The Argument from Pascal's Wager

[Ormiston]

It is an argument from expedience. It can be applied to any religion that posits a post mortem reward based on faith in a particular set of beliefs.

It seems like a great loss to me when one would value their afterlife more than their life. But it also seems like a prerequisite of the Wager.

 

[Flappycat]

A hypothetical god only admits atheists into Heaven. Under the circumstance of this god's existence, all who believed in any sort of afterlife or "divine" being would die forever in a lake of fire. This is, of course, all complete nonsense, but, just in case, I suggest you refrain from believing in gods or anything else of the like. I ate Pascal's Wafer. I also reinvented his triangles in the process of trying to find a neat way of weaselling out of having to actually DO my math. Oops. Sorry, Pascal, baby, but I'm more clever than you are. I am a bugger.

 

[Ody]

Pascal's wager is the most idiotic thing that I have ever come across concerning Christian arguments. Pascal essentially said that it is better to beleive in god because the outcome is better if you beleive in god as opposed to if you do not. This is neither a valid argument, nor one that could convince sceptics of traditional arguments of the Christian god. I personally truly despise the on reason portion of Pensees because of things such as "To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher."

Agreed! Using pascal's *&@#$* logic i might as well worship every god or higher being i can think of!