Pascal's wager

[Annik]

Some problems I have with pascal's wager:

1) No religion accepts fake belief, so you cannot fake belief in a God.
2) There is different religions, so why appease one and not the other?
3) A True God would want you to be honest to yourself, so if you honestly don't believe in God, he would want you to remain honest with that.
4) Hell and God don't go together, if there is God, he is Merciful, if he is Merciful, then there is no hell. Simple as that.

I can't believe I'd never thought of this one before when considering Pascal's Wager. I'm a dummy.

[Mystic]

A better wager that works in real life is more like this:

If you have a feeling a religion is true, you better not abandon it, unless you are sure it's not or you might burn in hell per that religion.
(works on believers)

And appeal to disbelievers:

"If you don't know a religion is false, and it threatens with you hell, you better find out if such a religion is false, or else you might burn in hell".

This is sort of the real life appeal....

And psychologically people are often defeated, as they don't know a religion is false, they get tired, and just want to believe, to get relief, and feel peace.

And often that religion is the one they have a bias to.

So the real life wager goes something like that....

[Skepsis]

Dear GodlessGirl,

The color you chose to print your font with is making my eyes bleed. If you would be so kind as to make it a darker color, I would highly appreciate it.

Sincerely,

A guy concerned about his optical health.

[Mystic]

I can't believe I'd never thought of this one before when considering Pascal's Wager. I'm a dummy.

Just because someone thought of something you didn't, doesn't make you a dummy.

[Anomalocaris]

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='314591' dateline='1343075457']
Some problems I have with pascal's wager:

1) No religion accepts fake belief, so you cannot fake belief in a God.

I dispute that. Many Pagan religions, including the main one in Rome before christiainity, doesn't even insist on belief, much less non-fake belief. They ask only for the form, and were explicit that form was only to humor something like Pascal's Wager - Offend not a god whom you don't really believe in because you just might be wrong. For Romans piety is nothing more than "be always mindful of Pascal's wager where any god, yours or someone else's, is concerned". That's why Roman can get along so well with so many local gods and religions.

It's only with Judiasm and Christianity that religion began to reach for the murderous moral and intellectual totalitarianism that characterises the superstitiion of the next 2000 years.

[Mystic]

[quote='MysticKnight' pid='314591' dateline='1343075457']
Some problems I have with pascal's wager:

1) No religion accepts fake belief, so you cannot fake belief in a God.

I dispute that. Many Pagan religions, including the main one in Rome before christiainity, doesn't even insist on belief, much less non-fake belief. They ask only for the form, and were explicit that form was only to humor something like Pascal's Wager - Offend not a god whom you don't really believe in because you just might be wrong. For Romans piety is nothing more than "be always mindful of Pascal's wager where any god, yours or someone else's, is concerned". That's why Roman can get along so well with so many local gods and religions.

It's only with Judiasm and Christianity that religion began to reach for the murderous moral and intellectual totalitarianism that characterises the superstitiion of the next 2000 years.

Well that's a different wager, which would be "Don't offend any gods..." as opposed to "choose belief in them".

[Anomalocaris]

Well that's a different wager, which would be "Don't offend any gods..." as opposed to "choose belief in them".

I think the Roman attitude was more like "real belief are for idiots, but smart people won't forgo fake belief, and chances are, if gods exist, they would be pretty cool and realise this and give you a pass if you realise this as well".

Anal retentiveness didn't really spread its shit all over the entire religious landscape of a continent until the advant of the "prince of peace" and his minions.

[Mystic]

Well that's a different wager, which would be "Don't offend any gods..." as opposed to "choose belief in them".

I think the Roman attitude was more like "real belief are for idiots, but smart people won't forgo fake belief".

Hmm...I see...you do seem to have a point. But then pascal's wager wouldn't work for Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc... The very people whom like to use it.

[liam]

The way I see it:

we know this life to exist, we don't know heaven exists, therefore I'll enjoy this one and deal with the consequences. I'll happily be proven wrong because I'm a morally upstanding person and either way I'm good, player out.

[Angrboda]

For Romans piety is nothing more than "be always mindful of Pascal's wager where any god, yours or someone else's, is concerned". That's why Roman can get along so well with so many local gods and religions.

It's only with Judiasm and Christianity that religion began to reach for the murderous moral and intellectual totalitarianism that characterises the superstitiion of the next 2000 years.

Well that's a different wager, which would be "Don't offend any gods..." as opposed to "choose belief in them".

Worship was required for the emperor at times, and even heirs and representatives. So, no, it wasn't all that different throughout the entire history of the Imperium.

(See )