HOME

enart.jsqf.com

welcome to my space

How come atheists do not consider Pascal's Wager to be a rational and reasonable basis for belief in God?

they don't WANT to believe....

It usually assumes one particular version of god or no god at all as the only possible options. Why not apply it to Odin, Zeus, and the FSM?

*hic*

Not even Jesus himself could convince everyone that He was the true Son of God. More people will be lost than are saved. Read the parable of the sower and the seed.

Because it is equally valid for Zeus as it is of Jehovah.

Or Osiris, or Odin, or Quetzalcoatl, or any of the other few thousand deities that have been fervently believed and worshiped over the ages.

I am Christian and I do not consider it rational. Pascal's wager assumes the only two choices are Christianity or atheism. It also assumes that God can be fooled by false piety or simply going through the motions.

Pascal's Wager runs into a lot of philosophical issues, with the end result that it doesn't actually work. You can read more about the reasons why it fails at the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_...
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/t...

Do you think that if you 'believe' on the basis that there may be a reward of eternal life in paradise, that your god will not know the reason for your belief was self-interest? Do you think that that's the sort of person your god will want with him for eternity? Does that explain the flaw in Pascal's Wager?

which God?

Remember, Pascal's Wager, when properly followed also has you cutting off your member for Hale-Bopp, drinking the Kool-aid in Jonestown, and growing your eyebrows together in an FLDS compound.

not to mention giving all your money to Xenu.

Because you have to believe in every god to take up the wager. Then if a god does exist, you would still end up in hell for believing in other gods.

Because it really doesn't amount to "reason" at all. There are numerous problems with the logic and the assumptions behind Pascal's nonsense.

Dumb girl asks dumb questions.

Pascal, or Blaise pascal the French philosopher, its a religion within it self, everything he said can be apply rationally and intelligently to achieved what he though will be achievable base in assumptions theories, experiments, thesis, treatises, and pensses's. Pascal isn't to be taking lightly, but whole, in a full concrete contexts of his writings, and in the essences of his legacy, and not only in quotations.

Do you believe in all the Gods "just in case"? Study Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, et al, "Just in case"?

Why not?

What if the god that really exists sends all good people to heaven and all bad people to hell except people who pretended to know for a fact another god existed? then all good atheists are going to heaven but YOU ARE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL. Why not repent when you still have time? Why risk eternity in hell?

What if god loves music and sends all musicians to heaven, but all other people to hell? How can you risk eternal torture by not playing at least four hours a day?

And how can you worship a sadistic god that tortures good people - most of the people who ever lived - for all eternity?

Pascal's wager:

"If god exists, it's infinitely better to believe, since you get heaven instead of hell for eternity. If he doesn't, it doesn't matter since you're dead anyway. So overall it's better to believe"

This is, of course, false.

Some of the problems with the argument:

* The assumption that there is an afterlife with a heaven and hell

* The assumption that the god cares about belief in him/her above all else

* The assumption that if you believe in a god, it will definitely be the same god that actually exists.

* The assumption that you lose nothing if it's false. Religious belief costs people plenty - money donated to churches, time spent praying, marriages ending because of religious differences, lives lost because of relying on prayers or refused medical care, wars... need I go on?

* The assumption that people can believe in something simply because it benefits them. Would you believe goblins exist for twenty bucks? Why not?

* The assumption that any god won't see through the "believing just to get into heaven" ploy.

For more:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal...
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/t...

Because Pascal's Wager begs the question. It assumes beforehand that only Christianity, out of thousands upon thousands of human belief systems, reflects Reality accurately.

The Homer Simpson spoof of Pascal's Wager illustrates this point nicely:

"What if we're going to the wrong church? Wouldn't God get really, really mad?"

pascal's wager depends on the following assumptions:

1. that the only choices are believing in the christian god and not believing in the christian god. there are thousands of other religions to believe in and pascal's wager assumes christianity is the only correct choice.

2. that someone can choose to believe something. i don't believe in god. does it make sense that if i suddenly start saying i do that this insincere belief would be better than sincere disbelief?

3. that the person asking the question somehow knows what god wants us to do. what if you're misinterpreting the bible? what if the bible is wrong?

Just read some Voltaire. There's a flip side to every theory.

Remember too that Pascal definitely was not considered a theologian of any kind. In fact, Pensees, where you got this excerpt, is highly regarded as an unfinished work. Though Pascal touches on the topic of Atheism and Christianity, he certainly was not finished elaborating on every single one of his thoughts.

I'm Christian, and I don't consider believing in God solely to escape hell a good basis for belief. Not only can a person not benefit from that kind of thinking, but I actually think it does more harm than good.

Gods , angels , souls , etc are all supernatural . I believe in no supernaturals . To me , they're just superstitious imagination .

you want toknow why carmella,....
........because his last words were "may god never abandon me"

he was a believer
thats why

he had been converted
thats why

because he said that after his brush with death, hence making fear of death his reason for this statement, not philosophy nor clear "rational, reasonable" thinking his reason
thats why

because he had only one god in mind
thats why

ther are many other gods now since ther were then in his day
thats why

because he had no idea about how many gods there wre
in his time
thats why

that is not the thinking and speaking of a clear rational man
thts the words of a scared dying man
thts why
and that makes all the difference in its validity

I do, and hopefully you do to. Now will you worship Zeus with me? You have nothing to lose.

It all seems like a wager to me. Nobody knows, so shoot the dice and roll with whatever your choice of belief/non-belief is.

When there is absolutely NO proof, how can we fault people for whatever they decide on the issue?

meh.

because, any god who simply puts you in hell for not believing in him is a discriminate god and I'd rather be in hell then be with that god in heaven.

edit: If god is so understanding and a god of love, he'll understand atheists like me and the various reasons why we don't believe.

Why don't theists realize that we don't care about what they think???

Pascal's wager is based on the premise that although there is no evidence of god or heaven or hell, the slim chance that there might be one means we should be religious in order to avoid that hell, should it exist.

Aside from the bizarre notion that a person could actually choose to believe in something that makes no sense to him, the basis of pascal's wager is that there are two positions. In fact, there are a multitude of different religions, and as many different afterlifes. Even in the christian religions there are many different sects with different descriptions of "hell". So should a person just pick the religion with the worst hell to maximize possible benefit?

This is neither rational nor reasonable.

Because Pascal's wager can apply to any superstition. Reasonable and rational? Definitely not.

"Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through [reason], a person should "wager" as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose."

Because it says it in the suggestion...

I am a Christian that doesn't feel it is a reasonable basis......otherwise, you could apply that same argument to any religion or god.

What ought to make a Christian different is that they have had an experience with God that gives them a basis for faith.

Because it is faulty. It assumes that there's a consequence for not believing. Hence, it suggests that only the Abrahamic god is the real god, ignoring all other possibilities for other gods. What makes you so sure that if there is a god, there is a hell?

It doesn't provide any evidence for God's existence. It deals only with the perceived consequences of belief or disbelief, according to the assumption that the individual would be punished for not believing if there turns out to be a God.

Try Pascal's wager again, substituting "Cosmic Tuna Fish Sandwich Man" for God.

I always bet against Pascal, it is the safer bet.

#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.#

19 Mar 10 | enart.jsqf.com | Read on | edit

enart.jsqf.com

How come atheists do not consider Pascal's Wager to be a rational and reasonable basis for belief in God?

Categories

Links