Since all religions contradict each other, and the proof of each is ambivalent, wouldn't the safe bet (ergo Pascal's Wager) to be an Atheist?
2007-04-03 04:44:49 · 17 answers · asked by TLG 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
There are simply too many variables in Pascal's wager for it to be beneficial for anyone. However since atheism is a default position (no positive claim) it appears the be the safe alternative.
2007-04-03 04:54:03 · answer #1 · answered by ChooseRealityPLEASE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not all religions contradict. The Greeks and Egyptians started to combine their different thoughts on it, the Romans had a pantheon very similiar to the Greeks', The Aztec/Mayans had different practices but there are some similarities between their creation story and the Egyptians.
It's mostly the monotheistic religions that can't get along, and reading/studying forms atheists. Not a silly bet to appease everyone, 'just in case'.
2007-04-03 04:55:21 · answer #2 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, they will always have nothing to win and everything to lose. You need to understand the critical difference between Christianity and every other religion before you make such a generalization. Religion is about how you get to God. Christianity is about how God got to you. Like the theory of evolution, Christianity cannot be proven with science but there is compelling evidence. The fact that all of the disciples were tortured to death for what they saw compels me to believe. Jesus must have either been a great con artist to fake his own death and then have some people roll the big stone out of the way. I heard another conspiracy theory that he had a twin. They say Christianity is unreasonable, but their conspiracy theories are quite unreasonable. Pascal's wager is insufficient alone as compelling a person to convert, but it is a useful tool for some people to understand what is at stake.
2007-04-03 04:59:03 · answer #3 · answered by wassupmang 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The wager is useless either way. I can suppose the existence of a god that is pleased when people use their intelligence to question god's existence, and rewards such with paradise, while all of those who blindly follow superstitious nonsense get consigned to the fire. This scenario is neither more or less likely than Pascal's original proposition.
2007-04-03 04:50:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm never going to mention any form of pascal's wager again!
2007-04-03 04:47:24 · answer #5 · answered by Samurai Jack 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, obviously the religions contradict, but there still "could be" a right one. The wager is still on!
2007-04-03 04:48:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
pascal forgot one piece of the puzzle. instead of either/or it could be neither. non dual schools of hinduism and buddhism blow a hole thru both theistic and atheist beliefs. god isnt necessary for heaven or hell realms to exist.
2007-04-03 04:57:04 · answer #7 · answered by robertbobbybob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it doesn't really support anyone. Is a sieve better for holding rainwater or tap water?
2007-04-03 04:48:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, that would make them an Agnostic Deist.
It's 9am, I hope no expects me to drink anything, lol.
2007-04-03 04:49:38 · answer #9 · answered by lilith 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-04-03 04:47:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋