According to Pascal's wager, atheism is the safest choice

[Rational Agnostic]

Pascal's wager in its original form presents a false dichotomy, assuming either the Christian god exists, or it doesn't. However, Pascal's wager in an accurate format would allow the possibility of the existence of all of the thousands of gods that humans have believed in. Since most religions regard the worship of other gods as the most heinous crime (even more heinous than non belief), it logically follows that one should deny the existence of all of them, for fear of one (or more) of them lashing out and punishing me more severely for worshiping and believing in another one. Thoughts?

 

[Erebus]

Pascal's wager is a brilliant thought experiment. It's a perfect example of "How not to do it," as far as theology is concerned. There have been so many valid counters to it arguing in favour of atheism or a religion other than Christianity that Pascal's ghost must cringe that his wager is what he's mostly remembered for.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pascal's wager in its original form presents a false dichotomy, assuming either the Christian god exists, or it doesn't. However, Pascal's wager in an accurate format would allow the possibility of the existence of all of the thousands of gods that humans have believed in. Since most religions regard the worship of other gods as the most heinous crime (even more heinous than non belief), it logically follows that one should deny the existence of all of them, for fear of one (or more) of them lashing out and punishing me more severely for worshiping and believing in another one. Thoughts?

I had the same epiphany!
It's obviously true.

 

[PureX]

The failure of Pascal's Wager (the "what if" argument) is that it has no 'governor'. And it can therefor be applied to anything, no matter how absurd.

"What if" the Heaven's Gate people were right, and Jesus was waiting for us in a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp Comet, and we missed our ride to heaven because we did not drink the poison coolaid wearing our green sneakers so that we could join him? When we jettison the governor of likelihood, all manner of absurd proposition becomes equally valid. Pascal's Wager ignores the governing criteria of likelihood, because likelihood, in the specific proposition being offered, could not be established. And it thereby falls into a sea of boundless possible absurdity, and loses all validity.

 

[sun rise]

Pascal's Wager is fundamentally based on fear and hope and to me that's the basic flaw.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Pascal's wager is a brilliant thought experiment. It's a perfect example of "How not to do it," as far as theology is concerned. There have been so many valid counters to it arguing in favour of atheism or a religion other than Christianity that Pascal's ghost must cringe that his wager is what he's mostly remembered for.

Pascal was actually a brilliant mathematician (as I'm sure you probably know). It's surprising that such a smart man could come up with such a stupid argument for belief in the Christian god.

 

[Curious George]

Pascal's wager in its original form presents a false dichotomy, assuming either the Christian god exists, or it doesn't. However, Pascal's wager in an accurate format would allow the possibility of the existence of all of the thousands of gods that humans have believed in.

Let alone the infinite ones that humans have not.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Since most religions regard the worship of other gods as the most heinous crime (even more heinous than non belief),

You sure about that? I can only really think of three.

 

[Curious George]

You sure about that? I can only really think of three.

Regardless of how many we can think of that presently exist, there would be infinite that we can think of that do not presently exist.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That doesn't address my post, or what I quoted, George.

 

[Curious George]

That doesn't address my post, or what I quoted, George.

Lol, that is true. You are correct in your point (though I don't know how many exactly). But regarding Pascal's wager, the point is moot.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Thay laft at me when I sayeth me is a polytheist, they told I am not of pagan stok. Thou hast no idea what gods walketh in the heavens or under thine feet.

What if all of thine old gods and all thine new watcheth thee in humor. Thou shan't be surprised when thay come 'round to ye withird face and casteth out what is not belonged to thay.

To choseth none is foolish, but chooseth ye all is most wise.​

 

[Curious George]

Thay laught at me when I said I am a polytheist, they told me I am not of pagan stock. Thou hast no idea what gods walk in the heavens or under thine feet.

What if all of thine old gods and all thine new watch thee in humor. Thou shan't be surprised when thay come 'round to ye withird face and cast out what is not belonged to them.

To choseth none is foolish, but chooseth ye all is most wise.

Excepting to the infinite number of potential gods that worshipping other gods is a worse offense than worshipping none.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Excepting to the infinite number of potential gods that worshipping other gods is a worse offense than worshipping none.

Sorry if that was confusing I was just being fancy

I am not all that serious but I am postering at the moment if choosing all or respecting all is better than none. If only one is a true god then you could possibly argue that you are aware that there is one true god but is unsure of who it is.

If it is Allah then he would forgive you. If you have read the hadith you know that this is an easy argument because in Islam even non-Muslims reach Jannah for their good works and Islam is not the free ticket to heaven.

If it is Protestantianity then this would obviously not be the case.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry if that was confusing I was just being fancy

I am not all that serious but I am postering at the moment if choosing all or respecting all is better than none. If only one is a true god then you could possibly argue that you are aware that there is one true god but is unsure of who it is.

If it is Allah then he would forgive you. If you have read the hadith you know that this is an easy argument because in Islam even non-Muslims reach Jannah for their good works and Islam is not the free ticket to heaven.

If it is Protestantianity then this would obviously not be the case.

Lol, I assumed you were making a joke. But the problem remains infinite choices, infinite contradictions...nevermind the idea of trying to fake it. I think we are all much happier when we can just follow our beliefs. That doesn't mean we should allow anyone to follow any belief. But it is the starting point.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Lol, I assumed you were making a joke. But the problem remains infinite choices, infinite contradictions...nevermind the idea of trying to fake it. I think we are all much happier when we can just follow our beliefs. That doesn't mean we should allow anyone to follow any belief. But it is the starting point.

Oh no, you misread. I was only addressing if there actually was one real god, what would be the safest bet to reaching him/her without assurance of who it is.

I am just a hard polytheist and not per se a pagan in the classical sense. My stance on the matter is that all gods including Allah and Yahweh are distinct deities although whether or not they are good deities is up for debate. I do not hold them to be of equal truths though at all, the same way I do not accept human sacrifice to Moloch to be equal to worship of Krsna.

I am theologically skeptical to all manner of deities in short. I just stick with what I know and worship who I understand.

 

[shunyadragon]

Pascal's wager in its original form presents a false dichotomy, assuming either the Christian god exists, or it doesn't. However, Pascal's wager in an accurate format would allow the possibility of the existence of all of the thousands of gods that humans have believed in. Since most religions regard the worship of other gods as the most heinous crime (even more heinous than non belief), it logically follows that one should deny the existence of all of them, for fear of one (or more) of them lashing out and punishing me more severely for worshiping and believing in another one. Thoughts?

If you read the whole argument of Pascal he discounted any other choice of religion, other than Christianity as a choice between atheism and Christianity.

 

[HonestJoe]

All of this is ignoring the fundamental problem that we can’t simply choose to believe in a god or not. We see and hear everything presented to us, our brain subconsciously processes all that information and it generates a set of conclusions. We can influence the process by seeking specific information (though we’d know we’ve done that of course) but we can’t directly control the conclusion. That’s why people have such internal emotional struggles when they lose (or occasionally gain) faith.

 

[Shadow Link]

"[394] All the principles of sceptics, stoics, atheists, etc., are true. But their conclusions are false, because the opposite principles are also true."


Sounds like a pretty well balanced perspective on the subjects.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The difference between Pascal's Wager and Hedge Betting.

Hedge Betting is when a professional gambler places a bet they cover all their basis leaving ñothing to chance.
Like betting your favorite team in a football game, but you also bet on the opposing team, Therefore no matter if your team don't win, You still win even if the opposing team wins.Your still come out a winner.

As for Pascal's Wager, Your putting everything on that it is in one's own best interest to believe as if God exist, Since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell out weighs any advantage of believing otherwise.

Therefore neither one can be taken as meaning the same thing, unto which they don't.

As for me like a professional gambler that places their hedge bet, that they will cover all their basis leaving ñothing to chance.
So in like manner, I to cover all my basis leaving ñothing to chance.

Let's for say, that when we die and that we find there is no God, we didn't lose nothing.

Now let's for say,that when we die and we find God is there, I win and you lose.
All because you didn't cover all your basis Leaving ñothing to chance.

You see I Hedge Bet leaving ñothing to chance.
But you place everything on one base which is called Pascal's Wager, that God doesn't exist and you lost.When you should have Hedge Bet, covering all your basis,unto which you didn't do.

That so now, You denyed God all your life, Now you gave God every right in fairness to deny you.