The Wager

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

It's still saying "Believe in God". It's like saying: "You can try and not believe in God, but hey! If you believe in him, you can still live your life and stay in heaven. Isn't that fantastic? So how about you believe in God?."

 

Nothing happened. Same idea. Just complicated into a game of gambling.

So why not bet on God? No reason NOT to.

[Ersin]

Imagine you have an exam, you are nicest and best guy that helps everyone in the exam hall, however you didn't answer any question, should the teacher give you a pass mark because you were good and helped everyone ? Or will the teacher give you a F ?

And this is why people want the educational system to not exist. Companies judge people of their grades and not their personality. They don't test them on their abilities or their skills. They judge them on what's on the piece on paper.

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

I want to be clear im not trying to convert anyone. Please stick mainly to what you think about The Wager theory.

[♛ AlphaOmega ♛]

And this is why people want the educational system to not exist. Companies judge people of their grades and not their personality. They don't test them on their abilities or their skills. They judge them on what's on the piece on paper.

Back on topic if you dont mind.

[ŴƬЯ-A Vakume Kleener]

I'm not even going to say something because all athiests here are stubborn asses xd

[Ersin]

So why not bet on God? No reason NOT to.

This is where I draw the line and I leave.

 

You're trying to shove this theory on me so I can believe in "God". Stay on topic my ass.

 

Just tell the forums to believe in God. Don't complicate things.

[Squidling]

I believe that its like superstition; it's fine to go along with, until it starts effecting your real world life. Personally, I am respectful of God, but I don't truly believe he exists. I'm not going to live in fear of something that might not exist, but I have no reason to insult it either. If He truly loves humanity, he will accept that and judge me justly. That's if he exists

[3v1lcl0n3]

i'd bet against him (that was easy.)

 

even if i'm wrong,i made that decision based on my own belief (or lack thereof).

i won't lick someone's pussy to have a shot at eternal life

[Heated Bread]

You own a store.  One day, a man walks in.  He tells you how nice your store is, and what a shame it would be if anything were to happen to it.  He offers you a protection service.  If you pay him a monthly fee, he'll protect you.  What will actually happen is that if you fail to pay the fee, him and a few other friends of his will come over and destroy your store and beat you up.

 

This is an old scam run by organized crime.  It's real.  They call it a protection fee, but it's just simple extortion.

 

Now a man comes to you.  He says you have an immortal soul, for which he provides no proof.  He says that if you want to have a blissful afterlife, for which he provides no proof, you must pledge your eternal allegiance to a god, which just so happens to be the god of his religion, and for which he also provides no proof.  Then he also says if you do not pledge yourself to this god, you will suffer eternal torment, for which he again provides no proof.

 

This is also extortion.

 

Pascal's wager is a pile of steaming shit.  Also, as noted already, it doesn't account for other religions.  So there's that too.  It includes at least 2 obvious logical fallacies: false dichotomy, and appeal to emotion (fear).  By presenting the false dichotomy, it asserts that you should believe in the christian god because something bad might happen if you don't.

 

When someone comes to me with that bullshit, it shows me that they are desperate.  They are grasping at straws.

[BlaqkAudio]

Typical for atheists to decide not to participate in these kind of scenarios or hypothetical. Tried something similar to this way back and the first thing i got was pretty much the same derailing there is here. Probably thinking I'm trying to 'push' the religion to them. Hell I'm not even religious lol. It was only a question.

 

Called him out and got a warning point for it (7 months later, lol). #worth

 

OP, it's not even worth asking the internet anything concerning religion. To stay on topic, I don't really like this theory anyways. It can be compared to other irl things like what Heated Bread has said. It just doesn't work.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Belief isn't a choice, either you're convinced or you're not.

[Aethrozᴷᴹᴳᴸ]

Typical for atheists to decide not to participate in these kind of scenarios or hypothetical. Tried something similar to this way back and the first thing i got was pretty much the same derailing there is here. Probably thinking I'm trying to 'push' the religion to them. Hell I'm not even religious lol. It was only a question.

 

I think that is the reason. "Typical for Atheists" bla bla. Your counter is the same thing that you are complaining about. "Us" generalizing Christians/Those with religious beliefs. I don't think I am  similar to very many aethiests, or agnostics. I think that your comment is just as derailing as anything else that has been said. That is the reason things like this get locked. Comments like yours turn it into atheist vs christian and then crap hits the fan.

 

 

I see where you are coming from and that is a good point. It is very applicable to many things and cannot just be confined to religion.

 

I did not mean to come off as an elitist. Im not saying because i believe in God i am above others.

 

The Wager is applicable in a lot of situations, and I like what you did, applying it to the teachings of the Bible. It's a very good argument for those who have faith. Good on ya there.

I personally can't bring myself to have faith. I have tried, I still attend church when with friends/family, and I semi-regularly attend my UU church, but I can't find faith. Might one day, but not for now.

 

You have not been coming off as an elitist. Those people who have been attacking you are very wrong. I thought you handled everything very smoothly, even though I don't agree with all of your points

[Heated Bread]

Belief isn't a choice, either you're convinced or you're not.

 

Pascal himself said that the existence or nonexistence of god cannot be determined, so he tried to provide reasons why one should take steps to convince themselves to believe.  In other words, the point of the wager is to encourage behavior that lends itself to belief eventually.  So the question then becomes "how might one eventually begin to believe?"

 

There's some rather compelling evidence that if you can get someone to behave as though they believe something, or more specifically to profess their belief in something to others, they will be much more likely to convince themselves of it in order to resolve the associated cognitive dissonance.

 

https://explorable.com/cognitive-dissonance

 

This is one reason why I think it is so important to get people to profess their religious beliefs to others.  The more they do it, the more they are convincing themselves.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Pascal himself said that the existence or nonexistence of god cannot be determined, so he tried to provide reasons why one should take steps to convince themselves to believe.  In other words, the point of the wager is to encourage behavior that lends itself to belief eventually.  So the question then becomes "how might one eventually begin to believe?"

 

There's some rather compelling evidence that if you can get someone to behave as though they believe something, or more specifically to profess their belief in something to others, they will be much more likely to convince themselves of it in order to resolve the associated cognitive dissonance.

 

https://explorable.com/cognitive-dissonance

 

Behave as though they believe is not the same as believing. I could go to church everyday for the rest of my life and evangelise to everyone around me, wouldn't make me believe. Can't be forced. It's either there or it's not. I guess some people may manage to get so deep in their own lie that they begin to believe it but I don't really want to live like that. If there is a god then I'd hope he would value living a good life over theological arguments. I'm a good person, I care for others (by profession as well as in my own time.) Shrug. I'm not interested in spending my life making myself miserable to convince myself of something I don't believe in. If there is a god and he wants me to believe, he will find a way to convince me.

[Heated Bread]

Behave as though they believe is not the same as believing.

 

Right but the whole point is that the behavior brings about cognitive dissonance which one will be likely to resolve by actually believing in the thing they their behavior was meant to indicate that they believed. 

 

The other interesting thing about the study was that this effect was significantly more pronounced in the people who received $1 as opposed to the ones who received $20.  In other words, the smaller the reward, the greater tendency people had to convince themselves that the tasks which were deliberately designed to be boring were in fact fun and engaging. 

 

To put it yet another way, the less justification they had for lying, the more cognitive dissonance was present, and greater was the desire to resolve it in favor of believing the lie they were telling.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

I also put other words in that reply, not sure if ya noticed

[Heated Bread]

I also put other words in that reply, not sure if ya noticed

 

Yeah I definitely noticed, but why exactly do you think they are in themselves pertinent to the point that you were responding to (which I have just clarified for you) in some separate way, or rather why do you think it is necessary that I address them specifically?  Did I not focus directly on the key aspect of your post?  Were those other words not merely an example of that one objection you raised (or simply unimportant to it); the objection which I addressed by providing clarification?  Would it not be redundant and/or a waste of effort for me to respond to every sentence?  Is your objection merely based on the fact that I didn't quote the entire post?  Really?  If so, that's pedantic.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

Yeah I definitely noticed, but why exactly do you think they are in themselves pertinent to the point that you were responding to (which I have just clarified for you) in some separate way, or rather why do you think it is necessary that I address them specifically?  Did I not focus directly on the key aspect of your post?  Were those other words not merely an example of that one objection you raised (or simply unimportant to it); the objection which I addressed by providing clarification?  Would it not be redundant and/or a waste of effort for me to respond to every sentence?  Is your objection merely based on the fact that I didn't quote the entire post?  Really?  If so, that's pedantic.

 

Given that the rest of the post acknowledged that it's possible to make yourself believe and explained why I would prefer not to live like that, your response just seemed a little odd? Like... you don't need to keep explaining, I understood it the first time, doesn't mean it's a choice I have to make for me.

 

In other words... I wasn't disagreeing with you, yet you're trying to argue with me by picking the only part of my post that could be read as disagreeing with you and removing the context. Which is a little strange.

[Heated Bread]

Given that the rest of the post acknowledged that it's possible to make yourself believe and explained why I would prefer not to live like that, your response just seemed a little odd? Like... you don't need to keep explaining, I understood it the first time, doesn't mean it's a choice I have to make for me.

 

In other words... I wasn't disagreeing with you, yet you're trying to argue with me by picking the only part of my post that could be read as disagreeing with you and removing the context. Which is a little strange.

 

What you said was this:

 

Behave as though they believe is not the same as believing.  I could go to church everyday for the rest of my life and evangelise to everyone around me, wouldn't make me believe. Can't be forced. It's either there or it's not.

 

Yes, it is possible to go to church and profess belief all your life and still not believe.  Nobody is saying it isn't.  What the study bore out is that if you do those things, you are very likely to resolve any resulting cognitive dissonance in favor of believing the thing you are living your life as though you believe.  In other words, the actions of "going through the motions" are likely to bring about a legitimate belief.

 

While you did follow this with:

 

I guess some people may manage to get so deep in their own lie that they begin to believe it but I don't really want to live like that. If there is a god then I'd hope he would value living a good life over theological arguments. I'm a good person, I care for others (by profession as well as in my own time.) Shrug. I'm not interested in spending my life making myself miserable to convince myself of something I don't believe in. If there is a god and he wants me to believe, he will find a way to convince me.

 

...I did not see this as important to the meat of the actual discussion.  It was unnecessary to reply to since it is anecdotal and opinionated, and has no useful weight with the topic.  What's important to me is to discuss things in an at least somewhat rational and philosophical way, not to share the minutia of personal thoughts and feelings.  I don't want to seem insulting, but don't expect me to care about that stuff.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

The discussion is on peoples' opinions of pascal's wager and how it relates to their lives. Adecdote is the entire point of the thread. If he wanted studies he could have googled it.

 

You initiated a discussion with me by quoting my post, I didn't respond to a post about studies with my life experience out of nowhere. If you don't care about my opinion then maybe don't do that?

[Heated Bread]

The discussion is on peoples' opinions of pascal's wager and how it relates to their lives. Adecdote is the entire point of the thread. If he wanted studies he could have googled it.

 

He also asked whether it contains fallacies.  That's not anecdotal.  That's not based on opinions.  My interest in this discussion and other discussions like it is in the logic and the evidence.  Now you know.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

He also asked whether it contains fallacies.  That's not anecdotal.  That's not based on opinions.  My interest in this discussion and other discussions like it is in the logic and the evidence.  Now you know.

 

So make a post directed at him. You quoted me, I didn't ask you anything.

[Heated Bread]

So make a post directed at him. You quoted me, I didn't ask you anything.

 

That's absurd.  You made a post specifically addressing a point which I made, which I had every right to respond to.  You then objected that I did not respond to the entirety of your post, which I have now been courteous enough to explain the reason for.  If you don't want me to respond to your posts, don't make them addressing my own.  This is a discussion.  If you address a point someone makes, you can expect them to respond.

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

That's absurd.  You made a post specifically addressing a point which I made, which I had every right to respond to.  If you don't want me to respond to your posts, don't make them addressing my own.  This is a discussion.  If you address a point someone makes, you can expect them to respond.

 

I didn't read the thread, I made a post giving my opinion on the wager as it relates to my life after reading the OP. If I was addressing you I would have quoted you.

 

This is irrelevant anyway, let's stop.

 

So... you've explained how it's possible to force belief. Is that something you choose to do? Or are you a believer already? Or do you choose not to believe?

[Heated Bread]

I didn't read the thread, I made a post giving my opinion on the wager as it relates to my life after reading the OP. If I was addressing you I would have quoted you.

 

This is irrelevant anyway, let's stop.

 

So... you've explained how it's possible to force belief. Is that something you choose to do? Or are you a believer already? Or do you choose not to believe?

 

"Belief isn't a choice" is a statement.  It can also be your opinion, but it is a statement which can be used and examined within a logical framework.

 

I agree that this tangent we've gone on is irrelevant which is why I've been objecting to it at every step.

 

In the case of the participants of the study, the choice to profess belief was conscious, and I think it's fairly safe to say that the manifestation of belief itself was probably not a fully conscious act (even though I am not a psychologist).  The theory used to explain the results rests on the idea of cognitive dissonance and the resolution of thereof.  The participants were being manipulated, and it was clear that the people conducting the study believed that their awareness of this would pollute the results.

 

So could one choose to make their self believe something by "going through the motions", knowing fully what they are doing?  I don't know enough about cognitive dissonance to answer that.  I would assume that it would be much harder to do it intentionally, if not impossible.  This kind of resolution of cognitive dissonance may require some lack of awareness on the part of the person who is experiencing it.  But I simply don't know.

 

On the other hand, it may be entirely possible to do it intentionally.  Being surrounded by people constantly professing their belief to you while you're doing the same and behaving the same could very well bring about a tremendously stressful amount of cognitive dissonance even if you know exactly what you are doing.  If you continue to do this and you are denied escape, you may very well resolve that dissonance with belief even if you knew from the start that this is exactly what you were trying to do.  But again, I am not a psychologist and I don't know.