# Reverse Pascal's Wager (NZ variation)

wolfgang59
Spirituality 12 Dec '17 08:46
1. wolfgang59
Infidel
12 Dec '17 08:46
This opening is similar to Pascal's Wager but with colours reversed.

Basically
Assume there is no afterlife and live this life to the fullest.

1. If there is no afterlife,
you were correct. Well done.

2. If there is an afterlife,
you were wrong, but hey, an afterlife! Who would have thought!
2. dj2becker
Tiger's ghost
12 Dec '17 09:00
Originally posted by @wolfgang59
This opening is similar to Pascal's Wager but with colours reversed.

Basically
Assume there is no afterlife and live this life to the fullest.

1. If there is no afterlife,
you were correct. Well done.

2. If there is an afterlife,
you were wrong, but hey, an afterlife! Who would have thought!
Why can you not live life to the fullest if you assume there is an afterlife?
3. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 09:04
Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why can you not live life to the fullest if you assume there is an afterlife?
You demonstrate here, day in day out, that you are not living your intellectual life to the fullest, and it's explicitly connected to your convoluted superstitions pertaining to "an afterlife".
4. BigDoggProblem
12 Dec '17 09:14
Originally posted by @wolfgang59
This opening is similar to Pascal's Wager but with colours reversed.

Basically
Assume there is no afterlife and live this life to the fullest.

1. If there is no afterlife,
you were correct. Well done.

2. If there is an afterlife,
you were wrong, but hey, an afterlife! Who would have thought!
Pascal's Wager is roughly that one gains everything if belief in God turns out to be correct, yet loses nothing if it is not. But something is, in fact, lost: the many rich and enjoyable life experiences that could have been had if not for all the religious strictures and the many Things Thou Shalt Not Do.
5. dj2becker
Tiger's ghost
12 Dec '17 10:122 edits
Originally posted by @fmf
You demonstrate here, day in day out, that you are not living your intellectual life to the fullest, and it's explicitly connected to your convoluted superstitions pertaining to "an afterlife".
So from your perspective you can only live your 'intellectual life' to the fullest if you remove God from the throne and sit there yourself? (As you have clearly done in your own life?) How exactly is your 'intellectual life' now 'fuller' than when you were a Christian? Could you never think for yourself when you were a Christian?
6. KellyJay
12 Dec '17 10:13
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Pascal's Wager is roughly that one gains everything if belief in God turns out to be correct, yet loses nothing if it is not. But something is, in fact, lost: the many rich and enjoyable life experiences that could have been had if not for all the religious strictures and the many Things Thou Shalt Not Do.
Yea, like stealing, murder, honoring your parents and so on. The joy of those are denied you.
7. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 10:33
Originally posted by @dj2becker
So from your perspective you can only live your 'intellectual life' to the fullest if you remove God from the throne and sit there yourself?
What my comment meant was that I think you - by whom I mean you specifically - have been damaged both intellectually and interpersonally - by some combination of your upbringing and your superstitious mind map.
8. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 10:34
Originally posted by @dj2becker
How exactly is your 'intellectual life' now 'fuller' than when you were a Christian?
I have talked about this with you before. Review it, because my views on the intellectual dimension of losing one's faith have not changed.
9. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 10:35
Originally posted by @dj2becker
Could you never think for yourself when you were a Christian?
Yes, I could think for myself when I was a Christian.
10. dj2becker
Tiger's ghost
12 Dec '17 11:08
Originally posted by @fmf
What my comment meant was that I think you - by whom I mean you specifically - have been damaged both intellectually and interpersonally - by some combination of your upbringing and your superstitious mind map.
Explain what you mean by 'damaged'.
11. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 11:13
Originally posted by @dj2becker
Explain what you mean by 'damaged'.
No. We discussed it in detail before. I have no interest in going over it again.
12. dj2becker
Tiger's ghost
12 Dec '17 11:20
Originally posted by @fmf
Yes, I could think for myself when I was a Christian.
For many decades Christianity made sense to you while you could think for yourself. Do you feel you now have superior intellect than you had as a Christian?
13. dj2becker
Tiger's ghost
12 Dec '17 11:21
Originally posted by @fmf
No. We discussed it in detail before. I have no interest in going over it again.
Typical FMF, throw a punch from behind and then run away.
14. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 11:25
Originally posted by @dj2becker
For many decades Christianity made sense to you while you could think for yourself. Do you feel you now have superior intellect than you had as a Christian?
My reference to 'an intellect problem' was a reference to your intellect. You seem to me to be intellectually impaired. And you seem to demonstrate it here quite voluntarily day in day out. I don't have any problem with my own intellect and you already know what I think about the effect of losing my faith had on my intellect, because we discussed it. It is impossible to compare my ability to think for myself at various times in my life to your ability to think for yourself at various times in your life, so I am not going to try.
15. FMF
Main Poster
12 Dec '17 11:27
Originally posted by @dj2becker
Typical FMF, throw a punch from behind and then run away.
You're trolling me. You know exactly what I mean by "damaged" because we discussed it in detail before. And yet here you are, asking me again. You are either trolling me or you are intellectually impaired.