"Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness." - Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal was a terribly confused and deluded old man. Using decision theory and logic, his flawed conjectures have been straightened out. To read more, go to this link
Your wikipedia article makes me sad. That is not how most religions work. In Judaism, the only people who go to Heaven are those who believe in God and have followed their many religious laws. In Christianity, the only people who go to Heaven are those who believe in God and have lived morally acceptable lives. In Islam, the only people who go to Heaven believe in allah and follow his teachings. In Hindu, those who are the closest to achieving enlightenment are those who are priests of the Hindu religion. The "Aetheist's Wager" is a nonsensical argument.
The ancient scriptures of these religions are folklore that became written down. As it turns out, certain ideas control the masses much better than others. Over the centuries, the less effective ideas die out. The best time tested ideas to control the masses have been Resurrection (Christianity) and 72 Virgins in paradise (Islam). Even today, emotional people fall for this shit.
Use your brain and lead a good life. If a vengeful God waits after you die, tell him his anger is unjustified and you reject his malevolence.
but in a way it is a good thing and islam does have multiple scientific proofs of it being true, check the quran portion on keith moore page or something
Btw as a muslim I believe there will be an eternal life after this one, as in the 72 virgins is a stereotypical view of islam
I'm saying religion is an institution created to control the masses. To do this, you must incentivize people to participate. This creates a positive social benefit. But, the individual bears the internal detriments of fears and other maladaptive psychological conflicts that are planted to ensure conformity.
Physics making me believe God might exist
← View full post
"Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. "That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much." Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss, if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager. But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play (since you are under the necessity of playing), and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain. But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. It is all divided; where-ever the infinite is and there is not an infinity of chances of loss against that of gain, there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. And thus, when one is forced to play, he must renounce reason to preserve his life, rather than risk it for infinite gain, as likely to happen as the loss of nothingness." - Blaise Pascal
--
McBean
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Blaise Pascal was a terribly confused and deluded old man. Using decision theory and logic, his flawed conjectures have been straightened out. To read more, go to this link
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist's_Wager
--
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your wikipedia article makes me sad. That is not how most religions work. In Judaism, the only people who go to Heaven are those who believe in God and have followed their many religious laws. In Christianity, the only people who go to Heaven are those who believe in God and have lived morally acceptable lives. In Islam, the only people who go to Heaven believe in allah and follow his teachings. In Hindu, those who are the closest to achieving enlightenment are those who are priests of the Hindu religion. The "Aetheist's Wager" is a nonsensical argument.
--
McBean
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
The ancient scriptures of these religions are folklore that became written down. As it turns out, certain ideas control the masses much better than others. Over the centuries, the less effective ideas die out. The best time tested ideas to control the masses have been Resurrection (Christianity) and 72 Virgins in paradise (Islam). Even today, emotional people fall for this shit.
Use your brain and lead a good life. If a vengeful God waits after you die, tell him his anger is unjustified and you reject his malevolence.
That is all.
--
radballhinge
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Clunk42
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
but in a way it is a good thing and islam does have multiple scientific proofs of it being true, check the quran portion on keith moore page or something
Btw as a muslim I believe there will be an eternal life after this one, as in the 72 virgins is a stereotypical view of islam
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your first paragraph. If you're saying religion is a sham, then I have to disagree.
--
McBean
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I'm saying religion is an institution created to control the masses. To do this, you must incentivize people to participate. This creates a positive social benefit. But, the individual bears the internal detriments of fears and other maladaptive psychological conflicts that are planted to ensure conformity.