NationStates Jolt Archive

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

What if it turns out they were praying to the wrong God? What if instead of the Christian God, our god is really Thor or Odin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

You'd better hope that the right one isn't the jealous type. Otherwise you're fucked.

The truth of the matter is that if it comes down to it, we're all ****ed. The modern Christian interpretation of the bible, or really the modern interpretation of any religion is so schewed and far from the original that we're all going to end up burning in hell if they're right.

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

Its bs, especially since there is no way for the religious people to actually know whether or not they've picked the right god, assuming for the moment that any religion has actually gotten it right.

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

What if the jews are right? Or the muslims? Or the mormons? Or the Jehova's Witlesses? Or the Frisbeetarians?

Seems like bad odds to me. :p

This is essentially Pascal's wager and there are many holes in it as an argument. For example they are assuming that 'God' is the God they worship - if Thor turns out to be in charge and they are Christians they are as deep in shit as an atheist.

edit: must learn to type faster

What if the jews are right? Or the muslims? Or the mormons? Or the Jehova's Witlesses? Or the Frisbeetarians?

Seems like bad odds to me. :p

If South Park has taught us anything, the Mormons were the one who got it right. *nods*

If South Park has taught us anything, the Mormons were the one who got it right. *nods*

ANd ending up in Heaven with them is a fate worse than death. :p

basicly what i though about it, oh and thank for the pascal wager link interesting

ANd ending up in Heaven with them is a fate worse than death. :p

lol! At least you'll be in Hell with all your friends, and we'll have a party and pull pranks on Satan! I'll put his fingers in a bowl of warm water while he's sleeping!

ANd ending up in Heaven with them is a fate worse than death. :p

"Let's make animals out of egg cartons!"

"YAAAY!"

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it isn't based on faith at any level, which makes belief nothing more than hedging your bets.

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it isn't based on faith at any level, which makes belief nothing more than hedging your bets.

Run for the hills the resident mormon has arrived!!!
;)

Run for the hills the resident mormon has arrived!!!
;)

Damn straight :D

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it isn't based on faith at any level, which makes belief nothing more than hedging your bets.

Actually, the problems with Pascal's Wager are that it ignores the fact that it's a bit more complicated than Christian or atheist, and that it assumes that the christian god(assuming he exists) would be happy with mindless lip service and would not be happy with a virtuous non-believer.

Pic spam !

http://cectic.com/comics/082.png

http://cectic.com/082.html

And hey - I just like to live dangerously ;)

Actually, the problems with Pascal's Wager are that it ignores the fact that it's a bit more complicated than Christian or atheist, and that it assumes that the christian god(assuming he exists) would be happy with mindless lip service and would not be happy with a virtuous non-believer.

Exactumundo.

Pic spam !

http://cectic.com/comics/082.png

http://cectic.com/082.html

And hey - I just like to live dangerously ;)

That comic strip would have had a bigger impact if they weren't a union of a bunch of religions. People follow one at a time.

Actually, the problems with Pascal's Wager are that it ignores the fact that it's a bit more complicated than Christian or atheist, and that it assumes that the christian god(assuming he exists) would be happy with mindless lip service and would not be happy with a virtuous non-believer.

I'd much rather be the latter than the former, and this is coming from a pseudo-Catholic.

Beyond that, if God is truly all powerful, wouldn't he be above that little human thing called "vanity", that so many consider a sin? Would a God be so egotistical as to demand that you worship Him? What's more, wouldn't he be above that other little thing called "cruelty", and not cast you into flames for all eternity because you decided not to follow him in your short 80 some odd years?

If God exists (and not fully understanding the total scope of existence, I wouldn't find it too far out) and he did indeed give us free will, he'd want us to exercise it. He'd also have the wisdom to know that rightousness can be found in any person of any faith (or lack thereof), and from there judge accordingly.

I think an omniscient being such as God could easily tell the difference between a selfish man who only used faith as a means to power, and a charitable man who nonetheless feels no need for faith.

Let's put it differently:

If I (atheist) am right, I live the life I want, honest and true to myself, and you (religious) live like a lobotomised shrimp by someone else's rules, surrendering your life and money to corrupt institutions.

If I am wrong, I can live with the consequences of my choices, something you obviously can't.

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

I think Wilgrove has it spot on. Next time you hear that line ask them, what if your wrong, what has Allah got in store for you?

That comic strip would have had a bigger impact if they weren't a union of a bunch of religions. People follow one at a time.

Not sure if I agree with that. It does nicely emphasise that Pascals wager completely fails to take into account that there is more than 1 religion possible.

Not sure if I agree with that. It does nicely emphasise that Pascals wager completely fails to take into account that there is more than 1 religion possible.

And that it's not as if religions wouldn't seriously infringe on the choices in your life (says the resident swinger ;))

If God is wrong, I've been living a lie!:eek:

And this is assuming that one who doesn't believe in god is inherently amoral.
I'm sure that if there was a god, it wouldn't need people praying to it or even believing in it to stoke its ego, or justify its sense of self-worth or what-not, so as long as a person has lived a generally good life there would be no logical reason to deny him/her access to heaven. But then again, that's assuming that this god is a logical, fair one, but if any of today's religions are correct, that is probably not so. Killing the first-born children of an entire kingdom isn't exactly a rational response to... well, anything.

This is essentially Pascal's wager and there are many holes in it as an argument. For example they are assuming that 'God' is the God they worship - if Thor turns out to be in charge and they are Christians they are as deep in shit as an atheist.

edit: must learn to type faster
This seems countered by arguing that it's simply increasing your odds, not assuring you, of getting a place in heaven.
The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it isn't based on faith at any level, which makes belief nothing more than hedging your bets.
But this is also true. If it isn't an act of faith, if it's an economic calculation that's rewarded, then it seems atheism is the more likely to be correct result rather than theism of any sort so shouldn't that calculation be the one that gets rewarded?
Actually, the problems with Pascal's Wager are that it ignores the fact that it's a bit more complicated than Christian or atheist, and that it assumes that the christian god(assuming he exists) would be happy with mindless lip service and would not be happy with a virtuous non-believer.
Again, I don't really think this is a valid counter. Pascal's Wager, as I understand it, is about increasing odds, not giving absolute assurance; as such, by that logic, even picking worship of Squirtle lord of the water pokemon is a safer bet than atheism.

Anyway, I would just counter Pascal's Wager with my own belief that ethics can be perceived through reason and rational discourse rather than being necessitated upon some higher authority. I do not need someone with power to tell me what is right or wrong, I determine that on my own. Furthermore, even if there was such a being, its simple possession of power is not determinant of moral (I think Socrates did a good job of showing this in his argument, or something approximating it, with Thrasymachus...though, that's about all he did well) value. It comes down to would you rather do the right thing, and be punished for it, or submit those things that arguably define each and every human being (reason, non-immediate empathy, etc.) to blind servility to authority? I choose the former. If this god of theirs is the kind of god that punishes someone for doing right just because they didn't do it in his name, then he's a horrible creature and I'd rather not be associated with such.

If God is wrong, I've been living a lie!:eek:

*consoles Nanatsu*

*consoles Nanatsu*

*is consoled by Dyakovo*

This seems countered by arguing that it's simply increasing your odds, not assuring you, of getting a place in heaven.

Only if you assume that the "true" god does not mind that you worshipped the wrong one. That he is not "a jealous god".

If he does, the punishment for the atheist would probably be a gentle stroll on a grassy meadow when compared to the complete and utter damnation a jealous supreme power would inflict on the people who worshipped a false god.

Only if you assume that the "true" god does not mind that you worshipped the wrong one. That he is not "a jealous god".

If he does, the punishment for the atheist would probably be a gentle stroll on a grassy meadow when compared to the complete and utter damnation a jealous supreme power would inflict on the people who worshipped a false god.

Erm...true, though the Abrahamic religions seem to hold atheists in much worse regard than incorrect monotheists and even polytheists.

Erm...true, though the Abrahamic religions seem to hold atheists in much worse regard than incorrect monotheists and even polytheists.

A stance which ironically is not supported by their own teachings and holy books ;)

I guess our future is the same: nothing. But while the religious people waste their lives worshiping a false god, we can dedicate our entire lives for ourselves!

GOD:sniper::sniper

and by the way: I don't know if you noticed, but I don't believe that there is any god, true or not, I guess only ourselves are our own gods...:upyours:

Not sure if I agree with that. It does nicely emphasise that Pascals wager completely fails to take into account that there is more than 1 religion possible.

I guess it depends on how one reads the panels. When I see them, my mind fills in an 'AND' between each item. If, as you suggest, the correct connection is 'OR' between each panel, then it's ot nearly as hard-hitting a point.

But this is also true. If it isn't an act of faith, if it's an economic calculation that's rewarded, then it seems atheism is the more likely to be correct result rather than theism of any sort so shouldn't that calculation be the one that gets rewarded?


You mean rewarded by God?

and by the way: I don't know if you noticed, but I don't believe that there is any god, true or not, I guess only ourselves are our own gods...:upyours:

We'd never gave guessed in a million years. Thanks for the tip.

Again, I don't really think this is a valid counter. Pascal's Wager, as I understand it, is about increasing odds, not giving absolute assurance; as such, by that logic, even picking worship of Squirtle lord of the water pokemon is a safer bet than atheism.
Clearly you are mistaken about what Pascal's Wager actually is. The idea behind it was to convince people that being a Christian is a better idea than being an atheist.

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

Pascal's Wager fails for several reasons:

1. It assumes that, if they turn out to be worshipping the wrong god, the real God will look more kindly on them than She would on atheists: it could just as easily be the other way round. Take Judaism for example (admittedly they don't have a Hell but they do have a post-life cleansing of a kind, with length determined by how good you've been): there are seven Noachide commandments which gentiles are meant to follow, as obliged to the six-hundred-and-fourteen directed at observant Jews. One of the Noachide commandments forbids the worshipping of false gods (without demanding worship of the 'true God'), so Christians would be in trouble for deifying a man wheras atheists would probably be ok. I'm no expert on Judaism so I might have got this wrong, but the point would still stand even if there weren't any real-life examples. :p

2. It assumes that there are no drawbacks to religion, and that Athiesm and Theism are equally likely to be true. Suppose I was to tell you that, unless you gave me £10, I'd send you to Hell for eternity. According to Pascal's logic you should hand over the money, because the risks of not doing so are infinite if you're wrong. Of course, the problem here is that I'm so unlikely that I'm telling the truth that you'd be better of keeping the cash. Similarly, you can argue that it's better to reject Islam in favour of alcohol and pork, Christianity in favour of Sunday morning lie-ins, etc.

3. It assumes that God either won't know or won't mind that you were only believing in Her for the reward. Terry Pratchett illustrated this in one of his novels by describing a philosopher who sets out a version of Pascal's Wager, and awakes after death to find himself in the middle of a circle of gods, all holding baseball bats, who say "Now you're going to see what we think of smart alecs up here!"

In fairness to Pascal he didn't necessarily mean for the Wager to be used as an argument for belief in God. His book, Pensées, gives two different justifications for the use of the wager: one was as an argument for belief, and the other was simply to discourage apathy and prepare the ground for real arguments (in his own words, "Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is"). Pascal died before finishing his work, so the 'book' is really a collection of fragments. Sadly, most Christian apologists who use this argument have never read the book and so are unaware of the subtleties underlying it.

Again, can anyone withstand the "Pascal's Wager" argument?

Yes, I hear the point that Pascal's Wager isn't faith based at all, but from a purely secular, atheistic, logical way of looking at religion, you have better odds with choosing a religion.

Again, I don't really think this is a valid counter. Pascal's Wager, as I understand it, is about increasing odds, not giving absolute assurance; as such, by that logic, even picking worship of Squirtle lord of the water pokemon is a safer bet than atheism.

Yes, that is the idea... and yes, by that logic picking the "squirtle lord of the water pokemon" as your god is a safer bet than atheism. So, once we've cleared up the fact that it is more logical to have than not to have a religion, you move on to: which religion has the most validity and truth in it.

Personally, here are the things I would look for in a religion (in order of importance):

1.) Age of the religion
If a religion just sparked up thirty years ago, it isn't very credible. Personally, I believe that a religion must claim its stake at the very beginning of time, or else I can rule out that religion.

2.) Size of the religion
If a religion only has two believers, I would probably not go with that one.

3.) Validity in texts/scriptures of the religion
Mormonism, for example:
The book of Mormon falls short on this major point. The only evidence that horses were brought to the Americas has been verified to have occurred since Europeans crossed over in the 16th century and onward (post-Columbian New World). Since horses and elephants would have roamed far and wide in the Americas, no remains of horses (or even elephants) in the pre-Columbian New World establishes a credibility gap for the book of Mormon.

from http://www.harvardhouse.com/book_of_mormon_probable.htm

Therefore, I see mormonism as a false religion. The Bible, on the other hand, has a very valid depictment of history, and it is supported with archaelogical and historical evidence. For example, cities mentioned in The Bible (like The City of David)... they still exist today!! Battles mentioned in The Bible: Archaeologists have found remnance of many of the battles mentioned in The Bible.

So, this is the way I would order it. Different things are important to different people, but that's the way I would think of it.

You mean rewarded by God?
Yes.
Clearly you are mistaken about what Pascal's Wager actually is. The idea behind it was to convince people that being a Christian is a better idea than being an atheist.

Granted there is more to it than just belief in a god of any sort. I'm speaking of the core of the argument. The wager, or that portion of the arguments considered the wager, is trying to trump atheism or agnosticism, rather than posit Christianity as the true answer, that comes later.

Pascal's Wager fails for several reasons:

1. It assumes that, if they turn out to be worshipping the wrong god, the real God will look more kindly on them than She would on atheists: it could just as easily be the other way round. Take Judaism for example (admittedly they don't have a Hell but they do have a post-life cleansing of a kind, with length determined by how good you've been): there are seven Noachide commandments which gentiles are meant to follow, as obliged to the six-hundred-and-fourteen directed at observant Jews. One of the Noachide commandments forbids the worshipping of false gods (without demanding worship of the 'true God'), so Christians would be in trouble for deifying a man wheras atheists would probably be ok. I'm no expert on Judaism so I might have got this wrong, but the point would still stand even if there weren't any real-life examples. :p


Just to clear that point for all Non-Jews out there. The Noakhide Laws apply to Christians - though some of them may think that the Ten Commandments apply to them (which is wrong, as they only apply to the Israelites, and Christians have decided to "secede"). Under the Ten Commandments, the main concern of monolatry is that you worship one G'd who cannot be positively attributed any qualities and who is whole and infinite. Under the equivalent Noakhide Law, one also must accept that there is only one G'd, but one is allowed to worship him under several distinct personae, as long as one accepts that they are all essentially the same G'd - for example in the form a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. While the Worship of a trinitarian god would conflict with several of the Ten Commandments (notably the first and second), it is fully in the line of the Noakhide Law on monolatry. Atheism, on the other hand conflicts even with the Noakhide Law on monolatry, as it excludes belief in G'd's existence.

As to the number of Commandments or Laws: though there are only 7 Noakhide Laws, these Laws are more in the line of classes of laws pertaining to certain areas of life. If one counted the number of individual rules derived from the 7 Noakhide Laws I am sure that it would rival the number of Laws applying to Jews.

Still, observance of the Noakhide Laws has little bearing on a Non-Jews post-mortem fate. Jewish Law, whether it applies to Jews or to Non-Jews, is mainly concerned with the here-and-now (as opposed to other religions' obsession with the afterlife). The Noakhide Laws determined whether a Foreigner was allowed within the borders of Ancient Israel. Concerning the afterlife, even to a mysticist, all it boils down to is one month more or less in a purgatorial state before ascending to Paradise. (It's 11 months for the observant, 12 months for the not so observant, which means basically everybody.)

SO, IF YOUR CONCERNED ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE EXCLUSIVELY, THERE'S REALLY NO POINT IN BEING OBSERVANT (FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE) :D

Yes.


I would say no for precisely the same reason I'd reject Pascal's Wager in the first place: It's a way of hedging bets and taking the easy way. God has made it clear that He rewards faith and dilligence.

Just to clear that point for all Non-Jews out there. The Noakhide Laws apply to Christians - though some of them may think that the Ten Commandments apply to them (which is wrong, as they only apply to the Israelites, and Christians have decided to "secede"). Under the Ten Commandments, the main concern of monolatry is that you worship one G'd who cannot be positively attributed any qualities and who is whole and infinite. Under the equivalent Noakhide Law, one also must accept that there is only one G'd, but one is allowed to worship him under several distinct personae, as long as one accepts that they are all essentially the same G'd - for example in the form a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit. While the Worship of a trinitarian god would conflict with several of the Ten Commandments (notably the first and second), it is fully in the line of the Noakhide Law on monolatry. Atheism, on the other hand conflicts even with the Noakhide Law on monolatry, as it excludes belief in G'd's existence.

As to the number of Commandments or Laws: though there are only 7 Noakhide Laws, these Laws are more in the line of classes of laws pertaining to certain areas of life. If one counted the number of individual rules derived from the 7 Noakhide Laws I am sure that it would rival the number of Laws applying to Jews.

Still, observance of the Noakhide Laws has little bearing on a Non-Jews post-mortem fate. Jewish Law, whether it applies to Jews or to Non-Jews, is mainly concerned with the here-and-now (as opposed to other religions' obsession with the afterlife). The Noakhide Laws determined whether a Foreigner was allowed within the borders of Ancient Israel. Concerning the afterlife, even to a mysticist, all it boils down to is one month more or less in a purgatorial state before ascending to Paradise. (It's 11 months for the observant, 12 months for the not so observant, which means basically everybody.)

SO, IF YOUR CONCERNED ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE EXCLUSIVELY, THERE'S REALLY NO POINT IN BEING OBSERVANT (FROM A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE) :D

Heh, there goes my real-life example: I'll have to go back to using hypotheticals in future.:p Thanks for taking the time to explain. :)

My logic for not caring at all about this matter (as an agnostic)


God may exist
God may not exist


If I try to be a decent person and treat people kindly then

if 1. a truly benevolent God will not care that I was unable to convince myself 100% about his existence. Sending people to hell who haven't hurt anyone just because they didn't worship you sounds incredibly arrogant and vain, and entirely inconsistent with the all-loving God depicted in most religious texts.

if 2. I will have lost nothing, and am likely to have gained a whole lot more friends and lived a more satisfying life than if I'd been a total arse.

Hence: If I try not to concern myself with an issue I'll never ultimately be able to decide upon, and I try as hard as I can not to be an unpleasant person, I lose nothing either way.

Suprised unitarianism hasn't been brought up...

Regardless, I'd rather have oblivion than an ethernal enternity.

So the point is pretty moot when it comes to me.

:)

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

Well i don't think God exists. There are gods, just not the Abrahamic version.

I guess our future is the same: nothing. But while the religious people waste their lives worshiping a false god, we can dedicate our entire lives for ourselves!

GOD:sniper::sniper

You're missing the whole point that religions are supposedly (that is, according to themselves) beneficial, even if they should prove untrue...In short, "dedicating one's life to oneself" is exactly what every sensible religious person is doing.

edit: Not my opinion. I don't care who you worship or not.

Well i don't think God exists. There are gods, just not the Abrahamic version.

Again, a very good argument pointed out. I think we need to think on that folks...it might just change the world!

Let's put it differently:

If I (atheist) am right, I live the life I want, honest and true to myself, and you (religious) live like a lobotomised shrimp by someone else's rules, surrendering your life and money to corrupt institutions.

Except my religion asks me for no money, has no institutions, and the only one of my gods that has bothered to lay down anything resembling rules said that she had come to tell us we are all free. I really wish people would stop lumping ALL religion in with the big three. All I'm out is the occasional bit of chocolate, incense, and/or liquor when I ask for a favor.

This thread is hilarious to read, you guys and girls have made my day.:p
Of course there's a God silly, otherwise where would all the calculators go?
(you get a prize if you can guess where i nicked this quote)
I'm not sure, there's various arguments for a God and against a God but you've got to remember peope have spent their whole lives trying to argue this, and have had varying success.
So what i'm saying is, deal with the more direct issues, then when you have some spare time you can debate God's existance.

I think if time travel is possible then it's possible for there to be a God.
But beyond this i cannot say for certain, hell even if we exist is debatable, so debating God's existance is also tricky, but can be summed up with:
The problem of evil,
No direct messages of God himself (as in no proof),
The problem of multiple Gods,
The problem of human existance,
The problem with faith,
The problem with how God was created.
Feel free to add to these if you can think of more, which there probably are.

So have a blast and don't think too hard.;)

Of course there's a God silly, otherwise where would all the calculators go?
(you get a prize if you can guess where i nicked this quote)


The problem of evil,

So have a blast and don't think too hard.;)

Quote from red dwarf, Kyton say it when his replacement turns up and he has to die. (i think) do i win?

The problem of evil is answer by God giving us free will

Quote from red dwarf, Kyton say it when his replacement turns up and he has to die. (i think) do i win?

The problem of evil is answer by God giving us free will

yes! well done, prize is this: http://www.phatfusion.net/googledrive/ a free drive anywhere you want!

Hmmm i suppose it is, i'll think about that and get back to you.

EDIT: Right i've thought of something, i could argue we don't have free will at all. I could argue the Determinist side.

The truth of the matter is that if it comes down to it, we're all ****ed.

I can't really debate this because I have no idea what that word is. Once you go around censoring random words, the situation gets rather muddled. (http://jmc.jnumbers.com/archive/Mar2008/27.png)

You'd better hope that the right one isn't the jealous type. Otherwise you're fucked.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2005/20050809.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jealous.html
-the second one there has a funny name, even laughable.

Right i've thought of something, i could argue we don't have free will at all. I could argue the Determinist side.

True but in a determinate world with god has the planner, then there is no evil it mere another veiwpoint of god


OH and i win yea! feel the greatness! I no longer feel the need to conquor the world with my Squirrel Army!

I been debating Religion a lot recently and a view point that come up quite a lot is
"well at least if i'm right about god i go to heaven and you be in hell burning but if you right nothing happen, so i got a win-win situation here and you f**ked ether way"

i think this view point bull but was just wondering what you wonderful people thought about it?

It is bull. Because even if you're right about there being a god, you might be fucked if you worship the wrong one. There are many, many gods, after all.

I believe in god, but I admit that it's just faith. I think I'm right, but I could be wrong.