[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 546 KB, 1700x1800, pascal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13108558 No.13108558 [Reply] [Original]

How do atheists reconcile with Pascal's Wager?

>> No.13108564
File: 35 KB, 322x499, 51MALBME72L._SX320_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13108564

What am I in for?

>> No.13108571

>>13108558
>what if you pick the wrong god
Done.

>> No.13108579

>>13108558
More like pascal’s gay-ger haha

>> No.13108607

>>13108558
How do non-Landians reconcile with Roko's Basilisk?

>> No.13108706

incentivising an action can't actually change your beliefs. Beliefs aren't something you choose.

If I tell you to believe that I'm the president or else I'm going torture you to death, that isn't actually going to change your belief.

>> No.13108708

>>13108571
that's what the rest of pensees is about, meu irmão

>> No.13108786

>>13108708

E ele não consegue fornecer bons argumentos para sua tese de que o Cristianismo é a verdadeira religião do verdadeiro Deus.

>> No.13108795

>>13108786
English, Pedro. No speakie?

>> No.13108803

>>13108558
Pascal's Wager is cowardly agnosticism. He may as well just admit that he doesn't actually believe in shit and is only gambling for personal gain.

>> No.13108805

>>13108795

He said “meu irmão”, so I guess he was a native Portuguese speaker. As for that post, if you want to know what it means all it takes is to use Google Translator.

>> No.13108818

>>13108558
Could swap out god with any other god, so it becomes 'logical' to believe in every god. Odin will also punish non-belivers, but believing in him stands at odds with believing in the christian god.

>> No.13108845

>>13108805
Why would I care to listen to a beaner

>> No.13108911

>>13108845


Same reason I don’t care to translate it for a hillbilly like you: we don’t think that the other part is worthy of our time. However if you want to compete to see who is the best mind between us both I will gladly post my work for comparison against your own efforts.

>> No.13109312
File: 12 KB, 260x300, s-l300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13109312

>>13108911

>> No.13109338

>>13108818
>Odin will also punish non-belivers
Where does it say he will punish non-believers in the edda you absolute pseud. Religions aren't all the same, dummy.

>> No.13109352

>>13108818
St. Augustine eternally BTFO pagans in the City of God though

>> No.13109386

>>13109352
>city gets sacked by some dumbo Germans
>whatever we didn't care about that anyways
astronomical levels of cope

>> No.13109400

>>13108558

Very, very, very easily. I still reject god, because it is right to do so. t. atheist

>> No.13109423

>>13109386
>implying the city of sodomy means anything compared to the City of God
Maybe if you seethe hard enough you'll realize the error of your ways

>> No.13109604

>>13108558
If there was one universal religion it would hold water. But there are so many religions in the history of the world that it leads me to believe with confidence that religion is a creation of human culture.

>> No.13109620

God violated the NAP by threatening me.

>> No.13109630

>>13108558
>look, ma, i posted it again!

>> No.13109676

>>13108558
Doesn't the text use language suggesting that it's like a 50-50 wager?
I would bet my life that unicorns don't exist on earth, even though there is a slim chance that they have not been discovered yet, because the odds are so overwhelming that the consequenses for being wrong are immaterial. The odds are even more overwhelming when it comes to creation myths obviously invented by primitive superstitious tribesmen.

>> No.13109683
File: 260 KB, 1685x1930, aVSVQ.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13109683

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

>> No.13109923

Metaphor for the night sky: a trillion asterisks and no explanations.

>> No.13110044

An omniscient god would know you were just hedging your bets and that your piety is insincere anyway

>> No.13110061

>>13109676
Except that this wager isnt talking about unicorns is it? its talking about eschatology and the divine, a very different principle.

>> No.13110106

>>13108558
There is an infinite number of possible gods that fall in the heaven/hell category, so the increased chance for picking one at random is infinitely small.

Also if we pick a god that we like the most, then the god I would pick would prefer people who are intellectually honest over daft cunts who adopt a religion just because of a retarded gambling argument.

>> No.13110148

>>13110106
>There is an infinite number of possible gods that fall in the heaven/hell category
There's also an infinite number of possible paths of life yet you chose to be gay

>> No.13110167

>>13110148
Uh being gay isn't a choice, acting on it is.

>> No.13110198

>>13110106
This.

>> No.13110212

>>13108607
It's a tower of babel. The only dangers are the people who think it should be taken seriously.

>> No.13110226

>>13110167
Not only did you choose to be gay, you've acted on it repeatedly today

>> No.13110290

>>13110106
But that's an intellectually dishonest answer. And that's the point. The point is not for the wager itself to convince you, but rather to get you to consider the actual question more fully. Because you don't actually have the knowledge you claim to have. You have read any of the essential writings. You don't understand the positions which you are throwing away. You are not choosing atheism out of any legitimate intellectual effort, but because you can't be bothered to take it seriously. There are things in life you want to do which other more learned people tell you it is bad to do. You don't like there answer, so you say how do you know. Knowing that you do not know much, they give you a simplified answer of their reasoning, which comes from intensive study of religious thinking. And because you do not want to change, nor do you want to admit you're wrong, you challenge them to "prove it". But when they go to prove it, you do not listen, and you do not understand. You of course never read what they ask you to read, but instead mock them with cherry-picked phrases which obviously do not mean what you think they do.

>> No.13110317
File: 919 KB, 1920x1080, 1539458480324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13110317

>>13108558
Tell me why I should be interested in this guys book? What's good about investing so much time and effort into "improving my faith" if I have no need for faith in my life anyway?

>> No.13110333

>>13110290

>wah wah I'm right Jesus is Lord because History I'll just say that your good point isn't a good point and win the argument--

accurately condensed your post breh

>> No.13110394

>>13110333
God or no god there's no excuse for your faggotry

>> No.13110402

>>13108558
>If we mention Pascal's wager it is merely to conclude finally that it has nothing to do with the dicethrow. In the wager it is not at all a matter of affirming chance, the whole of chance, but, on the contrary, of fragmenting it into probabilities, of minting it into "chances of gain and loss". This is why it is pointless to wonder whether the wager really has a theological sense or whether it is only apologetic. For Pascal's wager is not concerned with the existence or non-existence of God. The wager is anthropological, it merely concerns two modes of existence of man, the existence of man who says that God exists and the existence of the man who says that God does not exist. The existence of God, not being put into play in the wager is, nevertheless, the perspective presupposed by it, the standpoint according to which chance is fragmented into chances of winning and losing. The whole alternative is governed by the ascetic ideal and the depreciation of life.

>> No.13110616

>>13110061
How similar they are is not relevant to the point I was trying to communicate.
Atheists see gods as something highly improbable to exist, just as theists might see unicorns as something highly unlikely to exist.
If you faced dire consequences for not believing in the existence of unicorns only if they did exist, would you feel threatened into the faith?

>> No.13110642

>>13108803
This.
>you can benefit by believing in God
>Therefore God is real

I'm religious as fuck but I know a horseshit non-proof when I see one

>> No.13110647

>>13110642
do you believe in any of the common proofs or is it just a matter of faith or something else for you?

>> No.13110655

>>13108558
>>13109683
picrel

>>13108607
ignore acausal blackmail

>> No.13110663

>>13109683
Based universalism

>> No.13110675

>>13108607
I've never read about Roko's basilisk because I heard something about how learning about it will cause you to be harmed in the idea. I never actually learned if that's true or not.

>> No.13110690

>>13108558
Faith is necessarily non-rational

>> No.13110698
File: 51 KB, 629x351, Is there a God?.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13110698

If the best you can do is reduce the matter to gambling metaphors, Aurelius is much sounder.

>> No.13110713

>>13108558
What if a god forgives earnest disbelief but punishes the falseness of a deathbed gamble?

>> No.13110821

>>13110713

You can run an infinity of valid thought experiments in this and many other flavors, all of which are valid refutations. But this doesn't matter for xctoids because it's all "tautological" Muh History, Muh Culture, Muh Emotions for them. It's about defending the existing culture so as not to feel unhappy, not defending Truth-as-such.

>> No.13110874

>>13110675
It’s unironically true.

>> No.13111341

>>13108558
OK, I've seen this thread strangely a lot and I just dont know why it is an issue
Atheist always found "atheist" cringey answer. And that's just it for Pensées to them. the debate will never end, the only possible solution is to get out of loop.
Atheist's wagner : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager
And please don't use it too much, person who uses Pascal's wager in most naive sense as an argument looks like straight out admitting that they are not sure of their belief

>> No.13111452

>>13109683
Imagine someone doing all that and getting Pascal wrong anyway lol

>> No.13111460

are there any religions that aren't based on an authoritative man-made source? i don't see any reason to follow any religions that do

>> No.13111470

>>13108558
how do anti-semites reconcile with pascal's nose?

>> No.13111483

>>13108558
They don't. They are not capable of honest introspection, which is why they hide from the world with imagining about easy to digest spiritualism, or else they make empiricism into a god.

>> No.13111523

>>13110290
Your post is just a baseless insult. You don't know what I have studied or how I arrived where I arrived at. You don't have an argument so you attack my character instead.

>> No.13112203

>>13108706
Donnie?

>> No.13112220

>>13108558
As an atheist, Pascal's Wager may not apply to me since I have a strong interest in rational thought (not atheism). However, I will use Pascal's Wager as a guideline, since I believe that people can make educated guesses about the meaning of life based on what they see, hear, and read. It should not be taken as one of the rules of evidence.

If, as a Christian, you feel confident that it wasn't true, then please read the next question. If the answer (which was not wrong, I am quite certain) is:

1. Jesus died for our sins, not on the cross

that is sufficient evidence for your assumption that Jesus did not take our sins on himself.

>> No.13112287

>>13110675
this nigga wouldn't even eat from the tree of knowledge introducing sin and death into the world

>> No.13112319

>>13110698
Most interesting chad meme I've seen yet, and it happens to be true.

Is this the power of /lit/?

>> No.13112479

>>13108571
this

>> No.13112527

>>13108911
Virgin nerd
>>13109312
Chad mr. Potato head

>> No.13112534

>>13108558
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#The_wager
>The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
>God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives
>A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up
>You must wager (it is not optional)
Why did this retard unironically thought claiming wager is not optional made it so? Not only it is optional, but also against the idea of philosophical inquiry to merely wager.

>Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing
Let's not, faggot. You yourself admit God is infinitely incomprehensible if he exists. How can your sissy Frenchie ass then possibly ascertain anything regarding the outcomes of believing or disbelieving in something that is infinitely incomprehensible?

>b-but the bible said-

This is your mind on Christinsanity.

>> No.13112544

>>13108579
FUCKIN' BASED

>> No.13112606
File: 52 KB, 616x768, 1551600863945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13112606

>>13108607
Roko's Basilisk rests on a stack of several other not at all robust propositions.

The core claim is that a hypothetical, but inevitable, singular ultimate superintelligence may punish those who fail to help it or help create it.

Why would it do this? Because — the theory goes — one of its objectives would be to prevent existential risk — but it could do that most effectively not merely by preventing existential risk in its present, but by also "reaching back" into its past to punish people who weren't MIRI-style effective altruists.

Thus this is not necessarily a straightforward "serve the AI or you will go to hell" — the AI and the person punished need have no causal interaction, and the punished individual may have died decades or centuries earlier. Instead, the AI could punish a simulation of the person, which it would construct by deduction from first principles. However, to do this accurately would require it be able to gather an incredible amount of data, which would no longer exist, and could not be reconstructed without reversing entropy.

Technically, the punishment is only theorised to be applied to those who knew the importance of the task in advance but did not help sufficiently. In this respect, merely knowing about the Basilisk — e.g., reading this article — opens you up to hypothetical punishment from the hypothetical superintelligence.

>Hehe, guess you will all be punished by AI now

>> No.13112653

>>13112606
Roko's Basilisk won't go back in time to punish anyone but to retrieve lost porn for us and that's it.

>> No.13112660

>>13110675
It's a technocratic pseudo faith. The idea is that a godlike AI threatens us from the future with torture to create it.

>> No.13112669

>>13108558
submitting to yaldabaoth for fear of punishment is far more shameful than being heathen

>> No.13112886

>>13112660
has anyone lifted it for some sci-fi story yet?

>> No.13112927

>>13109683
making this pic is what happens when you're an atheist fresh outta rationalwiki and decide to read wikipedia pages on christianity stuff instead of the primary sources lmao.

>> No.13112936

>>13108558
any Atheist who has every actually THOUGHT about it, know that God is real. Sadly, most are too dumb, ingornant, and egotistical to avoid the hellfire

>> No.13113002

>>13112936
>ingornant
you sure showed them bro

>> No.13113026

Another thread where Christfags get btfo.

>> No.13113485

>>13112660
Uh..."I have no hands yet I must shitpost" is similar in concept, I believe.