/lit/ - Literature

Why should I choose Christianity over all other religions that exist?

>>13987101
Why should I choose Christianity over all the other religions that exist or could exist? If any religion/belief system isn't a total fantasy, it's probably Singularitarianism.

>>13955848
Which hell is he in?

>>13815118
>>13815224
There's infinite possibilities, if you believe then you believe, probably I'm right or wrong, I don't care, God is about the here and now and the impact He has on our daily lives, only God knows what's on the other side.

not to mention the fact that belief based on the wager is belief based in pragmatics, not on pure faith, so have fun in hell

>>13665013
By laughing our asses off, as would any sentient religious person faced with that idiocy of someone with such tunnel vision that they can posit a binary system without any evidence and try to render a ludicrously complicated hypothetical into an either/or choice.

Seriously? Its one of the worst arguments for a belief in God, particularly the Christian God, I've ever heard.
Frankly, I'm a bit of a reactionary in that I think most people are better off believing, whether god exists or not, for more tangible reasons. I'm not even opposed to being convinced myself. I'm sick of seeing midwits and brainlets drive themselves to intellectual dead ends with militant atheism and degenerate nihilism. Still, this argument sucks. Once you realize why that is, it would be intellectually dishonest to continue using it.

I find YouTube atheism cringey now, but this still does a good job at "reconciliation":
https://youtu.be/fZpJ7yUPwdU

>>13388052

im not that educated on the matter but it i think you've got a point op. it'd be nice if someone could provide an actual counter argument rather than brainlet wojaks

What if god punishes insincere believers far more than non believers.

>>13032302
How do you choose? Pascal's arguments for Christianity aren't convincing.

mandatory

>>12381701
You don't, you just make of it a reductio ad absurdum to show why the chances of you winning the wager are incomprehensibly small regardless of what you choose.

>>11884461

>>11628238
Pic related.
Or also, you know, by recognizing God isn't some retard who will reward you for choosing to believe in him for the sake of playing the best move in a punishment avoidance game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdbkvJznmwU

>>11240783
>>11240842

How much alcohol do you /lit/fags drink? is alcohol necessary for being a writer?

I drink almost every day.

>>6610907
daily reminder reminder

>>6490272
>not posting the expansion

>>6436346
>Pascal

1. Which religion do you wager on? Many of them are mutually exclusive. (See chart.)
2. The nature of the wager goes against the spirit or teachings of many of the religions, which require sincere belief in the doctrines because they are just, good, true, etc, not because of the possibility of a reward.
3. It's not actually possible to genuinely believe in things you don't already hold to be true. (This doesn't matter if the doctrine is faith based, of course.)
4. Many religious doctrines are restrictive. A slim chance of a distant, infinite or large reward may be outweighed by the very probable chance of a near reward, large or small. Consider reversing the argument and applying it to life: if you go outside, there is a slim chance that you'll get hit by a car and you'll have horrible injury related pain for the rest of your life, but there's the probable chance that you'll get to go to a rock concert you have tickets for.

>>4269716