It's been one of those weeks...

Louis_Cypher's picture

 I have been confronted no less than six times this week with some twit or another regurgitating Pascal’s Wager, the theistic sucker bet. And each and every one of them believes he/she/it was the first one to pose what to the simple minded religious drones must seem like a stumper…


It goes like this (to the atheist);
If you are right, no harm, no foul, we all just die. But if I’m right, you will suffer a torturous eternity at the hands of my merciful and loving sky buddy…


One does not have to have a deep understanding of logic or formal debate to see at a cursory glance why this bit of fluff fails.


First, this isn’t even an argument for (or against) the existence of a god. It’s a pointless threat made to someone who doesn’t believe the basic premise. That makes it a bit of narcissistic metaphysical masturbation, not meant to influence it’s purported target, but rather to allow the theist to ‘gloat’ over the impending fiery doom they fervently hope will descend on the folks who have made them feel so stupid, for so long about believing.

Second, it is a classic ‘False Dichotomy”, a dishonest representation that there are ONLY two possible points of view. This of course relies entirely on the one posing the wager having the one TRUE religion. Since all religions are mutually exclusive to some degree, and even most sects are exclusive in their certainty of having the favor of god and the patent on salvation, it’s pretty obvious that the ‘odds’ are stacked against the theistic standpoint. But more importantly, the Wager poses a false equality between the position of the existence of a magical, invisible and intangible being, and that of reality.

To quote Dr. Dawkins;

 “...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.

And also

If they are wrong, they have wasted their one and only life on a delusion, so the wager isn't really: no harm in believing versus potential harm in not believing.

Jean Chauvin's picture

lol

lol

Brian37's picture

Louis_Cypher wrote: I have

Louis_Cypher wrote:

 I have been confronted no less than six times this week with some twit or another regurgitating Pascal’s Wager, the theistic sucker bet. And each and every one of them believes he/she/it was the first one to pose what to the simple minded religious drones must seem like a stumper…


It goes like this (to the atheist);
If you are right, no harm, no foul, we all just die. But if I’m right, you will suffer a torturous eternity at the hands of my merciful and loving sky buddy…


One does not have to have a deep understanding of logic or formal debate to see at a cursory glance why this bit of fluff fails.


First, this isn’t even an argument for (or against) the existence of a god. It’s a pointless threat made to someone who doesn’t believe the basic premise. That makes it a bit of narcissistic metaphysical masturbation, not meant to influence it’s purported target, but rather to allow the theist to ‘gloat’ over the impending fiery doom they fervently hope will descend on the folks who have made them feel so stupid, for so long about believing.

Second, it is a classic ‘False Dichotomy”, a dishonest representation that there are ONLY two possible points of view. This of course relies entirely on the one posing the wager having the one TRUE religion. Since all religions are mutually exclusive to some degree, and even most sects are exclusive in their certainty of having the favor of god and the patent on salvation, it’s pretty obvious that the ‘odds’ are stacked against the theistic standpoint. But more importantly, the Wager poses a false equality between the position of the existence of a magical, invisible and intangible being, and that of reality.

To quote Dr. Dawkins;

 “...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

 

It simply amounts to ego not allowing the person to examine their own position. It sounds good to them, and if they cant get you to blindly swallow it, this is a form of subtle passive aggression passed of as philosophy.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Beyond Saving's picture

 Yeah, always have to love

 Yeah, always have to love Pascal's Wager which becomes even more annoying when they combine it with "you have more faith than me".

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Vastet's picture

Just shows how little

Just shows how little theists bother to think. The guy who created the wager was smart enough to refute it, but the average theist just doesn't get it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.

Jean Chauvin's picture

Hello

Hello,

I agree with all  of you on this one. This is incredibly weak in terms of an argument. I'm not sure if anybody has attached ockman's razor to this dichotomy. If they were to apply ockman's razor to this, it would be way easier to be an atheist so that would defeat the wager argument even more.

In a rare instance, I agree with everybody so far on this thread on this issue.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).