Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dark Jedi · 07-05-2003, 09:23 PM

In reply to Pascal's Wager, I explained why it does not work, and said atheism is actually the safer route in that scenario.

They countered with... Pascal's Wager, version 2.0. New with big words and stronger assertations. Essentially the same response but a lot wordier.

I replied:

Quote:

As for atheism or agmosticism being the safest choice: my conclusion is still valid. You cannot know if an afterlife exists, or if one does, that your choice in religions is the one that gets you a pleasant one. The odds are too much against the right choice. You propose wasting the one life I know I have on your lotto-like chance of an afterlife that we have no reason to believe exists. Pascal's wager is not a yes-no choice, it is a lottery drawing from thousands of choices.

I simply choose not to waste my dollar playing.

diana · 07-05-2003, 11:39 PM

I think they'd argue that you're already playing whether you like it or not.

d

Defiant Heretic · 07-09-2003, 09:42 PM

Ya, but he didn't have to pay for the ticket.

Rational BAC · 07-09-2003, 10:08 PM

Actually I like Pascal's Wager. (Although definitely out of fashion these days--)

--Hey -fashions come and go don't they?------(damned if the old button down dress shirts so popular in the 60's aren't back again. Bob Newhart would be SO pleased)

Pascal's Wager is the best bet going that I know of. The Lotto really sucks in comparison. (of course the Lotto sucks in any case).

Can't lose ------Might win. And does not cost anything. Anyone would bet on this one.

N'est-ce pas? ------

---- as Blaise Pascal might like to say?

Rhaedas · 07-09-2003, 10:17 PM

The weak link of Pascal's Wager (of one them anyway) is that an all-knowing god will see that you believed for one reason...to get into heaven. Hence the excuse that it's the safe bet won't fly if you're doing it to save yourself from hell. Of course there's many other problems with it...

I prefer the Atheist's Wager, from here

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him.

(And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!)"

Rational BAC · 07-09-2003, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rhaedas
The weak link of Pascal's Wager (of one them anyway) is that an all-knowing god will see that you believed for one reason...to get into heaven. Hence the excuse that it's the safe bet won't fly if you're doing it to save yourself from hell. Of course there's many other problems with it...

I prefer the Atheist's Wager, from here

"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him.

(And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!)"

Not bad at all----

I believe that to be true too. But then again---I am a very unusual Christian. (Or probably not---------almost any liberal non literal Christian I have spoken with do not deny salvation to non-believers who have lived a moral life.) Do not confuse mainstream liberal Christianity with the Fundies.

Hey ---I say go with both wagers. I can do that with a free and easy conscience and still be a Christian. Can you say the same and still be an atheist?

Rhaedas · 07-09-2003, 10:58 PM

Really the difference between the two is the classic faith vs. works argument. And while I'm an atheist, I would hope that if a god presents himself as a judge, he is truly a benevolent god. In which case, how I live my life in relating to other people should be a basis on judgement, not whether I believed in this god or that god.

If the god is the literal god out of the bible, I think everyone is screwed, so what I believe doesn't matter.

And of course, if there's no god, as I am so far lead to believe, then trying to better my and my fellow humans lives is the best route in the end, not for a reward to me, but because it's the right thing to do, even if I don't have a book that says so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-05-2003, 11:39 PM	#2
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	I think they'd argue that you're already playing whether you like it or not. d

07-09-2003, 09:42 PM	#3
Defiant Heretic Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 1,288	Ya, but he didn't have to pay for the ticket.

07-09-2003, 10:08 PM	#4
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Actually I like Pascal's Wager. (Although definitely out of fashion these days--) --Hey -fashions come and go don't they?------(damned if the old button down dress shirts so popular in the 60's aren't back again. Bob Newhart would be SO pleased) Pascal's Wager is the best bet going that I know of. The Lotto really sucks in comparison. (of course the Lotto sucks in any case). Can't lose ------Might win. And does not cost anything. Anyone would bet on this one. N'est-ce pas? ------ ---- as Blaise Pascal might like to say?

07-09-2003, 10:17 PM	#5
Rhaedas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,440	The weak link of Pascal's Wager (of one them anyway) is that an all-knowing god will see that you believed for one reason...to get into heaven. Hence the excuse that it's the safe bet won't fly if you're doing it to save yourself from hell. Of course there's many other problems with it... I prefer the Atheist's Wager, from here "It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him. (And if God is not benevolent, he's gonna git ya whatever you do!)"

07-09-2003, 10:58 PM	#7
Rhaedas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,440	Really the difference between the two is the classic faith vs. works argument. And while I'm an atheist, I would hope that if a god presents himself as a judge, he is truly a benevolent god. In which case, how I live my life in relating to other people should be a basis on judgement, not whether I believed in this god or that god. If the god is the literal god out of the bible, I think everyone is screwed, so what I believe doesn't matter. And of course, if there's no god, as I am so far lead to believe, then trying to better my and my fellow humans lives is the best route in the end, not for a reward to me, but because it's the right thing to do, even if I don't have a book that says so.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.