Pascal's Gambit

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

Despite the complete lack of logic in this position, I find it constantly coming up in argumets. I have to say, it's really starting to get annoying. I find it embarrasing for anyone to even use it. What can I do to mentally bitch-slap them to a point where they won't use such a stupid argument?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Despite the complete lack of logic in this position, I find it constantly coming up in argumets. I have to say, it's really starting to get annoying. I find it embarrasing for anyone to even use it. What can I do to mentally bitch-slap them to a point where they won't use such a stupid argument?

Claim that it is a very good argument for believing in Allah?

 

[kouchpotato]

Ask them how they know their God is the "true" one, and point out that they have an equally strong chance of suffering for eternity for not worshiping Allah, Ra, Thor or Vishnu.

 

[Aught3]

Tell them you've taken the "atheist gambit" and you're hoping not to piss-off the real deity by worshiping a false god.

 

[atheismforthewin]

From the vantage point of a certain religion, I've always thought of it like this.

Let's say a Christian, a Muslim, and I (an atheist) are in a room. The Christian tells me that I'm going to go to hell because I don't believe in his God and don't follow the teachings of Jesus. I ask the Christian for his evidence behind his claim. He gives his utterly circular reasoning, (The Bible says it, Bible is the word of God, God is Perfect, Why? Because the Bible says it...) but it boils down to the fact that he has faith that he will go to heaven for being a proper Christian and I will go to hell for not. He has a certain amount of actual evidence of me going to hell, that amount being zero since he is relying on faith. The Muslim looks at both of us and says it doesn't matter because we are both going to hell for not following the ways of Mohammad and Allah. Just as I had asked the Christian, I ask the Muslim for his evidence. The same circular logic boils down to the same elements of the Christian. He relies on faith, an equal amount of evidence as the Christian, that being none. Thus it cannot be more efficient to follow a religion for the sake of having a higher chance of being correct, since no religion provides more proof than another, giving possibility to infinite religions. Atheism lies outside the category of religion, and does not rely on such lack on evidence.

 

[JacobEvans]

Well usually when I hear it, I tend to take it as a warning to be careful of what I say. It's a sign of desperation.

My parents used that when they tried to "bring me back" when when I told them I was an Atheist. I don't exactly want to take away something that makes my parents feel good about their lives, especially when I can't replace it.

I always want to make sure that anyone I'm debating on the issue of religion is emotionally strong enough to go through the process of deconversion. Usually the use of that argument shows they are REALLY questioning their faith because the person using that argument is forced to admit their faith exists only on a gamble.

 

[monitoradiation]

Sadly, at one point in my life (when I was much much younger) I actually thought that this was a good argument for belief.

I haven't had this brought up against me yet, but if I did I'd probably tell them sarcastically that "Yah, I'm sure god wouldn't see through you hedging your bets"...

 

[Ciraric]

Sadly, at one point in my life (when I was much much younger) I actually thought that this was a good argument for belief.

Same. When my religion teacher brought it up in class it ruined my entire day until I went home and told my dad what was wrong and he explained why it was bullshit and cheered me up.

So yeah. Nice.

 

[TheOtherSide100]

It comes up from time to time. The last person to bring this up was kind of weird, so I think I was a bit mean in my response.

HIM: So you're an Atheist. Man, that's hard. I don't know if I could do that.

ME: It's no big deal. I'd rather not discuss it.

HIM: Come on, brutha. I mean, it takes NO effort to believe. And besides, wouldn't it be better to believe... you know, just in case?

ME: I'm glad to see your faith is so strong, and that you've had to work so hard to get your spiritual enlightenment.

When someone brings it up in this way, I usually take it to mean that they're just hedging their bets.

 

[e2iPi]

If it turns out that there is a god and Heaven, I believe it will be filled with atheists. With all the conflicting religions each with its own set of outlandish claims and blatant contradictions, surely a true god will reward atheists for being the only intellectually honest group on the planet. We also tend not to kill people for not-not believing.

i^2

 

[Zylstra]

If it turns out that there is a god and Heaven, I believe it will be filled with atheists. With all the conflicting religions each with its own set of outlandish claims and blatant contradictions, surely a true god will reward atheists for being the only intellectually honest group on the planet. We also tend not to kill people for not-not believing.

i^2

+1

 

[nasher168]

If it turns out that there is a god and Heaven, I believe it will be filled with atheists. With all the conflicting religions each with its own set of outlandish claims and blatant contradictions, surely a true god will reward atheists for being the only intellectually honest group on the planet. We also tend not to kill people for not-not believing.

Forgive me, but that sounds a little bit self-congratulatory. To me, a true God would be a God that rewards morality rather than intelligence.

 

[Rivius]

technically you're taking the same chance with atheism. There's just about as equal a chance that one god is real as there is no god. So by worshipping any god, you're not necessarily taking a better chance.

 

[Giliell]

I don't want to go to heaven, I'm planning to have a big barbecue in hell!

Pascal's Wager is simply a very, very stupid false dichotomy.
If there is a deity, which deity is it?
Even if it was the abrahamic god, which of the three religions based on him would be the correct one?
Even if it was Christianity, what denomination has got it right?
And if I ever found out that Pope Benedict's god was real and he was right, even then I'd rather hate that bastard with all my heart and go to hell proudly then follow such a cruel, violent, insert Dawkin's wonderful little rant here bastard.

 

[e2iPi]

Forgive me, but that sounds a little bit self-congratulatory. To me, a true God would be a God that rewards morality rather than intelligence.

I'm sure it is self-congratulatory, but not regarding my intelligence. It is easy to imagine situations in which one could be quite stupid and still be intellectually honest. Also, if one maintains intellectual honesty, morality is a natural consequence. There is a negative correlation between percentage of secular population and crime rate, after all.

i^2

 

[JacobEvans]

technically you're taking the same chance with atheism. There's just about as equal a chance that one god is real as there is no god. So by worshipping any god, you're not necessarily taking a better chance.

It's not a 50-50 chance.

Just because you can narrow something down to two choices, such as god/s exist or do not exist, doesn't mean you have equal chance of it happening.

If I said that either a unicorn will head butt you tomorrow morning, or it will not, does that mean there is an equal chance for both options?

 

[DontHurtTheIntersect]

Yeah, I did some more research on the counters to this argument, as well as the ones in this thread. Next time, if someone brings this up, I'm going to remind them that they are not considering all other religons of past and present, and each of their denominations, and remind them that it's not a 50-50 chance, but rather a 1/~30,000 chance.

Thanks to all who replied!

 

[Rivius]

It's not a 50-50 chance.

Just because you can narrow something down to two choices, such as god/s exist or do not exist, doesn't mean you have equal chance of it happening.

If I said that either a unicorn will head butt you tomorrow morning, or it will not, does that mean there is an equal chance for both options?

...Yes?
Maybe that was a bad analogy?

Besides, I wasn't talking 50-50. See, when you choose a deity, you're choosing one from the thousands out there. When you choose to follow one, you're being a heathen to all the rest. And when you throw in the chance that there is no god into the gamble, you pretty much have an equal chance with any choice.
It's not a safer bet to just randomly choose a god, it was just Pascal trying to justify an irrationality when he should have known better.


Oh, and I forgot to mention that Pascal's wager seems to be encouraging people to fool themselves into a belief? Does he really understand what a belief is? How does one just 'believe' something because its safe, anyway? Good luck fooling your God!

 

[DeistPaladin]

Top 10 Answers to Pascal's Wager

Top 10 Answers to Pascal's Wager

(because it's so morally and logically flawed, just one won't do)

1. A threat is not a reason to believe something.

2. A threat is not a reason to love someone. (Or, serving an evil force because it's strong isn't moral, and what could be more evil than a being who says "love me or I will pour gasoline all over you and set you on fire for all eternity"). Love can't be demanded. It can only be given freely, without expectation of reward or punishment, out of genuine admiration and respect.

3. There's more options than Jesus. If it turns out to be Muhammad, both of us have a problem.

4. Being a Christian isn't free. If it turns out to be Muhammad, I saved 10% of my income and got to sleep in on Sunday.

5. No one believes in a Hell that belongs to a cult they weren't indoctrinated into. When you understand why the Muslim Hell isn't real to you, you understand why the Christian Hell isn't real to me.

6. So let me see if I got this straight, God sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself because bleeding on a cross was the only way to convince himself to forgive us all for being such sinful beings which we are because an ancestor of ours who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake and unless I telepathically tell the Creator that I believe this, the same god who loves me will torture me for eternity?

7. You do know the Bible isn't consistent on the path to salvation, yes? (Only recommended if you're prepared for a lengthy debate on Bible self-contradition).

8. You do know that Hell got started as a garbage dump outside Jerusalem, yes?

9. What a hypocritical reason to believe in Jesus. Just to be safe?

10. You can't believe what you don't believe, by definition. Or are you hoping Jesus is a chump who'll think you believe if you just say so?

And then there's Stuart's Wager (one atheist who posted this on another forum)

If God is just, what does the atheist have to fear?
If God is not just, what does the believer hope to serve?

 

[Zylstra]

Re: Top 10 Answers to Pascal's Wager

Top 10 Answers to Pascal's Wager

(because it's so morally and logically flawed, just one won't do)

1. A threat is not a reason to believe something.

Saying you'll blow someone's brains out if they don't say you have ta huge dick doesn't mean you have a huge dick. it just means you're insecure asshole with a gun.

2. A threat is not a reason to love someone. (Or, serving an evil force because it's strong isn't moral, and what could be more evil than a being who says "love me or I will pour gasoline all over you and set you on fire for all eternity"). Love can't be demanded. It can only be given freely, without expectation of reward or punishment, out of genuine admiration and respect.

Pfft! After i kept her in the dungeon for a bit, she said all the time how much she loved me..

3. There's more options than Jesus. If it turns out to be Muhammad, both of us have a problem.

Keep your logic out of thios...

6. So let me see if I got this straight, God sent himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself because bleeding on a cross was the only way to convince himself to forgive us all for being such sinful beings which we are because an ancestor of ours who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake and unless I telepathically tell the Creator that I believe this, the same god who loves me will torture me for eternity?

but he loves you... why do you hate god? I'll pray for you...

7. You do know the Bible isn't consistent on the path to salvation, yes? (Only recommended if you're prepared for a lengthy debate on Bible self-contradition).

The bible is perfect and you're just deceived by satan. You have to ask for God's guidance to understand it... have you TRIED letting the holy spirt into your heart?

8. You do know that Hell got started as a garbage dump outside Jerusalem, yes?

It';s a parable.

Mark 4:10-12

10When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,
" 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'

See, proof god loves you and wants you to be saved.... whaT? :|

9. What a hypocritical reason to believe in Jesus. Just to be safe?

you think you're safe from god, but you're not,..

10. You can't believe what you don't believe, by definition. Or are you hoping Jesus is a chump who'll think you believe if you just say so?

Why do you refuse to belief in Jesus? He died for you...

And then there's Stuart's Wager (one atheist who posted this on another forum)

Quit making stuff up. You've been decieved by satan...

If God is just, what does the atheist have to fear?

You think you're better than god?

If God is not just, what does the believer hope to serve?

god'd is just because god decides what's right...


:roll: