Guest Muna Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 If ONE more person says this to me, I might have to scream! The guy I was talking to today basically made the argument that everyone should be a Christian, because if the Christians are wrong, no big deal, but if I'm wrong (I'm Wiccan), I'm in trouble. I said, "What if the Muslims are right? Then you're in trouble." He didn't really have an answer for that. I just don't think fear of what will happen if you DON'T believe is a good reason to believe in something. One of the reasons I left Christianity was that it all seems like bullying and intimidation to me. "You'd better do what I tell you or I'll burn you for all eternity!" It's just control through fear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonHorn Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I said, "What if the Muslims are right? Then you're in trouble." He didn't really have an answer for that. He didn't have an answer because he probably had never thought about it before. That type of "what if religion X is right instead of relgion Y" thinking played a big part in my deconversion. Eventually that led to having to assume that no religion is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurisaz Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Ah yes, the shitty old pascal's folly wager. It would be hilarious if they weren't so (brain-)dead serious about it. This total living-in-la-la-land crap about assuming there's only their own cult and athiesm out there... it never fails to slap them right in the face (with a brick) when you make them realize there are actually more than two options. Goes for anything, really. Show a morontheist that somewhere there's more than just either-or, two options, and BOOM goes its empty head. Total cerebral overload. And a paradoxon, considering that there's no working cerebral matter in a morontheist head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pascal.html Always remind people like this that pascal's wager depends on one god being real. When actually the likelyhood of one god being real is the same as ALL the gods being real, so which of the 2500+ gods should one follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbobrob Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I am glad the only time I face this crap is online. Can't imagine having such ignorant arrogance to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Pascal wager is a selfish and self-centered wager, since it basically only focus on "if I'm wrong - no harm to me, if I'm right - I get rewarded." But if fails to see that "if I'm wrong" can have negative consequences to society, family, friends and ultimately the world. For instance the suicide bombers; do the families of the victims think "if he's wrong about his religion - no harm done" or do they think "that f*ing idiot killed my kids!" So religion is harmful regardless if it's right or wrong, but if it's wrong and harmful all of us lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWIM Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Pascal's wager does not work simply because so many sects of xtianity think they are right, and all others are wrong. RCC thinks protestants are going to hell, southern baptist think RCC and protestants both are going to hell, pentacostal thinks the later 3 are going to hell etc etc. And that is just *within* xtianity. So, then there are the muslims. They too are divided into sects some thinking other muslims "got it wrong" and they are going to hell as well. Then there is the mormons, JWs etc etc. Then there is the cross section on both the muslim and xtian side that have created their own flavor in which all others go to hell... The deal is, "many are called, few are chosen" and "many shall come, few will enter" and similar exclusionary things that KEEPS THEM thinking exclusively. Most christians think the MINORITY are going to heaven, so no matter what religion became dominate, the dominate religion will always be the wrong one due to this mind-set of "only a few will enter". There is NO WAY to win this wager, even if you *wanted* to play it safe and be a member of several sects, religions, because they have clauses to prevent you from doing this without sinning. So, since all sects feel all other sects are wrong, the combined sentiment is that "everyone's wrong" which makes it impossible to go to heaven... It all boils down to a big pissing contest over who has the best invisible friend... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Pascal's wager also doesn't hold water because it assumes that you could go back to believing in an all-knowing spook if you wanted to. Could you suddenly "believe" in Santa Claus again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 "Believing in Santa Claus, if I'm right I'll get many christmas presents, if I'm wrong, at least I was behaving good the whole year." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 If I’m correct in not believing in god, I will have lost nothing and will have gained a life free of being enslaved by religious belief. If I am wrong and god is benevolent, I will have lost nothing because he will understand that I am a good person and also one who relies on evidence and so he surely will not punish me. If I am wrong and god is not benevolent, there is nothing I can do to change my fate because I cannot force myself to believe nor can I fool god by pretending to believe, so, screw him, I’m not going to worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Pascal's wager also doesn't hold water because it assumes that you could go back to believing in an all-knowing spook if you wanted to. Could you suddenly "believe" in Santa Claus again? Exactly right, par-man. It would be like trying to believe that George W. Bush is one the greatest presidents in history. Ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I said, "What if the Muslims are right? Then you're in trouble." He didn't really have an answer for that. He didn't have an answer because he probably had never thought about it before. That type of "what if religion X is right instead of relgion Y" thinking played a big part in my deconversion. Eventually that led to having to assume that no religion is right. Bingo! By all rights, that little insight should have plunged the guy into a crisis of faith, but more likely he's too brain dead to give it much further thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Some years ago I committed myself to making myself happy no matter what the cost. I was surprised to find that this made me the kind of person the bible said we should be. So I get to have my cake and eat it too. And if god exists he can't help but admit me to heaven. If he doesn't exist I will have enjoyed the one life I know I get. I don't think God exists. But if I'm wrong, that's my answer. Not that those kinds of xians will hang around long enough to hear it. The logic is too convoluted for their black and white mindset. It's best not to discuss religion with them if there's a way around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 The purpose of God's existence is to show us the way away from him and discover that he doesn't exist. Then we are complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'm pretty much past the point where I would talk about this with anyone - except here online. If I was accosted by a fundy on the sidewalk, the conversation would probably look something like this: Mindless Fundy: "Hey brother - are you a Christian?" Me: "Nope." Mindless Fundy: "You mean you don't believe in God?" Me: "Nope." Mindless Fundy: "But, what if you're wrong?" Me: "Get a life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 You can also play tit-for-tat and counter Pascal's Wager with Russell's Teapot. After all, the burden of proof rests with those who make the claim that there is a spook watching over you who will punish you if you don't worship it, not with those who don't already believe in it. Just because they claim it's there, doesn't mean it's so. They hate hearing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Jeff Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'm pretty much past the point where I would talk about this with anyone - except here online. If I was accosted by a fundy on the sidewalk, the conversation would probably look something like this: Mindless Fundy: "Hey brother - are you a Christian?" Me: "Nope." Mindless Fundy: "You mean you don't believe in God?" Me: "Nope." Mindless Fundy: "But, what if you're wrong?" Me: "Get a life." Mindless Fundie: "But, what if you're wrong?" Me to Mindless Fundie: "But, what if YOU are wrong and the Talking Snake is really Lard?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Me to Mindless Fundie: "But, what if YOU are wrong and the Talking Snake is really Lard?" All hail the Talking Snake! In My capacity of Springy Goddess (and official Candy Goddess to the Cute Bunny), I hereby state for the record that I shall give wedgies to anyone who believes in Me "just in case". Mwahahaha! *yank* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknowing1 Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I just don't think fear of what will happen if you DON'T believe is a good reason to believe in something. One of the reasons I left Christianity was that it all seems like bullying and intimidation to me. "You'd better do what I tell you or I'll burn you for all eternity!" It's just control through fear. I'm probably way off base in my thought process here but wouldn't believing in God just because you fear you will go to hell be putting yourself before God (caring about yourself more than you do God)? I thought Christians weren't supposed to think more of themselves then they do of God or at least that is what I was taught. So really you fear Hell so you believe in God but by believing in God because you are thinking about your eternal soul you just put yourself above him. Either way it's my opinion you are doomed to spend your eternity in Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Here is Sam Harris' great little article about Pascal's Wager. It's exactly what I would say - if I had Sam's writings skills. And his education. Well, okay - and his brain. The Empty Wager The coverage of my recent debate in the pages of Newsweek began and ended with Jon Meacham and Rick Warren each making respectful reference to Pascal’s wager. As many readers will remember, Pascal suggested that religious believers are simply taking the wiser of two bets: if a believer is wrong about God, there is not much harm to him or to anyone else, and if he is right, he wins eternal happiness; if an atheist is wrong, however, he is destined for hell. Put this way, atheism seems the very picture of reckless stupidity. But there are many questionable assumptions built into this famous wager. One is the notion that people do not pay a terrible price for religious faith. It seems worth remembering in this context just what sort of costs, great and small, we are incurring on account of religion. With destructive technology now spreading throughout the world with 21st century efficiency, what is the social cost of millions of Muslims believing in the metaphysics of martyrdom? Who would like to put a price on the heartfelt religious differences that the Sunni and the Shia are now expressing in Iraq (with car bombs and power tools)? What is the net effect of so many Jewish settlers believing that the Creator of the universe promised them a patch of desert on the Mediterranean? What have been the psychological costs imposed by Christianity’s anxiety about sex these last seventy generations? The current costs of religion are incalculable. And they are excruciating. While Pascal deserves his reputation as a brilliant mathematician, his wager was never more than a cute (and false) analogy. Like many cute ideas in philosophy, it is easily remembered and often repeated, and this has lent it an undeserved air of profundity. If the wager were valid, it could be used to justify any belief system (no matter how ludicrous) as a “good bet.†Muslims could use it to support the claim that Jesus was not divine (the Koran states that anyone who believes in the divinity of Jesus will wind up in hell); Buddhists could use it to support the doctrine of karma and rebirth; and the editors of TIME could use it to persuade the world that anyone who reads Newsweek is destined for a fiery damnation. But the greatest problem with the wager—and it is a problem that infects religious thinking generally—is its suggestion that a rational person can knowingly will himself to believe a proposition for which he has no evidence. A person can profess any creed he likes, of course, but to really believe something, he must also believe that the belief under consideration is true. To believe that there is a God, for instance, is to believe that you are not just fooling yourself; it is to believe that you stand in some relation to God’s existence such that, if He didn’t exist, you wouldn’t believe in him. How does Pascal’s wager fit into this scheme? It doesn’t. Beliefs are not like clothing: comfort, utility, and attractiveness cannot be one’s conscious criteria for acquiring them. It is true that people often believe things for bad reasons—self-deception, wishful thinking, and a wide variety of other cognitive biases really do cloud our thinking—but bad reasons only tend to work when they are unrecognized. Pascal’s wager suggests that a rational person can knowingly believe a proposition purely out of concern for his future gratification. I suspect no one ever acquires his religious beliefs in this way (Pascal certainly didn’t). But even if some people do, who could be so foolish as to think that such beliefs are likely to be true? http://www.samharris.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I'd rather take the side of a Native American chief when he was burned at the stake by good Christians. He was asked if he were ready to repent and believe in Jesus--they were going to kill him anyway and they wanted him to die saved. They said he should be delighted to go to heaven. He said, "Not if you are going to be there." I believe the here after is nothing like what anyone claims god told them it was going to be like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 If I’m correct in not believing in god, I will have lost nothing and will have gained a life free of being enslaved by religious belief. If I am wrong and god is benevolent, I will have lost nothing because he will understand that I am a good person and also one who relies on evidence and so he surely will not punish me. If I am wrong and god is not benevolent, there is nothing I can do to change my fate because I cannot force myself to believe nor can I fool god by pretending to believe, so, screw him, I’m not going to worry about it. And that folks, is that. In a nutshell. Perfectly well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraphicsGuy Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I'm probably way off base in my thought process here but wouldn't believing in God just because you fear you will go to hell be putting yourself before God (caring about yourself more than you do God)? I thought Christians weren't supposed to think more of themselves then they do of God or at least that is what I was taught. So really you fear Hell so you believe in God but by believing in God because you are thinking about your eternal soul you just put yourself above him. Either way it's my opinion you are doomed to spend your eternity in Hell. I don't think you're way off at all Unknowing1. I totally agree that faith based on fear of hell is nothing more than selfishness. You don't have faith because you love God or because of what Jesus did for you. It's strictly to save your own ass from the eternal BBQ and as IF an omniscient God wouldn't know that was what you were doing. Honestly, I think selfish faith is what 99.9% of Xians actually have. Whether it's fear of hell or wanting a purpose out of life or wanting the power of Jesus, it's all selfish. Perhaps there's one genuine, pious, "righteous" person in a group of 1,000 but I tend to think that non-believers are far more honest about their "faith" than believers are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.B. Posted October 26, 2007 Share Posted October 26, 2007 To paraphrase the other "conversations" that people have concocted with fundies: Fundie: Do you believe in God? Me: Punching fundie in his god-damned face repeatedly, then shoving his tracts in his mouth as he lies prostrate on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts