Pascal's Wage Reloaded.

[Evangelicalhumanist]

None of them are reasonable. It doesn't make sense to punish people that are trying to find guidance nor does it make sense to have people figure out which guidance is right to avoid God's punishment.

Especially when such a deity, as described, is perfectly capable of making such a search totally unnecessary -- or at least impossible to fail.

Instead of inventing such patently silly notions such as "God can only talk through special messengers," each and every one of whom was just another human.

 

[firedragon]

The amount of time spent arguing about subjective and objective truths and values tires me out.

Great.

 

[firedragon]

In fact, it is a veritable wonder to me that so many believers actually have access to all of the same information -- which argues against their deities

What arguments and what information?

 

[Heyo]

Mine is as follows.

(1) Seek to to perfect your reading comprehension skills, take logic classes, learn to understand text, and learn how the mechanisms of how expressions work, etc, very important to contextualize, hyperbola, learn some statements as absolutes can be just majority, things like that.

I'd throw in to learn maths. That would keep you from assuming that a finite value times an infinite value has to to be infinite. Calculus is the art of multiplying finite values with infinite values and arrive at a finite result.

 

[KWED]

Triangles only have three sides.

Yes, but most religious belief must be just superstition, even though the believer is convinced it isn't.
Therefore your analogy was flawed.

You believe your "triangle has three sides", but it might actually be a circle.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What arguments and what information?

The ones you've been reading here for over 7 years. Weren't you paying attention? I myself have over 10,000 posts making just those arguments. I decline to repeat them all here in this thread.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, but most religious belief must be just superstition, even though the believer is convinced it isn't.
Therefore your analogy was flawed.

You believe your "triangle has three sides", but it might actually be a circle.

So you are a hard atheist.

 

[firedragon]

The ones you've been reading here for over 7 years. Weren't you paying attention?

Ah. So your truth bearer is "The ones you've been reading here for over 7 years. Weren't you paying attention?["

Not that you have "information or/and data".

 

[KWED]

So you are a hard atheist.

I can look after myself, but don't see the relevance.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ah. So your truth bearer is "The ones you've been reading here for over 7 years. Weren't you paying attention?["

Not that you have "information or/and data".

You might start with this thread -- I notice you never responded to it.

Why I Am an Atheist

 

[F1fan]

But given the gamble, whatever time lost, is not worth forever time of pain and forever time of heaven. So you lose time, but it's worth the gamble and the right way to gamble.

Why assume these are actual options? The gamble plays on the fear of people, it doesn't ask them to be objective and logical.

The ploy only works on those feeding off of their emotions. This wager doesn't work on people who are rational and logical.

Besides, how decent is a God that tortures souls forever just because there is no logical way to decide a heaven/hell scenario is true?

I suggest hell is those people in fear and anguish about the fate of their souls

That would be Christians since they are the believers. It's not relevant to non-believers.

 

[firedragon]

I can look after myself, but don't see the relevance.

Yes. You are irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

You might start with this thread -- I notice you never responded to it.

Why I Am an Atheist

Its alright. Thanks.

 

[viole]

Given the possibility of hell and heaven, we should strive to find the truth and be sure and live a life trying to find God and his religion. The reason being hell is too much to risk and missing heaven too much to risk for temporary pleasures we would give up in this world. Say there is no true religion and we sought our whole lives to find it and strived to find the truth, the loss, is just some time in this world devoted to this quest. Yet, if we decided to ignore this and bet on hell and heaven not to exist and there not being consequences for our disbelief, and turns out there is, the consequences are too much.

Again, I think it is absolutely possible that God, if She exists, sends atheists to Heaven, and theists to Hell.

Now, how do you intend to apply the wager to that case?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ratiocinator]

I explained.

You misunderstood.

 

[Link]

Again, I think it is absolutely possible that God, if She exists, sends atheists to Heaven, and theists to Hell.

Now, how do you intend to apply the wager to that case?

Ciao

- viole

Good point. In this case, we have to make sure and find out which one of these two it is.

Therefore in the start, we have to say, why would Atheists enter heaven and Theists hell. The only reason I can think of is if God hid himself and wanted people to be true themselves about knowledge. There is no proof for him so there is no reason to deceive ourselves and make up a God.

Well, in this case, Pascal and I are not saying to trick ourselves and believe God exists. We are saying to search for proof(s) and knowing ourselves (self knowledge) and try to attain sure proof and evidence based search knowledge. In this case, if we believe God on proof, there is proof for him, and the reason he would sent Atheists and Theists in the first scenario does not apply.

So we still have to search. Because of your possibility we must not deceive ourselves that we know God exists when he does not show himself at all and appears to not exist. In fact, Islam says the same. If we trick and deceive ourselves about God, and don't really know he exists on proof, this is not faith, but self-deception and our prayers are all done to deceive God that we believe in him (but we don't realize it, it's heedlessly done). None of our actions are accepted whether we make up knowledge about knowing the Creator exists or we make who God is with no proof/light/illumination that is certain.

 

[Link]

So it would be certain if we know beyond reasonable doubt, that if God exists, then God hid himself completely and there is no way to know him, and created the world with no a single way to know he exists, then we can say "if God exists, there is no way to know him", but to conclude that, you have to survey philosophical and other type proofs. Travel, see what different religions say about God and how they prove him. For example, Gaia theory by the Native Americans, is a sound argument. But it will take great pondering and also you should see the theories of geology and pick between the two. You don't just bet, you search. This is the point of the argument, it's to say, get off your lazy butt and search for God.

 

[ratiocinator]

So we still have to search.

Yet there may be a god that punishes the act of searching. Once you enter fantasy guess-land (as you seem to want to do) anything (that is not inherently self-contradictory and isn't already falsified) is possible.

 

[Link]

The issue is simply this...
I will not worship a God who sends people who do not believe in Him to hell even if hell exist and that God exist. Same case as being unable to revere a tyrant even if he were to control my country.
So why waste my time?

Your choice might emotionally right to you but math wise, it is wrong for sure. Mathematically it is the wrong choice.

 

[Link]

Yet there may be a god that punishes the act of searching. Once you enter fantasy guess-land (as you seem to want to do) anything (that is not inherently self-contradictory and isn't already falsified) is possible.

Good point, but again, what would be the reason for this. The only one I can think of, is because, other things have priority like justice, helping the poor, defending the oppressed.... In this case, you do both at the same time, and not neglect priorities.