Staredit Network

Atheist's Wager is the best. Since wikipedia has to keep nuetral, they listed a few flaws on it. And the flaws are barely flaws. They're flaws because it's relying on a couple assumptions. You know, assumptions. Something faith is soley based apoun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist%27s_Wager

If God does for some strange reason, use a judgement system that doesn't tell everyone alive what the verdict is, but except only those that are dead. (Which defeats half the purpose right there) It wouldn't base it's self on faith. It would base it's self on wether or not that person lived a good life or not.

This kicks Pascal's Wager ass.
That pretty much sumerizes my thoughts, so just read the link.

Interesting idea, but just as completely useless as Pascal's Wager, given the indomitable nature of religious zealots.

No! No! No! That's not how it works!

Why isn't that how it works?
Will God prefer a bum who did nothing but beg from others, but beleived in him?
Or would he prefer the guy who donated billions to charity and lived a successful life, but didn't beleive in him?

It's not believing, it's repenting and accepting Christ as your saviour, so that you may spend eternal life in heaven. It's not based on merits (Which largely separates the Catholic and Protestant sects from each other).

So really the chart should be for this:

Benevolent God-Being Present:
Believe / Good Merits - Heaven / Good Legacy
Believe / Bad Merits - Heaven / Bad Legacy
Do not Believe / Good Merits - Hell / Good Legacy
Do not Believe / Bad Merits - Hell / Bad Legacy

No Benevolent God-Being Present:
Believe / Good Merits - Nothing / Good Legacy
Believe / Bad Merits - Nothing / Bad Legacy
Do not Believe / Good Merits - Nothing / Good Legacy
Do not Believe / Bad merits - Nothing / Bad Legacy

So you see, it's less work to believe than go by Pascal's rather than Athiest's wager. Same Statistics.

Therefore, Good Merits are statistically irrelivent.

If you were god, would you let someone into your house who was useful on earth, or loyal on earth? I'd choose the loyal one.

That reminds me so much of Bush.

Kow, we already have a chart like that. It's called Pascal's wager. And it's flawed, as is this one.

True, but the flaws of atheist's wager are less than those of pascual's.



The person that was "useful" on earth was kind, and loyal to his fellow man when he needed help. The so called "loyal" one was only loyal because he wanted in to god's "house".

If I was God, I would take the honest man.

What I believe is similar to this. If there is a kind and just God, I will be let into heaven anyway for doing what I believe is right (ie, due diligence). And if there isn't, the fact that I'm a PERSON and I have a spine (slang for "Strength of character; courage or willpower.") makes me think it's not worth doing what I believe is wrong to please some unkind God (ie. when people do things outlined by their religion that on an objective basis, they would believe immoral).

I believe this for many reasons, most appealing of which, is that it protects from religions used to control people for evil means, but allows people to grasp onto hope which I think is somewhat important to relieving stress.

Why not just combine the charts and realize, that without religion, the overall gain is in leading a good life?

Atheist Wager is stupid, just like Pascal's wager.

the Christian god is not benevolent
if you dont believe in Him, then you go to hell
y do u think Christians are desperate in spreading the gospel? they want everyone on earth to go to heaven

ADDITION:
and they do it for the money too.......

If God would take the bum over the charity donor, I DONT WANT TO BELIVE IN HIM.

but seriously...who would you treat better?
your friend who stood by you for as long as you can remember, or some rich nice dude who has never done anything for you?

Note, most 'rich' people are in fact HUGE charity donors.

ADDITION:
Keyword Most

i know it's unfair that the Christian god would choose the believing bum over the kind charitable non-believing man, but that's just how it is..
(i don't like the Christian god either)

Well if that's the way it is then fark him. I really don't think that's how it is, though.

well, most catholics believe that the charitable man would go to heaven also, but protestants don't

Soulshifter how about F*CK YOU biznatch dont EVER say shiz like that

>>Reported for saying to F*ck god

How is what you said better than what he said? Unless you want me to warn both of you. ANYWAY,


WTF kind of Christians have you met? As a Christian, I don't believe in anything like this. Belief in God isn't enough to get you into heaven, nor is disbelief enough to keep you out of heaven. If this were true, I would run around gunning down as many people as I could as a Crusader... and my belief in God would get me into heaven. For some reason, that doesn't seem like it would work.

ViolentMoose - You reported him for saying fark you to god? Like...seriously? You disgrace the holy moose name.

Anyways, back on topic:
In order for religion to be correct, 3 things unlikely to extremely unlikely things must be true.

Step one - There has to be a God in the first place.

Step two - It has be willing to use a judgement system for the people who have died.

Step three- You must be living your life by the correct criteria for that judgement system. Or just correct enough to be able to get into heaven.

Pascual's wager requires that you have to be correct on ALL THREE of these. Atheist's wager on the other hand works even if all three are wrong or even if step one is wrong. In other words, Atheist's wager covers more possibilities than pascual's. That alone makes it superior than pascual's.

The only way for this to back fire, is if step 1 and 2 are both correct. AND that step 3's criteria is something religious. Like Islam or Christianity.

violent... we can say fark god anytime we want, its not like we can be banned for flaming a nonexistant being.

In my opinion, if he did exist, then he created this flawed world full of pain and grief, so I too day fark him if thats how it is.

BTW your siggy is too big

[center]I love you, and your razor, Occam.[/center]