by nvrgnbk 9 Replies latest jw friends
The following is the Athiest's Wager, given in response to Pascal's Wager( a flawed appeal to inspire worship):
What I find striking about this approach to life is that it still allows for the possibility of a God.
Before I ever stumbled upon this, this was exactly where I was philosophically post-cult.
Comments please.
Error in case of "if there is God". Because the claim only accepts such God who judges according to authors version of justice, not on God's own terms. So actually "if there is God" is not the case in this case, as it does not allow God who rules over you, but only God who is ruled by you! Nothing new under the Sun!
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind.
I don't have anyone to fondly remember me when I'm gone, so there's no need for me to make the world a better place. I'll just continue to consume, increase my personal debt, and drive my gas guzzling truck. Those who know me will probably remember me as a selfish, cranky bugger.
W
Hitler and Stalin tried to make the world a better place. So does King George the Bush.
Many they left behind are dead, rendered incapable of remembering fondly or otherwise.
~Sue
Technically, this is an "Agnostic's Wager", since an Atheist, by definition, does not entertain the possibility of a god.
An Atheist does not need to make a wager, he/she is happy to live their life as a self-actualized, biological human being, understanding their position within the evolutionary history of this planet and accepting the ephemeral nature of mortality with courage, dignity and bravery. Rather than as whimpering children scampering under the skirt-tails of some ficional sky-daddy.
More information here: Atheist's Wager
Pascal's Wager is a bit disingenuous because it's 'literally hedging your bet with God'. It is a dodgy god that would accept faith on such a premise.
As "God", wouldn't it be more touching to see humans live a peaceful and loving life for no other motivation?
Followers who react based on fear and reward are not fundamentally sincere--that would be Pavlov's wager.
"Error in case of "if there is God"."
Really? Can you prove this statement? I doubt it.
I think this statement is humbly acknowledging that we don't know everything. Unlike most God-believers who have NO doubts that they know everything!
I think this statement is humbly acknowledging that we don't know everything. Unlike most God-believers who have NO doubts that they know everything!
Big ol' ditto here Gregor.
Thanks.
Sue, I appreciate your thoughts.
So does King George the Bush.
Many they left behind are dead, rendered incapable of remembering fondly or otherwise
Surely King George the Bush is not acting as a secular humanist, or a do-no-harm atheist. His path of destruction is, in his manner of thinking, God's will. He fancies himself to be the Greater Cyrus.
kid-A, I respect your comment about this being an agnostic wager as opposed to atheist. I didn't make up the name my friend, just stumbled upon it and it resonated with me. Please accept my apologies as one realist to another.
Peace to all,
Nvr
Nvrgngbck, I agree with that premise. I think any reasonable god would be appalled by Pascals wager! It is truly perverted to me. I think that the fundamental religious laws came out of a desire to order society and make ethical rules that folks were expected to follow for the good of the people. If folks actually WOULD do most of those things, great. But mostly they turn around and use their version of God to manipulate them. Jesus or someone said we should treat others the way we would like to be treated. Thats the rule, the rest is just details then legalism.
