Yes, well done atheists! Well done!

Yes, well done atheists! Well done!


Other urls found in this thread:




>you're wrong

Should be a bunch of pussy there desu

But this isn't literature related

sage and report

However if the existance of a all knowing, all powerfull and especially all good were to be true, hell would be empty and everyone would go to heaven.

Isn't gambling a sin?

Needs to be expanded to include all other religions, esp. those that have a heaven/hell dichotomy or some sort of afterlife. All religions should be weighed equally as well, since from the perspective of someone who would consider Pascal's Wager useful no information about the probability of any specific religion being true is known. Finally, all future and undiscovered past instances of religion should be included.

except what if you have the 'wrong' belief? same result as atheistic route.


What if God hates us all indiscriminately and there is only Hell?
>mfw spending eternity bragging about all the boipucci to the Christfags burning with me

I'm no Christian but I can tell you that Christians do not believe in an all-powerful God and I don't know where you got that idea.

Isn't the proper answer to abstain, given the multitude of other religions? Not to mention that even if there is a God, there's no guarantee any of the religions got it right.

Looks like the punnet square.

except you cant fake belief and that god doesn't exist is a certainty

Don't you end up in hell anyway if you're just doing it to play the odds?

the secret is to do whatever you want in life and get baptized on your deathbed

>belief + you're right!
become a "perfect being", basically lose all your individuality and live in a metaphysical communism

>belief + you're wrong
waste your life on religious practices and be restrained by religious law

>atheism + you're right
be smug, do what you want, end things peacefully with an eternal slumber

>atheism + you're wrong
accept jesus in the last seconds of your life and you will be spared a lake of fire

does anyone really believe that god would let someone into heaven if they only believed in him to avoid eternal damnation and everlasting pain?

>waste your life on religious practices

For most people it is literally 1 hour 1 day of the week

In any case most religions mainly ask you live life by making good choices and taking a second to do what is right

Ofcourse someone out there believes that

people also believe they were abducted and probed by martians

the majority of religious people know there is much more to the entry of heaven

That's 52 hours or 4 full days and 4 full hours a year, over the average lifespan of 80 some years.
How do they know, assuming there is anything to know/heaven to go to in the first place? By what faculty or line of reasoning?

2 full days*

I was a Christian and you're wrong.

What church do you go to where service only lasts one hour? I've only been to protestant churches and the whole thing takes about two. You're also supposed to pray and read the bible on your own time.

this is more like it

this desu

>he didn't read the wager
It starts as a wager, Pascal says as you go through the spiritual routines and become involved in the Church you stop seeing it as a cost-benefit analysis.
No, it doesn't. What you mentioned is one of the worst philo 101 retorts against pascal. Remember it's a basic cost-benefit analysis. The mistake is assuming that the 'benefit' is just eternal happiness. That's not really the 'benefit', the benefit actually is 'eternal happiness on terms that you agree with in the present' (the time in which you are making the wager). Imagine a god that sends all of his believers to hell and all of his non-believers to heaven (common example used to undermine the wager). When I think of that possibility, it does not provide the same 'benefit' as the Christian God, despite there being both a heaven and hell option. Why? Because I disagree with the sentiment of sending believers to hell. The only way I could experience heaven in that specific possibility is in the event that, my ideals, that part of me that rejects the idea of punishing believers, were to be wiped out. In that case, I wouldn't consider me to be me anymore. Despite being in eternal bliss, this outcome is less than the opposite (believers going to heaven) because the opposite doesn't violate my ideals and keeps my present conception of me intact. You can consider as many possibilities as you'd like but if they conflict with your ideals then it will actually affect the cost-benefit of acting a certain way. By your logic, being a mindless slave hooked up to a computer that gives you mind-altering happiness drugs is as good as genuine happiness. For some of you, I know that wont make a difference.
Don't post about what you don't know

Every Catholic church?
But yes, there is more to it.

No, it's a dumb chart
Being a non-Christian (not necessarily an atheist) is waaaay better than being a christian in the current life

t. ex-christian

This nigga has never read the bible.
I ain't even a Christfag, some of what you are saying is Bogus unless you are very specifically focusing on Roman Catholicism. Very, very specifically. You're not wrong in your answer, you're just wrong in how you conjured it up.

>tfw degenerate and eternal suffering awaits even if I believe and am right

I'm pretty sure anyone who is enough of a jerkoff to try to trick god deserves to go to hell in all of those boxes.

>I am the Alpha and the Omega

kek i've barely set foot in a church in my life but i still know you're wrong


That has nothing to do with the posts you replied to.

And your ideals are irrelevant, you still get punished if one religion is correct and you picked the wrong one.

Doesn't matter. You can't fake faith.

What if God turns out to be VIshnu?


It surprises me how ignorant some people are about Christianity, even actual Christians. Obviously you can't believe in both an omnipotent God and free will, so you clearly have some studying to do.

wiccans are weird

>unless you are very specifically focusing on Roman Catholicism
How would that be 'very specifically' if it's the largest Christian denomination with many subgroups within it? You should assume that one is talking about the Catholic Church unless stated otherwise as it has the longest tradition, discourse, and largest membership.
It's not a matter of what is better FOR you at the current, it is a matter of what is better TO you at the current.
It has everything to do with the posts I replied to. Similar to this user, , who posts the same tired 'many gods' argument. It's a weak argument that doesn't really grasp the 'benefit' in Pascal's cost-benefit analysis. The benefit was never simply going to heaven and the punishment was never simply going to hell. There is a difference between going to heaven for 'good deeds rewarded' and going to heaven for 'bad deeds rewarded' even if you end up in the same place. As I said, it's like the difference between being medicated into a zombie-like state of bliss and actually achieving that on your own terms.