/lit/ - Literature

>>22485591
Pascal's dilemma has been around for a while. Are you sure you aren't just new to talking to atheists, or any kind of philosophical discussions at all?

>>22485591
>if you lose, you lose nothing
Except decades wasted on blind worship of madeup semitic demons, and dual shame of giving up intellectual honesty AND treating faith as an economic investment.

>smugly wager on faith
>die
>find out I've been worshiping God the wrong way, and He hates that more than atheists
>mfw

>>22486443
This is the usual atheist response, I find; to make up some hypothetical where ackshually God rewards them for being a fedora-tipper. Very odd moment of trying to have their cake and eat it too.

>>22485591
Because you still don't know on what version of "God" to wager. Personal or the Monad ? Knowable or unknowable ? Perfect creator deity or the Demiurge ? Furthermore, even if you limit it on abrahamic faiths, don't you think God would consider your wager as "fake belief" ?

>>22486455
Wouldn't the standard atheist response be that the chance you're worshiping the right one isn't 100%? What if the hidus are right?

You can also not believe in absurd afterlife threats.
>b-but what if it IS true?
Then you can keep on wagering every single time you encounter another belief system.

>>22485591
I am God, if you suck my dick you will go to heaven, if you refuse you will burn in hell for eternity. If it turns out I'm not God then there is no harm, so will you take my wager and suck my dick?

>>22486426
>>22486443
>>22486485
>>22486526
I’m more of a deist today but holy shit, self proclaimed atheists are the most braindead people

>>22486723
>heh, I'm practically an atheist but I choose to identify myself with a cooler term so I'm smarter than you ;^)

>>22486735
I’m smarter because I see Pascal’s point, unlike retards like you

>>22486590
>>>/his/

>>22485591
oh, sorry, i guess i'm inside of it right now

>>22485591
he is wrong about losing nothing, and furthermore, he is making a fallacy that could be applied to basically anything as long as you add a clause of consequence(see rokos bassilisk)
what is funny is that retard reddit types fell for rokos but will still be atheist. this meme idea is the litmus test for atheist sentience desu

Atheists are the lowest form of trash, literal monkey apes who lack all morality whatsoever (b-but I don't steal and I don't hurt the boo boos of other pe-ACK!)

>>22486443
>god actually doesn’t like his misinformed faithful he likes porn obssessed contraries who wastes their whole life ‘akschually’ing their family and watching Sam Harris podcasts better

>>22487071
god as a source of morality makes no sense
>does he decide good and evil?
then its subjective
>does he always choose good?
then there is a higher "good" and he is under it
it justifies muslim ans jewish retardation too

>>22487079
Nice strawman, I said atheists have no morality whatsoever.

>>22487081
you don't think the choice between thought and extension is a moral one? i am a tool

>>22487081
i have one, based in informational survival
thats "subjective" but it matches most other systems of morality

>>22487079
Have you spent 3 minutes in church? Or a philosophy class? God is good. It’s not even a Christian idea. It’s a Greek one. Some of you faggots think you’re so clever.

>>22487085
Your gay little theory has no more value than an African tribe enforcing the great ooga booga of the sky’s ethics tipper.

>>22487084
The choice between thought and extension is just a choice. You are though implying that you have the ability of resisting to your innate destructive tendencies. In itself, this is not morality though.
>>22487085
This one is even worse than the former. 'Informational survival' yeah that says everything about you. You're like one of those aliens in the movies morphing into the human form for a while to appear unthreatening to humans. The only thing underneath is an intelligent but disgusting cannibal beast.

>>22485591
I can't help but think that there is some massive misunderstanding happening somewhere between religious people and atheists. This quote is a fine illustration of that issue. Belief is not something you get to "decide". "Deciding" to believe something is called self-delusion, regardless of whether or not believing in that thing is right. Telling yourself that you should believe is not the same as believing, and if God exists and is all-knowing, he will know the difference.

>>22487095
God being good is most definitely a Christian idea. It's certainly not a Greek one, not even a neoplatonist one. God isn't even good in other Abrahamic religions : in Judaism and Islam, God just is, full stop, and you have to deal with it.

>>22487095
>have you spent time in a church
yes, was raised catholic, got out when i realized perfection has no potentiality
>god is good
catholic god is clearly capable of evil (thou shall not kill) even according to his own definition. point is that free will requires evil to be an option, so either god had no free will, or he is capable of evil (wich ultimate good would not be)
>Your morality has no value
moving the goalpost, i have a morality, thats all you asked for

>>22487111

I am pretty sure Muslims think Allah is god, lol!!!

>>22487098
>The only thing underneath is an intelligent but disgusting cannibal beast.
Sorry but valuing life does not make me cannibalistic

>>22487102
There are interpretations of Pascal’s that go in this line, saying that precisely because believing is not a matter of purely rational choice, even if it seems rational to believe as proposed in Pascal’s wager, there will still be atheists, people who won’t believe. This kinda makes sense seeing that Pascal was critical of exclusively clinging to reason.

>>22486522
Hindus regard all deities to be aspects of Brahman, and that the ultimate goal, no matter which deity you follow, is to escape the cycle of samsara. Hinduism is one of the few religions where it wouldn't matter that you didn't believe in it, you could still receive a pleasant afterlife.

>>22487155
Brahman is an artificial God created by Brahmin philosophers, original Hinduism didn't have him.

>>22487160
>artificial god
metal

>>22487132
Why do you value life? If it's just atoms then what difference does it make.

If the God of Christianity exists I doubt he'll be pleased your belief is purely due to a cost-benefit analysis

>>22487187
self replicating information has more value than other types of information, because it is more "permanent" than the others (more prone to survival and expansion)

>>22487193
Whatever is in the universe, in its elementary particles, so to speak, is more permanent and will ever exist and expand. So why must these be in the form of a man? Why not in the form of gasses? You’re still pressupposing values arbitrarily.

>>22487193
So life has more value than objects. And some forms of life have more value than others? And in consequence, some humans have more value than others? Is this the point you are trying to make? Because otherwise I don't get it.

>>22487206
>Whatever is in the universe, in its elementary particles, so to speak, is more permanent and will ever exist and expand.
We don't know that ; and worse, even if this ends up being correct, we still don't know why.

>>22487206
because self replicating information creates and orders information. plus, elementary particles are indeed valuable, just in no need of protection, Nukes are however, inmoral on two counts, by destroying information (reducing order reduces information) and damaging information and structure around it
furthermore, sentience is shown to be capable or creating organizational structures (information) and as such, it is of further higher value
if gasses were capable of sentience or self replication, they would have a similar value to humans, yes.
they have yet to be proved so however.
>>22487214
Yes pretty much, i dont think its difficult to grasp. furthermore, its because of the uncertainty of informational necessity that we should not kill, even if my current informational value would be superior to yours: reducing the possibility of your informational propagation could eliminate genes needed for informational survival of humanity. i do not know the future, so i cannot decide your overall informational value

>>22487235
Even if all humans got nuked except for a small group of a few dozens or hundreds they would quickly reproduce and re-create society. Nothing of value would have been lost. Just because something has 'information' doesn't mean it's valuable. Burning books is not a crime and should not be.

>>22487235
Elementary particles have always carried information in varied ways and forms (order) and for way longer (permanence). Yeah they don’t need protection and that’s my point.
>reducing order is bad
Blades of grass, insects, minerals are being destroyed every day in more quantity than humans being killed by themselves.
The universe kills sentient human beings and replicates its ever present elements, giving them order in multiple ways, far more creative than man will ever be.
Again, you’re attributing exclusively values on human arbitrarily, for there is no distinction when it comes to your criteria: order and permanence of information.

>>22487249
>even if almost everyone was nuked a few hundreds or dozens could rebuild
not sure of that, they could all share a weakness to a disease and die , they could all be sterile, etc etc.
Point is, informational diversity has been proved a necessity for expansion and survival so far.
>burning books good
Eliminating information in favor of new information is ok, as a human it makes sense that if a book advocates for murder, suicide, or antinatalism, it should indeed be destroyed or at least ignored.
>>22487253
>Killing insects and blades of grass
killing blades of grass does not remove information but just reduce it. taking the roots out does indeed remove information tho, and it is morally incorrect. Doing so to plant crops or feed for animals and humans has a moral justification (more complex creatures have higher informational value) and sentience is unironically trascendental because of its capacity to create and reproduce information that cannot be reproduced by itself or goes beyond matter (ideas, systems)
As such, anything that preserves sentience is justifiable, even if morally gray at best

>>22487277
Moral: holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
Sure, go on pretending your desperately invented idea of 'information' is going to trick anyone into believing it can make an actual moral system because it can't. It's arbitrary, inconsistent and nonsensical. You probably received a lot of inspiration from libshit science created to pretend there is a moral foundation for the stupid degeneracy of modern society, but it's really sad and pathetic that you've fallen so hard to leftist /pol/ bait coated with a thin pseudo-scientific veil.

>>22487285
honestly i really just want to make a harder moral system than what postmodernism suggests (everyone has subjective morality) without needing to make any logical leaps to accept sky daddy, because simply put, the religious method has not worked so far. too many religions, and religions get divided further and atomized every time they get too many members, and their morality rules change again.
Information as the smallest unit of value is consistent with both substance philosophy and process philosophy, and ot justifies valuing sentience and camaraderie. It even goes against abortions.
Im sorry that you cant see the value on that because of your religiosity

logic of the refresh is either solved or no one cares and is scared

>>22487277
Killing humans does not remove information either since the corpse will feed worms, the soil, etc.
The universe’s constant act of ordering and reordering is infinitely more complex than the human’s, therefore way higher informational value).
>sentience is transcendental
Finally revealed your religious beliefs hiding deep down within yourself. Ants and bees don’t need sentience in order to create their orderly systems. Systems, ideas inhere on matter. You are just anither religious zealot if you keep on this track.

>>22487304
>any logical leaps to accept sky daddy
You just did in your justification of anything on what goes beyond matter (ideas, systems). Plus why is order more valuable than chaos?

>>22485591
Because it's presented as a rational argument for faith. What's irritating is that, divorced from the rest of his Pensees, you'd think Pascal actually supports it, except that a running subject throughout the Pensees is the difference between l'esprit de finesse and l'esprit de geometrie, where the former is proper to faith and the latter a total deadend, with the wager being an ironic example of the latter, since, for Pascal, there's more to faith and obedience to God than just hoping you'll get the Good Ending.

>>22487318
>does not remove information
but it does, remove complexity, sentience and actions, and eliminates their genes from the genepool.
Sentience is trascendental under this system, and complexity is valued. That is also why a whole country for instance, has more moral vale than a single person. complexity however is not valued above sentience, so the dissolving of a country with no deaths (complete thought experiment) is not worth the life of a human
>sentience is not trascendental
while the bees can make beehives, humans and sentient beings can create ideas and larger complexity organizations than a bee can. You do not understand complexity, and thats why you claim sentience has no special informational value.
>>22487325
order adds relational information that chaos lacks, plain and symple. Abstractions do not have physicality, and lead to higher complexity systems, so they are indeed trascendental.

>>22487304
Your moral system sucks gigantically ass and I'll tell you why: it's nothing but a pretentious justification for useless progressivism (social and technical)
> muh sky daddy
You're looking at this from a too globalistic perspective. 'Because there's other nations with other religions too, means that our religion is just another one in the crowd'.
Why do you think literally all people's in the world have religions if they are so useless from your perspective?
Well I reject this idea because information in itself can be neither defined nor is it anyhow useful as a moral system: it's completely impracticable.
I believe in God(s) because I reject arbitrarism, the idea that everything's random and happens randomly, and that the purpose of humans at most is trying to do something with this randomness and improve it. Information theory is heavily influenced by this primary atheistic idea.

>>22486909
We see his point and disagree.

>>22487340
Why is relational information preferable to chaos? Abstraction means literally to draw away, that is, it means it is derived.

>>22487348
>have religions if they are so useless from your perspective
religions are not useless, they provide community and moral guidance. they have just failed to bring about a single canon of morality.
>Well I reject this idea because information in itself can be neither defined nor is it anyhow useful as a moral system: it's completely impracticable.
Information already has multiple definitions, by both process and substance philosophers, and theoretical physicists, matematicians etc etc etc
and i have been practicing it just fine.
>globalist perspective
yes, making a universal morality by kantian principle is the only way one can actually adopt morality.
In the end you are a subjectivist: you adopt that morality because it applies to you and your beliefs, not because of its actual universal value.
>>22487369
because relations add information. chaos reduces information by having less relations and dissipating the ones that are. the relation between two pieces of information is information, a lack of relationship is not, simple as.
abstaction allows for complexity of systems, as evidenced by humanity

>>22485591
>Just submit to the church bro, what do you have to lose?

>>22487333
It doesn’t extinguish it because as I said it will be reused in multiple ways. You are valuing human complexity more than the very universe’s complexity lol.
>nations have more moral value than single person
Ok, then I assume the planet’s own eco system has more moral value than nations, no? Preserving the planet is morally more valuable than preserving the human species.
>you dont understand complexity
What I don’t understand is why you value human complexity more than the world’s, the universe’s complexities. Then you’ll differentiate what is sentient from what is complex, but you attribute the capacity for creative action, order, information and complexity on sentience.
You said here >>22487277 “sentience is transcendental because of its capacity to create and reproduce information”.
>>22487193 “self replicating information”

>>22487386
> hey have just failed to bring about a single canon of morality
This opinion is based on what? Reading the Bible has made people more moral that any pamphlet in favour of atheism. It's even worse, there's seemingly no moral idea derived from atheistic thought.
> Information already has multiple definitions, by both process and substance philosophers, and theoretical physicists, matematicians etc etc etc
and i have been practicing it just fine
Cool but it fails at building a moral system. It fails at building a moral system because it's too broad to be practical. If I destroy a mountain to build house bricks, am I destroying the perhaps valuable information the mountain might contain? It's completely arbitrary because both cases could be made: that a house contains more information than a mountain or vice-versa.
> inb4 both cases are correct
Then how is it a universal moral system if it can't even answer one simple moral question? The answer is that atheism is by nature prone to materialism, and any non-material value as a consequence can't be integrated into whatever 'moral system' it creates, but exactly because morality is non-material atheism always fails at building universal moral systems.
> inb4 information is non-material
Yet it is not a value.
> yes, making a universal morality by kantian principle is the only way one can actually adopt morality.
Theoretically morality is universal, it's universal because it does not consider the details of specific situations. Just because a morality isn't practiced in Dljakistan doesn't take away from it's universality, but that's exactly the point you were trying to make.
> In the end you are a subjectivist: you adopt that morality because it applies to you and your beliefs, not because of its actual universal value
Yet I have a universal, consistent moral system, as wrong or imperfect as it might be, that it can be flawlessly applied to every single social situation where it is demanded.

>>22487386
>why is relational information preferable?
“Because relations add information”
Lmao, seriously?
Why what adds information preferable to what does not?
>abstraction allows for complexity of systems
The abstractions inhere in what is already complex. System is just a method of organizing abstractions.

>>22487410
>You are valuing human complexity more than the very universe’s complexity lol.
I already explained why, sentience has higher moral value than other types of information because of how it excels at creating complexity and abstraction.
self replicating information is slow in creating complexity, sentience is faster, can create more types of information, and has proven to be informationally complex enough to transform other types of complex systems, ergo more complex than non sentient systems. since complexity is valued as adding information, we again, hold humanity as higher value than other beings.
Destroying the planet until we cannot survive in it goes directly again the valuing of
sentience, and i agree that as such, our current treatment of life in the planet is retarded.
I like the planet as much as you do anon, but i really am not suicidal in the slightest and im definitely a humanist.
I hope you grow up from this murderous/suicidal ideation

>>22487427
>sentience has higher moral value than other types of information because of how it excels at creating complexity and abstraction.
Sentience does not mean capacity for complexity and abstraction. You value human sentience over others. But then you equipoise sentience to creation and abstraction. Then I'm forced to ask, if the creative action and complexity of the world and the universe surpasses that of man, surpasses even man's abstractions of it, then is the world and universe sentient? or it doesn't matter because sentience now is valued specifically due to the human kind of sentience? Curious coincidence.
>self replicating information is slow in creating complexity, sentience is faster
what the fuck are you on about now? you said previously ''self replicating information has more value than other types of information, because it is more permanent'' (>>22487193), that ''self replicating information creates and orders information'' (>>22487235). Attributing value on it and now discarding it arbitrarily.
>since complexity is valued as adding information, we again, hold humanity as higher value than other beings.
but not higher than what is more complex and what adds more information than human beings, i.e. world, universe, therefore not making sense to hold human morals over the natural functioning of the world (which is indifferent whether humans exist or not)
>Destroying the planet until we cannot survive in it goes directly again the valuing of
sentience
Again clinging to anthropocentric delusions of power. Man cannot destroy the planet (it destroys man first) and much less the universe.
>I like the planet as much as you do anon
I literally don't give a shit about it lol, I'm just showing that you cling to human made morals derived from religious abstractions. You can rationalize it as much as you want, it will always falter.

>>22487414
>Reading the Bible has made people more moral that any pamphlet in favour of atheism. It's even worse, there's seemingly no moral idea derived from atheistic thought.
My moral system does not seek to reedem atheism but to set a logical basis of morality that atheists can agree on. i hate postmodernity.
>mountain to make bricks
Anything conductive to the long term expansion and survival of semtience is considered a positive. if long term that would kill more sentience than generate it it is bad. its that simple.
Making houses of more renewable material is better tho.
I can expand on every nuance of my moral system but i cant do it all in a 4chan post. wait for my book to leave your criticism i guess
>information is non material
its both material and nonmaterial (substance and process philosophy)
it is considered the minimal unit of value because it is what constitutes our universe.
> as wrong or imperfect as it might be, that it can be flawlessly applied to every single social situation where it is demanded.
it cannot, you just said its wrong and fallible
furthermore its very first principle (belief in sky daddy) is not universal, precisely because that belief does not conduce to the same moral you claim to have. the argument goes like this:
>belief in sky daddy good
>killing wrong
those two do not make a coherent universal morality because some sky daddies are pro killing heathens
>belief in MY sky daddy good
would lead to the same thing, other peoples sky daddy are their own sky daddy.
>Belief in this specific god good
ok thats universal. what is your specific god
it also does not deny you are a subjectivist that derives morality from authority (a sheep)

>>22487071
>hurt the boo boos
...

>>22487503
> Attributing value on it and now discarding it arbitrarily.
not at all, self replicating information is more valuable than non self replicating information. i would happily burn a book for the life of a pig.
Sentience is however, higher value than mere self replicating information. Its consistent.
>universe is more valuable
yeah i would not destroy the universe for the human race, that would probably be retarded in a cosmic level. something having value does not reduce the value of other things, its just in a higher tier. planets are also higher tier than humans, and i would not destroy a planet for humanity unless our sentience was somehow capable of creating higher complexity (so far it is not). You pretend ive ever said otherwise, complexity is valued.
>man cannot destroy the planet
okay "making it inhospitable to human life" happy now? shorthands in comunication exist for a reason, and you perfectly understood what i meant
On top of that that completely makes your question about the value of the universe and planets irrelevant (they dont need protection)
>i literally dont give a shit
then you are arguing in bad faith

>>22487585
then there is no justification for human morality according your own reasons for it, lol. if there is a ranking of value among entities in the world, insects lower in relation to humans, humans in relation to planets, etc. then why do you care to expound a way of conduct? this order is already established naturally, a man killing another man for selfish interests does not interfere with the order established, just like your meat consumption doesn't.

>>22487642
>why do you care to expound a way of conduct?
because information has value, and self replicating information has more value. a value ranking does not dissapear the value existing, and a maximization of value is what guides the moral compass of informational morality. Because information is the first thing that is, maximizing it conducts to further being. we hold information as an axiom of being and as such it is valuable. Non-being and non existance holds literally no value whatsoever, and as such, should be avoided.
my question to you now would be: Why follow god? as in how is god axiomatic? because he is the creator? why is creation good? if it reduces to the same thing (being having value while non-being having no value) then our axioms are the same, you just made a logic jump
>a man killing a man does not interfer with the order
but it does eliminate information in the form of genes and works, much like i described further up: >>22487340

>>22487410
My post at >>22487333 has nothing to do with what you're saying. Did you mean to tag someone else?

>>22487724
My point is not the value of some information, but that your morality according to your own terms is not what can be common qualified moral, since it is contradictory, for if it supports my naturalism, it won’t be a moral information, but if it prescribe rules of conduct to follow, it is no longer natural and your ranking of value: insects, animals, humans, planet, more complex systems, etc. won’t be natural and make no sense.
>non-being and non-existenfe holds literally no value
What do these words even mean? There is nothing of it in the world, if they are abstractions for death, then what you said is wrong because death renews cycles and reorganize things in new ways.
>b-but killing is bad because genetic information is gone
Then the world is bad because it doesn’t make man immortal, lineages ever existing?
What is more valuable: repetitive sequencing or creative transformation?

>>22487860
>world is bad because it doesn’t make man immortal, lineages ever existing?
yes
>appeal to nature
cringe
>non-being and non-existance
they are abstractions, not for death but for nothingness. You also dodged the question: axiom of god morality.
ill put it in simpler terms:
why do you follow good? why is god good? what is the definition of good? what gives god authority over good? why is authority relevant when it comes to morality? why are punishments bad or to be avoided? is it not inherently good because it is provided by god?

>>22487860
>repetive sequencing or creative transformation
by my own account of the value of sentience, both. usually because one is necessary for the other.
ill expand on it on the book, please wait to criticize that point further

>>22487894
there you are, ''nature is bad'', the divide being humans and the rest (nature), i'll ignore how you contradict yourself each post following a whole different reasoning from the preceding one (ranking among beings, man and humans not being above planets, etc. now nature is bad), but ask you, what makes humans different? you'll in the end resort to transcendental capacities which is religious in its essence.
you are just another religious zealot covering yourself in attempted inkhorn terms.
>they are abstractions, not for death but for nothingness.
which likewise does not exist in the world, being abstraction for whatever we encounter here, empty space, death, etc.

i'm not answering your questions because I'm playing the role of the real atheist here, whereas you cannot even follow your own reasonings.

>>22487897
the difference is that man's repetitive sequencing is limited to the same repetitions, while nature does both, transforming into something completely new while at the same time repeating what it already created.

>>22488035
>nature is bad
never claimed, nature has no moral claim, complexity does.
>What makes human different
Sentience is self modifying, and capable if conceiving things beyond that wich exists in matter (nothingness being a good example, infinity another) and engaging in logical analisis of them. this makes it by definition trascendental(relating to a nonphysical realm.). if the word bothers you then i really dont have anything else to tell you, an atheist would not be against non physical notions, we have plenty of them (time, relations, etc)
>>22488039
mans sentience allows for transformation, same as nature, man is just faster, nature takes longer

>>22488062
>world is bad because it doesn’t make man immortal, lineages ever existing?
>yes
nature, world, existence, experience, universe, whatever, neither have moral claims but nor duty of right or wrong.
>complexity
which revolves to the question of ranking of complexities, but then nature/world/experience... is bad because it doesn't make a specific part of its complexities immortal? which it should?
>Sentience is self modifying, and capable if conceiving things beyond that wich exists in matter
that's not what sentience means. you're ascribing a specific human-oriented sense in the term with transcendental qualifications but by making this you exclude sentience for every other being in the world (putting again man above everything, creating that gnostic divide over again).
>(nothingness being a good example, infinity another)
both abstractions of empty space, death, change, the latter of extension
>this makes it by definition trascendental(relating to a nonphysical realm.)
you have no idea what you're talking about lmao; appealing to ''nonphysical realms'' in order to save morality from evil nature. you are a joke lol.
>an atheist would not be against non physical notions, we have plenty of them (time, relations, etc)
Do you care to show me atheists who claim that time, relations are not abstracted from perceptive experience ascribing them to ''nonphysical realm''?

>mans sentience allows for transformation, same as nature, man is just faster, nature takes longer
nature is transforming itself at all moments, in much greater extent, in much more different ways, and way faster (atomic, subatomic)

well to the atheist, 50 years of hedonistic indulgence is far too valuable to gamble away for hope of eternal life. thats kinda the whole premise of atheism

>>22488102
>existance has no moral claim
it has a value claim, informational morality is based off that value claim. good or wrong are not important to it, just helpful concepts to talk about actions that increase or decrease value.
its a misnomer but for the sake of being understood
>both abstractions of empty space, death, change, the latter of extension
indeed, and so is gravity an abstraction of a property of matter. the fact is that non existance or nothingness can be abstracted from existance, and as such is both an abstraction and a trascendental concept.
>Do you care to show me atheists who claim that time, relations are not abstracted from perceptive experience ascribing them to ''nonphysical realm''?
unnecesary, abstractions are not exclusive with trascendence
>nature is transforming itself at all moments, in much greater extent, in much more different ways, and way faster (atomic, subatomic)
but its complex systems are not, furthermore, we are not removed off those changes, and we most of the time do not impact them. we only interact with the complex systems we can understand, and not on all of them.

>>22488112
why do you avoid hell?
>muh suffering bad
hedonism
>i love sky daddy
then if one does not, they shouldnt bother
why is loving sky daddy moral?

>>22488140
by existence I meant it meaning the whole existence, universe, All, nature, etc. and no, it doesn't have value because it does not qualify relations in terms of values as you are doing, no agency involved as it is with you.
>good or wrong are not important to it, just helpful concepts to talk about actions that increase or decrease value.
again, the right or wrong/good-bad is a relational valuation determined by particular, subjective, occasional (as in social, cultural) value concerning agency. there is no right or wrong, good or bad when it comes to nature.
>he fact is that non existance or nothingness can be abstracted from existance, and as such is both an abstraction and a trascendental concept
this is one of the most retarded arguments i've seen. i can abstract a non existent animal from an existing animal, therefore it is a transcendental being existing in a non physical realm.
>abstractions are not exclusive with trascendence
my point not being that, but being that neither of them exists, thus being irrelevant
>but its complex systems are not
ah yes, star clusters are not being formed, transformed, galaxies, system of planets, etc.
>we are not removed off those changes, and we most of the time do not impact them. we only interact with the complex systems we can understand, and not on all of them.
??
you literally say that transformation is good but man better because uhh it is faster, you fucking retard

>what if god had a gun to your head?
The Problem of Evil has never been debunked.

>>22488204
book of job debunked it

Are people actually defending Pascal's wager? It's the weakest pro-religion argument of all time.

>>22486426
>Except decades wasted

can you explain just why in the hell that will matter from an atheists perspective when youre dead in the dirt and your consciousness ceases to exist? those years wont be wasted and your ego wont be bruised by embarrassment, it will be gone, and nothing you did or didn't do in those years will be consequential in any way

>>22485591
It shows a conniving, gambling self interest that is the antithesis of what religion is supposed to be. The same logic could get you to rape a child if the odds were in your favour. It’s fucking disgusting and pascal was a coping faggot who lost faith and had to resort to reason. True faith rolls a billion sided dice and doesn’t even take the time to see the outcome

>>22489719
>pascal was a coping faggot who lost faith and had to resort to reason
i thought pascals big problem was that he became religious

>>22489703
Are you slightly retarded mayhaps?
From an atheist perspective, earthy life is all there is, so it makes sense to wish for a life of intellectual fulfillment and emotional contentedness instead of taking a 'gamble' of worshipping a jewish priceling in hopes that will teleport you to gardens of sex and heroin after you die. Pascals wager is a horrible deal since it asks for a lot (the one life you get spent on worship of dogma) for very little (an infinitesimally tiny chance of eternal life in paradise, granted you luck into the correct denomination of the thousands of jewish cults). You may as well walk into the nearest casino and bet all your life savings on zero, logically your chances of success are just as good.

>>22489874
No wonder atheists are depressed, suicidal, and have no kids.

>>22486455
But it's simply pointing out that the theist errs in thinking that, de facto, the God that exists prefers belief rather than honest disbelief. Pascal does not actually advance himself in any way whatsoever, he simply demonstrates his own bias and trots it out as if it's already true. It's basically a circular argument.

>>22487071
>(You)

its borderline nonsense because it can be applied to anything: its better that u believe in an invisible trans unicorn with 6 heads and 7 dicks, and worship him by sucking as much feminine penis as possible while you're on earth, because if u don't, your afterlife will be an eternity of waiting in line at the dmv surrounded by smelly old people.
etc
etc
etc

>>22489874
You are not intelligent by mixing two criticisms as if they were perfectly ordered in one. First, you don’t need to become a monk, we all know it. The average religious person live as normally as the average atheist. What harm going once a week for one hour to the Church would it cause? Or praying for 2 minutes at night? Second, the Wager does not lead you to a determinate religion, and a specific denomination.

>>22486426
Stop ringing that word faith because it looks different for everyone

>>22489919
You’re dumb and mentally ill. What a lot.

>>22489919
What if you don't fear God

>>22489919
I assert an afterlife because my bread basket says so.

>>22490347
>The average religious person live as normally as the average atheist.
Only christians because their religion is an unfunny joke. The adherents of all other major religions have to alter their lifestyle massively.
>Second, the Wager does not lead you to a determinate religion, and a specific denomination
Then the wager makes no sense. There's zero reason to assume that a non-specific, undetermined, vague "God" of cosmos wants or cares if I believe in him. The wager only makes sense if we determine that belief leads to eternal life, such as the claims made by all major dogmas.

>>22490397
Believing in a personal God. That’s it, nothing more. Again, it is not even a radical change in one’s life, but simple change of perspective. Believers have always strugged with their belief, and that’s why atheists will always miss the whole point of it, they have no idea what it means. There is another sense that Pascal may be suggesting, that atheists are already condemned since not even by reason they can change their disposition, they’ll just resort to loopholes for not changing their disposition.

>>22490479
Define personal God. Is God unique for every individual? Am I so special that I have a Creator assigned to my persona? Is it like JoJo's Bizarre Adventure?

>>22489874
>it makes sense to wish for a life of intellectual fulfillment and emotional contentedness instead of taking a 'gamble' of worshipping a jewish priceling
It really doesn't. Why should an Atheist go after pleasure?
>it muh feels nice
So? Why is feeling nice better compared to not feeling anything or feeling bad?

>>22490351
not a counter argument

The entire debate around God is major hubris on either side. Imagine thinking that with all of the shit going on out there some dude cares whether or not you mixed materials in your clothes. Imagine thinking that, if there is a place of judgement, that you won't be judged based on your performance.

Pascals wager is retarded because it presents a binary outcome: heaven or nothing. How can we presume that these are the defacto options? Because people thought really hard about it? Just retarded. You're telling me that an afterlife can't consist of tiers that don't rely on me believing in the specific set of things that may or may not be something I'm even aware of in my life?

The entire premise for this discussion is really dumb.

"Ok. Before we begin we need to agree that there are only two possible outcomes."

Who does this?

>>22490715
>Why is feeling nice better compared to not feeling anything or feeling bad?
You are indeed retarded.

>>22490813
Behold, the mighty I'm Disinterested But Y'All Dumbs party has arrived

>>22485591
It's an argument against pure rationalism or scepticism for faith, not an argument for God as such.

>>22487112
>"thou" means "I"

>>22487071
Lol

>>22489719
this guy gets it

atheist cope and seethe thread
http://www.necessarybeing.com/
posting this to farm more cope and seethe

If I had to make a blind guess about what god wants, I would have to imagine it has something to do with killing things and shooting my goo in every woman I see. Wouldn't this be the safest way to please god given this seems to be the way of his creation?

>>22485591
I've always felt that the wager is theologically lazy and overly rationalized. Belief in God requires faith, so we are told. Faith is not a mere bet, performed out of effete self-interest. The wagerer hardly truly believes in God, if their decision is simply over whether they stand to gain or lose by betting. No spiritual development is gained by the act, and if the wager is all he does, then he may well stand to lose in the end either way supposing whatever God exists judges their faith wanting and their gambling sinful.

>>22486443
be baptized into Catholic Church, receive sacraments, believe Christ is your savior and go to confession. Simple as. If you can't do that then you sealed your own fate.

>>22489874
>>22490347
>First, you don’t need to become a monk, we all know it. The average religious person live as normally as the average atheist.
I've found that most Atheists come from Billy-bob's schizophrenic death cult church, so they unironically internalize the idea that you have to dedicate every second to god or go into insta-hell even as they call themselves Atheists.

>>22486455
>>22491895
Again, these Atheists are protestants at heart still. That is why they still daydream about you Catholics burning despite supposedly not believing in the religion.

>>22486426
following religious guidelines would be beneficial for one's life

imagine not grokking that we are already in hell, we don't need to wait to die. pascal is a midwit

>>22492634
Self awareness certainly isn't the strong suit of the religious types.

>Tfw instinctively understood and believed in Pascal’s Wager as a five year old, a full decade before hearing about Pascal or his wager

See you in hell, from heaven, godless heathens.

>>22485591
Its quite ridiculous. As if God can be tricked like that.

>>22493408
>Believing in god because you have nothing to lose is “tricking him”
Lel

>>22490843
>i-it's self-evident
No, it's not. Justify it. Why should I, or anyone, prefer pleasure instead of pain or feeling nothing?

>>22485591
I am god. If you don’t paypal me $1,000 you’ll burn in hell for eternity. That’s not very much money compared to suffering until the end of time. So, even if you think it’s unlikely that I’m god, you should send me your cash to avoid the risk of burning forever.

>>22487193
Why is permanence better than impermanence?

>>22487427
>self replicating information is slow in creating complexity, sentience is faster, can create more types of information, and has proven to be informationally complex enough to transform other types of complex systems, ergo more complex than non sentient systems
By this logic, a comatose person who will never wake up has less moral value than a sophisticated enough computer program, since the computer goes brrrrrr and the comatose person doesn’t.

>>22488650
God’s argument in Job is that morality is irrelevant to faith, and you should do what he says cause he’s big and strong. That’s just a way of accepting the “God is evil” horn of the dilemma.

>>22486443
Christianity and Islam I believe are the only major religions that send you to Hell for worshipping the wrong God. And Islam has a doctrine I believe whereby fellow Abrahamics just end up going to the rough part of Heaven instead of outright Hell. So, yes, Christianity is still your best bet.

>>22485591
I hate you proselyte suckers, all of you. I know you lie. Don't talk of things we cannot see

>>22486455
>>22487079
>>does he decide good and evil?
>then its subjective
Point being?

>>22492629
Fr it's quite sad. You can always tell which atheists had the fundie upbringing by how vitriolic they are about faith and religion in general.

>>22489719
>It shows a conniving, gambling self interest that is the antithesis of what religion is supposed to be. The same logic could get you to rape a child if the odds were in your favour.
Based

>>22489874
are YOU retarded? youve missed the point. it doesnt matter if "earthly life is all there is", that doesnt add value to how you spend your time when you are dead and your consciousness is banished to oblivion and the heat death of the universe and blah blah blah. no amount of perceived value will change the fact that it does not matter.

>>22485591
An interesting fact and irony was that Pascal was a big gambler so through his own sin he was able to conjure up a pretty powerful dilemma for atheists to consider for generations.

>>22495339
Eh, he just simplified a complex question (what is God) so much he could apply game theory to it.

>>22496269
Here's the table by the way. The problem is that it assumes the Abrahamic god.

>>22495339
>>22496269
>>22496283
It smuggles in presuppositions. It assumes that if God exists, he will reward your belief no matter the reason for that belief. It operates on the assumption that life is a big test by God to see if you pick the right belief and then assumes God will reward you. It also simplifies all religions into a binary Yes/No. I mean, seriously, just look at Christianity itself, so many different sects have rigid beliefs that delineate those who are saved and those who have gone astray. But the most important thing is this: it frames God as a scummy used car salesman who will take the most cynical, selfish motivation as long as you are willing to submit yourself. Just imagine this, under Pascal's logic, a total sinner who hates God and doesn't even believe in him can be saved just so long as he makes the bet because he has nothing to lose, whereas the conscientious atheist who lives morally but simply can't bring himself to believe in the concept put forward by people regarding God gets punished. The wager itself is enough reason not to respect any God willing to accept it.

>>22487079
Subjectivity in the mind of God is objectivity, for the mind of God is reality.