Home Discussion Forum What do you think about Pascal's Wager 2.0?

What do you think about Pascal's Wager 2.0?

Let’s explain:
Benevolent God: If you live a reasonably good life, you are saved. Otherwise, regardless of what you believe, you’re out of luck. Damnation/Annihilation.
Jealous God: If you believe, you will be saved. Otherwise, you’re out of luck.
Jealous God 2.0: If you believe AND follow the commandments, you will be saved. Otherwise, you’re out of luck.
No God: What you do is irrelevant, you rot anyway. If you lived a good life they’ll remember you as a better guy, though.
Indifferent G-D: Whatever you do, you end up at the same place. Nondescript afterlife. Belief, or good actions, are irrelevant.
Reincarnation: Belief doesn’t matter. Enlightenment does.
Any Pagan Religion: Complex beliefs about the afterlife.
Shinto/Shamanism: Spirit World. Deeds relevant.
Why should we non-believers (in christianity) convert, Xians?
It’s a simple attempt to prove there are many outcomes possible, dependind on the kind of deity or lack thereof, and so Christianity/Islam are mathematically not preferrable to any other religion.
Being equiprobable, no “belief” is mathematically superior.
Point is: Most religions favor being a good guy over faith. Why the hell should faith matter? Of all the possibilities listed, except for the Jealous God (Xianity) and Jealous God 2.0 (Islam) faith was irrelevant.
Faith and submission to authority get literally swallowed by being a nice guy, in the mathematical payoff.
Benevolent God counters the faith infinity scheme, and all the others would damn a sinner who repents but is flawed anyway.


  1. Pascal’s wager is flawed. No mention of what a waste it is to worship a God that isn’t there is ever emphasized. With the ignorance, intolerance, and other wise delusional nature of religion with God or God’s, and only one life to live, we forget about this, THIS LIFE, and focus on everlasting hell. Have you ever hear of an Atheist suicide bomber? If life is so precious because there is no afterlife, do you think an Atheist would be so inhumane as to walk into a church and blow it up? Pascal’s wager also takes into account a very troubled and insecure God who will send you to hell for not believing in him or her. The whole thing is flawed and all Christians should consider basic logic in questioning everything. You might find the freedom of true salvation, right here right now.

  2. Regardless of any evidence for or against the existence of God, Pascal argued that failure to accept God’s existence risks losing everything with no payoff on any count. The best bet, then, is to accept the existence of God. There have been several objections to the wager: that a person cannot simply will himself to believe something that is evidently false to him; that the wager would apply as much to belief in the wrong God as it would to disbelief in all gods, leaving the the believer in any particular god in the same situation as the atheist or agnostic; that God would not reward belief in him based solely on hedging one’s bets; and so on.

  3. 1.0 was better. It was easy to identify, which made it easy to dismiss.
    Regardless of what version, it’s still a pathetic excuse for an argument and always will be, no matter how your repackage it.

  4. These silly labels are really annoying as hell. Who cares about it. I wish people would say what’s really on their minds and talk like normal people. Just skip the labels. “Pascal Wager, Strawman, Circular Logic” can kiss my butt. Who cares!
    Edit: At least you are beginning to sound like a human with a beating heart. You are starting to make sense even though I disagree with you.

  5. Take a look at the fundies. Now why would you want to be affilitated with a group that encourages stupidity and hate?
    God doesn’t want to either. The biblical bigot is man made hate and ignorance.

  6. Personally, I could care less if someone wants to be Christian, Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, but I have a problem with ANY religion (or non-religion for that matter) that has at its heart the belief that ALL other beliefs are automatically wrong. Especially if they believe that that entitles them to force people to convert to “save” them from being wrong.
    We are ALL Hard Agnostics. All theological experiences (or the lack thereof) are personal and subjective.

  7. The 2.0 release is full of bugs. Out of curiosity, I downloaded it twice and each time, after the install, it crashed my operating system.
    This is a warning to others!

Leave a Reply to Invisible Atheist (Teapot) Cancel reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here