/lit/ - Literature

>>13814882
r/thathappened

>b-but what about the other gods and religions??
They're so predictable.

>>13814882
If this weren't a bait thread, I would give a serious reply.

>>13814897
Well, what ABOUT the other gods and religions?

>>13814896
>>13814906
Here come the fedoras.

>>13814917
Pascal addresses them in Pensées. The wager isn’t an independent idea. It’s not supposed to prove God or make you a Christian on its own. Most atheists and Christians don’t know that

>>13814927
I didn't know that, thank you.

>>13814937
very strange, isn’t it?

>>13814945
Yes.

>>13814920
The wager is idiotic because it depends on having the gullible idiot believe that their premise is valid when it isn't.

>Even if there's only a 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of this happening, if you get it wrong, it's INFINITELY BAD, so it's only logical to live your entire life exactly this way! IT'S ONLY LOGICAL AND RATIONAL!

>>13814949
>Pensées? Never heard of it.

>>13814967
>>13814927
Is irrelevant. It's just the origin of probability theory that non-infinite divided infinite, one ought to choose the infinite, because it has the greater expected value. It's dumb.

ITT: Pascalboy makes another futile attempt at "wisdom"

>>13814983
>>13814991
>t. hasn’t read Pensées

>>13814967
>>13815019
>Atheists BTFO cuz pascal's wager
>the argument in pascals wager is stupid
>n-no you have to read the other stuff in the book besides pascal's wager
state the argument you want to discuss and then people might discuss it instead of moving the goalposts and acting like a snarky piece of shit

>>13815085
Why is the wager stupid?

>>13814882
I'm theist and I think Pascal's wager is one of the most stupid arguments one can make

>>13815201
>>13815118

>>13815118
its premise rests entirely on the dichotomy that either a supreme being exists that requires faith, or there exists none at all. the premise that god exists is not necessarily related to the premise that god requires faith. see pic for a shoddily improvised graph

>>13815118
From a Christian perspective, it's stupid because it presents the gospel as a lottery ticket, encourages someone to become a Christian not out of genuine devotion to god but out of fear of hell.

From a neutral perspective, there are over 3000 religions and many of them have their own versions of hell. There's no reason why I should inherently prefer Christianity over Islam.

>>13815227
Pascal reasons that man is miserable without God, hence the need to believe in Him, and that Christianity is the perfect, true religion (which means that God does value faith).

>>13815227
oops messed one up, anyway you can add as many clauses as you want to the game theory graph really

>>13815229
1) How else are Christians supposed to proselytize without appealing to self-benefit? Are we not all trying to be saved? Also, where does God say that you cannot at first begin your journey to seek him with self-interest? Sure, being a halfway Christian out of self-interest is not good enough, Pascal admits this, but over time, you can attain genuine belief, and why would it then matter about your past? Aren’t all sins forgiven anyway?
2) Pascal explains why Christianity is the true religion.

Read more

>>13815237
so it's axioms are dogmatic then?

>>13814882
>Pascal's wager
kek people still think it's a valid argument...shiggy

>>13815256
1) Well then it's not an argument at all, just a rhetorical device meant for evangelising people.
2) Sure. And if he was an ancient Greek author he would be explaining why Zeus was the real god, if he was an ancient egyptian philosopher he'd be writing about Isis, and if he was a Middle eastern philosopher he would be saying Islam is the true religion. The fact is that none of these religions have any concrete evidence for them; and in the case of Christianity we know it isn't true because the Christian god is self-contradictory.

>>13815118
>>13815224
There's infinite possibilities, if you believe then you believe, probably I'm right or wrong, I don't care, God is about the here and now and the impact He has on our daily lives, only God knows what's on the other side.

>>13814896
>subreddit reference

>>13815265
By definition, axioms must be logically proven to be consistent before they can be really called an axiom, dumbass.

>>13815292
>>13815291
>all possibilities are equally probable
Pascal shows why there is only one religion worth considering.

God exists. He is a mean atheist man in the sky who has never left a trace of his existence to humanity. Instead, he set up false religions such as Christianity and Islam as a test to humanity. The parameters of the test are as follows: those who believe in the false religions go to eternal torment because of their stupidity, and those who become atheists are sent to live in his paradise to become engineers and scientists, on account of their intelligence and rationality.

As long as there's a chance this is true, why would you risk believing in religion and not becoming an atheist when this could send you to eternal torment?

>>13815353
You keep repeating yourself. How does he "show" this? It's impossible to show it.

>>13815292
this chart was made by an atheist who doesn't actually comprehend Pascal's wager, or the term "God"

>>13815362
*tips fedora*

>>13815362
If one believes in this atheist god, will he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven, he will be rewarded for the same thing that others are punished for. If he is punished, then this god punished those who believe the truth.
>>13815369
Read Pensées. I can not summarize the whole book. This is /lit/, a place to discuss literature. It would be better for two minds to discuss a book after both have read it.

isn't it extremely childish of God to punish those who don't "believe" in him? isn't he like perfect? why wouldn't he just infinitely punish them? you can bet for sure that when the atheist dies and wakes up in heaven or some shit, he'll realize he was wrong.

>>13815391
Atheists go to hell because it’s much more pleasant than heaven for them. Their sins keep them in everlasting shame and suffering

>>13815353
coming back to >>13815085 multiple anons have now explained why pascal's wager on its own is stupid. now please stop moving the goalposts and state your arguments as to why Christianity is the only religion worth considering

>>13815404
Books are meant to be read, anon.

>>13815388
>If one believes in this atheist god, will he go to heaven or hell?
If he's an atheist he goes to heaven if he's religious he goes to hell. Earth is simply a recruitment test for this atheist god. He wants freethinkers to serve as his professors and academics, so that's why he created this test.
>Read Pensées. I can not summarize the whole book. This is /lit/, a place to discuss literature. It would be better for two minds to discuss a book after both have read it.
We're not talking about Pensees we're talking about Pascal's wager. You evidently think that Christianity has some evidence for it, so why don't you show us? I'm not asking for a summary of a book, just for you to present me with the evidence for Christianity.

>>13815449
>believing in a god that rewards atheists is an atheist action
You’re contradicting yourself.

Most of Pensées is devoted towards explaining why Christianity is the best religion. Read the book or continue in ignorance

>>13815415
>>13815466
your original premise of pascal's wager has been discredited and you have done absolutely nothing to provide an outline of the arguments in the book to defend it or convince anyone there's anything of worth in the book. im starting to think you did not get much further than a surface level understanding of the wager.

>>13815502
The wager cannot be flawed due to the existence of other religions. Rather, it must be Pascal’s defense of Christianity that must be flawed. But you know nothing about that. So you are attacking what you do not know.

>>13815507
>The wager cannot be flawed due to the existence of other religions
but it can if a lot of those religions have a rule where you go to hell if you believe in the wrong God, which as it so happens they do

>>13815507
if christianity is already proven true the wager becomes redundant, just use pascal's defense of christianity instead. pascal's wager just becomes a rhetorical trick to fool people inexperienced with it. the point is that you have failed to understand his defense well enough to explain it here, nor made any open minded atheists interested in reading his defense. you have just employed a poor rhetorical trick and hidden behind the authority of a book nobody cares about.

>>13815558
You can’t prove God, but you can show that one religion is much more probable than the others, and that there is sufficient reason to have faith in it.

>>13815466
>>13815388
>>13815353
>>13815256
COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY BLOWN THE FUCK OUT DESTROYED HARDER THAN GOATSE'S ANAL CAVITY

>>13815553
The wager is supported by Pascal’s defense of Christianity. If the de

>>13815596
If the defense of Christianity is flawed, then the wager is unsupported. Attack his arguments at the source, not the surface

>>13815593

>Pascalboy
>honestly thinks that replying to his own posts helps his case

>>13815604
Not me

>>13815596
So he's just retarded then, what is he basing the idea that christianity is the one true faith?

>>13815619
Why don’t you read the book and find out?

>>13815619
All Theological arguments are retarded because they start from the conclusion and make/fish for the premises fit to it.

>>13815623
because there's a milion other things i would like to read more than some christ nigger who believes his faith is the super special one and is getting brownie points at the end of his miserable life. If there was a strong enough argument for christianity being the "correct" religon then we would have heard it by now

>”the wager is dumb”
>why?
>”other religions”
>Pascal explains why one should be Christian though
>”then what are his reasons, huh? Can’t paste a hundred pages? Are you retarded, huh?”
This is what you people sound like. You make an original claim that the wager is dumb when you know very little of what you’re talking about. Then, when I correct YOUR misinformed claims, you demand that I repeat the work that Pascal has already done that you’ve wholly ignored. I’m merely attacking the fools who criticize the wager without having read Pensées.

>>13815652
based

>>13815652

>hurr durr Pascal Pascal durr if you find inconsistencies it's because you didn't read the true and original source hurr durr let me make more threads on Pascal and Nietzsche to show how I'm totally not seething hurr

>>13815592
excluding all other options from the game graph does not work with a high probability, it requires absolute certainty. you then need to include all other options, how much chance you give them of still being correct, and how certain you are that Christianity is correct, and how the other religions interact with the other religions.

>>13815648
Based, Masculine and Rational
>>13815652
shameful, vaginal and emotional

It’s amusing to see atheists double down on their ignorance. They know how short-sighted their claims were, yet they don’t show any sign of conceding it. They try with all their might to imagine that they have done nothing wrong, and they will continue to attack, blindly and aggressively.

>>13815716
lol that is ironic from people that use arguments from the literal middle ages and legitimately believe they are solid. If you want to believe then do so, its your right; but don't get upset when you try to force your specific brand of bullshit and then get called out on it. The only reason we have freedom of religion is so mongoloids such as yourself don't go around killing themselves and other people justified by their irrational garbage. We tolerate each other so we don't have to deal with constant hissy-fits. The truth is that if you really are honest with yourself you don't know anything, you just believe, that is why its called faith and not fact.

>>13815764
>something is from the "literal" middle ages
>therefore it is bad

>>13815776
The problem is not that they are from the middle ages. The problem is that they are not solid. You are on a literature board, please exercise reading comprehension.

>>13815792
>they are not solid
so refute them.

>>13814882

>>13814882
Typical argument of /lit/ people that failed Calc 1 and don't understand probability distributions.

>>13815353
M8, who the fuck is Pascal to tell me what to believe? So what if I'm going to "hell" where are the proofs? Why are you unable to synthesize Pensées? That's right, because is nothing but pure medieval rhethoric, one has to know God through reasonable faith, like Kierkegaard, Spinoza, Kant, not with this type of fallacious arguments that use fear as a means to an end, basically do what I say if you don't want to suffer forever.

>>13815893
Even if the probability is very small it still works, Pascal was a mathematician.

Friendly reminder that Pascal was indexed.

>>13814897
But what if God sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell?

>>13816598
See the following comment chain
>>13815362
>>13815388
>>13815449
>>13815466

The Wager is dumb because it starts off presuming that there's a reasonable chance God could exist. That there is logical rationale for it. That we have found a collection of evidence to support the claim that there might be a God. Which of course there fucking isn't.

I have no more reason to fear eternal damnation than I do that a ravenous cloud of floating cotton candy will one day eat me alive. I mean.... that COULD happen, so why not carry around a spray bottle my whole life to fight off the beast, just in case?

It actually matters about the fucking evidence you provide for your claim.

>>13814882
But what if I want go to Hell?

Why don’t Christcucks ever present Pascal’s argument for Christianity as the one true religion? It’s always “lol read the book”, but they are always willing to present the wager itself without proving the foundation it relies on. You could present Pascal’s wager without it, but then it’s simply an interesting probability problem, not a logical reason for the existence of God. If Pascal’s wager does not prove the existence of God, then why would atheists be BTFO? Are Christcucks just, dare I say it, seething?

>*dabs on your agency regarding your salvation*

PW is the only logically valid argument for religion.

>>13816652
What is it with atheists and their flying spaghetti monster cringe arguments.

>>13816987
No my friend, cringe would be worshiping some incredibly ancient bullshit deity created by stupid goatfuckers and even worse going as far defending it.

>>13816652
Even if there is 0% change God exists you should still worship because maybe you fucked up in your thought process somewhere.
>>13816598
Then be an atheist.
>>13815893
Can you elaborate?
>>13815291
It is a real argument
>>13815282
>cringe
>>13815201
No.

why would anyone WANT to worship a petty asshole who would send a shitbag who happens to have had parents who read him the bible as a kid, but who is an alcoholic and domestic violence purpetrator, to heaven, and would send to hell some good guy who donates to charity and obeys traffic laws but happens to not bother with religion?

i wouldn't worship a shitfuck like that. i'll take the company of "morning star" "forbidden knowledge" satan. imagine his shelf.

checkmate

>>13814896
Time to go back.

>>13814882
Damn your friend is pretty dumb lol

The issues with Pascal are (1) the presupposition in the validity of the Bible's stories, (2) the idea that Christianity alone is rational and 'has reason', (3) the idea that Atheists are only atheist because they 'didn't try hard enough' at being Christian, and (4) the failure to adequately disprove other religions. There are others, but its been quite a while since I last read this book, and I am working off of memory.
For the other religions in specific, Pascal all but brushes them off with little care. There is comparatively little effort put forth to question the validity of other belief systems - I believe because those same arguments would be too effective if used against Christianity.

>>13814882
Not everyone can be tricked into good behavior. What if go is actually the devil and hell is the fun place? It could be a test to see who actually deserves fun. The stick in the mud can just be a slave forever for all you know. You can not know if you're wasting your time though to begin with and it is because life is short that you must either kill yourself for not taking it seriously or actaually go have fun. Only old people in bargaining phases go to church and also children with no rights yet.

Religion is tyranny, the bargaining stage of grief, conservative propaganda to control the ignorant masses for the sake of a king/government, but not much else.

>>13814920
>straw man tactic
>any year

>>13814882
>Christian presents Pascal's wager
>realize I cannot counter or refute him
>I must believe and act as though God exist
>declare there is but one God and Muhammad (PBUH) is His prophet