This atheist says YES, Pascals' Wager is indeed a legitimate position.

too busy trying to take up god's slack here on earth, you mean. if we wasted one picosecond on vainly contemplating 'god's reasoning' when that picosecond could have been spent 'feeding a starving child', then we've committed a moral crime. such is your god's handiwork, that we can't spare the time.

 

Well, duh. The afterlife is the true life, though many have been deluding into thinking that our short period on this earth is the reality.

Anyway, that wasn't the only reason. Surely the hotter the heat applies to gold, the purer it gets.

Similarly, it's only through suffering that one can rise in wisdom, or become tough, and attain other desired human qualities.

But atheists are too busy whinging. They really need to cowboy up.

 

like I said, your god blames the starving children on the fat people who's car keys he's busy locating. and those people are JUST FINE knowing that their god starves children to death to teach fatso's important lessons, like how to pray harder.

you can twist it any way you like, but nothing will disguise the fact that you worship a god who is a monster.

- - - Updated - - -

the only cowboys here are the ones who don't think they'll survive death. we're in it for real - getting our boots dirty.

 

Well, I guess we'll eventually see who's right.

 

and it comes down to this, as usual.

you're waiting on the infinitesimally tiny chance of immortality to complete your 'told you so!' pout.

 

Athiest Cat says:


(Sorry, I couldn't resist )

 

Wait, but 2.1 billion Christians do indeed believe that god has "children", and a "son", as the Bible says so......so are the 1.5 billion Muslims (like you) wrong, or are the 2.1 billion Christians wrong? It's so confusing.

 

Wrong in what sense? They are simply following their own path to God. Only simplistic atheists who are butthurt that they have no path find it confusing.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! Hold on there slick!! Because everybody knows that Jesus is too darned caring and loving to allow an innocent 2 year-old child to get cancer. Here, let me prove that to you by asking you a question: SMDBill, would YOU keep cancer from children if you were all-powerful like the mighty Jesus? Of course you would, because you're not a monster! And because Jesus is far far more moral than you are (so the Bible tells us), by simple logic we know for a fact that JESUS would NOT allow innocent 2 year-olds to get cancer either!! That's what we love about Jesus, his incredible love for all innocent children.

- - - Updated - - -

They can't BOTH be right, because they believe opposite things: Christians believe that god DOES have children and a son, and Muslims believe the god does NOT have children and a son......so are 2.1 billion people delusional, or 1.5 billion people delusional - which is it?

 

Irrelevant, as they nevertheless follow a path to God. The only deluded ones in this case are the atheists. Sorry.

 

You still won't get to heaven if you believe in Pascal's wager.

If you think you can trick God into saving you then you are going to be in for a shock.

 

Ironic how the same people who oppose Earthy violent dictators like Hitler and Saddam are willfully engaged in the blind worship of a celestial dictator.

 

It's an odds thing. The fact the main reason you are Muslim is because you were raised one, and the fact most people are the faith they were raised in proves how arbitrary and not true they are.

The fact you can't see this is proof of man's willingness to ignore the obvious.

 

Lol, I was not born a Muslim, and was a former atheist to boot. Try again.

 

What ethnicity and religion are your parents ?

 

Lebanese/Christian.

 

raised Maronite, huh?

 

It's a false dichotomy, but in terms of practical analysis, it's smarter or statistically more sound to take your chances throwing in with religion based on the alleged consequences of not throwing in with them. However, that then raises the question of "which religion is likely correct if any of them?" Would you then wish to appease all known deities throughout history or only come to terms with one? And then you'd also have to recognize that according to many religions, the practice of multiple religions is forbidden or taboo, so then you'd be back to square one. Because if Pascal's Wager is not applied consistently, it's way too much of a gamble (or wager) to be considered practical, in my personal opinion. Believe what you want. Or don't believe what you want. Make your own choice.

 

I can't believe nobody has brought this up, but I choose:

Option C (Atheist's Wager): In the unlikely event that there is a god/goddess who is benevolent and omnipotent, she would act nothing like the god of the bible. In fact, if there were such a god she would view faith with indifference at best, and if she even cared much about humans she would reward people for being kind or intelligent in a productive way. In fact, if there were a goddess who wanted to test us, she would probably reward us for NOT having faith in her existence given how the world is.

You must have read a different bible than me.

Given how things turn out on average, it's really just random or a consequence of how things work, and seems completely unaffected by any higher power.

Yes, it's so whiny of us to wonder why a god would let children starve. We're not talking about praying for a new computer, we're talking about lives that never had a chance to be lived. Suffering has its uses, but there isn't always meaning to be found in it, particularly when said person never even lived their life. Sometimes people just die for no meaningful reason, just chance falling against them in an always random and sometimes cruel world.

Pretty sure the holy books of both religions put atheists AND the other religions in hell.

Yeah, it's like somebody putting a gun to your head and demanding that you love them, and then shooting you when you lie and say that you do. Stockholm Syndrome is the only path to heaven, it would seem.

 

You're wrong. There are several well established logical flaws with the wager - you don't know which religion to follow, you can't know a god would accept your self-interested motives and you can't choose to believe anyway.

Your fiddling doesn't change the fundamentally flawed basis. It demonstrates Pascal's immorality (which is a little harsh since he was hardly alone in this logic) but, for the some of the same reasons, it can't say anything about any actual god.

 

Deist. God sees the sparrow fall

We are steel, life is a forge, god is a blacksmith

Not believing in God I don't make any bargains with him, but I am a moral person because I want my life to reflect well on my memory and my family in the world's eyes. If god does exist and will send me to Hell even though I was moral just for not believing in him then I don't want to be with him anyway, which sort of works out to Pascal's bargain in any case

 

I think the OP is missing the reason why people believe in god. I don't know anyone who believes in god due to pascal's wager alone. To most people, god is like an imaginary friend. He is there to comfort you when you are upset, to lift you up when you are down, to make you feel good about yourself when you have many reasons to feel bad. In other words, god is a psychological crutch for people who have a tough time dealing with life the way it is. The vast majority use god in that sense - to keep themselves emotionally stable--as a way of dealing with the harsh truths of the world we live in.

Very few people believe in god, solely due to Pascal's wager. And in any case, Pascal's wager is so logically dumb, that if you do happen to believe in it, I have no respect for you anyhow.

 

You are assuming that there is a next life. If not, then it is better not to suffer (and more good to avoid causing others to suffer) in this life.

 

I choose C: I accept Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, not out of fear, but because He loved me enough to pay the price for my sin. He died, so that I could have life. How can I not love Him in return. And just how is it immoral, giving us a choice? He could have said to hell with everyone...literally.

 

It is only a legitimate proposition if you can objectively prove or have convinced yourself the threat is real.

As a non-believer, I personally don't like Pascal's Wager. It is in no way an objective argument to disprove the existence of a god or to prove the existence of a god. Until the threat is proven, why should I even consider acting/living a system of morality just in case I am wrong? It is a life of dishonesty to oneself and others and counter productive to staying away from an immoral life. There is no way to prove which theory of god to follow, one can't even save themselves from a perceived threat even if they wanted to.

I pick forget about Pascal's Wager.