Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pascal's Wager

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 2:56:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pascal's Wager goes something along the lines of it is more beneficial to believe in god and be wrong , than it is to be atheistic and be wrong.
Can anyone seriously use this as an argument for God? I find it absurd whenever i talk to a theist and they pull out this card. Please give arguments for this argument, if you believe this.

Also, 2,600 topic.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 6:14:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 2:56:29 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Pascal's Wager goes something along the lines of it is more beneficial to believe in god and be wrong , than it is to be atheistic and be wrong.
Can anyone seriously use this as an argument for God? I find it absurd whenever i talk to a theist and they pull out this card. Please give arguments for this argument, if you believe this.


Also, 2,600 topic.

It's not an argument. At least not in the sense of a set of premises combined with logical inferences leading to a compelling conclusion. That would be reason and Pascal even admitted that God can't be determined through reason.

Pascal's wager isn't an argument for God, it's an argument for believing in God, whether or not God exists. To that end, Pascal basically suggested that dulling one's own senses and mindless repetition should be used.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:47:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
If God exists, he would know that you were only believing in him to be safe, and not because you actually believed in him or worshiped him. This may piss him off more than Atheists...
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 11:39:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Fact 1: There have been at least 10,000 gods throughout human history.

Fact 2: Pascal's wager applies equally to all of them.

Fact 3: These gods are mutually exclusively; one cannot worship all of them "just to be safe" and still get the benefits that all the gods individually promise.

Conclusion: Pascal's wager fails.

This is not very complicated or intellectual thinking, I literally figured this out on my own when I was 13, and I'm decently intelligent but no genius.
Perseus
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 12:05:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pascal's Wager leaves out a plethora of possibilities.

1. There is a God, but he does not care if you worship him.

2. There is a God, but he only will save those who do not worship him.

3. God is evil and will smite all people.

4. God is not a Christian God: he is another type of God.

5. There are multiple gods.

The list goes on. Pascal's Wager operates on the assumption that the Christian God exists. That is highly fallacious, and I could restrict the wager to every other type of god and have the Wagers contradict each other.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:21:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pascals wager only works on people who are ignorant of the wager and its counter arguments.

In a way, its an argument that is supposed to trick an uneducated unbeliever into believing that God exists.

Dishonest, but not surprising.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:34:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 2:56:29 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
Pascal's Wager goes something along the lines of it is more beneficial to believe in god and be wrong , than it is to be atheistic and be wrong.
Can anyone seriously use this as an argument for God? I find it absurd whenever i talk to a theist and they pull out this card. Please give arguments for this argument, if you believe this.


Also, 2,600 topic.

I don't think Pascal's wager is an argument for God. I always assumed it was an argument for why it is easier to believe in God than not to believe in him.

Pascal's wager is based on the assumption that humans can relate to eternity, heaven, and hell, and it assumes the verbal definitions are the same for all.

These are all invalid assumptions that humans cannot truly relate to. Loving God is not based on eternal happiness, the negative of eternal damnation, eternal life, or any of that. People who truly love God do so because of what they CAN associate with -- their personal experiences with him.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:37:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 11:39:20 AM, jat93 wrote:
Fact 1: There have been at least 10,000 gods throughout human history.

Fact 2: Pascal's wager applies equally to all of them.

Fact 3: These gods are mutually exclusively; one cannot worship all of them "just to be safe" and still get the benefits that all the gods individually promise.

Conclusion: Pascal's wager fails.

This is not very complicated or intellectual thinking, I literally figured this out on my own when I was 13, and I'm decently intelligent but no genius.

I think Pascal is talking about God, as in the one who has complete dominion over the Universe with creation as his will. I'm not so sureit includes the gods of ignorance such as lightning, fire, rain, etc...
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:43:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:37:03 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
At 5/10/2012 11:39:20 AM, jat93 wrote:
Fact 1: There have been at least 10,000 gods throughout human history.

Fact 2: Pascal's wager applies equally to all of them.

Fact 3: These gods are mutually exclusively; one cannot worship all of them "just to be safe" and still get the benefits that all the gods individually promise.

Conclusion: Pascal's wager fails.

This is not very complicated or intellectual thinking, I literally figured this out on my own when I was 13, and I'm decently intelligent but no genius.

I think Pascal is talking about God, as in the one who has complete dominion over the Universe with creation as his will. I'm not so sureit includes the gods of ignorance such as lightning, fire, rain, etc...

No no, hes talking about contrary Gods. Such as the Muslim God and the Christian God. Both Gods have complete dominion over the universe with creation as their will, but they contradict each other to the point that they cant both be true.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 3:45:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No no, hes talking about contrary Gods. Such as the Muslim God and the Christian God. Both Gods have complete dominion over the universe with creation as their will, but they contradict each other to the point that they cant both be true.

What if they're the same God? They describe the exact same thing, they just call it something different and attach different rules to following it. Since we know humans are not perfect, we can also assume human interpretation of the will of God is imperfect.

Just because humans disagree and unjustly damn each other doesn't necessarily mean we're right in saying that about other peoples.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 4:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:45:29 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
No no, hes talking about contrary Gods. Such as the Muslim God and the Christian God. Both Gods have complete dominion over the universe with creation as their will, but they contradict each other to the point that they cant both be true.

What if they're the same God? They describe the exact same thing, they just call it something different and attach different rules to following it. Since we know humans are not perfect, we can also assume human interpretation of the will of God is imperfect.

So youre admitting the bible is false?

Just because humans disagree and unjustly damn each other doesn't necessarily mean we're right in saying that about other peoples.

Other peoples... What. Your sentence seems to have gotten cut off there.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:09:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's poop.

But no, it's not the least bit an argument for God.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2012 10:56:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So youre admitting the bible is false?

To say that any religion has the entire truly is false. i think the Bible is useful, but it doesn't mean it's reliable when it comes to telling us right from wrong, true from false

Other peoples... What. Your sentence seems to have gotten cut off there.

If I was misunderstood, it was just poor wording.

What I am saying is that nobody has the right to say their interpretation of the will of God is correct and that others will be damned if they don't follow their interpretation.

But, that doesn't mean all gods are different. Every single religion likely has parts of the truth in it that others do not have. It's our job to put those pieces together as best as we can
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 6:39:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 3:21:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
Pascals wager only works on people who are ignorant of the wager and its counter arguments.

In a way, its an argument that is supposed to trick an uneducated unbeliever into believing that God exists.

Dishonest, but not surprising.

It's actually not an argument at all. Atheists tend to miss that Pascal isn't actually making an argument for God's existence. It's just meant to show the prudence of believing in God.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 6:56:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 6:39:27 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:21:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
Pascals wager only works on people who are ignorant of the wager and its counter arguments.

In a way, its an argument that is supposed to trick an uneducated unbeliever into believing that God exists.

Dishonest, but not surprising.

It's actually not an argument at all. Atheists tend to miss that Pascal isn't actually making an argument for God's existence. It's just meant to show the prudence of believing in God.

Which, of course, it fails even in that regard. Failures all around! Yay!
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:08:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/10/2012 10:56:26 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
So youre admitting the bible is false?

To say that any religion has the entire truly is false. i think the Bible is useful, but it doesn't mean it's reliable when it comes to telling us right from wrong, true from false
How is the bible useful in todays society?
Other peoples... What. Your sentence seems to have gotten cut off there.

If I was misunderstood, it was just poor wording.

What I am saying is that nobody has the right to say their interpretation of the will of God is correct and that others will be damned if they don't follow their interpretation.

But, that doesn't mean all gods are different. Every single religion likely has parts of the truth in it that others do not have. It's our job to put those pieces together as best as we can

How could you possibly determine which part of which religion is true?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:11:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 6:39:27 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 5/10/2012 3:21:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
Pascals wager only works on people who are ignorant of the wager and its counter arguments.

In a way, its an argument that is supposed to trick an uneducated unbeliever into believing that God exists.

Dishonest, but not surprising.

It's actually not an argument at all. Atheists tend to miss that Pascal isn't actually making an argument for God's existence. It's just meant to show the prudence of believing in God.

In other words, its an argument that is meant to show the prudcence of believing in God. So its still an argument.

Furthermore, you cannot show the prudence of believing in God unless you believe he exists. If this argument is ever made to an atheist, then this argument becomes an argument for Gods existance. An atheist doesnt believe that a God exists, after all.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:10:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Islam teachers a more severe hell(I think), than Christianity. Next time I meet a Christian who advocates pascal's wager I'm going to tell him he should be Muslim then. Or at least I'm going to tell him to make sure he tells the atheists to convert to Islam.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:13:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.

Being a christian means you speak against the Muslim God. Everybody has a chance of losing everything whether you become a christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

Atleast an atheist chooses not to have any belief in the supernatural, and staying consistent.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:13:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.

Being a christian means you speak against the Muslim God. Everybody has a chance of losing everything whether you become a christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

Atleast an atheist chooses not to have any belief in the supernatural, and staying consistent.

Two points.

There is only one God. Muslims believe in same God as Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) did. Muslims believe in same God as Prophet Adam, Moses, Abraham, David, Muhammad and all other prophets of God (Peace on Them) believed in.

In all religions, there is some possible gain and some possible loss. On other hand in atheism, only loss is possible.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:22:03 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:13:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.

Being a christian means you speak against the Muslim God. Everybody has a chance of losing everything whether you become a christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

Atleast an atheist chooses not to have any belief in the supernatural, and staying consistent.

Two points.

There is only one God. Muslims believe in same God as Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) did. Muslims believe in same God as Prophet Adam, Moses, Abraham, David, Muhammad and all other prophets of God (Peace on Them) believed in.

In all religions, there is some possible gain and some possible loss. On other hand in atheism, only loss is possible.

Two points.

Christians disagree with you. And unless you are a muslim who accepts that Jesus is God, then you disagree with christians. The christian Concept of God(Jesus Christ and God) is different from the Muslim concept of God(Allah, not Jesus Christ). I also mentioned Hindu for a reason. What about hinduism?

Also, If a God exists, and he rewards Atheists for being honest and critical thinkers, then atheists go to heaven. Therefore, there is some possible gain for atheists.
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:33:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:22:03 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:13:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.

Being a christian means you speak against the Muslim God. Everybody has a chance of losing everything whether you become a christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

Atleast an atheist chooses not to have any belief in the supernatural, and staying consistent.

Two points.

There is only one God. Muslims believe in same God as Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) did. Muslims believe in same God as Prophet Adam, Moses, Abraham, David, Muhammad and all other prophets of God (Peace on Them) believed in.

In all religions, there is some possible gain and some possible loss. On other hand in atheism, only loss is possible.

Yes, but do we really form beliefs just because they will make us happy? Don't we have many beliefs that make us unhappy but we know are true?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:34:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:10:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Islam teachers a more severe hell(I think), than Christianity. Next time I meet a Christian who advocates pascal's wager I'm going to tell him he should be Muslim then. Or at least I'm going to tell him to make sure he tells the atheists to convert to Islam.

No, that would be a waste.

Next time you meet a christian who advocates pascals wager, say to him "OMG! youre right! How could i have been so blind. Thanks, sir, youve opened my eyes. Im heading to the nearest mosque and Converting to Islam right now! Thanks!"

And then, when hes dumbstruck, and trying to stop you and saying "Wait wait, hold on", you can turn around and tell him, "See what the problem with your argument is?"
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:37:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:33:20 PM, Dan4reason wrote:


Yes, but do we really form beliefs just because they will make us happy? Don't we have many beliefs that make us unhappy but we know are true?

+1

Any open minded person would not fall for PW. It sticks logic, knowledge and free-thinking in the mud.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:34:53 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:10:41 PM, phantom wrote:
Islam teachers a more severe hell(I think), than Christianity. Next time I meet a Christian who advocates pascal's wager I'm going to tell him he should be Muslim then. Or at least I'm going to tell him to make sure he tells the atheists to convert to Islam.

No, that would be a waste.

Next time you meet a christian who advocates pascals wager, say to him "OMG! youre right! How could i have been so blind. Thanks, sir, youve opened my eyes. Im heading to the nearest mosque and Converting to Islam right now! Thanks!"

And then, when hes dumbstruck, and trying to stop you and saying "Wait wait, hold on", you can turn around and tell him, "See what the problem with your argument is?"

I identify as a Christian or at least agnostic theist possibly, but yeah, that would be a good approach lol.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:50:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:31:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:22:03 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:13:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.

Being a christian means you speak against the Muslim God. Everybody has a chance of losing everything whether you become a christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

Atleast an atheist chooses not to have any belief in the supernatural, and staying consistent.

Two points.

There is only one God. Muslims believe in same God as Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) did. Muslims believe in same God as Prophet Adam, Moses, Abraham, David, Muhammad and all other prophets of God (Peace on Them) believed in.

In all religions, there is some possible gain and some possible loss. On other hand in atheism, only loss is possible.

Two points.

Christians disagree with you. And unless you are a muslim who accepts that Jesus is God, then you disagree with christians. The christian Concept of God(Jesus Christ and God) is different from the Muslim concept of God(Allah, not Jesus Christ)...

I did not say that Christian or Muslims agree with concept of God - specially since Christians consider Jesus (Peace on Him) as God, which is a major sin in Islam. What I did say was Muslim agree with Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) with regard to faith in God.

The Jewish and Islamic concepts of God are almost identical.

...I also mentioned Hindu for a reason. What about hinduism?

This is an interesting question. There are many points of agreement in concept of God in Hinduism and Islam. However there are many of points of open discussion also. I don't think it will be suitable to start that discussion right now.

Also, If a God exists, and he rewards Atheists for being honest and critical thinkers, then atheists go to heaven. Therefore, there is some possible gain for atheists.

Interesting argument. What if God rewards those who deny him! You can come up with weird possibilities like that, you can deny Pascal's wager.

This explanation becomes even more weird when you consider verbose and abusive atheists like certain men of horse fame. That is the only case in which I actually support using Pascal's wager.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.
baggins
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2012 8:53:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/11/2012 8:33:20 PM, Dan4reason wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:22:03 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 8:13:15 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:58:35 PM, baggins wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:46:16 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/11/2012 7:43:54 PM, baggins wrote:
Pascal's wager is quite effective against verbose atheism. Atheists have no rational reason to argue there case! Even if they acknowledge a very small probability that God exists, their arguments can be disastrous for them. In any case, they gain nothing.

On other hand, Pascal's wager cannot be basis of strong faith.

I think you meant "Ignorant" instead of "Verbose".

Youre right, they gain nothing, and they lose nothing either. This argument fails. The only thing that changes, is that the theist looks stupid for bringing up such a bad argument.

Speaking against God, is clearly a major risk if God exists. So what do mean by 'lost nothing'? They lose nothing only if they are correct. And that is the best they can hope for.

Being a christian means you speak against the Muslim God. Everybody has a chance of losing everything whether you become a christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or an atheist.

Atleast an atheist chooses not to have any belief in the supernatural, and staying consistent.

Two points.

There is only one God. Muslims believe in same God as Christ Jesus (Peace on Him) did. Muslims believe in same God as Prophet Adam, Moses, Abraham, David, Muhammad and all other prophets of God (Peace on Them) believed in.

In all religions, there is some possible gain and some possible loss. On other hand in atheism, only loss is possible.

Yes, but do we really form beliefs just because they will make us happy? Don't we have many beliefs that make us unhappy but we know are true?

I agree. That is why I mentioned 'verbose atheism'.
The Holy Quran 29:19-20

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.