1) Can people *choose* to believe? They can choose to *act* as though they believe, but wouldn't an omniscient deity see through that?
2) PW assumes there's only one possible "god"/religion to believe in--but mankind has worshipped many 1000s. How can you know that *yours* is the right/only one?
3) It's hardly true that "nothing's lost" in believing: time, money, FREEDOM are lost.
4) PW relies on *fear of pain*--a poor ad for a "loving god"!
@SmokexFFx this is the best thing about atheists by far---the notion that you can "waste time." If existence itself is meaningless (which it is if nothing comes afterward, because you and everything you have done will eventually be forgotten) and random then what exactly are you wasting???
I am not a fan of religion...I think pascal's wager is BS...but come on atheists-"wasting time" or "wasting your life"...this isn't even consistent with your own doctrine. ><
@Monkian1234 Doctrine? I believe you are confusing atheism with nihilism, good sir.
And perhaps the following went over your head, but when this the only life we have, I'd say spending your limited time on stupid bullshit classifies as "wasting time".
Pascal's Gambit is a wager taken from Game Theory. A What If scenario. Like taking a chance at promiscuity or engaging unprotected sex. You may not know if the partner has a VD. But just in case, assume they do and lead your sex life accordingly. Basically—make low risk decisions with ANY/ALL intel you have gathered to assure safety through life AND death. The sooner you begin to live a life filled with faithful, good choices the sooner it will develop into a genuine lifestyle.
@m0ose0909 Are you really that irrational and incapable of using your brain. This is not a joke, it's a fact - If the Christian God does exist, then those who refuse to believe in Him have everything to loose.
@chrischris180 .... it's just a story... the plane crash is just supposed to provide a setting. You are looking way to deeply into the wrong part of it...
I CAN'T HELP THINKING WHEN I WATCHED THIS THE EPISODE FROM SOUTH PARK.Mr Garrison says "Thanks richard it s all so clear now! God is a flying Spaghetti monster!. this was amusing
Fuck Agnostic fence sitting motherfucks. Choose a fucking side. God is or isn't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will give you eternity with buxom wenches and cold beer.
thing is LOGICALLY it is EQUALLY as possible that there is a God, as aetheism, as that there is a Cthulu behind it all....in ego and pride people feel certain that all this is nonsense..but pure deductive logic means every possibility you can think up has an equal chance as the others...i was like the guy above all my life..but I woke up, we are in a Matrix of sorts.& the only hope (2012 social-economic breakdown, WWIII, created epidemics etc..by illuminati are on way!)is jesus.no joke..!
Actually allah doesn't promise anything, muslims don't know for sure they're going to heaven. Maybe you should do a little research on religion before you start informing others. Infact to this day muslims pray peace for mohammed b/c they don't know where he is. a muslims who knows the scriptures will admit this.
The logic works when you take it seriously. Just insert your best and most sincere conception of a God (or what you would honestly perceive to be God). I'm not religious, but there are some aspects of religion that I wouldn't bet against. To each his own, I guess.
Pascal's wager is fallacious. It assumes there is either ONE particular version of god or NO god at all; a blatantly false dichotomy. Even within Christianity alone, there are dozens of diverse variants of god and how he should be worshipped -- or not.
AND it assumes that this one particular God will be fooled if you simply believe out of fear based on that false dichotomy.
@muddhole777 Haha no, that isn't anywhere near making it a unique faith, anyone who studies multiple theologies can attest that Christianity is nothing but numerous ancient religions added into one.
@Herrkake Unless Krishna is the true god. Then we're both screwed, do you not understand how Pascal's Wager is completely irrational when considering other religions? Idiot Christian.
During my programming days, we had to invent something called Turbo Pascal's Wager. It involved many lines of code, and quite a few if() and for() statements.
Pascals wager is silly. It assumes 50/50, belief vs non belief. But its actually non belief vs unlimited versions of belief. A believer can lose out because they could be wrong not about if god exists, but which god. So you might go to heaven and Allah will punish you for not worshipping him, so could Odin or Zues. And if there really is a personal god who created an afterlife I think he will look more kindly on a non believer that lead a good life, than someone who believed to get a reward
"Pascals wager is silly. It assumes 50/50, belief vs non belief. But its actually non belief vs unlimited versions of belief. A believer can lose out because they could be wrong not about if god exists, but which god"
- no, it does indeed fail, but that isnt the reason; If i am 1 of 6 million people who enter into a lottery[pick a religion] do i have more or equal chance of winning[Heaven] to someone who doesnt buy a ticket[atheist] ?
Hughman, your comparison isn't perfect. In reality, there is something to lose, your time and effort in praying for something that has no merit in reality.
All religions can't be right, but they can all be wrong.
Why wuld u be a atheist? if theres no god you dont lose anything if your an christian but if your a atheist and god exist you go to HELL forever! idiot atheists.
@3Sciencenut but im not defending religion nor am i religious i just really didnt like this video, i cant exactly argue your point because i dont know what is waiting for me after i die but if you are a good person and follow laws and help people in need and there happens to be an afterlife (whatever religion) i would bet that you have a better chance of being rewarded than assuming there isnt and giving in to as pascal put it "poison pleasures" im probably missing something but
"because i dont know what is waiting for me after i die but if you are a good person and follow laws and help people in need and there happens to be an afterlife (whatever religion)..."
- why? probability-wise there is no basis for saying this scenario is anymore likely than a god who tells you to piss off and only lets the scumbags into heaven.
- your argument seems to be based on a combination of religious presupposition and what we humans (not gods) feel preferable. accurate?
@3Sciencenut then you would hopefully already have been visited by niblet who would give you a scooty puff sr. to take out the giant brain and his brain minions thus saving humanity (i hope you watch futurama or else this is a very unfunny response)
@bromordra but you still would have a chance a picking the correct one rather than shunning all religions would you not? not saying that you're wrong or pascal wager is correct just wasn't a fan of how this video explained his argument
@galats Ok, what if you get to the afterlife, and a giant brain meets you and says "Well, you believed a load of bullshit fairy tales. For being an idiot, you get to go to hell. Oh, Hi free-thinker! Yea, paradise is waiting, come on in."
..you didnt come close to proving it wrong or even make a argument for why it doesnt make sense. Pascals wager deals more with why you should obey laws and being a good person rather than going after "poisoned pleasures" and if there is a heaven you still would have a better chance getting into by accepting a single deity
@galats This is not quite true. For certain interpretations of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and Buddhism, there are certain special execptions for the 'righteous non-believer'. So your punishment in some of the religions is mitigated if you're a righteous non-believer. But if you settle on one single deity, then all the other religions look at you as a heathen, and you automatically get the worst possible punishment proscribed by that religion.
I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I'm pretty sure it would be a lot more fun hanging out in hell with the fun party people, than my old relatives in heaven.
Well maybe so, but I can show you a faith that separates itself from all other beliefs that ,1.) There is a savior, 2.) A God that claims to be alive and is the highest of them all, 3.) Died and the rose again from the dead, 4.) Is going to return to re-establish his throne on earth. No other "religions" make this claim, oh and did I mention we don't call our faith a "religion" it's a personal relationship with our God. You can add that as number 5 on the list.
what about god is a race of humans that evolve to a different body and are very advance in science and technology , we want to clone sheeps , but them are creating universes like us creating cities in video games for them we are like their fans is like when you hear a singer say -when im at stage i can feel the people energy- just imagine a whole planet of fans
@KaseyAkira Pascal's wager isn't about a belief in god. It's reacting in a way that may net a consequence better than none at all. Some Buddhists might believe dedicating your last minutes to meditation would result in better karma resulting in a more auspicious rebirth, better apt to achieving enlightenment or immediate realization. However if Buddhists are right, then you get another chance, so you would best convert to something else first, especially since some gods punish incorrect worship.
@Cherrygreensky What if atheism is the right way and there are God's that reward those who used skeptical reasoning during their life? That's yet another possibility to throw into the millions and millions all rewarding something.
@KaseyAkira That's my point actually. There are a number of ways you can make yourself worse off by believing in a particular faith if god is that picky, so you better really believe it, rather than making a bet based on a "no risk" outcome. If Atheists (as opposed to agnostics) are right there doesn't even need to be a reward, since there is no god and you've wasted your life in fruitless worship. Part of Pascal's replies involved putting effort into the faith so that you might come to believe.
I have a simple response I use to Pascal's wager...
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
That was 10% Pascal's Wager and 90% sarcasm. This is Pascal's Wager:
A Christian (C+) and non-believer (NB) die. If the C+ was right, (s)he will go to heaven while the NB doesn't. But, if Christianity is wrong and both die, the C+ will have still lead a fruitful life in the spatio-temporal realm while the NB didn't. Therefore, the NB accomplishes nothing in either scenarios while the C+ accomplishes at least one thing (even if wrong) .
@allfornot therefore, says Pascal, it is a better thing to go with the theory that has your best interest in mind - accomplishing something; which, for Pascal, was to at least believe in God so that you at least accomplish one thing if proven theistically false
@allfornot Pascal's wager is made moreso on the basis that there's noting for a nonbeliever to lose by converting to Christianity even if they're right e.g. if you flip a coin with a successful bet on heads leading to riches but a winning wager on tails leading to nothing, you'd better pick heads. Putting aside that the video's scenario may not really constitute belief if one picks a wrong religion when another monotheistic religion is correct, God might punish him for putting others before him.
@allfornot Let's say you had a good life as NB, that won't change anything, you can't remember your memories while you are dead if there is no god or you can't go back in time if there is no god
@Lunelitius What are you talking about? Why do you need to remember your memories? You're DEAD. Live this life to the fullest and enjoy it while you can. Because the only thing we know is that we have this one. It's a little selfish and greedy to want MORE after you were already given this life.
Pascal Wager is a way to get you interested. What if... Well you will never know if you don't experience it. I was a non-believer but I kept looking and one of the reasons I kept looking was this what if probability. Now believing is one thing, and living in grace is another. When you live in grace, when you are in God's wavelength, your life is transformed. You have to be in communion with God to be saved, believing is not enough. That's why you reject the pascal wager, you don't understand.
@dejesusluisx I believe we understand just well. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that tips one gods existance over another. Therefore in order to properly take pascals wager then one must believe in them all. This however would in direct defiance to every god as they all have a law that clearly states to believe in them and only them. That is why pascals wager cannot be taken seriously. What grace with god? Muslims achieve grace with a different god.
@mucura1 ""Muslims achieve grace with a different god" Is the same God, furthermore, all "gods" are just the product of different dogmas that humans create in trying to describe the one Divine Consciousness. Muslims can be saved, so can Hindus, Jews and Christians because the requisite for salvation is to live in God's Grace (or Gods wavelength). People haven't understood the message, and we keep worshiping the ideas and not adopting and living them.
@dejesusluisx Most Christians believe that you have to accept Jesus Christ to get to heaven. Buddhists don't believe in God and believe you must meditate to reach a higher plane. Hindus believe in several gods.
@Fablefiend Indeed, but they all have a method to connect with the divine consciousness. God is energy, and as all energy, you need to be in the same wavelength to unite with it. Your belief is not what connects you with the Divine Consciousness, is the changes in your consciousness plane, brought by meditation and prayer, which achieves this.
@Fablefiend ""So you basically think that everyone will go to heaven (or other eternal happiness), except for atheists/agnostics"" No, quite the contrary, most people, including believers, won't go; because most people don't understand the difference between loving and worshiping. Most people don't understand that Jesus is neither a prophet nor a God, He IS the message. Believers lost their way in materialism, selfishness, ego, competition, and wanting to be successful and wealthy.
@riaycock Wether could had invented the whole universe, it doesnt matter. pascal never add the thousands of religions and denominations in the equation, instead he says that there are only two options: a complete logical fallacy.
@cunnidvd they all believe in the same god without accepting jesus as his son. it's not ABOUTlogic it's a belief and you cannot call a belief illogical or else ou're being a hypocrite. I'm sorry but if having faith makes me "stupid" then so be i could give a rats ass where you go when you die and I'm sure you could care less about where you go as well, to me thats ILLOGICAL.
@briannacollins44 Believing something doesn't make it true or untrue. You may believe they all worship the same god, other christians do not. Hindus believe in multiple gods and Buddhist don't believe there's a god so how is your statement even logical. Yes I do think it's normal to wonder and care about what happens after death, but truth is important. All evidence points to nothing happening thus far. Your faith may override the evidence but again believing something doesn't make it so.
@PeacefulAtheist1 i agree with most of your points, I was just trying to defend my faith so my reasons may seem not reasonable but i just don't understand why are you so concerned with being right that you're willing to believe nothing, and risk hell?
@briannacollins44 First of, I don't believe "nothing". I believe in love, friendship, hope, mercy, willpower, perseverance, trust, etc. I also happen to believe in honesty, and as an honest person I can not say I "know" there was a satanically possessed talking snake who convinced a woman made from a rib to eat a piece of fruit thus explaining why there's evil in the world. I also can't choose to believe this either because there's too much evidence against it and nothing in favor of it.
@briannacollins44 Living for all eternity is a form of immortality, which is selfish. It doesn't matter what happens to me when I die, because it's not about me, it's about something greater. It's about giving back as much as I can while I exist to help ensure that humans, all creatures big and small, or at minimum, life as a whole in some shape or form continues; so that when I'm gone, those whom come after me can take their turn to experience how wondrous it is to exist.
What, your response was not an argument, it was a name. How is that supposed to explain anything? What is thoughtful about merely putting forth a name without attempting to address the point of the video. I stand by my initial response to your comment.
@brajamtho757 you put forth an opinion that served no purpose other than letting me know that you thought my response was thoughtless, like you are some expert, when your comment was pointless what exactly was your point telling me that? just so you could respond? or so I could defend my comment, it was clearly antagonizing me initiating an argument.
Is is not true that your initial comment also initiates an argument with the author of the video? Does your comment provide a path of reasoning that demonstrates a flaw in the author's argument?
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.
After reading through some of the comments I just can't understand why some people don't get the point of this video I mean if someone has to point out that this video is showing why pascals wager doesn't work i've lost hope -_-
@xcolompapi Perhaps but there are so many religions that anyone could be wrong and go to some hell not just atheists, therefore is irrational : how could you know which religion is the right one, or if any of them are right?
What an absolutely ridiculous explanation! You did not disprove nor discredit Pascal's wager. All you did was establish the variety of beliefs, but did not prove God doesn't exist. Basic "cause and effect" explains it. "doodling" doesn't write a dictionary by chance. A painting needs a painter. Who's the painter? You never proved the "painter" doesn't exist. All you did is say: The painter is black/white/yellow/hispanic. You have 2 research all religions to find that thru history and teaching
@xcolompapi He wasn't disproving god, such a feat would require knowledge of everything, which no one could possibly obtain. What he was doing was pointing out just how illogical the Pascal's wager argument is, because anytime someone presents you with a god and says your safer to believe in it, just in case, the truth is that you still only have a 1/1000(Random large number, may be more, may be less.) chance of being right.
I like the video! Everybody should check out the video 'Heaven and Hell' on my page. It's a black sabbath remake about a man that goes to heaven meets god, only to realize he's been worshiping the wrong god his entire life.
Hilarious. You're arguing that one of the guys who developed the science of odds and logic didn't know what logic was. Who the hell are you?
That's okay, I understand. Like most youngsters you're parroting what you've been told and people you admire. You're a sad product of a fat and lazy culture but you have many years to gain wisdom.
Next time how about actually reading Pascal's Pensees and confronting his thoughts honestly? They really are beyond summary in a cartoon.
I always thought pascal's wager was an argument for agnosticism. I think atheism is too extreme. To say there is no God with 100% confidence is too drastic, likewise a 100% belief in a god. I prefer to believe that its very unlikely there is a god but I won't say I'm absolutely certain bc that would be ridiculous
@twisto You don't need absolute certainty to be an atheist. Atheism is just a response to the claim of theist... nothing more. The fact that theist have not proven that god exist, is enough reason for me to believe that he doesn't. However, it is possible that some sort of god exists, but until it is proven that he exists, I will not believe in him.
@loro1rojo from ur reasoning, i would think that would make u an agnostic, not an atheist. This might just be semantics or technicality of the terms. In my understanding, Atheists wouldn't believe there's no god even if you present them with evidence there is no god. likewise, atheists wouldn't believe there was a god even if provided there was evidence of a god. Agnostics are that there may or may not be a god, we don't know, and until we know, i'm going to be in middle until we have evidence
@twisto Atheism is the rejection of theist claims. I think that most atheist would believe in a god if enough proof could be provided to prove his existence. I think you are confused about terms. Agnosticism is the position that whether god exists or not is unknowable. Thus, there can be agnostic atheist and agnostic Christians. I however, believe that the existence of the god of the Bible is knowable... thus I'm not agnostic. Atheist don't need proof that god doesn't exist.
@loro1rojo maybe i am confused about the terms. Specifically about the God in the bible(s) (though i haven't read different versions), i agree the God of the bible is knowable. although i still think Atheist and Theists are faith bounded as atheism is the belief that there is no god. Atheism isn't the rejection of theist's claim, though it's thought to be bc the proof there isn't a god is the proof there is a god is invalid
@twisto Atheism is not a faith based belief. For example, I'm sure that you don't believe in gargoyles, and you belief is logical. Gargoyles haven't been proven to exist, so it would be logical for someone to not believe they exist. Thus, not believing in gargoyles is not a faith based position... it is simply a response to the claim that gargoyles exist. You don't need prove that gargoyles do not exist to not believe in them. The lack of their existence makes nonbelief a rational position.
@twisto No.. atheism requires to faith. Let me put it this way, if I claim that I'm holding $100million right now on my right hand, do you believe me? You probably would not. You not believing that I'm holding $100million on my right hand is a rejection of the claim, and by you not believing me, you are not automatically saying that I do not have $100million. Since I haven't proven that I have this money on my hand, you are ok to not believe the claim that I am holding the money.
@loro1rojo You are making the claim, you have burden of proof. no proof: no rational belief in the claim. So I could easily be agnostic about the claim until you proof it to me. Being total and absolute atheist regarding religion requires knowledge about non existence of deity and hence is illogical stance since we have no proof either way. It's foolish tough to claim that "no proof" means existence of a deity in anyway. It simply means no proof.
@loro1rojo You are making the claim, you have burden of proof. no proof: no rational belief in the claim. So I could easily be agnostic about the claim until you proof it to me. Being total and absolute atheist regarding religion requires knowledge about non existence of deity and hence is illogical stance since we have no proof either way. It's foolish tough to claim that "no proof" means existence of a deity in anyway. It simply means no proof.
@loro1rojo Atheism requires faith bc it works absolutes. If we talk using probability, u get into agnosticism. u would probably believe me if i said i have $2, bc its likely to be true. If for some reason i can't show you it, but u know it's very likely that i do have $2. u probably wouldn't bet i have $2. But as an atheist, w/o proof u don't believe me. And it's ok that you don't but it's unreasonable to say i don't have that $2. I think all arguments for atheism are actually for agnosticism.
@loro1rojo faith is w/o reason. Once u look at the reasonableness of something happening, it's no longer faith. For example, aliens. I'm guessing u never seen one before. But the probability that there are Aliens (living things on other planets) is very high. If we apply the atheist and theist on this they would both have an absolute and require faith. I don't want to give the wrong impression, i do think atheist are right in thinking there is no god, but i think so on the grounds of probability
@twisto Ok.. I really don't know how else to explain it. Atheist are simply rejecting theist claims, and are not making an absolute claim. If you don't get the examples I posted before... idk what else to say. Just research what atheism is. My gut is telling me that you have preconceived notions of atheism which you have a hard time getting rid off.
So... from this video, all I managed to understand, other than you have a fetish for spaghetti, is that you won't accept any kind of religion because there are so many choices. Well, I hope you never have to experience the excrutiating torment of having to go to a buffet restaurant.
He was actually arguing against the use of Pascal's wager to convert a follower to one belief because the wager can be used for any belief and is thusly invalidated.
you have convinced me. Whenever I have a child, I shall baptize my child with marinara sauce. Then on weekends, I shall celebrate the great Lord Cthulhu with calamari flavored crackers and beer. ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
yeah man----i always thought that it was better to stay up all night with a rifle waiting for the boogey man to attack----rather than be unprepared.....
@SkitlerRemix One is an atheist because they don't have any theistic beliefs. Being an atheist says nothing about what a person DOES believe, only what they DON'T.
@Pinage Look at the Hindu, he does not have a set of theistic beliefs and yet he is not categorised as atheistic simply because he has polytheistic ideas. Actually Atheists have a wide variety of beliefs which try to answer the great questions in Life, as every Religion does. Where are go after we die, they believe, nowhere. Or is there a God, No says the atheist and what about the Meaning in life? Atheists state very clearly that there is no Objective Meaning in life. These are indeed beliefs.
@SkitlerRemix Hindu's are polytheistic, not atheistic. Atheist's have beliefs ranging quite literally from one side of the board to the other. Their atheism addresses one issue upon which they agree - that they do not believe in a God/s. They may have very different ideas as to the meaning of life or life's objective meaning.
@Pinage Yes they do have a certain core issue that is established as Dogma, and you are right to say that it is; their is no God. But be on your guard for fake Atheists, or Agnostics. They tend to hide under the guise of Atheism but dont be fooled, they always try to ride the Fence. Once you pass the clever obstacles of their so called original views you will find that they are all directed to a selfish meaningless View of life. There is nothing new under the Sun. Just Truth and falsehood.
@SkitlerRemix I'm not sure not believing in God constitutes as dogma. Though there are some atheists who do believe that there is no God and that may be considered to be a positive claim, most simply reject the claims made by theists. Either way there is no dogma involved.
@Pinage Dont spit your poison this way. A-theist means No God. That means if you want to join ranks in the Athiest army you must denounce all claims of a God. If one just believes in an ounce of some from of a Life Force, then you cease to be an Atheist. This is the Atheists Dogma. And There is nothing wrong with a system of principles that answers Lifes questions. We all have a World view, even if it is a view that you have no World view, that is still a View. What matters is if it is True.
@SkitlerRemix If atheism is a dogma, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. I have no more to say other than to recommend that you broaden your perspective by socialising with some atheists.
@Pinage Why is Dogma something derogatory? Id think that it would help strengthen and enforce a specific Idea or Philosophy. But maybe the reason Dogma and anything Objective is detested and abhorred nowadays, is because Science doesnt have the Privilege to make a Dogma about anything.If you want to truly know Science then Remember that Science can not prove anything.
I will take your advice. Atheists arent few these days, it should be easy to find some, I will just go to a University
@Pinage The Scientific Method says it. Many theorys in Science change or have been proven false, it is not a law like gravity or morality. Science means, The Love of Knowledge. This love explains the How things work a certain way. Many things about the natural universe have been discovered through Science but Science says nothing about the Metaphysical realm, which is just as real as the Natural realm. It cannot tell what is in a persons minds or if somebody is in love, or is we have a Soul.
@SkitlerRemix If the 'metaphysical realm' has any affect on the natural world then the scientific method, as a method of investigation can test it. If not, then the metaphysical can in no sense be considered to be "as real as the natural realm". Incidentally, science can explain the human mind and can explain love.
@Pinage How can the Scientific Method prove what it cannot test or see. It can not. The Super natural Realm is like God, in that it Transcends all things visible and invisible, all nature all mater all time, space and substance. How can a Supernatural Realm be limited to the laws of a material Universe or let alone a man made Method. But this does not mean we should or even can doubt that such a world exists. The path to this realm lies deep in every mans Soul, for our Soul is a part of it.
@SkitlerRemix Like I said, if the supernatural interacts with the natural in any way, shape or form, then it can be tested. Many people can and are very well justified in doubting the existence of the supernatural due the glaring lack of evidence for its existence. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that it does exist, such as yourself.
@Pinage Firstly, here are some Interactions with life after death. The experience of medically dead patients, all are utterly convinced of the truth of their 'out-of-the-body' existence and their survival of bodily death. Shortly after a loved one dies the survivor has a sudden, convincing sense of the real presence of the dead one. It is utterly convincing to the experiencer. But the most certain assurance of life after death, for Christians, is the historical, literal resurrection of Christ.
cthulhu you so crazy!
emailtheoldies 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Refuting Pascal's Wager (PW)--SparkNotes version:
1) Can people *choose* to believe? They can choose to *act* as though they believe, but wouldn't an omniscient deity see through that?
2) PW assumes there's only one possible "god"/religion to believe in--but mankind has worshipped many 1000s. How can you know that *yours* is the right/only one?
3) It's hardly true that "nothing's lost" in believing: time, money, FREEDOM are lost.
4) PW relies on *fear of pain*--a poor ad for a "loving god"!
lease2coach1 1 week ago
@ShawMaverick you don't need to believe in god to live life as a good person.
DonMezzo 2 weeks ago
Chance that there is an after life = x
Number of human beliefs = y
Amount of life wasted deciding what to believe = a
Amount of life wasted fulfilling religious laws/tasks = b
Is x/y > or < a+b for you?
SmokexFFx 2 weeks ago
@SmokexFFx this is the best thing about atheists by far---the notion that you can "waste time." If existence itself is meaningless (which it is if nothing comes afterward, because you and everything you have done will eventually be forgotten) and random then what exactly are you wasting???
I am not a fan of religion...I think pascal's wager is BS...but come on atheists-"wasting time" or "wasting your life"...this isn't even consistent with your own doctrine. ><
Monkian1234 2 weeks ago
@Monkian1234 Doctrine? I believe you are confusing atheism with nihilism, good sir.
And perhaps the following went over your head, but when this the only life we have, I'd say spending your limited time on stupid bullshit classifies as "wasting time".
Sharagran 2 days ago
@SmokexFFx To clarify further....it's not like after you die you will have regrets or anything...because you won't exist.
Monkian1234 2 weeks ago
you sound like chattiestspike
MagikarpPower 3 weeks ago
Pascal's Gambit is a wager taken from Game Theory. A What If scenario. Like taking a chance at promiscuity or engaging unprotected sex. You may not know if the partner has a VD. But just in case, assume they do and lead your sex life accordingly. Basically—make low risk decisions with ANY/ALL intel you have gathered to assure safety through life AND death. The sooner you begin to live a life filled with faithful, good choices the sooner it will develop into a genuine lifestyle.
ShawMaverick 1 month ago
Awesome!
Avensadora 1 month ago
well have you died?
X3BOOODYX2012 1 month ago
This video wasted 6:29 of my life which I will never get back.
BT3701 1 month ago
@BT3701 No, actually you waste one hour of your live every sunday, wich you'll never get back.
ImBetterthenGod123 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from AHughman08
@ImBetterthenGod123 Time spent with God is never a waste of time.
BT3701 3 weeks ago
@BT3701
OK, just don't come screaming to me when ALLAH turns out to be the one true God and burns your flesh off over and over again for eternity.
DocReasonable 3 weeks ago
@BT3701 Either you already knew how Pascal's wager is a joke, or you are too dumb to realize its BS. Well?
m0ose0909 3 weeks ago
@m0ose0909 Are you really that irrational and incapable of using your brain. This is not a joke, it's a fact - If the Christian God does exist, then those who refuse to believe in Him have everything to loose.
BT3701 3 weeks ago
wat religion was the pirate?
chrischris180 1 month ago
@chrischris180 Pastafarianism! Duh! ... =)
... (google it!)
MrLittletomdj 1 month ago
they wouldnt have enough time to debate religion when the planes going down and the concusion from the blast would kill him
chrischris180 1 month ago
@chrischris180 .... it's just a story... the plane crash is just supposed to provide a setting. You are looking way to deeply into the wrong part of it...
m0ose0909 3 weeks ago
Your Cttulhu depiction (drawing) is great! I loved it!
Knr911 1 month ago in playlist Toons
If there really was a god who created the universe I doubt they'd care whether people worshipped them or not...
zeldja 1 month ago
thats it ALL HAIL THE DENIZENS OF R'LYETH AND THE ELDER GODS!!!!!HAIL!
SPORE11165 1 month ago
I CAN'T HELP THINKING WHEN I WATCHED THIS THE EPISODE FROM SOUTH PARK.Mr Garrison says "Thanks richard it s all so clear now! God is a flying Spaghetti monster!. this was amusing
casablanca4381 1 month ago
HAIL SAUCE!! FULLOF BEEF!! R'men. For you non-believers, go eat a crab infested whore cunt in the Freezer of Doom.
TheCrimsonification 2 months ago
Fuck Agnostic fence sitting motherfucks. Choose a fucking side. God is or isn't. The Flying Spaghetti Monster will give you eternity with buxom wenches and cold beer.
TheCrimsonification 2 months ago
I`d go with the beer volcano and stripper factory.
brandonlace 2 months ago
YES ALL HAIL CTHULHU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
garganrose 2 months ago
thing is LOGICALLY it is EQUALLY as possible that there is a God, as aetheism, as that there is a Cthulu behind it all....in ego and pride people feel certain that all this is nonsense..but pure deductive logic means every possibility you can think up has an equal chance as the others...i was like the guy above all my life..but I woke up, we are in a Matrix of sorts.& the only hope (2012 social-economic breakdown, WWIII, created epidemics etc..by illuminati are on way!)is jesus.no joke..!
vincent4500 2 months ago
@vincent4500 hey i'm just a fan of H.P. Lovecraft.
garganrose 2 months ago
@vincent4500 No, dude. You wanna go with the Scientologists. They have space DC9s.
meaninter03 2 months ago
Actually allah doesn't promise anything, muslims don't know for sure they're going to heaven. Maybe you should do a little research on religion before you start informing others. Infact to this day muslims pray peace for mohammed b/c they don't know where he is. a muslims who knows the scriptures will admit this.
auditorization 2 months ago
The logic works when you take it seriously. Just insert your best and most sincere conception of a God (or what you would honestly perceive to be God). I'm not religious, but there are some aspects of religion that I wouldn't bet against. To each his own, I guess.
eskayp101 2 months ago
Don't say bad things abt the FSM! He's the only true God! lol
AkasakaS2000 2 months ago
Lol I love the soft focus on the toons during the touching piano-speech moments. :)
TheViciousSquare 2 months ago
Great video! I can't wait to delve into your video archive. Looks like a lot of great stuff.
Manifestatheist 2 months ago
"Yeeeessssss"
blightcraftgamma 3 months ago
Pascal's wager is fallacious. It assumes there is either ONE particular version of god or NO god at all; a blatantly false dichotomy. Even within Christianity alone, there are dozens of diverse variants of god and how he should be worshipped -- or not.
AND it assumes that this one particular God will be fooled if you simply believe out of fear based on that false dichotomy.
DocReasonable 3 months ago 18
@DocReasonable thanks captain obvious, not sure we could have gotten the message of the video without you
deathman1021 2 months ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 2 months ago
@DocReasonable
Exactly ...
Katalyzt 3 weeks ago
Niiiceeee!!!! You really helped me knock off a couple philosophy questions :D
dancerxx15 3 months ago
@muddhole777 Haha no, that isn't anywhere near making it a unique faith, anyone who studies multiple theologies can attest that Christianity is nothing but numerous ancient religions added into one.
pat5168 3 months ago
@Herrkake Unless Krishna is the true god. Then we're both screwed, do you not understand how Pascal's Wager is completely irrational when considering other religions? Idiot Christian.
pat5168 3 months ago
During my programming days, we had to invent something called Turbo Pascal's Wager. It involved many lines of code, and quite a few if() and for() statements.
SamonMarquis 3 months ago
Pascals wager is silly. It assumes 50/50, belief vs non belief. But its actually non belief vs unlimited versions of belief. A believer can lose out because they could be wrong not about if god exists, but which god. So you might go to heaven and Allah will punish you for not worshipping him, so could Odin or Zues. And if there really is a personal god who created an afterlife I think he will look more kindly on a non believer that lead a good life, than someone who believed to get a reward
moroney1 3 months ago
@moroney1
"Pascals wager is silly. It assumes 50/50, belief vs non belief. But its actually non belief vs unlimited versions of belief. A believer can lose out because they could be wrong not about if god exists, but which god"
- no, it does indeed fail, but that isnt the reason; If i am 1 of 6 million people who enter into a lottery[pick a religion] do i have more or equal chance of winning[Heaven] to someone who doesnt buy a ticket[atheist] ?
types10000 3 months ago
@moroney1
- it fails because if there is no god then you lose time (which would be a very precious thing given this is your only life)
- it fails because you cannot arbitrarily decide to truly beleive something simply because it increases your chances of 'winning'
- it fails because there is no more basis for saying there is a god who rewards belief than there is a god who punishes it.
The last of those is probably the most important as it speaks to the core of the probability argument.
types10000 3 months ago
@types10000 Lol, I think you should spend your time commenting to people who still thi nk its a good argument lol
moroney1 3 months ago
Hughman, your comparison isn't perfect. In reality, there is something to lose, your time and effort in praying for something that has no merit in reality.
All religions can't be right, but they can all be wrong.
Nice video.
YetAnotherInfidel 3 months ago
so there were two Muslims on that plane?
viridismonasteriense 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why wuld u be a atheist? if theres no god you dont lose anything if your an christian but if your a atheist and god exist you go to HELL forever! idiot atheists.
Herrkake 3 months ago
@3Sciencenut but im not defending religion nor am i religious i just really didnt like this video, i cant exactly argue your point because i dont know what is waiting for me after i die but if you are a good person and follow laws and help people in need and there happens to be an afterlife (whatever religion) i would bet that you have a better chance of being rewarded than assuming there isnt and giving in to as pascal put it "poison pleasures" im probably missing something but
galats 3 months ago
@galats
"because i dont know what is waiting for me after i die but if you are a good person and follow laws and help people in need and there happens to be an afterlife (whatever religion)..."
- why? probability-wise there is no basis for saying this scenario is anymore likely than a god who tells you to piss off and only lets the scumbags into heaven.
- your argument seems to be based on a combination of religious presupposition and what we humans (not gods) feel preferable. accurate?
types10000 3 months ago
@3Sciencenut then you would hopefully already have been visited by niblet who would give you a scooty puff sr. to take out the giant brain and his brain minions thus saving humanity (i hope you watch futurama or else this is a very unfunny response)
galats 3 months ago
@bromordra but you still would have a chance a picking the correct one rather than shunning all religions would you not? not saying that you're wrong or pascal wager is correct just wasn't a fan of how this video explained his argument
galats 3 months ago
@galats Ok, what if you get to the afterlife, and a giant brain meets you and says "Well, you believed a load of bullshit fairy tales. For being an idiot, you get to go to hell. Oh, Hi free-thinker! Yea, paradise is waiting, come on in."
Not saying it's true, just saying what if?
3Sciencenut 3 months ago
most thinking people won't waste time discussing Pascal's wager as it is too stupid.
housesoccer 4 months ago
..you didnt come close to proving it wrong or even make a argument for why it doesnt make sense. Pascals wager deals more with why you should obey laws and being a good person rather than going after "poisoned pleasures" and if there is a heaven you still would have a better chance getting into by accepting a single deity
galats 4 months ago
@galats
A single Deity huh?
And just which ONE out of the THOUSANDS of Deities do you propose?
You obviously missed the whole point of the vid.
Urfullobull 3 months ago
@galats This is not quite true. For certain interpretations of Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, and Buddhism, there are certain special execptions for the 'righteous non-believer'. So your punishment in some of the religions is mitigated if you're a righteous non-believer. But if you settle on one single deity, then all the other religions look at you as a heathen, and you automatically get the worst possible punishment proscribed by that religion.
So atheists win expanded pascals wager.
bromordra 3 months ago
I don't believe in heaven or hell, but I'm pretty sure it would be a lot more fun hanging out in hell with the fun party people, than my old relatives in heaven.
nancy6ify 4 months ago
Well maybe so, but I can show you a faith that separates itself from all other beliefs that ,1.) There is a savior, 2.) A God that claims to be alive and is the highest of them all, 3.) Died and the rose again from the dead, 4.) Is going to return to re-establish his throne on earth. No other "religions" make this claim, oh and did I mention we don't call our faith a "religion" it's a personal relationship with our God. You can add that as number 5 on the list.
muddhole777 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
provetome,wordpress,com (replace commas with dots)
here you can see why pascals wager is against theists.
Xolfcfan 4 months ago
Comment removed
Xolfcfan 4 months ago
What exactly is a "youtube athiest"?
guypursin 4 months ago
@guypursin so u don't believe in youtube??? You heathen!!! >__<
guypursin 4 months ago
what about god is a race of humans that evolve to a different body and are very advance in science and technology , we want to clone sheeps , but them are creating universes like us creating cities in video games for them we are like their fans is like when you hear a singer say -when im at stage i can feel the people energy- just imagine a whole planet of fans
peaceman19752006 5 months ago
@peaceman19752006 would you really call them god and worship them then?
aierce 4 months ago
We need multiple universes, where they are all right, in their own universe!
rpcarnell 5 months ago
Comment removed
guypursin 4 months ago
@KaseyAkira Pascal's wager isn't about a belief in god. It's reacting in a way that may net a consequence better than none at all. Some Buddhists might believe dedicating your last minutes to meditation would result in better karma resulting in a more auspicious rebirth, better apt to achieving enlightenment or immediate realization. However if Buddhists are right, then you get another chance, so you would best convert to something else first, especially since some gods punish incorrect worship.
Cherrygreensky 5 months ago
@Cherrygreensky What if atheism is the right way and there are God's that reward those who used skeptical reasoning during their life? That's yet another possibility to throw into the millions and millions all rewarding something.
KaseyAkira 5 months ago 29
@KaseyAkira That's my point actually. There are a number of ways you can make yourself worse off by believing in a particular faith if god is that picky, so you better really believe it, rather than making a bet based on a "no risk" outcome. If Atheists (as opposed to agnostics) are right there doesn't even need to be a reward, since there is no god and you've wasted your life in fruitless worship. Part of Pascal's replies involved putting effort into the faith so that you might come to believe.
Cherrygreensky 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KaseyAkira
I have a simple response I use to Pascal's wager...
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." -Thomas Jefferson
whiteowl1415 2 months ago
@KaseyAkira That was my best explanation for the religion too.
smellymyfingers 2 months ago
That was 10% Pascal's Wager and 90% sarcasm. This is Pascal's Wager:
A Christian (C+) and non-believer (NB) die. If the C+ was right, (s)he will go to heaven while the NB doesn't. But, if Christianity is wrong and both die, the C+ will have still lead a fruitful life in the spatio-temporal realm while the NB didn't. Therefore, the NB accomplishes nothing in either scenarios while the C+ accomplishes at least one thing (even if wrong) .
This theory fails as an NB can lead a moral life.
allfornot 5 months ago
Comment removed
allfornot 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@allfornot therefore, says Pascal, it is a better thing to go with the theory that has your best interest in mind - accomplishing something; which, for Pascal, was to at least believe in God so that you at least accomplish one thing if proven theistically false
allfornot 5 months ago
@allfornot Pascal's wager is made moreso on the basis that there's noting for a nonbeliever to lose by converting to Christianity even if they're right e.g. if you flip a coin with a successful bet on heads leading to riches but a winning wager on tails leading to nothing, you'd better pick heads. Putting aside that the video's scenario may not really constitute belief if one picks a wrong religion when another monotheistic religion is correct, God might punish him for putting others before him.
Cherrygreensky 5 months ago
@allfornot
a normal life that isnt bases on fairytale
november1ish 4 months ago
@allfornot Let's say you had a good life as NB, that won't change anything, you can't remember your memories while you are dead if there is no god or you can't go back in time if there is no god
Lunelitius 4 months ago
@Lunelitius What are you talking about? Why do you need to remember your memories? You're DEAD. Live this life to the fullest and enjoy it while you can. Because the only thing we know is that we have this one. It's a little selfish and greedy to want MORE after you were already given this life.
KingWithoutaCause 4 months ago
has somebody here read Pascal's Pensees before commenting on the argument?
(No, I don't)
marteco 5 months ago
Cthulu sounds like God to me. I'd go with the Buddhist since you technically don't have to follow it.
roxyosox122 5 months ago
You forgot to mention the time you waste on praying, listening to priests and all that jazz.
Nizzemancer 5 months ago
that was the best "yessss" animation I have ever seen! ahah!! hilarious!
miiwiiplay 5 months ago
Pascal Wager is a way to get you interested. What if... Well you will never know if you don't experience it. I was a non-believer but I kept looking and one of the reasons I kept looking was this what if probability. Now believing is one thing, and living in grace is another. When you live in grace, when you are in God's wavelength, your life is transformed. You have to be in communion with God to be saved, believing is not enough. That's why you reject the pascal wager, you don't understand.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx I believe we understand just well. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that tips one gods existance over another. Therefore in order to properly take pascals wager then one must believe in them all. This however would in direct defiance to every god as they all have a law that clearly states to believe in them and only them. That is why pascals wager cannot be taken seriously. What grace with god? Muslims achieve grace with a different god.
mucura1 6 months ago
@mucura1 ""Muslims achieve grace with a different god" Is the same God, furthermore, all "gods" are just the product of different dogmas that humans create in trying to describe the one Divine Consciousness. Muslims can be saved, so can Hindus, Jews and Christians because the requisite for salvation is to live in God's Grace (or Gods wavelength). People haven't understood the message, and we keep worshiping the ideas and not adopting and living them.
dejesusluisx 6 months ago
@dejesusluisx Most Christians believe that you have to accept Jesus Christ to get to heaven. Buddhists don't believe in God and believe you must meditate to reach a higher plane. Hindus believe in several gods.
Fablefiend 5 months ago
@Fablefiend Indeed, but they all have a method to connect with the divine consciousness. God is energy, and as all energy, you need to be in the same wavelength to unite with it. Your belief is not what connects you with the Divine Consciousness, is the changes in your consciousness plane, brought by meditation and prayer, which achieves this.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
@dejesusluisx So you basically think that everyone will go to heaven (or other eternal happiness), except for atheists/agnostics?
Fablefiend 5 months ago
@Fablefiend ""So you basically think that everyone will go to heaven (or other eternal happiness), except for atheists/agnostics"" No, quite the contrary, most people, including believers, won't go; because most people don't understand the difference between loving and worshiping. Most people don't understand that Jesus is neither a prophet nor a God, He IS the message. Believers lost their way in materialism, selfishness, ego, competition, and wanting to be successful and wealthy.
dejesusluisx 5 months ago
lol'd so hard at 5:17
DamienZshadow 6 months ago
@KuroNajja what's even scarier is no matter how monotonous heaven gets, you will STILL enjoy it. not very well thought out is it?
viking977 6 months ago
c'thulu: trololololol
viking977 6 months ago
@riaycock Wether could had invented the whole universe, it doesnt matter. pascal never add the thousands of religions and denominations in the equation, instead he says that there are only two options: a complete logical fallacy.
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
@cunnindvd Sorry I thought you were talking about the video ( Damn am stupid!)
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
@cunnidvd No he dont it is perfectly logical
pochopaz7381 6 months ago
CTHULU!! I KNEW IT!!!!
DoctorNociceptor 6 months ago
Wow. You really need a lesson in logic.
cunnidvd 6 months ago
@cunnidvd they all believe in the same god without accepting jesus as his son. it's not ABOUTlogic it's a belief and you cannot call a belief illogical or else ou're being a hypocrite. I'm sorry but if having faith makes me "stupid" then so be i could give a rats ass where you go when you die and I'm sure you could care less about where you go as well, to me thats ILLOGICAL.
briannacollins44 6 months ago
@briannacollins44 Believing something doesn't make it true or untrue. You may believe they all worship the same god, other christians do not. Hindus believe in multiple gods and Buddhist don't believe there's a god so how is your statement even logical. Yes I do think it's normal to wonder and care about what happens after death, but truth is important. All evidence points to nothing happening thus far. Your faith may override the evidence but again believing something doesn't make it so.
PeacefulAtheist1 6 months ago
@PeacefulAtheist1 i agree with most of your points, I was just trying to defend my faith so my reasons may seem not reasonable but i just don't understand why are you so concerned with being right that you're willing to believe nothing, and risk hell?
briannacollins44 6 months ago
@briannacollins44 First of, I don't believe "nothing". I believe in love, friendship, hope, mercy, willpower, perseverance, trust, etc. I also happen to believe in honesty, and as an honest person I can not say I "know" there was a satanically possessed talking snake who convinced a woman made from a rib to eat a piece of fruit thus explaining why there's evil in the world. I also can't choose to believe this either because there's too much evidence against it and nothing in favor of it.
PeacefulAtheist1 6 months ago
@PeacefulAtheist1 So if I am to burn for living a kind and honest life, so be it.
PeacefulAtheist1 6 months ago
@briannacollins44 Living for all eternity is a form of immortality, which is selfish. It doesn't matter what happens to me when I die, because it's not about me, it's about something greater. It's about giving back as much as I can while I exist to help ensure that humans, all creatures big and small, or at minimum, life as a whole in some shape or form continues; so that when I'm gone, those whom come after me can take their turn to experience how wondrous it is to exist.
PeacefulAtheist1 6 months ago
@PeacefulAtheist1 oh so your faith is unselfish and is targeted to make a better world? gotcha.
briannacollins44 6 months ago
one difference. JESUS CHRIST
briannacollins44 6 months ago
@briannacollins44
What a thoughtless response.
brajamtho757 6 months ago
@brajamtho757 you can call it thoughtless, yet you provide no support. what a thoughtless opposition.
briannacollins44 6 months ago
@briannacollins44
What, your response was not an argument, it was a name. How is that supposed to explain anything? What is thoughtful about merely putting forth a name without attempting to address the point of the video. I stand by my initial response to your comment.
brajamtho757 6 months ago
@brajamtho757 you put forth an opinion that served no purpose other than letting me know that you thought my response was thoughtless, like you are some expert, when your comment was pointless what exactly was your point telling me that? just so you could respond? or so I could defend my comment, it was clearly antagonizing me initiating an argument.
briannacollins44 6 months ago
@briannacollins44
Ok, I apologize for expressing myself rudely.
Is is not true that your initial comment also initiates an argument with the author of the video? Does your comment provide a path of reasoning that demonstrates a flaw in the author's argument?
brajamtho757 6 months ago
@briannacollins44 what difference is that? that just adds to the fallacy of the wager
mattakudesu 6 months ago
that was as bad as thay get i think u stoped growing at 3.y.a.f.o.s
cannon0286 6 months ago
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.
Strangerinasland 7 months ago
Pascalls revised wager ... all your religions or a parachute ... make your choice.
bustermk2 7 months ago
4:28 If I was in the situation of Alfy, I would just notice the parachute in the back, take it, and jump out.
MethanolCH3OH 7 months ago
Pascal's wager isn't logic it is a threat. Believe or God will fuck you up!
adam3251 7 months ago 26
@adam3251 Thats just anything dealing with dem damn christ people!
FalseProphet501 6 months ago
@FalseProphet501 I disagree. Most are good, well meaning people. In spite of their delusions the do the best they can.
adam3251 6 months ago
@adam3251 "Belive what i say or ill hurt you"
FalseProphet501 6 months ago
lmao Alby...nice
peppermint23 7 months ago
After reading through some of the comments I just can't understand why some people don't get the point of this video I mean if someone has to point out that this video is showing why pascals wager doesn't work i've lost hope -_-
9CrystalDragon2 7 months ago
Excellent video :D Really good :) Thanks!
uplinks70 7 months ago
@xcolompapi Perhaps but there are so many religions that anyone could be wrong and go to some hell not just atheists, therefore is irrational : how could you know which religion is the right one, or if any of them are right?
pochopaz7381 7 months ago
@xcolompapi Perhaps but there are so many religions that anyone could be wrong and go to some hell not just atheists, therefore is irrational
pochopaz7381 7 months ago
Just like that, crazy assed fundie vaporizes first class...made my day
Kinesys11 7 months ago
What an absolutely ridiculous explanation! You did not disprove nor discredit Pascal's wager. All you did was establish the variety of beliefs, but did not prove God doesn't exist. Basic "cause and effect" explains it. "doodling" doesn't write a dictionary by chance. A painting needs a painter. Who's the painter? You never proved the "painter" doesn't exist. All you did is say: The painter is black/white/yellow/hispanic. You have 2 research all religions to find that thru history and teaching
xcolompapi 7 months ago
@xcolompapi He wasn't disproving god, such a feat would require knowledge of everything, which no one could possibly obtain. What he was doing was pointing out just how illogical the Pascal's wager argument is, because anytime someone presents you with a god and says your safer to believe in it, just in case, the truth is that you still only have a 1/1000(Random large number, may be more, may be less.) chance of being right.
Seraph821 7 months ago
I like the video! Everybody should check out the video 'Heaven and Hell' on my page. It's a black sabbath remake about a man that goes to heaven meets god, only to realize he's been worshiping the wrong god his entire life.
syqnys 7 months ago
Hilarious. You're arguing that one of the guys who developed the science of odds and logic didn't know what logic was. Who the hell are you?
That's okay, I understand. Like most youngsters you're parroting what you've been told and people you admire. You're a sad product of a fat and lazy culture but you have many years to gain wisdom.
Next time how about actually reading Pascal's Pensees and confronting his thoughts honestly? They really are beyond summary in a cartoon.
rlaycock 7 months ago
I always thought pascal's wager was an argument for agnosticism. I think atheism is too extreme. To say there is no God with 100% confidence is too drastic, likewise a 100% belief in a god. I prefer to believe that its very unlikely there is a god but I won't say I'm absolutely certain bc that would be ridiculous
twisto 7 months ago
@twisto You don't need absolute certainty to be an atheist. Atheism is just a response to the claim of theist... nothing more. The fact that theist have not proven that god exist, is enough reason for me to believe that he doesn't. However, it is possible that some sort of god exists, but until it is proven that he exists, I will not believe in him.
loro1rojo 7 months ago
@loro1rojo from ur reasoning, i would think that would make u an agnostic, not an atheist. This might just be semantics or technicality of the terms. In my understanding, Atheists wouldn't believe there's no god even if you present them with evidence there is no god. likewise, atheists wouldn't believe there was a god even if provided there was evidence of a god. Agnostics are that there may or may not be a god, we don't know, and until we know, i'm going to be in middle until we have evidence
twisto 7 months ago
@twisto Atheism is the rejection of theist claims. I think that most atheist would believe in a god if enough proof could be provided to prove his existence. I think you are confused about terms. Agnosticism is the position that whether god exists or not is unknowable. Thus, there can be agnostic atheist and agnostic Christians. I however, believe that the existence of the god of the Bible is knowable... thus I'm not agnostic. Atheist don't need proof that god doesn't exist.
loro1rojo 7 months ago
@loro1rojo maybe i am confused about the terms. Specifically about the God in the bible(s) (though i haven't read different versions), i agree the God of the bible is knowable. although i still think Atheist and Theists are faith bounded as atheism is the belief that there is no god. Atheism isn't the rejection of theist's claim, though it's thought to be bc the proof there isn't a god is the proof there is a god is invalid
twisto 7 months ago
@twisto Atheism is not a faith based belief. For example, I'm sure that you don't believe in gargoyles, and you belief is logical. Gargoyles haven't been proven to exist, so it would be logical for someone to not believe they exist. Thus, not believing in gargoyles is not a faith based position... it is simply a response to the claim that gargoyles exist. You don't need prove that gargoyles do not exist to not believe in them. The lack of their existence makes nonbelief a rational position.
loro1rojo 7 months ago
@twisto No.. atheism requires to faith. Let me put it this way, if I claim that I'm holding $100million right now on my right hand, do you believe me? You probably would not. You not believing that I'm holding $100million on my right hand is a rejection of the claim, and by you not believing me, you are not automatically saying that I do not have $100million. Since I haven't proven that I have this money on my hand, you are ok to not believe the claim that I am holding the money.
loro1rojo 6 months ago
@loro1rojo You are making the claim, you have burden of proof. no proof: no rational belief in the claim. So I could easily be agnostic about the claim until you proof it to me. Being total and absolute atheist regarding religion requires knowledge about non existence of deity and hence is illogical stance since we have no proof either way. It's foolish tough to claim that "no proof" means existence of a deity in anyway. It simply means no proof.
Mtaalas 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loro1rojo You are making the claim, you have burden of proof. no proof: no rational belief in the claim. So I could easily be agnostic about the claim until you proof it to me. Being total and absolute atheist regarding religion requires knowledge about non existence of deity and hence is illogical stance since we have no proof either way. It's foolish tough to claim that "no proof" means existence of a deity in anyway. It simply means no proof.
Mtaalas 6 months ago
@loro1rojo Atheism requires faith bc it works absolutes. If we talk using probability, u get into agnosticism. u would probably believe me if i said i have $2, bc its likely to be true. If for some reason i can't show you it, but u know it's very likely that i do have $2. u probably wouldn't bet i have $2. But as an atheist, w/o proof u don't believe me. And it's ok that you don't but it's unreasonable to say i don't have that $2. I think all arguments for atheism are actually for agnosticism.
twisto 6 months ago
@loro1rojo faith is w/o reason. Once u look at the reasonableness of something happening, it's no longer faith. For example, aliens. I'm guessing u never seen one before. But the probability that there are Aliens (living things on other planets) is very high. If we apply the atheist and theist on this they would both have an absolute and require faith. I don't want to give the wrong impression, i do think atheist are right in thinking there is no god, but i think so on the grounds of probability
twisto 6 months ago
@twisto Ok.. I really don't know how else to explain it. Atheist are simply rejecting theist claims, and are not making an absolute claim. If you don't get the examples I posted before... idk what else to say. Just research what atheism is. My gut is telling me that you have preconceived notions of atheism which you have a hard time getting rid off.
loro1rojo 6 months ago
@twisto What part of atheism doesn't claim absolute knowledge do you not understand?
loro1rojo 6 months ago
So... from this video, all I managed to understand, other than you have a fetish for spaghetti, is that you won't accept any kind of religion because there are so many choices. Well, I hope you never have to experience the excrutiating torment of having to go to a buffet restaurant.
drivetwister 7 months ago
@drivetwister
He was actually arguing against the use of Pascal's wager to convert a follower to one belief because the wager can be used for any belief and is thusly invalidated.
iamantony1 7 months ago
you have convinced me. Whenever I have a child, I shall baptize my child with marinara sauce. Then on weekends, I shall celebrate the great Lord Cthulhu with calamari flavored crackers and beer. ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
mistereveready 8 months ago
yeah man----i always thought that it was better to stay up all night with a rifle waiting for the boogey man to attack----rather than be unprepared.....
TheGreatDeciever55 8 months ago
WOOOOO!!!! BEER VOLCANO AND A STRIPPER FACTORY!!!
ksniveegirl 8 months ago 26
Past your pointless psycho babble, your bet remains unwise. Atheism holds nothing. come out of it.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix Of course atheism holds nothing. That's the point.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage No, that is pointless. why be an Atheist?
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix One is an atheist because they don't have any theistic beliefs. Being an atheist says nothing about what a person DOES believe, only what they DON'T.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage Look at the Hindu, he does not have a set of theistic beliefs and yet he is not categorised as atheistic simply because he has polytheistic ideas. Actually Atheists have a wide variety of beliefs which try to answer the great questions in Life, as every Religion does. Where are go after we die, they believe, nowhere. Or is there a God, No says the atheist and what about the Meaning in life? Atheists state very clearly that there is no Objective Meaning in life. These are indeed beliefs.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix Hindu's are polytheistic, not atheistic. Atheist's have beliefs ranging quite literally from one side of the board to the other. Their atheism addresses one issue upon which they agree - that they do not believe in a God/s. They may have very different ideas as to the meaning of life or life's objective meaning.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage Yes they do have a certain core issue that is established as Dogma, and you are right to say that it is; their is no God. But be on your guard for fake Atheists, or Agnostics. They tend to hide under the guise of Atheism but dont be fooled, they always try to ride the Fence. Once you pass the clever obstacles of their so called original views you will find that they are all directed to a selfish meaningless View of life. There is nothing new under the Sun. Just Truth and falsehood.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix I'm not sure not believing in God constitutes as dogma. Though there are some atheists who do believe that there is no God and that may be considered to be a positive claim, most simply reject the claims made by theists. Either way there is no dogma involved.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage Dont spit your poison this way. A-theist means No God. That means if you want to join ranks in the Athiest army you must denounce all claims of a God. If one just believes in an ounce of some from of a Life Force, then you cease to be an Atheist. This is the Atheists Dogma. And There is nothing wrong with a system of principles that answers Lifes questions. We all have a World view, even if it is a view that you have no World view, that is still a View. What matters is if it is True.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix If atheism is a dogma, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. I have no more to say other than to recommend that you broaden your perspective by socialising with some atheists.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage Why is Dogma something derogatory? Id think that it would help strengthen and enforce a specific Idea or Philosophy. But maybe the reason Dogma and anything Objective is detested and abhorred nowadays, is because Science doesnt have the Privilege to make a Dogma about anything.If you want to truly know Science then Remember that Science can not prove anything.
I will take your advice. Atheists arent few these days, it should be easy to find some, I will just go to a University
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix Science can't prove anything? Science is remarkably good at proving things, or are you talking in absolutes?
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage Science works with evidence. Proofs are for mathematics. (I'm an atheist btw.)
firevortex500 8 months ago
@Pinage The Scientific Method says it. Many theorys in Science change or have been proven false, it is not a law like gravity or morality. Science means, The Love of Knowledge. This love explains the How things work a certain way. Many things about the natural universe have been discovered through Science but Science says nothing about the Metaphysical realm, which is just as real as the Natural realm. It cannot tell what is in a persons minds or if somebody is in love, or is we have a Soul.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix If the 'metaphysical realm' has any affect on the natural world then the scientific method, as a method of investigation can test it. If not, then the metaphysical can in no sense be considered to be "as real as the natural realm". Incidentally, science can explain the human mind and can explain love.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage How can the Scientific Method prove what it cannot test or see. It can not. The Super natural Realm is like God, in that it Transcends all things visible and invisible, all nature all mater all time, space and substance. How can a Supernatural Realm be limited to the laws of a material Universe or let alone a man made Method. But this does not mean we should or even can doubt that such a world exists. The path to this realm lies deep in every mans Soul, for our Soul is a part of it.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix Like I said, if the supernatural interacts with the natural in any way, shape or form, then it can be tested. Many people can and are very well justified in doubting the existence of the supernatural due the glaring lack of evidence for its existence. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim that it does exist, such as yourself.
Pinage 8 months ago
@Pinage Firstly, here are some Interactions with life after death. The experience of medically dead patients, all are utterly convinced of the truth of their 'out-of-the-body' existence and their survival of bodily death. Shortly after a loved one dies the survivor has a sudden, convincing sense of the real presence of the dead one. It is utterly convincing to the experiencer. But the most certain assurance of life after death, for Christians, is the historical, literal resurrection of Christ.
SkitlerRemix 8 months ago
@SkitlerRemix Many out-of-body experiences have been explained by science and the resurrection of Jesus is not a historically verifiable event.
Pinage 8 months ago