Mageth

No, it is not. I do not choose not to believe in God. I simply lack belief in god(s). "Choice" has nothing at all to do with it.

I'm certain in my lack of belief in god(s). I really, truly do not believe at all that any god(s) exist. But this lack of belief is not based on any "decision" on my part.

Emotionalism and fear, along with bad logic and piss-poor philosophizing, are the basis for Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager rests on a string of assumptions. One of them (the big one) is that there is a penalty for not believing in a god. (Another is that there is an afterlife. And another is that simply believing in that God because you find Pascal's Wager compelling will allow you to escape some penalty in the assumed afterlife.) I find that notion, all those notions actually, absurd to the nth degree. I totally, completely discount them. My assessment of my risk is therefore 0.0000000. No risk, no need to take Pascal's Wager.

I have no uncertainty in my position at all.

No, I do not choose not to believe in God. I lack belief in god(s). Your God is just one of the infinite gods I lack belief in. Choice has nothing to do with it.

If you think I can simply choose to believe or to not believe in a god, try choosing not to believe in God for, say, one week.

I haven't made a choice at all, so I can safely ignore this assertion. If I've made no choice, I have made no wrong choice, obviously.

Here's your big trick, the sleight-of-hand. The unfounded assertion that there is a penalty for being wrong. That "choosing to not believe in God", or simply not believing in God, results in some afterlife penalty.

Again, I have made no "choice" to be wrong about.

In addition, I see no reason whatsoever to put the least bit of credence to the notion that there is a "penalty" (implied, in the afterlife, which of course I lack belief in as well) involved in simply lacking belief in god(s), or lacking belief in a particular God.

I'm not scared of a God in which I lack belief! I assess no risk at all from not believing in god(s), or for not believing in a particular God. Therefore, Pascal's Wager will not work on me at all.

In addition, considering "risk", let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a tiny fraction of a percent of risk for not believing in a particular God (ignoring the indications that simply believing guarantees nothing).

Well, it would seem that, considering that there are other Gods which allegedly assess penalties for "believing in" the first God and not them, then there is risk in believing in the first God (God A) and not one of Gods B, C, D, E, etc. Here, it would seem that one would have to assess the threats made by the various Gods and "choose to believe" in the one whose "Hell" appears to be the most unpleasant.

Further, for the sake of argument, there are other possible gods, described or undescribed. Some may make no afterlife threats at all. One conceivable god may even reward one for not believing in god(s) at all and punish one for believing in any other god(s)!

And, of course, it's possible that there may be a god who will make one's afterlife less pleasant if you believe it is the sort of God that will torture people in Hell for eternity!

Under these assumptions, there are various levels of risk asserted for believing or not believing in certain god(s). Your particular God is just one among many. Believing in an "generic God" doesn't seem to hold much promise for escaping the various alleged risks. All these risks pretty much cancel out. You seem to be at about the same level of risk in not believing in any god as you would be believing in a particular God. Maybe less so. Who knows?

You mention "rational" below. Rationally, assuming that there may be risk in an afterlife, Pascal's Wager appears to be totally useless in helping us to escape that risk with any degree of confidence. You're spinning a roulette wheel with uncountable slots. And, in addition, working under another huge assumption that using "Pascal's Wager" (the need to reduce your risk) as a motivation for "choosing to believe in a God" will help you to avoid risk even if you choose the right God.

There's not a hint of rationality in your argument, jd. Sorry to say so, but there's not.

There is no rational reason for me to believe in an afterlife at all.

There is no rational reason for me to believe in a "penalty of eternal torment" in an afterlife for which there is no rational reason to believe.

Therefore, I lack belief in an afterlife, and certainly lack belief in a "penalty of eternal torment".

I also, of course, lack belief in god(s). And "Pascal's Wager" does not provide a rational reason to believe in God.

What Pascal's Wager really does is attempt to use fear (in the form of an implied threat that you may need to escape) to cause one to believe in God. It's really an argument from emotion, from fear, not an argument from rationality. It attempts to use the threat of eternal hell to "scare" one into believing in the Christian God.

Therefore, the supposed "risk" that I am supposed to avoid by somehow "deciding to believe in God", one which I find no rational reason to believe in, does not provide me with a rational reason to "decide to believe in God".

And jd, I made no original decision to not believe in god(s). I never "decided" to not believe in god(s). If you think it's possible to do so, try doing it for a week.

And, in any case, I can no more "decide to believe in God" than you can decide to believe in the IPU, or the FSM, or Santa Claus. Can you decide to believe in Santa Claus? You might get more Christmas presents next year if you do, after all!

Mageth

It's called "atheism".

I lack belief in god(s). Therefore, I am in a situation where there is no "god" for me to believe.

Or, of course, there can be no god(s).

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: In addition to my post #139, please consider the following:

“Calvin was a strong believer in behaving as God wished. [Obviously, Pascal’s Wager does not require behaving as God wishes.] Immorality was severely condemned but to begin with the consistory was not an effective body. It only started to be so when the number of appointed ministers was greater than the elders. Also in 1555, the city council gave the consistory the right to excommunicate offenders. Only after this date was a strict moral code imposed and every sin was made a crime e.g. no work or pleasure on a Sunday; no extravagance in dress. If you were excommunicated you were banished from the city. Blasphemy could be punished by death; lewd singing could be punished by your tongue being pierced.

“Calvin believed that the church and state should be separate but the consistory tried moral and religious offenders. Two members of the consistory, accompanied by a minister, visited every parish to see that all was well and that people could see that they were being checked on. The state had to obey the teachings of the church, according to Calvin, and once he had managed to ensure this power, he felt confident enough to shut down taverns - though this was actually done by magistrates - and replace them with ‘evangelical refreshment places’ where you could drink alcohol but this was accompanied by Bible readings. Meals (in public) were preceded by the saying of grace. Not surprisingly these were far from popular and even Calvin recognised that he had gone too far and the taverns were re-opened with due speed!!

“Was Calvin totally supported in Geneva? It must be remembered that he was introducing a very disciplined code to the city and that this code effectively controlled peoples lives. [Obviously, Pascal’s Wager does not require discipline.] There were those who opposed Calvin and he was never totally secure until he had the support of Geneva’s most important families. [Ah, so it took the influence of the rich and the powerful to effectively institute Calvinism to whatever degree of popularity that it achieved.] These 1,500 men had a right to elect the city council which governed the city’s 13,000 people. Many felt angered that their privacy was being trespassed on and though a moral code to maintain standards was accepted, Calvin saw it going all the way so that everybody in the city was affected - a view not shared by everyone. [In other words, Calvin was a domineering bully.] This changed in favour of Calvin when a Spanish scholar called Michael Servetus came to Geneva in 1553. He questioned the validity of the Trinity which is central to all Christianity.�[So, it took not only the rich and the powerful, but also the scholarly, to effectively enable Calvinism to achieve whatever degree of popularity that it achieved. How utterly un-Christian, and how utterly unlike a group of simple, uneducated fisherman who Jesus chose to follow him.]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

As far as I know, only Paul taught predestination, reference Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:5, and 1:11, or did Paul actually teach predestination? All that is attributed to Paul is not necessarily what Paul taught. In addition, if Paul did preach predestination, can we be reasonably certain that he meant it like you interpret it, and if so, that he for God and not for himself? The New Testament canon merely reflected the views of supposed “orthodox Christians� who were able to implement their version of which writings God inspired. As Elaine Pagels has said, “the victors rewrote history, ‘their way.’� So, we don’t really know what “the Bible� actually is.

Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: “...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.�

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�

True to form, the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory.

1st Corinthians 14:33 says “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.� While that is debatable, it is definitely not debatable that some of the Bible writers were authors of confusion. For instance, most scriptures teach that salvation is achieved by faith alone, but James appears to say otherwise. James 2:14-26 say “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.� Does dead faith obey the two greatest commandments, upon which Jesus said “hang all of the law and the prophets�? Well course it doesn’t. Can a person deliberately and consistently disobey the two greatest commandments and go to heaven? Well of course he can’t. To get away with that would be to make a mockery out of the word of God, and the God of the Bible most certainly would not tolerate such behavior.

May I ask what church denomination you attend, do you have a loving personal relationship with God, do you love your fellow man as you love yourself, and do you place little or great emphasis upon personal experiences, both spiritual/emotional experiences and tangible experiences.

rhutchin

You may choose not to believe in God, but because you cannot prove that there is no God, your decision involves the possibility that you have made a wrong choice. Given the penalty for being wrong, the rational course of action is for you to reverse your decision to be an atheist and decide to believe in God.

rhutchin

I suggest you fight the tyranny that you see. My suspicion is that you will do nothing and simply accept your fate.

Mageth

One more time, rhutchin:

I do not choose not to believe in God. I lack belief in god(s). Choice has nothing at all to do with it.

One more time, I have made no choice at all. I lack belief in god(s). My lack of belief is not by choice. Not at all. I did not, could not choose to lack beleif in god(s), any more than you could choose to lack belief in god(s).

Whether I can prove that there are no god(s) is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, for me to take the threat of eternal suffering seriously, you need to provide evidence in support of the God, the afterlife, the punishment, and the means to escape the punishment. As of now, I have absolutely none (beyond the ramblings of religious texts and those who put stock in them). Therefore, I lack belief in the whole nine yards. I have absolutely no reason at all to think that I'm wrong, as neither you nor anyone else has provided any (and I doubt you could). Emotional appeals based on fear that insist I should just go ahead and believe on the chance that I may be wrong are not in the least compelling to me. Not in the least. UNDERSTAND?

I would need enough evidence to 1) believe that there is a god or gods; 2) believe that there is an afterlife; 3) believe that there is a possibility of eternal suffering in an afterlife; 4) believe that a god may subject me to said suffering; 5) believe that believing in a particular God would allow me to escape said suffering; 6) believe that the particular God that would allow me to escape said suffering is the actual God.

So, get to it. Screw Pascal's stupid Wager. Start providing some evidence to support all that!

One more time, I assess that there is no penalty for being wrong. I do not fear eternal punishment in which I lack belief to be meted out in an afterlife in which I lack belief by a god in which I lack belief. The emotional threat of hellfire has no effect whatsoever in me. I put no stock at all in it. Please try a bit harder to understand that, would ya?

One more time, I never "decided" to be an atheist. I am an atheist because I lack belief in god(s). I neither decided to nor chose to lack belief in god(s).

Again, a test for you: decide to lack belief in God for a week. Try it. Can you do it?

And I already destroyed your "rational" claim. There is not one iota of rationality in your argument. It's simply an appeal to emotion (fear).

Since I lack belief in an afterlife, lack belief in god(s), lack belief in eternal punishment in an afterlife, and lack belief in a god that will mete out eternal punishment in an afterlife, the rational course of action for me is to ignore Pascal's stupid, irrational Wager.

steamer

This would make some difference to a god? Why? Wouldn't it know I was just pretending? Wouldn't it know that I believe the character described in the bible as god is decidely evil? Why would a god love me if I loved evil?

Should I accept the wager, how would I decide to believe in god? If you can decide to believe in the IPU you will not be trampled by her hooves for eternity. Your only rational course of action is for you to reverse your decision to an aIPUist and decide to believe in the IPU. Why does this argument not convince you? Is it because there is no old text to say the IPU exists? The bible itself was once new, if it were written yesterday, wouldn't it be just as correct?

rhutchin

You have it backwards. The discussion and conclusion of Pascal’s Wager accommodates any number of gods. The Wager leads one to the conclusion that one should believe in God. This is based on the inability to prove that God does not exist and the uncertainty associated with that lack of proof. After a person comes to the Pascal Wager conclusion to believe in God, he then needs to sort through all the gods alleged to exist and determine which is the True and Living God.

Again, once one sees that it is to his benefit to believe in God, the problem is to discover who God is.

The Trinity is a term coined to describe God and encompassing Himself as He exists, His taking a human body called Jesus, and His giving of Himself to humans. It is all one God but experienced in three ways.

Mageth

rhutchin misses the simple fact that I can no more "choose to believe" in his God based upon his Pascal's Wager argument than he could choose not to believe in his God based upon the argument that he's running a risk of being punished by Allah by believing in his God.

I can no more "choose to believe" in God than he can choose not to believe in God.

It's all based on fear, and emotion, and not on rationality at all. The trick is that you have to believe it to accept it (claims of "probabilities and risks" notwithstanding); you have to think there is a threat to act to avoid the threat. I lack belief in the threat. Therefore, the threat does not, cannot, compel me to an action that I can't take anyway ("choosing to believe in God").

Mageth

And the problem is that I do not see at all that it is to my benefit to believe in God, and Pascal's Wager fails miserably, and completely, in its attemt to motivate one to see that benefit. Pascal's Wager assumes belief. It only works if one already believes (at least in an afterlife and a threat of eternal punishment therein) at least to some degree.