Felix wrote:And gungrave, XD I am sure you look quite the man-beast in a suit.
True. As to the argument from an atheist, it actually originates from the Christian Blaise Pascal, and the concept is dubbed "Pascal's Wager". My own take on the matter could be summed up by my comrade Kyle at The Skeptical Christian, whom after rebuting counterarguments to the wager notes what he (and I) consider to be its flaw and also what its ultimate usefulness is;Mi-Ru-Me wrote:Its not that you should worry about weather God is real because beliving in God takes faith[.] You believe he is real because their is no other way. Way to[o] many crazy things have happened that He has to excist and to put it as a famous Ath[e]ist said[, although] I don't know his name[] "Christians win both ways if God exsits we go to heaven if he does not then nothing happens["] so as a christian dont worry about it
written for Ghostonthenet
As to JediSonic's argument, I have heard it and more complex variations of it, I fail to see how losing the effects of all one has ever done either immediately or sooner or later is not to be feared. To be somewhat dramatic, I don't know which is worse; the life in utter vain no matter what, or the loss of existence immediately afterwards. My own situation is similar to yours, however, it still takes the capstone as the greatest fear.Kyle wrote:There is one argument against the wager for which I believe there can be no successful rebuttal-
Belief cannot be gained by force.
In other words, it is impossible to compel someone to actually believe something using threats or physical violence (or by use of bribes). Inasmuch as the Wager attempts to use the threat of Hell (or the enticement of Heaven) to compel belief, it is a failure both morally and intellectually as an argument.
The "moral" failure comes down to this- it is immoral to threaten somebody in order to cause them to believe something. For example, it is immoral to hold a gun to someone's head and say, "Love me or I will kill you." This is simply an evil thing to do, for you have no right to threaten somebody just because they don't believe something you wish they would. Beliefs are a matter of free will, and it is morally repugnant to attempt to take that basic freedom from somebody.
The intellectual failure of the argument is that it simply won't work. Even if someone pointed a gun to your head and you said, "I love you" out of fear, you do not actually gain that belief. You may even wish you had that belief. However, deep down, nothing has really changed about you. Your feelings remain the same.
Imagine if somebody told you that they would torture you unless you sincerely thought the Earth was flat. There is simply no way for an educated individual to sincerely believe such a thing. You can claim that you believe it, you can wish that you believed it, but you cannot honestly come to such a belief by persuasion of threats and violence.
So it is with the Wager. Even if the Wager caused somebody to claim that they believed, or to wish that they believed, they would still not sincerely hold to the truth of Christianity. Therefore, Pascal's Wager is a moral and intellectual failure, as it is generally proposed.
The Use of the Wager
Pascal's Wager does not, in my mind, provide a good reason for believing in Christianity. This does not mean that the Wager is worthless. I think it serves another purpose. Instead of necessitating belief, the Wager should necessitate a careful examination of the evidence.
Pascal's Wager is correct in asserting that there are potential bad consequences of rejecting Christianity if it is indeed true. The same holds true for any religion that is similar to Christianity in its reward/punishment aspect. Therefore, it makes sense (following the Wager) to examine the evidence carefully and closely. The same is true of the moral form of the argument- Christianity, if true, involves a tremendous sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which cannot be ignored in good conscience. Religion should not be brushed off in a few minutes. It must be investigated thoroughly.
Many individuals do not pay religion the attention it deserves. Quite a few atheists reject religion without any significant investigation at all. Many theists say they believe in God but, nevertheless, feel that there is no need to investigate religions or seek out the true nature of God.
Pascal's Wager should bring an end to such foolish notions. Unfortunately, the formulation of the argument as such may have a miniscule audience- as the very people it should influence are the least likely to examine it in the first place! However, I suggest that this argument be advanced towards those who claim that there is "no need" to examine religion closely.
PumpkinKoRn52 wrote:I have no fear of dying. Dying is the biggest part of life. I don't see why anyone is afraid of dying. I belive, when it's your time, it's your time. As for me, as I have previously stated, my biggest fear is to be forgotten after I die. If that ever happens, it is as if I have never lived.
rei wrote:"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords."
"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords."
"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords."
"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords."
"Welcome to Corneria!"
"I like swords."
Heart of Sword wrote:This might sound really, super goofy, but I'm afraid of the thought of living forever.
On...and on...and on...and on...and it never ends...I'll be alive forever...
Then again it's better than being dead forever, but it's still scary. @_O
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 542 guests