Proof that Hell Exists - Oneshot
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,525
This is why Pascal's wager is a pretty good idea
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2020
- Messages
- 112
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
- Messages
- 518
Proof that hell exists
So...Hilary Clinton has an Onlyfans?
One page, wall of text with one image
Well... at least it's only a one shot and not 1.1 of 20 with another wall of text talking about another sick family.
So...Hilary Clinton has an Onlyfans?
One page, wall of text with one image
Well... at least it's only a one shot and not 1.1 of 20 with another wall of text talking about another sick family.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2020
- Messages
- 275
@darekpawlo Pascal's wager assumes a false dicotomy between existence or non-existence of a single god though. You could bet that god exists, but still get the wrong faith and go to hell anyways. That would be the worst of all cases: you gave up worldly pleasures betting for an eternity in heaven, but still got an eternity of punishment.
So since the choice is between living however you like, and choosing one of uncountably many dogmas that offer an eternity of rewards, the rational choice is actually to reject dogma and live however you like. You are doomed to eternal torment no matter what choice you make (since given only one right choice out of uncountably many, you are bound to choose the wrong faith), so you might as well make the choice where you at least enjoy your terrestrial life.
So since the choice is between living however you like, and choosing one of uncountably many dogmas that offer an eternity of rewards, the rational choice is actually to reject dogma and live however you like. You are doomed to eternal torment no matter what choice you make (since given only one right choice out of uncountably many, you are bound to choose the wrong faith), so you might as well make the choice where you at least enjoy your terrestrial life.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2019
- Messages
- 201
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 229
@Kynnath Well, Pascal's Wager assumes that Judaism/Christianity is the only religion that has a realistic chance of being true. Which, YMMV, but I've seen atheists straight-up affirm that statement.
Pascal's Wager isn't convincing to those people because they would rather live out what they believe to be true than change their way of life just to hedge their bets.
Pascal's Wager isn't convincing to those people because they would rather live out what they believe to be true than change their way of life just to hedge their bets.
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,579
i came here for manga not a page from a light novel lol
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2020
- Messages
- 275
@RandomnessOfTheMathWorld my point is there's no such choice to make. Your choices are "do whatever you like for 70 years, then go to hell" or "follow a religion for 70 years, then go to hell anyway because you picked the wrong one".
@CrusaderJerome I am not sure I understand what you are saying correctly?
As first argument you say some atheists affirm the statement "Judaism/Christianity is the only religion that has a realistic chance of being true".
How is that in any way a confirmation or even a support for that claim? Noone knows what comes after death, otherwise we wouldn't have so many faiths with wildly different content at all. And just because judaism/christianity/islam (why did you leave the third big abrahamic faith out?) are the biggest faiths due to historic events doesn't change the fact that they were very local at the beginning. Which begs the question why an all powerful god that created all of humanity only cared for some local tribe in some valley and ignored 99% of the rest of humanity. Almost like every tribe had their own gods at that point and the sucessful tribes managed to spread their beliefs to the conquered ones ....
And why is it important that those saying it are atheistic and not, let's say Hindus or ?
And your final sentence " they would rather live out what they believe to be true" is pretty ironic, considering that non-atheists are the ones believing something they want to be true.
Which brings us back to what Kynnath said: There are thousands (if not millions when you would include those we never heard of, because they died out already) of faiths, believing any single one of those is likelier than the other already shows an inherent bias in your thinking, due to upbringing, education, social background. There is no proof. Otherwise it wouldn't be called faith.
As first argument you say some atheists affirm the statement "Judaism/Christianity is the only religion that has a realistic chance of being true".
How is that in any way a confirmation or even a support for that claim? Noone knows what comes after death, otherwise we wouldn't have so many faiths with wildly different content at all. And just because judaism/christianity/islam (why did you leave the third big abrahamic faith out?) are the biggest faiths due to historic events doesn't change the fact that they were very local at the beginning. Which begs the question why an all powerful god that created all of humanity only cared for some local tribe in some valley and ignored 99% of the rest of humanity. Almost like every tribe had their own gods at that point and the sucessful tribes managed to spread their beliefs to the conquered ones ....
And why is it important that those saying it are atheistic and not, let's say Hindus or ?
And your final sentence " they would rather live out what they believe to be true" is pretty ironic, considering that non-atheists are the ones believing something they want to be true.
Which brings us back to what Kynnath said: There are thousands (if not millions when you would include those we never heard of, because they died out already) of faiths, believing any single one of those is likelier than the other already shows an inherent bias in your thinking, due to upbringing, education, social background. There is no proof. Otherwise it wouldn't be called faith.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 229
@ckckckck sigh. I am only stating the assumption behind the Wager and noting that Christians are not the only ones who support it. I did not intend that as evidence for the claim.
You cannot prove empirically that nobody knows what comes after death, just as you cannot proves that someone does know. It's entirely outside of the realm of science.
I left Islam out because Islam is a completely divergent religion from the other two with radically different beliefs about the nature of God.
Somehow, Judaism survived despite the Jews being conquered constantly throughout their history.
Atheists are presumably not biased toward any particular religion. A Hindu would presumably be biased toward his own religion.
"Belief in nothing" is still a belief. There is no irony here.
There is one thing you overlook: faith may not be proven, but it may have evidence. Catholics, especially, will point to scientifically inexplicable phenomena like the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the communion host that turned into human flesh in Sokółka, Poland, as evidence for their beliefs.
You cannot prove empirically that nobody knows what comes after death, just as you cannot proves that someone does know. It's entirely outside of the realm of science.
I left Islam out because Islam is a completely divergent religion from the other two with radically different beliefs about the nature of God.
Somehow, Judaism survived despite the Jews being conquered constantly throughout their history.
Atheists are presumably not biased toward any particular religion. A Hindu would presumably be biased toward his own religion.
"Belief in nothing" is still a belief. There is no irony here.
There is one thing you overlook: faith may not be proven, but it may have evidence. Catholics, especially, will point to scientifically inexplicable phenomena like the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe or the communion host that turned into human flesh in Sokółka, Poland, as evidence for their beliefs.
