Christianity

[iambiguous]

Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me A Mercedes-Benz?
Martin Tyrrell on lotteries, religion and Pascal’s Wager.

Every week, throughout the United Kingdom, millions of people take part in a lottery. Their chances of winning are not small. They are non-existent. No matter how long or how often they participate; no matter their dedication; no matter how much or how little they invest, all will end up with exactly the same thing. Nowt. Nuffink. Diddly squat.

Yes, with lotteries of all kind -- think Powerball -- the chances of winning are indeed really, really, really small. But not nonexistent. And while the chances that a God, the God, your God [the spiritual equivalent of Powerball] does in fact exist seem very, very, very small as well, that's not out of the question either.

And what's the money you'll acquire winning a state lottery compared to eternal salvation?

So, sure, if I could come up with a way to think myself into making that wager, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Same with a leap of leap.

This lottery is called religion. It exists in numerous, generally incompatible categories and sub-categories. Some of these differ radically, some subtly but all of them tease their adherents with the chance of winning a blissful eternity provided that they first make some personal sacrifice here and now.

That's always basically been my own point here regarding Christianity and other religions. There are lots and lots of conflicting renditions of this One True Path, but with stakes that go far, far beyond money in the bank why would it surprise anyone that millions upon millions still take that leap or place that wager.

Then the part I bring to the attention of those like IC here over and again...

But which religion, if any, should we follow? And how great a sacrifice should be made in following it? Make the wrong choice and the consequences are catastrophic.

Hell itself, for instance.

Ditto if we are insufficiently sacrificial. And if, as all evidence suggests, there is no ‘prize’ to begin with, then any level of adherence, however small and half-hearted will have been a waste. Therein lies the lottery.

Right, this will certainly convince the faithful to chuck God and settle for an essentially meaningless and purposeless life that ends in oblivion.

[iambiguous]

Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me A Mercedes-Benz?
Martin Tyrrell on lotteries, religion and Pascal’s Wager.

That choosing religious belief over nonbelief is something of a gamble was not lost on the Jansenist writer and mathematician Blaise Pascal. ‘Pascal’s Wager’ sets out an elegant, if somewhat pat, case for belief. The non-believer, Pascal says, stakes his entire life on the chance that religion is false; the believer, on the possibility that it is true.

And, again, in contrast to the Powerball lottery, you're gambling with your very soul itself. And for all of eternity. So, sure, there's a case for betting on God. I know I would if I could.

But "somehow" I'd have to first think myself into believing that it's a sincere wager...a wager that God Himself would recognize as sincere. In other words, not the sort of wager that revolves instead around something in the vicinity of "hey, what have I got lose, He might exist...so, okay, I'll just place a bet on that. Maybe I can fool Him?"

And then the part where you are betting on the right God?

Imagine, then, that it is in fact the case that religion is false. There is no afterlife, no eternity, no day of reckoning. Once is all we get. If that is so, then the religious believer has lost and the nonbeliever has won. But what has this nonbeliever won? In the long run when, as John Maynard Keynes observed, we are all dead, both the believer and the non-believer will be dead. And though the non-believer will have won, he will not be dead in some superior kind of way. His fate will be identical to that of the believer who has lost. He will not even get to crow in satisfaction.

It's all considerably more problematic than that, in my view. Yes, death is the bottom line for all of us. But even if there is no God, that doesn't mean believing that there is doesn't sustain a comforting and consoling psychological balm. And that's what counts. The religious folks here may in all sincerity believe that they have access to objective morality, immortality and salvation. And that soothes them in a way that atheists simply don't have access to.

Now imagine that religious belief is true. If it is, then, in the long-run, the believer will be rewarded handsomely for his faith and dedication while the non-believer will commence an eternity of unimaginable torment. Such is the consequence of losing with an atheism ticket in the lottery of religion. Back religion, counsels Pascal, then even if you lose you will be no worse off than an atheist who has won. And if you win, you will be a whole lot better off than an atheist who has not. Put this way, the odds seem stacked against atheism. But are they really?

Yes, yes, yes...this is a particular calculation that one can make: "Fuck it, what have I got to lose?"

But that's how I differentiate a leap of faith from a wager. They both acknowledge doubt and uncertainty in regard to accepting that God does exist. But a wager seems more in the way of a bet on God. As though God was a racehorse or a greyhound.

[LuckyR]

Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me A Mercedes-Benz?
Martin Tyrrell on lotteries, religion and Pascal’s Wager.

That choosing religious belief over nonbelief is something of a gamble was not lost on the Jansenist writer and mathematician Blaise Pascal. ‘Pascal’s Wager’ sets out an elegant, if somewhat pat, case for belief. The non-believer, Pascal says, stakes his entire life on the chance that religion is false; the believer, on the possibility that it is true.

And, again, in contrast to the Powerball lottery, you're gambling with your very soul itself. And for all of eternity. So, sure, there's a case for betting on God. I know I would if I could.

But "somehow" I'd have to first think myself into believing that it's a sincere wager...a wager that God Himself would recognize as sincere. In other words, not the sort of wager that revolves instead around something in the vicinity of "hey, what have I got lose, He might exist...so, okay, I'll just place a bet on that. Maybe I can fool Him?"

And then the part where you are betting on the right God?

Imagine, then, that it is in fact the case that religion is false. There is no afterlife, no eternity, no day of reckoning. Once is all we get. If that is so, then the religious believer has lost and the nonbeliever has won. But what has this nonbeliever won? In the long run when, as John Maynard Keynes observed, we are all dead, both the believer and the non-believer will be dead. And though the non-believer will have won, he will not be dead in some superior kind of way. His fate will be identical to that of the believer who has lost. He will not even get to crow in satisfaction.

It's all considerably more problematic than that, in my view. Yes, death is the bottom line for all of us. But even if there is no God, that doesn't mean believing that there is doesn't sustain a comforting and consoling psychological balm. And that's what counts. The religious folks here may in all sincerity believe that they have access to objective morality, immortality and salvation. And that soothes them in a way that atheists simply don't have access to.

Now imagine that religious belief is true. If it is, then, in the long-run, the believer will be rewarded handsomely for his faith and dedication while the non-believer will commence an eternity of unimaginable torment. Such is the consequence of losing with an atheism ticket in the lottery of religion. Back religion, counsels Pascal, then even if you lose you will be no worse off than an atheist who has won. And if you win, you will be a whole lot better off than an atheist who has not. Put this way, the odds seem stacked against atheism. But are they really?

Yes, yes, yes...this is a particular calculation that one can make: "Fuck it, what have I got to lose?"

But that's how I differentiate a leap of faith from a wager. They both acknowledge doubt and uncertainty in regard to accepting that God does exist. But a wager seems more in the way of a bet on God. As though God was a racehorse or a greyhound.

Uummm... No.

Let's say there are gods and A religion is correct. Well there are over 2000 religions so the chance that Atheist is correct is 0/2000 or zero percent. The chance that a believer in a religion is correct is 1/2000+ or less than 0.05 of 1%, essentially more similar than different.

[Gary Childress]

Oh Lord, Won’t You Buy Me A Mercedes-Benz?
Martin Tyrrell on lotteries, religion and Pascal’s Wager.

That choosing religious belief over nonbelief is something of a gamble was not lost on the Jansenist writer and mathematician Blaise Pascal. ‘Pascal’s Wager’ sets out an elegant, if somewhat pat, case for belief. The non-believer, Pascal says, stakes his entire life on the chance that religion is false; the believer, on the possibility that it is true.

And, again, in contrast to the Powerball lottery, you're gambling with your very soul itself. And for all of eternity. So, sure, there's a case for betting on God. I know I would if I could.

But "somehow" I'd have to first think myself into believing that it's a sincere wager...a wager that God Himself would recognize as sincere. In other words, not the sort of wager that revolves instead around something in the vicinity of "hey, what have I got lose, He might exist...so, okay, I'll just place a bet on that. Maybe I can fool Him?"

And then the part where you are betting on the right God?

Imagine, then, that it is in fact the case that religion is false. There is no afterlife, no eternity, no day of reckoning. Once is all we get. If that is so, then the religious believer has lost and the nonbeliever has won. But what has this nonbeliever won? In the long run when, as John Maynard Keynes observed, we are all dead, both the believer and the non-believer will be dead. And though the non-believer will have won, he will not be dead in some superior kind of way. His fate will be identical to that of the believer who has lost. He will not even get to crow in satisfaction.

It's all considerably more problematic than that, in my view. Yes, death is the bottom line for all of us. But even if there is no God, that doesn't mean believing that there is doesn't sustain a comforting and consoling psychological balm. And that's what counts. The religious folks here may in all sincerity believe that they have access to objective morality, immortality and salvation. And that soothes them in a way that atheists simply don't have access to.

Now imagine that religious belief is true. If it is, then, in the long-run, the believer will be rewarded handsomely for his faith and dedication while the non-believer will commence an eternity of unimaginable torment. Such is the consequence of losing with an atheism ticket in the lottery of religion. Back religion, counsels Pascal, then even if you lose you will be no worse off than an atheist who has won. And if you win, you will be a whole lot better off than an atheist who has not. Put this way, the odds seem stacked against atheism. But are they really?

Yes, yes, yes...this is a particular calculation that one can make: "Fuck it, what have I got to lose?"

But that's how I differentiate a leap of faith from a wager. They both acknowledge doubt and uncertainty in regard to accepting that God does exist. But a wager seems more in the way of a bet on God. As though God was a racehorse or a greyhound.

Uummm... No.

Let's say there are gods and A religion is correct. Well there are over 2000 religions so the chance that Atheist is correct is 0/2000 or zero percent. The chance that a believer in a religion is correct is 1/2000+ or less than 0.05 of 1%, essentially more similar than different.

Some religions seem to believe that worshipping the wrong God will result in condemnation also. Religion is a Public Relations bonanza. Since no one really knows the matter for sure, spin doctors can cojour any and evey PR device the human mind is capable of in order to sell their product. Religion is a breeding ground for corrupt minds.

[attofishpi]

But that's how I differentiate a leap of faith from a wager. They both acknowledge doubt and uncertainty in regard to accepting that God does exist. But a wager seems more in the way of a bet on God. As though God was a racehorse or a greyhound.

Uummm... No.

Let's say there are gods and A religion is correct. Well there are over 2000 religions so the chance that Atheist is correct is 0/2000 or zero percent. The chance that a believer in a religion is correct is 1/2000+ or less than 0.05 of 1%, essentially more similar than different.

You are confusing 'religion' against the existence of God. We can all agree that the world religions are man made, no rational person on the planet would state that the entirety of at least one of these religions was all by God, so that it is totally accurate.

As I keep saying to people, mans definitions and beliefs about God don't change the nature of the entity that IS God. So to suggest because there are 2000 religions means there are 2000 gods is plain wrong. The God that exists has manifested itself into religions where people within different cultures around the world have certain people through time that have had divine experiences of it. These people have added their perspective of this divine entity to form all the variations of religions and sects that your mention > 2000 exist.

[LuckyR]

But that's how I differentiate a leap of faith from a wager. They both acknowledge doubt and uncertainty in regard to accepting that God does exist. But a wager seems more in the way of a bet on God. As though God was a racehorse or a greyhound.

Uummm... No.

Let's say there are gods and A religion is correct. Well there are over 2000 religions so the chance that Atheist is correct is 0/2000 or zero percent. The chance that a believer in a religion is correct is 1/2000+ or less than 0.05 of 1%, essentially more similar than different.

You are confusing 'religion' against the existence of God. We can all agree that the world religions are man made, no rational person on the planet would state that the entirety of at least one of these religions was all by God, so that it is totally accurate.

As I keep saying to people, mans definitions and beliefs about God don't change the nature of the entity that IS God. So to suggest because there are 2000 religions means there are 2000 gods is plain wrong. The God that exists has manifested itself into religions where people within different cultures around the world have certain people through time that have had divine experiences of it. These people have added their perspective of this divine entity to form all the variations of religions and sects that your mention > 2000 exist.

An interesting (and convenient) opinion. Though religious leaders generally disagree with you. Not that they have the inside track on accurate knowledge (just as you and I do not).

[attofishpi]

Uummm... No.

Let's say there are gods and A religion is correct. Well there are over 2000 religions so the chance that Atheist is correct is 0/2000 or zero percent. The chance that a believer in a religion is correct is 1/2000+ or less than 0.05 of 1%, essentially more similar than different.

You are confusing 'religion' against the existence of God. We can all agree that the world religions are man made, no rational person on the planet would state that the entirety of at least one of these religions was all by God, so that it is totally accurate.

As I keep saying to people, mans definitions and beliefs about God don't change the nature of the entity that IS God. So to suggest because there are 2000 religions means there are 2000 gods is plain wrong. The God that exists has manifested itself into religions where people within different cultures around the world have certain people through time that have had divine experiences of it. These people have added their perspective of this divine entity to form all the variations of religions and sects that your mention > 2000 exist.

An interesting (and convenient) opinion. Though religious leaders generally disagree with you. Not that they have the inside track on accurate knowledge (just as you and I do not).

I'd be surprised if religious leaders would continue to disagree once I made my case, it's a pretty compelling argument. RE the inside track on accurate knowledge, I am certain that I have more accurate knowledge of God than most - I interact with this entity daily, just now this morning in fact. It's ever present, if I was to attempt to describe God to someone such as yourself, agnostic atheist, i'd say think of an AI that runs our entire reality.

www.androcies.com

[LuckyR]

You are confusing 'religion' against the existence of God. We can all agree that the world religions are man made, no rational person on the planet would state that the entirety of at least one of these religions was all by God, so that it is totally accurate.

As I keep saying to people, mans definitions and beliefs about God don't change the nature of the entity that IS God. So to suggest because there are 2000 religions means there are 2000 gods is plain wrong. The God that exists has manifested itself into religions where people within different cultures around the world have certain people through time that have had divine experiences of it. These people have added their perspective of this divine entity to form all the variations of religions and sects that your mention > 2000 exist.

An interesting (and convenient) opinion. Though religious leaders generally disagree with you. Not that they have the inside track on accurate knowledge (just as you and I do not).

I'd be surprised if religious leaders would continue to disagree once I made my case, it's a pretty compelling argument. RE the inside track on accurate knowledge, I am certain that I have more accurate knowledge of God than most - I interact with this entity daily, just now this morning in fact. It's ever present, if I was to attempt to describe God to someone such as yourself, agnostic atheist, i'd say think of an AI that runs our entire reality.

www.androcies.com

Oh I agree that you are certain, since that is a very common opinion.

[attofishpi]

Oh I agree that you are certain, since that is a very common opinion.

Well there arn't many people around claiming to have been made aware of its existence (by IT God), nor with evidence of its existence.

[Flannel Jesus]

Oh I agree that you are certain, since that is a very common opinion.

Well there arn't many people around claiming to have been made aware of its existence (by IT God), nor with evidence of its existence.

There in fact are. There's a hell of a lot of people who say things like that.

[attofishpi]

Oh I agree that you are certain, since that is a very common opinion.

Well there arn't many people around claiming to have been made aware of its existence (by IT God), nor with evidence of its existence.

There in fact are. There's a hell of a lot of people who say things like that.

Not in the circles I operate, and even on this website - nah not much. On the internet Aliens are the cool thing, not God.

[Flannel Jesus]

When I lived in America I was tripping over people saying they didn't just believe in God, they KNEW God existed and could speak with him and had evidence. I'm glad the country I live in now is more sane

[attofishpi]

When I lived in America I was tripping over people saying they didn't just believe in God, they KNEW God existed and could speak with him and had evidence. I'm glad the country I live in now is more sane

Well of course anyone can speak to God, its when it replies that things are more interesting. Yes, America is full of religious wackjobs so you are probably correct, I wonder what they would consider as evidence.

[Flannel Jesus]

"he walked on water! See, it says right here in this book"

... uhh, you know anybody can write anything in a book, right?

"Yeah but the Bible was historical. If someone was there and knew he didn't walk on water, they would have told the publishers"

... You think in the year 30 ad they had better protections against the spread of misinformation than we do today? In a time when the literacy rate was probably sub-1%?

"Listen, all serious historians agree that Jesus was resurrected"

... that's not the case.

"Look at this argument from Daniel Craig, he proves it"

.... that's not what that says.

That's usually their "evidence".

[Flannel Jesus]

Or alternatively, I've seen people cite as evidence YouTube videos showing faith healers lengthening people's legs and shit. You know, that standard silly-boy stuff.