April 15, 2009
-
Pascal's Better Wager
I never understood why Christians and other religious types keep hauling out Pascal’s Wager, as if that is some magical answer to make you believe. The way I see it, if you’re serious about Pascal’s Wager, then Satanism is probably the way to go. If your basis of religion is on a wager, then there are probably still lingering doubts, which means a warm place in Hell is reserved just for your lack of faith. You may as well try to get on Satan’s good side. It is my understanding that he is just a fallen angel whose pride made him want to take God’s throne. With an ego that big, I’m sure a little brown-nosing would go over well; his pride would eat that up (“brown-nosing” and “eat that up” probably shouldn’t go together).
Look, if you just arbitrarily move the “believe” switch to the on position, you’ll probably too far gone. You’ve sinned too much too long to be able to confess it all and ask for forgiveness. There’s also your damning doubt. You’ll be sent to Hell anyway. Instead of an eternity of agonizing, God’s-love-filled punishment, you’ll spend your time with Satan. Sure, he’ll probably be a prick, but you’ll definitely be in a better position than the other schmucks. Who knows, maybe Lucifer will send you on some errands, like tempting some religious goody-goody to steal gum or testing somebody’s faith by knocking his house down and freezing his bank accounts. The fallen angels have all the fun.
“The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.” – Paradise Lost
Comments (27)
This is the best take on Pascal's wager yet. Right on.
Haha, perfect. =]
*waits for people to rant while knowing nothing about Satanism.*
Haha, I shall try to brown nose the almighty Satan!
Awesome =D
@Axis_of_Doom - If it didn't require me to believe in a deity, I'd so be a Satanist.
I'm not sure what Pascal's Wager is, and maybe that's why I don't have any idea what you're talking about, haha.
@AibellFaeire - In a nutshell, the Christian would say something like this to the atheist:
"If I'm right, and you're wrong, I get eternal life, and you get eternal punishment. If you're right and there's no god or afterlife, I have lost nothing."
http://in-reason-i-trust.xanga.com/586153624/the-empty-wager/
I posted an article by Sam Harris that pretty much demolishes that silly idea.
@lovechartreuse - To be fair, this entire post is a rant from someone who knows nothing about Satanism.
@lovechartreuse - Have you read The Satanic Bible? I read it last year. For the most part, LaVeyan Satanism does not in any way advocate the worship of any deity outside of yourself. In true Satansim, YOU are your own god, and your birthday is the highest Satanic holiday. Satan is viewed quite simply as a symbol of man's potentialities and freedom taken to the max.
For a minute there, I almost became a Satanist last year. Many of the concepts are very appealing. But, I could never be a Satanist in the full sense of the word. Their rituals struck me as a bit overly-dramatic and silly. But, as far as the main tenets of Satanism are concerned, I still agree with most of them.
Your argument is brilliant.
And that is one of my favorite pictures on the internet.
As a Christian I find the lack of knowledge here depressing for its ubiquitousness.
If you are referring to the Christian concept of Hell (as opposed to Islam or others) then you must include the surrounding doctrines about it. (No, hate to break it to you, Dante is not telling an orthodox version of the belief.) Hell is not the realm of Satan. Hell was created to punish him and his followers. He will be suffering right along with any poor soul who failed to follow God. The only One to brown nose in that situation would be the One in charge of Hell, not a fellow prisoner.
As a PostModern I find the (mis)use of Pascal's Wager antiquated and quaint.
The Wager never led exclusively to following Christianity. It was more of a rational argument showing that *some* belief was better than *no* belief. One could just as easily ended up Buddhist using that argument. The logical rebuttal for the Wager is to propose the existence of a deity that rewards nonbelief. Since the Wager doesn't address the object of belief, it cannot rule out the possibility that doubt is actually virtue that earns Heaven.
You should know, Mister Jimbo, that the best bet in the end is to surrender your will to me and become a lesbian. Otherwise, it's your soul.
I hath spoken.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - I am glad someone else brought this up! I totally agree with you that Satanism in its purest form does *not* include worship of a deity. It is worship of the self.
But I might add my suspicion that the Satanic Bible is being sarcastic with its description of rituals. Notice in the first part with all the philosophy, it actually criticizes the use of displays and ceremony and then lists out all the operative details in the second part. I truly believe this was meant to throw off casual readers and immature people who look for that kind of outward expression instead of really understanding what the message truly was.
Remember, as a Satanist, one isn't bound to adhere to higher standards like intellectual honesty. Deceit and misdirection are par for the course.
@herzog3000 - Ummm...news flash: The post is JOKE! If the text alone wasn't obvious enough, didn't Hitler's pic provide any hints? Good grief!
Get a fucking sense of humor. But, then again, lack of sense of humor is typical of believers in myths.
@herzog3000 - As for your accusations towards Satanism of "deceit and misdirection" - you got it wrong. Christianity is actually the one guilty of those. History clearly supports this fact.
If I were you, I would not bother replying anymore. I have no interest in engaging in any sort of conversation with people like you.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Thanks for the "news flash". I was just about to append a disclaimer, but that'll do.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Wow, why is your sphincter in a knot?? I am all for jocularity in my posts and comments especially when heavy topics are involved.
This post wasn't serious? No problem. I was just throwing out some debate barbs in the spirit of good discussion. If my tone seemed hostile to you I assure you that perception originated in your head and not from my message.
And if you weren't so full of hubris you could have seen that I actually *admire* Lavey's Satanic Church. I have read the Satanic Bible and preach it as a book that is better at describing real world spiritualism than any other book out there. I wasn't criticizing them like you apparently believe I was.
You can say Christiandom includes a history of deceit and misdirection because it does. I respect Lavey's Satanism because when they do it, at least they are being consistent.
(And for the record, my work admins blocked the Hitler picture so I missed that cue.)
@herzog3000 - Please do. I have no qualms about good discussion. I find it enjoyable (it's very rare for my comment count to go over double digits). To be fair, I did read your first comment as hostile, at first. There really needs to be some HTML tags. I do, honestly, know and understand most of what you mentioned. I read a lot of different views about Pascal's wager and just thought I'd take a light-hearted stab at it. I did like the point you made about a non-belief loving deity.
Oh, and I definitely laughed at the work admin Hitler block.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - One more thing. I provided a *rebuttal* for Pascal's Wager. How many Bible thumping wingnuts would do something like that?? You obviously didn't read my comments beyond a paranoid skimming.
I don't know what's better... the entry or that picture. Either way, I'm filled with a sudden sensation of awesome.
@Jimbo1023 - I prefer to spend my work time reading blogs than my off hours when I should be drinking beer. But alas that means I am at the mercy of the censorship gods of our OC3.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - Oh, I see. I've heard the argument before, but didn't know it had a name. Thanks for explaining. You seem to refute the argument very well in your post. I've always figured God would be able to tell if you were believing because you actually believed or if it was just a default setting, and I think he'd appreciate someone who was honest in their disbelief more than someone who was lying in their faith.
@In_Reason_I_Trust - I'm working my way through it currently. It still conflicts with Buddhism in a lot of ways like the acceptance of hedonism parts, but other than that its looking quite appealing.
How was Yes-Man? Is it as good as Liar Liar?
Or is it the same thing, but instead of truth, it is yes?
Let's all hedge our bets on the Devil. Brilliant!
@Valkyrie6 - I have one of my reviews lined up and just waiting to get posted. Expect it soon.
I just actually heard about the background to this wager about a year ago. I guess I look at it as applying to me. If I am wrong and there is no Heaven and Hell, I was a good person (hopefully) and helped a lot of people out in life, and if I am right than I have gained everything.