1. Comment #81348 by Quine on October 24, 2007 at 3:55 pm

I posted this on the Debates Points thread, but I see that it should go here:

Always remember that Pascal's Wager represents an arms race among religions for who can come up with the most terrible eternal damnation. Why should religion X get all the converts just because they thought of something so bad you shouldn't risk it? If Atheism is true, and you do not take charge of this, your only life, you have blown your chance for all eternity.



Other Comments by Quine

2. Comment #81356 by Ducklike on October 24, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Thought it might be worth stating this at the top of the string:

What is Pascal's Wager?

The modern Pascal's Wager basically says, if the Christians are wrong and there is no Christian Hell, one has lost nothing in becoming a Christian because when you die, that's it. But if the Christians are right, if there is such a thing as the Christian Hell, one has lost everything in remaining an atheist. Thus, they argue, you best become a Christian just in case, even if you are very sure that Christianity is not true -- because you really don't know for sure and you surely don't want to take any chances with your eternal future!

Clipped from PositiveAtheism.org

Other Comments by Ducklike

3. Comment #81382 by rustylix on October 24, 2007 at 4:35 pm

I am pulling this from memory, and it probably originates from the wikipedia article, when I read it a couple months ago....

A cute little play on words is nothing to base one's entire religion off of. In other words, it is unlikely that one would consider conversion solely on Pascal's Wager alone, but, rather, Pascal's Wager is just something existing xtians use to rationalize their beliefs amongst themselves.

Hi Richard

Other Comments by rustylix

4. Comment #81384 by GBG on October 24, 2007 at 4:37 pm

Isn't pascals wager demolished simply because of the sheer number of religions?

Christians often fall foul of assuming it's atheism or Christianity. Like RD said when he was asked "what if you are wrong?", The answer is simply, "what if you are wrong?"

Other Comments by GBG

5. Comment #81409 by LordSummerisle on October 24, 2007 at 5:10 pm

1. There is no way to meet the terms of the wager: one cannot force onself to believe, even if it would be beneficial for one to do so. You either believe or not, you can't fake it before an all-knowing entity, right?

2. Isn't believing "just to be safe" an insult to the potential creator?

3. What if you are wrong? ---> "Wrong about what? You have to be more specific, there are thousands of gods for me to be potentiallly wrong about. And that goes for you too: if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, I would say we're both screwed, my friend."

Other Comments by LordSummerisle

6. Comment #81415 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 5:19 pm

How in the hell are you going to redeem that without a voucher?

Other Comments by maton100

7. Comment #81487 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 8:21 pm

If you don't believe in Phlogiston, you will be eternally pestered by ravenous rhinoceroses.

Therefore it's better to convince yourself to believe in Phlogiston, since if you're wrong, nothing bad happens, but if you don't believe in Phlogiston and you're wrong... you will suffer eternal rhino-damnation.

Q.E.D.

Other Comments by Spinoza

8. Comment #81497 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 8:53 pm

5. Comment #81409 by LordSummerisle

Spot on, sir!



Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

9. Comment #81509 by Spinoza on October 24, 2007 at 9:12 pm

You guys would make awful philosophers.

There is a reason philosophy is HARD. You have to come up with awesome analogies like mine that show the idiocy outright and clear as day.

Other Comments by Spinoza

10. Comment #81557 by mejdrich on October 24, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Why do YOU expect to get into heaven? Whatever your priest/preacher told you, the *Bible* says you are going to hell. (video from GodIsImaginary.com)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dzzORZhnCao

Other Comments by mejdrich

11. Comment #81578 by Theocrapcy on October 24, 2007 at 11:19 pm

At least the Flying Spaghetti Monster gives us something to look forward to, such as beer volcanoes and strippers. So long as the beer is cold and the strippers hot, I'm in.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

12. Comment #81582 by Sinful Messiah on October 24, 2007 at 11:33 pm

I like the theological arms-race rebuttal.

Is it best to choose the religion that dreams up the most attractive heaven and the worst hell? At what point do we stop the race and make our choices?

The bottom line is that fear-mongering is a pathetic way to entice anyone for almost anything. It's even worse to base your truth claims and personal life choices based on such a fear.

I loathe this argument about as much as I loathe the "but where do you get your ethics?!" argument.

Other Comments by Sinful Messiah

13. Comment #81586 by Philip1978 on October 24, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Pascal's Wager?

A means by which religious people can justify their own irrational beliefs by means of inflicting irrational fear upon the credulous!

Philip

Praise Quetz I don't have to put up with this crap! :)

Other Comments by Philip1978

14. Comment #81588 by Shuggy on October 24, 2007 at 11:57 pm

I like Bertrand Russell's rebuttal (sorry I can't find his exact words):

But what if God does not reward belief, but critical thinking? Then He will send you to Hell for gullibly believing, and me to Heaven for thinking clearly and not believing in Him without sufficient evidence.




Other Comments by Shuggy

15. Comment #81640 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:45 am

Infinite as-of-yet unimagined gods leave Pascal's odds at nil.

Belief cannot be forced. Fire burns no matter how much I'd like to believe otherwise.

It would of course be safest to side with the god that vowed to punish you the worst for nonbelief. But would you actually want to worship that god?

Simply put, why don't you side with muslims? If it's because of any evidence based claim, then we're back in my court and playing the odds becomes meaningless.

Other Comments by Conrad

16. Comment #81695 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 3:50 am

According to Pascal's wager the most important thing and the only thing god cares about is that you believe in him. You might be a criminal, a bigot, disrespectful and a liar but you will be saved because you believe in god. On the other hand, someone who is an overall ethical person but does not believe in god would be punished. If god is in fact this omnipotent, all-knowing being, don't you think that he would care about other things than just belief? Wouldn't he reward people for their honesty rather than their belief?
If I were god I could care less if people believe in me or not, I would instead judge them on their behavior and ethics.

Other Comments by dinamo02

17. Comment #81726 by Bertybob on October 25, 2007 at 5:23 am

If I "go through the motions" just to hedge my bets against eternal brimstone, won't God the omnipotent being see through my shallow belief and send me to Hell anyway for taking the piss??

Another retort - "So is that why you go to Church, you don't really believe you just want to cover your backside?"



Other Comments by Bertybob

18. Comment #81770 by SamuelF on October 25, 2007 at 6:48 am

My favorite response: "Okay. So, which god is the right god?"

Other Comments by SamuelF

19. Comment #81783 by JoeK on October 25, 2007 at 7:10 am

You definitely have a real life. There is no guarantee of an afterlife.

Being religious wastes a large chunk of time and adds stress and worry to this real life that I know I have.

So the premises of the wager are incorrect. You are not gambling nothing against an infinite payoff, you are gambling a large chunk of your real life against a payoff which may not even exist. That is what is technically known as a mug's game.

Other Comments by JoeK

20. Comment #81792 by PASmith on October 25, 2007 at 7:29 am

To me now matter how bad the consequences for un-belief can be stated they make absolutely no effect on the potential truth of those beliefs.
I can tell someone that there is a charging Rhino behind them that is going to kill them.
Until they turn round and look for themselves the can infere no bias as to the truth of that statement either way.
There might be a Rhino or there might not be.
They are not in a position to say.
In the same way religious people cannot infere from Pascal's wager anything about the truth of god's existance.
Only when they die (or look behind them in the case of the Rhino) will the truth be revealed.
As such Pascal's wager is useless to debating the here and the now.

Other Comments by PASmith

21. Comment #81860 by Whosawhatsis on October 25, 2007 at 10:04 am

Originally posted on my blog

Pascal's Wager states that it is logical to believe in God based on a cost/benefit analysis. According to the wager, belief costs nothing, but the potential reward is infinite, as is the potential penalty for disbelief. If there is no god, nothing is gained and nothing is lost whether you believe or disbelieve. This, of course, neglects the value of a belief being true, presumably because it assumes that the chances of being correct in either situation is 50-50 and that no further study can significantly alter these odds.

There are many counter-arguments to Pascal's Wager, and I won't address nearly all of them here, but perhaps the most obvious is that it is a false dichotomy. There are many mutually-exclusive beliefs about the existence of a god or gods, and even if one chose to be a theist, one would still presumably need to choose the correct religion in order to gain the reward. Most people would then start by placing each religion on equal footing with one another and with atheism in terms of probability, but this is already mistaken because there is a true dichotomy between theism and atheism (when defined simply as a lack of theism). Religions posit a god, then make further assertions about that god, so the 50% probability that there is a god must be divided among them. At this point, it becomes clear that, in the absence of evidence either way, the atheist is more likely to be right than a member of any given religion, but this counter-argument misses the point a bit, because in this case it could still be desirable to forego all likelihood of being correct (a finite benefit) for the chance at attaining an infinite reward. This is a much truer wager, and resembles a lottery with a small buy-in for a small chance at big rewards, but in this case there is not only a huge pot to be won, but an equally huge penalty for not winning. You have to play to win, but you don't have to play to lose. Under these circumstances, it still makes sense to pick a religion and believe.

The real problem is that people assume that even if there's a 50% chance of a god, that god must resemble the god of some religion. It's tempting to divide the god side according to the world's religions, or even the individual (and unique!) concepts of god that each believer holds, but without consistent revelation, these gods are no more likely than any other conceivable gods. Herein lies, I believe, the real achilles heel of Pascal's Wager.

Let's assume that there is a god that is aware of you, gives a damn about what you believe, and will punish you for believing the wrong things with regard to its own existence. The probability of this is already far below 50%, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume that these are necessary properties of a god, and ignore deist gods who don't care or those who value other properties such as your taste in music, your favorite color, whether you donate $5 to this website, whether you have a cute mole on your ass, etc. etc. ad infinitum. This god is at least as likely to value skepticism, evidence-based belief, and critical thinking as it is to value blind faith. Add the fact that if there is a god, it goes to great lengths to hide its presence (as evidenced by the fact that we have to ask the question), and the benefit of pleasing the skepticism god is better than that of the faith god, as the latter would obviously be a sadistic psychopath who wants to punish more than to reward. Who would want to spend eternity with a jerk like that? In fact, in the watered-down theologies in which the punishment is only annihilation or separation from the god, I'd say that the punishment is better than the reward.

When you look at it this way, the greatest benefit possible comes from pleasing a god that values skepticism. Skepticism also offers the greatest chance of a benefit because you would have a 25% chance that you will be wrong but will gain the favor of a god that values skepticism on top of the %50 chance of being correct but receiving no further benefit, therefore skepticism is the only logical choice. Of course, adding gods that don't care about belief back into the equation significantly diminishes that 25%, but it diminishes the chances of having the correct theistic belief equally.

Sure, some would argue that a god that values skepticism is far less likely than one that values faith, but what evidence do we have that this is the case? Only the word of theologians who have no more evidence than you or I, can't agree on anything else, and would have to go get a real job if people didn't believe. That, Mr. Adams, does not "pass the sniff test".

Of course, it would be stupid to disbelieve in a god that probably doesn't exist simply for the purpose of currying favor with it, but I think I've demonstrated that it doesn't make any more sense to believe for the same reason.

Other Comments by Whosawhatsis

22. Comment #81871 by DarwinsPitbull on October 25, 2007 at 10:25 am

I think one of the things that is wrong with this argument is when they say that if there is no hell then xtians haven't lost anything.

First, xtains do lose a lot of time going to church and praying to an imaginary god their whole lives.

Second, they lose a lot of money when they give it away to churches, thinking they are doing a good thing.

Third, they live there whole lives according to the teaching of this god, who doesn't exist, and get all the guilt and misery of thinking that they are nothing but sinners and that they need to be saved.

Fourth, not only does this belief affect them but it also affects the way they think about other people. For example, if there is no god, then they spent there whole lives hating gays, and other religious people, for no reason.

Fifth, because of this faith in god, they lost there sense of reason and critical thinking.

So i think that when xtains say that "if there is no god, then I haven't lost anything in believing in it", we should point out all the thing they did actually lose.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

23. Comment #81894 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:16 am

Pascal's Wager cuts all ways. Christians are risking Hell by not declaring, "there is not God but Allah and Mohammad is his messenger." just as Muslims are risking Hell by not accepting Jesus as their personal saviors.

There's also the whole, you-can't-force-belief problem.

Also, I love Quine's observation.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

24. Comment #81935 by kurtdenke on October 25, 2007 at 12:21 pm

My response to Pascal's wager:

Yikes! You're right! How foolish I have been not to worship Odin! I will not make that mistake again.

Other Comments by kurtdenke

25. Comment #82001 by TranshumanAtheist on October 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Those emails from African bank clerks offering us money to help unlock the funds from dead people's accounts look like a better deal than Pascal's wager. One, a real person had to compose and send that email. Two, we know that Africa exists. Three, we know that huge sums of money exist in foreign in bank accounts. Four, we know that banks can wire money from one account to another anywhere in the world. Why not take one of these clerks up on his offer? I mean, what can possibly go wrong?

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

26. Comment #82057 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:43 pm

"Does a god care that I do not believe in its existence? Unknown."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

27. Comment #82380 by TheDigitalRuler on October 26, 2007 at 7:56 am

I had an email correspondence with a Christian a few months back, and Pascal's wager was one of the topics discussed. This is clipped from one of those emails:

There are numerous reasons why I do not find Pascal's argument convincing, but here I will address only what I consider to be its four biggest flaws:

1. Pascal's wager assumes that believing in God is a simple yes or no proposition.

But in reality, there are multiple religions to choose from, and each one is completely incompatible with all of the others. By this I mean that if I choose to be a Christian, I cannot also be a Muslim and a Buddhist. Because there are so many available religions, the odds of arbitrarily choosing the correct one are small. So the question now becomes: which would God look upon with more disfavor, believing in no God, or believing in the wrong God?

One thing most religions agree on is that there is no surer way to anger the almighty than by worshiping a false god. For example, the Koran clearly states that anyone who believes Jesus is the Son of God will not be allowed into heaven. By the logic of Pascal's wager, even if there is little evidence in support of this claim, I should believe it anyway, because the reward for being right is so great, and the punishment for being wrong so severe.

Since it is not within my power to determine which religion is correct, I would be better off having no religion than taking the risk of incurring God's wrath by choosing the wrong one.

2. Pascal's wager also presumes that believing in God, even in the face of insufficient evidence, will get me into heaven.

First of all, if God is omniscient, won't he be able to tell that I'm only believing in Him because I think I will be rewarded for doing so? Would God really look with favor upon this type of belief?

What if God is something like a great scientist (which any being capable of designing and creating something as complex as our entire universe would almost certainly have to be), who disdains belief for the sake of belief? If God endowed us with our five senses with which we are able to observe the world around us, and an ability to reason with which we are able to interpret these observations, why would He then want us to believe in something just because it is written in a certain "holy" book, or worse yet, just because we thought we would be rewarded for believing it? Wouldn't He be much more pleased if we investigated for ourselves, and used the abilities He gave us to draw our own conclusions?

3. The claim that there is no reward for correctly believing that there is no God is unjustified.

To me, one of the highest possible human aspirations is to gain an understanding of the universe. When I think of the progress we have made in past few hundred years, and then further reflect on what incredible mysteries must still be out there, just waiting to be discovered, I'm filled with a sense of awe which is indescribable. In my view, the story science can tell of how all of this came to be, from the big bang, to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, to the evolution of complex, intelligent life from single celled organisms, is the greatest story ever told.

If I'm right, and this life is all we get, then missing out on the chance to understand some of the great mysteries of universe because of blind faith in scripture is one of the greatest losses a person can incur.

4. Even if I ignore all of the concerns discussed above and accept Pascal's wager as valid, it is still not within my power to simply choose to believe in God.

As I sit here writing this, it is within my power to imagine that, when I get home this evening, there will be a sack containing $1,000,000 sitting on my bed. However, I'm incapable of making myself actually believe that this windfall will take place, despite the fact that my mood would almost certainly improve if I did. Likewise, I could choose to go to church on Sundays, to pray every night, and to tell everyone I believe that God exists, that Jesus is His Son, etc. But none of that would change the fact that I don't really believe any of that is true.

Other Comments by TheDigitalRuler

28. Comment #82539 by rabidchihauhau on October 26, 2007 at 4:07 pm

I believe that you've got to 'talk their language' if you're going to have any hope of success with the argument.

Tell them that its safer to not believe, because the virtuous non-believer will end up in purgatory while heretics end up in the 6th circle of hell: I'd much rather hang out on the green fields with Homer and Ovid, than I would burning in a tomb for all of eternity...

Other Comments by rabidchihauhau

29. Comment #82542 by Quine on October 26, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Comment #82380 by TheDigitalRuler

Likewise, I could choose to go to church on Sundays, to pray every night, and to tell everyone I believe that God exists, that Jesus is His Son, etc. But none of that would change the fact that I don't really believe any of that is true.

So, the religion tells you that if you do this, at some point, you will be filled with "grace" (conveniently undefined) so you can truly believe. It is like the proverbial carrot hung in front of the donkey that he can never reach, but keeps the cart going. In this case, the cart is the religion memeplex, and you can see the payoff for the wager go right in the cart.




Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #82822 by Alastor on October 27, 2007 at 10:51 pm

I think prof. Dawkins said it best in answering a Liberty U. student's question, "What if your wrong?", as follows:

"What if you're wrong about the Great Jubjub at the bottom of the sea?!"




Other Comments by Alastor

31. Comment #82823 by Aragon on October 28, 2007 at 12:13 am

5. Comment #81409 by LordSummerisle on October 24, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Spot on!

Other Comments by Aragon

32. Comment #83259 by Davinci on October 29, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Pascal's wager doesn't indicate which God to believe in.

The consequences can be skewed if you believe in the wrong god.

If the probability of God existing is low, the argument isn't very persuasive.

Belief is based on evidence, not probabilities.

Other Comments by Davinci

33. Comment #84874 by davidlewis on November 4, 2007 at 1:55 am

If in the unlikely event that you are confronted by some god on your death what's wrong with saying: "You went to such extraordinary lengths to cover up your existence, I'm proud of the fact that I did what was expected of me".

Other Comments by davidlewis

34. Comment #85737 by Nessie on November 7, 2007 at 1:11 am

I know Christians who don't care what religion you believe in. As long as you accept God in your heart, they believe that God will let you into heaven. In this case, the number of religions does not water down your chances of getting into heaven: As long as you open your heart to God's love, you're in. As an athiest I think it's bunk, of course, but it does address the "many gods" problem of Pascal's wager.

Other Comments by Nessie

35. Comment #88369 by LeeWhitt on November 16, 2007 at 8:48 am

I am an atheist and cannot understand the reason behind thinking that God would punish me for being a non-believer. If God does punish non-believers and he/she is omniscient, then this implies that God created me as an atheist knowing full well that he/she was going to punish me for it when I died. There would be nothing I could do about it for God is omniscient, so he/she knows the future, meaning that my destiny is already pre-determined and I have no free will. With this in mind, it would seem that punishing me for atheism would seem a little unfair, considering that I have absolutely no say in the matter.

Other Comments by LeeWhitt

36. Comment #91642 by Garnok on November 28, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Pascal's Wager is not an arguement for the existence of god but a competition of which religion has the scarier concept of hell.

Other Comments by Garnok

37. Comment #94359 by Samson Agonistes on December 5, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Notice you probably couldn't rob a bank by merely threatening the teller that if you're not immediately given all the available cash, then the shadowy network that you represent, which predates and will outlast time itself, will otherwise inflict unimaginable horrors upon that teller, stretched out across many lifetimes because their technology or mojo is ever so mighty.

It's about considering the source. What does the robber want from you? What does the church want from you? What comfort can you win from alterations to your plain sense of the facts, that you're practicing so elaborately upon it?

I wonder if a necessary condition for killing religion in someone might be to nurture self-esteem in them.

Other Comments by Samson Agonistes

38. Comment #94371 by Ty_Webb on December 5, 2007 at 1:47 pm

How about saying:

That's funny. I believe in God too. I believe that you will go to Hell if you don't give me 10,000 pounds. If you do hand over the cash, then you will go to heaven. If I'm wrong, you are out a finite amount of money. If I'm right, you gain an infinite amount of happiness. Clearly the obvious choice is to give me the money. Now fork it over.

Other Comments by Ty_Webb

39. Comment #94391 by RogerDodge on December 5, 2007 at 2:55 pm

Isn't there something in the Christian creed (and most others for that matter) that forbids gambling? Anyone who proposes this as a reason to believe in god is going straight to hell.

Other Comments by RogerDodge

40. Comment #94393 by Agrajag on December 5, 2007 at 3:06 pm

38. Comment #94371 by Ty_Webb on December 5, 2007 at 1:47 pm
How about saying:

That's funny. I believe in God too. I believe that you will go to Hell if you don't give me 10,000 pounds. If you do hand over the cash, then you will go to heaven.

Only clergy can say this!
AJ

Other Comments by Agrajag

41. Comment #94397 by Dr Benway on December 5, 2007 at 3:21 pm

Oil company: "Say you don't believe in global warming and I'll put $1,000,000 in an offshore account for you."
Politician: "There's no global warming!"

Can we tell if this politican's opinion is honest?

An honest God wanting honest belief can't reward it.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

42. Comment #95125 by Communist on December 7, 2007 at 11:54 am

Comment #82001 by TranshumanAtheist on October 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm:

Those emails from African bank clerks offering us money to help unlock the funds from dead people's accounts look like a better deal than Pascal's wager. One, a real person had to compose and send that email. Two, we know that Africa exists. Three, we know that huge sums of money exist in foreign in bank accounts. Four, we know that banks can wire money from one account to another anywhere in the world. Why not take one of these clerks up on his offer? I mean, what can possibly go wrong?

The comment above is spot on. Pascal's Wager implies that adopting a specific view of the world is a cost free exercise. It isn't. There is always some form of investment. The world view doesn't even need a supernatural promise of heaven or a supernatural threat of hell.

Suppose that I offer you a messianic version of Marxism which says that a classless paradise will be attained here on earth soon. The only requirement is that you follow my orders. If you are right, then classless utopia is yours. If you are wrong, then you really haven't lost much. Will you take my offer?

Other Comments by Communist

43. Comment #95866 by Sleech on December 9, 2007 at 11:29 am

What the rational response to the wager is overlooks the moral elephant in the room. The wager takes as read that God requires me to believe unconditionally in His doctrine. If I lead an otherwise morally irreproachable life but don't conform to the required beliefs God will read my thoughts and will torture me for eternity not for what I've done but for what I thought. Christians like to refer to the 'atheist' dictators of the 20th century. But, given omnipotence, could Hitler or Stalin invent a more despotic regime?

Other Comments by Sleech

44. Comment #98369 by Chris Bell on December 13, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Just accept that Pascal is correct, then realize that things still don't make sense.

Other Comments by Chris Bell

45. Comment #98386 by USA_Limey on December 13, 2007 at 2:39 pm

I hate these stupid 'debating points' so much I am going to be childish and petulant.

They completely mess up the 'lates visitor comments' section which helps us keep track of responses to the latest articles posted.

So there.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

46. Comment #112956 by Riley on January 18, 2008 at 10:32 am

If "God" exists, surely "God" will favor people who reject superstition and gullibility (i.e. "faith"). Superstition and gullibility are the tools which empower the "Prince of Lies" (as they do all con-men).

So:
On the small possibility that "God" does exist, my eternal life is assured by rejecting superstition (e.g. "The Devil"). On the other hand, if there is no god, I win again, because I haven't wasted my one and only life in pursuit of superstitious belief.

I win either way!

Other Comments by Riley

47. Comment #125765 by the_ultimate_samurai on February 12, 2008 at 2:08 am

the argument has one notable flaw, it assumes christianity or atheism. factor in all the other religions and you see just which religion you PICK is a wager. if you pick christianity and you are wrong, but the islamics were right, then you screwed up your chance for heaven, or if the jews are right, or one of all the different sects of all the abrahamic religions are right (since they all say the other sects will burn in hell) then again you screwed up your chance. if the budhists are right..well you might end up re-incarnated in a hell demension for one lifetime or just a lower animal, taoists are right...you are off the hook...they have no afterlife...shinto are right you were probably going to hell for not being japanese (i dont know much about the religion...sorry..but it seems to emphesize the japanese people as being chosen by the gods..descendant actually.) eastern religions are usualy nicer though about these things.

but essentialy, pascals wager only works with an all or nothing, christianity or atheism, but add in other religions and it loses its potency.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

48. Comment #126505 by dancsecs on February 13, 2008 at 11:31 am

Although Pascal may have first articulated this wager I believe people have known and lived by it for a very long time. In fact if you think long and hard about it, it just may be that Pascal's wager is the root of all superstition. (Knock on wood! :-)

Other Comments by dancsecs

49. Comment #141984 by prospero811 on March 11, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Pascal's Wager becomes quite complex when we look at the basic claims that only certain Christians can be saved. You'd better be Christian? Well, which one? The 7th Day Adventists think the rest of Christianity is doomed. The Catholic church at least at one time taught that Protestants were going to hell. Mormons think they have the true faith.

Which Christianity? I don't know.

Other Comments by prospero811

50. Comment #154315 by Enge on April 3, 2008 at 5:14 am

I have come up with a counter-wager:

If a Christian (let's retain the simplistic either-or worldview of the original wager for the sake of the argument) dies, and it turns out there is no god, he will have gone to grave believing a lie, without ever getting the chance to get it right.

If a, atheist dies, and it turns out god is real, he will learn that he was wrong and adjust his beliefs accordingly.

Therefore the atheist will always know the truth in the end, while the Christian only has 50% chance of doing so.

Other Comments by Enge