A Return To Pascals Wager

[Svartalf]

May I have girls and acid instead or is that reserved for the godless?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

May I have girls and acid instead or is that reserved for the godless?

If some self-proclaimed holy roller does it, then so can you AND get into heaven - all hail pascal's wager!

[Collector1337]

Because belief is a passive attribute. It is something that you have no conscious choice over. I don't choose not to believe in god, I simply don't. Many years ago, thanks to parental influence, I did believe. The change from one state to another was not a decision, merely a consequence of my sum life experience between then and now.

"I simply don't"

If it's the sum of your entire life experience, then I wouldn't call it "simple." In fact, it's the opposite, then it's quite complicated.


Either way, bottom line, the answer to my question is "no" then?

It's simple in as much as it's a binary property - a flip/flop mental state. You either believe, or do not believe.

How one comes to that state is incredibly complex. But there was never any point in my life when I chose to either believe or not to believe - in god, or in anything. A single event may be the catalyst for the state flipping but there is no way to tell in advance if that might happen.

You still did not answer my question.

I don't get what's wrong with people on this forum that they can't even answer simple fucking yes or no questions. Rationalists my fucking ass.

So, let's say there is a god, is that what you're going to tell him? That you have no power over your own beliefs and shit just happens to you?

You see how weak that is, right?

Did you have a single event you can pinpoint? If so, what was it?

[Collector1337]

Can one choose to believe?

Why not? You choose to not believe.

One can certainly choose to adhere to religious tenets and such, but you are suggesting actually choosing to believe based on a philosophical argument that there may be something to gain.

Or to lose.

Can you do that? I doubt I could.

Why not?

Because belief is a passive attribute. It is something that you have no conscious choice over. I don't choose not to believe in god, I simply don't. Many years ago, thanks to parental influence, I did believe. The change from one state to another was not a decision, merely a consequence of my sum life experience between then and now.

From all the anecdotal evidence I've been exposed to, I'd say that belief or disbelief is indeed beyond choice, it's something that imposes itself on you, for whatever reason. Paul Claudel did not choose to believe, faith just descended on him, similarly, I didn't choose to disbelieve, there just came a day when I realized that chretinity was just too absurd for me to believe in that heap of absurdities piled on misunderstanding of the basic material.

You must be the kind of guy who takes everything literally if you think everything is absurd.

Are you going to explain what misunderstanding of basic material you are talking about?

[rachelbean]

Because they're talking about Pascal's Wager, and you're not

You must have gotten a bad grade in Philosophy 101, or most likely never took it at all.

Oh man, you can see right into my soul. I feel crushed.

[Collector1337]

The point about Pascal's Wager is fundamentally about the idea of eternal punishment for not believing. (He avoided the issue of all the things that one could believe). The risk he tries to manage through the disingenuous subterfuge that he proposes is the risk of eternal damnation for not believing.

If you're talking about something other than this, then you're not talking about Pascal's Wager. You may be talking about a variant on it, and I'll happily engage with that, if you set it out clearly.

NO FUCKING SHIT! That's exactly what I'm doing. It really took you that fucking long to figure it out?

Pascal's Wager isn't this SINGLE thing that has only one meaning. It's fucking sad how so many people on this forum claim to be so intellectual, yet obviously haven't even taken the most basic, rudimentary philosophy class. It's so fucking pathetic is sad.

In particular, I'd like to understand how eternal damnation is not indicative of a punitive god.

You are not very good at conducting "thought experiments" are you? You over think it so much, you can't get passed this punitive god shit. How many times do I have to say it?

PUNITIVE ONLY ABOUT BELIEF AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PASCAL'S WAGER. NOTHING ELSE.

I don't get why this is so hard for you. You can't ignore/remove variables to look at a certain situation for a second, or what?

Oh, and as for the distinction that damnation arises not for lack of belief, but for transgressive behaviour (which is NOT the subject per se of Pascal's Wager), it is still clear that the god in question is punitive.

It's not the subject of Pascal's Wager?

NO FUCKING SHIT! THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING IT ABOUT THAT THEN?

That is beside the point though, because Pascal's Wager centres on how to avoid punishment for non-belief.

According to you perhaps, since you only care about the non-belief side of it.

Avoiding punishment. Ethernal reward. Whatever. It's all in how you look at it. But apparently, you are too dense to look at more than just one side of the coin.

Pascal's Wager isn't some rigid thing you make it out to be.

For the love of god, go to college, you're complete and utter lack of critical thinking skill is pathetic.

[Collector1337]

Pascal himself acknowledged the problem of not being able to control ones belief. His solution (in his pensées, along with the wager) is that we should act as if we believe (following the precepts of the church in other words) and strive to attain belief that way!

We're almost getting somewhere, but not really, since people here are not very smart, so I'll just say it.

I'm waiting for multiple things, but one of them is this:

I'm waiting for someone to say that you might as well believe, because it's at the very least, the "safest" option. So, you should just believe to play it safe for the long run.

Then, someone should be smart enough, but apparently no one is, to say that if there is indeed a god who is all-knowing, then he would know for a fact whether you really believe or are just faking it to play it safe.

[Collector1337]

Because they're talking about Pascal's Wager, and you're not

You must have gotten a bad grade in Philosophy 101, or most likely never took it at all.

Oh man, you can see right into my soul. I feel crushed.

You should, because you're not very bright for a self-proclaimed "nerd."

[Cormac]

The point about Pascal's Wager is fundamentally about the idea of eternal punishment for not believing. (He avoided the issue of all the things that one could believe). The risk he tries to manage through the disingenuous subterfuge that he proposes is the risk of eternal damnation for not believing.

If you're talking about something other than this, then you're not talking about Pascal's Wager. You may be talking about a variant on it, and I'll happily engage with that, if you set it out clearly.

NO FUCKING SHIT! That's exactly what I'm doing. It really took you that fucking long to figure it out?

Pascal's Wager isn't this SINGLE thing that has only one meaning. It's fucking sad how so many people on this forum claim to be so intellectual, yet obviously haven't even taken the most basic, rudimentary philosophy class. It's so fucking pathetic is sad.

In particular, I'd like to understand how eternal damnation is not indicative of a punitive god.

You are not very good at conducting "thought experiments" are you? You over think it so much, you can't get passed this punitive god shit. How many times do I have to say it?

PUNITIVE ONLY ABOUT BELIEF AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PASCAL'S WAGER. NOTHING ELSE.

I don't get why this is so hard for you. You can't ignore/remove variables to look at a certain situation for a second, or what?

Oh, and as for the distinction that damnation arises not for lack of belief, but for transgressive behaviour (which is NOT the subject per se of Pascal's Wager), it is still clear that the god in question is punitive.

It's not the subject of Pascal's Wager?

NO FUCKING SHIT! THEN WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING IT ABOUT THAT THEN?

That is beside the point though, because Pascal's Wager centres on how to avoid punishment for non-belief.

According to you perhaps, since you only care about the non-belief side of it.

Avoiding punishment. Ethernal reward. Whatever. It's all in how you look at it. But apparently, you are too dense to look at more than just one side of the coin.

Pascal's Wager isn't some rigid thing you make it out to be.

For the love of god, go to college, you're complete and utter lack of critical thinking skill is pathetic.

*your.

[Cormac]

Pascal himself acknowledged the problem of not being able to control ones belief. His solution (in his pensées, along with the wager) is that we should act as if we believe (following the precepts of the church in other words) and strive to attain belief that way!

We're almost getting somewhere, but not really, since people here are not very smart, so I'll just say it.

I'm waiting for multiple things, but one of them is this:

I'm waiting for someone to say that you might as well believe, because it's at the very least, the "safest" option. So, you should just believe to play it safe for the long run.

Then, someone should be smart enough, but apparently no one is, to say that if there is indeed a god who is all-knowing, then he would know for a fact whether you really believe or are just faking it to play it safe.

So, your punitive god DOES care about whether or not you believe, regardless of behaviour...

[Cormac]

Because they're talking about Pascal's Wager, and you're not

You must have gotten a bad grade in Philosophy 101, or most likely never took it at all.

Oh man, you can see right into my soul. I feel crushed.

You should, because you're not very bright for a self-proclaimed "nerd."

Oh motes, motes everywhere, but nary a forest to be seen...

[Collector1337]

*your.

Your either intellectual dishonesty, or just plain stupidity, continues I see.

[Collector1337]

Pascal himself acknowledged the problem of not being able to control ones belief. His solution (in his pensées, along with the wager) is that we should act as if we believe (following the precepts of the church in other words) and strive to attain belief that way!

We're almost getting somewhere, but not really, since people here are not very smart, so I'll just say it.

I'm waiting for multiple things, but one of them is this:

I'm waiting for someone to say that you might as well believe, because it's at the very least, the "safest" option. So, you should just believe to play it safe for the long run.

Then, someone should be smart enough, but apparently no one is, to say that if there is indeed a god who is all-knowing, then he would know for a fact whether you really believe or are just faking it to play it safe.

So, your punitive god DOES care about whether or not you believe, regardless of behaviour...

Wow you are dumb.

My god? Huh?

Yeah, he "DOES care" because that's the whole fucking point of Pascal's Wager. That's the only thing that matters.

This is about the 5th time I've said this.

[Svartalf]

Very eloquently stated. Beside that, his understanding of the subject outshine yours a millionfold, even if I don't have to fully agree with him (but don't care to dispute about minutiae)

[Collector1337]

Very eloquently stated. Beside that, his understanding of the subject outshine yours a millionfold, even if I don't have to fully agree with him (but don't care to dispute about minutiae)

There's nothing funnier than someone who thinks they are smart, but who really is not.

You make a claim, and back it up with nothing.

He clearly understands nothing since I've had to repeat myself half a dozen times. Yeah, that's some stellar understanding right there...

The intellectual dishonesty and stupidity continues from the self-proclaimed "rationalists."