ok

An Atheist's Response to Pascal's Wager



Pascal’s Wager is one of the more respectable arguments in favor of religion. As an atheist, I am nonetheless sympathetic to this argument, because it attempts to use reason to actually persuade people to believe in God, rather than circularly using the Bible as a reason to believe in the truth of the Bible. Of course, as an atheist, I also believe that Pascal’s Wager is a mistaken argument. But here I will give it the consideration it deserves.

source

Related Articles

24 Comments

  1. Hell I think would be way worse than non existence…..Sometimes oblivion and the total surrender to the void would be best in that case…To be totally conscience knowing I am being tortured…ahh no thanks..knock me out..Im outta here.

  2. I don't agree that hell would be better than ceasing to exist. It would be exactly the same as before you started to exist, so no big deal, at least you won't suffer. I'm afraid of dying like everyone else but not afraid of being dead?

  3. Some flaws with your argument, but those are fine, a greater issue with pascal's wager is that there are so many religions to chose from your odds of being right are pretty much nill, depending on what you consider a religion, as in how many followers it has.

  4. I enjoy life too much, and couldn't bear to hurt my loved ones so. My piont is that nonexistance is better than an eternal existance, but not existance itself (though I can imagine horrific scenarios in which death becomes appealing). That's all.

    But thanks for your encouragement 🙂

  5. While your objection to Pascal's Wager is to be applauded for being novel (to me, at least), I disagree that nonexistance is less preferable than eternal life (in Heaven, Hell, or otherwise). While I live my life to the full, I nontheless relish the possibility of one day ceasing to exist.

    The flaw I find in Pascal's Wager is that if the Christian is wrong, this doesn't automatically mean that the atheist is right.

  6. I strongly disagree with the fact that non existance is worst than "hell", i rather ignore pascals arguement, the possibility of a judeo christian god existing is so small that it is better to spend time on this world free without fear of death

  7. "No, not everything that is round is circular. Spheroid may not be circular."

    Okay then anything perfectly circular. Anyway spheroid is circular in certain respects. Besides it wouldn't have to be everything, it would only take one example out of many to be true.

    Foundation means an underlying base or support. The mantle is the underlying base for the crust, etc. It is a very proper use of the word.

  8. Anything that is round is also circular.

    You think the earth doesn't have foundations? The core, the mantle, etc?

    Nothing about either verse says the earth is flat. In fact, both the verse about being circular and the verse saying the earth "being in her place" are very forward thinking scientifically for the time.

  9. There is no intelligence in the known universe superior to human intelligence."

    I can see why you want to change the subject. But it doesn't change the fact that you said the Bible supports the idea of a flat Earth and when challenged you try to change the subject.

  10. Who cares about the Nicene Creed? It was 100s of years after the books of the NT were written. It is a catholic thing, not a part of my religion at all.

    You accused the "good book" authors, i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc of supporting the idea of a flat Earth. They didn't. Cite an example where the "good book" supports a flat earth. Nothing in it does that. We don't know whether those authors ever even thought of the shape of the earth.

  11. The Nicene Creed is not in the Bible. It is from the 4th century. That's not the early church, that's the Catholic church. I said the Bible does not have references to a flat earth unless you misread the "four corners" reference. If you can point me to any other verse do so or otherwise admit that the Bible does not support the idea of a flat earth.

  12. Actually a flat earth is not even hinted at in the Bible. The term "four corners of the Earth" is a long standing literary idiom or device, generally corresponding to North-South-East-West. I don't mean that ancient scientists tweaked the telomere, but that the "early copies" of humanity had better versions and we lost it after the flood.

  13. Whether Methusalah actually lived 900+ years is a different question. My point is that prominent YT atheists laugh at the idea that any human could ever greatly exceed 130 years. They scoff at it, deride the idea entirely, and call it impossible. They don't listen to the idea that a little telomere tweaking could make 900 years a good guess at our real lifespan. They use the age idea as a reason the Bible is impossible, yet these scientists working on telomeres make it sound plausible.

  14. You need to tell some of the more well known YT atheists about the indefinite life extension idea. They laugh at the idea that humans pre-Flood could have lived 900 years in some instances. From what I have read of the scientists you cite, the paths they are taking make clear that 900 year life spans are entirely possible.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close