 'contradiction'?

Errinundera']I have recently befriended a Hindu and, thinking about her religion, I have realized that monotheism is inherently intolerant. If I believe there is only one god then all other beliefs must be wrong. If I believe there are many gods, then other beliefs may be true.
All I do is just follow my heart. All I know is that there is a God and I am not Him.

I've just remembered the fourth flaw in Pascal's Wager:

Probability

Pascal's Wager assumes that the two possible outcomes (god existing or god not existing) are equally likely.

Suppose I was to offer you £1000. I doubt you'd turn it down.

Suppose I was then to make a new offer: you could forfeit my gift of £1000 and I would then flip a coin. If it came down heads nothing happened, if it came tails I'd give you £1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It'd be in your interested to accept my offer as the gain is far better than the risk.

But suppose the odds weren't 50:50, what if they were 1:100? You might still be justified in gambling.

What if the odds were 1:10^999999999999999999999? Then the chance of winning would be so tiny that you'd be better off keeping the £1000.

If we assume that there are some small advantages to an atheist lifestyle (no church attendence, pre-marital sex, etc.) then if there is only a tiny chance of god existing then we would be justified in regarding non-belief as the preferable option.

Conclusion: The Wager depends on the odds of god's existence being reasonably good. Obviously there is no way of measuring the probability so the Wager is worthless.

All I do is just follow my heart. All I know is that there is a God and I am not Him.

Or her?

BUT a God Of Logic, to allow anyone to be "saved" would have to leave evidence. Otherwise its like saying "I have three apples and two oranges. How many books on eschatology have I read?"Not necessarily.

Imagine that the whole world was created by a God Of Logic, and that he wishes to reward those who are the most logical. Having created us, He knows (or even ensured) that there's a psychological need to believe in Someone, but His will is that we learn to look at the evidence.

To this end, He sets up a universe that perfectly logically consistent, in order to leave no trace of a Divine Being of any kind. In this setting, His creations are torn between the need to invent unfounded supernatural reasons for The Way Things Are (as no clues have been left, deliberately) or to use the power of reason to say "well, we think we know how <foo> happens, because we have observed the cause, but we cannot conclude anything, natural or supernatural about <bar> because there is no proof".

And thus, base upon the current level of knowledge of the civilisation, He will allow those who pass on from the mortal realm to ascend to His grace if they have lived a life that has contained a sufficient amount of questioning about the world, given the beliefs and knowledge of the time, and damn any that have lived their lives in blind obedience to man-created religious ideas. (Ironically, even those that believe in the God Of Logic himself, given than He has given no inkling of his existence and so any such belief would be contrary to His own criteria.)


And even if there isn't a God Of Logic, but one of the many other versions of God (or the many possible Panthea of multi-Gods) that have been imagined, I prefer to think that any decent deity[1] that came across an atheist would judge them on how they applied their lives, not whether the believed. And probably the same for anyone of a faith not The One, but true to that, nonetheless. After all, it is it rightly said that atheists just believe in one less god than any monotheistic believer.




[1] One big assumption, that He is 'decent', but if He isn't, then 99.9999% of us are probably damned for some reason or other, even if we recognise the right solution in the divine game of "Guess Who?"

Are you suggesting that people who believe in a God are not intelligent and do not question their God?

No. But what Pascal wants us to do is suspend reason and questioning (because if someone is an atheist, those are probably what got them there) for blind faith, and he makes the assumption that this is what God wants.

What "unjustified assumptions" are you referring to?

The assumption that the only possible God is the Christian God.

Pascal's Wager is seriously flawed. Pascal wrote "Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." In other words the assumption is:

-if you believe and you're right then you gain all, if you're wrong you lose nothing.
-if you do not believe and you're right you gain nothing, if you do not believe you lose everything.

This obviously leans on the premise that we are to be judged on faith. If we were to be judged on, for example, good works then the belief element is utterly irrelevant.

Conclusion: Pascal has failed to show us that, if god does exist, gain or loss is dependant on faith.
Firstly, the options are these:


You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.


Secondly, Pascal's Wager clearly shows that the "benefit" is gained by belief in God. It is silent on "good works". However, the old addage is "faith without works is dead". To me, that means that not only do you have to beilieve, but you also have to do good.

You are trying to add something to Pascal's Wager that is clearly not there.

No, the basic concept of the wager is to establish whether it is advantageous to believe in a god. The fact that these points are not addressed by Pascal is a weakness in his Wager, not in my argumentation.
Pascal's conclusion is straightforward enough in regards to the advantages of belief:

If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."


Conclusion: nothing has been said to address my point that theism could lead to greater loss than atheism if you happen to choose the wrong religion.
Pascal's Wager was designed to encourage a belief in God. I really don't see how atheists could possibly derive a lesser loss than theists just because they chose the wrong God, unless of course you are referring to your "god of logic"?

Where did you get the idea that belief is a choice?
Believing is a conscious choice.

I cannot suddenly decide to believe in god.
Yes you can.

Suppose you were betting on a game of dice. You place a huge bet on the three dice coming down as triple ones. You then leave the room and don't see how the dice land.

It is obviously preferable for you if the dice came down as triple one but that doesn't cause you to believe that they did.
I don't see the relevance of your analogy, especially in regards to Pascal's Wager. The roll of the dice is not constant where the belief whether God exists or not is constant.

Conclusion: the wager demonstrates that it is better to believe in god, assuming that you're worshipping the right god/s and judgement is based on faith, but as belief isn't a conscious descision this is irrelevant.
The Wager demonstrates that it is better to believe in God period. Pascal's Wager does not assume anything about which God to believe in nor does it mention anything about judgement. Again, belief is a conscious decision, and therefore not irrelevant.

You are free to worship whatever god you like my friend but please don't try to defend the travesty of logic that is Pascal's Wager.
You suggest that Pascal's Wager is a travesty. The only travesty I see is your continual desire to change the precepts of the actual Wager itself. I would suggest that, you as an athiest, would prefer that the Wager is flawed because if the Wager is correct then you stand to lose "infinitely".

Firstly, the options are these:


You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.


Secondly, Pascal's Wager clearly shows that the "benefit" is gained by belief in God. It is silent on "good works". However, the old addage is "faith without works is dead". To me, that means that not only do you have to beilieve, but you also have to do good.

Yet again you're assuming that the god in question is the one portrayed by Protestant theology, please try to realise that there are other options, not all religions (hell, not all Christians) believe in Solar Scriptura salvation.

Pascal does not show that the benefit is gained by belief in god, he presumes that the benefit is gained by belief in god. He doesn't even try to prove that this is the case and this is my objection.

You are trying to add something to Pascal's Wager that is clearly not there.

I'm pointing out what is missing from Pascal's Wager: a recognition of the existence of non-Christian religions. Failure to consider the possibility of different gods is one reason why Pascal's 'logic' doesn't work.

Pascal's conclusion is straightforward enough in regards to the advantages of belief:

If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

My friend, you claimed that "The basic concept of the "wager" is to establish whether you believe in a God or not and the benefit that derives from that belief." This is clearly not the case. It establishes if it is better to believe or not but it doesn't establish whether you believe or not.

Pascal's Wager was designed to encourage a belief in God. I really don't see how atheists could possibly derive a lesser loss than theists just because they chose the wrong God, unless of course you are referring to your "god of logic"?

Take Judaism. As I understand it Judaism doesn't require non-Jews to worship, however, by worshipping a false god you would be sinning against Yahweh. I still like my God of Logic idea though.

Believing is a conscious choice.

No it isn't.

Yes you can.

No I can't. It's a semi-subconscious, semi-sociological change. I spoke to someone with a degree in social anthropology and this is what she told me.

I don't see the relevance of your analogy, especially in regards to Pascal's Wager. The roll of the dice is not constant where the belief whether God exists or not is constant.

The result is constant, either they came down as triple-one or they didn't.

The relevance is that it demonstrates that belief is not determined by the advantageousness of said belief.

The Wager demonstrates that it is better to believe in God period. Pascal's Wager does not assume anything about which God to believe in nor does it mention anything about judgement. Again, belief is a conscious decision, and therefore not irrelevant.

But as I've already explained to you several times there is no advantage in worshipping a non-existent god, it could even make things worse for you. You also fail to grasp that reward/punishment isn't necessarily based on belief.

You suggest that Pascal's Wager is a travesty. The only travesty I see is your continual desire to change the precepts of the actual Wager itself. I would suggest that, you as an athiest, would prefer that the Wager is flawed because if the Wager is correct then you stand to lose "infinitely".

I have on no occasion changed the precepts, I have merely pointed out the many factors which Pascal failed to account for.

I would suggest that your dogmatic support for the Wager is due to a basic ignorance of logic but there you go...

Now, the way you put is very informative. Finite is negligable in terms of infinity. Not in terms of a larger finity. That your loss from accordance with religious rules is negligable depends on the assumption that god is real. And the arguement of "which god" still holds. As does the idea that God would send you to hell for believing SOLELY OUT OF GREED, if it is the Christian God. To choose to believe one must have a reason. To have a reason implies seeing an advantage. To do something for ones own advantage is greed. Therefore, choosing to believe doesn't work in Christianity. Choosing to obey the rules is different.

Mathelogically, all religions have exactly equal chance of being true. That is to say, Christianity is just as likely as Buddhism, which is just as likely as Atheism. Being that, to this day, there is no cold, hard evidence of the trueness of any of them. Like I just said, Christianity isn't immediately proven true just by thumping the Bible. I could verify Islam to be true by that same reasoning by reading from the Qur'an. It just doesn't work like that.
As nice as this idea sounds, I can't give it any support. Are you suggesting that I could invent some tale about mankind's woes being the result of fleeing space aliens and be just as likely in the accuracy of my claims as someone who says they are the result of our earthly actions and behaviour?

Religions and their counter-organisations are all the result of earthly divination. Some of these may have greater relevance to the world than others.

Yes you can.

I have tried. I can't do it. I can't make myself believe in God and I can't make myself not believe in God, though I have attempted both.

And if God is going to punish me for being a heretic, I don't know if I want to believe in Him.

Firstly, the options are these:


You may believe in God, and if God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
You may believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your loss is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God doesn't exist, your gain is finite and therefore negligible.
You may not believe in God, and if God exists, you will go to hell: your loss is infinite.


Your infinities are too simplistic. Why do you automatically go to hell if you don't believe in God? That assumes a God that is uncompromising. If you have such an uncompromising God, what if you believe in Him but you have angered him in some way (ate chocolate-covered coffeebeans on the third Wednesday after the third full-moon of the year...)? Hardly infinite gain, you're damned, and you didn't even 'gain' through freedom-from-religion during your life.

Of course, you could say that "people who are atheistic despite having heard of the True God" are damned, but "people who have never heard about the True God" are exempt from punishment (perhaps limbo, rather than heaven, but not damned for their non-belief in a systme they never heard of). However, all this really does is tell you how evil missionaries are (go to remote places, let them know about God and remove their protections against damnation...)



Secondly, Pascal's Wager clearly shows that the "benefit" is gained by belief in God. It is silent on "good works". However, the old addage is "faith without works is dead". To me, that means that not only do you have to beilieve, but you also have to do good.

You are trying to add something to Pascal's Wager that is clearly not there.I can do good works. I hope I am doing good works. Perhaps not as much as I could, but I'm certainly avoiding doing ill to people, where I can help it.

To complement this I could say I believe, but it wouldn't be belief. Pascal's Wager, in the form you give it, is useless to me.

Pascal's conclusion is straightforward enough in regards to the advantages of belief:

If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."Within a narrow definition of the parameters that isn't justified by facts.

Pascal's Wager was designed to encourage a belief in God. I really don't see how atheists could possibly derive a lesser loss than theists just because they chose the wrong God, unless of course you are referring to your "god of logic"?It was designed to do that. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, though. It does not address the possibility that a believer who does not realise it's bad to eat chocolate-coated coffeebeans gets punished while a non-believer who never touches them (or isn't expected to avoid them) gets a pass to the lower-eschelons of Heaven for being true to principles. (Or any number of other variations of what Might Be The Real Truth(TM)...)


Believing is a conscious choice.I repeat: I can say I believe, I can say that I have enough money in my bank account for a yacht, but when push comes to shove (I am at St Peter's Gate, or whatever heavenly portal actually exists, or they try to cash my cheque) I would be found lacking in both senses.

Yes you can [suddenly decide to believe in God].You can suddenly switch to believing in God, have an epiphany or something, but you can't choose your epiphanies, they are merely a result of what happens to you, as mixed up and analysed by your thought processes. What you're describing is something akin to a Dial-An-Emotion control on your arm where you say "Today, I'd like to be a little melancholy, I don't think cheerfulness suits these socks."

I don't see the relevance of your analogy, especially in regards to Pascal's Wager. The roll of the dice is not constant where the belief whether God exists or not is constant. I don't understand your definition of constants.

The Wager demonstrates that it is better to believe in God period. Pascal's Wager does not assume anything about which God to believe in nor does it mention anything about judgement. Again, belief is a conscious decision, and therefore not irrelevant.It shows no such thing. If you don't believe, and have no inkling to believe, then the eternal reward/punishment means nothing to you up until the moment of your demise, and what happens beyond your demise isn't likely to have been improved by paying lip-service to whichever version of The Truth you pluck out of thin air.

You suggest that Pascal's Wager is a travesty. The only travesty I see is your continual desire to change the precepts of the actual Wager itself. I would suggest that, you as an athiest, would prefer that the Wager is flawed because if the Wager is correct then you stand to lose "infinitely".It is flawed. Many theists acknowledge that it is flawed. It covers a boolean notion of reality (there is/is not a God, but says nothing about and not what flavour of God(s) might exist, their motive(s), their compassion/allowance or adherance to a strict doctrine, what range of rewards and punishments they provide and for what actions they do so, etc) an unrealistic concept of belief (see the 'Dial-An-Emotion' analogy) and denigrates the abilities of any such God (you, mere mortal, can fool the all-knowing).

Pascal's Wager works under a narrowly-defined hypothetical situation that does not apply to the many, many situations where it was God that created Man and is at best neutral should it have been Man that created God.

I've just remembered the fourth flaw in Pascal's Wager:

Probability

Pascal's Wager assumes that the two possible outcomes (god existing or god not existing) are equally likely.

Suppose I was to offer you £1000. I doubt you'd turn it down.

Suppose I was then to make a new offer: you could forfeit my gift of £1000 and I would then flip a coin. If it came down heads nothing happened, if it came tails I'd give you £1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It'd be in your interested to accept my offer as the gain is far better than the risk.

But suppose the odds weren't 50:50, what if they were 1:100? You might still be justified in gambling.

What if the odds were 1:10^999999999999999999999? Then the chance of winning would be so tiny that you'd be better off keeping the £1000.

If we assume that there are some small advantages to an atheist lifestyle (no church attendence, pre-marital sex, etc.) then if there is only a tiny chance of god existing then we would be justified in regarding non-belief as the preferable option.

Conclusion: The Wager depends on the odds of god's existence being reasonably good. Obviously there is no way of measuring the probability so the Wager is worthless.
Once again, you are trying to complicate the matter. You do a lot of supposing and assuming, but you fail to look at the simple precept, and that is ........"God is, or He is not." No amount of money is going to get me to sell my soul, no matter what odds you want to assign to the existence of God.

Once again, you are trying to complicate the matter. You do a lot of supposing and assuming, but you fail to look at the simple precept, and that is ........"God is, or He is not." No amount of money is going to get me to sell my soul, no matter what odds you want to assign to the existence of God.Sell your soul? For why?

Pascal's Wager is being wielded to tell atheists why they should Believe. (Not necessarily believe in anything in particular, as far as I can tell, but just Believe.) All that's being said is that it doesn't really do that. It either doesn't mean we should believe, or it cannot help us to believe.

This does not mean, though, that a person who does have a belief should not do so. You might as well do. It's essentially neutral, in that respect, to all parties.

Unless you wield it like a Swiss Army Knife with the tool for specifically disembowelling non-believers with Divine Retribution, because theists are just atheists who happen to believe in one more God (to twist the analogy round) and if non-believers ought to be in fear of their immortal souls for not believing, quite a lot of believers might well find that they aren't believing the right thing and equally suffering.

I could use a Pascal-like Wager to show that you've probably chosen the wrong religion, but would it change you? No. Good. Because I don't want to shake your faith by that method. Similarly, don't expect Pascal's Wager to affect any atheist.


Maybe the following quote might be of interest, generally. If not useful, then perhaps entertaining... ;)
When I told the people of Northern Ireland that I was an atheist, a woman in the audience stood up and said, "Yes, but is it the God of the Catholics or the God of the Protestants in whom you don't believe?"

And while trying to find the exact wording for that, here's something that probably states something more important:

In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell's ninetieth birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party, and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist. "What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you're wrong?" she asked. "I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?" Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say, 'God, you gave us insufficient evidence.'"

(Quotes courtesy of wisdomquotes.com (http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_agnosticismatheism.html), and there are many a good one, on this and other subjects!)

Yet again you're assuming that the god in question is the one portrayed by Protestant theology, please try to realise that there are other options, not all religions (hell, not all Christians) believe in Solar Scriptura salvation.
I am assuming nothing, other then there is a God. The fact that I tend towards the Biblical God, does not mean that I am right. I certainly try to be open minded about other religions, and their concept of God.

Pascal does not show that the benefit is gained by belief in god, he presumes that the benefit is gained by belief in god. He doesn't even try to prove that this is the case and this is my objection.
Pascal's Wager suggests that one should choose a belief that God exists and he details the benefits for that belief.

I'm pointing out what is missing from Pascal's Wager: a recognition of the existence of non-Christian religions. Failure to consider the possibility of different gods is one reason why Pascal's 'logic' doesn't work.
Pascal's Wager is designed to get one to have belief in a God. It is that simple. You are trying to complicate the precepts.

My friend, you claimed that "The basic concept of the "wager" is to establish whether you believe in a God or not and the benefit that derives from that belief." This is clearly not the case. It establishes if it is better to believe or not but it doesn't establish whether you believe or not.
It is the case. What one does with the knowledge gained from the Wager, is entirely up to the individual.

Take Judaism. As I understand it Judaism doesn't require non-Jews to worship, however, by worshipping a false god you would be sinning against Yahweh. I still like my God of Logic idea though.
There is disconnect amongst the religions for sure, but there is a common denominator and that one is God. I am comfortable believing in God. You can have your god of logic, but that would mean that you would have to abandon your athieism?

No it isn't.
Belief in God is not a conscious choice? Please explain.

No I can't. It's a semi-subconscious, semi-sociological change. I spoke to someone with a degree in social anthropology and this is what she told me.
And you agree with her? Did you question anyone else or is she the leading authority on this matter? In any case, I would be interested in your expansion of the idea that belief comes from "a semi-subconscious, semi-sociological change".

The result is constant, either they came down as triple-one or they didn't.

The relevance is that it demonstrates that belief is not determined by the advantageousness of said belief.
Again, you are trying to add a throw of the dice into the equation. Pascal's Wager is either you believe in God or you don't, and that there is a greater benefit to be gained by that belief.

But as I've already explained to you several times there is no advantage in worshipping a non-existent god, it could even make things worse for you. You also fail to grasp that reward/punishment isn't necessarily based on belief.
I am not failing to grasp anything here, especially your concept of a "non-existent god". I do believe in God and you don't. That is fairly straighforward and simple. I believe the reward has been great and will be even greater, whereas you don't believe there will be a reward at all. I really do think that things would be a lot worse for me if I didn't believe in God. My God offers hope, whereas your non entity offers me nothing.

I have on no occasion changed the precepts, I have merely pointed out the many factors which Pascal failed to account for.
You have done a lot of supposing, and assuming while trying to change the concept of the Wager. The Wager is quite simple.....either you believe or not in God. The Wager further suggests that the rewards for belief could be infinitely greater than for the non believer.

I would suggest that your dogmatic support for the Wager is due to a basic ignorance of logic but there you go...
I fully support the Wager simply because I believe in God. Perhaps your superior knowledge of logic can correct the errors of my ways? :rolleyes:

Pascal's Wager is designed to get one to have belief in a God. It is that simple. You are trying to complicate the precepts.


From what I've read of your presentation of Pascal's Wager, its dependent on a God that tortures people eternally for not believing. Not all concepts of God are like that, so Pascal's wager does not apply so broadly.

The Wager is quite simple.....either you believe or not in God. The Wager further suggests that the rewards for belief could be infinitely greater than for the non believer.


That is the worst reason for belief in anything I have ever heard.

Belief in the interest of reward; belief to avoid the risk of punishment.

Any God that would even accept such belief would not merit it.

I would suggest that, you as an athiest, would prefer that the Wager is flawed because if the Wager is correct then you stand to lose "infinitely".

But not everyone governs their beliefs based on what they stand to "gain" or "lose".

In fact, a follower of Pascal's Wager is the one choosing their beliefs on that basis...

But not everyone governs their beliefs based on what they stand to "gain" or "lose".
Most people tend to look at things with an attitude of "what is in it for me".

In fact, a follower of Pascal's Wager is the one choosing their beliefs on that basis...
I was a follower of God long before I ever heard of the Wager. I believe the Wager is strictly meant to help a fence sitter to make a decision as to whether to believe in God or not.

From what I've read of your presentation of Pascal's Wager, its dependent on a God that tortures people eternally for not believing. Not all concepts of God are like that, so Pascal's wager does not apply so broadly.
Christian, Muslim and Jewish religions believe the soul goes to Heaven. That is a goodly number of people, more than half of the world's population. The Wager itself is designed as a tool to help someone decide if they believe whether God exists or not and the possible benefits for having such a belief.

With the Wager, athiests and agnostics are simply given an opportunity to choose yea or nay. God gives us all free will. If we go to hell because we did not want to believe in Him or if we did not want to live in a Christian like manner, then we made that choice. We are given options and if we choose wrong how can we blame God?

Not a list. Not enough paper in the world. But how did he save the salt water fish?
Surely you mean the "freshwater" fish, as the salt water fish would be in the sea around the Ark. And birds must have gotten fairly worn out flying about for 40 days ( or however long ) without anywhere to land bar the Ark. But if He's God, surely He can do anything ( and provide the means for others to do anything ). The main stumbling block for faith is judging God by our limited criteria, He's God, we're not, therefore no comparison.

back to the 18th century?!..
i think we all should sit down and re-read David Hume, especially his 'Dialogues' ... the answer to all these were given then, no need to step back, i suppose.

That is the worst reason for belief in anything I have ever heard.
What is the best reason you have heard?

Belief in the interest of reward; belief to avoid the risk of punishment.
Why do you look at the negatives? Live a good life, be good to others, believe in God and enjoy an eternity of peace. What can you offer me that is better?

Any God that would even accept such belief would not merit it.
If you were going to throw open your doors for all eternity for your guests and provide for them, would you be so willing to invite those who would deny your very existence? How would you view those who lied about you and tried to keep others from accepting your invitation?

You keep trying to paint God as a punishing God. God is merciful to all who have sinned and are willing to ask for forgiveness.

Pascal's Wager offers a key to the door and all you want to do is slam it shut. What do you gain from that?

Once again, you are trying to complicate the matter. You do a lot of supposing and assuming, but you fail to look at the simple precept, and that is ........"God is, or He is not." No amount of money is going to get me to sell my soul, no matter what odds you want to assign to the existence of God.

And once again you utterly miss the point. One of the (many) reasons why the wager doesn't work is that it is far too simplistic.

If the only options were that either a god exists in exactly the way Protestants believe he does or he doesn't and the odds are fifty-fifty then it might work.

Please will you stop accusing me of 'complicating the matter' or 'adding things that aren't there'. As I've already pointed out several times Pascal's failure to account for these points is a weakness in his argumentation, not mine.

-snip-

I'm going to start a new thread to debate Pascal's Wager on so we can stop hijacking this thread. I'll post the link once it's up.

I'm going to start a new thread to debate Pascal's Wager on so we can stop hijacking this thread. I'll post the link once it's up.

Pascal's Wager Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481569)

One down, 300000000 more to go. Fire away. And what made them so special? 2 of every animal and he gets what 4 humans? Lame, God's not fair to girrafes and Rhino's. And how did he save salt water fish? Giant fish tank?

There were actually seven giraffes on the ark.

The LORD then said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. Take with you seven [a] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

Giraffes are considered "clean" animals and therefore there would have been seven of them.

Not sure where you came up with the number 300 million, but I promise you there isn't a question you could ask for which there is not a good answer.

Ulducc, i think you are missing the point on the Noah story. The main reasoning is, the logistics of the act of aquiring that amount of animals, storing them in a ship large enough to fit them, keeping them alive, fed and apart from one another for 40 days, and maintaining their health throughout is extremely taxing.

Then there is the point of the animals which could not have survived such a climate (or climate change) ie, animals that live in hotter or colder areas, surely such animals would have died enroute, and if not days into their travel. Secondly, it would be (almost) impossible to keep all varied types of fish in the ship, _and_ keep them from eating one another.

Then you've got the problems genetics throws up, like bad genes, no gene-pool etc etc. These are but a few points, but you must agree they are pretty reasonable.

Ulducc, i think you are missing the point on the Noah story. The main reasoning is, the logistics of the act of aquiring that amount of animals, storing them in a ship large enough to fit them, keeping them alive, fed and apart from one another for 40 days, and maintaining their health throughout is extremely taxing.

Then there is the point of the animals which could not have survived such a climate (or climate change) ie, animals that live in hotter or colder areas, surely such animals would have died enroute, and if not days into their travel. Secondly, it would be (almost) impossible to keep all varied types of fish in the ship, _and_ keep them from eating one another.

Then you've got the problems genetics throws up, like bad genes, no gene-pool etc etc. These are but a few points, but you must agree they are pretty reasonable.

I've actually read a book about the feasability of keeping 2 (or 7) of each species alive on the ark for 40 (actually 360) days on the ark.

It's not nearly as unfeasable as you imagine.

Ditto on genes, gene-pools, etc.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion, I'd be glad to accomodate you but from what I can tell that's not what most people are doing here so I thought it would be best just to throw in an obviously irrelevant comment (who the [hades] cares if there were two giraffes or seven?).

I'd much rather have 42 than god, thank you every much....

Atleast 42 doesn't get mad when I don't worship it. Even if it does get mad, I can just make it go away by dividing it by 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, or 21.

Yeah, and I know that in the religion of 42, I am doing pretty well as long as I have my towel.

Most people tend to look at things with an attitude of "what is in it for me".


There's another thread on Pascal's Wager, so I won't address it further here. There really isn't any need, since your responses here and above illustrate your mindset sufficiently.

And once again you utterly miss the point. One of the (many) reasons why the wager doesn't work is that it is far too simplistic.
You keep saying that I have missed the point. It is you that continues to try an customize the Wager to suit your needs. The Wager was designed to give an opportunity to those with no faith in a higher power to explore the concept.

If the only options were that either a god exists in exactly the way Protestants believe he does or he doesn't and the odds are fifty-fifty then it might work.
You want to add odds, you want certainty. The Wager does not offer certainty. It does offer an opportunity. What does a belief in nothingness give me? It gives me nothing.

Please will you stop accusing me of 'complicating the matter' or 'adding things that aren't there'. As I've already pointed out several times Pascal's failure to account for these points is a weakness in his argumentation, not mine.
I guess I would stop accusing you of adding things to the Wager when and if you stop doing so. It is a simple test of faith, and you don't want any part of it. What you seem to want is percentages or odds or a guarantee.

The Wager gets you to the door, faith is the price of addmission, and what you do after that is up to you.