Pascal's wager is bullshit

[Cynic]

I call bullshit on Pascal and his stupid logic.


I've recently joined a group that's trying to create a series of brochures/guides to provide talk points for atheist parents/guardians.

When I talked about this with a person from another forum, Pascal's wager came up. As a believer, my friend posits that blind belief in case of a higher being doesn't hurt.


I think it does.

From the believer's point, it kinda invalidates God. If you only believe in case of God's existence, then you seem to cripple the "power and stature" of God.


But from an atheist/non-believer's point of view, it's still bullshit. If I choose not to believe in any sort of an all-pervasive power that has untold influence on my life (aside form Govt.) then I shouldn't need to grab the "oh-shit handles" just in case this influence might exist. It completely fucks up my philosophy if I say I don't believe but just in case, I'll give it a go.

I live life to the fullest for myself, my family, my friends, and this world around me. That's all I need. While I understand that other viewpoints exist, I call shenanigans on anyone who asks me to add an "if....then" argument to my daily philosophy.

[Kaelik]

Pascal's Wager is dumb, because it does what all religious people do whenever they talk about "God."

Pascal: "Well, I can't prove a single damn thing about God. Can't prove that he exists, can't even give evidence for it. And can't even say anything about the nature of any such being.

Well, there are two possibilities. Either there is no God, or he's exactly like I think he is for reasons that have nothing to do with evidence or proof.

Given those two possibilities: Here's the setup."

So, Pascal's wager is bullshit, because it violates it's own premise. The point of Pascal's Wager is to help you make the decision in the absence of evidence, but if you actually lack evidence, then you are missing infinite possibilities.

So there are actually infinite possible Gods, an infinite number of which damn all theists to hell and send all atheists to heaven.

So if you actually don't have any evidence about God, then atheism and theism are equal choices in the hereafter, and the theism may or may not be worse off because of the right now sacrifices that you might have to make.

[Psychic Robot]

Building churches in Africa is useless without the infrastructure to sustain them, and I would point that out to anyone who was going on a mission trip specifically to build a church or hand out Bibles. In fact, I make no bones about the fact that I think that American Christians should be doing more to help America than helping Africa because I believe Africa is a lost cause.

But there's a world of difference between mission trips and making atheist brochures because you're a goon screaming "FUCK YOU" at the sky while spending a good portion of your waking moments engaging in atheist circlejerks about "lol Sky Wizards" and if we just had more teacher's unions.

[Josh_Kablack]

I've recently joined a group that's trying to create a series of brochures/guides

Here you go:

Q: So you've decided to be an atheist, what now?

A: You have two choices: you can either: spend your life arguing with people who cannot grasp the idea of a voluntary social contract and will constantly attempt to condemn and/or convert you; or you can move outta the sticks and into a major city which boasts a university or two.

Q: Help! My son/daughter, neighbor or dog has decided to renounce their faith and become a godless atheist.

A: There's nothing to worry about. Either they are just trying to shock you or they'll come to their senses and move outta your red state wasteland very soon.

Done.

PS: The existence of multiple potentially correct religions invalidates Pascal's decision matrix.

[virgil]

But there's a world of difference between mission trips and making atheist brochures because you're a goon screaming "FUCK YOU" at the sky while spending a good portion of your waking moments discussing how irrational and uneducated you'd have to be to believe in the Sky Faerie.

Building churches in Africa isn't even a good analogue. They're guides FOR atheist parents, much like various guides for how to raise your kids. Did you read what Cynic even wrote, you dumb fvck?

[Psychic Robot]

A: You have two choices: you can either: spend your life arguing with people who cannot grasp the idea of a voluntary social contract and will constantly attempt to condemn and/or convert you; or you can move outta the sticks and into a major city which boasts a university or two.

One day, someone will help you off that cross. One day.

They're guides FOR atheist parents, much like various guides for how to raise your kids. Did you read what Cynic even wrote, you dumb fvck?

What kind of moron needs a super special guide to raising their children as an atheist? Here's the guide: you don't take them to church. But, of course, if you're the kind of atheist who needs a special guide to raising your children to keep them from developing religious inclinations, you should probably introduce them to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality at an early age. In between discussions about Pascal's Wager and how to properly maintain a neckbeard, you can show them Zinnia Jones's videos, perhaps sprinkling them with a few of the tamer TheAmazingAtheist's rants.

[Kaelik]

What kind of moron needs a super special guide to raising their children as an atheist? Here's the guide: you don't take them to church. But, of course, if you're the kind of atheist who needs help raising children, you should probably introduce them to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality at an early age. In between discussions about Pascal's Wager, you can show them Zinnia Jones's videos.

And when random strangers, teachers, neighbors, the military, government in general, and peers attempt to convert/brainwash/lecture/query them?

Oh what, you mean that you, a member of the majority are not familiar with the pressure that minorities face from the status quo of assumed christianity? Color me surprised.

[Psychic Robot]

Persecutory delusions (also known as querulant delusions[citation needed]) are a delusional condition in which the affected person believes - wrongly – they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing two central elements:[1][page needed]

1. The individual thinks that harm is occurring, or is going to occur.
2. The individual thinks that the persecutor has the intention to cause harm.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the most common form of delusions in schizophrenia, where the person believes "he or she is being tormented, followed, tricked, spied on, or ridiculed."[2] In the DSM-IV-TR, persecutory delusions are the main feature of the persecutory type of delusional disorder. When the focus is to remedy some injustice by legal action, they are sometimes called "querulous paranoia".[3]

Perpetrators of stalking behavior may have persecutory delusions[citation needed]. In cases where reporters of stalking behavior have been judged to be making false reports, a majority of them were judged (by the same people) to be delusional.[4][5]

If the delusion results in imprisonment, the person may feel justified in their belief.

Get over yourself. C.S. Lewis is not lurking around every corner to convert you.

[Zinegata]

People constantly make something very similar to Pascal's wager even if they're not applying it to religion. Living in a society? Well, you're making a wager that the society will ultimately protect you instead of exploiting you by following its rules.

We do a lot of things that do not have a clear and certain reward. We help the old lady cross the street because it feels good, you think it gives you good karma, it promotes compassion in the society, or whatever. But not because it has a certain, tangible reward.

And that's perfectly fine.

So trying to debunk the wager because it bothers you as an atheist is a complete waste of time. People will be people.

[Kaelik]

Get over yourself. C.S. Lewis is not lurking around every corner to convert you.

And you still can't read. Did I say that anyone was trying to cause harm? Did I say that any real harm is likely to occur?

No. Because, a good parent will prepare their child for the world, and if they don't know enough about how to prepare their child, they might seek out parenting advice.

But of course, you really do get asked, at work, by coworkers (and at school, by teachers) "Are you going to Church for Easter?" And if you get asked that as a kid, and don't know how to answer, that's a problem. And if you answer in a way that provokes curiosity, you get probed, and then have to justify your atheism to a room full of people, when you are a 8 year old child, and that's not a viable situation.

These natural assumptions that everyone is a member of the majority results in shit that does happen, and is something you have to actually fucking deal with as a parent.

As a gamer parent you have to deal with similar things, and stupid conceptions of "Oh fuck, gamer loser" ect, that you also have to deal with, just like every 14 year old atheist has to deal with whiny stupid people saying things like "you're a goon screaming "FUCK YOU" at the sky while spending a good portion of your waking moments engaging in atheist circlejerks about "lol Sky Wizards" and if we just had more teacher's unions."

And the way to deal with the problem is the same, you parent your kid, and if you don't know how, you get help, and if you do know how, and you feel like doing outreach, you might teach other people.

And then PR whines about how atheists preparing their kids for dealing with religious people who want to convert them is cheating, and mean.

People constantly make something very similar to Pascal's wager even if they're not applying it to religion. Living in a society? Well, you're making a wager that the society will ultimately protect you instead of exploiting you by following its rules.

We do a lot of things that do not have a clear and certain reward. We help the old lady cross the street because it feels good, you think it gives you good karma, it promotes compassion in the society, or whatever. But not because it has a certain, tangible reward.

And that's perfectly fine.

So trying to debunk the wager because it bothers you as an atheist is a complete waste of time. People will be people.

You apparently do not understand Pascal's Wager even a little bit.

[Zinegata]

Here you go:

Q: So you've decided to be an atheist, what now?

A: You have two choices: you can either: spend your life arguing with people who cannot grasp the idea of a voluntary social contract and will constantly attempt to condemn and/or convert you; or you can move outta the sticks and into a major city which boasts a university or two.

Or, you know, you can just treat it like how a normal person would treat it. Which is to not spend your life arguing about it with other people and hold it as a personal belief.

One's religion nowadays frankly matters as much in relating to other people as what hobbies you engage in. Sure, you'll find people who hate atheism. But you'll find people who hate golf/video games/whatever too. People will be people.

[Username17]

The actual Blaise Pascal was a mathematician who worked with infinite series. It is inconceivable that he couldn't know what a laughably terrible argument the Wager is. I've always assumed that it was code for the real wager he lived under in the theocracy of 17th century France that he lived in:

Action	Christians Stay In Power	Christians Lose Power
Pretend to be Christian	Nothing Happens	Nothing Happens
Don't Pretend to be Christian	Get Persecuted by the Second Estate	Nothing Happens

-Username17

[Zinegata]

You apparently do not understand Pascal's Wager even a little bit.

You believe in God because you've got nothing to lose in believing it.

Likewise, people believe in things like "society will take care of me if I do good!" too.

Note that I said "similar" to Pascal's Wager.

So really, stop pretending that this isn't anything more than you wanting to be stupid again and jumping at every opportunity to go "RAR! I HATE RELIGION!"

We fucking know that already. It's not cool. It's not impressive. It's just pointless impotent rage.

[Username17]

You apparently do not understand Pascal's Wager even a little bit.

You believe in God because you've got nothing to lose in believing it.

Likewise, people believe in things like "society will take care of me if I do good!" too.

Note that I said "similar" to Pascal's Wager.

So really, stop pretending that this isn't anything more than you wanting to be stupid again and jumping at every opportunity to go "RAR! I HATE RELIGION!"

We fucking know that already. It's not cool. It's not impressive. It's just pointless impotent rage.

No. Kaelik is totally right: you obviously don't understand Pascal's Wager at all. Pascal's Wager refers only to things that have no evidence and cannot be reasoned. Social contracts are totally within the realm of social science to investigate.

People invest in social contracts for entirely explicable reasons that are in no way analogous to the wager.

-Username17

[Vnonymous]

Is zinegata just a machine that goes "FRANK TROLLMAN HAS POSTED - MUST POST REFUTATION" and then proceeds to explain how whatever Frank Trollman just posted about is wrong and dumb no matter what it is that Frank is posting about, just in the hopes that something sticks? That is literally all I have ever seen Zinegata post.

[Zinegata]

For the last fucking time:

"Similar"

People enter into social contracts because societies have demonstrated that they can protect its members. But it's not a guarantee that the society will indeed take care of you. In fact a lot of societies revolve around the exploitation of people who fall through the cracks.

So when you do a good deed and/or follow society's rules, you are still taking a chance. And it's not exactly a chance that you can give exact mathematical probabilities on. There is no data that will show "There is a 95% chance of you getting a good deed done to you in return by helping the old lady cross the street". All you can do is hope that your good deed will also result in something good happening to you.

And even if such data exists, on a personal level you wouldn't really give a damn about the odds anymore if you were part of an unlucky 5% of the population that got screwed by doing a good deed.

The difference between my examples and Pascal's is that Pascal is basing it on entirely zero evidence, while my examples rely on people believing in scanty and incomplete evidence with no guarantees. For most people, this is a line fine enough to be barely worth distinguishing, but it's different enough hence I used the world "SIMILAR".

Kaelik jumped the gun and started going "YOU ARE TOO STUPID" because, as usual, he's too lazy to form an actual fucking argument. Stop joining the stupid Kaelik "Flame rather than argue!" Bandwagon.

People will be people. They take chances every day based on a lot of things they do not fully understand. That's the point.

I'm not saying "Social contracts have the same level of evidence as religion".

I'm not even saying "Pascal's wager is right".

I'm commenting on the uselessness of going against the very human nature of making decisions based on chance and thinking it will somehow make you a better atheist.

[Zinegata]

Is zinegata just a machine that goes "FRANK TROLLMAN HAS POSTED - MUST POST REFUTATION" and then proceeds to explain how whatever Frank Trollman just posted about is wrong and dumb no matter what it is that Frank is posting about, just in the hopes that something sticks? That is literally all I have ever seen Zinegata post.

I actually posted before Frank posted anything at all.

Which is hilarious, given of your obsession with trying to play the "gotcha" game on me and demonstrating just how terrible you are at it. You're really accusing me of trying to refute Frank, when he's the one trying to refute me?

[Prak]

I'm fairly certain that everyone here thinks the opposite side is trolling, so can people stop fucking feeding the god damned trolls?

Yes, pascal's wager is the most cowardly bullshit I've ever seen.
Yes, atheist parents could probably use a bit of help on how to deal with people assuming their kids are christian and asking them questions the kid doesn't have answers for.
And yes, building churches in Africa is a waste of time and money that could be spent on food and education rather than proselytizing.

I'd say "Yes, [x]" for the other side here, but I didn't see any good points, just bitching.

[Zinegata]

Yes, pascal's wager is the most cowardly bullshit I've ever seen.

Good you bring this up before I got distracted by the usual Kaelik raging.

I'm actually quite inclined to agree with Frank's assessment that this was actually just Pascal being very smart and using it as a code for "Pretend to be Christian so the stupid Catholic-zealot authorities don't shoot you".

In a sense, it's cowardly, but it keeps you from getting shot.

But the point I'm trying to make is that it's largely irrelevant to the Great Atheism vs Religion debate today anyway. Debunking it won't make you a better atheist. Debunking it won't convert a lot of people. It won't change human nature (I kinda doubt even an atheist society will abolish the Lottery). There are better ways to promote atheism, like citing how atheists (backed up by scientific study) are generally more tolerant than religious people.

[virgil]

I think lots of societies, even atheist ones, would abolish (assuming it somehow even got instituted) The Lottery.

One argument about atheism that's been getting to me lately is the assertion that atheism requires faith(tm), just like any other religion. It doesn't take an act of faith to not believe in a god, just like it doesn't take active belief to not think Santa Claus will bring you presents if you're good.

[Prak]

Yes, pascal's wager is the most cowardly bullshit I've ever seen.

Good you bring this up before I got distracted by the usual Kaelik raging.

I'm actually quite inclined to agree with Frank's assessment that this was actually just Pascal being very smart and using it as a code for "Pretend to be Christian so the stupid Catholic-zealot authorities don't shoot you".

In a sense, it's cowardly, but it keeps you from getting shot.

But the point I'm trying to make is that it's largely irrelevant to the Great Atheism vs Religion debate today anyway. Debunking it won't make you a better atheist. Debunking it won't convert a lot of people. It won't change human nature (I kinda doubt even an atheist society will abolish the Lottery). There are better ways to promote atheism, like citing how atheists (backed up by scientific study) are generally more tolerant than religious people.

Well, I'd like to make a distinction between "pretend to believe so the people in charge don't make your life shit" and "pretend to believe so god doesn't throw your ass in the flames IF he exists."
The former is intelligent in the case that you're not powerful enough to change the social ranks, the latter is philosophical cowardice.

[Sir Neil]

Here's the guide: you don't take them to church.

If you want them to fight with Christians, you may want to include quotes from Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason". I usually just ignore them until I get bored and walk away. They're just NPCs, anyway.

[Saxony]

So there are actually infinite possible Gods, an infinite number of which damn all theists to hell and send all atheists to heaven.

Got it in one.

[Red_Rob]

Pascal's wager makes no sense. If you are accepting that God possibly exists you are accepting that the God of any religion could possibly exist, therefore you have to live your life according to all of their tenets to avoid potential damnation. As the religions all have conflicting requirements this is impossible, therefore believing in all gods has exactly the same result as believing in none.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do." - Stephen Roberts

[Zinegata]

I think lots of societies, even atheist ones, would abolish (assuming it somehow even got instituted) The Lottery.

I actually meant this Lottery:

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

There should really be no reason why people should bet on a lottery, as the chance of winning is exceedingly small (Exception - when you deliberately game the system by buying thousands of tickets). Yet lots of people still do it anyway. Taking chances based on stupid or unknown odds is part of human nature.