How do atheists reconcile with Pascals Wager?

I have always considered "Pascal's Wager" a questionable bet to place, since any God worth believing in would prefer an honest agnostic to a calculating hypocrite.

By believing atheist propaganda on the internet, living in ignorance, not knowing the actual content of Pensées.

Attached: 50EF440B-7B4D-4868-AED2-CAB83839FBA5.jpg (303x475, 24K)

Point proven

BASED PASCAL POSTER

pascal's wager implies you can get into heaven by pretending to have faith. If you don't believe in God, you cannot have faith in God. Contrary to his autism, you cannot have 'pretend belief' turn into actual faith eventually. Going through the motions to get into heaven is a retarded concept reserved only to C&E C*tholics.
How does Pascal's Wager reconciled other religious beliefs?
>read more of him
Unless someone gives me a reason why I should, what I do know of him does not give me any motivation to trudge through his brainlet portfolio.

>pascal's wager implies you can get into heaven by pretending to have faith. If you don't believe in God, you cannot have faith in God. Contrary to his autism, you cannot have 'pretend belief' turn into actual faith eventually.
This is actually what Pascal says, what kind of idiot are you?
The essential part of his thought comes right AFTER the famous wager pages.

You can't reason yourself into belief

This. All new atheists are 100 IQ midwits who watch superhero movies

This thread is just about the wager. You can clarify it now if you want a proper discussion but I am not going to read what I expect to be a whole lot of nothing. Pascal's Wager is well known enough to discuss it without doing a fucking dissertation on Pascal's life and work. Just like one can and we have had discussions about the Ontological Argument without reading all of Anselm 's writings.

The wager implies that the choice is between atheism and one single religion. Seeing as there are many religions, all of which are mutually contradictory, the wager loses its rational basis. It is no longer the safe option to choose any one particular religion, because if any of the others are indeed correct you are still going to hell or at least not going to heaven.

>you cannot have 'pretend belief' turn into actual faith eventually
t. someone with no experience of social science research

>social
>science

Attached: 1457070416953.png (210x195, 101K)

Well you can call him Jehovah
Or you can call him Allah
Or you can call him Jesus
Or any other name
No matter what you call Him
No matter how you see him
There's only one
So they got to be the same.

>uses the scientific method
>not a science
What did """"hard"""" scientist mean by this?

These wagers don't work because Pascals wager is that God is the greatest of all things that could ever exist by definition and the absence of God is the worst of all things that could ever be by converse definition

No other wager can counteract it because the terms of the wager already propose the greatest and most profound of all alternatives

ok so let's make it short
right after having said what you apparently know, Pascal adds the following:
I know that all of this is a bunch of bullshit because it would imply some kind of hypocritical 'faith' that isn't faith at all, and anyway you just cannot DECIDE to believe in God
so what would I, Pascal, say if there was an atheist coming to me and asking me how to believe in God? Well that's what I'd say:
only God himself will make you believe in him or not, perhaps he will, perhaps he won't, we can't tell. Fath is a gift of God. The only thing you can do is to KNEEL DOWN AND PRAY. That's it, go to church and start behaving as if you were believing in God. There's nothing more to be done, and you can't even tell if it will be of any use. And by PRAY, I mean: you should ask God to touch your heart, because that's how faith is given to you; you should ask him the following: "Inclina cor meum, Deus"

Now this also relates to what Pascal means when he talks about "heart", and when he says that the God of philosophers is bullshit, because the only actual God is the one that you can FEEL and KNOW with your heart, God that is "sensible au coeur".

Why would I ever worship something which will throw me in Hell forever simply for not doing so? That's not a God, it's a devil.

Not just nature man, the Universe entire. We are literally the Universe experiencing itself. I don't pray to anything though

Because its the Pedo-van of ideology.

>Why would I ever worship something which will throw me in Hell forever simply for not doing so?

Because you deserve it you sinning faggot

why is it that no atheists in these threads have actually read it?

So then why use the wager at all? If faith is something God choose to give you, then even if you were to somehow fear hell without believing in God it would be up to God to make you believe in God. If faith in God is what saves you, then prayer is superfluous, especially a false one that Pascal suggests.

If you apply the same logic to a human dictator you'd consider him the most evil person in all reality, but apparently when an omnipotent deity does it it's completely benevolent and totally acceptable.

God doesn’t throw you in Hell. Anything that is sinful is destroyed in the presence of God. His goodness and our sin don’t mix. If you died, you wouldn’t even love God. You would actually suffer in heaven. Hell is literally just the absence of God. You don’t cling to God, so you suffer in His absence, with nothing else to cling to, burning with desire

that thing basilisk redit

God seeks those who seek Him. To those who are humble, who pray, and realize their sins and try to avoid them, who do good works, who go to church, and try to love God, God will love them and seek after them.

Well yes. But after all, even if you truly believe in God, it does not necessarily mean that he's gonna save your soul. Atheists shouldn't expect any kind of actual solution since even true Christians will remain uncertain about what God will make of them. The only good think will being a Christian is that at least you love the only being that is worth loving, and you kinda understand the whole world. But there's no certainty regarding your destiny. We all remain miserable down there.

>If you apply the same logic to a human dictator you'd consider him the most evil person in all reality
kek yeah sure I would. God= total wisdom which means you deserve it heathen. Enjoy the hellfire you cuck

Attached: 1-3-F2rTl2GmP4RXICcVrW1g.jpg (1366x768, 144K)

>God doesn’t throw you in Hell.
Nu-age pseudo Christianity. God very directly does send people to damnation in the Bible, Old and New Testament. Faggots get the flame

Then Pascal's Wager is completely useless. It defeats itself. An inverse would be telling a devout Christian "assuming there's no god...", they wouldn't do that. A devout atheist would not find the Wager convincing, especially with this extra clarification that stresses the arbitrary nature of Faith. Faith is inherently irrational by design, trying to rationalize it will always be a vain attempt.

>So then why use the wager at all?
Btw this is a very relevant question, I mean, since the wager is no big deal, why write it at all?
One should keep in mind that Pascal often criticizes Descartes and, more generally, rationalism - that kind of rationalism that pretends to prove God by the means of reason. The wager can be read as a reply to the following question: what can reason actually demonstrate regarding God? - It cannot demonstrate its existence; all it can do is demonstrate that there is interest in believing. Pascal actually says "Cela est démonstratif", this is an actual demonstration, and "Cela", this, does not refer to God being real, but it only refers to the fact that there is more interest in believing than in not believing.

As a consequence the wager stuff is more relevant in terms of philosophy (confronting other philosophers) than from a strictly theological point of view.

Yes, it’s part of God’s justice, but the point is that God could not bring sinners into Heaven. He has to “send them” to Hell. They have to go there. But of course, God’s justice and God’s love and mercy are reconciled through Jesus’ sacrifice, so that sinners on Earth can believe and be forgiven

>Then Pascal's Wager is completely useless
Obviously not, since it is Pensées and the wager that made me convert to Christianity. The wager is not the only part of Pascal’s work, you know. It only takes up less than 3% of the whole book. Pascal explains why you would want to have belief in God, etc. If you really want to remove your ignorance, read Pascal instead of asking sassy questions as if you’re right about everything.

>An inverse would be telling a devout Christian "assuming there's no god...", they wouldn't do that.

Why not, anyone can assume anything for the sake of consideration

>thread specifically about the Wager
>THE WAGER ISN'T EVERYTHING
fuck off nigger

Is it really good, user? Should I start with the greeks first?

>God could not bring sinners into Heaven
and you guys call this nigga omnipotent lmao

Athiest way of defeating the wager is by putting their fingers in their ears and going lalalalalalalalala

Pascal didn’t intend the wager to be independent. It’s that simple.

Freewill, you signed the contract

God can’t contradict His nature. Omnipotence doesn’t mean absolutely everything imaginable. It means He creates everything

mandatory

Attached: aVSVQ.png (1685x1930, 260K)

It doesn't specify what to bet on.
It only works if you only consider a specific binary

>all damnations are equal, all rewards are equal
We need to go deeper

If babies go straight to heaven when they die, shouldn't I kill babies to guarantee them eternal paradise with God?

No because if they sin and go to hell they deserve it. Its a neutral slate whether you kill them or not

Sorry bud, just looked it up and the Vatican says there's hope God lets them into heaven. To be sure then, I should only kill freshly baptized children, and similarly recently converted people because they've not yet had the opportunity to commit a mortal sin.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

No thats not what I'm saying. Any baby that would have went to hell if you didn't kill it is a future faggot that's not getting his rightful eternal punishment.
Its a bad thing to save the damned

It applies to any number of possible Gods, and by itself can't tell you which one is true. Also, it deals with poorly-defined concepts of "infinite" reward and punishment. Can a mathematical concept even be applied to something semantically broad as "punishment" and what would that mean exactly?

>Any baby that would have went to hell if you didn't kill it is a future faggot
This sounds like Calvinist heresy to me. Homosexuality is a choice, and by preventing people from making that choice, be it through conversion therapy, social pressures, or even killing them before they can choose to sin, they will have been saved from exercising their choice to reject God.

>I haven’t read Pascal: the post

Atheists are by necessity incapable of logical thought, otherwise they would not be atheist.

>This sounds like Calvinist heresy to me.
Not at all.
The babies will still go to heaven, it is just simply there is no more justice in the child going to heaven than a sinner going to hell, each is going where they belong

>scroll through thread
>not a single Pascal quote, again
one of these thread's someone will have read it, right?

>literature board
>still criticizes Pascal without having read him
You’re just embarrassing yourself

>i-it will REALLY make sense if you've read everything he's ever said ever
cry more faggot

Retard

>nuhu, mine is cooler

Well thats the point of the wager, it doesn't automatically predict the Christian God unless you extend from it. Just an all powerful, all loving God

Can god interact with the world then?

I never agreed to be born into this shithole

I have so let's have the man himself offer a solution to the problem he created

>"God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions. Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."