Pascals wager;Eternity gained or eternity lost,choice is yours.

[KKamikaze]

Imagine this~eternity is on the line one option guarantees infinite reward, the other risks infinite loss yet some proudly choose the gamble of disbelief.

If God exists and you believe → infinite gain (heaven, fulfillment, eternal reward).

If God exists and you don’t believe → infinite loss (damnation, eternal separation).

If God doesn’t exist and you believe → finite loss (time, effort, habits, comfort).

If God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe → finite gain (freedom from religious practice).

Look at it closely: the upside of belief is infinite, The downside of disbelief is infinite,Choosing disbelief is not bravery, not intelligence it is gambling eternity on your personal hubris.

You might argue, ‘What if God punishes belief too?’ Even if dozens of gods existed,the rational bet remains to aim for the one that offers infinite reward versus infinite loss,Pascal didn’t write this to scare he wrote it to show that non-belief is the only truly reckless choice.


Atheists, nihilists, skeptics; you claim courage in defiance, but the rational mind asks why bet against eternity?

"But bro aren't you technically telling us that if we don't follow God we're gonna spend eternity in the afterlife burning in hellfire so indirectly you're forcing us into a belief we didn't even believe in the first place."

Let’s be clear: no one is physically forcing you to believe,the wager simply exposes the stakes of your choice. Belief is never coerced; the mind remains free,what is being highlighted is consequence,not compulsion.

Consider this: if a cliff stands before you and you choose to walk off, you are free to jump But the law of gravity still applies,Pascal’s Wager is the intellectual equivalent it’s your freedom facing the eternal cliff,to refuse the wager isn’t proof of courage it’s proof of reckless disregard for reality’s ultimate stakes.

Belief under reasoned consideration is not slavery, it’s wisdom. The wager doesn’t promote forced faith;it promotes strategic alignment with the infinite,you are free to reject it but rejecting it with full knowledge of the stakes is a choice only a fool or a proud hubristic mind would make.

In short: the choice is yours. The cliff is real. The fall is eternal.

 

[unstable]

okay so the atheist argument of "which god" is generally shit when question is about existence of god
but here it is a different story, which god? if i choose one and other is the true one then i just get tortured in hell
still choosing one will give me a small advantage.
i believe in god tho.

 

[KKamikaze]

okay so the atheist argument of "which god" is generally shit when question is about existence of god
but here it is a different story, which god? if i choose one and other is the true one then i just get tortured in hell
still choosing one will give me a small advantage.
i believe in god tho.

Exactly Pascal’s Wager isn’t about choosing the correct denomination or the perfect God,it’s about the rational calculation;if God exists, believing gives you infinite upside; if God doesn’t, you lose little beyond some time and habits.

The risk of picking ‘the wrong God’ is often overstated most monotheistic frameworks emphasize sincerity, faith, and moral alignment rather than trivia about rituals so even if your ‘choice’ isn’t perfectly aligned with the ultimate deity, the rational bet still favors belief over disbelief.

Atheists try to dismiss this by nitpicking details (‘which God?’) while ignoring the math:eternity versus finite inconvenience isn’t a debate, it’s a slaughter Pascal didn’t just argue philosophy he built a war machine for the mind and on that battlefield, non-belief is the defeated army.

Believing isn’t coercion, it’s the armor that protects you from the unknowable chaos of eternity. Hesitation is luxury; rationality is survival.

 

[KKamikaze]

@RapeAllFemales

 

[KKamikaze]

Bump

 

[Sub5kang]

Imagine this~eternity is on the line one option guarantees infinite reward, the other risks infinite loss yet some proudly choose the gamble of disbelief.
View attachment 4167298

If God exists and you believe → infinite gain (heaven, fulfillment, eternal reward).

If God exists and you don’t believe → infinite loss (damnation, eternal separation).

If God doesn’t exist and you believe → finite loss (time, effort, habits, comfort).

If God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe → finite gain (freedom from religious practice).

Look at it closely: the upside of belief is infinite, The downside of disbelief is infinite,Choosing disbelief is not bravery, not intelligence it is gambling eternity on your personal hubris.

You might argue, ‘What if God punishes belief too?’ Even if dozens of gods existed,the rational bet remains to aim for the one that offers infinite reward versus infinite loss,Pascal didn’t write this to scare he wrote it to show that non-belief is the only truly reckless choice.


Atheists, nihilists, skeptics; you claim courage in defiance, but the rational mind asks why bet against eternity?

"But bro aren't you technically telling us that if we don't follow God we're gonna spend eternity in the afterlife burning in hellfire so indirectly you're forcing us into a belief we didn't even believe in the first place."

Let’s be clear: no one is physically forcing you to believe,the wager simply exposes the stakes of your choice. Belief is never coerced; the mind remains free,what is being highlighted is consequence,not compulsion.

Consider this: if a cliff stands before you and you choose to walk off, you are free to jump But the law of gravity still applies,Pascal’s Wager is the intellectual equivalent it’s your freedom facing the eternal cliff,to refuse the wager isn’t proof of courage it’s proof of reckless disregard for reality’s ultimate stakes.

Belief under reasoned consideration is not slavery, it’s wisdom. The wager doesn’t promote forced faith;it promotes strategic alignment with the infinite,you are free to reject it but rejecting it with full knowledge of the stakes is a choice only a fool or a proud hubristic mind would make.

In short: the choice is yours. The cliff is real. The fall is eternal.

I swear atheists use Pascal's wager as a debunk to theists since we always argue eternal damnation, I've never seen someone use it like this high iq brudda

 

[KKamikaze]

I swear atheists use Pascal's wager as a debunk to theists since we always argue eternal damnation, I've never seen someone use it like this high iq brudda

Thanks bhai

 

[greycel]

Yes you only stand to benefit from it
I was explaining this to a user aswell. He's, I believe, agnostic.
His reasoning was if it isn't sincere it isn't justifiable. But on the flip side, isn't the faith of most religious people supported (to some extent) by fear?
I also agree that what should be prioritised is the belief in God, regardless of what motivates it.

 

[gonnabehappy]

paschals wager is fucking retarded

no point in arguing on here as well cuz no one changes their mind

 

[KKamikaze]

Yes you only stand to benefit from it
I was explaining this to a user aswell. He's, I believe, agnostic.
His reasoning was if it isn't sincere it isn't justifiable. But on the flip side, isn't the faith of most religious people supported (to some extent) by fear?
I also agree that what should be prioritised is the belief in God, regardless of what motivates it.

Fear may start the fire but it never keeps it burningwhat begins in fear can end in love no one says a soldier is insincere just because he first picked up a sword out of fear of death In time he fights for honor,belief works the same way;step in and sincerity grows.

 

[KKamikaze]

paschals wager is fucking retarded

no point in arguing on here as well cuz no one changes their mind

If Pascal’s Wager is ‘retarded,’ then so is wearing a seatbeltyou prepare for the worst because the cost of not doing so outweighs the inconvenience xall it what you want but the math doesn’t change infinite gain vs finite loss isn’t stupidity,it’s simple logic

 

[gonnabehappy]

If Pascal’s Wager is ‘retarded,’ then so is wearing a seatbeltyou prepare for the worst because the cost of not doing so outweighs the inconvenience xall it what you want but the math doesn’t change infinite gain vs finite loss isn’t stupidity,it’s simple logic

I’m not arguing but a seatbelt is a pretty bad analogy for this because there’s actual proof that a seatbelt helps, try to find a better analogy for the argument

 

[KKamikaze]

I’m not arguing but a seatbelt is a pretty bad analogy for this because there’s actual proof that a seatbelt helps, try to find a better analogy for the argument

Wrong the seatbelt analogy works perfectly because both deal with risk management you don’t wear a seatbelt because you know with certainty you’ll crash you wear it because the cost of wearing it is tiny compared to the cost of not wearing it if you’re wrong that’s exactly Pascal’s point belief in God has everything to gain and nothing to lose Proof or not you still have to weigh the consequences calling the analogy ‘bad’ doesn’t erase the logic it just means you don’t like where it leads