Talk:Atheist's wager/Archive 2

Rename to Agnostic's wager

It seems to me this should be called the Agnostic's Wager, as the wagerer is unable to decide whether or not there is a god. An atheist somehow has knowledge that there is no god. And by knowledge, I mean scientific knowledge. And to have scientific knowledge, the wagerer must have been able to perform an experiment that specifically tests whether or not God exists, and then measure its results. Since science relies on the natural world, and its natural tools cannot be applied against a super-natural entity, it is impossible for an atheist to claim that s/he has knowledge of god's non-existence. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.131.162 (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

While I might disagree with your definition of atheism, I think the wager definitely does have an agnostic ring to it. However, as the general history and purpose of this line of argument is linked more to atheism than agnosticism, I'm personally satisfied with the title as it is. You may want to take it further if you wish. Aheyfromhome (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Legacy

This whole point seems rather irrelevant to the debate. Should it be removed?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaacBD (talk • contribs) 23:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It is quite relevant as without legacy having value, there would be no benefit to the atheist for his actions. This would make the wager more like Pascal's wager in that not believing in God would would yeild no loss at best, but no possible gain in any case. To make the argument even favor atheism requires that leaving a positive legacy for others is of value to the the dead individual. Kainosnous (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it as completely irrelevant, but your argument doesn't hold logically unless trying to dizzy someone into confusion with the circular think. Legacy could have value to an atheist in the present, providing comfort/pleasure by thinking and or knowing he will one day, after he is dead, leave a legacy. The unknown Marcus guy would seem quite more relevant to a separate nihilism philosophy, not atheism, and although nihilism is associated with atheism, the reverse would be an exception rather than rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanomaly84 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

I tagged the article for POV. Reading the article I found that the author took a definite critical slant of the atheist's wager, firstly by including sections on criticism and applicability of criticism longer than the explanation of the concept itself; secondly by excluding any information on support of the atheist's wager or criticism on its counterpart (Pascal's). Basically I felt like while reading the article I was told why the atheist's wager is either a joke or completely wrong, which I think we can all agree is an opinionated message to send.

128.220.159.20 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Criticism/counter-criticism can be removed if we make it clear that the whole point of the Atheist's wager is to take Pascal's false dilemma and run with it, only with a "benevolent God" that makes sense (i.e. rewards action rather than belief).

Since the false dilemma is fallacy, there is no clear link between your life and whatever afterlife you may have. So you might as well live by what appears best in this world, which is what atheists do anyway.
The thing is, that's a load of Original Research right there. So to solve the problem you need to find something of the kind in a source.

But is there even a source for this article besides the broken link at the bottom, or is it just original research/non-notable online stuff?--Jules.LT (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

This article most certainly benefited from the criticisms to give it a more fair POV. Removing it actually makes the POV slant toward the other side to suggestIt was said that the criticism section was longer than the explanation section, and that seems fitting as I personally can't see that many people on either side of the issue would accept the gaping holes in this logic. However, it may be hard to point out extra sources for the criticism as I'm not too certain that many reputable sources know it exists. As you point out, we only have one or two references to it. Perhaps it isn't notable enough?

If it is notable enough, I suggest returning the criticism section. Pointing out flaws is never POV. At worst it might just not be sourced, and from what I saw earlier, there wasn't anything POV. However, if you feel that it is, then we can reword those points as being assumptions that must be true in order for the argument to make sense. For instance, it assumes that there is some value to a dead person to have his legacy live on. Without a value for legacy, it would imply that the only reason to live a good life is if a "benevolent" god existed. This is a stretch as it is hard to argue that a dead body gains benefit from a legacy. Most of the other mandatory assumptions are equally as unlikely. Therefore, not articulating them leaves an obvious slant toward an anti-theist POV by setting up a strawman argument.Kainosnous (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. NPOV means properly reflecting the sources. Therefore, if the criticism section is entirely unsourced, it is indeed a POV problem. If you can find reliable sources for the criticisms, then they can be included with respect to their weight.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Merging

This areticle shouldn't be merged. It doesn't work the same way as Pascal's Wager. That bases decisions about behaviour on the chances of a God affecting the outcome, whereas this bases decisions on the outcome of the decision. This is almost a tautology, that "If good is done, good will have been done", and doesn't care about the outcome of the wager so much, where that is entirely based on the outcome of the wager and rests on the assumption that faith costs nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.118.20 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias by omission and misrepresentation of opponent's viewpoint

The title, "Atheist's Wager" is not in the reference. The original argument was altered, and then the arguments scattered and attacked ad hoc/primae facae, when clearly it is not meant to be. The title put in quotes and (from religious perspective) added would be the only way to make honest for the original article staying as is. Since this article implies a reflection of an atheist viewpoint, criticisms and disagreements by opposing views should be directed properly in its own section. The page range 232-238 cited is part of the chapter "Beneficial Arguments for God". He prefaces by stating:

"In this chapter I consider arguments for believing in God that are not based on what the evidence indicates, but on the supposed practical results of theistic belief" - Michael Martin (229)

His logical argument gets in depth, but reasons why it is not like Pascal's wager is what properly could be criticized here, not a maliciously simplified version taken as prima facie. The argument's first 3x3 table has in rows: belief in god, belief in PM (perverse master),belief in neither; columns: God exists, PM exists, neither exist.

He concludes on 238 by stating he has taken the "bad logic of Pascal's wager" and turned it around against the logic while making it seem nonbelief is a better solution.

The "often expressed in terms of an alleged quote" part should be deleted; this Marcus Aurelius section is highly dubious in connection, perhaps only functioning to grasp source and plant red herring. Pointing out the above is sufficient to allow for some large change or clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanomaly84 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fundimental misunderstanding of thiests's viewpoint

In order to get to heaven (obviously an anti-Christian slant in the original article) is that you must believe in God to get to heaven.

All the stuff of the good life vs bad life is smoke and mirrors.

The good life stuff comes from the belief in God not some assessment made by the person themselves or anyone else.

We are talking about the afterlife, yes?

So this changes the table since the "Evil Life" + "belief in god" can result in heaven. And "Good Life" + "belief in no god" can result in hell.

This points to "anything goes just so long as you believe in god", but it is correct.

So you can be as good as you want, but if you refuse to believe in god (especially in presence of such deity) is trap doors open and down you go.

Maybe the evil guys have to do some time in heaven first before they are let into the gen pop.

Grahamatwp (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)