You're viewing a single thread.
I think the argument for moderation is the worst in the religious context.
Pascal was right about his Wager in one way. If god exists, it should change everything for you. Especially the christian one. Eternity in pain or pleasure outweighs everything.
If that is your reality, how is failing god moderation?
Seriously if you don't want people to die from cancer at all, how is that not extermist?
Are reference point defines "moderation"? Look at us vs eu politics.
Even if you want to define moderation as the average or median position in a society, then Nazism can be moderation if you get enough Nazi together.
Wake up, my fellow extremist.
In regards to the wager, the actual canonical depiction of Hell wasn't eternal torture but instead not being allowed into God's presence so, eh...
Miss me with turning into Fanta regardless
Which misses the point of my argument.
I don't say you are wrong. But my point is strictly about what people believe and how these beliefs should be quite important and turn "moderation" to "extermism" from their pov.
Pascal's wager doesn't even attempt to make a philosophical argument for God's existence, and it only works if you assume a singular god. Of course in this case it's Christianity.
So let's say someone agrees that it's better to worship a god on the off chance they exist than to not do so and end up in hell, now what? Where do I go from here? You've opened up a can of worms because now I have to decide what the logical choice is (since PW only relies purely on logic) in which god to choose.
The "logical choice" only works when you have a singular alternative, but if you have a dozen different gods to choose from then everything falls apart. The only logical thing to do is to worship the god with the worst hell, on the off chance that they are the one true God. At least you spared yourself from that.
In the end though the wager essentially only sees/works with atheism and one religion, which is why it's so flawed. The moment you introduce multiple religions to a coin toss logic scenario it fails to work.
You typed so much and understood so little.
I don't think pascal's wager works. Which is why I said, I said he is right about one thing which is the infinites reward fucking up everything. IF!!! there is a god, and he rewards and punishes you like pascal believed, then everything becomes irrelevant compared to it. Failing to follow god would be an extremist action. Unacceptable due to the unmeasurable damage it would cause. Think about it, in an atheistic world, a Terror Attack is bad, like really bad, but the damage is finite. In pascal's world, disbelief has worse consequences. The harm is bigger, to a literally infinite amount. For pascal, your disbelief should be worse than bombing a Christian church while there is a service.
You are talking about different and compatible critiques of pascal's wager, and your condescension at the beginning of the post is unwarranted because he is correct, just not talking about the same thing you are.
Your assumption is that religion wants you to suffer.
Religion, in my experience, wants you to be compassionate, accepting and give back to the community. This is not extreme.
Could you show me that assumption? I don't see that assumption present in my comment. Please help me to understand your perspective. Thanks.
Most people talk about Religions people being fanaticists with a disregard for human wellbeing. (Outside of their religion) I associate this with the sects that emigrated to America due to prosecution in Europe and American New religons. (Amish, those Utah people etc., those wierd evangelicals(?))
Of course there are also good religious groups in America.
How is that related to my comment and how does that answer my request for clarification? I am sorry but this seem completely unrelated.