/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12295765]

How do atheists deal with Pascal’s Penseés?

[Anonymous No.12295769]

They put their hands on their ears and pretend it was never written

[Anonymous No.12295780]

>>12295765
this was a favourite of Bolaño's.

[Anonymous No.12295824]

>>12295765
Read this as Penises and got immensely disappointed

[Anonymous No.12295830]

>>12295765
They ignore it

[Anonymous No.12295842]

>>12295765
Wasn't there a graph (more like a table) that showed the different fates of each religion or whatever? I remember seeing something like that here.

[Anonymous No.12295857]

>>12295842
What about it? It’s only an ignorant response to the wager. Pascal shows why Christianity is the best religion. If anyone should respond against Pascal with the objection that other religions exist, then he should specifically address Pascal’s comparisons between religions and his defense of Christianity. Just because infinite religions exist doesn’t mean they all have the same, infinitesimal chance of being true.

[Anonymous No.12295862]

didnt we just have this thread

[Anonymous No.12295864]

What do Catholics do when their wives have affairs?

What do they do when their wives become pregnant from rape?

[Anonymous No.12295865]

>>12295862
Jannies deleted the thread

[Anonymous No.12295880]

>>12295765
They take the wager out of context and never read the book

[Anonymous No.12295890]

>>12295864
>What do Catholics do when their wives have affairs?
Divorce or forgiveness.
>What do they do when their wives become pregnant from rape?
Abortion.

Change those "when" for "if". It's not when it happens, it's if it happens at all.

[Anonymous No.12295894]

>>12295765
I'm glad you got rid of the word "reconcile" that you used in the last thread.

[Anonymous No.12295899]

>>12295765
Is this true?

[Anonymous No.12295900]

>>12295880
Alright, how about presenting it "in context" so we no longer have to languish in the wasteland of ignorance.

[Anonymous No.12295902]

>>12295894
I wasn’t that guy btw. I’m glad the jannies deleted that thread

[Anonymous No.12295909]

[Anonymous No.12295911]

>>12295890
>Divorce
You obviously never posted in the thread where they guy got cucked on /christian/. Holy crap was that a travesty.

[Anonymous No.12295913]

>>12295900
>how about presenting it "in context" so we no longer have to languish in the wasteland of ignorance.
It’s called Penseés. You should read it some time

[Anonymous No.12295927]

>>12295911
/christian/ posters? On my /lit/? Raus.

[Anonymous No.12295930]

>>12295913
retard. if you can't recapitulate something without reverting to "you gotta read the entire book to understand" you are either bullshitting or have no actual understanding yourself.

This is why the whole "atheists take it out of context" is a meme because no one who says this can provide the proper context. it's just the alibi that they cough up to soothe themselves into the false security of having "refuted" the criticism.

[Anonymous No.12295932]

>>12295765
>implying 14 year olds are aware of its existence

[Anonymous No.12295933]

Reminder that literally every criticism of Pascal's Wager is directly addressed by Pascal in Pensées

[Anonymous No.12295949]

>>12295890
>Divorce or abortion
>Catholic

[Anonymous No.12295954]

>>12295949
>having affairs
>Catholic
Same logic could be applied, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12295985]

>>12295864
Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

[Anonymous No.12295996]

>>12295985
Found the Jehovah's Witness

[Anonymous No.12295998]

>>12295930
>This is why the whole "atheists take it out of context" is a meme
It’s not a meme because you people never read Penseés. It’s really pathetic. Every time you try to criticize the wager, anyone who’s read Penseés will show you why you’re taking it out of context. What do you want next? For us to summarize the whole book? The wager only takes up 3 pages. It’s not even the best part of the book in my opinion. By refusing to read it, you only prove the notion that atheists want to ignore its existence

[Anonymous No.12296007]

>>12295996
Why do you say that?

[Anonymous No.12296027]

>>12295765
I don't pienso about it

[Anonymous No.12296042]

>>12295899
Yes but the galaxybrain God is significantly more nuanced

[Anonymous No.12296053]

>>12296007
They're practically the only Christians that know about and uphold that scripture.

[« ƸЖƷ » No.12296069]

I found it to be a very challenging text :)
Very edifying, might change my mind about God not existing, but not sure yet.

[Anonymous No.12296071]

>>12296069
Your welcome :)

[Anonymous No.12296077]

>>12295954
Except you're advising divorce for the husband, while in the case of adultery it's just the wife sinning. Retard.

[Anonymous No.12296091]

>>12296077
Both are anti-Catholic actions. Both are fucking sins. That's the point. Many Catholic men would divorce those whores even if it's forbidden, and many actually do it in my country.

[Anonymous No.12296151]

No response from atheists? Huh, they always complain about Christianposting on /lit/ but can’t seem to respond to Penseés.

[Anonymous No.12296175]

>>12295998
(Not that anon)
It is mainly the christians who are taking the wager out of context. The table that shows how the wager works used to be posted very frequently, without any sort of context. Eventually people responded with the "expanded wager" table often enough that no christfag wants to post the original anymore, now you're just screaming "read the whole boook!!!".

I did leaf through the book, and came across some disjointed sophistry on various matters, and an occasional intelligent observation, rather than any refutations and proofs of Christianity being the only correct religion. Maybe the proofs can be found there somewhere, but it's pretty clear that you're just trying to intimidate people (gotta read the whole damn book!) rather than point them towards the actual arguments (which are all marked with numbers and can be found easily in the text if needed).

[Anonymous No.12296178]

>>12296151
see >>12295930
also, note the response (>>12295998) which is nothing but a reiteration of what he was called out on.

if the wager only takes up three pages, why can't you morons just post them? I am still challenging anyone here to provide the "context" of the wager that prevents it from being the retardation that it gets called out for.

[Anonymous No.12296182]

>>12296175
>I did leaf through the book
no one cares then

[Anonymous No.12296209]

>>12296178
The context of the wager is the whole book. Part of the wager is believing in God because it benefits us. Pascal sort builds up on this concept in the sections leading up to the wager. After the wager, most of the book is defending Christianity. Why do I have to post the wager? It can be found online easily in PDF form

[Anonymous No.12296213]

>>12296182
damn

[Anonymous No.12296239]

>>12295765
>dude, if we don't believe in our all-loving god he'll send us to hell forever lol...
>i-i think we better believe in him, h-haha

Truly a profound theology. Buddhism? Nah. Hinduism? Nah. Self-realization? Sounds satanic. I'll just have what the Christians are having. Worship the all-loving God, or else be sent to Hell for eternity. Profound beyond words. Apply this same logic to any human figure, and you'd have nothing less than the very devil on your hands, but apply it to God, and it is somehow rationalized into normalcy.

You realize that one not believing in Abrahamic conceptions of God doesn't automatically class oneself as an atheist, right? Other religions have theism too, and an individual is also capable of believing in a God whose description exists in no known religions. Your post is just another example of how small people's worldviews become when they subscribe to an Abrahamic religion, that you either believe in the Abrahamic God or you are entirely an athiest.

[Anonymous No.12296253]

>>12295909
do something with his face

[Anonymous No.12296257]

>>12296239
Self-improvement has no objective basis for anything. What are you self-improving for? What is Nirvana? What wisdom is attained?

[Anonymous No.12296258]

@12296239
worst attempt at a bait post i have ever seen

[Anonymous No.12296270]

>>12295765
haha

[Anonymous No.12296273]

>>12295909
I fucking did this exact same thing but better and posted it late in the thread, go ahead and save it

[Anonymous No.12296285]

It's just the ultimate checkmate move. You don't belive in God, you burn for eternity. It's either waste your life or waste your eternity. Comparing eternity to 80 years, you only have to lose. Even if God's not real, if you belived in him you dodged the biggest bullet.

[Anonymous No.12296300]

>>12295765
This is how: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyYPPTcoCiU

[Anonymous No.12296309]

How do Christian's recosine with Roko's basilisk?

[Anonymous No.12296404]

>>12296300
His arguments are dealt with in Pensées.

[Anonymous No.12296412]

>>12295765
They cry.

[Anonymous No.12296413]

>>12295765
>pascal's wager
>infinite amount of possibilities
>christcucks think there's a big difference between betting on one of them and betting on none of them
also how is betting on none of them not a bet? what if there's a god that only rewards atheists? pascal's wager is for massive brainlets

[Anonymous No.12296421]

>>12296413
>singling out the wager as predicted ITT
>not knowing that Pascal defended Christianity in detail, explaining why it is a perfect religion in Penseés

[Anonymous No.12296435]

>>12296257
The true nature of reality as a Dream entirely your own, and yourself as not having ever been any distinct individual which was separate from anything. To even reach this stage, you must become entirely cleansed of any imperfections, becoming more or less a perfectly loving, good, truthful and otherwise ideal being, free of any other negativities. If you believe in God, and that this God desires people to be moral, then it should be clear that achieving this state would only satisfy said God.

[Anonymous No.12296439]

>>12296413
what an absolute pleb kek

[Anonymous No.12296467]

>>12296285
Do you really consider it moral to even be worshipping such a being? A being who is supposedly all-loving, yet tortures you for eternity because you didn't worship him? Imagine the same but with a human king, would you worship them? Or even consider them to be a great being? But when it comes to God, you think it's fair? If you're fine with the concept of God punishing unbelievers for eternity, then what differs this God from a demon? If you're a good person, and you get sent to hell forever, what difference is it whether it was God who sent you there, or the Devil?

[Anonymous No.12296488]

>>12296467
If you reject God, it’s no surprise if your soul won’t go near Him in the afterlife, and you suffer as a result.

[Anonymous No.12296494]

>>12296488
Go watch Jerry Falwell, grandma

[Anonymous No.12296503]

>>12296467
Ideas about hell and eternal punishment stem from Catholic dogma which it inherited from pagan religion. It's hard to make a strong case for what you understand to be hell from a reading of the scripture.

[Anonymous No.12296609]

>Atheists ought to say what is perfectly evident; now it is not perfectly evident that the soul is material.
it is perfectly evident that there is no soul, blaise.

[Anonymous No.12296627]

>>12296609
Holy...

[Anonymous No.12296645]

>>12296609
"soul" has always signified the animating "life-force" until Descartes fucked it all up and turned into some "ghost inhabiting a machine", you goddamn anglophone. you most certainly have an individuated life-force.

[Anonymous No.12296652]

>>12296467
I throw all of these accusations out of the window when we're talking about eternal punishment. I don't consider God all loving since there is a lot of bullshit in the bible. I think of God more as a bully. But a bully that is good to you if you're good to Him. He's a bully because he likes to make everyone suffer. Good christians suffer in this life and atheist in the other. He's also a bully that you can easily befriend and you both become bullies and look down on the souls that weren't as fortunate to make the right choice. You are born and from there it's all independence. You have been warned about hell your whole life and you didn't belive because you didn't mind your business and tried to intervine in how God works.

[Anonymous No.12296667]

>>12296652
Using your train of thought, a parent is a bully to his child for scolding him?

[Anonymous No.12296670]

>>12295998
>Every time you try to criticize the wager, anyone who’s read Penseés will show you why you’re taking it out of context.
So you actually haven't read it. Very subtle confession there, well done.

[Anonymous No.12296707]

>>12295765
Read the objections to Pascal's wager on Standford encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

[Anonymous No.12296724]

>>12296670
What are you on about? I was speaking generally. I have read the book. I don’t claim that someone like me is only capable of explaining why atheists take the wager out of context. A simple reading of Penseés makes it extremely clear that the wager is usually taken out of context.

[Anonymous No.12296730]

>>12296667
No, because the parent doesn't want his child to suffer.

[Anonymous No.12296745]

>>12296730
Yes he does. The child punched a kid in school, the father doesn't let him play video games for a week. He wants him to suffer for a week and atone for his sins

[Anonymous No.12296765]

>>12296745
The kid need to learn and be disciplined to be a better human and more humble. But it's not the same with God. We have nothing to learn from the suffering God gives us. Not blaming God that he invented suffering, just that he invented the suffering of learning, which makes no sense to me considering there's nothing to learn. Unlike grounding a child for not acting humanly. Considering God puts us in suffering intentionally makes me think he likes it.

[Anonymous No.12296783]

>>12296765
Suffering has a purpose. Not only does it help create a universe that’s meaningful, consistent, and logical, but it helps God understand what happens when you’re not God. We are God’s mirrors

[Anonymous No.12296785]

>>12296765
I know you wont like but but unironically God acts in mysterious ways

[Anonymous No.12296789]

>>12296745
Fucking hell, I didn't even want to mean that the parent wouldn't want it, just that he wouldn't enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.12296807]

>>12296783
So what is the purpose of suffering? I thought it was about learning, but what is there to learn?

[Anonymous No.12296826]

>>12296783
>Suffering has a purpose. Not only does it help create a universe that’s meaningful, consistent, and logical
I sure do bet those african kids born with AIDS learned a lot about meaning and logic!

[Anonymous No.12296828]

>>12296807
What’s the purpose of anything? It’s all the movement toward Truth. A world without suffering and evil is illogical and God has no reason to create such a world. God did not evolve from monkeys like we did, so He doesn’t view everything as pleasure vs. suffering. It’s pretty arrogant for us to not only think we can understand perfectly what motivates God to create such a world but that we can also create a better world.

[Anonymous No.12296836]

>>12296826
The universe wasn’t made for African kids. It was made for God. God has his own concerns to deal with. Make a better universe if you think you can.

[Anonymous No.12296862]

>>12296828
There is no purpose or underlying reason for being. Why is it so hard to accept this and live doing what you want to do? I do mostly what I want to and it doesn't really bothers me if we have an afterlife or god watching us.

[Anonymous No.12296877]

>>12296862
>There is no purpose or underlying reason for being. Why is it so hard to accept this
Because I don’t see how it’s true.
>I do mostly what I want to
So do I.

[Anonymous No.12296880]

>>12296862
Why are you trying to reason with a mentally ill person?

[Anonymous No.12296911]

>>12296652
You're just fearful is all it is. And your fear causes you to rationalize doctrines in a manner which you never would in any other area of education. Don't do this, anon. Don't let fear rule you. Think for yourself, and show bravery. Do not let external institutions indoctrinate you in any capacity. Many have broken out of what you are presently bogged in.

[Anonymous No.12296918]

>>12296828
>what's the purpose of anything?
I would actually be VERY happy to live in a world with no suffering or purpose. Don't you think it's selfish of God not letting us be happy?

[Anonymous No.12296919]

>>12296836
>God has his own concerns to deal with
What? God, an omnipotent, omniscient being has to "deal with his concerns"???

>Make a better universe if you think you can
I'll assume you want me to imagine one because no being can create a universe (God, as far as I know, doesn't exist, so he isn't a being) - the same as this one, but without children who have never consciously done any harm to anyone being born with AIDS. How's that?

[Anonymous No.12296920]

>>12296877
It's pure madness to discuss metaphysical problems, there's just no point because we will never know if it's true.

[Anonymous No.12296946]

>>12296920
That’s why faith exists, anon. You can believe life has no purpose if you want but why would you want to? If we really have no way of knowing, then why not have faith in what makes your life meaningful?

[Anonymous No.12296989]

>>12295765
There's no limit to the amount of supernatural people you can conjure up so the probability of your betting on the right one is zero (one divided by ever increasing number approaches zero). After we've established that the expected payoff for all bets on the supernatural become zero (any payoff times zero equals zero). Atheism's payoff is also zero and thus it doesn't matter what you bet on, but as an atheist all other things equal you at least have a 50/50 shot at being correct (the probability of p and not-p is 1, p being some supernatural option being the case and atheism being the denial of supernaturalism).

[Anonymous No.12297034]

>>12296175
It's not even a long book, it's not some intimidating task asking someone to read the whole thing if they actually want to understand Pascal's arguments

[Anonymous No.12297045]

why do people focus on pascal out of all the apologists?

[Anonymous No.12297047]

>>12296789
Why do you think God enjoys punishing non-believers?

[Anonymous No.12297055]

>>12296989
What a beautifully retarded argument

[Anonymous No.12297059]

>>12297055
It's almost as retarded as you.

[Anonymous No.12297103]

>>12296989
That assumes equal probability for each God one can imagine. It seems trivial that some are less probable (e.g. a concept of God that logically contradicts itself), and therefore some a more probable than others, so every individual probability don't necessarily tend towards zero.

[Anonymous No.12297119]

>>12297103
What? Didn’t you know that the God that spoke through me, his prophet, to command people to worship my shit is just as likely as the Christian God? This is simply math, but you “Christians” wouldn’t “know” anything about “that” woul”d” y”o””u”

[Anonymous No.12297131]

>>12295765
They can't, this is why all real intellectuals are theistic and usually Christian.

[Anonymous No.12297133]

>>12297119
I can't tell whether you're trying to make fun of atheists or theists, but I can tell you're schizo.

[Anonymous No.12297153]

>>12297103
By just assuming logical consistency (we're just waving our hands here after all) you guarantee nonzero (logical) probability and the gods are equally likely because the entire point of the wager is that "reason can decide nothing here" (there's no evidence one way or the other, if there was we wouldn't need to gamble).

[Anonymous No.12297175]

>>12297153
You’re taking words out of context. Pascal says we can’t reason if God exists or not. That we take on faith. But we can look at a belief system and see if it’s irrational or not. He thinks Christianity is the perfect religion, and gives reasons why, so your infinite religions defense means nothing unless you can refute his defense of Christianity

[Anonymous No.12297204]

>>12297175
I don't need to because his defense is ass and there's still an infinity of mutually exclusive possibilities in the probability space which makes it the case that Christianity's (which denomination? there's like 10000) expected value is zero unless you're helping yourself to an arbitrary probability between 0 and 1, destroying the whole point of the wager and going down the full retard path of natural theology.

[Anonymous No.12297220]

>>12297204
>I don't need to because his defense is ass
Excellent argument.

[Anonymous No.12297225]

>>12297220
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.12297249]

>>12297153
>reason can decide nothing here
It's not clear whether that would apply to every possible idea of God, since the wager in itself assumes the Christian God and that's what Pascal was referring to.Then again, unless one could show that every other idea of God has p=0, one has multiple possible Gods with non-zero probability. It would be extremely difficult to show that every single non-Christian God has absolutely no positive probability of being true AND Pascal does say that rationality cannot settle God's existence (so as far as Pascal's argument gies, p of Christian God is simply non-zero and positive). Therefore we have multiple non-zero p Gods, the p of at least one (Christian) is unknown according to Pascal. Therefore it is not clear which God one should believe in and the wager fails as a reason to believe in the Christian God.

[Anonymous No.12297281]

>>12297249
Actually read about why Pascal chooses the Christian God. It’s difficult to say that a given religion has zero probability, but if infinite religions have an infinitesimal chance of being true, then Christianity can still have a large probability of being true. The distribution doesn’t have to be equal, you keep ignoring this. It’s not even possible to name thousands of religions let alone argue that they are as likely as Christianity.

[Anonymous No.12297328]

>>12297281
You don't need to name when you can just pump them out algorithmically. For example Gods 1-n are just the omnimax God except that the first one has testicles with 1 inch of hair on them, second one has two inches etc. Ta dah, there are as many gods as there are natural numbers and all of them have a nonzero probability of existing because they're not logically inconsistent. If you claim your god is more likely than others you're saying you have positive, probability raising evidence for its existence in which case the whole Wager is moot and you're doing natural theology.

[Anonymous No.12297342]

>>12297328
God doesn’t have testicles because he’s not a biological organism. Embarrassing

[Anonymous No.12297354]

>>12295765
I legit had a dream today where Pascal fucked me in the ass. I'm not kidding. I've never even read him.

[Anonymous No.12297356]

>>12297342
They're non-biological magic testicles.

[Anonymous No.12297486]

>>12297354
As someone who has determined that God communicates messages to people in their dreams I think this is a sign to get reading

[Anonymous No.12297505]

>>12296645
>"life-force"
wtf do you even mean tho?

[Anonymous No.12297599]

>>12297328
>except that the first one has testicles with 1 inch of hair on them, second one has two inches etc.

Don't ever post that dumb shit again.

[Anonymous No.12297661]

>>12297599
can a man not worship a god with two inches of pubic hair?

[Anonymous No.12297723]

>>12297505
Animating principle

>The semantic expansion of ‘soul’ in the sixth and fifth centuries is reflected in the philosophical writings of the period. For instance, once it becomes natural to speak of soul as what distinguishes the animate from the inanimate, rather than as something that is restricted to humans, it becomes clear that the domain of ensouled things is not limited to animals, but includes plants as well.
>...
>The prevalence of the idea that the soul is bodily explains the absence of problems about the relation between soul and body. Soul and body were not thought to be radically different in kind; their difference seemed just to consist in a difference in degree of properties such as fineness and mobility
(from: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#2))

[Anonymous No.12297737]

>>12297723
and what is it exactly that differentiates the "animate" from the "inanimate"?

will the answer be in this glorified wikipedia article?

[Anonymous No.12297751]

>>12297737
is this bait? how have you never heard the words "inanimate object" before?

are you an edgy 14 year old kid from a low income family trying to subsidize his monetary and mental poverty with the delusion of being a grandiose "literary" type?

[Anonymous No.12297776]

>>12297751
i've heard the word used, but i'm questioning what exactly it means. what is the precise feature, or set of features which differintiate the "animate" from the "inanimate"?

[Anonymous No.12297778]

>>12296270
Now run him through the faceapp smile filter

[Anonymous No.12297813]

>>12297776
Read the article, that is exactly what it is about. That is what the term "soul" meant. It is the criterion that distinguishes between inanimate and animate.

[Anonymous No.12297824]

>>12297778

[Anonymous No.12298511]

you know for a board dedicated to literature and philosophy the atheists here have really juvenile and reddit-tier arguments against christianity
4chan is really devoid of any intelligence, even on the "smart" boards

[Anonymous No.12298548]

>>12298511
christianity is juvenile to start with
there's no fucking god. get over it

[Anonymous No.12298558]

>>12297824
amazing

[Anonymous No.12298680]

>>12298548
Cringe

[Anonymous No.12298800]

>>12298548
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.12298905]

checkmate

[Anonymous No.12298906]

>>12298905
yeah, it literally has >>12296707

[Anonymous No.12298911]

>>12296421
>heh atheists think Pascal didn’t ALSO prove the christian god is real
>but of course we resort to faith as the end and ground of all things
>you stoopid atheists are just closed minded middlebrow stooges you know nothing of the rationalist rigor theism provides which Pascal exemplifies and which i have no intention of sharing ever because i know they’ll tear his arguments to shreds and we’ll be left with the idiotic wager

[Anonymous No.12299047]

>>12298911
>heh atheists think Pascal didn’t ALSO prove the christian god is real
Doubt

[Anonymous No.12299241]

>>12295900
Nice summary by MacIntyre in "God Philosophy Universities"

[Anonymous No.12299535]

why isnt that title translated?

[Anonymous No.12299595]

>>12295765
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/reverse_pascals_wager/

like so

[Anonymous No.12299639]

>>12296645
>Lifeforce

Nah buddy. You have a poor understanding of physiology.

[Anonymous No.12299656]

>>12295765
>implying i will die

Checkmate christians

[Anonymous No.12299837]

>>12295765
If god is just then he will prefer me to be intellectually honest and not just believe in him because of a retarded gambling argument from the 17th century. And if there is a god and he is unjust then I don't want to follow him anyway and I might as well stay intellectually honest and remain agnostic until sufficient evidence is provided.