• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Pascal's Wager

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Site Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,462
72
Reno, Nevada
✟335,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Yeah, i suppose that's the 'de-mythologised' version which is preached the most in our age.
I don't think it's how it was originally written, intended and understood though.
I'm not an expert, and i have to learn these viewpoints from others too, but i think anyone could agree that there are a number of gods in the Bible, and YHWH chose Israel as his people.
This went beyond Israel with Jesus Christ.
We owe this to the rejection of God by the Judeans, as it is written.

Often though, the false idols are described as objects of stone and / or wood etcetera, but these objects were used to 'catch' the gods, or as a means of communication, as is still custom in various pagan religions and the occult.
I think people are capable of boundless vanity, and the idea that rulers would call themselves gods seems plausible to me.
 
Upvote 0

Hieronymus

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2016
8,428
3,005
54
the Hague NL
✟84,932.00
Country
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I think people are capable of boundless vanity, and the idea that rulers would call themselves gods seems plausible to me.
They were (wanted to be) revered as gods, yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreadnought
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,044
11,767
Space Mountain!
✟1,387,019.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's great that you've actually read the Pensees (in full no less) but, no matter what the correct interpretation might be, @Rivga s point is based on the common understanding of the wager.

What he is asking is "Why this god and not that one?"

Playing around with legalistic arguments about what Pascal really meant is exactly what I meant by tap dancing in Post #18. It is a form of avoidance.

Why are Christians so reluctant to look this question square in the eye and answer honestly without evasion?
OB

Why are atheists so reluctant to actually do the full work and appropriately take in the breadth of Pascal's ideas which contextualize his Wager? Why do they constantly do the opposite? Oh, I know! It's because to do the homework correctly and without ripping Pascal's Wager loose from its moorings means they can't as easily down it and run it through ... Yeah, I guess to win the Wager argument, one has to convince everyone else that being lazy and unread is the quintessential way to go in order to fully misconstrue Pascal's intent and meaning by ignoring 99% of the rest of what he said. Wouldn't you say this is close to the truth on this issue, OB?

Yeah, as you might have noticed, I don't think much of skeptics' distortions of Pascal, nor the liberty they take in ripping out the bit they like to cut to shreds. If some people don't want to believe, that's fine. But if they're going to argue a point, at least they should do their homework before opening their mouths. Sheesh! o_O

So, yes. I know what Rivga was "trying" ask... but like atheists, I just ignore the bits I don't like or that I don't want to take the time to understand.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
34
Boston
✟28,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
There are certain qualities we attribute to God the Father. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and motivated by love. When a person believes in such a being, loving him with all their hearts, minds, and souls, and loving their neighbors as themselves, then I have to suspect that they are worshiping the same God we worship, even if they give him another name. That isn't the same as carving a boat and calling it God.

You still have to first choose to believe in that God. And you're hoping that that God does indeed not care too much about specifics of which religion you worshipped him/her through.
 
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,318
60
Australia
✟284,806.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why are atheists so reluctant to actually do the full work and appropriately take in the breadth of Pascal's ideas which contextualize his Wager?

Why are Christians so quick to lay the blame for this at the feet of atheists?

Christians throwing this at us atheists are inevitably using the "distorted" version of Pascal's Wager as an argument for belief. It's not us Atheists that bring it up. Having said that I find Pascal's dismissal of other religions entirely vacuous, and as such the "which God" rebuttal still holds water.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
39
New York
✟223,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Atheists get asked about this a lot, so I wanted to ask it from a different position.

So Judgement day arrives for you, you see a light and follow it. As your eyes come accustom to the light you see a figure sat on a chair, you can feel is divinity.

So far so good, there is an afterlife and your off to Heaven, but …

...Sat in that chair is a huge figure with the body of a man and the head of an Elephant, Lord Ganesha – Lord of Beginnings and Remover of Obstacles, Lord of the Ganas, Son of Shiva (the Supreme Being).
Who would have know that the oldest of the main religions was actually right.

To make matters worst he is not a happy camper, and his anger is directed towards you,

“How could you have rejected the true Gods?”
“All the signs have been placed before you”
“how could you have worshiped a false God,”
“How could you have not known when 70 million others followed the true path?”


What are you going to say?
Do you think he would be morally correct to punish you (or Shiva if you object to his son dishing out punishments)?

I would probably start lecturing him on Hindu theology, since in Hinduism it doesn't really matter whether you worship God as Vishnu, Allah, Christ, Manannán mac Lir, or your own inner light, it all amounts to the same thing in the end. And punishment is more just a matter of karma anyway--if you did poorly in this life, you'll be born into a worse state next time around, which I certainly think is morally appropriate.

I don't think it's the Christians who have to worry about Hinduism being correct--if you're a good Christian, you'd be a good Hindu too. It's people who don't care about the spiritual dimensions of human existence who are going to be coming back as earthworms.

I agree with Pascal's Wager, though I would put it in terms of belief in the immortal soul rather than belief in any particular religion--if you refuse to make your spiritual wellbeing your priority in life, you may well end up regretting it forever. Or, you know, earthworm.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
15,074
9,216
52
✟392,637.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I think sir, you are confused. I am a Christian, not a follower of a bronze age monolatric National religion. There is something called the fulfilment of Scripture, occuring to allow the mythopeoic landscape to exist in which the Incarnation could occur. This is anyway an involved question on punishment and justice, that I do not believe your flippant response warrants an exposition on.

But yes, mandating killing would be wrong. The question is more the principle, than the narrative, which is afterall set in fallen circumstances.
Is the God of the OT the same God that you venerate?
 
Upvote 0

Rivga

Active Member
Jan 31, 2018
204
105
47
Lonfon
✟29,166.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I would probably start lecturing him on Hindu theology, since in Hinduism it doesn't really matter whether you worship God as Vishnu, Allah, Christ, Manannán mac Lir, or your own inner light, it all amounts to the same thing in the end. And punishment is more just a matter of karma anyway--if you did poorly in this life, you'll be born into a worse state next time around, which I certainly think is morally appropriate.

As with every religion there is different interpretations, there is a section of Hinduism that is perfectly compatible with atheism (or Sanskrit as it is referred to in Hinduism).
But I chose the interpretation of Hinduism that is not tolerant.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,223
South Africa
✟331,643.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
People are talking about Paschal's wager, but I'd wager that very few here actually read the thing. Here it is:

Pensees, 233:

Infinite — nothing. — Our soul is cast into a body, where it finds number, dimension. Thereupon it reasons, and calls this nature necessity, and can believe nothing else.
Unity joined to infinity adds nothing to it, no more than one foot to an infinite measure. The finite is annihilated in the presence of the infinite, and becomes a pure nothing. So our spirit before God, so our justice before divine justice. There is not so great a disproportion between our justice and that of God as between unity and infinity.
The justice of God must be vast like His compassion. Now justice to the outcast is less vast and ought less to offend our feelings than mercy towards the elect.
We know that there is an infinite, and are ignorant of its nature. As we know it to be false that numbers are finite, it is therefore true that there is an infinity in number. But we do not know what it is. It is false that it is even, it is false that it is odd; for the addition of a unit can make no change in its nature. Yet it is a number, and every number is odd or even (this is certainly true of every finite number). So we may well know that there is a God without knowing what He is. Is there not one substantial truth, seeing there are so many things which are not the truth itself?
We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because He has neither extension nor limits.
But by faith we know His existence; in glory we shall know His nature. Now, I have already shown that we may well know the existence of a thing, without knowing its nature.
Let us now speak according to natural lights.
If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is. This being so, who will dare to undertake the decision of the question? Not we, who have no affinity to Him.
Who then will blame Christians for not being able to give a reason for their belief, since they profess a religion for which they cannot give a reason? They declare, in expounding it to the world, that it is a foolishness, stultitiam;7 and then you complain that they do not prove it! If they proved it, they would not keep their word; it is in lacking proofs that they are not lacking in sense. “Yes, but although this excuses those who offer it as such and takes away from them the blame of putting it forward without reason, it does not excuse those who receive it.” Let us then examine this point, and say, “God is, or He is not.” But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”
Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. “That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much.” Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness.
For it is no use to say it is uncertain if we will gain, and it is certain that we risk, and that the infinite distance between the certainly of what is staked and the uncertainty of what will be gained, equals the finite good which is certainly staked against the uncertain infinite. It is not so, as every player stakes a certainty to gain an uncertainty, and yet he stakes a finite certainty to gain a finite uncertainty, without transgressing against reason. There is not an infinite distance between the certainty staked and the uncertainty of the gain; that is untrue. In truth, there is an infinity between the certainty of gain and the certainty of loss. But the uncertainty of the gain is proportioned to the certainty of the stake according to the proportion of the chances of gain and loss. Hence it comes that, if there are as many risks on one side as on the other, the course is to play even; and then the certainty of the stake is equal to the uncertainty of the gain, so far is it from fact that there is an infinite distance between them. 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. This is demonstrable; and if men are capable of any truths, this is one.
“I confess it, I admit it. But, still, is there no means of seeing the faces of the cards?” Yes, Scripture and the rest, etc. “Yes, but I have my hands tied and my mouth closed; I am forced to wager, and am not free. I am not released, and am so made that I cannot believe. What, then, would you have me do?”
True. But at least learn your inability to believe, since reason brings you to this, and yet you cannot believe. Endeavour, then, to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured. Follow the way by which they began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness. “But this is what I am afraid of.” And why? What have you to lose?
But to show you that this leads you there, it is this which will lessen the passions, which are your stumbling-blocks.
The end of this discourse. — Now, what harm will befall you in taking this side? You will be faithful, humble, grateful, generous, a sincere friend, truthful. Certainly you will not have those poisonous pleasures, glory and luxury; but will you not have others? I will tell you that you will thereby gain in this life, and that, at each step you take on this road, you will see so great certainty of gain, so much nothingness in what you risk, that you will at last recognise that you have wagered for something certain and infinite, for which you have given nothing.
“Ah! This discourse transports me, charms me,” etc.
If this discourse pleases you and seems impressive, know that it is made by a man who has knelt, both before and after it, in prayer to that Being, infinite and without parts, before whom he lays all he has, for you also to lay before Him all you have for your own good and for His glory, that so strength may be given to lowliness.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,223
South Africa
✟331,643.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Is the God of the OT the same God that you venerate?
I venerate the same God as the Catholics, yet I don't agree with Papal Infallibility.
I worship the same God in whose name Jerusalem fell in 1099; of the expulsion of Jews in 1492; of the Witch trials. The same God whose adherents denied suicides burial, or condemned unbaptised babies till recently.

There is but one God, one Supreme Being. That being is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. You are being a bit silly. It is the equivalent of me asking if you agree with Scientific Method and thus concluding that you deny heavier than air flight is possible with Lord Kelvin, or must defend Lamarckism or Nazi Eugenics.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟193,871.00
Marital Status
Private
Atheists get asked about this a lot, so I wanted to ask it from a different position.

So Judgement day arrives for you, you see a light and follow it. As your eyes come accustom to the light you see a figure sat on a chair, you can feel is divinity.

So far so good, there is an afterlife and your off to Heaven, but …

...Sat in that chair is a huge figure with the body of a man and the head of an Elephant, Lord Ganesha – Lord of Beginnings and Remover of Obstacles, Lord of the Ganas, Son of Shiva (the Supreme Being).
Who would have know that the oldest of the main religions was actually right.

To make matters worst he is not a happy camper, and his anger is directed towards you,

“How could you have rejected the true Gods?”
“All the signs have been placed before you”
“how could you have worshiped a false God,”
“How could you have not known when 70 million others followed the true path?”


What are you going to say?
Do you think he would be morally correct to punish you (or Shiva if you object to his son dishing out punishments)?
I would say "Prove that you are almighty, omniscient, and omnipotent, and not merely a limited deity."
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,223
South Africa
✟331,643.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
As with every religion there is different interpretations, there is a section of Hinduism that is perfectly compatible with atheism (or Sanskrit as it is referred to in Hinduism).
But I chose the interpretation of Hinduism that is not tolerant.
Sanskrit is a language. It is not the same as 'Hinduism', even in Hindu tradition.

Hinduism is not really a religion per se, more a religious tradition. There are vast differences within it, which is far wider than those between two different world religions, like Islam and Christianity, say.

To call it the 'oldest world religion' is highly debatable anyway. Modern Hindu ideas largely arose as a response of the Vedic tradition first to Buddhism, then Islam and perhaps a little to Christianity in the Raj, along with a lot of internal development. It would not be recognised as the same religion by ancient adherents. The important gods have largely changed, since Indra and most Vedic gods have been sidelined. Krishna himself is mostly a syncretic deity with a form of Greek Pan-Dionysius from Indo-Greek days (the Yauna cities of the Indus). I mean, sacrifice of cattle was the premiere vedic rite, along with consuming Soma. Ask a Hindu today to sacrifice a cow...

I'd rather opt for Zoroastrianism or Jainism as the oldest religions, but they have very few adherents today. In fact, some Harappan symbolism strongly suggest Jain roots might lay in this civilisation. Of the world's major religions, if I transported them back more than 2000 years, the average Jew would be recognised as Jews, the average Buddhist as Buddhist, but I sincerely doubt the average Hindu would.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,392
✟170,432.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Atheists get asked about this a lot, so I wanted to ask it from a different position.

So Judgement day arrives for you, you see a light and follow it. As your eyes come accustom to the light you see a figure sat on a chair, you can feel is divinity.

So far so good, there is an afterlife and your off to Heaven, but …

...Sat in that chair is a huge figure with the body of a man and the head of an Elephant, Lord Ganesha – Lord of Beginnings and Remover of Obstacles, Lord of the Ganas, Son of Shiva (the Supreme Being).
Who would have know that the oldest of the main religions was actually right.

To make matters worst he is not a happy camper, and his anger is directed towards you,

“How could you have rejected the true Gods?”
“All the signs have been placed before you”
“how could you have worshiped a false God,”
“How could you have not known when 70 million others followed the true path?”


What are you going to say?
Do you think he would be morally correct to punish you (or Shiva if you object to his son dishing out punishments)?

Pascal's wager: the ultimate false dichotomy.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
39
New York
✟223,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
As with every religion there is different interpretations, there is a section of Hinduism that is perfectly compatible with atheism (or Sanskrit as it is referred to in Hinduism).
But I chose the interpretation of Hinduism that is not tolerant.

That doesn't really challenge Pascal's Wager, though. If God matches up to the uglier side of humanity, as an intolerant God would, then there is very little difference between worshipping and not worshipping him--either way, you're at the mercy of a deity that is for all intents and purposes evil. So discard the possibility as irrelevant and rerun the calculation assuming a benevolent God.
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Site Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,462
72
Reno, Nevada
✟335,856.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
You still have to first choose to believe in that God. And you're hoping that that God does indeed not care too much about specifics of which religion you worshipped him/her through.
It is dependent on whether or not the Lord created different religions. Did he create the Jewish religion? It seems obvious to me he did. Did he create Christianity? Certainly he did. Did he create Islam? I suspect he did, even if many believe otherwise.

You remember the tower of Babel. The Lord might not want us all gathered in the same room.
 
Upvote 0

zephcom

Well-Known Member
Jul 9, 2017
2,395
1,650
78
Pacific Northwest
✟102,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Married
Atheists get asked about this a lot, so I wanted to ask it from a different position.

So Judgement day arrives for you, you see a light and follow it. As your eyes come accustom to the light you see a figure sat on a chair, you can feel is divinity.

So far so good, there is an afterlife and your off to Heaven, but …

...Sat in that chair is a huge figure with the body of a man and the head of an Elephant, Lord Ganesha – Lord of Beginnings and Remover of Obstacles, Lord of the Ganas, Son of Shiva (the Supreme Being).
Who would have know that the oldest of the main religions was actually right.

To make matters worst he is not a happy camper, and his anger is directed towards you,

“How could you have rejected the true Gods?”
“All the signs have been placed before you”
“how could you have worshiped a false God,”
“How could you have not known when 70 million others followed the true path?”


What are you going to say?
Do you think he would be morally correct to punish you (or Shiva if you object to his son dishing out punishments)?

I suppose "Oops...." wouldn't be good enough, huh? :sorry:

Pascal's wager seems to be big with those proselytizing Christians who think they will be ranked higher on the salvation scale each time they 'convert' someone.

But try to use the same reasoning with them on something even more important like Global Climate Change. Then they jump right off the Pascal Wager Wagon convinced there is no need to do anything different just to protect the environment.

People seem to just naturally assume -their- convictions are right and what others think are wrong when they don't agree.

Other than talking to them for enjoyment one gets in talking with someone who has no intention of listening and openly considering the different point of view, there is no real reason to bother with them unless they become dangerous.

Sadly Climate Change is becoming far more dangerous than Christians who think Pascal's Wager makes enough sense to use it in a discussion.
 
Upvote 0

looking_for_answers_

Active Member
Dec 14, 2017
154
63
34
Boston
✟28,858.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It is dependent on whether or not the Lord created different religions. Did he create the Jewish religion? It seems obvious to me he did. Did he create Christianity? Certainly he did. Did he create Islam? I suspect he did, even if many believe otherwise.

You remember the tower of Babel. The Lord might not want us all gathered in the same room.

Are you a universalist?
 
Upvote 0