What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Conscentia]

There's a link in my signature that addresses Jesus.

Well you can say "Fuck you!" to Jesus but that doesn't make you believe in Jesus. Just talking to nothing.

What?

[Conscentia]

The page has others.

You said "If even one". No, not if even one.

I was referring to the ones you haven't addressed.
The bias of the wager is a criticism you had already addressed.

[Esternial]

That's where our view on this matter differ. You get a +1 if it's an outcome you can live with in life, because that's what counts when you're "betting your life" when choosing whether God exists or not.

I am so confused as to how you can seriously think "Actually, I don't like the way that's written. I prefer my own version. See! Now I'm right!" is your attempt at serious debate.

If by trivializing philosophy you seek to "win" this debate, I must regrettably inform you you're failing rather horribly at it.

Atheist, god exists: No, you're in hell forever.
Theist, god exists: Yes, well, you're in heaven forever.
Theist, god doesn't exist: No, you're dead.
Atheist, god doesn't exist: No, you're dead.

Now suddenly atheists don't go to heaven in your equation? That's one way to make your point.

Do you even know who I am?

Don't care. Even my Professors have been wrong in the past, and they're actual academics.

Pascal's wager is not about acceptability. But please, go on, your name would fit so nicely on my foe list.

Again, what's wrong with expanding beyond it? What's wrong with questioning it?

You're wasting my time if all you want to do is exchange pleasantries like this.

[Frisiiland]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Pascal's wager is not about acceptability. But please, go on, your name would fit so nicely on my foe list.

Pascal's Wager sole purpose is to make an argument as to why should we believe in a deity.

It was an exercise in Christian Apologetics to be fair. And some apologetic arguments are nothing but bullshit.

[Esternial]

Pascal's wager is not about acceptability. But please, go on, your name would fit so nicely on my foe list.

Pascal's Wager sole purpose is to make an argument as to why should we believe in a deity.

It was an exercise in Christian Apologetics to be fair. And some apologetic arguments are nothing but bullshit.

Shame on me for refuting it and violating that golden piece of rhetoric with a different approach.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then you don't understand Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's Wager assumes that, rationally, if forced into a wager you've got a lot to lose from being an atheist and have a lot to gain by believing in a deity. However, it breaks when you either choose the "it doesn't exist" option even if the risk is great to lose or choosing to not participate.

It depends in forcing the argument to make you think he's right.

the biggest problem is the assumption of only one deity to choose from. for all you know believing in a deity has a 99% of a -1 while only a 1% chance of a +1. It also assumes real world time and effort has no value. it also assumes deities cant tell the difference between real and faked belief.
its full of unfounded assumptions.

Indeed. It's one of my least favorite pieces of Christian Apologetics in general to be fair because, while it addresses a good point in game theory, the conclusions it arrives to are faulty as fuck.

[Arkolon]

I am so confused as to how you can seriously think "Actually, I don't like the way that's written. I prefer my own version. See! Now I'm right!" is your attempt at serious debate.

If by trivializing philosophy you seek to "win" this debate, I must regrettably inform you you're failing rather horribly at it.

Debate? Seriously? I was expecting a caméra caché at this point.

Atheist, god exists: No, you're in hell forever.
Theist, god exists: Yes, well, you're in heaven forever.
Theist, god doesn't exist: No, you're dead.
Atheist, god doesn't exist: No, you're dead.

Now suddenly atheists don't go to heaven in your equation? That's one way to make your point.

I don't remember the Christian God ever saying "oh, wait, nah, actually you guys can come to".

Do you even know who I am?

Don't care. Even my Professors have been wrong in the past, and they're actual academics.

I'm sure the dates in art history get hard to remember.

Pascal's wager is not about acceptability. But please, go on, your name would fit so nicely on my foe list.

Again, what's wrong with expanding beyond it? What's wrong with questioning it?

What's wrong with questioning it? Nothing. What's wrong with expanding beyond it? Nothing. What's wrong with morphing its purpose, definition, assumptions, definitions, and the whole argument behind it to satisfy your one particular cause that atheists are pretty much OK with no afterlife? The problem is that this isn't Pascal's wager anymore, so you can't expect me to put up a defense for Pascal's wager against something that isn't Pascal's wager.

Consider me saying that this lorry weights ten thousand kilos, and you don't believe me. Then you say that the lorry is white, which it is, but which doesn't have anything to do with its weight, and you expect me to use the argument that the lorry weighs ten thousand kilos against your argument that the lorry is white. It doesn't make any sense, we aren't talking about the same thing anymore, and we can't pit either of our arguments against one another because you're talking about something completely different.

[Arkolon]

Pascal's wager is not about acceptability. But please, go on, your name would fit so nicely on my foe list.

Pascal's Wager sole purpose is to make an argument as to why should we believe in a deity.

It was an exercise in Christian Apologetics to be fair. And some apologetic arguments are nothing but bullshit.

Err ... OK?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Pascal's Wager sole purpose is to make an argument as to why should we believe in a deity.

It was an exercise in Christian Apologetics to be fair. And some apologetic arguments are nothing but bullshit.

Shame on me for refuting it and violating that golden piece of rhetoric with a different approach.

Oh no. I'm saying that the wager is bullshit myself

To place an example: if the devil was to be given this choice and wager, of course he's going to take the "I believe" option. I mean, the devil must believe in God, that doesn't save his ass in Christianity either and if it could it'd make Christianity and the afterlife break apart, effectively making the entire belief system useless since, if someone like the devil believes in God and be saved under the conditions of the wager, then what the fuck is the point of believing?

Ergo, the entire premise of the wager is bullshit.

[Dyakovo]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

prove this is true.

[Zottistan]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

I'm sure if god wanted atheists burned on the stake he wouldn't need your help to do it.

[The Alma Mater]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

Only atheism ? What about those silly people who adhere to other religions - do they not go to hell as well ?

After all, Hades is a jealous god.

[WestRedMaple]

What?

Belief in God is the most rational course of action. Now, onto "which God and why this God?"

Belief in a god without evidence is entirely faith based, and in no way based on rationality.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Pascal's Wager sole purpose is to make an argument as to why should we believe in a deity.

It was an exercise in Christian Apologetics to be fair. And some apologetic arguments are nothing but bullshit.

Err ... OK?

Basically, it is interesting from a game theory angle.

But the practical purpose wasn't to be a study of game theory. It was to convince the reader that God exists, and even if he doesn't you should probably still believe because it might get you saved.

[Sun Wukong]

Actually, it's all a test. God wants only those smart or honest enough to reason their way to atheism. Everyone else goes to hell.

[The Alma Mater]

What?

Belief in God is the most rational course of action. Now, onto "which God and why this God?"

Cthulhu, obviously, Reasoning from Pascals wager you after all must pick the Gods whose punishment is most harsh had you picked another.

[WestRedMaple]

That page spends most of it's words on refuting and criticising Pascal's wager.
There's no point me repeating arguments someone else has already written and put in a convenient location.

The page tackles the Judeo-Christian bias in Pascal's wager. I am just saying that belief in a god, or gods, at all, is the most rational course of action.

Which is clearly incorrect. Belief in something without evidence is 0% logic and 100% faith

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually, it's all a test. God wants only those smart or honest enough to reason their way to atheism. Everyone else goes to hell.

But without belief in a deity how is there a deity to begin with?

[Esternial]

I don't remember the Christian God ever saying "oh, wait, nah, actually you guys can come to".

It's within the realm of possibilities. Try to keep an open mind when debating.

What's wrong with questioning it? Nothing. What's wrong with expanding beyond it? Nothing. What's wrong with morphing its purpose, definition, assumptions, definitions, and the whole argument behind it to satisfy your one particular cause that atheists are pretty much OK with no afterlife? The problem is that this isn't Pascal's wager anymore, so you can't expect me to put up a defense for Pascal's wager against something that isn't Pascal's wager.

Then stop defending and repeating Pascal's wager and make your own argumentation.

Pascal's wager is argumentation in favor of believing in God. My own argument addresses the same thing (which is the merits of atheism vs. the merits of believing in God).

It's not that surprising that two different arguments are not the same thing. Don't lose sight of the subject at hand.

[WestRedMaple]

You have no argument supporting your distribution of number and payoff for god-claims, so I get to do the same. Maybe you should start trying?

For this instance, there is always the chance that a different flying spaghetti monster, or even whole a different god, will do the opposite.

Which would also leave open the possibility of a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell, which brings it all back to 0/0

You intentionally avoided listing that one (even though other people have already mentioned it) for exactly the purpose of getting the result you WANT

[Esternial]

For this instance, there is always the chance that a different flying spaghetti monster, or even whole a different god, will do the opposite.

Which would also leave open the possibility of a god that sends atheists to heaven and Christians to hell, which brings it all back to 0/0

You intentionally avoided listing that one (even though other people have already mentioned it) for exactly the purpose of getting the result you WANT

Damn, didn't even think about that one.

The realm of possibilities is quite extensive indeed.

[WestRedMaple]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

And you think torturing and killing others is your way into heaven?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

And you think torturing and killing others is your way into heaven?

It'd be great if instead of a stake they'd use a claymore.

A heaven bathed in the blood of our enemies sounds much better than a heaven filled with the ashes of our enemies, at any rate.

[Frisiiland]

Advocating atheism should be illegal and punished by burning on a stake because many people have gone to hell because of their wicked tounges.

prove this is true.

You just lack faith, evidence not needed.