As others have said, Pascal's Wager is stupid. I prefer Marcus Aurelius' version:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
When someone brings up Pascal's wager as a gotcha, they can't handle "which god?" as a response. They tend to stare blankly, with a hint of confusion because they find the question unanswerable. After all, there is only one god, that is their particular interpretation of what the Christian god is.
When you weigh the vast range of things in which it is possible to have faith against testable evidence which is all bot nonexistent, what ever you have faith in is almost certainly wrong as a matter of probablity.
To me there is no evidence for god. There isn't any evidence against god because you can't prove a negative. However, all other religions are fabricated. It's like the Monty Hall problem, only with thousands of doors, instead of three. What is the chance you picked the right one?
To me the fatal flaw is if god were real and could see into your heart of hearts, then he would know you were not motivated by faith. Especially at the last minute.
By Real Catholic you have to mean be in the church of Sspv-Cspv (society of Saint pius the fifth-confraternity society of Saint pius the 5)and follow all the rules, dogma, doctrine, culture from about 1950 before the V2 Satanists took over and not attend ANY OTHER UNAUTHORIZED, or PRE-APPROVED church(by them). So many rules.
He also would have drop-kicked Adams as far as humanly possible because his probability exercise wasn't meant to be a deathbed ripcord. The potential gains of not-Hell were supposed to far outweigh the potential losses of scads of worldly pleasures. You're supposed to give those up BEFORE you know you're dying, and not cynically reap all those wordly pleasures and do all the shitty things you can and then accept Sonny Jeebus at the nth second before you kick on the off-chance that God exists.
As it's been pointed out: if God's omniscient, then he also knows who's sincere and who's just hedging their bets.
It would be - except for the fact that Pascal didn't write "religious conviction," but "false principle of conscience," which is nowhere near the same thing.
The "Pensees" were part of Pascal's polemics against the Jesuits, specificially their notion of the "appeal to conscience." He was a Jansenist, a strict movement of moral reform often called "Calvinism in disguise," but it differed in that Jansenists sought to reform the Church from within. He felt that humans in their natural state are morally flawed and incapable of achieving true virtue or knowing God without divine assistance, and that they're NOT disposed to do what that their conscience spontaneously tells them to do.
Jesuits, OTOH, stressed a "properly formed conscience" will be able to discern God's will, so that people can make free, responsible choices, even when they're in conflict with societal norms. They disgusted Pascal because they basically removed that "conflict" by tolerating transgressions and bending the rules of Catholicism so it wouldn't be at odds with the morality and the code of honor of the French nobility, so that mortal sins like "gallantry" [read: adultery] and dueling weren't condemned. He accused them of moral laxity - by allowing these differing moral opinions, they deliberately played on the consciences of all men solely so they they could continue to retain their great influence over society.
Yes, the news accounts mentioned some recent examples, and many comments I've read elsewhere seem to assume he took a nasty turn with Trump's political ascendancy. But it must have been late 1990s or early 2000s when I came across some remarks about his extremist political views. I didn't want to believe it, so I tracked down the source material, probably his blog. What he said was even worse than the rumors suggested. Ugly rants, gross misogynistic insults, bullying harangues against anyone who disagreed with him. Repulsive, but also sad.
I did dip into his blog a couple of times, it wasn't good, just overweening. He "did his own research" and "proved" tRump was right. I didn't encounter the unhinged shit.
Being that he is the smartest man in the universe (he inserts himself in his own fictional tripe), there was no reason to doubt him.
He ticked off some people with his views, undoubtedly a polarizing figure. That said, some of the most influential individuals in history have been polarizing. Why? Because they aren't afraid to stand firm in their convictions even when those within their hearing reject those convictions. Truth doesn't change based on the number of individuals who believe or adhere to it or who don't believe or adhere to it. It stands immovable. Truth doesn't depend on popularity. It only depends on one thing: the existence of God. And the truth is God exists. And that truth doesn't change regardless of how many individuals disbelieve God's existence. And now you know with certainty, Scott Adams, that God is real and that God is merciful even to non-believers who were only kept from the truth because they knew not where to find. Now, in that eternal world, you are having the glorious opportunity to learn the true gospel of Jesus Christ and accept it if you choose, Scott.
Polarizing figure: It's a fallacy to believe, "If I speak the truth, people will be offended, therefore if I offend people, I'm speaking the truth."
He wasn't polarizing because he spoke up for what he believed.
You are right, the truth doesn't change based on the number of individuals who believe. That also applies to god.
Let's say your god is real and Scott Adams wakes up in heaven and meets god. God, who can see into your heart of hearts knows that Scott declared belief because of the calculation in Pascal's Wager. He also know Scott waited until the end to make that calculation because it was in his best interest. God would also know that Scott never had faith, not even at the end. Let him into heaven? I think not.
There is no evidence god exists, and no way to prove god doesn't exist. A lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, but is sure does indicate something. What it does take is only one piece of irrefutable evidence. That's it. What we do know is every single other god is a fabrication of the mind. All of them. How is your god any different?
God knows everything about Scott Adams. He knows his heart (or heart of hearts as you put it) perfectly. After Scott learns the gospel of Jesus Christ (as I referred to in my foregoing comment) in the place he is now, he has the opportunity to accept it. God is more merciful and forgiving than we can comprehend. It's up to us to accept or reject. I'm happy for Scott that he has that opportunity now.
I didn't realize these would post from newest to oldest, otherwise I'd have taken this in the opposite direction.
> "I'm happy for Scott that he has that opportunity now."
Again, this is after death (the event, not the hot sauce). There's not takesy-backsies at that point.
Scott was a narcissist. He inserted himself into his crappy fiction as the smartest guy in the universe by divine appointment as god's representative.
You can like Scott, that's fine, your choice. But I suspect your reaction has more to do with his fake "conversion." He didn't convert, he hedged his bet to curry favor with god. I understand the power of being validated by a prominent person. And if you admired him before, that only enhances the effect, because wanting to not be wrong is often more powerful than admitting you didn't make the best choice. A choice that is often shaped by your upbringing and culture than, as people often fool themselves into thinking, came to it on your own. I was there. I know. I asked questions, being completely unaware of how powerfully exposure can influence what we think and believe. I made a choice based more on "this is what I'm supposed to do" rather than it being what I wanted.
Anyway, thanks for responding, I hope you actually read everything to the end and it provokes questions. Questioning isn't bad, it helps you own your choices rather than passively accepting things and thinking you made a choice. Of course, it's important to know what to ask and how to ask and who to critically analyze what you believe, think and are told. Only the fearful and the ignorant don't question. Also, avoid anything that can't be questioned.
That choice is made before death, not after. And if you get to heaven, it's pretty much a given that people will accept.
Though, given all the rejection of vaccines, a round earth, and and science one doesn't like, I can actually see some christian nationalists not accepting because forgiveness and mercy are "woke." So, there might be a purpose to having a hell after all.
> " God is more merciful and forgiving than we can comprehend."
I can comprehend a lot. And when I'm shown more, I expand my comprehension. That's how knowledge works.
More specifically, I'm not sure how eternal damnation, burning in the pits of hell is merciful or forgiving. But if we get to learn the gospel in heaven, then mercy and forgiveness aren't really necessary.
> "After Scott learns the gospel of Jesus Christ (as I referred to in my foregoing comment) in the place he is now, he has the opportunity to accept it."
This is a new one on me. What you are describing is literally the ending of The Good Place. It's a do over. Death is the deadline. Going to heaven and learning the gospel is too late. At this point, Pascal's Wager combined with this is like plastering on an "I Voted" sticker, then voting after the election because you didn't like the result. It's too late. There's no "do over."
If being taught the gospel in heaven was a thing, then what would be the point of an earthly gospel? An early start? This turns hell into a scare tactic, it wouldn't actually be a form of punishment. There would be not point at all to anything. People live, they die, they go to heaven, the accept what they see, they get in. It is actually a much better version of christianity than what is practiced today.
I appreciate that you at least converse, unlike the other christian trolls that drop in seeking to wrack up martyrdom point.
I'll break down your reply into sections.
> "God knows everything about Scott Adams. He knows his heart (or heart of hearts as you put it) perfectly."
That's my point. Pascal's Wager isn't the big win christians think it is. I know, I heard it several times when I went to church. Like everyone else, I never questioned it.
Pascal's Wager isn't proof of living a good life, nor evidence for god. It's a bet. Anyone who resorts to Pascal's Wager to justify "becoming" christian isn't operating from faith, they're hedging their bets to get into heaven in case they're wrong.
God would know this since he can see into your heart of hearts (something often said in churches I went to). He knows a person playing Pascal's Wager isn't authentic.
What universal truths? The universal truth found in the bible like genocide, slavery, or infanticide! Nowhere does god talk about human rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, nor does it advocate for equality of the sexes, tolerance, or justice!
I enjoyed Dilbert, it was relatable and humorous. Then it grew to be banal and repetitive. I didn't read a lot of his stuff, but what I did read really showed how stupid he was.
I’ll just leave this Jeff Tiedrich quote here: “live your life in such a way that when you die, your obituaries don’t open with how you were such a ginormous racist asshole that you fucked your own career straight into the shitter”
Scott Adams pretty clearly did NOT think things through with this supposed deathbed conversion. Whether he ever heard of Pascal's Wager or not, his indulgence in it tells me that, like too many other believers, believing JUST IN CASE was the hot setup. What he didn't mention was that what he was believing in has no substance, no demonstrable existence, and no means of verification.
In other words, he bought a pig in a poke. How stupid is that? [Answer: pretty stupid!]
Wow, another deathbed conversion. There's nothing cynical or self-serving about that. And if christians out there think that's good enough, then that tells you all you need to know about their religion.
No one‘s conversion of Christianity or any other religion for that matter should be taken seriously.
Religion is a scam. They take your money and promise you things but everything they promise always happens after you’re dead so there’s no consequences for them. A pure scam.
My take on Pascal’s wager is the opposite. If the Christian god is all it’s cracked up to be, and I have lived a good life loving my fellow humans, then it will forgive my lack of worship and accept me into heaven anyway.
White Evangelicals don't want their enemies forgiven and all things reconciled. They want revenge on all of the people who criticized them and they want to watch them writhe in Hell begging for mercy while the white Evangelical smiles and says, "No."
Just saw a Forrest Valkai video where he tore Yahweh a new one for being a dick god. One comment on that video stated that the whole point of punishment is to correct bad behavior, yet with ETERNAL punishment, there is no chance of correction.
So eternal punishment is about nothing other than SADISM.
I think they bring up the wager because they're mad when you don't swallow their bullshit. It's one step short of a direct threat of hell, so by that point they only see punishing their "enemies" and not welcoming their fellow humans.
Just point out to them that you are going to heaven. For what greater hell can there be for atheists than to spend an eternity with Greg Locke, Robert Jeffress, and Mark Driscoll? Then add, and you. 😁😇
CS Lewis tended towards that. Read his Narnia book 'The Last Battle' in which a so-called heathen is accepted by Aslan because of his sincerity and good heart. Still a great shame that such a talented writer abandoned his youthful atheism.
His atheism was pretty thin. From what I can remember, his comments after his conversion simply perpetuated Christian stereotypes of atheism rather than any sense of a lived experience.
If Jesus wants to talk to me he can show up any time he wants and do so. In the meantime, I have little use for those attempting to speak on his behalf. In no small part because they do not speak with anything close to a consistent voice.
Mine is: Since I am an atheist and god created me, then I am an atheist because that is exactly what god wants me to be. So why would god punish me for being exactly what he created me to be?
He wouldn’t punish you for being an atheist. He’d take it in stride and probably think something like: “No biggie. I’ve got your back. No worries. You are great. I love you unconditionally.*
And John, you are absolutely right. God is more forgiving and merciful than anyone on earth can comprehend. Loving others is paramount in this life and is rewarded a hundred fold in the next one. Keep loving and helping others.
I understand your position, and your response to Christian Lyrics reply. But I also think this person is “doing it” right. He didn’t outright tell me anything more than his god will forgive me for lack of worship, that his god does not care about that. I don’t think challenging this type of person is the way forward. Challenge the evangelicals that tell us we are going to hell for failing to worship their god.
He made a claim, I want proof that claim is true! Otherwise don’t make a claim! I challenge any and all religious, if they don’t like it! Too bad, don’t bother me with their religious delusions then!
Whatevs, I just think your energy is better spent on the bigger assholes proselytizing, at least this person wasn’t telling me I had to find Jesus, quite the opposite in fact.
The evidence for God is plentiful. All things denote there is a God. To cite one instance, the planets moving in their regular form witness that there is a Supreme Creator. Whether we accept the evidence or not is the question that really matters.
God is real. He is your Father. You are one of His sons. He loves you more than you can comprehend. I'm not here to try to convince you that He's real or that He loves you. My aim is to share my witness that He is real, that He loves us and that He wants us to return to live with Him after we depart this life. What you do with what I have shared is completely up to you. (I know. Captain Obvious that what you do with what I have shared is completely up to you.) Take care, John.
A imaginary person is not my father, nor my lord or master! You have proven nothing! Got any real evidence, or does Christians not understand what the word evidence means!
Everything denotes there is a Supreme Creator. That's my witness. I'm not here to try to convince you otherwise. I'm sharing my witness that He exists, He loves you, He is your Father in heaven and He wants you to return to Him after you depart this life. What you do with what I have shared is up to you.
What is important is the quality of the evidence. Saying god it real and everything existing proves it isn't really evidence, it's a declaration. It's like walking into court and testifying and the proof is "trust me." That's certainly not the same thing as a god appearing in the sky and giving us commands.
Except it isn't, and no, they don't. If it were plentiful, then it would be factual evidence and you wouldn't need faith.
"Their regular form" is a meaningless phrase and actually proves nothing of the kind, expecially since Pluto's not spherical and its orbit is irregular. And don't try to counter with "it's not a planet," because you'll be even deeper in the shit because that's a human classification, and you now have to explain why your perfect God is turning out fucked-up celestial bodies.
The fact is that you can't prove *any* "Creator" exists, let alone start classifying them as "Supreme."
So, not only did Lil Blaise suckered Adams, he suckered the faithful.
Professional apologists rarely use Pascal, they know how flimsy it is. But the rank and file believers? They are so binary in their thinking that they see the wager as an all or nothing switch. When they bring it up, you just have to say "Which god?" to short circuit their brains.
“In the meantime, keep sharing the Good News with your unbelieving friends and family. Remember that God can use your interest in their salvation to help assure them of His love and interest in them.”
Ignore the thousands and thousands of failures, millions and millions of failures, billions of failures, this one halfhearted cynical success is proof of God.
Adams’ announcement read so sarcastic and cynical, I can’t believe folks believe it, though I didn’t listen to him say it on the podcast, his tone of voice might have come off as sincere so I may be wrong. But even if sincerely spoken, the words he used are so trite and selfish and insincere. “I win”. What is that supposed to mean? What do you win? Who did you beat? What does it matter if you win when you are dead, you’re still dead. And the Christian newspapers actually thinking that Pascal’s Wager is something to be proud of taking. Sure, where’s the risk to Adams? He wasn’t a believer his whole life, so he didn’t waste his life on the belief part, meaning he had no skin in the game by the time he placed his bet. He knew he was dying and he put his chips on the table, like waiting for the roulette ball to stop bouncing before putting it all on red. Oooh, so risky. The whole idea of Pascal’s Wager is not convincing to any thinking person. Let me trick this omniscient, omnipotent entity into letting me into the club without actually doing what he wants me to do. Puh-leeeeeze.
"The basic idea is that if you believe in the Christian God and it turns out atheists are right, oh well, no big deal. You wasted time praying but it’s not the end of the world."
As others have said, Pascal's Wager is stupid. I prefer Marcus Aurelius' version:
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."
- Marcus Aurelius (121-180)
That's great! I go with this one from time to time:
"I try to do good in the world not out of fear for hell or reward of heaven, but because it feels better not to be an asshole."
That’s even better!
Ooh, I love this!
I like that quote, will try to remember it!
His final act was a scam. No surprise there.
Yeah, I suspect much of what he did later in life was simply done to get reactions from people.
He was an internet troll to the end.
I know it's now far too late for Adams to hear this, but...
Did you convert to Catholicism at the last second, Scotty? Pascal was talking about the Catholic god and no other. Oops!
When someone brings up Pascal's wager as a gotcha, they can't handle "which god?" as a response. They tend to stare blankly, with a hint of confusion because they find the question unanswerable. After all, there is only one god, that is their particular interpretation of what the Christian god is.
There's also that unfortunate matter of: "Do you really think my pretending to believe is going to fool an omniscient god?"
They don't much like that, either!
Euripides pointed this out in *The Bacchae* over 400 years before Christianity.
Someone told me they subscribed to the Wager because it gives them a 20% chance of worshipping “the right god”.
I told him there are AT LEAST 1000 gods, demigods, and minor deities in the world. 20% means he’s worshipping at least 200 of them at the same time.
Surprisingly enough, I never received a reply.
When you weigh the vast range of things in which it is possible to have faith against testable evidence which is all bot nonexistent, what ever you have faith in is almost certainly wrong as a matter of probablity.
To me there is no evidence for god. There isn't any evidence against god because you can't prove a negative. However, all other religions are fabricated. It's like the Monty Hall problem, only with thousands of doors, instead of three. What is the chance you picked the right one?
I prefer Voltaire when asked if he renounced Satan on his deathbed he replied "My good man this is no time to be making enemies!"
"
To me the fatal flaw is if god were real and could see into your heart of hearts, then he would know you were not motivated by faith. Especially at the last minute.
The funniest part is that Pascal himself brought up the "which god" reply.
By Real Catholic you have to mean be in the church of Sspv-Cspv (society of Saint pius the fifth-confraternity society of Saint pius the 5)and follow all the rules, dogma, doctrine, culture from about 1950 before the V2 Satanists took over and not attend ANY OTHER UNAUTHORIZED, or PRE-APPROVED church(by them). So many rules.
Would this be the same Pascal who famously said (and I quote):
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
(from his collection of thoughts/sayings "Pensees" published in 1670, 8 years after his death. It was banned by the Catholic Church)
He also would have drop-kicked Adams as far as humanly possible because his probability exercise wasn't meant to be a deathbed ripcord. The potential gains of not-Hell were supposed to far outweigh the potential losses of scads of worldly pleasures. You're supposed to give those up BEFORE you know you're dying, and not cynically reap all those wordly pleasures and do all the shitty things you can and then accept Sonny Jeebus at the nth second before you kick on the off-chance that God exists.
As it's been pointed out: if God's omniscient, then he also knows who's sincere and who's just hedging their bets.
It would be - except for the fact that Pascal didn't write "religious conviction," but "false principle of conscience," which is nowhere near the same thing.
The "Pensees" were part of Pascal's polemics against the Jesuits, specificially their notion of the "appeal to conscience." He was a Jansenist, a strict movement of moral reform often called "Calvinism in disguise," but it differed in that Jansenists sought to reform the Church from within. He felt that humans in their natural state are morally flawed and incapable of achieving true virtue or knowing God without divine assistance, and that they're NOT disposed to do what that their conscience spontaneously tells them to do.
Jesuits, OTOH, stressed a "properly formed conscience" will be able to discern God's will, so that people can make free, responsible choices, even when they're in conflict with societal norms. They disgusted Pascal because they basically removed that "conflict" by tolerating transgressions and bending the rules of Catholicism so it wouldn't be at odds with the morality and the code of honor of the French nobility, so that mortal sins like "gallantry" [read: adultery] and dueling weren't condemned. He accused them of moral laxity - by allowing these differing moral opinions, they deliberately played on the consciences of all men solely so they they could continue to retain their great influence over society.
I was a big Dilbert fan, until I read some of Adams’s writing, In a personal level he held some pretty loathsome views.
Yes, the news accounts mentioned some recent examples, and many comments I've read elsewhere seem to assume he took a nasty turn with Trump's political ascendancy. But it must have been late 1990s or early 2000s when I came across some remarks about his extremist political views. I didn't want to believe it, so I tracked down the source material, probably his blog. What he said was even worse than the rumors suggested. Ugly rants, gross misogynistic insults, bullying harangues against anyone who disagreed with him. Repulsive, but also sad.
I did dip into his blog a couple of times, it wasn't good, just overweening. He "did his own research" and "proved" tRump was right. I didn't encounter the unhinged shit.
Being that he is the smartest man in the universe (he inserts himself in his own fictional tripe), there was no reason to doubt him.
Adams was a jerk long before Trump came along. But he found in Trump a kindred spirit.
He ticked off some people with his views, undoubtedly a polarizing figure. That said, some of the most influential individuals in history have been polarizing. Why? Because they aren't afraid to stand firm in their convictions even when those within their hearing reject those convictions. Truth doesn't change based on the number of individuals who believe or adhere to it or who don't believe or adhere to it. It stands immovable. Truth doesn't depend on popularity. It only depends on one thing: the existence of God. And the truth is God exists. And that truth doesn't change regardless of how many individuals disbelieve God's existence. And now you know with certainty, Scott Adams, that God is real and that God is merciful even to non-believers who were only kept from the truth because they knew not where to find. Now, in that eternal world, you are having the glorious opportunity to learn the true gospel of Jesus Christ and accept it if you choose, Scott.
Polarizing figure: It's a fallacy to believe, "If I speak the truth, people will be offended, therefore if I offend people, I'm speaking the truth."
He wasn't polarizing because he spoke up for what he believed.
You are right, the truth doesn't change based on the number of individuals who believe. That also applies to god.
Let's say your god is real and Scott Adams wakes up in heaven and meets god. God, who can see into your heart of hearts knows that Scott declared belief because of the calculation in Pascal's Wager. He also know Scott waited until the end to make that calculation because it was in his best interest. God would also know that Scott never had faith, not even at the end. Let him into heaven? I think not.
There is no evidence god exists, and no way to prove god doesn't exist. A lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, but is sure does indicate something. What it does take is only one piece of irrefutable evidence. That's it. What we do know is every single other god is a fabrication of the mind. All of them. How is your god any different?
God knows everything about Scott Adams. He knows his heart (or heart of hearts as you put it) perfectly. After Scott learns the gospel of Jesus Christ (as I referred to in my foregoing comment) in the place he is now, he has the opportunity to accept it. God is more merciful and forgiving than we can comprehend. It's up to us to accept or reject. I'm happy for Scott that he has that opportunity now.
I didn't realize these would post from newest to oldest, otherwise I'd have taken this in the opposite direction.
> "I'm happy for Scott that he has that opportunity now."
Again, this is after death (the event, not the hot sauce). There's not takesy-backsies at that point.
Scott was a narcissist. He inserted himself into his crappy fiction as the smartest guy in the universe by divine appointment as god's representative.
You can like Scott, that's fine, your choice. But I suspect your reaction has more to do with his fake "conversion." He didn't convert, he hedged his bet to curry favor with god. I understand the power of being validated by a prominent person. And if you admired him before, that only enhances the effect, because wanting to not be wrong is often more powerful than admitting you didn't make the best choice. A choice that is often shaped by your upbringing and culture than, as people often fool themselves into thinking, came to it on your own. I was there. I know. I asked questions, being completely unaware of how powerfully exposure can influence what we think and believe. I made a choice based more on "this is what I'm supposed to do" rather than it being what I wanted.
Anyway, thanks for responding, I hope you actually read everything to the end and it provokes questions. Questioning isn't bad, it helps you own your choices rather than passively accepting things and thinking you made a choice. Of course, it's important to know what to ask and how to ask and who to critically analyze what you believe, think and are told. Only the fearful and the ignorant don't question. Also, avoid anything that can't be questioned.
> "It's up to us to accept or reject."
That choice is made before death, not after. And if you get to heaven, it's pretty much a given that people will accept.
Though, given all the rejection of vaccines, a round earth, and and science one doesn't like, I can actually see some christian nationalists not accepting because forgiveness and mercy are "woke." So, there might be a purpose to having a hell after all.
> " God is more merciful and forgiving than we can comprehend."
I can comprehend a lot. And when I'm shown more, I expand my comprehension. That's how knowledge works.
More specifically, I'm not sure how eternal damnation, burning in the pits of hell is merciful or forgiving. But if we get to learn the gospel in heaven, then mercy and forgiveness aren't really necessary.
> "After Scott learns the gospel of Jesus Christ (as I referred to in my foregoing comment) in the place he is now, he has the opportunity to accept it."
This is a new one on me. What you are describing is literally the ending of The Good Place. It's a do over. Death is the deadline. Going to heaven and learning the gospel is too late. At this point, Pascal's Wager combined with this is like plastering on an "I Voted" sticker, then voting after the election because you didn't like the result. It's too late. There's no "do over."
If being taught the gospel in heaven was a thing, then what would be the point of an earthly gospel? An early start? This turns hell into a scare tactic, it wouldn't actually be a form of punishment. There would be not point at all to anything. People live, they die, they go to heaven, the accept what they see, they get in. It is actually a much better version of christianity than what is practiced today.
I appreciate that you at least converse, unlike the other christian trolls that drop in seeking to wrack up martyrdom point.
I'll break down your reply into sections.
> "God knows everything about Scott Adams. He knows his heart (or heart of hearts as you put it) perfectly."
That's my point. Pascal's Wager isn't the big win christians think it is. I know, I heard it several times when I went to church. Like everyone else, I never questioned it.
Pascal's Wager isn't proof of living a good life, nor evidence for god. It's a bet. Anyone who resorts to Pascal's Wager to justify "becoming" christian isn't operating from faith, they're hedging their bets to get into heaven in case they're wrong.
God would know this since he can see into your heart of hearts (something often said in churches I went to). He knows a person playing Pascal's Wager isn't authentic.
Prove that your god is real!
"I write about universal truths . . ."
Who are you to decide what is a universal truth and what is not a universal truth? Are you God?
No, I'm not God. Universal truths aren't decided by me. I just try to listen and learn from God and write about Him and universal truths.
What universal truths? The universal truth found in the bible like genocide, slavery, or infanticide! Nowhere does god talk about human rights like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, nor does it advocate for equality of the sexes, tolerance, or justice!
His early strips were funny.
Somewhere along the way whether he was always carrying meanness inside and it slipped out or he changed with a degree of success, he became mean.
He pulled a Tatsuya before Tatsuya.
Like with Michael Jackson before the kiddie stuff.
Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Jimmy Savile.....
Yeah, the more you read, the worse it gets.
I enjoyed Dilbert, it was relatable and humorous. Then it grew to be banal and repetitive. I didn't read a lot of his stuff, but what I did read really showed how stupid he was.
He was pretty pro-MAGA.
Until it became inconvenient to his continued survival.
I’ll just leave this Jeff Tiedrich quote here: “live your life in such a way that when you die, your obituaries don’t open with how you were such a ginormous racist asshole that you fucked your own career straight into the shitter”
Scott Adams pretty clearly did NOT think things through with this supposed deathbed conversion. Whether he ever heard of Pascal's Wager or not, his indulgence in it tells me that, like too many other believers, believing JUST IN CASE was the hot setup. What he didn't mention was that what he was believing in has no substance, no demonstrable existence, and no means of verification.
In other words, he bought a pig in a poke. How stupid is that? [Answer: pretty stupid!]
Why would I care about the opinion of someone who just died, when I didn't care about their opinion when they were alive?
Wow, another deathbed conversion. There's nothing cynical or self-serving about that. And if christians out there think that's good enough, then that tells you all you need to know about their religion.
Or their simplistic mindset!
No one‘s conversion of Christianity or any other religion for that matter should be taken seriously.
Religion is a scam. They take your money and promise you things but everything they promise always happens after you’re dead so there’s no consequences for them. A pure scam.
My take on Pascal’s wager is the opposite. If the Christian god is all it’s cracked up to be, and I have lived a good life loving my fellow humans, then it will forgive my lack of worship and accept me into heaven anyway.
Interesting take, and rather amazing that believers don't lean on the forgiveness side of the ledger, rather than the judgment side.
White Evangelicals don't want their enemies forgiven and all things reconciled. They want revenge on all of the people who criticized them and they want to watch them writhe in Hell begging for mercy while the white Evangelical smiles and says, "No."
Just saw a Forrest Valkai video where he tore Yahweh a new one for being a dick god. One comment on that video stated that the whole point of punishment is to correct bad behavior, yet with ETERNAL punishment, there is no chance of correction.
So eternal punishment is about nothing other than SADISM.
Link please.
Gladly:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4MwpuOVqCcw
So loving.
So CHRISTIAN loving.
FIFY. 😁
I think they bring up the wager because they're mad when you don't swallow their bullshit. It's one step short of a direct threat of hell, so by that point they only see punishing their "enemies" and not welcoming their fellow humans.
I've said it before and will say it again: they want me to swallow whole something I don't believe and they can't prove. Sorry-not-sorry, no sale.
I often respond with “You need better threats.”
As Arte Johnson would say, "That's a real goodie!" 👍
Pretty sure I stole that from someone on FA.
It surprises me how much it riles up the thumpers. They are shocked that “you’re going to hell” is seen as a threat.
Just point out to them that you are going to heaven. For what greater hell can there be for atheists than to spend an eternity with Greg Locke, Robert Jeffress, and Mark Driscoll? Then add, and you. 😁😇
"Heaven for the climate. Hell for the company." Mark Twain
CS Lewis tended towards that. Read his Narnia book 'The Last Battle' in which a so-called heathen is accepted by Aslan because of his sincerity and good heart. Still a great shame that such a talented writer abandoned his youthful atheism.
His atheism was pretty thin. From what I can remember, his comments after his conversion simply perpetuated Christian stereotypes of atheism rather than any sense of a lived experience.
I remember that ... a Calormen soldier, wasn't it? Read the Chronicles years ago, and in fact, I wrote a novella take-off on them.
Exactly
If Jesus wants to talk to me he can show up any time he wants and do so. In the meantime, I have little use for those attempting to speak on his behalf. In no small part because they do not speak with anything close to a consistent voice.
Mine is: Since I am an atheist and god created me, then I am an atheist because that is exactly what god wants me to be. So why would god punish me for being exactly what he created me to be?
Similar take ✅
He wouldn’t punish you for being an atheist. He’d take it in stride and probably think something like: “No biggie. I’ve got your back. No worries. You are great. I love you unconditionally.*
And John, you are absolutely right. God is more forgiving and merciful than anyone on earth can comprehend. Loving others is paramount in this life and is rewarded a hundred fold in the next one. Keep loving and helping others.
Got any actual evidence of your god?
I understand your position, and your response to Christian Lyrics reply. But I also think this person is “doing it” right. He didn’t outright tell me anything more than his god will forgive me for lack of worship, that his god does not care about that. I don’t think challenging this type of person is the way forward. Challenge the evangelicals that tell us we are going to hell for failing to worship their god.
He made a claim, I want proof that claim is true! Otherwise don’t make a claim! I challenge any and all religious, if they don’t like it! Too bad, don’t bother me with their religious delusions then!
Whatevs, I just think your energy is better spent on the bigger assholes proselytizing, at least this person wasn’t telling me I had to find Jesus, quite the opposite in fact.
The evidence for God is plentiful. All things denote there is a God. To cite one instance, the planets moving in their regular form witness that there is a Supreme Creator. Whether we accept the evidence or not is the question that really matters.
That is due to gravity affecting space time not an imaginary person. Do you have any concrete evidence your god exists?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4989723a316319286b1273a881d62b006e75162c408516bb5115248e9d7286cb.jpg
God is real. He is your Father. You are one of His sons. He loves you more than you can comprehend. I'm not here to try to convince you that He's real or that He loves you. My aim is to share my witness that He is real, that He loves us and that He wants us to return to live with Him after we depart this life. What you do with what I have shared is completely up to you. (I know. Captain Obvious that what you do with what I have shared is completely up to you.) Take care, John.
A imaginary person is not my father, nor my lord or master! You have proven nothing! Got any real evidence, or does Christians not understand what the word evidence means!
"God is real." Prove it. Your witness is shit. Captain Oblivious, you have shared nothing.
My one and only reply to you:
Proselytizing is forbidden here at FA. Pushing your religious delusions at this site is a very good way to get yourself banned by Hemant Mehta.
Proselytizing to nonbelievers is arrogant and a foolish waste of both your time and ours.
Try again. Nothing denotes a god or gods.
Everything denotes there is a Supreme Creator. That's my witness. I'm not here to try to convince you otherwise. I'm sharing my witness that He exists, He loves you, He is your Father in heaven and He wants you to return to Him after you depart this life. What you do with what I have shared is up to you.
Nothing "denotes there is a Supreme Creator." That is my witness. What makes your witness superior to my witness? Extreme arrogance on your part?
What is important is the quality of the evidence. Saying god it real and everything existing proves it isn't really evidence, it's a declaration. It's like walking into court and testifying and the proof is "trust me." That's certainly not the same thing as a god appearing in the sky and giving us commands.
Except it isn't, and no, they don't. If it were plentiful, then it would be factual evidence and you wouldn't need faith.
"Their regular form" is a meaningless phrase and actually proves nothing of the kind, expecially since Pluto's not spherical and its orbit is irregular. And don't try to counter with "it's not a planet," because you'll be even deeper in the shit because that's a human classification, and you now have to explain why your perfect God is turning out fucked-up celestial bodies.
The fact is that you can't prove *any* "Creator" exists, let alone start classifying them as "Supreme."
Kindly proselytize elsewhere.
Okay. Sounds like a reasonable request. Take care, justifiable.
𝐴𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑒𝑑, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑙𝑦 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑎𝑠𝑡-𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑎𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝐻𝑒𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘.
So, not only did Lil Blaise suckered Adams, he suckered the faithful.
Professional apologists rarely use Pascal, they know how flimsy it is. But the rank and file believers? They are so binary in their thinking that they see the wager as an all or nothing switch. When they bring it up, you just have to say "Which god?" to short circuit their brains.
“In the meantime, keep sharing the Good News with your unbelieving friends and family. Remember that God can use your interest in their salvation to help assure them of His love and interest in them.”
Ignore the thousands and thousands of failures, millions and millions of failures, billions of failures, this one halfhearted cynical success is proof of God.
Adams’ announcement read so sarcastic and cynical, I can’t believe folks believe it, though I didn’t listen to him say it on the podcast, his tone of voice might have come off as sincere so I may be wrong. But even if sincerely spoken, the words he used are so trite and selfish and insincere. “I win”. What is that supposed to mean? What do you win? Who did you beat? What does it matter if you win when you are dead, you’re still dead. And the Christian newspapers actually thinking that Pascal’s Wager is something to be proud of taking. Sure, where’s the risk to Adams? He wasn’t a believer his whole life, so he didn’t waste his life on the belief part, meaning he had no skin in the game by the time he placed his bet. He knew he was dying and he put his chips on the table, like waiting for the roulette ball to stop bouncing before putting it all on red. Oooh, so risky. The whole idea of Pascal’s Wager is not convincing to any thinking person. Let me trick this omniscient, omnipotent entity into letting me into the club without actually doing what he wants me to do. Puh-leeeeeze.
Scott Adams was a MAGA moron (I know, redundant), now he's a dead MAGA moron. Anyway...
"The basic idea is that if you believe in the Christian God and it turns out atheists are right, oh well, no big deal. You wasted time praying but it’s not the end of the world."
For you it is. 🙂