/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19460494]

Damn the guy got a good point ngl...

[Anonymous No.19460501]

>live as Christian
>God turns out to be Muslim
>Pascal goes to hell for consuming pork and alcohol

[Anonymous No.19460515]

>>19460501
>God turns out to be muslim
fear me..,.

[Anonymous No.19460516]

>>19460501
And you will be in a ten thousand times deeper circle of hell for being an Atheist and having gay sex

[Anonymous No.19460525]

>>19460494
Refuted
Pascal was a blackpilled Pyrrhonian who just swallowed the faithpill without chewing on it.

[Anonymous No.19460539]

>>19460525
The point of a pill - which is carried to its figurative meaning - is that you take it immediately, without chewing, without reflection.

[Anonymous No.19460540]

>>19460525
so this is the classical atheist coping retort of ''b-but theres no proof it is the abrahamic god!!!!!!''

[Anonymous No.19460548]

>>19460525
>all those pseudoreligions
Only Taoism, Confucianism, Catholicism, Zoroastrism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam are real religions

[Anonymous No.19460564]

>>19460539
As a blackpilled Pyrrhonian Pascal chewed on very grim stuff on which most humanity brush aside like a nothing.

>>19460540
>>19460548
Cope

[Anonymous No.19460582]

>>19460494
What a retard.

[Anonymous No.19460586]

>>19460564
you are the one coping so much you can't take the wager as what it truly conveys: belief in god or not.

[Anonymous No.19460591]

>>19460564
Have you read Pascal's actual arguments in favor of Christianity? They are OK but they're a long way away from Pyrrho

[Anonymous No.19460617]

>>19460586
He was advocating for a Christian God.

>>19460591
Yeah I have read few of them, I only read initial chapters of his book. Pascal showed a really good understanding of Skepticism but as I have said that he took that the faithpill rather than committing to skepticism.

[Anonymous No.19460642]

>>19460617
I'm referring to OP's quote.
The first step of the wager is that belief in God is, in the wager, positive.

[Anonymous No.19460649]

>>19460617
>he took the faithpill rather than committing to skepticism
they are not mutually exclusive at all, rather the opposite.

[Anonymous No.19460676]

>>19460494
This guy's ripping off Pascal's wager

[Anonymous No.19460687]

I don't know who this is but I'm guessing he cons people into buying insurance, cause that's one dumb ass argument.

[Anonymous No.19460727]

>>19460687
Everyone wears a belt when driving, you know, it's better to find out that you have an accident with your belt bucked up. The same with death and God, and the thing is that we all know that we'll all suffer this accident.

[Anonymous No.19460728]

>>19460494
That quote is fake and Pascal never suggested you should become a phony believer to hedge your bets.

[Anonymous No.19460768]

>>19460642
Yes and I am pointing towards the problem of many Gods. Which one is the true?

>>19460649
No my point is in certain chapters he showed really good understanding of Skepticism but yeah he was a devout Christian and you can't reconcile skepticism with faithpill.

[Anonymous No.19460770]

>>19460525
>le meme reddit chart
Refuted. The problem of this chart is that it does not makes a distinction between "eternal damnation" and "punishment in the afterlife", this is actually a very gigantic distinction when we apply decision theory since the first would imply infinite negative utility while the other would be just a finite negative utility.

[Anonymous No.19460790]

>>19460728
What's the origin of Pascal's Wager, then?

[Anonymous No.19460808]

>>19460770
You're still fucked even after doing that

[Anonymous No.19460809]

>>19460768
>Yes and I am pointing towards the problem of many Gods. Which one is the true?
And I’m telling the first step of the wager has nothing to do with discerning between 500 different gods, but establishing FIRST belief in god.
But I guess you’ll just keep repeating yoursef nonstop.

> you can't reconcile skepticism with faithpill
Why? If certain knowledge is impossible then what is left is only faith.

[Anonymous No.19460832]

>>19460808
You don’t know what punishment means, do you?

[Anonymous No.19460859]

>>19460809
>but establishing FIRST belief in god.
Doesn't matter if you do believe or don't believe in that regard.

>If certain knowledge is impossible then what is left is only faith.
I had this "debate" with another anon one week ago and shit doesn't go anywhere and st the end we were calling each other retarded faggots. He gave me the last (You) so I let him win by not replying to tedious circular bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19460869]

>>19460832
I don't even know what afterlife means. I haven't met any dead person who came back and told me the big news.

[Anonymous No.19460874]

The point is not only to posit that belief in God is positive and may result positively whereas there is no positivity in atheistic bet. The point is that even rationally belief in God is not accomplished, it is only through faith. Then follows predestination, faith as Divine Grace, etc.
That is why the atheists here keep coping with the “you gotta know what is the right god between 500 different gods”.

[Anonymous No.19460888]

>>19460869
Pretty honest of you to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. I think we already settled things.

[Anonymous No.19460900]

>>19460888
Checked

You won bro.

[Anonymous No.19460908]

>>19460859
>Doesn't matter if you do believe or don't believe in that regard.
The fact that you need to believe in a certain god doesn’t presuppose that you above all believe in god at all?

> I had this "debate" with another anon one week ago and shit doesn't go anywhere and st the end we were calling each other retarded faggots.
Yes because it is the exact point I’m telling you: everything is faith (substitute it with will to power and perhaps you understand better).

[Anonymous No.19460949]

>>19460494
I guess if a Nigerian scammer were to offer you an infinite amount of money in exchange for a small advance fee you would also fall for it?

[Anonymous No.19461027]

>>19460949
Retard

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19461047]

It is amusing when every second halfwit espouses drivel like this, believing that he/she is saying something profound, and even original; the fact that it is attributed in frame to a famous "intellectual" is even more ridiculous, although not surprising.

[Anonymous No.19461179]

>>19461047
Read this >>19460874

[Anonymous No.19461485]

>>19460808
No, because there's a very small number of religions with eternal damnation.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19461639]

>>19461179

1. You are superficially aggrandizing an innane rumination.

2. Having an ethos that presupposes the possibility that God does not exist pertains to hope, and to everything delusory that it implies & entails, not to faith.

3. Faith, and reason, are mutually complementary; just as the former is not a coping mechanism for ignorance so the latter is not a coping mechanism for godlessness.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19461654]

>>19461639
>1. You are superficially aggrandizing an [inane] rumination.

[Anonymous No.19461697]

Good luck with trying to fool God.

[Anonymous No.19461714]

>>19461697
Fuck, how obvious was this answer yet it never came to my mind.

[Anonymous No.19461886]

>>19461639
That post is clear and you are being obnoxious, as always, on purpose. The rational understanding of God can only be established by/along with Faith. Pascal was a Jansenist.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19462539]

>>19461886
>...and you are being obnoxious, as always, on purpose.

Just because what I wrote is severe, and you do not like it, does not make it obnoxious.


>The rational understanding of God can only be established by/along with Faith. Pascal was a Jansenist.

Ok, but the topic of this thread, which I addressed, is the quote in the original post.

[Anonymous No.19462546]

>>19460494
>I rather live
>I rather
>I rather
>not "I'd rather" or "I would rather"
yeah, no, this cannot be a real quote. Nice try, ESLfag.

[Anonymous No.19462674]

>>19460859
Mark never said that btw

[Anonymous No.19462744]

>>19462539
There is nothing of severe in what you wrote but the classical ignoramus’s missing the point as everyone else in this thread about what the wager of Pascal really conveys beyond the prima facie ‘rational inference’.

> Ok, but the topic of this thread, which I addressed, is the quote in the original post.
Which is part of the Wager, you white-livered esotercist.

[Anonymous No.19462812]

>>19460525
>all those hell rows for Protestantism for religions that are mostly compatible with prot
It might depend on what type but I’m pretty sure that’s not how Protestantism works.

[Anonymous No.19462874]

>Eternal Recurrence has entered the chat
wasting your life in self-delusion is also infinitely bad

[Anonymous No.19462875]

>>19460494
Why do people only bring up Pascal in regards to his wager?

Pansees is a beautiful book and should be discussed in full. I bet most people here would actually relate to him quite a bit. And very introspective. It kinda reduces him just to discuss this one point. He actually talks about a lot of the vagaries of life and its contradictions in an empathetic way to veiwpoints. Very comfy read for any denomination of person.

[Anonymous No.19462910]

>>19462875
the twin infinities bit blew my little mind

[Anonymous No.19462949]

>>19462910
Yah, its pretty great to get yourself out of a malaise when you realize that saying "we are a stupidly small part of the universe" is completely an arbitrary statement of self belittlement as we are also an infinitely big part of a universe of a mite or an atom. It all being relative really draws out the partialities we tend to get into and reminds the audience of the contradictory particulars in life and how we get into particular extremes of thought.

[Anonymous No.19462958]

>>19462910
>>19462949
where can I read it

[Anonymous No.19463022]

>>19462958
It should be free anywhere seeing as its a few hundred years old. I listened to the librivox version.

DESU its mostly more of a journal/log/musing book. He rights a few hundred maxims and short words of wisdom that seems like he penned down day to day. Its not a traditional novel. But the format is very readable and enjoyable.Almost conversational. Helps that he has a great grasp of language. Havent read the Gutenberg version, so the prose might not be the same quality.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm

[Anonymous No.19463033]

>>19463022
Its amazingly quotable as well.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19463071]

>>19462744

If you do not have any arguments, and are only capable of handwaving, and resorting to petty insults, you should abstain from posting.


>Which is part of the Wager...

Beside the fact that "Pascal's wager" in general is spurious —since belief, and hence knowledge of God, and hence faith, are innate—, your reply is non sequiturial; the quote merely encapsulates the superfluity of the enire "wager".


>esotercist

?

[Anonymous No.19463079]

>>19462958
Penguin classics are always best

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19463159]

>"If someone proved to me that Christ is outside the truth, and that in reality the truth were outside of Christ, then I should prefer to remain with Christ rather than with the truth.”

>"I rather live as if God exists to find out that He doesn't than live as if He doesn't exist to find out He does."

>"They don't think it be like it is, but it do."


>Damn the guy got a good point ngl...

[Anonymous No.19463180]

>>19463071
You are the one lacking in any positive argumentation here. You missed the point of the quote by assuming Pascal's point to be prima facie ''an ethos that presupposes the possibility that God does not exist'', that is, you fell for the rational trap Pascal himself denounces.

>"Pascal's wager" in general is spurious —since belief, and hence knowledge of God, and hence faith, are innate.
This is his point, dum dum.

I can only understand such a lack insofar as you have no idea about who Pascal was.

[Anonymous No.19463195]

>>19463159
>quoting Dostoyevsky, excising part of the Wager as if it stood on its own without the whole idea of the Wager

Wow, you are not only dumb but dishonest too.

[Anonymous No.19463239]

>>19463180
To be fair, most people don't realize that Pascal's Wager is, as Pascal initially uses it, just a tool to defend performative Christianity while believing in Double Predestination. It's not actually meant to compare atheism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Voodo, etc.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19463300]

>>19463180
>You missed the point of the quote by assuming Pascal's point to be prima facie ''an ethos that presupposes the possibility that God does not exist''

Wow, where have I done that?


>>19463195

Quod vide:

>>19462539
>Ok, but the topic of this thread, which I addressed, is the quote in the original post.

>Beside the fact that "Pascal's wager" in general is spurious —since belief, and hence knowledge of God, and hence faith, are innate—, your reply is non sequiturial; the quote merely encapsulates the superfluity of the enire "wager".

Id est: the superfluity of the entire "wager" is contextually encapsulated in the quote in the original post.


>This is his point...

Evidently it was not sharp enough, much like the rest of his "Jansenism"/"Cryptoprotestantism".

[Anonymous No.19463317]

>>19460790
you should read the whole section that the wager thing comes from, there's more to it than that. i don't have a copy around me these days so i can't go into much detail, but it's not just a game theory argument like people think

[Anonymous No.19463352]

>>19463317
>>19460790
it was literally just posted here
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_III
might as well connect it to op.>>19460494
Best to start at beginning of section three, but I think it gets going at last paragraph of page 55

[Anonymous No.19463391]

>>19463239
Yes, I agree. And that practicality perhaps advance Hume's ideas about the nature and origin of beliefs, people's not acting from reason, this is what Faith implies (not—only—intellectual conformation).

>>19463300
See
>>19463317
>>19463352

Too callous for being penetrated.

[Anonymous No.19463472]

>>19463033
yes, these days I feel like I'm gonna be flooding this forum with his quotes. He's an extremely brilliant author, seriously if had to chose a few authors from all the history of literature one of them is Pascal for sure.

[Anonymous No.19463499]

>>19463472
Very true, one day I would like to learn french and read it in its native tounge. even through translation it flows very well (Though to be fair, english and French are not the most distant of languages so a lot of stuff was probably pretty easy to get across)

I know that it is usually considered one of the great cornerstones of French prose writing.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19463619]

>>19463391
>See

?


>...people's not acting from reason, this is what Faith implies (not—only—intellectual conformation).

Contrarily: faith implies reason; faith is the sumerience of reason; faith without reason entails delusion, which explains your irrational tendency to aggrandize inane drivel that panders to sensibility.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19463649]

>>19463391
>>19463619

Also: reason is antithetical to "intellectual conformation" —regardless of whatever you mean by that—; reason is affirmative, not conformative.

[Anonymous No.19463656]

>>19460564
>Cope
after you

[Anonymous No.19463850]

>>19463619
>>19463649
Reason is barbarous. Whenever it gains control and becomes the absolute rule, everything else will become barbarous. This is what Sade esoterically showed in his writings.

>your irrational tendency to aggrandize inane drivel that panders to sensibility.
Non-rational is not the same as irrational, read Otto. Anyway, you still can't understand the point of Pascal's wager.

[N E M O . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.19464115]

>>19463850
>Reason is barbarous.

>Non-rational is not the same as irrational

So, you are even striving to utterly deprive yourself of any trace of reason that you may have left?

Be careful not to get stomped along with the enemy, animalistic "Protestant" heretic.

[Anonymous No.19464140]

>>19460525
>Pascal was (a bunch of bullshit)
you pseuds know that Pascal had a fuckton more to say than just Pascal's wager?

[Anonymous No.19464893]

>>19460525
You are taking the wrong conclusions from this chart.
It tells you that religion was the foundation and the guiding stone of every single civilization. There would be nothing of humanity that would be preserved without the belief in a higher power.
Now what you also have to take from it is that some religions were closer to the truth than others.
Now all of these religions died long ago and were localized to one civilization, and no one can seriously believe in them, only Islam and Christianity who have spread throughout the entire world

[Anonymous No.19465278]

>>19460516
No you won't, you'll burn just as hard.

In fact, if Baal turns out to be the true god, he'll torture all those filthy Yahwists even harder for knocking him off the divine council. Atheists weren't involved so will probably just get a slap on the wrist

[Anonymous No.19465294]

>>19460727
Too bad accidents aren't prevented by membership to a certain specific seatbelt club that makes the only infallible seatbelts in which you never die.

You also realize that with seatbelts, people still die, right? You know how we know this? With empirical evidence. Now, where's the data on how your specific interpretation of your specific denomination of your specific religion does anything other than conning you out of your money?

[Anonymous No.19465303]

>>19461485
A very small number we know of. This doesn't account for all the vengeful deities we don't know of. What if the one true god is one that throws everyone in a fiery pit, just for a laugh?

[Anonymous No.19465308]

>>19460494
How is that a good point? I would rather be positively surprised than disappointed, I really don't see how for him it was the opposite

[Anonymous No.19465363]

When will religitards stop making these threads?

>inb4 bro you are lost without christ, he will show you the way