The right way to bet

[Spectral Paladin]

I decided to respond to Gunwounds' new signature. Here it is:

Here is how I believe it should be:

As I 've said before, I believe the wager is false, if the odds for the existance of God are not taken into account.

I believe every person needs a purpose in life. We need to know what we live for. When a purpose is absent, the feeling of emptiness is quite overwhelming. In an older topic, Gunwounds said that we all have an "innate voice" which tells us to seek God. I think it's the same thing; the need to have a purpose. This would explain why some people, when they have nothing to turn to, become religious.

Throughout the centuries, there were many people that took advantage of this need.

1)People who profit from the people's need to believe. There are plenty of examples: from parents trying to tame their children to the Church people trying to gain money and power. This is the reason the protestants broke away from the catholic church, is it not? However, this can't make right what was wrong. Before the protestants, the church was run by those corrupt catholics, who were willing to do anything to exploit people.

2) Dreamers: Their need to believe, or get people's attention, can make those 'see' anything. Prophets fall in this category.

3) White liars: Those who believe, and also think that telling a white lie to make other people believe is ok. The kind of people that put chemicals on the image of Jesus to make it look like he cried.

There is no way to trust all those people, yet they are the very same that helped spread christianity.

The fact that there were (and still are) many religions besides christianity confirms it. If you accept they are the product of people belonging to the categories above, how is christianity different? "It has survived the test of time" is no argument. Inevitably, one religion would become the dominant one. It was christianity for a number of reasons.

Some of the sacrifices are not a big deal (actually I am not sure about this. Wasn't it Jesus that told a rich man to abandon all his wealth if he wished to follow him? If all christians heeded this they should be living in the streets). Even then, you do spend some time, energy and money that could have been used otherwise. And in some cases, the consequences are far more serious.

I am not willing to lose even a penny to someone who's bluffing. I will look at the cards on the table, see he's full of shit and call him.

[EWS]

I actually thought the gamblers argument was slightly different.

Basically the version I was taught was such;

1. Believe in God and God exists.

Gains eternal life and happiness in heaven where you are happy, greatest ever outcome.  Only losses are a few hours a week and your beliefs and ways that you act

2. Believe in God and God does not exist

All you loose are a few hours a week, yet you still feel content with your life, and happy.

3. Not believe in God and Win

Live your life the way you want, then die.

4. Not believe in God and loose

Spend eternity in Hell.

From that, the logical step is to believe in god.

[Dante]

I worked that out before I left primary school. And decided that I still didn't want to bother with god (the actual atheism came later).

I don't think that the diagram in the first post is really workable. The second category takes no account of eternal life.

[Spectral Paladin]

All you loose are a few hours a week, yet you still feel content with your life, and happy.

Actually you might lose much more than that.

The wager is flawed because it only takes into account the possible outcomes. The right way to bet is (afterall this is what the topic is showing you :D) to consider only the odds, what is at stake is irrelevant. Whether your hand is better than your opponent's or not, is already determined (just like whether God exists). You have to figure out what is the case, judging by the cards on the table (in God's existance case, the clues mentioned above). If you had a very good hand, certain that noone could have better, would you let a huge bet scare you? Similarly, would you be tempted to call a huge bet with a bad hand, because of the remote possibility of winning an unearthly amount of money?

I don't think that the diagram in the first post is really workable. The second category takes no account of eternal life.

Do you mean the table?

[GUNWOUNDS]

wtf... i cant have a sig without people attacking it?

[Dante]

Well, it would be controversial and I expect that you knew that. I was expecting someone to comment about it in another thread, rather than making a thread for it, but it was inevitable anyway.

Yes, I meant the table.

[GUNWOUNDS]

ummm.... many people have sigs.... but you dont see me making a whole thread addressing it.

[Dante]

Well making a thread was perhaps going overboard, but it was bound to be attacked sooner or later.

[Spectral Paladin]

Did I comment on your previous signature? No. Have I done so with other people's signatures? No. Therefore it is apparent that my intention was not to attack the signature, but discuss pascal's wager and your view about it, which was presented in your signature.

Dante, if by second category you mean God doesn't exist, then there isn't the prospect of eternal life. If you mean Wager against God, I do mention it - misery after death.

Since the topic's title is "The right way to bet", I assumed it would be obvious this is my take on Pascal's wager. I will include the original in a second.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I guess I'll join in... since its my sig after all...

[Dante]

The second category of your table (Spectral Paladin's) mentions 'Life.' It doesn't take into account the prospect of eternal joy or suffering. That should certainly be included in the outcomes as well as physical life.

[GUNWOUNDS]

i want to reiterate that i tihnk spectrals's addition of "life as good as it could ahve been"  and "life not as good as it could have been" are extremely subjective and pretty much FALSE.  Living it up and smoking crack and sleeping with whores and dying at 35 is not my idea of living life as good as it could ahve been compared to Living to be 95 , being married for 75 years with a soulmate and having a peaceful life with obedient children who follow teh faith and dont abuse their bodies.

Its a common myth that "evil" lives are more "fun" or "enjoyable"

[Spectral Paladin]

The original has been included.

Thing is you can do a lot instead of pushing buttons. Therefore the option of not pushing any should be at least considered.

Its really very simple.  And the part of my graphic that you changed where you said "Life is not as good as it could have been"  is  very FALSE.  Most researchers have discovered that religious people actually live 10-20 years longer on average than non-believers because having a faith reduces stress and leads to a healtheir lifestyle.

Is it? It's a fact you have to spend some time, energy and money. Thus, you will lack some things you would have if you didn't believe. Secondly, there are cases where belief might lead to misery. And thirdly, 10-20 years more mean nothing. There is a tree (I don't know its name in english) that lives for 2000 years I think. I would most certainly not trade its life for mine.

[Spectral Paladin]

i want to reiterate that i tihnk spectrals's addition of "life as good as it could ahve been"  and "life not as good as it could have been" are extremely subjective and pretty much FALSE.  Living it up and smoking crack and sleeping with whores and dying at 35 is not my idea of living life as good as it could ahve been compared to Living to be 95 , being married for 75 years with a soulmate and having a peaceful life with obedient children who follow the faith and dont abuse their bodies.

Its a common myth that "evil" lives are more "fun" or "enjoyable"

You said it yourself it's a myth. Fun and enjoyable does not mean "evil" (as you describe it above - smoking crack etc). However, faith can and does pose limits on you do. Sometimes those limits are so restrictive that lead to misery.

The second category of your table (Spectral Paladin's) mentions 'Life.' It doesn't take into account the prospect of eternal joy or suffering. That should certainly be included in the outcomes as well as physical life.

If God doesn't exist there is no prospect of eternal joy or suffering. I don't include afterlife because it's the same for both - nothing.

[GUNWOUNDS]

time , energy , and money will not always equal happiness...  many people are rich with loads of time and still decide to blow their brains out.

Additionally one must consider that giving time , energy, and money, can actually reap a reward.  You cannot make your chart so black and white and say that a life of faith = a shitty life.  Its quite possible to be a christian who is full of joy and happiness and peace and health.  YOu must come up with something else beside some old steretypical belief.

[Spectral Paladin]

Yes it is possible. Still, if you were not a christian, your life could be "fuller" of those things.

As I said, I am not willing to lose even a penny. It's not a penny invested for a chance at an afterlife. If God does not exist it's a penny wasted for nothing.

[GUNWOUNDS]

basically what i am saying is that the quality of life here on earth is not a factor..... 100 years of joy is still infinitely less important than eternal life in paradise.

It is logical to trade 100 years of misery (altho a life of faith doesnt have to be) for eternal paradise even with the possibility that it doesnt exist.

Its a bet that is logically sound.

[Dante]

I'm prepared to spend eternity in damnation, if that's what being me will bring. That's my wager.

[Spectral Paladin]

The way I see a right bet should be, look at the odds, ignore what is at stake. Because what is at stake does not affect the outcome:

Throwing all your chips in the pot doesn't not make your cards any better.

Betting all your property on a team winning, won't make that team score more.

After all, is your aim to have a decent failed attempt or win the wager?

[Acriku]

I would jump in and scream FALSE DILEMMA and that gunwounds is leaving out other options for the wager (like the God that rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith) but it's a "partial" god and doesn't count (a no true scotsman fallacy, in its own right). ;-)

[Edric O]

Its a common myth that "evil" lives are more "fun" or "enjoyable"

Precisely. My purpose in life, regardless of God or religion, is to serve the interests of Humanity to the best of my ability - to improve the collective well-being of the human species as much as I can. I can (and do) reject a hedonistic lifestyle for completely secular reasons. Religion merely adds yet more reasons on top of those. But since I wouldn't want a life of sin anyway, what am I losing by being religious?

It's a fact you have to spend some time, energy and money. Thus, you will lack some things you would have if you didn't believe.

But you will gain others. Religion can give you real psychological benefits in this life even if God doesn't actually exist.

Secondly, there are cases where belief might lead to misery.

Wrong. At most, the belief of others might lead to your misery - if they happen to hate "infidels", and you happen to be one. But you have nothing to lose from your own personal religion. Being an atheist makes you an infidel by default to all religions, and it's certainly not a point in your favour in case you're faced with angry zealots.

And thirdly, 10-20 years more mean nothing. There is a tree (I don't know its name in english) that lives for 2000 years I think. I would most certainly not trade its life for mine.

Ok, let's play a game. As you know, I am a Christian. I challenge you to show me ONE way in which my life would be improved by becoming an atheist.

***

Having said all that, I have to note that Pascal's Wager is rooted in egoism (the assumption that you want to do whatever gives you the greatest personal benefit). You cannot be a Christian and an egoist at the same time; thus, Pascal's Wager is NOT a compelling reason to convert to Christianity. What Pascal's Wager IS is a compelling reason to "de-convert" from egoism. In essence, it shows that egoism is self-defeating, that attempting to live for your own selfish benefit will end up actually hurting you in the end. Pascal's Wager says "it doesn't make sense to be an atheist and an egoist at the same time". You will have to choose either one or the other, or neither. In other words, you have 3 choices: (a) atheism + non-egoism, (b) religion + egoism, and © religion + non-egoism. But since all religions reject egoism, choosing option b is impossible. So you are left with a and c: You can be religious or you can be an atheist, but either way it doesn't make sense to follow egoism.

Therefore, in my view, Pascal's Wager is an argument against egoism, not against atheism:

[Acriku]

All religions reject egoism? Funny... fundies tend to get flustered when someone calls a human a mere "animal." Being God's special creation, there lies quite a basis of egoism.

I might add, Pascal's Wager assumes that you can decide to believe in something. Which is false.

[Edric O]

All religions reject egoism? Funny... fundies tend to get flustered when someone calls a human a mere "animal." Being God's special creation, there lies quite a basis of egoism.

Egoism is individual. What you're talking about seems to be a kind of species-based prejudice (which is not at all unfounded, because humans are, quite obviously, "special" animals).

But in any case, since when do fundies actually follow Christianity?

[Dante]

Ok, let's play a game. As you know, I am a Christian. I challenge you to show me ONE way in which my life would be improved by becoming an atheist.

Not really a fair question, since we don't know much about your life in general. And you say that your purposes would be the same regardless of god or religion, which implies that being a christian doesn't have as much of an impact on your life as other influences. Which would also mean that becoming an atheist wouldn't actually affect your life that much. I could hazard a guess about saving time that would otherwise have been in church, but I don't even know if you go. And it's not that big a deal anyway.

Besides which religion suits some people. Whether or not god exists, as Edric said some people gain a psychological benefit from it. I imagine that this can manifest itself in many ways. A comforting blanket maybe, or extra confidence (not to be confused with a raging superiority complex). A safety net, in terms of the wager. I prefer to think of it as a pair of rose coloured glasses, myself, but to each his own.

And in turn, atheism suits others. I know that I would be miserable if I were to adopt a religion. And not just because I would believe that my entire purpose in existing is to suffer for all eternity (after all, who can't change who you are. Kind of a hopeless existence, really. What really bugs me is that there are some pople who actually believe that and spend their whole, short life contemplating the eternal pain to follow). The whole concept of organised religion is anathema to me. Though I admit, sometimes you do get some kickass clothes.

Of course, I might settle down once I got those pink spectacles on... I'm rambling. Suffice to say that whether or not god exists, some people benefit in this life through different lifestyles. And god should consider that. If he exists.

Wagering religion. Alright, here goes.

I am an atheist. Also, going by certain standards, a sinful one.

So, if god does not exist then at least I enjoyed my time here. And I was right about everything.

But if god does exist, and isn't the all-forgiving, all-loving god but a deity of holy wrath and vengence, then I'm going to hell. Where I shall suffer until the end of time, and possibly after that. I considered this possibility years ago, and I decided that I don't care, Pascal. If I go to hell for being me, for being the me that god created or the me that I created, then the law is unjust and my consolation in hell that can never be taken away is that I, with the moral complexities of a bean, am god's moral superior. And that I lived my life according to my principles, twisted though they may be. Take that and shove it, Pascal, I worked this out long before I met you and your gambling addiction.

[Spectral Paladin]

Precisely. My purpose in life, regardless of God or religion, is to serve the interests of Humanity to the best of my ability - to improve the collective well-being of the human species as much as I can. I can (and do) reject a hedonistic lifestyle for completely secular reasons. Religion merely adds yet more reasons on top of those. But since I wouldn't want a life of sin anyway, what am I losing by being religious?

Not much it seems. Others however, whose purpose in life is not the same as yours, would suffer more losses.

Wrong. At most, the belief of others might lead to your misery - if they happen to hate "infidels", and you happen to be one. But you have nothing to lose from your own personal religion. Being an atheist makes you an infidel by default to all religions, and it's certainly not a point in your favour in case you're faced with angry zealots.

As Dante pointed out, some people's lifestyle is not compatible with christianity. Consider those for whom the things they enjoy most are deemed wrong by christianity.

Ok, let's play a game. As you know, I am a Christian. I challenge you to show me ONE way in which my life would be improved by becoming an atheist.

I cannot show you how it would be improved. I can however, show you how it could be improved. For a start, your time studying christianity, what is God and the Holy Trinity etc, would not have been wasted. Your time spend making this and other posts concerning christianity, could have been used otherwise. You wouldn't be charged for the electricity used to power your computer while posting this (or wouldn't have paid to use a computer in an internet cafe). Do I win?

Having said all that, I have to note that Pascal's Wager is rooted in egoism (the assumption that you want to do whatever gives you the greatest personal benefit). You cannot be a Christian and an egoist at the same time; thus, Pascal's Wager is NOT a compelling reason to convert to Christianity. What Pascal's Wager IS is a compelling reason to "de-convert" from egoism. In essence, it shows that egoism is self-defeating, that attempting to live for your own selfish benefit will end up actually hurting you in the end. Pascal's Wager says "it doesn't make sense to be an atheist and an egoist at the same time". You will have to choose either one or the other, or neither. In other words, you have 3 choices: (a) atheism + non-egoism, (b) religion + egoism, and © religion + non-egoism. But since all religions reject egoism, choosing option b is impossible. So you are left with a and c: You can be religious or you can be an atheist, but either way it doesn't make sense to follow egoism.

Pascal's wager does not show that egoism will hurt you in the end, it presents it as one of the possible outcomes. Egoism could benefit an atheist - it could be the means to enjoy his life as much as he can.

Atheism + non-egoism does not make any more sense, as the atheist is not motivated by any beliefs to be an altruist.