@asinnedangel That too, but then... all those other religions are just silly superstition and myths! Christianity can't even be called a religion becayse it's the truth. It's reality!
I'm basically paraphrasing Bill O'Reilly here. :)
StrangerInAStrangeLand's Wager : I wager that an omnipotent, sane loving god could not cause or allow anyone to suffer for eternity. I wager that if there is a god who causes or allows anyone to suffer for eternity, it cannot be relied upon to be omnipotent, sane & loving & simply cannot be trusted. If it cannot be trusted, it doesn't matter what humans do.
@Gnug215 Not explicitly, no. But I heard the Gospel as a teenager, and it took me 30 years to realize that what I thought was a divine revelation was only fear.
@IkedaHakubi You know, I had a very similar experience. What was brewing inside of me was, indeed, just fear. I'm glad it didn't take me 30 years, though. Sorry to hear it took so long for you. :(
iv seen many followers pass and they always seem afraid no matter how faithful they were in their life atheist, agnostics and the non-religious seem at peace, wiser and more knowledgeable at the end of their life why suffer and fear through out life and at the end of it when humanity is closer and closer everyday if not has already surpassed the bronze age gods
I all ways felt that the best argument against Pascal's wager is how do we know we picked the correct denomination of Christianity? How do we even know that Christianity is the correct religion sucks to be the Christian that dies and finds meets Shiva destroyer of worlds....
"...we 're getting more and more fun arguments to rebutt it with."
Yes, the present day thought, philosophy is developing at an astonishing pace (thanks to you and other celebrity atheists here on you tube). I genuinely think we are in the midst of a new Enlightenment! And that makes me happy.
While I agree that we're going through a huge development, I think there's also stuff pulling the other way - as it is evident with creationism, but also stuff like WTC conspiracy stuff and AIDS/Climate Change Denialism.
I think perhaps the fact that we quite simply have "too much" information floating around is partially to blame for this.
These people have found places to hate, communities to join, and a lot of information (false or whatever) to hold on to.
That is why the fight is on - fight with arguments, that is. They've just become too loud, and the fact that the media, especially in America, pampers to their needs, unsettles me. But "freedom of press", what can you do?
And that's exactly what we are doing. They can't come up with new things, especially not interesting, fresh, or funny. Maybe clever... but then, we'll have new things to trump. I'm starting to be an optimist, but it will take a long time.
Heh, I've actually become quite pessimistic lately - not because they're coming up with clever things, but it's like there's just so much crap for them by now to hide behind.
Most of it has been rebutted, but then they counter, then we counter, etc., and it all ends up in such a mess where they'll be convinced it's valid - not having seen the most recent rebuttals.
I think many people will be able to delude themselves in all that mess for many, many years to come.
You are right, religion is here to stay... for the foreseeable future.
"Most of it has been rebutted, but then they counter, then we counter, etc." - but in the process, many more young people are exposed to our arguments, not only to their priest's sermon, as it was until now. Don't underestimate people. That's what I am optimistic about.
It's true, people shouldn't be underestimated, but neither should some of the psychological mechanisms at play when it comes to religion and ideology.
The problem with this debate is that logic, reason and sanity have pretty much died. It got personal, emotional and ideological a long time ago, and it's hard to wade around in that. It certainly means you need some new approaches.
If no deity exists, or a deity doesn't interfere/care/whatever (a deistic god), the matter is irrelevant.
If a good and just god (or gods or whatever) exist, you will be treated fairly and reasonably. Because that comes with justice and benevolence. Thus there is nothing to fear for a good honest person, theistic or atheistic.
If God/Gods are capricious, unpredictable, evil etc, then we're all damned anyway.
I guess that may sound like kind of a wager thingy too. And me, I'm fully aware there is no evidence for the existence of any deities (and do not personally belief in any.)
But lets say there was a God who cared. Either they are good. And a truly good just god would not be so cruel to torture someone forever. Nothing someone could do would justify a punishment that excessive.
And if a God is not good... well we're all doomed by sheer force of its whims.
I mean, consider the idea of an actual huffy jealous, vengeful, submit to me or I'll totally fuck your sorry ass up Deity. (like the biblical God.)
You could kiss its ass and get saved for a while, but in eternity, he'll eventually get pissy, you make some stupid slip, and he'll toss your ass in hell anyway. Because in eternity, you'll piss off someone that easily pissed off EVENTUALLY. It's unavoidable!
I have, actually, but that's not who this video is for, obviously.
I'm not out to attack all Christian or anything, but I want to make sure that fallacious arguments such as Pascal's Wager, the way it is used by some Christians (just some, take note) are shot down.
If you are a Christian, I'd actually hope you'd appreciate the effort, if it stopped someone from making the argument, because chances are it would do more harm to Christianity than good.
When I hear Christians say they believe because it's safer to do so "just in case it's right", I wonder if they realize that according to their beliefs God hears them saying this. Don't they think God will be pissed off that they only believe "just in case"? Oh wait, I forgot, Christians don't think at all. Nevermind. I answered my own question.
What can I say. A lot of self-proclaimed 'Christians' are hypocrites in thought, word, and deed, and use the religion as a means to acquire a sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority. Ironic, as the historic figurehead of that community assured us that it is the meek who will "inherit the earth." On a side note, I imagine that God created human reason, and Christ used reason to communicate truth through art. If one must worship a man, reason moves my hand to point to Christ.
Then, consider the possibility that modern science can possibly cure aging (Aubry de Gray), and voila! Jesus was right, and all supplemental human effort should be devoted to health care, rejuvenation and life extension in order to create "earth as it is in heaven." Why can't Atheists get over all the supernatural nonsense and realize that metaphors are a powerful vehicle for truth (and do no significant harm to the intellectually lazy, who are usually innocuous anyway).
I'm not entirely sure how your defense of PW is connected with my particular argument.
Your interpretation of PW and the significance of its use is certainly not the one I have seen used by Christians so far, which is what I'm criticizing in my video.
I'm pretty sure most atheists can grasp metaphors, but in their defense, I think it should be clear that not all Christians are presenting their arguments metaphorically, nor understand them that way themselves.
Pascal's Wager is far more convincing when the prospect of eternal life is compared to nothing. Considered this way, all fear can be removed from the equation, as there is no reason to fear death (I've been dead for the history of the universe and it hasn't bothered me a bit). Then, one prioritizes (Bastiat's Broken Window parable) and discovers that physical life is itself of infinite value, but only if one accepts physical death willfully for the sake of life.
That is an interesting suggestion, but I think it relies on a few assumptions.
For instance, while physical life may of itself seem to have infinite value, not everyone would wish to live forever, at least not with regards to what we know about life.
But again, the way Christians present it, they don't even emphasize eternal (good) life as the reward, but point out the eternal punishment of hell.
I primarily criticize those that use Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God. I did not for a minute suggest that I had insight into your reasons for believing, and I'm glad that fear isn't one of your reasons, because that would also suggest that you're NOT one of those Christians that I have met who use Pascal's Wager as an argument.
So I take it that you agree with me that Pascal's Wager is a silly argument?
You made an error. You seem to think that Pascal's Wager is aimed at atheists. It is not. It was not intended by Pascal for someone who had already made up his mind (like an atheist). Instead, it is used by one who is "on the fence" making their initial determination whether they believe or not. For anyone doing so, the consequences of a mistake, one way or another, have to be a factor in the decision. It is not meant to change a decision, but instead only for someone who has not already decided
Well, if you'll notice, I'm not so much attacking Pascal's Wager, but the people using it.
And if I am wrong as to whom I think it is aimed at, then I think I'm excused for the simple fact that Christians are aiming left and right with it. I have frequently seen it aimed at atheists, and that's actually something I'd like to see come to an end, for it is really pointless.
I agree, some people misuse any concept & that it is pointless for anyone who has already made their decision about their beliefs. The primary problem is a all-knowing God would know if you are just "pretending" to believe and really don't. However, that doesn't make the concept useless for someone who truly hasn't yet decided. We consider the consequences in all our decision making. Does that footbridge look stable? Well, whether there is a 3-foot drop or a 300-foot drop can change your answer
True, we do consider consequences, but I'd still think that God wouldn't be too flattered from someone being convinced out of fear. And mind you, the people that usually "threaten" with PW are talking about hell, and not the wrath of God.
But yeah, I'm primarily attempting to deconstruct the argument in the connection that I have seen and experienced it, and that's usually from Christians directed at atheists.
Consequences are a part of any decision. I am not sure you can seperate them out.
Your best argument for theists using PW to a confirmed atheist is "wouldn't God know if I just pretended to believe, but really didn't?" and when they acknowledge that he would, say "I can't make myself believe if I don't, so I shouldn't just pretend then, should I?"
That is exactly right. That is indeed one of the best arguments againt PW. But as I say in my vid, I'm taking a slightly different approach, since I wanted to try something a bit more original.
Anyway, it seems you're preaching to the choir here to some extent. There are still Christians out there using PW as an argument, and I think other Christians should be out there telling them to stop, because it's really not a very good argument.
"Christians should be out there telling them to stop, because it's really not a very good argument."
It is an excellant argument, just not for use with an atheist. It is simply useful for those deciding between the two choices. Those "on the fence" not someone who already has decided what they believe.
I have concluded that some people who do offer Pascal's wager do not intend for it to actually convince people to be believers. The intent is to get them into observance, into the churches. There, the Big Kahuna --er, God will do His Holy Schtick and convert the heathen. He's apparently a shut-in, and can't talk to people unless they come to his house. (can't he get a cell phone?)
Lol, well, perhaps God has a limited range with his voice. Maybe the churches are like antennas or something?
But yeah, many Christians actually seem pretty careless with many of their arguments, and tend to just throw them out there without much reasoned intent.
Part of it is not being able to understand what "God" is. They submit to a higher intellect of which they have no way of knowing its intentions, so they are grasping at the dark, looking for anchors. These are their holy books and their religious organizations. Therefore they want to bring everyone to their anchors, thinking they will find the certainty they themselves do.
True... but it appears to me that people haven't really thought about and looked for the reasons for themselves to seek God. I mean, has Pascal's Wager ever been what convinced anyone to convert? If so... wow, the stupidity. If not, then why use the argument?
But perhaps it's another "justification" that they add to their pile of arguments, sort of like using a faulty premise but reaching a "correct" conclusion, and perhaps they don't think a lot about these "additions".
That was my point. Its not used as an argument towards faith, its meant to either get you in the church environment (whereas magic man might actually save you) or for the more cynical, its an attempt to shut you up by saying your ideas are at best not needed at worst detrimental.
That of course is about the people who think about these things and are not just parroting.
Another problem is that the 'God' they are staking on is mostly of a particular kind out of thousands of other alleged deities. If Christians are wrong, still there are hosts of possibilities in which they might get punished by a god other than Yahweh, e.g. Allah. In view of this, we may be suggested that atheism, the neutral stance, is the safest possible wager.
I've said before "Fuck Goldwin's Law" but then when I actually looked it up, I found that, ironically, by saying "Fuck Goldwin's Law" I was actually in full agreement with Goldwyn and it's the people who called Goldwyn's law on me who got it wrong.
Most people think Godwyn's law say "First person to mention Hitler looses" but actually Goldwyn himself said that sometimes Hitler analogies are actually apropriate.
I think so too. I mean, I suppose I could have mentioned other fascist regimes or cultish ideologies, but none really stand out quite as much as nazism.
I think the law was more about probability. That any moral argument seems to evoke Hitler at some point. It's more a point at it being over used rather than always inappropriate.
Ooh I loved that last slide. "Fractal Wrongness", I have got to use that myself sometime.
There's also the whole thing that Christians are disregarding every other religion ever.
asinnedangel 4 months ago
@asinnedangel That too, but then... all those other religions are just silly superstition and myths! Christianity can't even be called a religion becayse it's the truth. It's reality!
I'm basically paraphrasing Bill O'Reilly here. :)
Gnug215 4 months ago
@Gnug215 Careful-even paraphrasing Bill O'Reilly has been shown to sink I.Q. down 20 points.
asinnedangel 4 months ago
@asinnedangel so datz wai i kantt speel animoaar
Gnug215 4 months ago
@Gnug215 -it's okay, you just need a healthy dose of Richard Dawkins, and maybe some Athiest Experience if it gets worse.
asinnedangel 4 months ago
@asinnedangel Actually, I did better than that and watched one of C0nc0rdance's videos. Aah, reason and science for breakfast!
Gnug215 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
StrangerInAStrangeLand's Wager : I wager that an omnipotent, sane loving god could not cause or allow anyone to suffer for eternity. I wager that if there is a god who causes or allows anyone to suffer for eternity, it cannot be relied upon to be omnipotent, sane & loving & simply cannot be trusted. If it cannot be trusted, it doesn't matter what humans do.
BTW, Spock was often illogical.
Strangerinasland 8 months ago
I wish I had heard this 30 years ago.
IkedaHakubi 1 year ago
@IkedaHakubi Oh? Was Pascal's Wager an integral part of what I presume was your religious belief back then?
Personally, as an ex-Christian, I don't think I ever liked it much as an argument, due to the "Wager" part, I guess.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 Not explicitly, no. But I heard the Gospel as a teenager, and it took me 30 years to realize that what I thought was a divine revelation was only fear.
IkedaHakubi 1 year ago
@IkedaHakubi You know, I had a very similar experience. What was brewing inside of me was, indeed, just fear. I'm glad it didn't take me 30 years, though. Sorry to hear it took so long for you. :(
Gnug215 1 year ago
iv seen many followers pass and they always seem afraid no matter how faithful they were in their life atheist, agnostics and the non-religious seem at peace, wiser and more knowledgeable at the end of their life why suffer and fear through out life and at the end of it when humanity is closer and closer everyday if not has already surpassed the bronze age gods
cjhmmp 1 year ago
I say, believe in what you want to believe in, just don't shove it on me! It seems EVERYONE knows the path to Heaven yet can never actually prove it.
BlueKyne 1 year ago
I all ways felt that the best argument against Pascal's wager is how do we know we picked the correct denomination of Christianity? How do we even know that Christianity is the correct religion sucks to be the Christian that dies and finds meets Shiva destroyer of worlds....
harvellt 2 years ago
@harvellt Kali is the destroyer :3
BladedArrowTBGamer 1 year ago
"...we 're getting more and more fun arguments to rebutt it with."
Yes, the present day thought, philosophy is developing at an astonishing pace (thanks to you and other celebrity atheists here on you tube). I genuinely think we are in the midst of a new Enlightenment! And that makes me happy.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
While I agree that we're going through a huge development, I think there's also stuff pulling the other way - as it is evident with creationism, but also stuff like WTC conspiracy stuff and AIDS/Climate Change Denialism.
I think perhaps the fact that we quite simply have "too much" information floating around is partially to blame for this.
These people have found places to hate, communities to join, and a lot of information (false or whatever) to hold on to.
Gnug215 2 years ago
That is why the fight is on - fight with arguments, that is. They've just become too loud, and the fact that the media, especially in America, pampers to their needs, unsettles me. But "freedom of press", what can you do?
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Indeed, what can you do...
We just need to keep trying, and keep thinking up new and better ways to refute them - in the hope that reason will prevail.
Gnug215 2 years ago
And that's exactly what we are doing. They can't come up with new things, especially not interesting, fresh, or funny. Maybe clever... but then, we'll have new things to trump. I'm starting to be an optimist, but it will take a long time.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Heh, I've actually become quite pessimistic lately - not because they're coming up with clever things, but it's like there's just so much crap for them by now to hide behind.
Most of it has been rebutted, but then they counter, then we counter, etc., and it all ends up in such a mess where they'll be convinced it's valid - not having seen the most recent rebuttals.
I think many people will be able to delude themselves in all that mess for many, many years to come.
Gnug215 2 years ago
You are right, religion is here to stay... for the foreseeable future.
"Most of it has been rebutted, but then they counter, then we counter, etc." - but in the process, many more young people are exposed to our arguments, not only to their priest's sermon, as it was until now. Don't underestimate people. That's what I am optimistic about.
And maybe we needed that. - Dalectics, you see.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
It's true, people shouldn't be underestimated, but neither should some of the psychological mechanisms at play when it comes to religion and ideology.
The problem with this debate is that logic, reason and sanity have pretty much died. It got personal, emotional and ideological a long time ago, and it's hard to wade around in that. It certainly means you need some new approaches.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Any suggestions? I, on my part, have to think about it.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Very clever analogy with Nazi Germany.
I can't believe there are still people who still come up with those arguments. Can't they think?
You have a beautiful BBC presenter kind of voice.
Sub'd. Should have done that earlier.
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Thank you. I was worried the analogy was too much or too primitive.
And yeah, it's amazing they keep bringing this up, but we're getting more and more fun arguments to rebutt it with. The debate is evolving. ;)
Thanks a lot for the comment on the voice. I'm very flattered! :)
Gnug215 2 years ago
I think the logical option about deities is this.
If no deity exists, or a deity doesn't interfere/care/whatever (a deistic god), the matter is irrelevant.
If a good and just god (or gods or whatever) exist, you will be treated fairly and reasonably. Because that comes with justice and benevolence. Thus there is nothing to fear for a good honest person, theistic or atheistic.
If God/Gods are capricious, unpredictable, evil etc, then we're all damned anyway.
Either way, it's not a huge issue.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
I guess that may sound like kind of a wager thingy too. And me, I'm fully aware there is no evidence for the existence of any deities (and do not personally belief in any.)
But lets say there was a God who cared. Either they are good. And a truly good just god would not be so cruel to torture someone forever. Nothing someone could do would justify a punishment that excessive.
And if a God is not good... well we're all doomed by sheer force of its whims.
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
I mean, consider the idea of an actual huffy jealous, vengeful, submit to me or I'll totally fuck your sorry ass up Deity. (like the biblical God.)
You could kiss its ass and get saved for a while, but in eternity, he'll eventually get pissy, you make some stupid slip, and he'll toss your ass in hell anyway. Because in eternity, you'll piss off someone that easily pissed off EVENTUALLY. It's unavoidable!
Shavarnarak 2 years ago
I think I agree with just about everything you said here. :)
Thanks for posting.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Too bad you haven't encountered those that just love and love God with much joy and absolutely have no fear.
kub73158 2 years ago
I have, actually, but that's not who this video is for, obviously.
I'm not out to attack all Christian or anything, but I want to make sure that fallacious arguments such as Pascal's Wager, the way it is used by some Christians (just some, take note) are shot down.
If you are a Christian, I'd actually hope you'd appreciate the effort, if it stopped someone from making the argument, because chances are it would do more harm to Christianity than good.
Gnug215 2 years ago
When I hear Christians say they believe because it's safer to do so "just in case it's right", I wonder if they realize that according to their beliefs God hears them saying this. Don't they think God will be pissed off that they only believe "just in case"? Oh wait, I forgot, Christians don't think at all. Nevermind. I answered my own question.
T4148 2 years ago
damn right! :)
benatssu 3 years ago
Hehe, glad you agree.
Gnug215 3 years ago
What can I say. A lot of self-proclaimed 'Christians' are hypocrites in thought, word, and deed, and use the religion as a means to acquire a sense of self-righteousness and moral superiority. Ironic, as the historic figurehead of that community assured us that it is the meek who will "inherit the earth." On a side note, I imagine that God created human reason, and Christ used reason to communicate truth through art. If one must worship a man, reason moves my hand to point to Christ.
johnsmaa 3 years ago
Then, consider the possibility that modern science can possibly cure aging (Aubry de Gray), and voila! Jesus was right, and all supplemental human effort should be devoted to health care, rejuvenation and life extension in order to create "earth as it is in heaven." Why can't Atheists get over all the supernatural nonsense and realize that metaphors are a powerful vehicle for truth (and do no significant harm to the intellectually lazy, who are usually innocuous anyway).
johnsmaa 3 years ago
I'm not entirely sure how your defense of PW is connected with my particular argument.
Your interpretation of PW and the significance of its use is certainly not the one I have seen used by Christians so far, which is what I'm criticizing in my video.
I'm pretty sure most atheists can grasp metaphors, but in their defense, I think it should be clear that not all Christians are presenting their arguments metaphorically, nor understand them that way themselves.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Pascal's Wager is far more convincing when the prospect of eternal life is compared to nothing. Considered this way, all fear can be removed from the equation, as there is no reason to fear death (I've been dead for the history of the universe and it hasn't bothered me a bit). Then, one prioritizes (Bastiat's Broken Window parable) and discovers that physical life is itself of infinite value, but only if one accepts physical death willfully for the sake of life.
johnsmaa 3 years ago
That is an interesting suggestion, but I think it relies on a few assumptions.
For instance, while physical life may of itself seem to have infinite value, not everyone would wish to live forever, at least not with regards to what we know about life.
But again, the way Christians present it, they don't even emphasize eternal (good) life as the reward, but point out the eternal punishment of hell.
I certainly prefer your version, I must admit.
Gnug215 3 years ago
fedt nok
tkdliron 3 years ago
Takker. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
I do not believe in God out of fear. I believe in God for His love, forgiviness, mercy & guidance.
What an ignorant, judgemental video.
sotatophsam 3 years ago
... did you even watch the video?
I primarily criticize those that use Pascal's Wager as an argument for believing in God. I did not for a minute suggest that I had insight into your reasons for believing, and I'm glad that fear isn't one of your reasons, because that would also suggest that you're NOT one of those Christians that I have met who use Pascal's Wager as an argument.
So I take it that you agree with me that Pascal's Wager is a silly argument?
Gnug215 3 years ago
love it. keep it coming :D
aieak22 3 years ago
hehe, thanks a bunch. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
It's a logistical fallacy.
Appeal to consequences of a belief.
SpikeIncorporated 3 years ago
You made an error. You seem to think that Pascal's Wager is aimed at atheists. It is not. It was not intended by Pascal for someone who had already made up his mind (like an atheist). Instead, it is used by one who is "on the fence" making their initial determination whether they believe or not. For anyone doing so, the consequences of a mistake, one way or another, have to be a factor in the decision. It is not meant to change a decision, but instead only for someone who has not already decided
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Well, if you'll notice, I'm not so much attacking Pascal's Wager, but the people using it.
And if I am wrong as to whom I think it is aimed at, then I think I'm excused for the simple fact that Christians are aiming left and right with it. I have frequently seen it aimed at atheists, and that's actually something I'd like to see come to an end, for it is really pointless.
Gnug215 3 years ago
I agree, some people misuse any concept & that it is pointless for anyone who has already made their decision about their beliefs. The primary problem is a all-knowing God would know if you are just "pretending" to believe and really don't. However, that doesn't make the concept useless for someone who truly hasn't yet decided. We consider the consequences in all our decision making. Does that footbridge look stable? Well, whether there is a 3-foot drop or a 300-foot drop can change your answer
74BobLilly 3 years ago 2
True, we do consider consequences, but I'd still think that God wouldn't be too flattered from someone being convinced out of fear. And mind you, the people that usually "threaten" with PW are talking about hell, and not the wrath of God.
But yeah, I'm primarily attempting to deconstruct the argument in the connection that I have seen and experienced it, and that's usually from Christians directed at atheists.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Consequences are a part of any decision. I am not sure you can seperate them out.
Your best argument for theists using PW to a confirmed atheist is "wouldn't God know if I just pretended to believe, but really didn't?" and when they acknowledge that he would, say "I can't make myself believe if I don't, so I shouldn't just pretend then, should I?"
74BobLilly 3 years ago
That is exactly right. That is indeed one of the best arguments againt PW. But as I say in my vid, I'm taking a slightly different approach, since I wanted to try something a bit more original.
Anyway, it seems you're preaching to the choir here to some extent. There are still Christians out there using PW as an argument, and I think other Christians should be out there telling them to stop, because it's really not a very good argument.
Gnug215 3 years ago
"Christians should be out there telling them to stop, because it's really not a very good argument."
It is an excellant argument, just not for use with an atheist. It is simply useful for those deciding between the two choices. Those "on the fence" not someone who already has decided what they believe.
74BobLilly 3 years ago
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant; they shouldn't be using it against atheists. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
Great vid once again :D
BruceSpringsteeen 3 years ago
Hehe, thanks Bruce. ;)
Gnug215 3 years ago
"Thank you for watching"
Thank you for posting!
D1G3T5 3 years ago
Hehe, and thank you for commenting. ;)
Gnug215 3 years ago
I have concluded that some people who do offer Pascal's wager do not intend for it to actually convince people to be believers. The intent is to get them into observance, into the churches. There, the Big Kahuna --er, God will do His Holy Schtick and convert the heathen. He's apparently a shut-in, and can't talk to people unless they come to his house. (can't he get a cell phone?)
Cafeeine 3 years ago
Lol, well, perhaps God has a limited range with his voice. Maybe the churches are like antennas or something?
But yeah, many Christians actually seem pretty careless with many of their arguments, and tend to just throw them out there without much reasoned intent.
Gnug215 3 years ago
Part of it is not being able to understand what "God" is. They submit to a higher intellect of which they have no way of knowing its intentions, so they are grasping at the dark, looking for anchors. These are their holy books and their religious organizations. Therefore they want to bring everyone to their anchors, thinking they will find the certainty they themselves do.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
True... but it appears to me that people haven't really thought about and looked for the reasons for themselves to seek God. I mean, has Pascal's Wager ever been what convinced anyone to convert? If so... wow, the stupidity. If not, then why use the argument?
But perhaps it's another "justification" that they add to their pile of arguments, sort of like using a faulty premise but reaching a "correct" conclusion, and perhaps they don't think a lot about these "additions".
Gnug215 3 years ago
That was my point. Its not used as an argument towards faith, its meant to either get you in the church environment (whereas magic man might actually save you) or for the more cynical, its an attempt to shut you up by saying your ideas are at best not needed at worst detrimental.
That of course is about the people who think about these things and are not just parroting.
Cafeeine 3 years ago
Another problem is that the 'God' they are staking on is mostly of a particular kind out of thousands of other alleged deities. If Christians are wrong, still there are hosts of possibilities in which they might get punished by a god other than Yahweh, e.g. Allah. In view of this, we may be suggested that atheism, the neutral stance, is the safest possible wager.
mirandansa 3 years ago
I agree. However, I felt that point had been done to death, so I wanted to do something slightly different. :)
Gnug215 3 years ago
I've said before "Fuck Goldwin's Law" but then when I actually looked it up, I found that, ironically, by saying "Fuck Goldwin's Law" I was actually in full agreement with Goldwyn and it's the people who called Goldwyn's law on me who got it wrong.
Most people think Godwyn's law say "First person to mention Hitler looses" but actually Goldwyn himself said that sometimes Hitler analogies are actually apropriate.
dechha1981 3 years ago
I think so too. I mean, I suppose I could have mentioned other fascist regimes or cultish ideologies, but none really stand out quite as much as nazism.
Gnug215 3 years ago
I think the law was more about probability. That any moral argument seems to evoke Hitler at some point. It's more a point at it being over used rather than always inappropriate.
Ooh I loved that last slide. "Fractal Wrongness", I have got to use that myself sometime.
thorungal 3 years ago
Correct.
dechha1981 3 years ago