Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: July 19, 2025, 11:09 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Atheist version of Pascal's wager
#22
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager
(February 1, 2016 at 4:35 pm)Lek Wrote:
(February 1, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: No one on this thread seems to have read the OP, but since the rest are atheists it hardly applies to them.  As a Christian, I think you need to answer to the twist on Pascal's wager as I outlined in the OP.

Okay.  There is no set amount of works that one must do to 100% guarantee admission into heaven.  We're saved because we accept the sacrifice that Jesus made for us because no amount of works will get us into heaven.  One who has faith in Christ will do good works because he is a follower of Christ and also loves his neighbor.  One who doesn't do any works is obviously not a follower of Christ.  Also, one can do all the good works he wants, but if he denies Christ then he won't enter heaven.  We don't need to give away everything we have.  That was Jesus' command to the "rich young man" because his riches were keeping him from giving himself over to God.  He walked walked away sad because he loved his riches.  What we are required to do is acknowledge that everything we have belongs to God and to use our wealth to serve God and his creation.  Part of that purpose is to take care of ourselves and our families and also to care for those in need.  Do most of us keep too much for ourselves?  Yes, even when we try not to.  That's why we need Christ for our salvation - because we'd never make it otherwise.

If Jesus was only talking to the rich young ruler, then why is the conversation in the Bible?  After all, John was not there to witness it.  Therefore the Holy Spirit revealed to John that this conversation had occurred, or else Jesus deliberately told John personally.  Why involve John if the conversation was meant to be just between Jesus and the rich young ruler?

Also you aren't addressing what the actual wager is saying.  You don't know for 100% that Jesus is OK with you keeping your big screen plasma TV while children are starving.  You simply DON'T KNOW that Jesus is OK with this.  Jesus also said that many will come to him saying they did good works in his name and etc but that they're still headed for the flames.  Why would Jesus do that?  Because their heart wasn't right.  So you tell me how your heart is right if you're hoarding wealth while children starve.

Works are not required because you're on the honor system with the grace of the New Testament.  Everyone in the Western world is pissing all over the grace provided to them.  Every Christian in the Western world as is lukewarm as piss.  If you truly had the faith that you're going to heaven for all eternity, you wouldn't give two shits about your TV. It's literally as if you just won the lottery, but you immediately start playing Angry Birds because you're too bored to be excited about the riches that await you.

(February 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm)athrock Wrote:
(January 31, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Pascal's wager, for the one or two of you who don't know, says that because there is between a 0% and 100% chance of Christianity being true, and because the consequences of unbelief are infinite, one ought to believe in Christianity.  There are many rebuttals to this, but to me the most obvious one is that one cannot actually force oneself to believe in something that is irrational no matter what the stakes are.  Can you force yourself to believe in unicorns?

That's not exactly what Pascal's Wager is saying.

For the person who has examined the evidence but is undecided about how to proceed, Pascal's Wager proposes that it is wiser to bet on the truth of the Gospel than against it. Further, it is noted that when you begin to behave as a believer (attending church, praying, reading scripture, etc.) these activities tend to reinforce the faith position thereby enabling one to make a final step (not a blind leap) of faith.

(January 31, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: But if you already believe in Christianity, then you have to answer to the atheist version of your own wager.  You should sell all that you own and give to the poor, then wander the world doing good works and preaching the gospel.  

And clearly, many Christians have done just this. St. Francis of Assisi, for example. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. And too many others to mention.

(January 31, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: There is clearly a 100% chance you'll get into heaven if you do this (provided your heart is right and all that jazz),

That last bit is quite important, because we cannot BUY or EARN our way into heaven, so your caveat is spot on.

(January 31, 2016 at 5:23 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: but there is NOT a 100% chance that Jesus will accept you into heaven if you sit on your wealth while children starve to death.  Jesus did say that many will do good works, thinking they're Christian, but yet will still be cast into hell.  So if you live like a king in your Western world, occasionally going to church and giving a manageable tithe, there's no guarantee you will get into heaven.

You are saved by grace through faith, but faith without works is dead... so there is no guarantee that you are doing enough unless you do all that you can.

Not bad, overall, Nihilist. Christians would, in general, agree with you. However, while Jesus did call one young ruler to sell all that he had, He did not call everyone to that life of poverty. The key is in knowing what God wants from you personally.

If this is the Atheist Pascal's Wager, then I think it's fair to say that you're simply asking the kinds of questions that Christians ask of themselves often if not daily: Am I doing enough? Am I doing what God wants of me?

Thanks for bring this up.  Clap

I'm going to copy/paste what I said to Lek because it applies here:


If Jesus was only talking to the rich young ruler, then why is the conversation in the Bible?  After all, John was not there to witness it.  Therefore the Holy Spirit revealed to John that this conversation had occurred, or else Jesus deliberately told John personally.  Why involve John if the conversation was meant to be just between Jesus and the rich young ruler?


You don't know for 100% that Jesus is OK with you keeping your big screen plasma TV while children are starving.  You simply DON'T KNOW that Jesus is OK with this.  Jesus also said that many will come to him saying they did good works in his name and etc but that they're still headed for the flames.  Why would Jesus do that?  Because their heart wasn't right.  So you tell me how your heart is right if you're hoarding wealth while children starve.

Works are not required because you're on the honor system with the grace of the New Testament.  Everyone in the Western world is pissing all over the grace provided to them.  Every Christian in the Western world as is lukewarm as piss.  If you truly had the faith that you're going to heaven for all eternity, you wouldn't give two shits about your TV. It's literally as if you just won the lottery, but you immediately start playing Angry Birds because you're too bored to be excited about the riches that await you.
Jesus is like Pinocchio.  He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Nihilist Virus - January 31, 2016 at 5:23 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Huggy Bear - January 31, 2016 at 7:42 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Expired - February 4, 2016 at 5:49 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Cyberman - January 31, 2016 at 7:43 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by AFTT47 - January 31, 2016 at 10:30 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 5:24 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by brewer - January 31, 2016 at 9:07 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Heat - February 1, 2016 at 1:28 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by robvalue - February 1, 2016 at 2:24 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Silver - February 1, 2016 at 2:28 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by brewer - February 1, 2016 at 1:48 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by zebo-the-fat - February 1, 2016 at 12:47 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 1, 2016 at 1:40 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by LastPoet - February 1, 2016 at 2:01 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 1, 2016 at 4:22 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Ravenshire - February 3, 2016 at 4:07 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 3, 2016 at 5:18 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Fidel_Castronaut - February 1, 2016 at 2:10 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Nihilist Virus - February 1, 2016 at 2:21 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 1, 2016 at 4:35 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Nihilist Virus - February 2, 2016 at 2:27 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 3, 2016 at 2:01 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by RobbyPants - February 3, 2016 at 2:23 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 3, 2016 at 5:03 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Nihilist Virus - February 3, 2016 at 5:44 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Wyrd of Gawd - February 3, 2016 at 6:41 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Lek - February 3, 2016 at 7:31 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by dyresand - February 3, 2016 at 8:32 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Mr Greene - February 2, 2016 at 8:03 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Cyberman - February 1, 2016 at 7:40 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Mr Greene - February 2, 2016 at 8:06 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by RobbyPants - February 3, 2016 at 11:07 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by robvalue - February 3, 2016 at 11:10 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by The Grand Nudger - February 3, 2016 at 11:19 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 9:20 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Nihilist Virus - February 4, 2016 at 1:04 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by RobbyPants - February 4, 2016 at 3:07 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by robvalue - February 3, 2016 at 11:24 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Wyrd of Gawd - February 3, 2016 at 5:37 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by robvalue - February 4, 2016 at 5:41 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Huggy Bear - February 4, 2016 at 8:11 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 8:14 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Huggy Bear - February 4, 2016 at 8:33 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Angrboda - February 4, 2016 at 8:40 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 9:03 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 9:23 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 9:26 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 10:37 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 10:40 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 10:55 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 11:03 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by athrock - February 4, 2016 at 11:36 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Huggy Bear - February 4, 2016 at 10:58 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 11:00 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by robvalue - February 4, 2016 at 11:07 am
RE: Atheist version of Pascal's wager - by Grandizer - February 4, 2016 at 11:11 am

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Which version of xtianity is most likely to be correct? FrustratedFool 20 3421 December 8, 2023 at 10:21 am
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  which version of christianity is correct? Drich 86 14571 March 30, 2020 at 3:34 am
Last Post: Dundee
  The Problem with Pascal's Wager Rhondazvous 45 9606 May 11, 2018 at 7:27 am
Last Post: brewer
  New Revised Standard Version Bible has Dead Sea Scroll input ?!?! vorlon13 17 4813 February 20, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  A response to "upping the ante" on pascals wager Won2blv 26 5543 April 12, 2016 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Won2blv
  What's the Difference Between a Translation and a Version Rhondazvous 19 13257 May 13, 2015 at 5:31 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  New Version of the Bible daver49 23 4621 March 22, 2015 at 11:36 pm
Last Post: daver49
  Which Version Of Christianity Is The Correct One? Confused Ape 57 14396 May 27, 2014 at 9:16 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  Digital Version of Greek Xtian Writings Minimalist 2 1606 September 18, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  E-Text version of the Bible with UNBIASED explanations? caschmid 5 3712 June 14, 2012 at 1:09 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)