/lit/ - Literature

>>17996028
>nobody did refute Pascal
refuted by pic related

>>15777065
>all religions are somehow equally probable anyway
Yes, that is the point. Logically, we should construct a matrix and see what the choices we have here, because the idea that you solely have a choice between Atheism and Anon's-poorly-thought-out-American-Protestant-sect is just dumb. I really don't care what the sauce of pic related is, it doesn't really matter, because as we can see there's many choices and not all of them fall into this dumb.

Not that it really matters because the theology that Pascal was advocating (demonstrating that you haven't read the book) actually doesn't support the wager at all. Not only does Pascal's Jansenist position completely deny salvation to opportunistic Christians, but you don't even get a choice, as God has already predestined those who get to go to heaven, so ultimately if you're not Saved (which doesn't require you to even believe) then you'll never be Saved. But then, you're advocating YOUR niche American Protestant sect, not what Pascal actually thought, so really who cares?

>b-but the Bible...
Hindus and Buddhists were making this argument millennia ago, and Muslims were doing this centuries before Pascal was born. So, do you REALLY want to take that chance that Allah will destroy you for your blasphemy? Better safe then sorry, right? Best start learning Arabic.

>>14578614
Yes.
>>14578621
No.

>>14113187
it's dumb because it's a false dichotomy. if god is infinitely smart, he'll understand why we don't fall for dumb things.