Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="variant" data-source="post: 74221737" data-attributes="member: 114463"><p>They have similar ideas that help rate our historical ideas as more or less likely to hold up. We take down the standard from things we can see and experiment with ourselves because we still see a lot of value in learning from records.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sometimes. If there were say, a literal God, there isn't really any need for this divide. Metaphysics was coined by Aristotle at least in part because it came after a good study of the physics to broader questions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's a problem because people absolutely do make up answers to metaphysical and moral questions and start religions.</p><p></p><p>Unless we are going to take the position that every religion was true...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If say Christianity as correct then I will be punished by a God for not coming to the correct metaphysical and moral conclusions as written in his eons old best selling book.</p><p></p><p>I consider the proposition absurd, the wager only makes sense if you take Christianity seriously.</p><p></p><p>It looks bad for the Christian who thinks it is obviously right that I be punished for differing. It is up to them to justify their beliefs here and the wager doesn't do much good for them, makes them look a bit ghoulish in my opinion.</p><p></p><p>So, the person "on the fence" as you put it has to not only accept the "wager", but have a lot of credulity in the general judgment of the unbeliever regardless of why they are incorrect.</p><p></p><p>The heart of the wager is that we should all fear the unknown deity that governs this world (or spend as much time sucking up to it for the chances it will favor us) to the extent that we give up our moral autonomy and submit to the writings of those who were chosen to tell us what to do. OR ELSE!</p><p></p><p>It's a hideous set of beliefs there, I don't think I could believe that about God or people in general if I tried my hardest. So, not really a wager, more of a well rooted distaste for the liars that have hustled believers into this psychological noose.</p><p></p><p>I can't get there from here. There is no switch to pull, no amount of "immersion" with Christians or even brainwashing would do. The idea of the wager, and any attempt to take it seriously should have us recoiling in disgust from it's framing of the divine as a thinly veiled psychological attempt at emotional manipulation, aimed at control over others.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="variant, post: 74221737, member: 114463"] They have similar ideas that help rate our historical ideas as more or less likely to hold up. We take down the standard from things we can see and experiment with ourselves because we still see a lot of value in learning from records. Sometimes. If there were say, a literal God, there isn't really any need for this divide. Metaphysics was coined by Aristotle at least in part because it came after a good study of the physics to broader questions. It's a problem because people absolutely do make up answers to metaphysical and moral questions and start religions. Unless we are going to take the position that every religion was true... If say Christianity as correct then I will be punished by a God for not coming to the correct metaphysical and moral conclusions as written in his eons old best selling book. I consider the proposition absurd, the wager only makes sense if you take Christianity seriously. It looks bad for the Christian who thinks it is obviously right that I be punished for differing. It is up to them to justify their beliefs here and the wager doesn't do much good for them, makes them look a bit ghoulish in my opinion. So, the person "on the fence" as you put it has to not only accept the "wager", but have a lot of credulity in the general judgment of the unbeliever regardless of why they are incorrect. The heart of the wager is that we should all fear the unknown deity that governs this world (or spend as much time sucking up to it for the chances it will favor us) to the extent that we give up our moral autonomy and submit to the writings of those who were chosen to tell us what to do. OR ELSE! It's a hideous set of beliefs there, I don't think I could believe that about God or people in general if I tried my hardest. So, not really a wager, more of a well rooted distaste for the liars that have hustled believers into this psychological noose. I can't get there from here. There is no switch to pull, no amount of "immersion" with Christians or even brainwashing would do. The idea of the wager, and any attempt to take it seriously should have us recoiling in disgust from it's framing of the divine as a thinly veiled psychological attempt at emotional manipulation, aimed at control over others. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
The ethics and morality of Pascal's wager
Top
Bottom