Scribble Hub Forum

You don't place a bet on every horse losing the race.

I personally find Pascal's wager wholly unconvincing

On its own, it makes a lot of assumptions, like the alternative to nothing happening being Hell for example.

Hell being specific to chritianity being correct though Nordic paganism also has Hel. The alternative to nothing happening in the broader sense is one of the religions is correct, and because every religion operates on faith, if you choose to have none, you will suffer the consequences of lacking faith, which is usually going to a bad place after you die.

My religion also COULD be the wrong one, and I would suffer the exact same consequences as you, for not believing in the correct religion but I have FAITH in my creator. The main point here is that religious folks have a better chance at living a good afterlife because they're at least placing a bet on a creator.

Let's say there's a 1% chance the Aztec gods are real. Even folks who believe in that have a 1% greater chance at a better afterlife than an atheist who defaults to 0% no matter which religion may be correct.

There is no benefit to being an atheist; you don't even get bragging rights if you're correct, because if there's no spiritual world, we are all matter and die with our bodies. If atheists are right, we will never know it.

This point feels recooked~. And he will send you to hell anyway for flasehood~.

Also, your premise is existence~.

Do whatever you want; you have free will. You can choose to not even attempt to live a good afterlife on the chance that you're wrong.

I'm just telling you it's a foolish decision with no upside.

That again assumes that the potentially existing God values belief in them and favors those who do. I'm sure we can accept that any possibly conceivable God as well as Gods we can't conceive could exist, then what if that existing God rewards no faith and punishes any other faith?

So you're stance is that our creator is an unfair God that punishes those without warning them of said punishment? In that case we'd have no sense of objective morality because our very creator would be evil. There are actions we instinctually know are wrong which means objective good exists and so our creator must also be good.

This is why I like to say I'm a pastafarian.

All power to you, mon

In other news, every time I break pasta in half an Italian dies, do you think it's a coincidence of something more sinister.

I think your improper cooking of their culture is giving them heart attacks.

@SirContro Nope, that isn't my stance. I'm just saying that if any God could exist, then there's no reason for it to be one that rewards faith and punishes the lack of it. I also don't think "objective moral goodness" necessarily has to come from an objectively good God, or even a personal one

Imagine if instead of crunching on a tater chip before writing in the Death Note, Light snapped a spaghetto in half.

Well if there is no being to dictate what is objectively good than all morality is subjective and that's ludicrous.