onegoodmove

I am an atheist who doesn't miss his foreskin. What a mess!

I'm an atheist with a foreskin. Scar tissue on the genitals? No thanks. :)

Long time reader, first time commenter. I understand the sentiment the author is going for, but there's many things wrong with this comic. Pascal's wager didn't necessarily apply to other religions. This comic is more of an amalgamation of various problems with different religious beliefs than a good argument against Pascal's wager, per se. I agree with the author, though - many religions do things which appear dumb and pointless due to out of date traditions and the like. However, just because you believe in a god or gods doesn't mean you're going to follow all those beliefs or even any of them. I believe in something up there and would say that Pascal's wager takes a part in my belief system to some degree but don't think any of those things listed above have anything to do with me (except the foreskin thing, which I had no choice in).

Pascal's wager didn't necessarily apply to other religions

True, but religion is the logical conclustion to a belief in this way of looking at things. And even more precisely, the belief in a higher power is an indispensible component of the very definition of a religion.

This comic is more of an amalgamation of various problems with different religious beliefs than a good argument against Pascal's wager

Again, Pascal's wager is a concept that has everything to do with religion.

However, just because you believe in a god or gods doesn't mean you're going to follow all those beliefs or even any of them.

Why not? If you decided not to follow a particular belief, on what basis to you decide to make your decision?

believe in something up there and would say that Pascal's wager takes a part in my belief system to some degree but don't think any of those things listed above have anything to do with me (except the foreskin thing, which I had no choice in).

So you don't follow the precepts of any given religion then? You just belief in some nebulous God and it is you who decides what this god is exactly?

Fine, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

(except the foreskin thing, which I had no choice in).

Ya, and that is really weird! If not for religion, people wouldn't be mutilating their little boys. They would, at the very least, allow their son to decide for himself whether or not he wanted that lovely, natural covering of his penis to be removed.

I am an atheist who doesn't miss his foreskin. What a mess!

Do you remember having one? How does being an atheist make your perspective here unique?

I believe in something up there and would say that Pascal's wager takes a part in my belief system to some degree

How so? If, like JoAnn puts it, you believe in a nebulous God then you've assumed that this deity rewards belief based on bad evidence instead of leading a morally sound life. Here's the Atheist Wager:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

That sounds more like the agnostic wager. An atheist actually believes that there is no god. He bases this belief on the fact that if there is a god, who is as powerful as modern religions say he is, there is no free will--something the atheist could never accept. Of course, god could still exist, but if he does then free will doesn't. Which would mean that the fact that the atheist doesn't believe in god is actually god's will.

All too often,the people will say that God is all powerful and free will is a gift from god. The people which are too simple to see the contradiction.

The atheist should, if he doesn't, understand the Ethics of Nietzsche. Where free will is not a gift of god, but an attribute of man. The responsibility for what happens to man doesn't rest in an omnipotent guide, but in everyone who is along for the ride. This is equivalent to saying that it is Tom Tom's fault that we got lost, not mine.

God is dead, and we have killed him. This implies an active role in not believing.Be active.

Thus spoke Zarathustra

I guess I kind of look at it like this: If all I have to do to get to "heaven" according to Christians (since this is how I was raised but no longer explicitly subscribe to) is believe that there was this figure Jesus Christ who died and rose from the dead, then I have no problem suspending my rational mind for that one thing. Besides, Christ said the most important thing was to love God and do to others as you would have done to yourself. So in other words, I have to suspend my rational mind and subscribe to this one irrational view, love a nebulous idea (that according to most religions I can't really know completely anyway) and treat other people how I want to be treated then what's the harm? I don't buy into all the other baggage of religion (such as the things mentioned in the comic - except I do give money to charity, but not any church). I know the thought will be "what about all the other religions?" Well, according to most Christians, Christ is the only person who claimed that he was god and was THE only way to heaven. Thus I guess I feel it's imperative to respond to that religion the most. And I was raised Christian, so I'm still trying to sort things out. As a band I've been listening to sings, "I've spent decades / trying to purge your swill / from my mind".

I think that’s the problem from the get go: this obsession with the afterlife. I really don’t see why you should suspend the intellect for God. No one is required to reject a rational mind in order to love, but how can you love something that doesn’t show itself to you? You could, perhaps, have the feeling of love, but there is a difference between this feeling that you own and the conclusions you draw from it. Nor does one have to suspend rationality in order to act ethically. Jesus may have said that He is the only way, but are you forgetting that there is no God but Allah? There are many other such examples we could cover, but even just this one example should at least, I think, make a believer take pause before espousing such claims and feel compelled to formulate ones life around it.

I guess my question is: what's wrong with believing in something absurd as long as it doesn't affect others or myself in a negative way? Granted, we can see that the great majority of people with faith CAN affect people in a negative manner, but that's not necessarily the rule. Hell, we all believe in stuff which the evidence points against and that is totally absurd.

True, but religion is the logical conclustion to a belief in this way of looking at things. And even more precisely, the belief in a higher power is an indispensible component of the very definition of a religion.
How is religion the logical conclusion to a belief in Pascal's wager? Those things in the comic are examples of parts of a religion but aren't the entirety of the belief. Many people of each of those faiths don't even follow those rules. I guess I'm just trying to get an understanding of the thought behind tying all those things in with Pascal's wager.

FYI, much of this is me trying to sort out ideas that have been filtering through my mind as of late, so please don't think I'm some hardcore Christian or something of that sort.

With the constraints you've laid down it can surely be argued that outsiders would be unaffected, but I still have not seen the reasons for why one should still persist in these beliefs simply because they can.

Even when not causing an externality toward others it can still cause problems to the individual that holds a particular superstition. One might be tempted to marginalize this when viewing, say, Islam and those adherents who kill, not other people, but themselves; however, similar problems are found even today with adherences to dogmatisms that aren't even explicitly religious! At the very least beliefs of this sort could place themselves as mental barriers.

The problem, however, is not the beliefs themselves. The problem is the fixation and attraction to phantasmagorical thinking. Though it may not be a problem to you, this bacilli—that could even be dormant in a large population—is spread from generation to generation and can be revived by someone who decides to take a more literal and critical approach than a moderate. It doesn’t take very many people to cause a lot of damage. I don’t think the solution is a spread of a gentler version of it. I also don’t think that simply blaming individuals for their actions instead of realizing the root causes of their behavior is a solution either.

Once a religious person comes to realize that ethics can be found outside of religion, the only thing they are left with is metaphysical mumbo jumbo. In a world where competing doctrines of invisible certainties abound, defending your beliefs simply because those specific views were ingrained into your mind at an early age isn't so much a defense of truth as you see it, rather a defense of tradition born out of a mere accident of birth.

At bottom, Pascal's wager represents the last refuge of the scoundrels who shill for religion. It has, ever since I was a teenager, struck me as the most morally bankrupt of excuses to believe in God. In it are wrapped up both the ultimate bribe and the ultimate threat – if you aren't enticed by the eternal-life/72-virgins there's always the granddaddy of all extortion threats - eternal damnation. When I listen to fire-and-brimstone fundamentalists brandishing the ultimate threat, I always feel that they are never more nakedly reveal the nature of their "faith".

I'm a Frisbeetarian. We believe after you die, your soul goes up on the roof and no-one can get it down.

I'm a Frisbeetarian. We believe after you die, your soul goes up on the roof and no-one can get it down.

Heretic! Every Charlie-Brown-kitean knows that your sould is destined to be stuck in a kite eating tree.

Zarathustra,

What are you talking about?

I'm an atheist, and I can assure you that it has nothing to do with free will.

I'm an atheist because I don't beleive in anything supernatural. There is simply no evidence. Without souls, spirits, nebulous life forces, etc, the whole god argument is a moot point. Philosophy never comes into it.

Besides, your reasoning would surely only lead to an agnostic position; you demonstrate that an all powerful god and free will can't coexist. That's all.

Pascals wager doesn't take into account the worship.

If there is a god and he requires my worshiping of him or I go to hell, then he is not a God worthy of my time.

If it is how you live your life, then the majority of Atheists are going to heaven.

I've also wondered why it is that a being that can create all of reality cares if I eat meat or fish on a Friday.

So your decision not to believe in anything supernatural has nothing to do with free will?

The point is that if we have free will than there can be no god. If we don't than nothing we do can be held against us. So the belief in atheism is either right or not our fault.

Philosophy always enters into a debate about god, it is unavoidable.

Thus spoke Zarathustra

Malcolm, I agree.

Strict atheists are interesting. To them, there is not even a remote possibility that God exists.

It is the ultimate paradox. They claim an infinite knowledge of the universe to prove that there is no being with an infinite knowledge of the universe.

"I guess my question is: what's wrong with believing in something absurd as long as it doesn't affect others or myself in a negative way?"

"Hell, we all believe in stuff which the evidence points against and that is totally absurd

Pascal's Gambit is flawed because it is based on the false assumption that anyone can simply will themselves to believe in something that there is absolutely no evidence for and nearly zero probability of.

Jonathan,

I don't claim an infinite knowledge of the universe; I simply don't see any evidence for the supernatural.

Looking at the comic for a moment I thought I had two cursors!

Pascal's Gambit is flawed because it is based on the false assumption that anyone can simply will themselves to believe in something that there is absolutely no evidence for and nearly zero probability of.

Oddly enough, the existence of a very large number of religious adherents in the world would suggest that this assumption is not evidently false - I mean, somehow, they do believe things for which there is absolutely no evidence. In fact, it is worse than that - they believe things for which there exists mountains of contradictory evidence!

To the question, "What's wrong with believing in something absurd as long as it doesn't affect others or myself in a negative way?", the answer is evident: Because it is absurd, silly.

Absurd: wildly unreasonable, foolish, inappropriate.

You're a thinking creature, and if you place any value on your ability to think, you don't believe in absurd things. To the statement, "we all believe in stuff which the evidence points against and that is totally absurd", I reply, ...uh, speak for yourself.

One thing many people have hinted at but not explicitly said:

Pascal's wager is absurd because belief in god is not an dualistic choice. "God" isn't the only holy being out there (as shown in the last frame) and 99.5% of religions require you to give money/freedoms to be a member of the church.

How is religion the logical conclusion to a belief in Pascal's wager?

There is NO logic in pascal's wager.

Look at me, I can be a deep religious theorist that will be frequently quoted by Dinesh D'Sousa:

"Because humans are great thinkers, Thor will be coming to visit next year, and will bring a bread pudding. So you'd better have a fresh meatloaf ready to exchange with him, every Thursday. From now on, every Thursday shall be Meatloaf night."

I read in the Bible that 200 or was it 2000 foreskins were given as part of a dowry. One of my friends will be getting married soon so how many foreskins would be appropriate for a wedding gift?

And should I include a deep fryer with the gift? What does someone do with hundreds of foreskins? Is it for priests to nibble on between boytime?

"I guess my question is: what's wrong with believing in something absurd as long as it doesn't affect others or myself in a negative way?"

Sort of the problem is the potential to negatively impact others is typically underestimated. Granted, I could accept some degree of negativity in general, but how you interact with children (people who have trouble thinking critically for themselves, and are very impressionable) is important. If you suggest to them that some fuzzy way of thinking is good and proper, they aren't going to have a strong of a foundation for inquiry as they would otherwise have. If you can condition them to accept BS as valid or at least natural, there's really no telling how far you are going to stunt their potential. At the very least you going to set them back a bit, and at worst, you will leave them more susceptible to committing crimes in the name of religion/purity/whatever.

It does matter.

Sounds like a good deal for the pigs!