Do you think Pascal's Wager is a lot like?

Question

someone holding a gun to your head that may or may not be loaded and saying "Isn't it just safer to believe?"

Ohhhh irsh cream. I will totally join you on that drink Father K.

I agree that its against logic. And I know most level headed logical and educated people agree that Pascals wager is the stupidest thing ever.

Answer 1

It's mildly more subtle.


For the people that answered that the gun is real and therefore more threatening, I think that was why she included the "may or may not be loaded"

Answer 2

Not really, it's more like the wimpy (I had a better word but chose to not be edited) way out of the belief in god situation. I prefer to stand my ground in my non-belief. If I always had that thread of doubt hanging over my head, I would not be able to live my life to the fullest.

If someone held a gun to my head and said it may or may not be loaded, I would actually know the gun were there (if I couldn't see it, it would only be because of the angle it was held) and I would know the danger. I would do everything in my power to get away without being shot. This is because I value my life, and know that this is the only life I get.

Answer 3

For the most part, yes. I am actually a Christian myself, but it only takes some common sense to see that Pascal's Wager is totally illogical. You can't force theism on people just because it MIGHT be safer. Do the Christians and other theists who argue this lame argument think that maybe they ought to believe in aliens from other planets, just because said aliens MIGHT be real and could come and enslave all the non-believers? No. The reason why they wouldn't is the same reason that atheists shouldn't believe in God just because he MIGHT exist. If you don't believe, then you don't believe. Believing just because you are afraid to die is not a legitimate reason to believe.

Answer 4

Pascal's Wager is an Immature Christian's Arguement, A mature Christian, does not resort to using such a flawed method of reason.

Here is the definition in short of this:

Pascal's Wager


The argument that believing in God is the most logical thing to do since if there is a God and you deny him, then you are in trouble. If there is no god and you accept him, there is no problem because it doesn't matter. Logically, it is better to not deny that God exists than to deny he does. There is truth to this argument, but the problem is that it does not define which "god" to believe in since in many religions, believing in a different god brings a punishing judgment. Nevertheless, this does not excuse a person from at least trying to discover if there is a God or not and who He might be.

Answer 5

Maybe, but it's more illogical than that. Pascal's wager would require one to believe EVERY assertion based on claims of punishment for non-belief, so you would have to believe all religious claims, even when they directly oppose each other.
It's completely impossible. Pascal's wager is a crime against logic.

Answer 6

I can see where you're getting that, but you can actually see the gun and know it exists through empirical knowledge. There's a higher probability that the gun would actually be loaded. With God you can't see or know that he exists through logic, so Pascal's Wager is even farther out there.

Answer 7

Good news everyone!

Come and join Farnsworthism and we'll drink all day to questions regarding Pascal's Wager.

*drinks*

Answer 8

So early for a drink! Can I just add a little Irish Cream to my coffee? Bettie? Anybody? I need advice.

Answer 9

No, that's idiotic.

Guns exist. The afterlife is a belief.

Answer 10

That's a good analogy.
It might not catch on, due to the "inherent violent undertones", (you know how squeamish some people can get...).
Otherwise, I like it.
Well thought through.
I'll stick that one in my notebook.
Thanks.