Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

Pascal's Wager has been discussed here numerous times, and I'm not going to rehash it. I have however stated that I believe it is a legitimate wager, and that although there are some rational critiques that some proponents of it don't consider, that it nonetheless holds up. Also as most of you will know, I assert christian catholic positions that are much more "lenient" than those held by more fundamentalist christians or fundamentalists of other major religions even. Thus I believe that those who either have never heard the gospel preached, or even having heard, still sincerely do not believe in it, can yet have the possibility of being saved. Again I have discussed how this can be so in previous threads and will not repeat same here.

Thus by my views, you can essentially get a free bet at this wager, although some minimal restrictions would apply, such as following the golden rule, including regarding omission versus commission. Even if you view such minimal "fine print" as a price somehow, you nonetheless still are getting a bet with ultimate payoff potential for nowhere near the correct price of that bet. That is if you consider not doing bad to others a price to be paid.

However, I believe that such an essentially free bet can be lost. Not by, even passionatley advocated, intellectually honest views against religion, but by strident ridicule and mockery of that religion and its beliefs and supreme being. Now this does not mean I think that respect and consideration should be accorded to every religious system, because I don't. If one of the super super longshots like one of the wacko personality cults or scientology comes in, then I am screwed for sure because I have in the past and will continue to mock such systems based upon the most preposterous of premises. But regarding the major religions with long histories, which means that over hundreds and thousands of years at least some very smart people have held such beliefs, then I believe it is not only considerate of the beliefs of others, but also smart not to mock such views very earnestly even if you believe the probability of their being true is extremely small.

Posters here like David and andy, except for the occasional sarcastic remark, have presented atheist and agnostic viewpoints based on evidentiary and logical arguements without resorting to such grossly mocking jibes. But many here have. And I think that is esentially like being given a free lottery ticket and tearing it up and throwing it down and spitting on it. Will the lottery chief have sympathy for such a person if that number comes in and offer to replace it? Not likely.

So even if you think there is no way that the God of Christianity or another major religion exists, you still don't have to mock Him. And if you say something along the lines of, "I'd rather burn in hell than believe in a god who would punish people in hell", then you just might get your druthers.

Good gamblers don't pass up free bets no matter how long the odds, especially when the potential payoff is huge.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
So even if you think there is no way that the God of Christianity or another major religion exists, you still don't have to mock Him.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be assuming that mocking God isn't the exclusive means to get into heaven. There is, however, no evidence that it isn't.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So even if you think there is no way that the God of Christianity or another major religion exists, you still don't have to mock Him.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be assuming that mocking God isn't the exclusive means to get into heaven. There is, however, no evidence that it isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, if I was God I wouldn't want a bunch of toadying yes men around me for eternity.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

<font color="blue"> If one of the super super longshots like one of the wacko personality cults or scientology comes in, then I am screwed for sure because I have in the past and will continue to mock such systems based upon the most preposterous of premises. </font>

Doesn't this answer your question?

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

I'm guilty of sometimes mocking, I try to avoid it but be assured its not god that is being mocked.

chez

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
If one of the super super longshots like one of the wacko personality cults or scientology comes in, then I am screwed for sure because I have in the past and will continue to mock such systems based upon the most preposterous of premises.

[/ QUOTE ]

How, exactly, did you determine that these were "super super long shots" and had "the most preposterous of premises"?

[ QUOTE ]
but also smart not to mock such views very earnestly even if you believe the probability of their being true is extremely small.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does this differ from scientology? Why shouldn't God send atheists to heaven?

You don't have to rehash your arguments; some links would be fine.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

When I mock a religion, I am mocking the people who belong to the religion, not the God of the religion. I am putting them down for the fact that they have taken their religion to such extremes that they are misinterpreting its original intent and it leads them to be closed minded and irrational. I don't even believe that that type of God exists, so there's nothing to mock. It's the people that I get a kick out of.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
So even if you think there is no way that the God of Christianity or another major religion exists, you still don't have to mock Him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you refer to me too, but in any case, I certainly understand why a religious person can get offended by someone mocking god in his presence. However, this is not a "religious board". I would never dream of posting something that mocks god on a "religious board". Elsewhere, here included, I find it very natural for me (or others) to state their honest opinion about god and the idea of god or gods or religion in general. As far as I'm concerned (I know it is different with others) I don't find it particularly interesting or fruitful to "criticize" religion. But mocking religion or god is a different thing, and in a way, I feel that there's even some sort of obligation to mock god in particular and gods in gerenal.

Honestly, I can't see how you can be seriously offended or bothered by atheists mocking or despising god, in 2005. God was killed so long ago, by so many, mocking him now is in a way getting him back to life. You should be glad.

Regarding the "free bets":

[ QUOTE ]
Good gamblers don't pass up free bets no matter how long the odds, especially when the potential payoff is huge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this whole perspective is completely illusory. This is my opinion. I have no problem with you or any other keeping to this illusion, if it makes you feel good. FWIW, I have many private illusions myself, but I am not trying to convince you that my illusions should apply to you as well.

This has nothing to do with being a good gambler. From my perspective, a good gambler doesn't waste big parts of his life on illusionary "long shots". Your talk about "being given a free lottery ticket" is gibberish to me. I have nothing to say for it or against it. For all I know, it's a "free ticket" to a lottery that exists only in your (and others') mind. Mocking this imagined lottery is a very natural thing to do.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

I don't think you can hedge your bets in order to see heaven. Either you know what's up or you don't. Intellectual inquiry can point the way towards no intellectual inquiry or it can lead to more thinking. Either way, seeing is seeing and thinking is thinking. You can't see heaven if you think you see it, you'll be thinking.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

"So even if you think there is no way that the God of Christianity or another major religion exists, you still don't have to mock Him. And if you say something along the lines of, "I'd rather burn in hell than believe in a god who would punish people in hell", then you just might get your druthers."

These are two very different things. I agree with the first sentence. But the quote in the second sentence, while an obvious exaggeration, is a legitmate philosophical stance that could conceivably even please God.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> If one of the super super longshots like one of the wacko personality cults or scientology comes in, then I am screwed for sure because I have in the past and will continue to mock such systems based upon the most preposterous of premises. </font>

Doesn't this answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

And don't you see (BluffThis) how hypocritical this is? I admire your honesty, though. I agree that atheists shouldn't mock people's religious beliefs... that's almost as bad as believers "witnessing" to non-believers in order to get them to believe. I admit, sometimes I do it. But, I also promise you that I would NOT do it, if people would just keep their Jesus off my penis.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

Recently I've been wasting a lot of time reading long posts that only really have one or two lines of content. So I bit the bullet and finally purchased VelcroSoft PostSummarizer(TM) software. I ran your post through it, and it gave me the following:

[ QUOTE ]
-------------Summary of Post No. 3988935-------------------
<font color="white">.</font>
Warning: Don't mock God, you'll end up in hell

[/ QUOTE ]

It's paying for itself already.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

"Now this does not mean I think that respect and consideration should be accorded to every religious system, because I don't. If one of the super super longshots like one of the wacko personality cults or scientology comes in, then I am screwed for sure because I have in the past and will continue to mock such systems based upon the most preposterous of premises."

Let me weigh in here as well. I have already stated that it is impolite to mock beliefs people hold dear. However you yourself don't agree. Mocking Scientology etc. is OK in your book because it is "preposterous".

By that statement you imply that even atheists realize that the major religions are not preposterous. And that, for the most part is just wrong. Some might feel this way. And many atheists and agnostics would agree that cults are even more preposterous than specific religions. They also might admit that some sort of being created the universe. But after all is said and done, most agnostics, including me, think that any specific religion is RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY. Certainly unlikely enough to deserve mocking if Scientology deserves it.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
But after all is said and done, most agnostics, including me, think that any specific religion is RIDICULOUSLY UNLIKELY. Certainly unlikely enough to deserve mocking if Scientology deserves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is even more true when Christianity is the religion being discussed. People forget that its core beliefs are as absurd as Scientology. I'll list a few Catholic beliefs:

1. There is an invisible man who created and has power over the entire universe. He gave humans one life on Earth, after which time will be sent to a place of wonder and happiness for eternity. However, he has a list of things he doesn't want you to do. If you do these things without asking forgiveness, you will end up in a place of torture and suffering for the rest of eternity. If you make fun of him, you will also end up in this place.

2. Two thousand years ago, God impregnated a human virgin so that he could have a son. This man grew up to be a prophet. In his life he walked on water, turned water in wine, instantly healed diseases. He was nailed to a cross, allowed himself to die, and three days later rose from the dead. Because of this, people can now go to that place of wonder and happiness.

3. You can perform a ritual whereby rice crackers and fermented grape juice turn into the ACTUAL - THE ACTUAL - meat and blood of that guy who lived 2000 years ago. You can then eat this and be brought closer to the invisible man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Looking at this objectively, people who believe these things sound like nutcases, or at least slightly mentally challenged. Can anybody reasonably say otherwise? How are these beliefs fundamentally different from Scientology's (not their practices, the actual beliefs themselves).

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

David, I realize how unlikely you find christianity or the other major religions, a probability compared to 100% that isn't that much bigger than that for scientology in absolute terms. But copared to each other, christianity to scientology, christianity is at least several orders of magnitude a larger probability. We at least have some, if not to non-believers' minds, sufficient, evidence. Where is the least evidence for the the souls of those killed by Xenu the evil galactic ruler millions of years ago inhabiting us?

Also, I shouldn't have included not mocking as being considerate of the views of others, because that is not the point of my post, which relates such mocking to the consequences from God if such a wager would otherwise win for a person but for that mocking. I am not in the least thin skinned and am never upset when someone derides my views. Nor even when they deride God, though that does make me sad for them.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
David, I realize how unlikely you find christianity or the other major religions, a probability compared to 100% that isn't that much bigger than that for scientology in absolute terms. But copared to each other, christianity to scientology, christianity is at least several orders of magnitude a larger probability. We at least have some, if not to non-believers' minds, sufficient, evidence. Where is the least evidence for the the souls of those killed by Xenu the evil galactic ruler millions of years ago inhabiting us?

[/ QUOTE ]

BlufTHIS,

Excuse me for butting in to a question obviously addressed to DS. I just can't help myself and it is a public forum, and an interesting one at that. Specifically with regards to soul, I guess there is no more evidence for the scientologists or for the catholics. What seems more important is which of the two creed is more dangerous or noxious. There I would have side without hesitation: the scientolgists are more dangerous. But on reflection, I am not sure... if we were to count the deaths/murders in the name of each creed... ?

Lets say, that, imho, as things stand todays except for the size of the following, the scientologist are more pernicious. Especially given their secrecy. At least I can read as much as I want about the catholic creed without parting with my hard, or soft, earned cash.

See, I am not just here to run them catholics or christaians or theists down. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
But on reflection, I am not sure... if we were to count the deaths/murders in the name of each creed... ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously Catholics take the cake on that one.

But I think the truly nasty side of this cult is the number of HIV infections they cause each year. As well as increasing overpopulation and famines in various parts of the world.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am not in the least thin skinned and am never upset when someone derides my views. Nor even when they deride God, though that does make me sad for them because I know they're spending the rest of eternity in a place of torture and anguish. I believe that this is just. This does not make me a rather sick individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But on reflection, I am not sure... if we were to count the deaths/murders in the name of each creed... ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously Catholics take the cake on that one.


But I think the truly nasty side of this cult is the number of HIV infections they cause each year. As well as increasing overpopulation and famines in various parts of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

The poster formerly known as the Little Prince,

I do not catch your HIV connect? Please explain. Also, I assume the overpopulation thing alludes to birth control. I must ask for further explanation here too; as it is my understanding that hunger is not attributed to over-population, but more to food distribution. I am quite certain that there is enough food in the world to feed all at this time. I could be wrong though as my information is a few years old.

RJT

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

I just caught the HIV – no condoms. Well, to get technical if one follows the Church’s teaching and both partners only has sex with each other beginning with a marriage then this is not an issue. Since obviously this isn’t the case when HIV transmission takes place – that is one either had sex prior to marriage our outside of the marriage with someone else, then I doubt if said person really cares about the “no condom” rule within the marriage. Don’t blame the Church here.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

World Health Organization condemns comments made by the Catholic Church (including outright lies by one of the Vatican's most senior cardinals): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3176982.stm

Vatican: Condoms don't stop AIDS from the Guardian Newspaper (UK)
Quotes from the Church and comments by noted AIDS authorities
http://www.womensenews.org/article.c...ontext/archive


Regarding overpopulation, I agree that we currently have enough food if the world chose to distribute it. But the current reality is that countries have to stand on their own feet using their own resources. At present, overpopulation in certain countries is one of the biggest health and environmental threats facing the world today. 1/2 of all rainforest destruction is done by peasant slash and burn farmers. Parts of Africa and Brazil simply dont' have the natural resources to support their current populations, and won't in the near future. By forbidding contraception, even among married couples, the Catholic Church has and is directly contributing to overpopulation and irreversible environmental damage in some of the poorest nations of the world. This is irresponsibility on a huge scale because of some weird, 500 year old ideas this cult have about sex and procreation.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

Does your apartment smell of rich mahogany?

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

There's also no evidence that kicking you in the balls won't result in you writing me a $5000 check.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

I don't believe your mother loves you, so when I say that she wears combat boots, don't get all offended.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
We at least have some, if not to non-believers' minds, sufficient, evidence. Where is the least evidence for the the souls of those killed by Xenu the evil galactic ruler millions of years ago inhabiting us?


[/ QUOTE ]

You answered your own question right here. To Scientologists, Scientolgists have reasonable evidence and Christians have no evidence.

In fact, this is an excellent comparison. Can you give us any facts that make Christianity more likely to be true than Scientology?

Only atheists are in the priviledged open-minded position that lets them see the entire comedy unfold.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
God was killed so long ago, by so many, mocking him now is in a way getting him back to life. You should be glad.

[/ QUOTE ]

This logic can also be applied to corpse-raping.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

Formerly the LP,

How much easier it is to direct the “blame” towards the Church. They have their role in the world which is Religion. Governments of the world are the cause of world hunger and the anger as well as the solutions should be directed there. The effects of this Church teaching I have to assume is immaterial. Do you really think folk in the starving States are not using condoms because of the Church’s teachings?

Your point might have some validity theoretically and can be discussed further. I don’t think it is much of an issue though. If I am wrong and the things you suggest are caused by Church teaching, then count me in for further discussion.

In regard to your outdated quotes: I would have to see the comments in their original contexts to give an opinion on them. I don’t trust media accounts of such things.

RJT

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
The effects of this Church teaching I have to assume is immaterial. Do you really think folk in the starving States are not using condoms because of the Church’s teachings?

[/ QUOTE ]
YES!!! Wow, those two statements just blew me away.

It's late now (3am here in Oz) but I'll get back to this tomorrow. But there is much on the web about this, this is a huge issue. There are Catholic groups themselves taking up this fight because of the extreme harm it's causing. No I'm not exaggerating.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
To Scientologists, Scientolgists have reasonable evidence and Christians have no evidence.

In fact, this is an excellent comparison. Can you give us any facts that make Christianity more likely to be true than Scientology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me any evidence for Xenu and the alleged goings on 70 million years ago.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The effects of this Church teaching I have to assume is immaterial. Do you really think folk in the starving States are not using condoms because of the Church’s teachings?

[/ QUOTE ]
YES!!! Wow, those two statements just blew me away.

It's late now (3am here in Oz) but I'll get back to this tomorrow. But there is much on the web about this, this is a huge issue. There are Catholic groups themselves taking up this fight because of the extreme harm it's causing. No I'm not exaggerating.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you. Hadn't realized that. I'll google later so I am updated. To be continuerd then...

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To Scientologists, Scientolgists have reasonable evidence and Christians have no evidence.

In fact, this is an excellent comparison. Can you give us any facts that make Christianity more likely to be true than Scientology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me any evidence for Xenu and the alleged goings on 70 million years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you joking? Your existance is enough proof that L Ron Hubbard is correct. Your thetens are making you not believe the truth. Let them run your life if you wish, I will laugh at you from the clear state. You suffer from a egocentric worldview.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To Scientologists, Scientolgists have reasonable evidence and Christians have no evidence.

In fact, this is an excellent comparison. Can you give us any facts that make Christianity more likely to be true than Scientology?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me any evidence for Xenu and the alleged goings on 70 million years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://home.austin.rr.com/kbradshaw1.../dianetics.jpg

now show me proof that god created the earth 5000 years ago and gave his son Jesus for our sins. Every religion has their magic book that proves them right and everyone else wrong.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

Perhaps you are one of those scientologist who has paid the requisite 300K+ to reach the top level and can answer a question for me. Did Xenu really die once and for all? Or is he like Sauron, merely gathering his strength to reassume physical form and once again become the evil galactic ruler?

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
now show me proof that god created the earth 5000 years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the wrong type of christian here. If you really read this forum regularly you would know that.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
now show me proof that god created the earth 5000 years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the wrong type of christian here. If you really read this forum regularly you would know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah so you're the church of england type who doesn't really believe in god.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
now show me proof that god created the earth 5000 years ago

[/ QUOTE ]

You got the wrong type of christian here. If you really read this forum regularly you would know that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah so you're the church of england type who doesn't really believe in god.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now thats the least nuts religon.

chez

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

Bluff,

Sorry for the interruption here. But, I want to make sure you are following my dialogue with our lost sheep, Peter, in the "COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR XNS" thread. You might have a freeroll there waiting for you, compliments of your truly.

RJT

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you are one of those scientologist who has paid the requisite 300K+ to reach the top level and can answer a question for me. Did Xenu really die once and for all? Or is he like Sauron, merely gathering his strength to reassume physical form and once again become the evil galactic ruler?

[/ QUOTE ]

A religion based on Lord of the Rings is no less absurd than one based on the bible. They're both old moralistic books with a cult following that have been made into long pointless films. But at least LOTR has hot elf chicks.

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

this is just 1 of several posts on this subject, still, noone has given any cogent reason why this should be considered a 'wager'. we can do this kind of wagering about anything-----i should be nice to my neighbor because he may have 100,000 in his will for me. that is, i shall wager that he has 100,000 designated for me and follow thru on my part and be nice. the wager argument viz a viz god is trivially circular: to make the wager on the existence of god a true wager you already have to believe in his existence. if you don't then the process is something like the "as-ifing" in scientology, the 'believing makes it so' of our grandmas, and most anything said by peter pan or michael jackson. after all, we can play silly word-games about most anything...............b

Re: Pascal\'s Wager and Free Bets
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you are one of those scientologist who has paid the requisite 300K+ to reach the top level and can answer a question for me. Did Xenu really die once and for all? Or is he like Sauron, merely gathering his strength to reassume physical form and once again become the evil galactic ruler?

[/ QUOTE ]You are not clear enough to handle the truth. You must be clean to understand the nature of Xenu. You are puttin your theten controled thoughts above your own. Give scientology a chance, after all what to you have to lose. Either you will be cleared of evil thetens, or you never really had thetens to begin with. It is a win-win situation.