/lit/ - Literature

>>13388052

You clearly didn't look up Atheist's Wager

Pascal didn’t actually make any points he just wanted people to believe in his specific religion.
He has just as much problems with say a Hindu as he does an atheist

/lit/ is for the discussion of literature, specifically books (fiction & non-fiction), short stories, poetry, creative writing, etc. If you want to discuss history, religion, or the humanities, go to /his/. If you want to discuss politics, go to /pol/. Philosophical discussion can go on either /lit/ or /his/, but those discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can refer.

>>13388052
Paying lip service is worthless.

If you don't believe, you don't believe. All religions that promise an afterlife promise eternal damnation for non believers.

>>13388333
Not really
Christianity is the main one that has God make people suffer for eternity for not reaching belief in time
In Islam some scholars say if you had even a shred of faith, your stay in hell won't be forever

>>13388333
Literally just Christianity and Islam to a lesser extent.
Not even judism says this, you have our jewed the Jew

>>13388340
>>13388347
Why is Christianity so merciless?

>>13388354
It’s not. Blame the churches need for power

>>13388354
literally because they spent centuries being picked on, and then when that ended, had wars to fight

>>13388347
Jesus said everyone will eventually reach heaven, but for some reason that will forever be alien to me Christians decide to ignore Jesus and focus their faith on the most violent and cruel parts of the religion.
Fear is a strong emotion

They become devout Dodekatheists. The rockhard logic of Pascal will make even the tippiest of fedoras turn to the light of Zeus.

>>13388357
so is eternal hell not scriptural? that is my main gripe with Christianity. The defences of it are often lacking eg "o-only eternal punishments are real punishments!"
>>13388363
Where did he say this?

>>13388365
The old gods are returning.
I hope you are all ready.

>>13388052
by becoming "spiritual" and just dipping their toe into every religion just in case. They'll also buy a bunch of crystals, bee pollen, and a hybrid.

>>13388365
>Dodekatheists
an atheist with 12 sides?

>>13388368
Read the apocalypse of peter

>>13388052
By making up some absurd counterpoint that you could be praying to the wrong God or that God rewards violence, dishonesty, and selfishness.

>>13388052

>>13388381
>apocalypse of peter
>listed as a new testament work in the older surving NT list
>states the Lord will have pity on those in hell due to the prayers of those in heaven and save them, but that this must remain secret lest people sin more in life

Honestly that sounds much more like the act of a merciful, benevolent God. Eternal hell seems like the will of a tyranical barbarian

>>13388052
Because there's a chance that you chose the wrong god, and every time you go to church you make the real god madder and madder.

>>13388052
>We feel that a faith […] adopted wilfully after such a mechanical calculation would lack the inner soul of faith’s reality; and if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward.
William James, The Will to Believe

>If you're acting altruistic because you think God will reward you for it, you're an egoist and you won't be rewarded for it. If you love God because you think you will be rewarded for it, all you love is your sinful self and your so-called faith is in vain.
Paraphrasis of the problem of altruism and self-denial stated by some medieval Christian mystics.

It's actually very simple to counteract it. His wager is:

>if your life was on the line would you say god exists or god does not exist.

Indeed, this seems like a really hard question. We cannot be sure that god does not exist, can we? Are we sure enough that we would bet our lives on it?

However let's just tweak it so it more accurately represents what he is asking us:

>if your life was on the line would you say that the Christian god exists, that a donkey talked, that joshua stopped the earth revolving around the sun, that holy men rose from the dead in Israel after jesus died, that Israel wrestled with god for hours, that Mary conceived jesus without having sex, that Moses split the sea, that god came down in the form of a burning bush, etc. or would you say that those things are false

Almost everybody except a few crazy fanatics would say False.

>>13388567
>his wager is something so lets change the wager to something else entirely
back to r*ddit

>>13388375
No, that's a dodeca'atheist

>>13388587
>implying he’s wrong.
Still thought Pascal’s wager has morphed into the first question which is still something that athiests have no good response too

>>13388587
I'm sorry if you couldn't follow along. Pascal's wager isn't asking you to believe in pure theism/deism. His whole point is that you might go to hell if god exists so even if it's unlikely that he does you shouldn't take the odds.
Now my wager is the exact same but instead of hell I am telling you I am going to kill you if you get the wrong answer. So which would you choose, the Christian god exists and all the ridiculous miracles in the Bible actually happened, or the Christian god does not exist. Remember, you'll die if you get the wrong answer.

>>13388617
>his whole point is something, so let me ask you to choose between 2 things that he didnt ask
brainlet

>>13388617
You're missing the whole point of it. It's basically about risk and reward. You take a low risk (follow God's commandments and thereby restrict your earthly life) for a possibly high reward (be eternaly rewarded for it). In your version, risk and reward are equal.

Pascal would have bought as much lottery tickets as possible for sure.

>>13388675
It's high risk though. What if I'm angering another god by worshipping a false one?

>>13388052
They dont OP, because they think they are above it.

>>13388699
Just like you think you're above Pascal's wager for every religion except the one you believe in.

>"Religious hucksterism of the cheapest, vulgarest, nastiest kind it's possible to imagine. He says, 'What have you got to lose? I've got a good offer for you. Come into my used car lot. Come on baby, just lie a little, and you never know!' No, don't talk to me like that, and don't call it piety when you do, or be prepared to have piety despised”

>>13388686
You have to regard it from a hermeneutical point of view. The correctness of the Christian faith was pretty much unquestionable in the society Pascal lived and he carelessly presupposed it. Heathen religions (which were all others) were considered as wrong by definition.

The whole argument is stupid and one of the worse things Pascal ever uttered. It's prejudiced (see your argument) and even from a Christian point of view it's self-contradictory (see: >>13388519 )

>>13388757
Let me guess, Christopher Hitchens?

>>13388757
I normally don't like Christopher Hitchens, but this is actually great.

>>13388052
generally by saying, "fuck off pascal, you're an idiot"
/lit/ - literature, now you can fuck off too

>>13388403
So it makes more sense to believe than not to believe. But which religion should we follow? Let us first eliminate the religions that we do not want to follow:
>any religion/philosophy that claims wisdom without God cannot be trusted, since man is infinitely ignorant, especially about heavenly things
>any religion that doesn’t promise a good afterlife can be dismissed, since we have no good reason to follow it
>any religion that allows you to follow another path and still benefit can be dismissed, since we can simply choose a religion that is exclusive
>any religion that is dead/extinct can be dismissed, since obviously that God does not care about our worship of him. This does not necessarily mean that the most popular religion is true, however.
>any religion that claims it’s inspired by God, but does not give sufficient reason to believe this, such as through prophecy or miracles, can be dismissed
>any religion that is polytheistic, having no “monotheistic” God as laid out in various rational arguments, can be dismissed, since such a religion does not get its wisdom from the only source that matters. Indeed, these gods could very well be demons.

I could probably add a few more general criteria, but that is enough for now. What religions are we left with to seriously consider? Christianity, for sure. Islam and Judaism, maybe. Those are the most popular monotheistic religions, accessible to nearly everyone. It doesn’t take much to disprove Islam: just compare Muhammad and Jesus. One performed miracles and fulfilled many prophecies, the other didn’t. One looted and killed and had many sexual relations, the other didn’t. This should be enough. As for Judaism, then it is already unlikely to be true, since Jesus fulfilled OT prophecies and references (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) and odd coincidences such as “Bethlehem” meaning “house of bread.” And in the book of Daniel, it’s said that the messiah will come before the destruction of the second temple (70 A.D.), which is what Jesus did. Furthermore, even if Judaism is true, then as long as a Christian follows the old law as best he can and worships God, then perhaps he will not suffer in the afterlife.

Overall, one can simply say that Christianity is the most difficult religion to have been faked. It also directly addresses our problems (we are sinful) and gives us a remedy through Jesus Christ, as prophesied long ago. We are given this beautiful religion in one of the most influential texts of all time, the Bible, and it’s clear why. What religion can compare? Yes, there are infinite religions, but does that mean they are all equally probable? Ask yourself, if Christianity is true, or X religion is true, then is there any religion X such that this dilemma would cause you trouble and hesitation?

>>13388389
>>13388403
>>13388420
>>13388567
>>13388686
Pascal goes in detail explaining why Christianity is the correct religion. Stop taking the wager out of context.

>>13389020
Yeah, and many other religious apologists go in detail explaining why their religion is true also, citing prophesies and the like. I really doubt he went through the over 4 thousand religions in detail and debunked them all.

>>13389045
Dude trust me
God loves you
You'll burn for eternity if you don't accept the wager dude trust me on this

>>13388052

reminder that Pascal was being sarcastic with the wager and didn't take it at all seriously

>>13388997
A 10-year old could debunk this is this truly the best you have?

>>13389045
>there are infinite religions therefore none of them are most reasonable compared to the rest
Not an excuse. Before it’s “well what religion should we choose huh?” and now that I’ve shown that Pascal anticipated such a question by explaining why Christianity is the perfect religion, you just excuse yourself from all the work of investigating the matter for yourself.

>>13388354
Christianity isn’t merciless. It just punishes those who don’t act in good accordance with the faith/nature/god. But, God must also forgive those who sin and transgress for his own sake.

>>13388340
>God make people suffer for eternity
t. clearly doesn't understand Christian theology
Read the scriptures on hell; Jesus' parable on Lazarus and the rich jew.
The rich jew is in hell without a name, asks his brothers to get more information so that they may avoid hell; asks Lazarus to soothe his pain
Doesn't ask to get out. Asks others to get in.
Lazarus is the only named person in any of Jesus' parables.

>>13389144
>>13389135
Dude just trust me, it's all your choice that you're in hell! God has nothing to do with it dude trust me

>>13389161
God is not an active entity you twat. Living in heaven/hell is a metaphorical device, there is no separate dimension your “spirit” floats away to when you die. If you stray away from god, your society and culture degenerates, decays, is supplanted by stronger invaders. Thereby god punishes those who allow themselves to become weak and feeble against the other life forms.

>>13389161
If you don’t love God, then your soul won’t go near Him in the afterlife. You’ll have nothing to cling to, and you’ll suffer. It’s that simple.

>>13389184
>>13389211
So God is just some /pol/tard's wet dream?
Lmao what a joke of a God

>>13389253
>so God is just x?
Every atheist is so similar it’s almost funny while simultaneously frustrating

>>13389115
>by explaining why Christianity is the perfect religion
That's not how you spell Advaita Vedanta

>>13389266
I'm not an atheist you 4chan obsessed dullard

>>13389266
Don't you see the irony in calling people an NPC when you literally believe you only exist to serve your creator?

>>13389271
>he follows a “religion” that doesn’t get all of its teachings from God but from humans trying to reason about spiritual matters on their own
That’s gonna be a no for me. I’d rather have faith in God, not mere humans.

>>13389291
How is that ironic? Can you explain that for me? Doesn’t everything exist for the Creator? How is glorifying the very ground and source of all existence being an NPC?

>>13389301
fucking lmao
how brainlet can you be?
a fucking shit ton of Christian teaching is based upon human reason

>>13389326
All scripture is God-breathed. The Bible lays out everything necessary for salvation.

>>13389333
oh shit lmao you're a proddie even worse

>>13389337
Not an argument

>>13389344
What makes your reading any more truthful than mine
How do you know what books are Canon or not

>>13389309
god would be your programmer, the commandments are your code and you must act according to it. how is that not being a literal robot?

>>13389366
BZZZT. DUDE. BZZZT. FREE WILL.

>>13389369
Nice thought without thinker my dude. Good bot!

>>13389352
When the Bible says “do x” or “don’t do y” it’s clear of what you should do. This is all that matters.
>>13389366
If God doesn’t exist, then we are “robots” to the laws of physics. Even if I were a robot, then what do I have to complain about if when I follow the commandments I am rewarded with eternal life?

>>13389418
Think about how we treat our own creations, or even other of god's creations.

>>13388403
Althor this is a meme, I agree with it. Pascal's wager implies that there is only one religion in the world to choose from.

>>13389301
Its teachings are based on the Upanishads which are considered to be of divine origin, so you're wrong.

>>13389494
No sufficient evidence to believe in divinity. Christianity has prophecies and miracles.
>>13389459
See
>>13389020

>>13389513
Hinduism has far more prophecies and miracles than Christianity it’s not even funny how many it has.
You sound like you are stuck in circular reasoning and can not be argued with

>>13389513
>Hinduism doesn't have prophecy and miracles
the absolute arrogant christian cope

>>13389517
>>13389520
Name some prophecies then

>>13389535
Kali Yuga

>>13389301
>>13389333
I love it when some random sectarian who doesn't have the slightest clue about the history of Christianity and the genesis of biblical texts boards a thread and thinks he has to missionize everybody with his ignorance.

>>13389552
I hope you know that is nonsense. You'll burn in immense pain forever unless you repent and accept Jesus.
God loves you, yet you reject him.

>>13389567
Not an argument
>>13389552
Oh wow it’s literally nothing
>in this huge stretch of thousands of years people will behave immorally
WOAH there mr Hindu man that’s a bold prediction

>>13389579
You're a protestant
You are in no position to look down at anyone
At least Catholics can argue, you just say "not an argument" like some spastic

>>13389579
Good job not reading the predictions

>>13389593
Yeah I’m not detecting an argument here

>>13388052
Because it could be used to justify anything and would be just as reasonable

>>13388052
This >>13388067

Or posing the opposite wager: if there is no afterlife, you risk squandering the one opportunity you have to enjoy your life to its fullest by obligating yourself to meaningless fiction.

>>13389579
>Not an argument
Of course it's not an argument you pseudo-Christian. You don't have the slightest clue what your talking about, that's all I said.
You don't even know what Christianity is, because it's not the stupid shit your cult leader told you after you handed over your God-given
mind at the reception.

>>13389513
As the other posters have noted Hinduism does have those, each region of India has its own tradition of saints who were recorded as having performed various miraculous feats. That argument can easily be turned against you and Pascal though, I can argue that it's a flaw of Christianity that miracles apparently play such a strong role in its justifications for itself, that because of a lack of genuinely profound spiritual teachings and because of a lack of a serious metaphysical doctrine that people have to rely on alleged miracles to substantiate their faith. Hinduism and especially the Vedanta is world-renowned for the produndity of its metaphysics, too many western authors and intellectuals to count have effusively praised the Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita or the various schools of Hindu philosophy; and they do so because of the appeal of the teachings and ideas themselves without bany consideration for miracles. Schopenhauer praised the Upanishads as the highest wisdom ever produced and predicted that one day they would be the religion of all men. One can quite easily make the argument that a religion or teaching so based on miracles is for the weak-hearted, simple-minded, easily misled etc while a doctrine that brilliant intellectuals are drawn to like a bear to honey is more likely to be true or to have more value. Once you start to seriously study non-western religion and philosophy Pascal's claim that Christianity is the perfect religion or the one most likely to be true becomes completely absurd.

>>13388374
underrated

But I don't think those people made the conscious decision to become multi-faceted yet vapid and devoid of meaning.

I think they were initially vapid and consequently you have companies out there devoted to filling the void.

>>13389610
>if there is no afterlife, you risk squandering the one opportunity you have to enjoy your life to its fullest by obligating yourself to meaningless fiction.
Right, because every Christian is miserable compared to atheists.
>>13389613
You don’t know what Christianity is. See how easy that is?

>>13389615
Not him but you sound educated on matters.
I seek to be good and free from malice.
On a more selfish level I want to feel clarity and peace, and rid myself from what I'd call fogginess so I can better interact with the world (and in turn be more good and free from malice).
Where would I begin with "Eastern" works as a layman? Humbly I am not a complete idiot, yet I lack familiarity with the metaphysical base for the views and the terminology used.
I plan on reading "The Mind Illuminated" and developing meditative practice to aid my goals, where else should I look?
Forgive me for rudely grasping at you for answers

>>13389633
>Right, because every Christian is miserable compared to atheists.
I didn't say that, but some Christians are compared to some atheists.

>>13389615
Unless there is proof of obvious divinity, of something that could not occur from humans alone, then there is no reason to trust it. No matter how reasonable a religion is, we can always use reason to counter that reason. The perfect religion has both reason and faith, principles and miracles. And if we’re comparing Hinduism to Christianity, a good Christian is a good Hindu, but not vice versa. It makes no sense to be a Buddhist, or Hindu, or Muslim, when you can be a Christian and benefit no matter which religion is true.

>>13389642
Any Christian who genuinely believes and thinks of his faith every day and reads the Bible and follows its commandments will be happier than if he were an atheist. I’m much happier than I was as an atheist.

>>13389673
Does that not make you no different from an atheist who chooses atheism because it makes him happier then?

>>13388052
none of them have actually read the Pensees so they just try to debunk the simplified and out-of-context form of the Wager

are we still having this thread holy shit

>>13389735
>bored with a thread
>stays in it

>>13389740
nothing to do with this thread in particular, this exact thread is constantly in the catalog for months/years and Pascal's wager is hardly thought provoking enough to warrant discussion.

>>13389610
If there is no afterlife, then it is meaningless to enjoy anything. What is not eternal is objectively nothing at all.

>>13389716
They can do that if they want, I just think they’re making a bad judgment. A devout Christian never wishes to be an atheist, but some atheists without even a shred of faith wish to be Christian.

>>13389781
Your post won't last forever therefore is meaningless
sorry sweetie
God I hate reasonfags. You'd flay a newborn if some word games justified it.

>>13389659
So you're a fucking coward

>>13389801
Also I’ve never heard of a devout Christian committing suicide, especially an adult

>>13389805
Huh?

>>13389801
>>13389812
Are these supposed to be arguments?
Or are you just prepping for a no true scotsman?

>>13389067
>god prefers people to hedge their bets than to just live honestly
thats a no from me champ

>>13389831
I’m making an empirical observation. Do you disagree? Any time I see a really happy person, they’re usually Christian. Any time I see a devout Christian, they have a positive attitude about life. And then you have all these people complaining about the meaninglessness of life and depression. These people are almost always atheists. I’m not making an argument, that’s just my observation. And it was true for me, because when I was an atheist, life was much worse for me.

>>13389636
The Mind Illuminated is based on Buddhist teachings. I'm more into Hindu philosophy/spirituality but I enjoy studying and reading through the texts of all of eastern thought. The Bhagavad-Gita (Easwaran's translation is good for beginners) is a good entry-point to Hindu philosophy. I especially enjoy the literature of the Hindu school Advaita Vedanta, the text below is a good entry point into that school.

https://realization.org/p/ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita/richards.ashtavakra-gita.html

>>13389253
So you don’t believe in a singular point of origin for what we perceive as the universe? Because that is what god is. And from the point of origin things coalesced and have culminated with humans being the furthest manifestation of the original first point of matter.

>>13389885
Yup. God is a circle, whose center is everywhere, whose circumference is found nowhere.

>>13389847
This is the single best argument against Christianity

>>13389963
WRONG.

Deuteronomy 4:29
>But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
>You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart.
Matthew 7:7-8
>Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Isaiah 55:6-7
>Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Lamentations 3:25
>The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
2 Chronicles 7:14
>If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.
Matthew 5:6
>Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Of course you must begin your journey by first figuring out what it is you should believe in. But this mere “I should believe in x” mentality doesn’t sustain you, and isn’t true belief. That comes through seeking God humbly and honestly. How else would people be converted without first seeing the reason to have faith, while not initially having the necessary faith?

>>13389987
I did this and found Brahman :)
May all sentient beings find peace

>>13390001
thank you blessed anon :)

>>13389848
uncomfortable truth for atheists

>>13388052
You can lay out infinite amount of possible moral systems and models of afterlife, rendering possibility of your chosen pattern having desirable outcome 1/infinity, which is basically 0.

>>13389805
More people would listen to you if you left out the name calling. Just saying.

>>13390144
Ah yes, because the god that demands that everyone worship my excrement is just as likely as the Christian god. It’s not the case that some religions aren’t exclusive and mostly emphasize following the same basic set of morals as other religions. It’s not the case that some religions even explicitly affirm that following other religions is fine. It’s not the case that a religion that no one knows about anymore is less likely than a thriving religion. It’s not the case that any philosophy or religion that claims to have knowledge without divine revelation is probably not true, considering the flaws of human reason. Yes, all religions are equally likely, don’t look into the matter at all, they are all false, but my atheism is perfectly fine, yes, let’s all have gay sex now.

>>13390175
>Yes, all religions are equally likely
That's true, why does it upset you?

>>13390191
Christianity is based. Its hardcore. Our God makes people get tortured for eternity. Can your cuck God say the same?

>>13390191
God Himself appears before you and says that either Christianity is true or the religion that’s based on worshipping and eating my excrement is true. You know that by following one of these, you will get into heaven, but you don’t know which is true? What do you do?

>>13390208
So...
>you've reduced the question into binary choice
>One option is fairly reasonable and complex set of ideals
>The latter option is ridicolous
Both are equally likely, but as a non-German I would choose the cross because it's the more pleasant experience than coprophagia.

>>13390230
>Both are equally likely, but as a non-German I would choose the cross because it's the more pleasant experience than coprophagia.
Ok now I’ll make it harder. Instead of eating my poop, you merely have to say “There is only one God and anon is his prophet” at least once a month. It’s either this religion or Christianity. Since my religion is much easier, then you will rather believe that I am a prophet and you will believe that my religion is just as likely as Christianity?

>>13390243
Binary choice again? No option for "fuck you, lemme do my thing"? Then I would go for you, my prophet, since there are no other demands than simply saying a sentence.

>>13390331
lol