An agnostic atheists wager

[Citizen James]

I ran into this, so forgive me if you've heard it before.  The general case goes like this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It can even be broken down loosely into a truth table:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(then again, if god exists and is malevolent, we're all pretty much screwed regardless of belief).

The site leaves out true believer - but I'll see what I can add for convince:

7.  If you truly believe and you are a good person and god is benevolent, you will be fine.
8.  If you truly believe and are a good person and god is malevolent, you may not be fine.
9.  If you truly believe and are a good person and god does not exist, you will not have to hear that you were mistaken.
10.If you truly believe and are a vile person and god is benevolent, you may or may not be fine.
11. if you truly believe and are a vile person and god is malevolent, you may or may not be fine.
12. If you truly believe and are a vile person and god does not exist, well at least you will die eventually.

I would consider a god who puts Gandhi in hell (non-believer) and Torquemada in heaven (or any other zealot who wreaked havoc) to be a malevolent entity.

Opinions?

[© tweed]

oh who cares, seriously.  you're not going to figure it out tonight.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

13. You believe, and god exists, but he is so different from how he is portrayed that he is mad at you for believing in an entirely different god.

[Alexander Hamilton]

cut it out

[Purple State]

oh who cares, seriously.  you're not going to figure it out tonight.

More like it.

Not to mention, if you are basing your belief structure on overly complicated break downs of hypothetical scenarios, you are missing the point. Belief and religion (or lack thereof) should be based on individual discovery, realizing what is the correct path for yourself.

[Alexander Hamilton]

stop it

[k-onmmunist]

I would consider a god who puts Gandhi in hell (non-believer) and Torquemada in heaven (or any other zealot who wreaked havoc) to be a malevolent entity.

Opinions?

Both of them deserve to rot in hell.

[anvi]

I guess this is something like the inverse of Pascal's wager.  I'm not a believer, but I will say this about faith.  Real faith is not a wager; it's a deep committment that is born out of a certain kind of experience, and it compels one to live one's life according to the convictions of one's particular faith.  

In that sense, I've always thought of Pascal's wager is being one of the most unconvincing things I'd ever read.  While there are people who treat faith like a bet, real faith is not a bet.  If there is a God, and if God judges people justly, then I'm inclined to think that God would toss people who choose to believe only out of a bet on the afterlife into hell immediately, since their choice to believe is motivated by nothing more than shallow self-interest that is utterly lacking in any substantive conviction.

In their turn, non-beleivers don't need to make wagers either.  Non-believers who care about justice and good works do so on grounds independent of considerations of eternal reward or punishment.  They believe in goodness or justice because of their intrinsic worth, or because of the preferable consequences of moral acts as opposed to immoral acts, ect.  Non-believers who aren't inclined to live moral lives are certainly not going to be compelled to do so by the abstract soundness of a wager.  Living a moral life is too demanding to be motivated by a bet on the afterlife, which is not believed in to begin with.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would consider a god who puts Gandhi in hell (non-believer) and Torquemada in heaven (or any other zealot who wreaked havoc) to be a malevolent entity.

Opinions?

Both of them deserve to rot in hell.

     Why? Gandhi had his flaws, but he was nevertheless committed to non-violence.

[k-onmmunist]

I would consider a god who puts Gandhi in hell (non-believer) and Torquemada in heaven (or any other zealot who wreaked havoc) to be a malevolent entity.

Opinions?

Both of them deserve to rot in hell.

     Why? Gandhi had his flaws, but he was nevertheless committed to non-violence.

I've posted his extremely racist comments before.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I would consider a god who puts Gandhi in hell (non-believer) and Torquemada in heaven (or any other zealot who wreaked havoc) to be a malevolent entity.

Opinions?

Both of them deserve to rot in hell.

     Why? Gandhi had his flaws, but he was nevertheless committed to non-violence.

I've posted his extremely racist comments before.

     Yeah, I know about them. I think his advocacy of pacifism was more critical as a good attribute than his racism was as a bad attribute, though.