CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
QUESTION TO ATHEISTS, AGNOSTICS, PAGANS, AND ANY ONE WHO IS AN INFEDEL?
I AM NOT SAYING DEFINITELY BUT AM ONLY USING IF. SO BE REASONABLE AS I'M.
BEIEVERS PLEASE DON'T ANSWER OR ADD COMMENTS THNKS
THE QUESTION IS
WHAT IF THE HEREAFTER IS TRUE?
TRUE AS TOMORROW HELL FIRE IS TRUE AS TOMORROW AND ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS TRUE AS TOMORROW IS.
IS IT WORTH RISKING (LETS JUST SAY 20,000 YEARS OF TORTUREMENT AND EVERY OTHER TYPE OF SUFFERING) BY ENJOYING THIS LIFE OF (50-100 YEARS)
WOULD YOU RATHER BETTER LIVE THIS LIFE BETTER BY BEING CARELESS ABOUT GOD
IN THE WORLD WHERE EVERY ONE IS BOUND TO DIE AND LOSE EVERY WEALTH EARNED.
PLEASE DON'T TELL ME WHY THE HEREAFTER WON'T EXIST THAT'S WHY AM USING THE WORD ( IF ) IT DOES EXIST IS IT WORTH NOT TAKE PRECAUTIONARY WARNING GIVEN TO U.
Abubakar...surely you realize there are thousands of gods. You better hurry up and start believing in all of them...there's no telling what might happen to you when you die if you don't.
The premise is meaningless. If there is a heaven and hell, it would change nothing because heaven and hell are unknowable and the god who oversees them is unknowable. This means you would have no idea what criteria get you into heaven or hell, so you would be unable to change your behaviours.
In short, are you asking, 'why not just believe in God in case God is real?'
This brings up the issue of whether or not people can truly choose what they believe. If I bit the bait on this wager, converted to Christianity or whatever, started attending church weekly and praying all the time, I would still be who I am, which is someone who thinks it is foolish to believe without proof. If there was a God, they would probably call me out on my shenanigans after I died. That is assuming I managed to pick the right god to believe in.
But, you've provided an interesting red herring. Instead of worrying about what kind of implication answering the question has, just answer it as honestly and reasonably as possible. Of course it's not worth risking 20,000 years of torture in not taking precautions or adhering to warnings.
Do you mean that I have misunderstood what Pascal's Wager is, or that this debate is not saying the same thing?
My honest answer is that the one I gave: that if there is an omnipotent entity waiting for me after I die, they would not be fooled by my 'being safe' and professing a belief in them, because it would not be real belief.
Do you mean that I have misunderstood what Pascal's Wager is, or that this debate is not saying the same thing?
Both: Pascal's Wager carries no threat of Hell or torture. What we wager isn't the eternal soul or where we're going in the afterlife. Instead we are wagering our reason and our will. And what we stand to lose is what is true and what is good, our knowledge and our happiness.
And as honest as your answer may be, it is honest in the way that "what?" is an honest answer to the question of your name, if you didn't actually hear the question. And even if you did respond with "what?", the question itself still hasn't been answered. The OP isn't about whether you should believe in (a) god or whether such a thing is possible if you really don't believe. It is instead a question of the worth of your choice: is it worth the risk or is it not worth the risk?
So it would be incorrect to summarize Pascal's Wager as the argument that we should believe in God out of prudence? I was taught only very briefly about this so I don't doubt what I know may not be correct, but I looked around a little bit and that interpretation seems to be fairly common. I'm not sure how else to look at it.
Okay if I were to directly answer the question in the debate, then no, 20000 years of torture is not worth a good life on earth. But a more in depth answer would involve weighing the risk vs reward and assessing the likelihood that ceasing to be 'careless about God' would achieve the desired result.
So it would be incorrect to summarize Pascal's Wager as the argument that we should believe in God out of prudence?
Yes and no... it would be a correct summation of Pascal's overall thoughts on the matter. Without god, we are definitely going to Hell. I mean, he's an old school Christian. But not the wager itself - the wager is just the proposition that believers have (potentially) nothing to lose in their belief and (potentially) everything to gain in their belief, so it is more rational and prudent to believe in that which grants gain and takes no loss from you.
I was taught only very briefly about this so I don't doubt what I know may not be correct, but I looked around a little bit and that interpretation seems to be fairly common.
That's because this interpretation is very common, and it's often how Christians pose the argument, so there's no reason it shouldn't be common. And in terms of its modern use, there's very little reason to deny the ultimate conclusion. Again, Pascal does think we're (skeptics) all going to Hell. But if we're just using the wager, it's an inadequate interpretation because the threat of Hell isn't present in it. It's present elsewhere (or at least the assumption of Hell is).
But a more in depth answer would involve weighing the risk vs reward and assessing the likelihood that ceasing to be 'careless about God' would achieve the desired result.
Yes, it does propose that. That is in fact the only thing it does. That's the entire point of Pascal's Wager... claiming you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by believing in God beccause if you're wrong about him not existing you're DOOMED but if you're wrong about him existing then nothing happens.
Totally ignoring the fact that it isn't a binary choise between "belive in God" and "don't belive in God" but rather a massive multiple chouice between multiple silly little gods with no rational reason to pick one of them over another (and if you pick the wrong one maybe the "real" one will be even more angry at you for worshipping a false diety than if you had simply not believed in any of it).
All you have to do is read the Wager itself instead of relying on common misinterpretations for your response. Pascal's Wager is an argument to the rationality of belief and the irrationality of disbelief, not a threat of damnation. This is precisely why Pascal argues that the only thing you're wagering is your reason and your will (not your soul or its destination) and what you stand to lose is what is true and what is good, your knowledge and your happiness. That's it.
It's mind-numbingly stupid.
The "it" you're referring to isn't Pascal's Wager. What you're referring to is a common theist interpolation that isn't Pascal's Wager. Would you like the actual Wager? I have it on my hard-drive in .PDF format. It's like three pages long. It'll take you five minutes to run through.
It is a silly argument on the rationality of belief and the irrationality of disbelief that USES the threat of damnation.
The reason Pascal thinks it's unreasonable not to believe is because he claims you're risking all the downside (damnation... or if you want it in Pascal's words... the "error and misery" you want to shun) with no shot at the upside (salvation... or Pascal's "the true and the good"). That's the entire point of the argument.
And I've read the Wager, so don't feel compelled to provide me with it.
If you notice, the issue of "error and misery" is not a consequence of losing. It is simply something our nature shuns - as opposed to your assertion that it is something "I" want to shun. So your connecting "error and misery" with damnation is incorrect at best and disingenuous at worst. Here's what I'll challenge you to do: find a sentence or paragraph in the Wager that poses a threat of damnation.
I will certianly grant that the threat of hell is present in the overarching Pensees, but it's not a part of the Wager itself. And, again, if you believe the threat to be alive and well in the Wager, provide the place where it is present.
I dd not notice that, since it is incorrect. They are presented as something our nature shuns BECAUSE Pascal is saying the result of placing the other side of his bet is that thing we're supposed to be shunning. And what is disingenuous is pretending you don't know what the "error and misery" is referring to in this context.
The notion of misery is posed in the earlier parts of the Pensees. When Pascal asserts that we shun misery, particularly, he's referring to the fact that we can't fight against death, misery, and ignorance and that we try to ignore these "facts" of life for the sake of being happy. And despite these miseries, man wants to be happy, and only wishes to be happy, and cannot help but be so... more importantly, misery is just an aspect of life that includes the pain of child loss (in his Herod example) or man simply not knowing god and being in fear of his life when he is well. It's not about eternal damnation, man.
Anyway, I'll be waiting for your reply to my challenge. Find the section where any threat is levied in the Wager. Present it here and I'll shut the hell up. Or... stop typing.
If there is no god is worth risking the few years of life that you have on this planet pandering to the needs of a fictional character, denying your basic biological needs, spending your valuable time praying to the wind and missing out on simple pleasures.
Believing in god because you are afraid of damnation is the reason religions got so powerful in the first place. It is a wonder that in this modern age that there is still so many that prescribe to an ambiguous myth that has not one shred of proof.
sure, I'll even play by your rules though I'm an atheist.
The reason one should not worship a real god who created a place called hell or in any way resembled hell is because power should not be worshipped for power's sake.
Man should not bow to the first person who threatens the most pain or anguish, we have evolved or been given our own mind,
and we should not bend to the will of another simply because that other is more powerful.
Any god who created a hell is an asshole. And I would have no problem saying it to that being's face if that being were real.
There is nothing a human can do in their short life that would deserve an infinity of torture. Nothing. We are incapable of that much evil and it is unjust.
So there you go, even by your rules, your god should not be worshipped. He should be ignored at best, I wouldn't even mind a bit of blasphemy if I didn't think one were simply blaspheming their own overactive imagination.
NO not every one have a sick mind of self endangerment... you only will not worship and appreciate everything you're enjoying but existance of alot of people who do apreciate god is your answer..... u've been brought to this life without your consent you will be brought to the next life to be tortured & i'll be a witness you deserve it.
watch this video thats your destiny thats is ur home home at last & home of Mahollinder(567) and every other islam rejectors
NO not every one have a sick mind of self endangerment... you only will not worship and appreciate everything you're enjoying but existance of alot of people who do apreciate god is your answer..... u've been brought to this life without your consent you will be brought to the next life to be tortured & i'll be a witness you deserve it.
So "believe in my delusion or burn in hell" is your only argument? BTW god doesn't exist.
Well actually according to Christianity Atheists and Agnostics have the first level of Hell reserved for us were we don't suffer, but we are just nothing there, and it is also for a very short amount of time. Most Christians don't know that about their own religion. Me an Atheist am a better Christian than most Christians. We get the very lightest punishment. There are 7 levels of Hell and it gets worse going up. So yes, it is worth the risk. Besides, if i do get sent to a hell why not rebel. What are they gonna do, kill me?
Pascal's Wager (which this is) is rendered invalid by the plethora of gods and hereafters available to us. With every deity and hell that someone conceives, your chance of worshiping the right one gets worse. For that reason, I would discard Pascal's Wager as viable.
But for the sake of argument, because I find Pascal's Wager interesting, let's say that there were only two choices: religion (complete with hell) and non-religion. No further subdivisions of religion.
Then the problem becomes that you cannot simply choose to believe or disbelieve in something, you have to convince yourself of it, or at least convince yourself that it's possible. However, even though it's impossible to just turn belief on and off, with some time it wouldn't be impossible to adjust your thinking in order to make anything seem plausible. To that extent, I do believe our beliefs are under our will.
From there, if you could do that, I would say Pascal's Wager might be worth considering. It's cowardly, but I don't consider it wise to burn in hell for 20,000 years to prove a point to a cosmic sadist. It would come down to how seriously you took the threat and how much of your life you'd be willing to change in order to place a bet on religion. I'd probably be willing to adjust my beliefs in order to make more room for theism as my bet, but wouldn't alter my life much more based on an unverifiable threat.
QUESTIONS TO MONOTHEISTS: IS IT WORTH IT TO WASTE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE BEING BRAINWASHED BY A PRETENTIOUS DEITY, PRESUMING YOU ONLYB GET ONE CHANCE AT LIFE?
