Pascal's Wage Reloaded.

[Link]

Ah, so it's a combination of reason and emotion, not maths.

Yes you have to hate pain for yourself forever and love pleasure for yourself forever. If you don’t care and hate God too much to even give potential guidance a chance, that’s your emotional choice.

 

[Link]

Now we have a quandry.
Both of us are sure and yet both cannot be right.

True.

 

[KWED]

The reason he would send us to hell, might because we gave everyone ability to speak except God and his sent ones.

Why is this a "just and merciful" or reasonable response to people not finding any evidence for the existence of a particular god?

Another reason, because there was no way to side on truth between battle of good and evil, without guidance from God.

Again, this does not, in any way, provide justification for torturing people for eternity.
Also, given that god created the battle between good and evil, and invented the rules governing it, and provides the evidence for himself (or lack of it), why are we responsible in any way for the results of his poor planning?

Another might because justice can't be established without God's guidance and help, and if we neglect, we are part of the reason people are oppressed and suffering.

This is just the principle of collective punishment. It is banned by international law.

Another can be because he is with us and is clear but evil makes us not see him, and for all we know, we don't see him because we are evil. In this case, we have to move to see God.

So you are saying that all disbelievers are evil? Well, that's certainly what god seems to think.

Another can be because the proof and signs he established prove him and it's evil to be stubborn to proofs he has shown about himself.

*sigh*
But it has long been established that there are no "proofs or signs" for any particular god.
What you call "proofs and signs" only seem convincing to people who already believe in him.

Another can be because that if we anyone turns to God often and wants to see miracles to be certain, and pledges not to accuse the doer of being a sorcerer, he would be shown it.

There maybe many reasons. They maybe no reasons.

Definitely no rational reasons.

But the point of the wager is not arguing to believe blindly but to search for the truth.

So what does Pascal recommend for those who search diligently and find no god, or a different god to his?
(I'm sure I've asked this before)

 

[KWED]

If you are sure of hell not existing and that you are guaranteed paradise in case God exists or that he won't torture you, then you are sure. If not, even 0.0000001% possibility of hell being forever and a consequence of your life choice, then one should not risk it. The reason math wise is for certain. Forever is infinitely more important to bet on then a temporary life.

If you are sure, then the wager doesn't work.

I am 99.9% sure that there are no gods.
You are claiming that I should choose to believe in one anyway.
1. Which one should I pick, and how do I make that decision?
2. Why won't god realise I am lying and punish me even more for it? We know that the god of Islam really hates people who just pretend to be Muslims. Presumably you would recommend not following Islam?

 

[KWED]

I think giving misleading people a voice while rejecting all guidance of God is enough to be merit hell forever.
This is rational, because, he is the highest being and deserves utmost love, yet you don't even give him a chance to speak to you (hypothetical person, not you particularly) and guide you. What is worse, it would mean the good people reasonable voice was rejected in favor of misleading people.

But you keep ignoring the facts here. We are not saying "Yeah, I know god exists, but I am going to ignore him", we see no reason to believe in gods, so why would a god see that as justification for torturing us for eternity?
Do you think that people who deliberately mislead others over politics or medicine should be tortured in this world, even if only for a couple of weeks?

Also, why does Allah "deserve utmost love"? What has he done to deserve it?

This is to me is utmost evil,

So you think that rejecting god and arguing against god is "more evil" than raping and torturing children to death?
You have just perfectly illustrated everything that is wrong with religion.

One rejects truth out of envy or racism or hate

Oh, just STFU!

 

[KWED]

As for racism, it's simple Mohammad (s) is Arab.

So all the Arab Christians, Jews, atheists, etc are all racist against Arabs?
Nice one!

 

[KWED]

A lot of people are racist. Not saying everyone who doesn't come to him is Racist, but it's a big factor for some people.

So you really think that people accept the truth of Islam, know Allah exists, and understand that they will go to hell if they reject it, but they still reject it because they don't like Arabs?

You have seriously lost the plot pal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So your truth bearer is "The ones you've been reading here for over 7 years. Weren't you paying attention?[" Not that you have "information or/and data".

Perhaps the reason you didn't get the kind of answer to "What arguments and what information [argues against their deities]?" is because the question itself reveals that there is no value in answering it. You didn't ask for a single piece of data or a specific argument. You indicated that what you read in the past had no impact on you. Reading it again won't, either.

Not long ago, somebody asked, "What evidence do you have that Trump committed crimes or should go to prison?" That also a question not worth answering. If the question were, "What evidence do you have that Trump conspired with Deutsche Bank in 2011 to launder money?" you would be glad to give your evidence if you had any. That's a question I might ask, and I'm quite sure that Trump is guilty of multiple crimes. But when you see that somebody doesn't acknowledge what is already widely known, you're dealing with a confirmation bias that prevents that evidence and sound argument from having any impact.

It's also the difference between, "What evidence do you have that Ardipithecus was not a human ancestor, but rather, a branch from our pedigree that went extinct?" and "What evidence do you have that man evolved from ancestral apes?" Unless you're dealing with a teenager that hasn't had time to learn such things, you're wasting your time answering if your purpose is to educate the person asking.

In fact, these are not really questions, but comments ending in question marks. Just as it is very likely that you never looked at the link that was offered in place of repeating an answer, since it is unlikely that you care what the answer is, the person asking why somebody thinks Trump committed crimes or why Ardi wasn't ancestral (incidentally, I have no knowledge about whether Ardi is considered ancestral to man or not, so don't take that question to mean that the issue is resolved; it isn't) also isn't interested in an answer, but in making the implied argument that the person being asked doesn't have a case if he can't successfully convince somebody not interested in considering the evidence and argument.

Also, a person who refuses to answer as many questions asked of him as you really shouldn't be criticizing others for only leaving a link. It's more than you give when you answer that "That's not relevant" or "I already answered that" to a question that only needs a short answer.

Incidentally, it also seems to me that all religions that make existential claims about a God and its qualities are superstitions as well, a comment you challenged. You asked for evidence for that as well, and seemed to ignore the answers you got. Are you really unaware of why somebody might believe that all mutually exclusive religions are false, superstitious beliefs? And I do have evidence in support of that belief, but if you have to ask what it is, you aren't seeking information, but making the argument that one shouldn't say that all mutually exclusive religions seem claiming that magic occurs seem like superstitions.

So do all creation myths. They're either all wrong or all but one, and there is no way to determine if one is correct or which one, so, they all seem like superstitions even if one is historical. Maybe Odin and his brothers really did create the world from Ymir: "The world was created from the remains of the giant Ymir in Norse mythology. The three brothers dragged Ymir’s lifeless body towards the center of Ginnungagap, this is the place where they created the world from the remains of Ymir. The blood became the oceans, rivers, and lakes. The flesh became the land.
The bones became the mountains. The teeth were made into rocks. The hair became the grass and trees. The eyelashes became Midgard." Even if that actually happened, it still seems like superstition, and if it is true, all other creation myths are superstitions.

If it seems I'm being self-contradictory by telling you that there is no point in answering these kinds of questions and then answering one, what I mean is that the post will have no value to you. Writing it has value to me, and perhaps to others that actually do notice answers, remember them, and are potentially convinced of something or see a new way to present a position they already hold, such as that there is a difference between a specific question that one sincerely interested might ask, and one that is so broad as to indicate that the person "asking" it isn't really interested in answers and won't benefit from them for that reason. They already know that at least implicitly, but seeing it in words always helps me clarify my understanding and I hope it does for others as well.

 

[KWED]

Do you believe in the story of Moses and Pharaoh, Pharaoh would in this possible story (not saying accept as true or even with historical bases, let's say Moses is pure fiction), Pharaoh (just him) would not deserve hell forever?

Absolutely not.
Eternal torture is a disproportionate punishment for any finite crime.
This proves that Allah is neither most merciful nor most just.
As the Quran claims that he is both, then the Quran must be wrong.
Ergo, Islam is false.
QED

 

[KWED]

The argument fails only if 100% sure hell is not a possible consequence of one's path.

The argument fails for several reasons, because it is full of holes as has been explain many times now.
Your inability to understand the flaws does not make them any less flawed.

 

[KWED]

there is nothing we can for salvation ourselves if God is Unjust/Evil.

We know that god is unjust. The evidence is as plain as the nose on your face.
He tortures people for eternity for the "crime" of rational thought and critical analysis.
Basically, god is the classic dictator who suppresses criticism and dissent though fear and violence, and hands out favours to the toadying sycophants.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps the reason you didn't get the kind of answer to "What arguments and what information [argues against their deities]?" is because the question itself reveals that there is no value in answering it.

Saying there is no point answering, you answered it with an essay full of "no information".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Saying there is no point answering, you answered it with an essay full of "no information".

I posted that an answer would have no value to YOU because you weren't actually seeking one with your question, and probably wouldn't read one anyway. But you'd need to have read the whole post before answering to know that.

I wonder how far you got into the post before declaring that there was "no information" there. It seems you didn't make it to the last paragraph. Did you make it past the first one? There's no evidence in your reply that you did.

I'm guessing that you don't see how you confirmed my claim with your answer. I'm also guessing that you never saw let alone understood that your question about religions seeming like superstitions was answered, and to no benefit to you as predicted.

 

[firedragon]

I posted that an answer would have no value to YOU because you weren't actually seeking one with your question

I was asking from someone who claimed there is a lot of information. So the response should be with that information. Not a sermon with none of that claimed information or some link to a discussion forum.

 

[Heyo]

Actually, it plays with math. The Math choice, is to fear God. The emotional one enticed by deception and what we might like, is to bet on this world. But math wise, it's shown we should not bet on life of pleasure over seeking God.

Nope. You don't understand maths (and neither did Pascal). If you had and understood calculus, you'd know that it is possible to multiply infinite values with infinitesimal values and arrive at a finite result.
Calculating with infinities is tricky.

 

[F1fan]

It doesn't contradict it because there is nothing we can for salvation ourselves if God is Unjust/Evil. So you just bet on it being good. The whole thing is a wager. The fact there is a possibility God is Good and consequences of hell, means you have to strive and take it seriously.

I don't see how hell is compatible with a good God. Would a good God really set up a hell and cast people there for minor issues, and mundane intellectual stands like not believing in a religious claim?

 

[KWED]

I don't see how hell is compatible with a good God. Would a good God really set up a hell and cast people there for minor issues, and mundane intellectual stands like not believing in a religious claim?

It absolutely isn't compatible.
Humans have mostly abandoned the death penalty, even for capital crimes, because it is incompatible with a good and civilised society, yet god still thinks eternal torture is the best way to show his disapproval. The idea that a merciful, just and benevolent god would create a hell for people who simply decline to join his gang is utterly incoherent.

 

[KWED]

I posted that an answer would have no value to YOU because you weren't actually seeking one with your question, and probably wouldn't read one anyway. But you'd need to have read the whole post before answering to know that.

I wonder how far you got into the post before declaring that there was "no information" there. It seems you didn't make it to the last paragraph. Did you make it past the first one? There's no evidence in your reply that you did.

I'm guessing that you don't see how you confirmed my claim with your answer. I'm also guessing that you never saw let alone understood that your question about religions seeming like superstitions was answered, and to no benefit to you as predicted.

Firedragon is not interested in honest debate. His MO is simply to deflect and distract from questions and points that he feels may reflect unfavourably on his own idea of belief. His toolbox only contains things like straw men, red herrings and muddying the water.
Ironically, by constantly doing this he only draws more attention to his inability to address those questions and issues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was asking from someone who claimed there is a lot of information. So the response should be with that information. Not a sermon with none of that claimed information or some link to a discussion forum.

As you can see I am not the only one on to your tactics. One must support one's claims too. If all one has is fake skepticism it tells us that that person knows his beliefs are even weaker.

 

[F1fan]

Pascal's Wager is not designed for those who do not assume the general Christian concepts of the heaven/hell binary (or even limbo if you want to drag the Catholics into it) are true, or even plausible.

Someone else made a good point that if the wager is aimed at non-believers and they should pretend to believe in God and salvation, and whatever else Christian sect X says must be accepted, just so they can cover their *** and make it to heaven, wouldn't an actual omnipresent God know this was a fraud? I suggest this loophole illustrates that many Christians actually don't believe in their God and concepts, and use these kinds of language and tricks to manipulate the skeptical into belief.

THAT would be a worldly act. That sort of fraud wouldn't be considered spiritual, would it?