• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Pascals Gambit

Pariahprose

Pariahprose

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
213
Location
United States-Georgia
Lookin for an answer to this because I am yet 2 come across a good rebutal to it,despite talking to several atheists. I myself am not an atheist. However, I wud like to start a discussion on this 2 where the back and forth rebutals may go.

Basically Pascals Gambit is an argument that covers Atheists whos beliefs are founded n logic. If u cant physically feel it, physically see the results of its actions, or touch it,then it logically doesnt exist. I realize there is more than this one kind of belief of atheism,but it seems the most common and strongest argument for it.

What Pascals Gambit questions is that if the atheist is right about their ideals of death,what do they benefit and gain? Nothing bc if they are dead they cannot even enjoy the satisfaction of being right. Now, what if the atheist is wrong and there is a God? What do they benefit or gain? Nothing but they loose everything and are doomed to "hell" and wont experience "eternal salvation". So logically based on an atheists own belief which wud be the better for them 2 believe? The answer,to believe in a "Higher power"...

Pariahprose
 
More than one religion (and sect within a given religion) claim that if you don't believe them you go to hell, so this is a false dichotomy. Also, it assumes agnosticism, since the given person doubting god is afraid of the possibilities of an afterlife, and an atheist is certain that there is none, thus allowing him to rest easy in his belief.
 
pascals wager would make sense if there was just one potential god. there have been thousands of gods and religions. if I choose to believe in Jehovah and Allah is the real god, I'm fucked. so the chances of picking the right god are very low. I wouldnt bet any money on the wager.
 
Pariahprose said:
Lookin for an answer to this because I am yet 2 come across a good rebutal to it,despite talking to several atheists. I myself am not an atheist. However, I wud like to start a discussion on this 2 where the back and forth rebutals may go.

Basically Pascals Gambit is an argument that covers Atheists whos beliefs are founded n logic. If u cant physically feel it, physically see the results of its actions, or touch it,then it logically doesnt exist. I realize there is more than this one kind of belief of atheism,but it seems the most common and strongest argument for it.

What Pascals Gambit questions is that if the atheist is right about their ideals of death,what do they benefit and gain? Nothing bc if they are dead they cannot even enjoy the satisfaction of being right. Now, what if the atheist is wrong and there is a God? What do they benefit or gain? Nothing but they loose everything and are doomed to "hell" and wont experience "eternal salvation". So logically based on an atheists own belief which wud be the better for them 2 believe? The answer,to believe in a "Higher power"...

Pariahprose
Click to expand...

it's damning either way. if you only follow "God" for fear of hell, you aren't really penitent of your sins, are you? by your "logic", those who happen to fall into lives in which devout belief occurs are preselected for eternity in bliss, but those others who aren't, through no fault of their own, are doomed.

that's some fucked up religion, dude.

but that is what happens when you simplify such things. God, if there is one or many, is not this monstrous thing.
 
Feigning a belief in god in order to guard against the possibility of going to hell is both selfish and lie about what you truly believe. I highly doubt such an act would allow someone to get into heaven, if it actually existed.

Assuming an atheist could could truly convince themselves into sincere belief I would counter with a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "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 blindfolded fear"
 
I think Pascal's Wager works much better with Free Will than God. I call it ...

"Psood0nym's Stake":

1 Free Will is, or Free Will is not.

2 A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.

3 According to reason, you can defend either of the propositions.

4 You must wager. (It's not optional.)

5 Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that Free Will is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing [because what the fuck else ya gonna do about it you endlessly determined bag of shit?].

6 Wager, then, without hesitation that Free Will is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely free life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
 
hi psoo, what's more important, truth or sanity? if indeed the truth is that we do not have free will, is it insane to willfully deny it? is it insane to be functional despite the crazy truth?
 
^well I suppose we will or we won't, won't we?

This is why I believe in free will -- the alternative is incomprehensible and unworkable.
 
Last edited:
This is not what I personally believe btw...just something I have always looked for an intelligent good answer 2...Is atheism already not damned either way as well, as isnt it an idea of irony that defeats itself, a belief system of no belief? Its almost a religion of no religion(ALMOST)...

Truth nor sanity is important...what is truth? What is sanity? If we are all different are not we all insane bc of a lack of consistancy that exists in our individual souls outside of society? Pacals gambit is inded somewhat self damning but does it not illustrate that there is a catch 22 even in the most asked question of man,proving that the universe essentially functions on the idea paradox? But based within this paradox that it would logically be best to acknowledge some form of higher power? We scientifically know some of the paradox's of our universe yet we do not deny them,bc it would be illogical to do so...

Pariahprose
 
the atheist asserts that this life is all there is. thats it. all attempts by christian apologists to discredit atheism are fallacies, such as this bullshit wager
 
choco1ate said:
the atheist asserts that this life is all there is. thats it. all attempts by christian apologists to discredit atheism are fallacies, such as this bullshit wager
Click to expand...

So does your definition just assert that Atheism is only against the ideas that are based in Christianity? If so, what about all other belief systems? If you change it to be other belief systems besides just Christianity, you would essentially be saying that attempts by man to apologists to discredit atheism are fallacies...hence, atheism is a fallacy as well bc it was created by man...So do u assert that Atheism is only against Christianity, or that it is other religious beliefs as well?

Pariahprose
 
Atheism, is by it's very definition, contrary to all religious beliefs which entail a "God" or other supernatural entity. It is not per se 'against' them, only it does not believe in them. Individual atheists can be against all religions, or specific ones, or not against them at all.

Some individual Christians are against all other faiths, some are only opposed to Jews, some don't give a fuck and just do their thing on their own.

Same deal.
 
Pariahprose said:
So does your definition just assert that Atheism is only against the ideas that are based in Christianity? If so, what about all other belief systems? If you change it to be other belief systems besides just Christianity, you would essentially be saying that attempts by man to apologists to discredit atheism are fallacies...hence, atheism is a fallacy as well bc it was created by man...So do u assert that Atheism is only against Christianity, or that it is other religious beliefs as well?

Pariahprose
Click to expand...
i don't understand what you're asking. are you genuinly confused or trolling?
 
No,not confused nor am I trolling...was just commenting to your previous post... I know what atheism is and also know that there are a few different takes on parts of the idea... I just did not know if u were commenting just against Christianity or all religions,cause ur post only mentioned Christianity. Just didnt know if u had a different take on the idea that I havent heard b4 since that one belief system was specifically brought up. If its against all religions and thats what u meant,ignore the majority of that post. Just asking for clarification pretty much chocolate,cause I hope u wudnt limit atheism 2 just go against only one religion bc I just dont see how limiting it 2 just one religion makes someone an atheist.So does that mean an atheist against christianity is still believes n the Hindu gods? How does singling out one religion not contradict the entire belief? I know its been explained but by the definition provided,it says ALL beliefs...picking out just one religion would make someone more agnostic than atheist,would it not?

Pariahprose
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top