Why is Pascal's Wager dumb?

[Anonymous No.14113187]

You're literally trading in a finite existence for an infinite existence. I fail to see the flaws in it's logic.

[Anonymous No.14113199]

I present you with anon's wager. You suck my dick and live a happy life or you don't and go to hell. Do you suck my dick?

[Anonymous No.14113205]

One day. is it so bad for you?

[Anonymous No.14113218]

How exactly do I act as if God exists? Which God(s) will save me from eternal damnation if I do?

[Anonymous No.14113221]

>>14113187
You just watched that fags video huh?

[Anonymous No.14113230]

Just have a priest stand by on your death bed and say you accept the Lord Jesus Christ as your one and true savior then have the priest absolve you of all sins after leading a life of debauchery.

[Anonymous No.14113232]

I wonder if any of the retards talking about Pascal's wager have ever read the damned book

[Anonymous No.14113240]

But what if God doesn't like people hedging their bets?

[Anonymous No.14113247]

>>14113232
Most have never even heard of it. It’s quite amusing to see their arrogance when they are so ignorant.
>>14113199
>>14113218
>>14113240

[Anonymous No.14113249]

>>14113232
They're just making their own wager. If they pretend they have read it and people believe them, they will appear clever. If they make fools of themselves through their ignorance, they can hit alt f4 and nobody will be any of the wiser. If you don't pretend, nobody will think you are clever anyway.
So it's better to pretend to have read Pascal than not.

[Anonymous No.14113251]

>>14113232
>reading a 200+ page book when the argument can just be simplified into a single sentence

[Anonymous No.14113258]

You have to buy into the premise at all though, which is a black and white fallacy. Every religion can lay claim to the wager so it becomes absurd.

[Anonymous No.14113259]

>>14113187
It's not dumb. What would be dumb would be just presuming there is no God and this crazy yet beautifully ordered world is an accident and doing literally no investigation into whether anything else exists. That would be the absolute most wageslave MTV loving shit I can imagine.

[Anonymous No.14113262]

>>14113251
Most of the book doesn’t discuss the wager itself. Literally 3 and 1/2 pages >>14113247

[Anonymous No.14113266]

>>14113258
>t. hasn’t read Pensées

[Anonymous No.14113267]

>>14113259
>doing literally no investigation into whether anything else exists
Are you presuming to test the Lord?

[Anonymous No.14113274]

>>14113251
Are you retarded or just very stupid?

[Anonymous No.14113332]

>>14113230
Reconcilliation only works if you're truly sorry. You also don't know when you'll die.

Living a virtuous life is not easy, and you may not see the fruits of until after your death. I do know that rejecting temptation, showing compassion to the sick, poor, and needy, and glorifying the Lord in your everyday actions does bring its own peace.

[Anonymous No.14113341]

bayesian probabilities

[Anonymous No.14113346]

>>14113274
Both.

[Anonymous No.14113401]

>>14113247
if you can refute these counterarguments, please do so instead of posturing from smug safety

[Anonymous No.14113408]

>>14113187
It's a way for people to rationalize their way into faith, but this isn't real faith since faith is irrational. If you can ra5your way into belief, then you can also rationalize your way out of that belief.

[Anonymous No.14113416]

>>14113401
I’m not gonna rewrite a book that’s already been written. I read the book, realized my ignorance, then converted. You can read it or continue to think that everything is an argument to be won

[Anonymous No.14113421]

>>14113416
>I REFUSE TO DISCUSS THIS PIECE OF LITERATURE ON A BOARD ABOUT LITERATURE!

[Anonymous No.14113423]

Well it's dumb because Judaism and Islam actually prefer you to not be a blind follower of anything. These two religions actually condemn just following people or ideas for no reason. There are logical reasons to be religious

[Anonymous No.14113426]

>>14113408
Oversimplification. You can’t believe just because you’ve rationally decided that it’s good. Pascal says the same thing. You have to seek God and steer clear of sin, and God will seek you, as it says many times in the Bible

[Anonymous No.14113428]

>>14113423
>logical reasons to be religious
Such as?

[Anonymous No.14113431]

>>14113421
What’s to discuss? You haven’t read it. Ask me a specific question, and I will answer.

[Anonymous No.14113435]

>>14113423
Quran 2:62 says there are Christians and Jews in heaven. Also, what do you even mean? What will a Christian lose if Judaism is true, and on what scriptural basis? And all this is assuming that these other religions are equally probable

[Anonymous No.14113436]

>>14113431
How does it refute those anons’ counterarguments?

[Anonymous No.14113445]

>>14113436
which one? I’m not writing an essay here. First I would suggest you take a glimpse at pic related >>14113247
If you’re intelligent then you might already realize the answers to some of your questions.

[Anonymous No.14113451]

>>14113445
>which one? I’m not writing an essay here.
There’s only three and each one is literally a sentence long. Just admit the wager is bullshit, man.

[Anonymous No.14113453]

>>14113230
Augustine says, that he who sins with the intention of repenting after his sins, is not a penitent but a scoffer. ”Irrisor est non pœnitens."

[Anonymous No.14113456]

>>14113187
The fun starts when you realize that Pascal is developing his game theory and not some theological point.

[Anonymous No.14113461]

>>14113451
>which religion?
Christianity. Pascal shows why (literally half the book)
>God doesn’t like bets
Where in the Bible does it say that? Even if that were sin, are not all sins covered regardless?
>how to believe in God
Keep the commandments, pray, avoid sin, go to church, do good works, etc.

[Anonymous No.14113465]

>>14113428
Morality, first mover, a lot more. More than a post here will suffice. I personally don't have all the answers but I know that those religions have answers for you that aren't "just believe it bro, blind Faith "
>>14113435
Islam acknowledges Jesus as a prophet or something really similar to a prophet. And I don't know the other answers I'm not well read in either

[Anonymous No.14113468]

>>14113461
>Christianity. Pascal shows why (literally half the book)
Could you give a summary?

[Anonymous No.14113479]

>>14113465
>first mover
Why can’t the universe be the first mover?
>inb4 “it can’t move itself!”
If the universe can’t move itself, then how can God himself?

[Anonymous No.14113483]

>>14113468
The prophets, the principles. Read if you are curious

[Anonymous No.14113491]

>>14113187

Fear of something does not imply its existence.

[Anonymous No.14113559]

>trading your existence for a fantasy

[Anonymous No.14113588]

>>14113559
>Christians are infinitely more miserable than atheists
kek

[Anonymous No.14113591]

>>14113588
yep.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2003-06077-010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1064748112604503

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-18209-001

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?hl=en-US&publication_year=2005&pages=797-823&author=F+Van+Tubergen&author=M+Te+Grotenhuis&author=W.+Ultee&title=Denomination%2C+religious+context%2C+and+suicide%3A+Neo-Durkheimian+multilevel+explanations+tested+with+individual+and+contextual+data#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DG5Quu87ycCkJ

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1521/suli.32.4.404.22333

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-men/201712/religion-and-mental-health-what-is-the-link%3famp

http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/people-files/faculty/si105/FINAL_Fruehwirth_Iyer_Zhang_Dec2017.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4482518/

[Anonymous No.14113610]

refute Pascal's Mugging and the expanded Wager and I'll take the original Wager seriously
https://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/pascal.pdf
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013/09/23/pascals-wager-expanded-edition/

[Anonymous No.14113638]

pascal, kierkegaard, and kant are pretty interesting when it comes to religion - I feel like pascal might be one of the lesser ones out of the three purely because his writings on this wager are much smaller compared to the writings on religion of kierkegaard and kant, but the main gist of all of them is that christianity is not about a will to truth but a decision! a choice! it is pragmatic, existential in nature, an inner movement. kant rants for hundreds of pages about how we cannot at all prove the existence of god but goes on to say that we must believe regardless with his famous "as-if" questions,,,, at this point it is not about whether god exists or not but about what it would actually mean if god existed? what immanent possiblities would it actually bring? here is also where I feel like mystics are much more closer to the core of religion than piecemeal theists - as kierkegaard notes, becoming a christian these days is about as easy as putting on socks! the existential focus that pascal, kierkegaard, and kant put on religion is paramount

[Anonymous No.14113654]

>>14113199
God didn't ask me to suck any dicks, in fact both in the Bible and the Quran it's forbidden and punishable by death. What kind of fucking idiotic argument is that, you twat. What God asks of me is not humiliating nor disgusting like that.

>>14113218
False question, there is only one God who is promising you eternal damnation, and it's the one of the Bible and the Quran. Or do you know any other religion like that? The only real question (since Judaism is an ethnic religion) is whether Muhammad is a true prophet or not. That's the ONLY real thing you have to figure out. See how I've narrowed your spectrum here.

[Anonymous No.14113656]

>>14113591
I selected about 5 random studies from there and read the abstracts. They all show that religiousness is associated with less depression. Read what you post next time.

[Anonymous No.14113661]

The Bible doesn’t even mention hell, you dumb faggots.
https://medium.com/@BrazenChurch/hell-a-biblical-staple-the-bible-never-actually-mentions-c28b18b1aaaa

[Anonymous No.14113677]

>>14113661
>Anon links to Medium.com and finally conquers religion
>The crowd starts roaring
>Anon is crowned king of the world for finally debunking Theism
>Anon smirks in his room with infallible superiority as he waits for the replies to his post

[Anonymous No.14113678]

>>14113187
>let me trade in something definite for some mystical payoff later

This is how Nigerian prince email scams work, anon. Pascal would have been broke had he email.

[Anonymous No.14113695]

>>14113677

[Anonymous No.14113721]

>>14113218
christian god, he controls eternity and cant tell if you're faking

[Anonymous No.14113807]

>>14113199
Nice pascals mugging. The ultimate counter argument. The wager is stupid

Best video on it by far is made by an absolute STEM fag of all people:

https://youtu.be/JRuNA2eK7w0

[Anonymous No.14113816]

>>14113807
Read the thread (and Pensées)

[Anonymous No.14113855]

>>14113816
my god told me that if i read pensees, then id go to the hell for rest of my eternal life.

[Anonymous No.14113886]

>>14113855
You can’t even name two exclusive religions other than Christianity, let alone show that they’re as probable as Christianity.

[Anonymous No.14113888]

>>14113187
I'd rather be a frog poster for 50 more years instead of an eternity in heaven.

[Anonymous No.14113907]

If we live under the yoke of a god that rewards a subjugated existence over a virtuous life, then that god simply isn't a god worth worshiping.

[Anonymous No.14113914]

>>14113907
>he wants to be subjugated under the idea that we should live a virtuous life

[Anonymous No.14113915]

Pascal's wager treats things like it's 50/50. However, with all the kinds of religion in the world, you could be just as much of an atheist even if you're a Christian. The God judging you to eternal damnation could be the God of Islam or the God of Judaism, etc. At that point there's a multiplicity of possibilities, and at that point why bother following any specific fate if you're just as likely to be fucked as an atheist.

[Anonymous No.14113922]

Why does God need us to worship him?

[Anonymous No.14113923]

>>14113199
based, brainlet thread

[Anonymous No.14113968]

>>14113922
Who said He did? Did He personally tell you?

[Anonymous No.14113977]

>>14113968
He commands us to worship him in the Bible. If we don’t, he doesn’t let us into heaven.

[Anonymous No.14114013]

>>14113187
It's unbelievable how naive people are to take the wager literally and not as a thought experiment and one of the many, many points in the Pensees.

I assume that the people going "Pascal wager dumb" are also the ones going "Epicurus problem of evil big brain".

Do you think that Pascal was a fucking retard? Read the damn book.

[Anonymous No.14114032]

>>14113247
>>14113262
>>14113416
>>14113431
classic "dude, why dont you just go read it, trust me, im right"

>Literally 3 and 1/2 pages
>I'm not gonna rewrite a book
>3 and a 1/2 pages
>cant even write up a paragraph or two to provide a general write down of pascal's wager

let me guess this anon's other retorts:
>are you stupid? go read these 5 books each 200 pages long and then back to me
>dude, are you retarded? go explore X, Y, and Z author, they clearly outline everything that refutes what youre saying (but also, i cant do much other than name drop and copy + paste table of contents)
yes, u big boi, u win /thread

[Anonymous No.14114211]

>>14114032
>Literally 3 and 1/2 pages
>I'm not gonna rewrite a book
>3 and a 1/2 pages
>cant even write up a paragraph or two to provide a general write down of pascal's wager
All of the objections are based on ignorance of things that Pascal addresses outside of those 3 pages. Atheists only know about those 3 pages.

[Anonymous No.14114267]

>>14114211
nigga i aint saying you wrong
im saying youre a dildo acting all smug when youre nothing more than a dirty cuntsicle
>look at these dirty plebs, get on my level son
>pssh, go do your homework and we can talk
>oh and btw i havent demonstrated any actual substance other than name dropping and table of contents copy+pasting
>but thats okay, its enough to make me feel good and pat myself on the back
>i have asserted my erect and throbbing tower of intelligence, bow ya little shits

[Anonymous No.14114282]

>>14113266
Redpill me on how Pensées supposedly shows that Christianity is the one true religion.

[Anonymous No.14114283]

>>14114267
But the funny thing is, several anons learned a lot just by my posting the few things I did. I’m not ashamed to point out that there is a strange wide scale ignorance of Pensées. When I learned about it, I read the book. But you seem to be motivated by arguing and demonstrating your superior intelligence, asking me to water down Pascal’s words, giving you enough confidence to dismiss him completely and feel justified by not actually investigating such an important matter.

[Anonymous No.14114307]

>>14114283
how would you address pascal's wager then?
>mugger says give me $5 dollars
>you see mugger only has his penis in his hand
>mugger: "i forgot my weapon"
>"im not giving you $5 dollars"
>mugger: "bro, give me $5 dollars, and tomorrow ill give you $500"
>"theres no way some filth like you would honor the deal"
>mugger: "okay, how about you give me $5 dollars, and tomorrow i give you $5 trillion dollars?"
>mugger: "bro, you give up a measly $5 dollars, for the expected possible utility of $5 trillion dollars! even if i cant mug you with just my penis in my hand, even if i wont return you $5 trillion, its worth it bro"
>mugger: "even if theres just a 1/1000 chance ill ever honor my deal, if you did this same deal 1000 times, you would come out infinitely rich!"
>mugger: "come on man, theres at least some non-zero chance ill honor the deal, and theres at least some rational number we can agree on where youll decide parting with the $5 is worth it"
>"okay, heres $5 dollars"
>muggers: "thanks bro, also can you give me a handie while youre at it?"

[Anonymous No.14114318]

>>14114283
also i aint trying to demonstrate my superior intelligence

im just trying to feel morally superior by pointing out that youre just a smug asshole sitting on his high horse when youre really just a little cunt

[Anonymous No.14114333]

Who the hell (pun intended) said it was dumb? It’s a game theoretic approach to eternal damnation hundreds of years before game theory was a twinkle in von neumann’s neurons. lol

[Anonymous No.14114346]

>>14114333
von neumann became a christian and sought forgiveness for everything bad he'd done (working on the manhattan project for example) before his death

[Anonymous No.14114354]

>>14114333
based and science is a religion pilled

[Anonymous No.14114356]

>>14114307
You’re assuming that the probability of Christianity is being true is comparable to a mugger giving you money in such a way, which ignores all the details and arguments that Pascal uses to defend Christianity. Also, giving away $5 like that has no real benefit prior to the large reward later, whereas a Christian is happy in this life, even more so than if he had been an atheist. See >>14113591
for actual studies on this. Pascal talks about all this stuff in other parts in the book. When you people come up with such ignorant arguments, it just seems ridiculous to those who’ve actually read the book. What else am I supposed to do but point how awfully misinformed people are? Even the biggest atheists on YouTube do not mention Pensées in their wager videos. They’re peddling lies and I can’t stand for it.

[Anonymous No.14114369]

I am religious but Pascal's wager is not a good theological argument in my opinion, there are much better places to start. The whole argument sounds very Protestant to me personally. Anyone else?

[Anonymous No.14114370]

>>14114356
From what I've gathered in this thread, Pensees makes Christianity seem like it's good from a utilitarian perspective. Famous utilitarian Christians include Mexican cartels, Italian mobsters, American politicians, etc. Not groups you want to be associated with!

[Anonymous No.14114404]

>>14114370
That’s not what utilitarianism means. If you meant something along the lines of “Pascal is saying that being a Christian is the best thing for you,” then yes, that is true. What, did you think that an apologetic should say that there are better things to do, but that we should be Christian for some strange reason?

[Anonymous No.14114418]

>>14114404
Better in what sense? In the utilitarian sense. Sad!

[Anonymous No.14114424]

>>14114356
the point is youre assuming giving up "Christian happy life" is not the same as just "giving up $5"
>well you see, this guy is only giving up $5
>but for the Christian, he isn't being asked to give up $5, he's being asked to give up $5 trillion dollars!

no reason why you can give up being a Christian and still lead a happy life
>sense of community through church and religion = happiness
>sense of community through local charity
>higher purpose = less selfish = more happy
>dedicating yourself to close family = less selfish = more happy

you can argue that being one with God is invaluable and then its just a matter of your subjective value
but everyone knows that everyone has some value system, the problem is finding the right price
>but the Jews wouldnt give up their religion even during the Holocaust
>hitler: hi jew, in return for you giving up your religion, i will stop killing all the jews, i will give all the jews everything they ever wanted, and i will give you everything you ever wanted
>jew: with the safety and happiness of my fellow jews, and with all the resources at my beckoning, i could accomplish so much!
>jew: and all of this for merely giving up my Judaisim. hmm.. honestly this is worth considering

[Anonymous No.14114429]

>>14114282
It's almost like there's a whole book you can read that tells you exactly what's in Pensées, word for word even.

[Anonymous No.14114434]

>>14114418
what about in the egoist sense? Or pragmatic sense? Utilitarianism is concerned with populations. Now do you have any response to the main topic here? Or will you just double down on semantics?

[Anonymous No.14114471]

>>14114434
Same thing. Very sad you choose to double down on the mobster type of Christianity. Praying for you!

[Anonymous No.14114483]

summary of every Wagerist's argument in this thread:
>dude trust me

[Anonymous No.14114507]

>>14114471
>NOOOO you can’t just do what’s best for you! You’re supposed to harm yourself!

[Anonymous No.14114511]

>>14114333
This. I'm an atheist and it's a smart move. No wonder people are religious.

[Anonymous No.14114517]

>>14114507
Mobsters do what's best for them. Mobsters are thugs on Friday, repentant on Saturday, Christians by Sunday. Anon supports mobster Christianity. Christianity inherently supports mobster ethos because of it's with us or against us philosophy. Very tragic. I do not condone this type of metaphysical debauchery!

[Anonymous No.14114532]

>>14113187
1. You don't know whom is the True God, if you pick Yahweh and and it turns out to beTezcatlipoca you fucked badly

2. It isn't certain that God actually approves of blindly believing in him. Pascal recommends that since you can't just force yourself to believe in something, you should cultivate habits like going to the Church routinely etc. to psychologically condition yourself to be faithful. But wouldn't a morally perfect God have more respect for a honest atheist than a disingenuous Theist? Maybe he even feels contempt for the later.

[Anonymous No.14114544]

>>14114532
>But wouldn't a morally perfect God have more respect for a honest atheist than a disingenuous Theist? Maybe he even feels contempt for the later.
Christians will never entertain this thought beyond "with us or against us!" This is because modern Christians are mobsters. Christianity evolved from an esoteric desert religion into an imperial force over the centuries. True glimpses of Christ's message can be found in individuals like Kierkegaard, not Catholic doctrine. Sad state of affairs when Catholicism the most popular variant of Christianity in the world. That just goes to solidify Christ's message that Satan is indeed the prince of this world. His workings are made clearer every day!

[Anonymous No.14114556]

>>14114517
No one takes this stuff seriously here. Try r*ddit.
>>14114532
>whom
Your first point is addressed by Pascal. As for your second point, how is a man supposed to become a Christian if not by seeking God? What is he to do? Just wait and do nothing? Are you people delusional?
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Psalm 10:4
>In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
Directly contradicts your lies about God preferring atheists.
Acts 17:27
>That they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

Ignorance and pride go hand in hand

[Anonymous No.14114624]

>>14113332
By that logic god should be able to know if my belief is sincere or not, and if I’m just trying to cover my ass. If I don’t believe I don’t believe, I can’t make myself have faith just because I’m scared of death. So a. It wouldn’t be real belief, and b. my fake claim of belief in the final hour is just an obvious ploy to avoid hellfire that an omniscient being should be able to see through. Pascal’s wager is an utterly pointless hypothetical exercise.

[Anonymous No.14114638]

>>14114624
It's meant for Protestants. not for anyone else.

[Anonymous No.14114644]

reminder that if you truly believe the Wager is correct, then you don't treat faith as a virtue but instead as a matter of pragmatics and logic, so have fun in hell <3

[Anonymous No.14114655]

>>14114624
Pascal acknowledges that you can’t just flip a switch in your mind to have faith. It requires seeking God, just like the Bible says. See >>14114556
It’s so obvious, but you people have gone so far in pride that you refuse to admit ignorance of the things you have spoken. But if any of you can humble yourselves, then I congratulate you for it, because it is not easy to do.

[Anonymous No.14114719]

>>14113922
it wants our attention like a spiritual semon demon, a brutal sky thott

[Anonymous No.14114742]

>>14114655
But, logically, Pascal’s wager is still pointless in and of itself. Seeking god may be worthwhile, but doing it because of the wager is not. Because it is still seeking something out of fear, not faith. It’s a faulty starting point and is ultimately useless.

[Anonymous No.14114756]

>>14113187
You aren't trading shit.
Your belief alone does not make reality happen.
This is no more than a tactic to scare you into deciding to believe bullshit because some jerkoff is telling you that the stakes are higher than reality requires.

[Anonymous No.14114833]

>>14114742
>Because it is still seeking something out of fear, not faith
There’s no such thing as doing something purely out of faith. There has to be an underlying reason for that faith or else we wouldn’t know what to have faith in. Obviously there is fear, and hope, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. That is the time to seek God, to attain a genuine faithful relationship with Him. What is the alternative that you think is better?

[Anonymous No.14114853]

>>14114833
Acknowledging I don’t have much time and seizing every single day, wringing every last drop of satisfaction I can out of life until the lights go out.

[Anonymous No.14114856]

>>14113187
i'm so fucking sick of your bullshit faith. fuck god and fuck you too

[Anonymous No.14114862]

>>14113654
and why do you care about gods feelings? fuck his feelings he's a narcissist cunt

[Anonymous No.14114870]

>>14114853
But you seemed to be implying that there was a better way to become Christian. Anyway, as for what you said, this life is meaningless. We are all equal in death with regards to the enjoyment of this life. It will not have mattered that you had more pleasures than someone else. It’s all temporary, vanity of vanities. But even if the enjoyment of this life mattered, it’s not as if atheists are much happier than Christians, anyway. So it seems best to build up your treasures in heaven, and you will live your life just fine.

[Anonymous No.14114898]

>>14113187
>He thinks this is a one God show
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

No.

You're not just playing Pascal's wager with Christianity's YHWH - You're playing against

>Zeus, Thor, and his Greek family
>Jupiter, Neptune, and his Roman family
>Vishnu, Brahma, and his Indian family
>The Enlightened Buddha and his pan-Asian family
>Jewish YHWH, where heaven isn't even enumerated and there's no Messiah as of yet
>Islamic YHWH, where heaven looks almost nothing like Christian YHWH's heaven and does a complete rules patch
>Raven, the Giantess, and the rest of the pantheon of the Kwakwakaʼwakw (pic related) in their ongoing conflict against the wolves-that-man-banished

And every other naturalist, syncretic, and idiosyncratic religion that I haven't named.

You don't know which, if any, of these are right, and saying they're not right due to low followership or just because you don't know their tenets and beliefs is an argument from authority.

And contrary to hippies who claim they're all jerking off the same elephant, they're almost certainly not the same god, because none of their origin stories line up, most of the things they preach have nothing to do with one another, often completely and directly conflict, and most of them are mutually exclusive, so you can't pick multiple and still be a steadfast follower.

Worse, if you pick wrong, you're often no better (or actively worse!) than a nonbeliever.

Once it stops being just a simple wager (a one-on-one affair) and becomes what it really should be seen as, PASCAL'S ROULETTE, it becomes a lot more clear that the safest bet is just to pick SOME ethical system, stick to it, and ignore anybody trying to push a god on you: because, just like roulette numbers, the absolute majority of them are losers.

[Anonymous No.14114916]

>>14114898
A lot of religions are dead, practiced by hardly anyone, having no prophecies or surviving literature. There are also many religions that aren’t actually exclusive like Christianity is. Find me a religion that compares to the boldness that Jesus showed when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one may come to the Father except through me.” Even in Islam, the Quran says that Jews and Christians in heaven, as they submit to Allah and do good works (2:62). And there are many other religions that mainly value good deeds as well. Then there are systems like Greek mythology, in which it does not matter what you believe, as everyone goes to the same place regardless, unless you are a demigod. Do you really think people who try to be like Jesus will suffer if Hinduism is true? Or Buddhism? Or Zoroastrianism? etc. This is a very lazy defense you are attempting, and it shows that you know nothing of Pascal’s work, as he defended Christianity at length in Pensées (same book with the wager), even attacking specific philosophies and religions for their weaknesses.

[Anonymous No.14114935]

>>14114916
>Do you really think people who try to be like Jesus will suffer if Hinduism is true? Or Buddhism? Or Zoroastrianism?

Agreed, because your post 100% proves my point: if you believe this, you've completely divorced religion from the manner in which one follows it, OR, put more clearly, the ethical system from its specific trappings: So long as you've got the ethical system and it values good deeds, turns out you don't even need the religion.

Therefore, as in >>14114898,
>The safest bet is just to pick SOME ethical system, stick to it, and ignore anybody trying to push a god on you: because, just like roulette numbers, the absolute majority of them are losers.

[Anonymous No.14114952]

>>14114935
But the problem is Christianity doesn’t just value good deeds. Islam values good deeds and believing in Allah, as well as Judaism, but in Christianity, you must also accept Christ. It is the most exclusive religion that I know. I don’t know why you would pursue some other system over Christianity. The fact that people choose to be Stoics when Christianity has every good Stoic precept among with much greater things, is just mind-boggling. The same can be said for so many religions and philosophies. And we must not forget how Christianity is filled with prophecy and wonderful literature. Even without the exclusivity argument, it is a marvelous religion with a history so puzzling that atheists cannot come to a solid conclusion on how it was all allegedly faked. Truly, it is just as easy to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, as it is that the whole Bible is a forgery by men with mysterious intentions.

[Anonymous No.14114963]

Isn't Christianity about faith? Why are you guys so concerned with Christianity's statistical truth value vs others then? Is a cost-benefit analysis really what drives you to religion?

[Anonymous No.14114985]

>>14114963
Before you have faith in something, you have to decide what it is you won’t have faith in. If I’m betting on a horse, I’ll use everything in my ability to figure out which horse I think will win. Then, I will pour all my faith into that horse, hoping it will win. Without that initial process, how shall I apply my faith? Randomly? Should I believe the first religion that I hear of? You cannot have reason without faith, and you cannot have faith without reason. Once you choose Christianity, though you don’t have as much faith as needed, you can seek that faith. See the verses in >>14114556

[Anonymous No.14114988]

>>14114644
>>14114963
these anons

[Anonymous No.14114990]

>>14114988
refuted here
>>14114985
>>14114556

[Anonymous No.14115029]

God is omniscient. He knows that you're calculating instead of relying solely on him. There's also the question of which religion out of the possibly infinite religions that you can have (after all, it isn't good enough to believe in Christianity, you must also have the right interpretation of it), making the Wager a completely pointless exercise

[Anonymous No.14115043]

>>14114952
This doesn't really say anything new versus your previous post, so I'll just be nitpicking things I personally disagree with from here, and you're welcome to argue against anything if you want.

>It is the most exclusive religion that I know
You mean besides every other exclusive religion on the planet with the exact same rules and expectations? Get real, anon.

>Christianity did Stoicism better!
Stoics did stoicism first and longer (pic related) and in my view without any unneeded kruft stapled to it, but it makes sense that a Christian would feel Christians did it better.

>atheists cannot come to a solid conclusion on how it was all allegedly faked
Nonreligious people dismiss this pretty much on the same ground that lets Christians dismiss Islam when it says
>How could all this have been faked?

Or Hinduism when it says
>How could all this have been faked?

Or when the Kwakwakaʼwakw say
>How could all this have been faked?

Because, as a core idea of all religions (or, of believing in the face of Pascal's Roulette, that you should actively reject picking one), you get
>You're taking your faith as a matter of faith
>Since your faith is mutually exclusive with having other faiths, and you're assuming your faith is right, other faiths must have gone wrong somewhere: If you're right, they're in some way wrong.
>So therefore, without examining specific claims of a faith, you can say
>"Through some series of events, you've either unwittingly or intentionally ended up in a place where you're wrong"

So, for the same reason if a stranger walked up to you with a 200 page diatribe he claimed proved that 5 = 4, you don't need to read it to say "Something's wrong with your work" - because the mistake is by definition.

[Anonymous No.14115069]

>>14114990
refuted here
>>14114644
>>14114963

[Anonymous No.14115110]

>>14115043
>You mean besides every other exclusive religion on the planet with the exact same rules and expectations?
Name one

[Anonymous No.14115123]

>>14115110
>The trail of mutually exclusive native religions, both in Europe and in the Americas, forcibly converted or slaughtered under Christian boots over 2000 years is probably uncountable
>Four crusades of mutually exclusive Islam fighting mutually exclusive Christendom
>Century-old conflicts and tensions between China under a bunch of mutually exclusive religions vs. English Christendom
>Centuries of conflict caused by English Christendom's occupation of mutually exclusive Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam in occupied India

They're all plying the same trade of
>my religion verses your religion; fox only, final destination, no idols
I'm just more familiar with Christianity because I'm an Amerifat descendent of the regional 'winners'.

[Anonymous No.14115130]

>>14113187
Imagine a god who accepts a person who follows them based on a rather cynical gamble based on pascal's wager. Imagine a god who rewards this person's entirely selfish bet hedging instead of a person who owns up to the fact that they have doubts too serious to be ignored and decides to live their life true to how they see reality. Such a petty, small minded, childish god would not be worth following, so without even mentioning that the wager could be applied to any and every conception of god, if it works at all it only demonstrates that such a god would not be worth worshiping to begin with

[Anonymous No.14115138]

>>14115123
John 14:6 clearly establishes the exclusivity of Christianity. Find me similar bases for other religions. What the followers say is irrelevant.
>>14115130
See >>14114985
>>14114556

[Anonymous No.14115140]

>>14115138
>What the followers say is irrelevant.
Why tho

[Anonymous No.14115157]

>>14115140
Muslim A days terrorism is not only allowed but encouraged. Muslim B says Islam is a peaceful religion and doesn’t advocate terrorism. Who do you believe?

[Anonymous No.14115168]

>>14115157
>Read their holy book
>It's a confusing mishmash of both and neither, and pretty much could be used to argue for anything
What the books say is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.14115188]

>>14113187
It may seem reasonable to take some marginal odds for an epic payout, but Pascal's Wager is only a small, infinitesimal part of a much larger story. It is also condemned in that it isn't the ideal case of its class, and it is thereby discovered to be a bad idea even in the case of a pure gamble.

[Anonymous No.14115189]

>thinks he can get away with living s life that's 99.999% sinful and still find salvation through technicality without changing your character

[Anonymous No.14115207]

>>14113187
Because its not buying a kebab, you have to believe it.

[Anonymous No.14115236]

>>14113258
Here's the big flaw with that counter-argument that every retard fails to realize: even if all similar claims are to be considered absolutely equally, the atheist one STILL loses and you're better off picking any one of the theist claims.

[Anonymous No.14115268]

>>14115138
Neither of those address the insult to the nature of god that such a hypothesis must assume. Plus, it's circular to state that once you have chosen Christianity, you can "seek faith" as the exact same can be said of any religion or any ideology. "seek and ye shall find" is rather sinister in that humans have a huge confirmation bias and the mind will often simply invent the evidence needed to fulfill literally any premise at all.

[Anonymous No.14115274]

>>14115236
>There is a god who only rewards those who follow their conscious honestly
okay, now all atheists get rewarded and all Pascal wagerers get nothing, feel smart yet?

[Anonymous No.14115637]

>>14113187
I'm planning a coup against Satan, so I really need to get down to Hell after I die.

[Anonymous No.14115946]

>>14115274
Will I go to hell for believing in this god?

[Anonymous No.14115953]

>>14115236
>>14115946
There is zero evidence to believe that any god exists, so if one does it's just as likely that he sends atheists to heaven and theists to hell.

[Anonymous No.14115970]

>>14115953
>zero
You didn’t answer my question. Suppose an atheist puts his faith into this God in order to believe that he will be rewarded. Is it intellectually dishonest to believe so, therefore leading him to hell for believing the truth? Also, you act as if believing in a Creator is the only intellectual dishonest position. Are you implying you have no beliefs that could possibly be wrong? Don’t you also use faith for practical purposes? What makes you any better?

[Anonymous No.14115979]

>>14113199
>>14113218
>>14113240
>>14113258
>>14113408
>>14113423
>>14113491
>>14113559
>>14113610
>>14113678
>>14113807
>>14113907
>>14114369
>>14114483
>>14114532
>>14114644
>>14114756
>>14114898
>>14114963
>>14115029
>>14115130
>>14115188
Read Pensées

[Anonymous No.14115980]

>>14113914
Based reply

[Anonymous No.14115983]

>>14113187
Because there is no sure way to know which religion is the correct one. There a thousand beliefs just on Earth and there is an entire universe to take into consideration.

[Anonymous No.14115987]

>>14113187
it's dumb because it's a false dichotomy. if god is infinitely smart, he'll understand why we don't fall for dumb things.

[Anonymous No.14115989]

>>14115979
>runs and hides
Surrender accepted.

[Anonymous No.14115990]

>>14113915
You are not as likely, even if you account for every existing religion you would still have a percentage larger than zero, whereas if you don’t make the wager, the percentage is equal to zero.

And honestly only monotheistic beliefs make sense

[Anonymous No.14115992]

>>14115953
You forgot the god that sends all theists to heaven and all atheists to hell.

[Anonymous No.14115995]

>>14115970
>Suppose an atheist puts his faith into this God in order to believe that he will be rewarded.
If it's a god that specifically condemns anyone who believes in god, then obviously it won't work.
>Are you implying you have no beliefs that could possibly be wrong?
This is a pointless question.
>Don’t you also use faith for practical purposes?
The difference here is that even if I assume that Uzbekistan exists out of "faith", I can still go and check it for myself if I want to.

[Anonymous No.14115997]

>>14115979
>read penises
no, I don't read

[Anonymous No.14115999]

>>14115992
He is equally as likely to exist as the opposite. The point is, all possible combinations of heaven/hell discrimination are equally as likely.

[Anonymous No.14116002]

>>14115997
I read books, you read penisées.

[Anonymous No.14116013]

>>14115995
>If it's a god that specifically condemns anyone who believes in god, then obviously it won't work.
So then this god punishes those who believe the truth.
>This is a pointless question.
No it isn’t. Won’t you go to hell for just believing in one thing that could be false?
>The difference here is that even if I assume that Uzbekistan exists out of "faith", I can still go and check it for myself if I want to.
You can’t confirm all your beliefs though. Besides, a Christian will say his faith is justified by his personal relationship with God, and evidence from the prophets, etc.

[Anonymous No.14116019]

>>14115999
>all possible combinations of heaven/hell discrimination are equally as likely.
Prove it

[Anonymous No.14116022]

>>14115987
>Pensées? Never heard of it

[Anonymous No.14116026]

>>14116019
The discrimination for heaven and hell is entirely arbitrary, so there’s basically a normal distribution.

[Anonymous No.14116035]

>>14116026
What makes you think a random god is just as likely as the Christian god? Does the history of Christianity mean nothing? The prophets? Should we believe that extinct religions are just as likely? Or the ones without any sort of canonical text? Do you really think the god that rewards shit-eaters is as likely as the Christian god? If God himself told you that either Christianity is true, or that the shit-eating god was true, what would you believe?

Also, most religions are pretty similar in regards to who goes to heaven. Having good deeds and detaching yourself from earthly desires and worshiping the creator of the all existence will land you in heaven according to many religions.

[Anonymous No.14116038]

>>14116035
If people create religion to control the masses, it’s no wonder they’re all so similar. This isn’t really a coherent argument you’ve shown me.

[Anonymous No.14116047]

>>14116035
>What makes you think a random god is just as likely as the Christian god?
The fact that there is zero evidence to believe in either one.
>Does the history of Christianity mean nothing?
It means as much as the history of each other religion.

[Anonymous No.14116053]

>>14116047
So how do you respond to
>If God himself told you that either Christianity is true, or that the shit-eating god was true, what would you believe?

[Anonymous No.14116060]

>>14116053
The shit-eating God, because he would be more unjust. Considering that being born into this world without consent is unjust in and of itself, it would only make sense that God is unjust too.

[Anonymous No.14116061]

>>14116053
>If God himself told you that either Christianity is true, or that the shit-eating god was true, what would you believe?
Flip a coin, it's just a 50% gamble. But more realistically I'd just call him a nigger to see what happens.

[Anonymous No.14116065]

>>14116060
>>14116061
Embarrassing. You people never have the integrity to tell the truth. Or maybe you just hate God that much.

[Anonymous No.14116069]

>>14116065
Not an argument, but nice try. Dunce.

[Anonymous No.14116083]

>>14116065
>You people never have the integrity to tell the truth.
A god has appeared before you, proven that he is indeed the creator of universe etc. Then he says there's 50% chance of you going to heaven for being a Christian, and also 50% for eating shit. No further information. There is no reason to treat either choice as being more likely.

[Anonymous No.14116084]

>>14116069
If you think a god who rewards shit-eaters is as likely as the Christian god, and you would seriously consider worshipping that god, then I don’t care to discuss anything with you. You people are ridiculous and it’s obvious that you simply hate god. No reason can convince you unless you humble yourself.

[Anonymous No.14116087]

>>14116083
I said nothing about 50%. Either one is true. That doesn’t say anything about their probability.

[Anonymous No.14116088]

>>14116084
>Christian God is likely to be true
You're even dumber. Your average priest knows that the God isn't real and is only useful as a marketing tool.

[Anonymous No.14116096]

>>14116088
Serious question: why do you think so many people believe in the Christian god and not the shit-eating god? Do you really think there is ZERO reason? Do you think people just believe in things randomly?

[Anonymous No.14116098]

>>14116084
>If you think a god who rewards shit-eaters is as likely as the Christian god
There is zero evidence for either one, therefore each is equally as likely to exist.
>>14116087
>I said nothing about 50%.
Contextual information. Based on what was said, there was no reason to find that either choice was more likely, therefore it's a 50/50 split.

[Anonymous No.14116103]

>>14116098
>Based on what was said, there was no reason to find that either choice was more likely, therefore it's a 50/50 split.
But you have no reason to assume that, either.

[Anonymous No.14116104]

>>14116096
>why do you think so many people believe in the Christian god and not the shit-eating god? Do you really think there is ZERO reason?
There is zero reason in terms of actual evidence, the only real reasons they believe is because of the societies in which they are inserted. Were they born among mudslimes they'd be afraid of pigs, were they born in some Amazon tribe they'd shove their hands in gloves full of bullet ants and so on.

[Anonymous No.14116107]

>>14116103
>you have no reason to assume that
I have two choices, with no hint of either one being correct. Therefore it should be treated as a 50/50 choice.

[Anonymous No.14116109]

>>14116104
Define actual evidence and explain why people believe in something with no actual evidence. Why isn’t there an equal distribution of beliefs in random things?

[Anonymous No.14116112]

>>14116053
I don't know how to answer this, because I have no frame of reference for how I react to the supernatural. I'd be more open to the existence of your God if I thought he was openly talking to me, but as that hasn't happened, and likely never will, there's no reason to speculate on my reaction. You have to understand that, to me, you don't speak with God behind you, you're just another person proselytising their admittedly popular beliefs.

>>14116084
I am being entirely honest with you when I say this: I lack a belief in your God. I do not hate or fear him, though I may hate or fear people like you under the right circumstances. I no more believe in him than you do in the existence of dead religion's deities or Santa Claus or the potential success of certain political philosophies.

>>14116096
Because God is shown to be a figure that is desirable to various cultures. People don't want to eat shit, but they do want an infallible Patriarch that will deliver them to a paradisaical afterlife where suffering and sin don't exist. I think it sounds wonderful too, I just don't believe he's real

[Anonymous No.14116113]

>>14116107
A T-Rex will either show up at your door or not. Is there a 50% chance that it will, you brainlet?

[Anonymous No.14116120]

>>14116084
Feel free to argue against my reasoning.

[Anonymous No.14116124]

>>14116113
There is actual reason to believe that a T-Rex won't appear at my door, based on the fact that there is no evidence that T-Rex currently exist. However, both the shit-eating doctrine and the Christian doctrine have zero evidence backing them, and in the scenario proposed, the only information I have is that a god exists, with no indication of whether it is the god of Christians or the god of shit-eaters.

[Anonymous No.14116129]

>>14116113
Unless there's a God flipping a coin of this, then no. That seems awfully unlikely. China is going to be the first nation with a Jurassic Park if anyone cloned dinosaurs and I live hundreds of miles from China.

[Anonymous No.14116136]

>>14116109
>actual evidence
Anything that can be subject to falsifiability in order to verify a hypothesis.
>Why isn’t there an equal distribution of beliefs in random things?
Because of cultural and social configurations. Like I said, if you were born in ancient Sumeria you'd firmly believe that you'll spend your afterlife in a cave eating clay for eternity or some shit.

[Anonymous No.14116141]

>>14116136
>if you were born in ancient Sumeria you'd firmly believe that you'll spend your afterlife in a cave eating clay for eternity or some shit.
Sounds better than the afterlife a shitting-eating god would give you

[Anonymous No.14116144]

>>14116136
>Anything that can be subject to falsifiability in order to verify a hypothesis.
Do you believe anything you read in history books?

[Anonymous No.14116151]

>>14116141
Subjectively.

[Anonymous No.14116156]

>>14116144
>Do you believe anything you read in history books?
Have you looked into academic history? It's a complete clusterfuck of strikingly contrasting narratives precisely because of how unreliable most sources are. A few things that have been properly documented and left marks which can still be felt to this day are acceptable to believe in as a common ground, but for the most part it's best to treat history as a genre of literature.

[Anonymous No.14116160]

>>14116151

[Anonymous No.14116213]

Christians can't even argue against the Jewish argument of stolen Jesus tomb. Christianity is a joke, but it's an incredibly marketable joke.

[Anonymous No.14116619]

>>14116136
Popperpilled

[Anonymous No.14116635]

>>14116213
What is that argument ?

[Anonymous No.14117034]

>>14116635
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_body_hypothesis

[Anonymous No.14117114]

>Pascalboy presents Pascal's Wager as the single greatest argument for the existence of the Christian God ever
>it gets mercilessly BTFO
>desperately, he clings to >muh Pensees, while never once explaining what in the Pensees specifically adressess any of the criticisms raised by people in his thread
>people rightfully see right through this
>he abandons his own thread, probably thinking that he won, like a theological version of Charlie Zelenoff

Another day in the life of Pascalboy.

[Anonymous No.14117292]

>>14115990
you can't rule out a god who only rewards those who don't do Pascal's wager, so you have no basis at all to calculate the odds, which is why it's so stupid

[Anonymous No.14117298]

>>14113187
You’re trading one in the hand for two in the bush. I fail to see your logic

[Anonymous No.14117302]

>>14116084
>I have the knowledge of exactly who created the universe, what he expects of me, and that all other religions are false
>also you should humble yourself
are you seriously this unselfaware?

[Anonymous No.14117319]

God exists
Repent

[Anonymous No.14117359]

>>14117319
ok but which one?

[Anonymous No.14117362]

>>14117114
Seething faggot.

[Anonymous No.14117367]

>>14117362
cope

[Anonymous No.14117478]

>>14117114
I responded to the main objections here>>14113461
You’re really trying to hard to make people forget that you’re too lazy to read. When people make arguments against Pascal, then I point out that they haven’t even read Pascal, why, then, do they demand me to tell them what Pascal wrote? They can’t accept the fact that they spoke out of ignorance, and their pride limits their open-mindedness. Very few are able to reconsider their original, arrogant claims, and actually read the book.

[Anonymous No.14117532]

>>14117478
So I should read every book in existence? Pascal's wager is clearly a utilitarian wager, I bet the book is mostly religious fluff.
Tell me why I, as a man who only wants the best for myself, should believe in a very unlikely god.

[Anonymous No.14117557]

>>14117532
>So I should read every book in existence?
No but you shouldn’t decontextualize books and act as if the author is retarded and you have everything figured out. It’s always the same 3 objections, every time, and they’re all addressed in Pensées. It’s tiresome to keep pointing it out. I would much rather enjoy it if anons had read the book and criticized him than criticizing him without reading it. Take any of the non-fiction books you’ve read that argues something and imagine that no one has read it but they all argue against it in the same ignorant way.

[Anonymous No.14117601]

>>14117557
I admit that I only criticise the wager itself as I have read it. The wager sounds to me like it says I will maximize my own personal happiness, even from a kind of hedonistic perspective, by believing in god.
It sounds like a pseudo mathematical expected value calculation, consider a casino.

You invest one chip, black and red have both a 50% chance, but if you bet on red and you are right you will get 3 times the money! clearly that's +ev. And that is actually solid (and simple) math in a very realistic scenario,

But Pascal's wager basically says, well, maybe it's unlikelly, but if you win, you win infinity. This is not mathematically sound.

Again I admit I haven't read it, but the argument that I have read doesn't hold up.
You don't have to convince me of course, but if you can describe to me what new ideas I will find in the rest of the book I am listening.

[Anonymous No.14117622]

>>14113187
Because it's intellectually cowardly. And besides, even if God exists, he certainly wouldn't consider you a true Christian if you only believed in him because of Pascal's wager.

[Anonymous No.14117646]

Why don't we talk shit about Pascal's triangle instead?

[Anonymous No.14117672]

>>14117601
The wager itself as commonly known is around 3 pages. The gist is that we can’t know if God exists or not, but it’s better to believe (or, seek belief) anyway for the benefits in this life and the next. The first part of the book really build up the idea that we are miserable, ignorant, living meaningless, vapid lives. God is meaningful, hopeful, etc. Then of course there is the afterlife. Pascal presents the wager before his defense of Christianity, so it would seem at first that he’s assuming things about the nature of God (why would God care about us? etc). But in the second half of the book, it is explained why Christianity is not only the best religion, but the perfect religion. He even mentions religions like Islam and eastern philosophies, Stoicism, hedonism, Judaism, etc. criticizing their natures. He relies a lot on prophecies and parallels between the OT and NT, as well as the principles of Christianity that make it stand out.

Though the book is fragmented it should be read in order. And not every single reason he provides is enough to prove that Christianity is true (but he provides dozens of not hundreds of reasons!). That’s why I’m not going to simply post a few random arguments, because then the stubborn will simply say that it isn’t enough. Pascal says something about this, and how the proud will reject everything no matter how high your stack of proofs is.

[Anonymous No.14117683]

>>14117622
>It’s always the same 3 objections, every time, and they’re all addressed in Pensées. It’s tiresome to keep pointing it out. I would much rather enjoy it if anons had read the book and criticized him than criticizing him without reading it. Take any of the non-fiction books you’ve read that argues something and imagine that no one has read it but they all argue against it in the same ignorant way.
See >>14114556
which was never replied to by anyone ITT because it shows the obvious truth

[Anonymous No.14117699]

>>14114985
>>14117622 Also see above

[Anonymous No.14118045]

>>14113187
It could rain tomorrow, or it might not rain tomorrow. Does that mean we should always forecast a 50/50 chance of rain, anon?

[Anonymous No.14118059]

>>14117478
>I responded to the main objections here
Yeah with yet another >Muh Pensees

[Anonymous No.14118093]

>>14115274
>making up random shit
At this point we should start the process of differentiating between claims, yeah? Pretending that a random invented claim is on par with a religious tradition thousands of years old is one of the most disingenuous things atheists do. Why should I pretend you have a point?
>>14115953
What do you mean you say "evidence"? Do you mean shit tested in a lab? Lol

[Anonymous No.14118330]

>>14118093
>a claim gets more credibility because it's old
A lie repeated down thousands of generations is still a lie. Tradition does not lend any credibility to truth. This is one of the biggest fallacies perpetuated by the religious. There are tons of ancient religious traditions and they are mutually exclusive and contradictory, meaning that at minimum all but one are false, meaning there are thousands of ancient lies perpetuated today. Why shouldn't I add one more that's just as plausible as any of then?

[Anonymous No.14118338]

>>14118045
This is a naive definition of probability. It's the equivalent of saying you have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery: you either win or you don't. That's not how probability works.

[Anonymous No.14118362]

>>14113187
Actually god is an atheist. He created religion as a test to see who is dumb enough to fall for it. Those who fall for it and become religious are sent to eternal torment and those who become atheists are sent to work in his paradise as his engineers and scientists. Given that this is just as possible as there being a Christian god why aren’t you an atheist? Do you want to take the gamble and risk being eternally tortured?

[Anonymous No.14118767]

>>14113187
NO SKIN IN THE GAME

[Anonymous No.14118778]

>>14118767

[Anonymous No.14118783]

>>14118362
Suppose this god exists, and you believe in it. If you go to Heaven, you are rewarded for believing things without true understanding, making this god a hypocrite. Yet, if you are sent to hell, then you are punished for believing the truth.

[Anonymous No.14118971]

>>14113187
Living "infinitely" is not a reward anyone should strive for. It's a load of rubbish the religious peddle to the masses who can't psychologically overcome their own mortality or those who've had a shit lot in life and are desperate to believe there's something better waiting for them once they croak.

It's honestly rather depressing.

[Anonymous No.14119006]

>>14118338
That's my point mate.

[Anonymous No.14119015]

>>14113199
fpbp