Ahh, Pascals Wager, eh?

The ultimate in moral cowardice: don't live your life as a good person for it's own sake. Do it because scary sky father says so.

No thanks. I'll continue to treat people as decent humans regardless of who they love.

And on the off chance I end up in front of your god when I die, I will ask him who the hell he thinks he is to judge me.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'The, Atheist, Experience, Pascal, Wager' to 'Atheist Experience, Pascals Wager' - edited by xxovercastxx

If the Universe is random, and not deliberately created, it has no purpose. Purpose requires intention. Because it has no purpose, it has no inherent meaning because it was not endowed with any by a Creator. It is simply the result of whatever process created it, a chain of events in which life came about by pure happenstance, the same events which may completely annihiliate it in the future, never to be again, again by happenstance. Which means that meaning itself is an arbitrary value that is based on your subjective interpertation, and only ever could be, because it has no objective basis in reality. You derive meaning from your limited experience and senses, filtered as it is through the biochemical machinery and assembled in your consciousness. You are the sole possessor of this meaning, and the sole arbitor of it, of which no one else will be able to personally apprehend, but only superficially relate to, and this in itself could disappear at any time at the moment of your death, again by happenstance. OR..

The Universe was created and designed for life by a moral Creator and lawgiver, who knows and loves you personally. That meaning is derived from relationship with God, who has a plan for you and your life, so that you may reach your fullest potential which is to enjoy eternal life with Him in paradise.

It's not like either is more likely than the other on the scale of odds..you could say everything is equally unlikely..you just have to ask yourself..was the Universe designed or wasn't it? I can look at this Universe and see Gods handwriting, but that's because I perceive it spiritually. You are unaware you even have one (a spirit). So to you it may seem like pascals wager..but..I will tell you what Jesus said: "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you" Which do you think is a better match to what is within?


>> ^Ryjkyj:
Evolution is not a judge. You are using your own values to judge whose useless or not, and you're putting them under the guise of your understanding of science. There's not a guy called Evolution sitting on a throne saying, "that person is functionally worthless."
Back to your comment that started this, about the universe having no intrinsic meaning if there's no god. You don't know that. You're making an assumption that it doesn't just like you're assuming that you can tell who's worthless or not.
Just because (hypothetically) there's no god, doesn't mean that the universe has no meaning, or that a person lying still in a bed is worthless.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^enoch:
he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.
i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.

Enoch, I absolutely respect you and your opinions. We see a lot of each other on the sift and I'm always curious what you have to say. But I want to get one thing straight:
I believe there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe or disbelieve.
I am an ATHEIST, NOT an agnostic.


fair enough my friend.
i am only speaking from personal experience and not offering empirical data based on anecdotal evidence.
but if i may point out that to say you do not believe NOR disbelieve is to not know.
which is the literal translation of the word "agnostic".
agnostic does not mean you are unsure.it means you dont know,one way or the other.
maybe you dont care, which would be indifference.
i see many religious people use the term agnostic in the wrong context implying that agnostics are unsure,wishy- washy, even indecisive.
i disagree with that usage.
in the end it doesn't really matter what term you wish to use.either works fine to convey your position.

>> ^enoch:

he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.
i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.


Enoch, I absolutely respect you and your opinions. We see a lot of each other on the sift and I'm always curious what you have to say. But I want to get one thing straight:

I believe there is no evidence for a god. I do not believe or disbelieve.

I am an ATHEIST, NOT an agnostic.

he also throws a little pascals wager which i have always found to be a weak argument.
i may be agreeing with many of his points because i have not encountered any true atheists.
i have encountered many who CLAIM to be atheists but are in actuality agnostics who abhor organized religion/fundamentalism and that is a wholly different discussion.

i really enjoyed the fact he didnt spiral into dogmatic speak.
but i found it a tad dismaying that he didnt first DEFINE god.you have to establish parameters otherwise people will use their own assumptions based on their own subjective reality and therefore your argument will fracture into a multitude of possible reactions.
meh../shrugs..maybe he covers that in his book.

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Your video, David Mitchell on Pascals Wager, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Jesus loves you, rejection, torture, go tell your jesus to grow up' to 'Jesus loves you, rejection, torture, go tell your jesus to grow up, pascals wager' - edited by xxovercastxx

Tags for this video have been changed from 'stephen fry, david mitchell, sean lock, cream cakes, sod off' to 'stephen fry, david mitchell, sean lock, cream cakes, sod off, pascals wager' - edited by radx

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
I think religion is hard wired like our ability to communicate. As rational as atheism is to me there is always something that pulls me back and tells me there has to be something else other than this life I have. Whether or not thats my instincts or not is not important. It's my perception and becomes my reality.
Heres what I do believe. If there is a god he is not a vengeful one thats irrational to me. I believe were here to become something more than what we were born. If there is a god I don't believe he cares how we get there.
I don't believe in hell. Worse case scenario I die and there is a hell I guess Ill go there and have all my lovely videosift friends there to enjoy it with. Muh ha ha!
I wouldn't worry too much about it though, if there is a god he will welcome us all on the other side.


Now that is the kind of religion I could live with. I just don't see any reason to. I think that is getting close to "Pascals Wager".

>> ^MINK:
i can't be arsed to do this any more.
even as these guys are preaching their interpretation of "rationality"... real scientists are discovering alternate dimensions and completely different concepts of reality.
Real scientists don't know shit, they research in wonder. Only the egomaniac publicity whores preach their "final answer" with such glee. These guys were so obviously bullied in school.


What a mouth breather's take on things.

Much appreciated.

In reply to this comment by Raigen:
You get a goddamn Gold Star from me for that post, Gwiz.

>> ^gwiz665:
"I don't even want or need an explanation." -- this is the whole problem, then.

it's not a problem.


It reminds of a Simpsons episode, then one where they find an "angel":
Flanders: "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"


hehe that's a nice way of putting it... but... i disagree that science can tell us how the movie ends.

As for House, well, good luck with your miserable and unprovable "truth".

>> ^bluecliff:
the problem is, some people love evidence too much



I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I've been looking for someone to elaborate on the whole "loving evidence too much", and I know you're probably not referring to my stance, but the statement piques my curiosity.

I'm a strong proponent of "everything in moderation", though, when it comes to things like evidence, shouldn't that be all which matters when you need to explain something?